Aggregatore di feed

From the Tom Woods Letter:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) created a panic this week when it announced a pause in “study sections.”

Study sections, says Vinay Prasad, are “groups of mediocre scientists who decide which grants are funded.”

Prasad, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, is what I would describe as a moderate in the currently raging debates on various important health questions — he would not satisfy a lot of my readers overall, but he’s not a savage, he takes other perspectives seriously, and he treats dissident voices like yours and mine with respect.

His commentary on this subject is for that reason all the more valuable.

NIH, argues Prasad, “seeks mediocre ideas that tread along established lines and not highly novel views. It does a bad job of funding people who do truly transformational work…. Trump has paused study sections to allow future NIH director Jay Bhattacharya to revisit the priorities. This is completely normal and reasonable.”

After warning that the various woke priorities of the NIH are unlikely to survive a Trump presidency, Prasad notes that the “one type of diversity that NIH is not interested in funding is intellectual diversity. That’s probably a reason why they’ve had so much stagnation on intractable problems such as cancer and neurological conditions.”

To those who warn that the longer the pause goes on, the likelier it is that people will lose their research jobs, Prasad replies:

Some people say that if the pause, which is completely reasonable, continues, people will lose their jobs in research. Of course this is true. I suspect the pause will not continue for a great period of time, but, at the same time, some people in research need to lose their jobs.

The government cannot be a welfare program for everybody doing low quality, low credibility, irreproducible, low value of information research. It has to use public dollars in a wise way. That has absolutely not occurred in the past. A pause is necessary to tackle this intractable problem.

In many ways, Jay is the perfect person to tackle this problem. He’s not a laboratory scientist. He’s an economist. The difference between laboratory scientists and economists is that the latter are much better at thinking brutally and clearly about the trade-offs and expected payoffs of research. Jay has already been on record as saying he thinks the NIH is not willing to push the envelope. It doesn’t fund truly transformative work. I completely agree with him. And he should direct funding in that way….

And the American people that want the envelope pushed. They don’t want continued marginal drugs. They want new ideas. We have made no progress in Alzheimer’s disease in part because of the NIH’s dogmatism. I look forward to a renewed focus on a diversity of ideas in science research.

Finally, if academics want to take a sky is falling approach to every single thing Donald Trump does, they’re only going to exhaust themselves.

The issue here is not government science funding versus no government science funding. Episode #2400 of the Tom Woods Show, with Professor Terence Kealey, made the case for a complete separation of science and state.

I am saying here only that I think Prasad, who would not share my views on funding, is nevertheless correct that NIH bureaucrats have stifled scientific progress in the way they have allocated grant money.

Let’s see what happens under Jay.

The post The Health Sector Is in a Panic appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Monday, in their final hours in office, former President Biden’s team chose to issue a blanket pardon to a number of close political allies and family members. Among that group was former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci.

Fauci was pardoned “for any offense against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through the date of [the] pardon” relating in any way to his time as NIAID Director, on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, the White House covid-19 response team, or as Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor.

In the letter explaining the pardons, Biden defended the choice, saying, “baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families.” Even when those individuals have done nothing wrong, Biden’s ghostwriters reason, “the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.”

Setting aside the fact that this was the exact tactic the political establishment used to try and tarnish Trump’s reputation, it’s revealing that the primary public reason presented for the pardons was to avoid investigations.

There are, of course, plenty of unseemly details about Fauci’s career that the political establishment would not like to see resurface in either the court of law or the court of public opinion. Many were detailed in RFK Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci, such as the secretive and deadly drug experiments on hundreds of HIV-positive foster children at New York City’s Incarnation Children’s Center between 1988 and 2002 and the experiment that locked the heads of Beagle puppies into cages full of flesh-eating insects.

If Fauci had come under the federal government’s microscope, episodes like those could have done much to stain the name of the man Biden recently dubbed “a true hero.”

The same goes for Fauci’s completely inaccurate projection of the danger posed by a strain of swine flu in the 1970s, along with the millions of dollars of damages the government had to pay out due to injuries sustained in the related swine flu vaccine experiments.

Fauci also made similar failed projections relating to the 2005 bird flu, the 2009 swine flu, and the 2016 Zika virus. In all these cases, the virus was nowhere near as dangerous as Fauci had claimed it would be. But his warnings did result in his department and other parts of Washington’s public health bureaucracy getting billions of dollars in new funding.

Of course, these episodes pale in comparison to what Fauci is now most famous for: overseeing the covid pandemic.

Early on, Fauci famously explained on TV that cloth masks cannot stop people infected with covid from filling the air around them with virus particles. He then completely reversed his stance and advocated for universal masking and government mask mandates.

He later claimed his earlier comments on television had been lies meant to trick the public into not buying masks to protect the supply of masks for healthcare workers who, in fact, used a different kind of mask. He then acted confused when much of the public stopped trusting him.

Fauci also went on record in early April 2020 calling for nationwide lockdowns—something he would later deny doing. When some states like Florida started to reopen months later, Fauci warned the governors they were taking “a really significant risk.”

It quickly became obvious to anyone who was actually looking that Fauci was completely wrong about the effectiveness of masking and lockdowns. But Fauci ignored the data and kept pushing for these measures into 2021, after the vaccines had become available.

Another fact that had become obvious early in the pandemic was that children posed little risk of contracting and spreading covid. Yet, Fauci pushed for school closures and later school masking long after both were clearly shown to be unnecessary.

Finally, Fauci made several high-profile claims about the covid vaccines that would quickly prove false.

But making bad projections and giving bad advice isn’t a crime. So why was the political class worried about Fauci being investigated by the Department of Justice? Because a federal investigation would likely have related to the speculation that Fauci played a role in bringing the pandemic about in the first place.

One controversial method for studying viruses involves artificially making the virus more transmissible or virulent. This so-called “gain-of-function” research allows for virus mutation or possible treatments to be analyzed much more quickly, but it brings the risk of a much more dangerous genetically-engineered virus infecting people if a sample leaks out.

We know that an NGO that gets funding from Fauci’s department bankrolled gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the laboratory in Wuhan, China, in 2017 and 2018. And that the same NGO had received federal funding while conducting gain-of-function research going back to 2014, when a three-year ban on using federal funds for such experiments had been implemented and when Fauci’s pardon happens to come into effect.

While there is no evidence that these experiments are related to the coronavirus that would eventually spread out of Wuhan in late 2019 and early 2020, there is still much we do not know about the extent of US involvement in similar experiments at the Wuhan lab around the time covid started to spread.

That fact, paired with the panicked and secretive behavior of Fauci and his colleagues after the first reports of covid started to emerge, has raised suspicion about the possibility of US government involvement in covid’s origin. Biden’s DOJ refused to investigate these matters. But after Senator Rand Paul got Fauci to explicitly deny, under oath, that his department had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, an investigation into the truth of the claim to determine if Fauci had committed perjury remained a possibility.

That was until Biden pardoned him Monday morning.

A federal investigation would have all but forced the media to revisit many of Fauci’s unseemly actions, failures, and possible crimes. That would have been uncomfortable for a political establishment that has embraced and celebrated Fauci for decades.

But the real danger of a high-profile Fauci investigation, from the political class’s perspective, would come if the public started to ask themselves why a bureaucrat with such a long track record of failure was embraced and celebrated by those in power. And why he enjoyed so much professional success before retiring with a net worth of more than $11 million.

Such questions could lead people to consider that maybe the decades of mistakes that transferred hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to public health agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and the crony healthcare system as a whole were not mistakes after all. That, perhaps, the federal public health apparatus is nothing more than a racket and that officials are professionally rewarded, not for keeping us safe, but for protecting and expanding that racket.

Those are the questions that could well have arisen had a federal investigation prompted a retrospective and examination of the career and conduct of Anthony Fauci. And that is why Biden had no choice but to pardon him.

The post Why Joe Biden Had To Pardon Anthony Fauci appeared first on LewRockwell.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs) have long been marketed as the magical solution to depression and anxiety, promising relief in a convenient little pill. But behind the glossy pharmaceutical ads and doctor endorsements lies a far more troubling reality. These drugs don’t just alter your brain chemistry—they can hijack your emotions, disrupt your life, and lead to consequences far worse than the conditions they claim to treat.

In fact, there’s a dirty secret of the SSRI antidepressants—they cause psychotic violence which typically results in suicide and sometimes in horrific homicide (e.g., mass shootings). Remarkably, this side effect was discovered throughout their clinical trials, covered up by the drug companies, and then covered up by the FDA after the agency received a deluge of complaints (39,000 in the first nine years) once the first SSRI, Prozac, hit the market.

