Aggregatore di feed

Who Paid for the Bombs?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

On March 15 2025 President Trump started bombing the Houtis in Yemen. The scandal about leaked text messages via signal chat regarding the bombings of the Houtis in Yemen is another diversion from the real scandal. The scandal is not that military information was leaked out to media before the attack. The scandal is that the attack was illegal and unconstitutional. That seems to be ignored.

President Trump had no authorization to bomb the Houtis in Yemen. There was no Declaration of War by Congress. There was no authorization for the use of force by Congress. There are no national security interests at stake and there was no imminent threat to the United States. Bombing the Houtis to send a message to Iran is not a justified reason to bomb the Houtis.

America First Congressional Representative, Thomas Massie, stated that the attacks on Yemen were in fact illegal as evidenced by the leaked signal chat conversation. The President should have gone to Congress as there was no imminent threat.

The United States government is running in the red and required a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. This means that we borrowed money to fund the illegal war on Yemen.

So, this begs the question, who paid for the bombs?

Guess your grand kids did. That seems fair since the grandkids of the people killed will probably grow up hating your grandkids. Since they will likely be targets, we may as well stick them with the bill too.

Now Houtis are targeting U.S. warships. U.S. airstrikes were carried out last night killing a couple more people. Trump stated that he will be bombing the Houtis for a long time and stated that the air strikes were very successful. The United States carried out 65 airstrikes in 24 hours.

The Houtis are interfering with Red Sea naval traffic. The red sea does not impact U.S. commerce greatly. It has a larger impact on Europe.

From AntiWar.com

The Houthis’ message has been that they will meet “escalation with escalation” and that their attacks won’t stop unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the Israeli blockade on aid and all other goods entering the Palestinian territory.

Apparently, in the leaked signal chat of Trump administration officials, some were celebrating targeting a residential building. That is disturbing.

The United States also carried out airstrikes in Somalia…..

President Trump is threatening to bomb Iran next:

President Trump on Sunday threatened to bomb Iran if a deal isn’t reached on the country’s civilian nuclear program.

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” Trump told NBC News in a phone interview……….Trump’s threat comes after US intelligence agencies said in their annual threat assessment that there’s no evidence Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon or that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reversed his 2003 fatwah that banned the production of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran has said that it will engage in indirect talks with the United States, not direct talks. The United States wants direct talks. Although, Iran’s nuclear program is supposed to be a civilian program, the reality is that countries that develop nuclear weapons stop getting bullied.

Trump campaigned on not starting new wars. This neocon policy of military aggression runs contrary to an America First foreign policy, which would center on military noninterventionism. The military budget is a money laundering operation that also targets Americans as we saw with COVID 19 and the mRNA bioweapons attack on Americans.

Neocons are deliberately bankrupting America with these Middle East wars, while getting rich doing it. It is similar to a matador tiring out a bull, setting it up to be gorged. The bull depletes its resources and is finally slaughtered.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars had nothing to do with National security. Neither does a war with Yemen and Iran. The propaganda that Iran can’t get a nuclear weapon is getting old. If that was such a terrible threat Russia would stop them. They are closer and if Iran was that reckless Russia would have to act.

The only reason Iran and these other Middle East countries could pose a threat to the United States is because the United States continues to bomb Middle East countries and attack them. This fuels further hatred of the United States. If a bomb blew up your family, my guess is that you may end up hating the folks that delivered that bomb…..

Does anybody still think that Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with the September 11, 2001, false flag attack?

Sure, there are cultural differences, and Islam is an aggressive religion. Still, an America First policy would be to not continue military aggression in the region and to have a restrictive immigration policy for people from that region of the world.

The United States can’t afford another war. As the American economy appears to be worsening, the taste for a drawn out war with Iran is not likely. Americans just got suckered into the whole ‘stand with Ukraine’ thing. And that came after the COVID brain washing operation. It is very possible that Americans may say take your war and stick it.

The bottom line is Americans did not vote for a foreign policy of military aggression. They voted for a policy that leans toward military non intervention. Contractors and insider investors may get rich on these wars, but they are doing so by sucking the life out of America and worsening the national debt.

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Paid for the Bombs? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Free Speech Is Worth Fighting For

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

We do not have free speech to talk about the weather. Our Founders, particularly James Madison who drafted the Bill of Rights, understood that our rights are not privileges granted to us by government. No, it was understood at the founding that these basic natural rights outlined by Madison were granted by our Creator and thus no mere mortal could take them away. And first among these is the First Amendment which recognizes that most basic of our natural rights: the right to express ourselves in any way we wish.

Unfortunately the US government has not always been in accord with this sentiment and has many times in our history been at war with our freedom of speech. From the alien and sedition acts at the beginning of our republic to Abraham Lincoln’s war on speech to the jailing of antiwar activists during both World Wars to Kent State, the political class is all for free speech unless it is threatening to the political class.

Recently a new front has been opened in the war on free speech and it is one that Americans must take seriously. On university campuses across the country students – both American and foreign guests – have taken to protesting US support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, where tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed.

The political class in the United States is determined to defend Israel from its critics and has responded to these protests by threatening and blackmailing the universities if they do not crack down on speech the powers-that-be do not like. Both Presidents Biden and Trump have used the power of US government funding to demand a crackdown on speech they don’t like, with President Trump recently pulling 400 million dollars in federal funding for Columbia University if they don’t silence the protesters.

The real scandal is that nearly every US university – both public and “private” – is government funded in the first place. But for politicians to use the power of the purse to deny students the right to express themselves – as long as peaceful – just adds insult to injury.

