Aggregatore di feed

Has it made its way out of the CIA’s labyrinth? The secret diary of Mary Pinchot, the one CIA spook James Jesus Angleton stole after she was murdered in a professional hit?

Mary was the ex-wife of CIA official Cord Meyer, a secret lover and confidante of President Kennedy. Her diary is one more piece of the Deep State puzzle and Kennedy’s murder!

The post The JFK Confidante’s Diary the CIA Didn’t Want You to See! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Scatenare un Bitcoin standard

Freedonia - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 10:09

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

da Bitcoin Magazine

(Versione aiudio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/scatenare-un-bitcoin-standard)

La transizione dagli standard fiat allo standard Bitcoin, sebbene altamente auspicabile, non è inevitabile né necessariamente imminente. I tempi e l'avvenimento di questi cambiamenti dipendono dalle scelte di adozione effettuate da individui, organizzazioni ed enti pubblici. Queste decisioni sono influenzate non solo da considerazioni razionali, ma anche da fattori emotivi e irrazionali (avidità e paura soprattutto). La volontà collettiva, formata dalle intenzioni di una massa critica dotata di capitale e capacità di azione sufficienti, gioca un ruolo cruciale nel soppiantare le banche centrali e le strutture di potere consolidate a favore di un nuovo sistema incentrato su Bitcoin. Nonostante l'evidente superiorità tecnica, economica ed etica di Bitcoin rispetto ad altre forme di denaro, questa lotta sarà senza dubbio ardua, con un esito tutt'altro che scontato.

Ciononostante è fondamentale riflettere sulle conseguenze che questa potenziale rivoluzione, se realizzata (come tutti auspichiamo), potrebbe avere su ogni aspetto dell'esistenza sociale. Queste implicazioni spaziano dalla natura degli stati e delle relazioni internazionali al funzionamento dei sistemi economici, ai sistemi di valori prevalenti e persino al mercato energetico e all'innovazione tecnologica. In questo articolo, senza la pretesa di essere esaustivi, intendiamo esplorare brevemente alcuni di questi aspetti e suggerire possibili traiettorie.

Bitcoin e sistema bancario a riserva frazionaria

Come correttamente previsto da Hal Finney, un ipotetico Bitcoin standard sarebbe incompatibile con le banche centrali, ma non necessariamente con un sistema bancario a riserva frazionaria. I limiti algoritmici al numero di transazioni per blocco impediranno certamente al Layer 1 di fungere da sistema di pagamento al dettaglio. Col tempo, verranno eseguite meno transazioni, e queste saranno di valore molto elevato (in pratica, solo le balene o le grandi istituzioni pubbliche e private, dati gli elevati costi, potranno permettersele).

Una qualche forma di free banking 2.0 su Layer 2 sarebbe quindi inevitabile nel medio-lungo termine per un sistema monetario basato su Bitcoin. In assenza di una banca centrale come prestatore di ultima istanza e con una verificabilità delle riserve molto più semplice rispetto all'oro, questo sistema di riserva frazionaria Layer 2/Layer 3 sarà molto più fragile dell'attuale sistema a riserva frazionaria, supportato da moneta a corso legale, banca centrale e da una sostanziale indistinguibilità tra base monetaria e offerta di moneta più ampia. Ciò non farà che rafforzare l'importanza del Layer 1 come solido fondamento del sistema monetario, analogamente al ruolo svolto dall'oro nei millenni passati.

Implicazioni macroeconomiche

Ceteris paribus, nel medio termine l'adozione di un ipotetico Bitcoin standard dovrebbe attenuare significativamente le fluttuazioni del ciclo economico, prevenendo un indebitamento eccessivo, investimenti improduttivi e bolle nel settore privato, le quali portano a crisi sistemiche. La repressione monetaria si tradurrebbe inoltre in tassi di crescita reale delle economie molto più lenti, ma costanti nel medio-lungo termine. In assenza del motore dell'espansione monetaria e creditizia, ovvero le politiche inflazionistiche delle banche centrali, la crescita nominale della produzione all'interno di un Bitcoin standard sarà modesta, ma la crescita reale rimarrà significativa. In altre parole, qualsiasi aumento della produttività multifattoriale si tradurrà in un calo dei prezzi al consumo misurati in satoshi piuttosto che in un aumento della produzione nominale. In questo contesto, anche nel breve termine, la crescita economica dipenderà da fattori demografici, ecologici ed economici piuttosto che da fattori monetari o creditizi.

A questo proposito, con il Bitcoin standard si assisterà a un graduale spostamento di ricchezza dal settore finanziario, oggi divenuto vorace, all'economia reale e produttiva. Ciò in conseguenza al significativo ridimensionamento dei mercati obbligazionari e monetari (riduzione del livello di indebitamento delle economie) e, successivamente, dei profitti dell'intero settore.

Tra le attività che subiranno il ridimensionamento maggiore ci sono i sistemi centralizzati di pagamento e compensazione, gli istituti di credito tradizionali, gli agenti fiduciari come i notai (sostituiti da smart contract su Layer 2 e 3 di Bitcoin) e coloro che si occupano di intermediazione finanziaria, immobiliare e assicurativa.

Al contrario, tutto ciò che sfrutterà il potenziale dei Layer di Bitcoin (per gli smart contract) e della DeFi vivrà un vero e proprio boom.

Implicazioni (geo)politiche

Per quanto riguarda l'immutabilità della base monetaria, essa costringerebbe gli stati a una rigorosa disciplina fiscale, poiché verrebbe meno l'opzione di monetizzare deficit o debito come forma di finanziamento della spesa pubblica. Ciò influenzerà profondamente la capacità degli stati di fornire assistenza sociale o di condurre guerre. In assenza di una stampante monetaria e, quindi, dell'insidiosa tassa chiamata inflazione, la pressione fiscale e l'allocazione della spesa pubblica diventeranno oggetto di serie negoziazioni e controversie politiche, poiché incideranno direttamente sulle tasche dei cittadini/sudditi/contribuenti.

Da un lato, ciò potrebbe incoraggiare forme di democrazia più dirette (facilitate dalla diffusione di blockchain e DAO) per dare ai cittadini maggiore voce in capitolo nelle decisioni fiscali e di spesa. Dall'altro, un mondo basato sul Bitcoin standard potrebbe portare a un panorama geopolitico molto più frammentato e apolare, data l'intrinseca insostenibilità del mantenimento di apparati statali ampi e inefficienti, più simili al feudalesimo medievale. Invece dell'aristocrazia spada/sangue/toga, le balene Bitcoin diventerebbero la classe sociale dominante, dove i no-coiner costituirebbero una sorta di nuova servitù della gleba. I primi, individui, famiglie e istituzioni con ingenti depositi in Bitcoin (creati nelle prime fasi di adozione di questa tecnologia, ovvero nei primi due decenni della sua esistenza), sarebbero in grado di fornire welfare, lavoro e protezione ai cittadini/sudditi in cambio di lealtà, servizi e obbedienza al loro dominio “feudale”. La stragrande maggioranza della popolazione i cui antenati sono arrivati troppo tardi per adottare e convertire il proprio capitale fiat in Bitcoin (per varie ragioni ideologiche o pratiche, inclusi vincoli economici), si troverà alla base della piramide e sarebbe costretta a guadagnarsi da vivere con il sudore della fronte o (più probabilmente, dati i progressi tecnologici) grazie alla generosità, più o meno interessata, di balene filantropiche. Questa dinamica si applicherebbe anche a livello internazionale: ci sarebbero regioni o nazioni pioniere che, avendo adottato Bitcoin per prime come moneta a corso legale, godrebbero di un significativo vantaggio in termini di ricchezza relativa che sarebbe difficile da eguagliare per i “ritardatari”.