Initially, the media would report on the prescriptions (SSRIs) mass shooters took. However, a gag order went out, it became impossible to know what medications shooters were on, and the topic became taboo to discuss. Fortunately, that recently changed (e.g., after an article I wrote compiling that evidence went viral, Tucker Carlson did a 2022 segment on it and prominent conservatives gradually like Matt Walsh and MTG began speaking openly about SSRI mass shootings).

Note: I recently learned through a CDC official that the CDC has been silently tracking what mass shooters are on and found the SSRI link continues but has not disclosed it due to political earthquakes this admission would cause.

The Toxicology Bell Curve

In toxicology, you will typically see severe and extreme reactions occur much less frequently than moderate reactions:

click to enlarge

Because of this, when a very concerning and unmistakable adverse reaction occurs (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccines causing sudden deaths in young healthy athletes), that suggests you’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg and far less severe injuries are also occurring much more frequently. For example, one estimate found that of those vaccinated for COVID, 18% were injured, 0.93% were disabled, and 0.05-0.1% died, while another survey found 41% of those vaccinated were injured, with 7% being severely injured.

In the case of the SSRIs, the psychotic violence they can create, sadly, is also just the tip of a very large iceberg, and there are many less severe ways they warp your mind, body, and emotions.

The Hidden Side Effects of SSRIs

Many datasets show the harm SSRIs cause greatly outweighs any benefits. For example, in a survey of 1,829 patients on antidepressants in New Zealand:

•62% reported sexual difficulties
•60% felt emotionally numb
•52% felt not like themselves
•39% cared less about others
•47% had experienced agitation
•39% had experienced suicidal ideation.

In that survey, other less common reported side effects (in order of decreasing frequency) included: insomnia, nightmares, ‘Fuzzy’/‘zombie,’ jaw grinding, sweating, blurred vision, constipation, disturbed/restless sleep, anxiety, heart palpitations, difficulty thinking, fatigue/exhaustion, strange/vivid dreams, stiff muscles/joints, ‘Brain zaps,’ mania, excessive yawning, panic attacks, memory loss, decreased motivation, night sweats, and decreased appetite.

This list matches what I’ve seen in many other datasets (although others like feeling agitated, shaky, or anxious, indigestion, stomach aches, and diarrhea are also commonly reported).

Note: another major issue with SSRIs (which is unlikely to be detected on a symptom-based survey) is that SSRIs frequently cause bipolar disorder.

Psychotic Violence: A Suppressed Truth

When Prozac was first brought to market in the mid-1980s, the pharmaceutical industry had not yet convinced the world that everyone was depressed and needed an antidepressant. So, instead (given that SSRIs work in a similar manner to a stimulant like Cocaine) Prozac was initially marketed as a “mood-lifter.”

Likewise, in 1985 when the FDA’s safety reviewer scrutinized Eli Lily’s Prozac application, they realized Lily had “failed” to report psychotic episodes of people on the drug and that Prozac’s adverse effects resembled that of a stimulant drug. In turn, the warnings on the labels for SSRIs, such as anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania, match the effects commonly observed with stimulant street drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine.
Note: a large survey of found 44% stopped a psych med because of side effects, a quarter of which were due to SSRI agitation.

In light of this, and SSRI violence commonly being blamed on a “pre-existing mental illness” I thus compiled numerous studies (including ones industry tried to bury) showing the drugs themselves cause violence. For example:

•A Cochrane review assessed 150 studies where healthy volunteers were given SSRIs and found approximately one-third of them deliberately omitted discussing SSRI side effects, and about half of the studies were never made publicly available (presumably to hide their concerning data). Ultimately, 14 of the 150 studies were eligible for meta-analysis (since enough information existed in them for the researchers to know what actually happened), and in these 14 studies, SSRIs were found to double the risk of suicide.

•In 2000, David Healy published a study he had carried out with 20 healthy volunteers – all with no history of depression or other mental illness – and to his big surprise two (10%) of them became suicidal when they received Zoloft. One of them was on her way out the door to kill herself in front of a train or a car when a phone call saved her. Both volunteers remained disturbed several months later and seriously questioned the stability of their personalities.

•Eli Lilly showed in 1978 that cats who had been friendly for years began to growl and hiss on Prozac and became distinctly unfriendly. Once Prozac was stopped, the cats returned to their usual friendly behavior in a week or two.

Note: the FDA hypothesized that SSRIs could reduce violence in some but cause an increase in violence in others. Likewise a review of 84 animal studies showed that reduced aggression upon treatment with SSRI was most commonly observed, but sometimes the animals instead became more aggressive.

Sexual Dysfunction

One of the side effects that I feel best illustrates the poor risk-reward ratio of SSRIs is sexual dysfunction—as not being able to have sex is quite likely to make someone depressed (and in some cases suicidal)—hence often completely invalidating the justification for taking an SSRI to “feel happy again.”

For example, a Spanish study of five of 1,022 patients on the most commonly prescribed SSRIs found:

•The drugs caused sexual disturbances in 59% of them and 40% considered that dysfunction unacceptable.
•57% experienced decreased libido.
•57% experienced delayed orgasm or ejaculation.
•46% experienced no orgasm or ejaculation.
•31% experienced erectile dysfunction or decreased vaginal lubrication.

Note: similar results have been obtained in other studies, and I’ve met many men and women who continued to experience sexual dysfunction long after they stopped the SSRI (as this dysfunction is often permanent).

What I find the most amazing about SSRI sexual dysfunction is that while psychiatrists tend to downplay or ignore it, they simultaneously market SSRIs to treat premature ejaculation—which is yet another example of the drug industry trying to have its cake and eat it (especially given that many of the SSRI manufacturers also sell drugs for erectile dysfunction).

Note: one reason this side effect is under recognized is that embarrassed patients often won’t report it unless they are specifically asked about it (e.g., in the Spanish study, while 59% of SSRI users reported sexual dysfunction, only 20% did so without prompting—something unlikely to be done in a drug trial aimed at getting a medication to market).

Emotional Blunting: Losing the Essence of Life

Once the SSRIs hit the market, I immediately noticed that SSRIs sometimes dramatically altered the personality of those who took them. For example, they often destroyed the drive people had to make something of their life—and in some cases, I sadly watched that derailment continue for decades. Likewise, I began to hear stories of people describing how their experience of life was deadened, often in a manner not too different from how the drugs “numb” your sexuality.

Some of the common stories included:

•Not having emotional responses to things you should have responses to. For example, I saw numerous cases of people being in unhealthy jobs or relationships, seeing a doctor for help with their depression, quickly being put on Prozac, and then wasting a decade of their life because Prozac (or another SSRI) removed their drive to leave that toxic situation. Likewise, I heard many people state that Prozac took away the joy they felt in life.

•Losing the depth and richness of life. This comment for instance, does an excellent job of illustrating that:

click to enlarge

Note: in psychiatry, this emotional anesthesia (not finding things as enjoyable as one used to) is known as “emotional blunting.” Depending on the study (e.g., those mentioned above) between 40-60% of those who take SSRIs experience this side effect, and it’s sometimes rationalized as a necessary trade-off for removing the emotional pain associated with depression.

One of the greatest problems with our society is the belief that the media has marketed to us that we should never have to feel negative emotions. In reality, they are a critical component of the human experience and are frequently necessary for our growth and identifying the correct direction for our lives. Unfortunately, to market depression (and SSRIs) it was necessary to pathologize normal facets of life and turn them into permanent illnesses requiring indefinite treatment.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Dark Side of Antidepressants appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Steve Kirsch

The post In California, we’ve vaccinated more elderly people with the COVID vaccine than there are elderly people in the state appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

BOOM! President Trump Ends “Executive Order 11246” from 1965, Liberals MELTDOWN! | WLT Report

The post Trump rescinds 1965 LBJ Executive Order requiring affirmative action in hiring federal contractors appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a historic move, President Trump has signed an Executive Order declassifying all files related to the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK.

But what does this really entail? What secrets have been buried for decades, and what does this mean for American history?

Meanwhile, the ATF was caught rebranding its Chief Diversity Officer in an alleged attempt to circumvent Trump’s orders, and Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road fame is seen smiling post-pardon.

Plus, we’ll cover CNN’s inauguration gag order, the latest MLB Hall of Fame results, and the 97th Academy Award nominations. Don’t miss this jam-packed episode of America’s Untold Stories!

Join Mark and Eric as they discuss the implications of Trump’s actions, the ATF controversy, and much more.

Watch America’s Untold Stories to uncover the truth behind the headlines!

The post America’s Untold Stories: JFK, RFK, MLK Files to be Declassified — Major Revelations? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Chris Sullivan:

They probably ought to put Jacob Hornberger in charge of the files.

I’ve got a feeling it will be somebody else.

