Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, John Smith.

Antiwar.com

 

The post Israeli Security Officials: Settler Violence Has West Bank on the ‘Brink of Explosion’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

Middle East Eye

 

The post As Israel’s image collapses, US billionaires move to silence dissent appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post IDF chief in Dallas appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post A ‘Secret’ Peace Deal For Ukraine? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post John Mearsheimer addresses the European Parliament on the topic of “Europe’s Bleak Future” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Sex and the Swastika: Secret History

In this thought-provoking video, we delve into the complex and often controversial intersections of sexuality and symbolism during the Nazi regime. “Sex & The Swastika” explores how the swastika, a symbol of hate and oppression, was juxtaposed with themes of sexuality and desire in the context of 20th-century Germany.

Through historical analysis and expert commentary, we uncover the ways in which Nazi ideology influenced personal relationships, sexual norms, and societal expectations.

Did Hitler murder his niece Gelli after a bizarre sadomasochistic sexual relationship where he had her urinate and defecate on him? Did she commit suicide? Was she murdered by his henchmen because she had become an embarrassment to him? How many of Hitler’s other women committed suicide?

Join us as we navigate these challenging topics, shedding light on the darker aspects of history and their implications for contemporary discussions on sexuality and identity. We will examine how the Nazi regime’s oppressive policies not only targeted marginalized groups but also shaped the sexual landscape of the time, leading to a complex interplay between repression and desire.

In “Sex & The Swastika,” we confront the unsettling connections between the Nazi emblem and the realm of human sexuality. This video presents a detailed exploration of how the swastika was not only a symbol of terror but also a representation of the sexual politics of the time. Through a blend of historical context and expert insights, we discuss the implications of Nazi ideology on sexual behavior, gender roles, and the repression of sexual minorities.

The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams.

Reviewers Praise The Pink Swastika:

“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council

“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were – Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education

“The Pink Swastika is a tremendously valuable book, replete with impressive documentation presented in a compelling fashion.” William Grigg, The New American

“…exposes numerous lies, and tears away many myths. Essential reading, it is a formidable boulder cast into the path of the onrushing homosexual express…”
Stan Goodenough, Middle East Intelligence Digest

“The Pink Swastika is a powerful exposure of pre-World War II Germany and its quest for reviving and imitating a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism.”
Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“Lively and Abrams call attention to what Hitlerism really stood for, abortion, euthanasia, hatred of Jews, and, very emphatically, homosexuality. This many of us knew in the 1930’s; it was common knowledge, but now it is denied…”
R. J. Rushdoony, The Chalcedon Report

See also The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (.pdf); The Hidden Hitler, by Lothar Machtan; Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power, by Konrad Heiden; Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin, by Mel Gordon (.pdf); Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider, by Peter Gay; Sex and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis, by Laurie Marhoefer; Gay Berlin: Birthplace of a Modern Identity, by Robert Beachy; Germany’s National Vice, by Samuel Igra (.pdf); and Ernst Röhm, by Eleanor Hancock.

 

 

The post Hitler and Stalin: Roots of Evil appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lew,

Why make the US Congress vote to give $ 3.8 billion each year in foreign aid to Israel when the Zionist state can get an agreement without needing a vote by the elected representatives of the American people for another 20 years? The public is increasingly opposing support to Israel, so this is the ideal solution.

See here.

 

The post Israel Seeks 20 Year Foreign Aid Deal appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

Remember that militarized raid by the DHS in Chicago that used Black Hawk helicopters that was supposed to arrest and deport members of a terrorist gang? Jimmy Dore explains how it was all a big show – there were no charges filed against anyone. It was to give the impression that Trump was doing something about illegal immigration while upsetting the left/Democrats, all designed to keep Americans fighting with each other. And it probably cost $ 500 million. 

The post DHS Immigration Raid in Chicago was all Theater appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “La rivoluzione di Satoshi”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0FYH656JK 

La traduzione in italiano dell'opera scritta da Wendy McElroy esplora Bitcoin a 360°, un compendio della sua storia fino ad adesso e la direzione che molto ptobabilmente prenderà la sua evoluzione nel futuro prossimo. Si parte dalla teoria, soprattutto quella libertaria e Austriaca, e si sonda come essa interagisce con la realtà. Niente utopie, solo la logica esposizione di una tecnologia che si sviluppa insieme alle azioni degli esseri umani. Per questo motivo vengono inserite nell'analisi diversi punti di vista: sociologico, economico, giudiziario, filosofico, politico, psicologico e altri. Una visione e trattazione di Bitcoin come non l'avete mai vista finora, per un asset che non solo promette di rinnovare l'ambito monetario ma che, soprattutto, apre alla possibilità concreta di avere, per la prima volta nella storia umana, una società profondamente e completamente modificabile dal basso verso l'alto.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Nick Corbishley

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-piano-dellue-per-soffocare-la)

I lettori abituali ormai conoscono il Digital Services Act (DSA) dell'UE di cui abbiamo parlato in diverse occasioni dal luglio 2023. Per chi non lo sapesse, una breve introduzione: il DSA impone alle piattaforme online di grandi dimensioni (VLOP) e ai motori di ricerca online di grandi dimensioni (VLOSE) l'obbligo legale di intervenire tempestivamente contro i contenuti illegali ospitati sulle loro piattaforme, rimuovendoli, bloccandoli, o fornendo determinate informazioni alle autorità competenti.

I VLOP e i VLOSE sono inoltre tenuti ad adottare misure contro rischi che vanno oltre i contenuti illegali, tra cui vaghe minacce al “dibattito civile”, ai “processi elettorali” e alla “salute pubblica”. Spetta alla Commissione o alle autorità nazionali definire cosa potrebbero comportare tali minacce. È qui che ha iniziato a prendere forma il regime di censura di massa dell'UE.

L'obiettivo principale del DSA è combattere, ovvero sopprimere, la disinformazione online, non solo in Europa ma potenzialmente in tutto il mondo. Si inserisce in una tendenza più ampia dei governi occidentali e delle istituzioni delle Nazioni Unite che spingono per censurare le informazioni su Internet, perdendo gradualmente il controllo sui principali filoni narrativi.

Le piattaforme che violano la legge rischiano multe salate, fino al 6% del loro fatturato annuo globale. Pertanto è lecito supporre che pecchino di prudenza, cancellando contenuti che potrebbero essere considerati dannosi, anche quando sono del tutto legali. Inizia così la china scivolosa della censura sistemica online.

Come ha avvertito il giudice tedesco in pensione, Manfred Kölsch, in un editoriale sul Berliner Zeitung, il DSA non solo rappresenta una minaccia esistenziale alla libertà di parola in Europa, ma viola anche molte delle leggi dell'UE sulla libertà di espressione e di informazione:

Uno sguardo attento dietro la facciata dello stato di diritto rivela che il DSA mina consapevolmente il diritto alla libertà di espressione e di informazione garantito dall'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE, dall'articolo 10 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e dall'articolo 5 della Legge fondamentale (la Costituzione scritta della Germania, approvata dagli alleati nel 1949, quando fu istituito il primo governo del dopoguerra nella Germania occidentale).Il testo dell'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea recita quanto segue:

Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di espressione. Tale diritto include la libertà di opinione e la libertà di ricevere o comunicare informazioni e idee senza che vi possa essere ingerenza da parte delle autorità pubbliche e senza limiti di frontiera.Come avevamo anticipato nel 2023, è probabile che le ripercussioni del DSA si estendano ben oltre i confini dell'UE e potrebbero persino avere portata globale, proprio come il suo predecessore, il Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati (GDPR). Tali preoccupazioni sono state ribadite da un rapporto pubblicato a gennaio dalla Commissione Giustizia della Camera dei rappresentanti degli Stati Uniti, che ha definito il DSA una “minaccia di censura estera”:

[Il rapporto] include informazioni non pubbliche su come la Commissione europea e le autorità nazionali attuano le norme, tra cui informazioni riservate provenienti da workshop dell'UE, e-mail tra l'esecutivo dell'UE e le aziende, richieste di rimozione di contenuti in Francia, Germania e Polonia, e resoconti di riunioni della Commissione con le aziende nel settore tecnologico.

“Sulla carta il DSA è pessimo; nella pratica è anche peggio”, si legge nel rapporto.

“I censori europei” nella Commissione e nei Paesi dell'UE “prendono di mira i dibattiti politici che non sono né dannosi né illegali, tentando di soffocarli su temi come l'immigrazione e l'ambiente”. La loro censura è “in gran parte unilaterale” nei confronti dei conservatori.

Queste affermazioni sono supportate dalle recenti dichiarazioni del fondatore di Telegram, Pavel Durov, secondo cui all'inizio di quest'anno i funzionari dell'intelligence francese lo avrebbero contattato con la richiesta di censurare contenuti filo-conservatori in vista delle elezioni rumene del maggio 2025, una richiesta che lui afferma di aver rifiutato. Come scrive Le Monde, Durov non ha fornito alcuna prova a sostegno di queste affermazioni. Tuttavia, visti gli sforzi compiuti dall'UE per intromettersi nelle elezioni rumene, non si tratta certo di ipotesi inverosimili.

È interessante notare che le controversie diplomatiche sulla formulazione del DSA sono solo una delle numerose questioni che ostacolano l'accordo commerciale tra UE e Stati Uniti. Secondo il Financial Times, l'UE sta cercando di impedire agli Stati Uniti di prendere di mira le norme digitali dell'Unione, mentre le due parti si scontrano sui dettagli finali di una dichiarazione posticipata:

I funzionari dell'UE hanno affermato che i disaccordi sul linguaggio relativo alle “barriere non tariffarie” – che gli Stati Uniti hanno precedentemente affermato includere le norme digitali – sono tra le ragioni del ritardo nella dichiarazione congiunta.

