Aggregatore di feed

Click Here:

Adam Dick 

The post Challenging Religion-centered War Propaganda Concerning Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post No Vacation For You! appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-costo-nascosto-dellistruzione)

Il modello universitario europeo è spesso visto come un trionfo della società moderna. Senza tasse universitarie esorbitanti, con un debito studentesco minimo e la promessa di pari accesso, sembra la soluzione ideale. In Paesi come Germania e Francia gli studenti pagano solo una piccola quota amministrativa, in genere tra i $200 e i $500 all'anno, rispetto ai costi di iscrizione esorbitanti degli Stati Uniti o del Regno Unito. Molti ricevono anche aiuti finanziari sotto forma di borse di studio che non devono essere rimborsate, o prestiti a basso interesse in base alle necessità.

Ma dietro le promesse di equità e opportunità si nasconde un sistema che troppo spesso è rigido, sovraffollato e poco stimolante.

Nonostante l'accessibilità, la realtà di doversi orientare in queste istituzioni può far sentire gli studenti come se fossero solo un numero in una gigantesca macchina burocratica.

Quando l'istruzione è accessibile a tutti, le università si riempiono. Le aule sono sovraffollate e il contatto personale con i professori diventa raro. In molti Paesi europei è normale frequentare le lezioni con centinaia di altri studenti. C'è poco spazio per discussioni, feedback, o persino domande.

Ti siedi, prendi appunti, vieni promosso o bocciato. Sembra più una catena di montaggio che un luogo di apprendimento. E i numeri spiegano il perché. Nel 2022 l'Unione Europea contava 18,8 milioni di studenti, circa il 7% della sua popolazione totale, iscritti all'istruzione terziaria. Negli Stati Uniti circa  19,1 milioni di persone si sono iscritte all'università durante l'anno accademico 2024-25. Oltre a cifre di iscrizione simili, sia l'UE che gli Stati Uniti hanno reso l'istruzione superiore ampiamente accessibile. Nell'UE, dove le tasse universitarie sono spesso infime o fortemente sovvenzionate, l'istruzione superiore viene ampliata per accogliere la maggioranza. Nel 2022 il 44% dei cittadini dell'UE di età compresa tra 25 e 34 anni aveva completato un corso di laurea, rispetto al 50% negli Stati Uniti.

I due sistemi differiscono nella struttura. Ciò che li distingue non è il numero di studenti, ma il modo in cui viene erogata l'istruzione. Le università europee tendono a basarsi su lezioni di grandi dimensioni, percorsi di studio rigidi e una limitata competizione istituzionale. Il risultato è un modello costruito sulla fredda efficienza piuttosto che sull'individualismo. Le istituzioni statunitensi, al contrario, operano in un ambiente competitivo e decentralizzato, con una gamma più ampia di strutture accademiche, inclusi college più piccoli e una progettazione dei programmi più flessibile.

Quando l'istruzione superiore è dimensionata per servire quasi tutti, come in gran parte d'Europa, si rischia di barattare la profondità con la capacità di elaborazione e la personalizzazione con la comodità amministrativa. Alla fin fine funziona lo stesso, ma a costo di trattare l'istruzione meno come un percorso e più come un processo burocratico.

A causa di questa scala il sistema si basa fortemente sulla standardizzazione. I programmi sono progettati per soddisfare le esigenze della maggioranza, il che significa che spesso non lasciano spazio a chi pensa o impara in modo diverso. Questa rigidità non inizia all'ingresso dell'università. In Paesi come Germania e Francia gli studenti vengono indirizzati verso percorsi accademici, o professionali, già a partire dagli 11 o 12 anni. Se non si viene inseriti nel percorso giusto in quel momento, le possibilità di accedere all'università in seguito possono ridursi drasticamente. Di conseguenza quando gli studenti accedono all'istruzione superiore sono già stati incanalati in un sistema che limita la crescita personale, la sperimentazione e le seconde possibilità.

Questa rigidità produce qualcosa di più profondo della semplice frustrazione. Crea una cultura del conformismo. Ci si aspetta che gli studenti seguano il percorso ufficiale, finiscano in tempo e non facciano troppo rumore. Fallire o impiegare più tempo per laurearsi è visto come una debolezza, anche se il processo di tentativi ed errori è essenziale per un apprendimento autentico. L'idea di esplorare diverse discipline o di fermarsi a riflettere è raro che sia incoraggiata. Il successo si misura in base all'efficienza con cui si completa il programma, non in base a quanto si scopre su sé stessi o sul mondo.

Di conseguenza la creatività si perde. Gli studenti che vogliono correre rischi, provare cose nuove, o porre domande scomode finiscono per trovare scarso supporto. I professori spesso non hanno tempo per fare da mentore ai singoli studenti. Gli studenti hanno una scelta limitata su cosa studiare, o come affrontarlo. In questo sistema l'obiettivo non è ispirare, ma produrre.

Ora confrontate tutto questo con sistemi in cui la competizione e la scelta sono più centrali. Negli Stati Uniti gli studenti possono scegliere liberamente il proprio percorso di studi, cambiare indirizzo, o persino prendersi del tempo libero senza penalità. Nel Regno Unito le università competono per accaparrarsi gli studenti, spingendole a offrire programmi più innovativi e un insegnamento migliore. Questi modelli sono tutt'altro che perfetti, soprattutto in termini di costi, ma spesso offrono più spazio alla crescita personale, al pensiero indipendente e alla libertà accademica.

Non si tratta di un invito a ripristinare tasse universitarie elevate. L'istruzione dovrebbe essere accessibile, ma l'accessibilità da sola non garantisce la qualità. Il modello europeo spesso rinuncia alla flessibilità in favore dell'accesso; è costruito per servire tutti allo stesso modo, il che significa che fatica a servire bene chiunque.

Non è sempre stato così. Con l'apertura delle università europee al grande pubblico nel XX secolo, l'esigenza di efficienza portò a strutture rigide e programmi di studio standardizzati. Quello che un tempo era un sistema per pochi privilegiati divenne una catena di montaggio per milioni di persone. Per contestualizzare il concetto per i lettori americani: la maggior parte degli studenti europei paga meno di $500 all'anno in tasse universitarie. A titolo di confronto, mentre le università statunitensi hanno una media di oltre $38.000 all'anno, la maggior parte degli studenti americani frequenta istituti più accessibili, con tasse universitarie statali che si aggirano in media sui $10.000 in quelle pubbliche e sui $3.000 nei community college.

Prendiamo ad esempio la Svezia. Molti studenti non iniziano l'università prima dei vent'anni, in parte perché il sistema offre pochi incentivi a iniziare prima. Una volta iscritti, i percorsi accademici sono stretti e cambiare direzione è difficile.

In Italia gli studenti spesso rimangono all'università per molti anni. Non perché siano eccessivamente curiosi o appassionati, ma perché il sistema è obsoleto e lento. I tassi di abbandono sono alti e le lauree hanno scarso peso nel mercato del lavoro.

E in Francia alcune delle scuole più prestigiose non fanno affatto parte del sistema universitario pubblico. Le Grandes Écoles sono a pagamento, più selettive e offrono un'istruzione più personalizzata. Ironia della sorte sono considerate migliori proprio perché non seguono il modello “libero per tutti”.

La verità è che la vera libertà educativa significa molto più che eliminare le tasse universitarie. Significa permettere agli studenti di esplorare, fallire, cambiare e trovare la propria strada. Significa incoraggiare l'innovazione e premiare la curiosità. E sì, significa permettere ai sistemi di competere ed evolversi.

Il sistema educativo europeo è motivo di orgoglio, ma quest'ultimo non dovrebbe impedire le riforme. Dobbiamo porci domande più difficili: stiamo costruendo istituzioni che siano davvero al servizio degli studenti, o stiamo semplicemente creando macchine che trattano tutti allo stesso modo?

Se l'istruzione deve preparare le persone al futuro, allora dobbiamo assicurarci che i nostri sistemi siano sufficientemente flessibili da crescere con essi. Quando si forzano tutti a conformarsi allo stesso schema, si rischia di distruggere proprio ciò che rende l'istruzione potente: la capacità di pensare in modo diverso.

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

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

Murray Rothbard’s view of the origins of World War II has an important lesson for us today. Many people today think that a non-interventionist foreign policy is unrealistic.  Neocons always cry out “Hitler!” if you resist their demands for all-out war. “Hitler openly avowed his plan to conquer the world in Mein Kampf! How can you ‘isolationists’ ignore that!” Rothbard had a simple answer to this.

He said that history doesn’t follow a predetermined plan. Historical actors respond to events as they occur in time. They may have ideas about what they want to do, but once something actually comes up, the situation will have many details that they didn’t anticipate, and they will have to react on the spur of the moment.

He found support for his view in a book written by the British historian A.J. P. Taylor in 1961, The Origins of the Second World War. In a memo written for the Volker Fund, he said: “The central theme of Taylor is simply this: Germany and Hitler were not uniquely guilty of launching World War II (indeed they were scarcely guilty at all); Hitler was not bent on world conquest, for which he had armed Germany to the teeth and constructed a ‘timetable.’ Hitler, in brief, (in foreign affairs) was not a uniquely evil monster or daimon, who would continue to gobble up countries diabolically until stopped by superior force. Hitler was a rational German statesman, pursuing — with considerable intuitive insight — a traditional, post-Versailles German policy (to which we might add intimations of desires to expand eastward in an attack on Bolshevism). But basically, Hitler has no ‘master plan’; he was a German intent, like all Germans, on revising the intolerable and stupid Versailles-diktat, and on doing so by peaceful means, and in collaboration with the British and French. One thing is sure: Hitler had no designs, no plans, not even vague intimations, to expand westward against Britain and France (let alone the United States). Hitler admired the British Empire and wished to collaborate with it. Not only did Hitler do this with insight, he did it with patience, as Taylor excellently shows; the legend (that perhaps all of us have accepted in one degree or another), is that Hitler annoyingly created one European crisis after another, in the late 1930s, proceeding hungrily onward from one victory to another; actually, the crises naturally arose, were developed from external conditions (largely from the breakup of the inherently unstable conditions imposed by the Versailles-diktat), and by others, and which Hitler patiently awaited the outcome to use to his and Germany’s advantage.”

Of course, Rothbard didn’t doubt that Hitler was monstrously evil. But he thought it was a mistake to infer that an evil person or regime must have an aggressive foreign policy.

The first step in Hitler’s alleged master plan was the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, but in fact this wasn’t planned. Hitler had reached an agreement with the Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg, with Schuschnigg violated. As Rothbard explains: “Schuschnigg, was happy to conclude a Gentleman’s Agreement with Germany, in July 1936, in which he acknowledged that Austria was a ‘German State,’ and agreed to admit Nazis as members of his government. In return, Hitler acknowledged Austrian ‘sovereignty,’ and contentedly believed that Austria was now a kind of subordinate state to Germany and that the Austrian Nazis would gradually, and peacefully, gain control of Austria. This, indeed, was the rational thing to expect from such an agreement. No coercive Anschluss or dramatic marching of German troops was contemplated.”