The post rump Releases JFK Files & Bans Central Bank Digital Currency appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Alasdair Macleod

The post Will Comex gold face import tariffs? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

Daily Mail

The post CIA operative reveals mental disorder agency ‘actively seeks to hire’ because it makes for better spies appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post A Little Levity appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Rick Rozoff:

How can these parties have so much support in Greece, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Serbia, Georgia, etc. when the LGBT/trans-friendly, carbon emissions mandate, anti-Christian, open-borders mass migration, de-facto-merged-with-NATO EU militarized totalitarian police state offers people a veritable total surveillance state utopia?

Fascism!

Greece presidential election: Signs of a conservative swing?

The post Greece is latest “fascist” domino to fall in Europe appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks David Martin.

The post Militant Ignorance appeared first on LewRockwell.

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/illusione-monetaria-e-la-chimera)

Supponiamo che un imprenditore (o un falsario!) apra una banca e presti a tutti un sacco di soldi a condizioni irresistibili. All'improvviso la città si anima, le auto escono dai parcheggi, le mance nei bar aumentano, gli showroom di mobili vengono svuotati e, naturalmente, i prezzi salgono. Tutti si sentono più ricchi: il PIL locale aumenta, la città viene citata dai giornali, sulla bocca di tutti c'è “rinascita della classe media” e il sindaco pensa di candidarsi a primo ministro della nazione.

I guai iniziano in sordina, ma poi diventano un'onda che travolge presto la città e le cose vanno a rotoli. I soldi spariscono, i prestiti devono essere rimborsati, le vendite diminuiscono, le auto e i mobili vengono pignorati.

Che fine ha fatto il boom? Che fine ha fatto tutta quella precedente ricchezza?

Era fittizia, irreale, transitoria, effimera, una chimera, un miraggio, una vana e folle fantasia. Com'è possibile? Le BMW e gli arredi erano cose reali e tangibili. Il boom era autentico, ma la scintilla è stata il credito, non il risparmio. I risparmi possono essere spesi e goduti. Fine della storia. Il credito, però, è accompagnato dalle “richieste del futuro”. Investito con successo potrebbe creare nuova ricchezza, ma se viene semplicemente consumato non crea nuovo flusso di reddito per estinguere il debito. Le persone si limitano solamente a spendere soldi che non hanno e diventano più povere.

È stata notizia recente che il debito pubblico italiano ha superato i €3000 miliardi, mentre il PIL (per quanto non sia una misura affidabile della ricchezza reale) langue indietro sin dalla crisi del debito sovrano del 2010. Supponendo che fossero andati di pari passo, non esisterebbero quegli ~€800 miliardi in più. Questi ultimi rappresentano “le richieste di domani” che difficilmente saranno soddisfatte. Si trattava di credito immesso nel sistema ma senza un corrispondente aumento della ricchezza reale. Gran parte della “ricchezza” dell'economia è solo metà di una transazione incompleta. È la parte divertente del ciclo del credito: il debito aumenta da una parte del libro mastro e la “ricchezza” dall'altra. E poi, quando il ciclo del credito completa la sua oscillazione, entrambi scompaiono: i debiti vengono pagati, cancellati o gonfiati; gli attivi vengono svalutati. Come ho scritto nel Capitolo 2 del mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, esistono risparmi reali e risparmi fasulli. Per quanto una linea di credito facile possa facilitare la vita ad aziende neonate con un'idea buona in mente, l'azzardo morale che ne consegue cresce di ordini di grandezza superiori. Detto in modo semplice, la probabilità di incappare in errori economici diventa sempre più grande. Nel momento in cui, poi, determinate aziende arrivano al vertice e possono esercitare potere di lobby, piuttosto che andarsene nel sereno abbraccio della bancarotta quando diventano improduttive, esercitano la loro influenza per restare a galla.

Al giorno d'oggi esistono molte aziende “zombi” in Italia, incapaci di pagare persino gli interessi sul loro debito. A livello di facciata potrebbero anche valere tanto, ma qual è il valore reale di un'azienda che può rimanere in attività solo prendendo in prestito sempre più denaro? Il libro mastro non dovrebbe elencarle come passività piuttosto che come attivi? Inutile dire che tale cancrena fagocita anche la fiducia del sistema bancario commerciale a elargire prestiti.

Nonostante tutta la magniloquenza che i media generalisti usano per descrivere l'economia italiana, fatta di lavori che vanno a ruba e titoli sovrani la cui vendita a frotte è l'invidia del resto del mondo, la sostenibilità di un Paese si basa su una semplice dicotomia: ricchezza fasulla contro ricchezza reale. Per quanto possa sembrare insolente da parte mia nei confronti della narrativa ufficiale, la “ricchezza fittizia” spiega perché il nostro Paese, presumibilmente sulla buona strada, in realtà continua a sprofondare in un baratro senza fondo. In parole povere il denaro fasullo ha portato a un'economia con ricchezza fasulla. Gran parte dell'economia italiana (se misurata dal PIL) è fittizia, fraudolenta o fantasiosa. Il denaro fasullo crea un'economia fasulla, la quale cresce prendendo in prestito denaro che non esiste. Il denaro reale deve rappresentare beni, servizi e asset reali, ma il denaro fiat non rappresenta nulla. È credito vuoto e concesso a tassi artificialmente bassi. Certo, fa aumentare il PIL, le azioni, le obbligazioni e il settore immobiliare dandoci l'impressione di una grande ricchezza, ma il rovescio della medaglia del credito è il debito e quello totale dell'Italia è arrivato a circa il 255% del PIL. E man mano che aumenta, aumenta anche la spesa per interessi.

Gran parte del denaro fasullo è stato preso in prestito dai burocrati. La parte dell'economia direttamente controllata (spesa pubblica) o resa torbida (regolamenti statali o locali) dallo stato è aumentata nel corso del tempo. La spesa pubblica è inclusa nelle cifre del PIL, il 100% di essa, ma pochissima produce il tipo di ricchezza reale di cui c'è bisogno per pagare i debiti passati e contribuire alla prosperità attuale. Per vederlo coi vostri occhi, da un punto di vista prettamente finanziario, vi basta aggiustare i rendimenti attuali delle obbligazioni sovrane italiane all'inflazione (quella reale ovviamente, come misurata dall'oro, e non dall'IPC).

LA RICCHEZZA DI UNA NAZIONE, ORA, È UN'ILLUSIONE

Il valore “nominale” è molto diverso dal valore reale. Ma non sono solo i titoli sovrani a fingere di avere un valore che in realtà non hanno. In tutto il mondo a rendimento fisso ci sono perdite non riconosciute e ricchezza immaginaria. In termini ancora più specifici: davvero credete che ciò che possedete oggi, in termini di ricchezza personale, è davvero vostro? La risposta è “No, non è vostra” dato che può essere sequestrata in qualsiasi momento e in modo nascosto/sordido. Il Capitolo 13 del mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, descrive esattamente questa dinamica, ovvero che l'Europa, non avendo risorse di capitale energetico e non avendo mercati finanziari affidabili, per sopravvivere alla tempesta economica incalzante può solo parassitare il bacino di asset che dispone la popolazione. O si illude di possedere...

Leggiamo da un meandro di Wikipedia:

L'illusione monetaria è un errore di valutazione compiuto da chi ragiona in termini di valore nominale della moneta, tenendo conto in modo inadeguato della variazione del suo valore reale e rischio.

Ad esempio una riduzione del livello dei salari reali, a seguito della riduzione del potere d'acquisto della moneta, non viene percepita nel breve periodo.

L'illusione monetaria spiega in parte il comportamento dei risparmiatori che in condizioni di inflazione elevata accettano di impiegare le loro ricchezze a tassi di rendimento reali che, ex post, risultano negativi.

Altrettanto l'illusione monetaria spiega il comportamento dei consumatori che non aggiustano il proprio tenore di vita nel breve periodo a seguito di un generalizzato decremento del potere di acquisto dei salari.

L'illusione monetaria è uno di quei termini economici che si spiega da sé, ma ecco un altro esempio. La maggior parte delle persone sa che cento euro non comprano oggi quello che compravano dieci anni fa, ma pensa ancora in termini di prezzi passati (gli anziani di più, per ovvie ragioni). Un lavoratore potrebbe sentirsi bene con un aumento del 5%, ma se l'inflazione è al 7%, in realtà sta guadagnando meno di prima. Questo è un processo in corso da decenni con il risultato che, in termini reali, i salari sono più bassi. Se gli stati iniziassero a stampare denaro e ad acquistare asset, molti inizierebbero a mettere in discussione il denaro stesso e la fiducia nella moneta fiat potrebbe scomparire rapidamente.