Last week a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University was arrested on the street by plainclothes government agents for reportedly simply writing an editorial in her university newspaper expressing her views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. She faces deportation from the country. And she is not alone. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has openly bragged about sending hundreds of students home because they express a political position he disagrees with. Others – including American citizens – have been expelled from their schools and have even had their degrees rescinded. For peacefully expressing a political position that powerful people in Washington disagree with.

You may also agree with the political position of these students. But to cheer their punishment by the US government is to turn your back on the founding principles of this country. Freedom of speech is a natural right not reserved for American citizens but for all of humanity. And it has been a natural right worth defending for nearly 250 years.

First they came for foreign students expressing controversial positions and many Americans cheered because they were not foreign and did not like the opinions. But make no mistake: this war on speech will not end with only foreigners being punished. It never does.

The post Free Speech Is Worth Fighting For appeared first on LewRockwell.

The First Libertarian?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

Most libertarians count Murray Rothbard as one of their mentors. They will know that one of Rothbard’s primary mentors was Ludwig Von Mises. But Rothbard dug deeper in his search for libertarian thinking. Here is a little-seen paper that he wrote in 1967:

The first libertarian intellectual was Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism. Little is known about his life, but apparently he was a personal acquaintance of Confucius in the late sixth century BC and like the latter came from the state of Sung and was descended from the lower aristocracy of the Yin dynasty.

Unlike the notable apologist for the rule of philosopher-bureaucrats, however, Lao-tzu developed a radical libertarian creed. For Lao-tzu the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual’s flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao-tzu, government, with its “laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,” was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and “more to be feared than fierce tigers.”

Government, in sum, must be limited to the smallest possible minimum; “inaction” was the proper function of government, since only inaction can permit the individual to flourish and achieve happiness. Any intervention by government, Lao-tzu declared, would be counterproductive, and would lead to confusion and turmoil. After referring to the common experience of mankind with government, Lao-tzu came to this incisive conclusion: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished… The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.”

The wisest course, then, is to keep the government simple and for it to take no action, for then the world “stabilizes itself.” As Lao-tzu put it, “Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…”

Lao-tzu arrived at his challenging and radical new insights in a world dominated by the power of Oriental despotism. What strategy to pursue for social change? It surely was unthinkable for Lao-tzu, with no available historical or contemporary example of libertarian social change, to set forth any optimistic strategy, let alone contemplate forming a mass movement to overthrow the State. And so Lao-tzu took the only strategic way out that seemed open to him, counseling the familiar Taoist path of withdrawal from society and the world, of retreat and inner contemplation.

I submit that while contemporary Taoists advocate retreat from the world as a matter of religious or ideological principle, it is very possible that Lao-tzu called for retreat not as a principle, but as the only strategy that in his despair seemed open to him. If it was hopeless to try to disentangle society from the oppressive coils of the State, then he perhaps assumed that the proper course was to counsel withdrawal from society and the world as the only way to escape State tyranny.

It would seem that little has changed in 2500 years. The drive by some individuals to control others is clearly a permanent condition in every era. The only remaining question is how to deal with it.

In my belief, the number of libertarians will always be few. Just as there will always be those who will stop at nothing in seeking to control others, the great majority of people will always respond like Pavlov’s dogs to the empty promise of greater security, in trade for diminished freedom. Even a country that begins with a people determined to control their own lives and create their own destiny will, over generations, succumb to the empty promises. The deterioration may take one hundred years, two hundred years, or even longer, but historically, every culture eventually gives way, bit by bit, to the empty promises and becomes completely dominated. In the end, each country collapses in economic ruin—the people having lost the desire to produce, as the leaders have bled them dry.

But there is one saving grace to this historical pattern. After a collapse, it all has to start over. Parasitic leaders become anathema. The country begins anew. Those who are productive lead the way, and liberty becomes the byword.

This being the case, anyone who is inspired to believe in the libertarian principle has two choices if he lives in a country that is in the final, most oppressive stages: he can either remain there, swimming against an overwhelming tide, or he can vote with his feet. He can seek out other locations—those that are in the early stages of development, where the residents think as he does, where he is not a threat to “the system” but, by being a libertarian, is actually swimming with the tide.

Certainly, as we can see above, this is what Lao-tzu concluded over 2500 years ago (and that was before his government had the ability to fly a drone over his house.)

Of course, today, we have more options than Lao-tzu. Not only is transportation so good that we can fly anywhere in the world, but the Internet keeps us posted on the information we need to learn of locations in the world that might suit our liking better than the one we presently reside in. There are unquestionably those out there who prefer to be proles—to accept an Orwellian existence. For those who do not—those of a more libertarian bent—the good news is that there are choices—many of them. A better life elsewhere.

Here are a few closing comments from Lao-tzu that I’m fond of, taken from his Tao Te Ching. They further exemplify the fact that the problem of the libertarian is perennial. All that remains is whether we have the wisdom to effect the solution—to seek out those locations in the world that offer a better alternative.

Those in power are meddlesome …

The greater the restrictions and prohibitions,
The more people are impoverished.
The more advanced the weapons of the state,
The darker the nation …

Thus the virtuous attend to contracts
while those without virtue collect taxes …

Act before things exist

Manage them before there’s disorder

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post The First Libertarian? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Transactional Weakness Tips the Balance of Power – ‘Hold to No Illusions; There Is Nothing Beyond This Reality’

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

A U.S. economic ‘re-balancing’ is coming. Putin is right. The post-WWII economic order ‘is gone’

The post-WWII geo-political outcome effectively determined the post-war global economic structure. Both are now undergoing huge change. What remains stuck fast however, is the general (Western) weltanschauung that everything must ‘change’ only for it to stay the same. Things financial will continue as before; do not disturb the slumber. The assumption is that the oligarch/donor class will see to it that things remain the same.

