Aggregatore di feed

A classic strategy in business is to replace something freely available with a patentable commodity everyone is then forced to purchase. Beyond this being highly exploitative, in many cases, the synthetic substitute is a poor imitation of what nature created and hence creates a myriad of problems for humanity.

This very much characterizes what happened to infant nutrition and allowed formula sales to become a 90.91 billion annual market. In turn, two major problems have followed the switch away from natural milk:

• Infant formula is full of unhealthy components that promote allergies and obesity (e.g., the first ingredient in formula is often corn syrup and then followed by seed oils—which remarkably federal law requires to be in infant formula due to a law based on flawed nutritional science from the 1960s that was never updated).

• Breast milk was designed to be one of most nutritious foods a developing infant could have and contains many vital components which will never be possible to synthetically replicate.

Note: in some cases, the milk a mother produces is not enough for her infant. In those cases, a supplemental natural infant formula can be highly beneficial to her infant, but only if it is composed of natural ingredients which adequately provide the critical nutrients infants need and if it uses raw rather than pasteurized milk (as this preserves the vital nutrients milk contains and prevents it from turning into a potent allergen).

In this article, we will explore the numerous benefits of breastmilk, not just for the infant, but for the mother as well. We’ll examine how the unique components of breastmilk contribute to a healthier immune system, stronger brain development, and even a reduced risk of chronic diseases later in life. Additionally, we’ll look at how maternal health and diet impact the quality of breastmilk, highlighting the importance of support systems for mothers to ensure successful breastfeeding. Ultimately, the evidence supports what many already know: breastmilk is truly irreplaceable.

Breastmilk: Nature’s Perfect Food

Breastmilk contains a variety of complex bioactive molecules which allow the mother to continually aid the growth and health of their child such as:

• Numerous vital growth factors (e.g., ones that facilitate the development of the gastrointestinal tract,1,2,3,4).

• MicroRNA (which are protected from digestion and hence able to absorb into the body), which guides the development of tissues throughout the body, regulate critical gene expression, prevents allergies (e.g., to foods), and produce many critical parts of the developing immune system.

• A unique set of antibodies and immunoglobulins are produced by the mother to both protect the infant against expected pathogens in the environment (e.g., what the mother has encountered) while the infant’s immune system is still developing, and guide the development of their immune system.

• Key cytokines such as TGF-β, IL-6 and IL-10 which also play a critical role in much of the previous (e.g., promoting oral tolerance, supporting immune system development, and enhancing intestinal epithelial proliferation and repair).1,2,3
Note: a major problem with many vaccines is that they tend to provoke a Th2 response (which eliminates certain extracellular pathogens but also creates autoimmunity) and suppress the Th1 response (which eliminates intracellular pathogens and cancers). Breastmilk inhibits immune cells shifting to a Th2 state and can change a Th2 response into a more balanced Th1-Th2 response.

• A variety of enzymes that both help the infant’s digestive tract break down the ingested milk and release key peptides from breastmilk components (that both develop the immune system and directly eliminate pathogenic organisms),1,2,3 along with many other enzymes and bioactive molecules that inhibit microbial growth (e.g., lactoferrin, lysozymes and mucin, interferon and fibronectin).

• A protein with potent anticancer activity (against over 40 types of cancers) that does not harm normal cells and has successfully treated cancer in humans. It also has powerful antimicrobial activity and enhances bacterial sensitivity to antibiotics.

• Breastmilk contains endogenous cannabinoids that are important for human development (e.g. by affecting appetite, mother-child bonding, immune function, brain development and motor function).1,2

Note: the most potent milk a mother releases is the colostrum (the first milk). In parallel, over the years, many have discovered that colostrum from healthy cows has healed a variety of challenging illnesses and significant injuries.

Furthermore, breastmilk also contains a variety of nutrients which are invaluable for the developing infant such as:

• Human Milk Oligosaccharides that support the growth of healthy gut bacteria (e.g., bifidobacteria and lactobacilli), reduce inflammation, and contribute to immune system development.

• Essential fatty acids, cholesterol (and many other unique lipids) which are critical for brain development, eye development, and cognitive function (e.g., academic success). These fats are not present in infant formula (or present in relatively low levels—except in animal milk substitutes, as it’s well recognized copious fats are necessary for their growth) and many experts in the field believe their absence from formula is one of the reasons why breastmilk is so much healthier for infants. Human breastmilk also contains bile salt-stimulated lipase, an enzyme absent in cow’s milk and most other commonly consumed milks (e.g., formula) which is specifically adapted to enhance the digestion and absorption of fats and cholesterol in human infants.
Note: cholesterol is also necessary to produce hormones (e.g., boys undergo a surge of testosterone in the first 1-3 months of life which is pivotal in masculinizing their bodies).

• Highly bioavailable nutrients (e.g., iron), which allows much lower concentrations of them needed in milk than formula (which then prevents those nutrients from competing with the absorption of other critical nutrients, such as iron added to infant formula interfering with the critical absorption of zinc).

Note: if breastmilk (or formula) is stored, it should never be microwaved to warm it (as this destroys many critical nutrients). Likewise, most sources of donated human breastmilk will pasteurize them (which destroys many of these vital components in milk).

In short, I would argue that the complexity of breastmilk makes it unlikely a synthetic substitute will ever be able to replace it (e.g., many of the bioactive molecules it contains cost thousands of dollars to synthesize).

The Benefits of Breastmilk

Beyond being less likely to be overweight or have a dysfunctional metabolism (e.g., breastfeeding halves the risk of diabetes), many other benefits have also been attributed to breastfeeding such as:

• Lower rates of infections (e.g., pneumonia, ear infections) and lower hospitalization rates (e.g., for infections).

• Lower rates of gastrointestinal issues (e.g., stomach problems, constipation, gas, diarrhea) and allergies (e.g., being half as likely to develop asthma).

• Being half as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (a condition decades of evidence shows is linked to vaccination).

• Being less likely to develop cancers (particularly leukemia).

• Improved brain development (particularly white matter growth).

• Improved cognition (e.g., verbal and spatial skills or mathematical ability and working memory). Likewise, breastfeeding for 12 months was associated with a three-point increase in IQ (along with a 0.8 point increase for each additional month), and higher educational and financial success in life.

• Being significantly less likely to develop autism or ADHD.

Note: many of the conditions breastmilk prevents often follow vaccination. Breastmilk’s ability to prevent those conditions is likely due to it reducing the Th2 response, improving the physiologic zeta potential, and reducing the total allergen burden seen with formula feeding (as consuming allergens exacerbates existing autoimmune processes). This is particularly consequential for premature infants, as for a variety of reasons they are both significantly less likely to be breastfed and significantly more vulnerable to vaccine injuries (e.g., this has extensively been shown with their risk for dying from vaccination).

Breastfeeding also offers significant benefits to the mother, both immediately after pregnancy and later in life. In the short term, it promotes better infant bonding, enhances maternal mood, aids in post-pregnancy weight loss, and reduces the likelihood of developing postpartum depression.1,2 Over the long term, in addition to each childbirth lowering the risk of breast cancer by 7%, breastfeeding over 12-months of breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer by 4.3%, ovarian cancer by 34% (and by up to 91% with extended breastfeeding), as well as decreasing the risks of endometrial cancer and high blood pressure.

Early Feeding

As I show here, many of these benefits attributed to breastfeeding are also seen in mothers who avoid the more invasive (and often unnecessary) hospital birth procedures. It hence should come as no surprise that mothers who undergo invasive birthing procedures are significantly less likely to breastfeed—which again illustrates the critical need for our society to reexamine how we handle bringing our children into this world and raising them.

For example, skin-to-skin contact (which is often is prevented at hospital births) provides many immense benefits to infants (including make them less likely to cry1,2,3,4) and to their mothers including stimulating the a critical maternal release of oxytocin (a hormone necessary for lactation), and in one study infants separated from their mothers during the first week of life were half as likely to breast feed (37% vs. 72%). Newborns infants are eager to latch in the first 30 minutes following birth and this early period is critical for both the infant (e.g., to set the rhythm of feeding and to obtain the mother’s colostrum which is only present for a few days after birth) and the mother (as the maternal oxytocin release from suckling helps to expel the placenta, contract the uterus, and hence minimize postpartum blood loss). For these reasons, it is critical to ensure this early feeding occurs over the first several days of the child’s life, and if possible not to introduce any artificial nipples (e.g., pacifiers or bottles) during that time.

Likewise, analgesia during childbirth or delaying the start of breastfeeding has been shown to impair the ability of the infant to breastfeed. Because of this, it’s important to be informed about the hospital birthing process before you arrive, have appropriate support while there, and if at all possible, to deliver at a “baby friendly” hospital.

Note: one popular practice is to wrap infants in blankets to soothe them, prevent them from moving and help them get to sleep. While this practice is viewed as safe if done correctly (which it often is not) I am not a fan of swaddling infants as I feel they should be moving, swaddling has repeatedly been linked to doubling the risk of sudden infant death, developmental hip dysplasia, overheating the baby, and not breast feeding—particularly if the infant is swaddled immediately after birth.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Hidden Secrets of Natural Milk appeared first on LewRockwell.

The funny part is that this swarm of Jacobin botflies from Norm Eisen to Sen. Thom Tillis thought (and acted) as if Ed Martin was the only MAGA lawyer capable of uncovering the steaming pile of seditious poo festering, lo these many years, in the DC federal district (i.e., the Swamp). Like, get rid of Ed and our troubles are over. Really? Don’t you suppose that there are dozens of other capable, patriotic, seasoned lawyers, seething over the corruption that is Swamp crime, who can effectively occupy the office of US Attorney for the District of Columbia.

The second funniest part is apparently the Jacobins thought that Ed Martin would just skulk off into the gloaming like a whipped dog and be gone — when, in fact, Mr. Trump folded him at once into three jobs in the Department of Justice that don’t require confirmation by the Senate, and will allow him to attend to exactly the same set of grave problems afflicting this republic from a position of power. Mr. Martin will now serve as Director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney reviewing the legitimacy of “Joe Biden’s” auto-pen signing of important documents — meaning, he’ll have the power to bring cases on his own and make criminal referrals to the US Attorney for DC.

You must also imagine that in his 100-plus days as Interim US Attorney for DC, Mr. Martin assembled quite a portfolio of evidence around the manifold blob wrong-doings of the past decade, but especially the treachery of the J-6 / 2021 blob operation at the US Capitol, and the ensuing cover-up of all that, including the intel community’s role in it, the perfidy and perjuries of Chris Wray, Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi and others, and the gong show of lies and villainy that was the House J-6 committee chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), (with remedial support from Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Jamie Raskin, (and, backstage as always, lawfare ninjas Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Marc Elias, Ben Wittes, and Andrew Weissmann).

On the ostensible defeat of Ed Martin’s nomination, the president instantly turned around and installed Jeanine Pirro as Interim US Attorney for DC. Before retiring into a career as a TV talking head, Ms. Pirro was a Westchester County, New York, judge, and then elected District Attorney, so she knows how to work criminal cases. The interim appointment runs 120 days. In theory, Mr. Trump can appoint a new Interim US Attorney every 120 days, and keep rotating them until the cows come home — each successive one with the same support staff of assistant US attorneys underneath, the same cases ongoing, and the same trove of evidence catalogued.

All of which is to say, the blob officials and lawfare stormtroopers are mistaken to think that their ongoing circus of legalistic monkey business has somehow gained immunity from appraisal, investigation, and prosecution by de-railing Ed Martin. The cases themselves are bigger than any one particular US attorney and have a momentum of their own as the nation struggles to overcome the organized assault on the law itself that lawfare represents.

For instance, the case just opened against New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on the express promise to get Donald Trump on. . . something. . . anything! Which she did. . . bringing a bogus case against him in 2024 for allegedly mis-stating the value of his property collateral in a loan negotiation with Deutsche Bank. Of course, the bank did its own due diligence, which is standard practice, and the deal was concluded to the satisfaction of both parties, meaning no complaint of fraud was ever lodged by a plaintiff.

