Aggregatore di feed

To bar Marine Le Pen from running for the French presidency, a lower court convicted her of “misappropriation of public funds,” not the other way around. It wasn’t the offense she is accused of that led to her being stripped of her right to ineligibility, but it was invented to justify the sentence.
Strangely, no one in the political class saw fit to point out that the presidency of the European Parliament has changed its understanding of the role of MEPs and now considers those who persist in practicing their original role as MEPs to be criminals.

Marine Le Pen was sentenced on March 31, 2025, for “misappropriation of public funds” to four years’ imprisonment, two of which were suspended, a €200,000 fine, and a five-year ban on election with provisional execution, i.e., before any possible appeal. Twenty-four other National Rally officials and the party itself were convicted.

The French political class was immediately divided between those who welcomed the presidential favorite being ousted from the race and those who deplored it. Naturally, no one dared to speak out directly, but all either insisted that they supported the “rule of law” or denounced the “tyranny of judges.”

Behind this reaction to a historic decision by three judges independent of political power, but who clearly understood the prosecution’s demands (i.e., the government’s point of view), no one dares to address the underlying issue of the dispute between France and the presidency of the European Parliament. The facts being prosecuted all predate 2015. However, it is impossible to understand why the elected members of the National Rally were convicted, when they were convinced they had not violated the law, without knowing about this dispute.

Here is the explanation:

Following the Second World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill developed a plan to pacify European differences by creating common institutions between states. There was no talk yet of a European Union, but rather of a body allowing European governments to meet and negotiate on a permanent basis, or of an organization bringing together parliamentarians from European states to debate together. Ultimately, ten states merged the two projects and created the Council of Europe. Today, there are 46 of them. The headquarters of this political institution was established in Strasbourg.

In practice, the Council of Europe was conceived as the civilian arm of NATO. Strasbourg was chosen as its headquarters because it is, culturally, a Franco-German city.

Independently of the Council of Europe, another project, this time an economic one, was born with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which became the European Economic Community and today, the European Union. Naturally, the seat of the European Parliament was also located in Strasbourg, which housed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However, given the rivalries between the member states, various institutions of this economic union were located in Brussels and Luxembourg (the Parliament’s General Secretariat in the Robert Schumann building). MEPs came to Strasbourg for one week a month and then returned to their countries. Since they were elected not in their own name, but in the name of their party, in a single national constituency (except between 2003 and 2018, when there were eight regional constituencies), they devoted the rest of their time to their political training.

In 1993, the European Parliament acquired a chamber in Brussels, the Paul-Henri Spaak building. Six years later, it opened its own chamber in Strasbourg, the Louise Weiss building. At that time, parliamentary sessions were split between the two cities. A gigantic caravan of trucks moved all the parliamentarians’ offices twice a month. Now with a private office in Brussels, the European parliamentarians were invited to reside there and only travel to Strasbourg for sessions held there. They returned to their countries only to meet their constituents and for party meetings.

The administration of the European Economic Community, which is based primarily in Brussels, intended both to distance itself from the Council of Europe and to move closer to the European Parliament, and will therefore do everything to ensure that the latter stops its back-and-forth operations and sits permanently in Brussels. This is also the will of NATO, whose main offices are also in Brussels (or more precisely, in Mons). NATO sets the standards that the Commission proposes to Parliament, which it approves. However, over time, Parliament plays an increasingly independent role, and NATO needs to constantly monitor it to ensure that none of its standards are rejected.

This is when the dispute began: the French refused to leave Strasbourg so as not to fall too visibly under the influence of the Anglo-Saxons. The presidency of the Parliament therefore demanded that, from now on, the elected representatives devote themselves exclusively to their activities in Brussels and no longer concern themselves with their parties in their countries.

Since then, all French political parties committed to their country’s independence—not just the National Rally—have been at odds with the presidency of the European Parliament. The court that convicted Marine Le Pen therefore chose the EP presidency’s theory, while the National Rally insisted that it had not misappropriated a single cent of public money and had acted like many other political parties.

The post What Was Marine Le Pen Found ‘Guilty’ Of? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday’s piece had warned about the curious drop in Treasurys and rise of interest rates. It was a dire sign that the global economy and markets far beyond Wall Street were going bad.

The Trump administration recognized the danger and, just fifteen minutes after I had published my post, pulled back (archived):

The economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused Mr. Trump to blink on Wednesday afternoon and pause his “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, according to four people with direct knowledge of the president’s decision.

Asked to explain the decision, Mr. Trump told reporters: “Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid.”

Behind the scenes, senior members of Mr. Trump’s team had feared a financial panic that could spiral out of control and potentially devastate the economy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others on the president’s team, including Vice President JD Vance, had been pushing for a more structured approach to the trade conflict that would focus on isolating China as the worst actor while still sending a broader message that Mr. Trump was serious.

This does not mean that the trouble has ended.

Who is going to invest, into what, while any day, at any moment, the most basic economic conditions may change in completely unpredictable directions:

Asked on Wednesday how he would decide on any further exemptions, Mr. Trump said: “Instinctively, more than anything else. I mean, you almost can’t take a pencil to paper. It’s really more of an instinct, I think, than anything else.”

By admitting that Trump acknowledges that he is the real problem.

How can I decide to invest in a new car when by delivery date the tariffs and interests involved might have changed in unforeseeable directions? On what basis can I trust Trump’s instincts? I can’t and won’t. The same will hold for much bigger investment decisions.

For once the Washington Post editorial is getting it right (archived):

The bond markets forced Trump’s hand. By moving their money out of dollars and selling U.S. Treasury bonds, investors told Trump what his closest advisers would not about the perils of starting trade wars with all other countries at once. Trillions in value were wiped out in equity markets, and the financial system blinked red with indicators of contagion.

Finally, bond yields began to forecast calamity — especially the alarming sell-off of 10-year Treasurys. In times of panic, these bonds usually attract investors. Their failure to do so this time reflected declining confidence that the U.S. government would repay its debts.
…
After Trump finally announced the tariff pause, the S&P 500 closed up 9.5 percent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq gained 12 percent. The news is indeed worth rejoicing. But keep in mind that the 90-day pause will last only until July 8, and in the meantime the trade war with China might continue to escalate. In other words, investors, business and consumers will still be living with uncertainty. For the long term, Trump and his team are well advised to come up with a less volatile economic strategy.

Until Trump settles on a predictable course the global carnage will continue.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump’s Market Whiplash Continues appeared first on LewRockwell.

A new Pew survey has found that a majority of Americans now have a negative view of Israel, with 53 percent of respondents now holding an unfavorable view of the Zionist state — up from 42 percent just three years ago.

This comes as Benjamin Netanyahu announces after his latest meeting with Donald Trump that negotiations with Iran will necessarily have to include a “Libyan-style” dismantling of the nation’s civilian nuclear infrastructure in order to avoid the war that the US is openly preparing to wage. This, naturally, is a complete non-starter condition for Iran.

It also comes as Trump’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services announces that it’s going to be screening the social media posts of immigrants for “antisemitic” speech, which of course in practice means criticism of Israel and its atrocities. This is just the latest in the Trump administration’s relentless efforts to prevent Americans from seeing or hearing any political speech which goes against Washington’s official position on Israel.

If you’re wondering why the empire is working so frantically to stomp out all speech that is critical of Israel, here’s why. https://t.co/2RPUEqm39j

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) April 9, 2025

Developments like these can be expected to assist the rise of the far right in the west. US public opinion is turning hard against Israel as both parties bend over backward to send it expensive weapons and silence its critics — and US public opinion is seldom good at making subtle distinctions.

