Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, Saleh. Abdullah.

The post Klaus Schwab’s Daughter Confesses: ‘WEF Plans to Murder Billions of People’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

Daily Mail

The post Dem congressman Shri Thanedar famed for railing against Trump carried out unspeakable act against 118 beagles appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks Saleh Abdullah.

https://www.technocracy.news/the-technocracy-movement-in-1930s-wanted-to-merge-the-us-canada-and-greeland/ 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14663153/dystopian-Chinese-mega-city-laptops.html

https://www.thenerdreich.com/trumps-anti-freedom-cities-and-network-state-tech-dystopia/

The post The Technocracy Movement In 1930s Wanted To Merge The US, Canada and Greeland appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Republican-majority United States House of Representatives demonstrated this week, through votes on several relatively modest bills, that it will just keep demanding more US government spending and control. Republican representatives often claim to support limited government and frugality, but mostly they, and their Democratic Party colleagues, keep acting as government-loving spendthrifts.

In May of last year, I wrote about the House Republican leadership putting on the House floor for votes in one week several bills seeking to expand the power and scope of the nanny state — the nanny state Republican politicians routinely proclaim they oppose. One of those bills was the Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing Act (the TICKET Act) that sought to have the US government micromanage tickets for concerts and other events. That bill, HR 3950 in last year’s congress, was approved by a wide margin of 388 to 24 on the House floor but did not become law due to the Senate failing to act on it.

With a new congress having begun in January, the House Republican leadership decided to take an early try on making the TICKET Act law. This congress the bill is HR 1402. On Tuesday, this new version of the bill was approved by a wider margin — 409 to 15 — than obtained last year. Plus, it made it through the House much earlier in this congress than last, leaving more time for the Senate to act on the bill.

The Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act from that week in May of 2024 also was brought back by Republican House leadership for a vote this week in hopes that this time the Senate too will pass it. The battery bill (HR 973) was approved Monday on the House floor via a 365 to 42 vote, a little smaller margin than in the 378 to 34 vote last year’s version of the bill received.

Also on Monday, a voice vote on the House floor approved the American Music Tourism Act (HR 617). The bill tasks the US government with taking various actions to promote tourism in America in relation to music, sports, recreation, and “international meetings, incentives, conferences, and exhibitions.” So, the “small government Republicans” in charge of the House don’t think the free market can take care of this? That seems to be the case.

The House approved in another Monday voice vote the Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act (HR 452). Talk about redundant. The gold medals the bill orders be created would be given to three Olympics and hockey related entities in commemoration of the American ice hockey team’s accomplishment in the 1980 Olympics. As the bill itself states, the team members already won the gold medals that count — the ones awarded to victors at the Olympics: “Team USA defeated Finland 4–1 in its final game to win the gold medal, its first gold medal since 1960 in men’s hockey.” Why the need for the US government, subject to massive and growing debt, to come along 45 years later and award more gold medals?

Of course, these four bills approved on the House floor this week are small fry compared to other US government actions with much higher costs in terms of money spent, liberty restricted, property destroyed, and people killed and injured. But, when House members won’t even take the little step of rejecting the government expansions in these four bills, how can there be hope that these representatives will take the action needed to make major reductions in the size, power, and harmfulness of the US government?

Reprinted with permission from The Ron Paul Institute.

The post The House of Representatives Won’t Stop Approving Government Expansions appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Whatever they tax us, we tax them.” ~ Donald Trump

On April 2—President Trump’s “Liberation Day”—he imposed, then changed, and then delayed, reciprocal tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners. Said Trump: “We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they’ve been taking over the years.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Foreign firms don’t pay tariffs for the privilege of selling their goods in the U.S. market. The domestic importer files entry documents at the port of entry and pays the estimated customs duties based on the almost 4,000-page Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States published by the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements.

American consumers pay tariffs indirectly in the form of higher prices for imported goods, higher prices for domestic goods manufactured with imported raw materials, higher prices for domestic goods (raising the prices of imports opens the door for American companies to raise prices), as well as less consumer choice and fewer exports of finished goods (because of the higher prices of imported raw materials).

The mindset of those who advocate protectionism, national conservatism, economic nationalism, and industrial policy is that if other nations protect their favorite manufactures by imposing tariffs on imported American goods, then the American government ought in retaliation protect its favorite manufactures in the same way.

But a retaliatory tariff merely adds insult to injury. Those who clamor for expanded or higher tariff rates are calling for a tax on themselves.

Why do people think that if country x punishes its citizens by making them pay higher prices and have less consumer choice (when country x imposes tariffs on American goods), then the United States government should do likewise?

So, what can American exporters do about tariffs imposed on their goods when they enter a foreign market?

First of all, they can pressure foreign importers to pressure their governments to lower or eliminate the tariffs.

Second, they can lobby foreign governments to lower or eliminate the tariffs.

Third, they can negotiate with foreign importers and their governments to lower or eliminate the tariffs.

Fourth, they can persuade residents of foreign countries to petition their governments to lower or eliminate the tariffs.

Fifth, they can educate all relevant parties on the benefits of free trade and the harmfulness of tariffs.

There are several things that American exporters should absolutely not do about tariffs imposed on their goods when they enter a foreign market.

They should not pressure, lobby, negotiate, or persuade the U.S. government to institute tariffs or quotas on goods imported into America, enter into a managed trade agreement masquerading as a free trade agreement, calculate a trade deficit, start a trade war, or engage in Soviet-style central planning to determine which industries need to be protected, which countries should be targeted, which items should be subject to tariffs, how much of a tariff should be imposed, what exemptions should be given, what the duration of the tariff should be, and what conditions another country needs to meet to avoid the imposition of tariffs.

In a word, the U.S. government should do nothing. Just like it should do nothing if one company wants to purchase another, a business engages in “price gouging,” a business practices discrimination in hiring, a lender charges a “usurious” interest rate, workers go on strike, a company does not have “equal pay for equal work,” or an employee agrees with an employer to work for less than a “minimum” wage.

The post The Folly of Reciprocal Tariffs appeared first on LewRockwell.

You’re likely thinking that a discussion of “sound banking” will be a bit boring. Well, banking should be boring. And we’re sure officials at central banks all over the world today—many of whom have trouble sleeping—wish it were.

This brief article will explain why the world’s banking system is unsound, and what differentiates a sound from an unsound bank. I suspect not one person in 1,000 actually understands the difference. As a result, the world’s economy is now based upon unsound banks dealing in unsound currencies. Both have degenerated considerably from their origins.

Modern banking emerged from the goldsmithing trade of the Middle Ages. Being a goldsmith required a working inventory of precious metal, and managing that inventory profitably required expertise in buying and selling metal and storing it securely. Those capacities segued easily into the business of lending and borrowing gold, which is to say the business of lending and borrowing money.

Most people today are only dimly aware that until the early 1930s, gold coins were used in everyday commerce by the general public. In addition, gold backed most national currencies at a fixed rate of convertibility. Banks were just another business—nothing special. They were distinguished from other enterprises only by the fact they stored, lent, and borrowed gold coins, not as a sideline but as a primary business. Bankers had become goldsmiths without the hammers.

Bank deposits, until quite recently, fell strictly into two classes, depending on the preference of the depositor and the terms offered by banks: time deposits, and demand deposits. Although the distinction between them has been lost in recent years, respecting the difference is a critical element of sound banking practice.

Time Deposits. With a time deposit—a savings account, in essence—a customer contracts to leave his money with the banker for a specified period. In return, he receives a specified fee (interest) for his risk, for his inconvenience, and as consideration for allowing the banker the use of the depositor’s money. The banker, secure in knowing he has a specific amount of gold for a specific amount of time, is able to lend it; he’ll do so at an interest rate high enough to cover expenses (including the interest promised to the depositor), fund a loan-loss reserve, and if all goes according to plan, make a profit.

A time deposit entails a commitment by both parties. The depositor is locked in until the due date. How could a sound banker promise to give a time depositor his money back on demand and without penalty when he’s planning to lend it out?

In the business of accepting time deposits, a banker is a dealer in credit, acting as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers. To avoid loss, bankers customarily preferred to lend on productive assets, whose earnings offered assurance that the borrower could cover the interest as it came due. And they were willing to lend only a fraction of the value of a pledged asset, to ensure a margin of safety for the principal. And only for a limited time—such as against the harvest of a crop or the sale of an inventory. And finally, only to people of known good character—the first line of defense against fraud. Long-term loans were the province of bond syndicators.

That’s time deposits. Demand deposits were a completely different matter.

Demand Deposits. Demand deposits were so called because, unlike time deposits, they were payable to the customer on demand. These are the basis of checking accounts. The banker doesn’t pay interest on the money, because he supposedly never has the use of it; to the contrary, he necessarily charged the depositor a fee for:

1. Assuming the responsibility of keeping the money safe, available for immediate withdrawal, and
2. Administering the transfer of the money if the depositor so chooses by either writing a check or passing along a warehouse receipt that represents the gold on deposit.

