Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, Vicki Marzullo. 

JFK released documents.

 

The post CIA Evil Revealed in JFK Release appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Leo’s Newsletter

 

The post Trump makes astonishing statement about U.S. joining British Commonwealth of Nations as ‘associate member’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

On March 1 Palestinian director Hamdan Ballal won the Oscar for the feature film documentary No Other Land. A few weeks later he was attacked by masked Israeli settlers and kidnapped by the Israel Defense Force.: 

See here.

 

The post Israel Kidnaps Academy Award Winning Palestinian Fillmmaker appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

AP News

 

The post Oscar-winning Palestinian director is attacked by Israeli settlers and detained by the army appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post ‘Signal-gate’: Trump Team Brings Neocon Journo Into Yemen Attack Planning Sessions? appeared first on LewRockwell.

America’s Untold Stories
With Eric Hunley and Mark Groubert

 

Mark Lane Exposed the Truth About JFK’s Assassination

Join Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley in this captivating episode of America’s Untold Stories as they delve into the life and legacy of Mark Lane, the bold attorney and author of Rush to Judgment. As the first major public figure to openly challenge the Warren Commission’s conclusions, Lane helped spark decades of debate over the JFK assassination and became a lightning rod for controversy.

In this compelling deep dive, Groubert and Hunley explore who Mark Lane truly was — beyond the courtroom and beyond the pages of his famous book. Through behind-the-scenes stories, legal insights, and historical context, the episode unpacks Lane’s motivations, legal battles, personal convictions, and the cultural storm he helped ignite.

What you’ll learn in this episode:
• Why Lane wrote Rush to Judgment and how it shifted the public narrative on JFK
• Lane’s early influences and how they shaped his pursuit of justice
• The controversies that surrounded Lane’s career, from civil rights activism to high-profile clients
• The enduring impact of Lane’s work on government accountability and modern skepticism

Whether you’re a JFK researcher, legal enthusiast, or just curious about the roots of American distrust in official narratives — this is an episode you won’t want to miss.

The post America’s Untold Stories: Mark Lane Exposed the Truth About JFK’s Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Cradle

 

The post Gaza ceasefire talks ‘collapse’ after Israel rejects all proposals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Libertarian Institute

 

The post Israel’s Lobby Launches Preemptive War on Thomas Massie appeared first on LewRockwell.

Le correzioni sono dolorose nel breve termine, ma nel lungo liberano quelle risorse precedentemente sprecate che possono quindi essere messe a miglior uso dal settore privato. È cosi che si conduce una politica fiscale sostenibile. E che l'amministrazione Trump l'abbia capito è un bene. Lo stesso Trump ha detto che l'economia subirà un “piccolo aggiustamento” nei mesi a venire e Bessent afferma che l'economia ha bisogno di “disintossicarsi” dalla spesa pubblica. Sfortunatamente i programmi di disintossicazione sono solitamente caratterizzati da sintomi di astinenza per il paziente, ma che poi gli permettono di recuperare la forma una volta terminato il processo. L'Argentina è un caso da manuale a tal proposito. Concentrarsi direttamente sulla produzione, mentre il consumo è enfatizzato solo nella misura in cui la ridotta importanza dei settori globalizzati e finanziarizzati dell'economia è vista come un modo per ricostruire la classe media americana dei colletti blu e colmare il divario di consumo tra ricchi e poveri. Il vantaggio comparato e l'efficienza economica vengono messi in secondo piano, dato che i dazi servono sostanzialmente per ridurre il surplus commerciale estero nei confronti degli USA, cosa che fa scorrere i dollari all'estero e permette ai globalisti di attingere da quella fonte per tenere liquido il mercato degli eurodollari con cui minano la stabilità degli USA stessi. La sicurezza delle catene di approvvigionamento viene nuovamente enfatizzata, rimarcando la necessità di rimboccarsi le maniche e sopportare le turbolenze economiche. Agli americani viene venduta una visione in cui credere, un orizzonte temporale migliore in cui credere e poterlo vedere, e ogni taglio alla spesa pubblica e alla burocrazia è un passo che si fa verso suddetto orizzonte. Un passo concreto, ora. La retorica su Marte serve anch'essa a questo scopo.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Jeffrey Tucker

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/prima-nessuno-lo-vedeva-adesso-si)

Per anni ho atteso un po' di onestà sui dati economici. I numeri ufficiali non avevano senso. I numeri nel mondo del lavoro mostravano disparità tra i metodi di raccolta dati; i numeri della produzione non si adattavano alle realtà sul campo; i numeri dei prezzi non riflettevano fonti dell'industria privata.

Mettendo insieme tutti questi elementi, da anni siamo circondati da una recessione, con numeri spaventosi sull'occupazione.

Dire questo mi ha fatto passare per un pazzo, ma gli ultimi cinque anni hanno convinto me e moltitudini di altri che le affermazioni e i numeri ufficiali non sono affidabili. Mettendo alla prova il mio intuito, ho commissionato uno studio ad alcuni esperti di dati seri che conoscono questo mondo meglio di me. Hanno concluso che i prezzi erano aumentati al doppio dei livelli comunicati, che i mercati del lavoro erano deboli, che la produzione era bassa e che eravamo in recessione tecnica sin dal 2022.

Abbiamo pubblicato quello studio e atteso il contraccolpo e le confutazioni. Non sono mai arrivate. Non una comunicazione a me rivolta contro i numeri; non un esperto ha scritto per dire che avevamo distorto qualcosa; non una persona ha respinto la conclusione. Ammetto che questo mi ha spaventato. Quante persone sanno che gli Stati Uniti sono in recessione ma non lo dicono per motivi professionali?

Nel mondo dell'economia i professionisti si aggrappano alle fonti di dati come dottrina ferma. Come si diceva nell'Unione Sovietica, i dati potrebbero essere falsi, ma è tutto ciò che abbiamo! E se lo stesso fosse valso per gli Stati Uniti? Sembra impensabile, dal momento che le relazioni del Bureau of Labor Statistics e del Commerce Department sono da tempo considerati la verità. Cosa succederebbe se scoprissimo che nessuno sa davvero cosa sta succedendo?

Eccoci qui, solo a un mese dal secondo mandato di Trump, e la verità sta venendo fuori all'improvviso.

Eugene Ludwig ha scritto un articolo sorprendente per Politico, guarda caso. Getta acqua fredda su ogni importante fonte di dati in nostro possesso. Le sue conclusioni si adattano bene a quanto avevamo detto sei mesi fa e a ciò che ho intuito dal 2020. Dice senza mezzi termini che la produzione è molto più bassa di quanto sappiamo, la disoccupazione effettiva è molto più alta e i prezzi sono aumentati fino al doppio di quanto ammesso dal governo federale.

L'articolo è intitolato: “Gli elettori avevano ragione sull'economia. I dati erano sbagliati”.

L'autore inizia ricordando ai lettori una delle principali narrazioni dell'anno scorso, ovvero che gli elettori erano scontenti delle condizioni economiche. Eppure i giornalisti dicevano sempre che i dati erano in realtà piuttosto forti. Il ragionamento era essenzialmente che le persone erano piuttosto sciocche e ignoravano cosa stavano scoprendo i mercanti dei dati. In altre parole, se eravate tra gli intelligenti, dovevate sapere che in realtà l'inflazione stava calando e che tutto andava bene con il mondo del lavoro e la produzione.

Ludwig offre un'altra spiegazione molto simile a quella che io e altri sosteniamo da tempo, ovvero che gli elettori non avevano torto; il vero problema è che i dati probabilmente non riportavano condizioni reali.

“E se i numeri che sostengono la teoria della prosperità su vasta scala fossero essi stessi fasulli?” si chiede.

“E se le valutazioni più fosche dell’economia fossero quelle più ancorate alla realtà?”

Prosegue spiegando i numeri della disoccupazione, per esempio. I principali numeri sulla disoccupazione non considerano la qualità dei lavori, le ore lavorate, la misura in cui le persone sono sottoccupate, o se hanno semplicemente rinunciato del tutto. Un indizio c'era: i rapporti occupazione-popolazione che non si sono mai ripresi. Non è stato mai preso in considerazione, per esempio, che i secondi lavori avevano raggiunti livelli record e se i salari guadagnati erano sufficienti a impedire alle persone di dover vivere per strada.

E per quanto riguarda il reddito, i numeri non consideravano la cifra assoluta di persone che a malapena sbarcavano il lunario. Potreste avere medie che sembrano buone, ma mascherano i milioni di persone intrappolate al di sotto dei livelli di sussistenza.

Se si considerano i salari medi anziché la media degli stessi, le persone “guadagnano il 16% in meno di quanto indichino le statistiche prevalenti”.

E sui prezzi, ecco dove troviamo il vero inganno. Osservando così tanti beni, l'indice dei prezzi al consumo (IPC) maschera gli aumenti di prezzo che contano di più per i beni che le persone effettivamente acquistano regolarmente.