“Antisemitism” is fast becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. As westerners tire of having their speech rights taken away by their government to protect the interests of a state that’s committing genocide under a Star of David banner, a lot of them are going to blame Jews for this. As western governments bend over backwards to help murder Israel’s enemies in the middle east, a lot of westerners are going to blame Jews. As the drums for war with Iran beat louder and louder and parents fear their children will be sent off to die for Israel, many will blame this on the Jews.

I am not saying this is a good thing. It’s a very bad thing. But it’s also reality.

As more and more westerners grow disgusted with Israel and their government’s support for its depravity, the far left is going to talk to the public about the difference between Zionism and Judaism, about the western empire and its interests in the middle east — and meanwhile the far right is going to blame it all on Jews.

Which of these sounds like the easier argument to make? Which is simpler? Which is more digestible? Which is less challenging to the cognitive biases of a population that’s already been propagandized to view their nation as inherently virtuous: a perspective which highlights the west’s culpability for the atrocities we’re backing in the middle east, or a cartoonish perspective which blames it all on the subversive manipulations of a sinister religious minority?

Actually, what fuels antisemitism is murdering children by the thousands under the banner of the Star of David while adamantly insisting that your actions are inseparable from all Jews and the totality of Judaism.

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) December 26, 2023

Those of us who oppose the criminality of Israel and its western allies from the left will do all we can to keep the far right’s arguments from gaining traction, but it won’t be our fault when we fail. It will be the fault of the western governments who’ve spent all this time stomping out the civil liberties of their citizenry in the name of fighting “antisemitism” while raining military explosives on the middle east and backing the slaughter of tens of thousands of children under a Star of David flag.

We can expect to see some nasty hate crimes against Jews in the future, which the Zionists will be all too happy about because then they can point to those incidents and say “This is why we need Israel! This is why we need a Jewish state to protect us!”

But of course this won’t just affect Jews. Immigrants, racial minorities, LGBTQ people and other marginalized communities will all be harmed by the rise of white nationalist factions whose popularity benefits from an increase of anti-Jewish sentiment in our society. The mainstream “MAGA” movement, as ugly as that’s been, is still far less dangerous to these groups than the overtly Hitlerite factions will be if they come into significant power in the future.

This does seem to be where things could be headed, especially if the economic situation gets as dire as it looks like it might get, and even more so if there’s a war with Iran. It can all be easily avoided by simply ceasing to stomp out free speech to protect Israel, ceasing western warmongering in places like Iran and Yemen, and ceasing to back Israel’s genocidal atrocities against Palestinians.

But it looks like our rulers are bound and determined to drag us into a very dark direction instead.

____________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to find video versions of my articles. If you’d prefer to listen to audio of these articles, you can subscribe to them on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud or YouTube. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post The Backlash Against Israel’s Western-Backed Crimes Will Fuel the Far Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since Israel broke the ceasefire agreement and resumed its genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza almost a month ago, the IDF is deliberately and wantonly slaughtering over 100 precious, innocent little children every day. And there is barely a peep of protest by so-called Christians.

And why should we expect anything different? Evangelical “Christians” have cheered for Israel’s mass murderous genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from the beginning—going all the way back to 1947.

This is due to the pervasive acceptance amongst evangelicals of the heretical and blasphemous doctrines of Prophetic Dispensationalism, aka Scofield Futurism or Christian Zionism.

All over America, evangelicals—in public and private—justify this murderous carnage in Palestine on the outlandish and cultic belief that the Zionist State of Israel is a revived Old Testament Israel and, therefore, has divine justification to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinians on the basis of God’s command to the prophet Samuel to use Israel as an instrument of divine judgment upon the Amalekites in I Samuel 15.

But these “Christian” Zionists conveniently overlook the fact that God also used the Assyrians as an instrument of divine judgment against Israel in 722 BC and the Babylonians as an instrument of divine judgment against Judah in 587 BC and the Romans as an instrument of divine judgment against the Jewish remnant in 70 AD.

God is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; I Peter 1:17) He destroyed wicked Israel and wicked Judah as thoroughly as He destroyed the wicked Amalekites and the seven wicked nations of Canaan. But, again, evangelicals completely ignore all of that. More than that, they refuse to even listen to anything related to God’s annihilation of Old Covenant Israel.

I urge readers to watch the two messages I have delivered thus far regarding the destruction of the Amalekites and Israel’s laws of war in the Old Covenant. These messages show that today’s “Christian” Zionists don’t even understand the laws of Israel’s conduct of war in the Old Testament—much less the fact that the Old Covenant is abolished, and we now live under the “law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12) in the New Covenant.

Here is message number 1 on YouTube.

Here is message number 2 on YouTube.

“Christian” Zionists are living in the Old Covenant. They know almost nothing about Christ’s New Covenant. They talk and live as though the death and resurrection of Christ, and the advent of the New Covenant, never happened. They understand nothing about the meaning and significance of Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD (which means they cannot even understand Handel’s Messiah). They interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament, when the New Covenant demands that we must interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament.

What mockery of New Testament revelation and Christ’s work on the Cross!

Those of us who can remember the Vietnam War well remember the iconic photograph in the New York Times of a little Vietnamese girl—dubbed the Napalm Girl by the press—walking naked, burnt, bloodied and bruised away from her village that had just been bombed by the U.S. military. That photograph became the image of the Vietnam War and helped the American people come to terms with the horrors of that unconstitutional and immoral war.

By the way, that little girl, named Phan Thi Kim Phúc, is now 61-years-old and lives in Canada. She attended college, studied pharmacy and is the founder of a foundation designed to raise awareness of the injustice and atrocities of war and to raise funds for the medical care of children who are injured during war. In 1982, she found a New Testament and, after reading it, became a Christian.

We need a photograph on the front page of the New York Times showing the horrors of Israel and America’s immoral, evil war in Gaza. It won’t happen, of course, because our mainstream media are all controlled by the Israel lobby. But in the name of humanity, we desperately need such an image to be seen by every citizen in the United States.

My good friend and survivor of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, Phil Tourney, posted such an image contained in a short 30-second video on the Quds News Network X page. Thanks for sharing this image, Phil. I wept when I saw it. I weep just thinking about it.

America needs to start weeping for the atrocities, crimes against humanity and murderous genocide that the people of this country have been forced to support by allowing our tax dollars to be used as instruments of such massive death and destruction.

Please look at that image—and share it with everyone. Make people look at the horrifying realities that our government is forcing us to be a party to in Gaza.

Unlike during the Vietnam war, the U.S. media is deliberately hiding the horrific realities of what the U.S. and Israeli governments are inflicting upon innocent men, women, children and babies in Gaza and the West Bank—and Lebanon and Syria.

It’s time America opened its eyes!

It’s also time for “Christian” Zionists to put their money where their mouth is!

Three weeks ago, I released a brief 4-minute video clip addressing this very subject.

Here is the 4-minute YouTube video clip.

And here is the transcript of what I said in that short video clip:

Using Israel’s wars in the Old Covenant as justification for violating God’s Natural and moral laws is not only unbiblical by Old Testament standards, it is also an abomination to the laws of the Gospel as taught by Christ and His apostles in the New Covenant.

Here’s what I’m waiting to see: I’m waiting to see Christian Zionist pastors and church members who so enthusiastically support Israel’s genocidal wars against innocent men, women and children—many of them our brothers and sisters in Christ—and who shout that the Israelis are God’s chosen people, and that their slaughter of innocents is justified, to put their money where their mouth is.