But then Schuschnigg precipitated a crisis and only then did Hitler act: “Schuschnigg, in effect, repudiated the voluntary Berchtesgaden Agreement of February 12, 1938. Suddenly, after two years of rational appeasement, he decided on a ‘tough’ line; he decided to hurl a challenge to Hitler by dramatically announcing an Austrian plebiscite on Austrian independence, to be held almost immediately.”

In like fashion, the next step in Hitler’s alleged master plan, the takeover of Czechoslovakia, also came about by accident. “The Germans living in the Sudetenland wanted action: they were not responding to Hitler’s orders: The Germans were particularly unhappy at being plunged from co-partners in the Austro-Hungarian Empire to sufferers under the Czechs. The Anschluss electrified them, and the Czech crisis was on. [Czech President Eduard] Benes deliberately provoked the Sudeten Germans into demanding a transfer to Germany and not just autonomy, frontiers.”

The Munich Conference settlement allowed Hitler to annex the Sudetenland, after that the Czech state collapsed: “Benes saw this, and skipped the country, from then on to proclaim against ‘appeasement’ from a safe sanctuary. The Poles moved in on Tesin; the Hungarians, bitterly smarting from the Versailles-like Treaty of Trianon, moved in. Finally, the Slovaks, taking their cue, declared their much yearned-for independence. The Czechs, turning tough yet once more, prepared to march on Slovakia, whereupon Hitler recognized Slovak independence, to save Slovakia from the Czechs and Hungarians. The Czechs were now left with their own true section of Bohemia; surrounded by enemies, and faced with a Hungarian threat, Hacha, president of the Czechs, again voluntarily sought an audience with Hitler, and requested Hitler to adopt Bohemia as a protectorate. And yet, the world again saw this as a ‘betrayal’ of Munich, German ruthless invasion of a noble, small country, etc. Again, Hitler had not bargained for open invasion, but only for slow, evolutionary disintegration of Czechoslovakia; events again presented him with (overly) dramatic gains.”

The last step in the alleged master-plan was the invasion of Poland, but once again Hitler had moderate goals until the Polish government forced his hand: “[Polish Foreign Minister Josef]Beck, though initially allied with Germany, elected to stand alone, a Great Power, triumphantly defiant of both Germany and Russia, taking a resolutely ‘tough,’ firm line against anybody and everybody. And as a direct result, Poland was destroyed. Hitler’s “demands” on the Poles were almost non-existent; as Taylor points out, the Weimar Republic would have scorned the terms as a sell-out of vital German interests. Hitler at most wanted a ‘corridor through the Corridor’ and the return of heavily-German (and pro-German) Danzig; in return for which he would guarantee the rest. Poland resolutely refused to yield ‘one inch of Polish soil,”’ and refused even to negotiate with the Germans, and this down to the last minute. And yet, even with the Anglo-French guarantee, Beck clearly knew that Britain and France could not actually save Poland from attack. He relied to the end on those great shibboleths of all ‘hard-liners’ everywhere: X is ‘bluffing’; X will back down if met by toughness, resolution, and the resolve not to give an inch. As Taylor shows, Hitler had originally not the slightest intention to invade or conquer Poland; instead, Danzig and other minor rectifications would be gotten out of the way, and then Poland would be a comfortable ally, perhaps for an eventual invasion of Soviet Russia. But Beck’s irrational toughness blocked the path.”

Rothbard sums up the lessons we can learn from Taylor’s book in this way: “There are two further, amplifying general observations of importance which I am moved to by this scintillating book. One is the perniciousness of the typical ‘hard line’ mythology, a mythology that has been especially beloved in the United States and Great Britain. It is a mythology that has consistently failed and consistently plunged these ‘great democracies’ into one war after another. This is the mythology of conceiving the enemy as, not only a “bad” guy; but a bad guy cast in the mold of Fu Manchu or someone from Mars. The bad guy is out, for some obscure reason, to conquer the world, or at the very least, to conquer as much as he can keep conquering. This is his only goal. He can be stopped only by force majeure, i.e., by ‘standing firm’ on a ‘tough line.’ In short, while irredeemably evil, the Bad Guy is a craven at heart; and if the noble Good Guy only stands his ground, the Bad Guy, like any bully, will turn tail. Rather than Fu Manchu, then, the Enemy is a Fu Manchu at heart but with all the other characteristics of the Corner Bully, or of a movie Western. ‘We’ are the Good Guys, interested only in justice and self-defense who need only stand our ground to face down the wicked but cravenly bluffing Bad Guys. This is the almost idiotic Morality Play in which Americans and Britons have cast international relations for half a century now, and that is why we are in the mess we are today. Nowhere in this Copybook nonsense is it every conceived that (a) the Bad Guy might be afraid of our attacking him (But Good Guys never attack, by definition!); or (b) that the Bad Guy might, in his foreign policy demands, have a pretty good and just case after all — or at least, that he believes his case to be good and just; or (c) that, faced with the defiance, the Bad Guy might consider it loss of self-respect if he backed down — and so two war. Let us all give up this childlike game of international relations, and begin to consider a policy of rationality, peace, and honest negotiation.

“The second general observation is that Eastern Europe seems to have been the cockpit — and in tragic folly — of every major war of the twentieth century: World Wars I and II, and the Cold War. Eastern Europe, as I have indicated above, is a land of many teeming nationalities, almost all small and divided. The reality of Eastern Europe is that it is always fated to be dominated by either Germany or Russia, or both. If East European politicians are to be rational, they must realize this and understand their fated subservience to one or both of these two Power; and, if there is to be peace in Eastern Europe, both Germany and Russia must be friends.

“Now don’t misunderstand me; I have not abandoned moral principle for cynicism. My heart yearns for ethnic justice, for national self-determination for all people, not only in Eastern Europe but all over the world. I am a non-Ukrainian who would like nothing better than to see a majestic independent ethnic Ukraine, or of Byelorussia; I would to see and independent Slovakia, or a just settlement, at long last, of the knotty Transylvanian question. I still worry over whether Macedonia should properly be independent, or should be united to their presumably ethnic brothers in Bulgaria. But, to paraphrase Sydney Smith’s famous letter to Lady Grey, please let them work this out for themselves! Let us abandon the criminal immorality and folly of continual coercive meddling by non-East European powers (e.g., Britain, France, and now the U.S.) in the affairs of East Europe. Let us hope that one day Germany and Russia, at peach, will willingly grant justice to the people of East Europe, but let us not bring about perpetual wars to try to achieve this artificially.

“I cannot refrain from quoting Smith’s famous passage, so a propos is it “I am sorry for the Spaniards — I am sorry for the Greeks; I deplore the fate of the Jews; the people of the Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable tyranny; Baghdad is oppressed; I do not like the present state of the Delta; Tibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all these people? The world is bursting with sin and sorrow. Am I to be a champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally raising fleets and armies to make all men good and happy? We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid that the consequence will be, that we shall cut each other’s throats. No war, dear Lady Grey! — No eloquence; but apathy, selfishness, common sense, arithmetic! … ‘May the vengeance of Heaven’ overtake the Legitimates of Verona! But in the present state of rent and taxes, they must be left to the vengeance of Heaven. … There is no such thing as a ‘just war,’ or, at least, as a wise war.”

Let’s do everything we can to absorb the lessons Rothbard taught us about how World War II began!

The post Murray Rothbard and World War II Origins appeared first on LewRockwell.

Iran’s national security is severely endangered by Israel and the United States, and there has long been speculation as to whether Russia will be involved on the side of Iran if yet another invasion is made against Iran by the U.S. and/or Israel. Apparently, that speculation is now over, because Russia has finally committed itself to defending Iran against the countries that seek to destroy it.

“Andrei Martyanov: It’s All OVER! Iran & Russia Go FULL FORCE to WIPE OUT All Threats”

23 October 2025

That conversation about the Middle East starts at 32:14. Martyanov argues that Putin did not at all sell out to the former leader of ISIS and of Al Qaeda in Syria, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, when that jihadist leader, for the first time ever, met with Putin at The Kremlin on October 15th, but instead Putin agreed to provide Jolani’s Syria protection against further Israeli encroachments upon Syrian territory. If this is true, then Putin is even more joining with Iran against Israel than before. Martyanov makes some rather startling allegations that Putin has decided to go all-in to protect Iran against Israel.

Here is the report from Iran’s Borna News on October 23rd:

——

https://borna.news/en/news/1938/iran-and-russia-at-the-heart-of-the-new-order-a-strategic-response-to-western-hegemonys-decline

https://archive.ph/ybQ4a

“Iran and Russia at the Heart of the New Order: A Strategic Response to Western Hegemony’s Decline”

2025/10/23

In the face of the accelerating decline of unipolar hegemony and the intensification of Western sanction pressures, the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation has entered the phase of a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.” This deep convergence is no longer a temporary or purely tactical reaction, but a high-level political decision whose ultimate goal is the engineering of a new, multipolar world order and the strengthening of decision-making independence at the heart of Eurasia.

Tehran – BORNA – In an era where the international system is witnessing fundamental transformations, shifts in the centers of power, and the gradual decline of traditional Western hegemony, concepts such as “strategic partnership” and “interest-based alliances” are undergoing redefinition. Amidst this, the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation, as two independent and influential powers in the Eurasian expanse, has transcended the level of conventional bilateral cooperation. This partnership is evolving into the backbone of an emerging regional and global new order, fundamentally built upon multilateralism and independence in decision-making.

Recent statements by senior officials of the two countries, especially the explicit emphasis by “Dmitry Peskov,” the Kremlin Spokesperson, that “Iran is our partner, and our relationship is developing very dynamically” and that “we are ready to expand cooperation in all fields,” are not merely a diplomatic courtesy or a temporary tactic. Rather, they serve as a clear manifesto for a new era of deep convergence.

Dimensions of the Partnership: A Multi-Layered Convergence

The dynamic nature of these relations manifests at three core levels, challenging all analyses that dismiss this cooperation as purely tactical:

Horizontal Expansion and Comprehensive Cooperation: This level signifies the extension of cooperation across all fields. The wide spectrum of activities ranges from complex military and technical cooperation to mega-economic projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), and from security coordination in counter-terrorism to cooperation in energy, cultural, and scientific exchanges. This comprehensiveness not only suggests the resolution of past hesitations but also indicates an acceleration in the implementation of these collaborations.

Vertical Deepening and Strategic Partnership: The relationship has moved beyond ad-hoc coordination to the level of long-term infrastructural investments. Iran’s full accession to organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS Plus alongside Russia has elevated the strategic depth of the relationship from a transactional nature to a stable regional and global partnership.

Resilience to Sanctions: This dynamism has emerged precisely amidst the most intense foreign pressures against Tehran and Moscow. This clearly demonstrates a shared political will to neutralize Western pressures through the deepening of bilateral cooperation. This resilience is practical proof that these relations are not contingent upon the approval of Western powers. The partnership is a deliberate choice to de-link their economies and defense capabilities from Western financial and security architecture.

