Aggregatore di feed

Thanks. John Smith. 

The Intercept

The post The Unusual Nonprofit That Helps ICE Spy on Wire Transfers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes, Gail Appel:

He’s fabulous! Can you imagine he was a former BLM activist?

The post I love this guy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Daniel Greenfield is a very honest investigative journalist who calls balls and strikes. The good bad and the ugly.

See here.

The post The ADL was always rotten appeared first on LewRockwell.

“If it is known that authorities have power to coerce, few people will wait for actual coercion,” economist Friedrich Hayek wrote in the 1956 foreword to his 1944 classic, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s insight could be the Rosetta Stone for understanding the Trump administration’s censorship zealotry.

On March 25, six masked federal agents seized a Turkish graduate student on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. Rumeysa Ozturk—who was wearing a hijab—was a Fulbright scholar working on a doctorate at Tufts University. Ozturk was snatched up because she co-authored a student newspaper op-ed a year earlier that criticized Israel, as I discussed here on March 31 (“First They Came for the Op-Ed Writers”).

Secretary of State Marco Rubio denounced Ozturk as a “lunatic” and implied she was guilty of participating “in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos.” Ozturk was shuffled between detention facilities before being taken to Louisiana. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to deport her without any judicial proceedings.

Ozturk’s student visa was secretly revoked several days before she was taken into custody. Did the Trump administration want a high-profile incident in order to deter any other students from writing op-eds or from protesting Middle East policies?

On Sunday night, the Washington Post detonated the Trump case against Ozturk by publishing extracts from a confidential State Department memo. Prior to Ozturk being seized outside of Boston, senior DHS official Andre Watson sent a memo to the State Department stating that, “OZTURK engaged in anti-Israel activism… Specifically, [Ozturk] co-authored an op-ed article” that “called for Tufts to ‘disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.’” But the State Department found that no federal agency had turned up any evidence that Ozturk “engaged in antisemitic activity or made public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization.” Despite Rubio’s vilification of Ozturk, the feds didn’t have squat on her.

DHS wanted Ozturk expelled from the US under a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that entitles the Secretary of State to deport any foreigner if there are reasonable grounds to believe their presence has “adverse policy consequence for the United States.” But there was no such evidence for Ozturk, so the Trump administration instead used a legal authority under which the Secretary of State can deport anyone on his own decree—no evidence required.

Because of her op-ed criticizing Israel, Ozturk vanished into the federal detention system, moved from state to state so the Trump administration could avoid a habeas petition in federal court challenging her detention. She was forced to wear leg shackles and a chain around her waist. She has asthma and had several attacks so far in lockup. At the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, she sleeps with 23 other people in a cell meant for 14. “None of us are able to sleep through the night. They come into the cell often and walk around triggering the fluorescent lights. They shout in the cell to wake up those who work in the kitchen around 3:30 am each day,” she said. Ozturk stated that a federal officer told her: “We are not monsters. We do what the government tells us.” So, of course, federal officials are blameless for any rights that they violate.

Ozturk is one of the most high-profile seizures that Trump’s DHS has made of students who criticized Israeli policies in Gaza. Hundreds of student visas have been revoked and the Trump administration has floated proposals to prohibit all foreign students from attending American universities that fail to fully suppress criticism or protests against Israeli policies.

It would be the height of folly for Americans to presume they face no peril from entitling the feds to seize boundless power to punish students’ speech. Ozturk’s name was provided to the Trump administration by Betar—an organization that the Washington Post characterized as a “militant Zionist group.” US citizens are at risk as well. A spokesman for Betar declared: “We provided hundreds of names to the Trump administration of visa holders and naturalized Middle Easterners and foreigners” who have criticized Israeli policies. The Anti-Defamation League condemned Betar as an extremist organization in February.

Any precedent for blanket censorship will propagate like a covid virus. Many conservatives and libertarians may shrug off Ozturk’s degradation because they have no interest in criticizing the policies of foreign governments. But the Ozturk case hinges on collective guilt—on assuming that anyone who advocates a position is culpable for any crimes committed by any other advocate with the same view.

This was the tacit doctrine that the Biden administration used to legally scourge peaceful January 6 protestors who merely “paraded without a permit” through or near the US Capitol that day. Because a minority of January 6 protestors became violent, the FBI presumed that “trespassing plus thought crimes equal terrorism,” justifying harsh sentences for anyone at the scene (except for the undercover federal agents and informants).

What legal perils will pro-freedom protestors face in the coming years if the Ozturk rule is canonized, entitling federal officials to crush any disfavored opinion? Big-spending Democrats may consecrate Modern Monetary Theory and demonize anyone who criticizes the Federal Reserve. I took this “Kill the Central Bank” photo of Ron Paul supporters at a 2008 Capitol Hill event for his presidential campaign. If the same protestors had peacefully carried the same banner within a half mile of the Capitol on January 6, they likely would have been nailed on a bevy of federal charges. Many politicians have made stark their hatred of libertarians and freedom advocates. A federally-funded Fusion Center tagged Ron Paul supporters as potential terrorist suspects, and another federally-funded center sounded the alarm on anyone “reverent of individual liberty.”

As long as anyone is sitting in shackles in a federal detention center simply for writing an op-ed, freedom of speech is not safe for anyone in the United States. Will Ozturk’s persecution finally wake up people too confident that “it can never happen here”?

The post Foreign Student Persecution Imperils any American Who Advocates for Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Donald Trump last week announced new plans for a $1 trillion defense budget in 2026. Trump bragged about his big plans for spending ever larger amounts of taxpayer funds, stating at a meeting with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu that “We’re going to be approving a budget, and I’m proud to say, actually, the biggest one we’ve ever done for the military … $1 trillion. Nobody has seen anything like it.” An increase in military spending to $1 trillion is a funding increase of more than $100 billion, or 12 percent. It would be the largest single-year increase since 2004, during the early years of the Iraq war.

Trump made no mention of earlier claims that his administration would cut overall federal spending while cutting the federal government’s annual deficit.

It’s easy to see why he wouldn’t mention those earlier promises. In recent days, Elon Musk has backtracked on his earlier promises that the Department of Government Efficiency would cut $1 trillion in federal spending in the near future. The new figure offered by Musk is only fifteen percent of that, or $150 billion. In other words, when it comes to spending, DOGE’s “savings” amount to about 2.2 percent of federal spending.

Things aren’t looking good for anyone who actually believed the administration’s promises to cut overall federal spending.

Assuming that DOGE actually delivers $150 billion worth of cuts to federal spending, and assuming that the Trump administration uses DOGE cuts to offset military spending, that means every other category of federal spending could increase only $50 billion overall if the goal is a cut to federal spending. Moreover, even if federal spending is cut by, say, $50 billion, that still leaves a federal deficit of nearly $2 trillion.

After all, the Trump administration has promised to not touch Social Security and Medicare, which make up forty percent of federal spending all by themselves. Given the nature of those two nondiscretionary programs, we can be sure that they will only increase in coming years.

Moreover, there is nothing in any of the new budgets approved by Trump and the GOP Congress to suggest that overall federal spending will decrease in coming years. Yes, the GOP promises to cut spending “over ten years” but anyone who has paid any attention at all over the past 30 years knows that this never happens. As Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie has pointed out, nothing beyond year three of these amorphous ten-year plans ever happens.

It’s looking more and more like this playbook is following the exact same story that we’ve witnessed during every other Republican administration over the past forty years: there is a lot of talk of budget cutting, but in the end, the trajectory of federal spending is always relentlessly upward—often with bloated military budgets leading the way.

A Huge Increase in Military Spending

The federal military budget for 2025 is estimated to be approximately $893 billion. If military spending increases to $1 trillion, that’s an increase of $107 billion. That means federal spending will continue to be well in excess of anything spent on the Pentagon during the Cold War buildup of the Ronald Reagan years. This is true even if we adjust for inflation. Indeed, in inflation-adjusted dollars, a budget of $1 trillion puts military spending even above President Obama’s military budgets in the days when the US was waging counter insurgency wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump’s proposed 2026 increase of $106 would be the largest increase since 2004,and would certainly be among the largest year-over-year increases in military spending in fifty years.

Where the Rest of the Money Goes

In 2024, (the most recently completed fiscal and calendar year), total federal spending totaled approximately $6.7 billion. In that time, military spending was about 13 percent of the total. That puts it about third place behind Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt. Interest payments have ballooned in recent years thanks to runaway federal deficits and rising interest rates. Military spending was slightly ahead of government health spending like Medicaid. Veterans spending—which is really just a form of deferred military spending—was an additional five percent.

With the exception of military spending, most of this spending is “nondiscretionary,” meaning that Congress would have to change statutes to end automatic increases to spending in these areas.

That leaves some relatively minor programs—where most of the discretionary spending is found—such as education and research.

If the Trump Administration were actually serious about cuts to federal spending, military spending would be an easy place to start because of its discretionary nature. Moreover, the administration would not have signed off on the most recent continuing resolution which essentially continued the Biden administration’s budget into the fall.