I’m waiting to see them—all of them who are of fighting age—get on a jet and fly to Tel Aviv and join the Israeli army. I’m waiting to see them carry an Uzi submachine gun; I’m waiting to see them carry a M89SR sniper rifle; I’m waiting to see them carry a KA-Bar Fighting Knife.

If they are too old to fight, I’m waiting to see them send their sons and daughters to Israel and join the IDF. After all, one of their Christian Zionist heroes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said he’s raising his sons to fight for Israel. So, I’m waiting to see these Christian Zionist pastors and church members follow suit.

I’m waiting to see them look through the scope of their M89SR sniper rifle, put the crosshairs on the stomach of a helpless 8-month pregnant Palestinian mother and pull the trigger.

I’m waiting to see them take their Uzi submachine gun and put the sights on the forehead of a little innocent 8-year-old Palestinian girl or a 9-year-old Palestinian boy and pull the trigger. I’m waiting to see them take their KA-Bar knife and slit the throat of an 80-year-old Palestinian grandfather or grandmother.

I’m waiting to see them take a hand grenade and throw it into the dining room of a Palestinian family as they eat supper. I’m waiting to see them operate a military drone and find a group of displaced helpless Palestinians sheltering in makeshift tents and launch missiles on them.

Come on! All of you Christian Zionists who support Israel’s genocide, all of you Christian Zionists who say the Israelis are justified in killing innocent women and children, if it’s justifiably permissible for the Israelis to kill innocent women and children, it’s permissible for you to do it.

If it’s justifiably permissible for Israelis to rape Gentile women as the IDF’s top rabbi told the Israeli troops, it’s justifiably permissible for you to do it.

So, why aren’t you doing it?

If the Palestinian people are Amalekites and must be annihilated to bring about the “Rapture” and the return of Christ, why aren’t you over there helping to make it happen?

Come on! Put your money where your mouth is!

Shame on any Christian who would use the Holy Scriptures—in either Testament—to condone and justify mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide being committed by Israel or by anyone!

These remarks were the conclusion of my second message entitled By What Authority Does Zionist Israel Commit Mass Murder Against Women And Children? A Clinical Study Of The Destruction Of The Amalekites And The Old Covenant Laws Of War.

Find that message here.

I am ashamed of our evangelical “Christian” people who are so woefully ignorant of the Biblical truth of Christ’s New Covenant and who are using the name of Christ to justify counterfeit Israel’s mass murders, genocide and crimes against humanity.

I am more than ashamed; I am disgusted!

Evangelical support for Zionist Israel is nauseating. They might as well have supported the Bolsheviks in Russia or the communists in China. The Zionists in Israel are no less evil.

As I said above, it’s time for “Christian” Zionists to put their money where their mouth is!

Better yet, it’s time they study their Bibles and find out what it means to be a Christian under Christ’s New Covenant “law of liberty.”

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post It’s Time For Christian Zionists To Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is appeared first on LewRockwell.

The boys and girls on Wall Street heaved a big sign of relief yesterday, with the stock market making historic gains, a welcome respite for the losses of the preceding days, when Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause in the severe tariffs, opting only to impose a 10% tariff across the board. Well, not for everyone. Trump boosted tariff’s on China and China responded in kind.

Last night, at a Republican fundraiser in New York City, Trump made the vulgar, crass, impolitic comment about the 70 countries that have contacted his administration pleading for a tariff deal. Trump said:

‘I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass,’ Trump told the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner late Tuesday — just hours before the tariffs went into effect.

‘They are. They are dying to make a deal. ‘Please, please, Sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything, sir!’ he said mockingly.

Even if true, this is a damn stupid thing to say. I don’t think there are many countries, who contacted the Trump administration, that are feeling warm and fuzzy towards Mr. Trump. Humiliating trading partners is, at best, counterproductive. While Trump, as well as many of his ardent supporters, are celebrating this as a sign of American dominance, I suspect many of those countries seeking tariff relief are reconsidering whether they want to continue to be harnessed to the US dollar. Whether he acknowledges it or not, Trump made a great case for why nations should align themselves with BRICS rather than be economic hostages of fickle hegemon.

Trump’s real objective in levying these unprecedented tariffs is to punish China. Trump is preceding from the assumption that China’s economy is weak and that the United States holds the upper hand. According to the Chinese government, approximately 14.7% of China’s total exports went to the United States in 2024. That is a decline compared to 2018, when the U.S. accounted for approximately 16% of China’s exports, with total exports to the U.S. valued at $547 billion.

Chinese exports to the United States in 2024 accounted for 13.4% of all US imports. The main categories of goods imported from China to the U.S. include:

Consumer Electronics:

• Smartphones, computers, and tablets dominate this category, with China accounting for 78% of U.S. smartphone imports and 79% of laptops in 2023.
• Other electronics include televisions, home entertainment systems, and lithium-ion batteries, which make up a significant share of imports

Machinery and Industrial Equipment:

• Includes auto parts, robotics, automation equipment, and construction machinery. This category accounted for $110 billion in imports in 2023.

Furniture and Household Goods:

• Wood and upholstered furniture, small home appliances (e.g., microwaves, air purifiers), and lighting fixtures are key products. Furniture alone accounted for $14 billion in imports.

Toys, Textiles, and Apparel:

• Toys represent over 70% of U.S. toy imports, while textiles and clothing made up $21 billion in imports in 2023.

Medical Supplies and Pharmaceuticals:

• Includes raw pharmaceutical ingredients and medical devices, accounting for about 30% of U.S. imports in this category.

Unless Trump does a carve out on Pharmaceuticals and Electronics, US consumers are going to be paying exorbitant prices for I-Phones, computers and critical prescription drugs. There is almost nothing that the US exports to China that is exclusive to the United States. Soybeans, for example, are a major US export to China. China will now probably turn to Brazil and purchase their crop [note — China and Brazil already have a trade deal in place that bypasses the US dollar].

Trump claims to be great friends with Xi Jingping. In light of Trump’s insults and crude behavior, I doubt that President Xi would count Donald as a good buddy. Trump and his team apparently believe they have the leverage in this battle and that the Chinese will blink and seek a negotiated solution. I think Trump and his advisors are dead wrong. China is not going to be bullied and will pivot from treating US as a valued trading partner. Trump’s actions have removed any lingering doubts within the Chinese leadership that a viable trading relationship with the United States can be maintained.

China has one advantage over Trump. Any suffering imposed on the Chinese people will easily be blamed on the United States, not Xi. Trump, in turn, will face the wrath of consumers if the prices of electronic and pharmaceutical goods rapidly inflate. He did that, not the Chinese.

Trump and his advisors also appear to be betting that this move will help convince Russia that China is not a reliable economic partner, and that Russia will abandon China. I think Trump’s tariff tirade will have the opposite effect — i.e., it will cement Russian and Chinese relations on all fronts and spur them to move quicker on making BRICS a solid alternative to a financial order based on the US dollar.

This originally appeared on Sonar21.

The post Donald Trump is Making the Case for BRICS appeared first on LewRockwell.

As the 2024 campaign neared its send, candidate Donald Trump began promising that, if elected, he would support the elimination of income taxes. Shortly after he was sworn in, Trump then began saying he planned to abolish the Internal Revenue Service. The Trump team claimed in each case that it could raise enough tax revenue from tariffs to replace tax revenue from income taxes.

By March, however, Trump began backtracking, and his administration announced that the new goal was to eliminate income taxes for people making under $150,000 per year.

That last development on its own tells us that the IRS isn’t going away. If people making more than $150,000 are still going to pay income tax, then there will still be an IRS to which we’ll need to send tax returns to prove we’re not making more than $150,000.