Inizialmente era previsto pochi giorni dopo l'annuncio di un accordo commerciale da parte della Presidente della Commissione europea, Ursula von der Leyen, e del Presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump, avvenuto il 27 luglio in Scozia. Due funzionari dell'UE hanno affermato che gli Stati Uniti volevano lasciare la porta aperta a possibili concessioni sul Digital Services Act dell'Unione, che obbliga le Big Tech a controllare le proprie piattaforme in modo più aggressivo. La Commissione ha affermato che allentare quelle regole rappresenta una linea rossa.

Chat Control

Nel frattempo Bruxelles sta spingendo con forza su un altro fronte: il cosiddetto Regolamento per la prevenzione e la lotta contro gli abusi sessuali sui minori. Denominata legge “Chat control”, la proposta mira a frenare la diffusione di materiale pedopornografico (CSAM) online. Sebbene si tratti di un obiettivo lodevole, il modo in cui l'UE lo sta perseguendo non solo minaccia i diritti fondamentali e le tutele di tutti, ma rischia anche di trasformare Internet in un ambiente ancora più centralizzato e sorvegliato.

Nella sua forma attuale la legge sul controllo delle chat impone di fatto la scansione delle comunicazioni private, comprese quelle attualmente protette dalla crittografia end-to-end. Se entrerà in vigore, le piattaforme di messaggistica, tra cui WhatsApp, Signal e Telegram, saranno tenute a scansionare ogni messaggio, foto e video inviato dagli utenti, anche se crittografati, a partire da ottobre.

Come scrive il Brussels Signal, il meccanismo al centro della proposta si chiama scansione lato client e la presidenza semestrale a rotazione della Danimarca nel Consiglio dell'UE è determinata a portarla avanti: infatti la ripresentazione della legislazione sul controllo delle chat, proposta per la prima volta nel 2022, è stato il primissimo passo formale della presidenza dopo la sua assunzione delle funzioni a luglio:

Attraverso la scansione lato client, il contenuto viene analizzato sul dispositivo dell'utente prima della crittografia. Per il lettore meno esperto di tecnologia, questo significa aprire una backdoor permanente che aggira le garanzie di privacy di una comunicazione sicura. Sarebbe come far leggere le lettere dallo stato prima di sigillare la busta, e sottoporrebbe i messaggi privati ​​di ogni cittadino dell'UE a un controllo automatizzato. I lettori della Germania dell'Est potrebbero trovare familiari questi strumenti stasiani; la maggior parte non vorrebbe che tornassero di moda, né in Germania né altrove.

Purtroppo, invece di leggere le opinioni dei presenti e studiare versioni alternative e più blande della legislazione, (la prima ministra danese Mette) Frederiksen ha scelto di puntare ancora di più su questo grave errore politico e storico. Ben 19 Stati membri dell'UE ora sostengono la proposta. La Germania rimane per il momento non impegnata, ma probabilmente avrà un ruolo fondamentale. Infatti se Berlino si unisse al campo del “sì”, un voto a maggioranza qualificata – che richiede 15 Stati membri e che rappresentino il 65% della popolazione dell'UE – potrebbe portare all'approvazione della legge entro metà ottobre. La presidenza danese sta guidando questo processo attraverso i gruppi di lavoro del Consiglio, con l'obiettivo di definire le posizioni entro il 12 settembre 2025. L'unico passaggio che mancherebbe sarebbe il voto finale di ottobre.

Gli svantaggi del Chat Control dell'UE sono evidenti, osserva l'articolo di Brussels Signal, e dovrebbero essere sufficienti a indurre le nazioni europee a respingerlo, cosa che ovviamente non accadrà:

Una volta implementato, il sistema potrebbe estendersi oltre i contenuti pedopornografici (CSAM), praticamente a qualsiasi altro contenuto, come il dissenso politico – una preoccupazione sicuramente ragionevole, visto che in Gran Bretagna Starmer si sta impegnando a fondo per vietare le VPN, che al principale candidato presidenziale francese è stato impedito di candidarsi alle prossime elezioni, o che in Germania quasi 10.000 persone vengono incriminate ogni anno per aver condiviso online meme e barzellette “politicamente scorrette”. Infatti, mentre gli eurocrati cercano di spiare le vostre conversazioni online, Bruxelles sta anche spingendo per una moderazione aggressiva dei contenuti ai sensi del Digital Services Act.

Gli svantaggi sono quindi evidenti e dovrebbero di per sé spiegare perché questa legislazione dovrebbe essere respinta con fermezza dalle nazioni europee. E i vantaggi? Sono molto meno chiari. Un anno fa l'Europol ha osservato in un rapporto che i criminali più sofisticati utilizzano spesso piattaforme segrete e non regolamentate, rendendo la scansione di massa inefficace contro gli obiettivi designati e gravando i cittadini comuni con tutto il peso di un Leviatano repressivo. Piattaforme incentrate sulla riservatezza come Signal hanno minacciato di uscire dal mercato dell'UE piuttosto che adeguarsi. Dovrebbero farlo, ma ciò danneggerebbe l'economia digitale europea e spingerebbe gli utenti verso alternative meno sicure.

The EU's "Chat Control" proposal is horrifying. There's no way to implement this safely. It will destroy private communications online entirely.

If you're in the EU, please fight this. pic.twitter.com/VVQtdC6p6e

— Theo - t3.gg (@theo) August 11, 2025

L'esperienza del Regno Unito con le norme di verifica dell'età previste dall'Online Safety Act offre un assaggio di quanto caos possa essere generato dalle misure repressive governative sull'accesso e la libertà di parola online. Uno degli impatti più significativi finora è stata la proliferazione di soluzioni alternative, tra cui VPN e altri modi ingegnosi per aggirare i sistemi di verifica dell'età.

Come sta lentamente imparando il governo di Keir Starmer, cercare di limitare l'accesso delle persone a Internet è un gioco del tipo “colpisci la talpa” – e il governo inglese è destinato a perdere. Nel frattempo l'Online Safety Act ha scatenato una nuova ondata di disobbedienza civile di massa, in particolare tra i giovani utenti esperti di tecnologia.

This is what happens when Western authoritarians attempt to assert regulatory, centralised dominance with 'protect the children' ™

You cannot age verify & control the entire internet. https://t.co/63aIM29OjK

— STOPCOMMONPASS ???? (@org_scp) August 17, 2025

“Una lezione magistrale di conseguenze indesiderate”

Come sottolinea il Centre for European Policy Analysis, le conseguenze indesiderate stanno rapidamente aumentando:

Inviando i minori a navigare attraverso le VPN, la legge del Regno Unito potrebbe averli inavvertitamente esposti a spazi online più rischiosi e meno regolamentati. Molti servizi VPN gratuiti non sono affatto scudi per la privacy, ma strumenti di raccolta dati che vendono le informazioni degli utenti a operatori sconosciuti all'estero. Nel tentativo di bloccare i contenuti dannosi, i governi potrebbero spingere i minori verso angoli più oscuri e meno regolamentati di Internet.Le restrizioni hanno messo ulteriormente a dura prova il rapporto “speciale” del Regno Unito con gli Stati Uniti, determinati a proteggere gli interessi finanziari delle proprie aziende, aprendo al contempo un vaso di Pandora di complicazioni legali.

Byrne & Storm, P.C. (@ByrneStorm) and Coleman Law, P.C. (@RonColeman) represent 4Chan.

We issue this statement on behalf of our client in response to press reports indicating that the U.K. Office of Communications, aka @Ofcom, intends to fine our client. pic.twitter.com/SVjmzlyuKK

— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) August 15, 2025

Anche la BBC ha riferito che le piattaforme stanno intensificando la censura dei contenuti a seguito dell'Online Safety Act, in particolare su questioni delicate come la guerra in Medio Oriente e la guerra in Ucraina.

NEW: The BBC is now reporting that information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, UK rape gangs, and more is being censored online due to the government’s new Online “Safety” Act.

WELL DONE LADS ???? pic.twitter.com/DnSyAxd1wx

— Silkie Carlo (@silkiecarlo) August 1, 2025

Newsweek ha descritto l'Online Safety Act come “un esempio lampante di conseguenze indesiderate e di regolamentazione simbolica”:

Quando il primo ministro britannico Keir Starmer ha di recente dichiarato al presidente Donald Trump: “Abbiamo avuto libertà di parola per molto tempo, quindi, ehm, ne siamo molto orgogliosi”, ci si è chiesti: di cosa è esattamente orgoglioso?

Si riferisce alle 30 persone al giorno che il suo governo arresta per aver pubblicato contenuti “offensivi” online? O forse è orgoglioso del fatto che il suo governo abbia minacciato gli americani di accuse penali per il mancato rispetto dell'Online Safety Act?

E mentre l'Online Safety Act è stato istituito con il pretesto di proteggere i minori online, il governo inglese è anche inspiegabilmente coinvolto in un effetto Streisand, avendo annunciato di aver avviato un'indagine su quattro aziende che gestiscono 34 siti web pornografici. In sostanza, denunciando l'accaduto, l'autorità di regolamentazione ha indicato ai minori dove possono accedere a contenuti pornografici senza dover utilizzare la verifica dell'età [...].

Gli inglesi stanno reagendo con una petizione per abrogare la legge, la quale ha già raccolto oltre 450.000 firme. I legislatori americani farebbero bene a prestare attenzione ed evitare di commettere gli stessi errori. Possiamo proteggere i nostri figli senza sacrificare i principi fondamentali di un Internet libero e aperto.

Cavallo di Troia

Dall'entrata in vigore delle norme di verifica dell'età dell'Online Safety Act, “tutti gli utenti Internet del Regno Unito hanno accesso solo a una versione del web a prova di bambino, a meno che non siano disposti a sottoporsi a procedure di verifica dell'età invasive”, afferma Rebecca Vincent del gruppo per i diritti digitali Big Brother Watch. Oppure a ricorrere a soluzioni alternative.

Questo è un punto chiave: come abbiamo avvertito fin da novembre dello scorso anno, la verifica dell'età online è il cavallo di Troia per l'adozione di massa dei sistemi di identità digitale, che sono diventati silenziosamente una realtà legale nel marzo 2024.