An honest banker should no more lend out demand deposit money than Allied Van and Storage should lend out the furniture you’ve paid it to store. The warehouse receipts for gold were called banknotes. When a government issued them, they were called currency. Gold bullion, gold coinage, banknotes, and currency together constituted the society’s supply of transaction media. But its amount was strictly limited by the amount of gold actually available to people.

Sound principles of banking are identical to sound principles of warehousing any kind of merchandise, whether it’s autos, potatoes, or books. Or money. There’s nothing mysterious about sound banking. But banking all over the world has been fundamentally unsound since government-sponsored central banks came to dominate the financial system.

Central banks are a linchpin of today’s world financial system. By purchasing government debt, banks can allow the state—for a while—to finance its activities without taxation. On the surface, this appears to be a “free lunch.” But it’s actually quite pernicious and is the engine of currency debasement.

Central banks may seem like a permanent part of the cosmic landscape, but in fact they are a recent invention. The US Federal Reserve, for instance, didn’t exist before 1913.

Unsound Banking

Fraud can creep into any business. A banker, seeing other people’s gold sitting idle in his vault, might think, “What is the point of taking gold out of the ground from a mine, only to put it back into the ground in a vault?” People are writing checks against it and using his banknotes. But the gold itself seldom moves. A restless banker might conclude that, even though it might be a fraud on depositors (depending on exactly what the bank has promised them), he could easily create lots more banknotes and lend them out, and keep 100% of the interest for himself.

Left solely to their own devices, some bankers would try that. But most would be careful not to go too far, since the game would end abruptly if any doubt emerged about the bank’s ability to hand over gold on demand. The arrival of central banks eased that fear by introducing a lender of last resort. Because the central bank is always standing by with credit, bankers are free to make promises they know they might not be able to keep on their own.

How Banking Works Today

In the past, when a bank created too much currency out of nothing, people eventually would notice, and a “bank run” would materialize. But when a central bank authorizes all banks to do the same thing, that’s less likely—unless it becomes known that an individual bank has made some really foolish loans.

Central banks were originally justified—especially the creation of the Federal Reserve in the US—as a device for economic stability. The occasional chastisement of imprudent bankers and their foolish customers was an excuse to get government into the banking business. As has happened in so many cases, an occasional and local problem was “solved” by making it systemic and housing it in a national institution. It’s loosely analogous to the way the government handles the problem of forest fires: extinguishing them quickly provides an immediate and visible benefit. But the delayed and forgotten consequence of doing so is that it allows decades of deadwood to accumulate. Now when a fire starts, it can be a once-in-a-century conflagration.

Banking all over the world now operates on a “fractional reserve” system. In our earlier example, our sound banker kept a 100% reserve against demand deposits: he held one ounce of gold in his vault for every one-ounce banknote he issued. And he could only lend the proceeds of time deposits, not demand deposits. A “fractional reserve” system can’t work in a free market; it has to be legislated. And it can’t work where banknotes are redeemable in a commodity, such as gold; the banknotes have to be “legal tender” or strictly paper money that can be created by fiat.

The fractional reserve system is why banking is more profitable than normal businesses. In any industry, rich average returns attract competition, which reduces returns. A banker can lend out a dollar, which a businessman might use to buy a widget. When that seller of the widget re-deposits the dollar, a banker can lend it out at interest again. The good news for the banker is that his earnings are compounded several times over. The bad news is that, because of the pyramided leverage, a default can cascade. In each country, the central bank periodically changes the percentage reserve (theoretically, from 100% down to 0% of deposits) that banks must keep with it, according to how the bureaucrats in charge perceive the state of the economy.

In any event, in the US (and actually most everywhere in the world), protection against runs on banks isn’t provided by sound practices, but by laws. In 1934, to restore confidence in commercial banks, the US government instituted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) deposit insurance in the amount of $2,500 per depositor per bank, eventually raising coverage to today’s $250,000. In Europe, €100,000 is the amount guaranteed by the state.

FDIC insurance covers about $11 trillion of deposits, but the institution has assets of only $137 billion. That’s about one cent on the dollar. I’ll be surprised if the FDIC doesn’t go bust and need to be recapitalized by the government. That money—many billions—will likely be created out of thin air by selling Treasury debt to the Fed.

The fractional reserve banking system, with all of its unfortunate attributes, is critical to the world’s financial system as it is currently structured. You can plan your life around the fact the world’s governments and central banks will do everything they can to maintain confidence in the financial system. To do so, they must prevent a deflation at all costs. And to do that, they will continue printing up more dollars, pounds, euros, yen, and what-have-you.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Unsound Banking: Why Most of the World’s Banks Are Headed for Collapse appeared first on LewRockwell.

“One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle.”—James Otis, Revolutionary War activist, on the Writs of Assistance, 1761

What the Founders rebelled against—armed government agents invading homes without cause—we are now being told to accept in the so-called name of law and order.

Imagine it: it’s the middle of the night. Your neighborhood is asleep. Suddenly, your front door is splintered by battering rams. Shadowy figures flood your home, screaming orders, pointing guns, threatening violence. You and your children are dragged out into the night—barefoot, in your underwear, in the rain.

Your home is torn apart. Your valuables seized. Your sense of safety, demolished.

But this isn’t a robbery by lawless criminals.

This is what terror policing looks like in Trump’s America: raids by night, flashbangs at dawn, mistaken identities, and shattered lives.

On April 24, 2025, in Oklahoma City, 20 heavily armed federal agents from ICE, the FBI, and DHS kicked in the door of a home where a woman and her three daughters—all American citizens—were sleeping. They were forced out of bed at gunpoint and made to wait in the rain while agents ransacked the house, confiscating their belongings.

It was the wrong house. The wrong family.

There were no apologies. No compensation. No accountability.

This is the new face of American policing, and it’s about to get so much worse thanks to the President Trump’s latest executive order, which aims to eliminate federal oversight and empower local law enforcement to act with impunity.

Titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” the executive order announced on April 28, 2025, removes restraints on police power, offers enhanced federal protections for officers accused of misconduct, expands access to military-grade equipment, and nullifies key oversight provisions from prior reform efforts.

Trump’s supporters have long praised his efforts to deregulate business and government under the slogan of “no handcuffs.” But when that logic is applied to law enforcement, the result isn’t freedom—it’s unchecked power.

What it really means is no restraints on police power—while the rest of us are left with fewer rights, less recourse, and a Constitution increasingly ignored behind the barrel of a gun.

This isn’t just a political shift. It’s a constitutional unraveling.

These aren’t abstract freedoms—they’re the bedrock of the Bill of Rights: the Fourth Amendment’s shield against warrantless searches, the Fifth Amendment’s promise of due process, and the First Amendment’s guarantee that we may speak, protest, and petition without fear of state retaliation.

Yet the build-up of the police state didn’t begin with Trump. What he has done is seize upon decades of bipartisan failure—and strip away the last remaining restraints.

For years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, policing in America has grown more militarized, aggressive, and unaccountable. At times, there were modest attempts to rein in the worst excesses—like curbing the flow of military surplus equipment to local police—but these efforts were short-lived, inconsistent, and easily undone.

Trump’s executive order doesn’t just abandon those reforms. It bulldozes the guardrails. It hands law enforcement a blank check: more weapons, more power, and fewer consequences.

The result is not safety. It’s state-sanctioned violence.

It’s a future in which no home is safe, no knock is required, and no officer is ever held accountable.

That future is already here.

Just a few days before Trump signed the order, that reality played out in Oklahoma City when ICE, FBI, and DHS agents stormed the wrong home and terrorized a mother and her daughters.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.

In the 30 years since the first federal Crime Bill helped militarize local police forces, the use of SWAT teams has exploded. What was once a rare tactic for hostage situations is now used tens of thousands of times a year, often for nonviolent offenses or mere suspicion. These raids leave behind broken doors, traumatized children, and, too often, dead bodies. And yet, when families seek justice, they’re met with a legal wall called qualified immunity.

Under this doctrine, courts excuse even blatant misconduct by law enforcement unless an almost identical case has already been ruled unconstitutional. It’s legal sleight of hand—a get-out-of-jail-free card for government agents who trample on the Constitution.

We’ve entered an era in which federal agents can destroy your home, traumatize your family, and violate the Fourth Amendment with impunity. And the courts have said: that’s just how it works.

More than 80,000 SWAT raids now occur annually in the United States, most of them for nonviolent offenses like drug possession or administrative code violations.

Many are botched. Few are ever investigated.

In Martin v. United States, now before the Supreme Court, a heavily armed FBI SWAT team mistakenly stormed a Georgia home—armed with rifles, clad in tactical gear, and deploying a flashbang grenade—causing the family inside, with a 7-year-old son, to fear they were being burglarized.

The agents were supposed to raid a gang suspect’s house. Instead, they relied on faulty GPS and ended up at the wrong address, a block away from the intended target.