“Il nostro indicatore alternativo rivela che, dal 2001, il costo della vita per gli americani con redditi modesti è aumentato del 35% più velocemente dell’indice dei prezzi al consumo”.

Lui e molti altri ricercatori hanno capito che il vero costo della vita potrebbe essere aumentato del doppio di quanto indicato dall'indice dei prezzi al consumo. Ciò influisce sui dati dell'output, che sono stati distorti dall'esplosione della spesa pubblica e del debito. Una volta che si aggiusta la produttività privata con una misura realistica dell'inflazione, si ottengono numeri costantemente all'interno della zona rossa della crescita reale negativa.

E la conclusione:

“Il problema non è che alcuni americani non siano usciti vincitori dopo quattro anni di Bidenomics. Alcuni sì. È che, per la maggior parte, coloro che vivono in circostanze più modeste hanno sopportato almeno 20 anni di battute d'arresto e gli ultimi quattro anni non hanno cambiato le cose abbastanza per il 60% inferiore dei percettori di reddito americani”.

Sì, questo è il genere di articolo che vi fa venire voglia di urlare: e proprio adesso ce lo dite!?

Immagino che ora che Trump è al comando avremo più verità, ma non è una verità che vogliamo sentire. Stiamo già assistendo a numeri dell'inflazione elevati, numeri di posti di lavoro rivisti e input inferiori ai numeri dell'output. Non mi sorprenderebbe vedere una recessione retroattiva ammessa entro l'estate, che verrà strombazzata dalla stampa come prova che la Trumponomics ha fallito e deve essere abbandonata.

Capite come funzionano le cose? I numeri sono diventati così politicizzati da essere quasi inutili. Persino questo articolo non fa il passo in più di aggiustare la produzione in base ai prezzi, il che avrebbe rivelato la recessione tecnica di cui abbiamo scritto.

I numeri ufficiali potrebbero essere falsi. E tuttavia ci aggrappiamo tutti a loro... perché sono tutto ciò che abbiamo.

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

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

President Trump’s executive order from last week titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities” could help bring about a major step toward restoring constitutional government and improving education.

The executive order directs that the secretary of education, “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” This action is directed to be taken, though, “while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

The order points out that the Department of Education was created in 1979. Thus, the American people somehow managed for a long time to educate children without a federal education department! They could certainly do so again.

The federal government introduced significant funding to local schools the 1950s. Some of this early funding was targeted at science education and was a response to the Soviet Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite. The first major legislation providing funding for, and imposing regulations on, local government schools became law in 1965.

The Department of Education has been given nearly 50 years to work on improving education. Yet, instead of the Department of Education ushering in an education golden era, education in America has declined. According to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, approximately 70 percent of eighth graders are below proficiency in reading, while around 72 percent are below proficiency in math.

The problem is not that the federal government spends too little on education. Further, Washington, DC imposing another “reform” on schools will only ensure that more children are left behind. The real problem is education funding is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats who impose a “one-size-fits-all” model on schools.

The key to improving the education system is putting control of education back in the hands of those who best know a child’s unique needs and abilities — parents.

Moving education programs from the federal government to state and local governments is a good first step toward improving the education system. In addition, President Trump must follow up his executive order by working with Congress to pass legislation shutting down the Department of Education.

Homeschooling is one course many parents have chosen as an alternative to sending their children to government schools.

Parents looking for a homeschooling curriculum incorporating the ideas of liberty should consider my online curriculum. My curriculum provides students with a solid education in history, literature, mathematics, and the sciences. It also gives students the opportunity to create their own websites and internet-based businesses. This provides students with “real world” entrepreneurial experience that will be useful to them no matter what career path they choose.

The curriculum is designed to be self-taught, with students helping, and learning from, each other via online forums. Starting in the fourth grade, students are required to write at least one essay a week. Students post their essays on their blogs. Students also take a course in public speaking.

The curriculum does emphasize the history, philosophy, and economics of liberty, but it never substitutes indoctrination for education. The goal is to produce students with superior critical thinking skills.

If you think my curriculum may meet the needs of your child, please visit www.RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information.

The post Shut Down the Department of Education! appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his book, Socialism, Ludwig von Mises warns about the threat posed by socialism to peaceful co-existence and to Western civilization. He highlights the “disastrous wars and revolutions, heinous mass murders and frightful catastrophes” that have been caused by socialist policies, a warning that was also sounded by Friedrich von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

Mises goes beyond warning about the destructive nature of socialism, going further to draw attention to what he considers “the main issue,” which he describes as “the desperate struggle of lovers of freedom, prosperity and civilization against the rising tide of totalitarian barbarism.” Socialism is destructive in itself, but more than that it fuels the “rising tide of totalitarian barbarism” through its many disguises. There is a persistent belief that socialism is an ideal worth pursuing if we could only work out just the right form that it should take. Part of Mises’s goal in Socialism is to explain the dangers of socialism and help readers to recognize socialism when they see it.

Among its many disguises, socialism cloaks itself in the mantle of ideals that many people value such as the ideals of justice and equality before the law. Speaking of the anthropomorphism that ascribes “justice” to the distribution of wealth that results from market interactions, Hayek in his essay “‘Social’ or Distributive Justice,” warns:

I believe that “social justice” will ultimately be recognized as a will-o’-the-wisp which has lured men to abandon many of the values which in the past have inspired the development of civilization.

Thus, the problem is not simply that many people are beguiled by socialism, but that this causes them to abandon the ideals which civilized societies once held. As Hayek writes in “The Origins and Effects of Our Morals”:

[I]t is no exaggeration to say that the central aim of socialism is to discredit those traditional morals which keep us alive.

The traditional principles of morality to which he refers, such as the concept of honesty, are associated with the cultural values of classical liberalism which are now under threat: freedom of contract, freedom of association, free speech, and the right to private property. By undermining these ideals, socialism undermines the very foundations of civilization.

In the contemporary context, the primary disguise of socialism is the ideal of equality. Thomas Sowell describes the tenets of socialism as “make believe equality”—the idea that we should create laws and policies that ensure we are, in fact, all equal—even though, as Murray Rothbard explains in Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature, seeking to make all people, in fact, equal would be a sinister Procrustean goal. As Sowell famously said, “No one is equal to anything. Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.” Yet the concept of “equality” now provides cover for many socialist policies. Most notorious is the concept of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” DEI is based on theories of racial polylogism, which are explicated by reference to explicitly Marxist concepts. Indeed, this is one of the main methods by which Marxist ideals now proliferate—by being subsumed within the intellectual foundations of the latest iteration of socialism.

Marxist Foundations of DEI

In Socialism, Mises observes that the central doctrines of Marxism are widely accepted and used as the foundation for all manner of socialist ideologies. Mises explains: “At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in [Marxism]. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels” while overlooking the extent to which its core constructs have been used as the foundation for “equality” policies.

Equality policies often substitute the notion of racial conflict for Marxist notions of class conflict and disguise their Marxist roots by adopting words like “diversity, equity and inclusiveness” or the new terminology of “community, opportunity and belonging.” To illustrate the influence of Marxist thought on racial equality debates, a good example is one of the doctrines of Marxism described by Mises:

[Marxism] denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages…. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an “ideological superstructure” of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was “revealed” as “bourgeois” reasoning, an apology for Capitalism.

Following the same reasoning, critical race theories deny that logic is universally valid for all races. They substitute “race” for “class” directly mapping racial concerns onto Marxist class concerns. They declare that anything written by white people is about “white interests,” is based on “white reasoning,” and is, in fact, an apology for colonialism.

Just as Marxism claims “class conditions thought,” so they argue that race conditions thought. They say economics is “white,” having been “created” by white economists, therefore, black economists such as Thomas Sowell or Walter E. Williams are merely reflecting “white” economics and ought, therefore, to be disregarded by black readers. Their argument is that economics is based on “racist” reasoning which does not apply when racial minorities or their antiracist “allies” are in charge. Any counter arguments can, conveniently, be dismissed as “whiteness.” It follows that, just as—according to Marxism—the interests of the working class can never be unified with the interests of the bourgeoisie, so the interests of white and black can never be unified.

In thinking of strategies to unmask the many disguises of socialism, we should bear in mind Mises’s caution that we cannot oppose socialism by adopting all the same dogmas as the socialists. Doing so amounts to falling into the socialist trap. A good example of this trap is the attempt to challenge DEI by doing DEI “better,” or opposing the anti-discrimination principle by suggesting new or refined grounds for enforcing the anti-discrimination principle.

For example, some opponents of DEI argue that it is wrong to force an employer to hire anyone based on race, so their solution is to force the employer to hire based on merit. They fail to notice that, in both cases, the use of force has been invoked against the employer, or perhaps they think that as long as we cannot escape the use of state force it would be just as well to deploy that force in a more meritorious direction. They have forgotten the non-aggression standard that the use of state force is wrong. However unattainable that standard may now seem, especially as the size of the government workforce continues to grow, it should still be borne in mind as the goal towards which “lovers of freedom, prosperity and civilization,” as Mises put it, should continually strive.

