Aggregatore di feed

Some eighteen minutes into his second inaugural address, Donald Trump – who had just been sworn in as the 47th president of the United States – made the following proclamation:

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.” pic.twitter.com/AmhsQ93OH0

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) January 20, 2025

It is truly astounding that the president of the United States would have to declare this obvious truth which has been known and honoured by mankind since time immemorial.

In these our depraved times, however, such a declaration was necessary.

Not only was it necessary, but for Trump it was an act of great moral clarity and courage. So much have the dark forces subverted the normal thinking and order of things.

In the last few years, the peoples of the world have been subjected to systematic subversion of reality, of common sense, and of morality by relentless gaslighting and torrents of most egregious lies.

The devious Left has nearly managed to turn everything upside down by launching a comprehensive assault on facts, on truth, and on reality itself.

In the process they have manifested an unrelenting antagonism toward all that is good, normal, right, beautiful, and holy.

The idea that biological men can be women and biological women can be men is, in a way, a denouement of their efforts, for it is difficult to conceive of a greater perversion of reality than that.

To realize how deeply the Left has managed to drag America into the slime of madness contemplate the following:

In 1776 Thomas Jeferson declared: “We hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal.”

In 2025 Donald Trump was compelled – to paraphrase him somewhat – to say: “We hold this truth self-evident that men are men and women are women.”

Trump’s declaration of this most obvious of truths was a salvo against the forces of darkness in defence of sanity, of moral order and of common sense. It was a salvo in defence of civilisation itself.

It staggers the mind to think what Donald Trump had to overcome to be able to come to the US Capitol to make his pronouncement. Through an unprecedented campaign of hatred, his enemies sought to vilify him, bankrupt him, imprison him, and ultimately kill him.

He withstood everything, even a bullet to the head. On that fateful July day in that Pennsylvania field with blood streaming down his face, he got up and pumped up his fist. And then in the face of death and darkness, he cried undaunted: “Fight! Fight! Fight!”

Because of his uncommon courage and persistence and his desire to do good for his country and its people, Donald Trump – an imperfect man – emerged as a great leader and a sweeping moral force. His words now carry the weight that makes agents of wrong howl with despair.

When Trump made his historic two genders declaration, the rotunda of the US Capitol erupted in cheers. But not everyone greeted his words of truth with joy and jubilation. There was also despondency and gnashing of teeth. To Trump’s left, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, together with their vanquished party, sat sullen, and stone-faced.

The liars and moral desperadoes that they are, they had inflicted upon this nation insane policies that brought men into women’s locker rooms, toilets, jail cells, and sporting fields. They laughed when concerned parents complained of drag queen hours in school and sent the FBI to shut them down. They perverted the truth, violated reality, and nominated men who pretended to be women into high office.

On January 20, Donald Trump fired a shot that was heard around the world. He cut through years of gaslighting and moral depravity that has soiled so much of our culture.

Hear ye, hear ye all: “men are men and women are women,” he said in essence.

In our troubled day, a statement of this all-too-obvious fact is a kind of revolutionary act. May this mark a turning point and the first step toward our moral healing and restoration of sanity and common sense.

Thank you, Mr. President, for your courage and clarity. Godspeed and may heaven watch over you.

The post Two Genders Only: Trump’s Salvo for Sanity appeared first on LewRockwell.

The idea of inflicting “strategic defeats” on Russia has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy for so long a time that it transcends party lines

Trump’s rhetoric about Russia having lost 1 million men in the Ukraine conflict is not just nonsense (the real number not even reaching 100,000), but his resort to it underlines that the usual meme of Trump being just woefully misinformed is looking less and less plausible.

After touting the 1 million Russian deaths, Trump then suggests that Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal. Adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’.

Instead, in a curiously disinterested way, Trump remarks that negotiations would depend entirely on whether Putin is interested or not. He further claims that Russia’s economy is in ruins, and most notably says that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia, if Putin does not make a deal. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.

This – plainly said – is a narrative of an entirely different order: No longer is it his Envoy Kellogg or another team member saying it; it is Trump’s own words as President. Trump answers a journalist’s question ‘Would [he] sanction Russia’ should Putin not come to the negotiating table? To which he responds, “that sounds likely”.

What, we might ask, is Trump’s strategy? It seems more as though it is Trump that is preparing for a ‘no deal’. He must be aware that Putin repeatedly has made plain that he is both interested and open to talks with Trump. There is no doubt about that.

Yet Trump subsequently contradicts the ‘loser discourse’ in yet another apparent after-thought: “I mean … it’s a big machine so, eventually things will happen …”.

Here he appears to be saying that the Russian ‘big machine’ ultimately will win. Russia will be a winner – and not a loser.

Maybe Trump is thinking simply to let the dynamics of the military ‘trial of strength’ play out. (If that is his thinking, he cannot utter such sentiment out loud – explicitly – as the Euro-élites would sink even further into a pathological tailspin).

Alternatively, were Trump to be seriously seeking productive negotiations with Putin, it is certainly not a good way to start by being deeply disrespectful towards the Russian people – depicting them and President Putin as ‘losers’ who desperately need a deal; whereas the reality was that it was Trump who earlier had touted getting a deal within 24 hours. His disrespect will rankle – not just with Putin – but for most Russians.

The ‘loser narrative’ simply will stiffen Russian opposition to a Ukraine compromise.

The backdrop is that Russia in any case collectively eschews the idea of any compromise that “boils down to freezing the conflict along the line of engagement: that will give time to rearm the remnants of the Ukrainian army, and then start a new round of hostilities. So, that we have to fight again, but this time from less advantageous political positions”, as Professor Sergei Karaganov has noted.

Moreover, “the Trump administration has no reason to negotiate with us on the terms we [Russia] have set. The war is economically beneficial to the U.S. … and [possibly] also to removing Russia as the powerful strategic support of America’s main competitor ? China”.

Professor Dmitri Trenin similarly predicts that,

“Trump’s bid to secure a ceasefire along Ukraine’s battle lines will fail. The American plan ignores Russia’s security concerns and disregards the root causes of the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow’s conditions will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively mean Kiev’s capitulation and the West’s strategic defeat. In response Trump will impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Despite strong anti-Russian rhetoric, U.S. aid to Ukraine will decrease, shifting much of the burden onto Western European nations”.

So why cast Russia as contemptible ‘losers’, unless this forms Trump’s strategy for walking away from the Ukraine issue? If a clear-cut U.S. ‘victory narrative’ seems beyond reach, then why not invert the narrative?‘Mission accomplished’ being obstructed solely by Russia’s ‘loser streak’.