Queste non sarebbero necessariamente le nazioni attualmente dominanti; infatti alcune potrebbero addirittura non esistere più in futuro. Il risultato finale sarebbe un sistema internazionale molto più frammentato di quello attuale, costituito da un mix di città-stato democratiche, socialiste o oligarchiche, feudi cripto-aristocratici incentrati su singole famiglie e vaste regioni anarchiche. Tutte queste entità sarebbero in competizione/cooperazione tra loro, formando un panorama geopolitico-ideologico completamente nuovo e in continua evoluzione. Le vecchie affiliazioni identitarie (nazionali, ideologiche e religiose) si sovrapporrebbero e si mescolerebbero con nuove identità basate sull'interpretazione della rivoluzione Bitcoin. Dati i presupposti tecnologici e i fondamenti ideologici della cultura Bitcoin, potrebbe emergere una religione “coiner”, legata ad alcuni aspetti rituali e di fede già intravisti tra i suoi convinti sostenitori (es. immacolata concezione, decentralizzazione, adorazione di Satoshi, infallibilità algoritmica). In ogni caso, il Bitcoin standard imporrebbe alle società che lo adottano alcune norme economiche che influenzano da vicino la moralità pubblica. Tra queste il senso del limite, l'etica del risparmio, la prudenza negli investimenti, la visione a lungo termine, l'onestà nelle transazioni commerciali, la responsabilità individuale, la disciplina fiscale e, naturalmente, l'indipendenza e l'incorruttibilità della moneta dai poteri statali.

Nodi, mining e geopolitica

I nodi sono il cuore della rete Bitcoin e, pertanto, riceverebbero un'attenzione significativa da parte dei poteri politici. Il controllo dei nodi completi (e quindi dei potenziali miner) all'interno di un territorio specifico da parte delle autorità pubbliche sarebbe estremamente importante per rivendicare la sovranità interna e influenzare la scena internazionale. Naturalmente, date altre variabili, le nazioni in grado di produrre energia a costi inferiori, o su scala maggiore, avrebbero un vantaggio nell'allocazione e quindi nel controllo di quote significative dell'hashrate globale di Bitcoin. Un'eterna lotta per il controllo dell'hashrate globale sarà il nuovo centro delle controversie geoeconomiche. Detto questo, non è affatto garantito che la maggior parte delle entità politiche territoriali sarà in grado di esercitare questo controllo, ed è incerto come lo faranno.

Sebbene la legittima coercizione fisica possa sembrare la scelta ovvia, data la natura specifica degli stati, potrebbe non essere necessariamente l'approccio più efficace in un panorama geopolitico più frammentato e competitivo di quello attuale. Grazie all'elevata mobilità di Bitcoin e ai vincoli fiscali imposti agli stati tradizionali da questo sistema monetario, miner e balene potrebbero facilmente scegliere di trasferirsi altrove se i loro diritti di proprietà e la loro libertà imprenditoriale finissero in pericolo, trovando rifugio in giurisdizioni più libertarie. D'altro canto uno scenario diverso potrebbe aprirsi per quelle nuove entità statali “neo-aristocratiche” costruite attorno a una o più balene; in questo caso il monopolio sull'attività di mining e sulle risorse energetiche necessarie potrebbe essere più pronunciato, dato l'immenso potere economico detenuto dai loro organi di governo.

Implicazioni sul mercato energetico

Bitcoin non è una valuta merce, ma una valuta energetica. Il potere che racchiude è l'energia consumata per crearlo e trasferirlo. In quanto linfa vitale del nuovo paradigma monetario, quindi, l'energia sarà ancora più al centro del sistema economico rispetto a oggi. Ciò influenzerà radicalmente il progresso nel settore energetico, generando una corsa all'innovazione tecnologica sia dal punto di vista dell'estrazione che del risparmio energetico. Un'intera gamma di fonti energetiche precedentemente trascurate perché antieconomiche potrebbero diventare convenienti e accessibili grazie al loro utilizzo per l'attività di mining. Si pensi al sole nei deserti africani e asiatici, ai giacimenti di metano e gas naturale in località remote, all'energia geotermica proveniente da vulcani e geyser, o persino ad alcuni sistemi basati sul moto ondoso e sulle differenze di temperatura nelle profondità degli oceani.

Con una domanda di energia in continua crescita, ci sarà un crescente incentivo a generare più energia e a farlo in modo più efficiente, in un circolo virtuoso che potrebbe portare a una grande rivoluzione energetica, avvicinando potenzialmente l'umanità a una civiltà di livello 2 sulla scala di Kardashev, contribuendo a elettrificare il pianeta anche nei luoghi più remoti. Un'altra probabile conseguenza di un Bitcoin standard sarà l'inversione dei ruoli tra produttori e consumatori di energia. I maggiori consumatori di energia (le mining farm) diventeranno col tempo i principali produttori di energia, in un'integrazione verticale di asset e infrastrutture energetiche che, partendo dal basso, assimilerà l'intero settore energetico. Resta da vedere se questo porterà a una maggiore o minore concentrazione rispetto alla decentralizzazione dei produttori di energia, ma dipenderà certamente dalle dinamiche commerciali del settore del mining.

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

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

A Russian view of the peace negotiations

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 09:51

Paul Roberts wrote:

Moscow’s Conditions for Peace: Between Diplomacy and Force

Dear Readers, as you know my interpretation of the Ukrainian “peace negotiations” is substantially different from that of the official narrative. I decided to ask experts in Russia for an explanation of what the Russian view of the “peace negotiations” is. Ivan Andrianov, the director of a strategic consulting firm, has obliged me with an answer.

Read it here.

The post A Russian view of the peace negotiations appeared first on LewRockwell.

Dr. McCullough Sounds Alarm After Study Shows Covid Deaths Skyrocketed After Vaccinations

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

Dr. Peter McCullough is shining a light on a disturbing new study that reveals an explosion in COVID-related deaths from 2020 until 2023.

McCullough shared on social media site X today a link directing his followers to a post on Focal Points, a Substack blog that he operates. Dr. Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, who works alongside McCullough for his foundation, had summarized the study in an article.

WHO Data Reveals Global COVID-19 Deaths Skyrocketed After Mass Vaccination

New study finds that mass COVID-19 vaccination not only failed, but made things worse — with the highest death surges in the most heavily vaccinated populations.

Loading the body with Spike protein from… pic.twitter.com/UvMGySskt1

— Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® (@P_McCulloughMD) April 25, 2025

The study was published in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. It is titled “Paradoxical increase in global COVID-19 deaths with vaccination coverage: World Health Organization estimates (2020–2023).”

Among other things, the study shockingly found that “COVID-19 mortality increased in the vaccination era, especially in regions with higher vaccination coverage.”

McCullough took to social media to share the troubling data.

“New study finds that mass COVID-19 vaccination not only failed, but made things worse — with the highest death surges in the most heavily vaccinated populations,” he said.

McCullough also noted that “loading the body with Spike protein from vaccination has made illness become more severe and deadly. Cardiac complications and blood clots are caused by vaccination — risks elevated for years. Death from all causes increased from the Spike protein.”

McCullough has drawn attention to other COVID-induced side effects on Focal Points as well, including kidney disease, myocarditis, and even death. LifeSite has routinely reported on McCullough’s findings since the advent of the virus and has shown how the shot has been linked to various injuries but also so-called “turbo cancers,” which McCullough has said may be the result of the jab.

Coroners and funeral directors have also admitted that there has been an unusual uptick in blood clots found in deceased persons in recent years, with some of them saying that the COVID shot is to blame.

This originally appeared on Lifesite News.

The post Dr. McCullough Sounds Alarm After Study Shows Covid Deaths Skyrocketed After Vaccinations appeared first on LewRockwell.

Benedict and Francis: A Tale of Two Fathers

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

I was nearly ten years old when Pope St. John Paul II died. I remember watching his funeral on the tiny television in the corner of our kitchen. Being so young, I had no significant grasp of who the Polish pope was—and never could have imagined that, some years later, my Polish wife and I would tour the very Kraków where Karol Wojtyła had served as archbishop. But I knew that he was the Holy Father and had a sense, in that moment, that I was witnessing the passing of a great man. Thus, I cried.

Nearly a decade later, I was sitting in a classroom at the Christian academy I attended for high school when my Catholic teacher told us that Pope Benedict XVI was resigning. We dragged the television into the room to watch news coverage of this historic event. I knew Benedict XVI better than I had known John Paul II and, thus, loved him more, but he was still really the only pontiff that I had ever known.