Murray Rothbard also addresses this issue in For a New Liberty. He asks: “How can we get from here to there, from our current State-ridden and imperfect world to the great goal of liberty?”

He discusses the strategies adopted by Marxists, not, of course, because he agrees in any way with Marxist goals but “because [Marxists] have been thinking about strategy for radical social change longer than any group.” When an ideology becomes as pervasive as socialism now is, it cannot be countered without giving serious thought to the long term implications of immediate policy proposals.

This is often overlooked in the general excitement that we may—at long last—soon see the end of DEI. There is a tendency to suppose that if state tyranny must be deployed to get rid of the dastardly DEI, so be it. But seeing the end of DEI is not the ultimate goal—ending DEI is an important step towards the ultimate goal of liberty. Rothbard argues that while there is an important role to be played by “gradual and ‘practical’ programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, [we are often] in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the libertarian goal.” In the context of the DEI debates, the goal of liberty lies in a defense of free speech, freedom of contract, freedom of association, and the right to private property.

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

The post The Many Disguises of Socialism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Does Trump see Iran through some disturbed optic – that in destroying Iran, he is bringing about peace through strength?

The phone call on 18 March between Presidents Trump and Putin has happened. It was a success, insofar as it allowed both sides to label the result as ‘positive’. And it did not lead to a breakdown (by virtue of the smallest of concessions from Putin – an energy infrastructure truce) – something easily it could have done (i.e. devolve into impasse – with Trump excoriating Putin, as he has done to Zelensky), given the fantastical and unrealistic expectations being woven in the West that this would be the ‘decider meeting’ for a final division of Ukraine.

It may have been a success too, insofar as it has laid the groundwork for the absent homework, now to be handled by two teams of experts on the detailed mechanics of the ceasefire. It was always a puzzle why this had not been earlier tackled by the U.S. team in Riyadh (lack of experience?). It was, after all, because the ceasefire was treated as a self-creating entity, by virtue of an American signature, that western expectations took flight in the belief that details did not matter; All that remained to do – in this (flawed) estimation – was to ‘divvy out the cake’.

Until the mechanics of a ceasefire – which must be comprehensive since ceasefires almost always break down – there was little to discuss on that topic on Tuesday. Predictably, then, discussion (reportedly) seemed to have turned to other issues: mainly economic ones and Iran, underlining again that the negotiation process between the U.S. and Russia does not boil down to just Ukraine.

So, how to move to ceasefire implementation? Simple. Begin to unravel the ‘cats cradle’ of impedimenta blocking normalised relations. Putin, plucking out just one strand to this problem, observed that:

“Sanctions [alone] are neither temporary nor targeted measures. They constitute [rather], a mechanism of systemic, strategic pressure against our nation. Our competitors perpetually seek to constrain Russia and diminish its economic and technological capacities … they churn out these packages incessantly”.

There is thus much cumulated geo-strategic debris to be addressed, and corrected, dating back many years, before a Big Picture normalisation can start in earnest.

What is apparent is that whilst Trump seems to be in a tearing hurry, Putin, by contrast, is not. And he will not be rushed. His own constituency will not countenance a hastily fudged accord with the U.S. that later implodes amidst recriminations of deceit – and of Moscow again having been fooled by the West. Russian blood is invested in this strategic normalisation process. It needs to work.

What is behind Trump’s evident hurry? Is it the need for breakneck speed on the domestic front to push ahead, before the cumulated forces of the opposition in the U.S. (plus their brethren in Europe) have the time to re-group and to torpedo normalisation with Russia?

Or does Trump fear that a long gap before ceasefire implementation will enable opposition forces to push for the recommencement of arms supplies and intelligence sharing – as the Russian military steamroller continues its advance? Is the fear, as Steve Bannon has warned, that by rearming Ukraine, Trump effectively will ‘own’ the war, and shoulder the blame for a massive western and NATO defeat?

Or, perhaps Trump anticipates that Kiev might unexpectedly cascade into a systemic collapse (as occurred to the Karzai government in Afghanistan). Trump is acutely aware of the political disaster that befell Biden from the images of Afghans clinging to the tyres of departing U.S. transport planes (à la Vietnam), as the U.S. evacuated the country.

Yet again, it might be something different. I learned from my time facilitating ceasefires in Palestine/Israel that it is not possible to make a ceasefire in one place (say Bethlehem), whilst Israeli forces were concurrently setting Nablus or Jenin ablaze. The emotional contagion and anger from one conflict cannot be contained to one locality; it would overflow to the other. It was tried. The one contaminated the implied sincere intentions behind the other.

Is the reason for the Trump haste mainly that he suspects his unconstrained support for Israel eventually will lead him to embrace major war in the Middle East? The world of today (thanks to the internet) is much smaller than before: Is it possible to be a ‘peacemaker’ and a ‘warmaker’ simultaneously – and have the first taken seriously?

Trump and those U.S. politicians ‘owned’ by the pro-Israeli lobby, know that Netanyahu et al. want the U.S. to help eliminate Israel’s regional rival – Iran. Trump cannot both retrench the U.S. as a western hemisphere ‘Sphere of Influence’, yet continue to throw the U.S.’ weight around as world Hegemon, causing the U.S. government to go broke. Can Trump successfully retrench the U.S. to Fortress America, or will foreign entanglements – i.e. an unstable Israel – lead to war and derail Trump’s administration, as all is intertwined?

What is Trump’s vision for the Middle East? Certainly, he has one – it is one that is rooted in his unstinting allegiance to the Israeli interest. The plan is either to destroy Iran financially, or to decapitate it and empower a Greater Israel. Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei included a two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal.

A day after his missive, Trump said the U.S. is “down to the final moments” with Iran:

“We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem”.

U.S. journalist Ken Klippenstein has noted that on 28 February, two B-52 bombers flying from Qatar dropped bombs on an “undisclosed location” – Iraq. These nuclear-capable bombers were carrying a message whose recipient “was clear as day; The Islamic Republic of Iran”. Why B-52s and not F-35s which also can carry bombs? (Because ‘bunker-buster’ bombs are too heavy for F-35s? Israel has F-35s, but does not have B-52 heavy bombers).

Then on 9 March, Klippenstein writes, a second demonstration was made: A B-52s flew alongside Israeli fighter jets on long-range missions, practicing aerial refuelling operations. The Israeli press correctly reported the real purpose of the operation – “readying the Israeli military for a potential joint strike with the U.S. on Iran”.

Then, last Sunday, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz boasted that multiple Anglo-U.S. airstrikes “took out” top Houthi officials, making it very clear that this is all about Iran:

“This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out. And the difference here is, one, going after the Houthi leadership, and two, holding Iran responsible”.

Marco Rubio elaborated on CBS: “We’re doing the entire world a favour by getting rid of these guys”.

Trump then followed up with the same theme:

“Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN, and IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!” 

In a further piece, Klippenstein writes:

“Trump’s menu of options for dealing with Tehran now includes one he didn’t have in his first term: full-scale war – with “nuclear weapons on the table” (the Trident II low-yield option) Pentagon and company contracting documents I’ve obtained describe “a unique joint staff planning” effort underway in Washington and in the Middle East to refine the next generation of “a major regional conflict” with Iran. The plans are the result of a reassessment of Iran’s military capabilities, as well as a fundamental shift in how America conducts war”.

What is new is that the “multilateral” component includes Israel working in unison with Arab Gulf partners for the first time, either indirectly or directly. The plan also includes many different contingencies and levels of war, according to the documents cited by Klippenstein, from “crisis action” (meaning response to events and attacks), to “deliberate” planning (which refers to set scenarios that flow from crises that escalate out of control). One document warns of the “distinct possibility” of the war “escalating outside of the United States Government’s intention” and impacting the rest of the region, demanding a multifaceted approach.

War preparations for Iran are so closely restricted, that even contracting companies involved in war planning are prohibited from even mentioning unclassified portions, notes Klippenstein:

“While a range of military options are often provided to presidents in an attempt on the part of the Pentagon to steer the President to the one favoured by the Pentagon, Trump already has shown his proclivity to select the most provocative option”.

“Equally, Trump’s green light for the Israeli air-strikes on Gaza, killing hundreds, [last] Monday, but ostensibly targetted on the Hamas leadership can be seen as consonant with the pattern of taking the belligerent option”. 

Following his successful assassination of Iran’s top general Qassim Suleimani in 2020, Trump seems to have taken the lesson that aggressive action is relatively cost-free, Klippenstein notes.

As Waltz noted in his press interview:

“The difference is these [Yemen attacks] were not pinpricks, back and forth, what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks. This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out”.