But even if we ignore that problem, there are at least two other reasons why we can be sure the IRS isn’t going anywhere. The first way we know this is from the fact that the Trump administration is only talking about “abolishing” the progressive individual income tax. Administration mouthpieces have said nothing at all about getting rid of the income taxes known as “payroll taxes” that every wage earner pays.

The second way we know that the IRS isn’t going away is that taxes on imports—i.e., tariffs—simply aren’t going to bring in enough revenue to keep funding all the popular spending programs that Trump clearly has no interest in cutting.

Payroll Tax: The Income Taxes All Workers Pay

When politicians talk about “the income tax” they virtually always mean the progressive individual income tax. This tax is paid mostly by the top 50 percent of earners. The bottom fifty percent of earners pay an average income tax rate of 3.3 percent.

But there is another income tax paid by all wage earners, regardless of income level, and that is the payroll tax. There is a reason why politicians never mention this income tax: it is connected to the very popular welfare programs known as Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security tax in 2025 is 12.4 percent. The Medicare tax is an additional 2.9 percent. Half of this is paid by the employee and half is paid by the employer. Of course, the employee really pays for both halves because employers effectively reduce wages to pay the payroll tax.

The money collected from these taxes goes into the general fund, and not into any sort of “trust fund.” That means it’s simply an income tax that’s used to beef up federal revenues. It is true enough, though, that without this tax, it would be much harder for the federal government to collect enough revenue to keep Social Security and Medicare funded at its present levels. The feds need today’s workers to keep slaving away and paying the payroll tax so it can be handed over to today’s pensioners.

This is why politicians never talk about getting rid of the payroll tax. It would be political poison to suggest that one of the biggest sources of revenue for old-age welfare programs is going away. If politicians did this, ARRP-type activists would go nuts.

So, politicians aren’t likely to get rid of the payroll tax, and that means there needs to be a government agency to keep track of everyone’s wages and make sure that the tax gets collected. Which agency is that? Well, since 1937, it has been the Internal Revenue Service. As the IRS’s history page reads:

Payroll Withholding On August 14, 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Employees originally paid one percent of the first $3,000 of their salaries to finance the benefits. The law required a new system of tax withholding, which the Bureau of Internal Revenue had to collect… [emphasis added.]

By the way, my readers will probably not be shocked to learn that the payroll tax has increased over time. Like so many taxes, it started out “small” and then got a lot larger. In 1937, when it was introduced, the payroll tax was 2 percent:

Source: The Tax Policy Center. 

Any payroll tax of any kind is going to require an agency to collect it and monitor earnings. That’s the IRS. It’s entirely possible that Trump might rename the IRS to something like “The Department of Making America Great Again” but whatever we might call it, it will just be some form of the IRS. So, until Trump and his spokespeople start talking explicitly about abolishing all taxes on income—and not just the progressive income tax—then we know he isn’t serious about getting rid of the IRS.

Tariff Revenue Won’t Match Income Tax Revenue

The second reason why the Trump administration is not really getting rid of all income taxes or the IRS is this: tariffs won’t bring in enough revenue to keep up with the federal government’s big spending plans.

As of 2024, “customs duties”—i.e., tariffs—made up two percent of all federal revenues. That includes the new tariffs put in place by Trump, and kept in place by Biden, in recent years. The total revenue is only $80 billion. While that’s two percent of all revenue, it’s only 1.2 percent of all federal spending. Remember that federal spending is far larger than federal revenues, and the federal government will likely run a deficit of at least two trillion this year.

In other words, the $80 billion in revenue produced by tariffs is a drop in the bucket.

Source: fiscaldata.treasury.gov.

In contrast, the progressive individual income tax brings in about 49 percent of all federal revenue. In addition, the payroll tax brings in 35 percent.

If Trump thinks he’ll replace all income taxes with tariff revenues, then he’ll need to increase tariff revenue from $80 billion to about $4.1 trillion. That is, Trump will have to find a way to increase tariff revenues by fifty-one fold.

That would just cover current revenue. If we want tariffs to actually eliminate the deficit, too—which is roughly two trillion more than tax revenue—tariff revenue will have to go up even more.

People who think this seems plausible might say things like “well Trump will get rid of the deficit and cut federal spending using DOGE.” People who say things like this are basically saying “I am bad at arithmetic.”

Currently, the best-case scenario offered by DOGE is that it wants to cut a mere $1 trillion in federal spending. This is almost certainly complete fantasy, but for the sake of argument let’s assume DOGE will be able to do that. This wouldn’t even eliminate the deficit, and the remaining deficit would still be more than a trillion dollars. That would mean that next year’s total for federal spending will still be about $5.7 trillion. To close the gap between revenue and spending, tariff revenue will need to increase by at least another trillion. That means federal tax collectors will have to increase its current tariff revenue sixty times over.

So, can Trump just increase tariff rates by sixty fold? Some protectionists might love that, but it would also mean that people would stop buying imported goods. That means they’ll stop paying tariffs, and tax revenue will plummet, but so would the standard of living. Even as revenues fell, though, most Americans would continue to demand all the usual spending. Politicians wouldn’t dare cut military spending or Social Security spending, and Federal deficits would skyrocket. The Federal Reserve would have to start buying up Treasurys to keep interest rates from running sky-high. This would mean more money printing and high levels of inflation.

America’s federal politicians aren’t willing to risk any of that. They won’t even talk about getting rid of the payroll tax because that brings up the issue of cuts to Social Security. Politicians want to keep spending at current levels, and politicians know that price inflation is very unpopular with the voters.

All this adds up to a virtual guarantee that Trump and his allies have no plans to get rid of the IRS or even all income taxes. Until the voters start demanding big federal spending cuts, and stop saying things like “hands off Medicare,” the politicians have every incentive to keep the federal spending machine humming at levels far above what tariff revenue is likely to fund.

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

The post The IRS Isn’t Going Away, and This Is How We Know appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a special video released yesterday, Peter discusses the ongoing fallout from President Trump’s tariff policy and the broader implications for the American economy. He outlines how the tariffs are not only ineffective but also counterproductive, worsening the trade deficit and the nation’s competitiveness. Additionally, Peter highlights the growing demand for gold amidst economic trouble and suggests strategic opportunities for investors looking for sound money alternatives.

Peter opens the video by summarizing market movements before and after yesterday’s tariff pause. These tariffs, he believes, demonstrate a policy blunder masked as victory:

Today the price of gold rose by better than $100 an ounce. This was the biggest one-day dollar increase in the price of gold in the history of gold. And in fact, gold was up better than $100 even before President Trump announced that he was pausing the global trade war that he launched last week. Now once that news came out, there was a big rally in the stock market. Gold initially surrendered some of those gains, but it quickly recovered and closed back near the highs just under $3,100 an ounce. …  I think the President and his advisors tried to find a way to surrender but make it appear as if they were declaring victory.

Peter then emphasizes the root cause behind America’s persistent trade deficits, highlighting the nation’s lack of savings and investment. He contends that excessive spending and underinvestment at home leaves the country overly dependent on foreign producers:

The reason we have these horrific trade deficits is because as a nation we spend too much and save too little. And so because we don’t save enough, we don’t make the capital investments to build up the factories and the supply chains and the infrastructure. And so because of that we have to rely on all those factories abroad for the goods that we can’t produce. And because we spend more than we produce, we need to get those goods. And we run these massive deficits that we can’t finance. And so we depend on the world to finance them.