Con l'entrata in vigore dell'Online Safety Act, tutti dovranno sottoporsi a un controllo online dei documenti per accedere ai social media e ad altri importanti servizi inter-utente, che il disegno di legge definisce servizi di Categoria 1. Anche le tecnologie di riconoscimento facciale vengono utilizzate, nonostante i loro innumerevoli difetti. Una volta che ci iscriveremo a questi processi di verifica, il nostro accesso ai contenuti sarà sempre più controllato avverte il giornalista Tim Hinchliffe, citando la spiegazione dello stesso Online Safety Act fornita dal governo britannico:

Gli utenti adulti di tali servizi [di Categoria 1] potranno verificare la propria identità e accedere a strumenti che consentiranno loro di ridurre la probabilità di visualizzare contenuti di utenti non verificati e di impedire a questi ultimi di interagire con i propri contenuti. Ciò contribuirà a impedire ai troll anonimi di contattarli.

La legislazione UE sul controllo delle chat presenta pericoli simili. Il sito web Fight Chat Control evidenzia sei potenziali rischi, intenzionali o meno:

• Sorveglianza di massa: “Ogni messaggio privato, foto e file viene scansionato automaticamente: non c'è bisogno di sospettare nulla, nessuna eccezione (a parte i politici dell'UE che pretendono la propria privacy), anche le comunicazioni criptate”.

• Violazione della crittografia: “Indebolire o violare la crittografia end-to-end espone le comunicazioni di tutti, compresi i dati sensibili finanziari, medici e privati, a hacker, criminali e attori ostili”.

• Diritti fondamentali: “Lede i diritti fondamentali alla privacy e alla protezione dei dati, garantiti dagli articoli 7 e 8 della Carta dei diritti dell’UE, diritti considerati fondamentali per i valori democratici europei”.

• Falsi positivi: “Gli scanner automatici identificano sistematicamente contenuti innocenti, come foto di vacanze o barzellette private, come illegali, esponendo le persone comuni al rischio di false accuse e indagini dannose”.

• Protezione inefficace dell'infanzia: “Gli esperti e le organizzazioni per la protezione dell'infanzia, tra cui le Nazioni Unite, avvertono che la sorveglianza di massa non riesce a prevenire gli abusi e, di fatto, rende i bambini meno sicuri, indebolendo la sicurezza di tutti e distogliendo risorse da misure di protezione comprovate”.

• Precedente globale: “Crea un pericoloso precedente globale che consente ai governi autoritari, citando le politiche dell'UE, di implementare una sorveglianza invasiva in patria, minando la privacy e la libertà di espressione in tutto il mondo”.

C'è poi un altro punto chiave, sollevato da Meredith Whitaker, amministratore delegato dell'app di messaggistica crittografata Signal, durante le discussioni sull'Online Safety Act del Regno Unito un paio di anni fa. La Whitaker aveva avvertito che l'implementazione dell'Online Safety Act da parte del Regno Unito sarebbe stata vista come un precedente dai regimi più repressivi, i quali avrebbero raddoppiato le proprie attività di sorveglianza e censura su Internet. Stando alle parole del Commissario per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, la tendenza è “senza precedenti” e “un cambiamento di paradigma”.

The Online Safety Act's age verification rules are just the tip of the iceberg. Far more alarming is clause 111, which mandates that platforms implement backdoors and spyware upon request, gutting end-to-end encryption and eviscerating privacy.@mer__edith, CEO at Signal,… https://t.co/SSY3vHsyPm pic.twitter.com/DNTx9Fd19d

— Henry Palmer (@HenryJPalmer) July 27, 2025

Questo spiega anche perché l'attuale direzione di marcia è così pericolosa: si sta verificando a livello mondiale.

The online safety act didn’t happen in the UK in isolation. Remember it’s not a coincidence.

The head of Ofcom, Melanie Dawes, is a key member of WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety, also pushing governments to censor anything labelled “misinformation” or “harm.”

The UK,… pic.twitter.com/IM9GE2U1pa

— Bernie (@Artemisfornow) July 30, 2025

Sebbene la protezione dei minori sia un comodo pretesto per rimodellare Internet, la vera motivazione alla base di normative come l'Online Safety Act e il Chat Control dell'UE è, beh, il controllo, non solo per i minori, ma per tutti. Come scrive Juliet Samuel sul Times di Londra, i funzionari del Regno Unito hanno persino ammesso in un recente caso presso l'Alta Corte “che [l'Online Safety Act] ‘non mira principalmente a [...] la protezione dei minori’, ma riguarda la regolamentazione di ‘servizi che hanno un'influenza significativa sul dibattito pubblico’, un'espressione che tradisce la filosofia politica alla base della legge stessa”.

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

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

There is significant infighting among the American right concerning the priorities of the Trump administration. Elected on an America First” platform, Trump’s conservative critics argue the administration is far too concerned with foreign policy in the Middle East and not concerned enough with domestic priorities. They attribute this to the outsized influence of Israel, achieved through the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Trump has responded in his usual manner. You bring a knife, I’ll bring an ICBM. He has called for Rep. Thomas Massie to be primaried and imbued Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene with the dreaded Trump nickname. “Marjorie Taylor Brown,” meaning the grass has turned rotten, as Trump helpfully explained.

But despite Trump’s efforts to isolate a few legislators, there is evidence of a significant divide among his base. “MIGA,” standing for Make Israel Great Again and such mockery of Trump’s key slogans have trended on social media.

It is true that AIPAC is highly influential, although it is not among the top ten lobbyists representing foreign governments. Firms representing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt outspend them. Still, when campaigning, American politicians don’t make it a point to express their devotion to the welfare of those countries as they do to the State of Israel. More importantly, the U.S. government hasn’t gone to war on behalf of any of those countries who spend more lobbying as it has for Israel.

Critics point to AIPAC and simply say “follow the money.” Not only do these politicians depend upon AIPAC’s support to get elected; they fear AIPAC’s wrath should their support for the foreign government waver.

But that alone does not explain AIPAC’s outsized influence. Politicians depend on contributions from all sorts of special interests. Why is this one so effective? Why does the Republican Party in particular seem almost fully controlled by this lobby?

For a tiny minority on the right, the answer is “the Jews,” in the same sense Hitler said, “the Jews.” They view people of Jewish descent as a global conspiracy to rule the world surreptitiously through control of financial institutions and behind the scenes political machinations. This fringe element made enough noise for AIPAC to label anyone who opposes pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy as antisemitic.

But as for the other 99.99% of critics of U.S. foreign policy, including prominent politicians and media like Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Megyn Kelly, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, antisemitism is not the explanation. In fact, some of those named have had to overcome a predisposition for U.S. government support for Israel to arrive at their current positions. Regardless, they make legitimate arguments for why Washington should not be involved in any foreign conflicts nor provide any foreign aid with over $38 trillion in debt and trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.

But still, none of these critics seem to acknowledge the reason AIPAC holds such sway with American politicians. They either feign or express genuine confusion as to why U.S. elected officials would prioritize a foreign country over their own. But there is no mystery here.

The reason AIPAC is so influential is not “the Jews,” but “the Christians,” meaning American Christians. Tens of millions of Christian U.S. citizens who turn out to vote at very high rates in U.S. Elections. It is the votes of these Christians and its ability to affect them that makes AIPAC powerful.

We’re not talking about all Christians, or even most, but rather a significant minority who believe not only that the “end times” as they call them are imminent, but that U.S. foreign policy will literally influence how those end times turn out. Based upon a novel and relatively recent understanding of the New Testament, this group of Christian Zionists believe, in short, that the U.S. government must support the modern state of Israel for the prophecies in the Book of Revelations to come true.

To most Christians, that seems crazy. I was raised Catholic in Western New York in a family that was deeply religious. I was an altar boy, and when older, a lector for my parish. Both my parents served on the parish council at different times. My mother was a Eucharistic minister and personally catered the pastor’s Christmas party after midnight mass each year, in addition to all sorts of other services she provided the parish. In addition to being both a lector and Eucharistic minister, my father also ran the religious instruction department for the parish.

I grew up immersed in Christianity. But the idea Israeli politics had anything to do with it was completely unknown to me or any Christian, Catholic or Protestant, that I knew. When our priests or ministers quoted the Bible, they quoted Jesus himself from the gospels, not the arcane prophecies of Revelations. We prayed for peace in the Holy Land the same way we prayed for peace in Ireland or Central America: because war is bad and Jesus said love your enemies. End of story.

Nobody ever told us the restoration of Israel in 1948 was step 47 on a 72-step Rapture checklist. Nobody I grew up with ever heard of the Scofield Bible. We were never taught Armageddon was a foreign-policy goal.

But walk into certain megachurches in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and many other “red states,” and you’ll see a different Christianity—one where the end-times clock started ticking the day David Ben-Gurion declared statehood. For these folks, every rocket fired at Tel Aviv is a fulfillment of prophecy. Every settlement bulldozer is another brick in the Third Temple. Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran can burn as long as the stage is properly set for the Jesus of Revelations, a war leader if the book is taken literally, to return.

That’s not hyperbole. That’s dispensational premillennialism, the theological fuel that powers CUFI, Christians United for Israel—ten million members strong, bigger than the NRA. John Hagee, their founder, has bragged that he can get 50,000 pastors on the phone in an afternoon. When he says jump, congressional staffers ask how high.

Now do the math. In 2024, six battleground states were decided by less than one percentage point. Christian Zionists turn out at 80-85%. They’re clustered in exactly the places Republicans call “safe” states: Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri – what used to be known as “the Bible Belt.” As much as 60%-70% of Republican voters in these states and many other red states qualify as Christian Zionists.

Republicans could not even win a Congressional seat in many of these states and certainly could not win a national election without the support of these Christians. If targeted by AIPAC for failure to support Israel, their political careers would be over and the U.S. could realistically become a one-party state.

The Democrats feel it too, just not as acutely. They can win without the Hagee crowd, but they can’t win while actively antagonizing them. That’s why the Biden administration defaulted to virtually unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza, despite widespread protests by the far left within its ranks.