I had grown up with him, under his paternal care. I wanted to read his books and encyclicals and, when I was a little older, I did. I went to Mass in Washington, D.C., when he made his first apostolic visit to the United States and contented myself with a bumper sticker from the event when I couldn’t afford a t-shirt. When he resigned, I didn’t understand what was happening; and I didn’t cry. If I could have had even a glimpse of the next twelve years, I’m sure I would have.

Over the course of the succeeding twelve years, I briefly fell away from practicing my faith—as many of us are wont to do in our youth—before dutifully returning to the Church. I really began taking my Catholic faith far more seriously in 2018, during the “Summer of Shame.” The horrific crimes of then-cardinal Theodore McCarrick were devastating, but they caused me to ask a question that would come to define much of the rest of my life: How did this happen?

In trying to discover how such a notoriously perverse man could advance so rapidly into the upper echelons of the Catholic Church’s ecclesial hierarchy, I delved deep into the history of the Catholic Church and came to irrevocably embrace the truth of the Catholic Faith, no matter what evil any priest or bishop might do. Pope Francis, however, tested that conviction.

Shortly after McCarrick’s crimes were made public, the now-excommunicated archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published a letter alleging that Pope Francis had known of and covered up McCarrick’s penchant for serially raping young men and boys, including seminarians and priests, and removed all sanctions and restrictions placed on McCarrick by Benedict XVI. When reporters asked Francis about the allegations during a press conference, the pontiff refused to respond, saying only, “I won’t say a word about it.” Even then, I did not think that these were the words of a man innocent of wrongdoing.

The following year, my love for both the Catholic Church’s history and the life and literature of Evelyn Waugh led me to the Tridentine Mass. The experience was, for me, life-changing, like a bottomless well of clear, cool water stumbled upon in the midst of an arid desert. I was astounded that this liturgical treasure was not more widespread, and not for the last time was I grateful for Benedict XVI and his Summorum Pontificum proclamation. But, once again, Francis was waiting, wielding disappointment and dismay.

In 2021, Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, effectively undoing Summorum Pontificum and placing heavy restrictions on the celebration of the Mass that I had come to love so much. I long suspected that the document was written by Cardinal Arthur Roche, given its cold, impersonal, characteristically-British tone. This suspicion was all but confirmed when Roche personally issued subsequent rescripts further restricting celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Nonetheless, the document still bore Francis’ name and signature and was perfectly consistent with his frequent derisive comments about the “rigidity” of tradition-minded Catholics.

When Benedict XVI died, I wept. I was in Poland at the time, visiting my wife’s hometown with her. I left our hotel room and went to the nearby church—an expansive, cavernous, medieval sanctuary, intrinsically Polish, very much out of place among the dilapidated ruins of Soviet rule—and knelt before the Blessed Sacrament and prayed for Benedict XVI’s soul, crying. Last year, when visiting Rome, I considered it a blessing to kneel by the tomb of Benedict XVI.

When I opened the day after Easter and read that Francis had died, I did not cry. To be perfectly honest, I breathed more easily. Losing Benedict XVI felt very much like losing a father, albeit a father whom I hadn’t seen in years, a father who just wasn’t there one day when I came home, but a father whom I loved dearly. Francis felt to me much more like the less-than-loving stepfather I was saddled with afterward.

Unlike some “traditional Catholics,” I do not believe that Francis was evil; I do believe that his actions as pontiff were confusing, divisive, destructive, hurtful, and sometimes malicious, spiteful, and petty. For over a decade, I have felt fatherless but have had to confess that I do, indeed, have a father—pope—papa. Indeed, to do otherwise would be sinful, it would be schism, and it would separate me from the Church I love more than my own life.

We all know that Francis caused much pain in the hearts of many—I might even hazard a guess at most—Catholics. Of all the many wounds his pontificate dealt, perhaps one of the most grievous was the pain of leaving us all feeling fatherless.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Benedict and Francis: A Tale of Two Fathers appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Reece Committee: Lessons From History

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

In the early 1950s, against the backdrop of the Cold War and growing concerns over potential clandestine efforts at internal subversion, the United States Congress launched an investigation into the activities of major tax-exempt foundations. Thus the Reece Committee was born, spearheaded by Congressman B. Carroll Reece, with the aim of establishing whether certain large and influential foundations, like the Carnegie Endowment, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, were using their tax-exempt status and their substantial resources to influence American society in ways that might be considered subversive or to fund activities that might undermine American institutions.

An earlier investigation, by the Cox Committee, had mostly cleared the targeted foundations of any wrongdoing, however Congressman Reece questioned these findings and believed that a more thorough and detailed examination into the foundations’ activities was necessary. At the heart of this new Committee was Norman Dodd, a former banker, who was appointed as the Committee’s Director of Research. His findings, especially those related to the foundations’ role in shaping education and public policy, have since become a focal point for discussions about the influence of elite institutions on American life.

The Committee’s revelations

During the early 20th century many of of these institutions, originally created by industrial tycoons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie to manage their fortunes for charitable purposes, rose to great prominence and by the 1950s, their wealth, influence and reach had reached staggering levels, across the US and even internationally. They were funding universities, think tanks, and social programs and while their declared goals were philanthropic, e.g. promoting education, science, and public welfare, critics soon suspected that they were actually pursuing political and ideological agendas.

The Reece Committee conducted an exhaustive investigation from 1952 to 1954, including interviews with key foundation officials, scrutiny of grant records, and on-site reviews. The Committee’s findings were published in 1954 and came as shock to many. The investigation concluded that the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations were not in fact charitable organizations with the benign goals of advancing the public good, but instead they were powerful entities using their wealth and resources to manipulate social institutions, to shape and control public opinion through channels of social influence like the media, and to advance specific political ideologies. The Committee accused these organizations of engaging in propaganda and applying institutional pressure to reshape American society in ways that aligned with socialist and globalist agendas.

A focal point of of the Reece Committee’s investigation was the foundations’ impact on education and its findings presented evidence that these institutions were funding programs and curricula designed to change the role of education from a tool of enlightenment into a propaganda machine and a vehicle for indoctrination of young minds. The foundations supported progressive educational reforms and specific academic disciplines, promoting collectivist ideologies over individualism and traditional American values. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation’s funded social science research prioritizing studies that promoted central planning and globalist policies, often at the expense of national sovereignty. Dodd described this as the “debasement of education” and he believed it was part of a larger effort to destabilize the moral and political foundations of American society, as it was clear that by controlling education, these foundations could also control future generations.

These efforts were also complemented by the foundations’ influence over media and advertising, through targeted grants to various think tanks, publishers, and advocacy groups that aligned with and promoted these ideas. The Reece Committee’s findings also suggested that this control extended to key institutions like government agencies, and even religious organizations, all with the mission to co-opt centers of power and to eventually manufacture consensus and garner support for legislation that favored socialism and globalism.

A silent revolution

Arguably the most alarming claim in the Reece Committee’s findings was that the foundations it investigated were actively working towards orchestrating a “silent, non-bloody revolution” in the United States. According to Dodd, their end game was to shift power away from Congress, the nation’s most representative body, and to concentrate it in the executive branch, thereby paving the way for semi-autocratic governance. By funding policy initiatives and by supporting campaigns that aimed to strengthen the presidency and federal agencies and to further the centralization of power, the foundations were accused of intentionally undermining the checks and balances and the core democratic principles that are fundamental to the American political structure.

The targets of the investigation were also accused of working towards the degradation and the debasement of the population, in order to make the body politic more malleable and more susceptible to the collectivist propaganda they were pushing. In other words, if people are desperate enough, they don’t look for realistic, long term solutions that require hard work and sacrifice; instead they fall for promises of “free stuff” and the follow dreams of a socialist utopia.

As Rowan Gaither, the director of the Ford Foundation, explained to Norman Dodd: «All of us here have at one time or another served in the OSS [the Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA], or the European Economic Administration, operating under directives from the White House. We [still] operate under those same directives. The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we should use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union».