Engineering the New Order: Pillars of Collaboration

The commitment to a new order is fundamentally supported by tangible, high-impact cooperation in key sectors:

A. Strategic Economic Infrastructure: The INSTC Catalyst

The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) project holds vital importance, transcending its purely commercial value. This corridor, which spans continents and connects the port of Mumbai in the Indian Ocean to St. Petersburg in the Baltic Sea, is not merely aiming to reduce transit time and costs compared to the traditional Suez Canal route; it is a long-term geopolitical commitment. The two nations view the INSTC as a strategic artery that will not only boost their bilateral trade volumes—which remain below potential—but will fundamentally reshape global supply chains, bypassing Western-controlled maritime routes. Iran and Russia are jointly investing in and developing this crucial multimodal artery (rail, road, and sea) to establish a strategic leverage against hostile Western strategies and secure resilient economic development. This initiative positions Iran as the central transit hub in the region, demanding significant shared investment in railway infrastructure, customs harmonization, and digital payment systems to ensure its seamless operation. The successful activation and expansion of the INSTC are direct steps towards creating an economic counter-pole to the Western global financial system.

B. Advanced Military and Technical Cooperation

The signs of this strategic partnership are particularly evident in sensitive areas, especially military and technical cooperation. Recent remarks by Iranian officials regarding Russia having “no limitations on military and technical cooperation with Tehran” complete the picture. It has been emphasized that the trend of Iran-Russia cooperation is growing in all fields, and the existence of crucial foundational agreements, such as the 20-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Document, transforms these relations into a strategic partnership rooted in mutual trust and a long-term vision.

These collaborations, particularly following the expiration of arms restrictions under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, have acquired new dimensions. Moscow explicitly frames its defense and technology cooperation with Tehran within the bounds of international law and bilateral commitments, viewing it as a step toward strengthening Iran’s defensive and deterrent capabilities. The equipment imported is primarily in the areas of air defense, aerial defense systems, and cyber technologies, aiming to enhance defense capabilities in modern, electronic warfare. This technical and defense collaboration is not limited to mere arms trade; it often involves co-production agreements, technology transfer, and shared training programs, significantly enhancing the defensive autonomy of both nations against potential external aggression. This depth of cooperation signals a shared commitment to regional security that is independent of—and often in defiance of—Western security frameworks.

Diplomatic Alignment and Countering Western Non-Compliance

In the realm of diplomacy, Russia’s stance on the JCPOA aligns profoundly with that of Iran. The Kremlin spokesperson, in noting the “very complex situation” surrounding the JCPOA, explicitly identifies the unconstructive position of the European Union as the factor that exacerbates the crisis. This position re-emphasizes that the current crisis is not one of Iranian nuclear activities, but a crisis of Western non-compliance and broken promises.

This position is a key element of the joint strategy to dismantle the legal and political foundation of Western pressure. By supporting Iran’s legitimate rights and rejecting the notion of “excessive pressure on independent Iran,” Russia undercuts the Western narrative of isolation.

Furthermore, Moscow’s firm support for Iran’s national sovereignty and its rejection of any unlawful pressure has not been merely verbal, but has been demonstrated in the diplomatic arena. Russia’s resolute standing alongside Tehran in the UN Security Council against the West’s erroneous interpretations of Resolution 2231 and attempts to re-impose sanctions is a powerful political tool and a testament to this commitment. This diplomatic alignment ensures that Western attempts at multilateral pressure are frequently paralyzed, allowing the bilateral relationship to flourish outside the shadow of global hegemonic oversight.

The strategic relations between Iran and Russia are not a short-term, tactical deal; they are a joint investment for a more stable and just future in the region and the world. This partnership is a natural and intelligent response to a changing global landscape. The message is clear: the era of unilateralism and the imposition of will has ended, and Iran and Russia, as two strategic and pivotal partners in Eurasia, will play a key role in engineering a new world order based on multilateralism and shared security.

——

MY COMMENTS: Martyanov explained the military details of this new relationship between Iran and Russia.

Also on October 23rd, Trump, for the first time ever, publicly stated that there is a possibility that the U.S. Government will cease supporting Israel. Trump told TIME magazine:

TIME: You told Netanyahu you will not allow him to annex the West Bank. There are still forces in his coalition who are pressing for it. I’m just wondering what, what are the consequences if they move forward?

TRUMP: It won’t happen. It won’t happen. It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. And you can’t do that now. We’ve had great Arab support. It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. It will not happen. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.

Trump will allow Israel to exterminate the Gazans (with American weapons), but will NOT allow Israel to declare the West Bank to be Israeli territory. Apparently, this is the policy of the heads-of-state in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and UAE. And Trump represents them, even if this will mean that the U.S. will abandon Israel. Whether Trump really means this is questionable; many people think that Israel controls America, not America controls Israel. Furthermore Trump routinely lies, and he routinely reverses his prior policy; so, he has no coherent policy. But anyway, this is what he promised on October 23rd

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Russia Now Commits Itself To Protect Iran. appeared first on LewRockwell.

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there “for however long it takes” has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

President Trump should make it clear that the Biden administration’s determination to help build a Ukrainian military establishment designed to wage offensive war against Russia rather than engage in the diplomacy necessary to avoid it before 2022 was a serious strategic error. Washington’s European allies are fundamentally wrong when they insist that Moscow had no right to challenge an existential threat from NATO on its border. Without the decades-long project of transferring technology, advice and cash to Ukraine, the threat to Russia in Ukraine might not have emerged.

President Trump’s recent decision to reexamine the wisdom of shipping Tomahawk missiles for use in Ukraine is a step in the right direction. Just as Washington has legitimate interests in Mexico and the Caribbean Basin, it is time for Washington to recognize Moscow’s legitimate national security interests in regards to Ukraine and NATO member states in its own backyard. It is also time for Europe and the U.S. to realize that stability in the region is of everyone’s interest, and that means not encouraging, through endless war, a failed state in Ukraine.

Hopefully, President Trump was finally briefed on America’s missile inventory. His reticence to send Tomahawks that cannot operate without American mission planning and execution suggests that he and his staff may have also asked for the status of more vital missile systems such as the family of Standard Missiles. The exact numbers for the American missile inventory are unknown, but President Trump should demand detailed answers.

It’s also vital for him to understand that regardless of how much pressure he exerts on America’s defense industrial base to increase production, timelines for delivery will not change much. Wars are fought with precision strike weapons. The side with the most missiles on hand at the outset stands an excellent chance of prevailing. The side with too few will lose.

American military power is in a state of decline that will require a decade or more to reverse. In pursuit of true military strength, President Trump should not conflate the eagerness of his senior military leaders to comply with his policies or ideas as evidence of loyalty, professionalism or agreement. In Washington, DC, there is never a shortage of sycophantic, blowhard generals and admirals whose own experience with real war is at best at a cocktail level of familiarity.

General Christopher Donahue, commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, achieved notoriety when he stated in June of this year that U.S. and NATO Forces could capture Russia’s heavily fortified Kaliningrad region “in a timeframe that is unheard of.” Perhaps, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or President Trump welcomed these statements. Emotions often play a larger role in national decision-making than they should. However, generals who publicly broadcast claims of military supremacy should be treated with skepticism. It has happened before.

After the outbreak of the Korean War, Major General (MG) Dean, the 24th Infantry Division Commander, insisted that his men “had merely to make an appearance on the battlefield and the North Korean People’s Army would melt into the hills.” According to the historian Max Hastings, when the North Koreans attacked Dean’s division, the resulting rout “resembled the collapse of the French Army in 1940 and the British at Singapore in 1942.”

General Paul Harkins, the American Commander of Military Assistance Command Vietnam, confidently predicted victory for the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) in its war with the Viet Cong by Christmas 1963. Described as an “American General with a swagger stick and cigarette holder,” General Harkins simply reported the defeat of South Vietnamese forces in the Battle of Ap Bac during January 1963 as a victory. Harkins understood the message Washington wanted to receive and he delivered it.

Read the Whole Article

The post On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump Needs To Dump the Sycophants appeared first on LewRockwell.

Reports that critical race theory is over have been greatly exaggerated. CRT is very much still around, although it has been so discredited since some states took measures to ban it that few social justice activists, if any, will now admit to being critical race theorists. They know that describing themselves as critical race theorists will not be favorably regarded, and so they will often deny that there is even such a thing as CRT. This makes them even more dangerous, because they continue promoting the destructive tenets of CRT disguised as social justice. It may therefore be helpful to consider in more detail what is meant when an argument is described as CRT.

A helpful analysis is offered by Jeffrey J. Pyle in his article “Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory’s Attack on the Promises of Liberalism,” published in the Boston College Law Review. For context, as readers might expect from a Boston law review, the author is broadly sympathetic with the aims of CRT but believes it has failed because, instead of aligning itself with the principles of liberalism, it attacks the foundations of liberalism. Pyle believes the “race-crits,” as he calls them, have erred by being so irrational that even their sympathetic liberal friends are reluctant to help them. He complains that the excesses of the race-crits “alienate potentially helpful whites.” He adds that “my disagreement with race-crits has less to do with their long-term goals than with their diagnoses and solutions.” If they would only avoid these errors, they might have more white allies. Thus, as reflected in the title, his main aim is to defend liberalism from the CRT attack:

“Critique,” however, never built anything, and liberalism, for all its shortcomings, is at least constructive. It provides broadly-accepted, reasonably well-defined principles to which political advocates may appeal in ways that transcend sheer power, with at least some hope of incremental success. Critical race theory would “deconstruct” this imperfect tradition, but offers nothing in its place.

Keeping that context in mind, Pyle’s analysis is nevertheless very helpful for purposes of identifying CRT. To be clear, the aim here, in drawing upon his analysis, is not to “debunk” or “debate” CRT but to outline its main attributes for purposes of identifying a race-crit when you encounter one in the wild.

Racial Subordination

First, CRT is always concerned with some form of “racial subordination.” The main blame for subordination is not placed on anyone in particular, but on what are often described as institutions, systems, or structures.

CRT does not attribute racism to white people as individuals or even to entire groups of people. Simply put, critical race theory states that U.S. social institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system) are laced with racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race.

As Pyle explains, race-crits believe racism “lies at the very heart of American – and Western – culture.” Racism is pervasive and immutable, and “everyone is either an ‘outsider’ or an ‘insider,’ a ‘victim’ or a ‘perpetrator’” of racism—not necessarily through anything they have thought, said, or done, but based on the status they occupy in the system. Race-crits “view American society as a zero-sum conflict between powerful white males and powerless minorities.” How do the race-crits know this? Well, knowledge is “socially constructed,” so they know this by having constructed a theory that explains it. As their knowledge is derived from their theory and not from empirical observation, the truth of their tenets is not dependent on any objective evidence or proof. They believe all knowledge is “inherently subjective, contingent and immune to objective evaluation.” Further, all knowledge derived from the application of this theory is “autobiographical and group-based.” Race-crits see “objective evaluation” as merely the subjective preference of white people or—if performed by black people—the subjective preference of the black face of white supremacy as reflected in the infamous “Uncle Tom.” For example, Clarence Thomas is described by Derrick Bell in his article “Racial Realism” as follows:

The addition of Judge Clarence Thomas to that Court, as the replacement for Justice Thurgood Marshall, is likely to add deep insult to the continuing injury inflicted on civil rights advocates. The cut is particularly unkind because the choice of a black like Clarence Thomas replicates the slave masters’ practice of elevating to overseer and other positions of quasi-power those slaves willing to mimic the masters’ views, carry out orders, and by their presence provide a perverse legitimacy to the oppression they aided and approved.