Only after detaining the family—forcing one family member onto the bedroom floor at gunpoint, and then pointing a gun in the mother’s face—did the officers realize their mistake.

The Rutherford Institute, alongside the National Police Accountability Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to deny qualified immunity for the agents. But if history is any guide, justice may prove elusive.

Just last year, the Court refused to hold a SWAT team leader accountable for raiding the wrong house, wrecking the wrong home, and terrorizing an innocent family.

In Jimerson v. Lewis, the SWAT team ignored clear differences between the actual target house and the Jimerson residence—missing house numbers, architectural mismatches, a wheelchair ramp where none should have been—and still received qualified immunity.

These rulings aren’t exceptions—they reflect a growing doctrine of unaccountability enshrined by the courts and now supercharged by the Trump administration.

Trump wants to give police even more immunity.

Brace yourselves for a new era of lawless policing.

President Trump’s call for a new crime bill that would further insulate police from liability, accountability and charges of official misconduct could usher in a new era of police brutality, lawlessness and the reckless deployment of lethal force on unarmed civilians.

This is how the rights of ordinary Americans get trampled under the boots of unchecked power.

Even when SWAT commanders disregard warrants, ignore addresses, and terrorize innocent families, the courts shield them from consequences.

These SWAT raids have become a thinly veiled, court-sanctioned excuse to let heavily armed police crash through doors in the dead of night. Too often, they’re marked by incompetence, devastation, and death—leaving a trail of broken homes and broken lives, while law enforcement escapes accountability.

There was a time in America when a person’s home was a sanctuary, protected by the Fourth Amendment from unlawful searches and seizures.

That promise is dead.

We have returned to the era of the King’s Writ—blanket search powers once used by British soldiers to invade colonial homes without cause. As James Otis warned in 1761, such writs “annihilate the privilege” of privacy and due process, allowing agents of the state to enter homes “when they please.”

Trump’s new executive order revives this tyranny in modern form: armored vehicles, night raids, no-knock warrants, federal immunity. It empowers police to act without restraint, and it rewards those who brutalize with impunity.

Even more alarming, the order sets the stage for future legislation that could effectively codify qualified immunity into federal law, making it nearly impossible for victims of police violence to sue.

This is how constitutional protections are dismantled—not in one dramatic blow, but in a thousand raids, a thousand broken doors, a thousand courts that look the other way.

Let’s not pretend we’re safe. Who will protect us from the police when the police have become the law unto themselves?

The war on the American people is no longer metaphorical.

Government agents can now kick in your door without warning, shoot your dog, point a gun at your children, and suffer no legal consequences—so long as they claim it was a “reasonable” mistake. They are judge, jury, and executioner.

With Trump’s new order, the architecture of a police state is no longer theoretical. It is being built in real time. It is being normalized.

It’s not just the poor, the marginalized, or the criminalized who should be afraid. It’s every homeowner, every parent, every citizen who still believes in the Bill of Rights.

Nowhere is this threat more visible than in the unholy alliance between ICE and militarized police forces.

This is where the danger deepens: when ICE and SWAT join forces, no one is safe.

This is more than just a problem of policing—it’s the convergence of two of the most dangerous arms of the modern security state: the merging of federal immigration enforcement with militarized domestic operations, creating a volatile blend of ICE lawlessness and militarized SWAT-style brute force.

Together, they’ve created a government apparatus that acts first and justifies itself later, if at all.

What used to be separate spheres—immigration enforcement and local policing—have now, under the pretense of national security, merged into a seamless operation of nighttime raids, heavy weaponry, blacked-out uniforms, and unmarked vehicles.

Armed federal agents, often operating in plainclothes and without clearly presented warrants, storm homes in the dead of night.

The distinction between a SWAT raid and an ICE operation has disappeared.

ICE agents—often masked, plainclothes, and operating without judicial oversight—are executing aggressive home invasions indistinguishable from SWAT team raids. These officers operate in secret, detaining individuals without clear warrants, sometimes without charges, and often without informing families of where their loved ones have been taken.

This alliance of ICE and SWAT has turned the American home into a battlefield, especially for those deemed politically inconvenient or “suspect” by the state.

These raids aren’t limited to those suspected of crimes.

Legal residents, asylum seekers, and even U.S. citizens have found themselves disappeared under vague claims of national security or immigration violations.

It is policing by fear and disappearance. And it runs counter to everything the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent: punishment without trial, surveillance without suspicion, and power without accountability.

When ICE agents armed with military-grade equipment conduct predawn raids alongside SWAT teams, with little to no accountability, the result is not public safety. It is state terror. And it’s exactly the kind of unchecked power the Constitution was written to prevent.

The Constitution is supposed to be a shield—especially the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. But in this new reality, the government has nullified that shield.

All of America is fast becoming a Constitution-free zone.

What started as an exception—the so-called Constitution-free zone at the border—is fast becoming the norm across America, where due process is optional, and law enforcement acts more like a domestic army than a public servant.

The government no longer needs to prove its authority in court before violating your rights. It only needs to assert it on your doorstep—with flashbangs and rifles at the ready.

The only castle left may be the one you’re willing to defend.

The Founders knew the dangers of unchecked power. That’s why they gave us the Fourth Amendment. But rights are only as strong as the public’s willingness to defend them.

If we allow the government to turn our homes into war zones—if we continue to reward police for lawless raids, ignore the courts for rubber-stamping abuse, and cheer political leaders who promise “no more handcuffs”—we will lose the last refuge of freedom: the right to be left alone.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the Constitution cannot protect you if the government no longer follows it—and if the courts no longer enforce it.

The knock may never come again. Just the crash of a door. The sound of boots. And the silence that follows.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Home Invasions on the Rise: Constitution-Free Policing in Trump’s America appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Catherine Fitts: Power Grids, Bankers vs. the West, Secret Underground Bases, and Extinction Events appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Protect America from America’s President,” screams a New York Times headline. “His officers grab people off the streets,” rants a columnist whose name reminds me of the nice doctor who administers colonoscopies. (Mind you, colonoscopies can benefit one; left-wing buffoons like Times columnists do not benefit anyone.) It is obvious even to the simpleminded that criminals are grabbed at times off the streets. As are illegal migrant criminals that Biden and his gang all but invited in. So the headline-grabbing “His officers grab people off the streets” is one big lie fed to the morons reading the mendacious Times.

“So what else is new?” you might ask. The election of The Donald was the greatest gift those grubby liars at the Times could have received. Trump has been known to go off half-cocked, as they say, and the American version of the Stalinist Pravda is there to pounce on anything and everything, and lie to its heart’s content. Its columnists go even further, inventing stories based on lies and fake news reported by Trump haters. And it gets better. “Trump’s lust for power and vengeance may one day be measured by more Americans dying of cancer, heart disease and other ailments.” This Times columnist now hints rather strongly that Trump’s funding freeze of overrich Harvard will be causing the cancer killing thousands of Americans every year. Readers of this column will not be fooled by such Stalin-like lies, but many others will. This is why the paper is so dangerous. It manages to connect totally unconnected matters in order to produce the Big Lie.

“The election of The Donald was the greatest gift those grubby liars at the Times could have received.”

“Time for a Civic Uprising” was another recent headline in the Pravda–Times. The writer this time was one David Brooks, not his name at birth, but I would say this was the least of his problems. He is actually asking for the great unwashed to rise up and revolt, the trouble being the great unwashed are mostly for Trump—it’s the wealthy and well housed who are against him. This so-called Brooks then asks for a “comprehensive national civic uprising” against the sitting president.

I suppose it is every American’s right to say whatever they want, even to demand for a mob to form and go after The Donald, but in this case all it proves is that the newspaper believes in the democratic system as much as Uncle Joe Stalin did. And this is why I fear that America’s future is not as secure as some seem to think. Before the social media revolution, the news media in America was a mouthpiece for the left. This separated the so-called elite from the average citizen. Needless to say, the peasants were not best pleased. The Donald’s election was the result. Yet elite billionaires like George Soros continue to undermine the will of the majority, and papers like the Times and the three main TV networks work in cahoots against the will of the many.

After the Great War of 1914–1918, Marx’s prophesy that a catastrophe would provoke the workers of the world to rise up against their oppressors came to nothing. Nada. Zilch. “Ah,” said the left, “the workers were corrupted by materialism.” This materialism, which in reality is good money earned for hard work, seems to have made Marxism and Communism redundant, except, of course, in elite universities, where well-paid professors impress young minds with hard-leftist rhetoric. It is an amazing example of failure—of the left, that is. You have the leftist media, liberal to left Hollywood, the artistic world way to the left, the educational system, Madison Avenue, and even Wall Street all leaning to the left, yet Trump wins big. How is that possible, asks the great Greek philosopher Taki. He then answers his own question, like all great philosophers tend to do: People will not tolerate forever the imposition by the elite of such ideas as patriotism being outmoded; national boundaries being nonexistent; people, cultures, and religions being identical; the family being an oppressive antisocial unit; all truth being deconstructable; and God being simply an illusion.

