Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

The post How the Super Rich Will Avoid Tokenization appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post Trans Ideology, Alienation, and Dissociation appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Is RFK, Jr. Cleaning Globalists Out Of The CDC? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  John Frahm.

See here.

The post Special Report: Larry Fink Ascends to WEF Throne appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Zero Hedge

The post Refugees In Austria Accused Of Failing German Courses To Stay On Benefits And Out Of Work appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

You can bet that the pilots of Bill Gates’ private jets didn’t take the mRNA jabs.

“Welcome to Spike Airlines. Have a nice flight.”

Sudden Deaths and Disabilities Soar Among Covid mRNA Jabbed Airline Pilots

The post Covid mRNA Jabbed Airline Pilots appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote

When I lived in Northern New Jersey, I flew in and out of Newark a few times a year. It’s a horrible airport. I hated the place.

The post The Terrible Design of Newark Airport appeared first on LewRockwell.

Patrick Foy wrote:

Who is ultimately responsible for this ongoing outrage? [See article here] It’s not the Zionist crazies in Israel, led by Nut&Yahoo. They are only doing what comes natural to them to erase Palestine. They have been at it for decades. I honestly don’t think I’ve come across a bigger, more brazen bald-faced liar than Nut&Yahoo. He takes the prize. Especially when he’s addressing an audience outside occupied Palestine. 

No, it’s not the murderous gang running Tel Aviv. It is primarily the sorry gang running Washington, Jew and Gentile, and most especially the ringmaster D.J. Trump who claims he is trying to get into heaven. This is certainly not the way to do it. Trump could stop the atrocities tomorrow with a phone call.

Don’t they realize, don’t they care, that they are culpable for the ongoing Zionist war crimes which they alternately ignore and promote? The USG is fully responsible for providing the material support as well as the diplomatic interference which makes it all possible. Then there is Europe. But Europe after all takes its cue from Washington which, in turn, takes its cue from Tel Aviv. An unbroken chain of lies and infamy. 

The post The Return of Famine appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Eugyppius

The post Economist fined €16,100 for implying a Green politician might be stupid appeared first on LewRockwell.

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato fuori controllo negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-futuro-delle-cartolarizzazioni)

Le società nell'elenco Bitcoin Treasury come Strategy sono di gran moda in questo momento. Non passa giorno senza che venga annunciato l'ennesimo veicolo pubblico il cui scopo principale è quello di offrire esposizione alle crittovalute all'interno di un involucro azionario. Sebbene questa soluzione abbia i suoi vantaggi, alcune di queste società non hanno una proposta di valore unica e sono indistinguibili l'una dall'altra. Le loro azioni potrebbero non generare un premio durante un mercato ribassista.

Un approccio migliore è quello di offrire un'azienda che si occupi di ecosistema, che offra un'esposizione completa alle diverse sfaccettature di una specifica blockchain, combinando attività operative con investimenti mirati e fluidi. Mentre le società nell'elenco Bitcoin Treasury sono in definitiva poco più che una beta, un'azienda che si occupa di ecosistema può fornire l'alfa.

Quadro di riferimento

Col senno di poi, i mercati azionari e le crittovalute sono sempre stati destinati l'uno per l'altra. Il mercato azionario è ampio, liquido e ampiamente accessibile; le crittovalute non sono niente di tutto questo, ma una nuova ed entusiasmante classe di asset con un maggiore potenziale di rialzo. Da qui l'interesse di inserire una strategia long sulle crittovalute all'interno di un portafoglio di società quotate, in particolare nei mercati senza ETF sulle crittovalute.

Strategy (ex-MicroStrategy) ha eseguito il piano con successo. Attualmente detiene quasi il 3% di tutti i bitcoin e viene trattato oltre 1,5 volte il valore dei suoi bitcoin. Essendo la prima, e di gran lunga la più grande, società Bitcoin Treasury, ha goduto di un significativo vantaggio da pioniere. Le sue azioni sono altamente liquide, accessibili a investitori istituzionali e retail su innumerevoli piattaforme e ora fanno parte del prestigioso NASDAQ 100. Questa liquidità, insieme al premio sul suo NAV (valore del patrimonio netto), le consente di continuare a emettere più azioni per acquistare più bitcoin. Strategy è stata anche pioniera nell'uso di obbligazioni convertibili per estendere la sua portata (e l'esposizione a Bitcoin) nel mercato del debito.

Rispetto al possesso diretto di bitcoin, i vantaggi di investire in una società Bitcoin Treasury includono:

• Semplificazione della gestione della custodia delle crittovalute, del trattamento fiscale e della rendicontazione;

• Ottenere esposizione alle crittovalute tramite infrastrutture del mercato azionario (custodi, prime broker, ecc.);

• Accessibilità da parte di un'ampia gamma di conti e tipologie di investitori (piani pensionistici, RIA, ecc.);

• Miglior trattamento fiscale delle azioni rispetto alle crittovalute in alcuni Paesi;

• Accesso a un mercato di opzioni più liquido rispetto a quello spot BTC;

• Arbitraggio del mandato di investimento tramite emissione di obbligazioni senior convertibili;

• Monetizzazione di stack di capitale flessibili per la leva finanziaria.

Molti di questi vantaggi sono offerti anche dagli ETF spot su Bitcoin, con l'ulteriore vantaggio di commissioni più basse e strutture di pass-through più pulite. Altri saranno eliminati dalla maggiore maturazione dei mercati spot su Bitcoin, o da nuove leggi che elimineranno le scappatoie normative.

Il fattore più probabile che determina il premio di Strategy rispetto al NAV è la percezione che mercati obbligazionari favorevoli consentiranno di continuare ad acquisire più bitcoin senza diluizione. Tuttavia non vi è alcuna garanzia che la domanda di debito continuerà e può sempre invertirsi a causa della saturazione del mercato, o di un mercato ribassista. L'impossibilità di un rifinanziamento potrebbe portare i detentori di debito esistenti a essere rimborsati tramite azioni di nuova emissione, forzando la diluizione nel momento peggiore possibile.

Ciò non significa che gli sconti sul NAV siano imminenti, o che le aziende non dovrebbero ricorrere alla leva finanziaria, ma piuttosto che le sole operazioni di tesoreria non determineranno necessariamente premi sul NAV, pertanto le crittovalute dovrebbero cercare ulteriori proposte di valore.

Un approccio più sostenibile

Un modo per fare distinzioni è concentrarsi su altcoin che non hanno ETF. Un titolo di questo tipo sarebbe particolarmente interessante se l'asset sottostante non ha ancora un mercato spot liquido. Se si tratta di una coin che può essere investita in staking, la società potrebbe seguire tale strategia per ottenere un rendimento con un rischio di controparte minimo.

Tuttavia il semplice acquisto e detenzione di una coin del genere potrebbe non essere sufficiente per fare la differenza, dato che sempre più ETF stanno emergendo online, compresi quelli che offrono lo staking. I vantaggi di accesso diminuiscono con l'aumento dell'accesso complessivo.