Though he appreciates President Trump’s stated goal of reducing deficits, Peter predicts the tariffs will have the opposite effect. Rather than solving America’s economic weaknesses, tariffs place an extra burden on American consumers and businesses, tipping the economy further into stagflation:

So while I admire Trump’s goal, he is not going to come close to achieving it. In fact, the tariffs that he’s already imposed are going to backfire and they’re going to make the American economy even less competitive than it was before the tariffs. And the tariffs are paid by Americans. They’re not going to be paid by our trading partners. There is no external revenue. It’s all internal. And this tax hike on average Americans is going to weigh down an already weak economy. And so we’re going to have a bigger dose of stagflation.

Shifting his focus to the gold market, Peter notes that worsening economic conditions and stagflation have created an attractive environment for gold investments. He underscores gold mining companies as potentially well-positioned to benefit, given the strong gold price and reduced oil costs:

And that is going to be great for Q2 earnings for the gold mining companies. They’re already going to have great earnings in Q1, but I think they’re going to blow the doors off in Q2 because I think gold is going to hang out near 3,100 or higher and oil is going to be slow to recover. So in the meantime, the profits are going to be huge for these gold mining companies. And I’ve been advocating for a long time that people buy physical gold, and since I started recommending physical gold, it was under $300 an ounce. It’s now over 3,000. So you’ve got a 10X.

Peter warns about America’s financial vulnerability, stressing the country’s dependence on foreign money to sustain unsustainable living standards. He predicts this dependence will end painfully, as a weakening dollar forces America to lower its consumption and accept a lower standard of living:

It’s America that’s been taking advantage of the world because we rely on the world to live beyond our means. But the world can only finance that by living beneath its means. Well, that’s going to change. It’s going to change because the dollar is going to go way down. And so we’re going to consume less and the rest of the world is going to consume more. And that’s how our trade deficits go away as our standard of living declines. But in the meantime, the world is getting rid of dollars in advance of a major depreciation.

This originally appeared on SchiffGold.com.

The post Gold Breaks a New Record appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Alex Jones: Trump, Israel, Secret WW3 Plans, Dire Wolf Resurrection, Infowars Reporter Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

[This article titled Evolution of NATO Aggression Against the World – From Serbia to Russia by Drago Bosnic was first published by Global Research. You may read it here.]

March 24 this year marked 26 years since NATO launched a direct attack on the remnants of former Yugoslavia (namely Serbia and Montenegro). The bombing was the final act of kinetic warfare that started in 1991 when the political West ensured that Yugoslavia falls apart in a sea of blood. By 1999, they had already carved up most of the country, while also helping their WWII-era allies (namely Croatians and Bosnian Muslims) to finish the genocide against Serbs in what today is Croatia and Bosnia.

In the case of the former, they were successful, eliminating the Republic of Serbian Krajina which was annexed by Croatia, but in the case of the latter this proved to be far more difficult, although the territory of Republika Srpska was reduced from close to 70% of what today is Bosnia to around 49%.

However, NATO was far from done. There was still Serbia, then part of the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (along with Montenegro). Its southern province of Kosovo and Metohia had a large Albanian population which became the majority after centuries of Ottoman occupation, forced Islamization (similar to what happened in Bosnia and elsewhere in former Yugoslavia) and expulsion of native Serb Christians.

In order to justify yet another attack on Serbs, NATO needed a “humanitarian” excuse. By 1998, Western intelligence agencies organized a terrorist group called the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which started to attack the Serbian police and Yugoslav Army (VJ), while also kidnapping civilians of Serb and other ethnicities (including loyalist Albanians who refused to take part in this terrorist insurgency).

Both the members of security forces and civilians were subjected to brutal torture (including organ harvesting) and executions. NATO knew perfectly well that this would cause a strong reaction from the police and the military. After the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist KLA was pushed back in most of Kosovo and Metohia, the mainstream propaganda machine started running stories about up to 600,000 Albanians “unaccounted for”, obviously implying that Serbs supposedly “killed them all”.

There were also totally fabricated stories about “concentration camps” in which “evil Serbs kept hundreds of thousands of Albanians”, including one at a stadium in the city of Pristina. Obviously, all this was later debunked as nothing more than a bunch of blatant lies after this NATO-orchestrated war was over in June.

However, it didn’t matter whether it was true or not, as long as it galvanized the public in the United States and Europe to support a direct attack on Serbia. On March 24, 1999, NATO sent approximately 1,100 aircraft and 30 naval vessels (including submarines) to attack the country. Its actions were closely coordinated with those of the Albanian KLA on the ground. Thus, Serb/Yugoslav police and the military (VJ) had to fight a terrorist insurgency supported by NATO air power (sounds familiar, doesn’t it). The aggressor forces were commanded by US General Wesley Clark who at some point claimed that “NATO destroyed 60% of [Yugoslav President Slobodan] Milosevic’s war machine”. In reality, independent sources confirmed that only 14 tanks, 18 armored vehicles and 20 artillery pieces were destroyed.

It should also be noted that Serb forces were known for their masterful use of “maskirovka” (literally masking or disguise). Namely, soldiers often made 1:1 scale models of tanks, armored vehicles, air defense systems, fighter jets and other weapon systems to fool NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets.

Commanding officers not only supported this, but also advised that microwave ovens and similar gadgets (particularly transmitters of radio waves and sources of heat) be placed in these models to mimic the heat of engines. This proved to be incredibly effective, as NATO would regularly mistake such targets for real weapons. Its war planners realized things weren’t adding up after the Serb/Yugoslav forces kept fighting despite being “decimated” on paper.

Air defense systems were particularly effective, especially considering the fact that they were mostly “outdated” according to NATO standards, as most Serb SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems were made in the 1950s and 1960s. However, despite these claims, the “outdated” Russian-made air defenses performed better than anyone could’ve imagined.

Only three days after NATO launched its aggression, on March 27, 1999, the Serb/Yugoslav S-125M “Neva-M” SAM system shot down a USAF F-117A stealth bomber/attack jet (serial number 82-0806, callsign “Vega 31”). The 3rd Battalion of the Yugoslav Army’s 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade, commanded by Colonel Zoltan Dani, achieved a feat that was considered (and touted as) “impossible” by the US military.

For years, the mainstream propaganda machine tried to conceal this embarrassment by claiming that the shootdown was supposedly an “accident” and that “the evil Serbs got lucky”. However, this attempt to negate the heroism and professionalism of Serb/Yugoslav soldiers and officers ended up being an even greater embarrassment for NATO.

Namely, for years, these officers have been claiming that several F-117s were hit over Yugoslavia, providing ample details on when and how this happened. Expectedly, this was vehemently rejected by the political West, as it would dispel the narrative that “Serbs got lucky”. However, over two decades after NATO aggression, American officers who took part in the bombing admitted that at least one more F-117 was hit, but managed to get back to base.

Namely, back in November 2020, retired USAF Lieutenant Colonel Charlie “Tuna” Hainline, a former F-117 pilot, admitted that his wingman was hit by a Serb/Yugoslav air defense system (most likely on April 30, 1999). At the time, Hainline was assigned to the 9th Fighter Squadron, the “Flying Knights,” and deployed to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany.

According to his account, the second F-117 was also hit by a missile fired from the S-125M “Neva-M” SAM system, this time commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Bosko Dotlic. A highly detailed account of this shootdown was presented by Colonel Slavisa Golubovic, one of the commanding officers of the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade. He also revealed that at least one more F-117 was hit, although NATO is yet to admit this.

However, kinetic warfare was far from the only embarrassment for the world’s most vile racketeering cartel, as evidenced by the revelations of around a dozen retired top-ranking Serbian diplomats, politicians and officers I had the honor of meeting during the 26th commemorative address on March 21.