This push to form a coalition with the USSR might seem inconceivable from a contemporary point of view. How and why could anyone try to dismantle the core of a free society and morph it into a tyrannical, inhumane communist regime, modeled after the brutality of the Soviet Union? And what kind of madman would want to merge with this monstrosity, this dark stain upon human history, that claimed countless lives and destroyed even more?

At face value, this might seem difficult to grasp from our perspective today, but if one really thinks about it, it is actually rather relatable. At that time there were many communist sympathizers that these foundations could work with to advance their goals, as is the case today. Then, as now, some of those were simply naive, gullible, useful idiots, and others, like those that ran the foundations themselves, had much darker incentives. After all, under communism, “some pigs are more equal than others”, and there are always those on top who run the show. It’s not a stretch to surmise that they hoped they would be on that top.

Lessons learned or forgotten?

Today, most people haven’t even heard of the Reece Committee and this is problematic on multiple levels. For one thing, those responsible largely got away with their actions and continued to operate against the interests of the public. But much more importantly, a lot of other bad actors also joined the path these foundations paved. Today, there are innumerable organizations that are tax exempt, and even taxpayer funded in many cases, that are actively working towards promoting the same ideologies and the same toxic, misanthropic principles. They have gained substantial political power and influence with the media, the academia and even the top levels of government, not only in the US, but across the globe.

The post The Reece Committee: Lessons From History appeared first on LewRockwell.

Global Elites’ Secret Plot Against Food…

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

We live in perplexing times. It’s almost inconceivable to think that there’s a war being waged against food, an absolute and undeniable necessity of life. Yet, here we stand, on the precipice of what looks like a catastrophic agenda against global sustenance.

So, what’s this newfound hostility against the thing that keeps us alive?

Take a deep breath. Farming uses nitrogen, and suddenly, nitrogen is the new antagonist in the tale of global warming. The narrative is simple: eliminate nitrogen, save the world. Yet, in the name of “preservation,” entire segments of our food production are under siege.

Consider rice – a staple for half the world’s population. Renowned agencies claim, “Rice accounts for roughly 10% of global methane emissions,” emphasizing the urgent need to curtail its production. But the ramifications? Starvation for billions.

Look to the Netherlands for further evidence. Dutch farmers, the backbone of a nation that is a leading exporter of meat and agricultural products, are being chased off their lands. A staggering number, 3,000 farms, are forecasted to be confiscated in the coming years. The tragic fallout is evident, with a reported 20 to 30 farmers tragically ending their lives annually.

Our friends in Europe are no strangers to these baffling decisions either. The European Commission greenlit a strategy to compensate livestock farmers for halting their operations in certain areas – with a stipulation that they never resume their animal breeding activities. The implications are clear: a drop in global food availability and an inevitable spike in prices.

Remember Sri Lanka’s ill-fated venture into 100% organic farming? The island nation faced a humanitarian nightmare with a staggering 90% of its population on the brink of starvation.

And the Western leaders’ stance on agriculture? Eric Utter encapsulates it perfectly in American Thinker, “The attack on farming by Western leaders is shockingly negligent. It’s criminal.” Especially when such views ignore the glaring fact that while agriculture may account for 33% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, it simultaneously sustains every single human being on this planet.

Organizations like the World Economic Forum tout visions of a “farm-free future,” dreaming of a world where food is crafted in sterile labs and humans are herded into congested urban centers. Toss digital currency into this dystopian mix, and you have the ultimate formula for absolute dominance.

In our modern era, the recipe is simple: concoct a crisis, even if none existed.

Incite racial tension among children.
Reverse the progress women achieved over decades.
Worsen shortages and tamper with the money supply.
Tackle borders haphazardly.
Condemn specific foods, close farms, or incite wars to create famine.
Muzzle voices of dissent by labeling truth as “misinformation.”

A tactic reminiscent of Cloward and Piven: create a crisis, then implement severe measures to address that very crisis.

Our global food supply is now in peril, thanks to overblown reactions to this so-called “nitrogen issue“. But why this apathy? Sri Lanka, for instance, is an alarming testament to this flawed approach.

The truth remains that nitrogen is pivotal for plant metabolism. Without commercial nitrogen fertilizers, hunger was a dire reality in many corners of the world. If we shun these fertilizers, we voluntarily invite famine back into our lives. The idea of bug diets, ‘rewilding,‘ and organic farming might sound avant-garde, but they certainly won’t satisfy the global hunger.

It’s glaringly evident that this isn’t just about combating climate change. At its core, it’s an insidious bid for control.

In the profound words of Ayn Rand, “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.“

The world stands at a critical juncture.

It’s time to confront these disguised agendas and defend our plates.

After all, when the stakes are survival, there’s no room for compromise.

This article was originally published on LifeLaw25.Substack.com.

The post Global Elites’ Secret Plot Against Food… appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Philosophical Trick Question

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

For years one of my conversation pieces while discussing the various life decisions about school, employment, place to live, etc., was to pose “the fundamental philosophical question.” What would you do if you won the lottery? That is, if you didn’t need money what would you do with your life? How would you spend your time? What was really of value to you? Clearly I am not a professional philosopher. I have never even had a course in philosophy.

Notwithstanding my lack of philosophical bona fides, here I write about a theoretical philosophical dilemma called the Trolley Problem.

From Wikipedia, “The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics, psychology, and artificial intelligence involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway trolley or train is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track.”

Clearly, the sense of the problem as posed behooves a utilitarian response. More precisely, you are led to make a calculation, one versus five, to determine the greatest good. The equivalent of the trolley problem was posed in the Sanhedrin about 2000 years ago. In the Biblegateway the NIV bible has a section titled: The Plot to Kill Jesus (My emphasis in bold.)

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

During our own lifetimes we can think of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as she calculated the death of thousands of Iraqi children as being “worth it.”

The point of this philosophical exercise can be considered a variant of the Milgram experiment; that is, to implant the idea in people to take orders to do or accept evil. In modern life this has become commonplace. Be it the response to Covid in dozens of ways, climate change, terror, Russia, China, the list is endless. A utilitarian calculation is presented to give an excuse for doing evil.

Think back to the trolley problem. What if you are being told a lie about the five people on the other track, and in fact, the whole purpose of posing the problem is to convince you to kill the one person who is on the other track? The trolley problem is simply a philosophical trick question.

The post A Philosophical Trick Question appeared first on LewRockwell.

Going to Kashmir…Just To Find Alice in Wonderland

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

Welcome to “Ruler of the World” does Wonderland – to the sound of that hypnotic ‘Kashmir’ riff.

Two overarching taboos reign on the – now shattered – collective West:

Can’t define the Ukraine regime as Nazi.
Can’t condemn the psychopathological Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The taboos happen to be inextricably linked to the Forever Wars deployed non-stop by the Empire of Chaos/Zionist axis.

Lesser Hybrid Wars though – even carrying the horrifying prospect of turning nuclear – are allowed to come and go. Especially if they are part of the current war on BRICS, a sub-section of the war of factions of the West against the Global Majority.

So let’s go to Kashmir – to the sound of Jimmy Page’s hypnotic riff. Both India and Pakistan are escalating the war of decibels. Turkey is offering weapons – to Pakistan. Iran offered a mediator role: no takers.

The motive for the war is as dodgy as they come. An all-male tourist bus packing a bunch of merry tourists is roaming around Indian-held Kashmir. Passengers include a just married 26-year-old lieutenant of the Indian Navy – but without his wife (what kind of honeymoon is that?) Another passenger is Nepalese. The bus is attacked by shady splinter goons loosely affiliated with the Salafi-jihadi Lashkar-e-Taiba outfit.

The Empire has been all over the Indian front. The current US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard was previously fully funded by Prime Minister Modi’s circles. Eyeliner-loaded VP J.D. Vance recently visited India – complete with family Taj Mahal photo op. Then Modi went to visit Saudi Arabia – invited by MbS. After the Kashmir bus terror attack, Hindutva fanatics went on a cyber-attack spree.

The crude tactics spell out classic Divide and Rule. Double whammy: revamped weaponization of India, and destabilization of a key Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) China front: the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). A thing of beauty: splitting BRICS from the inside.