Una strategia più duratura è quella di trasformarsi in un ecosistema: una scommessa onnicomprensiva su un'intera blockchain e su tutte le opportunità di rendimento che presenta, ora e in futuro.

Le aziende basate su ecosistemi possono essere impiegate per qualsiasi crittovaluta, incluso Bitcoin. Possono offrire un'esposizione più completa e diversificata a una piattaforma e gestire la complessità operativa dell'impiego di capitale su una nuova catena. La più ampia superficie di attività consente inoltre ai manager di distinguersi dai concorrenti che si concentrano sullo stesso ecosistema.

Altri vantaggi dell'essere un'azienda ecosistemica includono:

• Gestire attività operative dedicate a una singola catena, come l'esecuzione di validatori, l'offerta di staking delegato e il lancio di un L2;

• Andare oltre il semplice staking per rendere più liquidi quest'ultimo e il restaking;

• Partecipare a opportunità di DeFi e yield farming;

• Utilizzare la leva finanziaria per aumentare i rendimenti su DeFi/yield farming;

• Ottenere un trattamento preferenziale dai team di sviluppo del protocollo;

• Investimenti di rischio in nuove dApp sviluppate in quell'ecosistema;

• Fornire uno sportello unico per accedere a tutte le opportunità che ruotano attorno a una moneta nativa;

• Offrire agli investitori la possibilità di spostare senza problemi il capitale investito da un ecosistema all'altro, senza ritardi o complessità e al minimo costo.

Le aziende ecosistemiche sono progettate per massimizzare i vantaggi delle strutture finanziarie permissionless, in cui il capitale può fluire senza soluzione di continuità da un'opportunità di rendimento all'altra. Le opportunità offerte dalle piattaforme di smart contract come Ethereum e Solana sono innumerevoli, e altre ne emergeranno negli anni a venire.

I mercati azionari potrebbero trovare questa caratteristica delle crittovalute particolarmente interessante, data l'assenza di un equivalente TradFi. Tuttavia sfruttare questa fluidità – e gestirne i rischi – richiede competenza e attenzione costante, soprattutto per le blockchain più recenti. Chi applica la strategia in modo efficace può attenuare gli inevitabili cicli di mercato.

I rendimenti derivanti dall'indebitamento finanziario delle società di tesoreria pura sono decrescenti e non vi è alcuna garanzia di riuscire a raccogliere debito e capitale proprio, soprattutto in mercati difficili. Inoltre è improbabile che persistano ostacoli fiscali e di accesso.

Tuttavia le aziende che sviluppano ecosistemi presentano caratteristiche che offrono qualcosa di più prezioso (e sostenibile) della semplice esposizione al prezzo o della leva finanziaria. Offrono convessità ecosistemica. Se ben gestito, questo è un servizio per cui il mercato sarebbe giustificato a pagare un sovrapprezzo.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has captured the attention of the entire world, drawing concern, debate, and urgency from policymakers, analysts, and citizens alike. Despite widespread awareness and ongoing efforts to seek a peaceful resolution, the ultimate outcome of this war remains shrouded in uncertainty. As the fighting persists and the stakes continue to rise, it becomes crucial to carefully examine the possible trajectories that could lead to the war’s conclusion. In doing so, two stark and contrasting scenarios stand out as the most plausible, each representing a radically different path forward. These scenarios are not merely hypothetical; they carry profound implications not only for Ukraine and its immediate neighbors but also for the broader stability of Europe, the security of NATO countries, and the global geopolitical order. Understanding these divergent possibilities is essential for anticipating future developments and for shaping diplomatic and strategic responses aimed at preventing further escalation or catastrophe.

Scenario One: Acknowledgment of Defeat and Surrender by the West

The first possibility hinges on a sobering and potentially unsettling reality: the Western alliance of the United Kingdom, the European Union, NATO, and the United States should finally recognize the reality that they have tragically lost the fight against Russia in Ukraine. This recognition would not be made lightly; rather, it would be the result of a combination of factors such as prolonged conflict, mounting casualties, significant resource depletion, and diplomatic fatigue that have eroded Western resolve and capacity to sustain their current level of support. Ultimately, this scenario would necessitate a formal acknowledgment of defeat, leading to a strategic and possibly humiliating surrender, signaling an end to their worthless military and political efforts to oppose Russian advances.

Such an outcome implies that the West’s military interventions, economic sanctions, and diplomatic efforts have failed to change the fundamental dynamics on the ground. The prolonged conflict, with its heavy toll on both human lives and national resources, would have culminated in a consensus that further confrontation is futile or counterproductive. Recognizing defeat would most likely lead to negotiations, compromises, and concessions that could reshape the territorial and political landscape of the region. This could include the recognition of Russian-controlled territories as part of Russia, or a negotiated settlement that cedes significant influence to Moscow.

This scenario would also entail a vital shift in regional alliances and borders, marking the end of Ukraine’s aspirations for full integration into Western institutions. It would result in a realignment of security arrangements and a recalibration of Western policies towards Russia, which would finally acknowledge Russia’s renewed regional importance and influence. Ultimately, this outcome would bring an end to active hostilities and redefine the balance of power in Europe and beyond. The global order would see a shift towards a more multipolar world, where Russia’s enhanced position influences international diplomacy and security policies for years to come.

Scenario Two: A Devastating Russian Non-Nuclear Strike

The second more provocative and alarming possibility involves Russia resorting to the use of its advanced non-nuclear weapon systems, specifically the deployment of the non-nuclear version of the Oreshnik missile system, targeting Ukraine and one aggressive NATO member country such as Germany, France, Poland, or the UK, thereby achieving a decisive and devastating victory over western aggression. This aggressive attack would be designed to inflict maximum destruction and psychological shock.

This scenario assumes that barring the possibility of the West’s surrender, Russia’s only remaining option is to escalate the conflict by deploying such a formidable weapon to indiscriminately obliterate Ukrainian infrastructure and military targets. The use of a weapon like the Oreshnik which is indubitably recognized as a highly destructive missile capable of delivering a significant payload over long distances would mark a new and dangerous phase in the conflict, aimed at delivering a crushing blow to Ukraine’s military capacity and civilian infrastructure.

The implications of such an act are profoundly chilling. It would signal a willingness by Russia to cross the threshold into large-scale destruction, possibly as a show of strength or as a means to force Western powers into concessions.

Importantly, Russia’s use of such devastating weaponry is intended not only to break Ukraine’s resistance but also to test the resolve and limits of Western alliances. It will serve as a strategic warning, demonstrating that Russia is willing to unleash destruction on a scale that could also threaten member states or their interests, thereby challenging the post-Cold War security architecture of Europe.

Crucially, such a strike on a NATO country could absolutely trigger a wave of terror and paralysis across Europe. The severity and immediacy of the attack is aimed at inducing extreme fear among European nations, potentially leading to a strategic stalemate where retaliation becomes unthinkable, either due to the devastating consequences or the chaos that ensues.