However, the power distribution of the post-war era was unique. There is nothing ‘forever’ about it; nothing inherently permanent.

At a recent conference of Russian industrialists and entrepreneurs, President Putin highlighted both the global fracture, and set out an alternate vision which is likely to be adopted by BRICS and many beyond. His address was, metaphorically speaking, the financial counterpart to his 2007 Munich Security Forum speech, at which he accepted the military défie posed by ‘collective NATO’.

Putin is now hinting that Russia has accepted the challenge posed by the post-war financial order. Russia has persevered against the financial war, and is prevailing in that too.

Putin’s address last week was, in one sense, nothing really new: It reflected the classic doctrine of the former premier, Yevgeny Primakov. No romantic about the West, Primakov understood its hegemonic world order would always treat Russia as a subordinate. So he proposed a different model – the multipolar order – where Moscow balances power blocs, but does not join them.

At its heart, the Primakov Doctrine was the avoidance of binary alignments; the preservation of sovereignty; the cultivation of ties with other great powers, and the rejection of ideology in favour of a Russian nationalist vision.

Today’s negotiations with Washington (now narrowly centred on Ukraine) reflect this logic. Russia isn’t begging for sanctions relief or threatening anything specific. It is conducting strategic procrastination: waiting out electoral cycles, testing Western unity, and keeping all doors ajar. Yet Putin is not adverse either to exerting a little pressure of his own – the window for accepting Russian sovereignty of the four eastern oblasts is not forever: “This point can also move”, he said.

It is not Russia racing ahead with the negotiations; quite the reverse – it is Trump who is racing ahead. Why? It appears to hark back to the American attachment to Kissinger-esque triangulation strategy: Subordinate Russia; peel away Iran; and then peel Russia from China. Offer carrots and threaten to ‘stick’ to Russia, and once subordinated in this way, Russia might then be detached from Iran – thus removing any Russian impediments to an Israel-Washington Axis attack on Iran.

Primakov, were he here, likely would be warning that Trump’s ‘Big Strategy’ is to tie Russia into subordinate status quickly, so that Trump can continue the Israel normalisation of the entire Middle East.

Witkoff has made Trump’s strategy very plain:

“The next thing is: we need to deal with Iran … they’re a benefactor of proxy armies … but if we can get these terrorist organisations eliminated as risks … Then we’ll normalise everywhere. I think Lebanon could normalise with Israel …That’s really possible … Syria, too: So maybe Jolani in Syria [now] is a different guy. They’ve driven Iran out … ImagineImagine if Lebanon … Syria … and the Saudis sign a normalisation treaty with Israel … I mean that would be epic!”

U.S. officials say the deadline for an Iran ‘decision’ is in the spring …

And with Russia reduced to supplicant status and Iran dealt with (in such fantastical thinking), Team Trump can turn to the main adversary – China.

Putin, of course, understands this well, and duly debunked all such illusions: “Set illusions aside”, he told delegates last week:

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

“Hold to no illusions: There is nothing beyond this reality …”.

“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 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’ – “but theirs are abundant also. Western dominance is slipping away. New centres of global growth are taking centre stage”, Putin said.

These [challenges] are not the ‘problem’; they are the opportunity, Putin outlined: ‘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 economy will of course still trade with our BRICS partners’.

What Putin outlined effectively is the return to the mainly closed internally-circulating economy model of the German school (à la Friedrich List) and of the Russian Premier, Sergei Witte.

Just to be clear – Putin was not just explaining how Russia had transformed into a sanctions-resistant economy that could equally disdain the apparent enticements of the West, as well as its threats. He was challenging the Western economic model more fundamentally.

Friedrich List had, from the outset, been wary of Adam Smith’s thinking that formed the basis of the ‘Anglo-model’. List warned that it would ultimately be self-defeating; it would bias the system away from wealth creation, and ultimately make it impossible to consume as much, or to employ so many.

Such a shift of economic model has profound consequences: It undercuts the entirety of the transactional ‘Art of the Deal’ mode of diplomacy on which Trump relies. It exposes the transactional weaknesses. ‘Your enticement of the lifting of sanctions, plus the other inducements of western investment and technology, now mean nothing’ – for we will accept these things henceforth: on our terms only’, Putin said. ‘Nor’, he argued, ‘do your threats of a further sanctions siege carry weight – for your sanctions were the boon that took us to our new economic model’.

In other words, be it Ukraine, or relations with China and Iran, Russia can be largely impervious (short of the mutually destructive threat of WWIII) to U.S. blandishments. Moscow can take its sweet time on Ukraine and consider other issues on a strictly cost-benefit analysis. It can see that the U.S. has no real leverage.

Yet the great paradox to this is that List and Witte were right – and Adam Smith was wrong. For it is now the U.S. that has discovered that the Anglo model indeed has proved to be self-defeating.

The U.S. has been forced into two major conclusions: First, that the budget deficit coupled with exploding Federal debt finally has turned the ‘Resource Curse’ back onto the U.S.

As the ‘keeper’ of the global Reserve Currency – and as JD Vance explicitly said – it has necessarily made America’s primordial export to become the U.S. dollar. By extension, it means that the strong dollar (buoyed by a global synthetic demand for the reserve currency) has eviscerated America’s real economy – its manufacturing base.

