Aggregatore di feed

The post Russell Brand Interviews Dr. Peter McCullough appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

Predictably but still sadly, with Charlie Kirk out of the way, TPUSA which he co-founded, is now  lobbying for a US war with Iran. Kirk had evolved in the last two years of his life into an antiwar activist. I also found out Tucker Carlson, who evolved to his antiwar stance about 15 years ago, also personally lobbied Trump against attacking Iran.

Charlie Kirk personally lobbied Trump against striking Iran

Six months later, with Kirk gone, TPUSA is in the Pentagon propaganda room lobbying Trump to strike Iran again https://t.co/VdeuGzbb93

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) December 4, 2025

The post With Charlie Kirk Gone, TPUSA Supports US War With Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

The Royalist

 

The post Harry’s Colbert Appearance Needling Trump Was Reckless and, Politically, Not Astute appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brian Dunaway wrote:

The financial press is awash in alarms such as this, and among these are claxons from well-respected conservative billionaire investors not formerly disposed to hyperbole.

This is not your father’s financial crisis, or for that matter your grandfathers’, or your great, great …

Here’s the money paragraph:

“What would happen if there is an actual failure to deliver in the silver market? Mr. Gold says, ‘If that gets confirmed, then that one day you will see a huge spike, but markets won’t open after that. That will cascade. What will happen is all the COMEX contracts for both silver and gold will default. That will spill over to the rest of the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange). It has contracts on US Treasuries and stocks. They have contracts on everything. If the silver contracts blow up and the gold contracts blow up, how much confidence are you going to have on pork bellies or stocks. … The derivative market is $2 quadrillion. In the future, you are going to measure your wealth by how many ounces of silver and how many ounces of gold you own. … Once you get a failure to deliver, you will get a Mad Max scenario. Failure to deliver will melt down all derivatives. The world runs on credit, and credit runs on faith. If you break faith, then you have a real problem in the financial markets and the real economy.’”

 

The post Headed for a Derivative Meltdown appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

 

The post The entire state of Rheinland-Pfalz is toying with a strategy to outright ban AfD candidates from elected office appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post The ‘Affordability Crisis’ And What It Means For The Midterms appeared first on LewRockwell.

US Institute of Peace officially renamed for Trump as White House moves to dismantle agency: ‘Congratulations’

White House calls former institute ‘bloated, useless entity that blew $50 million per year’

Since 2016, I have been composing and posting articles at LRC concerning “the strategy of tension” used by the deep state in fomenting chaos and disruption in American cities. Cyber-analyst Mike Benz has finally tracked down and pin-pointed the source of the subversion – the US Institute of Peace.

The post The US Institute of Peace: The REAL Story appeared first on LewRockwell.

Se c'è una cosa che da sempre ha caratterizzato le mie analisi è il focus sui fatti fondamentali, sulle linee di tendenza sottostanti piuttosto che quelle superficiali. Eccone una: la FED è un asset in rapido deprezzamento e le sue “mansioni” riguardo il Dipartimento del Tesoro americano saranno sostituite dalle stablecoin (in particolare Tether), permettendole di ritornare a essere ciò che era prima del 1935, ovvero il “guardiano” del commercial paper market americano, e impostare il valore del dollaro all'estero. In questo modo la tokenizzazione del dollaro gli permetterebbe di avere una copertura indiretta costituita da Bitcoin, oro, argento e titoli di stato americani. In sintesi, un dollaro per l'estero e uno interno. Quest'ultimo verrebbe emesso e coperto in base a ciò che le singole banche decideranno debba essere posto a riserva per sostenerlo, iniziando un processo di decentralizzazione che invertirebbe finalmente l'accentramento attuato dall'ascesa dell'eurodollaro e l'incapacità della FED di impostare una politica monetaria coerente col Paese. Non solo, ma ciò restituirebbe la capacità al sistema bancario commerciale di ritornare ad avere un tasso d'interesse netto marginale (3-6-3) con cui generare profitti per esse e prestiti per la comunità.  Il sistema bancario è diventato assurdamente complicato perché le banche centrali sono state dirottate nel tempo affinché assomigliassero alla struttura e alla policy della Banca d'Inghilterra. Sia chiaro, questa non è una difesa della FED, ma in base a come opera il mondo oggi, e finché non opererà diversamente, essa è la migliore carta per marginalizzare chi ha distrutto Main Street e vorrebbe vedere il mondo bruciare prima di ricostruirlo. Il più grande “peccato” che gli USA devono espiare è essersi lasciati trascinare a gestire la politica monetaria e fiscale del mondo intero. Non solo è stato un danno per gli americani, ma anche per il resto del mondo... avvantaggiando invece una ristretta cerchia di individui. Essere solamente critici di un sistema che è ingiusto non è sufficiente, però: bisogna avere un piano per uscire dallo stallo economico attuale. Certo, sarebbe possibile tornare già da domani a un gold standard, ad esempio. Facciamolo, poniamo questo tipo di disciplina nel mondo finanziario odierno e sbarazziamoci con uno schiocco di dita di tutta la leva presente in esso: di colpo Frank Miller avrebbe materiale per girare un nuovo capitolo della saga di Mad Max, dato che la gente accumulerebbe proiettili, carta igienica e cibo in scatola. Esistono solo due strade perseguibili, quindi. La prima: permettere una deflazione mite dei prezzi degli asset (forchetta dal 5% al 15%), oppure tenere i valori nominali alti e permettere agli stipendi di crescere. Come? Tenendo, ad esempio, i salari piatti e tagliando le tasse, la burocrazia, la selva di norme che ingessa le imprese, oltre a incentivare le banche a investire a livello locale, in modo da ricostruire Main Street. Se quindi gli USA riescono a mettere ordine nel loro bilancio fiscale riusciranno a imporre, indirettamente, la disciplina fiscale al resto del mondo essendo essi il mercato più liquido, affidabile e credibile. Questo significa cambiamenti epocali dal basso e per chi, come l'Unione Europea, ha vissuto finora manipolandoli dall'alto è un anatema.

______________________________________________________________________________________

di Joakim Book

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/in-difesa-della-cultura-bitcoin)

Bitcoin cambia le nostre vite.

È un'osservazione quasi spirituale che tutti abbiamo visto dentro di noi. Dopo averne acquisito un po', aver capito come funziona e, a vari livelli, aver approfondito cos'è questa moneta decentralizzata, non censurabile e basata sulla proof-of-work, abbiamo visto le nostre vite cambiare. Rispecchia la storia. Alcuni addirittura ci vedono Dio in esso.

I bitcoiner hanno visto le loro vite stravolte, le loro prospettive modificate e i loro sistemi di valori alterati. Vediamo come il nostro comportamento è cambiato rispetto a prima di Bitcoin, la nostra enfasi ora è rivolta alle cose reali, alle cose difficili, al lungo termine e al locale. Guardiamo al nostro io interiore e ci prendiamo cura di noi stessi; ci prendiamo cura delle nostre famiglie; mettiamo ordine in casa nostra prima di criticare il mondo.

Bitcoin incoraggia un pensiero di livello superiore, del tipo dinamico che un tempo caratterizzava la buona economia. Una volta diventati bitcoiner, diventiamo meno inclini a credere alle storie comunemente accettate, più scettici e interessati a verificare piuttosto che a fidarci.

Chiunque abbia lavorato su Bitcoin per un po' può citare innumerevoli esempi simili nella propria vita. È innegabile, quindi, che Bitcoin stesso abbia una sua cultura. Influisce sul cambiamento delle persone che accoglie; non siete voi a cambiare Bitcoin, è esso a cambiare voi.

I valori in esso contenuti sono regole che chi abbraccia questa rivoluzione monetaria non può fare a meno di interiorizzare. Che lo capiscano o meno non ha importanza. Bitcoin è per tutti, certo, ma non si rimane la stessa persona dopo che ha cambiato la vostra vita; si è un “chiunque” diverso da quando si aprono per la prima volta gli occhi sulla natura della moneta fiat.

Bitcoin ci ha permesso di vedere gran parte della stupidità nelle illusioni collettive alla base dello stato, della democrazia, delle banche centrali, della sanità pubblica, della scuola pubblica – di qualsiasi cosa riguardi la sfera pubblica, in realtà. È la stessa consapevolezza che ci fa porre enormi interrogativi sulle preoccupazioni relative al cambiamento climatico o sull'ideologia trans.

Nel mondo della moneta fiat, tutto è lecito. Ci si può sentire oppressi senza che nessuno lo sappia, un uomo può essere una donna senza che nessuno lo sappia, chiunque sia triste o distratto può sentirsi autistico o depresso senza che nessuno lo sappia. Se i signori della stampante monetaria ritengono che non ci siano abbastanza soldi in giro, ne fanno di più. Estorcere denaro con violenza ai membri produttivi della società è considerato moralmente giusto e addirittura celebrato. Gli esperti e le voci nei media generalisti affermano che il mondo finirà tra dodici (o cinque) anni, e se non ci credete o chiedete una verifica, siete alla pari con i nazisti.

Con Bitcoin questo schema non funziona più. Identificarsi come beneficiario di una ricompensa di un blocco non serve a nulla, i voti politici diventano irrilevanti, i complessi di colpa vengono azzerati e barare diventa più difficile. Gli UTXO non hanno sesso. Tutto va a farsi benedire, svelato e smascherato per l'assurdità che è sempre stata.

Quindi c'è qualcosa che non torna nel recente articolo di Margot Paez che critica duramente la cultura Bitcoin:

[...] influencer popolari, spesso uomini della generazione Y che passano molto tempo a scattare foto di sé stessi mentre mostrano i muscoli davanti allo specchio. Mi chiedo davvero quanto debbano diventare grandi quei muscoli per proteggere il fragile ego sepolto sotto quelle fibre muscolari.

I muscoli più grandi sono flessibili perché non sono falsificabili, come un hash sotto il livello di difficoltà. Una transazione è valida e confermata, oppure non lo è. È lì, oggettiva e verificabile per chiunque voglia guardare.

Le trazioni sono esercizi di flessione perché mostrano la verità, indipendentemente da ciò che chiunque altro pensi dell'ego invisibile che si cela dietro. Potete farle o non potete farle; sono verificabili e innegabili. Un muscle-up non chiede il permesso, né cerca di confondervi sulle sfumature di una realtà immaginaria.

Ciò è in netto contrasto con il mondo fiat, ereditato dal passato – di cui l'ideologia trans è solo uno degli esempi meno concreti ma oggettivamente stupidi – dove le parole sono violenza, le identità invisibili e non verificabili governano, le scuole fiat non possono insegnare a leggere o contare, Uber non ha auto e le banche non hanno i vostri soldi. È una cultura corrotta, dove l'unica cosa che fugge più velocemente delle morti per disperazione sono i deficit di governi dissoluti, per sempre costretti a inviare assegni di assistenza sociale a chi cerca rendite.

Uber has no cars.
Airbnb has no hotels.
Banks don’t have your money.

— Daniel Sempere Pico (@BTCGandalf) March 12, 2023

È una cultura dominata dalla sensibilità anziché dalla verità, che celebra la debolezza anziché la forza, la responsabilità e l'auto-miglioramento; che incoraggia la terapia anche se funziona a malapena e vi rifila farmaci e iniezioni al primo segno di difficoltà.

Ecco perché non mi convince questa filosofia del “bitcoiner progressista” che circola tanto. I progressisti sono arrivati a Bitcoin e si sono ritagliati una nicchia, e per ora funziona bene come ponte tra il mondo dei pagliacci iper-sinistrorsi e il nostro mondo. Ma non sarete mai dei bitcoiner e rimarrete solo dei poveri progressisti; sono idee per lo più incompatibili.

Il progressismo è arrivato su Bitcoin come una ventata di aria fresca, ma alla fine è destinato a scomparire.