If there is no such thing as objective analysis, what happens when one person’s subjective knowledge meets that of another? In that case the role of the adjudicator is simply to identify who represents the “perpetrator” group. Since all knowledge is identity-based, if someone from an oppressor group (or an Uncle Tom) challenges any argument put forward by an “oppressed” person, that amounts to an attack on the identity of the oppressed. As Pyle explains, “Questioning the race-crits’ grip on reality, then, is not just disrespectful, it is oppressive.” Disagreeing with race-crits is always “deeply racist.”

White Supremacy

The second key indicator of CRT is the role played by “white supremacy” in explaining all political, social, and economic problems. As Lew Rockwell has observed, the Marxist theory “of the substructure, or base, and the superstructures of society” has been loosely incorporated into critical race theory to explain the role of white supremacy in racial oppression:

The critical race theory about the “white supremacy inherent in culture” is much the same. The base for the theorists is race relations. These theorists believe that the oppressive white class has constructed society to necessarily maintain a power dynamic over the nonwhite classes. Political achievements, no matter how much they may benefit racial minorities, belong as part of the superstructure, and thus they must be some protective shell over the true social dynamics.

Pyle points out that even Martin Luther King “colorblindness” is deemed in CRT to be “racist” because it forms part of the powerful “white supremacy” superstructure. CRT, being an explicitly collectivist theory which holds that “we can achieve real freedom only collectively, through group self-determination,” understands freedom and justice as the dismantling of white supremacy. Similarly, CRT approaches the regulation of free speech as a matter of constraining white supremacy. The speech of oppressors “is not speech, but ‘conduct’ which ‘constructs the social reality that constrains the liberty of non-whites because of their race.” Merit, likewise, is “just another culturally- and racially-contingent means by which whites replicate their own hegemony.” Black racism is benign because it is “not tied to the structural domination of another group” and, therefore, absolute free speech applies to black people. When black people speak, all speech is free speech. When white people speak, that is white supremacy which is “harmful conduct.” Nor can race-crits be accused of hypocrisy or double standards—as they see it, the standards applied to black and white are not meant to be the same in the first place. Indeed, the idea that law should vary based on racial identity is central to CRT. We are now at an impasse in which rational debate is impossible, because rationality itself is “white supremacy.”

How is this impasse to be resolved? Pyle explains that race-crits believe the problem cannot be resolved: “Racism, to race-crits, is all-pervasive and all-controlling; nothing can be done.” In any case, racism is often unconscious and invisible, being embedded as it is in the prevailing systems and structures, and what cannot be seen cannot be resolved. All that can be done is to get perpetrators to pay a penalty to their victims for causing them harm: “Accordingly, judges should not question whether the perpetrator had racist motives, but should focus only on the harm done to the alleged victim.” As moral guilt and responsibility are collective, the odd individual member of an oppressed group who might dissent from this outcome is irrelevant in determining the group interest. Given the emphasis in CRT on being “critical” and insisting that there are no solutions to racism, CRT is above all a destructive ideology—all it seeks to do is “critique” the system, point out harms to the races it favors, and dismantle Western civilization.

The post How To Recognize Critical Race Theory appeared first on LewRockwell.

You can bet the 12 purported geniuses on the FOMC have never looked at the graph below.

It shows that for all their wild-ass money printing in recent years, the US index of manufacturing output stands at 101.39, which is nearly 5% below the level reached on the eve of the financial crisis in December 2007.

That’s right. The US manufacturing economy has been shrinking in real physical terms for the past 18 years, notwithstanding the fact that during that interval the Fed has printed nearly $6 trillion in brand, spanking new money that it snatched from thin air.

So something big and bad happened after the Fed went all in on money-printing in response to the stock market meltdown in the fall of 2008. After all, during the 28 years between 1972 and 2000 the very opposite occurred. Manufacturing output in the US rose by nearly 150%, which translates to a 3.3% growth rate per annum.

Yet there is no mystery as to why manufacturing output abruptly went flatter than a board after the Financial Crisis. To wit, the mad money-printers in the Eccles Building simply inflated the bejesus out of the US economy at a time when what was urgently needed was a stern deflation of an already inflation-bloated industrial sector.

Here’s the thing: the price of a Pilates studio session or dentist visit is mainly driven by supply and demand balances in local markets, but with today’s shipping and communications technology, the manufacture of durable goods is subject to ferocious global competition.

Indeed, when you look at the current fully loaded (for fringes and benefits) wage rates among major foreign suppliers, it is no wonder that the output of US-manufactured goods has flatlined.

Average Fully Loaded Manufacturing Wages Per Hour in 2024:

• Vietnam: $3.50
• India: $4.50
• Mexico: $5.00
• China: $6.00
• S. Korea: $20.50
• Canada: $22.00
• Japan: $28.00
• UK: $30.00
• EU-27: $32.50
• USA: $44.25

Well, for crying out loud! What’s the mystery?

The USA has priced itself out of the global manufacturing market, which is exactly why America has been running chronic and massive trade deficits that reached the staggering annual level of $1.2 trillion in 2024. Indeed, the collapse of America’s trade balance has been relentless over the last 30 years, with the deficit rising by 10X, from $10 billion to $100 billion. Per month!

And, no, POTUS, foreign trading partners did not suddenly turn into ever-worsening unfair trade cheats in the last three decades. The cause of the plunging line below is domiciled on the banks of the Potomac, not in foreign capitals.

The vast gap between US manufacturing wages and those of our major trading partners has been building relentlessly since the early 1990s, when Greenspan put the Fed in the monetary central planning business. Back then, the fully loaded US manufacturing wage was about $18.50 per hour, meaning that it has risen in nominal terms by 2.4X since then.

However, owing to the Fed’s relentless pro-inflation policies, the CPI index has risen by 124%, meaning that in 2024 dollars, the 1992 fully loaded manufacturing wage was $41.10 per hour.

Accordingly, workers who managed to keep their jobs gained barely 7% over one-third of a century from all of the Fed’s pro-inflation money printing, even as the ever-rising level of nominal US wages made blue-collar workers a sitting duck in global markets.

Again, for want of doubt, see the gaping fully loaded international manufacturing wage levels in US dollars shown above.

Of course, the Fed’s fanboys on Wall Street say not to worry—productivity gains will offset the nominal wage gains. That was partially true for a few years during the technology-driven productivity boom of the 1990s, but no more. Since 2007 unit labor costs in US manufacturing have soared by +53%, which exactly coincides with the deep plunge in the US trade deficit in goods after the turn of the century.

In short, what America really needed from the early 1990s onward, as the China export machine and its worldwide supply chain came to life, was zero inflation at worst and ideally a spell of price, wage, and cost deflation to offset the vast ballooning of US production costs after Tricky Dick Nixon severed the dollar’s link to gold in August 1971.

Between that date and mid-1992, the general price level in the US rose by 250%, and now stands at 700% above its June 1971 level. Is there any wonder, then, that the US has priced itself out of the global manufacturing market?

Of course, this sheer monetary insanity is justified by the Fed on the grounds that inflation is good for prosperity, at least to the extent of 2.00% annually, year in and year out.

Except there is not a shred of historical evidence or sound economic logic to justify the Fed’s sacred 2.00% target. It’s just a handy excuse for running the printing presses at rates which please the gamblers on Wall Street and the Spenders in Washington.

Industrial production is the heart of the modern economy and the main source of sustainable gains in real output and living standards. Even a half-assed assessment of the world in 1990 would have told any honest and capable monetary central planner that wringing out some of the 250% increase in the domestic cost and price level that had accumulated since Camp David was imperative if the US was to remain competitive in global markets.

Alas, the Keynesian fools who took over the nation’s central bank under Greenspan’s leadership cooked up a closed bathtub style model of the US economy, and conferred upon themselves the Keynesian mission of keeping “aggregate demand” full to the brim via low interest rates and massive injections of fiat credits into the nation’s financial markets.

That was a drastic error from the get-go, but the money-printing gospel is of such convenience to both ends of the Acela Corridor that this cardinal pro-inflation error rolls forward unquestioned by both wings of the UniParty.

Accordingly, with inflation stalled at more than 3.0%, when it should be zero or negative, the Fed has again sung the Einstein Chorus. That is to say, these “insane” apparatchiks seem to believe that doing the same thing over and over again—even after 700% inflation—will finally generate a positive outcome.

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The post How the Fed’s Money Printing Broke American Industry—and What Comes Next appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the global chessboard, Beijing will keep stressing the power of the “multilateral trading system.” As in the absolute opposite of Trump 2.0.

Four days in Beijing. The fourth plenum of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China was really something to behold.

Methodology matters. What happened these four days is that delegates debated and then adopted “recommendations” leading to China’s 15th Five-Year Plan. A communique then laid out the basic vectors to be tackled. The full plan will only be known in detail next March, when it will be approved by the notorious Two Sessions in Beijing.

So let’s get straight to the point: this is how China works, meticulously planning everything in advance, with clear targets and meritocratic supervision. The – metaphorical – terminology does allow some leeway: everyone is aware of the “high winds, rough waves and raging storms” ahead – domestically and internationally. But “strategic resolve” won’t waver.

Key vectors for the Beijing leadership include “strengthening agriculture”, “benefiting farmers”, and “achieving rural prosperity” – side by side with progress with “people-centered new urbanization.”

In the global chessboard, Beijing will keep stressing the power of  the “multilateral trading system.” As in the absolute opposite of Trump 2.0.

Major targets for the 15th Five-Year Plan are quite clear. Among them: “advancements in high-quality development”; improving  “scientific and technological self-reliance”; a quite Confucianist “notable cultural and ethical progress across society”; and “strengthening the national security shield.”

In a nutshell: the Chinese leadership’s top priority is to build “a modernized industrial system”. As in a productive – not speculative – mixed economic system driving rural, urban and tech development.

Towards an ultra-high-tech “unified national market”

There have been so many practical, graphic examples across China of what has been achieved so far. Last month, I was privileged to see first-hand the socialism with Chinese characteristics surge in terms of sustainable development of Xinjiang . Xinjiang is now an IT hub and a leader in clean energy – exporting to the rest of China.

Then there’s the tech accomplishments of Made in China 2025, launched 10 years ago, and already placing China as tech leader in at least 8 of 10 scientific fields. Plus key programs that many Chinese themselves don’t know about, with particualr emphasis on the 973 Program and Project 985.

The 973 Program, launched way back in 1997, is the National Basic Research Program aiming to get a tech/strategic edge in several scientific fields – especially the development of the rare earth minerals industry. The program definitely elevated China to the top in terms of global science competitiviness.

Project 985 was launched in 1998 to develop a select group of top-tier universities to world-class level. Hence the emergence of Tsinghua, Peking, Zhejiang, Fudan and Harbin Institute of Technology, among others, as world leaders in engineering, computer science, robotics, aerospace, including key breakthroughs in AI, quantum computing and green energy. Ivy League and Oxbridge? Forget it: the real deal is Chinese universities.