Instead, AG James cooked up a cockamamie narrative to launch the Deutsche Bank case. It was in every sense a malicious and false prosecution. Judge Arthur Engoron behaved maliciously and improperly throughout the trial, and leveled an absurd half-billion-dollar judgment on the guilty verdict. AG “Tish” James sat in the courtroom smirking at the proceedings for the benefit of the TV cameras. The spectacle was obscene and unjust. It may yet be overturned by a higher New York State court. The decision is expected imminently.

So, now, Letitia James herself is under formal investigation, prompted by a referral to the DOJ from the Federal Housing Authority. It alleges a series of mortgage frauds — oh, really? That? Among the allegations: she declared a home in Virginia as her principal residence, meaning she would have to vacate her post as New York AG. The other charges could send her to prison. The evidence is lodged in signed contracts and documents already made public. Doesn’t look good for Tish, despite the fact that unknown persons recently erected a statue of her in Times Square.

The Statue to Universal Strong Black Womanhood, Times Square, New York

For years now, the hustles and hoaxes have seemed never-ending. I know it is more than a little tiresome to point out that nobody has gone to jail, or even to court, over any of this since 2017. Looks like that lucky streak is coming to an end. Tish is just the beginning of a new trend. And the action will be moving from turbid backwater of New York State to the main Okefenokee-on-the-Potomac.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post Going Around. . . Coming Back Around appeared first on LewRockwell.

Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Would modern-day Americans do that? Would they give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety?

There is no question about it. They already have. In fact, they have been doing it for their entire lives.

Consider the fact that we live under a government that has the omnipotent power to assassinate, torture, and indefinitely incarcerate without trial any American citizen. It goes without saying that anyone who lives under a regime that wields that type of total power cannot possibly be considered to be a free person, even if the power isn’t being exercised widely. The fact that the government just wields the power is enough to nullify freedom in that country.

It wasn’t always that way. For the first 150 years or so of America’s existence, the federal government lacked those totalitarian-like powers. That was made clear in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which expressly forbade the federal government from killing people, including American citizens, without due process of law, from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on people, such as torture, and from jailing people indefinitely without trial.

So, what happened? The American people in the 20th century became afraid, very afraid. They were afraid of the communists. They were convinced that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, and other Red nations were coming to get them.

Thus, to purchase a little temporary safety, Americans acceded to the conversion of the federal government, with its limited powers, to a national-security state, with its omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers of assassination, torture, and indefinite detention.

The same phenomenon has occurred with the war on drugs. At one time, Americans were free to ingest whatever they wanted, including drugs. They understood that the right to ingest whatever they wanted was necessarily part and parcel of a free society.

Later Americans, however, became afraid, very afraid. They were convinced that if drugs were readily available, everyone would become a drug addict. So, they purchased a little temporary safety by enacting drug prohibition, which not only punished people for ingesting unapproved substances but also subjected everyone to a massive destruction of civil liberties and privacy, especially financial privacy, at the hands of their own government. For modern-day Americans, the trade was worth it because it purchased a little temporary safety.

Consider Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, public housing, farm subsidies, education grants, corporate bailouts, and other welfare programs, along with the income tax that funds them and the IRS that enforces it. Americans lived without these things for more than 100 years because they understood that liberty entails the right to keep everything a person earns and decide for himself what to do with it.

Modern-day Americans, on the other hand, became afraid, very afraid. They became convinced that a free society would mean people dying in the streets from starvation, illness, or destitution. Thus they purchased a little temporary safety by converting America to a welfare state, one based on the concept of mandatory “charity.”

Another good example is immigration. Our American ancestors favored a system in which people were free to cross borders. They understood that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and liberty of contract were necessary aspects of a free society.

Later Americans, however, became afraid, very afraid. They convinced themselves that open borders would mean that murderers, robbers, rapists, invaders, and other scary entities would come and get them. Thus, today, Americans live under an expanding militarized immigration police state — especially those Americans who live on or near the U.S.-Mexico border. For modern-day Americans, the loss of liberty has been worth it because it enables them to purchase a little temporary safety from all those scary people.

Recall the 9/11 attacks. Americans became afraid, very afraid. They were convinced that the terrorists or the Muslims were coming to get them. So, they traded away liberty, like with the USA Patriot Act, in order to gain a little temporary safety.

One big problem, of course, is that the loss of liberty has become permanent because the American people have remained afraid, very afraid. Another big problem is that Americans have convinced themselves that they still live in a free country even though they have clearly traded away their liberty in the hope of gaining a little temporary safety. A third problem is that in trading away liberty, Americans failed to secure safety from the biggest threat of all — their very own government.

Franklin was right but we should modify his statement as follows: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and will inevitably end up with neither.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Would Americans Trade Liberty for Security? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Long ago, in an America far removed from its present facsimile, there used to be rock and roll. It was a great thing. It started my little seven year old feet tapping, when I first heard Ricky Nelson, Leslie Gore, Del Shannon, Motown, Gene Pitney, Bobby Vee, and all those Phil Spector girl groups. I loved the wall of sound.

And then I happened to be tuned in to Dick Clark’s American Bandstand, on the day the crowd rated a new single from a band from Liverpool, I Want to Hold Your Hand. I was in love. My seven year old legs and arms joined my feet, in wriggling about in an original amalgamation of the Twist, the Pony, the Swim, and other dance crazes of the day. Every new dance looked even better when pretty go-go girls were doing them. I’m pretty sure I was far younger than Dick Clark’s targeted teenage demographic, but I was simply smitten with rock and roll. Like millions of other young Americans, I became a Beatles fanatic, even getting a wig that I donned when I used wooden spoons to bang on some boxes in the basement. I won’t belabor the point I’ve made so many times before, about wanting a Ludwig drum set. Just like Ringo. I loved the early Beatles; Beatlemania. When John Lennon was clearly responsible for almost all of it.

As a grade school kid who was rapidly attaining obesity status, I loved the pop brand of rock and roll. The Beach Boys. Gary Lewis and the Playboys. Tommy James and the Shondells. Lou Christie. The Turtles. The Lovin’ Spoonful. Then, as a slimmed down teenager, my musical tastes grew more sophisticated. Or so they say. Were the Beatles’ later albums really better than She Loves You and Please Please Me? Was Pet Sounds- as remarkable as it was- really more memorable than I Get Around or California Girls? I know which kinds of music I more enthusiastically sing along to now. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The critics were usually right, but not always in my estimation. Personal taste is personal taste. If someone likes Wayne Newton better than Wilson Pickett, that’s their prerogative. Musical taste is like food preferences; there is no “right” or “wrong.” Don’t demonize me for wanting a well done steak. It’s all related to free speech.

In the 1970s, album rock became all the rage. Forget about hit singles. Nobody bought 45s any more. The singer-songwriter was born. Jim Croce. Jackson Browne. Joni Mitchell. And, of course, the greatest songwriter, and least polished singer of them all, Bob Dylan. I spent far too much time poring over, and analyzing Dylan’s lyrics. I too was beginning to look for “all the agents and the superhuman crew” that strapped “heart attack machines” to inferred Thought Criminals. His songs were full of genuine poetry, and outrageous imagery. So I started writing my own songs. It was impossible to approach his profundity, especially as a teenager, but I humbly suggest I probably sang a little better than him. It was wonderful absorbing his older work, from the early to mid-1960s, as well as that of his female counterpart, Joni Mitchell. Disco had taken over 1970s culture, and I’ve made it very clear how I felt about that.

I admired the artistry of The Band, and think they sound even better today. With the recent death of Garth Hudson, all of them are gone now. And yet most of the Rolling Stones live on, still touring in their 80s. The Byrds and Roger McGuinn, who kind of influenced my own faulty singing voice. There are some perks to having offbeat tastes; I was usually able to find the music of Don McLean, or Procol Harum, perhaps even Roxy Music, in the cheap cut/out bins. For some reason, I was attracted to the work of Buffy Sainte-Marie. Some people made fun of me for that. I always got bargains on her albums. Yes, it was disillusioning to find out that she had never actually been an American Indian. A mere Italian? Mama Mia! But she sure played the part well. She certainly wasn’t the first entertainer to be playing a part offscreen.

Then came 1979. One of my best years. The year I discovered all the great New Wave music. I remember listening to Bram Tchaikovsky’s Girl of my Dreams on WHFS, the “progressive” or “album rock” radio station in our area. I was stunned. When I heard Nick Lowe’s Cruel to be Kind, it was like being a seven year old again, hearing the Beatles for the first time. I became obsessed with Elvis Costello, and played the grooves off of his Armed Forces LP. Elvis was barely older than me, and his birthday was almost the same. I found out he’d worked as a computer operator, biding his time while writing those great songs. As a computer operator myself, this made him all the more relevant to me. I was biding my time, too, writing the novel that would become The Unreals. One of us sold millions of records. The other sold about 4,000 copies of his magnus opus. I knew we’d probably have hit it off, but I’ve never been a stalker.

I discovered Tom Petty through my wife, who I started dating in 1979. I thought to myself, that guy sounds even more like me than Roger McGuinn does. Despite him blatantly mimicking my style, I found his music irresistible. But I wasn’t going to go as far as Mick Jagger, who reacted so favorably to Petty’s Damn the Torpedoes that he said he’d be willing to give him a blow job. I think Mick was found in bed with David Bowie one time. It’s hard to imagine how he managed to sire an estimated billion kids by various groupies. Kind of the Elon Musk of the rock world. I loved Bruce Springsteen, too, although I cringe when one of his songs comes on the airways, now. I think his bosom buddy Barack Obama has taken over the saxophone for the late Clarence Clemons. The crowd probably just sees another Black guy backing up the “Boss.” I don’t know, you really lose your cred by jamming with Barack Obama.

Imagine a song like Randy Newman’s Short People today. That actually raised the ire of percolating LaKarinas (don’t want to defame the good name of Karen any longer). And how about John Lennon’s Woman is the N****r of the World? That was considered a feminist manifesto back in the day. Today it literally cannot be played anywhere. Except perhaps in your basement, with the curtains drawn, and the speakers turned off, listening through headphones. Elvis Costello’s classic Oliver’s Army has that same pesky word in it, so needless to say he will never be playing that at any concerts. Randy Newman filled his Huey Long tribute album Good Old Boys with the “N” word, and took swipes at Jews as well. But few stations were going to play anything off of that album even when it came out in 1974. I’m surprised they still let Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey play Won’t Get Fooled Again. People might get the “wrong” ideas.

Rock and roll remained vibrant through the 1980s and into the 1990s. But it might as well have been assassinated at this point. Or outlawed by “cancel culture.” Other than the old guys still hanging on, and touring to support themselves in their twilight years, who are the rock and rollers today? Actually, who are the White musical artists today, other than Taylor Swift, Pink, and Miley Cyrus? Not exactly the Traveling Wilburys. Sure, you have White country performers, but that kind of mainstream pablum is like NASCAR; the White branch of our ghettoized culture. It’s not like they’re promoting the Dillards, or Flatt and Scruggs. Although I have heard some good stuff from Rascal Flatts. The rest of popular music today has been ceded to a bunch of DEI Black performers who won’t remind anyone of Louis Armstrong or Marvin Gaye. I don’t think Whites are allowed to win Grammys now.

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Killed the Rockers and the Comedians? appeared first on LewRockwell.

I once asked my old mentor, Roger Scruton—a famous British political philosopher—why he’d never pursued a career in politics.

Because intellectuals are ill-suited for political decision making, which is about dealing with aggressive competing interests and finding compromises that are seldom entirely satisfying for any particular party.

This reminded me of a witty remark made by the 19th century Austrian statesman, Eduard Taaffe, who observed:

Politics is the business of keeping all interested parties in a state of equal dissatisfaction.

Yesterday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. gave an interview with Brett Baier on FOX in which he endorsed President Trump’s new pick for Surgeon General, Casey Means.

“She walked away from traditional medicine because she was not curing patients,” Kennedy said. He was referring to the fact that Means never finished her residency and does not have an active medical license.

She couldn’t get anybody within her profession to look at the nutrition contributions to illness. If we’re really going to heal people, if we’re healers, we can’t just be making our life about billing new procedures.

Judging from my reader comments, my defense of Secretary Kennedy’s decision to endorse Ms. Means has made many people unhappy.