Bitcoin priva uno stato del controllo sulle transazioni e sul valore economico. Un progressista ha bisogno di uno stato ampio e invasivo per sostenere e attuare le tante cose che desidera. Se desiderate ancora quelle cose, ma non la violenta organizzazione criminale che chiamiamo stato, siete semplicemente dei libertari con una forte etica sociale. Congratulazioni. L'ho già detto in merito al pezzo A Progressive's Case for Bitcoin di Jason Maier e lo ripeto: col tempo Bitcoin cambierà anche lui, come ha fatto con il resto di noi.

Prima o poi Bitcoin vi costringe a vedere il mondo della verità e ad agire in modo inconfondibile, guardando a ciò che è piuttosto che a ciò che viene detto o raccomandato dagli “esperti”. Lungo il cammino di solito ci si lamenta a gran voce dei sostenitori di Bitcoin “poco ortodossi” perché non vedono il mondo come lo vedete voi.

Non è un caso che tanti bitcoiner consumano con orgoglio e diligenza le bistecche. Abbiamo visto che le linee guida nutrizionali erano pessime (alcuni potrebbero persino dire corrotte) e le persone che le promuovevano erano obese, malate e brutte. Abbiamo mangiato un sacco di carne e ci siamo sentiti meglio. “Vi sembriamo poco in salute?”, chiediamo sommessamente.

Le bandiere LGBTQ che Paez difende sono accanto a quelle con la scritta “Palestina Libera” – anche se i palestinesi non sono esattamente noti per i loro valori pro-gay – e “Slava Ukraini”, che celebra un Paese che si colloca tra i peggiori nell'indice Rainbow Europe e che viene regolarmente considerato il secondo Paese più corrotto d'Europa (dopo la Russia). Queste non sono persone serie. Si capisce che qualcosa non va quando i pacifisti di sinistra celebrano proprio i guerrafondai che dovrebbero detestare.

La prova del nove è lo spettacolo del mondo dei pagliacci, non la cultura dei bitcoiner. Anzi, la verità e l'onestà nella cultura Bitcoin sono l'antidoto.

Smettetela di lamentarvi e andate a fare qualche trazione.

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

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

This article is based on chapter 8 of my book Do Not Consent: Think OUTSIDE the Voting Booth, 2020

If someone asked you to define “free market,” could you?  Could you do it on the spot without recourse to dictionaries or other crutches?

The term “laissez-faire economy” might do as a first response.  But what does it mean?  In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Ayn Rand explains:

Based on a column in the Los Angeles Times, August 1962.

Colbert, chief adviser of Louis XIV, was one of the early modern statists. He believed that government regulations can create national prosperity and that higher tax revenues can be obtained only from the country’s “economic growth”; so he devoted himself to seeking “a general increase in wealth by the encouragement of industry.” The encouragement consisted of imposing countless government controls and minute regulations that choked business activity; the result was dismal failure.

Colbert was not an enemy of business; no more than is our present Administration. Colbert was eager to help fatten the sacrificial victims—and on one historic occasion, he asked a group of manufacturers what he could do for industry. A manufacturer named Legendre answered: “Laissez-nous faire!” (“Let us alone!”)

But Legendre was hardly the first to express a hands-off idea.  In An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Rothbard tells us about Chuang Tzu (369-c.286 BC):

’There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]’. Chuang Tzu was also the first to work out the idea of ‘spontaneous order’, independently discovered by Proudhon in the nineteenth century, and developed by F.A. von Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth. Thus, Chuang Tzu: ‘Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone’.

In a Human Action excerpt Mises: The Meaning of Laissez Faire, Mises defined a laissez-faire economy as one unhampered by state interference; it means upholding “the individuals’ discretion to choose and to act.”

Most libertarians would agree with this broader interpretation.  The problem is any state that actually took a hands-off policy towards the economy wouldn’t be a state.  States are, by design, predatory and parasitical.  They exist for the purpose of accruing power and pelf.  Libertarian visions of domesticating the state are fantasies.

Besides which, states have won favor for certain people — they enable politicians to buy votes and other support needed to keep the racket going.  As for voters, who needs freedom when you can get free handouts?  Though citizens gripe about taxes and corrupt politicians, they’ve grown comfortable with the devil they’ve always known.

The public is okay with the state’s willingness to assume responsibilities they refuse to accept.  They want the state to pave their roads and educate their kids.  They want the state to pay for their health care.  They want the state to pay for the safety nets of life.  Who better to do the paying than the state, which with MMT will never run out of money?  Even a failed state like socialist Venezuela has yet to flatline because of its grip on power and propaganda, even as its people descended into cannibalism and prostitution for survival.

Where did states come from?

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine, in writing about the “race of kings,” far from having an honorary origin, considered the first of them “nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang” whose purpose was to plunder the defenseless.

Eventually, as Rothbard tells us, the gangs realized the “time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.”

If a conquered people is the garden from which we expect free markets to grow we’re deluding ourselves.  As painful experience has taught us, attempting to bind a state to the terms of a constitution is another exercise in folly.  States have allies, none more important than the opinion makers, the intellectuals.  Intellectuals, in return for “a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus,” as Rothbard notes, will provide the needed rationale for the state’s predations.

Thus, to pick examples at random, we have “court historians” and others providing the necessary cover for the blood-bath known as World War I, a famous Keynesian telling us the debt explosion of World War II ended the Great Depression, a “political cross section of prominent economists” expressing their opposition to the Paul-Grayson Audit the Fed bill (seven of the eight of whom have Fed connections), and the wholesale lying (archived) that characterizes national elections.

Most states, being parasites, have learned to park their depredations somewhere between freedom and despotism.  Paine recognized this when he wrote in Rights of Man,

The portion of liberty enjoyed in England, is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism; and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is therefore, on the ground of interest, opposed to both.

In a “full state of freedom” there would be no government “so formed.”

How Do We End The State?

There are two unmistakable trends working in liberty’s favor: Massive government debt and exponentially advancing technology.   You won’t have confidence in this claim unless you read Ray Kurzweil’s seminal The Law of Accelerating Returns.  It would also help to have an understanding of the acronym TANSTAAFL as well as a grasp of monetary fundamentals.

As I wrote in an earlier essay,

Technology is ripping a hole in centralized social control and its Keynesian underpinnings, bringing power and freedom to individuals the world over.

Both Keynesianism and technology are on a cusp. One is on a road to collapse, while the other is about to kick into high gear. . . .

[With a fiscal gap in excess of $200 trillion,] government promises will be broken. The bill for the Keynesian free lunch will come due, and the government check will bounce.

Where will that leave us? With a weakened and discredited government, and the bogus Keynesian ideas that supported it, we will have to become more self-reliant. The cry of “Do something!” to the government will be answered with an echo. Free markets will emerge where they’ve been suppressed because much of government will be ineffective or no longer exist. A free market in combination with a revolution in technology will remake our world.

We need to do with the state what we’ve done with slavery.  We can govern ourselves without a coercive sovereign.  Of necessity, free markets will emerge when the state is gone.

The post We Need To Do With The State What We’Ve Done With Slavery appeared first on LewRockwell.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow. The approximately five-hour session focused on a revised U.S. peace proposal aimed at ending Russia’s nearly four-year war in Ukraine. This marked Witkoff’s sixth meeting with Putin in 2025 and Kushner’s first in-person involvement in these talks. The U.S. delegation arrived directly from recent negotiations with Ukrainian officials in Miami and Paris, where the peace plan was refined from 28 to 19 points.

The media is reporting that the core agenda was the updated U.S. peace framework, which emphasizes:

• A potential ceasefire and de facto border recognition, possibly involving Ukrainian concessions in the Donbas region to meet Russia’s territorial demands.
• Security guarantees for Ukraine, coordinated with European allies like France.
• Broader steps for implementation, including front-line adjustments and restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities.

Putin reportedly agreed with some elements of the proposal but reiterated Russia’s non-negotiable positions, including full control over annexed territories and limits on NATO expansion. The U.S. side pushed for Putin to soften these demands in exchange for ending hostilities, but no new wording or provisions were finalized.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov described the talks as “useful” and noted productive exchanges on substantive issues, but emphasized that “no compromise plan has been found yet” and “a lot of work remains.” Russian state media and envoy Dmitriev called the session “productive,” but there were no agreements on specific concessions, a ceasefire timeline, or a follow-up summit between Putin and Trump (potentially slated for April–June 2026).

But what was the real purpose of this meeting? Speaking to reporters in Bishkek, in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan last Thursday, Putin explained how negotiations would be handled. During that press conference, Putin said that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is responsible for handling contacts and negotiations on possible terms to end the war in Ukraine, and that he relies on Lavrov’s reports from these talks while avoiding public discussion of specific proposals. In his latest comments around US–Russia contacts on Ukraine, Putin indicated that the negotiation process is being conducted through professional channels, explicitly pointing to Lavrov and the Foreign Ministry as those leading the work on possible peace arrangements. He stressed that he is regularly briefed by Lavrov on these discussions, including on US-drafted peace ideas that Moscow says draw heavily on earlier Russian proposals.

While Putin was meeting with Witkoff and Kushner, Sergei Lavrov held warm bilateral talks with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Lavrov’s absence from the Witkoff/Kushner meeting was a clear signal from Russia that the foundation for actual negotiations was still not in place. Putin’s goal was to explain — politely and firmly — what Russia’s fundamental positions are with respect to settling the war in Ukraine. I am certain that he presented, again, the same points he laid out on June 14, 2024.

The ball is now in Donald Trump’s court. Witkoff and Kushner, after speaking on Wednesday with Zelensky in Ireland, will return to Washington and explain to President Trump Putin’s firm conditions that must be agreed to before the actual negotiations — with Lavrov and Rubio sitting down, accompanied by their respective delegations — can begin.

This meeting is not the beginning of the end… rather, I think it marks the end of the beginning. It is up to President Trump to agree to Russia’s terms and dispatch Secretary of State Marco Rubio to make the deal with Lavrov.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Negotiating in Moscow on the Negotiations appeared first on LewRockwell.

Can self-government exist alongside centralized intelligence agencies?  Espionage agencies seek secrets and keep secrets.  To the extent that they inform the public what they know, they decide which secrets can be disclosed.  Now this may be the only way for a clandestine service to operate, but it certainly does not equip the public to make fully-informed decisions.  When choosing which policies or representatives to support, voters know nothing of substance within the classified world.

Western nations that call themselves “democracies” try to obfuscate this issue by pretending two things: (1) that intelligence agencies work, at all times, for the public good and (2) that a small body of elected officials effectively supervise the work of government spies.  These are comforting delusions.

In regard to the first delusion, a citizen need merely ask, “How do spies determine the public good?”  Do spy agencies conduct operations that the general public would likely reject?  Do the worldviews of intelligence officers affect how they pursue strategic objectives?  If the answers to those questions are “yes,” then espionage agencies pursue what they perceive to be in the public’s best interests and not necessarily what the public would choose for itself.  As much as secretive agencies may believe that they are in a better position to make those judgments, they are still substituting their own judgments for the public’s.

In regard to the second delusion, it is unreasonable to assume that a small number of elected representatives can exercise effective oversight of large, secretive agencies.  When the activities of government agencies are hidden behind veils of classifications and compartmentalizations, elected officials often struggle to know where to look or what questions to ask.  When black budgets give spy agencies authority to spend funds at their discretion, lawmakers’ “power of the purse” largely disappears.  Effectively, intelligence services say, “Trust us,” and if a small number of lawmakers say, “We do,” then the public is expected to agree.

Because of the sensitive nature of their work, intelligence agencies are routinely portrayed in both the news media and pop culture as professional organizations filled with serious people.  They are accorded tremendous respect because their mission directives involve life-and-death issues of national security.  When covert agencies make their conclusions public, most of the public tends to accept those conclusions as true.

There’s something strange about that, isn’t there?  The public understands that centralized intelligence agencies trade in secrets and lies.  Citizens expect clandestine services to spread disinformation and propaganda if doing so serves their interests.  However, when the very institutions that construct alternative realities manufactured from endless lies tell the public that something is true, the public is expected to believe them.