This is ‘Dutch Disease’, whereby currency appreciation suppresses the development of productive export sectors, and turns politics into a zero-sum conflict over resource rents.

At last year’s Senate hearing with Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chair, Vance asked the Fed Chairman whether the U.S. dollar’s status as the global Reserve Currency might have some downsides. Vance drew parallels to the classic “resource curse”, suggesting the dollar’s global role contributed to financialization at the expense of investment in the real economy: The Anglo model leads economies to overspecialize in their abundant factor, be it natural resources, low-wage labour, or financialised assets.

The second point – related to security – a subject which the Pentagon has been harping on for ten years or so,is that the Reserve Currency (and consequentially strong dollar) has pushed many U.S. military supply lines out to China. It makes no sense, the Pentagon argues, for the U.S. to depend on Chinese supply lines to provide the inputs to U.S. military manufactured weapons – by which it would then fight China.

The U.S. Administration has two answers to this conundrum: First, a multilateral agreement (on the lines of the 1985 Plaza Accord) to weaken the value of the dollar (and pari passu, therefore, to increase the value of the partner states’ currencies). This is the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord’ option. The U.S.’ solution is to force the rest of the world to appreciate their currencies in order to improve U.S. export competitiveness.

The mechanism for achieving these objectives is to threaten trade and investment partners with tariffs and withdrawal of the U.S. security umbrella. As a further twist, the plan considers the possibility to revalue U.S. gold reserves – a move that would inversely cut the valuation of the dollar, U.S. debt, and foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries.

The second option is the unilateral approach: In the unilateral approach, a ‘user fee’ on foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasuries would be imposed to drive reserve managers out of the dollar – and thus weaken it.

Well, it is obvious, is it not? A U.S. economic ‘re-balancing’ is coming. Putin is right. The post-WWII economic order “is gone”.

Will bluster and threats of sanctions force big states to strengthen their currencies and accept U.S. debt restructuring (i.e. haircuts imposed on their bond holdings)? It seems improbable.

The Plaza Accord realignment of currencies depended on the co-operation of major states, without which unilateral moves can turn ugly.

Who is the weaker party? Who has the leverage now in the balance of power? Putin answered that question on 18 March 2025.

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

The post Transactional Weakness Tips the Balance of Power – ‘Hold to No Illusions; There Is Nothing Beyond This Reality’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Convergence Calling

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

“Contrary to Western media’s trash talk, Russian military has not been degraded. If anything, it has been significantly upgraded.” —Alex Krainer

You’re going to see what a truly consequential span of weeks, looks like, as Western Civ goes into full churn on April’s doorstep. Remember, TS Eliot called it the “cruelest month.” Too many uncomfortable things are converging, too many ongoing operations are unwinding, too many tensions are breaking.

The conclusion of “Joe Biden’s” Ukraine War fiasco looms. You can tell because The New York Times published a gigantic piece Sunday detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA actually ran all of Ukraine’s tactical operations out of a base in Wiesbaden, Germany — after building a colossal Ukraine war machine post our 2014 color revolution in Kiev. Since the very start of the hot war in 2022, we did all the targeting for the weapons we gave them and planned their every move. What a surprise! (Not.)

The motive behind all that, as conceived by US neo-cons and NATO neo-morons, was to “weaken” Russia, bust it up, and seize its resources. All the sanctions piled on only induced Russia into an import-replacement campaign that actually strengthened its economy, while the war led to a revolution in Russian war-fighting tactics and advanced weaponry. Now, the whole thing is ending in Ukraine’s defeat and the West’s humiliation.

The Times could have published this in 2023-24, but it would have been a major embarrassment for “Joe Biden” and his shadow managers moving into the election. They put it out just now because the jig is up and the paper desperately needs to pretend that it’s ahead of events to preserve the last shreds of its credibility.

Mr. Trump, the uber-realist, knows that the Russians are going to roll up in Ukraine this spring and there is increasingly not much that can be done about that, except to try to put the best face on it — which is, that it wasn’t his war. As long as the coke freak Zelensky remains in charge, Ukraine will be negotiation-unworthy, as the Russian phrase goes. So, US-Russia peace talks were largely diplomatic showbiz. Both Putin and Mr. Trump were painfully aware of this, and hence, Mr. Trump’s latest performative bluster about “more sanctions” will probably not amount to anything.

And also hence, the synchronized idiocy on display in France, Germany, and the UK. They were all-in on the neo-con scheme that is now falling apart and its failure has driven them plumb crazy. As the US drops out of the stupid proxy war, they declare their intention to take it from here and go beat-up Russia. Their war-drums are teaspoons beating on so many quiches.

Soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz proposes an 800-billion-Euro debt spree to finance the re-arming of Germany, which, just now, is utterly incapable of war. He is insane. German industry is collapsing from a lack of affordable natural gas (as arranged by “Joe Biden” blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, danke schön). Turning Volkswagen factories to missile production will not help the German people one bit. It probably will remind them about the Weimar hyper-inflation, though.

Macron pledges to put French boots on the ground in Ukraine. Ain’t gonna happen. Today, his stooge judiciary found political rival Marine LePen guilty of a Mickey Mouse offense in order to bar her from running against him in the next election. Ain’t gonna work. He will provoke the biggest national uprising since the Bastille. His government will be too busy putting down French Revolution 2.0 to play war games in history’s graveyard of armies. Maybe he’ll try nukes. I’m sure that’ll work — if you’re eager to see Russian hypersonic “hazelnuts” rain down on the Île-de-France.