Klippenstein cautions that, “2024 may be behind us but its lessons aren’t. Israel’s assassination of top Hezbollah officials in Lebanon was largely perceived by Washington to be a resounding success with few downsides. Trump likely took back the same message, leading to his strike on [the] Houthi leadership this week”.

If western observers are seeing all of what’s going on as some repeat of Biden’s tit-for-tat or limited attacks by Israel on Iran’s early warning and air defences, they may be misunderstanding what’s going on behind the scenes. What Trump might now do, which is right out of the Israeli playbook, would be to attack Iran’s command and control, including Iran’s leadership.

This – very certainly – would have a profound effect on Trump’s relations with Russia – and China. It would eviscerate any sense in Moscow and Beijing that Trump is agreement capable. What price then his ‘peacemaker’ ‘Big Picture’ reset were he, in the wake of wars in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, to start a war with Iran? Does Trump see Iran through some disturbed optic – that in destroying Iran, he is bringing about peace through strength?

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

The post Trump and Putin Begin Addressing Cumulated Geo-Strategic Debris… Amidst Trump’s Ultimatum to Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

The recent German election saw a new party, Alternatives for Germany, break through the established power structure and become the second strongest force in parliament. The AfD are libertarian-conservatives favoring less government and stricter asylum laws. They also call for an end to the NATO-sponsored wars of regime change that have generated waves of refugees fleeing the violence in their homeland.

Germany has taken in millions of these refugees, far more than any other country. This has created an enormous financial and cultural strain in a country that historically has had little immigration. It comes at a time when poverty is increasing and social services are being reduced. The once-generous welfare state is gradually being dismantled. This financial squeeze is worsening now because of expenses for the immigrants. The newcomers receive enough money to live on plus free healthcare, education and access to special programs. Some cheat on this, registering in several places under different names and getting multiple benefits. Many Germans resent paying for all this with high taxes while their own standard of living is declining.

The trauma of war and displacement has caused a few refugees to lose their moral compass. They do things here they wouldn’t do at home.

Two-thirds of them are young men, some of them convinced Allah has ordained males to dominate females. In their view, women who aren’t submissive need to be punished. Since being male is the only power many of them have, they feel threatened by women in positions of power, and they sometimes react with hostility. Thousands of women have been physically attacked — some murdered and raped and many aggressively grabbed on the breasts as a way of showing dominance. Tens of thousands of women have been abused — insulted, harassed, spat upon.

Many refugees are aware that Germany, as a member of NATO, supports these wars that have forced them to flee their homes. They’re not fooled by the rhetoric of “humanitarian intervention.” They know NATO’s motives are imperialistic: to install governments agreeable to Western control of their resources and markets. Although they are now safe, their relatives and friends are still being killed with weapons made in Germany and oppressed by soldiers and police trained and financed by Germany. Rather than a grateful attitude, some have come with a resentful one.

Crime has increased, especially violent crimes such as knife attacks. Hundreds of people have been killed and wounded by refugees. Organized criminal clans have become established in Germany’s lenient legal atmosphere. A few IS and al-Qaeda members slipped in with the refugees. They have bombed marketplaces, attacked synagogues, murdered Jews on the street, recruited new members in mosques. Although only a fraction of immigrants are criminals, they’re the ones who make the news.

Statistics on crime and asylum:

https://thecritic.co.uk/germany-is-acknowledging-the-unspeakable/

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-german-disillusionment/

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/germany-violent-crime-climbs-to-historic-highs/

https://www.kas.de/en/kurzum/detail/-/content/wake-up-call-for-integration-policy

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/54441/germany-net-migration-at-all-time-high

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime_in_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

In the past 80 years Germany has become a peaceful country. The current violence is profoundly disturbing to them. It brings back terrible memories.

The mainstream German parties and media are committed to these wars and therefore refuse to substantially restrict asylum. The AfD wants to end the NATO wars and limit asylum. This has found widespread support in the population. A fifth of the voters chose the AfD in the recent election, twice as many as four years ago.

The party is particularly strong in the former East Germany, which has endured three dictatorships: the Nazis, the Stalinists, and now the tyranny of the Middle. The German Establishment and their media move aggressively against any trends that threaten their power. They have shown themselves to be just another vicious ruling elite willing to do whatever it takes to maintain control.

Another success factor for AfD is its call to overcome the postwar guilt and shame that have been predominant in the country. For many years these were a necessary reckoning with past atrocities, but this burden of blame has increasingly lamed the country and become a handicap to its progress. The AfD’s emphasis on leaving them behind is part of a gradual evolution that has been going on since the 1990s.

When I came to Germany in 1993 as a guest professor, I noticed that many students were eager to express their dislike of their country: Germany had done terrible things, and they were ashamed of it. They took pride in this dislike, as if it were a virtue, and they seemed to be trying to win my approval with it. When I pointed out they were feeling guilty about crimes their grandparents’ generation had committed 50 years ago, they responded, “It might happen again!”

I left Germany after 2½ years and returned in 2000. The attitude of guilt was still there, but not so universal. In classroom discussions a few students defended their country, but they were quickly overruled by the majority. Sometimes after class some students would apologize to me for this minority. They were embarrassed by it, found it shameful.

The minority grew over the years. Discussions sometimes became heated arguments. The students who wanted to hold on to guilt seemed to do so out of civic duty. Those who wanted to abandon it had an impatient, enough-is-enough attitude.

In 2010 Shimon Peres, Israel’s president and Nobel-Prize-winner, told the German parliament the most important lesson to be learned from the Holocaust is, “Never again!” His statement implied that the Holocaust came not just out of the historical situation back then but out of something in Germans that is there even today. Germans have a personal responsibility for atrocities committed before they were born. This received widespread praise from the Establishment.

The pro-guilt students felt confirmed by this. They insisted present-day Germans have to guard against these tendencies. These students wore their shame like a badge of honor.

In 2017 Alternatives for Germany gained entry to parliament as the third strongest party. The mainstream parties and media went into full alarm, launching a defamation campaign with distorted news, character assassination andoutright lies,implying the AfD was full of neo-Nazis who would again turn Germany into a pariah in the family of nations. They portrayed its leaders as narrow-minded bigots who want to throw all foreigners out of the country.

But the facts speak otherwise. Their chancellor candidate, Alice Weidel, is a lesbian with a woman partner who came originally from Sri Lanka. The party’s platform clearly states their deportation program applies only to criminals and to people who have entered the country illegally, and then only if their home country is no longer at war.

Since foreign media get most of their information from the German media, it’s no wonder they present a false view of the AfD, claiming it is fascist. Fascism is not on the rise in Germany. That’s a perennial scare story. What is rising is public outrage.

The mainstream attack on the AfD polarized Germany. Discussions became much more emotional, loaded with anger, self-righteousness and defensiveness. The society has been going through a transition that has intensified in the past eight years, and the AfD is an important factor in it.

After the recent election the parties face the unwieldy task of building a coalition that can actually govern. The strongest force is the conservative Union with 28% of the vote. AfD is second with 20%, Social Democrats 16%, Greens 11%, and Left 8%. To isolate the AfD, the Union has refused to form a coalition with it, preferring to cobble together a coalition with the smaller parties. But the differences among them are so deep that agreements will be difficult to reach. The political process will be deadlocked at a time when Germany needs decisive action. The resulting chaos will strengthen AfD all the more, and it may end up the strongest party after the next election. If the government falls apart, that could be soon.

The post Germany’s Long Road to Liberty appeared first on LewRockwell.

Surely you know the old joke: “What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?” (Answer: “a good start!”). There’s a reason why lawyers are so broadly despised. Law is humanity’s instrument for creating order out of the terror and chaos of nature, where anything goes. The result of law theoretically, is a civil society, where only the good, true, and right things can go.

These days, lawyers are hard at work to replace civilized order with the terror and chaos of nature — which is to say, the seeking of raw power: this is what I can do to you! That primal despotism is the motivating engine of the Democratic Party in its terminal phase, a feral, power-seeking monster. It was why, in case you hadn’t noticed, the essential drive of Woke politics was the sadistic pleasure it took in exacting its endless punishments — cancellation, personal ruin, censorship — not correcting alleged injustices against marginalized minorities. And that tells you, by the way, exactly why the J-6 defendants were treated so harshly by the likes of Judge James Boasberg, Tanya Chutkan, and their colleagues of the DC federal district.

The enabling device for that monstrous power seeking of the Democratic Party was the colossal racketeering operation they implanted in every corner of the federal government, an insidious process that accelerated during the Obama years, eluded discipline during Trump One — with the many distracting ruses such as RussiaGate — and surged into final overdrive during the perfidious term of “Joe Biden,” America’s first false-front president.

The racketeering operation was perfectly illustrated in the DOGE’s recent deconstruction of USAID. That agency worked as a gigantic money laundering matrix to pay Democratic Party activists for the sole purpose of maintaining and expanding the party’s power — its ability to push American citizens around, control our lives, tell us how to live, how to think, and, ultimately, in the Covid-19 scam, telling us to take our shots, get lost, and die. Pitifully, a lot of those vaxx victims were the Democratic Party’s own rank and file, which shows you how psychotically suicidal the Democratic Party became.