The number of lies that the CIA has told the public since its formation in 1947 is vast.  In recent years, though, two stand out: (1) Former CIA director John Brennan conspired with other Intelligence Community officials to frame President Trump as a Russian spy.  (2) Fifty-one prominent Intelligence officials worked to discredit true reporting with regards to Hunter Biden’s criminally damning “laptop from Hell” by insinuating that the contents of the laptop were part of a Russian disinformation operation.  In the former instance, members of the Intelligence Community actively led an effort to sabotage a legitimately elected president and induce his resignation or removal from office.  In the latter instance, members of the Intelligence Community actively undermined a presidential election by helping to censor truth and spread lies.

Both of these egregious offenses occurred simultaneously to the Intelligence Community’s widespread efforts to spy on elected officials, political candidates, and American voters with total disregard for the Fourth Amendment’s requirements for particularized warrants issued after first establishing probable cause that a crime has been committed.  America’s spy agencies unlawfully targeted Americans, influenced elections, and arguably engaged in an attempted coup d’état against President Trump and his administration.

These are significant issues that should command Americans’ attention.  Instead, Democrat politicians and news organizations are busy encouraging insubordination among military servicemembers and claiming that attacks on narcoterrorists amount to “war crimes.”  Rather than recognizing that Intelligence Community lies have recently been weaponized to spy on Americans and undermine elections, complicit officials and media institutions are trying to distract Americans with new “narratives” meant to sabotage the Trump administration once again.  The Intelligence Community’s ongoing efforts to subvert the presidency constitute a national emergency.

Institutional capture exists when a small body of actors pursue their own personal interests instead of advancing the institution’s intended purpose.  This deleterious phenomenon occurs regularly in bureaucracies.  When government regulators in the public health sector, for instance, advance the interests of pharmaceutical and food production companies in exchange for promises of future employment, external companies are said to have “captured” the very regulatory bodies meant to investigate them and safeguard the public.  When foreign governments donate large sums of money to the family foundations of U.S. lawmakers, corrupt members of the House and Senate become de facto employees of foreign nations.

The only way to combat such forms of corruption is for outside public interest groups and vigilant citizens to keep an eye on the flow of money between external groups and government actors.  Although it often takes a great deal of time to recognize the presence of bad government actors, mandatory disclosure rules provide valuable evidence that parts of the government no longer work for the people.

How are Americans supposed to police similar institutional capture when it concerns Intelligence agencies?  The names of workers are kept secret.  Budgets are kept secret.  Mission objectives are kept secret.  Ongoing relationships with private companies and foreign nations are kept secret.  Because so much of the espionage world operates under a “need to know” umbrella, it is nearly impossible for Americans to separate the bad actors from the good.  The “Intelligence Branch” of the federal government — both all-powerful and completely absent from the Constitution’s explicit design — operates as if it were above the law because it largely answers to no one.

However one might value the work of our spy agencies, surely their capacity to subvert the constitutional order whenever they see fit undermines any traditional notion of self-government.  The fact that they undermined both the 2016 and 2020 elections without receiving so much as a slap on the wrist reveals who holds the real power in this country.

While Democrats call President Trump a “tyrant,” real tyranny cloaks itself in Top Secret classifications and national security directives.  When spies spread lies to manipulate the American people and cover up evidence of their own crimes, they don’t work as “public servants.”  They are “masters” over Intelligence fiefdoms.  There’s nothing “democratic” about that.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post The Intelligence Branch Answers to No One appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump has been holding talks with top advisors this week regarding potential US attacks on Venezuela in order to bring about regime change in yet another oil-rich nation.

As the western political/media class frames Venezuela’s President Maduro as a “dictator” who must urgently be removed from power, it is worth noting that any US military operation to remove him would be taking place directly against the will of the American public. A recent CBS News poll found that seventy percent of Americans “would oppose” the US taking military action against Venezuela.

So here we have the president of a nation which calls itself a democracy, holding meetings to plan military operations which are completely and unambiguously against the wishes of the electorate, in the name of removing a dictator and spreading freedom and democracy.

Interesting.

Trump Holds Talks With Top Advisers on Venezuela Amid Push Toward Regime Change War
The president reportedly told Maduro he must relinquish power during a recent phone call#Venezuela #Trump #Maduro https://t.co/AEbqYltJCh

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) December 2, 2025

Whenever I see the US empire saying they plan to remove the latest Official Bad Guy from power in order to liberate a nation from tyranny, I always want to ask, what is tyranny?

Is it tyranny to constantly topple foreign governments by force if their leaders disobey you?

Is it tyranny to circle the planet with hundreds of military bases in order to dominate all of humanity?

Is it tyranny to continuously be inflicting mass military slaughter, backing genocides, staging foreign coups, fomenting unrest and uprisings in foreign nations, meddling in foreign elections, funding proxy conflicts, imposing blockades and starvation sanctions on civilian populations, and engaging in nuclear brinkmanship in order to rule the world?

Is it tyranny to treat the entire global south as your personal piggy bank from which to extract limitless labor and resources and murder anyone who tries to inhibit these practices through any movement toward national sovereignty?

Because if it is, it’s a bit silly for the US to claim to be liberating any nation from tyranny.

Kinda like a morbidly obese man coming up to you and saying he’ll train you to shed those extra pounds.

It’s like Nick Fuentes offering cultural sensitivity training workshops.

It’s like the Green River Killer publishing a book on the the importance of combating toxic masculinity.

The US empire is the most tyrannical power structure on earth, by an extremely massive margin. There is no close second place in contention. Nobody else is brutalizing and terrorizing the entire planet into compliance with its dictates. No other power is constantly assaulting any government or population anywhere on earth that doesn’t bow to its demands. Only the US empire can be said to be guilty of this.

Even if Maduro really was the worst dictator on earth (he’s not), and even if this push for regime change really had anything to do with liberating the Venezuelan people (it doesn’t), and even if you could make a convincing argument that regime change interventionism would probably make things better for Venezuelans (you can’t), the US would be the last government on earth with any business doing so. The world’s most tyrannical power structure has no business trying to liberate anyone from tyranny.

If the US empire wants to make the world less tyrannical, its first and only move should be to dismantle itself.

_________________

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

The post World’s Most Tyrannical Government Wants To Free Venezuela From Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

In 1998, I was invited to join the Napoleonic Society of America by an eccentric man who had converted his large office into a shrine dedicated to the French general and emperor. A vast conference table was decked with models of Napoleon’s famous victories at Austerlitz, Jena, and Wagram, which the peculiar man showed me with extraordinary enthusiasm.

“What do you think about Napoleon’s Russian campaign of 1812?” I asked.

“A regrettable mistake,” the man said, suddenly becoming sober. “He underestimated the resolve of Alexander I and the hardness of the Russian winter.”

“How many of his soldiers paid the price for his underestimation?” I asked.

“No one knows exactly,” he replied.

This is true. Estimates of the size of the Grande Armée that crossed the Neman River into Russia in June 1812 vary widely between 500 and and 600 thousand. Six months later, only 120,000 returned, and most of these had suffered severe injuries and amputations from frostbite.

In other words, around 400,000 young soldiers from Western Europe were condemned to suffer unfathomably painful deaths to serve the monstrous vanity and ambition of a single man.

These were mostly conscripted farm boys and tradesmen from all over Napoleon’s European possessions—sons, husbands, and fathers who were needed back home to take care of their parents, wives, and children. The suffering they endured before death finally took them is unimaginable to anyone who hasn’t experienced it.

Letters that some wrote to their mothers and wives shortly before they died were subsequently found on their dead bodies and saved in archives. They are heartbreaking to read. One young officer recorded his anguish at watching his beloved horse die of starvation. Another boy writes to his mom that he misses her cooking, as he hasn’t eaten anything but lousy quarter rations for days on end.

Given the strategic brilliance that Napoleon had displayed earlier in his career, it’s an astonishing fact that all of his assumptions about the prospects of his Russian campaign were dead wrong.

Russia wasn’t Austria or the principalities of Germany, but a vast, sparsely populated country that couldn’t provide enough food and fodder for so many men and horses under the best of circumstances.

On top of this, Tsar Alexander I and his generals were determined to make life as hard as possible for Napoleon’s army. The Russians didn’t just strategically retreat—they burned all of the grain and drove all the livestock east so that Napoleon’s men would have nothing to sustain them on the long eastward march to Moscow.

And then, in what may be the toughest sacrifice ever made, the Russians burned Moscow to the ground instead of surrendering it to Napoleon.

Alexander’s message to the Emperor of the French was clear—namely, “I would rather sacrifice everything than surrender to you. Fuck you Napoleon Bonaparte and the horse you rode in on.”

With nothing to support the army in Moscow, Napoleon had no choice but to abandon the city to retreat back to the Neman River that bordered the Duchy of Warsaw, over 1000 kilometers away.

Even then, his decision-making was incredibly wanton. Instead of quickly recognizing that his situation was untenable, he waited till October 19—just before the terrible Russian winter set in. Moscow lies at 55 degrees north of the equator, just three degrees south of Juneau, Alaska.

Heavy, cold rains fell on October 22, making the roads muddy and difficult to trudge with their remaining equipment, weapons, and stores packed into heavy carts. The first snow fell on November 3.

Napoleon’s advisor, Armand de Caulaincourt, described what it was like for the woefully equipped and provisioned soldiers when night fell and temperatures dropped as low as minus 35 degrees Celsius.

The cold was so intense that bivouacking was no longer supportable. Bad luck to those who fell asleep by a campfire! Furthermore, disorganization was perceptibly gaining ground in the Guard. One constantly found men who, overcome by the cold, had been forced to drop out and had fallen to the ground, too weak or too numb to stand. They begged one to let them alone. Once these poor wretches fell asleep they were dead. If they resisted the craving for sleep, another passer-by would help them along a little farther, thus prolonging their agony for a short while, but not saving them, for in this condition the drowsiness engendered by cold is irresistibly strong.

This was payback time for the Russians, and their fabled Cossack cavalry had a ball harassing the retreating army, attacking the exhausted and starving soldiers with lances and sabers, literally hacking them to pieces.

On December 5, Napoleon abandoned his army by sled, leaving his brother-in-law, Joachim Murat in command. On December 14, what was left of the once grand army left Russian territory.

The lesson from Napoleon’s 1812 campaign (and Hitler’s 1941 campaign) is clear — France, Germany, and the UK should show greater respect to Russia.

Approximately 700,000 Russians (soldiers and civilians) died as a result of Napoleon’s 1812 invasion. In 1941, Hitler’s army is estimated to have killed or wounded six million Russian soldiers. Fourteen million Russian civilians are estimated to have died from violence, famine, and exposure after their homes were destroyed.

Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa was launched from Poland and through Ukraine, with around 250,000 Ukrainian nationalist soldiers joining the German Army to attack Russia. Ukraine’s Azov Battalion traces its lineage to the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Its leader, Stepan Bandera, was a notorious Nazi collaborator.

The bloody-minded fools in charge of U.S. and European foreign policy should have thought about these historical facts before they armed and trained the Ukrainian military to serve as NATO’s attack dog against Russia.

Especially bizarre has been the German government’s decision to repudiate the excellent and mutually beneficial German-Russian friendship cultivated by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Vladimir Putin, and the great and useful fruit of their friendship, the Nord Stream Pipeline.

I am confident that an Austrian-style neutrality deal for Ukraine would have averted the disaster of the last four years. With Russian forces now just 75 miles east of the great Black Sea port of Odessa, it appears that the West is now on the cusp of suffering its greatest strategic defeat since December 1812.

Europe’s leaders apparently learned nothing from Napoleon’s disastrous 1812 campaign, and they now seem determined to pursue war with Russia. President Trump should tell them to cease their agitations and mind their own business before they get a lot more people killed.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Napoleon’s 1812 Russian Campaign: Masterclass in Pigheadedness appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recent headlines touting the superior efficacy of Pfizer’s mRNA flu vaccine ignore Pfizer’s own findings that for those over 65 years old, their mRNA product is more dangerous than standard influenza vaccines, which are already ineffective and harmful.

The reason for the misreporting by legacy media as well as the prominent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is because Pfizer buried the results of its product testing on seniors, which showed heightened adverse effects from the drug. 