And then, there is the amazing idiot PM Keir Starmer in the UK, calling on his “coalition of the willing” to step up and intervene in the lost cause that is Ukraine. How many hands went up on that call? For practical purposes, the Brits have no war-fighting capacity whatsoever, and no resources for generating such capacity. And, anyway, they are facing some dreadful combo of a civil war / internal jihad against their own indigenous population, plus an economic collapse cherry-on-top.

In short, Europe has so many incipient existential problems that the whole story is about to shift its focus from the already-sealed fate of Ukraine to the very dark prospects for the core nations of Old-World Western Civ. I wouldn’t plan a vacation there this year.

Meanwhile, expect a pile-up of consequence in our own sore-beset USA in the upcoming cruelest month. Today, the DOGE team visits the CIA. It could spell an end to decades of mad frolics emanating from that gigantic black box of black ops. Director John Ratcliffe has cordially invited Mr. Musk’s technicians and he is probably eager to discover exactly what mischief has been hidden from him by the immense, secretive, foul bureaucracy he lately assumed command over.

The Epstein materials recently recovered out of the FBI’s rogue New York offices of the agency are considered so critical by Director Patel that he assigned 1000 agents to review and process the docs full-time. That includes redacting names of many additional sex-trafficked children. Expect to see the release of a lot of that in the next thirty days with dire reverberations in the celebrity realms of politics, finance, and showbiz.

JudgeGate is moving toward its climax at the same time. Tuesday this week, Rep. Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the DC circuit’s lawfare offensive against Mr. Trump’s executive authority. It would be nice to hear from DC district judges James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, and Amir Ali, who have been zealously active in what looks like a coordinated lawfare campaign against the chief executive. Norm Eisen is not a judge, but he is the central conductor of the lawfare orchestra, and he has a bit of ‘splainin’ to do. One can even imagine something like a RICO referral emerge from that rather brazen operation. Anyway, the whole matter is going to land in the Supreme Court before April is out.

Also expect a lot of movement in the Covid-19 story coming out of the newly-reorganized CDC, NIH, FDA, NIAID, and other corners of the public health bureaucracy. Evidence is piling up fast of tragic and awful blowback from the Covid vaccine. There is too much to be ignored any longer and momentous decisions must follow, starting with taking the Pfizer and Moderna shots off-line. The entire regime of data collection, processing, and public release is about to change and the nation will be shocked by what gets disclosed.

Then there are the financial markets. They do not like the kind of shifts in public perception that return of consequence must bring. Gold alone is sending out a very vivid distress signal for everything else pretending to be an asset or a form of collateral. The equity markets have been wobbling for weeks. Look out below as the Easter eggs roll.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post Convergence Calling appeared first on LewRockwell.

Russigate’s Role in Trump-Putin Relations

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

Only when one reads multiple accounts on an issue one will find the morsels which reveal underlying issues and motives.

Of current interests are the psychological factors in the negotiations between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. That is why I read pieces like this:

Trump on Putin: ‘I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word’ – Politico, Mar 30 2025

President Donald Trump said Sunday he basically trusts Russian President Vladimir Putin to do the right thing as he attempts to hash out a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said of Putin: “I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word. You’re talking about Putin. I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word. I’ve known him for a long time. We’ve always gotten along well.”

Trump’s words seemed to be a softening of his language earlier Sunday.

Saying he was “pissed off,” Trump had been critical of Putin in an interview with Kristen Welker of NBC. “If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault — which it might not be — but if I think it was Russia’s fault, I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,” Trump said.

Previously I had read an ABCnews take that was a bit more extensive:

President Donald Trump on Sunday hinted at his apparent frustration with the lack of progress toward a peace deal in Ukraine, telling NBC News he was “very angry” at Putin after the Russian leader again criticized Zelenskyy and called for his removal in favor of a transitional government.

Trump added that he would consider applying new sanctions on Russia’s lucrative oil exports and on any nations purchasing its oil. China and India are among the most significant customers for Russian oil products.

The president later told reporters on Air Force One that his administration was making significant progress toward ending the war. Asked about his relationship with Putin, Trump responded, “I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word.”

“I’ve known him for a long time,” Trump said. “We’ve always gotten along well despite the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.”

Trump had previously allured to the Russiagate hoax when talking about Putin. He seems to see Putin as a victim of the scam just like he himself was a victim of it. I believe this to be, at least in Trump’s eyes, an issue that bonds the two men together. It is what makes a deal possible. It is important – so I wonder why Politico would leave it out.

The AP report of the Air Force One gaggle also has no mention of it:

On his flight back to Washington on Sunday evening, Trump reiterated his annoyance toward Putin but somewhat softened his tone.

“I don’t think he’s going to go back on his word,” he said. “I’ve known him for a long time. We’ve always gotten along well.”

Asked when he wanted Russia to agree to a ceasefire, Trump said there was a “psychological deadline.”

“If I think they’re tapping us along, I will not be happy about it,” he said.

When reports disagree on what was said or happened it is always good to back to the source. Forbes has put up a full video of Sunday’s Air Force One gaggle. Here is my transcript of the relevant part (starting at 6:38 min):

Q: Would you say your relationship with Vladimir Putin is at its lowest point right now?

A: No, I don’t think so. I don’t think he going back on his word. You are talking about Putin. I don’t think he is going back on his word. I have known him for a long time. We have always gotten along well. Despite the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax created by Clinton and Schiff and all these lunatics. And that really was a dangerous point. That was a very dangerous thing they did to this country. It was a pure, unadulterated scam, hoax. No, but I think he will be okay. Be if he isn’t …

I was disappointed in a certain way in some of the things he said over the last day or two having to do with Zelenski. Because he considers Zelenski not credible. He is supposed to make a deal with him whether you like him or don’t like him. So I wasn’t happy with that. But I think he is gonna be good. …

It is not only that Trump sees himself and Putin as victims of the Russiagate story. He does regard it as having been dangerous. To make (false) claims about political interference by another nuclear power needlessly could have led, and still could lead, to more serious altercations.