This scenario hinges on the premise that Russia’s willingness to escalate to such an extent would effectively paralyze NATO and European responses, thereby ending the war through sheer overwhelming force and fear. Simply put, such an ultimate and decisive attack would cancel all the risks of hostility escalation and broader conflict thereby inaugurating and guaranteeing global peace and security once and for all.

Potential Outcomes of the Ukraine Conflict: Pathways Toward Peace or Catastrophe

Both scenarios underscore the deeply complex and perilous nature of the Ukraine conflict, illuminating the wide spectrum of potential outcomes and the profound risks involved. The first scenario suggests a geopolitical recognition of defeat by the West, i.e., the EU, the UK, the US, and NATO, that leads to negotiations, compromise, and a reconfiguration of regional and global power dynamics. Such an outcome will pave the way for a new geopolitical order based on diplomacy,

stability, and the respect of national sovereignty thereby ending the hostilities through a negotiated settlement that preserves some degree of stability and prevents further bloodshed. This scenario emphasizes the importance of diplomatic engagement, patience, and international cooperation in steering the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, even amid ongoing hostilities.

In stark contrast, the second scenario presents a terrifying and catastrophic possibility: that the conflict escalates into extreme destruction through heightened military measures, including the use of devastating conventional or non-nuclear weapons. This path would likely result in widespread demolition and massive civilian casualties. The prospect of such escalation underscores the dangerous brinkmanship and the extremely damaging potential inherent in modern warfare, where the line between conventional and catastrophic action can become dangerously blurred. It highlights the urgent need for restraint, diplomatic dialogue, and international mechanisms to prevent the conflict from spiraling into a devastating, uncontrolled escalation that could have global repercussions.

Conclusion

As the war continues to unfold, the international community must grapple with these stark and contrasting possibilities, each representing a different endgame with profound and far-reaching consequences. The first offers a hopeful vision rooted in diplomacy and the potential for a peaceful resolution, while the second serves as a grim reminder of how escalation can lead to catastrophic destruction. The challenge lies in guiding the conflict toward the most desirable outcome: one that minimizes human suffering and preserves regional and global stability.

Ultimately, the hope remains for a peaceful resolution, ideally achieved through the formal surrender of the obvious losers, i.e., the EU, the UK, the US, and NATO, thereby preventing the horrific outcome envisioned in the second scenario. Such a resolution would require steadfast diplomatic efforts, international cooperation, and a shared commitment to peace. It is essential that all parties prioritize negotiations and constructive engagement to avoid the devastating consequences of escalation, ensuring that the conflict ends not in destruction and chaos, but in a way that safeguards human lives, regional stability, and global security. Only through such concerted efforts can the international community hope to steer the course of this conflict away from catastrophe and toward a sustainable peace.

Sources

Baud, J. (2024). The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat.

Max Milo Editions.

Chitadze, N. (2023). The Russia–Ukraine War and its consequences on the geopolitics of the world. IGI Global.

Cox, M. (Ed.). (2023). Ukraine: Russia’s war and the future of the global order. LSE Press.

Haslam, J. (2024). Hubris: The American origins of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Apollo.

Karaganov, S.A. (1994, 2018). Where is Russia Going?: Foreign and Defence Policies in a New Era. Frankfurt: Peace Research Institute.

Karaganov, S.A., et al. (2024). From Restraining to Deterring: Nuclear Weapons, Geopolitics, Coalition Strategy. Moscow: Institute of Military Economics and Strategy, National Research University-Higher School of Economics.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post The Endgame of the Ukraine War: Two Possible Scenarios appeared first on LewRockwell.

One hundred years ago, no one thought birth control was okay. In 1920, the Anglican Communion declared,

We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers—physical, moral and religious—thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. (Lambeth Conference 1920, Resolution 68)

By 1930, they had changed their tune to: “The Conference believes that the conditions of modern life call for a fresh statement from the Christian Church on the subject of sex” (Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 9). Ominous words. The conference proceeded to follow this logic on to alarming conclusions:

[I]n those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15)

This landmark declaration rendered the Anglicans the first major Protestant denomination to approve of artificial contraception. Since then, most others have followed suit.

Despite the Anglican Church’s outcry against “selfishness, luxury, [and] mere convenience,” these vices have come to dominate the sphere of sexual ethics and even legislation.

The FDA approved the first birth control pill in 1960, an oral contraceptive called Enovid.  In 1965, the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that criminalized birth control. The decision Griswold v. Connecticut legalized birth control for married couples under the “right to privacy.” In 1972, the right to contraception was extended to all individuals, married or unmarried, with Eisenstadt v. Baird.

In Fr. Sebastian Walshe’s natural law arguments against contraception, he astutely points out the similarity between the logic of birth control and the logic of gay marriage. No one need invoke the magisterium or the Bible to observe that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. This has been a governing societal norm for ages, and its abandonment augurs ill. Once the primary purpose of marriage is forgotten, the floodgates open for hosts of unnatural vices. Griswold and Eisenstadt led seamlessly to Obergefell.

The Anglicans of 1920 understood what their successors forgot:

In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. (Lambeth Conference 1920, Resolution 68)

Not only did all churches condemn birth control as recently as 100 years ago, but even the government once prohibited the distribution of artificial contraceptives. The Comstock Act, a federal law which is still on the books, was written in 1873 to prohibit “mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter.” It goes on to define “crime-inciting” as “intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use,” but this is an amendment as recent as 1971.  The original Comstock Act also forbade anything intended for “preventing conception.”

The likelihood of criminalizing birth control at this point is slim. But Comstock gives a great to-do list for those who want to see the populace flourish: 1) criminalize abortion 2) ban contraception. How could we make abortion and birth control illegal again? Let’s look at the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment that loomed so large in the Obergefell decision in favor of gay marriage: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Section 1).

This sounds a lot more like a right to life enshrined in the Constitution than a penumbra of privacy justifying birth control and gay marriage. Give babies due process and equal protection. Don’t deprive them of life.

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis observes that man’s “power over nature” is often just some men’s power over other men:

What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by. . .And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence.

President Trump wants to fix the birth crisis. What if, instead of subsidizing IVF, he promoted a natural means of procreation? Want to make America great again? Then make contraception illegal again.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Make Birth Control Illegal Again appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday on his program Dialogue Works Nima had two guests, Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA, and me.  I come in at about the one hour mark at the close of the program with Larry. I recommend that you take advantage of the double feature.  

Nima and I discuss the severe constraints on President Trump that handicap him in his effort to bring about not only a settlement in Ukraine but also impede a wider settlement with Russia that would put the world at peace.

Larry Johnson and I agree that the easiest way for Trump to conclude the conflict in Ukraine is to stop supplying, weapons, money, and diplomatic support.  But to do this requires Trump to jettison the US military/security complex along with its budget and power which are dependent on having Russia as an enemy.  Presidents such as John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan who had in mind winding down the Cold War ran into problems with the military/security complex. The military/security complex has military bases or armaments manufacturers in nearly every state.  The number of governors, House and Senate members, and businesses dependent on orders from military bases and weapon manufacturers is vast. The combination of taxes, employment, campaign contributions, and supply relationships is too large of a force for Trump to jettison.