The “results are so bad that it is not clear whether the Food and Drug Administration could or would possibly approve an mRNA shot based on this data,” wrote journalist and COVID shot watchdog Alex Berenson. “Pfizer appears to know very well that these results are disastrous.”

“Pfizer has never announced the results, sitting on them for years,” reported Berenson in his Substack. “They show older adults who received mRNA had MORE flu infections, deaths, and side effects than those who got a standard flu shot.”

As such, Pfizer’s mRNA flu vaccine will likely not be approved by Trump’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“An mRNA flu shot failed in seniors,” FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary told Fox News over the weekend. “The trial showed zero benefit.”

“We’re not just going to rubber-stamp new products that don’t work, that fail in a clinical trial. It makes a mockery of science if we’re just going to rubber-stamp things with no data,” said Makary.

“That was the MO (modus operandi) in the Biden administration,” he added.

The hidden findings are beyond jarring for the elderly. According to Berenson:

Older people who got mRNA shots were about 6 percent more likely to get the flu than those who got standard shots. And 49 older people who received the mRNA shot died, compared to 46 who received the flu shot.

The study also revealed a significant safety signal for the mRNAs on kidney damage. Twenty-two older patients who received the mRNA shot were diagnosed with acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, or end-stage renal disease, compared to nine who received the standard shot.

In another worrisome finding, 17 older people who received mRNA suffered “acute respiratory failure,” compared to only six who received the standard flu shot.

mRNA patients were also much more likely to have less serious side effects. For example, about 69 percent reported injection-site swelling or other local side effects after the jab, compared to 26 percent who received the flu shot.

“I find this to be a major integrity failure in the peer-review process. The NEJM editorial board should provide a clear explanation how this failure has occurred and … require the authors to correct the current articles and report on the entire results of the trial,” Retsef Levi, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) told The Epoch Times.

“Once again, when proper trials are run, they show mRNA-based vaccines for healthy people are not ready for prime time and will likely never be,” Berenson concluded.

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post Pfizer mRNA Flu Shot Linked to Serious Side Effects, Especially in Seniors appeared first on LewRockwell.

With a changing economy, artificial intelligence (AI) replacing many jobs, and widespread unpreparedness for the job market, the time-honored tradition of tossing their caps in the air to celebrate earning their degrees and starting exciting new careers has turned into disappointment for many college graduates.

Statistics released by the Department of Labor on Nov. 20 show that 25 percent of the 7.6 million unemployed Americans in September held at least a bachelor’s degree.

With more than 1.9 million unemployed college graduates on the market, the September data show little or no change from that of August in major industries to which young degree-holders typically gravitate. These include financial activities, professional and business services, wholesale and retail trade, the federal government, and transportation.

The seasonally adjusted overall unemployment rate was 4.4 percent in September, while the rate for degree holders rose to 2.8 percent from 2.7 percent in August—well above the 2.3 percent recorded in September 2024.

Frustrated With Job Search

Stacey Cohen, author of Brand Up 2.0: Propel Your Early Career Success, has been working with college graduates, and even high school students, to prepare them for future careers.

“I’ve been talking with many recent graduates and a lot of them are frustrated and upset about not finding a job yet,” she told The Epoch Times. “They feel like they’ve worked so hard over the past four years and now nobody wants them.”

Cohen believes the current situation, with so many unemployed college graduates, could be the result of several factors, including a changing economy, AI replacing many entry-level jobs, and graduates who may be unprepared for the job market. “One graduate told me about sending hundreds of resumes out and not hearing back from anyone,” she said.

Cohen noted that some graduates she has counseled have taken side jobs—such as waitressing, golf caddying, or other temporary work—while continuing their search for a permanent position. “It’s better to have some job experience on your resume—you don’t want any big gaps in there,” she said.

A recent graduate with a B.A. in Business Administration was among many expressing frustration on online forums.

“Since graduating, I’ve submitted over 1,300 applications to white collar jobs with multiple iterations of a resume, and have only gotten one offer that required a relocation that I could not afford,” the post stated. “ I worked at McDonalds for a couple of months, but didn’t last long there.”

Another user was still seeking a job after graduating in June.

“I have done internships, projects, and even graduated with honors,” the post noted. “I can’t land a single job even though I’ve sent hundreds of applications. This whole job search has been taking a blow out of my self-esteem and it makes me feel like I worked hard for nothing.”

Biggest Hurdle in Job Hunt

Cohen, who is also CEO and founder of Co-Communications, a New York-based marketing firm, said that when it comes to the job hunt, the biggest hurdle is getting your resume in front of a human being.

“It’s not because they’re unqualified—it’s because so many companies now rely on AI filters to scan resumes before they’re even seen by human eyes,” she said. “Unfortunately, this is the new normal and what early career professionals are up against.”

Cohen suggested that job seekers take greater care by fully reading the job description and tailoring their resume to fit this changed hiring landscape by using the best keywords.

For example, Cohen noted, if someone has experience in social media promotions and the position calls for “social media content creation,” it’s important to use that exact phrase in the resume so it will be picked up by AI and, hopefully, seen by an interviewer.

“This means changing up your resume and cover letter for each potential job,” she said. “It’s a lot of work, but if you streamline your list, you can do it.  Remember, it’s quality over quantity.”

Cohen has written and presented on topics ranging from optimizing a resume for algorithms to the importance of creating a LinkedIn profile and networking at business events.

“Graduates seeking employment should also attend business networking events with their parents—I see this all the time now,” she said. “Get to know the decision-makers and start to create your own contact lists.”

Cohen also recommended that parents support their children during the job search.

“Offer to run a mock interview or proofread a résumé, but more importantly, remind them that rejection is not a reflection of their worth,” she said. “It’s merely a signal to refine the strategy, not abandon the goal.”

Most importantly, she said, new graduates must be able to answer the simple question: “Why should we choose you?”

“A lot of these young people don’t realize what their superpower is and how to effectively communicate that,” she added. “Marketing yourself is just like marketing a product or service—let people know what makes you stand out from the rest.”

The Bigger Picture

Rachel Merritt, senior director of career services and employer development at Ancora Education, told The Epoch Times that Gen Z graduates’ concerns about the job market are indeed valid.

“AI is automating many of the basic, entry-level roles that used to help people get their foot in the door, so breaking in has become harder than in the past,” she said. “Also, many companies have experience requirements that most young adults haven’t had the chance to gain yet, so even roles that should be accessible often aren’t.”

Based in Arlington, Texas, Ancora Education offers technical training programs in health care, IT, business, and skilled trades.

Merritt noted that too often, college graduates are also faced with the financial pressure of repaying student loans and need money quickly. When such roles are not available, she noted, it makes them feel that the traditional college-to-career path is less reliable than it was for previous generations.

“This could delay promotions, salary growth, and major financial milestones like buying a house,” she added.

As a result, Merritt said, many younger people are now turning to skilled trades, health care, or technical certifications that can lead to jobs, higher starting salaries, and faster advancement.

A recent Resume Builder survey found that four in 10 Gen-Z college graduates were considering blue collar jobs for security.

“They have seen Millennials graduate from traditional college and be saddled with student loan debt and very few job opportunities,” Merritt said. “Trade schools have a much lower cost and higher [return on investment], a larger pool of open jobs and good starting wages.”

According to Merritt, Ancora has seen an influx of young people pursuing skilled trades training in HVAC, electrical work, welding, and plumbing. She said that Gen Zers are choosing paths that are in demand and offer faster entry into the workplace without years of debt from college expenses.

Opting for Smaller Colleges

Andrew Crapuchettes, CEO and founder of Idaho-based Red Balloon, one of the county’s largest job boards connecting employers with potential employees, told The Epoch Times that the shift toward blue collar jobs could have a substantial impact on colleges over the next 10 years.

“Based on the current unemployment situation for college grads, there seems to be a dramatic decrease in demand for college education today,” he said. “I’m predicting we could see hundreds of colleges actually go out of business over the next decade.”

According to Appily, a college locator website, there are currently more than 6,500 colleges across the United States, of which 1,995 are considered public universities. Of those, 1,626 are degree-granting.

The Education Data Initiative lists the average cost of a college education today at $38,270 per student, per year, including tuition, books, supplies, and daily living expenses. The data research organization indicates these costs have more than doubled since the beginning of the 21st century.

“Considering student loan interest and lost potential income, investing in a bachelor’s degree can ultimately cost in excess of $500,000,” the website states.

“There’s definitely a demographic shift, and I see more and more students deciding that a four-year degree just doesn’t make sense,” Crapuchettes said. “So many now are opting to go directly into the labor market.”

Except for physicians and other skilled medical professionals, attorneys, engineers, and other specialists, Crapuchettes believes there will be less need for white collar jobs in the future, but a growing need for trade jobs such as plumbers, electricians, steamfitters, auto service and solar panel technicians, heavy machinery operators, and others.

He noted that his company is seeing a mix of job openings across industries, ranging from biotech to hospitality and manufacturing. However, many employers are opting to hire graduates from smaller colleges instead of larger, well-known universities.

“Employers often tell me that they just want someone who wants to work and who doesn’t come in with a sense of entitlement,” Crapuchettes said.

For college graduates currently seeking a full-time position, Crapuchettes agrees that building a network is the most important step.

“They should get out and meet people, shake hands, and start building relationships,” he said.

This article was originally published on The Epoch Times.

The post 1 in 4 Unemployed Americans Has a Degree – The Future of White Collar Jobs appeared first on LewRockwell.

There are many ways in which investors steal from the public, but there also are ways in which they steal from each other — and Ponzi schemes are merely one example of that, but insider trading is another, and there are others as well. However, their biggest thefts, by far, are from the public, and most such thefts are entirely legal and will be described here, by presenting examples of them.

On 4 November 2025, Semafor, a loyal propaganda-organ for the U.S. empire, headlined “Exclusive / As Trump pressures Venezuela, investors see ‘major opportunities’”, and reported:

As President Donald Trump takes an increasingly aggressive approach toward regime change in Venezuela, international investment giants are already eyeing potential benefits that Nicolás Maduro’s ouster would create.

During last month’s IMF-World Bank meetings in Washington, Barclays organized a private meeting to talk investment opportunities with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, two sources familiar with the meeting told Semafor.

The meeting was widely attended by investment firms, hedge funds, and others interested in future business in Venezuela, said Rafael de la Cruz, the director of the US office of Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, who is recognized by the US as the winner of the last Venezuelan election. The opposition leader’s team has also held “informal conversations” with the World Bank, IMF, and Inter-American Development Bank about Venezuela’s future, de la Cruz said.

“We have been in touch with several companies that are showing more and more interest in the possibility of opening up Venezuela for business,” he said in an interview.

In addition, UBS’s chief investment office put together an eight-page memo last month that focuses on “visualizing the day after tomorrow” in Venezuela. The research document highlighted the Trump administration’s “hawkish approach” towards Caracas and noted that “Venezuela’s transition away from Chavismo could unlock major opportunities,” in part because of its oil reserves and “severely underutilized economy.” …

Hawkish Republican lawmakers are cheering on the Trump administration’s efforts against Venezuela. …

“The nice thing is, they’ve got plenty of natural resources,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told Semafor, referring to post-Maduro investment opportunities in Venezuela. “In a democracy in Venezuela, their resources are massive, so there’ll be a lot of people who want to invest.” …

On 22 November 2024, I had headlined “How Corrupt America Is at the Top” and gave as an example the following from Wikipedia, about Rick Scott:

On March 19, 1997, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[41] Eight days after the initial raid, Scott signed his last SEC report as a hospital executive. Four months later, the board of directors pressured him to resign as chairman and CEO.[42] He was succeeded by Thomas F. Frist Jr.[43] Scott was paid $9.88 million in a settlement, and left owning 10 million shares of stock then worth more than $350 million.[44][45][46] The directors had been warned in the company’s annual public reports to stockholders that incentives Columbia/HCA offered doctors could run afoul of a federal anti-kickback law passed in order to limit or eliminate instances of conflicts of interest in Medicare and Medicaid.[43]

During Scott’s 2000 deposition, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment 75 times.[47] In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA pleaded guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in what was at the time the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. It also admitted to fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. It filed false cost reports, fraudulently billed Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, it gave doctors “loans” never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[48][8]

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the United States government $631 million, plus interest, and $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[49] In all, civil lawsuits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle; at the time, this was the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history.[50][51]

That was an example of a mega-thief from U.S. taxpayers; so, obviously, he never went to prison for his mega-theft from the public, and he even became elected by the ones in Florida so as to be able to advocate now prominently for another foreign invasion by the U.S. regime in order to steal for U.S.-and-allied investors the world’s most petroleum-rich (and one of the world’s most gold-rich) country, so that the profits from extracting those natural resources will buy better yachts for U.S.-and-allied billionaires, not better education and health care for Venezuela’s people.