By and large, it was conservatives who avoided the vaxxes because they were able psychologically to entertain the evidence that Covid was a nefarious set-up and that, month-by-month, the vaxxes were proving to be both ineffective and harmful. Democrats, in their Woke fugue state, could not do that. Even today, they insist that their vaxx injuries are “long Covid” and would be worse if not for the additional boosters they took. Poor dumb bunnies.

Mr. Trump was played masterfully in the initial 2020 Covid roll-out by the likes of Dr. Fauci, Deborah Birx, and the faithless Veep Mike Pence who directed the Coronavirus Task Force (and whoever was behind it). The president could not bring himself to oppose or cast doubt on their diktats and to this day he must remain embarrassed about how that all worked out. But he also probably learned to not be fooled again.

And so, after the fishy 2020 election, and during the disastrous “Biden” years, Mr. Trump had time to lay careful and comprehensive plans for ending the massive racketeering and for restructuring the federal apparatus into a leaner, more efficient, and more lawful enterprise for managing the civil society known as the USA. Which brings us to the present.

Mr. Trump’s lawfully appointed agent, Elon Musk, and his legally chartered investigative advisory unit, called DOGE, has begun making recommendations for severe cuts in agencies and employees, which have been executed by the lawfully confirmed heads of agencies, and the chief executive himself. Thus, the rapid, systematic disassembly of the Democratic Party’s grift machine and the end of its immense revenue stream. No more USAID and its thousands of NGO money laundromats. No more Department of Education and its Grant-O-Matic depredations in the universities. No more work-from home (but not really) nonsense. No more DEI reverse racism in hiring. No more flooding the swing state voting precincts with illegal aliens. No more stupid proxy war in Urkaine. No more gender pretending chaos. You see how it goes now.

Also, thus, the Democratic Party’s last resort: the federal judiciary, 235 new judges jammed into office in the twilight weeks of “Joe Biden” (as Senate Minority Leader Schumer bragged on Sunday’s TV talk circuit), plus the ones such as Boasberg, Chutkan, et al., already on the bench, primed to thwart Mr., Trump’s efforts to govern at every turn. They are the Dem’s only remaining lever of power. And they can only be activated by lawyers filing suits against Mr. Trump — hundreds having been filed in the past eight weeks. And these, as you learned in the Friday post here, are directed by attorney lawfare field marshal Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, using the many well-paid lawfare lawyers at his disposal.

In politics, momentous things often happen on weekends. This past Saturday, Mr. Trump released a White House memorandum directing the Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”

More specifically, the president’s memo asserts:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 prohibits attorneys from engaging in certain unethical conduct in Federal courts. Attorneys must not present legal filings “for improper purpose[s],” including “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” FRCP 11(b)(1). Attorneys must ensure that legal arguments are “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.”

This is the first time that legal discipline has been leveled directly at the lawfare lawyers themselves. (Election-rigging maestro Marc Elias is mentioned by name in the memo.) It means that after eight years of this noxious gamesmanship, they are going to have to start answering for their actions, they will have to lawyer-up on their own account, and they are going discover (the old saying goes) how the process is the punishment.

Next, if it is not already underway at the DOJ, Mr. Trump must direct AG Bondi to explore the parties financing this lawfare — this “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation” — and you should suppose that it has been emanating from the checkbooks of George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and other wealthy seditionists, who, likewise, will have to some serious ‘splainin’ why they should not go prison. One thing for sure: the money for all this is going to dry up.

Reprinted with permission from JamesHowardKunstler.com.

The post The Last Resort appeared first on LewRockwell.

Negotiations have many downsides, such as disputes over compliance, personality conflicts, arousal of anger and contempt, involvement of the egos of the negotiators, and negotiations have not served Russia well. Already Ukraine has violated the partial ceasefire agreement Putin made with Trump:

“A gas pipeline supplying the European Union is on fire in Russia due to an Ukraine Drone strike. A massive pillar of flames is visible near the Kursk(Russia) – Sumy (Ukraine) border. Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry cries foul: “Kyiv has already violated the ceasefire. How will Trump deal with these mad terrorists?”

It was just earlier this week that President Trump and President Putin agreed to a ceasefire against “energy infrastructure.”   “Putin agreed and immediately conveyed the appropriate order to Russian Forces. So effective was President Putin’s Order that Russian Forces which had already launched Drones toward Ukraine to attack such targets, used Russia’s own air defenses to shoot down their own drones rather than cause a problem under President Putin’s order!” See this.

Nadezhda Romanenko reports on the immediate violation of the ceasefire agreement:

“This latest incident is not occurring in a vacuum. It is part of a long and well-documented pattern of deception and provocation, especially in the face of good-faith overtures by Russia.”

“As if anyone expected something different,” she adds.  Well, Putin and Lavrov did.  Negotiation with the West doesn’t seem to be a Kremlin skill.  Possibly, Zelensky’s agreement to a ceasefire did not apply to a partial ceasefire, and Ukraine struck the Russian energy infrastructure prior to Trump speaking again with Zelensky. See this.

The British prime minister has threatened Russia with “devastating consequences” if Putin violates the ceasefire agreement.  He is considering sending British jets to provide air cover for Ukrainian soldiers.  A British admiral said that one British submarine with Trident missiles could incinerate 40 Russian cities and it should make Putin afraid.  In other words, Washington’s “British ally” and also much of NATO Europe intend to frustrate a peace agreement with air support for Ukraine and perhaps nuclear cover from Britain and France for Ukraine.  A question before us is whether a Trump-Putin peace agreement means the death of NATO.

Meanwhile, Putin’s unwillingness to use force to win the conflict brings daily new embarrassments to Russia. On March 20 a massive drone attack was launched from Ukraine on Russia’s air base in Engels, central Russia. 

By delaying a victory in the conflict, Putin has revealed to the West all of the Russian weapon systems, thus enabling the West to make compensating adjustments to its weapon systems. Thus, Putin has pissed away the Russian advantage in weapon systems. By not getting the war over with, Putin has also allowed the West to learn all of the vulnerabilities in the Russian air defense system.  It does seem that Putin is as unfamiliar with how to fight a war as he is with how to negotiate.  Indeed, why is Putin negotiating at all?

Apparently negotiations are a trap that Putin cannot resist. Will the ceasefire be another eight year deception for Putin like the Minsk Agreement?  

Before the ink is dry on the ceasefire limited to energy infrastructure, missiles or drones fired by someone from Ukrainian territory struck an oil depot in Russia’s Krasnodar Region the day after the agreement and blew up a gas metering station in Sudzha last Friday.

What did Russia do?  Did Putin announce that the other side had violated the agreement within 24 hours, and finally, after three years of dilly-dallying use the force required to end the conflict?  No. A military victory would eliminate negotiations, which seem to have the highest value for Putin despite negotiations having a perfect record of being a disaster for Russia.  Determined to keep negotiations going, the Russian government “reserves the right to retaliate” perhaps, sometime, maybe.

It seems that Putin will delay a victory in order to continue talks. Putin appears determined that the proxy war with Washington must end in a negotiated settlement, not in a Russian military victory.

Putin says one of his conditions is Washington’s recognition that the areas Russia has reincorporated within herself are Russian.  Russian news sources indicate that Putin has offered not to take the Black Sea port of Odessa and the Russian city of  Kharkov in exchange for this recognition.  Otherwise, Russia has the option of reclaiming these two cities as well. See this.

I have not seen Trump’s response to the attack on Sudzha, a violation of the ceasefire agreement. Perhaps after all the hype, Trump doesn’t want to admit that the agreement only lasted 24 hours before it was violated.  If Trump  sees it this way, he is not alone. Apparently, Putin doesn’t consider the violation to be a violation and is continuing with the violated agreement. It seems the two leaders are not going to regard Zelensky’s violation  as a violation.  Thus, Trump-Putin negotiations continue and hope remains. See this.

To reiterate, the best and quickest way to end the conflict is for Trump to abandon Washington’s proxy war against Russia, cease supplying weapons, money, and targeting information, cancel the sanctions,  and leave the resolution of the conflict with Putin and Zelensky.  Putin will require a Ukrainian election in order to  have an elected government with which to deal.  The resolution of the conflict will reflect the realities of the situation and prove that Russia has no intention of taking all of Ukraine and threatening Europe.

Russia would be merciful to Ukraine as Ukraine is historically part of Russia broken away by Washington after the internal political collapse of the Soviet government.  Ukraine as an independent country has existed for only 30 years.  The parts reincorporated into Russia are  former territories of Russia herself that were incorporated into the Ukraine province of the USSR by the Soviet leadership in Moscow.