This inevitably leads to the question of what is the meaning – exactly – of the return of America’s “most famous criminal defendant to the White House”, and his promise of a “revolution of common sense”?

“There is no doubt that it is revolutionary”, Matt Taibbi argues:

“Trump galvanized [income mal-distribution] resentment, creating a political Sherman’s march that left institutional America smouldering. The corporate press is dead. The Democratic Party is in schism. Academia is about to swallow a giant bottle of bitter pills, and after the executive orders signed Monday: a lot of DEI instructors will have to learn to code” [i.e., will be unemployed].

Yes, Taibbi observes,

“it makes me nervous to see a murderer’s row of censorious CEOs (particularly Bezos, Pinchai, and the repulsive Cook) sitting in front of Trump, together with other Wall Street luminaries … nonetheless, if the deal was support for Trump in exchange for platforms going back to being merely self-interested profit-gobblers, I’ll take it over the previous cabal. The Wall Street Journal was probably closest to capturing the essence of that idea of the event with yesterday’s header, “The New Oligarchy is a Vast Improvement on the Old””.

Yet to many Russians, however, the impression left by Trump’s ‘loser’ discourse is that ‘nothing changes’ – the idea of inflicting ‘strategic defeats’ on Russia has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy for so long a time that it transcends party lines and is implemented regardless of which administration occupies the White House. And today, a new impetus is apparent – as Nikolai Patrushev warns, Moscow expects Washington artificially to foment friction between Russia and China.

Steve Bannon however, in his usual florid language, goes some way to explain the conundrum of a revolutionary Trump and his disappointing ‘loser discourse’.

Bannon warns that Ukraine risks becoming ‘Trump’s Vietnam’, should Trump fail to make a ‘clean break’, and allow himself to be sucked deeper into the Ukraine war. “That’s what happened to Richard Nixon. He ended up owning the war and it went down as his war – not Lyndon Johnson’s”, Bannon noted.

Bannon “advocates ending America’s all-important military aid to Kyiv, but fears his old boss is going to fall into a trap being set by an unlikely alliance of the U.S. defence industry, the Europeans and even some of Bannon’s own friends, whom he argues are now misguided”.

Bannon’s underpinning premise was made clear during his Zoom call with Alex Krainer. He confirmed that Trump and his team will go on the offensive from day one in office: “The days of thunder begin on Monday”. Bannon wasn’t talking about Trump going on the offensive against the Chinese, Iranians or the Russians, however. Trump and his team are preparing to take on the “they””.

“They”, in Bannon’s words, “are the people who control the world’s most powerful empire and, elections or no elections, democracy or no democracy, they will not voluntarily relinquish their privileges and the control: there will be a fight”.

Yes, the ‘real war’ is the domestic one — not that against Russia, China or Iran, which could become diversions from the main battle.

For comparative purposes, were Trump’s aim truly to agree a negotiated Ukraine ‘compromise’, we need to contrast his rhetorical blatant ‘loser’ jibe with that of John F. Kennedy’s attempt, 59 years ago, to break the cycle of mutual antipathy that had frozen relations between East and West since 1945. Stung by the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy wanted to break an ossified paradigm. Kennedy – like Trump – sought to ‘End Wars’; to be recorded in history as a ‘peace-maker’.

In a speech at the American University in Washington on 10 June, 1963, JFK praised the Russians. He spoke of their achievements in science, the arts and industry; he saluted their sacrifices in the Second World War where they lost 25 million people, one-third of their territory and two-thirds of their economy.

It was no exercise in empty rhetoric. Kennedy proposed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty – the first of the arms-control agreements of the 1960s and 1970s.

Well, there may be inklings of a Bannon-inspired tentative ‘clean break’ beginning – as Larry Johnson notes:

“The Pentagon reportedly has fired or suspended all personnel directly responsible for managing military assistance to Ukraine. They will all face an investigation into the use of U.S. budget money.

“Laura Cooper, the Pentagon’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, has already resigned, marking the beginning of what some see as a strategic pivot. Cooper was a key figure in overseeing $126 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Her departure, coupled with what appears to be a housecleaning of Pentagon staff tied to Kiev’s war effort, casts doubt on whether Ukraine will continue to enjoy the open spigot of U.S. weapons and funding it received under Biden.

“The restructuring also casts a shadow over the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which under Lloyd Austin had expanded into a 50-nation coalition supporting Kiev”.

The U.S. has reportedly withdrawn all applications to contractors for logistics through Rzeszow, Constanta and Varna. At NATO bases in Europe, all shipments to Ukraine have been suspended and closed. This falls under Trump’s Executive Order halting global U.S. assistance for 90 days – pending an audit and cost-benefit analysis.

Meanwhile, Moscow and China are duly preparing against the prospect of diplomatic re-engagement with the now President Trump. Xi and Putin held a 95 minute video call a few hours after Trump’s impromptu news conference in the Oval Office – Xi gave Putin the details of his conversation with Trump (which was not timed to coincide with Trump’s inauguration, but rather had been scheduled in December).

Both leaders appear to be sending a common message to Trump — i.e., the alliance between China and Russia is not ephemeral. They are united in common cause to work jointly to assert their respective national interests. They are willing to talk to Trump and engage in serious negotiations. Yet, they refuse to be bullied or threatened.

Nikolai Patrushev, Adviser to Putin and member of Russia’s Security Council, gave the Russian context to this video call between the two leaders:

“For the Biden administration, Ukraine was an unconditional priority. It is clear, [Patrushev says], that the relationship between Trump and Biden is antagonistic. Therefore, Ukraine will not be among Trump’s priorities. He cares more about China”.

Pointedly, Patrushev warned:

“I think Washington’s disagreements with Beijing will worsen, and the Americans will inflate them, including artificially. For us, China has been and remains the most important partner with whom we are connected by relations of privileged strategic cooperation”.

“As for the Russian line in relation to Ukraine, it remains unchanged. It is important for us that the tasks of the Special Operation are solved. They are known and have not changed. I believe that negotiations on Ukraine should be conducted between Russia and the United States without the participation of other Western countries”.

“I want to emphasize once again that the Ukrainian people remain close to us: brotherly and bound by centuries-old ties with Russia, no matter how much Kiev propagandists obsess with ‘Ukrainianness’ claim to the contrary. We care about what is happening in Ukraine. It is especially disturbing [therefore] that violent coercion to neo-Nazi ideology and ardent Russophobia destroy the once prosperous cities of Ukraine, including Kharkiv, Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk”.