I understand the concern about her lack of medical credentials. I would have preferred that President Trump have asked Dr. Joe Ladapo or Dr. Peter McCullough if either of them would be interested in holding the position.

I would also prefer that President Trump recognize that COVID-19 vaccines have done far more harm than good and to pull them off the market.

On the other hand, I believe that Secretary Kennedy made a good point in his interview with Brett Baier.

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that the U.S. medical profession has gone down a very dark cul-de-sac of orthodoxy and pharmaceutical industry capture.

I also recognize that President Trump and Secretary Kennedy are under pressure from an array of powerful interests and that neither man holds absolute executive authority. When we Americans grow weary of the messy business of politics, we should remember that the alternative is dictatorship or absolute monarchy.

In the final analysis, I believe the prudent thing to do in this situation is to defer to the judgement of Secretary Kennedy, who has carefully vetted Ms. Means. He is aware of the concerns that have been raised about her, and he is certainly taking them into consideration.

Now is a good time to remember that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been raising concerns about vaccine safety since 2005 and has taken more flak for it than everyone in the medical freedom movement combined.

Unlike most dissidents, he was a comfortably ensconced member of the upper echelon of American society when he began to vocalize his concerns and was made to suffer for it. How many other celebrities have dared to raise concerns about vaccines, much less made this concern a focus of their work in the public forum?

For her part, Ms. Means should consider that the tens of millions of people who supported Secretary Kennedy and President Trump are acutely aware of the mountains of evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines have inflicted grave harm on the health of humanity.

In light of this, she should speak more forthrightly about these concerns, which would go a long way to dispelling the suspicion that her interest in nutrition is a strategy for changing the subject away from vaccine harms.

COVID-19 vaccine harms and the shocking rise of profound autism are too glaring to ignore. If Ms. Means is confirmed as Surgeon General, she should focus as much (if not more) critical scrutiny on the evidence of vaccine harms as she is currently focusing on America’s abysmal food industry.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Postscript: Concerns About Casey Means appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this explosive Free-form Friday episode of America’s Untold Stories, Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley dive into the newly released 60,000 RFK assassination files. What do these documents reveal—and what might still be hidden?

But that’s just the beginning.

From a MAGA revolt over Trump’s surgeon general pick to Pam Bondi being secretly recorded in a James O’Keefe-style sting, this episode is packed with intrigue. FBI Director Kash Patel confirms they’re “working through” Epstein’s files, while dramatic arrests at Columbia and Brooklyn College show campus unrest at a boiling point.

Plus:
• Pope Leo XIV’s surprising political history
• Jill Biden’s $30M tell-all diary deal
• A terrifying on-air faint by a former Trump official
• Shocking Target self-checkout changes
• Hilaria Baldwin’s latest explanation for her fluctuating accent
• A former MNPD lieutenant indicted over leaked shooting docs

From political chaos to cultural oddities, we cover the full scope of what mainstream media won’t.

The post America’s Untold Stories – Biden’s Book Deal Bombshell & RFK Assassination Docs appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

American Thinker

The post Romney’s Links to Burisma appeared first on LewRockwell.

The government is not shrinking, but expanding with greater spending and debt. The most exciting part of the second Trump Administration – DOGE – is fading away. REAL ID surveillance has been shackled onto us. And President Trump is arbitrarily setting tariff rates, in the same way that Jerome Powell arbitrarily sets interest rates. We need a turnaround, because the status quo is tightening its grip on America.

The post The Blame Game: Tariff Trump & “Too Late” Powell appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/come-gli-inglesi-hanno-inventato-3ec)

“Ciò che si sta svolgendo davanti ai nostri occhi è un tipo molto specifico di colpo di stato, chiamato Rivoluzione colorata”.

Lo affermò l'ex-collaboratore di Trump, Darren Beattie, durante un intervento al programma di Tucker Carlson il 15 settembre 2020.

La maggior parte delle persone aveva la sensazione che ci fosse qualcosa di sospetto nelle elezioni successive, ma era difficile dire cosa.

Beattie diede un nome al problema: lo chiamò “Rivoluzione colorata”.

La definì come “un modello di cambio di governo favorito da molti nel nostro apparato di sicurezza nazionale. Utilizza uno scenario elettorale contestato e progettato” per interrompere e scavalcare le elezioni legittime, spiegò Beattie.

L'America aveva utilizzato questa tecnica per decenni in modo da rovesciare i governi all'estero.

Ora, accusò Beattie, si stava pianificando un'operazione simile contro Trump.

Il suo avvertimento si rivelò profetico.

Gli americani potrebbero non essere d'accordo sul fatto che si sia trattato di un “colpo di stato” o di una “insurrezione” di Trump, ma la maggior parte concorderebbe sul fatto che gli eventi dal 3 novembre 2020 al 6 gennaio 2021 non si potevano considerare delle normali “elezioni”.

Beattie accusò gli “atlantisti”

Quando Beattie mise in guardia contro una “Rivoluzione colorata”, infranse un tabù temibile.

L'ultima persona che cercò di denunciare le rivoluzioni colorate in TV fu Glenn Beck nel 2010. La Fox News cancellò il suo programma poco dopo.

Ora Beattie aveva raccolto la torcia, ma andò oltre.

Mentre Beck incolpava George Soros per aver finanziato le Rivoluzioni colorate, Beattie accusava lo stesso governo degli Stati Uniti, in particolare il nostro “apparato di sicurezza nazionale”.

Beattie sottolineò, in particolare, una cricca di agenti di politica estera noti come “atlantisti”.

Atlantista è un termine diplomatico che indica una persona che antepone gli interessi britannici a quelli americani.

Gruppi del fronte britannico

Nel mio ultimo articolo, “In che modo gli inglesi hanno venduto il globalismo all’America”, ho spiegato come le reti di influenza britanniche esercitino un “soft power” su Washington, operando attraverso gruppi di facciata come il Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

La missione principale di questi fronti britannici è quella di promuovere l'atlantismo, ovvero l'idea che l'America debba sempre intervenire in soccorso della Gran Bretagna quando questa è coinvolta in una guerra.

Prima di partecipare al programma di Tucker Carlson, Beattie aveva scritto una serie di articoli sul sito Revolver News, di cui è curatore.

La serie di Beattie aveva smascherato una rete di ONG statunitensi fondate e finanziate dal governo degli Stati Uniti, la cui missione è quella di sovvertire le elezioni e rovesciare i governi di tutto il mondo, con il pretesto di “promuovere la democrazia”.

La loro arma preferita è la Rivoluzione colorata.

Beattie si riferiva a questi gruppi come “ONG atlantiste”.

Il mostro di Frankenstein

Secondo Beattie, queste “reti atlantiste” includono gruppi come il Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, il German Marshall Fund, il National Endowment for Democracy (NED) e i suoi due gruppi affiliati, l'International Republican Institute (IRI) e il National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Beattie rivelò che gli stessi “professionisti della Rivoluzione colorata” che gestiscono queste ONG “allineate agli atlantisti” hanno anche svolto ruoli di primo piano nella “resistenza” anti-Trump.

Infatti Beattie sosteneva che l'America aveva creato il suo mostro di Frankenstein.

Le stesse armi che avevamo impiegato per sovvertire le elezioni in altri Paesi ora venivano rivolte contro di noi, per indebolire le nostre elezioni.

Chi c'era dietro tutto questo? Chi aveva il potere di prendere il controllo delle ONG americane per la “promozione della democrazia” e di rivoltarle contro il loro stesso padrone, il governo degli Stati Uniti?

Chi erano questi “atlantisti” accusati da Beattie?

Il Grande gioco

L'Oxford English Dictionary definisce “atlantismo” come “una linea di politica o un principio di stretta cooperazione militare, economica e politica tra Europa e Nord America, o tra un Paese europeo e uno nordamericano; in particolare sostegno o difesa della NATO”.

Questa definizione può essere vera, ma è anche fuorviante. Non coglie il punto: il vero scopo dell'atlantismo è consolidare l'alleanza militare tra Stati Uniti e Regno Unito.

La Carta Atlantica del 1941, che stabilisce i principi guida dell'atlantismo, è un accordo tra due Paesi, la Gran Bretagna e gli Stati Uniti.

Tutti gli altri Paesi sono semplicemente pedine nel cosiddetto Grande gioco.

La NATO (talvolta chiamata “Alleanza Atlantica”) è il meccanismo di attuazione dell’ordine atlantista.

Il primo segretario generale della NATO, Lord Hastings Ismay, spiegò che lo scopo della NATO è “tenere i russi fuori, gli americani dentro e i tedeschi sotto”.

Nel 1944, quando Charles de Gaulle si oppose all'ingerenza degli Stati Uniti negli affari francesi, Winston Churchill lo rimproverò con queste parole: “Se la Gran Bretagna deve scegliere tra l'Europa e il mare aperto, dovrà sempre scegliere il mare aperto. Ogni volta che dovrò decidere tra te e Roosevelt, sceglierò sempre Roosevelt”.

Con queste parole, Churchill ricordò a de Gaulle che il posto della Francia nella cosiddetta “Comunità atlantica” era, nella migliore delle ipotesi, di scarsa importanza.

Propaganda britannica

L'espressione “Comunità Atlantica” fu coniata dal giornalista americano Walter Lippmann nel 1917. Come tanti giornalisti americani dell'epoca, Lippmann lavorava all'ombra di intermediari britannici, in particolare di un certo Norman Angell, un fabiano britannico che in qualche modo era diventato un “membro non ufficiale” del comitato editoriale della rivista di Lippmann, The New Republic.

Angell era arrivato nel 1915 grazie a una borsa di studio del Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Fondato nel 1910 dal magnate dell'acciaio scozzese, Andrew Carnegie, l'Endowment promuoveva un programma anglofilo. Carnegie era un aperto sostenitore dell'“unione anglo-americana”, ovvero la fusione di Stati Uniti e Regno Unito in un unico superstato. Il suo Endowment chiedeva la fine dell'“isolamento” degli Stati Uniti e promuoveva l'intervento americano nella Prima guerra mondiale.

In linea con gli obiettivi del Carnegie Endowment, Angell fece passare The New Republic da una posizione neutrale a una di aperto sostegno alla Gran Bretagna nella guerra.

Un “nucleo di autorità” di lingua inglese

Lippmann è ampiamente riconosciuto come l'inventore dell'atlantismo.

Il 17 febbraio 1917 scrisse un articolo per The New Republic intitolato “In difesa del mondo atlantico”. Era un aperto appello alla guerra.

Lippmann sosteneva che l'America dovesse schierarsi al fianco del “mondo occidentale” contro le orde barbariche dell'Oriente. Scrisse: “La guerra [della Germania] contro Gran Bretagna, Francia e Belgio è una guerra contro la civiltà di cui facciamo parte. [...] Perché sulle due sponde dell'Oceano Atlantico si è sviluppata una profonda rete di interessi che unisce il mondo occidentale. [...] Non possiamo tradire la comunità atlantica [...]”.

Si ritiene che l'articolo di Lippmann abbia dato il via al movimento atlantista.

In realtà Lippmann non faceva altro che ripetere le vecchie e logore frasi della propaganda britannica, che da tempo dipingeva l'Impero britannico come l'ultimo baluardo dell'Occidente contro la barbarie orientale.

Sir Norman Angell chiarì in seguito il vero significato dell'atlantismo quando scrisse che qualsiasi governo mondiale doveva essere guidato da un “nucleo di autorità” — in particolare dall'“Occidente” — che a sua volta doveva essere guidato dal “mondo anglofono”.

L'agenda della Tavola Rotonda

Come spiegato nei miei precedenti articoli, “Come gli inglesi hanno inventato il globalismo” e “In che modo gli inglesi hanno venduto il globalismo all'America”, i leader britannici all'inizio del XX secolo riconobbero che l'Inghilterra non poteva più permettersi di controllare il suo impero globale.

Elaborarono un piano per trasferire il costo dell'impero agli Stati Uniti. Il piano prevedeva che gli americani controllassero il mondo a proprie spese, mentre la Gran Bretagna avrebbe preso le decisioni, mantenendo il controllo della politica imperiale.

Ecco in sintesi cosa significa atlantismo.

Per mettere in atto questo piano, venne formato un gruppo segreto chiamato Tavola Rotonda, in parte grazie ai fondi del Rhodes Trust.