Interestingly, the charge made by hardcore America First voices, that American politicians are representing a foreign country against the interests of their own, is not so cut and dried. These politicians are representing the wishes of their American constituents, in some states a majority of them, that firmly believe not supporting Israel may change what happens at the end of the world.

Until that theology changes, nothing else will. As long as tens of millions of American voters believe Genesis 15 is a binding real-estate contract signed by God Himself, the Israel lobby will have Washington on a leash.

Lest anyone point to all of this and start thinking there might be something to the arguments made by the antisemites, especially the dishonest smearing of people like Carlson and Massie for having opposing views, it is important to remember context. The U.S. government is the largest, most powerful government in the history of the world. Every nation on earth would like to get more financial aid from it and have the U.S. military fight its battles.

Every one of them would exploit the same religious beliefs and use the same ruthless tactics in achieving their goals as Israel does if they could. There is nothing distinctly Jewish about that. Politics is dirty, ruthless business. Most normal people would be appalled after spending a week with the political operatives of any party in any country.

So, what is the answer? Obviously, Christian Zionists have as much right to believe the things they do as anyone else. There are all sorts of beliefs held by Americans, religious and otherwise, that lead them to make terrible political decisions. The safeguard used to be the constitutional limits on federal government power that prevented nutty ideas from turning into something as serious as war.

The U.S. at one time did not go to war unless Congress declared it. And it wasn’t sufficient that Congress gave a vague “authorization to use military force” (AUMF). A declaration of war was always seen as the response to an act of war already committed by the enemy state.

Under that standard, WWII would have been the last war the United States fought. And as for foreign aid, it occurred from time to time before the 20th century, but Grover Cleveland vetoed as unconstitutional even emergency aid to Texas. Americans of the time would never have tolerated the kind of money spent abroad by Washington today, on Israel or any other foreign state.

Americans who want to end “wars for Israel” should seek to end the imperial presidency and worldwide standing army, and reimpose the limits on Congress spelled out in black and white in Article I Section 8 of their own Constitution. While that seems unlikely given our experience of the past century and a half, it is far more attainable than changing firmly held religious beliefs, whether mistaken or not.

This article was originally published on Tom Mullen Talks Freedom.

The post No One Talks About Why the Israel lobby Is so Influential appeared first on LewRockwell.

Financial Separation is the only answer short of Civil War.

Communist Cities and individuals are being funded by Federal Taxes collected from those who work, contrary to the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution. This is a standard but intolerable situation for those who work, especially MAGA. When the economy really tanks, or sooner, the productive workers will show their displeasure, likely with “extreme prejudice”, with using their tax money to fund those who won’t and don’t work.

Believe it or not, this problem is only possible because the income tax reversed the role (Economic Power) of the states and federal government. So the Income Tax is the root cause of the problem. Communism only exists until it runs out of other people’s money.

There are only two ways to solve the problem:

1. Terminate the income tax and transfer usurped functions back to states, or 2. Cancel federal payments to states and give states a major portion of the taxes collected in that state. This would allow the states to fund their Communist Cities, or not. Either plan would transfer Political responsibility and control of Communist cities and welfare to the state where the city is located. The Federal Government is too far removed from the problem. The only other option is to remove the Communist cities and/or states from the Union with a Civil War. If nothing is done, a Civil War will be the ultimate result anyway.

Under the present circumstances, it is impossible to operate under our Constitutional Republic. The Coup of 1913 was the start of our demise as a Constitutional Republic when the Income Tax, the Private Federal Reserve Bank, Senators appointed by big money, and Tax-Free Foundations went into effect.

Every Writer has the moral and ethical responsibility to tell people the truth about Zionist Israel and our shame for supporting their evil since their inception in 1948. The American people are finally learning the truth, but our politicians are owned by the Zionists and petrified of them. Until recently the Zionists, with certainty, could deny election, or punish anyone who opposed them. Israel is not an ally, it is an Evil Parasite. It has nothing to offer us for our military who died for them, or for our treasure that denied our people the American Dream. I don’t detest ordinary Jewish Citizens who add so much to our society and are not part of the Jewish lobby or Deep State.  The Zionist Genocide will result in the death of Israel.

If you want to know my recommendations in detail for a return of our Republic, read my November 11 article with the following title: Trump’s MAGA Programs Are Great, but His Policy of ‘Israel First and America Last’ Is Destroying the United States.

Most students of the Constitution know that a majority of the Federal Government does not follow the Constitution, and is by definition a Criminal Enterprise. I am a student of the Constitution, but I am no expert. When I need expert help, I turn to Publius Hulda, a most knowledgeable expert on the Constitution. The following is a direct quote from her. If you really want the details, follow her link below:

“That Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1, US Constitution, grants to Congress the authority to spend money on whatever THEY think is a good idea is a false interpretation which has been used to evade the constitutional limits on the fed gov’s power. The only lawful powers Congress has over the Country at large are the enumerated powers. James Madison explained this clause in Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras. You can take that to the Bank!”(end of quotation)

If you want a widely-accepted macro view of how government should operate for the maximum benefit of the people, you should read statements by Ron Paul.

Remember if we do everything right, but fail to deport illegal Invaders, our country is doomed. You can’t have 25-30 million illegals in your country who can’t speak English, have no education, bring in diseases, have no skills, and commit crimes. Trump is working on it, but it will take the Military using deadly force to counteract deadly force being used by illegals in insurrections.

The title to this paper is quite powerful and seminal, which is why I explained my assertions in some detail.

The post Enumerated Powers Forbids and Workers Object To Paying Taxes To Fund Communist Cities appeared first on LewRockwell.

Most people agree that fairness is an important normative ideal. It is not always clear what is meant by fairness, but many would argue that fairness demands equal treatment, at least when it comes to deriving the rules and laws by which society is governed. Although some anarchists believe there is no need for rules governing society, other than the defense of private property rights, many people support the classical liberal ideal of equality under the law. It may therefore be helpful to clarify what is meant by equality in this context.

The principle of equality is generally reflected in two main ideas. Formal equality is a standard by which everyone has the same rights. It is founded on the principle of due process and procedural justice in which like cases must be treated alike, and cases that are different must not be treated as if they were alike. Substantive equality is the converse principle. It means that cases that are otherwise alike must not be treated alike if the people concerned differ in their personal identity characteristics such as their race, sex, or religion. It also means that cases that are different must be treated as if they were alike, in order to equalize different people.

The principle of substantive equality, therefore, departs from the classical liberal ideal by shifting its focus from the objective elements of the case to the personal identity of the actors involved. For example, it holds that if two candidates achieve the same score, but one is white and the other is black, they should not be treated the same because black and white are fundamentally not the same. This notion that people of different races should not be treated the same, because they experience life differently, was the premise of the slogan “black lives matter.” Special treatment for blacks was said to be necessary to equalize them with whites. By the same token, if a white candidate achieves a higher score than a black candidate, substantive equality holds that they should be treated as if they had the same score.

The difference between formal and substantive equality is sometimes expressed as a difference between “opportunity” and “outcome.” But this is not quite accurate, because the concept of equal opportunity may itself be viewed as either formal or substantive. To due process advocates, equal opportunity is only compatible with formal equality if it is taken simply to mean that nobody is barred from participation in any activity. Anyone is free to show up to the starting point of a race, and may the fastest runner win. When they say that the opportunity to participate in a race should be “equal,” all they mean is that nobody should be barred from participation. This notion of “equal opportunity” overlaps with that of liberty, as it expresses the ideal that everyone must be at liberty to participate, should they wish. However, to supporters of substantive equality, equal opportunity requires that the opportunity to win a race must really and actually be equal. This does not merely express liberty to participate, but rather requires the equalization of starting points, or equalization of chances in life, among those who are differently situated. Proponents of substantive equal opportunities argue that if one runner has enjoyed the benefit of expensive training which others have been unable to afford, then all runners do not in fact have an equal opportunity to win the race—as they see it, the race is unfair from the outset even though everyone is at liberty to participate. They argue that everyone’s opportunities are not really equal due to the pre-existing disadvantage suffered by some. For example, Catherine Barnard and Bob Hepple, in their article “Substantive Equality,” view “social disadvantage” as a factor that may prevent opportunities from being equal. Those who inhabit the underworld do not have an “equal opportunity” to find a job as those who are well connected. Those who have an attractive appearance do not have an equal opportunity with those of unfortunate appearance. Barnard and Hepple explain:

The procedural view of equal opportunities involves the removal of obstacles or barriers, such as word-of-mouth recruitment or non-job-related selection criteria. This opens up more opportunities but does “not guarantee that more women or minorities will in fact be in a position to take advantage of those opportunities” because their capacities have been limited by the effects of social disadvantage. A more substantive approach to equality of opportunity would require a range of other special measures, usually referred to as “positive action”, to compensate for disadvantages.

Many rationales have been given for substantive equality, one of which is that it reflects modern democratic values. In the age of identity politics, it is said that people’s identity matters, and that, therefore, the democratically-ordained priority is to identify everyone’s race, sex, or religion, in order to determine if they have been fairly and equally treated. The blind justice of the classical liberal ideal, in which justice does not take identity into account, is said to be outmoded, in that it fails sufficiently to recognize “the dignity, autonomy and worth of every individual” as Barnard and Hepple put it. Supporters of this view insist that it is essential to everyone’s self-worth that they should “feel seen,” and if others enjoy more visibility or recognition than they do, or if some feel excluded or ignored, they view this as a failure to ensure substantive equality.

A second rationale is linked to raising the standards of substantive good treatment. The argument is that even if everyone is treated equally, that does not guarantee that they are being treated well. Treating men and women equally badly may satisfy the demands of formal equality as they have been treated the same, but substantive equality would require identifying those in society who are well-treated and equalizing everyone upwards to meet that higher standard. In this way it is supposed that the substantive well-being of all will be meaningfully enhanced. As Barnard and Hepple explain,

So there is no violation of the [formal equality] principle if an employer treats white and black equally badly, or sexually harasses both men and women to the same extent. A claim to equal treatment can be satisfied by depriving both the persons compared of a particular benefit (levelling down) as well as by conferring the benefit on them both (levelling up) [footnotes excluded].