Instead, the administration has decided to double down on increases to Pentagon spending. This is especially curious given how the administration’s DOGE efforts were supposedly based in uncovering wasteful spending and poor accounting in government department. The Pentagon, meanwhile, failed its seventh audit in a row in December of 2024. The Pentagon has no idea where that money goes, and neither does DOGE. Apparently, this is no obstacle to historically large increases in budget recommendations from the White House.

The administration’s incorrigible fanboys, of course, will insist that the administration will soon—surely any time now!—implement bigtime cuts to non-military discretionary spending. Even if that were politically plausible, we now know for sure that DOGE will do virtually nothing to significantly erase federal deficits. Given the refusal of the GOP and the Trump White House to implement any meaningful cuts to federal programs, it is mathematically impossible for the White House to sizably cut the deficit, even if Trump wiped out all non-military discretionary spending.

For more realistic observers of American politics, this is all barely even worth remarking on. It’s all unfolding exactly as we’d expect. Unfortunately, many of Trump’s supporters continue to kid themselves into thinking that something is in the works that will change the nation’s debt and spending trajectory. Anything is possible, but there is zero observable evidence to suggest anything of the sort will actually happen.

The post Federal Spending Is Only Going Up: Trump Pushes Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Tensions between the US and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are reaching a boiling point.

How likely is it that this long-simmering standoff erupts into a full-scale war?

Doug Casey: Iran has been an adversary of the US ever since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the capture of the US Embassy.

It’s unlikely to get better anytime soon, not least because the country is ruled by mullahs, Shia clergy. Iran is a theocracy. And that leads us to another problem. So is Israel.

The Quran and the Hadiths constantly assert that non-believers, in general, but Jews, in particular, are the enemy. Those beliefs are part of the fabric of Mohammedanism, and that’s not going to change.

Meanwhile, the US often accuses Iran of being a terrorist state, which is untrue. Iran doesn’t send teams out around the world to create terror. Their problem is with Israel. Even so, Iran never attacked Israel directly before last year, when it launched a missile barrage.

The main cat’s paw of Iran against Israel is the Houthis, who control Northern Yemen. The Iranians and the Houthis are both Shia Muslims. Almost all Islamic terrorism comes from the Sunnis, not the Shias.

As for the Houthis, they’re a state within a state. Yemen is just an agglomeration of tribes. It’s about the poorest and most dangerous place in the world. There’s no point in parsing local politics in a place like that; it’s enough to say that the Houthis support the Gazans and hate the Israelis. The Iranians supply them with missiles to launch at Israel, and ships headed to or from Israel on the Red Sea.

There’s no reason why the US should be involved in an ancient religious dispute on the other side of the world. But it is, launching expensive air strikes to kill local peasants and blow up their mud huts. It’s nothing unusual there. US involvement only makes things worse. The question is: Will the US start a war with Iran?

It’s said (we only know what we’re told) that the US has transferred six B-2 bombers, among other military assets, to the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. It’s a convenient launch point for an attack on Iran.

The US is already actively bombing the primitive Houthis, which amounts to state terrorism. Fun fact: The Houthis have never done anything against the US, nor are they capable of it. The US has gotten into the habit of promiscuously attacking any country it wants, especially small ones that can’t strike back. It’s quite shameful.

International Man: Even if Washington prefers to avoid a military confrontation, could Israeli actions effectively force the US into a war with Iran?

Doug Casey: The Times of Israel ran an article last week spotlighting 13 Jews, plus Ivanka and Jared Kushner, in Trump’s inner circle. In addition, there are 10 senators and about two dozen congressmen who are Jewish. A number of them are dual nationals of Israel and the US. It’s inappropriate to be a US Government official and simultaneously a citizen of another country. No doubt they try to influence Trump.

I realize that you’re not supposed to mention things of this nature, especially about Jews or Muslims. But most Americans are unaware that for decades, the US has been giving the Israelis and the Egyptians—each—about $4 billion per year.

It’s a mystery why that money goes to the Israelis. But for the Egyptians it’s a bribe to keep them friendly with the Israelis. Of course that’s only part of the $74 billion dispensed to foreign governments last year. I suspect that the real number is much higher. Who knows how much more goes out in loans, aid from NGOs, and all manner of disguised corruption? The proper amount of aid, FWIW, is zero.

The relationship between Israel and the US is like that between a vicious dog and his bad-tempered master. I’m not sure who’s the dog and who’s the master. But it’s an inappropriate relationship.

International Man: What would a full-scale war with Iran look like?

Doug Casey: Well, the first and most obvious consequence would be the Iranians closing the 30-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz at the southern end of the Persian Gulf. Most of the oil pumped from the Middle East has to go through it, too. It’s really an Iranian lake. The same is true about the exit of the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, which Yemen controls; the Suez Canal could become useless.

If these two waterways are closed—which they absolutely would be—it would be a catastrophe for world trade, oil in particular. Oddly, it wouldn’t have a huge direct effect on the US, which is now a net oil exporter and gets almost no oil or any other traffic through the Yemeni-controlled Red Sea or the Iran-controlled Strait of Hormuz. A full-scale war with Iran would be chaos for the world, plus a bunch of sunken US Navy ships.

International Man: In what ways would a war with Iran resemble—or differ from—the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Doug Casey: Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is big game. It would be practically impossible to invade Iran, because of its huge size, mountainous terrain, and population of 80 million.

The last thing the US needs is a sunk aircraft carrier. Even now, bombing the primitive Yemenis, it’s said the US has lost 10 Predator and Reaper drones, at $30 million a pop. Since war is essentially a matter of economics, and its adventure with the Houthis has already cost well into nine figures, I’d say the US has already lost.

On the bright side, as aggressive and threatening as the Trump regime is, at least they’re talking to the Iranians. Unlike the Biden regime, which spoke to neither Iran nor Russia. The Trumpers bluster, but at least they’re willing to negotiate. The Bidenistas fomented and financed the war between the Ukraine and Russia but remained totally incommunicado with a nuclear power. That was criminally stupid.

At least he’s talking with them, although Trump threatens to do things “like they’ve never seen before,” to use one of his favorite phrases. But he’s apparently insisting that they close their nuclear reactors, and essentially demilitarize. That’s a non-starter.

International Man: How might a war with Iran impact the Trump administration’s domestic priorities and broader foreign policy goals?

Doug Casey: One thing to remember is that China, Russia, and Iran have close trade and military relations with each other. So, threatening Iran can only worsen US relations with both China and Russia. And they’re not good right now.

You can expect the Chinese and the Russians to aid Iran with technology and materiel. Most likely they’ll do it covertly, the way the US helped the Ukraine. So if the US starts something with Iran, it’s not going to be a cakewalk like invading Panama or Grenada or bombing the Houthis.

Trump may understand something about the art of the deal, but he knows nothing about economics or history. It would be good if someone drew Thomas Jefferson’s words to his attention: The United States should be a friend to all but an ally to none. Or what John Adams said: We should never go abroad hunting for dragons to slay.

International Man: What do you see as the major geopolitical and financial consequences if the US becomes entangled in a war with Iran?

Doug Casey: It’s hard to tell how much money the US really spends on its military. Figuring it out is like rooting through a landfill.

I hate to call it the “defense” budget because that’s a misnomer, an extreme euphemism. It amounts to a welfare program for a military-industrial complex making obsolescent vanity toys. It’s generally reported at about $800 billion, but Trump says he wants to raise it to $1 trillion. That’s an incomprehensible thing to say when the country’s already over the edge of bankruptcy.

Remember what Randolph Bourne said: “War is the health of the State.” If you support freedom, you’ve got to be naturally opposed to war, especially a completely unnecessary one with Iran. There’s nothing the US can gain. Only Israel could conceivably benefit from that war.

And probably not even Israel. If you hit a hornet’s nest with a baseball bat, it will hurt the hornet’s nest, but the hornets will swarm anybody nearby. An it’s not like they’ll think the Israelis are innocent bystanders…

While I’m rolling out famous quotes, Field Marshall Helmuth von Molkte said that no battle plan survives first contact with an enemy. Trump wouldn’t be familiar with that quote. But who doesn’t know Mike Tyson’s take: “Everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

It seems to me that, although the US is obviously following in the footsteps of Rome as it declined, Athens might be a better comparison. They fomented the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, which ended up bankrupting and destroying Athens.

The same thing is happening before our eyes with the US. The wars and rumors of wars emanating out of Washington can’t end well.

We can’t do anything about the big picture. But you should stay long: gold, oil, gas, and coal.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Potential for War With Iran—and the Financial Shockwaves That Could Follow appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s actions were neither ‘spur of the moment’, nor whimsical. The ‘tariff solution’ had been pre-prepared by his team over years.

The Trump ‘shock’ – his ‘de-centring’ of America from serving as pivot to the post-war ‘order’ via the dollar – has triggered a deep cleavage between those who gained huge benefit from the status quo, on the one hand; and on the other, the MAGA faction who have come to regard the status quo as inimical – even an existential threat – to U.S. interests. The sides have descended into bitter, accusatory polarisation.