Let’s face it, the so-called elite class has always been a form of social as well as intellectual snobbery. But as the man in the street said, they pulled the chain once too often. People actually believe in God and country, in their race, their children, their color, and their background. The illusory world conjured by education, Hollywood, and biased news reporting and commentary was a psychological sleight of hand that the left overplayed. Suddenly the idiots had had enough. I actually think the proverbial straw that broke you-know-what was the criminal conspiracy to incriminate Trump for collusion with the Kremlin back in 2016. Ludicrously the Times and Washington Post and all the TV networks except for Fox played along. Trump was a Putin agent. The game was over. But then it wasn’t.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Paper Tigers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Amnesty International is now calling Israel’s mass atrocity in Gaza “a live-streamed genocide” due to the way this nightmare is unfolding right in front of us on the screens of our devices around the world, and public support for Israel is plummeting in the United States.

Zionists are losing control of the narrative, and they know it. And they are not taking it well.

During a speech at a summit hosted by the Jewish News Syndicate earlier this week, former US senator Norm Coleman said that Jews are “the masters of the universe” and should use their power in Silicon Valley to control online information in order to win a “digital war”.

Coleman, who is Jewish, made the following remarks on Monday:

“A majority of Gen Z have an unfavorable impression of Israel. And, my friends, I think the reason for that is that we’re losing the digital war. They’re getting their information from TikTok… and we’re losing that war.

“And when you think about it, the masters of the universe are Jews! We’ve got Altman at OpenAI, we’ve got [Facebook founder Mark] Zuckerberg, we’ve got [Google founder] Sergey Brin, we’ve got a group across the board. Jan Koum, y’know, founded WhatsApp. It’s us.

“And we have to figure out a way to win the digital battle. We’ve got to get our digital sneakers on, so that the truth can prevail over the lies. And when we do that, the future of Israel will be stronger because a majority of all Americans will support Israel. We’ll make that happen, we have to make it happen.”

“The masters of the universe are Jews!” former US Sen. Norm Coleman proclaims at the Jerusalem JNS policy summit, calling on Jewish tech industry CEO’s to counteract Gen Z’s growing support for Palestine

(Coleman was a warm-up act for Netanyahu) pic.twitter.com/JCRqWxpsXR

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) April 28, 2025

If any anti-Zionist with a public profile had said Jews control Silicon Valley and use it to influence public opinion for the benefit of Israel, they’d be forcefully denounced by the entire western political-media class as a rabid antisemite. But a Jewish politician saying Jews must use their control over Silicon Valley to influence public opinion about Israel receives no attention from that same political-media class.

Interestingly, at that same event, Meta’s “Jewish Diaspora” chief Jordana Cutler noted that Meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram “banned content claiming Zionists run the world or control the media.” Under Cutler’s own guidelines, the prior comments from her fellow attendee would have been banned if he had said them on Facebook instead of at the Jewish News Syndicate International Policy Summit.

Israel’s backers have been whining about losing control of the narrative for months.

In February, US Senator Lindsey Graham told the press at an event in Tel Aviv that in the Arab world “Israel has won the war on the ground, but they’ve lost it on television,” lamenting that “all they see is morning, noon and night attacks on the Palestinian people.”

The Arab world is seeing attacks on the Palestinian people morning noon and night because that is what’s happening. That is what the entire world is seeing.

In a talk at the McCain Institute last year, then-Senator Mitt Romney told then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Congress supports banning TikTok because it shares information that turns people’s opinions against Israel, saying such information has a “very, very challenging effect on the narrative.”

After bemoaning Israel’s lack of success at “PR” regarding its Gaza assault, Romney just came right out and said that this was “why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature” — with “us” meaning himself and his fellow lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

“How this narrative has evolved, yeah, it’s a great question,” Blinken responded, saying that at the beginning of his career in Washington everyone was getting their information from television and physical newspapers like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

“Now, of course, we are on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond,” Blinken continued. “And of course, the way this has played out on social media has dominated the narrative. And you have a social media ecosystem environment in which context, history, facts get lost, and the emotion, the impact of images dominates. And we can’t — we can’t discount that, but I think it also has a very, very, very challenging effect on the narrative.”

Notice how he said the word “narrative” three times? That’s how empire managers talk to each other, because that’s how they think about everything. Everything is about narrative control. It doesn’t matter what happens as long as you can control how people think about what happens.

During the university protests last year, Palantir CEO Alex Karp came right out and said that if those on the side of the protesters win the debate on this issue, the west will lose the ability to wage wars.

“We kind of just think these things that are happening, across college campuses especially, are like a sideshow — no, they are the show,” Karp said during his rant. “Because if we lose the intellectual debate, you will not be able to deploy any army in the west, ever.”

In an audio recording published by the Tehran Times in 2023, Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt is heard saying “We really have a TikTok problem” and calling for more aggressive online narrative operations to control public opinion about Israel among young people.

In the audio recording, whose authenticity was confirmed by the ADL, Greenblatt says the following:

“I also wanna point out that we have a major major major generational problem. All the polling that I’ve seen, ADL’s polling, ICC’s polling, independent polling suggests this is not a left or right gap, folks. The issue in United States’ support for Israel is not left and right: it is young and old. And the numbers of young people who think that Hamas’s you know massacre was justified is shockingly and terrifyingly high. And so we really have a Tik-Tok problem, a Gen-Z problem, that our community needs to put the same brains that gave us Taglit, the same brains that gave us all these other amazing innovations, need to put our energy toward this like, fast. Cause again like we’ve been chasing this left-right divide. It’s the wrong game. The real game is the next generation, and the Hamas and their accomplices, the useful idiots in the West, are falling in line in ways that are terrifying.”

“We think these things that are happening across college campuses are a sideshow. No, they are the show.”

“If we lose the intellectual debate, you will not be able to deploy any army in the West, ever.”#Palantir CEO Alex Karp at #SCSPAIExpo2024 pic.twitter.com/MwQoDlSMFw

— Palantir (@PalantirTech) May 8, 2024

Israel’s backers are losing control of the narrative because there’s only so much that PR spin can do to convince people they’re not seeing what’s right in front of their eyes. If you’re strangling someone right in front of me there are no words you can say to me to convince me I’m not seeing someone being strangled, no matter how skillful you are at manipulation.

Actions speak louder than words. Talk is cheap. A picture is worth a thousand words. These aphorisms exist for a reason. Past a certain point there is only so much that mountains of verbiage can accomplish when people are seeing history’s first live-streamed genocide playing out right before their eyes.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. The average human life is dominated by mental stories, so if you can control the stories they are telling about what’s going on, you can control the humans.

Losing narrative control is losing real power. That’s why Israel’s supporters are growing increasingly anxious.

___________________

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

The post Israel’s Backers Keep Whining That They’re Losing Control of the Narrative appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Wednesday, April 30th, the AP headlined “US, Ukraine sign economic deal after Trump presses Kyiv to pay back US for help in repelling Russia”, and reported that, “The U.S. and Ukraine announced on Wednesday an economic agreement after a weekslong press by President Donald Trump on Ukraine to compensate Washington for billions in military and economic assistance to help Ukraine repel the Russian invasion.”

America will continue shipping U.S.-made weapons from firms such as Lockheed Martin (paid for by U.S. taxpayers) to Ukraine against Russia, as before, but American investors will get (besides boosted stock-valuations on those U.S. firms) some booty from Ukraine in the form of co-ownership of Ukrainian minerals etcetera that the U.S. Government will then buy (again with U.S. taxpayer money) from those American investors’ firms. The killing and dying in that war will continue, and it is, as it was at the war’s start in 2014 by Obama’s coup that started the war in Ukraine, a war by the U.S. against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine.

That article, posted at Yahoo News, has “8.5K Comments” as-of my writing this on Wednesday night, and here are the two reader-comments that have thus far gotten the highest numbers of reader-approvals:

jon
Economics will force Putin to get a peace deal. If the oil price remains below $70 a barrel, Putin will have to cave in. Nearly 65% of Russian revenue comes from oil, if the price remains below $70, they lose money. The US must do everything possible to keep the price of oil low.
580
nfar
Once this deal is signed, then America will have legitimate skin in this game and an economic reason for being in Ukraine. Russia can then back off somewhat gracefully since they’ve lost and Ukraine will no longer be just a proxy – Putin is by no means willing to actually take on the United States regardless of his saber-rattling and hints about using nukes. That’s not goiong to happen, at least not with Russia.
372

Both of those comments presume five things: ONE: Putin started the war in February 2022, instead of the reality which was that Obama started it in February 2014, and had started it in the planning stages by no later than June 2011. TWO: The war was started because Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and add it to Russia, instead of the reality that it was started because the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945 (and then reaffirmed again by President GHW Bush on 24 February 1990 — and continued by all post-WW2 U.S. Presidents except JFK after WW2) wants to conquer Russia and add it to America’s empire; Ukraine just happens to have — and this is the crux of the matter — the nearest border to being able to blitz-nuke The Kremlin from a mere 317 miles away (in Ukraine), and is therefore the best staging-area for the U.S. to conquer Russia from. THREE: This war isn’t a must-win matter for the Russian people’s national security; and, so, if Russia were to lose it, “Russia can then back off somewhat gracefully since they’ve lost and Ukraine will no longer be just a proxy.” But, actually, all of that is false. FOUR: “Nearly 65% of Russian revenue comes from oil.” But, actually, only around 20% does, and this includes not MERELY from “oil,” but from both oil and gas together. FIVE: The U.S. has the world’s best military, instead of the reality, that Russia does.