This is imperialistic fascism. (Political ‘scientists’, however, call America instead a “democracy.”) U.S.-and-allied billionaires want to do the same thing, steal the lands out from underneath, such nations as Russia, China, Iran, Palestine, etc.; but not only does this rob those peoples — it robs the American public too, because these psychopathic foreign adventures are being paid-for by them.

RELATED NEWS: On November 28th, the U.S.-and-allied proxy-war to grab Russia by placing in Ukraine the nearest border only 300 miles or 5 minute of missile-flying-time away from blitz-decapitating Russia’s central command in The Kremlin by an American nuclear missile, decisively failed, and so Trump ordered the current U.S. stooge leader of Ukraine, Zelensky, to accept Russia’s peace terms or else become militarily conquered by Russia. The U.S. military alliance to ultimately conquer Russia — NATO — has failed, and so NATO now faces its ultimate defeat, and clearly “the end of history” (the U.S. empire’s ultimately achieving control over the entire world) has now decisively turned out to have been a false expectation, and U.S.-and-allied investors are therefore now facing a future in which their net worths will be declining instead of (at everyone else’s expense) rising (as has especially been the case ever since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, when that “end of histoory’ was supposed to have begun). Have you read or heard anything about any of this crucial history, in the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media or ‘history’-books? (Click on those last two links in order to learn more about it.)

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post How — and What — Investors Steal From the Public appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Happiness is the quiet truth that remains when illusion dissolves.”

There are conversations we must return to again and again, not because they are comfortable, but because they illuminate something essential about the human condition. Happiness is one of those conversations. And yet, in all our modern discussions about well-being, ambition, success, identity, and progress, we often overlook the foundation that held earlier generations together—the quiet structures of morality, ethics, community, and responsibility.

When I speak about happiness today, I often begin by reflecting on the world I grew up in. Not because nostalgia is a refuge, but because memory is a teacher. There was a time when the purpose of a person’s life was not to accumulate, not to ascend, not to display—but simply to live with decency, dignity, and integrity. You lived by the example of your father and grandfather, your mother and grandmother. Life was not about self-promotion; it was about belonging—to a family, a neighborhood, a community of values.

In the working towns of America, entire generations labored in the same factories and fields. In Parkersburg, West Virginia, where two of my uncles worked as engineers at the Shovel Factory, no one measured happiness by how much they owned. You needed enough to provide a quality of life, but you didn’t have to compete with your neighbors to feel worthy. You didn’t chase attention or cultivate a personal “brand.” You didn’t believe that love depended on performance.

We did simple things—cut grass in the summer, delivered newspapers at dawn, joined the Boy Scouts. These weren’t trivial activities; they were rites of passage that shaped character. People looked at you and said, “That’s a good boy,” or, “She’s a good girl,” and it meant something. It meant you carried yourself with integrity.

Life was quieter then, far less stressful, and people were taught not to envy others. Our parents had endured the Great Depression, survived the privations of World War II, and learned to be grateful for small things. Family held you together. Faith held you together. These weren’t abstractions—they were the pillars of a meaningful existence.

But something dramatic shifted over the last three decades. Not gradually, but radically. Today, quality of life has been replaced by standard of living. Meaning replaced by performance. Character replaced by identity. And the loss has been profound.

A new generation grew up believing that happiness required more—more education, more achievement, more status, more recognition. Parents worked themselves to exhaustion to ensure their children would “make it,” only to realize the cost: their children gained ambition but lost belonging. They inherited opportunity but not balance. They were raised to succeed, not to be whole.

I’ve seen families where the parents achieved everything—prestigious degrees, high salaries, social status—and yet the children were uprooted, lonely, or adrift. When you pour all your energy into climbing, something inevitably gets lost at the base. Today’s young adults often wake with no sense of purpose. They are anxious, easily overwhelmed, and spiritually unanchored—not because they are weak, but because the world they inherited is chaotic and rootless.

This generation—the so-called millennials—has been raised in a culture that praises independence but neglects interdependence. They grew up with entertainment instead of engagement, attention instead of affection, stimulation instead of structure. Many of them feel entitled, but that entitlement is often camouflage for something deeper: a loss of identity, a loss of direction, a loss of grounding.

I’ve met 38-year-olds living with their mothers—not out of compassion, but out of collapse. The mother sleeps on the couch; the son sleeps in the bedroom. There is no motivation. No drive. No sense of meaning. And yet all their comforts are met. That is the paradox: comfort without purpose leads to spiritual paralysis.

This is the most addicted generation in American history—not merely addicted to substances, but addicted to distraction, validation, stimulation, attention. Reality programs have replaced role models. Surgically enhanced influencers have replaced examples of dignity. Vulgarity and outrage have replaced civility.

And while individuals struggle in the private spaces of their lives, the culture itself fractures in the public sphere. Politicians weaponize identity, dividing people into tribes and pitting them against one another. The internet erases reputations with a click. Wikipedia becomes a tool of destruction. Social platforms reward cruelty, not compassion.

We are living not in a cultural disagreement, but in a primordial war—a war of values, meaning, identity, and existence. People walk around with a near-perpetual anger they don’t understand. Outrage has become a performance. Morality, a battleground.

Migration reshapes the country—not gently, not thoughtfully, but chaotically. Millions arrive who do not know the cultural glue that once held communities together. Assimilation, once common, is now contested. Entire nations—Sweden, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, and yes, the United States—experience tensions that no one is allowed to talk about without being labeled xenophobic or Islamophobic.

We have entered a time when merely questioning a narrative is treated as a moral crime. Disagree with Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and you are called anti-Semitic. Suggest a conversation about assimilation, and you are condemned. We have lost the ability to disagree with civility. We now argue like scorpions trapped in a cocktail glass—thrashing, venomous, frantic, unable to see the larger world.

We must address these realities, because they are not just political—they are psychological and spiritual. They shape our ability to find happiness. A society in perpetual conflict cannot cultivate inner peace. A culture at war with itself cannot nurture joy.

Identity politics, wokeism, Critical Race Theory—they didn’t appear in a vacuum. They came into a society already weakened, already confused, already drifting. And because the older generations did not speak up—did not guide, did not mentor, did not hold the line—young people were left to navigate moral complexity with only emotional intensity and ideological slogans.

A small minority—five percent of the population—now demands that the other ninety-five percent surrender their values, history, identity, and traditions. People lose their jobs for refusing to conform. Young white adults are taught to feel guilty for sins they never committed. Men are told they are inherently toxic. Women are told they are oppressed even when they have more freedom than any society has ever offered.

And then there is the irony—perhaps the greatest of all.

The same young generation that embraced advanced technology, that believed digital empowerment would liberate them, that celebrated artificial intelligence as progress— has now created the very system that threatens their future employment, dignity, and purpose.

They are building the machines that will replace them. And they do not see it.

We have engineered a society in which emotional reaction replaces reasoning, in which narratives replace facts, in which fragility replaces resilience. People wear their wounds like badges and condemn anyone who questions their stories. But healing cannot occur where questioning is forbidden. Growth cannot occur where discomfort is avoided.

This is the environment in which people are asked to find happiness.

How can they?

How can a young man who is told he is inherently toxic find pride in becoming a good father?

How can a young woman told she is a victim find empowerment in her accomplishments?

How can a citizen told their culture is worthless feel love for their country?

How can a person told they must surrender their values feel secure in who they are?

These are the questions that must be part of our conversation on happiness, because happiness does not exist in isolation from culture. It is shaped by meaning, identity, morality, purpose, and community.

And today, all of these have been shaken.

Yet, in the midst of this confusion, amid the noise and the ideological storms, one truth remains unchanged:

Happiness is still possible.

Happiness is still natural.

Happiness is still within reach.

But to find it, we must go deeper than politics, deeper than identity, deeper than technology. We must reclaim the inner compass that earlier generations took for granted. We must rediscover values that nourish the soul rather than inflame the ego. We must rebuild the inner architecture that makes life meaningful.

I’m here—not to criticize a generation, but to understand a civilization.

Not to lament the past, but to reawaken the future.

Not to condemn, but to remind us all—young and old—that happiness is not a luxury. It is a birthright.

And it is time we reclaimed it.

A Quiet Morning Question

Let me ask you a question—not the kind you answer quickly, but one you sit with, the way you might sit with a sunrise or a memory that still carries warmth.

Why aren’t you happy?

Not the superficial happiness of a good meal or a new purchase or a compliment someone tossed your way. I mean the happiness that settles into your bones, the kind that’s there when you wake in the morning and lingers like a quiet hum of gratitude.

When I look at people today—whether they’re in their twenties or their seventies—I see a common thread: a restlessness that never quite resolves, a sense that something is missing. Yet when I ask people what they think they lack, they almost always point outward. They tell me about the relationship they wish were different, the career they think they should have by now, the money they’re striving for, the body they want to reclaim, the recognition they believe they’ve earned.

But happiness is not an external acquisition. It is an internal condition.

And somewhere along the way, our culture forgot that.

I grew up in a time when happiness wasn’t complicated. People didn’t have much, and they didn’t need much. You lived by the example of your parents and grandparents, and you were expected to contribute—whether that meant mowing lawns in the summer, delivering papers at dawn, or joining the Boy Scouts so you could learn discipline, skill, and camaraderie. You knew your place in the world, not because someone forced you into it, but because you belonged to a community with shared values, shared hardships, and shared joys.

Back then, nobody talked about “branding” yourself or optimizing your potential or curating an identity for public consumption. Your worth wasn’t measured by how many likes you collected or how many credentials followed your name. A good person was simply a good person, and that was enough.

Today, the landscape is different. The problem isn’t just that people are stressed. It’s that they’re overwhelmed, overstimulated, and spiritually undernourished. They’re living at a pace designed to fracture attention and dilute meaning. They’re told from childhood that success must be earned through relentless striving, and that the proof of that success lies in possessions, status, and constant performance.

In the process, we’ve lost something essential: the inner stillness where happiness naturally grows.

The Life We Inherited vs. the Life We Created

There was a time when the measure of a good life was not how much you had, but how much you contributed—to your family, your community, your own moral compass. When I think back to the working-class towns of America, I think of people who lived simply but lived well. They had enough food on the table, enough time to share with their children, enough quiet evenings to reflect on what mattered.

Back then, quality of life meant something different. It meant a slower pace, a clearer conscience, a sense of gratitude for what you already had. You didn’t need dozens of distractions to numb yourself; you didn’t need a thousand channels or endless digital rabbit holes to escape into. You were taught to be content—not complacent, but content—with the blessings life offered.

But as the decades passed, America shifted. The culture began to equate happiness with standard of living rather than quality of life. The question silently changed from “Are you fulfilled?” to “Are you successful?”

And success, increasingly, meant more—more money, more credentials, more objects, more influence, more validation.

This shift didn’t happen overnight. It crept in slowly, the way weeds creep into a garden when you’re not paying attention. First, people stopped having time for hobbies. Then they stopped having time for friendships. Eventually they stopped having time for their own inner lives. They became so committed to “making it” that they forgot to live.

So, we built a society where exhaustion is a badge of honor and inner peace is treated like a luxury. A society where parents work themselves to the brink to give their children the best opportunities but offer little of their own presence. A society where children are raised to be achievers, not human beings.

And then one day, the same parents look at their grown children—brilliant, educated, ambitious—and wonder why they are anxious, entitled, or spiritually lost.