Il denaro moderno ha un valore nominale, ma non un valore intrinseco. Si basa sull'illusione (e sulla legge) per funzionare. Più lo si svaluta, meno è probabile che l'illusione regga. Ovviamente il sostegno della legge fa una grande differenza, così come il fatto che le tasse debbano essere riscosse in questo denaro, ma il sistema è vulnerabile. Le illusioni possono durare a lungo, ma quando si infrangono lo fanno molto rapidamente, e poi non c'è più niente.

Ecco perché oro e Bitcoin sono asset a parte. Entrambi sono denaro in sé e per sé: uno è il prodotto della natura, l'altro il prodotto di quantità straordinarie della potenza di calcolo. Nessuno dei due dipende da nessun altro.

ANDARE IN BANCAROTTA... COME CI SI È SEMPRE ANDATI

I tagli dei tassi da parte della BCE non creano ricchezza come per magia. La ricchezza è creata da aumenti di produttività con più output per unità di lavoro e input di risorse. È il risultato di duro lavoro e pazienza. I piaceri immediati devono essere rimandati e le lezioni devono essere apprese. Il capitale non può essere semplicemente consumato; deve essere risparmiato e investito saggiamente, abilmente. Tutto il resto è distrazione, frode e fantasia. Abbassare il costo del credito rende più facile acquistare cose, ma non rende necessariamente più facile pagarle. Come abbiamo visto, più credito crea ricchezza “fittizia” a breve termine, non ricchezza reale a lungo termine. I venditori registrano l'aumento delle vendite come un surplus; i burocrati registrano le vendite extra come un aumento del PIL. Ma finché il conto non viene saldato, la transazione è incompleta.

Man mano che aumenta il debito, aumenta anche il costo del servizio del debito (interessi) e il numero di debitori che non saranno in grado di pagare, incluso il più grande debitore al mondo, ovvero lo stato. E così aumenta la quantità di ricchezza che probabilmente scomparirà nella prossima crisi. Ciò è particolarmente vero quando il prestito è stato fatto con falsi pretesti, ovvero a tassi d'interesse irrealistici o artificialmente bassi. Ed ecco che... il debito aumenta. 

Sono uscite le cifre riguardanti le prestazioni dell'economia italiana nell'ultimo anno. Si riconferma un Paese in cui la qualità dell'occupazione continua a declinare: questo dato può esse estrapolato dall'aumento dell'attività turistica e di conseguenza l'aumento dell'impiego nel settore terziario. Ma un Paese non può reggersi esclusivamente su questo settore, dato che i lavori creati non sono in grado di sostenere un'economia complessa; infatti il comparto industriale continua la sua caduta libera. Questo a sua volta significa che i numeri degli occupati, sulla scia della contrazione delle prestazioni welfaristiche (es. reddito di cittadinanza), sono anche gonfiati da persone che svolgono più di un lavoro per sbarcare il lunario. Non solo, ma se davvero il boom dell'occupazione di cui blatera l'informazione mainstream fosse vera e aggiungesse ricchezza alla nazione, allora i numeri del PIL non sarebbero così anemici. Questo perché la Legge dei rendimenti decrescenti è scesa in territorio talmente negativo che gli accordi “lose-lose” (vicendevolmente svantaggiosi) erodono unità di PIL aggiuntivo, anche se tali numeri vengono tenuti artificialmente su da stampa di denaro e deficit pubblico persistente.

E infine arriviamo a un punto cruciale che pochi ancora afferrano: l'inflazione dei prezzi. I media generalisti ci tengono a far sapere che “tutto è tornato sotto controllo”, facendo festa per i delta che cambiano di mese in mese. Ma se allarghiamo il quadro, le cose stanno diversamente: i prezzi cavalcano in alto, senza sosta, sin dal 2000. L'aumento composto di questo indice, e il furto conseguente, è apprezzabile nel grafico qui sotto.

Un tasso di variazione più lento non significa che un'inflazione dei prezzi in diminuzione! Significa, ammesso che sia accurato, che l'inflazione dei prezzi sta crescendo meno rapidamente. È questo cambiamento che sta uccidendo la qualità della vita per la classe media italiana. In secondo luogo la velocità del denaro è in aumento. Il prossimo grafico mostra la variazione dell'offerta di denaro M2: i dati più recenti mostrano che sta di nuovo espandendosi. In sintesi, si sta formando una “seconda ondata” di inflazione.

Questa è una nazione che sta andando in rovina nel modo tradizionale: aggiungendo ricchezza fasulla e debito reale. Sì, cari lettori, c'è “ampio spazio” per tagliare la spesa, ma la frode è più gradita della verità e aumentare il debito è molto più allettante che saldarlo.

LA MEGAPOLITICA

La “megapolitica” è una delle mie metodologie d'analisi non così segreta. Fornisce un vantaggio aiutandomi a comprendere le correnti più profonde della politica e dell'economia; solo su queste pagine potete leggere i risultati di tali analisi, o ascoltare se volete risparmiare tempo. Ad esempio, uno potrebbe osservare il meteo: cambia giorno dopo giorno, un giorno è più caldo e il giorno dopo piove. Potrebbe indovinare cosa succederà con il passare dei giorni, ma è molto utile sapere che ci sono stagioni, schemi che si ripetono, mai esattamente gli stessi, ma sempre presenti. La megapolitica non è altro che un'intuizione, ma una importante: ci sono stagioni anche nei mercati e nella politica. Potreste pensare, ad esempio, che “lo stato non permetterebbe mai che [una cosa] accadesse”... o che non accadrà perché “nessuno lo vuole”. Ma poi... accade comunque.

Le persone, soprattutto quelle intelligenti, si auto-ingannano: sopravvalutano regolarmente la loro capacità di capire cosa sta succedendo e la loro competenza nel controllare il futuro e sbrogliare i nodi dalla storia. Intraprendono programmi e progetti per rendere il mondo un posto migliore: le Crociate, la Prima guerra mondiale, la Rivoluzione russa, il Grande balzo in avanti, e finiscono per rendere la storia più perversa che mai. Il problema nasce dalla natura stessa della vita. Ci sono un numero infinito di cose che accadono e un numero infinito di modi per guardarle. Noi esseri umani, tuttavia, non abbiamo una quantità infinita di tempo o una capacità cerebrale infinita, quindi mettiamo le cose in categorie (un processo che Kant descrisse come “imperativo categorico”) per semplificarle.

I proto-umani dovevano prendere decisioni rapide per sopravvivere. Se vedevano una cosa grande e pelosa che caricava nella loro direzione, ad esempio, non avevano il tempo di chiedersi a quale genere o specie potesse appartenere, o se non fosse un'illusione ottica causata dal sole al tramonto o uno scherzo fatto da uno dei membri della sua tribù. Dovevano correre, il più velocemente possibile, per sopravvivere. I nostri antenati, i sopravvissuti, erano quelli che correvano non quelli che si fermavano a ponderare. Oggi riceviamo migliaia di “messaggi” (es. pubblicità, avvisi, dati, opinioni e osservazioni) e li scorriamo sui nostri schermi dei computer, il più velocemente possibile, scegliendo quelli che meritano la nostra attenzione. La maggior parte viene ignorata immediatamente, alcuni vengono notati e studiati attentamente; altri cambiano effettivamente le nostre idee o il nostro comportamento.

La maggior parte delle persone è impegnata; classifica le cose in categorie molto semplici: buono o cattivo, rosso o blu, amico o nemico. I nemici sono persone “cattive”; questo è tutto ciò che pare si debba sapere. Anche il mondo della finanza può essere ridotto alla più semplice dicotomia. I prezzi salgono o scendono; perché complicarlo? Ma semplificare troppo può causare grandi errori. I “nemici” non sono sempre veri nemici e alcune guerre vale la pena di essere combattute. Per avere un'idea di cosa sta realmente accadendo, dobbiamo capire le stagioni. Possiamo guardare fuori dalla finestra e vedere il sole che fa capolino tra le nuvole, ma aiuta anche sapere che è primavera.

Nel senso più semplicistico e superficiale, le persone fanno le loro scelte e cercano di ottenere ciò che vogliono, ma nel mondo più profondo e megapolitico, ciò che vogliono non ha nulla a che fare con questo. La megapolitica descrive le profonde correnti della storia, un po' come la Corrente del Golfo, un immenso fiume sottomarino. In superficie non è nemmeno visibile, ma sotto l'oceano trasporta acqua calda attraverso l'Atlantico e rende abitabile l'Europa settentrionale. È un modello naturale. Ci influenza; ma noi non abbiamo alcuna influenza su di esso. La megapolitica riconosce che “le cose accadono” che lo vogliate o meno. Chi vuole morire, per esempio? Ma a tutti capiterà. E chi poteva immaginare che la cricca di Davos sarebbe stata messa in ginocchio? Ma è accaduto anche questo.