How is it possible for America to be a functioning democracy if its public has been so consistently and so long misinformed about national and international affairs as America’s public obviously is? It isn’t, and it’s not.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

The post Trump Continues Obama’s War Against Russia in Ukraine, as Biden Did. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Just days ago I discussed the bizarre response to RFK Jr.’s remarks on the urgency of addressing the autism problem: people whose children’s autism involves quirkiness or social awkwardness pretended to be offended that anyone would think their children needed to be “cured.”

He wasn’t talking about your children, you attention-seeking weirdos.

Well, since that time I’ve gotten to know Sarah Kernion, mom of three children, two of whom have profound, non-speaking autism.

She says the “neurodiversity” movement, which prefers to focus on milder forms of autism, which in turn it is trying to transform into yet another “identity” Americans can claim, prefers to ignore cases like hers, even though such children amount to 25 percent of all cases of autism.

Sarah’s 10-year-old and 7-year-old cannot feed themselves or go to the bathroom by themselves, and will almost surely need 24/7 care for the rest of their lives.

She just wrote this (these are only excerpts; all emphasis in original):

The neurodiversity movement needs to decide:

Does it make room for profound autism – or just for public relations?
Does it want inclusion – or just applause?

Because I’m not asking for a seat at the table anymore.
I’m building a new one – for the mothers who’ve been locked out….

There are the “good” mothers – the ones who keep their trauma tidy.
And there are the rest of us – the ones who tell the truth in real time.

We speak about bruises, broken windows, school calls, regressions, diapers at 14.

We speak about how long we’ve gone without sleep, how many doors we’ve replaced, how many therapists we’ve cycled through.

We speak about grief. Ours. Theirs. Unspoken, unsolved, sacred.

We speak, because if we don’t, nobody will know what’s happening behind our closed doors.

She refers to an effort to

consolidate “acceptable” stories about autism into one singular, sunny brand.

One that’s easier to fund, market, retweet, and present to a company’s DEI committee.

In this version of the story:

There’s no violence. No agony. No desperation.

No mothers sobbing in the grocery store bathroom after carrying a screaming child past the stares and whispers.

No mothers crying in their car after being told “your child doesn’t qualify for a one-to-one aide.”

No children with shattered iPads and open bite marks.

No schools that say, “We can’t help him anymore.”

Well, I just spoke to Sarah Kernion on the Tom Woods Show, and I think you should hear it:

https://tomwoods.com/ep-2638-i-have-two-severely-autistic-children-the-neurodiversity-movement-wants-to-silence-us/

Now I never, ever, appeal to a podcaster to feature a certain guest. It’s tacky. I am making an exception for Sarah, who has made an open appeal to Joe Rogan. She thinks he could be the only person willing to listen, and who can break the wall of silence.

Here’s my post on X for Sarah. Feel free to repost (but do not neglect to listen to the episode):

https://x.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1917699019511415124

The post We Must Break This Rule, Now appeared first on LewRockwell.

(A cashless society truly is a scary world. Picture everything that you’ve read about in history books within other totalitarian regimes, and you’ll get a taste of what is to come.)

Cash is one of the last man-made means of protection that he or she has against governments that have grown to a degree of power that they never had before.

The Dangers of a Cashless Society

There are two predominant dangers that come with a cashless society, and just about every negative that you can think of due to such will fall into one of these two groups:

1. Denial of purchasing power
2. A complete loss of anonymity

Denial of Purchasing Power

A cashless society is a controlled society. If everything must go through an online banking or credit card process, then you have just lost virtually all control over what you buy.

Anything that is not politically sanctioned(guns, ammo, body armor, helmets, particular books, particular website premium subscriptions, political donations, etc.) could very easily be vaporized overnight.

This, of course, would drive the makers and holders of such products into a black market to barter their goods, and this in turn would be responded to by the use of overwhelming government force. This will come in the form of Stryker vehicles, concussion grenades, snipers, and men with automatic rifles and body armor.

Don’t believe me? Read FA Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Totalitarian governments must resort to force simply for the sole reason that people will naturally refuse to comply with widespread theft of their own goods. This force will only continue to grow in its usage.

Totalitarians do not accept blame for their own economical failures. The state is the end of all things to them, and as such, the end justifies the means – no matter how terrifying such a means may be.

A Complete Loss of Anonymity

Once cash is abolished everywhere, your attempts at any form of anonymity will be destroyed.

You already have an amazing amount of data that has been collected from you from your Internet search history, GPS data, voting history, bank statements, credit card statements, phone data, and a host of other publicly available information that easily allows people to deduce information from you.

And where humans fail, algorithms thrive. I have a hobby interest in algorithm creation (particularly multiple linear regression analysis) and have used it within my healthcare job as a means of predicting patient attendance rather accurately on any given day. I’ve also used them to (somewhat less accurately) predict when a patient was going to have episodes of heart block.

Algorithms are a powerful tool, and the more data you feed them, the stronger they get. With the amount of data that has been collected on you already, the government may be able to make a much stronger prediction about who you are, what you believe, and what you possess than you would’ve ever thought possible.

Just think about what a cashless society would mean for the following purchases:

• Medicine – The government can now invade your medical privacy to see what meds you need to live as well as know what could either improve or hamper your condition. For those who don’t believe that this is a concern, just keep in mind that it wasn’t that long ago that the US military was warning its soldiers against getting genetic testing to determine their family tree. Why? Because it was deemed to be a security risk. What do they know here that we don’t?
• Food – Algorithms can easily predict when you are buying much more than what you could eat within a particular span of time. This then means that food stores can be predicted and located. Come disaster time, your house could easily be one of the first that is targeted for “hoarding”. And what happens if it’s determined that those with large food stores are likely to be “domestic terrorists”?
• Firearms and Body Armor – This is the low-hanging fruit here. Weapons, ammunition, body armor – they could all be easily tracked (and later confiscated). Buying “too much” of one particular product may cause red flags to be attached to your file, and you could very easily end up with a visit from an alphabet agency full of men carrying what is now a felony for you to own.
• Ham Radios – There already seems to be an attack against ham radio users as the government has realized that this is the route that many fearing censorship/silencing are turning toward. If you can shut down all communication other than what is government sanctioned, you have effectively silenced free speech.
• Media – Do you like to watch documentaries that may be labeled as conspiracy theories? Is it that hard to imagine a “misinformation tax” to discourage Americans from imbibing in certain forms of media? Why not? We’ve already seen the “death by a thousand cuts” approach being used with firearms so that the argument can be made that “no, you can have a gun, but you just have to fill out these fifty forms, pay a $4000 fee, and have a license. See? There’s no infringement whatsoever.”

To think that the same idea couldn’t be applied to the news commentators that you like to listen to is naive.

Here are some arguments that will be used for a cashless society:

Physical Money Shortages

Throughout 2024 we were told that there was a coin shortage throughout the U.S.

As a result, retailers either quit giving coin change back or strongly discouraged customers from asking for it.

Kroger actually resorted to either giving you back your money in the form of credit vouchers (to that particular store of course) or by donating the change that they owed you to charity.

Control Over Dangerous and Illegal Purchases

In what can only be viewed as an incredibly ironic wordsmithing, we will be told that one of the benefits to a cashless society is that we can finally rein in purchases that are deemed by the government to be dangerous to the public.

Guns, ammunition, freedom-oriented books (“radical terrorist recruiting material”), and the like will be argued against so that we can keep our society safe. Notice that there is always an emphasis on safety throughout this entire process.

A Fomite of Disease

Once again, 2024 set the stage here. Cash purchases plummeted worldwide, with credit cards filling in the void as people began to avoid any and all cash purchases with the hopes of not getting themselves sick.

This was a talking point spouted throughout the mainstream media in 2020 and will continue to be used in the future as the push for the abolition of cash continues.

Cost of Creation Outweighs the Actual Value of Money

We see this already with the US penny. It actually costs 2.41₵ to produce a single penny.

While our government currently has no problem with making fiscally irresponsible decisions, when it finally does come around to deciding that “you know what, pennies aren’t worth it” – or any other form of cash for that matter – there will be nobody that will argue against them.