We created a generation that knows how to succeed but doesn’t know how to be. And now we’re paying the price.

The Great Generational Disconnect

Let’s talk honestly about the generational divide. Many of today’s young adults grew up in homes where their parents worked themselves ragged to build a better life—long hours, constant striving, unending pressure. These were parents who believed they were offering love through sacrifice. And in many ways, they were.

But the unintended consequence was a generation deprived of shared moments, quiet conversations, family rituals, and emotional modeling. Children learned to aim high, but they didn’t learn how to metabolize disappointment. They learned to chase accomplishments, but not how to cultivate character. They were taught to climb ladders, not how to sit still with themselves.

And when a person doesn’t know who they are, they go searching. They look to peers, influencers, algorithms, ideologies, and identities to tell them what matters. They become vulnerable to whatever voice is loudest, whatever message is trending, whatever belief offers a sense of belonging with the least amount of introspection.

Some drift into entitlement because nobody taught them gratitude.

Some drift into despair because nobody taught them resilience.

Some drift into outrage because nobody taught them humility.

And as these young people grew older, many entered adulthood lacking something previous generations took for granted: a sturdy inner life. The inner life that lets you say, “I am enough, even when I have little. I am enough, even when I fail. I am enough, even when the world is chaotic.”

Without that inner foundation, people look outward for meaning—and they grab whatever promises it fastest.

Some turn to substances.

Some turn to attention-seeking.

Some turn to ideologies that offer simple answers to complex realities.

Some turn to outrage because it feels like purpose.

Some turn to social validation because it feels like love.

But all these substitutes have something in common: they never fill the void.

A generation without roots cannot grow upward.

A generation without elders cannot mature.

A generation without inner stillness cannot find happiness.

The Tribalization of America

This is where we must step carefully, compassionately, but truthfully. Because part of the modern unhappiness epidemic emerges directly from the cultural fragmentation we are now living through.

We have become a society of tribes—each suspicious of the others, each convinced it holds the moral high ground. Critical Race Theory, the new expressions of woke culture, and identity politics were not born in a vacuum. They emerged from real historical wounds and genuine cries for justice. But in the hands of the inexperienced, the impatient, and the ideologically rigid, these movements mutated into something else entirely.

If you take a moment someday, go to my website and read some of my essays on these subjects—not to agree or disagree, but to understand the perspective I’m about to share. Because this is not an argument against justice. It is an argument against absolutism, dogma, and spiritual negligence.

How did we allow such immature and untested minds—young people still forming their worldview—to seize moral authority over the nation? Why did the elders, who possessed the wisdom of history remain silent as ideological storms uprooted the cultural soil we all once stood upon?

We became a balkanized society. Tribalized. Weaponized.

People started seeing each other less as individuals and more as categories—oppressor or oppressed, privileged or marginalized, good or evil. Nuance evaporated. Dialogue disappeared. Compassion was replaced with accusation. Confusion was mistaken for insight. Anger was mistaken for morality.

And underneath all of it was a profound unhappiness—disguised as activism, hidden beneath the armor of certainty, burning like an unexamined grievance.

How did we get here?

Because when mature voices retreat, immature voices fill the vacuum.

When wisdom is silent, ideology shouts.

When spirituality is neglected, tribalism becomes religion.

We handed a megaphone to a generation that had energy but not insight, passion but not perspective, grievance but not grounding. They took concepts meant for academic nuance and turned them into blunt weapons. They believed they were pursuing justice when in fact they were enforcing conformity. They believed they were dismantling oppression when they were often creating new forms of it—social, psychological, linguistic.

And while all this was happening, the wiser, older adults—those with enough life experience to guide, temper, or contextualize this movement—stayed silent. Maybe out of fear. Maybe out of social pressure. Maybe out of shame. Whatever the reason, the cost has been enormous.

In the chaos that followed, America lost something precious: a shared narrative of who we are.

Into that void stepped anger, victimhood, moral absolutism, and ideological purity tests. People became terrified of speaking honestly. Friendships fractured. Institutions caved under pressure. The culture split into warring camps, each certain the other was the enemy.

And now we find ourselves living in a soft, psychological version of Orwell’s 1984—where language is policed, history is rewritten, memory is manipulated, and dissent is punished. A society where fear replaces curiosity and conformity replaces courage.

How can anyone be happy in such an environment?

You cannot achieve inner harmony in a culture that thrives on division.

You cannot cultivate peace when you are constantly preparing for ideological battle.

You cannot feel whole when taught to define yourself by fragments.

But here is the deeper tragedy: beneath all this noise is a collective longing—a longing for fairness, belonging, purpose, and dignity. These movements grew from unmet emotional needs. But without wisdom to guide them, they morphed into engines of unhappiness.

And it will take wisdom—real wisdom, generational wisdom—to heal what has been broken.

The Age of Illusion

If you want to understand why so many people feel unmoored today, you have to recognize the scale and sophistication of the illusions surrounding us. We live inside an illusion-industrial complex—a coordinated ecosystem of marketing, media, entertainment, psychology, and now artificial intelligence—all designed to sell us a version of happiness that has nothing to do with the real thing.

Most people don’t realize they’ve been programmed since birth. They think they’re making free choices, setting independent goals, pursuing unique aspirations. But how free can those choices be when billions of dollars are spent every year studying how to manipulate your desires, trigger your fears, capture your attention, and monetize your insecurities?

Everywhere you look, you are nudged.

Everything you engage with has a motive behind it.

Every screen you touch has already studied you before you touched it.

Modern unhappiness is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of a culture engineered to keep you dissatisfied—because dissatisfaction keeps you consuming. A happy person is a terrible customer; a centered person is an unresponsive target; a grounded person is immune to manipulation.

So the illusion makers must keep you chasing: a better body, a bigger home, a shinier identity, a more enviable life. They’re not selling products—they’re selling the promise of becoming a person who finally feels whole.

And people believe it. They pour their energy into acquiring symbols of success instead of cultivating the substance of well-being. They treat themselves as brands instead of as souls. They trade the inward journey for the outward performance.

But what happens when you wake up one morning and the illusion no longer satisfies?

What happens when you achieve everything you were told to pursue, and the emptiness is still there?

What happens when the applause stops and the silence feels unbearable?

This is the crisis of our time: a population that has achieved more outward comfort than any generation before it, and yet feels spiritually starved.

Illusions don’t just fail to nourish you—they drain you. They create a hunger that can never be satisfied, because the hunger itself was manufactured.

There is only one cure for illusion, and it isn’t more striving. The cure is truth—truth about who you are and who you are not.

But most people fear that truth. They fear the stillness that would reveal it. They fear the responsibility that comes with it. And so they stay in motion, hoping constant activity will distract them from the quiet, honest voice inside.

It never works.

The New AI Frontier: Promise and Loss

We cannot talk about modern illusion without addressing the most powerful illusion-generating machine humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence.

AI is extraordinary. It will revolutionize medicine, education, science, agriculture, communication, and every field we know. But it is also potentially devastating—psychologically, spiritually, and socially—if we don’t approach it with awareness.

Young people today must hear this clearly: Just because something is technologically advanced does not mean it is morally evolved.

AI does not possess wisdom, compassion, or conscience.

AI does not understand meaning or purpose.

AI does not love, and cannot teach you how to love.

It can predict your behavior, but it cannot guide your soul.

What troubles me most is how many bright young minds are shaping the future with no awareness of the consequences. They’re building systems so powerful that these systems will eventually replace them. Imagine someone so disconnected from reality that they cannot see they are building the machinery of their own obsolescence.

This is not science fiction—it is already happening.

Journalism, marketing, design, software development, legal research—entire professions are being restructured, automated, or erased by the very people who entered those professions just a decade ago.

And the irony is almost cruel: The generation that championed technology as liberation now finds itself trapped by it—competing with algorithms for relevance.

But the psychological cost may be even greater than the economic one.

AI saturates life with convenience, but convenience is poison when it replaces capability.

AI offers answers instantly, but wisdom cannot be downloaded.

AI mirrors your preferences, but spiritual growth requires confronting what you don’t prefer.

AI simulates connection, but connection without vulnerability is not human.

What happens to a culture when people outsource their thinking, their remembering, their decision-making, their creativity, their communication?

What happens to a generation whose emotional lives are shaped by algorithms that do not understand emotion?

You get people who know everything except themselves.

You get efficiency without meaning.

You get intelligence without wisdom.

You get progress without purpose.

And in that environment, happiness becomes elusive because happiness is a product of engagement, not automation. Happiness grows from the work of living—not from having life streamlined for you.

This is the paradox of AI: The more life becomes automated, the more the soul must become intentional.

Young people must reclaim what technology cannot give them: intuition, empathy, resilience, courage, purpose, and the ability to sit with discomfort long enough to grow from it.

AI may shape the future, but it cannot shape your humanity. Only you can do that.

Read the Whole Article

The post Happiness in the Age of Illusion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Around the Napoleonic era, Prussian (German) general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote a book called “On War”. One of his most compelling arguments was the postulate that “war is a mere continuation of policy by other means”. In essence, war is not some sudden, isolated event that just happens randomly, but rather an instrument of political goals that are pursued when diplomatic solutions are no longer viable or wanted by either side. Clausewitz’s argument emphasizes that war is fundamentally a deliberate political act with a carefully calculated purpose, rather than a purely emotional or violent undertaking. The latter two are merely used for mass manipulation that serves to convince the populace that the war is “just”.

Although written over two centuries ago, such a timeless argument perfectly encapsulates how warfare functions (and has functioned since the dawn of mankind). This is particularly true for the political West and its centuries-old aggression against the entire world. Since the dawn of the classical colonial era to the modern (or perhaps even postmodern) neocolonial system, the world’s most vile power pole has killed, maimed and enslaved billions of people at virtually every corner of this unfortunate planet. Entire native populations (particularly in the Americas and Australia) have either been wiped out entirely or brought to the point of extinction, robbing the world of their unique societies and civilizations.

It was from this brutal colonialism that countries like the British Empire and the United States emerged, bringing more misery, death and destruction to other “undiscovered” regions of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia, where genocidal Western policies continued with the same ferocity. Clausewitz’s point that warfare is a very deliberate act has been proven time and again, with one caveat being that the political West has become increasingly sophisticated at causing wars and making them seem like they’re unrelated to Western aggression against the world. Whenever any given opponent is too strong for a head-on engagement, the political West resorts to “low blows” and strategic sabotage in an attempt to gain the upper hand.

This has been particularly true for Russia and China, the two global superpowers that Western colonialists were always terrified of fighting directly. That’s precisely the reason unrest, revolutions and local wars were used against both, starting at least in the early 19th century and continuing to this day (Opium Wars, Crimean War, revolutions in Russia and China financed by Western capital, neocolonial wars and attempts to dismember both countries, etc). Although both Moscow and Beijing refused to give up and kept fighting, the damage done to their societies is virtually impossible to quantify. China lost well over a century from the early 19th to the late 20th century and is yet to fully regain its rightful place in the global arena.

Russia also lost more than a century after its victory in WWI was stolen, pushing it into at least half a decade of civil war, followed by WWII not even 20 years later. The guns were still hot in Europe and the Pacific when the US and the crumbling British Empire conceived “Operation Unthinkable” and dozens of similar plans that involved dropping at least 300 nuclear bombs on Moscow alone. Russia uncovered the plot and pre-empted it by developing its own atomic weapons, forever stifling Western wet dreams about “imposing the will of Anglo-Americans” on the Kremlin through the use of nuclear hellfire. However, these monstrous plans were never really dropped, but merely postponed and left for “better times”.

The political West seems to think those times have come and that the Eurasian giant is greatly weakened due to the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union. NATO’s crawling “Barbarossa 2.0” is strategically almost identical to the original launched by its geopolitical (and literal) Nazi predecessor, albeit conducted through far more sinister and truly Machiavellian policies. However, the endgame is precisely how Clausewitz described it – the continuation of the same policies by different means. Still, while the political West’s cold-blooded calculus is meticulously executed, it’s also fundamentally dominated by one of the most dangerous delusions in human history – that Russia can be defeated.