Read the Whole Article

The post Evolution of NATO Aggression Against the World – From Serbia to Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

The news flow on days like today vividly illustrates that the business of bio-security has become a vast, international racket in which an array of private and public institutions and commercial enterprises are participating. The Epoch Times—which I call “the only newspaper worth its salt”—just reported the following stories.

1). Leaked China CDC Document Confirms New H5N1 Strain More Contagious in Humans: The document describes a new mutation in the hemagglutinin protein gene but lacks details, drawing concern from experts.

2). Largest US Egg Producer Cal-Maine Under DOJ Price Investigation: The company earned $508 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2025, a 245 percent jump from the year prior.

Regarding the first story, the reader should bear in mind that the document was leaked within the context of the ferocious trade war that just commenced. As the Epoch Times reporter points out, the alleged “new mutation in the hemagglutinin protein gene” is not specified in the leaked report.

The internal notice shows that China’s problem of avian influenza has become very serious, although ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials are still concealing it, Sean Lin, assistant professor in the Biomedical Science Department at Feitian College in New York and former U.S. army microbiologist, told The Epoch Times on April 5.

“A mutant strain has appeared, but the officials did not say exactly what the mutation is,” he said. “The name of the so-called A/H5N1-2025E virus strain does not correspond to the specific mutated amino acid position. The total amino acid length of the H5N1 HA hemagglutinin protein is around 524 amino acids, so what does this 2025E correspond to?” he asked about the mutation.

“This internal notice from the China CDC is still covering up the truth,” he said, especially if they are recommending increased attention for this variant over an increased transmissibility.

We wonder if this threat of an emerging influenza is some form of monkeyshines perpetrated by the CCP to complicate and constrain the Trump administration’s ability to extract trading concessions from China.

The Cal-Maine story contains elements of the same racketeering theme. The company is being investigated because it reported record pricing and sales volume, thereby raising the suspicion of monkeyshines within the context of an alleged egg shortage due to the (completely senseless) Biden administration directive of slaughtering tens of millions of egg-laying hens. The purported grounds for this wanton destruction was to prevent the spread of a new clade of H5N1 bird flu—a policy that continued long after it became evident that such containment measures weren’t working.

To quote the Epoch Times piece:

Company officials said the strong third-quarter performance was primarily driven by an 80.7 percent increase in net average selling price per dozen eggs and a 10.2 percent increase in volume.

For the quarter, Cal-Maine’s net average selling price per dozen was $4.06 compared with $2.247 a year ago. The company sold a record 331.4 million dozen shell eggs, representing a 10.2 percent increase, including the contribution from acquisitions, compared with 300.8 million dozen for the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Sales of conventional eggs totaled 213.2 million dozen, compared with 192.2 million dozen for the prior-year period, an increase of 11.0 percent.

These are just two examples today of how the business of bio-security has become an international racket, using the same methods that have long been applied to the business of warfare. Instead of waging war against armed men, our bio-defense establishment must (it claims) constantly wage war against emerging infectious diseases.

Towards the end of his life, Major General Smedley Darlington Butler—the most decorated Marine in U.S. history—concluded that War is a Racket, as he memorably characterized it with the title of his 1935 book. In the introduction he wrote:

The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

James Madison described the dubious business of war in a 1793 debate with Alexander Hamilton. Madison specifically characterized the danger of granting war-making power to the Executive, but his reasoning applies to the war-making power granted to our high priesthood of virologists and molecular biologists.

In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Reprinted with permission from Courageous Discourse.

The post Rackets, Rackets Everywhere appeared first on LewRockwell.

The two seminal articles which predicted and defined the Trump Phenomena are:

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution, by Angelo M. Codevilla, and

The Return of the Middle American Radical: An intellectual history of Trump supporters, by John Judis

Also —

How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996.
This should be the Rosetta Stone for Trumpism

 

The post The Two Seminal Articles Which Predicted and Defined the Trump Phenomena appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

The Garyzone

 

The post AIPAC leader boasts of special ‘access’ to top Trump natsec officials in leaked audio appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

ResponsibleStatecraft.org

 

The post The fix is in for new Air Force F-47 — and so is the failure appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Grayzone

 

The post Israeli network censors report exposing Oct 7 ‘hero’ as hoaxer appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Writes Bill Anderson:

I’d love to know who was buying calls and puts this past week.

See here.

 

The post Trump the manipulator? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Racket News

 

The post Timeline: Panama Canal Politics, Policy, and Tensions appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

da Bitcoin Magazine

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-bce-prepara-il-terreno-per-il)

La Banca centrale europea sta gettando le basi per il lancio della sua moneta digitale (CBDC) all'ingrosso e al dettaglio: l'euro digitale. Christine Lagarde, presidente della BCE, ha condiviso questo aggiornamento durante la sua ultima conferenza stampa. “La presidente Lagarde ha sottolineato che l'euro digitale è 'più rilevante che mai'”, ha twittato la BCE.

La Lagarde ha sottolineato che l'euro digitale, la soluzione CBDC dell'UE, è destinato al lancio nell'ottobre 2025, a condizione che superi la fase legislativa che coinvolge le principali parti interessate, tra cui la Commissione europea, il Parlamento e il Consiglio. Particolarmente assente da questo processo è la popolazione, nonostante l'impatto significativo che questa iniziativa avrà sulla vita quotidiana.

???????? CBDC in EU will launch in Oct. 2025.
Wholesale & retail.
???????? Israel is following EU’s footsteps - preparing for CBDC with a new 110 page design document. pic.twitter.com/fUr1CkBRmy

— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) March 8, 2025

Perché il tema dell'euro digitale è più attuale che mai?

Potrebbe essere collegato al recente annuncio di Ursula von der Leyen, “ReArm Europe”, il quale propone la creazione di un esercito dell'UE? Questa iniziativa richiede circa €800 miliardi di finanziamenti, denaro che l'UE non ha. Le opzioni? Estrarlo dagli stati membri dell'UE e dai loro cittadini, o stampare nuovi fondi tramite la BCE. In entrambi i casi, è tempo di riscaldare la stampante monetaria della BCE!

We are living in dangerous times.

Europe‘s security is threatened in a very real way.

Today I present ReArm Europe.

A plan for a safer and more resilient Europe ↓ https://t.co/CYTytB5ZMk

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) March 4, 2025

Inoltre l'UE ha introdotto la “Savings and Investments Union”, con l'obiettivo di reindirizzare €10.000 miliardi in “risparmi inutilizzati” dai cittadini per finanziare la crescita militare e rafforzare l'industria della difesa europea. “Trasformeremo i risparmi privati ​​in investimenti necessari”, ha twittato la von der Leyen. Se questo non vi ha già scioccato, cercherò di essere più chiaro: si tratta di una chiara violazione dei diritti della proprietà privata e una confisca implicita della ricchezza degli europei, mentre vengono usati senza mezzi termini i loro fondi come l'UE ritiene opportuno, incluso il finanziamento di un complesso militare-industriale senza nemmeno chiamare in causa gli elettori.

Se l'UE sta accelerando verso un collettivismo totalitario, come suggerisce questa affermazione, allora una CBDC sarebbe uno strumento potente, che consentirebbe un controllo più stretto sui soldi degli europei: un interruttore “on/off” e capacità di programmazione.

If most of your money is still in fiat the bank / stocks / mortgaged real estate etc. - they don’t need your permission.
They want you owning nothing, despaired & numb.