This decision will be portrayed as a means of reducing wasteful spending, and anyone who argues against this given reasoning for the abolition of cash will be labeled as an idiot who can’t do proper math.

Read the Whole Article

The post Warning of Cashless Societies appeared first on LewRockwell.

About a month or so ago on March 23 I posted on this website my memoir of my time in the Reagan administration which had just been published in The Independent Review, a readable quarterly.  I expected to hear more than I did in response to my memoir, because I spelled out how difficult it is for a presidential appointee to actually support the policy of the President. See this.

Then it occurred to me that the Reagan administration was a long time ago, 1981-1988. President Reagan’s term ended 37 years ago.  So an American 50 years old today was 13 years old when Reagan’s second term ended.  He was 5 years old when Reagan was elected president. A 50 year old American never experienced the Reagan administration. A 60 year old American was only 15 when Reagan took office. The vast majority of Americans alive today know nothing of the Reagan administration except the accounts of the presstitute media and historians grinding ideological axes.  Yet, somehow, Americans say they miss Reagan, the last American president. 

With Trump’s first 100 days behind us,  MAGA Americans are touting his successes and the Democrats are multiplying his “failures.”  

Let me tell you about a real successful president–Ronald Reagan–Perhaps the only successful president in the 20th century. Reagan had two major successes.  I know because I was part of them.  Reagan cured stagflation–the simultaneous rise of inflation and unemployment– with his supply-side policy, and he ended the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  Tell me, what American president has had such extraordinary successes?

Reagan’s success was covered up with media hype about “the teflon President,” with the neoconservatives’s Iran/Contra scandal, with “the Reagan deficits” that belong to David Stockman and Paul Volcker.

American historians, academics who guarantee their careers by justifying the various atrocities their governments commit, rank the top five US presidents as Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower in that order. See this. 

Lincoln destroyed the Constitutional framework based on states’ rights as designed by the Founding Fathers.  Lincoln introduced war against civilians as an essential part of war against the opposing army. Today the International Criminal Court would recognize Lincoln as a war criminal and issue arrest warrants.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, ranks 7 after Harry S. Truman, who nuked two Japanese civilian cities while the Japanese government was pleading with Washington for peace.

John F. Kennedy comes in 8th, Ronald Reagan 9th, Barack Obama, who bombed 7 countries comes in 10th, and President Lyndon Johnson–“LBJ, LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today”–comes in 11th.

What we see here are the liberals, not willing to dethrone the first American president, or a Founding Father who wrote the Declaration of Independence, or John F. Kennedy a martyr, or Reagan whose popularity remains high, shielding themselves from partisanship by including Jefferson, Kennedy, and Reagan in the second tier of successful presidents..

Lincoln destroyed the US Constitution which is based on states rights.  He conducted a war of war crimes against an agricultural society that could not afford to pay the Morrill Tariff in order to industrialize the North at the expense of the South. No sooner than the South was destroyed, the Union launched a war of extermination against the native American Plains Indians, the same Union Generals–Sherman and Sheridan–the same Union soldiers that raped and pillaged the South repeated the application to the remaining Native Americans.  As Lincoln’s reward for genocide, he is voted by American historians as the best ever–the Number One-of all American presidents.

Franklin D. Roosevelt gets the third ranking, because he replaced the power of Congress with the power of regulatory agencies.

Theodore Roosevelt is bestowed the 4th ranking because he established the American policy of empire and hegemony.

One assumes Eisenhower’s fifth rank is because he is alleged to have won World War II for the US.

Truman is 6th because he nuked Japan, thus putting the Soviet Union on notice.

If you look at these achievements, Washington and Jefferson, aside, Ronald Reagan at number 9 on the list is the only one who rescued America from an economic catastrophe and a Cold War that could have turned hot.

Liberals and what passes for a left-wing say that Reagan was just another fake, another warmonger committed to the Soviet Union’s destruction.  But a president who was a fake would never, ever, put me in charge of his  economic policy, nor would he appoint me to a secret presidential committee to verity or disprove the CIA’s argument against ending the Cold War. I am the last person on earth that a fake President wants to hand a Presidential Appointment or a decision on a critical foreign policy issue.

So, now that we have all of the congratulatory and denunciatory accounts of Trump’s 100 Days, what do they mean?  

Trump did a good thing in service to justice when he pardoned and released from prison the framed-up-by-the-Biden-anti-American-regime American citizens who used their Constitutional rights to protest a stolen presidential election.  But the corrupt persons who framed up innocent Americans have not been arrested and indicted, as they should be.  Why is Trump focused on Ukraine rather than on those who framed innocent Americans as “insurrectionists”?

The Democrats have shown that they will strongly resist Trump’s rollback of the legal privileges Democrats created for DEI-designated-persons and for immigrant-invaders. Democrat district court judges, the lowest of the low, have claimed the right to decide the power of the President of the United States to govern. Trump’s reply is that he abides by judicial rulings. Trump is relying on the Supreme Court to overturn the district  courts, but if that doesn’t happen, will Trump fight?

Trump himself makes deals with Zelensky and claims they are deals Putin must accept. This is nonsensical. The conflict is between the US and Russia.  The deal has to be made between Trump and Putin.

The real problem is the  neoconservative doctrine of American hegemony  As long as American foreign policy is based on Paul Wolfwitz’s doctrine, there can be no peace.

Trump has not repudiated the doctrine of American hegemony.  Until he does, how can Putin trust him?

The post After 100 Days Where Are We? appeared first on LewRockwell.

* Warning: indelicate language.

If we in the West are the most propagandized people in the world; Gazans are the least propagandized. Outwardly captives, Gazans are liberated from the illiberal political propaganda that grips the West

WHAT has Israel been up to since March 18, 2025, which was when the “genocidal entity” formally broke the nominal ceasefire agreement in Gaza? Oracular insight here is unnecessary.

Israel has been trampling underfoot everything decent and good.

Genocide is back. This time with President Trump in fawning agreement, playing procurer and pimp for the Israeli State, and subjecting ingrate Bibi Netanyahu to no more than a curt jerk of the leash: During a press conference with the US president, on April 7, the Israeli prime minister’s face, nevertheless, grew as dark as a thundercloud on mention of possible diplomacy with Iran.

Under such favorable circumstances, Israelis are louder and prouder about killing and destroying with monomaniacal diligence. Indifferently, and for the first time, Israel openly admitted to targeting journalist Hussam Shabat for “elimination,” in December of 2024, and executing the him on March 24. The sadistic serial killer stalked its prey, then pounced.

The predator has so far singled out and assassinated 232 other Palestinian journalists.

Shabat thus knew, as he put it, that “journalism meant Israel would kill him.” Only 23, so full of promise, Shabat wrote his epitaph in advance of his death. It read:

“If you’re reading this, it means I have been killed — most likely targeted — by the Israeli occupation forces. … For [the] past 18 months, I have dedicated every moment of my life to my people. I documented the horrors in northern Gaza minute by minute, determined to show the world the truth they tried to bury.

I slept on pavements, in schools, in tents — anywhere I could. Each day was a battle for survival. I endured hunger for months, yet I never left my people’s side.”

By God, I fulfilled my duty as a journalist. I risked everything to tell the truth, and now, at last, I have found rest—something I have not known for the past 18 months. I did this because I believe in the Palestinian cause, in our right to this land. The greatest honor of my life was to die defending it and serving its people.

I ask you now: Do not stop speaking about Gaza. Do not let the world look away. Keep fighting, keep telling our stories—until Palestine is free.

For the last time,

Hussam Shabat, from northern Gaza.”

Trampling underfoot everything decent and good: Fatma Hassona was to be the subject of an upcoming documentary, “Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk,” to debut at the Cannes Film Festival. Israel could not allow that. So, Air Force Genocide bombed the 25-year-old Palestinian photojournalist, also murdering nine members of her family.

After a brief, relative lull, eighteen months into the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza, Israel has resumed its slaughter of civilians at an average rate of 103 souls a day, with 223 individuals dealt life-altering injuries, also daily. Since March 18, reports Ha’aretz, Israel has killed 1,652 people and wounded 4,391 in strikes on Gaza. (Ha’aretz “Israel News” newsletter, Wednesday, 16.04.2025.) The number murdered now approaches 2,000.

With 62,000 Palestinians missing, over 52,000 confirmed dead; and indirect deaths ranging from three to fifteen times the number of direct deaths, by the Lancet’s account—the fake, fossilized media should be obligated to report the official number of Palestinians dead by Israel as well over 100,000. That too is a vast undercount.

The mind is crowded. Palestinians murdered melt into a montage of faces. Yet remember we must men like Rifaat Radwan. Radwan was among fifteen medical and humanitarian workers who were summarily executed pointblank, on March 23, by the Israeli regime in Gaza.

The underworld that is the IDF (Israel Defense Forces)—the world criminals and lawbreakers inhabit—is premised upon lies. By now you know The Liar’s lines, as he drops American “earthquake bombs” on kids at community kitchens:

“Hamas. Terrorism. If Palestinians die; they needed killing.”