“It is possible that in the coming year Ukraine will cease to exist altogether”.

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

The post Is Trump Positioning for a ‘No-Deal’ With Russia – or Not? appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the past week I’ve been watching the frenzy over Donald Trump’s cabinet confirmations, specifically because the fabric of his cabinet will give us insight into how the next four years of his presidency will play out. One hearing that I found very interesting was Pete Hegseth’s. The level of hostility on display by Democrats entered the realm of slander.

Hegseth was barely confirmed as the Secretary of Defense with Vice President JD Vance making the tie breaking vote. The political left (and some Neo-Cons) seems to HATE this man in a special way, and initially I had difficulty understanding the real reason why.

Hegseth’s opposition to trans membership in the armed forces is surely one reason, but Trump is removing such mentally unstable people from the military regardless. His opposition to women in combat roles might piss off some feminists but the majority of American war fighters agree with him and every concrete study done on mixed gender combat units has shown terrible results.

Then, I watched a debate between progressive commentators vs Michael Knowles and Dave Rubin which illuminated the situation. The conversation was strangely focused on leftist accusations against Hegseth’s supposedly nefarious tattoo and how it relates to the Christian crusades.

The fury over Hegseth, in my view, gives us a peak behind the curtain at what the establishment truly fears, and their fear is triggered by unabashed Christianity. But not just that – It’s Hegseth’s veneration of old Christianity and a time when Christians controlled much of the known world. People like Hegseth are usually obstructed from entering government because they are standard bearers of a philosophy which terrifies globalists.

Is Hegseth a proponent of Christian empire? Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. However, if he is, I wonder if that would be such a bad thing?

The above debate is predicated on classic revisionist propaganda largely conjured by “anti-colonial” academics in the 1990s; a part of the growing Political Correctness and Deconstructionist movements in universities that eventually became the woke monstrosity we are dealing with in 2025. This propaganda has become so ingrained in our educational consciousness that most people today have no knowledge of the crusades, they only know that “crusades = bad”.

The first Christian Crusade is perhaps one of the most important events in western history and one of the most neglected by our academic institutions. The prevailing narrative today is that the crusades were a mindless murderous rampage by Europeans trying to steal the Holy Land from innocent Arabs. This is complete nonsense.

As Michael Knowles points out, the Holy Land, most of the Levant region, northern Africa including Egypt and all lands around the Mediterranean were ruled by Christians from 300 AD onward. This was the old Roman Empire which converted to Christianity officially in 323AD. Yes, that’s right, most of the Middle East and Northern Africa were Christian for centuries.

This Christian realm, which included what we now know as Israel, was split in two during an event called “The Great Schism” in 1054 AD between the Catholics in the West and the Orthodox Church in the East.

The divide created territorial weaknesses which were swiftly taken advantage of by Muslim conquerors when they captured the Holy Land in 640 AD.  Islam, founded by the warlord Muhammad in 610 AD, had united the tribal Arab world under a single religious banner, but also a philosophy of conquest. The Muslims, directed by at least 109 verses in the Quran that call for the subjugation of non-believers who refuse to embrace Islam, set out to capture all of Christendom.

Over the course of a few decades the Islamic armies spread throughout the Levant and Africa, and even began taking lands in Europe including parts of Spain. Christians were persecuted under Muslim rule and often enslaved. Christian cities were sacked and lands stolen. When the Byzantine Emperor Alexios Komnenos asked Pope Urban II for help, the Pope called for Christians to unite and end the Schism.

The East called for aid and the West would answer in 1095 AD. If the crusade was unsuccessful the fall of Christianity was assured.

Without the war to retake Christian lands, Europe as we know it would not exist and much of our world would probably look like one big Taliban village. This frightening prospect is obscured by outliers, events which ended in tragedy or crime. As in all war, villains can pop up on both sides. That said, there would have been no crusades without the Muslim invasions.

Today we face another ideological and cultural invasion, but this time the conditions are more complex.

I believe the progressive attempt to memory-hole the historical record of the Crusades is designed to prevent a new united western world. One could argue that religion is no longer the uniting factor that it once was, and ten years ago I would have agreed. But things are starting to change and if you have a discerning eye you might see, as I do, a movement forming ahead of us that is increasingly spiritual, not secular.

Regardless of how you might feel about Donald Trump, the cultural shift surrounding his return to office cannot be denied. After four years of Biden and Harris trying to institute medical tyranny, instigate a mass immigration crisis, label conservatives a “threat to democracy” and force woke cultism into daily life, it seems as though Americans have had enough. There has been a dramatic evolution within our society; a recognition that we are on the verge of destruction if we continue on the current progressive/socialist/relativist trajectory.

The west stands at the edge of a precipice. I suspect it’s the kind of moment that Pope Urban II witnessed in 1095 AD. Witnesses that wrote accounts of the period describe it as a kind of miracle, a coalition to save civilization from a looming dark age of barbarism. This is how many of us in conservative circles feel now:  That there are great changes coming to erase generations of trespasses if we are willing to seize the day.

In 2025 a lot more people treat leftist ideology and globalism with disdain rather than complacency. The borderless multicultural agenda of the elites is finally facing substantial opposition, at least in the US. I would also argue that there has been a resurgence of interest in Christianity and Christian history; a natural consequence of Americans rediscovering their western cultural roots.

For thousands of years most of human civilization has been a cesspool of primeval domination. There have been no innocent empires, white, brown, it doesn’t matter. The core of nearly every empire has been war, slavery and genocide. The strong have always sought to subsume the weak. Every group of people has engaged in the most sickening of behaviors.

Africans were enslaving each other long before Europeans arrived on the scene. American Indians were participating in slavery, tribal warfare, human sacrifice and cannibalism as a way of life long before white Europeans showed up in their boats. The Chinese and the Mongols were committing the mass slaughter of peaceful kingdoms for most of the Middle Ages, yet progressive historians ignore these events in favor of admonishing the Christian Crusades.

Arabs were some of the worst perpetrators of human bondage and their treatment of the people they conquered made the slavery of early American history look quaint. Often misrepresented as the “Islamic Golden Age”, it is a modern academic myth that Muslims brought “peace and prosperity” and coexistence with them as they sacked the Levant and Europe. Anyone not adhering to Muslim belief was subject to brutality.