You may want to consider a permissionless, unconfiscatable, easily mobile & liquid digital asset such as… pic.twitter.com/K2xjTpcyS7

— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) March 12, 2025

Christine Lagarde ha di recente fatto campagna al Parlamento europeo, sostenendo che l'euro digitale è necessario per ridurre la dipendenza dell'UE dalle soluzioni di pagamento estere. Le banche europee devono innovare i metodi di pagamento, ma la preoccupazione principale dell'UE non è solo la dipendenza da giganti della tecnologia, come Google Pay o Apple Pay, ma il potenziale per un'adozione diffusa di protocolli globali decentralizzati come Bitcoin.

La BCE sta osservando le tendenze geopolitiche, notando che gli Stati Uniti stanno abbracciando criptovalute, Bitcoin e stablecoin, tecnologie che rappresentano un rischio per il controllo centralizzato. Non sorprende che stiano scegliendo una strada diversa. Secondo la Reuters: “Le banche dell'Eurozona hanno bisogno di un euro digitale per rispondere alla spinta del presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump, a promuovere le stablecoin” come parte di una strategia più ampia. Il membro del consiglio della BCE, Piero Cipollone, ha rafforzato questa posizione, affermando: “Questa soluzione disintermedia ulteriormente le banche poiché perdono commissioni, perdono clienti [...]. Ecco perché abbiamo bisogno di un euro digitale”.

In conclusione, i recenti programmi della Lagarde e della Von der Leyen mirano a promuovere un controllo più centralizzato, rafforzando al contempo la gerarchia, la governance e la struttura degli incentivi dell'UE: questo è sempre stato il loro ruolo.

Nuovo sondaggio sull'euro digitale

The ECB continues campaigning for the digital Euro, a centralized European payment mechanism - to 'decrease dependency on external forces'. #CBDC pic.twitter.com/ovlkYX0bsQ

— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) March 15, 2025

La BCE ha di recente pubblicato i risultati di un sondaggio sugli atteggiamenti dei consumatori nei confronti delle CBDC, condotto tra 19.000 europei in 11 Paesi dell'Eurozona. I principali risultati includono:

1. Mancanza di interesse: la maggior parte degli europei non è interessata all'euro digitale poiché i metodi di pagamento esistenti soddisfano già le loro esigenze.

Fonte: Banca centrale europea

2. Gli europei sono aperti alla propaganda: sebbene l'interesse pubblico sia basso, il sondaggio ha rilevato che gli europei sono ricettivi all'istruzione e alla formazione basate su video. Lo studio della BCE suggerisce che i video correlati alle CBDC potrebbero favorire un'adozione diffusa rimodellando le convinzioni dei consumatori. La relazione afferma: “I consumatori a cui viene mostrato un breve video che fornisce una comunicazione concisa e chiara sulle caratteristiche principali dell'euro digitale hanno sostanzialmente più probabilità di aggiornare le proprie convinzioni [...] il che aumenta la loro probabilità immediata di adottarlo”. Non c'è da stupirsi se la BCE abbia aumentato i suoi contenuti video sull'euro digitale dalla fine del 2024. Ad esempio:



Propaganda for European CBDC, the digital euro, has began. Be aware. pic.twitter.com/wStnfrZROZ

— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) November 14, 2024

3. Preferenza per i metodi di pagamento esistenti: “Gli europei hanno una forte preferenza per i metodi di pagamento esistenti e non vedono alcun beneficio reale in un nuovo tipo di sistema di pagamento”. Sebbene questa scoperta suoni come una spinta positiva, può fungere da precursore per una tattica di integrazioni tecnologiche. Tattica “Se non puoi batterli, unisciti a loro” – simile alla CBDC cinese ovvero l'e-CNY al dettaglio.

Un recente articolo su Euromoney ha evidenziato l'integrazione dell'e-CNY con le app più popolari della Cina (DiDi, Meituan, Ctrip, WeChat Pay e Alipay), una mossa che ha facilitato la sua adozione diffusa. Nonostante le difficoltà iniziali, l'e-CNY ora vanta 180 milioni di utenti e un valore di transazione cumulativo di $1.000 miliardi. Ho di recente esplorato questo argomento in modo approfondito con Roger Huang nel mio podcast.

Non solo al dettaglio, anche all'ingrosso

Sul fronte CBDC all'ingrosso l'UE sta sperimentando la tecnologia di registro distribuito (DLT) per interconnettere istituzioni finanziarie in tutta Europa e oltre. Ciò segue il lavoro esplorativo condotto dall'Eurosistema tra maggio e novembre 2024. Le loro sperimentazioni hanno coinvolto 64 partecipanti, tra cui banche centrali, operatori del mercato finanziario e operatori di piattaforme DLT che hanno condotto oltre 50 esperimenti.

La Lagarde insiste sul fatto che l'euro digitale è una forma di denaro contante, cosa che inganna gli europei disinformati sui rischi delle CBDC: esse sono basate sull'autorizzazione, sono soggette a micro livelli di controllo tramite date di scadenza, geofencing e programmabilità. Se gli europei non riconoscono questi pericoli, non resisteranno all'euro digitale. Inquadrandolo come “denaro digitale”,  la BCE garantisce un'accettazione pubblica più fluida con poco o nessun clamore pubblico.

[2025] Europeans!
Are you ready for “YOUR Digital Euro”?
Christine Lagarde is prepping you to the next phase of EU’s CBDC, which is everything *but* a form of cash (nice try though). pic.twitter.com/t6mG5liw26

— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) January 5, 2025

Per essere chiari, il denaro contante in sé è una moneta fiat, controllata centralmente, facilmente svalutabile e soggetta a inflazione. Ogni volta che l'emittente espande l'offerta di denaro, i cittadini soffrono di un potere d'acquisto in calo, venendo essenzialmente derubati dallo stato.

“Regole per te, ma non per me”

Mentre i cittadini sono vincolati dallo stato di diritto, le élite spesso ne evitano le conseguenze. Un esempio lampante è Christine Lagarde, che è stata dichiarata colpevole di negligenza per aver approvato un massiccio pagamento finanziato dai contribuenti al controverso imprenditore francese Bernard Tapie. Tuttavia ha evitato una condanna al carcere. Il Guardian ha riferito nel 2016: “Un tribunale francese ha condannato il capo del Fondo monetario internazionale ed ex-ministro del governo, la quale deve sborsare una multa da €15.000 e ha rischiato fino a un anno di prigione. Ma ha deciso che non doveva essere punita con la detenzione e che la condanna non avrebbe costituito un precedente penale. [...] L'FMI gli ha dato il suo pieno sostegno”.

La mia previsione per la CBDC dell'UE

Nonostante il disinteresse pubblico, la BCE (e altre banche centrali) andranno avanti con le loro CBDC. Per mantenere l'illusione del coinvolgimento pubblico, condurranno sondaggi e creeranno strumenti di coinvolgimento. Ma alla fine l'euro digitale sarà integrato nei metodi di pagamento esistenti e nelle app per i consumatori, proprio come ha fatto la Cina con l'e-CNY. Questa strategia guiderà l'adozione anche senza un entusiasmo pubblico diretto.

Dopotutto stiamo giocando al gioco della “democrazia”, giusto?

L'analista geopolitico, Alex Krainer, ha di recente twittato in merito: “Questa è un'ottima notizia; Christine Lagarde e Ursula von der Leyen non hanno mai affrontato qualcosa che non hanno completamente rovinato. Spero che continuino con la loro eccellente performance. Buona fortuna”.

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

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

Aaron Davis wrote:

Pres T:

The US lost the rule of law in the war on drugs with both Iran Contra, and the division of minorities and heinous laws they were shackled under, created by the original prohibition movement. Peace and legalize and retail it all, every substance comes from earth any damned way!