But Satan’s non sequiturs can’t conceal the truth—or silence the deeply felt devotionals of the righteous. As the SS IDF stood above him, riddling his colleagues and himself with thousands of bullets, Radwan, Palestinian Red Crescent Society medic, did not beg the agents of his demise. Instead, he recorded their crime for posterity while righteously reciting his last prayers. These are achingly beautiful:

“Oh Lord, accept us. Oh Lord, accept me as a martyr. Mother, forgive me. This is the path I chose … that I help people. … .” Until he expired.

As Monday of April 7 dawned, a Wi-Fi rigged world watched a funeral pyre of Palestinians, except that the people Israel lit up were alive. The IDF incinerated “a tent housing Palestinian journalists in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip.”

Late last year, when teenager Shaban al-Dalou smoldered alive, the presstitutes did what they always do: Fudge the English language in the service of Israel. To shore up this oppressive foreign regime, media deploy euphemisms and the passive voice; syntactic devices that mask the excruciating death of a boy kind, beautiful and bright, who was driven by devotion to kin and community.

“Killed in a fire,” media said about Shaban’s murder. The same fate has now befallen Helmi Al-Faqaawi, “a correspondent for Palestine Today News Agency, and Youssef Al-Khazandar, a civilian assisting the group of journalists.” Photojournalist Ahmed Mansour, seen in images engulfed in flames, is fighting for his life in Gaza.

Does Mansour have a fighting chance, what with the last barely functional hospital in the Strip having been obliterated by Israel? On the morning of Palm Sunday, IDF fiends flattened the Al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital, which had stood since 1882. “Burning a journalist alive in Gaza, exclaimed Lima Bustami, Euro-Med Monitor’s legal department director, “is not aimed at silencing the truth. Israel already relies on a far greater force: the world’s indifference to the truth.”

With a world of indifference as backdrop, Israel set ablaze yet more civilians in tents on April 17. (And still more again on April 21.) Seventeen Palestinian civilians, including nine children, were dispatched, apparently, dead by “waves of [some sort].” Yes, even Al Jazeera has caught the botched-English bug, writing that, on April 18, “a wave of Israeli air strikes” killed them.

Another trope of the malpracticing media is to qualify the daily carnage in Gaza with the clause, “mostly women and children.” Or, “Including many women and children.” As though Palestinian men were fare game.

This genocide exclusionary clause is pronounced among the vanishingly small number of conservative influencers who have registered their objection to Israel’s crimes. Out of Christian charity, these influencers allow that the murdered are “women and children,” for the most. Or, that among the murdered are Christians. This from creedal conservatives who otherwise champion the centrality of men and manliness in society.

This from the same conservatives who must surely know that Jesus Christ stood not for sectarian favoritism, but for the universal value of all human beings.

“Meet the Palestinian men the media don’t want you to know exist,” narrates Lara Elborno, a Palestinian daughter, human-rights attorney and activist. This here is a woman who can speak both poignantly and with authority about Palestinian men. By now, so can we. And it is the men of Palestine whom we’ve watched on our screens first to the scenes of slaughter. They dig, carry, evacuate, comfort, perform religious rites of burial, and cry when lulls allow.

The contrast between Palestinian men and the IDF stares at you like blood on a Kaffan, the traditional Palestinian shroud.

At bottom, the most cowardly army known in military history doesn’t engage in battles. The IDF is an air force: It strafes civilians from above. Since it broke the ceasefire, Israel has conducted daily massacres by airstrikes, shelling, and drone strikes, reports Jon Elmer, military analyst for the Electronic Intifada. Well over 1000 such airstrikes—fifty a day—have seen nearly 600 children and babies blown to bits.

With every avenue of ingress and egress sealed off by the Israelis for the last six weeks, fuel to power earth-moving machinery is unavailable. So when, on April 10, thirty-five civilians were murdered and fifty injured by warplanes strafing a “densely populated residential block,” in a Shuja’iyya neighborhood—civil defense teams, Palestinians, were on the scene. They always are. How they do it nobody knows. They currently use trawls, spades, finger nails and faith to get at the trapped.

Ugly and evil seeks to eradicate its opposites. Reflexively do the West’s brash, technocratic, atomistic and irreligious societies aim to eradicate communities unlike their own. Decadently woke and cruelly impersonal Gaza is not. Gaza, attests Zahad Rahman, an American nurse who volunteers in what remains of the enclave, is a community-centered, gracious society. Rahman is not a Palestinian. Israel has murdered more than 1,000 individuals like him—”members of the medical, defense and aid teams in Gaza,” confirms B’Tselem (an Israeli human rights organization). Despite the risk, like so many medical volunteers who go to Gaza, Rahman has found himself drawn back to people who will give you their shirt in zero weather.

In the Ramadan tradition of “cultivating empathy,” in the ruins, Gazans thus laid tables to celebrate. Eid al-Fitr, in particular, explains Imam Dr. Omar Suleiman, a scholar and theologian, “is meant to continue that empathy into our celebrations. On the morning of Eid, every Muslim is required to pay Zakat al-Fitr—a form of charity designed to ensure that no one is left out of the feast. It is a beautiful practice: a way of saying that joy is only complete when shared, that our celebration is meaningless if others are starving.”

Inescapably, Eid al-Fitr spirituality was shattered by Israeli barbarity.

On April 3, Israel murdered 92 worshippers. A volunteer doctor from Gaza Medic Voices spent Eid, which marks the conclusion of Ramadan, cutting away party clothes from the bodies of kids dressed to the nines for Eid. By day’s end, the number of human beings murdered had swelled. Little girls festively dressed were, instead, transported to the morgue, jewelry and finery shrouded in the garments of death.

While 100 Palestinian kids are now “killed or injured in Gaza every day,” since [genocide] resumed,” Israelis have gone and slapped a disability classification on “over 20,000” of their own safe and sated offspring. Victims of terror, claim the Israeli State’s mental-health mavens.

The Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is an ever-mutating manual, now in its fifth iteration. The criteria for manufacturing illness under the DSM, or similar industry-developed manuals, are malleable. In real life, no psychiatric manual required, tens of thousands of Palestinian children are being terrorized, are actually dead, mutilated, mentally scarred for life, orphaned without a soul in the world.

Still, one can well-understand why their Israeli adversaries—predators parading as prey—would want to tar even the Palestinian toddler as an irremediable terrorist-in-the-making. Like so many of their formative figures, Palestinian children are formidable, fierce.

Amid the worry and wear of finding food and staying alive, a slip of a girl composes and recites the poetry of resistance:

“I’m Palestinian and proud.”

“I’m proud because I’m the strong brave girl, the daughter of heroes.”

“The daughter of Gaza, the land of the free…”

And so she goes in modulated, melodic Arabic. Here another young Palestinian girl stops her idol, the late Mr. Shabat, aforementioned, to tell him of her admiration. When she grows up; she wants to be a brave journalist like her hero, since martyred. These are very centered children.

If we in the West are the most propagandized people in the world; Gazans are the least propagandized. Outwardly captives, Gazans are liberated from the illiberal political propaganda that grips the West.

And Gabi Siboni knows this. The former IDF colonel, now an unthinking member of Israel’s think-tank ranks, reflects Jewish-Israeli public and political discourse. For Gazans Siboni expresses genocidal contempt and intent—but also a warped understanding of Gazan ferocity about liberating their ancestral homeland. Said Siboni:

“Hamas is not the problem in Gaza. Hamas is a symptom of a bigger problem. The population in Gaza is a ‘barbaric mob.’ If we don’t wish to bleed our soldiers for decades—because in Gaza there will be Hamas B and C—the only solution is Trump’s ‘vision.'”

Sidoni is a lot more honest, and only a tad less subtle, than the oleaginous Bernie Sanders, an unreconstructed liberal Zionist.

Gaza is no more because of a concerted campaign to wipe it out; because of extermination and depopulation; not because of “Israeli self-defense,” which is when one sovereign state wards off the armies of other sovereign nation-states. Yet “in the year 2025,” Sanders’ mass rallies are festooned with the line, “Israel has a right to defend itself.”

Bernie Sanders’ sophistry should explode the brain like an ammunition dump!

In international law, explains Philip Proudfoot, a British political scientist, “Occupation is temporary, imposing duties, not rights, upon the occupier. The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly demands that an occupier safeguard civilian rights. Accordingly, Israel cannot resort to anything more than police powers to ‘defend itself.’”

Genocide is the acid test. Sanders’ insistence, well into genocide, that “Israel has a right to defend itself can only be interpreted as blatant genocide apologia,” propounds Caitlin Johnstone. Clearly an expert in untruths, Sanders, who oversaw the removal from his rallies of protesters and their Free Palestine flag, has further exposed himself as a slick establishment operative, who seeks to capture naïve, politically homeless Democrats.