I find it interesting that Trump is thinking in these terms. He knows and fears what a real clash with Russia could lead to.

Why won’t the media relay that?

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Russigate’s Role in Trump-Putin Relations appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Grief Observed

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

“Death only reveals the vacuity that was always there.” – C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

A few weeks ago as I was scrolling through my many emails, I stopped at an article in the online version of the New York Times called “HOW COVID REMADE AMERICA,” and clicked to open it. The article was accompanied by several photos taken during the COVID-19 psyop.

Then the unthinkable happened. The first photo I saw showed a large city park with dozens of white circles painted on the fresh green grass, indicating where two (at most) people could gather without risking contaminating, or getting contaminated by, those within any of the other circles nearby. Suddenly, and all over again, I started boiling over with rage.

Who on earth came up with this idea? Who on earth could have possibly complied with it and thought they were doing the right thing? Who on earth could have thought any of this had anything to do with “the science” that all the obedient guinea pigs in that deadly experiment had worshipped as if it had divine attributes? Looking at that photo and at the other photos brought the utter stupidity and sheepish compliance of so many billions of people in those terrible times—and my anger about it all—right back into my life as if it was all still happening right now.

I felt sick to my stomach. It made me so angry and, at the same time, so sad. There, alone in my house, I wanted to scream and cry in the same breath. Howl, I think that’s the word for it. I’ve been thinking that I’ve been suffering from a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. Looking at these photos that accompanied the litany of lies—people sitting in their cars and allowing medical professionals in fully armored hazmat suits shove those long swabs up their noses painfully close to their frontal lobes to test for the asymptomatic presence of a virus that was supposedly so dangerous that it easily spread in the air all around us; the emptied shelves in grocery stores because of panic buying and forced factory closures; masked children outside in a park on a sunny day; the vacant office buildings and empty city streets—and gauging my reaction to them, confirmed my self-diagnosis.

We popularly refer to moments like this as being “triggered.” We make fun of snowflakes being triggered by, say, Trump’s presidential victory that sent many college students across the nation scrambling to “wellness spaces” for a good cry as they piled on the pounds with free cookies and milk. But being triggered is a real phenomenon. Ask war veterans. Ask abuse victims. Ask car accident survivors. A traumatizing event enters the body and lodges in places out of reach of normal consciousness. Until, that is, something happens in the world around us that brings those memories welling up from the unconscious—unwelcomed, unwanted, unavoidable—and into the here and now. A photograph. A sound. A dream. A scene from a movie. A person from your past you catch a glimpse of on a city street. And when that happens the traumatizing event is relived all over again and in real time but only in the mind in a kind of endless and inexpugnable film loop.

There were subheads, equally disturbing, describing how “it” (the virus) remade America: “It broke our faith in public health.” “It shattered our cities and disordered society.” “It shackled the U.S. with debt.” “It destabilized and undermined politics almost everywhere.” “It scarred children.” “It left us sicker.” But there was not any “it” that rained down upon us with so much destruction. It was “they,” and I’m not talking about woke pronouns. I’m talking about the complicity of the New York Times and an entire global army of media apparatchiks for creating the panic about a virus out of thin air by lying about how deadly it was. They and their nefarious collaborators bear the responsibility for the annihilation of so much life on earth and of what we hold dear.

I remembered seeing people being arrested while strolling on beaches or in parks; a cowering, elderly woman in a grocery store signaling at me to pull my mandated mask up over my nose (I was so oxygen-starved and furious that I wanted to ram my cart into hers right there in the condiment aisle); the heinous outdoor seating at restaurants on cold New York City streets; the blocking of my Facebook posts alerting my few hundred contacts about the war that had been launched against us; a friend insisting that everyone invited to her 50th birthday party, which was now going to be held outdoors, wear a mask (I was invited and did not go); seeing people alone in their cars with a mask on; being disinvited to weddings of friends and members of my extended family who were requiring all attendees to be jabbed “out of an abundance of caution”; fake president Joe Biden’s televised, maniacal speeches scolding scofflaws like me to get injected with the bioweapon or else….

***

While looking for a certain book I wanted to write about for this edition of Underlined Sentences, I found A Grief Observed. When the thin volume caught my eye, sandwiched between two bigger books, I knew right away that I wanted to write about it instead of the one I had been looking for. Call it a happy accident. Synchronicity, as Carl Jung might say. I’ve been wanting to write about grief for some time now, so my stumbling upon this book seemed to have a meaningful if not causal connection. It was as if my desire and this book had mysteriously found one another. As if I had not chosen it but rather it had chosen me.

It’s been five years since governments around the world shut down their nations and mandated lockdowns, school closures, and ultimately, in many instances, injections with a bioweapon peddled as a vaccine, and began what would become the death of the world as we’d known it brought down by the greatest of all crimes against humanity. That’s not the only thing I am grieving.

A Grief Observed is a brief and poignant memoir about the loss of a woman who Lewis—an aloof professor and theologian (first at Oxford University then at Cambridge University), a prolific and influential writer, and a devout Christian—met late in life and who died of cancer not long after they had married. Although they had known each other for only eight years, and four of those years as a married couple, Joy Davidman Gresham had come from America and changed Lewis’ life forever: He fell deeply in love for the first and, as fate would have it, the only time, in his life. And he despaired when she died.