It is one of the ironies of the moment that President Trump and right-wing Republicans have insisted on decrying – as a “resource curse” – the benefits of the Reserve Currency status that precisely brought the U.S. the wave of inward global savings that has permitted the U.S. to enjoy the unique privilege of printing money, without adverse consequence: Until now that is! Debt levels finally matter, it seems, even for the Leviathan.

Vice-President Vance now likens the Reserve Currency to a “parasite” that has eaten away the substance of its ‘host’ – the U.S. economy – by forcing an overvalued dollar.

Just to be clear, President Trump believed there was no choice: Either he could upend the existing paradigm, at the cost of considerable pain for many of those dependent on the financialised system, or he could allow events to wend their way towards an inevitable U.S. economic collapse. Even those who understood the dilemma the U.S. faces, nonetheless have been somewhat shocked by the self-serving brazenness of him simply ‘tariffing the world’.

Trump’s actions, (as many claim), were neither ‘spur of the moment’, nor whimsical. The ‘tariff solution’ had been pre-prepared by his team over recent years, and formed an integral part to a more complex framework – one that complemented the debt-reduction and revenue effects of tariffs, by a programme to coerce the repatriation of vanished manufacturing industry back to America.

Trump’s is a gamble that may, or may not, succeed: It risks a bigger financial crisis, as financial markets are over-leveraged and fragile. But what is clear is that the de-centring of America that will follow from his crude threats and humiliation of world leaders ultimately will cause a counter-reaction both for relations with the U.S., and also in global willingness to continue to hold U.S. assets (such as U.S. Treasuries). China’s defiance of Trump will set a ‘tone’, even for those who lack China’s ‘heft’.

Why then should Trump take such a risk? Because, behind Trump’s boldfaced actions, notes Simplicius, lies a harsh reality facing many MAGA supporters:

“it remains inarguable that the American workforce has been gutted by the triple threat of mass migration; general worker anomie as consequence of cultural decay – and in particular, by the mass alienation and disenfranchisement of conservatively-minded men. These have been strongly contributing factors to the current crisis of doubt about the ability of ‘American manufacturing’ to ever return to a semblance of its previous glory, no matter how big an axe Trump takes to the stricken ‘World Order’”.

Trump is mounting a Revolution in order to invert this reality – an end to the American anomie – by (Trump hopes) bringing back U.S. industry.

There is a current of western public opinion – “by no means limited to intellectuals”, nor to Americans alone – that despairs of their own country’s ‘lack of will’, or its inability to do what needs to be done – its fecklessness and its ‘crisis of competence’. These people hanker for a leadership believed to be tougher and more decisive – a longing for unconstrained power and ruthlessness.

One highly-placed Trump supporter puts it quite brutally: “We are now at a very important inflection point. If we are going to face ‘The Big Ugly’ with China, we cannot afford divided loyalties … It’s time to get mean, brutally, harshly mean. Delicate sensibilities must be dispatched like a feather in a hurricane”.

It is no surprise that, against the general context of western nihilism, a mindset that admires power and ruthless technocratic solutions – almost ruthlessness for its own sake – could take hold. Take note – we are all in for a turbulent future.

The West’s economic unravelling has been made more complicated by Trump’s often contradictory statements. It may be a part to his repertoire; yet nonetheless, the haphazardness evokes the thought that nothing is trustworthy; nothing is constant.

It has been reported by ‘White House insiders’ that Trump has lost all inhibition when it comes to bold action: “He’s at the peak of just not giving a f**k anymore”, a White House official familiar with Trump’s thinking told the Washington Post:

“Bad news stories? He doesn’t give a f**k. He’s going to do what he’s going to do. He’s going to do what he promised to do on the campaign trail”.

When some portion of a country’s population despairs of their own country’s “lack of will” or inability to “do what needs to be done”, Aurelian argues, they begin, from time to time, to identify emotionally with ‘Another Country’, believed to be tougher and more decisive. In this particular moment, “the mantle” of being “some sort of Nietzschean super-hero – beyond considerations of good and evil” … “landed upon Israel” – at least for an influential layer of both the U.S. and European policy-makers. Aurelian continues,

“Israel, whose combination of a superficially western-style society with audacity, ruthlessness and a total disregard for international law and human life, was exciting to many and has become a model for emulation. Western support for Israel in Gaza makes much more sense when you realise that western politicians, and parts of the intellectual class, secretly admire the ruthlessness and brutality of Israel’s war”.

Yet, despite the disruption and the pain caused by the U.S. ‘turn’, it nonetheless represents a huge opportunity too – an opportunity to shift to an alternate societal paradigm beyond neo-liberal financialism. This has been ruled out, until now, by the élite insistence on TINA (there is no alternative). Now the door is open a crack.

Karl Polyani, in his Great Transformation (published some 80 years ago), held that the massive economic and social transformations that he had witnessed during his lifetime – the end of the century of “relative peace” in Europe from 1815 to 1914, and the subsequent descent into economic turmoil, fascism and war, which was still ongoing at the time of the book’s publication – had but a single, overarching cause:

Prior to the 19th century, Polyani insisted, the human ‘way of being’ (economics as an organic component of society) had always been ‘embedded’ in society, and subordinated to local politics, customs, religion and social relations; i.e. subordinated to a civilisational culture. Life was not treated as separate; not reduced to distinct particulars, but was viewed as parts to an organic whole – that is, to Life itself.

Post-modern nihilism (that descended into unregulated neo-liberalism of the 1980s) turned this logic on its head. As such, it constituted an ontological break with much of history. Not only did it artificially separate the ‘economic’ from the political and ethical ‘way of being’, but open, free-trade economics (in its Adam Smith formulation) demanded the subordination of society to the abstract logic of the self-regulating market. For Polanyi, this “meant no less than the running of community as an adjunct to the market”, and nothing more.

The answer – clearly – was to make society again the dominant part to a distinctly human community; i.e. given its meaning through a living culture. In this sense, Polanyi also emphasised the territorial character of sovereignty – the nation-state as the sovereign pre-condition to the exercise of democratic politics.

Polanyi would have argued that, absent a return to Life itself as the central pivot to politics, a violent backlash was inevitable. Is such a backlash what we are seeing today?

At a conference of Russian industrialists and entrepreneurs, on 18 March 2025, Putin referred precisely to a ‘National Economics’ alternate solution for Russia. Putin highlighted both the imposed siege on the state, and set out the Russian response it – a model which is likely to be adopted by much of the globe.

It is a mode of economic thinking that is already practiced by China which had anticipated Trump’s Tariff Blitz.

Putin’s address – metaphorical speaking – constitutes the financial counterpart to his 2007 Munich Security Forum speech, at which he accepted the military défie posed by ‘collective NATO’. Last month however, he went further – Putin stated clearly that Russia had accepted the challenge posed by the Anglo ‘open economy’ financial order.

Putin’s address was in one sense nothing really new – It was the shift from the ‘open economy’ model towards ‘National Economics’.

The ‘National Economic’s School’ (of the nineteenth century) argued that Adam Smith’s analysis, which was heavily focused on individualism and cosmopolitanism, overlooked the crucial role of the national economy.

The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations by the predominant manufacturing and commercial and powers. Those advocating for a national economy countered Smith’s open economy by advocating a ‘closed economy’ to allow nascent industries to grow and become competitive on the global stage.

“Hold to no illusions: There is nothing beyond this reality”, Putin warned the gathered Russian industrialists in March 2025. “Set illusions aside”, he told delegates:

“Sanctions and restrictions are today’s reality – together with a new spiral of economic rivalry already unleashed”.

“Sanctions are neither temporary nor targeted measures; they constitute a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Regardless of global developments or shifts in the international order, our competitors will perpetually seek to constrain Russia and to diminish its economic and technological capacities”.

“You should not hope for complete freedom of trade, payments and capital transfers. You should not count on Western mechanisms to protect the rights of investors and entrepreneurs… I’m not talking about any legal systems – they just don’t exist! They exist there only for themselves! That’s the trick. Do you understand?!”

Our [Russian] challenges exist, ‘yes’, Putin said; “but theirs are abundant also. Western dominance is slipping away. New centres of global growth are taking centre stage”.

These challenges are not the ‘problem’; they are the opportunity, Putin argued: We will prioritise domestic manufacturing and the development of tech industries. The old model is over. Oil and gas production will be simply the adjunct to a largely internally circulating, self-sufficient ‘real economy’ – with energy no longer its driver. We are open to western investment – but only on our terms – and the small ‘open’ sector of our otherwise closed, self-circulating real economy will of course still trade with our BRICS partners.

Russia is returning to the National Economy model, Putin implied. ‘This makes us sanction and tariff resistant’. ‘Russia is also inducement resistant – being self-sufficient in energy and raw materials’, Putin said. A clear alternate economic paradigm in the face of an unraveling world order.

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

The post Trump Axes a Stricken World Order – But There’s Opportunity Amidst the Turmoil appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s not as if it was ever a secret: The very core of the woke movement is fundamentally rooted in evil. The general definition of “evil” being a conscious act of deception and destruction, the deliberate victimization of others for the sake of personal power, pleasure and gain. When I try to imagine what a religion of evil might look like I consistently come back to the far-left woke movement along with its rabid mantras, agendas and self righteous narcissism.