None of that, of course, legitimizes the ghastly Pakistani military, which have thrown in jail, on spurious charges, the man who was trying to bring Pakistan to respectability: Imran Khan.

It’s up, once again, to the adults in the room, any room – Russia – to de-escalate. This could be ideally performed inside the SCO – where both India and Pakistan are members, side by side with Iran. Moscow chose to take the initiative, by itself.

Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko met with both India’s Ambassador to Russia, Vinay Kumar, and Pakistan’s Ambassador to Russia, Muhammad Khalid Jamali.

Russian terminology is essential: not only there was a call for both parties to “engage in constructive dialogue”. Moscow stressed, “we are ready to counter the global terrorist threat together.” The operative word is “global”. Delhi and Islamabad don’t seem to be getting the message – yet.

Kashmir as a volatile war lab

An infernal machine is predictably on. It’s as if the Anglo-Zionist axis is using Kashmir as a volatile lab for a series of live tests – including pushing nuclear powers to the brink of confrontation. And all that dealt with casual insouciance – practically as a sideshow.

Nothing coming from Sultan Erdogan and his intel apparatus could possibly be seen as trustworthy. In Syria, the MIT’s assets – the Headchopper Inc. congregated in Greater Idlibistan – ended up being installed in power in Damascus with their Zionist-friendly gang leader now posing as President.

The comprador Yankee junta in Islamabad, for its part, may be facing the abyss – which in itself qualifies as auspicious news. In parallel, suspense accrues on whether Modi will show up for the Victory Day parade on May 9 in Moscow – and what he will tell his Russian hosts.

BRICS members Russia and Iran want the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) running smoothly to India sooner rather than later. The game gets even more complex when we see that the Iranian investigation is finally starting to consider that the horrendous explosion at the Shahid Rajaee port may have been an act of sabotage or an FPV strike.

Extra pressure on China is a real motivator for setting up this war lab. Now Beijing not only needs to start worrying about an explosively renewed India-Pakistan front but also extra CIA/MI6 mischief pushing the Pak connection to Uighur Salafi-jihadis.

There’s no chance in hell Delhi will really understand Beijing’s geopolitical predicaments. A perfect scenario for the Hybrid War gang.

Meanwhile, at the BRICS front, at least there are some signs of rationality – coming, once again, from Grandmaster Lavrov.

Even before the BRICS Foreign Ministers meeting early this week in Rio, Lavrov cut to the chase on the financial and geoeconomic front. He stressed that BRICS are working hard on the 2024 Kazan summit-approved “Trans-Border Payment Initiative”; a “payment and clearing infrastructure”; “a re-insurance company”; and a new investment platform.

He had to once again explain to Western media – from the US to Brazil – that “it would be premature to discuss a transition to a single currency for BRICS. We are working together to create a payment and settlement infrastructure for carrying out cross-border settlements among BRICS countries. In particular, as I have already said, this includes increasing the share of national currencies in our transactions.”

A BRICS common currency – a specter hovering over Trump 2.0 – will only come back to the table “once the necessary financial and economic conditions are in place.” Until then, the war on BRICS, hybrid and otherwise, will be relentless.

Trumpty Dumpty

Switching from reality to fantasy, it was such a blast to find the connection between Kashmir and Alice in Wonderland… in a Chinese essay.

It takes supreme Chinese finesse – quite like subverting Taoist wisdom with a touch of post-modernism – to identify the “ruler of the world” (his own terminology) throwing everyone, virtually the whole planet, into the rabbit hole.

So in this wilderness of narrative mirrors, Trump should be perceived as all characters combined: the White Rabbit, Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word, it means what I choose to mean, no more and no less”), the Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts (“Off with their heads!”)

That certainly illustrates the intersection of the trade war (launched by the “ruler of the world”) and the genocide war (fully legitimized by the “ruler of the world”). With an extra twist: reality has a knack to out-Carroll even Lewis Carroll himself.

Enter the curious case of the USS Truman, a giant aircraft carrier, being possessed by the spirit of Ayrton Senna and deciding to pull out an ultra-sharp curve as if it was a Maserati Gran Turismo Stradale in the middle of the Red Sea – just for a F-18E Super Hornet to protest about the maneuver plunging head on to the bottom of the ocean.

At least that was the narrative CENTCOM sold to global public opinion. Blame that damned Houthi missile fire!

Well, CENTCOM has been relentlessly humiliated by the Yemeni Armed Forces – 21 MQ9-Reapers smashed, and counting – as it has accomplished zero military objectives; the Pentagon has not subdued the Houthis; and has not secured “freedom of navigation” in the Red Sea for Israeli-bound ships. Their revenge: to bomb Yemeni civilian targets non-stop.

All that because the “ruler of the world” launched an illegal war – against people guided by moral and spiritual clarity – to protect the genocide perpetrated by his psychopathological regime buddies. Welcome to “Ruler of the World” does Wonderland – to the sound of that hypnotic ‘Kashmir’ riff.

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

The post Going to Kashmir…Just To Find Alice in Wonderland appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Potential Winners and Losers in Reshoring Supply Chains

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

Until values, priorities and incentives change, “the lifestyle you ordered is currently out of stock and on back order, with no estimate of a future delivery date.”

The ultimate winners and losers in reshoring supply chains to North America have yet to be determined, and may change depending on the time frame. In the short-term, there are ample reasons to reckon consumers will be the losers as shortages and price-gouging (“it’s the tariffs” will be the excuse given for profiteering) take their toll.

Matt Stoller has posted two comprehensive essays on these topics:

How Monopolies Could Exploit the Tariff Shock

How to Prepare for the Coming Supply Chain Shock

In the longer term, however, consumers could be winners as reshored supply chains will be more stable and predictable than globalized supply chains. Stability has a value that isn’t recognized until it’s absent–as do durability and quality.

One set of potential winners might be large retail corporations that choose to switch from “horizontal” global supply chains to vertically integrated domestic production, in which raw materials are turned into finished products in one production facility.

Ford Motor Company was an early adopter of this model, constructing the immense Ford River Rouge complex from 1917 to 1928 that turned iron ore into finished automobiles in one integrated production process.

“With its own docks in the dredged Rouge River, 100 miles (160 km) of interior railroad track, its own electricity plant, and integrated steel mill, the titanic Rouge was able to turn raw materials into running vehicles within this single complex, a prime example of vertical-integration production.”

While it can be argued that vertical integration is less efficient in terms of cost, once again the value of complete control, stability and predictability is not included in spreadsheets, though it becomes readily apparent when long single-source global supply chains break down or are crippled by bottlenecks, artificial scarcities triggered by geopolitical blackmail or a host of other causal factors.

Establishing domestic sources for materials, tooling, robotics, etc. would remove many of the uncertainties that are inherent in a global supply chain breaking down along geopolitical, regional and national lines.

Were unions to regain wide public support, industrial unions might be winners should the public support unionizing new production facilities. The sustained erosion of labor’s share of the nation’s income over the past five decades might finally gain recognition as a core driver of wealth-income inequality and unionized labor might be understood as a necessary rebalancing of an economy that has favored finance and capital over labor for nearly three generations.

Were the public to begin valuing local production and jobs over “lower prices” and equally low quality, local supply chains might become winners. Note that I’ve mentioned the public’s values and priorities as key drivers changing economic incentives and policies. In the current zeitgeist, the public is assumed to be “rational economic robots” who respond solely to price.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Potential Winners and Losers in Reshoring Supply Chains appeared first on LewRockwell.

IMF and World Bank: Crony Covid Crackdown Enablers

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent complained last week that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are suffering from “mission creep.” But Bessent announced that Trump will be “doubling down” on supporting the largest foreign aid gushers on earth. “Far from stepping back, ‘America First’ seeks to expand U.S. leadership in international institutions like the I.M.F. and World Bank,” Bessent declared.

Bessent complained that the IMF “devotes disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender, and social issues.” Unfortunately, Bessent said nothing about how the IMF and World Bank bankrolled many of the worst crony Covid crackdown policies.