Dal 1909 al 1945 circa, la Tavola Rotonda trascinò gradualmente gli Stati Uniti in una rete di interdipendenza con la Gran Bretagna. Ciò avvenne, in primo luogo, con l'istituzione del Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) nel 1921, per esercitare un controllo segreto sulla politica estera statunitense. In secondo luogo, furono istituite entità transnazionali, come l'ONU, la NATO e l'alleanza d'intelligence Five Eyes, che legarono ulteriormente gli Stati Uniti al destino della Gran Bretagna.

In questo modo gli inglesi si assicuravano il sostegno degli Stati Uniti per qualsiasi futura operazione militare avessero voluto intraprendere.

Dopo aver ottenuto la cooperazione degli Stati Uniti, il passo successivo fu la decolonizzazione, ovvero la concessione dell'autogoverno alle colonie britanniche, in modo che l'Inghilterra non dovesse più sostenere autonomamente l'onere di sorvegliarle e difenderle.

Il passaggio all’“Impero informale”

Uno dei grandi miti del nostro tempo è la presunta “caduta” o disintegrazione dell'Impero britannico. Una cosa del genere non è mai accaduta.

La decolonizzazione era già pianificata ben prima della Prima guerra mondiale.

L'unica cosa che ostacolava il piano era la necessità di neutralizzare la Germania come concorrente imperiale e di garantire il supporto militare permanente degli Stati Uniti al nuovo ordine globale. Questi obiettivi furono raggiunti nel 1945, con la spartizione della Germania e l'ingresso degli Stati Uniti nell'ONU.

Tra il 1946 e il 1980 la Gran Bretagna concesse l'autogoverno alla maggior parte delle sue colonie, ma solo lentamente, una alla volta e a determinate condizioni.

Prima di concedere l'indipendenza a qualsiasi colonia, gli inglesi insediavano governanti locali disposti a onorare i precedenti accordi commerciali. Chi collaborava veniva ricompensato; chi creava problemi veniva rimosso.

La Gran Bretagna passò così dal governo “diretto” a quello “indiretto”, dall’impero “formale” a quello “informale”.

Per dirla in termini marxisti, la Gran Bretagna passò da un impero coloniale a uno “neocoloniale”.

“Resistenza passiva”

Per mantenere il nuovo sistema, la Gran Bretagna aveva bisogno di metodi più discreti per rimuovere i vassalli ribelli. Uno di questi metodi si rivelò essere la rivoluzione colorata.

Gli studi britannici sulla “resistenza passiva” e sulla “non obbedienza” iniziarono già durante la Prima guerra mondiale, quando il filosofo Bertrand Russell propose che gli eserciti invasori potessero essere sconfitti senza sparare un colpo, se i civili si fossero rifiutati di obbedire alle forze di occupazione nemiche.

Le idee di Russell influenzarono i pianificatori militari britannici come Basil Liddell Hart e Stephen King-Hall, i quali incorporarono la resistenza non violenta nel crescente arsenale di armi psicologiche della Gran Bretagna.

Decolonizzare l'Africa

Il 3 febbraio 1960 il Primo Ministro britannico Harold Macmillan parlò davanti al Parlamento sudafricano: “Il vento del cambiamento sta soffiando”, affermò, e la Gran Bretagna deve seguirlo, liberando le sue colonie africane.

Gli inglesi insistevano affinché le altre potenze europee seguissero il loro esempio. La Gran Bretagna non voleva che le sue colonie appena liberate venissero inghiottite dai rivali europei.

Il Portogallo si rifiutò di collaborare. I portoghesi dichiararono che avrebbero combattuto fino alla morte per mantenere l'Angola, il Mozambico e gli altri possedimenti africani.

La Rivoluzione dei garofani

Il dittatore portoghese Antonio Salazar morì nel 1970, ma il suo regime dell'Estado Novo sopravvisse, proseguendo le sue lunghe guerre coloniali contro gli insorti africani.

Il 25 aprile 1974 il primo ministro portoghese Marcelo Caetano fu improvvisamente rovesciato da un colpo di stato militare “soft”. La rivolta divenne nota come “Rivoluzione dei garofani”, perché i manifestanti infilarono garofani nelle canne dei fucili dei soldati.

La Rivoluzione dei garofani è il primo esempio di cui sono a conoscenza di una vera e propria “rivoluzione colorata”.

La Gran Bretagna nega di aver preso parte al colpo di stato, ma i segnali della guerra psicologica britannica sono evidenti.

Prima del colpo di stato, pochi giorni prima della prevista visita di Caetano a Londra, il Times riportò la notizia di un massacro di 400 persone da parte delle forze speciali portoghesi in Mozambico. Il Primo ministro britannico, Harold Wilson, chiese a Caetano di annullare la sua visita, accusandolo di “genocidio” e chiedendo l'espulsione del Portogallo dalla NATO.

In questo modo la Gran Bretagna minò il sostegno a Caetano, in un momento in cui i futuri golpisti stavano già lanciando minacce e avanzando richieste.

Dopo il colpo di stato, la Gran Bretagna riconobbe rapidamente la nuova giunta di sinistra e offrì indicazioni su come smantellare l'impero africano del Portogallo.

Gene Sharp, agente della guerra psicologica

Gli attivisti di oggi venerano Gene Sharp, un pacifista americano, come il padre della “nonviolenza strategica”. Sharp scrisse il “manuale” per la Rivoluzione colorata: The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973).

Ciò che gli attivisti non sanno è che Sharp era un agente della guerra psicologica, con forti legami sia con i servizi segreti americani che con quelli britannici.

Sharp trascorse 30 anni al Center for International Affairs, soprannominato la “CIA di Harvard”.

Ancora più importante, Sharp trascorse 10 anni in Inghilterra (dal 1955 al 1965), collaborando con il movimento pacifista britannico e conseguendo un dottorato di ricerca a Oxford. L'opera iconica di Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, era la sua tesi di dottorato a Oxford.

“Proteste degli adolescenti”

Nel 1967 lo psicologo australiano, Fred Emery, allora direttore del Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR) di Londra, predisse che, entro gli anni novanta, presto le “proteste degli adolescenti” sarebbero state sfruttate come arma politica in grado di rovesciare i governi.

Aveva ragione.

Nel 1989 un'ondata di rivolte non violente travolse il blocco sovietico, rovesciando i regimi comunisti. La rivolta ceca fu soprannominata “Rivoluzione di velluto”, termine che finì per essere usato in modo intercambiabile con “Rivoluzione colorata”.

Le “Rivoluzioni di velluto” del 1989 furono in gran parte orchestrate dai governi occidentali che operavano attraverso gruppi di facciata.

“Promozione della democrazia”

I gruppi del fronte occidentale che hanno contribuito a far crollare l’Impero sovietico sono, in molti casi, le stesse “ONG atlantiste” accusate da Darren Beattie.

Nel mondo delle ONG sono conosciuti come gruppi “pro-democrazia”, “costruzione della democrazia” o “promozione della democrazia”.

Promuovere la “democrazia” è stato uno dei principali obiettivi degli atlantisti fin da quando Woodrow Wilson dichiarò che l’America doveva lottare per “rendere il mondo sicuro per la democrazia”.

Ovviamente ci sono momenti in cui lottare per la “democrazia” è encomiabile.

La caduta dell'Unione Sovietica aiutò senza dubbio le nazioni conquistate dell'Europa orientale.

Eppure, troppo spesso, le grida di “democrazia” e “libertà” sono state utilizzate per coinvolgere giovani ingenui in iniziative poco raccomandabili, come la destabilizzazione della presidenza di Donald Trump.

Il modello Freedom House

La maggior parte degli storici concorda sul fatto che la prima ONG per la “promozione della democrazia” sia stata Freedom House, fondata il 31 ottobre 1941 a Washington DC.

Fin dalla sua fondazione, Freedom House è stata un'agenzia di copertura dell'intelligence britannica.

Il suo scopo originario era quello di combattere l'“isolazionismo” americano e spingere l'entrata degli USA nella Seconda guerra mondiale.

Nell'aprile del 1940 Winston Churchill creò una speciale unità di intelligence chiamata British Security Coordination (BSC), per condurre operazioni segrete contro il movimento pacifista statunitense.

Con la piena collaborazione del presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt e del direttore dell'FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, la BSC aprì degli uffici al Rockefeller Center, sotto il comando dell'agente dei servizi segreti canadesi William Stephenson, nome in codice Intrepid.

Freedom House è nata dalla fusione di due organizzazioni pro-guerra: Fight for Freedom (FFF) e The Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies (CDAAA).

Secondo Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-1944 di Thomas E. Mahl, entrambi erano fronti britannici gestiti dalla BSC di Churchill.

Il National Endowment for Democracy

Il 17 novembre 1983 il Congresso degli Stati Uniti autorizzò il finanziamento di una nuova entità denominata National Endowment for Democracy (NED), un ente pubblico-privato che avrebbe ricevuto finanziamenti dal governo degli Stati Uniti.

Lo scopo del NED era quello di fungere da gruppo ombrello per una rete di ONG per la promozione della democrazia, tra cui due gruppi affiliati che sarebbero poi diventati noti come National Democratic Institute (NDI) e International Republican Institute (IRI).

Nello stesso anno Gene Sharp, l'agente segreto addestrato in Gran Bretagna che aveva inventato le Rivoluzioni colorate, fondò un suo gruppo, l'Albert Einstein Institution a Boston.

Tutti i gruppi sopra menzionati avevano due cose in comune: innanzitutto tutti hanno seguito il “manuale” di Gene Sharp per la Rivoluzione colorata; in secondo luogo tutti hanno aiutato il governo degli Stati Uniti a finanziare e organizzare Rivoluzioni colorate in altri Paesi, con l'apparente scopo di promuovere la democrazia.

Secondo Darren Beattie tutti questi gruppi hanno preso parte alla destabilizzazione della prima presidenza Trump.

Cui Bono?

Resta da vedere se le accuse di Beattie resisteranno alla prova del tempo.

Una cosa è certa, però: il governo britannico è stato estremamente soddisfatto dell'estromissione di Trump.

E non vogliono che ritorni.

Il 4 febbraio 2020, mentre era in corso il secondo processo di impeachment di Trump, il Royal Institute of International Affairs, noto anche come Chatham House, dichiarò sul suo sito web che “il processo a Trump non è sufficiente a riparare la democrazia”.

Mettendo in guardia dal fatto che la “disinformazione” elettorale diffusa dai sostenitori di Trump rappresentava una minaccia per la democrazia, Chatham House chiese una commissione in stile “11 settembre” per indagare ulteriormente sull’“insurrezione” del 6 gennaio.

Londra chiama

Chatham House non è un semplice think tank.

Opera in base alla Royal Charter e sotto il patrocinio della corona inglese.

Inoltre è l'organizzazione gemella del Council on Foreign Relations. Insieme i due gruppi formulano e coordinano la politica estera degli Stati Uniti e del Regno Unito.

Dopo tutti questi anni, sta iniziando a diventare chiaro cosa intendesse Norman Angell quando parlava di un “nucleo di autorità” al centro della comunità atlantica.

E quel nucleo è a Londra.

Questo è il mondo creato dagli atlantisti.

Benvenuti nella comunità atlantica.

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

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

Thanks, Joseph T. Salerno.

Vatican News

The post Archbishop Prevost: ‘The bishop is a pastor, not a manager’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appell.

See here.

The post Ukrainian Nazis on Parade appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Chris Sullivan.

The post Israeli Cops BEAT UP Hasidic Jews Protesting War In Gaza! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The only parts of American, German, British, French, and Italian industry that are booming right now, are their armaments manufacturers — the companies that sell far more to governments than to consumers, and that therefore boom while the economy busts. These are the companies that need to control the Government in order to control their biggest market (which IS the Government), and so their controlling owners, the billionaires who control their boards, need to control the influencers of the public, in order to get their candidates elected into Government so as to increase Government spending on their products and services, and to either increase the national debt or else cut the Government’s expenditures for the health, education, and welfare, of the voters. Those “influencers of the public” are news-media, and are also the prestigious universities, and think tanks, whose professors and experts they hire as opinion-writers etc. to validate what these billionaires want to be validated so that the public will then vote for the politicians who support this idea of increasing the public debt and decreasing public spending for the benefit of the public, in order to increase military spending. And the way to do this is the type of scare-mongering that European Governments are doing right now to the effect that Russia is planning to conquer their countries, and that America’s Government is doing right now in order to scare-monger Americans to the effect that China is planning to conquer America — and that the U.S. Government had used also in 2002 and 2003 in order to scare-monger Americans into thinking that Iraq was preparing to attack America. This is the basic marketing plan for those billionaires, and it has always been extremely profitable for them.