Namely, Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee, just told Financial Times that NATO is considering “more proactive measures in response to Russia’s escalating hybrid warfare”. He cited an alleged “rise in Russian-backed cyberattacks, sabotage operations and airspace violations over Europe – which NATO could mirror and more, as any potential ‘pre-emptive strike’ on Russian targets would be justified”. In order to justify this “pre-emptive strike”, Admiral Dragone insisted that such an attack could “under certain circumstances and context be classified as a defensive action”. He also added a laughable claim that this would be “further away from our normal way of thinking and behavior”.

The very idea that unadulterated, bloodthirsty belligerence is somehow “out of the ordinary” for the most murderous racketeering cartel in human history makes any normal human being lose their breath and convulse due to excessive laughter. Namely, for anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past three to four decades, how many NATO wars can you count off the top of your head alone? Without even considering previous wars and starting only with the post-Cold War era and the direct aggression on Iraq (twice), Serbia/Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, now Venezuela, etc, there have been dozens of official invasions and unofficial NATO-orchestrated “civil” wars that resulted in millions of civilian deaths.

Obviously, not a single NATO official or military officer was ever held accountable for the sea of blood left in their wake. All they ever talk about are “mistakes”, but no “international criminal court” has ever found these admissions peculiar enough to warrant the attention of “international law and justice”. Quite the contrary, the political West (ab)used the so-called “rules-based world order” to the maximum in order to justify NATO’s destruction of the said countries and even presented all of it as some sort of a “noble humanitarian mission”. The world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel is now dead set on pushing the narrative that yet another “just cause” is there, only this time once again against Russia (for God knows which time in the last 800 years).

Moscow’s “evil oppression of poor little NATO” is the ultimate bait for Western audiences in what Washington DC, London and Brussels apparently see as their “last chance to defeat Russia”. Obviously, they never listened to the advice of their late Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, whose rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, was: “Do not march on Moscow.” It’s extremely difficult to imagine that people like Admiral Dragone never heard of this advice (effectively a command). However, it seems their arrogance makes them think they know better than one of the people who fought an actual war and defeated Nazi armies in North Africa and Western Europe. He knew full well that those forces were still only a fraction of German power, which was heavily focused on Russia.

The post How Should Russia React to NATO’s ‘Preemptive Strikes’ Threat? appeared first on LewRockwell.

This talk was given on December 2nd, 2025 for Massachusetts Peace Action (MAPA) The video with discussion is here:

Setting the Stage in Ukraine

Ukrainian independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 hinged on the re-collection and dismantlement of 1,700 Soviet-owned and operated nuclear weapons, under the auspices of the Non Proliferation Treaty in 1994. As a soviet state, Ukraine had been the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world. The relocation and destruction of these Russian nuclear weapons was associated with guarantees to Ukraine, according to Wikipedia, as follows:

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders. Almost twenty years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine in 2014.

I want to take a moment to emphasize the assurance that was agreed to by the US, the UK and Russia: “To respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.”

Like the United States, a modern Ukraine faced a civil war, reaching a crisis point in 2014, with the Crimea’s secession to/annexation by Russia and the larger land war between the urbanized Ukrainian west and the rural, resource rich and ethnically Russian Donbass region. Incidentally, Crimea had been originally transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1953, in a move that ensured his rise to Chairman of the CCCP later that year.

The Minsk Protocol in late 2014, and Minsk Agreements in early 2015 between Russia and Ukraine, put together after Russia annexed Crimea, related to the same parts of Ukraine we are talking about today almost a dozen years later– the culturally and religiously Russian areas in Crimea and the Donbass. The Kiev nationalist leadership, including the recently elevated second most powerful man in Kiev, Rustem Umerov, has long held a vision of the repossession of Crimea, and subjugation of the Donbass region.

But back to 1994. Wikipedia, which has evolved as a friendly CIA psyop, admits that three countries promised to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in 1994 – but states that only Russia violated this promise. The US and the UK history of rabid Russophobia, our neoconservative State Department, and corrupt Congressional interference in Ukrainian elections in the years leading up to 2014 are today common knowledge. Vicky Nuland’s “Yats is our man” selection of the anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk, brought to power by the US in the Maidan Coup, precipitated both the Russian annexation of Crimea, and the rise of US-allied Volodomyr Zelensky five years later, elected in a landslide after years of conflict on a platform of “peace.”

This interference is part and parcel of the US violation of a widely known pledge by several US administrations to the newly independent Russian Federation that NATO would not move one inch eastward. Yet, beginning with Bill Clinton’s presidency and continuing unabated since then, NATO sought to expand eastward, in war and preparation for war, to groom a number of former Soviet states for NATO accession.

My point here is not to ridicule Wikipedia’s bias and the mainstream narrative on Ukraine, but to explain clearly that the US has been and remains a major violator of its past agreements. It has encouraged and funded NATO expansion, and thus, nuclear expansion, closer and closer to Russia’s borders, in spite the fact the USSR was peacefully retrenched as a smaller, non-communist Federated Republic. Instead of “taking the win” in 1991, the US and NATO continued the Cold War. Most analysts admit that this tendency is because our foreign policy is derived, designed, and implemented autonomously by the multi-trillion dollar military industrial complex. This is the nightmare scenario that Eisenhower warned of in 1961, and it is the clear and sane observation of Major General Smedley Butler a century ago, in his angry pamphlet “War is a Racket.”

How important is it to end the current war in Ukraine?

Ukrainians deserves peace, but not on the terms demanded by Europe and Kiev, mainly because those terms are guarantors of more war, more NATO expansion eastward, and a greater likelihood of a nuclear accident or even a global nuclear war. An overt and agreed-upon vision of peaceful neutrality was the foundation of Ukrainian independence in the early 1990s, and it remains the only vision that will support longterm peace. We can talk about the 28 point or the 19 point outlines created by Washington oligarchs, themselves seeking financial advantage and continued influence, including military sales and services, in a smaller but intact and US-allied Ukraine. We can talk about European military expansionist goals, seeking leverage over Ukraine, for resources, energy flows, weapons and as a territory to allow for unconstrained NATO training and deployment, as western Europe no longer supports this for popular and environmental reasons. We can even talk about Polish and German nationalistic interests in Ukraine as a rump state, or a remnant state, as a past – and maybe future – territory variously controlled or occupied by Poland and Germany.

Extreme nationalist political ideology, tainted by Nazi symbology and shaped by Nazi values, remains strong in Ukraine. Nearly four years of a meatgrinder of a war has sharpened this ideology, and made it even more desperate. Ukrainian supremacist ideology and contempt for Russia in particular has also been successfully cultivated throughout the West, much of it using tax dollars and pushed by corporate war pigs for fun and profit. This narrative goes back long before 2014, and continues today despite its negative impact on average Ukrainians, despite the near destruction of Ukraine’s future generations and economy.

Ukraine has become – like her east European sisters who joined NATO after 1991 – a permanent graveyard for a massive number of legacy weapons systems held by Europe and the West, as well as a testing ground for a wide variety of newer and future weapons. Since the onset of war in 2022, Ukraine has been the burial round for legacy and outdated systems, and a testing ground for new systems and tactics, for both the West and to a lesser extent for Russia and her allies. What is far more obvious and evident is that Ukraine has been a victim of US/NATO strategies to create fresh Western controlled markets and new, if artificial, demand for Western weapons.

Without US and Western urging for decades, Ukraine would likely have remained neutral and unaligned, a profitable and eventually prosperous trading intersection between East and West. The civil war in the Donbass would not have occurred without US and NATO, especially British, interference in Kiev politics and national elections. Autonomous regions within Ukraine, including Crimea, might have had no reason to fight Kiev for autonomy, and should have provided no reason for Kiev to bomb and attack those regions as secessionist – but for Western interference and promises of massive amounts of military aid and cash for any challenge to Russia. The West started the war in Ukraine (and actively refused at every opportunity to allow Ukraine to end it) and US/NATO rationale was, in my opinion, threefold:

1) to create one more proxy war (this time in Ukraine) to weaken Russia, much as the 2019 Rand Study “Extending Russia: Competing From Advantageous Ground” explained;

1a) to allow for a seamless shift of forward deployed US and NATO war resources from Afghanistan (which ended in 2021 with little to show but a restored opium trade, US embarrassment, and trillions of dollars wasted);

2) as mentioned above, to allow for elimination of legacy Euro and US military systems in order to create new markets and incentive to juice the military industrial sectors on both sides of the Atlantic, and;

3) a US-led initiative, apparently supported by German politicians and others, to permanently break the flow Russian energy into Europe, and replace that market with far more expensive US energy, more tightly binding Europe to a western energy and financial orbit. Increasing the global price of oil generally, while reducing it for Russian energy exports through sanctions regimes, also served the petrodollar aspect of the western financial system. While Russia survived and even thrived under these regimes, becoming more integrated with its global partners, the price of oil has been and remains pimped by US wars, as it has for decades in service to dollar reserve dominance.

The Ukraine war has revealed to the world exactly how desperate the US-European entity is to remain dominant in a world of increasing multipolar prosperity and economic independence. What we see is the ending of empire; we are witnessing the very predictable acts of an empire not ready to recede or relinquish power in the new world that is pressing upon it. The fact that the neocolonial racist state of Israel is deeply embedded in this sphere of militarism, war and control of markets and populations – to the detriment of those markets and populations – is not an accident. It is all part of the same state, and Ukraine is another face of this state at its ever-expanding boundary.

Clearly, it is important to end the war in Ukraine. But it is even more important is to understand how a civil conflict inside Ukraine became attractive to the US and NATO, and how it was massaged, fueled, and leveraged into usefulness to the western alliance. It may be even more important to understand why the United States, as a nuclear power and world leader in the machinery and productions of war, seeks opportunities to spark battles abroad. It is of critical importance to study what the United States and NATO do – and plan to do – in the event of predictable failure of these sparks, conflicts, and full-blown NATO proxy wars against Russia, or another near-peer nuclear power, like China.

Could, and will, Ukraine – or a similar proxy war in the future – lead to nuclear armageddon?

When nuclear armed empires seek a fight, economically or militarily, directly or indirectly, the world should tremble. Tucker Carlson recently interviewed a nuclear scientist named Ivana Hughes; their conversation is a terrifying reminder not only of the impacts and possibilities of a nuclear explosion, accident or war, but of actual past nuclear close calls, the nature of our collapsing nuclear control and inspection treaties, proliferation and miniaturization of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons strategy and nuclear weapons or material in the hands of both state and non-state actors. Dr Hughes explains both technical and political facets of nuclear weapons, and she quotes the late Dan Ellsberg, one of our most well-known whistleblowers from his 2017 book “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.” Ellsworth wrote “nuclear weapons policies, past and current, are dizzyingly insane and immoral.” Reviewers called his book a “chronicle of madness” and Ellsberg agreed.

Dan Ellsberg and Hughes, along with billions of people on earth share the view that nuclear weapons should be eliminated entirely. The nine governments in the world with nuclear weapons disagree with the rest of the world, and their actions, in particular the aggressive and provocative actions of several of these nuclear states, are incentivizing non-nuclear states to gain access to a nuclear weapon. And yet, as we saw in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, agreements can be made to remove a nuclear weapon capability, and as Russia did, dismantle and destroy them. Past treaties have reduced the numbers of nuclear weapons and warheads, and the nonproliferation treaty has been somewhat effective, although one US allied nuclear country refuses to even participate in that mild agreement. In the case of South Africa, this same country, Israel, in 1975, offered to sell nuclear weapons “in three sizes” to the apartheid regime; Botha did not pursue the offer for long, mainly due to cost, and later South Africa developed their own nuclear weapons capability, with Israeli assistance. However, when apartheid ended, this nuclear program was safely abandoned. More recently, this past summer, we recall that after the Israeli and American attacks on Iran in the so-called 12 day war, Pakistan effectively made public the concept that Iran would not need to develop its own nuclear weapons as Pakistan would serve as their nuclear proxy.