But what should the US government expect when Congress and endless presidents give the World Bank and IMF billions of US tax dollars to play with? The US government is on the hook for $52 billion to the World Bank. The US has a financial commitment of $183 billion to the IMF.

The IMF was created in 1944 to shore up currencies and help nations with temporary balance-of-payment problems. In the decades since the IMF’s founding, global capital markets and fluctuating currency exchange rates have made the IMF a relic. But too many people have gotten rich from IMF largesse to permit the curtain to be closed on this institution.

The IMF enabled scores of governments that chose to pointlessly shut down their own economies after the outbreak of Covid-19. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva declared in April 2021, “While the recovery [from Covid] is underway, too many countries are falling behind and economic inequality is worsening. Strong policy action is needed to give everyone a fair shot—a shot in the arm to end the pandemic everywhere, and a shot at a better future for vulnerable people and countries.”

The IMF’s “fair shot” consisted of its international bureaucrats providing scores of billions of dollars in “emergency financing” to 80 governments, most of whom exploited Covid to stretch their own power. The IMF provided emergency relief via the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) to 29 governments to supposedly help them “combat the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The IMF’s deluge of handouts to government helped fuel the worldwide inflation surge in recent years.

The World Bank President Ajay Banga “has sought to emphasize the bank’s focus on job creation…and to prioritize private sector involvement in projects around the world,” the New York Times reported. But the World Bank’s notion of the private sector has often been either a fraud or a political smokescreen. In the late 1980s, the World Bank touted its loans to Communist nations as private sector-oriented loans – one bait-and-switch too many, as I detailed in a 1988 Wall Street Journal article. And permitting the Bank to exonerate its handouts by counting illusory jobs created is a recipe for make-work scams.

The Covid pandemic provided the World Bank with the chance to play savior. In the first months of the pandemic, the Bank proudly announced that its “emergency operations to fight COVID-19 (coronavirus) have reached 100 developing countries – home to 70% of the world’s population.” From April 2020 to March 2021, the World Bank “committed over $200 billion, an unprecedented level of financial support, to public and private sector clients to fight the impacts of the pandemic. Our support is tailored to the health, economic, and social shocks that countries are facing.” The fact that the World Bank was effectively financing governments to pointlessly shock their own nations was omitted from celebratory press releases.

The IMF and World Bank have helped turn many foreign nations into kleptocracies – governments of thieves. A 2002 American Economic Review analysis concluded that “increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption,” and that “corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States.”

Most importantly, neither the IMF nor the World Bank has any qualms about bankrolling tyranny. A 2015 report of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, concluded that the World Bank “now stands almost alone, along with the International Monetary Fund, in insisting that human rights are matters of politics which it must, as a matter of legal principle, avoid, rather than being an integral part of the international legal order.”

The Bank justifies this position by insisting that it cannot involve “itself in the partisan politics or ideological disputes that affect its member countries” by improper methods such as “favoring political factions, parties or candidates in elections,” or “endorsing or mandating a particular form of government, political bloc or political ideology.”

But any time an international organization financially bails out a regime, it bolsters its power. After the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon coined a term that perfectly captures the effect of foreign aid: “Money as a Weapon System.” The 2015 UN report noted that “the existing approach taken by the World Bank to human rights is incoherent, counterproductive and unsustainable. For most purposes, the World Bank is a human rights-free zone. In its operational policies, in particular, it treats human rights more like an infectious disease than universal values and obligations.”

The World Bank actively blindfolds itself to avoid hearing about atrocities in nations ruled by governments that it is bankrolling. The Special Rapporteur noted, “By refusing to take account of any information emanating from human rights sources, the Bank places itself in an artificial bubble.”

The Trump administration’s lust for “doubling down” on the IMF and World Bank is dicey to reconcile with their terminating 90% of foreign aid contracts from the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Cynics across the land rejoiced that Washington policymakers finally recognized one of the biggest swindles of the past 80 years.

If the Trump team can’t even get sound policy on the World Bank, then what hope is there of them resolving any more complex challenges? I was briefly a consultant for the World Bank in the late 1980s, getting paid to co-author a report on the follies of farm subsidies. At that point, Reagan administration officials had periodically caterwauled about the Bank for almost a decade, and they were followed by sporadic howling by the US Treasury Department ever since. Secretary Bessent complained on Wednesday that the World Bank “should no longer expect blank checks for vapid, buzzword-centric marketing accompanied by halfhearted commitments to reform.” But after almost a half-century of failed US attempts to reform the Bank and IMF, there is no reason to expect any boondoggles to be left behind.

Or do Trump’s appointees believe that laundering U.S. tax dollars through international entities somehow makes them beneficent? Or maybe US Treasury Department honchos want to make sure they continue to get invited to the most lavish parties in D.C. and around the world. Regardless, the IMF and World Bank financing the worst Covid policies around the globe is another reminder of why those entities should be axed.

This article was originally published on Brownstone Institute.

The post IMF and World Bank: Crony Covid Crackdown Enablers appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Bounce Is Just a Bear Market Rally

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

On Sunday night, Peter returned to the mic to analyze a volatile week on Wall Street. He unpacks the market’s recent surge, the political pressures buffeting the Federal Reserve, and the deeper consequences of unsound economic policy. From the opaque motives driving central bankers to the misleading optimism embedded in public statements about tariffs and trade, Peter reveals why investors should remain cautious, not complacent.

Peter opens the show with his signature skepticism toward market mood swings, reminding listeners that bear markets are notorious for sharp, misleading rallies:

This is another Sunday night podcast following what was a big turnaround week for the markets. It really started on turnaround Tuesday, but it lasted the entire week. Now, I don’t think it’s a permanent turnaround. I think it’s a bear market rally, a counter trend move in pretty much all of the markets. This is how bear markets work. You get some pretty big short-term counter movements that serve the purpose of creating a false sense of hope that the market is bottomed out.

He critiques Trump’s approach to monetary policy, noting that Trump only wants lower rates for political reasons:

He basically started calling Jerome Powell names, you know, like they’re at a playground, calling him ‘too late Powell.’And he said that Powell needs to cut rates and he can’t go soon enough. We got to get rid of Powell. He’s screwing up by not cutting rates. And so the markets didn’t like that type of pressure on Powell from the White House to not only cut rates but risk being fired if he didn’t.

Peter compares the post-2008 Fed policy to today. He argues that Janet Yellen, who led the Federal Reserve under President Obama, was motivated by politics rather than economics, just like Powell:

I’m sure that he’s not the only one. I’m sure Yellen was very much a team player for Obama. That’s why she never even raised rates once when Obama was president. She kept them at zero the whole time. She didn’t start hiking rates until Trump won. And then she started hiking rates. So she kept rates at zero. That was very political. And Trump was right when he ran against Hillary Clinton back in 2016 for pointing out that the Fed was political.

Turning to the week’s market rally, Peter calls out the engineered optimism around the trade war, warning listeners that it’s built on hollow promises rather than substantive breakthroughs:

But the big movers were in the stock market, and it wasn’t just because of the damage control that was done on Tuesday. We got more crafted statements from the Trump administration, especially, I think, from Scott Bessent, about the trade war and the tariffs, and some positive statements that I think the tariffs will come down soon. Things are going well, the negotiations are going good, so a lot of positive comments that I think were all a bunch of BS. I think these comments were deliberately floated out there to get the markets to rise, to get them to think, oh, okay, it’s almost over, we’re going to know the war is going to be over. And we got this big relief rally really on nothing.

Finally, Peter contends that China might ultimately benefit from disentangling itself from the U.S. financially, a view that breaks sharply with conventional wisdom on global trade. He argues China’s ongoing export relationship is propping up a debtor—one that pays with increasingly dubious U.S. IOUs:

And as far as I’m concerned, in the long run, it’s the best thing that could happen to China. Because China needs to stop trading with the United States to the degree that it does, because we’re screwing them over. Because we’re not paying; we’re just giving them IOUs that are basically not going to be worth anything. So their economy is getting all screwed up, maintaining this vendor financing of a customer that’s never going to pay. And it’s doing real damage to their economy, and the sooner they can repair that damage, the better for them.