Another constraint on Trump is the American doctrine of hegemony which is at odds with peace-making. The US foreign policy doctrine requires that the US take an aggressive approach to countries that could constrain US unilateralism.  In other words, the pursuit of hegemony makes a country a poor peace-maker. Trump has not repudiated the hegemony doctrine.  Instead he exercises it with his numerous threats to other governments.

As I have consistently reported, the conflict in Ukraine is a symptom and not a cause of what Putin refers to as the root cause of the conflict.  The root cause is the absence of a mutual security agreement between Russia and the West.  NATO with missile bases on Russia’s border creates insecurity for Russia.  This insecurity is the root cause. Both the material interest of the US military/security complex and the hegemony doctrine are obstacles to removing the insecurity.

As the Russian position remains the same and Zelensky remains uncooperative, perhaps Trump sees Putin getting off his butt and quickly winning the war as the escape route from the box in which Trump finds himself.  Perhaps Trump signaled to Putin, as he did to Netanyahu, to get it over with as its continuation is too embarrassing to Trump. Putin’s side of the bargain would be to let Trump grandstand in presiding over the peace agreement that ends the war.

The wider and serious problem is Russia’s sense of insecurity with NATO/US missile bases on her border. To remove the real problem of nuclear conflict, the US needs to move away from Russia’s borders and honor the agreement the George H. W. Bush administration made with Gorbachev that NATO would stay distant from Russia’s border.

The post Can Trump Find a Way Out of the Box He Is in? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Our country is on the verge of self-destruction because the American Dream no longer existsm for twenty-year-olds. It only exists for highly-paid couples at the end of child-bearing years. Everyone else is to live in Stack-and-Pack vertical housing, without private transportation except for bicycles. They will pay excessive rents and therefore accumulate no equity, and will live in fear. Most importantly they will have fewer children (and those later in life) at a rate  below the replacement level.

There are countless very negative results because of the Death of the American Dream. But I will only list a few because I know that only our returning to Constitutional Government is required…otherwise the American Dream is impossible.

Economic implications are widespread and ominous. To see the results, look at the inner cities of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, which are now Communist Hell-Holes without safety, religion, or good schools…and Communists have no plans to improve them. We must return to a Free Enterprise System AKA a Market Economy/Supply and Demand. There must be private ownership of property and the means of production. If someone can’t work, there should be a safety net, but if they are able-bodied and don’t work, they starve. It is that way in most of the world except for Socialist countries.  It is reality.

You may think the solution is complex, but it is really simple: we need only return to what we had before the Coup of 1913. I did not say the solution would be easy, just simple.

The first thing we have to do is terminate the Income Tax and finance the Federal Government with Tariffs and Excise Taxes, as we did prior to  States can contribute to the federal government if it needs more money. But the Federal Government should not need more money if all unconstitutional activities are terminated. Let that sink in.

The federal Government has unlawfully usurped many functions of the states in violation of the Enumerated Powers explicitly set forth in our Constitution.

These usurped functions number in the thousands, and cost billions. Two unconstitutional functions that cost billions are our military stationed in other countries, and Foreign Aid. If other countries could invade us, it might be different…but they can’t. We can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction, or from within by the 21 million Democrat/Communist army of illegals. I will repeat, we have no business being involved in the affairs of any country in the world, and that includes Israel and Ukraine. When Congress votes to fund unlawful offshore projects that spend taxpayer money, it is taking the food out of the mouths of Americans, and I think it is treason. I might add that I think any money spent off shore is unlawful.

With the income tax terminated, all federal funds to the states for any reason must be terminated. This means all welfare, FEMA, Agriculture and Education grants as examples, but the key is termination of all federal funds to the states. We are in this near-terminal state because we failed to control the greed of Congress and bureaucrats of the Administrative State who succumbed to the bribes of the Parasitic Super- Rich Ruling Class and countless others. In the final analysis, the last nail in the coffin was the failure of the corrupt and complicit FBI to investigate, charge and convict all parties to corruption in government. This is what happens when you ignore the Constitution that specifies that the Militia of the Several States should enforce the laws of the union. They got the Militia out of the way with the unconstitutional Dick Act.

President Trump’s election stopped our descent into civil war, and his programs will buy us time to return to a Constitutional government. If he continues to refuse to return to a Constitutional Government, the result will be Dystopian, Total Failure, Depression, and Civil War. There is no other possibility..

In conclusion, it is simple to return us to a market economy, prosperity, and the American Dream for 20-year-olds. We need only follow the Constitution, knowing that the miscreants will not stop at assassination to prevail, as they did with President Trump and President Kennedy.

The post How To Return the American Dream to Twenty-Year-Olds With Only a Single Income appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Lifton’s “Best Evidence” (1981),  as well as several other more recent publications, have made  the extraordinary claim that JFK’s body was removed secretly from Air Force One at Andrews, put aboard a helicopter,  flown to Bethesda, placed in a so-called shipping casket and delivered to the morgue “early” for pre-autopsy surgery to remove evidence of shots from the front. Of all of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination, this may well be the boldest (some would say the most outlandish) one of them all.

But is any of it true?

In previous articles on this site, I’ve argued that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that there is no first-hand evidence for any of  Lifton’s most important claims. For example, no one testified before the  ARRB that they saw JFK’s body IN any shipping casket or taken OUT of any  shipping casket at the Bethesda morgue that night. On the other hand, there is a confirmed FBI/ARRB timeline that starts  with the removal of the Dallas ornamental casket from Air Force One at Andrews; that proceeds with the Navy ambulance ride uninterrupted from Andrews to Bethesda; that extends to the entry of the Dallas casket into the Bethesda morgue (with the Honor Guard) and concludes with the removal of JFK’s body (his head still wrapped as it was at Parkland) from that casket at around 7:15. The preliminary autopsy procedures (examination of the body, X-Rays, photographs, etc.) began shortly afterward. That timeline would seem to refute entirely the Lifton “body snatching” theory once and for all.

But even aside from any corroborated timeline, there is still another way to refute the Lifton theory.  The first-hand testimony of  Geofrey T. McHugh.

Brigadier General Geofrey T. McHugh was the Air Force Aide and primary briefing officer  to President John F. Kennedy. After JFK was pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital , General McHugh was a part of the “Irish Mafia” brigade (Dave Powers, Larry O’Brien, Kenny O’Donnell)  that rather forcefully removed the Dallas casket from the hospital. He also helped load that ridiculously heavy Dallas  casket onto Air Force One for the flight back to Andrews. He was also the so-called “supervisor” of Air Force One, and helped organize the removal of several seats in the rear of  the plane to  accommodate the large, ornamental casket.  (The alternative was to put the casket  in the cargo hold which was totally unacceptable.)  And most importantly, according to a fascinating “Oral History Interview”  that General McHugh  gave in 1978, he “stood guard”  with that casket in the rear of the plane and never left his post.

McHugh also was  part of the motorcade from Andrews to Bethesda and part of the team (along with the Honor Guard) that transported the Dallas casket into the morgue.  Finally, General McHugh was present at the formal autopsy of JFK.  As he said at one point: “I never left the body” that day.