Another key project is the G60 Science and Innovation Corridor,  connecting nine cities in China’s Yangtze River Delta. These cities contributed nearly 2.2% of global (italics mine) manufacturing value-added only last year. That’s China’s strategic economic planning driving tech progress – in effect.

At a press conference, Central Committee officials pointed to some basics obviously totally ignored by the fragmente West, but not by large sectors of the Global South. Especially the fact that Five-Year Plans are regarded as one of China’s key political advantages.

The formulation of the next plan, as usual in China, includes suggestions from all echelons of society. Market drivers from now on necessarily include computing infrastructure, intelligent driving and smart manufacturing. And predictably, up to 2035, there will be special emphasis on quantum tech, biomanufacturing, hydrogen, nuclear fusion, brain-computer interfaces, embodied intelligence and 6G, not to mention AI.

Conceptually, China will focus on its immense domestic market: what is defined as the “unified national market”.

A key emphasis was made on Beijing’s drive to combat “involution”: that is the intra-industry competition that has caused problems to several Chinese sectors.

On thorny US-China relations, Central Committee officials were adamant: the focus will be on “dialogue and cooperation” rather than “decoupling and fragmentation”. Well, both sides are meeting in Malaysia as we speak, on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit. Prospects for a wide-raing trade deal though are slim.

How to understand the evolution of the Chinese political system

The key takeaway: the 15th Five-Year Plan will concern the 2026-2030 period. Beijing wants to reinforce everything that was accomplished so far, with a crystal clear long-term focus: achieve what is defined as “socialist modernization” by 2035.

Based on what I personally saw in Xinjiang last month, compared to my previous visits (the last one had been over a decade ago), there is no shadow of a doubt they will do it.

It’s crucial to examine how two top Chinese academics explain the evolution of the Chinese political system. Relevant sections are worth quoting at length:

“While the traditional system was not immune to change, the goal of these changes was to maintain the status quo, preventing ‘revolutionary’ change. After the Han Dynasty, the policy of ‘abolishing all schools of thought and upholding Confucianism alone’ ideologically suppressed any factors that could catalyze major political change. Confucianism became the sole ruling philosophy, and its core purpose was to maintain rule. The modern German philosopher Hegel argued that ‘China has no history.’ Indeed, for thousands of years, from the Qin Shihuang Emperor to the late Qing Dynasty, China experienced only a succession of dynasties, not a change in fundamental institutions. Marx’s concept of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’ aligns with Hegel’s ideas. Chinese scholars such as Jin Guantao also have this in mind when they use the term ‘superstable structure.’ One can argue that this reflects the vitality of the traditional political system, or that China lacked structural change for thousands of years.”

“The current political system is quite different, primarily because the Enlightenment firmly established the concept of progress: that society can progress, and that progress is endless. From Sun Yat-sen’s revolution to Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Party and then to the Communist Party, generations of Chinese people have pursued change, sharing the same goal: to transform China and achieve progress. During the modern Enlightenment, the Confucian individual ethic that sustained the old system was subjected to the most radical criticism and attack. However, while the old ethic is no longer viable, various political factions lack a consensus on what the future holds. What kind of change does China need? How should it be pursued? What is the purpose of change? Various political forces hold divergent views.”

What the Chinese Communist Party has done, the two scholars  argue, is in fact quite revolutionary, going for radical change: “This is the socialist revolution it has pursued since its founding, using revolution to overthrow the old regime, thoroughly transform society, and establish an entirely new system. Naturally, this also leads to the various contradictions facing China today, most notably the conflict between traditional Confucian philosophy and Marxism-Leninism. The former is focused on maintaining the status quo or adapting itself for survival, while the latter pursues endless change.”

“Since the mid-1990s, the Chinese Communist Party has accelerated its transformation from a revolutionary party to a ruling party (…) One thing is clear: if a political party governs simply for the sake of governing, it will inevitably decline. This is evident in the history of communist rule in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as in the historical and current experience of Western political parties that calculate their legitimacy based on votes.”

“After reform and opening up, the Chinese Communist Party redefined its modernity, aiming to achieve the original revolutionary goal of resolving the problem of ‘universal impoverishment.’ However, while redefining modernity, the Party also strived to preserve the ‘revolutionary nature’ of the ruling party (…)  In terms of economic development, GDP-oriented economics played an invaluable role, transforming China’s ‘poverty socialism’ situation in just a few decades. By the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 2012, China had become the world’s second-largest economy and the largest trading nation, with per capita GDP soaring from less than $300 in the early 1980s to $6,000. More importantly, China lifted nearly 700 million people out of absolute poverty.”

The conclusion though is inescapable, and it is ineherent to the way Beijing is framing its political evolution now: “The Chinese Communist Party needs to redefine its modernity by reaffirming its mission, emphasizing its original aspirations, and reviving its revolutionary nature.”

After all, as the two scholars note, “in China, political parties are the subject of political action, and this action is not simply about survival and development, but about leading national development in all aspects (…) The ruling party must proactively define its own modernity through action, pursuing and achieving its own modernity. By constantly renewing and defining its modernity, the ruling party can maintain its sense of mission in leading social development while constantly renewing itself.”

There could hardly be a sharper summary of why socialism with Chinese characteristics is in a class by itself when it comes to translating political decisions into sustainable development targets. Complement it with Hong Kong billionaire’s Ronnie Chan’s succint analysis on the inevitability of the rise – again – of China.

The counterpoint is China ceasing to be the Pentagon’s key priority. Circus Ringmaster is essentially being forced to concede the global strategic competition to China. Forget about “winning” a tech/trade war on China – especially after the rare earth Sun Tzu move.

Meanwhile, the containment dogs bark while the Chinese Five-Year caravan strolls on.

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

The post And the Chinese Five-Year Caravan Strolls on appeared first on LewRockwell.

One never know how serious Trump’s ‘leaked’ plans are. Their purpose often seem to be solely to increase pressure on opponents, to move things into a direction he likes. If that does not work the plans may just be discarded. Or may, just may, be carried out.

Trump considering plans to target cocaine facilities inside Venezuela, officials say – Politico

President Donald Trump is considering plans to target cocaine facilities and drug trafficking routes inside Venezuela, though he has not yet made a decision on whether to move forward with them, three US officials told CNN.

Outward signs on Friday pointed toward a major potential military escalation, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordering the Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier strike group currently stationed in Europe to the Caribbean region amid a massive buildup of US forces there. Trump has also authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela.

The president has not ruled out taking a diplomatic approach with Venezuela to stem the flow of drugs into the US, two officials said, even after the administration cut off active talks with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in recent weeks.

Venzuela is, as Politico points out, not known for drug trafficking. It does not have ‘cocaine facilities’. But it does have the largest oil reserves in the world. That has always made it a target for a U.S. regime-change operations.

But Venezuela is also a huge country double the size of Iraq with a mountainous and often densely wooded countryside. The U.S. military is unable to invade, occupy and control it.

But what the U.S. might want to try in Venezuela is a variant of the Israeli plan for Iran.

A decapitation strike killing President Maduro and the military leadership accompanied by a bombing campaign to take out air defenses and primary defense units. Meanwhile the CIA and special forces will have to work on the ground in Caracas to organize local thugs for an assault on the main government sites and radio/TV buildings.

As soon as those are captured the U.S. selected regime-change puppet, as identified by the Nobel Peace Prize committee, can declare herself president.

The rest is just media work. Unless – and that is a big question – there will be some real resistance.

The Venezuelan Bolvarian movement can motivate its youth to resist the U.S. coup even a well planned operation may end up like the Bay of Pigs.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump Targets Venezuela appeared first on LewRockwell.

At some point capitalism lost the ability to give us new things that we need and started giving us new things we don’t need, and now it’s giving us new things we never needed and don’t even really want.

Nobody needs all this generative AI crap. We were doing fine with online search functions and the ability to write and make art for ourselves. Only the most shallow and vapid of individuals find any appeal in the idea of talking to a chatbot like a companion, consuming “art” generated by a computer program, or letting the technology of some plutocratic megacorporation do their thinking, researching and expressing for them.

The economy is now balancing on a giant bubble of a fledgeling industry that is already underperforming expectations and hitting points of diminishing returns on multiple fronts, all while being really bad for the environment. And it doesn’t improve anyone’s life in any meaningful way.

Nobody asked for this.

And it’s not like people aren’t asking for things; capitalism just doesn’t have the ability to give them the things they are asking for. World peace. Affordable housing. Good health. Fast and efficient public transportation systems. Solutions to the various environmental catastrophes that status quo human behavior is driving us toward. The ability to have our needs met without spending all our time at work. Care for the needful. General human thriving. These are not demands that a system driven by the pursuit of profit for its own sake can supply.

When capitalism first showed up it delivered plenty of new things which people had a need and a desire for that weren’t available under previous systems like feudalism. The greatly increased material abundance and explosions of scientific and technological innovation ushered in with the dawn of capitalism caused human quality of life to improve by leaps and bounds.

But now we’re at a point where that just isn’t happening anymore. Things have stagnated, and we’re starting to backslide. People are getting dumber, sicker, lonelier, and more and more miserable. And the profit-driven systems we live under have no answers, besides throwing increasingly shitbrained technology at us so we can distract ourselves from how fucked up everything has gotten.

We are being driven into dystopia and annihilation by systems of our own making. We’re meant to be the smartest species on earth, but we locked ourselves in our invention — a self-reinforcing labor camp that makes us miserable — and then we get all huffy when people dare to question if it’s the only way of doing things. Literally every other species is smarter than us. Amoebas are having a better time of it.

This will change when humanity replaces capitalism with something better, in the same way we replaced feudalism with the superior system of capitalism. I don’t know what that system is going to look like, but it’s going to have to involve a move from a model that is driven by competition to one that is driven by collaboration. That’s the only way humanity will be able to channel all its brilliance toward the immense project of overcoming all the obstacles we now face as a species, along with all terrestrial organisms.

Until then, all we can do is try to help awaken as many of our fellow humans as possible to the reality of our circumstances. Use every means at our disposal to teach people how dire our plight is, how deceived we’ve been by the propaganda and indoctrination of the empire we live under, how sorely change is needed, and that a better world is possible. Once we get enough eyes open, we’ll have the numbers to force things to change.

_______________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. 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. 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 Capitalism Is Shoving AI Down Our Throats Because It Can’t Give Us What We Actually Want appeared first on LewRockwell.

Sizing  Up Trump

Approaching a year since Trump’s third election as president, how do we sum him up?

He has done good things.  He has closed the border.  He is attempting to deport some of the many millions of illegal immigrants that the Democrats brought into our country.  He freed the January 6 protesters framed by a totally corrupt Biden regime “Justice” Department and a whore media.  He is attempting to dislodge the DEI that has replaced merit throughout US society including the military.  He has taken steps to reduce the anti-Americanism of the enormous federal bureaucracy and to stop the weaponization of law against Americans who have traditional American values.  These are enormous achievements, none of which would have been delivered by a Democrat regime.