The majority of human beings have an inherent sense of good and evil; we often refer to this condition as conscience or moral compass. The intuitive inner voice that guides us and warns us when we stray into “the dark side” is a product of archetypal knowledge – What psychologist Carl Jung described as a set of inborn complexes or symbols that tap into our deepest emotions and sense of identity. All our social interactions are in some way affected by these archetypes.

These ideas are universal, present in nearly every culture in every part of the world at every point in time in the world. Societies with zero social interaction and separated by thousands of years and thousands of miles all have these symbols and principles present in their mythology, academia and ideologies. The building blocks of everything from language, to mathematics to religion and morality are influenced by inherent psychological imprints present in our minds from the moment of birth.

I have written extensively about these inborn characteristics since 2006 because their existence is a fascinating window into the human soul. Numerous philosophers, anthropologists and mind scientists have spent their careers studying archetypes and their meanings.

Some people (myself included) see archetypes as scientific proof of creative design; proof of God. Fatalists take it further and argue that they are a kind of genetic “pre-programming” or divine software that controls everything we think and do. However, because archetypes share dual identities and competing concepts, this means we are not necessarily “programmed” like robots. Rather we are given the ability to choose and with choice comes the free will to do good, or evil.

For other people (globalists, leftists and run of the mill psychopaths) free will means the ability to choose not to believe in archetypes, or morality or even objective truth. They choose nihilism, but this is only part of the problem. The defiance of truth goes beyond some misguided attempt to be free from societal judgment.

Instead, evil people define freedom without responsibility as the ultimate state of being – In other words, they view the capacity to inflict suffering and destruction without regard as an evolutionary advantage. They think their lack of humanity makes them superhuman.

It’s no mistake that leftists and woke activists are obsessed with power dynamics; their new religion ensures that they cannot see the world any other way. For woke ideologues everything revolves around which groups hold power and how they can take that power for themselves. Thus, questions of right and wrong never enter into the equation. Power is the end that justifies all means.

They see moral order as an artificial construct that oppresses them (because they want to do evil without consequence). Moral relativism at its core requires the victimization of others as a form of rebellion against order. Of course, the injustice of this mentality is hard to dismiss but leftists have a way around that.

There’s no shortage of woke activists who have displayed a contempt for the law and for morals when they’re being judged, but they will joyfully embrace morals and the law when they think these things can be used against their enemies. Hypocritically, leftists like the idea of rules, but only for other people. Rules are a shield to prevent retribution from the people they victimize. That’s the only purpose rules serve for the woke.

To summarize, leftists are TOTAL relativists. The rules do not apply to them. The law does not apply to them. Morality does not apply to them. Conscience is non-existent for them (or it exists but they have trained their minds to ignore it). Biological reality does not apply to them. They think they are special and that boundaries should only exist for the people they don’t like.

This is pure evil. There’s no other rational way to look at it.

But where does this demonic belief system come from? Well, there are many theories. The term “Postmodernism” comes up often and is a philosophy from the latter part of the 20th Century that rejects ideas of objective and universal truth. Postmodernism is cited as an ideological offspring of Marxism; a smug rebranding of the socialist agenda for consumption by the academic elite.

Another source that I’ve covered over the years is “Futurism”, which was a precursor movement to the socialist regimes in Europe in the 20th Century. Futurists believe that all old ideas are inferior and must be constantly replaced with new ideas in order for society to progress. It emphasizes the inversion of conservatism; a war on the accomplishments and constructs of previous generations. That is to say, the past has no value to them because it gets in the way of the new order they want.

They believe that society must exist as an ever churning revolution against tradition, principles and reason. Chaos is the result. In many ways they even revere it. If I were to define Postmodernism and Futurism in practical terms, both represent a psychopathic love affair with chaos. For without objective truth there can be no order, and without order evil prevails.

It should be noted that both Postmodernism and Futurism started as artistic movements within the elitist fold. Both started as mind games for deconstructing archetypes and then they were adapted by academia and ideological zealots into the realm of politics. If the inborn meaning of archetypes can be deconstructed, then all the principles of our civilization can be deconstructed.

I’ve mentioned this quote many times and I’ll use it again here because it perfectly encompasses the problem posed by relativists – As Charlie Sheen states at the end of the movie Platoon:

“Somebody once wrote, ‘Hell is the impossibility of reason.’ That’s what this place feels like. Hell…”

This is the world that leftists and globalists are trying to build right now: A hell on Earth. A world without reason. But what would motivate people to embrace such a monstrous social inversion? That’s where Luciferianism comes in. Luciferianism is in part a religion; an ideology of self worship that venerates pride and believes SOME humans are gods trapped by the oppressive boundaries of nature and society. It’s a common trait among narcopaths and psychopaths; the internal lust for godhood is a tale as old as the Bible.

Lucifer (Satan) was a servant entity that sought to surpass God and rule the universe by his own standards. The Garden of Eden is based on the idea of humanity coveting the power of knowledge without responsibility and losing respect for creation. The Tower of Babel is a tale of man’s foolish urge to centralize and control creation, building great monuments to himself in a vain effort to reach the divine.

The theme pops up over and over again, not just in Christianity but also in secular mythology. The idea that we should not “play God” is present in popular media ever since the era of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Luciferians declare the opposite: They say yes, they will play god, and anyone that tries to stop them is an “inferior” that deserves to be eliminated.

In this way the trio of evils combines to form the New World Order religion. Postmodernism is a war on objective truth, especially as it applies to human society. Futurism is a war on the past, cultural heritage and the conservation of traditional values and structures. Luciferiansim is a war on God; the denial of natural law and the refusal to accept that there are limits to human understanding and control.

When a person adopts all of these beliefs together they are capable of any conceivable atrocity. There is nothing they won’t do to achieve the destruction of the very fabric of our current civilization. There is no crime they will not rationalize. No gruesome action they will not justify. After all, they are “gods”, but gods of nihilism and death.

Of course, a REAL God has the power to create, and that’s something woke adherents are incapable of. They know how to steal, copy, repurpose and tear things down, but they will never have the capacity to create anything new. They are only gods in their little minds, but the rest of us have to suffer because of their delusions.

The war on truth and reason is a strategy to invert the natural order. It puts power in the hands of moral relativists because a society that favors relativism will automatically favor people without moral restraint. The more vicious and predatory you are, the easier it will be to get ahead. Today we might try to discourage or punish this kind of behavior, but as time passes it is increasingly normalized.

The one thing evil people are most desperate to prove is that everyone else is just like them, given the right circumstances. Turn everyday life into hell and all morality goes out the window, at least in theory.

We need to ask, what happens when evil becomes acceptable and good becomes passe? In the end you get a black void of despair and the absence of direction or purpose. Imagine a future where your principles and conscience are used against you, holding you back while people that have no principles are given all of life’s rewards. The currency of your society becomes psychopathy and the lunatics run the asylum.

And what’s really horrifying is that we’re not very far from this Orwellian nightmare. In some ways, it’s already upon us. This is the intended religion of the future – A “faith” built on the hatred of all creation, in which self worship is divine and reason is considered a punishable heresy.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post The NWO Religion: How The Woke Postmodern ‘Faith’ Glorifies Evil appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places [like the CECOT prison]. It’s not big enough.”—President Trump on his desire to send American citizens to a megaprison in El Salvador, beyond the reach of U.S. courts and the Constitution

It has begun, just as we predicted, justified in the name of national security.

Mass roundups. Raids. Indefinite detentions in concentration camps. Martial law. The erosion of habeas corpus protections. The suspension of the Constitution, at least for select segments of the population. A hierarchy of rights, contingent on whether you belong to a favored political class.

This is what it looks like when the government makes itself the arbiter of who is deserving of rights and who isn’t.

Here is what we know: one segment of the population at a time, the Trump Administration is systematically and without due process attempting to cleanse the country of what it perceives to be “undesirables” as part of its purported effort to make America great again.

This is how men, women and children are being made to disappear, snatched up off the streets by press-gangs of plainclothes, masked government agents impersonating street thugs.

Presently, these so-called “undesirables” include both undocumented and legal immigrants—many labeled terrorists despite having no criminal record, no court hearing, and no due process—before being extradited to a foreign concentration camp in an effort to sidestep judicial oversight.

By including a handful of known members of a vicious gang among those being rounded up, the government is attempting to whitewash the public into believing that everyone being targeted is, in fact, a terrorist.

In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints, characteristics and behaviors that could be considered “dangerous.”

Thus, without proof, a sheet metal worker has been labeled a terrorist. A musician has been labeled a terrorist. A makeup artist has been labeled a terrorist. A cellular biologist has been labeled a terrorist. A soccer player has been labeled a terrorist. A food delivery driver has been labeled a terrorist.

Unfortunately, the government’s attempts to dehumanize and strip individuals of their inalienable rights under the Constitution by labeling them criminals and “terrorists” is just the beginning of the dangerous game that is afoot.