For example, on May 2nd the U.S. White House — which has made clear that it’s beating the drums for war against China — headlined “Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget” and reported that “The Budget, which reduces non-defense discretionary by $163 billion or 23 percent from the 2025 enacted level, guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security. … Defense spending would increase by 13 percent, and appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security would increase by nearly 65 percent, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources they need to complete the mission.” All of those increases would go towards the suppliers to the enormously militarized police-state at the same time that health, education, and welfare, of the voters, will be reduced by $165 billion or 23% from the current level. And notice that Trump’s propaganda-operation is alleging that they are “gutting a weaponized deep state” by cutting Governmental services to the poor. If that sounds stupid, it is no stupider than the electorate is, but the electorate were given a choice between the nominees of two Parties, each of which is controlled by its billionaires; and in an election such at that, it is like having a choice between different ways to commit suicide; and, so, it is the billionaires who are to be blamed, not the voters (in both Parties) who have been deceived by them into voting for their candidates. But anyway: Trump revealed there his contempt for his voters, because even he knows that the Deep State does NOT consist of the poor, but instead it consists of the billionaires.

The White House’s May 2nd “Major Discretionary Funding Changes” says that:

For Defense spending [ONLY the Defense Department, NOT including the approximately $700 billion yearly of annual U.S. military spending that is being paid out from OTHER federal Departments], the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border. Under the proposal, a portion of these increases — at least $325 billion assumed in the budget resolution recently agreed to by the Congress — would be provided through reconciliation, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources needed to complete the mission. This mandatory supplement to discretionary spending would enable the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others, to clean up the mess President Trump inherited from the prior administration and harden the border and other defenses to protect America from foreign invasion.

Therefore, approximately $1.7T of total military spending is being sought by Trump, while he is proposing to cut all other discretionary spending (which had previously constituted the other 47% of all U.S. Government annually appropriated federal spending (and was previously around $800B per year) down by $165B to around $635B total, or about 37% of all annually appropriated federal spending.

Looking further at WHAT is being cut the most, the document shows that the only part of the Department of Education that will be increased — by $60 million — is “Charter Schools,” the part that privatizes public-school education, which is the part that billionaires want to increase. Meanwhile, Title 1 and K-12 federal spending will be reduced by $4.535 billion; the program to incentivize colleges to “to engage with low-income students and increase access” will be cut by $1.579 B.

The Department of Health and Human Services will cut $4.035 from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), $1.970B from the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, $1.732B from AIDS and financial-assistance health programs, $3.588B from CDC and Prevention programs, $17.965B from NIH, $1.065B from programs working with addicts to help them reduce their addictions.

The Environmental Protection Agency will be cut $2.460B for Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds, and under a billion dollars each for such programs as the Hazardos Substance Superfund.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be cut by $26.718B for programs for the poor.

The Treasury Department will be cut by $2.488B for the IRS.

The National Science Foundation will be cut by $3.479B and by an additional $1.130B for “Broadening Participation.”

Most of the other cuts will be below a billion dollars.

On February 26th, I reported that:

On February 14th, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling”, and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.

An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).

Trump is increasing the military and border security, and decreasing education, assistance to the poor, Medicaid, federal law enforcement, and even Social Security and Medicare (the latter two by laying off many of the people who staff those bureaucracies).

But Western Governments call this a “democracy.”

In Europe, the war they’re beating the drums for is instead against Russia. On April 30th, the Carnegie endowment for international war, which goes by the name Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and which was founded by Andrew Carnegie, who like Cecil Rhodes in the later part of the 1800s, co-invented neoconservatism (the plan for the UK to take over the U.S. again and use it to spread universally the British Empire but which achieved that goal much later, on 25 July 1945, when Truman was suckered into it by the Rhodesist Winston Churchill and by General Eisenhower, to start the Cold War to ultimately conquer Russia), headlined “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B: The continent’s response to security and economic challenges could be transformative both at home and for post-American international relations.”, and argued that

The building blocks of a response strategy are coming into focus in three key areas. First, Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense. London and Paris have been convening a “coalition of the willing” to plot the next stages of European military and diplomatic support, with the goal of making Ukraine a “steel porcupine.” … Second, the need for European states to increase their defense spending was long overdue, and the open discussion about assuming responsibility for territorial defense and deterrence is unprecedented. Governments are taking drastic measures to increase defense spending, with Germany’s U-turn on public debt as the most remarkable evidence that taboos can be broken. …

Politically, to ensure public support for rearming Europe and to offset the inevitable costs, defense efforts ought to be part of a broader strategy of economic and technological innovation. … The economic and social costs of the security and economic transition at home will lead to political challenges in a volatile context in which few governments enjoy wide popular support, though the EU is enjoying positive public opinion polling at the moment — likely a silver lining of the Trump effect. The EU’s security turn will come at the expense of its soft power, with reputational costs at home and abroad. Making its economy fit for geopolitical disruption entails daunting obstacles and difficult choices.

The “Naked Capitalism” blog recently published some terrific articles documenting that European Governments are just as much oligarchies (or “aristocracies”) as is America’s Government:

“Coffee Break – Across the Pond: Lights Out Edition”

“Coffee Break: Across the Pond, Tyrants Edition”

“The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens”

Despite the cutesy, pretentious, vague, pompous, headlines at that site, some of the articles there (such as those three) are superb. Because of the lousy headlines there, it’s tedious to find which ones, if any, there might be worth reading.

While America’s billionaires are intent upon increasing their armaments-profits from a war-buildup against China, Europe’s billionaires are intent upon increasing their armaments-profits from a war-buildup against China. And on both sides of the Atlantic, the poor will suffer the most, and only the billionaires will profit the most, from the neoliberal-neoconservative (or libertarian and imperialistic) policies of these ‘democracies’ that actually aren’t. They are so corrupt, they are aristocracies. All electoral democracies ultimately degenerate into such dictatorships. And now it is accelerating.

Reprinted with permission from Eric’s Substack.

The post Why Western Governments Are Beating the Drums for Wars appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: In your view, what role does the Treasury market play in global finance, and how significant is it to the current financial system?

Doug Casey: It’s only important because it exists—but it shouldn’t exist. People think that the Treasury market is part of the cosmic firmament, but there once was a time when the US government had little or no debt outstanding, and the world got by fine without it.

It’s not a question of how significant it is so much as when the time bomb that it represents will go off. That’s because it’s not supported by any underlying assets. Nor is the dollar that it’s denominated in.

Let me use a simple analogy. It’s much as if a king is taxing a farmer. But one year, the king is in a war and needs extra taxes. So he tells the farmer, “Look, I need your seed corn this year to fight the war, but I’ll give you a bond which guarantees that you’ll get it back next year, when you need it. Plus interest.”

The patriotic farmer says, “Okay.” The farmer gets the bond, and the king gets the seed corn. Both are happy until the next year, when the farmer wants to cash in the bond to retrieve his seed corn. Where did it go? It’s been consumed. Now there’s no seed corn, there’s no harvest, and they both starve to death.

That’s the eventual fate of the US debt market.

The financial markets would be much more stable without the government bond market. Government debt doesn’t finance new production, it finances consumption. Either by consuming past production, or mortgaging future production. We’d be much more prosperous, and safer, if it didn’t exist.

Around $2.7 trillion of US debt is held by Social Security. At some point, the people hoping to collect Social Security will come to recognize that it’s not a piggy bank or lockbox, as they used to say. The asset they’re counting on for retirement is the debt of a bankrupt Ponzi scheme. Very much like the bond guaranteeing the farmer’s seed corn.

International Man: In your opinion, what does the 10-year US Treasury yield tell us, and why is it considered one of the most important financial indicators?

Doug Casey: Perhaps it’s because around 20% to 25% of the Treasury market is denominated in 10-year notes. Or perhaps it’s because most mortgages are paid off in 10 years, not 30 years, as people trade houses. If the US chose to it could probably sell a 100-year bond. But it won’t, because that would be an extremely volatile piece of paper, which could shake the public’s faith in the system.

Don’t forget that it was only a few years ago that the Austrian government poked the markets in the eye with around 8 billion euros of 100-year bonds bearing coupons of 2.1% and 0.85%.

I thought it was laughable, and only an idiot would’ve bought those. Even though that was when euro interest rates were actually negative. Since then, their market values have fallen to around 44 and 34 euros per 100 euro face value, respectively. Some institutions are sitting on giant losses.

Even more laughable was in 2017, when the Argentine government somehow peddled $2.75 billion worth of 7.125% 100-year bonds which, of course, they defaulted on. Although they were later redeemed with short-term bonds to kick the can further down the road. Those will probably also be defaulted on. Or should be. Any fund manager buying the debt of a South American government should be punished with a jail term, not just losses in the market.

That said, with multi-trillion dollar deficits running far into the future, US government debt is no longer a AAA risk.

International Man: Where do you see Treasury yields headed?

Doug Casey: I wouldn’t own any bonds at this stage in the market—except as a short-term speculation on the direction of interest rates. But even that’s a bad idea. Let me refer you to my favorite financial joke to illustrate why.

Einstein dies and goes to heaven.

St. Peter welcomes him and says, “Unfortunately, we have a temporary housing shortage here in heaven because, for obvious reasons, we’re a centrally planned economy.”

But Einstein is fine with that, and they take him to his room, where he meets his three roommates.

The first guy says: “Mr. Einstein, I have an IQ of 130, and I want to get to know you.” Einstein says, “Great. After lunch, let’s bounce around some concepts of astrophysics that have been on my mind.”

The second guy comes up and says, “I’m not as smart as that first guy. I only have an IQ of 100.” So Einstein says, “Great. Let me put away my grip, and we’ll play a game of chess.”

The third guy comes up and says, “Mr. Einstein, I’m not as smart as those other two guys. I’ve only got an IQ of 70, but I still want to get to know you.” Einstein says, “So where do you think interest rates are going?”

That said, I wouldn’t own bonds at this point. They’re at least a triple threat to your money.

The first risk is interest rates. I think, for a number of reasons, interest rates are headed back up to the levels of the early 1980s, when the US government was paying almost 20% for its money. They trended down to near zero over 40 years, and the long-term trend has reversed.

Second is the rate of inflation. The government will continue running giant deficits, regardless of DOGE’s best efforts. Those deficits will necessarily be monetized. Monetary inflation is headed up, and the dollar is headed down.

Third is the default risk. There’s no guarantee that all that debt out there, even from the US government, will be paid off. In fact, I’m confident it won’t be. It can’t be, unless the dollar is destroyed—which is the worst alternative.

I wouldn’t touch long-term bonds with a barge pole. They’re toxic.

International Man: The Trump administration has explicitly expressed a desire to keep the 10-year Treasury yield under control, and some speculate that policy shifts—such as a reversal on tariffs—were responses to yield spikes.

Why is the 10-year yield such a pressure point for the US government, and to what extent can a president actually influence it?

Doug Casey: The bond market is mainly based on confidence, and confidence can blow away like a pile of feathers in a hurricane.

You shouldn’t have confidence in the US government or its debt at this point, notwithstanding the best efforts of DOGE—which are wonderful, but I believe will fail catastrophically.

Can a president influence interest rates? Not really. If Trump wants lower rates, the US government has to radically cut its spending, its size, its currency debasement, and its taxes. None of that is going to happen, however, so there’s no reason to have confidence in the dollar.