Povera Lagarde, adesso rimarrà sola a stampare con la scusa di dover proteggere alberi e scoiattoli https://t.co/7u35xiutqc

La megapolitica ci incoraggia a guardare oltre gli slogan e le banalità che diamo per scontate. Il Titanic era considerato inaffondabile, finché non è affondato. E ora, molte persone pensano che la BCE “non permetterebbe” una recessione, un'inflazione incontrollata o un mercato ribassista di lunga durata. Ma la BCE può davvero impedire queste correzioni naturali? Probabilmente no, in particolar modo ora che il mercato degli eurodollari è sotto contrazione della leva per esplicito volere della FED che ha messo ordine nella sua equazione monetaria. Niente più pasti gratis a danno degli Stati Uniti.

Esiste la massima “tutti gli esseri umani sono creati uguali”, per esempio, o che dovremmo “fare agli altri ciò che vorremmo che facessero a noi”. Esse valgono anche per le nazioni... o per meglio dire, le fazioni. Quando il potere cambia drasticamente, i diritti di uguaglianza svaniscono. Immaginate un'invasione di alieni con una tecnologia di gran lunga superiore. Potrebbero trattare gli esseri umani come noi trattiamo il bestiame. Anche tra gli esseri umani enormi disparità di potere portano a relazioni che non sono in alcun modo “uguali”. Questa era la storia di fondo del XVIII e XIX secolo, quando gli europei avevano un tale vantaggio in termini di potenza di fuoco rispetto ai popoli indigeni dell'Africa, del Sud-est asiatico, dell'Australia e delle Americhe da riuscire a colonizzare enormi distese di territorio. La gente del posto potrebbe aver avuto dei “diritti”, ma solo quelli che i conquistatori avevano scelto di dare loro.

La megapolitica espone modelli e realtà a cui poche persone vogliono pensare. Ci rende sospettosi su “ciò che tutti sanno” e scettici su “ciò che tutti credono”. La guerra in Ucraina ha davvero senso? Le banche centrali possono davvero sapere di quali tassi d'interesse ha bisogno una nazione? La democrazia funziona davvero nel modo in cui credono gli elettori? È davvero caduto l'impero britannico? Quanto ancora gli eurodollari influenzano i mercati mondiali? Se la FED non avesse cercato l'indipendenza dal resto del caravanserraglio delle banche centrali, in che mondo vivremmo adesso? Ci sono più domande che risposte, ma il solo fatto di porsele fornisce un vantaggio sulla maggior parte degli investitori.

Poche persone vorranno approfondire queste questioni. I buoni contro i cattivi, noi contro loro, il rosso contro il blu: per la maggior parte di noi è sufficiente. Ma negli anni difficili che ci aspettano, un'analisi superficiale potrebbe rivelarsi disastrosa.

CONCLUSIONE

L'analisi megapolitica ci aiuta a mettere nel giusto contesto il fallimento dell'Italia e quello più ampio dell'UE. Con l'addio della Yellen e, adesso, un bilanciamento del budget insieme a un Dipartimento del Tesoro che non fa più un QE mascherato tramite sovraemissione di titoli sovrani, Bailey e la Lagarde vedranno aumentare i loro guai. Nell'ultimo anno in particolare hanno usato le grasse emissioni della Yellen per tenere soppressi i differenziali di rendimento tra i titoli sovrani delle loro giurisdizioni e quelli americani. In questo modo hanno influenzato pesantamente il lato destro della curva dei rendimenti americani, sacrificando, però, le loro valute nel frattempo. Sterlina ed euro infatti si sono schiantati rispetto al dollaro. Con l'insediamento di Trump, però, lo zio Sam tornerà ad avere un potere contrattuale reale sulle altre divise. Stavolta per davvero, dato che tutti quei meccanismi che svilivano silenziosamente il dollaro vengono smantellati. L'illusione monetaria e l'illusione della ricchezza fasulla, alimentate da Bruxelles e City di Londra per spacciare la menzogna di un'economia solida, affidabile e degna di fiducia, alternative a quella americana, verrà infranta.

Prima gli eurodollari, poi il LIBOR, adesso salta fuori anche il meccanismo di clearing dei titoli sovrani americani a Londra. È a dir poco assurda la profondità con cui i tentacoli della City e della BoE affondassero nell'economia USA e la sfruttassero.https://t.co/mird7PYEfn

Supponendo, adesso, un piano di contingentamento della spesa pubblica americana, la salita dei rendimenti dei titoli sovrani europei è dietro l'angolo. E guarda caso adesso i BTP italiani vengono esclusi dal calcolo dell'ISEE...

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

The verb “to inaugurate” originates from Latin and has roots connected to Roman religious practices and rituals. The Latin root is inaugurāre, meaning “to install, consecrate, or dedicate (something or someone) by omens.”

Augurs were Roman priests who interpreted omens (especially the flight patterns of birds) to determine the will of the gods. This would seem to explain the need for black-robed high priests wielding sacred texts and invoking deities on the first day of a new job. Personally, I think handing off the keys to the executive washroom would be sufficient.

By mystical ritual, Donald John Trump was initiated as the 47th president, who will preside over the semiquincentennial of the United States, or what’s left of it after Lincoln shredded the Republic.

The event was marked by a virtual tsunami of competing Executive Orders and Presidential Pardons, from both the outgoing and incoming presidents, the latter cancelling the former even as the ink was drying. The ceremony was moved inside the capitol, ostensibly due to a vicious wave of Arctic global warming.

Note the use of “capitol,” not “capital”. The term derives specifically from the Capitolium, which referred to the Temple of IVPITER OPTIMVS MAXIMVS, located on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome. Thus, the term Capitol Hill.

Trump’s inauguration speech was sufficiently rousing, setting forth a litany of goals and visions that would keep several mere mortal administrations busy for the next decade. I’ve never been one for pep rallies, but it wasn’t a bad show.

I nearly leapt to my feet cheering, though I quickly regained composure, when Trump said that he was pulling out of the Paris Accords, dropping the EV mandates, erasing EPA emissions regulations, and turning wildcatters loose. A tear briefly formed in the corner of my eye. I haven’t heard that much rational talk from a political podium in donkey’s years.

Trump made one glaring mistake that annoys me every time I hear it. He stated that henceforth, there would only be two genders, and then proceeded to list the two sexes — male and female. Unless he intends on mangling English grammar like his predecessor, there are three genders — masculine, feminine and neuter — and they are not tied to biological sex. Gender in English only determines the choice of 3rd Person Singular pronouns (he/she/it). If you want more gender fun, try German or Spanish.

I was happy to hear that Trump’s administration would enforce immigration laws. However, a quick glance at my Pocket Constitution failed to turn up any references to interplanetary colonization.

I also noted not a single reference to repealing the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), nor disbanding the supercilious Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). A thorough review of Article V of the Constitution concerning Amendments is probably in order, as well. Not a peep on these pressing issues.

Trump apparently intends to follow the Constitution and Rule of Law only insofar as it advances his agenda. In other words, more of the same. With a bit of luck, this administration will not be as corrupt as Grant’s, LBJ’s, Obama’s, or Biden’s.

I am not immune to excited hopefullism that comes with substantial changes in the milieu. Certainly, the events of November 5th are still making waves around the planet. European and American Bumbledicks are in an existential panic, Canada’s and Germany’s governments have collapsed, the unruly children in the Ukraine and Levant are suddenly subdued, and my crypto wallet has been inflating like an enema bag strapped to a helium tank. Not unwelcome results.

In a 1936 speech, British politician Sir Austen Chamberlain said, “May you live in interesting times,” playfully labelling it a “Chinese curse”. The phrase was further popularized by Robert F. Kennedy, father of the current RFK, in a 1966 speech in South Africa.

The closest thing I’ve found to an actual Chinese proverb along these lines is, 宁为太平犬，莫作乱离人 (Nìng wéi tàipíng quǎn, mò zuò luàn lí rén) — roughly, “Better to be a dog in times of peace, than a human in times of chaos.”

Whichever one you prefer, it is wise to use the momentary lull in the eye of the storm. Now is the time to shore up the battlements and lay in supplies. The Culture War is not yet won, but the winds have shifted and Gandalf may yet appear over the ridge with the Rohirrim in tow.

In any case, I woke up this morning feeling as if a thorn had been pulled from my paw.

This originally appeared on Radio Far Side.

The post Genders, Augurs and Capitols appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s known for his capriciousness, however, so it might be that he either didn’t mean to hint at anything at all in his latest remarks about Russia or he might unexpectedly change his mind about the compromises that he considers to be acceptable for each party during his upcoming call with Putin.