It’s only a matter of time before American citizens who refuse to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates are classified as terrorists, denied basic rights, and extradited to a foreign prison.

That time is drawing closer.

Indeed, Trump has repeatedly spoken of his desire to be able to send American citizens—whom he refers to as “homegrowns,” as in homegrown terrorists—on a one-way trip to El Salvador’s mega-prison, where conditions are so brutal that officials brag the only way out is in a coffin. His administration is currently trying to find a way to accomplish that very objective.

We’re not quite there yet, but it’s coming.

What we are witnessing is history repeating itself in real-time: the widening net that ensnares us all. In other words, it’s only a matter of time before anyone who is not fully compliant gets labeled a terrorist.

A prime example of how the government casting its net in ever-widening circles can be seen in the government’s sudden decision to target academics in the U.S. on work and student visas who have been critical of Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 50,000 people (nearly a third of them under the age of 18), as threats to national security.

Given Trump’s eagerness to take ownership of the Gaza strip in order to colonize it, build resorts and turn it into “the Riviera of the Middle East”—at taxpayer expense—it should come as no surprise that the Trump Administration is attempting to muzzle any activities that might stir up sympathy for the Palestinians.

Thus, the government is classifying any criticism of Israel as antisemitic and equating it with terrorism.

Under such a broad definition, Jesus himself would be considered antisemitic.

So you can add antisemitic to the list of viewpoints that could have one classified as a terrorist, rounded up by ICE, stripped of the fundamental rights to due process and a day in court, and made to disappear into a detention center.

Mind you, the government isn’t just targeting protest activities and expression that might have crossed over into civil disobedience. It’s also preemptively targeting individuals who have committed no crimes but whose views might at some point in the future run counter to the government’s self-serving interests.

This is precrime taken to a whole new level: targeting thoughts, i.e., thought crime.

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American with an opinion about the government or who knows someone with an opinion about the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

As German pastor Martin Niemöller lamented:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

You see how this works?

Let’s not mince words about what’s happening here: under the guise of fighting terrorism, the U.S. government is not just making people disappear—it is making the Constitution disappear.

When rights become privileges, the Constitution—and the rule of law—becomes optional.

We are almost at that point already.

Trump’s list of “the enemies from within” is growing in leaps and bounds.

The list of individuals and groups being classified as anti-American gets bigger by the day: Immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Immigration attorneys. Judges. Lawyers. Law firms. Doctors. Scientists. Students. Universities. Nonprofits.

Given what we know about the government and its expansive definition of what constitutes a threat to its power, any one of us who dare to speak truth to power could be targeted next as an enemy of the state.

Certainly, it is easy to remain silent in the face of evil.

What is harder—what we lack today and so desperately need—are those with moral courage who will risk their freedoms and lives in order to speak out against evil in its many forms.

Throughout history, individuals or groups of individuals have risen up to challenge the injustices of their age. Nazi Germany had its Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The gulags of the Soviet Union were challenged by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. America had its color-coded system of racial segregation and warmongering called out for what it was, blatant discrimination and profiteering, by Martin Luther King Jr.

And then there was Jesus Christ who not only died challenging the police state of his day but provided a blueprint for civil disobedience that would be followed by those, religious and otherwise, who came after him.

Any reflection on Jesus’ life and death within a police state must take into account several factors: Jesus spoke out strongly against such things as empires, controlling people, state violence and power politics. Jesus challenged the political and religious belief systems of his day. And worldly powers feared Jesus, not because he challenged them for control of thrones or government but because he undercut their claims of supremacy, and he dared to speak truth to power in a time when doing so could—and often did—cost a person his life.

It makes you wonder how Jesus—a Palestinian refugee, a radical, and a revolutionary—would have fared in the American police state under a Trump regime.

Would Jesus—who spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—have been snatched up in the dead of night, stripped of any real due process, made to disappear into a detention center, and handed a death sentence when he was delivered into a prison where the only way out is in a wooden box?

Consider that the charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King—were purely political, not religious.

Jesus was presented to Pontius Pilate “as a disturber of the political peace,” a leader of a rebellion, a political threat, and most gravely—a claimant to kingship, a “king of the revolutionary type.”

After Jesus was formally condemned by Pilate, he was sentenced to death by crucifixion, “the Roman means of executing criminals convicted of high treason.”  The purpose of crucifixion was not so much to kill the criminal, as it was an immensely public statement intended to visually warn all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. Hence, it was reserved solely for the most extreme political crimes: treason, rebellion, sedition, and banditry.

This radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, is not the politically mute, humble and obedient one whom Trump praised in his presidential proclamation.

Almost 2,000 years after Jesus was crucified by the police state of his age, we find ourselves confronted by a painful irony: that in the same week commemorating the death and resurrection of Jesus, a Palestinian refugee who was killed by the police state for speaking truth to power, the U.S. government is prosecuting Palestinian refugees who are daring to challenge another modern-day police state’s injustices, while threatening to impose widespread martial law on the country to put down any future rebellions.

President Trump has hinted that he could invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would allow the president to use the military on American soil.

This would in effect be a declaration of martial law.

Trump has already authorized the military to take control of the southern border, which puts parts of the domestic United States under martial law.

What comes next?

Trump has long speculated about using his presidential powers under the Insurrection Act to direct the military to deal with his perceived political opponents, whom he likens to “the enemy from within.”

As Austin Sarat writes for Salon: “The president alone gets to decide what constitutes an ‘insurrection,’ ‘rebellion,’ or ‘domestic violence.’ And once troops are deployed, it will not be easy to get them off the streets in any place that the president thinks is threatened by ‘radical left lunatics.’”

So where do we go from here?

History offers some clues.

Exactly 250 years ago, on April 19, 1775, the American Revolution began with a “shot heard round the world.” It wasn’t sparked by acts of terrorism or rebellion—it was triggered by a government that had grown deaf to the cries of its people.

What we don’t need is violence in any form—by the people or their government.

What we do need is a revival of moral courage.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are desperately overdue for a reminder to our government: this is still our country.

Or, as Thomas Paine so powerfully put it: “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

This originally appeared on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Refugee. Dissident. Enemy of the State. Would ICE Have Crucified Jesus? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his poem “The Betrothed,” Rudyard Kipling humorously weighed the advantages and disadvantages of marrying. Contemplating the constraints of monogamy when compared to “a harem of dusky beauties,” he takes consolation in the fact that he will, in his married state, still be allowed the pleasure of smoking a good Cuban cigar. As he reflects:

And a woman is only a woman, but a good Cigar is a Smoke.

Kipling was reflecting on the reality that life and our desires are constrained by hard facts. A man cannot always get what he wants, he will grow old, and he will die. If a man has an interest in perpetuating the species, he must marry a woman and have children with her.

Kipling’s marriage to an American woman named Caroline Starr Balestier proved to be a happy one that defied that doubts of Henry James, who, upon giving away the bride at the ceremony, said, “It’s a union of which I don’t forecast the future.”

Finally—and obviously to anyone who hasn’t lost his mind—a man cannot become a woman. All of the surgery and hormones in the world cannot make a male into a female.

I often wonder what Kipling would have thought of the UK today. I suspect he would have laughed out loud at the UK Supreme Court’s April 16 finding that

The terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA [Equality Act] 2010 refer to biological sex.

What perspicacity!

It’s a testament to how badly reasonable grownups have been beaten down by the insanity of the last ten years that we now regard the affirmation of this obvious fact as a cause for celebration.

Those who are interested in the background of the case may read the Supreme Court’s press release For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent).

The Scottish author J.K. Rowling—who has been a fierce defender of women from male pretenders—celebrated the Court’s ruling with the following tweet:

I share Ms. Rowling’s sentiment, and I often wonder why more women who hold positions of power haven’t joined her in defending the female sex from male weirdos masquerading as women. I agree with her that most of the so-called transgender movement is an assault on true girlhood—most conspicuously in the arena of sports—and womanhood.

I just returned from a conference at Cambridge University, and while I was there I passed by Lucy Cavendish College, named in honor of Lucy Cavendish (1841–1925), who campaigned for the reform of women’s education. I visited the college in memoriam of an old friend who just died who was one of the first women to attend the college after it was founded in 1965.

Margaret was my old friend’s name, but everyone called her by her nickname Peggy. She attended Lucy Cavendish to study math, which has, since Isaac Newton, been the strongest academic discipline of Cambridge University. I believe that J.K. Rowling is part of the same intellectual tradition of Lucy Cavendish and the female academics at Cambridge who founded the college in her honor.

We hope that more women who value womanhood will join Ms. Rowling in defending the female sex. They can now cite a UK Supreme Court ruling to bolster their argument.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

The post UK Supreme Court Holds that ‘Woman’ Refers to Biological Sex appeared first on LewRockwell.

Representatives of WHO member states have agreed on a draft of the “pandemic accord” that is scheduled to be voted on next month.

“The nations of the world made history in Geneva today,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, said after the member states agreed on the draft of the pandemic treaty on Wednesday.