Nuclear policy and war strategies continue to evolve, both for state and non-state actors. The sheer numbers of nuclear weapons presumably poised and assigned targets around the world is literal insanity, and yet we find the West uninterested in restraint or treaties that provide for transparency and inspection, and we also find that, as it might be expected, nuclear capable militaries have written and rarely debated strategies for the conduct of nuclear wars, specifically survivable, and “winnable” nuclear exchanges. I refer again to the Rand Corporation for examples of this on the US and western side, but no doubt this kind of strategizing the unthinkable is part and parcel for all of the nine nuclear capable nations. Israel, for example, has in place a well-known strategy called “The Sampson Option” whereby prepositioned or deliverable nuclear weapons, in the land of enemy and ally alike, will be detonated if Israel is existentially threatened. Because the definition of existential threats and existential risks are largely determined by sociopathic, incompetent, and/or compromised politicians, in a time of the most dire and urgent stress, this kind of dead man’s switch for nuclear detonation should be of grave concern. I use the example of Israel here, in part because it is notorious, and in part because it may not be as rare and unusual as it is currently portrayed in the media. Why couldn’t or wouldn’t any country with nuclear weapons see fit to place them in a location where a detonation of a nuclear weapon could initiate a chain reaction – somewhere other than their own country – that would cause a global financial reset, the elimination of enemies or competitors, or even just to set off a massive conventional global war that would justify state totalitarianism and state barbarism exponentially worse than that of the 20th century?

The Sampson Option, like the older idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, elegantly serves as leverage prior to its execution. But it also brings nuclear game theory to a whole new level. Many politicians and strategists today believe that a nuclear conflict could be initiated, then contained, constrained, and stopped before a planetary catastrophe. In other words, many politicians and their advisors believe a nuclear war can be “won.”

What does this have to do with the proxy war in Ukraine? Anyone who has been following the back and forth of diplomatic and political language between Trump and Putin, accompanied by self-righteous squeals of the NATO hyenas, or even the poetically vicious commentary by former Russian President Medvedev over the course of this war has a good understanding that nuclear threats – of unstoppable intercontinental Oreshnik missiles or secret nuclear submarines lurking just off everyone’s shorelines – are real. One wrong step, one mistake in judgement, one accident or one false flag conducted by either state or non-state actors, could be catastrophic, even world-ending.

It is important to remember, of the many nuclear accidents that have occurred since the 1950s, the purposeful detonation of a nuclear weapon at an enemy has thus far been prevented by the acts and judgement of human beings, most of whom were not were not politicians nor sitting at the top of the decision pyramid. In other words, moral and based human actors prevented the destruction of the planet – often in opposition to what their political leadership ordered or demanded. The Cuban missile crisis, as resolved by JFK and Khrushchev directly, in 1963, was a triumph of morality and a legitimate human fear of a new kind of hell on earth, superseding the advice of the ambitious, the arrogant, and the stupid on both sides. Curiously, we may have been blessed by Khrushchev’s machinations regarding Crimea, as it provided JFK the right partner in 1963 to prevent imminent nuclear war.

We are ruled today by the ambitious, the arrogant, and the stupid, most obviously in the West, and there are many sides intervening and interfering, many facets of nuclear capability, including small nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, neutron bombs, far exceeding the variety the Israelis offered to South Africa in 1975, bombs in three sizes. The evolution of nuclear weapons is leading the nuclear armed world to contemplate and suggest their use, to threaten their use against an “enemy,” to grossly and reflexively describe the nature of global competition as a military battleground, where nuclear weapons are part of the arsenal.

Any place on earth where nuclear powers confront each other there is a risk of miscommunication, accident, and more than one immoral and desperate politician. When the confrontation is taking place far from one or both homelands, the risk perception is no longer mirrored, but unbalanced. Thus, the West is fine with risking nuclear conflict in eastern Europe, and fighting to the last Ukrainian. Thus, the United States recently altered its “no first strike” policy, followed naturally by Russia, as Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD is replaced by a more dangerous “dead man’s switch” variant, and a new kind of planning for the survival of a nuclear exchange, one that includes something that looks like “winning,” but only to the ambitious, the arrogant and the stupid.

But as with other proxy wars, in Ukraine, we have seen only superficial attempts by the Trump administration to end this war, because it continues much as the Biden administration and enables, authorizes, coordinates, funds and cheers it. The 28 point “plan” – a weak set of concepts to begin with – suffers modification after modification as it travels from from ally to enemy, to the host of the proxy war, and the NATO beneficiaries and supporters of the total sacrifice of Ukraine, and back to the Janus-like Peacemaker-slash-War Enabler. The war game has many players, the risk assessment is supremely complicated and variable, the costs of peace and war always financialized, never humanized.

For the US-NATO-Russia war in Ukraine, we have at least four main players. A multi-pack of politically precarious and bankrupt European prime ministers and presidents, a poorly advised and ill-tempered American President in his final term, a slow-to-anger Russian president pushed to anger and the recognition of an existential threat from the West, and the crumbling Ukrainian house of cards inhabited by an enraged ideological cadre unwilling to accept the irreversible losses inflicted upon it by enemy and ally alike. For clarity, I have left out the elite oligarchs at play here, and the complex machinations of the military industrial complexes that have interests that may or may not align with those of the political leaders. For the sake of time, I have also left out the list of state and non-state actors that could seek to exploit this European battlefield by extending or expanding the war, and this could be done through the use of a creatively, or clumsily designed nuclear event. No doubt the intense opportunistic and terroristic bombardment of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Facility by the Ukrainian military in the first several years of the war, with US and NATO support, lend credence to this suggestion.

In conclusion, I am one of many dissenters and defense whistleblowers, I have a well-earned lack of faith in any state, or any state’s political leadership, and I have witnessed personally the ineptness of both the US and NATO military conduct and decision-making. I have noticed that most western militaries and their politicians do not lead from the front, but rather huddle with their favorite soothsayers safely in the rear, relying on 1s and 0s, dollars and cents, to inform them instead of history, reality, ethics, and their own citizen’s fervent desire for peace now, and peace for their children and grandchildren.

The war in Ukraine should never have started, and it did so because of the political games engaged in by Ukrainian oligarchs, American oligarchs, and European oligarchs, both elected and unelected. The gamble was poorly thought out, and when it went south, the gamblers doubled down, collapsing the Ukrainian Army, halving the population of Ukraine in four years via secession, military losses, emigration, and the grave.

The criminal war in Ukraine should be concluded. I recently discovered that the 2014 Maidan “revolution” is referred to by many Ukrainian nationalists as the “revolution of dignity.” It surprised me, because I understood the Euromaidan from the point of view of Vickie Nuland and John McCain, as a successful example of a CIA-backed color revolution, a political coup directed live from Washington, one of several the US government has attempted on Russia’s western border. Today, in the aftermath of a $100 million corruption scandal that has implicated Zelensky’s sponsors and his chief peace negotiator, we hear Zelensky repeatedly use the word “dignity” in his public statements, this time in terms of a peace with dignity for Ukraine. If there can be dignity, the US and NATO are incapable of affording it. Nonetheless, if words like dignity help get us there, they should be welcomed.

The fundamental problem is that our ability to kill each other, and destroy our world – at least the ability of nine nations on the planet to do this using their expansive menu of nuclear weapons – has advanced, while the morality and discipline of our political leadership has contracted or collapsed. Our leaders have become incapable of learning, and perceive their political survival as more important than humanity’s survival. Any conflict between nuclear powers risks global disaster – but creating unjust wars, creating enraged and desperate losers of those wars, makes finding any peace more complex, more daunting, and less satisfactory. It also increases the opportunity for state and non-state gaming of a nuclear detonation, a nuclear gamble, a nuclear “accident” in an amoral attempt to run the table, shift momentum, or create a new balance of power.

I didn’t talk about the details of how war might be concluded in Ukraine, or how we can truly slow the rush of the Doomsday clock to midnight. But I hope I have made clear the depth and complexity of this debate, so that as Americans, we might better understand that our own power exercised at home in our own society, culture, and government, is both courageous, and time well spent.

This article was originally published on Without Reservation or Purpose of Evasion and was reprinted with the author’s permission. 

The post Ukraine War: Negotiate, Don’t Escalate and Risk WWIII appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote about “a startling document” that the CIA has kept hidden for some 50 years. The document apparently said that “the Mexican government had investigated Kennedy’s assassination and concluded Cuba was responsible.”

It’s just more misdirection on the part of the CIA. Its targeted audience is those Americans who cannot bring themselves to recognize that the Pentagon and the CIA orchestrated and carried out the assassination of a U.S. president. The misdirection serves to confuse and confound that segment of American society.

Oh, sure, that segment of Americans can accept that the U.S. national-security establishment does wield the power to assassinate people. They can also accept that the Pentagon and the CIA have, in fact, exercised this power by assassinating people. What they cannot accept is that this dark-side governmental apparatus with the power of assassination took out a U.S. president whose polices were considered to constitute a grave threat to “national security,” which has been the most important term in the American political lexicon ever since the U.S. government was converted to a national-security state in the 1940s.

We know, for a fact, that there is no way that Cuba and its communist leader Fidel Castro assassinated JFK. How do we know that? Two ways:

1. The JFK autopsy. There is one undisputed aspect of the JFK assassination: It was the U.S. military establishment that conducted the fraudulent autopsy on JFK’s body.

Not Cuba. Not the Soviet Union. Not Israel. Not the Mafia. Only one entity conducted the fraudulent autopsy: The U.S. military establishment.

That’s how we know that the U.S. national-security establishment orchestrated and carried out the assassination itself. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None! Once fraud is established, it is case closed on the assassination itself.

That’s because there can be only one reason for a fraudulent autopsy that took place just a few hours after the assassination. That reason has to be a cover-up in the assassination itself. What other reason could there be for a fraudulent autopsy on the body of a U.S. president that was conducted shortly after the assassination itself?

I have set forth much of the fraud in my book The Kennedy Autopsy, which is a synopsis of Douglas Horne’s watershed 5-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. In my opinion, anyone who reads these two books with an open mind cannot help but conclude that this was a fraudulent autopsy.

For example, there were two separate brain examinations, the second of which involved a brain that could not have belonged to Kennedy. That’s the brain examination that became part of the official autopsy. How can that not be considered evidence of fraud?

Or consider the fact that there were three casket entries into the Bethesda morgue, two of which were secret and surreptitious. How can that not be considered evidence of fraud?

2. At the time he was assassinated, JFK was reaching out to the Soviet Union and communist Cuba in an effort to bring an end to the Cold War and an end to the mindset of perpetual anti-Russia and anti-Cuba hostility that had been inculcated in the American people.

That’s what his Peace Speech at American University was all about. He delivered it just four months before they took him out. In fact, that speech was essentially a declaration of war by JFK against the U.S. national-security establishment and its dark-side vision for the future direction of America. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

In fact, at the very moment he was assassinated, Kennedy had an emissary having lunch with Castro in an effort to normalize relations with Cuba. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, why would Castro be interested in assassinating a U.S. president who was bucking the Pentagon and the CIA by doing his best to restore normal relations with Cuba and Russia? At the risk of further belaboring the obvious, how could the Pentagon and the CIA permit such a president to remain in office, given that his policy of establishing peaceful and friendly relations with Russia and Cuba, they were convinced, posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security”?

My hunch is that the vast majority of Americans “know” that the official lone-nut theory of the JFK assassination is ridiculous. But many people within that majority still do not want to “know know” the truth. The truth still frightens them. It’s that segment of American society that the CIA continues to target with its various assassination theories, like the “Cuba did it” theory, in an effort to confuse and confound them.

For Americans who decide that they want to “know know” the truth about the JFK assassination, all they have to do is study the fraudulent autopsy that was conducted on JFK’s body. Once a critical mass of Americans come to the realization that the JFK autopsy was fraudulent, Americans will come to the firm realization as to why it is so critically important to their freedom, peace, and well-being to restore America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic to our land.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Castro Didn’t Participate in the JFK Autopsy appeared first on LewRockwell.