Today the west faces a takeover from within as much as it faces a takeover from without. Our own governments have been engaged in covert sabotage, flooding our borders with migrants from the third-world and inviting in ideologies and politics that are completely antithetical to western ideals. Many of these people come have one foot in the archaic.  They don’t believe in things like equality, they believe that predators must rule and victims must submit.

Inviting such people into the US and Europe is clearly an agenda to destroy our civilization through foreign saturation. No government does this by accident.  At the same time there has been a progressive/communist insurgency operating in our midst, funded by globalist interests using corporations and non-profit institutions as support structures for the revolution.

They don’t want a stand-up fight because they know they would lose. Rather, they are seeking to weaken our foundations, to demoralize us so they can pillage at will once we are broken and self-loathing. This is most evident in the UK and Europe where people with common sense are looking from afar at the positive changes in America with a sense of longing. They feel like they’re being left behind – A sacrifice to the multicultural behemoth.

This begs the question: Is saving America enough? Or is it time for a new and perhaps final crusade?

Leftists often talk about “tolerance” and accuse conservatives of going against their Christian fundamentals by refusing to remain apathetic to those who engage in destructive behavior. The political left and globalists speak of tolerance because it goes hand-in-hand with degeneracy. With tolerance comes social decline into debauchery and evil, which is what they most desire.

Tolerance is about suffering through the crimes and violations of others without expecting an eventual correction. Tolerance has NEVER been a Christian value. Rather, the Bible teaches of compassion, and many times it is more compassionate to correct a bad behavior than let it continue. Spare the rod spoil the globalist. We call it “tough love” and it’s necessary for the survival of humanity.

The first crusade was far more than just a geopolitical effort by governments to take back lands that were stolen; it was a massive spiritual correction. It was an endeavor which inspired great unity of purpose among common people. In fact, it was the common people, not the monarchies, that made the first crusade possible. If this kind of event were to happen again it would have to be grounded in similar high minded purpose and populism.

It’s hard to say if such inspiration is possible anymore. I think in America it certainly is, but Europe is questionable. There are growing efforts by conservative leaning parties to defend western values in the EU but they are being met with a vicious totalitarian opposition.

It’s not coincidence that Europe has been overrun with third-world migrants, most of them Muslim, in the past decade. These groups are acting as a blunt weapon, used by the elites to silence dissent by native born citizens.

As I write this the British are being subjected to increasing Orwellian oppression. The AFD party in Germany is under threat even as they grow more accepted by voters; progressive elites are seeking to ban them from elections entirely. The French establishment is using lawfare against their political opposition in the National Rally party and they are working to subvert voter demands. Both Germany and Romania claim they have the right to ignore election outcomes if conservatives continue to win.

There is a coordinated effort across Europe to stop conservative groups from entering government. The only place where the tide has truly turned is in the US (and perhaps Argentina). But we still face a long road and government reform is slow. A movement outside of politics will be needed.

The great fear among centrists and libertarians is that a religious inspired movement will result in theocracy. I share these apprehensions. Yes religious institutions can be corrupted because institutions are controlled by men, but this is true of ALL institutions. How well has secular leadership performed in the past century? Yeah, not so great.

The idea of “separation of church and state” was never intended to remove Christian influences from government. It was designed to prevent government from interfering with individual religious expression. America was founded under Christian doctrine and Christian leadership. A return to that dynamic would be welcome, as long as personal freedom (freedom with responsibility) is maintained.

Make no mistake, the enemy has been trying to build their own religious empire. The woke movement is driven by self worship and the worship of bureaucratic power. Behind the curtain they are not secular and they have more zealotry than any cult in recent memory. They claim to be atheistic and progressive in their principles, yet they happily ally with third-world fundamentalists that hold completely contrary beliefs. Why? Because Islam is not a threat to their ultimate aims; Christianity is.

If a new crusade were to happen, it would have to start here in America. However, if we were to “take up the sword”, as it were, we can do so knowing we are not alone. There are million upon millions of westerners around the world that would welcome us.

There is a deep desire in our society for a return to principles; a need for purity of purpose. I see it daily. People are lost and they need a compass. The question is, who will give it to them? The Luciferian globalists? The woke cultists? The Islamic horde? Or us?

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Do We Need A Final Crusade To Save the Western World? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Join Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley as they explore the captivating life of Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova Oswald Porter, wife of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. Was Marina an innocent housewife, a spy, or a conspirator in one of history’s greatest tragedies?

In this episode of America’s Untold Stories, we uncover Marina’s journey from Soviet Russia to the center of American history. Learn about her childhood under Soviet rule, her tumultuous relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, and the shocking theories surrounding her involvement in the JFK assassination.

Dive into this deep analysis of her life against the backdrop of Cold War tensions and political intrigue. Through expert insights and historical context, we challenge the narrative you thought you knew.

Don’t miss this thought-provoking exploration of Marina Oswald’s role in history.

The post America’s Untold Stories: The Enigmatic Life of Marina Oswald Exposed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Jerome Barber:

Lew-

Alan Watt and Bill Cooper saw this years ago.

The post Bread and Circuses – Alan Watt on Sports and Entertainment appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Complicit Clergy

 

The post 2.9 BILLION Reasons Catholic Bishops Loved Biden But Hate Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Ben Bartee

 

The post Neocons Seize on CIA COVID Lab Leak Admission to Warmonger With China appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Patrick Foy:

These terror bombs were not “bought and paid for by Israel” as Trump proclaims. Trump does not want to appear to be giving away anything. The American taxpayer is funding this madness. When it comes to Israel, Trump is an amoral fraud. Like Papa Joe Biden before him, Trump is in the pocket of his Zionist donors. Ergo, America is a full partner in whatever Netanyahoo does.

Gaza having been reduced to rubble thanks to Washington’s unlimited assistance under Biden, Trump now suggests that the bombed-out Palestinians be transferred to Egypt and Jordan. I say why not allow them back into Palestine proper whence they were driving out by Israel? In this way they might acquire equal rights as the Jews. What happened to Washington’s “peace process”?

 

The post Bombs away in Gaza… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

The post Capitol Police Officer That Evacuated the House & Senate: Jan. 6 Was a Set-Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

Filmed in Galway and Connemara, it’s a good movie. The Irish humor is on full display. The scenery is true to life, as are the Irish. I had to use the headphones to understand the accents and the jokes. There are jokes and witty sayings by all the characters. It’s good writing and acting. I like the soundtrack, too.