“In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did they put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats. I thank WHO’s Member States, and their negotiating teams, for their foresight, commitment and tireless work. We look forward to the World Health Assembly’s consideration of the agreement and – we hope – its adoption,” the WHO leader continued.

The agreement was reached by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), the committee set up by the WHO to negotiate the treaty, after more than three years of negotiations.

According to the WHO’s press release, the core pandemic treaty draft includes the establishment of “a pathogen access and benefit sharing system,” allowing the sharing of data between governments and pharmaceutical companies aimed at quickly developing and supplying “pandemic-related health products” during a pandemic. These “health products” could be dangerous mRNA injections, similar to those rolled out and imposed on large parts of the world population during the COVID-19 crisis.

The WHO claims that the “proposal affirms the sovereignty of countries to address public health matters within their borders, and provides that nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or prescribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”

The WHO seems to be responding to critics of the treaty, who have criticized it as a power grab by the WHO. It would give the global organization unchecked power whenever it declares that any health risk is a “pandemic.” However, the new draft has not yet been made public, making a thorough assessment impossible.

WHO Director-general Ghebreyesus engaged in his typical fear-mongering, stating, “Virus is the worst enemy. (It) could be worse than a war.”

While the WHO pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) failed to pass last year, the new version of the agreement could be passed by a two-thirds majority at the annual World Health Assembly (May 19-27, 2025) next month.

However, the U.S. was not part of the negotiations and would not be bound by the agreement since President Donald Trump withdrew the country from the international body in January 2025 after taking office for his second term. Argentine President Javier Milei announced in February that his country will also leave the WHO, following Trump’s example. If more countries were to leave the WHO, the pandemic agreement could be ineffective in practice, even if it were to pass in May.

This originally appeared on Lifesite News.

The post WHO Member States Agree on Draft of ‘Pandemic Treaty’ That Could Be Adopted in May appeared first on LewRockwell.

[We repost this important article by Felicity Arbuthnot, first published by Global Research in 2014.]

The concept of a “Greater Israel” according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, is a Jewish State stretching “’From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.’

Rabbi Fischmann, of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, stated to the UN Special Committee on 9th July 1947 that:

The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon’”, wrote Michel Chossudovsky. (1)

Thus “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” Herzl’s detailed thesis was written in 1904.

Quoted in the same article is Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya on The Yinon Plan (1982) “ … a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East”:

“(The Yinon plan) is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

“Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.”

At the time Yinon wrote, the eight year, Western driven Iran-Iraq war was into its second year – with another six grinding years of loss, tragedy and heartbreak, valleys of widows, orphans, maimed, on both sides of their common border. The toll on life and health was compared to World War 1. Iraq of course, in an historic error, had virtually been fighting a proxy war for an American regime, even then obsessed with Islam, which, in Iran they had decided was the wrong sort of Islam. What the faith of a nation thousands of miles away had to do with Capitol Hill, remains a mystery.

The day after that devastating war ended, the US replaced Iraq over the then USSR as the country which was the biggest threat to America. A devastated, war torn nation of, at the time, just under seventeen million people. (2)

Then came the dispute with Kuwait over alleged oil theft and Dinar destabilizing with the then US Ambassador April Glaspie personally giving Saddam Hussein the green light to invade should he choose. The subsequent nation paralyzing UN embargo followed, then the 2003 decimation and occupation – another orchestrated downward spiral – and tragedy and now open talk of what has been planned for decades, the break up of Iraq.

Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.

“Mission accomplished” for both the US with its long planned redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa – and Israel, through whose friendship with the Iraqi Kurdish autocracy, was set to become pretty well a partner in an autonomous, independent Iraqi Kurdistan. Dream come true, from “the Nile to the Euphrates”, the final fruition of near seventy years of manipulation and aggression for domination of the entire region.

The all is also the vision of the super hawk, dreamer of destruction of nations, Lt Colonel Ralph Peters since the early 1990s. Here is his 2006 version (3.) Peters is a man whose vision of eternal war is seemingly an eternal wet dream. Here, again, for anyone unaware of the Colonel, is a repeat of that dream (US Army War College Quarterly, Summer 1997):

“There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts … around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. (US armed forces will keep) the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.

“We have entered an age of constant conflict.”

Peters would make some of history’s most megalomaniacal expansionists look like gift offering peaceniks. His cartographic monument to arrogance: “The New Map of the Middle East Project”, of geographical restructure in far away places of which he gave less than a damn, was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006.

It was surely no coincidence that on 1st May 2006 Joe Biden, long time Member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations – now US Vice President of course – and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Committee, joint authored a New York Times piece (4) urging the break up of Iraq, dividing the country on ethnic lines: “ … giving each ethno-religious group – Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab …” their own ethnic and political ghettos. Ignorance on wide inter-marriage, inter-relations, until 2003, inter-communities at every level for millennia, mixed  neighbourhoods, shared celebrations, religious festivals, joys and heartaches, boggle the imagination. The deluded article is entitled: “Unity through autonomy in Iraq.” Think non-sequeta, think mixed marriages, does the husband live in a “Sunni” ghetto and the wife a “Shia” one, for example?

“The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security.” A “five point plan” of ghettoisation, destruction, delusion and wickedness, the US-Israeli game plan for Iraq, with the UK as ever, tagging along dreaming of days of empire when, with France, Iraq and the region’s borders were imperially tinkered with just short of a hundred years ago (5.)

Aside from the shaming arrogance and illegality of the plan, ignorance is total. Clearly there is no knowledge in the great annals of the US State Department, Department of Foreign Affairs or the CIA of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities, also co-existing for centuries: Christians, Mandaeans, Yazidis, Turkmen, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Kakai’s, Shabaks – and indeed those who regard themselves as non-religious.

By October 2007 Joe Biden had: “attempted to create a reality when an overwhelming majority of the US Senate voted for his non-binding Resolution to divide Iraq in to three parts … (with) the Washington Post reporting that the 75-23 Senate vote was a ‘significant milestone’ ” in the severing of Iraq in to three, wrote Tom Engelhardt (6.)

Engelhardt is seemingly the only eagle eye to have picked up that: “The (tripartite) structure is spelled out in Iraq’s Constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution.”

The Constitution, written under US imposed “Viceroy” Paul Bremer, is of course, entirely invalid, since it is illegal to re-write a Constitution under an occupation.

“Only the Kurds, eager for an independent State, welcomed the plan.”

What, ponders Engelhardt, with forensic reality, would be the reaction if Iraq, or Iran for example: “passed a non-binding Resolution to divide the United States in to semi-autonomous bio-regions?”

He concludes that: “such acts would, of course, be considered not just outrageous and insulting, but quite mad.” In Iraq however: “at best it would put an American stamp of approval on the continuing ethnic cleansing of Iraq.”

However, the US Administration’s commitment is clear, Joe Biden, a self confessed Zionist, stated at the annual J Street Conference in September 2013: “If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved.” (7) Think oil, gas, strategic aims.

Biden assured his audience that: “America’s support for Israel is unshakable, period. Period, period.” (sic) He stressed a number of times the commitment that President Obama had to Israel. His own long and deep connections, he related, stretched back to a meeting with then Prime Minister Golda Meir when he was a freshman Senator and latterly his hours spent with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The latest meeting was in January this year when he travelled to Israel to pay his respects to the late Ariel Sharon and subsequently spent two hours alone in discussion with Netanyahu.

It is surely coincidence that subsequently the rhetoric for the division of Iraq accelerated. Israel has had “military, intelligence and business ties with the Kurds since the 1960s” viewing them as “a shared buffer between Arab adversaries.”

In June Netanyahu told Tel Aviv University’s INSS think tank: “We should … support the Kurdish aspiration for independence”, after “outlining what he described as the collapse of Iraq and other Middle East regions …”(8) Iraq’s internal affairs being none of Israel’s business obviously does not occur (apart from their outrageous historic aspirations for the region in spite of being the newly arriving regional guest.) The howls of Israeli fury when even basic human rights for Palestinians in their eroded and stolen lands are suggested for the last sixty six years, however, metaphorically deafen the world.

Of course Kurdistan has now laid claim to Kirkuk, with its vast oil deposits. The plan for the Northern Iraq-Haifa pipeline, an Israeli aspiration from the time of that country’s establishment can surely also not have been far from Netanyahu’s mind. An independent Kurdistan, which indeed it has enjoyed almost entirely within Iraq, since 1992 – and immediately betrayed the Iraqi State by inviting in Israel and the CIA – would herald the planned dismemberment of Iraq.

It is darkly ironic, that whether relating to the break up of their lands or ghettoisation of those of Iraqis and Palestinians, this mirrors the plan of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of ethnic cleansing, who, after the outbreak of Word War II “arranged for Jews to be concentrated into ghettos in major cities …” he also devised plans for Jewish “reservations.”

Additionally he was an architect of forcible expulsion, one of the charges brought against him after he was captured by Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet in Argentina in 1960. He was tried in Israel, found guilty of war crimes and hanged in 1962. Ironically his pre-Nazi employment had been as an oil salesman (9.)

Can Israel and the “international community” really be planning to mirror Eichmann by repatriating and ethnic cleansing? Will nations never look in to history’s mirror?