In light of these achievements, it is frustrating that in other important areas Trump is failing disastrously.  He has supported a genocide with American money, weapons, and diplomatic cover.  He committed an act of war against Iran at the urging of Netanyahu. He has relied on orders to the President of Russia in place of diplomacy.  When his orders are not obeyed, he imposes punishments. The current order is for a cease fire in Ukraine without addressing the underlying cause of the conflict.  The punishment is orders to India and China to stop purchasing Russian oil. In other words, as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said of President George W. Bush, “he speaks as if he owns the world.” Trump’s sovereignty-denying behavior is the opposite of a peace-maker.  He assaults the environment, thus insuring the hostility of much of America’s educated class who regard Trump’s opening of the pristine Alaska wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling as a travesty.  Clearly, the area cannot be both a refuge and an area of oil and gas exploitation. Environmentalists wonder how long before a bankrupt US government sells the national forests to timber companies.  In his attack on Venezuela, Trump uses the claim of a war against drugs as a cover for a war to overthrow a country and resume US exploitation of its resources, just as George W. Bush used “the war on terror” to overthrow Arab states for Israel.  What is the evidence that small craft in Venezuelan and international waters are loaded with drugs on the way to the US?  How can any evidence be found when the boats are blown up and destroyed instead of boarded and inspected.  What authority does the US have for boarding boats in Venezuelan and international waters?  Trump’s policy is to destroy the craft and the people on them on suspicion alone without evidence or authority.  If US police acted this way in the US they would be arrested for murder.  A government cannot legally execute people without conviction for a capital crime. If there are Venezuelan drug runners, what is the evidence that they are connected to the government? How likely is it that Venezuela, which has been on Washington’s target list for years, would provide Washington with a drug excuse to overthrow the government and install a regime of its own?

The likelihood is that Trump is going to have America at war with Russia, Iran, Venezuela, China, and all who refuse to obey his orders.  

As much as Americans needed Trump’s accomplishments, his failures are a large price to pay. America needs a strong president, because leadership requires strength.  Leadership also requires moral and mutually acceptable solutions, not orders imposed by coercion.  Trump does not own the world, and he cannot impose dictates on Russia, Iran, India, and China.  Something is amiss that the Trump regime cannot see that this is an unsuccessful and dangerous policy.

Sizing Up Putin

Among Western foreign policy commentators there seems to be confusion about Putin and Peskov’s insistence that Russia remains committed to the Alaska agreement.  What Putin and Peskov understand the Alaska meeting to have accomplished is obtaining Trump’s agreement that ending the conflict in Ukraine has to begin with resolving the conflict the West has chosen to have with Russia.  What Putin means by the root cause of the conflict is the hostile attitude in the West toward Russia. It is this hostile attitude that brought NATO with US missile bases to Russia’s border, overthrew the Russian friendly Ukraine government, attacked the Russian population of Donbas and forced Russia’s military intervention.  Most Western commentators continue to lie between their teeth that Russia is responsible for starting the conflict in Ukraine when it is clear that the West forced the Russian intervention. To force Russian intervention was the entire purpose of the Maidan Revolution in 2014 and subsequent deception of Russia with the Minsk Agreement, which turned out not to be an agreement.

In the Alaska meeting Putin concluded that Trump agreed that the root cause is the absence of a mutual security agreement denied to Putin by the Biden Regime, NATO, and the EU in January 2022, thus provoking the Russian intervention in Ukraine. First the root cause was to be addressed and then the cease fire.  Putin was not agreeable to a cease fire that would result in Ukrainian forces being rebuilt while negotiations went nowhere.

As John Helmer and I pointed out, the Alaska understanding is inconsistent with Washington’s foreign policy goal of hegemony and with the expectation of billions of dollars in commissions to Western political figures from the sales to Europe of American weapons to continue the war in Ukraine.  With Trump’s success in getting Europe to increase defense budgets to 5% of GDP,  commission payouts gleam in the eyes of Western government officials.

The controlling interests in the West is for the conflict to continue.  Trump’s “advisors” got this through to him, and Trump suddenly cancelled his meeting with Putin and changed his tune yet again.  Now his tune is again that the killing has to stop first with a cease fire, and then the negotiations can begin.  This, of course, serves no Russian interests except those of Putin’s “advisor,” Kirill Dmitriev, a spokesman for Russian business interests whose connections are in the West and not with BRICS.  Dmitriev wants Putin to give up, as does Putin’s central bank director, so that American-Russian business interests can be mended and the profitable connections of Russian businesses with the West can be restored.

Why Putin relies on self-interested Kirill Dmitriev and pro-American central bank director Elvira Nabiullina, who set up $300 billion in Russian assets to be frozen and now possibly used to fund Ukraine’s continuation of the war for another three years, I do not know.  It strikes me as the worst possible judgement by a leader who is trying to avoid WW 3.

Why Trump relies on Witcoff and Kellogg is equally puzzling.  It is extraordinary that the two leaders who, we hope, are working to avoid  WW 3, are relying on “advisors” who are working against them.  

My  conclusion is that money and US hegemony are more important than avoiding war.  So it is likely we will get war.

Like John Helmer and myself, Gilbert Doctorow is outside the box of the official narrative.  This means that the three of us are subjected to name-calling instead of engagement with our analysis.  It is OK with me if I can be shown to be wrong–indeed, I would be glad of it as my conclusion is depressing–and I assume Helmer and Doctorow feel the same.  Those few of us who are outside the box cannot afford to have thin skin.

Doctorow has raised the issue of how much longer Putin can hold to his hopes that Trump will flip back to the Alaska agreement between the two world leaders and perhaps this time stay there.  Resolving the conflict is a far better solution than a major war certain to turn nuclear.  To be clear, Doctorow, Helmer, and I admire Putin for his effort to avoid war.  He is clearly a moral and humane person, unlike the money-grabbers in the West who put their profits ahead of the survival of humanity. When Doctorow says Putin shows cowardice, perhaps he means  that this is the way Putin appears to the US, UK, and Europe.  In other words, Putin’s good intentions are working against him.

Doctorow, who watches the state controlled Russian TV programs on which the war and foreign policy are discussed and who is currently in Moscow looking into the evolving attitude toward the war as best as he can, has noticed a growing impatience with the way Putin has been  conducting the war for nearly four years.  In foreign policy circles, if not within Putin’s own circle, the futility of attempting to negotiate with the West and Washington is recognized.  Among Russian populations, their life is increasingly disrupted by long-range drone attacks that disrupt GPS service, airline flights, internet service, and prevent businesses from completing sales transactions, and there are the occasional civilian deaths far from the battlefield.

The rising criticism of Putin’s conduct of the war in foreign policy circles and the public reached a new level, Doctorow reports, when the main TV news analysis program’s host said that negotiations had failed and it was time to “destroy Ukraine” and quickly end the war.  The deputy Russian foreign minister agreed as did, it seems, Lavrov, both of whom were contradicted by Kremlin spokesman Peskov. The program’s host is a protege of the director of Russian state TV.  Neither he nor the deputy prime minister would have risked taking such positions unless there was much support behind them.

Why the contradiction by Peskov as the TV host and deputy foreign minister are obviously correct?  The answer, it seems, is that Putin is holding on to hopes too long.  A conflict that should have had a victorious conclusion for Russia within a matter of weeks is now almost 4 years long.  The four long years are marred with endless undefended red lines that have convinced the West that Putin can be knuckled under.  Consequently, the war has ever widened. Putin’s misjudgment is turning a limited conflict into a world war.  

Here I will state the root cause of the problem as clearly as it can be stated for both Americans and policy-makers in Washington and Europe and for Russians and the Kremlin.  War is profitable for the Western military-security complex.  Ending conflict hurts those who profit from it, as President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961.  The doctrine of US hegemony expressed by the Wolfowitz Doctrine when the Soviet Union collapsed, thus removing the only constraint on US hegemony, is still operative.  This doctrine allied with money interests is the basis for Washington’s hostility toward Russia.  The Wolfowitz Doctrine and the profits of war are the obstacles to ending the root cause of the conflict.

US Decides Selling Weapons More Important Than Peace

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The United States supports the use by the European Union of Russia’s frozen assets to buy US-made weapons for Ukraine, Reuters reported on Saturday, citing US officials.

US officials have reportedly informed their European counterparts that Washington supports the EU using Russian assets to purchase weapons for Ukraine.

The Trump administration has also held internal conversations about leveraging Russian state assets that remain blocked in US bank accounts to back Ukraine’s military campaign, Reuters reported. See this.

Another Reason Why Russia Doesn’t Want a Cease Fire

France is ready to send troops as early as next year as part of security guarantees proposed by Ukraine’s Western backers if a ceasefire is reached in the conflict with Russia, Army Chief of Staff Pierre Schill has said.

The post Sizing Up Trump and Putin appeared first on LewRockwell.

Across the Western world, men are facing a crisis few dare to name aloud. The facts are undeniable: fathers torn from their children, men ruined by divorce courts, and masculine identity hollowed out by a culture intent on rewriting gender itself. Beneath the surface of everyday life, an unspoken war is being fought — not on poverty or crime, but on men.

I never set out to write about men’s struggles. But through my own experience, I realized it isn’t only celebrities like Mel Gibson or Johnny Depp who are dragged through the grinder. Ordinary men everywhere are fighting the same battle — often in silence.

When Mel Gibson’s breakup with Oksana Grigorieva exploded into scandal, custody wars, and financial ruin, it showed that no man, no matter his wealth or fame, is safe from the machinery of the modern divorce system.

We saw the same script play out with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Years of accusations, media bias, and legal warfare turned Depp’s private life into a public spectacle — a global case study in what happens when a man is presumed guilty from the start. If even a Hollywood star must fight tooth and nail to clear his name, what chance does the average man have in court, facing bias and weaponized accusation without Hollywood wealth to shield him?

This isn’t an exception — it’s a symptom of a much deeper problem, the very war on men that my book exposes.

Like many men, I was simply a man who thought he was in love. She was beautiful, charming, full of “I love you’s.” To the outside world, we looked like the perfect couple. But behind the façade of romance, I found a darker truth.

The woman I loved — shaped, like so many today, by modern ideas about men and relationships — expected my time, my energy, and my money. Her affection felt increasingly transactional. When I finally ended it, I was hit with accusations and financial pressure that seemed to appear from nowhere. For the first time, I saw how easily the system itself could be used against me — even without evidence.

That was my red pill moment. The mask slipped. I saw that the problem wasn’t just one relationship — it was the machinery behind it. The system rewards exploitation and punishes men who refuse to play along.

That realization led me to write The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization. Not out of anger, but out of clarity. My story is not unique. It’s part of a much larger pattern — a silent war waged against men everywhere.

Many men sense this truth but can’t put it into words: the very systems once meant to protect family and fairness have become weapons against them. This is not hyperbole. It is lived reality for millions. And it begins, all too often, with the institution of marriage.

The Marriage Contract: A Trap in Disguise

Most men step into marriage full of hope — believing it’s a covenant built on love, trust, and shared purpose. But as The War on Men reveals, the legal reality is very different.

Signing a state marriage license isn’t just pledging yourself to a spouse. It’s entering a three-way contract where the state is the senior partner. The husband and wife become secondary parties, while the state claims ultimate jurisdiction over the union, the home, and even the children born within it.