The post “The Guard”, Movie Trailer appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Will Bill Gates Snatch Up TikTok? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Federalist

 

The post RFK Jr. To Be Grilled My Senators Funded By Big Pharma appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Sputnik News

 

The post Tucker Carlson Says Blinken Did Everything to Accelerate War Between US, Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

 

The post Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Irrefutable Evidence Supporting Immediate Market Withdrawal of COVID-19 “Vaccines” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

Joseph S. Sturniolo & Associates, Inc.

 

The post 545 vs. 300,000,000 People… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

The Kennedy Beacon

 

The post Louisiana Governor Landry Offers Strong Endorsement of RFK Jr. to Lead the HHS appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post More Bunker-Busters to Tel Aviv… appeared first on LewRockwell.

“On becoming a doctor in 2005, I was under the impression that I had joined a profession that saved millions of lives and added years to life spans. 

We were led to believe that our predecessors had engaged in and emerged victorious in the war against germs. 

Furthermore, it is often claimed that we could do even better today if our communities had more “access” to allopathic interventions – that is, more pharmaceuticals and surgical procedures.

But is this true? 

What does the evidence actually say?

Please watch her newest video, HERE 

The post The Healthcare System Hoax  appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Barry Brownstein

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/ce-speranza-nella-politica)

Mentre gli osservatori della Beltway dibattono intensamente sulle scelte del gabinetto della nuova amministrazione e sulle nomine alla Casa Bianca, gli osservatori più disillusi della nostra condizione economica hanno buone ragioni per chiedersi: che differenza fa? L'ordine politico è dominato da lobbisti con interessi particolari e burocrati assetati di potere, e non ha gli incentivi per ridurre l'interventismo e restituire le decisioni al popolo. La burocrazia può essere resa utile da burocrati migliori, o può essere frenata solo dalla rinascita della scelta individuale?

In che modo Robert Kennedy Jr., se confermato nel suo ruolo proposto di Segretario della Salute e dei Servizi Umani, ridurrà l'obesità in America? Promuoverà nuove normative e tasse, che invariabilmente si prenderanno cura di interessi radicati, a scapito di soluzioni individuali e sperimentali? Si rivolgerà, come hanno fatto altri, ai regolatori per vietare questo o quell'ingrediente, senza conoscere i costi economici o sanitari della sua sostituzione? Ridurrà le barriere alle opzioni alimentari sane e fermerà i sussidi che contribuiscono all'obesità? Ridurrà le conseguenze indesiderate generate dalle precedenti “soluzioni” alla salute pubblica? In breve, combatterà la sclerosi politica esattamente con gli strumenti che ci hanno portato fino a qui, chiedendo consiglio a coloro che traggono vantaggio dallo status quo? O sfiderà la collusione burocratica-aziendale e risveglierà un mercato competitivo?

Se perseguirà quest'ultima strada, dovrà affrontare una dura lotta. I mattoni del cibo ultra-processato, mais, grano, soia e zucchero, sono sovvenzionati dal Dipartimento dell'agricoltura degli Stati Uniti per circa $6 miliardi all'anno. Il cibo ad alto contenuto calorico, pieno di olio di soia e dolcificanti, è più economico rispetto ad alimenti più nutrienti e meno densi di calorie. L'impatto sulla scelta del consumatore non è chiaro, ma ecco una cosa su cui possiamo contare: se Kennedy, con il sostegno dell'amministrazione Trump, cercherà di abbattere la rete dei sussidi, i lobbisti per mais, grano, soia e zucchero metteranno a soqquadro il Congresso per ostacolarlo.

Il candidato di Trump per il Segretario all'energia è Chris Wright. Riuscirà a ridurre la spesa pubblica eliminando i sussidi per l'energia solare ed eolica? Non ci scommetterei senza una battaglia epica al Congresso.

Molti potrebbero desiderare che fosse diverso, ma in realtà le aziende clientelari continueranno a esistere durante la presidenza di Trump. La porta girevole tra industria e regolatori continuerà a girare. Gli errori politici dei programmi passati continueranno a essere sostenuti, spesso con budget più grandi. Il successo della presidenza Trump dipenderà, in parte, dalla sua capacità di rompere le alleanze governative di lunga data con le aziende clientelari e resistere a nuove richieste di corruzione.

Poniamoci la grande domanda, quindi: è possibile ottenere un vero cambiamento attraverso mezzi politici?

Nel suo libro, The State, il defunto sociologo tedesco Franz Oppenheimer osservò che ci sono due modi per ottenere ricchezza: i pacifici “mezzi economici” e i coercitivi “mezzi politici”. La creazione di ricchezza non coercitiva è un processo economico in cui le aziende e le persone soddisfano i bisogni dei consumatori. La ricchezza attraverso manovre politiche coinvolge aziende e individui che usano il potere dello stato per ottenere ricchezze immeritate. Secondo Oppenheimer i mezzi economici richiedono “lavoro”, a differenza dei mezzi politici, che invece richiedono “rapina”.

In Profit and Loss, Ludwig von Mises rifletteva su come la grande “urna elettorale del mercato” costringesse gli imprenditori a un processo infinito di lavoro per servire i consumatori: “L'urna elettorale rappresentata dal mercato eleva coloro che nell'immediato passato hanno servito meglio i consumatori”.

A differenza della politica, in un processo di mercato le persone cambiano liberamente e facilmente idea. Mises aggiunse: “La scelta non è inalterabile e può essere corretta quotidianamente. L'eletto che delude l'elettorato viene rapidamente ridotto ai ranghi inferiori”.

Alcune aziende, incapaci o non disposte ad adattarsi e servire, contano sullo stato per limitare le scelte dei consumatori come mezzo per ottenere profitti che non avrebbero potuto ottenere altrimenti. Invece di competere per vincere le “elezioni” nella cosiddetta “urna elettorale del mercato”, cercano di eleggere politici che sosterranno i loro schemi per appropriarsi forzatamente della ricchezza altrui, e questo è un furto.

La scelta di Oppenheimer della parola rapina non avrebbe sorpreso Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Nel suo saggio, Politics, Emerson scrisse: “Ogni stato è corrotto”. Poi aggiunse: “Quale satira sullo stato può eguagliare la severità della censura espressa nella parola politica, che ormai da secoli significa sotterfugio, lasciando intendere che lo stato è un mezzo astuto per ottenere altro?”

Emerson lo scrisse nel 1844, quando lo stato era una frazione minuscola rispetto alle dimensioni attuali. L'esatta dimensione del bilancio federale nel 1844 era difficile da reperire, ma nel 1837 era di circa $39 milioni (o circa $1,6 miliardi in dollari del 2024, poiché il biglietto verde ha perso il 98% del suo valore dal 1844). La spesa federale nell'anno fiscale 2024 è di circa $6.750 miliardi.