Trump said a few words about Russia shortly after his reinauguration while signing Executive Orders in the Oval Office. They’re important to interpret since they might hint at his peace plan, which he’s yet to officially reveal, but reports have circulated claiming that he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” through more sanctions against Russia and armed aid to Ukraine if Putin rejects whatever deal he offers. He’ll likewise allegedly cut Ukraine off if Zelensky rejects the same deal. Here’s what he said on Monday afternoon:

“Zelenskyy told me he wants to make a deal, I don’t know if Putin does … He might not. I think he should make a deal. I think he’s destroying Russia by not making a deal. I think, Russia is kinda in big trouble. You take a look at their economy, you take a look at their inflation in Russia. I got along with [Putin] great, I would hope he wants to make a deal.

He’s grinding it out. Most people thought it would last about one week and now you’re into three years. It is not making him look good. We have numbers that almost a million Russian soldiers have been killed. About 700,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed. Russia’s bigger, they have more soldiers to lose but that’s no way to run a country.”

Starting from the beginning, his claim that Zelensky “wants to make a deal” coupled with his uncertainty about Putin’s willingness might be meant to portray the latter as an obstacle to peace, thus possibly setting the stage for the previously mentioned punitive measures. As for his opinion that Putin is “destroying Russia”, that’s hyperbole but frames his counterpart as the weaker of the two, especially when contrasted with Trump’s declaration earlier that day about the start of an American Golden Age.

He then elaborated by pointing to Russia’s inflation rate, which is implied to be the result of the West’s unprecedented sanctions and correspondingly hinting at the possibility of some relief in exchange for Putin agreeing to compromise instead of continuing to pursue his maximum goals. Building upon that, citing Ukraine’s grossly inflated estimate of Russian losses might belie ignorance of the facts if he truly believes their numbers, but it could also reaffirm his expectation that Putin must compromise.

To explain, Trump seems to believe that Western sanctions’ effect on the Russian economy and the battlefield losses that Russia has suffered (both of which are exaggerated in the context that he referred to them) justify proposing compromises from Putin, not giving into his demands. For this reason, it’s likely that the earlier reports about him planning to propose something less than what his counterpart signaled would be acceptable are true, after which he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” if it’s rejected.

Observers can only speculate about the substance of his envisaged proposal, but it might look something like what was suggested at the end of this analysis here, particularly with regards to the proverbial carrots that Trump might offer Putin with regard to Ukraine’s neutrality and phased sanctions relief. As for the compromises that might be requested of Russia, these could include freezing the Line of Contact while being asked to accept only the partial demilitarization of Ukraine and practically no denazification.

Trump’s known for his capriciousness, however, so it might be that he either didn’t mean to hint at anything at all in his latest remarks about Russia or he might unexpectedly change his mind about the compromises that he considers to be acceptable for each party during his upcoming call with Putin. Nobody can therefore say with certainty what he had in mind, let alone what he’ll ultimately do, but this analysis is premised on the assumption that he might have even subconsciously let part of his plan slip.

This originally appeared on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Did Trump Just Drop Some Hints About His Peace Plan? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump yesterday issued a new executive order declaring that so-called “birthright citizenship” does not apply to the children of foreign nationals residing illegally within the United States. The order reads, in part:

 (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

There is a common misconception in the United States that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution mandates that the US government grant citizenship to anyone and everyone born within the borders of the United States. This misconception is largely due to the fact that, for several decades, US courts and technocrats have conspired to redefine the original meaning of the amendment, and thus apply it to every child of every tourist and foreign national who happens to be born on this side of the US border.

Some have even attempted to define access to birthright citizenship as some sort of natural right. This is a common tactic among some libertarians who have twisted the idea of property rights to extend the idea of a “right” to the governmental administrative act known as “naturalization.”

Even when looking at the issue strictly in terms of procedural legal rights, however, it is clear that the current definition of birthright citizenship is in conflict with the law as originally intended and interpreted.

To understand the central point of contention, let’s note the text of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which states that citizenship shall be extended to: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Note that there are two qualifying phrases here. The persons in question must be both born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is this second qualification that remains a matter of debate.

What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States

erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

The courts themselves have historically recognized this distinction, noting that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves who obviously were not connected to any other country or sovereign. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the court ruled:

That [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

That second sentence is key:  ”The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was further confirmed by the Court in 1884 (in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) when the Court stated that the idea of birthright citizenship did not apply to Native American tribes which were nonetheless within the borders of the United States:

“[The Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

In short, the court recognized that the tribal lands were within the legal jurisdiction of the United States, but this did not mean that everyone born within those borders was automatically granted citizenship. Those tribal members believed to be subjects of “foreign” tribal governments were therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a way that conferred automatic citizenship.

Congress further reinforced the court’s interpretation by adopting new legislation granting citizenship to all tribal members in 1924. Had the Fourteenth Amendment really granted automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States, no such legislation would have been necessary.

In the year 2024, however, advocates of the new and novel interpretation of “birthright citizenship” insist that the child of foreign nationals automatically becomes a citizen of the United States based entirely on the location of birth.

This is a rather odd way of doing things. In historical practice nearly everywhere, citizenship depends largely on the citizenship of parents, or on the parents’ place of birth, and not on the place where parents happen to temporarily reside when the child is born. Thus, historically and globally, the child of foreign nationals is himself a foreign national. This is true, for instance, of children born to American nationals overseas.

Only in the United States does there appear to be widespread confusion about this.

Of course, some libertarian or “classical liberal” readers might argue that such legal precedents are meaningless, and that everyone “deserves” the legal “right” of citizenship. How citizenship is any sort of natural right or property right, however, remains a mystery. Has the child somehow “homesteaded” his citizenship? Obviously not. Has the child entered into a contract with a legitimate property owner to acquire the “property” of citizenship? To ask these questions is to see the absurdity of them.

On the other hand, it is important to note that a lack of citizenship in any particular place does not negate anyone’s property rights. Real property rights—what Rothbard called “universal rights”—exist regardless of one’s citizenship, where he lives, or where he happens to have been born.

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

The post Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real appeared first on LewRockwell.

Longtime Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson’s new article about a “second Gilded Age” in America gets it wrong. He writes: “In the first Gilded Age, a few tycoons amassed unimaginable riches — men such as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan. With their great wealth came great power and influence. When they spoke, presidents listened. On Monday, as a billionaire reassumes the nation’s highest office, in attendance will be the three wealthiest human beings on the planet, according to the Forbes and Bloomberg lists of billionaires: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos (who owns The Post) and Mark Zuckerberg.”

While those facts are technically correct, where Robinson goes wrong is in failing to recognize that America had a totally different economic and political system in the Gilded Age period than it now has.

Back then, the powers of the federal government were relatively few and limited. Therefore, people who were making large amounts of money were largely doing so under the principles of a genuine free market — that is, by providing goods and services that other people wanted and were willing to pay for. The federal government had virtually no power to do good things for people or bad things to people. Thus, it didn’t make a big difference if presidents listened or not.

Today, things are totally different. Many Americans make vast amounts of money through the connections, contracts, and influence they have with the welfare-warfare-state/regulated-economy way of life — that is, through the vast overwhelming power of the federal government to do good things for people and bad things to people. This is especially true for those who benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the enormous largess that is pumped into the “defense” industry.

Let’s examine some of the principles of the Gilded Age to see how differently Americans back then thought in comparison to how Americans today think:

1. No income tax, income tax returns, or IRS. Everyone kept 100 percent of what he earned. There was nothing the feds could do about it.

2. No Social Security. Helping out parents and seniors was a voluntary choice.

3. No Medicare or Medicaid. A free-market healthcare system.

4. No welfare state. Charity was voluntary, not coerced.

5. No Pentagon, CIA, or NSA. No national-security state. Just a relatively small, basic military force.

6. Minimal immigration control. Almost all immigrants were permitted entry into the United States.

7. No Federal Reserve or paper money. Gold coins and silver coins were mandated by the Constitution.

8. No foreign wars in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia.

9. No foreign military bases.

10. No foreign aid.

11. No drug laws. No drug war.

12. Virtually no economic regulations, including minimum-wage laws.

13. Virtually no public-schooling systems.

Do you see any differences between that system and the system under which we all have been born and raised today?

The result of that unusual system? The most prosperous era in the history of man! In decrying the Gilded Age, Robinson makes a common mistake, one that is rooted in the indoctrination that everyone receives in America’s public (i.e, government) school system and state-supported colleges and universities. He fails to see the tremendous increase in the overall standard of living, especially for the poor. It was skyrocketing. That’s why tens of thousands of penniless immigrants were flooding into America every week. For the first time in history, they and their families not only had a chance of surviving for a long period of time, they now actually had an excellent chance of prospering! And they did!