The political concept of “equity” is another form of substantive equality, one that has been carried the furthest in the endless drive to achieve the equality of humanity. Equity seeks the procrustean uniformity of communism, by focusing not only on personal identity but also on ensuring equal outcomes among all members of society—by resort to violence if necessary. Yet the equality it seeks to achieve is a sham, as Thomas Sowell argues in his book Intellectuals and Race:

Many people who advocate what they think of as equality promote what is in fact make-believe “equality.” In economic terms, taking what others have produced and giving it to those who have not produced as much (or at all, in some cases) is make-believe equality.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post The Difference between Formal and Substantive Equality appeared first on LewRockwell.

Looking at the above title, the reader may conclude that he has begun to read an article that he might better save until he has a holiday weekend in which to read it. And there can be no doubt that volumes could be written describing the Fed and its inner-workings. For readers who do seek a comprehensive description of the Fed, I can recommend no source more highly than The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

However, the purpose of this article is to describe as simply as possible what the function of the Fed is. As Mr. Griffin himself points out, the central function of the Fed is remarkably simple. Whilst the Fed is cloaked in mystery, its central purpose is not complex. However, even when boiled down to the simplest of descriptions, it is still confusing.

Why should this be? The answer is that it is intended to be confusing. The Fed was created, over one hundred years ago, in secrecy, and slipped into being under questionable circumstances. If its function were to be clear to the public, it would rightly be regarded as no more than what it is – the scam of the century.

The principle purpose of the Federal Reserve is to create debt and, at the same time, to monetise that debt. As simplistic as this statement is, it would not be surprising for any capitalistic businessperson, when reading it, to reply, “Say, what?” This would be understandable, as the statement does not resemble conventional monetary or business thinking.

Here is as brief a description of how the Fed’s function is implemented as I can put into words:

• The government issues bonds which are for sale to the public. Some may not be bought by the public. Then the Fed steps in.
• The Fed purchases all the government bonds that have not been purchased by the public. It pays the government with a cheque (not with precious metals, or even paper currency notes). This cheque in not backed by anything.
• The Fed then categorises the government bonds as “reserves.” (Remember, there are no actual dollars held in reserve, only bonds. Are you confused yet? If so, you’re in good company.)

And that’s it. Essentially, the government sells the Fed bonds and, in return, receives payment that is backed by nothing. The benefit to the Government is that it has an opportunity to gain unlimited funding, allowing it to take on unlimited expenses. The benefit to the Fed is that it may loan unlimited sums of money, backed by nothing, at interest, to banking institutions.

Of course, if you were to conduct an activity of this sort, you would be imprisoned as a scam artist and rightly so.

In considering the above description, it is easy to see why the financiers who came up with the concept of the Federal Reserve chose to cloud its purpose. It is also easy to see why they chose to call the institution the “Federal Reserve,” even though it is neither a federal agency, nor is it a reserve. Their goal was to imply a level of credibility that was undeserved.

What’s in it for the Fed

But, why on earth would anyone create such a charade? Well, from the point of view of the financiers who created it, it is a banker’s dream. Imagine, beginning with no money of any kind, writing a cheque backed by nothing and receiving bonds that may be regarded as reserves. Add to this the ability to lend out fiat currency to banks at interest. In a very short time, you would not only potentially control the financial industry, you would also control decisions made by the government, as it could not function to extreme excess without you.

What’s in it for the Government

Governments, historically, rely on taxation to provide them with money to operate. They do their damnedest to increase taxation over time, but, no matter how much tax they burden their people with, it is never enough to fulfil the desires of any government. They invariably want more money to spend. The creation of debt and the monetisation of that debt allows them to spend unlimited amounts of money. The fly in the ointment is that the increase in money is inflation, and, since the creation of the Fed in 1913, the dollar has lost over 97% of its purchasing power.

If the creation of fiat currency is gradual, the system can generally sustain the increase. However, the more dramatic the increase, the more likely the system will collapse under its own weight. The US government, along with many other governments in the world, have, increasingly, made ever-greater promises for entitlements and benefits to voters, and the money to pay for these entitlements and benefits must come from somewhere. For a time, the government may borrow against the future (for example, using Social Security receipts for other purposes), but sooner or later, the odiferous effluvia hits the fan.

That time is very soon, and, unfortunately, the people of the US (and other affected countries) are the fan.

What’s in it for the Citizenry

Before we get too cynical here (or have we already?), as long as the process of monetisation is gradual and controlled, there are benefits for some of the public. After all, the entitlements and benefits that have been received by the populations of many countries could never have been paid for through taxation alone. There are quite a few people out there who could never have received their flat-screen TV, had it not been for government largesse.

There are, therefore, some very real benefits, and it must be said that many of them can even be long-term. In fact, a large number of people were born since 1913 and died of old age, who have escaped the economic calamity that looms in the very near future. However, the benefits that they may have received really represent a “redistribution of wealth.”

If we were speaking instead of free-market capitalism, we would have to state that, over the long haul, the effect of the Fed has been to provide extreme wealth and power to a few clever fellows and some goodies for those who did not work for them, but also, ultimately, to degrade the free-market system to the point of near-collapse.

What remains to be seen is, if there is a collapse in the American monetary system, whether those who are behind the Fed can manage its continuance. If they can maintain the present confusion as to its real purpose, they just may succeed.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Understanding the Federal Reserve appeared first on LewRockwell.

Over the next two years Ukraine plans to spend some €140 billion ($162b) it does not have to continue its war with Russia. There is serious doubt that the European Union, which has already shuffled €180 billion ($216b) to Ukraine, will be able to pay even a fraction of that.

Despite Ukraine’s lack of money it acting president Vladimir Zelenski is announcing deals to procure expensive military aircraft at an unprecedented scale.

In late October he went to Sweden to buy JAS 39 Gripen-E multi-role fighter jets build by Saab:

Ukraine could get 150 advanced Swedish fighter jets under just-signed deal – CNN, Oct 23 2025

New NATO member Sweden has said it is willing to sell Ukraine up to 150 of its most advanced fighter jets, the first offer from a member of the alliance to supply significant numbers of jets to Kyiv, which is seeking to upgrade its small and ageing air force.

The deal signed on Wednesday by Volodymyr Zelensky and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is a letter of understanding, meaning exact terms, costs and delivery dates for 100 to 150 Saab Gripen-E jets are yet to be determined.

But both leaders said it has the potential to be a game changer, not only for Ukraine – which desperately needs more air combat capabilities in its fight against Russia – but for NATO and European security overall.

The planes ain’t cheap:

[T]he most recent known deal was Thailand’s late-August 2025 contract for four additional Gripens (three single-seat Gripen E and one twin-seat Gripen F). The announced fixed price was about 5.3 billion Swedish kronor — approximately $553 million, or $138.25 million per aircraft.

However, Thailand is already an existing Gripen operator and therefore did not need to purchase additional ground equipment, spare parts, or other infrastructure. For comparison, Peru, which has also expressed interest in the Swedish fighter, estimates the cost at around $145.8 million per aircraft.

It should also be noted that these figures do not include weapons, which must be purchased separately.

The total price tag for the fighter jets is more than $20+ billion. The price is likely to increase because it will take many years to build the planes:

Even for Sweden’s own Air Force, Saab plans to complete its 60-aircraft order only by 2030.

Currently, Saab’s production facilities in Linköping can manufacture about 12 aircraft per year. However, the company aims to significantly increase this rate through localization in other countries.

Not even a month later Zelenski visits France to buy the even more expensive Rafale jets:

Ukraine to buy ‘up to 100’ French fighter jets, Elysee Palace announces – CNN, Nov 17 2025

Ukraine will purchase “up to 100” French-made Rafale fighter jets as well as anti-air defenses and drones from France, the Elysee Palace confirmed, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Paris on Monday.
…
The Elysee Palace said that the purchases covered by the letter of intent would span the next 10 years.

The real price for Rafale jets is not known but it has two engines while the Gripen-E is a one engine plane. Rafale is said to be the second most expensive jet fighter flying in western air forces.

When those just ordered planes would arrive is also not known. The capacity to build them is already sold out for the next five years:

The French aviation firm behind the Rafale, Dassault, is looking to boost its production output to four fighter jets per month and the company said it has 233 jets still on order, as of October 7.

The agreement signed Monday is merely a letter of intent, still a way off a concrete purchase, spurring questions as to how Ukraine will pay for the French jets when Ukraine signed a letter of understanding for 100-150 Swedish-made Gripen jets in October.

I wonder about the strategy behind announcing deals that involve such large sums of money Ukraine does not have for planes that will not even be build during the next five years.

What impression does this give to citizens in Europe who get asked to take on more debt for financing the war in Ukraine:

EU leaders agreed last month to meet Ukraine’s “pressing financial needs” for the next two years but stopped short of endorsing a plan to use frozen Russian assets to fund a giant loan to Kyiv, due to concerns raised by Belgium.

Leaders from all EU countries except Hungary asked the Commission to come up with options for financially supporting Ukraine.

“We have identified three main options, i.e. support to be financed by Member States via grants, a limited recourse loan funded by the Union borrowing on the financial markets, or a limited recourse loan linked to the cash balances of immobilised assets,” von der Leyen said in the letter, seen by Reuters.

There are of course more options than continuing to finance the war. But v.d. Leyen rejects to even identify those.

The mentioning of ‘limited recourse‘ by vdL a word game hiding the fact that Ukraine will never repay any loans:

Limited recourse debt is a type of debt that gives the creditor a claim on some but not all of a borrower’s assets if they default on a loan. It sits between full recourse debt and non-recourse debt in terms of the creditor’s ability to seize any of the borrower’s assets beyond the collateral backing the loan.

It is obvious that Ukraine will never be able to pay back such large sums of money. What assets is Ukraine offering as collateral to back up a limited recourse loan? I haven’t heard anyone else mentioning those.