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post The Bounce Is Just a Bear Market Rally appeared first on LewRockwell.

Assassinating JFK Led to the Vietnam War

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

With today, April 30, 2025, being the 50th anniversary of North Vietnam’s defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War, it is worth revisiting the role that the U.S. national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy played in that war.

The story begins with the war between JFK and the U.S. national-security establishment that broke out after the Bay of Pigs disaster soon after Kennedy assumed the presidency. The CIA was hoping to manipulate Kennedy into providing air support for the operation, but the scheme failed. Realizing what the CIA had done, Kennedy vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” For it’s part, the CIA was livid over what it believed was Kennedy’s cowardice, weakness, and incompetence for failing to come to the assistance of the Cuban exiles, all of whom were killed or captured by Cuba’s communist forces while invading the island.

Afterwards, the Pentagon began pressuring Kennedy into ordering a full-scale military invasion of Cuba. That’s what the Pentagon’s infamous false-flag Operation Northwoods was all about, which Kennedy, to his everlasting credit, rejected.

Then came the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy settled by committing that the U.S. would not invade Cuba — in return for the Russians removing their nuclear missiles from the island. That meant that Cuba would remain permanently under communist control, which the Pentagon and the CIA were convinced was a grave threat to “national security.” Kennedy was, once again, considered a weak, incompetent, and cowardly president who had now placed the United States in grave jeopardy of being taken over by the Reds. A member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff compared Kennedy’s agreement with the Russians to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Another said that the deal was “the greatest defeat in our history.”

It was the Cuban Missile Crisis that caused JFK to achieve a “breakthrough,” one that enabled him to see that the national-security establishment’s “Cold War” against Russia was one great big deadly, dangerous, and destructive racket. It was at that point that Kennedy decided to bring the racket to an end.

In June 1963, Kennedy delivered his famous Peace Speech at American University. It was essentially a declaration of war against the national-security establishment. In the speech, Kennedy made it clear that America was now moving in a totally different direction — one that was based on peace and mutual cooperation with the communist world, including Russia.

Kennedy then secured the approval of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, over the vehement objections of the Pentagon and the CIA.

And then he ordered a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam, which, in the eyes of the national-security establishment, meant that the dominoes would start falling to the communists, with the final domino being the United States.

Given that the next presidential election wasn’t until late 1964 and given that JFK stood a good chance of winning reelection, the national-security establishment knew that it had to act now in order to save America. Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, on the streets of Dallas elevated Vice-President Lyndon Johnson to the presidency. Since Johnson was on the same page as the national-security establishment, he immediately reversed the direction that Kennedy was taking America and restored the old Cold War racket of the U.S. national-security establishment.

While the national-security establishment wanted Johnson to invade Cuba, he refused to do so. While a full-scale invasion would easily have been successful in achieving regime change in Cuba, Johnson knew that the Russians could retaliate by taking West Berlin, which necessarily would have required a U.S. response. Thus, Johnson wisely refused to succumb to the Pentagon/CIA pressure to invade Cuba.

However, reversing JFK’s order to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam, Johnson decided to throw an anti-communist bone to the national-security establishment by giving it the war it wanted against the Reds in Vietnam. Soon after Johnson won election in 1964, he and the national-security establishment concocted the fake North Vietnamese attack on U.S. forces in the Gulf of Tonkin. That enabled them to secure the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from Congress, which ultimately led to the needless sacrifice of more than 58,000 American soldiers, not to mention the killing of more than a million Vietnamese.

Since Johnson died in 1973, unfortunately he didn’t get to witness U.S. officials on April 30, 1975, on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon scrambling to get on U.S. military helicopters in the hope of avoiding capture by the victorious North Vietnamese forces.

See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Assassinating JFK Led to the Vietnam War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Santo? Not So Subito!

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

Does anybody in the hierarchy still believe that not all dogs and people go to Heaven…at least immediately?

Following the announcement of John Paul II’s death, apparently all Holy Fathers now go directly by courtesy line to “the home of the Father.” And there have already been murmurings of “santo subito” about Francis. In his funeral homily, Cardinal Re asked Francis to “bless the whole world from Heaven” (emphasis added), while Cardinal Parolin assured congregants April 27 that “Pope Francis extends his embrace from Heaven.”

Would it not be more truthful to say “X has died,” “X has gone to God,” or that “X has gone to the Judgment Seat of God?” without necessarily presaging the outcome? Hebrews 9:27 says, “it is appointed for men once to die, and after death the judgment.” It does not say, “it is appointed for men once to die and then Heaven!”

Many popes have warned about a “loss of the sense of sin.” Our current ways of speaking eschatologically arguably prove that. Yes, Scripture assures us of a loving God. It also assures us, “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31)—and not just if you are Hitler or Stalin.

When he saw God, Isaiah’s first reaction was to think himself “doomed” because of his sins, until his lips and heart are cleansed by the ember-bearing angel (Isaiah 6:1-7). Genuine sanctity does not stoke presumption. The greatest saints had the most refined sense of sin—not because they were scrupulous but because the nearer they approached being “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), the more they recognized how imperfect they were. That is the true humility of which saints are made.

I mention Isaiah because the episode of his prophetic vocation has been bowdlerized by Dan Schutte and sung with gusto Sundays at lots of Catholic parishes. Apart from the arrogance of singing in God’s name (the verses are all God speaking), the refrain selectively leaves Isaiah 6:1-7 on the cutting room floor, picking up at verse 8b: “Here I am, Lord!” In other words, “I’m ready and waiting!” omitting the sense of unworthiness before divine holiness.

Catholic eschatology recognizes that one must be “spotless and blameless” (2 Peter 3:14) to appear before the living God. We should be honest enough at least to give lip service to the confession we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). How one squares that admission with instant Beatific Vision remains unexplained.

Again, we hope all men are saved. But as we cannot be sure of that, our expressions ought not to suggest that.

We used to enumerate the “four last things always to be remembered” as death, judgment, Heaven, and Hell. It seems judgment now receives passing reflection from short-term memory, while Hell clearly succumbed to amnesia.

And there’s no doubt these issues work together. The rise in practical universalism—“we ‘hope’ (wink, wink) all men will be saved”—is not the result of enormous popularity of the thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar or Wacław Hryniewicz. It is very much the new ecclesial “party line,” one advanced not so much by promotion as by omission, what’s not said when speaking of the “Global Entry” line to the “home of the Father.”

Such approaches betray evangelization, ostensibly the mission and task of the Church in contemporary times. Jesus’ Gospel does not promise a celestial rose garden. It repeatedly warns of judgment, of separation of grain from chaff, wheat from tares, fruitful fig trees from barren ones. The Last Day is not presented as a universal victory celebration but as a time of definitive division, when some “will go to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). And Jesus warns against presuming we’re on the “right” side, because it is those on the left who are surprised their self-assessed goodness does not tally with the Lord’s assize.

Again, we hope all men are saved. But as we cannot be sure of that, our expressions ought not to suggest that.

Read the Whole Article

The post Santo? Not So Subito! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Refusing to Disarm: The Battle of Lexington and Concord

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 01/05/2025 - 05:01

[Editor’s Note: This month marks the 250th anniversary of the beginning of the American Revolutionary War at Lexington and Concord. This selection is taken from Murray Rothbard’s extensive five-volume work on the American Revolution: from Conceived in Liberty, volume 3, part 69, “The Shot Heard Round the World: The Final Conflict Begins.”]

Despite the mounting tension in the South, the main focus of potential revolutionary conflict was still Massachusetts. The British authorities, ever more attracted to a hard line, were becoming increasingly disenchanted with the timorousness and caution of General Gage, who had actually asked for heavy reinforcements when everyone knew that the scurvy Americans could be routed by a mere show of force from the superb British army. Four hundred Royal Marines and several new regiments were sent to Gage, but the king, one of the leaders of coercion sentiment, seriously considered removing Gage from command.