Yes, it’s true that some people, including poor people, were becoming fabulously wealthy. But who cares? Why is that bad, especially when even the poorest people in society were doing so well? The reason the rich were becoming wealthy is that they were improving people’s well-being by coming up with goods and services that were improving people’s lives. People were willing to buy their goods and services. Those goods and services were raising the standard of living for the poor and middle class. Moreover, as part of the production process, the entrepreneurs were providing gainful employment to people, which enabled them to make and save large amounts of money, which provided the capital that was making workers more productive.

The problem occurred when people in the 20th century let envy and covetousness gain control over them. They railed against the “rich” and begin calling for forced equalization of wealth through the income tax and the monetary-debasement process. The problem though is that when they embarked on their equalization schemes, they ended up harming the poor by inflicting lower standards of living on them. Moreover, the fear that began afflicting their lives caused them to relinquish their rights and liberties to an all-powerful national-security establishment, which began producing an entirely new class of rich people.

Oh, did I mention that the Gilded Age was also the most charitable period in history? When people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, they voluntarily gave much of it away, on a purely voluntary basis. That includes the so-called robber barons. John D. Rockefeller, one of the “robber barons” who Eugene Robinson mentions in his article, gave away $450 million, which in today’s value was equivalent to billions of dollars — and, no, not to get an income-tax deduction because — remember — there was no income tax!

When President Franklin Roosevelt completed the transformation of American society to a welfare-warfare state/regulated-managed economy in the 1930s, one of his central principles was to make certain that Americans would never realize that their political and economic system had changed. He emphasized that the new way of life was simply saving and continuing America’s free-enterprise system. Americans bought it. That’s why today Americans are convinced that the economic and political system under which they have been born and raised is the same “free-enterprise” system under which people in 1870-1900 lived. That’s why people like Eugene Robinson are unable to see that the “first” Gilded Age is dramatically different from the system under which we live today — the system that he incorrectly calls a “second” Gilded Age.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Eugene Robinson’s Gilded-Age Misconceptions appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Let’s begin by defining our terms. How would you define a speculator?

Doug Casey: The word “speculator” is generally misused and poorly defined. Let’s put it in context, along with some related terms that it’s usually confused with.

First, what is a speculator? A speculator is someone who capitalizes on distortions in the market. These distortions are mostly caused by the actions of government, so most are political in nature. But distortions can also be caused by natural disasters or aberrations of public psychology.

A speculator is quite different from an investor. An investor is someone who allocates capital to create more capital. Being an investor is analogous to being a farmer who plants a grain of wheat to grow a sheaf of wheat. Investors are oriented to create value. Speculators, however, are less interested in creating new wealth and more interested in arbitraging the difference between perceptions and reality.

Speculators are also confused with traders. A trader is one who tries to second-guess the market. It’s possible, and there are some very successful traders. But they’re very few and far between. That’s because traders have to fight against bid-ask spreads and commissions when they both buy and sell. That’s compounded by the fact that “traders” are constantly trading and getting eaten up by those costs. Even more important, retail traders have to deal with the fact that they’re last in line to get information, way after the big boys and the professionals have taken advantage of it; very few amateur traders understand that. Last, and probably most important, traders are in an eternal battle with their own psychology, constantly being pulled hither and yon by fear and greed. Trying to be a trader is generally a poor idea.

The public—who know almost nothing about speculating, investing, trading, or gambling—also conflate speculators with gamblers. They’re very different. A gambler doesn’t research trends, fundamentals, or anything else. He simply bets on tips, rumors, or uninformed gut feelings, hoping to get lucky. Sometimes random chance does just that. But just as in a casino, the house always wins, and the gamblers always lose in the long run.

We should also examine the saver. The capital employed by investors, speculators, traders, or gamblers only exists because of savers. A saver is someone who produces more than he consumes and sets aside the difference. That creates capital. Without capital, we’d be consigned to a life of grubbing for roots and berries.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, savers have few alternatives to saving with their national currency. All are fiat units which are being systematically destroyed by central banks while held in commercial banks run on fractional reserve principles. Unless he saves in gold (or, arguably, Bitcoin), the poor saver has the odds tilted against him. That’s bad for the saver and potentially catastrophic for society.

But that’s a story for another day…

International Man: Why do you believe learning to speculate is crucial in today’s environment?

Doug Casey: If we lived in a free market world, there would be no politically caused distortions, and speculators would be largely unemployed. But government intrudes everywhere in today’s economy, constantly misallocating capital and creating distortions. On the bright side, however, speculators can prosper by looking out for these distortions.

As government grows bigger and more powerful, supporting the elites and other parasites, investing becomes harder and less profitable. These things make the world’s economy ever more arbitrary, and an investor needs a certain amount of predictability. But the very things that make investing harder and less profitable are, perversely, the things that a speculator thrives on. This is, for instance, why gold has always been a favorite of speculators. Not just in 1933 and 1971, years of major dollar devaluations (unpredictable to the public, although quite predictable to competent economists and speculators), but whenever there’s uncertainty.

Most people dislike speculators because they typically show up when things are grim and chaotic. They’re often blamed for causing the problem as opposed to solving the problem.

For instance, during a famine, a foresighted speculator might buy bread in advance and then show up to sell it for much higher prices. Instead of being praised for making the bread available when it’s needed, he’s cursed for causing higher prices. He’s actually holding prices down by making bread available. This predictable ingratitude on the part of the public might make a speculator rather cynical.

International Man: What are the key aspects of mastering the art of speculation?

What skills and perspectives are essential for a speculator to achieve success?

Doug Casey: It’s important to have a broad range of knowledge to allow you to identify opportunities whenever and wherever they occur.

A speculator should be well-read in history so he’s able to identify history rhyming, if not repeating. He should have a good grip on mass psychology so he can identify when the public is acting like lemmings. A speculator needs an understanding of economics, allowing him to diagnose the way the world really works and pinpoint the stupid things that governments do. He takes these subjects out of the realm of airy academic theory and makes them useful in the most practical way.

On a personal basis, a speculator should be unemotional. He doesn’t get carried away with any particular position. Warren Buffett says the ideal holding time for an investment is “forever”; that’s impossible for a speculation. Speculators should have a certain degree of cynicism to insulate them from what the crowd says and believes. It’s hard to pass off a speculator as a “man of the people”; socialists, stupidly, believe he’s an “enemy of the people.”

International Man: Speculation can involve significant risk. How do you define acceptable risk, and what strategies do you use to minimize the downside?

Doug Casey: Many speculations are illiquid because they’re unknown. The public can’t take advantage of them if they don’t know they even exist. Of course, that’s usually just as well. Illiquid speculations are generally best avoided. They may turn into lobster traps—you can get in but not get out.

At the same time, illiquid markets can yield excellent speculations. The very fact something is illiquid may indicate that nobody’s looking at it.

On the other hand, many good speculations are well-known to the public, but the public hates them. Everybody thinks they’re terrible because they have a “bad track record.” Fair enough; stay far away from people with bad track records. But commodities are different from people. The people running companies can be replaced. Fashions and technologies change.

Good speculations are often either illiquid or hated. And very often, speculations are politically charged. You’re dealing with the presence, or the consequences, of laws and regulations that have actually created the opportunity.

International Man: What do you see as the biggest speculative opportunities right now?

Doug Casey: Gold was the classic speculation, artificially suppressed by the government for many years at $35 an ounce. Smart speculators realized its success was, in effect, guaranteed by the government. The rest is history.

Bitcoin and gold have both gone up “bigly”, as Trump might say. I’m afraid that both now are in roughly an equilibrium area. They aren’t artificially suppressed. Both are well known. That said, I think they’re both going higher for a number of reasons. But they no longer qualify as ideal speculations, as they once did.

I’m not interested in the general stock market. It’s overpriced by historical parameters, like price to book value, price to earnings, and dividend yields. It’s been driven up by huge amounts of money printing and the creation of huge amounts of debt. That’s the real problem.

The financial markets are sitting on a time bomb of debt, and if there are serious defaults, it could all come undone. This is equally true of the real estate market, where most decent houses are $1 million, and many are much, much more. Almost all of them are mortgaged, which is to say purchased on margin.

The bond market may be the worst place for money at this point. It’s a triple threat to your capital. You have the inflation/currency risk, the interest rate risk, and the default risk.

The most unknown, unloved, and illiquid part of the market is low-priced resource stocks, particularly explorers and developers. They’ve been bouncing along the bottom for about five years now. I’m betting that we’re going to see at least one more bull market when all of them go up 10 to 1. That’s where I’m concentrating.