In breve, la spesa federale nel 1844 era circa lo 0,024% di quella odierna. Ma, se Emerson ha ragione, la politica era già diventata irredimibile.

Emerson osservò: “Di tutti i debiti, gli esseri umani sono i meno disposti a pagare le tasse. Che ironia questa per quanto riguarda lo stato! Ovunque pensa di ottenere il valore dei loro soldi, tranne che per queste”. Ricordate, non c'era nessuna imposta federale sul reddito nel 1844.

Emerson si scagliò contro le tasse: “Una persona che non può conoscermi, mi tassa; guardandomi da lontano, ordina che una parte del mio lavoro venga destinata a questo o a quello scopo capriccioso. Meno stato abbiamo, meglio è: meno leggi e meno potere delegato”.

Similmente ad altri liberali classici, Emerson sosteneva la cooperazione volontaria per risolvere problemi comuni:

Finché faccio ciò che è adatto a me e mi astengo da ciò che non è adatto, il mio vicino e io spesso concorderemo sui nostri mezzi e lavoreremo insieme per un certo periodo di tempo per un fine. Ma ogni volta che trovo che il mio dominio su me stesso non mi è sufficiente e mi assumo anche la direzione della sua sfera d'azione, oltrepasso la verità e entro in false relazioni con lui.

Coloro che usavano la coercizione incontravano la disapprovazione di Emerson. Egli consigliava sempre di impegnarsi per raggiungere un “autocontrollo”. È sbagliato “far agire qualcun altro secondo [le nostre] opinioni”. Quando gli altri “mi dicono cosa devo fare”, i loro ordini sono assurdi, pertanto “tutti gli scopi pubblici sembrano vaghi e donchisciotteschi accanto a quelli privati”.

Kennedy dovrebbe prendere in considerazione queste parole, porre fine ai sussidi preservando al contempo la scelta del consumatore. Ma rimuovere l'interesse egoistico dal potere dello stato potrebbe essere tra gli obiettivi più donchisciotteschi che potremmo intraprendere. Il Leviatano può trattenersi?

Invece di chiedere soluzioni governative, Emerson si aspettava che ci occupassimo della nostra crescita spirituale: “L'antidoto a questo abuso dello stato è l'influenza del carattere privato, la crescita dell'individuo”.

Non si può cambiare un effetto senza cambiare la sua causa. La coscienza degli americani è la causa; il furto e la spesa eccessiva dello stato sono gli effetti.

Emerson scrisse: “Causa ed effetto, mezzi e fini, seme e frutto, non possono essere separati”. Sosteneva che abbiamo bisogno di “un affidamento sul sentimento morale e una fede sufficiente nell’unità delle cose per convincere [le persone] che la società può essere mantenuta senza restrizioni artificiali”. 

Ci arrabbiamo per il comportamento dei politici? Non è saggio arrabbiarsi per ciò che è prevedibile: “Potremmo rimproverare il vento dell'est, o il gelo, così come un partito politico, i cui membri, per la maggior parte, non saprebbero dare conto della loro posizione, ma difenderebbero gli interessi che li hanno messi lì”.

Emerson sarebbe d'accordo con il vecchio detto, otteniamo il governo che meritiamo: “Lo stato deve seguire, e non guidare il carattere e il progresso del cittadino [...] la forma di governo che prevale è l'espressione di quella cultura nella popolazione che lo plasma”.

L'evoluzione spirituale e individuale è un prerequisito per il cambiamento politico. Emerson scrisse: “Sotto il dominio di un'idea, che possiede le menti di moltitudini [...] i poteri delle persone non sono più oggetto di calcolo. Una nazione di persone unanimemente inclini alla libertà [...] può facilmente confondere l'aritmetica degli statalisti”.

Nel 1837 Emerson tenne un discorso alla Phi Beta Kappa Society di Harvard. In seguito fu pubblicato come The American Scholar. Concluse il suo discorso con un appello a sostenere i principi e a non cedere alla convenienza: “Si sospetta già che lo spirito dell'essere umano libero americano sia timido, imitativo, mansueto. L'avarizia pubblica e privata rende l'aria che respiriamo densa e grassa”.

Emerson, naturalmente, non poteva immaginare quanta avarizia avrebbe gonfiato lo stato e reso il nostro discorso politico “denso e grasso”. Le conseguenze sono gravi quando gli interessi privati sfruttano i processi politici per rubare.

Alcune persone, disse Emerson, “cercano denaro o potere; e quest'ultimo in particolar modo perché è buono quanto il denaro, il cosiddetto bottino rappresentato dalla carica ricoperta”. Tali persone sono “sonnambuli”. Emerson continuò: “Svegliateli, e abbandoneranno il falso bene e salteranno verso il vero, e lasceranno i governi agli impiegati e alle scrivanie”.

Emerson sapeva che la scelta di risvegliarsi è una scelta fatta da un individuo.

Il cambiamento politico è una speranza realistica? Cominciamo a cambiare noi stessi; la prosperità sociale non deriva dalla politica. Il momento di iniziare è adesso. Perché, come diceva anche Emerson, “questo momento, come tutti i momenti, è un momento buono, se solo sapessimo cosa farne”.

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

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

The future of humanity is being decided as we speak. And it is not being decided on a battlefield in Eastern Europe, or the Middle East or the Taiwan Strait, but in the data centers and research facilities where technology experts create “the physical and virtual infrastructure to power the next generation of Artificial Intelligence.” This is a full-blown, scorched-earth free-for-all that has already racked up a number of casualties though you wouldn’t know it from reading the headlines which typically ignore recent ‘cataclysmic’ developments. But when President Trump announced the launching of a $500 billion AI infrastructure project (Stargate) on Tuesday just hours after China had released its DeepSeek R1—which “outperforms its rivals in advanced coding, math, and general knowledge capabilities”—it became painfully obvious that the battle for the future ‘is on’ in a big way. And this is not a battle that either side can afford to lose. Here’s how technology expert Adam Button summed it up:

Imagine we’re back in 2017 and the iPhone X was just released. It was selling $999 and Apple was crushing sales and building a wide moat around its ecosystem.

Now imagine, just days later, another company introduced a phone and platform that was equal in every way if not better and the price was just $30.