In the days immediately following her death, Lewis wrote cursive journal entries in several exercise books for children. And what he wrote in those four books would become A Grief Observed, in which he writes: “I not only live each endless day in grief, but live each day thinking about living each day in grief.”

Douglas Gresham, the younger of Joy’s two sons, both of whom had eventually come with her to England to live with Lewis, writes in his introduction to my copy of the 1994 edition of A Grief Observed: “The book is a man emotionally naked in his own Gethsemane. It tells of the agony and the emptiness of a grief such as few of us have to bear, for the greater the love the greater the grief, and the stronger the faith the more savagely will Satan storm its fortress.”

***

For the past five years, I’ve lived in grief and have thought about living in grief. What I’m grieving is a different kind of loss from the one that brought Lewis to his knees, yet also deeply personal. I’m grieving the loss of trust and of the people who had broken my trust in them. As the COVID-19 psyop swept o’er the land, I trusted my friends and colleagues to see the evil hoax for what it was, as I did, and to ignore it or rise against it and just say no. To do the right thing and carry on.

But they didn’t. The heart of the matter for me was not what the governments around the world did to us; it’s what so many billions of people, including most of those closest to me, allowed the governments around the world to do to us. It was their uninformed and sheepish and, in some instances, enthusiastic, compliance that felt to me like a stab in the back. We all go through life with crosses to bear. I’ve had—and have—several. But this one—the anger I’ve felt because of this mass compliance—would become, and remain, my gravest, heaviest, and most persistent cross for the past five years.

Curiously, though, with the coming of warmer weather and longer days here in the Northeast where I’ve lived most of my life, I thought I had finally made some kind of tenuous peace with this wretched betrayal of not only myself, but also of all of us who knew better—and, indeed, against the very essence of our shared humanity. I’d started to tap into the energies and introspections of the Christian Lenten season to change something inside me, as Jesus always calls on us to do but during these forty days are asked to pay particular attention.

Over the past five years, I might have passed through the five stages of grief famously described by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her book, On Death and Dying: What the Dying Have to Teach Doctors, Nurses, Clergy and Their Own Families: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I was beginning to find myself at the fifth stage of an uneasy acceptance with the way things had gone with the COVID-19 psyop, although not without intermittent flare-ups of all the other stages, especially the anger. That’s the one that has most persistently dogged me in my attempts to move on. Never in my life have I felt so angry for so long.

I have turned to some familiar ancient and timeless wisdom for guidance. I have continued to remind myself of a memorable teaching from my years of Buddhist study and practice, which I have noted in previous columns: Harboring anger against someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

As if that simple phrase were not enough to remind me of anger’s toll, there’s this lesson about love as taught by Paul in his Letter to the Corinthians, a lesson many of us are familiar with because it is frequently recited during wedding ceremonies and which I’ve been reading from time to time these days: “If I speak in the tongues of mortals or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13: 1-3)

Then there’s this teaching from the mouth of Jesus himself that I’ve also been re-reading in my Bible: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteousness. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others?” (Matthew 5:43-47)

Above all, there are Jesus’ dying words as he hangs in excruciating pain on the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)

What are ordinary, imperfect mortals like me supposed to do with all these timeless, perfect wisdom teachings about forgiveness and love in the midst of the immense brokenness and deadly ignorance of the world in which we’ve found ourselves? One commentator in his blog called Christian Art has these sage words of advice: “Many of us might struggle to identify anyone we’d consider an ‘enemy.’ We often reserve that term for war situations or for people we intensely dislike. However, if we broaden the definition to include anyone who has hurt, upset, or wronged us (even in minor ways) perhaps a few faces come to mind? When Jesus asks us to love these people, He isn’t calling for warm, fuzzy feelings. He appeals to our will, not our emotions. At the very least, we can choose to wish the best for those we find difficult. How do we do this? Through prayer. Praying for someone we struggle with is not only an act of love but also a step towards healing—both for us and, potentially, for them.”

I’ve been praying the last five years, but mostly for myself, to be honest. I’ve prayed for spiritual healing, divine intervention. Not that I’m all that skilled in praying. No matter. As Lewis himself writes in his 1963 book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer: “I have a notion that what seem our worst prayers may really be, in God’s eyes, our best…. God sometimes seems to speak to us most intimately when He catches us, as it were, off our guard.”

I pray to be caught off my guard. I pray for a spontaneous remission of the cancer of my wrath. I pray because I’ve sometimes felt that I’ve been slowly dying, both inside myself and to the world around me. I pray because I’m also grieving my former self, a self that no longer is. Just like someone who dies no longer is. In my body I am here and appear not much different than I was five years ago. But I sometimes hardly recognize the man inside.

The insane lockdowns may have passed but I’ve continued to isolate myself more than I did before the COVID-19 psyop, and not because I’ve ever been afraid of contracting a supposedly deadly virus that posed no threat to any normally healthy person. It was because I became fed up with anyone and everyone who fell for the ruse, which happened to be nearly all of my old friends and colleagues. And the bitterness lingers like a bad dream that I can, unfortunately, recall in astonishing detail simply because it went on for so long and destroyed so much. Only it was not just a bad dream.

Like a refugee is forced to flee his home country that’s been taken over by a murderous despot and his henchmen and to take up his life in a new country, I’ve felt like an exile even though I’ve never left my home. And now I’m trying to find my footing in this strange, new world that surrounds me.