What was once a covenant between husband, wife, and God has been reduced to a civil business arrangement — a contract of adhesion, unequal by design. The state offers its “consideration” in the form of a license; the couple unknowingly surrenders authority. From that moment, the state holds the upper hand.

The implications are staggering. Children are treated as the “fruit” of that contract, belonging first to the state — which is why child protective services can seize them with alarming ease. This isn’t conspiracy; it’s codified law, rooted in Roman civil code and embedded in modern family statutes.

Most men think marriage is the reward for love. Few realize it’s the point at which the system quietly claims their freedom.

Marriage is the only major decision in life where men are told to ignore risk. In every other area — business, career, finance — prudence is praised. In marriage, you’re told to close your eyes, follow your heart, and sign on the dotted line.

Love, we’re told, makes it all safe. But it doesn’t. The truth is brutal: a bad marriage, or even a cohabitation gone wrong, can destroy more than your bank account. It can take your home, your children, and the best years of your life.

That’s why I wrote The War on Men — the book I wish I had read before learning firsthand how modern relationships and courts are stacked against men. If marriage feels like a gamble where the odds are against you, this book explains why — and how to protect yourself.

Divorce Court: The Battlefield Where Men Lose Everything

Divorce court is where the imbalance of modern marriage reveals itself in full. When the vows collapse, the man discovers he isn’t an equal party but the least protected, least privileged actor in the drama.

Under “no-fault” divorce, a woman may leave for any reason — or none — while the man is left begging for fairness. Judges wield almost unlimited discretion, and outcomes depend not on justice or constitution but on civil statute.

The results are devastating:

• Men lose half their income, forced into support payments that leave them barely surviving.
  Custody laws defaulted to mothers.
• Fathers are denied real time with their children, reduced to visitors.
• Even stepchildren, not biologically his, can become his financial burden under expanding court powers.

This system wasn’t built to protect men — it was built to exploit them. The state profits through enforcement revenues, while social engineers advance an agenda that weakens fathers and strengthens bureaucratic control.

The man who once saw himself as provider and protector is recast as debtor and defendant, trapped in a system designed to break him.

Governments panic over falling marriage and birth rates, yet never ask the obvious question: why would men risk marriage when the system punishes them for it? Men aren’t rejecting commitment — they’re rejecting a rigged game. Until that changes, both marriage and civilization will continue to crumble.

Social Engineering and the Feminist Trap

How did we get here? Not by chance or cultural drift — but by design. The modern marriage contract and family court system are the products of deliberate social engineering.

The rise of feminism coincided with the expansion of state power into private life. From the late 19th century onward, the traditional covenant of marriage was replaced with state licensing. At the same time, feminist activism pushed for legal reforms that tilted marriage and divorce law heavily toward women.

Each new “advance” brought greater power to the courts:

• No-fault divorce erased accountability.
• Custody laws defaulted to mothers.
• Support formulas guaranteed lifelong payments from men — regardless of fairness or survival.

This wasn’t reform; it was re-engineering. The objective was clear: weaken men, weaken families, and strengthen the state. Strong men are difficult to control. Broken men are not.

As filmmaker Aaron Russo once testified, the Rockefeller banking dynasty helped finance early feminist movements — not to liberate women, but to tax the other half of the population and transfer child-rearing from family to state. Once both parents worked, the state could shape children’s minds through institutional education.

I explore this dynamic further in Climate CO₂ Hoax, showing how environmentalism has been used as another vehicle for central planning and ideological control. The UN’s so-called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) advance the same agenda — presented as benevolence, but rooted in control.

Modern feminism, like environmentalism, cloaks power in moral language. Yet one question exposes the lie: What legal right do men have that women don’t? None. Men have no rights denied to women — and in many cases, fewer.

Despite this, the myth of “systemic male privilege” still dominates politics, media, and academia. This distortion fuels laws and attitudes that strip men of rights in family courts, workplaces, and public life — turning equality into an ideological weapon.

The Human Cost

Behind the legalese and political agendas are real men, flesh and blood. The stories echo in every town and city:

• A father bankrupted, unable to keep a roof over his head while forced to support two households.
• A man driven to despair, stripped of his children and identity by a court that sees him as expendable.
• Sons growing up without fathers, learning that men are secondary, that masculinity itself is suspect.

The toll shows up in numbers: suicide, homelessness, addiction, disconnection. But statistics can’t capture the wound. For countless men, the betrayal is not just financial — it’s existential. They did everything asked of them: worked, provided, sacrificed. And in return, they were treated as disposable.

Why The War on Men Matters

The War on Men is more than a book — it’s a lifeline. It tells the truth men need to hear — not to sow bitterness, but to open eyes. Inside, readers will find:

• The Divorce Machine — how courts profit while fathers are punished.
• The Feminist Trap — hidden dangers in marriage contracts.
• The Silent Epidemic — men betrayed by false accusations and bias.
• The Path Forward — how to reclaim power, purpose, and peace.

This is’nt about hating women. It is about rejecting illusion. It is about seeing through the lies — that marriage is safe, that the courts are fair, that men are privileged. It is about reclaiming the masculine strength needed to stand tall in a world that would rather see men bowed.

The Path Forward: Awareness, Strength, Clarity, Freedom

What, then, can men do?

• Wake up. Marriage today isn’t the covenant it once was. It’s a civil contract stacked against men — approach it with eyes wide open.
• Reclaim purpose. Masculinity isn’t toxic; it’s essential. The strength to build, protect, and lead are virtues — and when they’re lost, society collapses.
• Break the silence. The war on men thrives on isolation. When men tell their stories and refuse to accept the lie that they’re expendable, the tide begins to turn.
• Choose freedom. Any contract with the state — from marriage licenses to other legal traps — carries a cost. A man who retains his independence retains his power.

This is a time for strength, clarity, and courage — to reclaim the dignity of masculinity. For the sake of your children, your future, and your soul, you cannot afford to ignore the truth. Read The War on Men — and see what they don’t want you to see.

The post The Silent Struggle: How Divorce Courts and Social Engineering Wage War on Men appeared first on LewRockwell.

Only the wealthy will benefit from ZIRP, and the benefits of “the wealth effect” and “trickle down” have not just diminished–they’re now negative. Welcome to the era of ZAP.

Correspondent Scott suggested I consider the possibility that the powers that be will respond to a weakening of the economy by pushing interest rates toward zero, reinstating ZIRP–Zero Interest Rate Policy. The purpose of ZIRP is to reduce the costs of borrowing money as the means of goosing borrowing-and-spending and inflating another credit-asset bubble, a.k.a. “the wealth effect,” the Federal Reserve’s tried-and-true means of goosing the spending of the top 10% by making them wealthier–not by becoming more productive, but by jacking up the market valuation of the assets they own.

Here is my paraphrasing of Scott’s summary of this dynamic:

Here’s the logic of ZIRP: near zero interest rates 2008-2020 were beloved by the already rich, hedge funds and private equity (all of whom have enormous political influence). So they borrowed tens of billions of dollars to buy up every asset that wasn’t nailed down: stocks & bonds (both touching all time highs), houses (few now available for a decent price), businesses (half the NYSE was bought up by competitors), mobile home parks (desperate people pay their rent), apartment buildings, retirement homes, etc.

The Lords and Ladies of the estate are back! The new feudalism.

Thank you, Scott. As long-time readers know, I’ve often documented these very dynamics: the top 10% already own roughly 90% of all stocks and the majority of other income-producing assets (bonds, rental housing, business equity). The top 0.1% collect the majority of unearned income (i.e. income from assets).

I’ve also described how lumping all households into one bucket makes everything look rosy by masking the widening divide in wealth and income between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. I’ve often posted charts showing the bottom 50% of US households own such a thin slice of the nation’s financial wealth that it’s mere signal noise.

In other words, ZIRP works great if we define “great” as increasing wealth-income inequality and increasing consumption by making the already-rich even richer. Spending by the top 10% is about half of all consumption, meaning the wealthy are propping up the economy based on the enormous bubble in the assets they own.

Wealthy Americans Are Spending. People With Less Are Struggling. Data show a resilient economy. But that largely reflects spending by the rich, while others pull back amid high prices and a weakening labor market.

In other words, thanks to the Fed’s “stimulus” and ZIRP, globalization and financialization, ours is a fully neofeudal economy and society. I lay this out in my new book Investing In Revolution.

But here’s the thing: the Fed may try ZIRP, but end up with ZAP– Zero Adaptive Policy, a policy that no longer works as it did in the past because conditions have changed. In other words, ZIRP will not longer be a solution, it will be the problem.

What’s changed? Many things. We can start with these:

1. China is no longer providing a deflationary impulse in the global economy that offsets the sources of higher prices (inflation). Now systemic inflationary forces have the upper hand.

2. Risk pushes costs higher throughout the economy. Risks are obviously rising systemically, and so the risk premium is increasing. This pushes up the cost of everything.

3. The Fed’s “wealth effect” and “trickle-down” policy–the spending of the wealthy will “trickle down” to the bottom 90%–have pushed wealth-income inequality to extremes that trigger social disorder. Doing more of what worked post-2009 will not generate “growth”–it will generate instability.

4. Bubbles are teleological: they get bigger and more systemically corrosive with each iteration. There is no guarantee that Fed stimulus and ZIRP will reinflate the ruins left after the Everything / AI bubble deflates.

Read the Whole Article

The post ZIRP or ZAP? Will the Fed’s ‘Zero-Interest Rate Policy’ Return, and Will It Work? appeared first on LewRockwell.

We are nine months into the Donald Trump presidency and the road ahead seems pretty clear. There is an unsustainable one trillion dollar Pentagon budget supporting a newly renamed Department of War and Washington is engaged in conflicts that could escalate in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. If it were possible to stage a bellicose incident near or in Antarctica that would also no doubt become a target, just as the Arctic region is currently playing into fantasies involving Greenland and Canada. Trump has even stopped talking to friendly neighbor Canada about trade relations over an ad that he did not like and no doubt will be discussing invasion soon. And let’s not forget the conflict here at home where Trump is citing the Insurrection Act regularly, signaling his intention to expand the already existing use of the military to carry out law enforcement functions in America’s states and cities, something that is of questionable legality under the Posse Comitatus Act.

The supreme irony is that all of the conflicts have been unnecessary, involving as they do countries and entire geographic regions that in no way threaten either the United States or what were once referred to as its vital interests except insofar as those interests have been grossly and one might suggest criminally misrepresented. That is what we are witnessing right now as what appears to be fishermen are being murdered by US forces positioned in the international waters of the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. In the latest incident involving sinking a Colombian vessel and killing two crewmen in the Pacific, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro denounced the crime and was in turn called a “thug” by Trump, who once again has demonstrated his skill at diplomacy. Trump has also warned that the war on “narco-terrorists” might well shift from the sea to “on land” in the countries being targeted, meaning that they will be invaded with the intention of regime change.