There were a few voices of reason in the British government, but they were not listened to. The Whiggish secretary of war, Lord Barrington, urged reliance on the cheap and efficient method of naval blockade rather than on a land war in the large expanse and forests of America. And General Edward Harvey warned of any attempt to conquer America by a land army. But the cabinet was convinced that ten thousand British regulars, assisted by American Tories, could crush any conceivable American resistance. Underlying this conviction—and consequent British eagerness to wield armed force—was a chauvinist and quasi-racist contempt for the Americans. Thus, General James Grant sneered at the “skulking peasants” who dared to resist the Crown. Major John Pitcairn, stationed at Boston, was sure that “if he drew his sword but half out of the scabbard, the whole banditti of Massachusetts Bay would flee before him.” Particularly important was the speech in Parliament of the powerful Bedfordite, the Earl of Sandwich, first lord of the Admiralty, who sneeringly asked:

Suppose the colonies do abound in men, what does that signify? They are raw, undisciplined, cowardly men. I wish instead of…fifty thousand of these brave fellows, they would produce in the field at least two hundred thousand; the more the better; the easier would be the conquest…the very sound of a cannon would carry them off…as fast as their feet could carry them.

There was another reason, it should be noted, for Sandwich’s reluctance to use the fleet rather than the army against the enemy. While the army was to dispatch the Americans, Sandwich wished to use the fleet against France, with which he hoped and expected to be soon at war.

Accordingly, the Crown sent secret orders to Gage, reaching him on April 14. The Earl of Dartmouth rebuked Gage for being too moderate. The decision had been made; since the people of New England were clearly committed to “open rebellion” and independence of Britain, maximum and decisive force must be slammed down hard upon the Americans—immediately. While reinforcements were under way, it was important for the British troops to launch a preventive strike, by moving hard before an American revolution could be organized. Therefore, Gage decided to arrest the leaders of the Massachusetts provincial congress, especially Hancock and Sam Adams. As in so many other “preventive” first strikes in history, Great Britain itself precipitated the one thing it wished most to avoid: a successful revolution. Interestingly enough, the Massachusetts radicals were at the same time rejecting hotheaded plans for a first strike by rebel forces, who would thus be throwing away the hard-forged unity of the American colonists.

Adams and Hancock were out of town and out of reach, near Concord; so Gage decided to kill two birds with one stone by sending a military expedition to Concord to seize the large stores of rebel military supplies and to arrest the radical leaders. Gage determined to send out the force secretly, to catch the Americans by surprise; that way if armed conflict broke out, the onus for initiating the fray could be laid on the Americans. Gage also used a traitor high up in radical ranks. Dr. Benjamin Church, of Boston, whom the British supplied with funds to maintain an expensive mistress, informed on the location of the supplies and the rebel leaders. (Church’s perfidy remained undetected for many more months.) Gage learned from Church, furthermore, that the provincial congress, under the prodding of the frightened Joseph Hawley, had resolved on March 30 not to fight any armed British expedition unless it should also bring artillery. By not sending out artillery, Gage figured that the Americans would not resist the expedition.1

Gage, however, immediately encountered what would prove a major difficulty in fighting a counterinsurgency war by a minority ruling army against insurgent forces backed by the vast majority of the people. He found that, surrounded by a sullen and hostile people, he could not keep any of his troop or fleet movements hidden. The rebels would quickly discover these movements and spread the news.

On April 15, the day after receiving his orders, Gage relieved his best troops of duty, gathered his boats, and on the night of April 18 shipped seven hundred under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith to the mainland, from which they began to march northwest to Lexington and Concord. But the Americans quickly discovered what was happening. Someone, perhaps Dr. Joseph Warren, sent Paul Revere to Lexington to warn Adams and Hancock. Hancock, emotional, wanted to join the minutemen, springing to arms; but the sober intelligence of Sam Adams reminded Hancock of his revolutionary duty as a top leader of the American forces, and they both fled to safety. Revere was soon captured, but Dr. Samuel Prescott was able to speed to Concord and bring the news that the British were coming.

As news of the British march reached the Americans, the Lexington minutemen gathered under the command of Captain John Parker. Rather absurdly, Parker drew up his handful of seventy men in open formation across the British path. When Major Pitcairn, in charge of six companies of the British advance guard, came up to confront the militia, Pitcairn brusquely ordered the Americans to lay down their arms and disperse. Parker, seeing his error, was more than willing to disperse but not to disarm. In the midst of this tense confrontation, shots rang out. No one knows who fired first; the important thing is that the British, despite Pitcairn’s orders to stop, fired far longer and more heavily than necessary, mercilessly shooting at the fleeing Americans so long as they remained within range. Eight Americans were killed in the massacre (including the brave but foolish Parker, who refused to flee), and eight wounded, whereas only one British soldier was slightly wounded. The exuberant and trigger-happy British troops cheered their victory; but the victory at Lexington would prove Pyrrhic indeed. The blood shed at Lexington made the restraining resolution of Joseph Hawley obsolete. The Revolutionary War had begun! Sam Adams, upon hearing the shooting from some distance away, at once realized that the fact of the open clash was more significant than who would win the skirmish. Aware that the showdown had at last arrived, Adams exclaimed, “Oh! What a glorious morning is this!”

The British troops marched happily on to Concord. This time the Americans did not try any foolhardy open confrontation with the British forces. Instead, an infinitely wiser strategy was employed. In the first place, part of the military stores were carried off by the Americans. Second, no resistance was offered to the British entry into Concord, thus lulling the troops into a further sense of security. While the British were destroying the remaining stores, three to four hundred militiamen gathered at the bridge into Concord and advanced upon the British rear guard. The British shot first, but were forced to retreat across the bridge, having suffered three killed and nine wounded. The despised Americans were beginning to make up for the massacre at Lexington.

Heedless of the ominous signs of the gathering storm, Colonel Smith, commanding the expedition, kept his men around Concord for hours before beginning to march back to Boston. That march was to become one of the most famous in the annals of America. Along the way, beginning a mile out of Concord, at Meriam’s Corner, the embattled and neighboring farmers and militiamen employed the tactics of guerrilla warfare to devastating effect. Knowing their home terrain intimately, these undisciplined and individualistic Americans subjected the proud British troops to a continuous withering and overpowering fire from behind trees, walls, and houses. The march back soon became a nightmare of destruction for the buoyant British; their intended victory march, a headlong flight through a gauntlet. Colonel Smith was wounded and Pitcairn unhorsed. The British were saved from decimation only by a relief brigade of twelve hundred men under Earl Percy that reached them at Lexington. Still, Americans continued to join the fray and fire at the troops, despite heavy losses imposed by British flanking parties.

Despite the British reinforcements, the Americans might have slaughtered and conquered the British force if (a) they had not suffered from shortages of ammunition, (b) the British had not swerved into Charlestown and embarked for Boston under the protecting guns of the British fleet, and (c) excessive caution had not held the Americans back from a final blow at the troops on the road to Charlestown. Even so, the deadly march back to Boston was a glorious victory, physically and psychologically, for the Americans. Of some fifteen to eighteen hundred redcoats, ninety-nine were killed and missing, and 174 wounded. The exultant Americans, who numbered about four thousand irregular individuals that day, suffered ninety-three casualties. Insofar as these individuals were led that day, it was by Dr. Joseph Warren and William Heath, appointed a general by the Massachusetts provincial congress.

Events could not have gone better for the American cause: initial aggression and massacre by the arrogant redcoats, then turned to utter rout by the aroused and angry people of Massachusetts. It was truly a tale for song and story. As Willard Wallace writes,

Even now, the significance of Lexington and Concord awakens a response in Americans that goes far beyond the details of the day or the identity of the foe. An unmilitary people, at first overrun by trained might, had eventually risen in their wrath and won a hard but splendid triumph.2

Above all, as Sam Adams was quick to realize, the stirring events of April 19, 1775, touched off a general armed conflict: the American Revolution. In the immortal lines of Emerson, penned for the fiftieth anniversary of that day:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

—

1Knollenberg, Growth of the American Revolution, pp. 182, 190.

2Willard M. Wallace, Appeal to Arms: A Military History of the American Revolution (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964), p. 26.

The post Refusing to Disarm: The Battle of Lexington and Concord appeared first on LewRockwell.