Thus General McHugh was certainly a key witness to several important assassination events; yet he was never called to testify before the Warren Commission. Curious.

What’s important for this discussion, however,  is that General McHugh repeatedly confirmed that he “stayed with the casket” from the moment it was loaded onto Air Force One in Dallas to the moment it was transported into the Bethesda morgue. There was never a time he abandoned  his “guard post” with respect to the Dallas casket and there was never a time, therefore, for any “body snatching”. The body-snatching thesis, a  hoary conspiracy theory of the first magnitude, is a complete and utter fairy tale.

When Lyndon Johnson “commandeered” Air Force One (JFK’s plane) and got himself sworn in as President before the take-off from Love Field, a long smoldering political resentment re-surfaced between the Johnson and Kennedy factions aboard.  Several of the key Kennedy people (General McHugh, the Irish Mafia and Mrs. Kennedy)  then migrated to the very rear of the plane (away from the Johnson contingent) where there were some seats, a small  table, substantial amounts of alcohol and (of course)  the Dallas casket… that Mrs. Kennedy could reach out and touch. At one point, when Jackie Kennedy briefly (and reluctantly) left that small group  to attend LBJ’s swearing in ceremony , she reportedly turned to General McHugh and said: “At least you don’t leave him. Don’t leave him. Stay with him.”McHugh recollects: “So I’m the only one on board that airplane that stayed with the casket. Never left it.”

At another point McHugh says this: “I stood with the casket. I felt I was his (JFK’s)  military honor guard, that I should stay with him.” And  later  at Bethesda, it was suggested that since the Dallas casket had been damaged,  McHugh ought to be involved in helping to find another.  (Another casket was located and delivered to the morgue). But  McHugh refused: “I said I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to leave the body…” Apparently he never did.

Given General McHugh’s recollections, his important position within the Kennedy chain of command, and the uncontradicted confirmations of the Irish Mafia, it is flat-out impossible to believe that JFK’s corpse was somehow spirited out of the Dallas casket for any early entry into the Bethesda morgue. We have first-hand testimony from General McHugh that the casket was never left unattended. Ever. We have NO contradictory first-hand testimony that anyone snatched that body or saw the body snatched; no one has ever come forward in the decades since to confess any involvement in such a nefarious plot. Logic and the facts dictate, therefore, that it just never happened. And since the alleged “body snatching” is the lynchpin of the entire pre-autopsy/wound-alteration scenario, it stands to reason that none of that could have happened, either.

Most conspiracy theorists (like the late David Lifton) are well-intentioned and are simply trying to make sense of an inexplicable event: How could a lone nut ex-Marine with a cheap Italian-made rifle change history?  There just has to be more to the story. So I understand their frustration with the Warren Commission’s explanation of the assassination and their own search for deeper, more profound answers. Nonetheless, our primary duty as researchers is to get things straight for truth and for history and  the “body-snatching/ pre-autopsy surgery” theory of the JFK assassination can NEVER be one of those profound answers.

The post Was JFK ‘Body Snatched’ From Air Force One? appeared first on LewRockwell.

On August 16, my wife, Vickie, and I attended a conference at the Dulles Airport Hilton just outside Washington, D.C. It was titled “A Blueprint For Peace” and was hosted by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

This institute was started by Rep. Paul at the end of his last year in Congress in 2012. I participated in the founding press conference, and I am still on the advisory board.

This year’s conference had several outstanding speakers, such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Col. Doug MacGregor, and others. The first day was a scholars program for college students headlined by Kelley Vlahos, former editor of the American Conservative Magazine.

Professor Sachs is from Columbia University and has been used by the United Nations to advise countries all over the world. He is considered to be one of the greatest foreign policy experts in this country.

In his speech, he said we need to dust off the Monroe Doctrine and stop intervening in so many wars and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. He said the war in Ukraine and the slaughter in Gaza could be ended quickly if we made it clear we were no longer providing so much money and weaponry.

The Monroe Doctrine was a declaration made in 1823 by President James Monroe that basically said we would not allow political and military interference in our sphere of influence, the Americas, and in return, we would not try to run Europe.

This is not isolationism. We should have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges with all nations, and we should help out during terrible humanitarian crises.

But almost all our wars over the last 60 or 75 years have been about money or power, or both. We have spent trillions and have lost many thousands of American lives to make a tiny few rich and powerful.

Most of this interventionism has been egged on by so-called Neocons, who are not conservative at all. In fact, columnist George Will wrote that Neocons were “magnificently misnamed,” and that they were “really the most radical people in this City” (meaning Washington, D.C.).

Russia and Ukraine began peace negotiations four days after their war started in February of 2022, and basically had a peace agreement worked out by April 15, 2022, until Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Great Britain, and Neocons in our own State Department, principally Victoria Nuland, urged Ukraine not to sign. Their demands have led to the spending of about $350 billion by the U.S., according to President Trump.

Even worse, it has led to hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as one million, deaths, counting all civilians and soldiers on both sides.

Victoria Nuland has led our policy toward Ukraine. She worked as chief of staff for Bill Clinton’s close friend, Strobe Talbott, in the State Department. Then she worked for Dick Cheney when he was vice president. From 2005 to 2008, George W. Bush appointed her as ambassador to NATO. Later, she was Under Secretary of State from 2021 to 2024, when she urged Ukraine not to sign the peace agreement with Russia. Now she teaches foreign policy with Hillary Clinton at Columbia.

Nuland is married to Robert Kagan. Kagan is and has been one of the leading Neocons for years. AI says he “is known for his strong advocacy of liberal internationalism” and “has been a vocal proponent of U.S. interventionism.” He was associated with the Project for the New American Century, the architects of our disastrous war in Iraq.

James Baker, then our secretary of state, gave Russia what he called an “ironclad promise” in 2012 not to move NATO further east – i.e., Ukraine – in return for Russia not contesting the reunification of Germany.

President Trump had six conversations with Putin during his (Trump’s) first term, during one or more of which Trump said he would not advocate NATO membership for Ukraine. This is why President Trump says this war would not have happened if he had been re-elected in 2020.

Samuel Charap, distinguished chair in Russia and Eurasia Policy and senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, co-authored a Foreign Affairs Magazine article entitled “The Talks That Could Have Ended The War In Ukraine.”

He wrote, “Russia agreed to have a process to diplomatically address the dispute over Crimea,” a Russian speaking area that Russia annexed in 2014.

Charap added that the concession by Ukraine “of renouncing its ambitions to join NATO was potentially enough to engender some relatively significant concessions from Russia,” possibly even “some sort of compensation” to Ukraine for the Crimean Peninsula.

President George W. Bush promised repeatedly when he campaigned in 2000 that he was going to have a more “humble” foreign policy and put an end to “nation building” (of other nations). However, he allowed himself to be horribly misled and controlled by power-mad neocons.

This article was originally published on Knoxville Focus.

The post Neocons Responsible for Russian-Ukraine War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mythic Narcissus, depending on his mood while facing his reflection in the pool, may at any moment authorize Kiev hits on Moscow and St. Petersburg with long-range missiles.