Notes

1.      http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

2.      http://www.populstat.info/Asia/iraqc.htm

3.      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-redrawing-of-the-map-of-the-middle-east-begins-with-destruction-of-iraq/5387928

4.      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

5.      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

6.     http://www.alternet.org/story/64433/congress_wants_to_split_iraq_in_three_pieces,_but_who_asked_them

7.      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/joe-biden-israel-97586.html

8.      http://jordantimes.com/israels-netanyahu-calls-for-supporting-kurdish-independence

9.      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post ‘The Israeli Dream’: The Criminal Roadmap Towards ‘Greater Israel’? appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Donald Trump’s Truth Social page this week, Trump wrote (or more likely someone wrote on his behalf):

This Holy Week, Christians around the World remember the Crucifixion of God’s Only Begotten Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and, on Easter Sunday, we celebrate His Glorious Resurrection and proclaim, as Christians have done for nearly 2,000 years, “HE IS RISEN!”

Through the pain and sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, we saw God’s boundless Love and Devotion to all Humanity and, in that moment of His Resurrection, History was forever changed with the Promise of Everlasting Life.

It would be a wonderful Resurrection Sunday greeting, if the man who sent it didn’t possess such an intense antichrist spirit. Trump callously partners with a murderous madman, Benjamin Netanyahu, and slaughters tens of thousands of Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian Christians who would love to be peacefully, joyously celebrating Resurrection Sunday with their families, but instead, they are starving, bleeding, weeping and dying under the U.S./Israeli genocide. This message was nothing more than pathetic pandering to Trump’s already super-duped evangelical base—an evangelical base that has ZERO conscience about the death and destruction that they and their political messiah are inflicting on innocent people in too many countries to even count. With such a dead conscience, how can they possess the “Spirit of life”? (Romans 8:2; Revelation 11:11)

Trump himself told evangelicals in West Palm Beach, Florida, at the Turning Point Action Believers’ Summit on July 26, 2024, “I’m not Christian.” (See also this report of the event.) This makes him a Christ-rejector, a man headed for Hell (John 14:6; Acts 4:10 -12) and, by his fanatical, unconditional support for Jewish Pharisaism, a child of the devil (John 8:44).

And what did Trump mean when he told evangelicals at the above summit, “You won’t have to vote anymore” after 2024? Is Trump really planning to be the first American Caesar in 2028?

Remember what I wrote in this column on April 3:

Also in my message last Sunday, I quoted from an article by Jesse Smith in Technocracy.News entitled Trump’s Staff is Stuffed with Peter Thiel’s ‘Counter-Elite’ Technocrats:

Trump is barely two months into his second term and a republican think-tank called the Third Term Project is seeking ways to have him remain in office beyond his current stint, which expires in 2028. They’re working on amending the Constitution to enable this possibility. Their promotional items depict Trump as a Roman Caesar.

I urge readers to take a look at this placard promoting the Third Term Project that appeared at the recent CPAC convention doing exactly as Jesse said: depicting Trump as a Roman Caesar.

Smith went on to write:

Coincidentally, Musk posted that “America is New Rome” last November.

Trump just selected a radical Zionist Jew as “special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism.”

From the Times of Israel:

US President Donald Trump has selected a new special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, elevating a Miami businessman and fundraiser named Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun to the role.

“Yehuda is a successful businessman, and staunch advocate for the Jewish Faith and the Rights of his people to live and worship free from persecution,” Trump said on Truth Social, announcing his selection.

Kaploun is affiliated with Chabad, the Orthodox movement, and was a fundraiser and surrogate for Trump during last year’s campaign.

I urge readers to watch my message The Talmud, Chabadism And Noahide Laws to understand the nefarious, devilish underpinnings and objectives of the Jewish Chabad movement.

What about the rights of the American people—including Christian people—to speak freely and honestly about the murderous, genocidal government in Israel? Trump is setting in motion the dismantlement of the First Amendment freedom of speech in the U.S., where no one will be able to criticize—orally or in print—Benjamin Netanyahu, the Zionist wars of ethnic cleansing or even Israel itself.

In his Easter address, Trump says, “Christians around the World remember the Crucifixion of God’s Only Begotten Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” He says, “Through the pain and sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, we saw God’s boundless Love and Devotion to all Humanity.”

Trump twice references Christ’s death on the Cross, but as I noted in my message The Arrest And Betrayal Of Jesus Christ, official government policy under Joe Biden and Donald Trump is recognition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and its definitions of antisemitism, which were written by Jewish Zionists. One of those definitions is: Claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel. The Trump administration and many state governments are using that definition to persecute and prosecute people in America today. Under Trump’s official U.S. policy, the entire New Testament could be designated as antisemitic using this definition.

In my Israel Package – Set One, there is a message entitled Pharisees And Jews: The New Testament Record. I introduced that address this way:

Tonight, I want to speak to you on the subject Pharisees and Jews, A New Testament Record. What is the record of the New Testament regarding Pharisees and Jews?

The only references that I have left out in my address tonight are a handful of references that make mention of the salvation or the conversion of certain Jews. For example, Acts chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost, there were Jews, devout Jews, from all these nations in Jerusalem. And Peter preached to them the Gospel, and 3,000 were saved, baptized and added to the church. All those people in Acts 2 in Jerusalem were Jews.

And there’s a handful of other references in the Book of Acts regarding the conversion of Jews in various locations. Those are the only ones that I have left out of this address.

Everything I am referring to is simply a record in the New Testament regarding the Pharisees and Jews.

I then proceeded to quote verbatim (KJV) the New Testament, without adding commentary, as to what it says about the Pharisees and Jews. Here are samples (words in red are the words of Jesus):

Matthew 3:7: But when he [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 12:14: Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him [Christ].

Matthew 16:6, 11, 12: Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Matthew 21:31, 43: Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you [Jewish chief priests and elders]. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 23:13 – 15: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mark 3:6: And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him [Christ].

John 5:15 – 18: The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:31: Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him [Christ].

John 11:8: His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?

John 11:53, 57: Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death [Christ]. Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take [arrest] him.

John 18:12: Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him.

John 19:7: The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he [Christ] ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

John 19:12 – 16: And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Acts 2:22, 23, 36: [Peter preaching to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 4:8 – 10: Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 7:51, 52, 57, 58: [Stephen preaching to the Jews] Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One [Jesus]; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,  And cast him out of the city, and stoned him.

Acts 9:23: And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him [the Apostle Paul].

Acts 12:1 – 3: Now about that time Herod the king, stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also.

Acts 14:19: And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

Acts 23:12: And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

This is the historical record of the divinely inspired New Testament regarding the Pharisees and Jews.

How long will it be before Donald Trump’s Secret Police led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun get around to categorizing the New Testament—and anyone who preaches it—as antisemitic and thus subject to criminal prosecution?

Trump speak with forked tongue!

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Trump’s Easter Message Remembers Christ’s Crucifixion, While Trump Himself Denies The New Testament Record of That Crucifixion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Every year as we approach Holy Week, a story appears in which it is alleged some misguided organization or other has just “cancelled Easter” by removing all official mention of it from their output. Concerned Christians and conservatives then move in to object, calling such measures yet another case of politically correct pandering to hair-trigger minority groups like Muslims or queers. Usually, the organization so targeted then denies having cancelled Easter at all, generally by picking up on a minor inaccuracy in initial reporting and thus arguing critics have been “misinformed,” a line happily repeated in wholly uncritical fashion by the largely anti-Christian mainstream media.

At this point, most initially irritated citizens simply take this media-dispersed denial for granted and move on. Yet those few hardy souls inclined to look into the matter further will often find that, while the denial of the organization concerned is technically correct, in actual spirit just such a cancellation of the religious element of the festival really has taken place after all.

A classic illustration occurred last Easter in Great Britain when, in a piece of quite literal gesture politics, it was reported that the U.K.’s leading chocolate manufacturer, Cadbury, had begun selling generic “Gesture Eggs” instead of “Easter Eggs” to the public, possibly to avoid offending Britain’s ever increasing number of Muslims. One of the country’s best-known religious pressure groups, Christian Concern, promptly accused Cadbury of trying to “erase the connection between Easter and eggs.” Cadbury then denied doing any such thing, pointing out their seasonal products “reference Easter very clearly on the packaging—sometimes multiple times,” making Christian Concern’s allegation “factually incorrect.”

The company’s public correction then allowed online fact-checking sites like America’s Snopes—once a reliable, nonpartisan, urban-myth-debunking site, now a biased left-leaning outlet more devoted toward exposing alleged right-wing “fake news”—to claim the whole story was false.

But was it all false? Not exactly. As Snopes’ “Context” heading above implies, while Cadbury themselves made no corporate attempts to relabel their chocolate “Gesture Eggs,” one national retail outlet, Freshstores Limited (who sometimes operate under licensed Cadbury branding), did try and do so, placing posters advertising such egg-regiously renamed items in certain of their outlets, perhaps to reassure potential Muslim customers they were all fully halal. Once the subsequent Christian outcry occurred, Freshstores quickly took them down. But this does not alter the fact they put them up in the first place!