For the America I once knew is no more. In March 2020, it had been sacked and plundered in a coup d’état run by a shadow state, known by many as the deep state, an unelected bureaucratic cabal of a military-industrial-pharmaceutical-media complex that is accountable to no one. And where I live in the Hudson Valley of New York, a bastion of liberals, who with the invasion of the COVID-19 psyop had suddenly and, to me, inexplicably, abandoned their once proud heritage of supporting free speech, individual sovereignty, and world peace—and among whom I once counted myself—have left me feeling as if I am living behind enemy lines.

For they support none of this now and instead shoot their misguided arrows of blame for all the ills of the nation at the wrong target, thereby missing the mark. It bears noting here that the Greek word for “sin” is “hamartia,” which means “to miss the mark” or “to fail in one’s purpose.” It is commonly used in the New Testament, which was originally written in Greek, to describe various forms of wrongdoing or moral failure. Or, in a word, sin. Which has nothing to do with any sort of lascivious life we normally envision when we think of a sinful world. This sort of sin is far more subtle, as evil often is. It is the sin of ignorance.

***

“You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you,” Lewis writes in A Grief Observed. “It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong and sound as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice. Wouldn’t you then first discover how much you really trusted it? The same with people…. Only a real risk tests the reality of a belief.”

When billions of frightened souls fell for the ruse, that rope that Lewis writes about—the ties that commonly bind us to one another—snapped. All I had in my hands then was the equivalent of the frayed end of a rope, the other end of which was held by billions of others as they plunged into an abyss of imaginary fear whipped up by those very same lies that I and a pitifully small number of others so easily saw through. And as this happened, I was reminded of another Buddhist teaching of the grief felt by an armless mother watching her only child get swept away by a raging river.

All I could do was roil against that raging river of propaganda for sweeping away my trust in human intelligence and discernment that I had expected would have instinctively led us all to higher ground and out of harm’s way; roil at the deluge of lies that so suddenly flooded the earth in a kind of recurrence of the biblical account of the great flood and Noah and his ark. Only in this version, it was not God who was destroying the world; it was the scorpions that we read about in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

Read the Whole Article

The post A Grief Observed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Who Mourns for Palestine?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Mar, 01/04/2025 - 05:01

“I’ve often wondered why conservative Christians remain the most faithful friends of American Jews but have their friendship repeatedly spurned in favor of a Jewish alliance with the cultural and political left.” So wrote Paul Gottfried, editor of Chronicles magazine, a conservative monthly. The recent war in Gaza began with the butchering of 1,200 innocent Israelis, but as of this moment the response has been more than 55,000 dead Palestinians and over 80,000 wounded—a number of civilian casualties that would mortify Genghis Khan. The slightest mention of these innocent deaths caused by indiscriminate Israeli bombing has the neocons and AIPAC, not to mention my favorite newspaper, the New York Post, claiming the Nazis are back and a new Holocaust is about to begin. Only last week, 463 dead and 600 injured Palestinians were dismissed as if an exterminator had gotten rid of unwanted insects in a housing area. Anyone protesting is more likely to be called a Nazi than to be heard. In Britain, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, two conservative papers, hardly mentioned the casualties of the bombing. Columnist after columnist extolled Israel’s restraint in the face of 1,200 dead, as if the number 1,200 vastly exceeded the number 55,000.

Are Jewish lives far more precious than Palestinian ones? In America and Britain it is a given that Black Lives Matter. Well, they do in America and Britain, but they do not matter at all in Africa. Nor do Palestinian lives matter, at least not enough to be mentioned in America and in Britain. History has been weaponized by Zionists, and the Holocaust is invoked to silence any criticism of Israel. As I write, another 85 flies—sorry, Palestinians—have been killed. Watching this on screen, I see a father holding a dead 2-year-old child and demanding to know: What has he done to Israel? He is guilty of what?

“At times I wonder if Bibi Netanyahu spent his youth pulling wings from insects.”

Netanyahu ordered food, fuel, and medicine to be stopped for 2.3 million Gazans just before the resumption of hostilities. If this wasn’t a major crime, my name is Adolf Hitler. Western media correctly describes the October 7 Hamas attack as sadistic barbarism. What angers me is the same media fails to decry the starvation, the atrocities, and the bombing of women, children, and old people by 2,000-pound bombs provided to Israel by Americans.

Any criticism of Israeli brutalities is immediately labeled anti-Semitic, this being among the oldest tricks of the neocons, those nice guys who gave us the Iraq War; people like the Podhoretzes, the Kristols, the Feiths, the Wolfowitzes, and the Kagans. They knew what they were doing. Dubious accusations of anti-Semitism were reserved for paleoconservatives like my friend Pat Buchanan, a great American patriot who was not fooled about what lay behind the war: Israel worried about Saddam and needed Uncle Sam to pull the rug out from under him.

And then there’s Mearsheimer and Walt, two brilliant intellectuals who criticized the Jewish lobby and wrote some terrific books about the lobby’s influence in America. The level of unhinged, ferocious hatred of their books, devoid of any proof that they are anti-Semitic, was hysterical and venomous. Had they been related to Hitler by blood, and had they partaken in putting Jews in concentration camps, the attacks on their persons would not have been worse. But what really bothers me is the media’s lack of interest where Palestinian deaths and injuries are concerned. We used to think that various human subjects, like Rome’s slaves, gladiators, and barbarians, were not worthy of moral consideration. Eventually we corrected that, or thought we did. Roman emperor Domitian spent his youth catching and killing flies. He became an elder tyrant and the cruelest of them all. At times I wonder if Bibi Netanyahu spent his youth pulling wings from insects.

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Mourns for Palestine? appeared first on LewRockwell.