Remember:  If Washington and NATO had complied with the Minsk Agreement, there would have been no conflict in Ukraine and the territories that are now part of Russia, excepting Crimea, would still be part of Ukraine.  The West forced the conflict on Russia and now blames Russia for the conflict.  As the French president and German chancellor said publicly, we deceived Putin with the agreement while the Americans built a Ukrainian army.  The conflict is Washington’s fault, and it can be easily ended by Washington’s withdrawal from the conflict.  Trump has no stake in the conflict.  The question is:  Does he acquire an unwanted stake by leading the negotiations?  What happens if Trump’s ego gets involved?

The post Is Negotiation the Best Way To End the Proxy War With Russia? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Well, the bloom is off the Trumpenstein rose. It was a giddy start to his second term, where it seemed like perhaps he was finally going to fulfill some of his many promises. With people like RFK, Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel in his cabinet, and the initial DOGE disclosures, it was hard not to feel at least some bit of optimism.

But the warm and fuzzy rush of hope has subsided. We still hear snatches here and there about some new DOGE disclosure, some outrageous waste of taxpayer money. And the other side, the hopelessly deranged “Woke” Left, predictably claims that all of the DOGE reports are fake, and have been “debunked.” By somebody. Anybody. There can’t possibly be waste, fraud and abuse in our sacred government agencies! Who could even imagine such a thing? But the disclosures seem to be on pause. When are they auditing the Pentagon? The CIA? The FBI? The IRS? The HHS? The Federal Reserve? And with the all the outrageous USAID revelations, what prosecutions are planned? Who will be held responsible? Will there, as always, be no one in power who is held accountable for great crimes against the people?

The epitome of what I call the Trumpenstein Project came during, and after, Trump’s recent speech before Congress, which for unknown reasons wasn’t called the State of the Union address. As usual, Trump said many good things, and many dumb things. He came out strongly for freedom of speech and against censorship, which is something few presidents have done. But then a few days later, he took to his Truth Social platform, and threatened to prosecute and deport college students who engage in “illegal” protests, whatever that is. Well, actually we know exactly what he meant. He meant no protesting against Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians. That is the Holocaust The Dare Not Speak its Name. Free speech except when it comes to Zionism, kind of an extension of the worldwide holocaust “denial” laws. Perhaps naysayers will be sent to FEMA camps, in lieu of Siberia.

We’ve just seen the release of some 80,000 (or 63,000- pick your source) files related to the JFK assassination, with the promise of more to come. I’ve searched through some of it, and there are a few very interesting things. Like the fifteen page memo from JFK’s close aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., warning of the CIA becoming a power unto itself, and also documenting Kennedy’s gave concerns about the Agency. Then there was the item that discloses James Jesus (yes, that was really his middle name) Angleton recruited twenty year old Marine Lee Harvey Oswald into the CIA. Angleton monitored the future patsy for years, and had a huge file on him sitting on his desk the week before the assassination. There are countless references to Israel in these files, including the strong Israeli connections Angleton had. And we learn that the CIA was asking that all references to Israel be redacted. So there’s that.

Another real curiosity is a file verifying the urban legend that JFK, Jr. sent a threatening note to then Senator Joe Biden in 1994, calling him a “traitor.” There is no further context. Why would young Kennedy use such an explosive term? Whatever it means, it should draw our interest. The files tell the story of CIA official Gary Underhill, whom the wild and crazy “conspiracy theorists” had claimed was blabbering about the Agency killing JFK, and then was, of course, murdered himself. What else would we expect to happen? Well, now there’s an official memo discussing this. So please apologize to Penn Jones and all the other “wackos” like me. As Candace Owens said upon the release of the files, we were right. There are files that show how Castro, Khrushchev, and pretty much the rest of the world were laughing at the absurd Warren Commission fairy tale. Only our state controlled media believed it.

Tulsi Gabbard has done at least one good thing in her new role; she apparently was responsible for limiting, really pretty much eliminating, all the redactions which researchers have come to know and love, when sifting through these mostly meaningless documents. Trump, being Trumpenstein, was asked “so who killed JFK,” and gave a long, rambling response worthy of every American politician revered by the court historians. But he never answered the question. I know Tulsi believes there was a conspiracy, because I asked her myself at a campaign event five years or so ago. But Trump deserves some credit for finally releasing at least many of the documents (yes, an unknown number remain classified), and for doing so without redactions. There is now no question that Oswald worked in some capacity for the CIA, and you can add James Jesus Angleton to the list of known conspirators. JFK’s insane grandson Jack Schlossberg, by the way, is upset that the files were even released.

While obsessed souls like me were scouring these files like well heeled scholars and professors should be, Trumpenstein threw us one of his famous curve balls. More like a grenade. The Giant Orange Man suddenly decided to bomb Yemen. Poor little Yemen, target of so much presidential ire, going back to when the beloved Barack Obama slaughtered an entire wedding party, to defend our freedom. Ron Paul- who has been advising Elon Musk and his DOGE project- was among Trump’s severe critics, charging that he’d been responsible for the deaths of dozens of civilians, including women and children. The target of this nonsensical attack were the dreaded Houthis, a heretofore unheard of extremely dangerous terrorist group, which had supposedly been acting like pirates, stopping our ships, etc. Perhaps they had a Keira Knightley on board, to keep all the male savages in line, like they do in Hollywood.

This brought back reminders of when Trump 1.0 abruptly assassinated the heretofore unheard of World’s Most Dangerous Terrorist, Qasem Soleimani, in early 2020. Right before the World’s Greatest Psyop emerged upon the scene. I remember how we all breathed a huge sigh of relief at the time, just before we started donning masks, social distancing, and mindlessly obeying a series of ridiculous “mandates.” Finally, we were free from the World’s Most Dangerous Terrorist. And now, Trump 2.0 has done it again. Saved us from the World’s Most Invisible Terrorists. The dreaded Houthis, just like Soleimani, hale from the shores of Iran. “State sponsor of terrorism,” whatever that means. Are we ever going to finally attack Iran, by the way? I mean, come on, how many times can you suggest it, declare how necessary it is, threaten it? We can’t keep letting them get away with “sponsoring terrorism,” can we? I want to feel safe!

So it looks like we’ve taken a bit of a break from the DOGE disclosures. I haven’t heard another word about that unbelievable windfall Elon Musk suggested- $5,000 for every taxpayer. That’s what I’m talking about! Haven’t they finished auditing USAID yet? Didn’t some judge order the USAID workers to be rehired, if they’d even been fired? That’s even more unconstitutional than DOGE firing them in the first place. If they were fired. It’s hard to tell what is really happening, or has happened, anywhere in America 2.0. Lots of tweets, ultimately signifying nothing. When does that rumored audit of the Pentagon begin? Didn’t Trump agree with that? If so, why did Trump just approve yet another increase to the defense budget? I mean, if they audit that place, they’re going to find a lot more than $500 toilet seats. I guess they needed the extra billions to bomb Yemen, and destroy the World’s Most Invisible Terrorists.

Meanwhile, the Left doesn’t seem too concerned with the latest bombing in Yemen. After all, when their hero Barack Obama killed that wedding party, not a peep of protest was heard from the Hollywood hills. Maybe some nonwhite members of Congress mentioned it. I’m not sure. I had just started blogging sporadically over on Word Press, and was finishing up Hidden History. I can’t recall if I even mentioned that in the book. Obama did a lot of really bad things. Speaking of the Obamas, Michelle just launched a new podcast, with her brother. They had a disappointingly low number of listeners. Maybe they had more than my own humble podcast, “I Protest” (I obviously am smitten with that name), but you can bet it was nowhere near as interesting. Michelle’s brother looked very, very feminine. I mean super feminine. Almost transgender feminine. And with his sister looking so masculine, well….

But back to Trumpenstein. I guess I’m going to have to file my taxes yet again. The IRS hasn’t been audited, let alone abolished, as Trump has threatened to do. And he hasn’t stopped subjecting Social Security income- which were withheld taxes to begin with- to taxation, so I suppose I’ll be paying a lot again this year. All those blue collar workers depending on overtime probably wonder about his promise regarding the abolition of taxes on that. And servers; waiting for Trump to stop the tax on tips. Trump has even thrown out the option of stopping all income taxes. And then, I think last week, he suggested that those who make less than $150,000 should pay no taxes at all. Cool. That would benefit close to 99 percent of the U.S. population. I’m sure his fellow Republicans loved that one. But where was Bernie Sanders, and the rest of the Democrats, to congratulate him on such a great idea?

Trumpenstein has taken his propensity for grandiose, contradictory promises to a whole new level in his second administration. What happened to the mass deportations? They aren’t even being discussed now. They aren’t being protested. Probably because the numbers suggest that he has actually been deporting fewer illegals than Joe Biden. How exactly can you deport fewer illegal immigrants than Joe Biden? That can’t be easy. It would take a lot of effort. I mean, really just having ICE actually do its job would ensure more deportations, wouldn’t it? Now, we’re told that the number entering the country illegally is way down. Okay, cool. But what about the 20 million, 30 million, or 50 million who are already here illegally? I know- he’s going after the dangerous, violent criminals first. Like those 300 or whatever members of some heretofore unheard of gang that were recently deported to El Salvador.