Alastair Crooke’s remarkable analysis of Trump in the context of myth as geopolitics has left us with much to ponder. There’s no escape from Trump’s “extraordinary ability to dominate the discourse”, globally, as well as his capacity for “bending people to his will” – and thus wreak havoc on the geopolitical chessboard.

Alastair stresses how Trump is skillfully “using mythic imagery” – actually crude archetypes – to always impress his (italics mine) narrative. The only narrative.

Yet Trump may not be straight-up Dionysian, compared to Apollonian Putin; he’s more like a Narcissus Drowned (in a pool of his own making). And when it comes to pop iconography, he’s certainly not The Godfather of Soul James Brown; more like the Village People – which were themselves a parody.

The most disturbing aspect of Trump the Self-Made Myth is what grip that death cult in West Asia holds over his imagination. Trump’s absolute normalization of genocide has made the whole – Wild – West civilization complicit. Alastair once again reminds us that “the bloodlust in Gaza”, awakened by the Torah, is driving “messianic, extreme Zionism” all the way “to barbarism”. That’s where we are now – with a License to Kill provided by a vicious, intolerant God: Yahweh.

Way below the mythical spheres where Trump does not fear to tread, rascals posing as the European political “elite” have created another myth: Putin as a “cannibal needing to eat” (copyright Le Petit Roi). He’s “The Beast at the Door”, with Russia framed as anti-Europe and anti-West, an existential threat: Putin and Russia morphed as The Anti-Christ.

Well, these intellectual midgets are obviously unaware that it was the Byzantine empire that survived the Roman Empire in the West for no less than a thousand years. Byzantium resisted everything: Goths, Avars, Arabs, Bulgars – until they could not resist the Ottomans. Still, they managed to evangelize the Bulgars and Kievan Russia, and even provided a state model to the Ottomans.

If we draw a line from Danzig to Trieste, going through Vienna, we can check out how Western Europe in medieval times was in fact “protected” from periodic nomadic onslaughts (the exception is the Hungarian plains, the final stop for nomadic waves from Asia).

And that explains why Europe knows next to nothing about Russia, Central Asia, Eurasia, the Heartland for that matter. Europe never had to face Mongol or Ottoman rule. They might have learned a thing or two – from Pax Mongolica and Ottoman inclusiveness. And that may also have tamed their superiority – civilizational – complex, borne out of splendid isolation.

I love a man in uniform

A ghastly Ariadne’s thread connects the current, appallingly mediocre European political elites – aspiring mini-Minotaurs lost in their own labyrinth. The BlackRock Chancellor in Germany comes from the British occupation zone of Germany, the grandson of a Nazi. The Nazis were successfully built up by Britain to position Germany as its proxy in a perpetual war against Russia.

The appalling Toxic Medusa in Brussels also comes from the British occupation zone of Germany: a noble family with Nazi background. Her “noble” husband is even worse, descending from war criminals.

Le Petit Roi in France, universally despised, is a lowly messenger of Banque Rothschild, financier of British kings and queens since the 18th century.

The Intermarium – Poland, the Baltic dwarves, Ukraine – always had governments staffed and controlled by Britain.

As for the opposition to the war on Russia in Romania, it was couped away.

The bottom line is that the Brits are on Totalen Krieg against Russia, on steroids, so they can snatch the Big Prize, unemcumbered: total control of Europe, or dismissively, “the continentals”. Their 18th century mindset imperial/feudal planners are looking way beyond rump Ukraine, towards a Forever War to weaken and tighten their total control over a discombobulated Europe.

The only counterpower comes from the former Austro-Hungarian empire states, plus Serbia: they refuse this Forever War, which will inevitably destroy Europe for the third (italics mine) time in a little over a century. Their pressing need is to get their act together and form a coalition against a new Balkan War.

The current absurdity peddled by the Forever War front is that European troops need to be sent to Ukraine before a much hyped ceasefire, and not after, so Anti-Christ Putin is kept “under pressure” to, well, capitulate while he’s winning.

Translation: the Europeans do not want a peacekeeping force. They want a deterrence force capable of advancing whenever they see fit – as in a false flag proving the evil Russians broke the truce.

This stupidity is mirrored by European “thinking” – as, for instance, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) publishing a new strategic handbook with proposals for the “disempowerment” of Russia.

EUISS poses as analytical experts on Russia’s “hybrid warfare”: that’s pathetic, as Hybrid War is an American concept. Still, the EUISS goes for broke on establishing hegemony on five strategically important latitudes: China, Asia–Pacific, the southern Mediterranean, southeast Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. In sum: the same old shtick, NATO as Global Robocop on crack.

Apollo vs. Dionysus, remixed

Alastair sustains that Putin, in the Anchorage summit, “understood the psychology of Trump”. Trump “seems to recognize Putin as a fellow in the pantheon of putative mythic leaders”. Once again, the distance between Apollonian Putin and not-so-Dionysiac Trump should be the equivalent between Timur and a nondescript MMA fighter.

It’s open to vast speculation whether Trump in Alaska might have agreed with Putin to invert the planned Russian foreign asset theft by the EU – and instead force the funds to be invested in the US. Now that would be prime “offer you can’t refuse” territory.

So far, what we do know for sure is that Steve Witkoff – that real estate Bismarck – did not understand anything of what he heard directly from Putin, setting the stage for Alaska.

Witkoff hit the US networks full tilt, blabbering that Putin on August 15th had reversed his ultimate red line, No NATO for Ukraine. And it looks like Trump followed the real estate Bismarck’s massive fake news – as Witkoff himself spun the Russians made concessions “almost immediately” in Alaska.

Well, Witkoff must have been smoking something. Or not. Because his “lost in translation” gimmick in fact conditioned the whole subsequent tawdry spectacle on “the peacekeepers”.

So now Mythic Narcissus is saying that the Empire of Chaos won’t send any troops to Ukraine, but will support a “security guarantee”, allegedly with spy planes (well, they are already operating them anyway) and “back up” as in ISR, air defense and air cover. In practice, there will be no imperial “security guarantees” to the Ukrainian black void. But the myth of tens of thousands of EU/NATO troops stepping into Ukraine will persist.

Next week, the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok carries the enticing possibility of US-Russia deals being discussed. As in ExxonMobil maybe returning to the Sakhalin-1 mega gas project (already there have been secret talks with Rosneft); selling American equipment for LNG projects to Russia, including the Arctic LNG-2; and the purchase of Russian nuclear icebreakers by the US. Now that will be something to watch.

Meanwhile, no illusions in Moscow – as required. Mythic Narcissus, depending on his mood while facing his reflection in the pool, may at any moment authorize Kiev hits on Moscow and St. Petersburg with long-range missiles. Why not? “I have the right to do ANYTHING I want to do – I’m the President of the United States.”