The US lost the rule of law on any removal of gun rights from anybody when the President and DOJ pulled fast & furious.

We’re about to loose the  rule of economic law. So debt bomb and revalue all publish fed notes at 1% like 1913! There’s a billion plus Asians billion plus Islamics and a billion plus Catholics. So blow it out your ass and let’s move on. Peace and prosperity !

 

The post Peace & debt appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bruce McLane wrote:

The post Courage 70 years ago, courage today appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s not difficult to understand why the mainstream media failed and refused to investigate the JFK assassination. To understand the reason, just think about how Columbia University and the  big law firms Paul, Weiss and Skadden, Arps have capitulated after being subjected to pressure from President Trump. Why wouldn’t the mainstream media behave in the same manner after being subjected to pressure from President Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. national-security establishment?

Lyndon Johnson was one of the most vicious and ruthless politicians in U.S. history. Every mainstream media outlet knew that. He was also one of the most crooked and corrupt politicians. The mainstream media knew that as well.

Everyone also knew that while he was vice president, Johnson could not bend people to his will by threatening to use the massive power of the federal government to do bad things to them. Everyone also knew that when Johnson became president, that principle no longer held. Everyone now knew that as president, Johnson wielded the power to destroy them or even have them killed by either the military, the CIA, or some other part of the deep state.

If John Kennedy had not been assassinated, it is a virtual certainty that Johnson would have been criminally indicted and convicted for official corruption. He very likely would have been sentenced to serve time in a U.S. prison. He never would have become president. The assassination saved him from that fate.

Prior to the assassination, there were two newspapers in Texas who were investigating aspects of Johnson’s corruption. Immediately after Johnson was elevated to the presidency, he made telephone calls to the heads of those newspapers and pressured them into shutting down their investigations. Both of them capitulated and shut down their investigations.

LIFE magazine planned to run a story on Johnson’s corruption in its Friday, November 29, 1963, issue. Once the assassination took place on November 22, LIFE cancelled the story and replaced it with assassination coverage. That makes sense. What also makes sense is that LIFE never published the corruption article. That’s undoubtedly because Johnson was now president.

Did Johnson telephone major U.S. newspapers and order them not to investigate the JFK assassination? He didn’t need to. He simply needed to send them a message stating that they were never to go down that road. That message came in the form of the Warren Commission report on the assassination. Once Johnson heartily endorsed the official lone-nut narrative set forth by the former head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other mainstream officials who were serving on the Warren Commission, every newspaper in the land got the message: If you know what’s good for you, accept the official lone-nut narrative, no matter how ridiculous it might seem, and let’s just move on.

What is fascinating is how the mainstream media adhered to its non-investigative policy long after Johnson was gone. That may well be because of their fear of the deep state, which many people were gradually realizing had orchestrated and carried out the assassination.

Let’s review four examples of how the mainstream media failed and refused to investigate the JFK assassination, even decades later.

1. In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board reported that there had been two brain examinations as part of the Kennedy autopsy. The military pathologists had lied. They had claimed there was only one brain examination. The ARRB was able to discover the truth in two ways. First, the official autopsy photographer, John Stringer, stated that he had taken the photographs of the brain at the brain exam he attended. When he was asked to examine the brain photographs in the official record, he said that those were not the photographs he took. Second, one of the three military pathologists, Col. Pierre Finck, was not at the brain exam that Stringer attended. He was at the second one, where there was another photographer whose identity was kept secret. For reasons laid out in the ARRB report, the second brain exam almost certainly involved a brain that did not belong to Kennedy — i.e., a brain specimen that most likely came from the nearby medical school at Bethesda National Naval Medical Center.

The ARRB’s report on the two brain exams hit the mainstream media soon after it was published in the 1990s. Wouldn’t you think that some newspaper would want to get to the bottom of this? After all, there is perjury by military doctors and fraud in the autopsy. Aren’t those things worth investigating? One would think so. But as far as I know, not one mainstream media outlet assigned an investigative journalist to check it out. It would have been considered too dangerous. It would have been investigating the military and the role it played in the Kennedy assassination.

There is something else to consider here. The mainstream media had to know that the ARRB was prohibited from investigating the matter as well as any other matter relating to the JFK assassination. That’s because someone in Congress had slipped into the JFK Records Act a provision prohibiting the ARRB from investigating any aspect of the JFK assassination. Knowing this, wouldn’t you think at least one mainstream media outlet would investigate the matter? Nope.

2. After the House Select Committee in the 1970s released Navy personnel who had participated in the autopsy from the vows of secrecy they had been forced to take, enlisted men began reporting that they had secretly carried JFK’s body into the Bethesda military morgue in a shipping casket rather than the heavy ornate casket into which the body had been placed in Dallas.

Wouldn’t you think that some major mainstream newspaper would find that something worth investigating? Nope.

In the 1990s, the ARRB also discovered the existence of a former Marine Sgt. named Roger Boyajian, who had been in charge of security at the Bethesda morgue, where the military autopsy of JFK’s body was to be conducted. Boyajian produced a copy of an after-action report he delivered to his superiors soon after the autopsy. The report stated that the shipping casket had been brought into the morgue at 6:35 p.m. That was almost 1 1/2 hours before the 8:00 p.m. time when the body was officially brought into the morgue for the autopsy.

What was the purpose of sneaking JFK’s body into the morgue almost an hour and a half before the official entry time of the body into the morgue? Wouldn’t you think that that would be enough for some major newspaper to investigate? Nope.

3. After the assassination and autopsy, the social photographer for Kennedy and several other presidents, Robert Knudsen, stated publicly that he had been the photographer for the autopsy. He said that it was the hardest thing he had ever done. When he passed away, both the New York Times and the Washington Post published obituaries stating Knudsen had been the photographer for the JFK autopsy.

There was one big problem. Knudsen wasn’t the official photographer for the autopsy. That was John Stringer. It was undisputed that Knudsen wasn’t at the autopsy. But based on his good reputation as the official White House photographer both before and after Kennedy, it is a virtual certainly that Knudsen wasn’t lying. He obviously photographed something he was led to believe was the autopsy.

Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream newspaper would want to get to the bottom of the Knudsen mystery? Nope.

4. The ARRB discovered the existence of a woman named Saundra Spencer. On the weekend of the assassination, she was a Navy petty officer who worked in the Navy photography lab in Washington, D.C. She worked closely with the Kennedy White House. She told the ARRB that she had been asked to develop the autopsy photographs on the weekend of the assassination, on a top-secret basis. When the ARRB showed her the autopsy photographs in the official record, she stated that the photograph depicting the back of Kennedy’s head to be intact was not correct. She stated that the photograph she developed showed a 1-2 inch hole in the back of JFK’s head. Since the photograph she had viewed was done after the embalmers had done their best to patch up the back of JFK’s head, it is a virtual certainty that that hole was much actually much larger, which matched what the Dallas physicians had stated — that there was a massive exit-sized hole in the back of Kennedy’s head, which would imply a shot having been fired from the front, which contradicted the official lone-nut-firing-from-the-rear narrative.

Wouldn’t you think some mainstream newspaper would want to get to the bottom of this? Nope.

Why is all this important? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. Once evidence of fraud in the Kennedy autopsy surfaced, it was “case closed” on criminal culpability on the part of the U.S. national security establishment. Wouldn’t you think that would be something the mainstream media would want to investigate? Nope.

For more on the fraudulent autopsy conducted by the military, see my books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Mainstream Media Was Scared To Investigate the JFK Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.