Simply by focusing upon the single inaccuracy in some of the initial reporting—i.e., that the wrong company was widely blamed for trying to do this—the left-wingers, Islam-appeasers, and secularists in the mainstream media were able to imply that the whole story was just yet more false, hysterical, Christian scaremongering, there being no modern-day “War on Easter” being waged across the Western world at all these days.

But there is. Last year, another significant battle in this war even took place at the White House.

As we all know, Easter is a movable feast—and, in 2024, it happened to fall upon the modern, secular Holy Day of March 31, which is apparently now something called “Trans Day of Visibility” (TDOV), an occasion I was previously under the assumption occurred every single day of the year now anyway.

This provided the Joe Biden-era White House with a dilemma. Which sacred holiday to celebrate the most? Easter Sunday, the 2,000-plus-year-old main holy day of the entire Christian calendar, marking the occasion of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the promised salvation of humanity, or Trans Day of Visibility, a completely artificial “holiday” invented in 2009 by a group of cross-dressing deviants in order to senselessly politicize their niche sexual predilections and force them down the throats of everyone else?

One possible solution to the conundrum was adopted by the United Church of Christ, an obscure Protestant denomination of clear social justice bent, who decided to arbitrarily declare that at Easter every transsexual “need[s] a resurrection movement” just like Jesus, meaning that “Easter’s resurrection [of Christ] is a rainbow of queer joy and resistance.” According to one of the church’s sincerely deluded ministers, Rachael Ward (pronouns: they/them):

For TDOV this year, I’m reflecting on what it means for trans siblings to resurrect into their joy—right here, right now—on this earth. For trans siblings to no longer be tucked in a tomb [like Jesus following His crucifixion], forced to wear clothing that doesn’t share who they are through and through. No longer tucked in a tomb, forced to hide their names and pronouns for fear of being bullied. No longer tucked in a tomb, forced to adhere to legislation attempting to disembody the Imago Dei within them.  

Surely Rachael meant Imago DEI there?

Furthermore, the minister continued, as “Transgender and non-binary individuals are beloved by God, created in the image of God, and deserving of dignity and equal protection under the law,” this meant that all true Christians had to lobby the Democrats then running Washington to give transsexuals further legal protections, by “urging Congress to pass the Transgender Bill of Rights and the Equality Act.”

Given then-President Biden’s actions that very same Easter, it seems to me there was no need for such trans-fawning legislation to be passed at all, as the transgender religion (for such it is) already had equal rights with the Christian religion in the eyes of the Biden administration anyway—indeed, in some ways it seemed to have more than equal rights.

Read the Whole Article

The post Egg-regious Lies: Are Stories About ‘Cancelling Easter’ Really All Just Fake News? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that in British Law the terms “woman” and “sex” are biological terms and do not include men who identify as “transgender.” The Court ruled that people with “transgender recognition certificates,” whatever that is, are excludable from biological single-sex spaces.

There are interesting aspects of this case that deserve comment. The case was brought by Scottish women’s rights groups against the Scottish government’s imposition of men who declare themselves to be women on biological women’s spaces. What has become of the Scottish people that they put in office a deranged, crazed government that forces biological women to accept men into their private spaces simply because the deranged man declares himself to be a woman? How did Scotland get a deranged government that in earlier times would have been hung off the nearest lamp posts, if not drawn and quartered in the public square? What has gone wrong with the Scottish people that they are unable to make intelligent and moral choices about those they empower to govern them?

We see a similar collapse of historic peoples in Ireland where the Irish people have put in power a government that forces ethnic Irish citizens who can barely put food on the table to support massive inflows of third-world immigrant invaders who are totally destroying the character and quality of Irish life. What has gone wrong with the Irish people that they put in power a government determined to destroy them?

Another interesting aspect is that the LGBT+ alliance is breaking up.  The Scottish lesbians took the side of the women’s rights groups against the alleged “transgenders.” A lesbian spokesperson said that lesbians were tired of being called “far-right bigots” for refusing to accept men into lesbian groups.

The UK Supreme Court has declared “transgender recognition certificates” to be legally meaningless. What precisely is, or was, a “transgender recognition certificate?” It was an effort to use a piece of paper to give authority and reality to a self-declared new sex that does not exist in nature, or if it does only as a freak abnormality.

What the “transgender movement” is, or was, really about is an expansion of the cultural marxist “march through the institutions.” Another normal meaning is destroyed–sex. With the destruction of male/female, chaos is introduced into hospital wards, rape crisis centers, changing rooms, sports teams.

What is extraordinary is the number of Western government officials at every level who fanatically supported the “transgender movement.”  For example, in Virginia a public school administration covered up the rape of a young girl in a school female shower/toilet area by a male allowed access because he declared himself to be a female. The corrupt school administrators were so committed to “transgenders rights” that they covered up a rape and tried to destroy the father who complained of the rape of his child.

This demonstrates how deep  the hold of evil on Western civilization has grown to be. When liberal public school administrators in America are so corrupt that they aid and abet the rape of the young girls in their schools, and cover it up, we know our society is terminably ill.

Can Trump renew such a sick and despoiled country?

The post UK Supreme Court Rules That the Legal Definition of a Woman Is Biological appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

And we all know who and what’s behind these insane threats against Iran: Dirty Money

The post Col Doug Macgregor: Russia will NOT Stand By if Iran’s Attacked appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes foolsquirrel:

Mr Rockwell,

Stay tuned for — Where Oh Where is the counterfeit Antichrist to save us from this counterfeit Lucifer?

The post Spectacle appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post NY Times Bombshell: ‘Trump Called Off Planned Iran Strike.’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Military Judge Matthew McCall ruled last week that the CIA’s torture of September 11 defendant Ammar al-Baluchi rendered his confessions as inadmissible.  The prosecution failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that his statements were voluntary and were not obtained by torture.  The statements were made in January 2007, four months after he was transferred from secret overseas CIA locations where he was abused and held in isolation for more than three years.

Ammar al-Baluchi is accused of facilitating the 9/11 attacks by providing money and other assistance to the alleged hijackers.  He is the nephew of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  He is also the cousin of Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for the 1993 WTC bombing and the Bojinka Plot.

Carol Rosenberg of The New York Times reported, “The CIA routinely beat Baluchi and kept him naked.  Student interrogators took turns slamming his head against a wall.  He was deprived of sleep for 82 straight hours by shackling him at the ankles and wrists in a way that forced him to stand, naked, with a hood on his head.  He was made to fear he would be drowned in a mock waterboarding technique in which he was laid out on a tarp as cold water was poured onto a towel covering his face.”

Judge McCall wrote, “Just as the CIA’s psychologists had planned, (Baluchi) learned that he was helpless to resist the torture, and that cooperation meant a lessening of abuse and an increase in rewards.”

Alka Pradhan, one of al-Baluchi’s lawyers said, “Torture has stained the Guantanamo military commissions since their inception.  This ruling is the only measure of accountability that Mr. al Baluchi has ever received for the brutality he endured, and it is long overdue.”

Why did the US national-security state torture 9/11 defendants such as Ammar al-Baluchi if they had credible evidence obtained through lawful means of their guilt?  Evidence extracted through torture is known to be unreliable because the person who is being tortured is motivated to say whatever he thinks his torturers want him to say, rather than to tell the truth.

Why did the US national-security state deprive the truth of the 9/11 attacks from the victims’ families and the public?  The US national-security state enabled the 9/11 attacks to occur to create a justification to wage wars of aggression in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq in order to achieve their geostrategic objectives.  The US national-security state does not care about the 9/11 victims, their families, or the millions of people that they murdered in the wars of aggression that they launched after 9/11.

The post Evidence Extracted Through Torture of 9/11 Defendant is Inadmissible appeared first on LewRockwell.

The conquest theory of the state, associated with the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, holds that the origins of the state are in war and conquest.  The personal X account of the Argentinian president celebrates the Argentinian government’s origins in war, conquest, and attempted genocide of the native population.

The text on X reads:  “146 years after the beginning of the heroic enterprise led by the hero of the nation, General Julio Argentino Roca, we honor the Desert Campaign as a fundamental historical milestone in the history of our nation, which marked not only the expansion of the national territory, but also the foundation of the modern Argentine State.”

An Argentinian correspondent writes:

“Milei’s office is celebrating what can be described as a genocide, albeit a less famous one . . . .  The Argentinian government successfully exterminated more or less all of the native populations by means of a series of “wars” where the natives armed with rudimentary spears and a few rifles faced an organized army with Remington rifles.  The main warlords of these expeditions to the desert were the president Manuel Rosas and the infamous general and later president Julio Argentino Roca, the most ruthless and consequent proponent of a policy of extermination of the natives.  Not only did the Argentinian army massacre about 15,000 natives, but the survivors had to endure a life of semi-slavery.  It is horrible and yet telling that Milei’s office celebrates a horrible historical fat like the extermination of the natives . . . as though it was a feat of civilization and progress.”

The post Milei Celebrates the Conquest Theory of the State appeared first on LewRockwell.