And frankly, nobody should believe anything that Trump says. I’m not kidding. Trump says things that are patently false and unbelievable. Get a load of his recent Tweet about the 80th anniversary of World War II’s end:

“Many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result in World War II and November 11 as Victory Day in World War I. We won both wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance…”

He’s probably unaware that although the US suffered about 180,000 combat deaths against the Germans, the Soviets lost about 10 million—plus about 17 million civilians. The Western allies inflicted about 250,000 KIA on the Wehrmacht, but the Soviets inflicted about 20 times as many. WW2 was really a battle to the death of the Germans against the Soviets. Trump’s comment was stupidly ignorant and insulting. But he does that kind of thing constantly.

So, any thoughtful person should have zero confidence in what the president says about interest rates—or anything else. That’s a pity, but it’s true.

International Man: If US Treasuries were to lose their role as the foundation of the international monetary system, could gold or Bitcoin take their place?

What would the investment implications be if such a shift were to occur?

Doug Casey: Treasuries are already losing their foundational role in the international monetary system. Why? Because dollars, not Boeings or soybeans, have been the major US export for the last 40 years.

There’s a huge overhang of many trillions in the hands of foreigners who, unlike US citizens, don’t have to hold US dollars or US bonds. And at some point—when confidence collapses, and there are lots of reasons it will—they’ll start unloading those Treasuries. Those dollars will come home to roost, taking prices to unbelievable levels and transferring physical assets in the US into the hands of foreigners and out of the hands of Americans.

What would the investment implications be of such a shift?

Well, it’s regrettable, but almost inevitable that it will happen. The investment implications are catastrophic for Americans and anybody who owns US dollars or US debt.

I therefore continue to own gold and Bitcoin. As far as other investments are concerned, almost everything today is a speculation. You can forget about the word “investment.”

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Debt Spiral, Treasury Market Stress, and a New Financial Order appeared first on LewRockwell.

Will we soon witness the world’s first nuclear war?  Following nuclear-armed India’s attack on nuclear-armed Pakistan, media outlets all over the globe quickly published stories about the possibility of nuclear war.  In fact, this morning the main headline on the Drudge Report was “WORLD HOLDS BREATH” in all capital letters.  Yes, it is entirely possible that a nuclear war could erupt between India and Pakistan.  But will someone else use nuclear weapons first?

In the Middle East, a showdown is looming between Israel and Iran.  We know that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and there are some experts that are convinced that the Iranians have also acquired nukes.  If an all-out war erupts between Israel and Iran, I have a feeling that both sides will be forced to show what cards they are holding.

If the Iranians do have nukes, they may have gotten them from the North Koreans.  If a major war erupts on the Korean peninsula, and that is a very real possibility, the North Koreans would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

In Europe, the conflict in Ukraine definitely has the potential to go nuclear.  The Ukrainians have targeted Moscow with drone attacks for three days in a row, and they are threatening to attack Russia’s Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9th.  If that happens, we are being warned that Kyiv could be wiped “off the face of the Earth”.  Let us hope that the Russians will continue to resist the temptation to use tactical nukes against Ukraine, because if that line is crossed any hope of peace with Russia will be completely gone.

Once one nation breaks the taboo on using nuclear weapons, it will be much easier for other nations to follow suit.

At the moment, the eyes of the world are on India and Pakistan.  The government of India says that the goal of their airstrikes was to destroy “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan…

India said it launched missiles targeting “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the divided Himalayan territory that India also controls a section of.

Pakistan’s military said it shot down five Indian aircraft during the attack – a claim unconfirmed by India.

Pakistan said India’s attack killed at least 26 civilians and wounded 46 more. India’s army said at least 10 civilians were killed and 35 injured in cross-border shelling by Pakistani troops in Kashmir.

Following the airstrikes, India’s Defense Ministry released a statement that emphasized that no military facilities in Pakistan were targeted…

“Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistan military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.”

I think that India was hoping to avoid any additional escalation, but the Pakistanis are furious because a number of mosques were targeted…

In response to Pakistan’s complaint that some of India’s bombs struck mosques, India confirmed that it targeted mosques and madrassas (Islamic religious schools) that were headquarters for “training and indoctrination” by the terrorist groups. The Indian government pointed out that one of the madrassas used as a training camp by LT was funded by Osama bin Laden, the late founder of al-Qaeda and mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America.

Some of India’s targets seemed chosen to make the point that JM, HM, LT, and other terrorist groups are operating openly in Pakistan, with either the indulgence or active support of the government. A few of the targeted facilities were remote terrorist camps hidden in inaccessible terrain, but others were obvious and located near major roads. All of them were large, capable of training hundreds of militants at a time.

If Pakistan strikes back, India will almost certainly respond.

Unfortunately, it appears that is exactly what Pakistan is planning to do…

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has ordered his armed forces to prepare a plan for “self-defense” with “corresponding actions” in order “avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives”. The order was issued after an emergency National Security Commitee (NSC) meeting on Wednesday.

“Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty,” the NSC readout said. “The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard.”

Pakistan’s Government Security Committee has charged that India has “ignited an inferno in the region”. These do indeed seem to be fighting words.

One of the sides is going to have to back down at some point or else this thing is going to spiral out of control very rapidly.

If a full-blown war erupts, India has a far larger military than Pakistan does…

India outpaces Pakistan in active military personnel: 1.24 million in the army, 149,000 in the air force, and 75,500 in the navy. Pakistan has about 560,000 army troops, 70,000 in the air force, and 30,000 in its navy. India also operates a 13,350-strong coast guard.

A conventional war between India and Pakistan would be truly horrifying, and we are being warned that it could cause a global recession…

A potential war between India and Pakistan could “push the world in to a global recession” in a matter of months, an expert has warned. On Tuesday, India fired a series of missile strikes on Kashmir, with Pakistan vowing to “respond”, triggering fears of an all-out war between the huge nations.

Space race capable India currently hovers around number 5 in the list of the biggest economies in the world, just one place above the UK.

But a conventional war between these two nations is not the real danger.

If India’s military started pouring into Pakistani territory, officials in Pakistan may feel forced to use nuclear weapons.

Most people living in the western world do not realize this, but both India and Pakistan have enough nuclear warheads to virtually wipe the other side out…

India has about 172 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan possesses roughly 170, according to the Arms Control Association. Despite their similar numbers, the countries diverge in nuclear doctrine. India publicly maintains an NFU doctrine, pledging to use nuclear weapons only in retaliation. However, recent rhetoric from Indian leadership has hinted at revisiting that stance. Pakistan has never adopted a similar policy and reserves the option of preemptive use.

Don’t think that this can’t happen.

In fact, the head of Pakistan’s military just told the world that he believes “at any time a nuclear war can break out”…

NUCLEAR war could break out “at any time” if India continues strikes, Pakistan’s defence chief has warned as his country teeters on the brink of a conflict with India.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif gave the stark warning in an interview with Pakistani TV channel Geo News as tensions between the two nuclear powers continue to reach boiling point.

The minister said: “If they [India] impose an all-out war on the region and if such dangers arise in which there is a standoff, then at any time a nuclear war can break out.”

A full-blown nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would not be anything like a full-blown nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia.

But it would still create at least a limited version of a “nuclear winter”.

All of a sudden, it would become exceedingly difficult to grow crops all over the northern hemisphere, and we are already facing a global food crisis of epic proportions.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post Who Is Going To Use Nuclear Weapons First? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Everyone has the right to make up their own minds about these tensions and the Kashmir Conflict that lies at their core, but they should also know that there’s more to all this than what they might be led to be believe by the organized pro-Palestinian movement and the Alt-Media Community.

India carried out several surgical strikes against Pakistan on Wednesday morning as part of “Operation Sindoor”, which is its response to last month’s Pahalgam terrorist attack that saw the allegedly Pakistani-affiliated culprits slaughter over two dozen Hindu tourists, who were targeted on the basis of their faith. Casual observers might be overwhelmed by the deluge of information being spread by both sides’ online advocates amidst the resultantly escalating tensions so here are ten points for them to keep in mind:

———-

1. The British Role In Indo-Pak Tensions Is A Relic Of The Past

It’s true that the Indian Subcontinent’s imperfect division between Hindus and Muslims was authorized by the departing British, but the roots of this policy rest in some Muslim independence activists splitting from their Hindu comrades decades earlier to pursue their community’s own interests in this campaign. While the Brits exploited this for post-colonial divide-and-rule purposes, they no longer exert anywhere near the same degree of influence over Pakistan, which has much more independent agency nowadays.

2. Strategic, Religious, & Political Factors Are Behind Pakistan’s Claims

Pakistan’s claims to all of Kashmir are driven by the region’s hydrological importance, its majority-Muslim population, and the military’s interest in rallying the nation behind it on these grounds. These interests are typically ignored by activists in favor of drawing attention to the democratic and humanitarian dimensions of the conflict from the Pakistani perspective. This narrative diversion is meant to make their claims appeal to the widest possible array of people across the world for putting more pressure on India.

3. The Organized Pro-Palestinian Movement Largely Supports Pakistan

In connection with the above, the organized pro-Palestinian movement largely supports Pakistan due to their similar democratic-humanitarian messaging but also out of religious solidarity, though this is only rarely acknowledged due to concerns that it could discredit these movements’ incipient convergence. The reason this is relevant is because casual observers can therefore expect more pro-Pakistani content from pro-Palestinian activists-influencers, including that which disparages India as a “Zionist puppet”.

4. Israel Is Irrelevant To This Conflict No Matter What Alt-Media Claims

The Alt-Media Community (AMC) is mostly favorable to the organized pro-Palestinian movement so its leading voices might amplify the aforesaid allegation even though it’s bereft of truth. Many among their audience want to imagine that every major development across the world is somehow tied to a “Zionist plot”, but that’s not the case with this one. India’s closeness with Israel doesn’t mean that Israel controls it, just like Israel doesn’t control Russia, which is closer to Israel than India is and has been so for longer.

5. The Same Goes For Claims That This Is All About Sabotaging BRICS

Many in the AMC are also as obsessed with BRICS as they are with Israel so casual observers should prepare for a flood of claims about how these tensions are supposedly meant to sabotage BRICS. The reality though is that BRICS isn’t a bloc, in fact, it’s just a talking club that discusses how to accelerate financial multipolarity processes and issues purely perfunctory joint statements every year. It’s therefore just as irrelevant to this conflict, which is driven by side’s conception of national interests, as Israel is.

6. India & Pakistan Accuse Each Other Of Terrorism But Respond Differently

Casual observers might soon hear about how Pakistan accused India of being behind March’s Jaffar Express terrorist attack, which builds upon years-long claims that they might also learn about, yet Pakistan didn’t kinetically retaliate against India like India just kinetically retaliated against Pakistan. This can be interpreted either as Pakistan having made up that claim (and earlier ones) for reasons of domestic political convenience or lacking the military confidence to initiate surgical strikes against India.

7. It’s Worth Recalling January 2024’s Tit-For-Tat Iranian-Pakistani Strikes

Iran and Pakistan carried out tit-for-tat strikes in January 2024 against alleged terrorists before patching up their problems. Even though terrorist attacks have since surged in Pakistan’s Balochistan region, Islamabad no longer blames Iran, let alone bombs what it claims to be terrorists there. This is worth recalling since it suggests that Pakistan either lied about Iran’s ties to terrorists or started ignoring them, with either explanation equivalent to politicizing terrorism, thus casting doubts on its claims about India.

8. Pakistan Consistently Seeks To Multilateralize Its Disputes With India

In contravention of the 1972 Simla Accord, which it recently suspended, Pakistan consistently seeks to multilateralize its disputes with India as a means of rebalancing their power asymmetries. The trade-off though is that some of Pakistan’s partners try to use it against India on this pretext, the partial client state role of which its leadership willingly accepts in exchange for support. This insight directly leads into the last two points for casual observers to keep in mind amidst escalating Indo-Pak tensions.

9. There Are Double-Standards Towards Pakistan’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling

The world united to express disapproval to varying extents of what was popularly portrayed as Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling throughout the course of the Ukrainian Conflict yet few have condemned Pakistan much more explicitly doing the same via its Ambassador to Russia and Defense Minister. These indisputable double standards lend credence to former Indian Ambassador to Russia Kanwal Sibal’s assessment that “Pak is given a pass as if the West and others want India to hear Pak’s message.”