I am very interested to hear v.d. Leyen’s response to that question.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine Is Buying Fighter Jets With Money It Does Not Have? appeared first on LewRockwell.

There are no easy fights in the struggle against the empire. Lots of losses and no clean wins.

You spend years protesting the genocide in Gaza, and you get a fake, shitty “ceasefire” deal that’s just designed to shut you up while Israel continues creating hell for the Palestinians and carving off more pieces of their territory.

Humanity manages to avoid nuclear conflict at the most dangerous points of the Ukraine war, but the country continues getting torn apart for years in an idiotic bloodbath that could have been easily avoided with a little diplomacy and common sense.

Assange gets free, but only after he agrees to plead guilty to doing journalism, and only after years of cruel treatment have made an example of him for all the world to see.

Public trust in the mainstream media finally gets obliterated, only for the imperial perception managers to come up with Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation and plutocrat-owned AI chatbots to retain control of the narrative.

The capitalists get everything they want, and succeed in advancing any ecocidal, dystopian agenda of their choosing so long as it generates profits or bolsters the imperial power structure.

Republicans win and they still act like underdog victims. Democrats win and they act like Republicans. Meanwhile any real political opposition which starts getting its legs underneath it gets stomped into the dirt in its infancy.

Your heroes let you down. Your allies die. The geopolitical developments you hope to see never quite pan out. Whenever there’s a moment of relative calm the dissident factions get restless and start cannibalizing themselves with counterproductive infighting and lateral-punching.

And the treads of the imperial juggernaut keep rolling forward.

Some days it makes you feel like a crippled child throwing a rock at a tank.

There are no easy fights. No wins by first-round knockout. At best it’s a grinding slog from bell to bell where you’re spitting out blood between rounds and sucking wind through your gum shield with broken ribs and a busted nose.

But you fight on anyway.

Not because you enjoy it. Not because you’re good at it. Not because you feel like you’re going to win. You keep biting down on your mouthguard and throwing hands for no other reason than because that’s all you can do.

These freaks are killing our planet. They’re committing genocide. They’re waving armageddon weapons around like cocks and playing chicken with the lives of every terrestrial organism. They’re driving us further and further into a tyrannical mind-controlled dystopia while doing everything they can to choke off our artistic brilliance and poison all the best things about our species.

You fight them because what the hell else are you going to do? Even if the treads of the machine are going to roll over us all in the end, at least you’ll go down knowing you left it all in the ring.

So you fight on. You give it everything you’ve got, even when it feels like you’re throwing haymakers at a mountain. You eat some leather, you spit out a tooth, and you return fire.

Because there’s nothing else you can do.

And there’s nothing that matters more.

__________________

Check out my new book, Faces Of The Empire: The Battle For Humanity’s Soul.

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post There Are No Easy Fights in the Struggle Against the Empire appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last night President Trump stated on his Truth Social account that he is reversing course in the matter of the Epstein files and now supports their full release.

Lately I’ve been wondering if the hypothesis that Epstein’s primary weapon was the use of underage girls may, to some extent, be a red herring.

While underage girls were likely a part of some of his operations, I imagine a scenario in which Epstein (or his masters) also used the representation that underage girls were present at social gatherings to amplify the force of their blackmail operation. Epstein could have insinuated that underage girls were present and used it as a pretext for “letting attendees know”—months or even years later—that law enforcement had started asking questions.

Epstein could have said something to the effect of, “Don’t worry, I’ve got you covered and I’ll keep you posted.” This sort of operation may be characterized as primarily psychological in nature—a way of instilling fear, paranoia, and compliance.

Psychological terror would be further amplified once the word got out that Epstein had installed hidden video cameras in the various rooms of his various properties. At that point, the guys who attended his events would find themselves in a Catch-22. Those who were confident they had not broken any laws would want to exculpate themselves by proclaiming, “I don’t care if the files are released—I have nothing to hide.”

The trouble is that—though they may have nothing illegal to hide—the disclosure of the documents and images could nevertheless prove to be extremely embarrassing for them.

As Machiavelli pointed out in his 1513 pamphlet, The Prince (published in 1532) rulers must only present themselves to the people they rule in a formal, ceremonious way that maximizes their mystique.

Once the ruler is shown to be an ordinary mortal with ordinary vices, his mystique is lost, and the plebeians will cease to perceive him as having any real power.

This is why the British Royal Family is now widely regarded as an embarrassing joke. Once the males in the family are perceived to be ordinary weak men with ordinary weak men’s vices, they are done for.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the final cache of Epstein files does not reveal anything illegal, but turns out to be merely cringeworthy in the extreme.

If my hypothesis proves to be correct, the great lords of this world will be exposed not so much as pedophiles, but as weak (and debased) flesh no different from us, apart from their vast wealth and privilege. At that point the plebeians will marvel that the great lords of this earth are a bunch of self-indulgent and immoral clowns.

In reviewing the personal conflict between Gaius Octavius (who later became Emperor Augustus) and Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony), historians have pointed out that Octavian had the advantage of personal discipline, while Antony was too given to sensuality to maintain his power.

In Rome it was claimed that Antony had been ruined by the “harlot queen” (meretrix regina) Cleopatra, while Octavian always stayed true to the Stoic principles he’d learned from his tutors, the philosophers Athenodorus Cananites and Arius Didymus.

IF the Epstein files are ultimately disclosed in their entirety, the upshot may be that the powerful men of disciplined habits will survive the scandal, while those given to sensuality and self-indulgence will lose their mystique and therefore their power.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Trump Now Says He Supports Release of Epstein Files appeared first on LewRockwell.

All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the enormous generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.

This year’s anniversary of 9/11 passed without mainstream mention. Almost two-and-a-half decades on, the media appears to have lost all interest in that fateful, world-changing day. This is despite the April 2023 release of a bombshell court filing by the Office of Military Commissions, which concluded at least two of the alleged hijackers were CIA assets, having been recruited “via a liaison relationship” with Saudi intelligence. The same document offers illuminating insight into how the 9/11 Commission buried this, among other inconvenient truths.

Central to the coverup was Commission chief Philip Zelikow. Commission investigator Dana Leseman, dubbed “CS-2” in the filing, told representatives of the Office of Military Commissions – the legal body overseeing the prosecution of 9/11 defendants – Zelikow consistently sought “to blunt” inquiries “into Saudi involvement with the hijackers.” Leseman was formally charged with investigating “the possible link” between Riyadh and the 9/11 attacks, but Zelikow was determined she would not succeed.

His wrecking efforts included blocking Leseman’s requests to conduct interviews with certain individuals of interest, and obtain documents that could shed light on Riyadh’s foreknowledge of, if not active participation in, 9/11 – and the CIA’s by extension. More widely, Zelikow had exclusive control over who the Commission did and did not interview, and on what topics, strictly limiting which witnesses were grilled, and the evidence heard.

Leseman was fired by Zelikow in April 2003, after obtaining a classified index to the House and Senate’s joint inquiry into 9/11, “from a source other than official channels.” The index listed sensitive documents possessed by the FBI and other US government agencies, detailing “suspected Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.” While “a minor security violation”, Zelikow summarily terminated Leseman and seized the index. News of her defenestration didn’t leak at the time. No other staffer was permitted to view the document thereafter.

Elsewhere in the filing, Bill Clinton’s counter-terror czar Richard Clarke, who has long-charged the CIA had a relationship with some of the alleged hijackers, told investigators Zelikow was explicitly selected by George W Bush’s National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice “to prevent damage to the Bush Administration by blocking the Commission’s line of inquiry into the Saudi connection.”

Clarke further asserted his belief the Saudi-led effort to penetrate Al Qaeda “may have [been] organized by high level employees at the CIA,” and “most of the records” of the top-secret mission “were destroyed in an effort to cover up the operation.” Tellingly, Clarke relayed how after he expressed his opinion the CIA “was running a ‘false flag’ operation to recruit the hijackers” publicly, “he received an ‘angry call’ from George Tenet,” CIA Director during 9/11. Despite his wrath, Tenet “did not deny the allegation.”

‘Act Preemptively’

Philip Zelikow’s appointment to head the 9/11 Commission was the culmination of the body’s thoroughly troubled gestation. Initially, the Bush administration vehemently rejected mass public demand for any official investigation into the attacks. It was not until November 2002 the Commission was begrudgingly established at long last. Its initial chief, Henry Kissinger, resigned within mere weeks due to conflicts of interest. This included awkward questions over whether he counted any Saudi Arabians – particularly individuals with the surname bin Laden – as clients.

Zelikow had a panoply of conflicts of interest of his own, some of which were well-established at the time. Others only emerged when the Commission was underway. For one, he enjoyed a long-running relationship with Condoleezza Rice, and was part of George W Bush’s transition team, overseeing the new administration’s National Security Council taking office. This process led to the White House’s Counterterrorism Security Group being downgraded, and its chief Richard Clarke demoted, creating layers of bureaucracy between him and senior government officials.

A secret report produced by Clarke’s team in January 2000 concluded US intelligence was ill-equipped to respond to a major, ever-growing domestic terror threat. It outlined 18 recommendations, with 16 accompanying funding proposals, to “seriously weaken” Al Qaeda. Its findings were ignored by the Bush administration. Numerous memos authored subsequently by Clarke, urgently requesting high-level meetings to discuss Al Qaeda and outline strategies for combating the group at home and abroad, were similarly disregarded.

Meanwhile, in September 2002, the Bush administration submitted a 31-page document, The National Security Strategy of the United States, to Congress. It set out a very clear blueprint for the looming War On Terror, calling for a massive buildup in US military spending, and Washington to “act preemptively” against “rogue states”, such as Iraq. While it bore the President’s signature, the incendiary document was secretly written by none other than Zelikow.

His authorship only became known by the Commission when the investigation was almost over, prompting several key staffers and a commissioner to threaten to quit. The body’s chiefs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton were apparently unaware when Zelikow was appointed. The pair subsequently charged the Commission was set up to fail. Its investigations got off to a glacial start, in part due to funding issues. The Commission was initially given a paltry $3 million dollars to complete its work.