Investors may allocate 100% of their capital in search of a 10% return. That’s OK, most of the time. But now is a time when a speculator can allocate 10% of his capital in search of a 100% or a 1000% return.

Reprinted with permission from International Man,

The post Mastering the Art of Speculation and Today’s Top Opportunities appeared first on LewRockwell.

At least Trump is willing to give peace a chance with Russia over Ukraine, Peter Kuznick says.

The chances of a peace deal in Ukraine are suddenly a lot higher under President Donald Trump only because he has a realistic sense of a nuclear Third World War happening between the United States and Russia if that conflict is not ended promptly.

Peter Kuznick, an esteemed American professor of history, says that the Biden administration brought the world closer to a nuclear conflagration than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Biden did this by relentlessly arming Ukraine with weapons to strike deeper and deeper into Russia instead of trying to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Indeed, there was no diplomatic effort from Washington under Biden. It was ideologically and propaganda-driven for confrontation, as was the Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris.

Kuznick points out that Trump is no John F Kennedy in terms of the latter’s depth of historical and philosophical knowledge. But in comparison with Joe Biden, Trump has shown more humanity and common sense by not insulting Putin and in reaching out for a peaceful end to the slaughter in Ukraine. Biden called Putin a thug and said he would back Ukraine as long as it takes to defeat Russia. The last Democrat administration spent $175 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money propping up a NeoNazi regime in Kiev that has lost over one million military casualties since the war erupted in February 2022.

By contrast, newly inaugurated President Trump says that he wants to meet Russian leader Vladimir Putin as a priority to find a peaceful way out of the conflict and to avoid a catastrophic escalation between nuclear powers. Putin has welcomed a meeting with the new president and said he appreciates the urgent concern to avoid a nuclear disaster.

Kuznick is author of The Untold History of the United States, which was coauthored with acclaimed film director Oliver Stone. The book was turned into an award-winning television series aired on Showtime, Netflix and other channels. Kuznick deplores the way the U.S. and NATO partners undermined international security by expanding on Russia’s borders despite earlier promises to the Soviet leaders that would not happen.

If peace is to be found in Ukraine, it must be based on a bigger picture of lasting global security that considers all nations’ concerns.

That means the United States must treat Russia’s national security concerns over NATO’s expansion seriously and respectfully. Can the Trump administration deliver? It is packed with hawkish figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Donald Trump is better placed than the Biden adminstration to cut a deal with Russia for peace in Ukraine and thereby avoid nuclear disaster, says Kuznick.

Trump’s cabinet is filled with billionaires and his mercurial, superficial understanding of the world can be deprecated. Maybe his peaceful aspirations are muddled and not feasible given that Trump is surrounded by hawkish figures.

But at least he is willing to give peace a chance with Russia over Ukraine. That alone makes Trump a welcome change from the vile warmongering of Biden and his would-be successor Kamala Harris.

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

The post Trump Knows Ukraine Conflict Means Nuclear WWIII, Gives Peace a Chance With Russia’s Putin appeared first on LewRockwell.

Starting yesterday, scientists and military men from America’s black sites, both military and aerospace, are coming forward to claim knowledge and provide evidence of alien tech, alien bodies, anti-gravitics, zero-point energy — and medical tech that will change the face of medicine. Four of Trump’s initial executive orders to be tabled Monday, deal with disclosure of the above and more.

The revelations promise to upend every formalized religion, and supercharge the New Age. Dr. Steven Greer, who has dedicated his later career to this issue, investigating, briefing, pushing it forward, promises stunning revelations over the next weeks and months. Again, if true, why has this been hidden? How did the sequestration of vital civilization-changing information happen? What are the results of having done so?

What I got back was a look. Individually it said nothing, but collectively it told me there was a secret out there and that it was so big no one person held all the pieces. I knew too, that whatever it was, the secret had a dark heart, because I could sense the fear that held it in place.

-The Hunt for Zero Point, Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology by Nick Cook

Out there in the hinterlands a vast segment, a plurality I believe, of the population is obsessed with the various tropes of the new religion with no name, an amalgam of faiths, astrology, delerium and hope. Which bears an unnerving resemblance to that practiced around the time of the birth of Christ, crossed with a lot of alien ‘knowledge’ and galactic spiritualism, with a smattering of super-soldiers, Ancient Builder Races, and the war in the cosmos. It is difficult to say from whence this knowledge arose but one almost has sympathy with the Emperor Constantine who in 325 AD ‘regularized’ Christianity by burning apostates up and down Italy’s boot, then wildly into the Spanish, French, German territories, hollering the equivalent of SHUT UP for 1500 years.

Pre and post-Christ, religions proliferated, from the Dionysians running naked and screaming up in the hills, the locked-down monkish cult that was the Essenes, the still active pilgrims to Ephesus’ priestesses and prophets, enhanced by psychedelic beer. There were splinter cults upon cults, which Christianity added to in spades. The early Christian churches were run by women in their homes, and often consisted of consuming psychedelics while the handful of participants tried to discern God’s will and attain the spiritual gifts promised by Christ. A lot of talking, moving into praise and ecstatic trance, I suspect. (I am not criticizing or doubting here —the evidence of home churches is drawn from the Vatican’s library and the psychedelic evidence from close botanical analysis of vessels found in home/church excavations.)

Too damn dangerous, thought Rome, and called the Council of Niceae, at which point women were heavily demoted in the faith, and all that ancient knowledge was deemed tosh. Not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense. They were still burning witches in Scotland in the 1700’s and there is nothing more ….um….motivating for everyone to go to church on Sunday for their lesson on working for the man than the smoldering ruins of the local herbalist in the town square.

The Vatican kept records of the burnt, carefully listing every name, believe it or not. The writer who found them supposed the librarian priests were too disheartened to bother concealing the records after wrestling with Church pedophiles.

Plus ca le meme chose. For at least the past 70 years, the National Security State has been issuing a firehose of mis, dis and malformation crafted to make all those contemporary investigators seem like the town idiot. However, there are just too many educated people these days and they seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Generally speaking, people are suspicious, very very suspicious. They know more by several orders of magnitude than that which the National Security State would prefer them to know.

As a result there is so much evidence released in so many different ways, through serious institutes and serious thinkers like those at the Sol Foundation, through the New Agers at the Gaia channel, through serious archeologists making dozens of documentaries about ancient sites not permitted study in academia. There are hundreds if not thousands of UFO and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) conferences and meet ups a year. There are excavated bodies of Giants (Nephilim), tales of Tartaria, skeletons of supposed Andromedan/Pharaohs with the famed elongated skulls, tunnels and mounds and caves showing prior advanced civilizations, the evidence of which has been excised from academic literature, and not taught.

In the realms of the unbelievable, genetically enhanced super-soldiers report on secret wars in the Universe, structures on Mars, the Moon and the rings of Saturn, which these soldiers claim to have visited. On earth, in the stories of ancient sites, the megalith building was powered by handheld free energy handbag/machines which appear on friezes throughout the ancient world, on every continent. All this knowledge has been held to be rubbish by our gatekeepers.

Which brings us to official government disclosure. Which has been fought over bitterly, and advanced in tiny increments across the government. Apparently the Biden government had, within its Directorate of National Intelligence, a plan. This was how they were going to establish a reality, a quasi-reality, that they have hidden for the past 100 years, via throwing shade, mockery and the above firehose of claptrap propaganda, muddying the integrity of everyone who approached the subject.

But first, what is Zero Point Energy? From Nick Cook’s definitive book, here is a formal definition: It is the Holy Grail, the Temple Mount of energy production.

For some years, Millis replied, there had been a developing understanding that space was not the empty vacuum of traditional theory, but a seething mass of energy, with particles flashing in and out of existence about their “zero-point” baselines. Tests indicated that even in the depths of a vacuum chilled to absolute zero (minus 273.15°C)—the zero point of existence—this energy would not go away. The trouble was, no one knew quite where it was coming from. It was just there, a background radiation source that no one could adequately explain. With millions, perhaps billions, of fluctuations occurring in any given second, it was theoretically possible to draw some—perhaps a lot—of that energy from our everyday surroundings and get it to do useful work. If it could be “mined”—both on Earth and in space—it offered an infinite and potentially limitless energy source.

According to Jason Jordan, who considers himself a thought leader on zero point energy and who has connections within the deep state (who knows?) the office of Avril Haines, the about-to-be-ex Director of National Intelligence, had a schedule of disclosure on the table, about to go into action.

Read the Whole Article

The post Behind the Fight Against Hegseth and Gabbard: The Criminal Sequestration of Zero Point Energy and Alien Tech appeared first on LewRockwell.