10. Some Forces Might Be Trying To Knock India Out Of The Great Power Game

India’s rapid rise scares the US “deep state’s” liberal-globalist policymaking faction, their European subordinates, China, and some in the Ummah like Turkiye’s Erdogan, the Qatari Emir, and ultra-hardline members of Iran’s IRGC. Just like the West tried to use Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia for knocking it out of the Great Power game, so too might the aforesaid six actors be using Pakistan for the same goal against India or to at least contain it to their strategic benefit due to their shared interests.

———-

These points should help casual observers better understand the dynamics behind the escalating Indo-Pak tensions and the Kashmir Conflict that lies at their core. Everyone has the right to make up their own minds, but they should also know that there’s more to all this than what they might be led to be believe by the organized pro-Palestinian movement and the AMC. India’s future as a Great Power and all that entails for the global systemic transition will depend on how it manages Pakistani-emanating threats.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Ten Points To Keep in Mind Amidst Escalating Indo-Pak Tensions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many Americans remain convinced that tyranny and oppression could never happen here in the United States. We are different from other countries, they say. We are more enlightened. We are exceptional. The United States will always be a free country, no matter what.

Of course, there is always a problem with the meaning of the word “freedom.” It means different things to different people.

For example, today’s Americans feel free because they live under a welfare state, a national-security state, a foreign military empire, a government-managed economy, a paper-money system directed by a central bank, an income tax, a drug war, and an immigration police state.

Yet, our American ancestors prior to 1910 rejected all those things and lived in a society that had none of them. Yet, they were convinced that they were free. I happen to believe that they were right and that today’s Americans have simply deluded themselves into thinking they are free.

But let’s take civil liberties. Many Americans would agree that people who live in a society in which civil liberties are absent cannot possibly be considered to be a free people. That is, many Americans favor the procedural protections found in the Bill of Rights.

Let’s assume that a duly elected president of a country has the full support of a big, permanent military-intelligence establishment that loyally obeys his orders. Due to an increase in violence in the government’s war on drugs, the president declares a “national emergency.” The president orders the military to begin rounding up people who are deemed to be threats to “national security.” Tens of thousands of people are quickly arrested, incarcerated in secret prisons, and brutally tortured to give up information on criminal activity. Some of them are executed. No trials are held.

The courts go into action and declare the president’s actions unconstitutional. The courts order the president to stop what he is doing. However, the president, citing his “national emergency,” simply ignores their rulings. When judges cite the president and his goons with contempt, the president and his military forces simply ignore them or, even worse, order their arrest and incarceration. The president also replaces recalcitrant judges with his own judicial lackeys.

A few members of the country’s legislature call for the president’s impeachment. But they are quickly shouted down by others who are loyal to the president or too scared to object to what he is doing. The president would ignore or shut down any impeachment proceedings anyway, citing his “national emergency.”

Again, I think most Americans would describe this as an unfree society. They would see that a system in which a ruler and his military-intelligence forces wield and exercise omnipotent power over the citizenry by being able to jail, torture, assassinate, and execute anyone without any interference whatsoever cannot possibly be considered a free society. I think many Americans would even think about Nazi Germany or George Orwell’s 1984 when hearing a description of that type of society.

Yet, the problem is that many American conservatives, as well as the U.S. national-security establishment (i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA), deeply admire and respect that kind of system in various foreign countries.

Consider the U.S. prison and torture center at Guantanamo Bay. The reason that the Pentagon and the CIA set it up in Cuba, with the full support of U.S. conservatives, was to enable them to avoid any interference by U.S. courts with how they treated people accused of terrorism. The Pentagon and the CIA wanted a total Constitution-free zone in which they would wield and exercise omnipotent powers over inmates, including being able to torture, indefinitely incarcerate, and even execute them.

Before that was right-wing Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who the U.S. national-security establishment helped take power in a coup in 1973 in Chile. He nullified the courts and the national congress. Employing Chile’s national-security establishment, he and his military-intelligence goons rounded up tens of thousands of suspected communists, incarcerated them in secret prisons, brutally tortured or raped them, and executed or disappeared thousands of them. No trials at all. Pinochet established “law and order” in Chile and restored a sense of “patriotism” to the land by purifying the nation of communists. Moreover, he brought “free enterprise” to Chile and even reformed Social Security to conform to conservative principles. American conservatives loved him and still do.

Look at the current dictator of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele. Declaring a “national emergency,” he assumed dictatorial powers that have enabled him and his military-intelligence goons to round up, incarcerate, and torture tens of thousands of people. No trials. No judicial interference. No congressional interference. Simply total, raw, dictatorial power. But Bukele has brought “law and order” and “patriotism” to El Salvador and, in the process, made El Salvador great again. Consequently, American conservatives have fallen in love with him. President Trump is even using Bukele’s “Terrorism Confinement Center” to imprison immigrants who have been accused of illegally entering the United States but who have never been tried or convicted in a trial in a court of law.

Why is the right-wing love of Gitmo, Pinochet, and Bukele a problem for Americans? Given that American conservatives love right-wing tyranny for foreigners, it is not beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that that, deep down, American right-wingers would love to impose the same system here at home — under the guise of establishing “law and order,” restoring “patriotism,” and, of course, “making America great again.”

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post It Could Never Happen Here appeared first on LewRockwell.

When liberals destroyed religion, they destroyed morality. With the demise of morality went integrity and a person’s word.  Today Western societies are overwhelmed by crime.  Sexual morality is long gone. Young women compete for attention according to which woman can copulate with the most men in a 24-hour time period. One contestant says her father is very proud of her.  See this. 

Journalists have no compulsion against lying to the public in behalf of an agenda or an advertiser.

Medical practitioners have no hesitation in supporting treatments, such as the Covid “vaccine” that killed and maimed millions of people for the sake of Big Pharma’s profits.  And they refuse to be held accountable.

The list is long of morality’s absence.  The worst is the immorality of the entire world, with the single exception of black South Africa, supporting, not opposing, Israel’s assassination of Palestine and Palestinians.  American governments have made the genocide possible by supplying the bombs, money, and diplomatic cover.  And we are faced with the prospect that Americans, who overthrew Iraq, Libya, and Syria for Israel, will be taken to war with Iran for Israel’s purposes.  Will Americans ever stop dying for Satan’s Chosen People?

The shame that the Biden and Trump regimes have brought on every American is extraordinary.  Two US presidential regimes have made Americans responsible for the support of genocide, and no one is ashamed. The Christian Zionists are well pleased.  We are doing God’s will protecting Israel, they say.  In fact, we are enabling Satan’s Chosen People whose extraordinary immorality resulted in God kicking the Israelis out of the Middle East and dispersing them among the world, stateless.

In the midst of Netanyahu’s extermination of Palestine, Netanyahu was invited to address a joint session of the US House and Senate and received 53 standing ovations.  The American Congress could not refrain from pouring its consent on genocide.

Some countries in past times, such as Spain, recognized the exploitative practices of Jews and  kicked them out. In Eastern European countries and in Russia the exploitative practices of Satan’s Chosen People against the indigenous populations resulted in pogroms against Jews, of which Jews only give one side, their propagandistic side.

Satan’s attack on Western morality has been led by Jews.  They gave us pornography.  They gave us the absence of Christian symbols in public spaces. They gave us the March Through the Institutions, which succeeded in destroying the self-belief of Western gentiles.  And now they are bringing us to World War III.

It is extraordinary how 10 million Israelis rule the world.

The post Without Religion There Is No Morality appeared first on LewRockwell.

No, this is not a photo of members of the College of Cardinals, the electors of the next Catholic Pope.

I don’t know when I first saw this photo of the key players and manager of the 1968 St. Louis Cardinals baseball team, nor for what particular reason it made an impression on me.

As a ten-year old boy these Cardinals were the chief rival of my hometown Chicago Cubs (The Madeleine for a Chicagoan – LRC Blog). They were rivals due to the proximity of Chicago and St. Louis and because the Cardinals were the team to beat that always got the better of the Cubs. In 1967 they won the World Series against the Boston Red Sox in seven games and in 1968 they lost the series in seven games to the Detroit Tigers. The nine players represent the starting lineup and the superstar starting pitcher (Bob Gibson, 3rd from the left). Four are members of the baseball hall of fame (Gibson, Brock; Cepeda, and Schoendienst). Three are St. Louis area natives who spent almost their whole careers (as players and afterwards) with the team (Shannon, Maxvill, and Schoendienst).

Visually, it seems even more than contrived, more like photo shopped. If it first appeared today I would have thought it was generated by AI. The hats and uniforms stand out as colorized, almost suspended in air. I love the colors of the shirts and sweaters. Was the photo of manager Schoendienst added to the photo of the players? But now what is most striking to me is the appearance of the players as members of a team. There is a team look. Individuality is limited. Soon afterward this radically changed in sports and in American life in general. Look at the images below of the Cardinals of the early 70s. Long sideburns, facial hair and long hair quickly became the norm. Individuality took over, but they still looked alike!

Short summaries of the life and career of each player (from left to right) and their manager follow below.

Roger Maris – Wikipedia

Roger Eugene Maris (born Maras; September 10, 1934 – December 14, 1985) was an American professional baseball right fielder who played 12 seasons in Major League Baseball (MLB). He is best known for setting a new MLB single-season home run record with 61 home runs in 1961.

Maris played in the minor leagues from 1953 to 1956, and made his major league debut for the Cleveland Indians in 1957. He was traded to the Kansas City Athletics during the 1958 season, and to the New York Yankees after the 1959 season. Maris finished his playing career as a member of the St. Louis Cardinals in 1967 and 1968. Maris was an AL All-Star from 1959 through 1962,[a] the AL Most Valuable Player in 1960 and 1961, and an AL Gold Glove Award winner in 1960. Maris appeared in seven World Series; he played for Yankees teams that won the World Series in 1961 and 1962 and for a Cardinals team that won the World Series in 1967.

Maris’s home run record was controversial, as the previous single-season home run record (60, set by Babe Ruth in 1927) was set during a period when MLB teams played 154 games per season. Maris broke Ruth’s record in the year the AL baseball season was extended to 162 games, hitting his 61st home run in the last game of the season, which led to questions about the legitimacy of his record.[2] Maris’ major league record remained unbroken until Mark McGwire surpassed it in 1998; his AL record stood until 2022, when Aaron Judge hit 62 home runs for the New York Yankees.

Tim McCarver – Wikipedia

James Timothy McCarver (October 16, 1941 – February 16, 2023) was an American professional baseball catcher, television sports commentator, and singer.[1][2] He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) from 1959 to 1980 for four teams, spending almost all of his career with the St. Louis Cardinals and Philadelphia Phillies. A two-time All-Star, he helped the Cardinals to the 1964 World Series title, batting .478 in the Series, including a three-run home run in the tenth inning to win Game 5. In 1966, he became the first catcher since the 19th century to lead the National League (NL) in triples with 13. McCarver was runner-up for the 1967 NL Most Valuable Player Award, behind teammate Orlando Cepeda, after batting .295 and leading NL catchers in assists and fielding percentage.

Traded to the Phillies after the 1969 season, he was later re-joined by pitcher and St. Louis teammate Steve Carlton, becoming his regular catcher as the team won three division titles from 1976 to 1978. After increased use as a pinch hitter in his last several seasons, in September 1980, McCarver became the 18th major league player to play in four decades.

After his playing career, McCarver became a television color commentator, most notably for Fox Sports after previous stints with the other three broadcast networks. He eventually set a record by calling 23 World Series as well as 20 All-Star Games, earning three Emmy Awards in the process. In 2012, McCarver was named the Ford C. Frick Award recipient. He was inducted into the Sports Broadcasting Hall of Fame in 2016,[3][4] and the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame in 2017.

Bob Gibson – Wikipedia

Robert Gibson (November 9, 1935 – October 2, 2020), nicknamed “Gibby” and “Hoot”, was an American baseball pitcher in Major League Baseball who played his entire career for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1959 to 1975. Known for his fiercely competitive nature, Gibson tallied 251 wins, 3,117 strikeouts, and a 2.91 earned run average. A nine-time All-Star and two-time World Series Champion, he won two Cy Young Awards and the 1968 National League Most Valuable Player Award.