Russia, which is now on-again to being regarded as an opponent, is having its energy companies sanctioned, yet again, even though it has respectable and clearly defined national security interests that Trump has failed to comprehend. And there are also reports possibly linked to Trump’s ongoing feud with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Wednesday, when he blasted the paper for a “FAKE NEWS” report that the Trump Administration had lifted “a key restriction” on Ukraine, allowing it to use long-range Tomahawk missiles against Russia. WSJ reported the green light from Trump would empower Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is of course Jewish and is also strongly supported by Israel to such an extent that Zelensky has said “that when the Ukraine War is over, Ukraine will be a “big Israel.” The new missiles provided by Washington, if the repot is accurate, will be used to “step up attacks on targets inside Russia” and put added pressure on Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to agree to the ceasefire demanded by the White House. The missiles were reportedly given to Ukraine by its “Western allies.” As the US would have to play a part in targeting and launching the missiles, the move would bring the US directly into the war.

Iran, meanwhile, has never threatened the US and currently Venezuela and Colombia are not enemies except in the demented minds of Mr Trump and his cabinet. The US has no authority to “obliterate” the Palestinians in Gaza as Trump has recently threatened if Hamas does not comply with his orders, a threat that is particularly loathsome as it is being suggested as a “gift” to the most evil country in the world, Israel. During a visit to Israel on Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance repeated the warning that Hamas would be “obliterated” if it did not cooperate with the ceasefire — taking off from a similar threat from Trump, who earlier also promised “fast, furious and brutal force.”

Instead, the wars that are being ginned-up reflect the desire of America’s supreme leader to appear to be a tough guy who claims that the United States by right ought to dominate the world, all in spite of his own personal history as a draft dodger when it was his turn to fight for his country in an admittedly bad cause during the Vietnam War. Apparently shaking one’s tiny fist in the air while grimacing threateningly and punishing critics using the power and resources of the federal government is now regarded by some as what the American public expects in a president. At least that is the way that Donald Trump and his cast of clowns see it since they seem to be completely lacking any sense of the dignity expected of the American presidency. Oh, and along the way, the fawning claque is required to regularly heap praise on the Sovereign Leader, who now self-proclaims as arguably the third greatest president this country has ever had after Washington and Lincoln, by telling him what a genius and great man he is.

Those of us who are skeptical of the outpouring of homage to the Great Chief see a man who cannot even articulate a sentence properly. And in staff meetings in the White House he often cannot remember the name of whoever is sitting or standing next to him, but no matter, when you are set on destroying entire countries the details don’t really matter. As Trump is in reality a totally owned and operated subsidiary of the Jewish State Israel and his Jewish billionaire donors, which amount to the same thing, the rat line from Tel Aviv/Jerusalem, which also increasingly owns the US media, will cover up the inconsistencies. It will also deep-six the stories that would diminish the grandeur of the Trump White House, complete with the under- construction status of a magnificent ball room that will accommodate up to 1,000 worshippers. Too bad about the destruction of the White House East Wing, which will also be offset by the proposed “Trump-ful” memorial arch just down the Potomac from the Trump Center for the Performing Arts. There is also a bill in Congress to fund adding the sculpture of Trump’s magnificent head and stern visage to the Mount Rushmore Memorial in South Dakota, alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

Trump’s total engagement with Israel and his complete subjugation at the hands of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he describes as a great war hero, just like himself, means that there is little that comes out of the White House that does not obtain the seal of approval from Tel Aviv. There are certainly bizarre anecdotes that one might share nearly every time Trump opens his mouth, but the tales of government by idiots are sometimes difficult to comprehend due to their sheer inanity. If there remains some hope that the United States is somehow a sinking ship that might some day right itself, it is perhaps best just to assume that the real criminal behavior comes out of Israel, like the fraudulent “Trump Peace Plan” for Gaza currently being floated to serve the Israeli interest in creating a Palestine free of Palestinians. Trump’s two top negotiators, real estate tycoons Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, pretend to be impartial but they are both ardent Zionists who have declared that there has been no genocide going on in Gaza, a judgment which ninety per cent of the world would disagree with. The two would, not coincidentally perhaps, be likely to earn billions from the reconstruction of Gaza and turning it into the Trump Riviera resort. No Palestinians allowed, of course and the latest word coming from the “Peace Planners” is that Gaza reconstruction will only take place in the part of the Strip occupied by the Israeli Army.

But one of my favorite tales relates to the Nobel Peace Prize, which is a curious tale that involves both Donald Trump and Israel. The surprise winner of the prize Maria Machado, is an opponent of the current government headed by Nicolas Maduro, whom the US (and Trump personally) has opposed since a failed coup in May 2020, which Washington’s Drug Enforcement Administration may have organized and supported. As a consequence of the pressure from Washington, Maduro has broken off diplomatic relations with the US. He also is an outspoken critic of Israel’s behavior in Gaza. Machado has discerned an opportunity to obtain substantial foreign support, so she has praised Trump and has called on both the United States and Israel to intervene in her country and overthrow the government, replacing it, presumably, with her. So is the impending war with Venezuela, which will presumably kill lots of people, in some way linked to Trump and Israel? You betcha!

Even better than Machado is the recent Trumpean nonsense regarding Argentina which will cost tons of US taxpayer money and which actually has American ranchers crying out about how their livelihoods are being ruined. How the Israel control mechanism works is well exemplified by Trump’s interaction with Argentine President Javier Milei. Milei has expressed his deep admiration for Trump and for the state of Israel, which is a prerequisite for robbing the American taxpayer, a sleight of hand that Israel and its Tribe are particularly good at. Best of all, the wholesale theft is carried out under the protective aegis of the Congressional Antisemitism Awareness Act, which declares that criticism of Israel is motivated by “antisemitism” and therefore a “hate crime.”

Milei has been in the news lately because Trump has given him a $20 billion “swap line” bailout as a loan with Argentina’s central bank, where the US Treasury will exchange dollars for pesos to support the peso and the country’s credit market. Trump has also called for the importation of 80,000 tons of cheap Argentine beef to bring down prices in the US, a move objected to by American farmers who are reported to be struggling due to the bad economy and soaring prices.

Milei comes from an Italian family and was raised Roman Catholic, but he has nurtured a relationship with the large Argentine Jewish community and also with the state of Israel, which he has officially visited, praying at the Wailing Wall and moving his embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has also met with Benjamin Netanyahu and has reportedly stated his desire to convert to Judaism, but by one account he deferred that possibility when he was elected to the presidency due to the need to be engaged in office on the Jewish sabbath, on which no work could be performed. Nevertheless, his relationship with Jews and Israel is regarded as extremely strong and he boasts that his country is Israel’s best friend in Latin America. It is a position that is somewhat unusual for Latin America and something that Donald Trump, who may himself have converted to Judaism and has a daughter who has done so, greatly respects. So Milei gets the cash from the United States!

It is interesting to note how nearly every time one looks at an aspect of US foreign policy, to include Donald Trump’s penchant to resort to threats of violence which periodically turn into wars, the state of Israel comes up. Polls indicate that the American public is becoming increasingly aware of Israeli dominance of the White House whether it is inhabited by a Joe Biden or a Donald Trump. It is past time for a thorough cleaning at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue beyond the building of a new gilded ballroom to restore the People’s House to the People and to throw the Zionist Israel-First crooks out never to return. Let us hope that the revolution to restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights and to end both the wars and the Israel connection comes soon before it is too late!

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post A Nation At War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

I thought this was an interesting video. The Beatles song “Taxman” mentions both “Mr. Wilson” and “Mr. Heath.” Heath and Nixon both made a lot of mistakes in 1974. Income and price controls never work. They just make things worse. 

The post 1974 Explained: The Year that Almost Crushed Britain appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin  wrote

Corrupt crony capitalism at its worst.

See also this.

The post The REAL Reason We’re Giving $40 Billion To Argentina Is UNBELIEVABLE! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Progressive Era, by Murray N. Rothbard

EDITED BY
PATRICK NEWMAN

FOREWORD BY
JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

In the last decades of Murray Rothbard’s life, he developed an important interpretative framework in understanding American history. This was prodded on by his careful study of the emerging “new political history” which was reinterpreting the dynamics of the ebb and flow of ethnocultural and ethnoreligious groups. This bold synthesis became the central focus of some of his greatest scholarly endeavors, particularly when it came to understanding progressivism as a secularized version of this postmillennial religious zeal.

In his brilliant book, The Progressive Era, (which I believe to be his greatest work) Rothbard provided the Rosetta Stone to understanding the origins of the welfare/warfare state in America: the role of postmillennial Protestant pietistic intellectuals and activists born in the crucial decade surrounding the Civil War who, because of the seductive allure and influence of the evolutionary naturalism of Darwinism, came of age increasingly secularized, but who did not forsake their faith in statism and elitist social control.

In particular, read the wonderful foreword to this book by Judge Andrew Napolitano. His experience studying the Progressive Era at Princeton amazingly mirrors that of myself at the University of Tulsa.

Each week, Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger and Misean economist Richard M. Ebeling discuss the hot topics of the day.

In the video below Jacob and Richard discussed the disaster of progressivism. I cannot stress enough the importance of this dialog. This concise 30 minute conversation encapsulates the most brilliant and enlightening synthesis of ideas and history concerning the origins and roots of this pernicious intellectual movement, both at home and abroad.

Ebeling concisely traces these concepts from their 19th century Marxian notions of the dynamic class struggle of history, that history, according to Karl Marx, inevitably moved in a “progressive” direction from primitive pre-industrial societies, to a feudal order, to industrial capitalism, will move onward towards socialism (and the dictatorship of the proletariat), finally to the ultimate stage of history, communism. Any movement away from this cyclical direction was “reactionary” or regressive.

In perhaps the highlight of his remarks, he builds upon the pioneering insights of Murray Rothbard and others in focusing upon the crucial development of the welfare-warfare state in Germany under chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and Bismarck’s co-opting of the collectivist program of the Marxian Social Democrats into a Bismarxian hybrid to enhance state power and control.

Again, as Rothbard elucidated, generations of key American graduate students attended German universities during this period, returning to the US transformed by these statist ideas they had absorbed. These persons, such as Richard T. Ely of the University of Wisconsin, became the first generation of progressive intellectuals and cogs within the state apparatus that moved America away from a classical liberal (libertarian) direction towards this collectivist hybrid known as progressivism.

Hornberger cogently points out the key role of the judiciary in the erosion of the constitutional safeguards against interventionism, and the pivotal model of Woodrow Wilson in establishing the matrix for all that followed. Wilson was a student of Richard Ely at Johns Hopkins.

The post The Progressive Era, by Murray N. Rothbard appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

DrPaulMarik

The post Dr. Paul Marik on the Sanitary Revolution That Transofrmed Society appeared first on LewRockwell.

Greg Privette wrote:

Hi Lew,

I saw the article by Joachim Hagopian. From that article:

In record time Trump has shown America his true colors as a dictator. Barely a month into his second term presidency, a PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) poll taken between February 28 and March 20 found that 52% of the 5,025 Americans polled agreed with the following statement:

[Trump is a] dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy

True to form the opposition completely misses the real issue due to their fetish for “democracy”. This is due to their desire to use democracy to regain the levers of power for themselves. If the opposition really wants to save the American people, rather than the American state, why not try this statement instead:

[Trump is a] dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American Liberty (at least what’s left of it)

That would be a statement I think we could all get behind.

The post King Trump Chronicles appeared first on LewRockwell.