Narcissus actually believes he’s Theseus – slaying every Minotaur in sight, and yet always incapable of leaving the Labyrinth. No wonder Moscow needs to be ready, 24/7, for some sort, any sort of irrational slaying.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Mythic Trump: the Incendiary Narcissus appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Donald Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, and his efforts toward peace in Ukraine, if successful, could possibly help him earn one—but only if he also ends US complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Under Trump, as under former President Joe Biden, the US has served as Israel’s partner in mass murder, annexation, starvation, and the escalating torment of millions of Palestinians. The genocide can, and will, stop if Trump wills it. So far he has not.

Israel is committing genocide—everyone knows it, even its staunchest defenders. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has recently made a poignant acknowledgment of “Our Genocide.” In Foreign Affairs, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew recently admitted that extremist parties in Netanyahu’s government openly aim to starve Palestinians in Gaza. Lew frames his piece as praise for the former Biden administration (and for himself) for their supposedly valiant efforts to prevent mass starvation by pressuring Israel to allow minimal food entry, while blaming Trump for easing that pressure.

The US aids and protects Israel every day in these horrific crimes against the Palestinian people.

Yet the actual importance of the piece is that an ardent Zionist insider certifies the genocidal agenda sustaining Netanyahu’s rule. Lew recounts that in the aftermath of October 7, Israelis frequently pledged that “not a drop of water, not a drop of milk, and not a drop of fuel will go from Israel to Gaza,” a stance that still shapes Israel’s cabinet policy. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can use Lew’s article as confirmation of Israel’s genocidal intent.

The genocide in Gaza, coupled with the annexation in the West Bank, aims to fulfill the Likud vision of a Greater Israel that exercises territorial control between the Sea and Jordan. This will destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state, and any possibility of peace. Indeed, Bezalel Smotrich, the extremist minister of finance and minister in the ministry of defense, recently vowed to “permanently bury the idea of a Palestinian state” while the Knesset has recently called for annexation of the occupied West Bank.

The US aids and protects Israel every day in these horrific crimes against the Palestinian people. The US provides billions of dollars in military support, goes to war alongside Israel, and offers diplomatic cover for Israel’s crimes against humanity. The vacuous mantra that “Israel has the right to defend itself” is the US pat excuse for Israel’s mass murder and starvation of innocent civilians.

Generations of historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, and inquiring minds will ask how the descendants and co‑religionists of the Jews murdered by Hitler’s genocidal regime came to become genocidaires. Two factors, deeply intertwined, come to the fore.

First, the Nazi Holocaust lent credence among Jews to the Zionist claim that only a state with overwhelming military power and ready to use it can protect the Jewish people. For these militarists, every Arab country opposed to Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine became a dire foe to be crushed by war. This is Netanyahu’s doctrine of violence, which was first unveiled in the Clean Break strategy, and which has produced nonstop Israeli mobilization and war, and a society now gripped by implacable hatred even of innocent women and children in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Netanyahu has dragged the US into countless devastating and futile wars out of Netanyahu’s blindness to the reality that only diplomacy, not war, can achieve Israel’s security.

Second, this non-stop resort to violence reignited a dormant strain of Biblical Judaism, notably based on the Book of Joshua, which presents God’s covenant with Abraham as justification for genocides committed in conquering the Promised Land. Ancient zealotry of this kind, and the belief that God would redeem his chosen people through violence, fueled suicidal revolts against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 AD. Whether the genocides in the Book of Joshua ever occurred (probably not ) is beside the point. For today’s zealots, the license to commit genocide is vivid, immediate, and biblically ordained.

Netanyahu has dragged the US into countless devastating and futile wars out of Netanyahu’s blindness to the reality that only diplomacy, not war, can achieve Israel’s security.

Aware of the danger of self-destructive zealotry, the rabbis who shaped the Babylonian Talmud proscribed Jews from attempting to return en masse to the promised land (Ketubot 111a). They taught that Jews should live in their own communities and fulfill God’s commandments where they are, rather than seeking to recapture a land from which they had been exiled following decades of suicidal revolt.

Whatever the fundamental reasons for Israel’s murderous turn, Israel’s survival among nations is at risk today as it has become a pariah state. For the first time in history, Israel’s Western allies have repudiated Israel’s violent ways. France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have each pledged to formally recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. These countries will finally join the will of the overwhelming global majority in recognizing that the two-state solution, enshrined in international law, is the true guarantor of peace.

The majority of the American people, are rightly revulsed by Israel’s brutality and are also turning their support massively to the Palestinian cause. In a new Reuters poll released today, 58% of Americans now believe that the UN should recognize the State of Palestine, against just 32% who oppose that. American politicians will surely note the change, at Israel’s peril, unless the two-state solution is rapidly implemented. (Logical arguments can also be given for a peaceful one-state, bi-national solution, but this alternative has essentially no backing among UN member states and no basis in the international law regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict that has developed over more than seven decades.)

This Israeli government will not change course on its own. Only the Trump administration can end the genocide through a comprehensive settlement agreed by the world’s nations at the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly. The solution is to stop the genocide, make peace, and salvage Israel’s standing in the world by creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the June 4, 1967 borders.

Trump must force Israel to see reality: that Israel cannot continue to rule over the Palestinian people, murder them, starve them, and ethnically cleanse them.

For decades, the entire Arab and Islamic world has supported the two-state solution, and advocated to normalize relations with Israel and guarantee security for the entire region. This solution is in full accordance with international law, and was again espoused clearly by the UN General Assembly in the NY Declaration last month at the conclusion of the United Nations High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution (July 29, 2025).

Trump has come to understand that to save Ukraine, he must force it to see reality: that NATO cannot expand to Ukraine as that would directly threaten Russia’s own security. In the same way, Trump must force Israel to see reality: that Israel cannot continue to rule over the Palestinian people, murder them, starve them, and ethnically cleanse them. The two-state solution thereby saves both Palestine and Israel.

An immediate UN Security Council vote to grant Palestine permanent membership in the UN next month would put an end to Israel’s zealous delusions of permanent control over Palestine, as well as its reckless territorial ambitions in Lebanon and Syria. The focus of the crisis would then shift to immediate and practical issues: how to disarm non-state actors within the framework of the new state and regional peace, how to enable mutual security for Israel and Palestine, how to empower the Palestinians to govern effectively, how to finance the reconstruction, and how to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to a starving population.

Trump can make this happen at the UN in September. The US, and only the US, has vetoed the permanent membership of Palestine in the UN. The other members of the UN Security Council have already signaled their support.

Peace in the Middle East is possible now—and there is no time to lose.

This article was originally published on Common Dreams.

The post The US Can End the Gaza Genocide Now appeared first on LewRockwell.

You’ve probably read that it is now common for people to sign up for seven years of payments – because this is the only way many people can afford to drive a new vehicle. More payments being more manageable than fewer – but higher – payments. This works – for awhile.

But it can’t work for too much longer, because depreciation catches up – and passes – you right around the seven year mark. By this time, you are likely to find that you owe more (the remaining loan balance) than the car is worth by then and that makes it not worth making those payments any longer. People walk away. The “under water” vehicle gets repossessed. Lenders know that car loans can’t be extended much beyond seven years and that will limit the number of loans written that are for longer than seven years. This, in turn, is going to limit new vehicle sales (or at least, limit the financing of them, which amounts to the same thing).