Born in Omaha, Nebraska, Gibson overcame childhood illness to excel in youth sports, particularly basketball and baseball. After briefly playing with the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team, he chose to pursue baseball and signed with the St. Louis Cardinals organization. He became a full-time starting pitcher in July 1961 and earned his first All-Star appearance in 1962. Gibson won 2 of 3 games he pitched in the 1964 World Series, then won 20 games in a season for the first time in 1965. Gibson also pitched three complete game victories in the 1967 World Series. He is one of four players and two pitchers to win multiple World Series MVPs.

The pinnacle of Gibson’s career was 1968, during the “Year of the Pitcher”, which is regarded as one of the greatest single pitching seasons of all-time; he posted a 1.12 ERA for the season and then recorded 17 strikeouts in Game 1 of the 1968 World Series. Gibson threw a no-hitter in 1971 but began experiencing swelling in his knee in subsequent seasons. At the time of his retirement in 1975, Gibson ranked second only to Walter Johnson among major-league pitchers in career strikeouts. When describing Gibson’s career, his former all-star teammate Tim McCarver jokingly remarked, “Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher in baseball. He always pitches when the other team doesn’t score any runs.”

He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1981, his first year of eligibility, and the Cardinals retired his uniform number 45 in September 1975, the year he retired. Gibson was later selected for the Major League Baseball All-Century Team in 1999. He died of pancreatic cancer on October 2, 2020.

In his day, St. Louis Cardinals great Bob Gibson was feared like no other pitcher – ESPN

“No pitcher I faced competed like Gibson,” Hank Aaron said. “He hated you when he pitched.” That was Bob Gibson, a fighter, a ferocious competitor, to the end.

Up close with Bob Gibson, a true baseball great – American Thinker

I expected Gibson to be a mean beast of a man as he appeared on the mound.  Rather, he was the nicest guy in camp — nicest by a wide margin amid a bakers’ dozen of nice guys that included renown nice guys Roy Campanella and Ernie Banks.  Gibson was cordial, humble, kind, considerate.  Disarmingly so. By most accounts, on the mound, Gibson was fearsome, if in normal life a complete gentleman (with emphasis on “gentle”).  How fearsome?  The internet tells us Gibson once hit Bill White with a pitch for crowding the plate — in an Old Timers’ game.

Mike Shannon – Wikipedia

Thomas Michael Shannon (July 15, 1939 – April 29, 2023) was an American professional baseball third baseman and right fielder. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1962 to 1970, and then worked as a Cardinals radio broadcaster from 1972 to 2021.

Shannon was raised in St. Louis, Missouri, and was an integral part of some of the Cards’ most successful seasons. He was a part of the 1964 World Series and 1967 World Series champions.

Shannon was the proprietor of Mike Shannon’s Steaks and Seafood restaurant in downtown St. Louis until it closed on January 30, 2016.[1] Shannon continued to operate two Mike Shannon’s Grill locations, in Edwardsville, Illinois, that closed in 2022, and at St. Louis Lambert International Airport, which is run by his grandson, Justin VanMatre.[2]

Mike Shannon – Society for American Baseball Research

Lou Brock – Wikipedia

He began his 19-year Major League Baseball (MLB) career with the 1961 Chicago Cubs but spent most of it as a left fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals. An All-Star for six seasons, Brock was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1985 in his first year of eligibility[1] and was inducted into the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame in 2014.

Best known for stealing bases,[2][3] Brock once held the major league records for most bases stolen in a single season and in a career. He led the National League (NL) in stolen bases in eight seasons. A member of the 3,000-hit club, he led the NL in doubles and triples in 1968, and in singles in 1972. In 1974, he was the runner-up for the NL Most Valuable Player Award. After retiring as a player, he served as a special instructor coach for the Cardinals.

Orlando Cepeda – Wikipedia

Orlando Manuel Cepeda Pennes (Spanish pronunciation: [oɾˈlando seˈpeða]; September 17, 1937 – June 28, 2024), nicknamed “the Baby Bull” and “Peruchin”, was a Puerto Rican first baseman in Major League Baseball who played for six teams from 1958 to 1974, primarily the San Francisco Giants. An 11-time All-Star, Cepeda was one of the most consistent power hitters in the National League (NL) through the 1960s and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1999.

Orlando Cepeda – Society for American Baseball Research

Curt Flood – Society for American Baseball Research

Flood’s legacy continues to benefit players more than ever, even if his name has been lost to history. Brad Snyder summarized Flood’s place in most contemporary players’ lives: “Today’s athletes have some control over where they play in part because in 1969 Flood refused to continue being treated like hired help. But while [Jackie] Robinson’s jersey has been retired in every major league park, few current players today know the name Curt Flood, and even fewer know about the sacrifices he made for them.”

Julián Javier – Wikipedia

is a Dominican former professional baseball second baseman. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) from 1960 to 1972, most prominently as a member of the St. Louis Cardinals where he became a two-time All-Star player, and was a member of two World Series winning teams (1964, 1967).

Dal Maxvill – Wikipedia

Maxvill’s best season with the bat was 1968 with the Cardinals. He set career highs in batting average (.253), on-base percentage (.329), and slugging percentage (.298). He also received his only Most Valuable Player award votes (finishing in twentieth place) and won his only Gold Glove.[2] In the World Series that year (the last of the pre-LCS era), he went 0-for-22, the worst performance in a World Series. It was also the worst hitless streak to start a postseason until 2022.

Red Schoendienst – Wikipedia

He played for 19 years with the Cardinals (1945–1956, 1961–1963), New York Giants (1956–1957) and Milwaukee Braves (1957–1960), and was named to 10 All Star teams. He then managed the Cardinals from 1965 through 1976 – the second-longest managerial tenure in the team’s history (behind Tony La Russa). Under his direction, St. Louis won the 1967 and 1968 National League pennants and the 1967 World Series, and he was named National League Manager of the Year in 1967 and 1968. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1989. At the time of his death, he had worn a Major League uniform for 74 consecutive years as a player, coach, or manager,[1][2][3] and had served 67 of his 76 years in baseball with the Cardinals.

The post A Photo of Cardinals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Studying the history of international relations is in some respects a study of forgetfulness. One generation is swept into the maelstrom of a great struggle against an evil adversary. After that generation dies, the next generation retains only a dim memory of what the old men of the previous generation were carrying on about. New resentments and antipathies form. The evil adversary of the past turns out to be not so bad after all, and former allies are subsequently regarded with contempt.

A couple of days ago, Germany’s weird new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, announced that Germany would invest hundreds of billions of Euros to rearm Germany. To my (semi) surprise, it seems that other EU countries think this is a swell idea. How quickly we forget the concerns of the recent past.

Observing this irony is especially strange for me, because I have long been of the unorthodox opinion that Roosevelt and Churchill made a huge mistake when they announced the policy of “unconditional surrender” at the Casablanca Conference of 1943.

They did this because they understood that the Russians were doing pretty much all of the fighting against Germany, which resulted in the Russian army and civilian population taking enormous losses—the kind of losses that Americans cannot even begin to fathom.

Stalin was worried the Anglo-Saxons might be tempted to negotiate a separate peace with German officers who didn’t like Hitler, and could be tempted to get rid of him if they were given assurances of being able to surrender on relatively favorable terms.

By announcing their “unconditional surrender” demand, Roosevelt and Churchill were trying to assuage Stalin’s fears. I have long perceived this to be a terrible mistake because it enabled the most fanatical elements of Nazi Germany to insist that there was no choice but to fight bis zur letzten Patrone—until the last cartridge.

It seems to me that the Americans and British should have supported and encouraged the German officers who attempted the July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler. After all, the war’s most destructive period—and the worst phase of the Jewish Holocaust—occurred between July 1944 and May 8, 1945.

Claus von Stauffenberg was a reasonable man. I knew his first cousin and childhood friend, Alexander von Uexküll, during the last years of his life in Vienna. He was a perfect gentleman, as moderate and sensible as they come.

Likewise, I always thought it strange that—after going to war with Germany because of its invasion of Poland in September 1939, the English (and later the Americans) turned a blind eye to the fact that the Russians also invaded Poland a week later.

Moreover, at the war’s conclusion—precipitated by the Red Army taking Berlin— Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to leave Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe more or less under Russian control.

In 1997, six years after the Russians threw in the towel, I thought it extremely strange that the Americans decided to revive the Cold War by expanding NATO to the east. I completely shared George Kennan’s sentiment that this was “A Fateful Error,” as he put it in the New York Times.

Now—on the eve of VE day—it seems to me that the Europeans have swung to the opposite extreme and completely forgotten that the Russians did most of the fighting against Nazi Germany and suffered tremendously for their effort.

On our side of the Atlantic, we Americans have no idea what it is like to be invaded like Russia was invaded by the German military in June 1941. Though estimates vary, it’s fairly well accepted that 27 million Russians were killed in the fighting that followed.

Most Americans and Englishmen today are unaware of the fact that Hitler had no interest in fighting France and England. He mistakenly believed they would not perceive their interests to be threatened by his military ambitions against Russia, and that they would prefer to make peace with Germany instead of fighting over Poland.

Hitler seems to have mistakenly believed that the English and French shared his passionate hatred of what he called “Bolshevism.” As he put it in Mein Kampf:

Never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common blood-stained criminals; that they are the scum of humanity which, favoured by circumstances, overran a great state in a tragic hour, slaughtered out thousands of her leading intelligentsia in wild bloodlust, and now for almost ten years have been carrying on the most cruel and tyrannical regime of all time.

Furthermore, do not forget that these rulers belong to a race which combines, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying, and which today more than ever is conscious of a mission to impose its bloody oppression on the whole world.

I suspect that with with only minor modifications of the above language to make it a little less brutal, it would be perfectly acceptable to express this sentiment in polite liberal American society today—naturally without revealing the author.

This shows how much popular sentiment can change in thirty years. When I was studying political philosophy in the 1990s, I read all of the literature on Bolshevik atrocities, including Stalin’s intentional starving of Ukraine in 1932-1933. I was often surprised to discover that most American liberals were apparently unaware of this history. Back then, they were too obsessed with Hitler’s crimes to learn anything about Stalin’s.

When Alger Hiss died in 1996, I was surprised by the mildness of the New York Times obituary of Stalin’s spy at Yalta, which included paragraphs such as the following:

Others had come to suspect that Mr. Hiss had lied, but were inclined to excuse him on the grounds that the times had changed, that steps taken to help the Soviet Union during the rise of Hitler in the 1930’s might have been condoned at that time, but looked quite different in the late 1940’s after the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe, the start of the Cold War and widespread disclosure of Stalin’s crimes.

This struck me as totally disingenuous. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knew about Stalin’s crimes in the 1930s, despite the efforts of Walter Duranty—the New York Times Bureau Chief in Moscow—to conceal them.

Now the same New York Times-reading set who “were inclined to excuse” Hiss have become rabidly anti-Russian and wouldn’t even consider moderate proposals like Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine.

Again I find myself scratching my head. For years, I’ve gotten the persistent impression that Russia sought a mutually beneficial relationship with the West, and especially with Germany. The Nord Stream pipeline was emblematic of this aspiration.

For years, it seemed to me that the U.S. government was doing everything in its power in Ukraine to provoke an aggressive Russian response. Recently, a Ukrainian friend told me that she’d had the same perception for many years, and marveled at Putin’s restraint.

Tomorrow, May 8, 2025—the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day—I will (as always) think about my grandfather, John Sears, who was wounded multiple times fighting the Germans in Italy, and my great uncle, Bobby Weichsel, who was killed in action in Italy.

I will also solemnly contemplate the 5.7 million Russian soldiers who died fighting Nazi Germany.

If Europe’s leaders had a shred of common sense, they would use the anniversary as an occasion for talking with the Russians about ending the war in Ukraine.

Doing so will require regarding Russia as a country worthy of respect, with legitimate security concerns and legitimate economic interests, such as supplying German industry with natural gas without being terrorized by the United States government representing American liquified natural gas interests.

Doing so will also require recognizing that Vladimir Putin does not resemble Adolf Hitler, who fantasized for years about destroying Russia, leveling Moscow, and covering the ancient city with an artificial lake.

Finally, doing so will require Europe’s leaders to grow up and cease acting like petulant 13-year-olds.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post VE Day: When America Cheered Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.