Back to the malodorous cauldron of death and decadence that is the Israel Defense Forces. (Or perhaps the Israel Defense Feces?)

A new load of grief came, in March, to residents of the al-Faraa refugee camp in the foothills of the Jordan Valley, in the northern occupied West Bank. Slatternly IDF soldiers have a familiar signature. They leave behind human waste in the homes they wreck:

“Feces, urine and used condoms—these are just some of the things that Israeli soldiers left behind in these Palestinian homes during their 11-day assault [in March],” reports the Electronic Intifada.

That the IDF has a documented “tradition” of defecating and urinating in the West Bank and Gazan homes they occupy and vandalize is seconded by a 2014 account in the Guardian: “Palestinians returning home find Israeli troops left feces and venomous graffiti.”

Somebody should rub IDF noses in their own mess to teach them a lesson, once and for all. Nobody has.

Yes, Israel makes atrocities past and present look like sandbox play. Still, puzzling even to me is this recent account of used condoms left by the IDF in these West Bank homes. Why puzzling? We know that despite the feel-good official designation of some Israeli females as combat soldiers, the few women in combat roles “are not explicitly deployed into combat situations.” During these ostensible “military” raids, the IDF functions, I believe, as a male-only “fighting” force.

So, why the condoms left in vandalized Palestinian homes, in the course of the IDF’s Dionysian bacchanalia in the West Bank? Whose are they, exactly?

Is this what Ha’aretz, Israel’s center-liberal paper of record, calls “the homoerotic side of Israeli army life”? Is “copulating” to be added to the documented IDF “tradition” of male soldiers defecating and urinating in Palestinian homes?

Ha’aretz, I’ve noticed, waters down debauchery—but not because it is concealing the truth for the “Fatherland.” They tell the truth but frame it differently. Thus, the debauchery of uniformed IDF doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal in the Israeli State. Israel doesn’t appear to share American sensibilities—at least so it seems to me, who has closely observed this society in the Hebrew, for eighteen ugly months.

American culture is quite prudish; Israel’s expressed aesthetic is more pornographic. An example is the familiar images of IDF wearing or rummaging through the sexy lingerie of Palestinian women dead or dispossessed. You and I would consider these cross-dressing displays among uniformed men as inappropriate, kinky.

Not Haaretz. Kinky acts of cowardice and sadism—invading Palestinian homes, looting, vandalizing and manhandling private effects—a writer at Ha’aretz is wont to label “Machismo”: The “Military machismo of Israeli soldiers in Gaza will rear its ugly head at home,” blared a January 2025 Ha’aretz headline.

I’m a subscriber. I read enough of Ha’aretz to get a sense that Israel has a different, un-American aesthetic. Take this depiction of Purim, which used to be celebrated, largely, as a children’s festival. To “a brief history of Purim, the Halloween of Jewish holidays,” Ha’aretz has appended an erotic image of men flirting and kissing deeply. Ha’aretz appears to consider this image to be Halloween/Purim-appropriate, wholesome.

The only reasonable, quality newspaper in Israel, Ha’aretz, also dishes a lot of bafflegab. The IDF has invaded large swathes of Syria, is bombing the place, annexing kilometers for a so-called buffer zone, and making overtures to certain cowed Syrian communities so as to further divide and rule that country.

An “overbearing embrace,” however, is how Ha’aretz has euphemized the violence of conquest and the breach of Syrian borders, in March of 2025: “Israel’s Overbearing Embrace Threatens Syria’s Druze at a Critical Juncture.

Utter opposites, too, are Palestinians. If Palestinians are united in the yen for freedom; Israeli circuitry is wired for cruelty.

Israel Katz, defense minister, stonily threatened all of Gaza’s civilians, on March 19, 2025. As a Twitter adage goes, “Translating an Israeli tweet from the Hebrew is like finding a lost page of Mein Kampf.” Listen to the “sound of impunity”—and for that matter, never believe any Hebrew-English translation come to you via Israeli officialdom.

These are Katz’ precise words translated from the Hebrew:

“Residents of Gaza, this is the last warning. The first Sinwar destroyed Gaza. The second Sinwar will ruin her completely. The assault of the air force against the Hamas terrorists is just the first step. The rest will be many times harder, and you will pay the full price. Evacuations will soon start from areas of battle. If all the Israeli hostages are not released, and Hamas is not expelled from Gaza—Israel will act with the kind of force unfamiliar to you. Take the offer of the president of the US: return the hostages and expel ‘The Hamas,’ and other options will then open before you, including migration to other places across the world, for whomever wishes it. The alternative is destruction and complete ruin.”

Defense Minister Katz further reiterated, on April 16, his policy of “halting the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza.” “The State of Israel’s policy is clear. No humanitarian aid will enter Gaza, as this is one of our main pressure tactics” with Hamas. Under the current reality, nobody intends to stray from the policy, barked Katz.

In an instant, Minister Katz had pacified the “Hostages and Missing Families Forum.” While “emphasizing that the release of the hostages and the continuation of the war cannot happen simultaneously,” the group had nonetheless condemned the Israeli government for “quietly preparing to reinstate humanitarian aid.” (Ha’aretz’s “Israel News” newsletter, Wednesday, 16.04.2025.)

On the whole, it has been well-established that from janitor to general, from soldiers to supreme court justices; in words and in deeds—Israeli society generally shares in the genocidal mindset. The exceptions are a few heavily proscribed, miniscule (“around 300 Israelis come to hold pictures of Gazan children”), pro-peace, Arab-Jewish groups. All told, Israelis speak of Palestinians as though they were sub-humans, untouchables, unmentionable, lacking any say in how they live or die.

When I wrote, moreover, that “criminality is codified in Israeli law; that genocide, snuff films, extra-judicial assassinations and rape of Palestinians are de facto legal in Israel; I was not engaging in hyperbole. Systemic, societal criminality is regularly codified by the highest court in that land. Late in March came a ruling from the Israeli Supreme Court, “explicitly and directly legitimizing Israel’s illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip.”

Both asinine and depraved, the Israeli high court used, in support of its authoritative ruling for starvation, “the argument that the State of Israel is exempt from the obligations of belligerent occupation under international law in all cases pertaining to the Gaza Strip.”

Sure, you may subsume in logic, as the Israeli supreme court indirectly does, that you are not obligated to help dying human beings. But you cannot make a cogent, rational case for your right to stop others from feeding and healing dying human beings. This displays a defect in the faculty of reasoning, as well as a defect of character. By default, the outcome of the Israeli high court’s ruling is the death of the starved population—the process of mass murder will play out to its legislated conclusion.

The fault for inaction lies now entirely with those who won’t act to save Gazans: The USA, Western European- and East European countries, East and West Asian governments.

The emanations from the minds of Israel’s Supreme Court are mind-numbingly boorish and banal. Most pertinent for our purposes here is that Israel does not enjoy an independent judiciary. Yet Israel regularly exploits the principle of complementarity in international law, according to which the International Criminal Court (ICC) shares legal jurisdiction with the democratic nation-state under investigation, provided the latter has an independent judiciary.

Beware! With chameleon alacrity, Israel typically scurries to “investigate” itself, and to exploit the principle of complementarity, when the world looks like it’s had enough. Legal investigations by Israel of its own crimes are part of the Israeli superstructure of deception. Nominal prosecutions, or ersatz investigations, by genocidal Israel of its crimes against Arabs must themselves be treated as part of Hasbara’s meta-chicanery, aimed at concealing the Israeli State’s transparently despotic tendencies.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, like Joe Biden before him, has made Americans confederates in Israel’s crimes. A malign conjunction of events engineered by Trump has further positioned Israeli leadership to finalize its genocidal goal, as its lobby proxies and influencers stateside successfully silence us, and sunder our Bill of Rights protections, including the First Amendment right to think and speak freely.

The level of “state capture” by Israel, a small, oppressive foreign regime, is unprecedented, inveighs Craig Mokhiber, activist and scholar of international, humanitarian law. This is “state capture” at every level: foreign and domestic, federal, state, county and city. For Israel, law enforcement agencies under this and the previous government are willing to silence and disappear activists against genocide for exercising our American liberties.

Absurd, of course, but Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents had tweeted that their job is to stop illegal ideas at the U.S. border: “People, money, products, ideas. If it crosses the US border illegally, our job is to stop it.”

“An American-style Cultural Revolution” à la Mao Zedong.

The post Genocide’s Back: Trump-Backed Israeli Brutality appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Vietnam War At 50: What Have We Learned? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  John Smith. 

The Libertarian Institute

The post US Tells World Court Israel Has Right To Starve Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Times of Israel

The post Biden officials vent frustrations in dealing with Netanyahu, decry missed chance of Saudi deal appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

The Free Thought Project

The post MSM Smears Senator Ron Johnson After He Calls For A New Investigation Into 9/11 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com

The post Former Israeli Ambassador Confirms Biden Never Pressured Israel for Gaza Ceasefire appeared first on LewRockwell.