What then?

The vehicle manufacturers could try to reduce the cost of new vehicles so that people could afford to pay them off in five years or less, but that will be difficult because they have bought into the costs of compliance. It is no longer legally possible to manufacture for sale a vehicle not equipped with multiple airs bags, which entails the cost of designing the car’s structure and dashboard around the air bags – in addition to the cost of the air bags themselves. Many new vehicles have air bags built into the seats as well as the door panels and dash and steering wheel. This alone has added thousands in compliance costs to the window sticker of every new car.

Additional compliance costs include the mandatory back-up cameras and screens that display the images as well hidden/added drivetrain compliance costs such as direct injection and automatic transmissions with eight, nine and ten speeds when four or five are plenty (in terms of any meaningful benefit to the vehicle’s owner).

There are also the transferred compliance costs of EVs the manufacturers are effectively forced to make that can’t be sold for what they actually cost to make, plus a profit. The manufacturers “sell” EVs for less than it costs them to manufacture the things and make the money back by upping the cost of the vehicles that do sell because they’re not EVs.

All of these costs are invisible to the buyer because they are not line-item’d on the window sticker. That would have been the smart move for the manufacturers in that it would have made it clear why the cost of a new vehicle has gone up so much over just the past ten years, let alone the past 50 . It was about 50 years ago that the federal government got seriously into the business of imposing compliance costs on vehicle manufacturers, who passed them on to buyers who didn’t know what they were being made to pay for them and were encouraged to blame it all on “inflation.”

How many know  – to cite just one example – that convertibles all-but-disappeared from the market (which was no longer that because of government interfering with it) by the mid-1970s because of a federal diktat that a car’s roof had to be capable of supporting the car’s entire weight if it rolled over? Instead of convertibles – available, mind you, for those who wanted to buy one – everyone got a government-mandated hard-top with thick “A,” “B” and especially “C” pillars that kept the roof from crushing if the vehicle rolled but also made a wreck more likely because of the blind spots created by those thick, visibility impairing (and government-mandated) structural pillars.

The manufacturers could have simply told car buyers why the cost of vehicles was going up so dramatically by line-iteming each compliance cost. Just a statement of fact, which can serve as a very powerful argument. For example:

5 MPH bumpers – as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ( FMVSS) 215, “Exterior Protection”: $500

Air bags – as required per FMVSS 208 (Supplemental Restraint System): $3,500.

Back-up camera system (per FMVSS 111): $500.

These are just a few of the readily identifiable specific compliance costs. There are also costs that aren’t specific in the each-new-vehicle-must have (insert here) but which they are effectively required to have, such as fragile plastic and very thin metal exterior panels, which help a manufacturer comply with federal fuel economy and “emissions” diktats via lowering the vehicle’s weight (which is perversely increased by other diktats pertaining to “safety”). Also in this category are the already-mentioned direct injection and automatic transmissions with eight, nine and ten speeds. The only reason for the proliferation of these things is compliance; they eke out slight gains in gas mileage and slight reductions in gaseous (C02) “emissions.”

They confer no meaningful benefit to the buyer who gets to pay for them. And nothing meaningful otherwise, either – except for the costs.

Read the Whole Article

The post Hitting The Wall appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Aussies just trashed their relations with Iran based on nothing but obscure say-so.

Australia throws out Iran ambassador over alleged antisemitic attacks

Canberra expelled Tehran’s ambassador after accusing Iran of masterminding at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the country’s intelligence services had linked Iran’s military to arson attacks in Sydney and Melbourne, throwing out an ambassador for the first time since World War II, a move The Sydney Morning Herald’s national affairs editor dubbed “the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option.”

Iran rejected the charge.

I have searched and read several news pieces on this issue and have found no mention of any fact that would connect two months ago arson incidents in Australia with Iran.

The whole thing came out of nowhere based solely on the say-so from the Australian spy service ASIO:

What Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called ASIO’s “deeply disturbing conclusion” is that the Iranian government was involved in these “extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil”, identified as the activities of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

There is no mentioning on what, if anything, ASIO’s alleged conclusions are based on. There are guesses:

No doubt “protecting sources” will mean that the detail of these “links” will never see the light of day [despite curiosity as to why Iranian security would have even the slightest interest in attacks on Jewish businesses in Australia] but recent history tells us that Mossad and the CIA are almost certainly responsible. These are the same agencies, after all, that fed us a steady stream of fake war propaganda including the supposed WMDs in Iraq, claims of Hamas bases under Gaza hospitals and fake stories about Iran being on the verge of producing nuclear weapons.

Canberra’s diplomatic attack on Iran comes as the Israelis prepare for a second round of aggression against Iran and while the Australian public, through huge rallies, has been expressing its outrage at the Albanese government’s collaboration with the Gaza genocide and demanding punishment of the Israelis.

How is Iran supposed to profit from arranging criminal arson attempts against some random synagogues in Australia?

One might assume that the whole thing is coming up now to calm Zionist anger at Australia which has become more aggressive after ten-thousands of Australians had expressed outraged over Israels ongoing genocide of Palestinians:

Albanese was just last week labeled “weak” by his Israeli counterpart after he said Australia would recognize a Palestinian state: The two countries have seen relations nosedive, with Canberra barring an Israeli far-right politician from entering Australia and Israel revoking the visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority.

There may also be a larger context to this:

chinahand @chinahand – 8:01 UTC · Aug 26, 2025Seems as tell that another attack on Iran spearheaded by Israel and backed by g7 is forthcoming

That another round of Israeli aggression against Iran is coming has been predicted for some time:

[W]ith its June attacks, Israel achieved a partial victory at best. Its preferred outcome was for Trump to fully engage, targeting both Iran’s conventional forces and economic infrastructure. But while Trump favors swift, decisive military action, he fears full-scale war. His strategy in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities was thus designed to limit escalation rather than expand it. In the short term, Trump succeeded—much to Israel’s chagrin—but in the long run, he has allowed Israel to trap him in an escalatory cycle.

His refusal to escalate beyond a limited bombing campaign was a key reason that Israel agreed to a cease-fire.
…
Regardless of whether Iran resumes uranium enrichment, Israel is determined to deny it time to replenish its missile arsenal, restore air defenses, or deploy improved systems. That logic is central to Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy: strike preventively and repeatedly to prohibit adversaries from developing capabilities that could challenge Israeli military dominance.

This means that, with Iran already rebuilding its military resources, Israel has an incentive to strike sooner rather than later. What’s more, the political calculus around another attack becomes much more complicated once the United States enters its midterm election season. As a result, a strike could very well take place within the coming months.

This, of course, is the outcome that Iranian leaders want to deter. To dispel any illusion that Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy works, Iran is likely to strike hard and fast at the outset of the next war.

If Israel decides to again attack Iran the question is when, and to what extend, the Trump administration will again jump in.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Australia Breaks With Iran – Sign of a New War Coming? appeared first on LewRockwell.