Now, what makes this deportation of a relative handful of illegals even less inspiring is the fact that the United States, under hardline anti-immigrant “racist” Donald Trump, is paying El Salvador some $6 million to jail them. What? I’m certainly no Ivy Leaguer, but that doesn’t seem like a good deal to me. And I thought Trump was the best dealmaker in the world. Somehow, this brought back memories of Mexico paying for that wall that never came to be. El Salvador apparently has quite a shiny new “mega prison,” where it will house “terrorists,” and presumably even more illegal immigrants from America. I wonder if the cost will go up for each new paltry roundup. Somehow, this doesn’t seem in line with DOGE’s attempts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government. I think it’s pretty wasteful to pay another country to take back migrants who came here illegally.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Dore, who has been more than fair to Trump (he’s basically in my category as a Trump Agnostic), ran a story about how Elon Musk and Trump really are targeting our Social Security. Musk is planning to cut 12 percent of the staff at Social Security, as well as close down some locations. They want to transition away from all phone contact, so that will mean oldsters who have no capacity to figure out a typically user unfriendly interface online, will have no option but to go in person to one of a dwindling number of Social Security offices, for any questions, or perhaps to “verify” that they are who they are. You know, what with all those 300 year old Social Security recipients and everything. This all seems really devious. One can almost picture Elon in his Baphomet costume, laughing maniacally. I’m waiting to hear what they’ve done to stop all the dead people from getting Social Security payments.

It can’t be that hard. I mean, they’re dead. In some cases, dead for like 200 years. So just figure out who’s at the address where the checks have been mailed, or who is on the bank account where they’ve been sent by direct deposit. Musk should hire me. But he is pretty distracted now, what with all the mad “Woke” vandals fire bombing Tesla vehicles. It must hurt to see how delighted the state controlled media, and indeed, the entire Left, is over this. They’re joking about widespread destruction of property. But then again, they overtly supported the tearing down of statues, the arson, looting, and murder of the Black Lives Matter protests. Maybe the Tesla fire bombings are “mostly peaceful.” Today’s Left won’t condemn any violence done by those who support their lunacy. Whatever happened to nonviolent disobedience? Because all Teslas have security cameras, the vandals were caught on film. A college professor keyed a Tesla.

So unless Trumpenstein throws us another unexpected juicy pitch across the center of the plate, it looks like he’s back to his usual bag of tricks. But this time, he has really been Captain Chaos. Wild, sometimes revolutionary, proposals almost every day. Hall of Fame level flip flopping. With his flurry of early executive orders, it’s hard to determine if any of them, except for the January 6 pardons, actually had any impact. He signed one establishing English as the official language, for instance. How will that be implemented? I still run into employees who “no hablo ingles.” A judge has already overturned his banning of anchor babies. What has really happened with DOGE is anyone’s guess. I’ve heard of judges ordering government workers to be rehired. When will Trump’s precious Supreme Court weigh in? I wouldn’t want to pin my hopes on Amy Coney Barrett. Is Daylight Savings Time still here?

World War III still hasn’t started. Somebody tell Alex Jones. Speaking of that, Infowars reporter Jamie Smith was shot and killed in Austin, Texas recently. I haven’t heard any updates about this, but it certainly should be presumed that his murder had some connection with his line of work. By an odd coincidence, the only photo I’ve seen circulated of Smith, posing with Alex Jones, features a bookcase behind them, where you can see two of my own works, Hidden History and Crimes and Cover-Ups in American Politics: 1776-1963, far right on the third shelf. Is it morbid, or inappropriate, to mention that? I would never have noticed, but my good friend and fantastic researcher Peter Secosh caught it and pointed it out to me. The Infowars book store sold hundreds of copies of Hidden History, but never bought any of my other books.

Read the Whole Article

The post It’s a Big Club, and We’re Not Invited appeared first on LewRockwell.

Like many Americans, my heart swelled with pride as I watched the astronauts land safely in the Gulf of America. The SpaceX rescue of the stranded astronauts ended wonderfully, but it also highlighted an important lesson: why a relatively small company was able to succeed where a governmental bureaucracy (NASA) and its go-to military-industrial-complex contractor (Boeing) could not. That lesson becomes clear when viewed through the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity.

Only after the intrepid space travelers were safe and heading home did the irony of the moment strike me. The combined might of NASA and Boeing—one of the country’s largest and oldest defense contractors—was powerless to bring the astronauts back from space. Instead, it was up to the upstart SpaceX to rescue them and return them to their families.

This space escapade should be a case study studied in business school titled: “How Large Organizations Lose Their Way and Betray Their Customers.”

The symbolism of SpaceX rescuing astronauts when governmental agencies and massive defense contractors were seemingly unwilling or unable to act underscores the relevance of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

What is subsidiarity? The principle of subsidiarity holds that decision-making should be kept at the most local and competent level possible rather than being centralized in large, bureaucratic institutions. It is a philosophical cornerstone of two of my favorite books: Small Is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher and Small Is Still Beautiful by Joseph Pearce. These influential books critique large-scale corporate and industrial approaches, advocating for human-centered economies, sustainability, and policies that emphasize human thriving over other considerations.

A comparison of SpaceX to behemoth entities like NASA and Boeing exposes factors that help explain this ironic David-and-Goliath story.

The Players: NASA, Boeing, and SpaceX

NASA is a government agency with about 18,000 employees. It is burdened by bureaucracy and heavily influenced by politics. Really, politics in space? Yes, indeed. Elon Musk stated that political interference prevented an earlier rescue of the stranded astronauts.

Under the Biden administration, NASA aggressively promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies to incorporate into its mission and workforce. In January 2025, NASA began dismantling its DEI programs following executive orders from President Trump. These federal directives were intended to eliminate policies fostering division and inefficiency within government operations. However, these reforms were too late for the marooned astronauts who had already been launched into space and had to be rescued by SpaceX.

Boeing was founded in 1916 and has grown into a massive, bureaucratic, and highly-regulated defense contractor and aerospace manufacturer. With approximately 155,000 employees, it operates within a top-down structure, making it heavily centralized. Once an industry leader in innovation, Boeing has stagnated due to excessive corporate bureaucracy, leading to serious safety failures like the 737 MAX crisis and ongoing supply-chain issues. The company’s reliance on outsourcing and cost cutting has undermined quality and worker autonomy. Recently, Boeing came under fire for embracing controversial DEI policies that critics say compromised quality control, contributing to numerous airline mishaps and aerospace failures.

In contrast, SpaceX, founded in 2002, operates with a leaner workforce of about 13,000 employees. SpaceX maintains a start-up culture that embraces localized problem-solving and innovation—closer to Schumacher’s vision of decentralized, human-scale enterprise. SpaceX hires employees based on merit rather than DEI policies, and it emphasizes private innovation and rapid decision-making.

Engineers at SpaceX have more autonomy, aligning with Schumacher’s principle that work should be creative, fulfilling, and localized. SpaceX’s groundbreaking process of returning its rockets for reuse rather than wastefully jettisoning the rockets like NASA does gives it high marks in the environmental sustainability column. SpaceX’s mission-driven approach fosters purpose and innovation—far more than Boeing’s corporate, bureaucratic stagnation does. SpaceX’s approach is more decentralized compared to Boeing’s, better aligning with subsidiarity by keeping decision-making at lower levels.

NASA and Boeing exemplify large-scale bureaucratic industrialism, which Schumacher critiques as inefficient and detached from human needs. Both NASA and Boeing get low scores on the subsidiarity scale with SpaceX getting higher marks for subsidiarity.

The footage of SpaceX’s Dragon vessel splashing down in the Gulf of America, along with stunning images of rockets returning to Earth and being caught mid-air by giant “chopstick” arms for precise landing and sustainable reuse, powerfully showcases the superiority of SpaceX’s more subsidiarity-friendly business model over NASA and Boeing’s centralized, bureaucratic approach.

Read the Whole Article

The post How Subsidiarity Got Astronauts Home and Gets the Mail Delivered appeared first on LewRockwell.

At a male-only lunch high up in the Alps the subject of AI came up. We were five friends, and four of them were in favor. “But it will kill good writing,” said yours truly. The rest agreed. Info will trump grace, was the conclusion. Some time ago a friend had AI imitate my column and she played it back to me. I listened carefully. It was a good imitation of probably the worst writing I have ever done, clumsy, obvious, and phony. I recounted the story to my friends at lunch. “So what else is new about your bad writing?” said one of my oldest friends.