That’s what unfolded in the AI space today. China’s DeepSeek released an opensource model that works on par with OpenAI’s latest models but costs a tiny fraction to operate. Moreover, you can even download it and run it free (or the cost of your electricity) for yourself.

The product is a huge leap in terms of scaling and efficiency and may upend expectations of how much power and compute will be needed to manage the AI revolution. It also comes just hours before Trump is expected to unveil a $100 billion investment in US datacenters. The model shows there are different ways to train foundational AI models that offer up the same results with much less cost. It also opens up far more applications for AI that would have been too expensive to run previously, which should broaden the applications in the real economy. China’s DeepSeek may have just upended the economics of AI, forex live

Imagine the panic that is spreading across western tech capitals right now. AI was supposed to be the fast-track to absolute societal control and oligarchic rule into the next millennia, but now those pesky Chinese have overturned the applecart leaving western elites with a problem they might not be able to fix. (See—Unchecked AI will lead us to a police state, edri ) They expected that their microchip sanctions would sabotage China’s AI efforts for at least a decade-or-so but, instead, China has come roaring back with a system that has left the tech giants gasping for air.

Of course, China’s eye-popping strides in technological development are nothing new as editor Ron Unz pointed out in a recent article where he noted that “between 2003 and 2007, the US led in 60 of the 64 technologies.” Whereas, as of 2022, “China led in 52 of the 64 technologies.” That’s not a competition; that’s a beat-down in a parking lot. Here’s Unz:

China now leads the world in many of the most important future technologies. The success of its commercial companies in telecommunications (Huawei, Zongxin), EV (BYD, Geely, Great Wall, etc.), battery (CATL, BYD) and Photovoltaics (Tongwei Solar, JA, Aiko, etc.) are directly built on such R&D prowess.

Similarly, the Chinese military’s modernization is built on the massive technological development of the country’s scientific community and its industrial base…. With its lead in science and technology research, China is positioned to outcompete the US in both economic and military arenas in the coming years…. American Pravda: China vs. America, Ron Unz, Unz Review

None of this should come as a surprise, although the timing of DeepSeek’s release (preempting Trump’s Stargate announcement) shows that the Chinese don’t mind throwing a wrench in Washington’s global strategy if it serves their regional interests, which it undoubtedly does. Here’s a bit more background from an article by Benj Edwards at Ars Technica:

On Monday, Chinese AI lab DeepSeek released its new R1 model family under an open MIT license, with its largest version containing 671 billion parameters. The company claims the model performs at levels comparable to OpenAI’s o1 simulated reasoning (SR) model on several math and coding benchmarks….

The releases immediately caught the attention of the AI community because most existing open-weights models—have lagged behind proprietary models like OpenAI’s o1 in so-called reasoning benchmarks. …

The R1 model works differently from typical large language models ….They attempt to simulate a human-like chain of thought as the model works through a solution to the query. This class of what one might call “simulated reasoning” models, or SR models for short, emerged when OpenAI debuted its o1 model family in September 2024. …

DeepSeek reports that R1 outperformed OpenAI’s o1 on several benchmarks and tests, including AIME (a mathematical reasoning test), MATH-500 (a collection of word problems), and SWE-bench Verified (a programming assessment tool)….

TechCrunch reports that three Chinese labs—DeepSeek, Alibaba, and Moonshot AI’s Kimi—have now released models they say match OpenAI’s o1’s capabilities, with DeepSeek first previewing R1 in November. Cutting-edge Chinese “reasoning” model rivals OpenAI o1—and it’s free to download, ars technica

This is a very big deal. The United States intends to dominate the world in this critical technology and yet the upstart Chinese have not only produced a system that is every bit as good as America’s best, but have made it more affordable, more accessible and more transparent. What’s not to like?

WEF Vows Millions of ‘Useless’ Human Workers Will Be Replaced with AI by 2030 – Slay News https://t.co/JDEPE0EIQ8

— Wtfisup (@Wtfisup49061475) January 19, 2025

(Note—OpenAI is an American artificial intelligence (AI) research laboratory. It is made up of the non-profit OpenAI Incorporated and its for-profit subsidiary corporation OpenAI Limited Partnership. OpenAI has emerged to be one of the primary leaders of the generative AI era. OpenAI is a privately held company that has open sourced some of its technology, but it has not open sourced most of its technology…. In contrast, DeepSeek AI R1 is open source which means its code is publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit. Open source software is developed in a decentralized and collaborative way, relying on peer review and community production.)

Here’s more from political analyst Arnaud Bertrand in a post on X:

Most people probably don’t realize how bad the news (about) China’s Deepseek is for OpenAI. They’ve come up with a model that matches and even exceeds OpenAI’s latest model o1 on various benchmarks, and they’re charging just 3% of the price. It’s essentially as if someone had released a mobile on par with the iPhone but was selling it for $30 instead of $1000. It’s this dramatic.

What’s more, they’re releasing it open-source so you even have the option – which OpenAI doesn’t offer – of not using their API at all and running the model for “free” yourself.

If you’re an OpenAI customer today you’re obviously going to start asking yourself some questions, like “wait, why exactly should I be paying 30X more?”. This is pretty transformational stuff, it fundamentally challenges the economics of the market….

So basically, it looks like the game has changed. All thanks to a Chinese company that just demonstrated how U.S. tech restrictions can backfire spectacularly – by forcing them to build more efficient solutions that they’re now sharing with the world at 3% of OpenAI’s prices. As the saying goes, sometimes pressure creates diamonds. @RnaudBertrand

Get the picture? Everything the US has done to stymie China’s development—including economic sanctions, chips embargoes, military provocations, political meddling, even arresting a Huawei executive (truly pathetic)—has blown up in their faces. China’s well-educated, highly motivated, technologically adept workforce have produced a model of AI that equals or exceeds the best the West has to offer at a fraction of the cost and with open sourcing that allows users to
modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.

So, which version of AI sounds like a genuine benefit to humankind and which sounds like another scheme for transforming the world into a dystopian police-state controlled by aspiring tyrants and psychopathic control freaks? Here’s more from Bertrand on ‘why China is making AI available so cheap:

….it speaks to a different philosophy/vision on AI: ironically named “OpenAI” is basically about trying to establish a monopoly by establishing a moat with massive amounts of GPU and money. Deepseek is clearly betting on a future where AI becomes a commodity, widely available and affordable to everyone. By pricing so aggressively and releasing their code open-source, they’re not just competing with OpenAI but basically declaring that AI should be like electricity or internet connectivity – a basic utility that powers innovation rather than a premium service controlled by a few players. And in that world, it’s a heck of a lot better to be the first mover who helped make it happen than the legacy player who tried to stop it. @RnaudBertrand

(Creepy Larry Ellison predicts “citizens will be on their best behavior” with an AI police-state surveillance system.)