By contrast, a concurrent probe of the space shuttle Columbia’s crash, in which just seven people died, was granted $50 million. In March 2003, due to repeated demands from its staffers, the Commission was allocated a further $9 million – $2 million less than requested. Despite these grave teething problems, that same month – three months into the 16-month-long probe, and before a single hearing had even been convened – Zelikow produced a complete outline of the Commission’s final report.

The finished article, released in July 2004, followed Zelikow’s preordained design very closely. In the intervening time, he personally rewrote several statements submitted by staffers, which informed the report’s findings. In one instance, he amended a statement to strongly insinuate, without making the direct accusation, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a relationship of some kind, horrifying its authors. This false claim was frequently peddled by White House officials to justify the criminal 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

Read the Whole Article

The post Court Filing Exposes 9/11 Coverup appeared first on LewRockwell.

Nima and I discuss these issues.  We do not discuss whether Epstein was murdered, which is the question at the heart of the matter.  If he was murdered,  why?  Was Epstein murdered because he threatened to reveal that he was running a blackmail operation, not a sex-trafficking operation?  Was he murdered because he had the dirt on too many elite Americans?  Did the CIA have him murdered as revenge for Israel’s spying on the US?

The circumstances suggest that he was murdered.  A high profile prisoner, he was in a suicide-proof cell watched by two guards and by security cameras.  For the brief period during which he died, the guards happened to wander off the job.  The security cameras malfunctioned or were turned off.  In other words, not just part of security failed.  All of it did.

There is no evidence of suicide.  There is only assertion by authorities.  How often do authorities tell the truth?  President John F. Kennedy’s assassination?  His brother, Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination?  9/11?, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction?  Assad’s use of  chemical weapons?  The lies about Gaddafi?  The examples of authorities saying the opposite of the truth are endless.

If Epstein was running an Israeli blackmail operation to ensure American conformity with Israel’s policy of expansion in the Middle East, it is unlikely any youths below the age of sexual consent were present involuntary.  Israel would hire young women rather than  jeopardize an important operation by kidnapping underaged girls and holding them in sexual bondage, which could lead to an investigation.  Moreover, whether or not 17-year old Virginia Guthrie was underaged depends on her state of residency.  In the 50 US states the age varies from 16 to 18 years old.  In 31 of the 50 states the age of consent is 16.  In eight of the states the age of consent is 17.  In eleven of the states the age of consent is 18.

The age of sexual consent is arbitrary.  In 1871 Delaware lowered  the age of female sexual consent from 10 to 7 years old.  In the rest of the US at that time the age was 10 to 12 years old.  Today in some South American and African countries the age of female consent is 12.  In Austria it is 14. In France, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Greece, Denmark and Iceland, the age of consent is 15. In the rest of Europe the age of consent is 16 or 17.  In China the age of consent is 14.  In Japan the age was recently raised from 13 to 16.  In many Muslim countries sexual intercourse outside of marriage is prohibited.  In Iran males can marry at 15 and girls at 13.

In the US the age of consent was raised partly to reduce teenage pregnancy.  Today this problem is combated by mothers having 12-year old daughters on birth control pills.  Moreover, whether or not sex with an underaged female is a criminal offense depends on the age of the male.  As long as the male is not 21, the arbitrary age of adulthood, it is not a criminal offense.

Consider the paradox, an 18 year old American, a non-adult, cannot purchase alcohol or a gun, but can be sent as a soldier to kill and die abroad.  This shows how arbitrary the age definitions are.

The narrative that Epstein was running a sex trafficking operation for pedophiles appeals to MAGA-Americans who see the elite as a corrupt class.  As many MAGA-Americans are Christian Zionists, they don’t want to hear that Israel was entrapping Americans for blackmail purposes. Male-hating feminists also prefer the sex-trafficking narrative as it lays the blame on men.  Emotions and indoctrination predispose much of the public to see the Epstein saga as an underage sex-trafficking business.  This predisposition protects Israel by dismissing a blackmail operation as anti-semitism and a conspiracy theory.

The question is whether there are sufficient Americans free of indoctrination and brainwashing who are capable of rational analysis instead of emotional responses to ever reach the truth about anything.  If a person reads comment sections on articles and podcasts that are posted, he sees a lot of emotion and little thought.  A person also discovers that people follow websites, podcasts and social media that support what they already believe.  There are not many whose beliefs are based on objective analysis of facts.  Indeed, what the actual facts are is becoming harder to ascertain.  How likely is it that a majority can arrive at the truth of any issue?

Watch interview here.

The post Is Trump Killing His Movement and Was Epstein Running a Mossad Blackmail Operation? appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you really want to counter the chaos grifters of the political left in the US, then you have to be willing to offer a coherent and consistent plan which dissolves the chaos they thrive on. Planning eases instability. Consistency defeats confusion. Clarity squashes disorder. The public needs to see a comprehensive list of standards, actions and goals and they don’t like it when their leaders suddenly derail the train.

When it comes to economics, vision is meaningless. Every idiot out there has an economic “vision”, very few people have any idea how to get from Point A to Point Z.

To be clear, Trump has limited political capacity to change the economy for the better. He has three years left on his second term and the fiscal problems he’s dealing with were created through decades of government and central bank mismanagement (or deliberate sabotage).

Even if Trump had two more terms it would be difficult, and I’m setting aside the fact that the political left DOES NOT WANT the economy to be fixed and will do everything in their power to keep instability in place. Why? Because the worse things get the greater their election chances in 2026 and 2028. And, the more the system breaks the easier it is to convince the public that socialism is the ultimate solution.

To bring our nation back to legitimate self reliance would require a total reformation of our society and the removal of the political left (including globalists) from the equation. Part of this long term reformation demands a reversal of open borders ideology and multiculturalism, which has ravaged the west. Migrants view our economy as a “global commons”, a wealth pool they are all entitled to access. They don’t see it is a privilege, they see it as a “right”.

This is something that Trump does have the capacity to fix in the three years he has left in office, but he has a tendency to get sidetracked by minutia and bad advice.

I have been warning since before Trump was re-elected that the economy was going to be his Achilles Heal. From past examples it seems that Trump delegates a lot of his policy ideas to advisers and among these advisers (he has dozens of them, official and unofficial) there are always people who give him suicidal arguments and terrible talking points.

His lack of concrete planning for economic repair is putting conservatives on edge and handing immense social influence over to Democrats and woke activists. All they have to do is point at the lack of a clear strategy and suggest that they can do better (they can’t, but it won’t matter to voters living paycheck to paycheck).

Trump has done some things right. His tariff policies are absolutely necessary to counter the wealth gap created by corporate globalism. The US has been turned into a consumer nation that continuously takes on debt in order to create ever depreciating wealth. That wealth is then siphoned from the public by international conglomerates, banks and foreign interests. We are being slowly drained of our lifeblood by a nest of vampires.

Tariffs are one of the few measures at Trump’s disposal to unilaterally stop the bleeding and force corporations to bring the wealth and jobs back to the US. This is done through new domestic manufacturing and the end of general outsourcing using third world labor. Globalism is NOT the free market, it is the opposite. It is forced interdependency of nations and economies to the benefit of a tiny handful of ultra-wealthy elites.

The tariff fight is direct and Trump’s reasons are evident. The average Joe wants more American jobs with higher salaries for the middle class instead of wallowing in low-wage retail and service sector hell. But Trump can’t say he’s fighting for this end result through tariffs and then turn around and let an army of migrants take middle class jobs.

The President stumbled into multiple forehead slapping blunders this past week. He called for 600,000 Chinese students to prop up US colleges. He called for 50-year mortgages to offset plunging home ownership, and he argued that America doesn’t have the talent pool to fill jobs taken by H1B foreigners.

I’ll focus on his flip-flop over H1B visas because it’s an obvious example of Trump trusting biased advisers when he should be following his campaign policies (The foreign student issue requires a separate article. The 50 year mortgage idea feels lazy and pro-banker, but no one is forced to take on a long term mortgage).

The H1B issue reveals Trump’s great weakness: He doesn’t have a clear economic plan with rules and goals – Making him easily changeable and vulnerable to outside influence. He’s playing the situation by ear. That might work for some problems, but not for a financial system weakened by stagflation and mass immigration. I am, of course, also operating on the assumption that Trump WANTS to fix the economy and doesn’t want to be blamed for its downfall.

There are approximately 730,000 foreign workers operating in the US today on H1B visas. Most of these workers come from third-world economies, 70% of them come from India. I’ve written about this in the past, but there is a hidden dynamic in play when it comes to third world countries and remittances.

Remittances are cash transfers from illegal migrants and visa holders back to their home countries. These transfers represent a massive dollar-based wealth transfer to certain nations. India is the largest recipient of remittances from the US (Mexico is the second largest). Over $129 billion is transferred from foreign workers into India every year.

To put this in perspective, this is nearly three times the amount that India spends annually on public welfare programs. It’s also almost twice the amount of the dollar value in goods that India exports to US markets. That is to say, remittances are far more important for cash flowing into India’s economy than manufacturing and agricultural exports to US consumers.

It is possible that in order to cut deals with India on tariffs Trump is compelled to back off of his opposition to H1B. That said, I think that more pressure is coming from his associates at home than political leaders in India.

Trump’s recent argument is, essentially, that America isn’t able to function without H1B workers and that Americans are not able to fill the jobs that these migrant do. This is utter nonsense.

There are advisers from the corporate sector that are keen to keep the caravan of cheap labor marching forward (Elon Musk has not hidden his views on this, though I think he wrongly downplays the wage factor). Then, there are also Indian-American conservative politicians and academics like Vivek Ramaswamy and Dinesh D’Souza who make rather impassioned declarations about American workers who are not up to snuff.

Even conservatives with migrant backgrounds often don’t view America as a culture they need to adapt to and support, they view it as an economic zone for their countrymen to freely access and exploit. This is their definition of the “American Dream”, and this is why immigration is a problem. Illegal immigration certainly, but H1B is also a concern. These people are quick to trash on Americans as “too uneducated” or “too lazy” to take on certain jobs.