Joking aside, no one reads any longer. When was the last time someone asked you what book you are reading. “What are you watching?” is what people ask nowadays. The devil screen is the enemy, and political correctness comes in a close second. Modern novels and books in general are about a lived experience, and we all know how boring a lived experience can be. Especially when it’s written by a neurotic female American, a drug-addicted, in-the-closet British chap, or a one-legged black South American lesbian. No wonder so many so-called intelligent people now watch cartoons nonstop.

Yep, books have gone with the wind, and please excuse the corn, but at my advanced age I find too many people very light on the stuff between the ears. Here’s Papa Hemingway on writing: “Prose is architecture, not interior decoration. When writing, a writer should create living people, not characters.” If only the nauseating narcissism of today’s writers would follow such advice, I might buy a novel or two, something I haven’t done in decades.

“A fellow scribe said that it was as necessary for a writer to have mastered the Maugham short story as it was for an artist to have mastered the art of drawing.”

Papa got the Nobel in 1954, and he damn well deserved it because he did more to change the style of English prose than any other writer in the 20th century. Papa wrestled over a sentence, even a word, for hours on end. His travails were put in writing to his editor Maxwell Perkins. Let’s face it: Getting it just right is very hard work, as one goes over yesterday’s sentences and spends a whole morning making corrections. What today’s bums have done is they’ve made writing easy by what they call stream of consciousness. It is a con, writing down everything that comes to mind and forgetting all about rhythm, euphony, and grace. All good writers write by instinct, but style counts a lot. As a young boy I remember well the narrow streets of Athens lined with whitewashed houses underneath the Acropolis, the smell of jasmine and the tap-tap of donkeys’ hooves on the cobbled paving, the trickle of the fountains, and the occasional cry of beggars. One needs to observe before one writes, and also to explore. These present-day untalented ones just let it spew out, as if their anger and despair make them interesting.

The hackneyed phrases one used to describe first loves were normal, and the reason Holden Caulfield remains immortal is because the writer keeps him young and innocent. The trick to good writing is, of course, to omit needless words. Good style is direct, conversational, unfussy, and definitely unpretentious. I’ve always considered Somerset Maugham the best of all Brit writers, and he should have been awarded a Nobel Prize that has gone to far, far lesser writers.

Willie Maugham’s short stories are better than anyone else’s, and that includes Guy de Maupassant and Irwin Shaw. The deceptive simplicity of his method of writing concealed a well-honed technique, and those who attempted to copy it failed and failed miserably. A fellow scribe said that it was as necessary for a writer to have mastered the Maugham short story as it was for an artist to have mastered the art of drawing. Unlike these shortcut phonies of today, Willie Maugham plotted his stories with deadly precision, twisted the tail of stories, and had unexpected denouements. His understated style, coupled with careful withholding of information, kept the reader in a state of pleasurable suspense.

Read the Whole Article

The post Maugham’s the Word appeared first on LewRockwell.

“This town is now as nervous as it’s ever been.”  That’s Congressman Chip Roy’s assessment of the mood in Washington, D.C., since President Trump’s return to the White House.  It’s one of several dozen refreshingly blunt descriptions of American politics in Ned Ryun’s new documentary based on his book, American Leviathan.  The documentary is available to anyone with an Internet connection, and it is nothing short of a declaration of war on the administrative state.

I highlighted Ryun’s book when it came out last September for several reasons.  First, it is a remarkably clear description of the ideas, people, and events that led us to this unique moment in history — when the inevitable clash between the authoritarian bureaucracy and the constitutional Republic has come to a head.  There was nothing “natural” about this process.  The vast and unaccountable administrative state did not arise from the U.S. Constitution; it is a repudiation of the Constitution.  The unelected bureaucracy does not reflect the wishes of the American people; it is the polar opposite of representative government.  No matter how many propagandists defend Big Government as “our Democracy,” the ever-growing Leviathan is thoroughly authoritarian in disposition.  It jealously guards its expanding powers and despises American citizens who insist that legitimate government comes only from the consent of the people.  It is such an unnatural beast that it must spy on Americans, censor their speech, and intimidate them into submission merely to maintain control.  The administrative state is “government by coercion” and the antithesis of limited government and individual liberty.

Second, Ryun is a rather unique political operative in that he “walks the walk” every bit as much as he “talks the talk.”  He is an effective warrior when it comes to getting Republicans elected, but he is also a tireless critic of the Deep State.  Those qualities are often mutually exclusive in high-stakes American politics where a person’s clout is usually directly proportional to his willingness to sell out personal principles.  Washington’s political machine — the Frankensteinian monstrosity composed of equal parts malevolent bureaucracy, corporate blackmail, academic blacklisting, news media gatekeeping, Intelligence Community skulduggery, and rank influence peddling — tends to scoop up “true believers” and recondition them into compliant cogs of the permanent government’s hive-mind, collectivist “Borg.”  Ryun is a rare political player who refuses to be “assimilated” or transformed into another D.C. “drone.”

Lastly, I wanted readers to mentally prepare for what would happen after President Trump won in November.  There were fifty days between the publication of Ryun’s American Leviathan and Trump’s victory, and while those crucial days required all of our efforts to make sure that he would, in fact, be re-elected, I knew that we would have no time to waste once he succeeded.  That’s where Ryun’s efforts really stand out.  His book is meant (1) to wake up those who have been sleeping during the century-long transformation of the American Republic into a tyrannical bureaucracy, (2) to re-energize those who have been fighting the good fight for most of their lives, and (3) to lay out the blueprint for restoring the Republic and destroying the Deep State.  I wanted readers to spend time before the election thinking about what would come next because winning was only “Step One” of a much larger operation.

Something that should be clear six months after American Leviathan came out in print is that President Trump and his closest advisors have long been preparing for this war against the administrative state.  They weren’t just running a political campaign the last few years; they’ve been planning their return to Washington, D.C., in meticulous detail.  From the moment the news media cartel was forced to announce Trump’s victory, those plans became active operations.  Critical personnel choices were announced.  Executive orders were finalized.  Litigation strategies were put into motion.  It is no coincidence that many of Ryun’s recommendations for “slaying Leviathan” are now official White House policy.  The Trump administration embraces American Leviathan’s proposition that the only way to save the Republic is to disembowel the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy.

While Ryun’s book is an excellent resource for American minds desperate to break free from a century of bureaucratic hypnosis and Deep State conditioning, his documentary provides a kind of real time snapshot of the Trump administration’s ongoing “Leviathan hunt” today.  Among many interesting contributors to the film, Congressman Roy and Senators Jim Banks, Rick Scott, and Marsha Blackburn offer insightful perspectives regarding Trump’s impact on Establishment Washington, and Jeff Clark, Mike Davis, Steve Cortes, Bradley Watson, and Rachel Bovard provide excellent analysis of the many conflicts playing out publicly today.  Every speaker is strikingly candid about where all this is heading — a showdown between two incompatible systems of government from which only one may survive.

Senator Banks says plainly that the Deep State’s animus toward President Trump originates with the “three most dangerous words” he uttered during the 2016 campaign: “Drain the Swamp.”  As soon as then-candidate Trump identified the administrative state as not only an affront to the U.S. Constitution but also a threat to the American Republic, he became public enemy number one for the bureaucratic “blob.”  The Russia collusion hoax, the Mueller Inquisition, the farcical impeachments, the endless lawfare, and the ridiculous investigatory witch-hunts all arose because Donald Trump directly attacked institutions that have governed almost absolutely for over a century while avoiding serious public scrutiny.

In front of huge crowds, Trump called out agencies and bureaucrats by name and promised to rein in their out-of-control harassment of the American people.  The administrative state, having long exercised the constitutionally delegated powers of the Executive Branch while thumbing its nose at the elected president, correctly worried that Trump would reclaim legitimate Executive authorities that it had illegitimately usurped decades ago.  For a hundred years, America’s permanent ruling class has operated a state within a state in which the president is treated mostly as a figurehead and recognized as “chief executive” in name only.  In this absurd “Bizarro World” where low-level bureaucrats are quasi-kings and the three branches of government retain meager residual powers, the Constitution is a document that just gets in the Deep State’s way.

In Ryun’s documentary, Congressman Roy pulls no punches against the administrative state while laying well-deserved blame at the feet of lawmakers.  In lauding Elon Musk’s work to expose and eliminate government waste, fraud, and abuse, Roy says the American people have to hold Congress accountable.  “Because you’ve been searching for the enemy, and the enemy is right in front of you.  It is us.  It is Congress.  We’re the ones that continue to fund the very things” that enable the Deep State.  “We’re begging you to save us because we’re that bad.”  That’s a rather direct plea from a sitting congressman for the American people to rise up and demand an end to America’s unconstitutional bureaucracy.  In calling for the “slashing and burning” of Leviathan, Roy argues that DOGE shouldn’t stand for the Department of Government Efficiency but rather the Department of Government Elimination.  That’s a theme throughout Ryun’s documentary.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Trump Administration Goes To War Against Bureaucratic Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Captain Sherry Walker Reveals the Real Reason for All These Plane Crashes appeared first on LewRockwell.