Oracle’s Larry Ellison says “citizens will be on their best behavior” with an AI surveillance system pic.twitter.com/AzqWJWuswf

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 22, 2025

So, it’s basically like everything else in this sick, twisted world where a handful of money-grubbing miscreants muscle their way into a new technology so they can fatten their own bank accounts while planting their bootheel firmly on the neck of humanity. It seems to me that China’s approach is vastly superior in that it’s clearly aimed at providing the benefits of AI to the greatest number of people at the lowest possible cost. Here are a few random comments on China’s DeepSeek AI that I picked off X that show how excited people are about this groundbreaking version:

The ramifications of this are huge. Every day China does something incredible, totally unlike the stagnation of the EU, talking all day while accomplishing nothing, or the latest evil plan oozing out of DC. This is just brilliant. & inspiring. & it WILL earn them more goodwill @CaptainCrusty66

It’s the china recipe book for success for every industry where western oligopolies have dominated. @bbooker450

AI will become a part of everyday infrastructure like electricity and tap water. DeepSeek is a signficant step towards that, thanks to its cost reduction and open source nature @MrBig2024

We are living in a timeline where a non-US company is keeping the original mission of OpenAI alive – truly open, frontier research that empowers all…. @DrJimFan

This is cool…this isn’t just another open source LLM release. this is o1-level reasoning capabilities that you can run locally, that you can modify and that you can study…
that’s a very different world than the one we were in yesterday. Al, comments line

Price comparison of OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek AI R1: R1 is significantly cheaper across all categories (96–98% savings). Now you know why big organizations don’t want open-source to continue, If humanity is ever going to benefit from AI, it will be from open-source . @ai_for_success

China is overturning mainstream development theory in astonishing ways. China’s GDP per capita is only $12,000. That’s 70% less than the average in high-income countries. And yet they have the largest high-speed rail network in the world. They’ve developed their own commercial aircraft. They are the world leaders in renewable energy technology and electric vehicles. They have advanced medical technology, smartphone technology, microchip production, aerospace engineering… China has a higher life expectancy than the USA, with 80% less income. We were told that this kind of development required very high levels of GDP/cap. But over the past 10 years China has demonstrated that it can be achieved with much more modest levels of output. How do they do it? By using public finance and industrial policy to steer investment and production toward social objectives and national development needs. This allows them to convert aggregate production into development outcomes much more efficiently than other countries, where productive capacity is often wasted on activities that may be highly profitable to capital, or beneficial to the rich, but may not actually advance development. Of course, China still has development gaps that need to be addressed. And we know from some other countries that higher social indicators can be achieved with China’s level of GDP/cap, by focusing more on social policy. But the achievements are undeniable, and development economists are taking stock. @jasonhickel

JULIAN ASSANGE says ‘Artificial intelligence is being used for mass assassinations in Gaza’ …“The majority of targets in Gaza are bombed as a result of artificial intelligence targeting.” ..It has been revealed that Google provided the Israeli military with AI tools in the early weeks of the genocide.

NEW: JULIAN ASSANGE says ‘Artificial intelligence is being used for mass assassinations in Gaza’

“The majority of targets in Gaza are bombed as a result of artificial intelligence targeting.”

It has been revealed that Google provided the Israeli military with AI tools in… pic.twitter.com/hJYFdKdT8C

— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) January 22, 2025

Unfortunately, the intensity of the competition between the US and China, ignores the inherent risks of Artificial Intelligence and its looming threat to human survival. In a recent analytical piece by the Rand Corporation titled AI and Geopolitics: How Might AI Affect the Rise and Fall of Nations?, the authors provide a disturbing window into a future in which “AI-enabled machines—of equivalent or greater intelligence and, potentially, highly disruptive capabilities” could pose a threat to our own existence. Keep in mind, the line between our historic reality and science fiction has already been crossed just as the probability that our own creation, AI, is likely “to become an actor, not just a factor” in the existential challenges faced by our species. Here’s a short blurb from this truly unsettling article:

Although technology has often influenced geopolitics, the prospect of AI means that the technology itself could become a geopolitical actor. AI could have motives and objectives that differ considerably from those of governments and private companies. Humans’ inability to comprehend how AI “thinks” and our limited understanding of the second- and third-order effects of our commands or requests of AI are also very troubling. Humans have enough trouble interacting with one another. It remains to be seen how we will manage our relationships with one or more AIs….

We are entering an era of both enlightenment and chaos…

The borderless nature of AI makes it hard to control or regulate. As computing power expands, models are optimized, and open-source frameworks mature, the ability to create highly impactful AI applications will become increasingly diffuse. In such a world, well-intentioned researchers and engineers will use this power to do wonderful things, ill-intentioned individuals will use it to do terrible things, and AIs could do both wonderful and terrible things. The net result is neither an unblemished era of enlightenment nor an unmitigated disaster, but a mix of both. Humanity will learn to muddle through and live with this game-changing technology, just as we have with so many other transformative technologies in the past….

The potential dangers posed by AI are many. At the extreme, they include the threat of human extinction, which could come about by an AI-enabled catastrophe, such as a well-designed virus that spreads easily, evades detection, and destroys our civilization. Less dire, but considerably worrisome, is the threat to democratic governance if AIs gain power over people….

AI cannot be contained through regulation, so the best policy will aim to minimize the harm that AI might do. This will probably be most critical in biosecurity,[3] but harm reduction also includes countering cybersecurity threats, strengthening democratic resilience, and developing emergency response options for a wide variety of threats from state and sub- and non-state actors…..

In light of the likely very widespread proliferation of advanced AI capabilities to private- and public-sector actors and well-resourced individuals, governments should work closely with leading private-sector entities to develop advanced forecasting tools, wargames, and strategic plans for dealing with what experts anticipate will be a wide variety of unexpected AI-enabled catastrophic events. AI and Geopolitics: How Might AI Affect the Rise and Fall of Nations?, RAND

In other words, humanity should encourage their business and political leaders to exercise sound judgement and prepare for unexpected disasters that could terminate the species.

That is simply not sufficient defense for the challenge we face.

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post China’s DeepSeek Bombshell Rocks Trump’s $500B AI Boondoggle appeared first on LewRockwell.