First and foremost, H1B holders are not working integral jobs. The vast majority (65%) work in IT and software development, largely for Silicon Valley. Only 9% are architects and engineers and 1% are doctors. These are not key workers keeping America afloat with their skills, though they might be keeping Silicon Valley companies afloat with their cheap labor.

Second, H1B workers are not hired for their expertise, they are hired because they work for less money on average. Over 80% of visa applicants are hired for entry level positions or “junior/qualified” roles.

Analysis from 2020 to 2025 shows that H1B employees are consistently paid less than their American counterparts (10% to 30% less depending on the sector and job). The H1B program legally allows companies to pay foreign workers less. The White House’s own documentation outlines this problem.

The biggest lie about H1B is that foreign workers are hired because they have the training. Many do not. In fact, companies run training centers in the US, bring workers over on visas, then teach them how to do the jobs they’re being hired for. Even worse, American employees are often forced under contract to train their third world replacements before they are laid off.

One could argue that H1B applicants are usually required to have a degree for the job they want to work. Not surprisingly, there are numerous programs for foreigners to gain admission to US colleges. Around 60% of Indian H1B holders got their degrees in US colleges, not Indian colleges. Over 300,000 Indian students go to college in the US every year. There are over 1,100 different college scholarship programs in the US specifically catering to Indian students.

Again, why aren’t these classroom seats and jobs being filled with American citizens first? Are foreign workers more talented, or are they just being offered more opportunities because they are cheaper to hire?

This is about US companies taking advantage and saving money on labor, it has nothing to do with skill or education.

Trump ran on a campaign platform of America for Americans and America first. The H1B program was originally designed as a way to bring foreign workers with niche skills to the US to fill desperately needed roles. Instead, they are used by conglomerates to supplant American workers for less pay. They are also used by foreigners as the primary stepping stone to quick US citizenship, and by foreign governments as a way to drain wealth from the US economy.

If a foreign worker really has something to offer that’s valuable to our country, then by all means, let’s bring them here. However, no foreign worker should be given a visa until companies at least attempt to hire and train Americans for these roles. If they can’t find enough people, only then should those jobs be outsourced.

When Trump ignores these factors, it makes it seem as though he is abandoning the America First mantra that got him elected. It runs contrary to his efforts to keep jobs in America for Americans. Furthermore, blindly defending H1Bs from the third world undermines his goal of reducing immigration to only the best and brightest. Yes, there are many educated workers coming from countries like India – Because we educated them and trained them to replace us.

The point is, if we can educate and train third worlders, then we can easily educate and train Americans. Therefore, there’s little reason for H1B to exist.

If the economic plan is to make America stronger by retaining our jobs and resources, then stick to the plan, Donald. Stop acting like the US is an open economic zone. Establish education programs that favor American citizens that want to train for these jobs. Close the low wage loophole for foreigners. Remove the incentives that encourage corporations to hire outside the US and watch how many middle class jobs (and dollars) boost the US economy instead of feeding bank accounts in India. This is within your power as president.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post The Foreign Worker Scam Exposes Trump’s Economic Achilles Heel appeared first on LewRockwell.

In another sign that the MAGA coalition is imploding, President Donald Trump pulled back his endorsement of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican firebrand from Georgia who, until recently, was one of his most devoted supporters. Moreover, the president said he would endorse a primary challenger. Greene, who was inspired to first run for Congress by Trump, has become increasingly critical of him.

“Over the past few weeks, despite my creating Record Achievements for our Country … all I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!” Trump said Friday in a Truth Social post. “I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support.”

The next day, he went after Greene again: “Lightweight Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Brown (Green grass turns Brown when it begins to ROT!), betrayed the entire Republican Party when she turned Left, performed poorly on the pathetic View, and became the RINO that we all know she always was. Just another Fake politician, no different than Rand Paul Jr. (Thomas Massie), who got caught being a full-fledged Republican In Name Only (RINO)! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump said in his signature lowbrow fashion.

What Happened?

Trump told reporters while on Air Force One that Greene had changed, that something happened to her. But it’s no mystery what has happened. Like many others, Greene has become disillusioned with Trump’s failure to deliver on some of his most important America First promises. She has made several public comments indicating that she’s frustrated with his excessive focus on foreign matters and his refusal to halt foreign aide to all countries — all while average Americans continue to struggle with the high cost of everyday items. Greene voiced these concerns in her conversation with the leftist women on the talk show The View. “[People are] so tired of their hard-earned tax dollars being sent overseas to foreign wars, foreign aide, foreign causes — while life in America just becomes more unaffordable. We want this money invested at home for our infrastructure, for programs, for our people,” she said.

 

Part of a Pattern

Trump’s recent split with Greene is part of a pattern. He has also turned on Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has also opposed the president’s foreign policy and fiscal recklessness. Trump has supported the idea of primarying Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — who has voted against Trump-backed budget bills and made the media rounds criticizing his interventionist foreign policy.

Greene, Massie, and Paul are among the few federal legislators with proven Constitutional voting records. The New American’s Freedom Index gives Greene a 97 percent cumulative score, Massie a 99 percent score, and Paul a score of 96 percent.

To make matters worse, Trump not only attacks the principled legislators, but he backs the worst of them. He has endorsed one of the most Constitution-averse, war-loving neocons in all of Congress. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) represents everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party. He loves big spending, big government, and military adventurism. He’s a huge fan of spending piles of cash on overseas wars and foreign aide. He is the epitome of a Uniparty swamp creature, and his 57 percent cumulative Freedom Index score reflects it. Nevertheless, earlier this year, Trump announced, “Senator Lindsey Graham has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election — HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. Everyone in South Carolina should help Lindsey have a BIG WIN next year!”

The Epstein Files

In addition to opposition to foreign wars and deficit spending, Greene, Massie, and Paul have been pushing for transparency about Jeffrey Epstein, another point of frustration for Trump. When he campaigned last year, Trump said he would support releasing the Epstein files, albeit with some hesitation. But for months now, he has been trying to put the kibosh on that very transparency, igniting a firestorm of backlash among his base and supporters in the media. As a result, suspicion has grown among conservatives that Trump may indeed have something to hide. The emails released last week did little to put those suspicions to rest.

Massie has been working with Democrat Ro Khanna of California on a discharge petition to bypass House leadership and force a vote on a resolution that would release Justice Department files on Epstein. The special election victory of Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) gave Massie the 218 votes he needed to push the vote onto the House floor. With Massie included, only four Republicans signed the petition. Last week, Trump unsuccessfully pressured at least one of those legislators, Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), to withdraw her signature, according to reports.

By Sunday, Massie was telling the media that he expected “a hundred or more” House Republicans to vote for the resolution. Sensing the inevitable, by Sunday evening, Trump caved and issued a surprising reversal. “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” he said in a Truth Social Post. “I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT …”

On Monday, Massie thanked the president for encouraging Republicans to vote yes on the resolution. He told reporters, “He got tired of me winning,” a soft elbow in the president’s side, who just days earlier said, in a bizarrely juvenile social media post, that Massie’s wife “will soon find out that she’s stuck with a LOSER!.”

House Republicans will vote on releasing the DOJ’s Epstein files tomorrow.

MAGA Implosion

Despite Trump’s recent reversal on the Epstein files, the MAGA camp is imploding. While he has done some things well — he’s largely delivered on border security and energy — Trump has made a series of bad decisions. And the people are frustrated. A recent theory is that behind Trump’s freefall is his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, whose long neocon and lobbying background was suspect from the beginning. We profiled Wiles in a February print issue. “Wiles will also have a say in who gains access to the president. That type of gatekeeping power has some in MAGA Land worried, given Wiles’ Establishment pedigree,” we noted.

Raheem Kassam, editor-in-chief of The National Pulse, recently tied Wiles to the early November poll from CNN showing Trump’s disapproval rating rising to an all-time high of 63 percent. He wrote in a social media post, “There has been more focus on the international than the domestic economy so far this year,” adding, “With Susie Wiles vetoing anything remotely MAGA, the White House agenda has trended back to a more corporate-friendly GOP median, which is leading to Dems leading on the generic ballot question for the first time since 2022.”

Moreover, Wiles is also getting credit for sabotaging the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again ) movement. The Redacted podcast had on whistleblowers Dr. Steven Hatfill and Grey Delany, who said this very thing.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., however, defended Wiles as recently as Friday. He said in an X post, “The MAHA movement has no better friend in Washington than Susie Wiles, who has supported every effort to end the chronic disease epidemic and restore health freedom to every American.”

America First

Trump is not even one year into this term and the coalition he has led for 10 years is in danger of completely collapsing. His neocon foreign policy, deficit spending, and attempt to make the Epstein saga go away without further transparency has alienated his base.

Sensing that he’s losing his influence, he recently declared himself the movement. “Don’t forget: MAGA was my idea. MAGA was nobody else’s idea,” he said on The Ingraham Angle. “I know what MAGA wants better than anyone else, and MAGA wants to see our country thrive.”

Trump is wrong. MAGA was not his idea. The idea of a leadership class that prioritizes its citizens and national sovereignty is a fundamental element of Americanism that has always existed to some degree. From Barry Goldwater to the Tea Party to the Ron Paul Revolution, Americans have been yearning for leaders who prioritize secure borders, fiscal responsibility, and nonintervention foreign policy.

What Trump has been doing for the last 10 years was tap into a voter base that was already there, a cohort that just needed a point man. Trump didn’t convince people that putting America first was a good idea. He just convinced them that he would do it. And he convinced them that, because he was already rich, he couldn’t be corrupted.

Now people are no longer sure any of that is true.

The silver lining here is that this highlights the problem with putting too much faith in personalities. The American Republic our Founders gave us was intentionally designed to distribute power among three branches of government. And the executive was never meant to be the most powerful branch.

It’s long past time to restore to the legislative branch the powers allocated by the U.S. Constitution. We’ve created a tool to do just that right here.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Trump Turns on MTG as MAGA Implosion Continues appeared first on LewRockwell.