Aggregatore di feed

In 1989, a courageous young woman exposed the satanic Jewish forebears of the Illuminati cult that now dominates the world. They are Sabbatean Frankists who hate assimilated Jews as much as goyim.

On May 1, 1989, a “nice Jewish girl”, age 29, Vicki Polin appeared on the Oprah Show and said her family was part of a satanic cult that dates back to the 1700s.

Although they appear to be upstanding citizens — lawyers, doctors, police officers etc. — they engage in Satanic ritual human sacrifice, incest and cannibalism, often in synagogues. They drink blood and eat babies.

She is describing the Illuminati which originated in the Frankist Movement in the Eighteenth Century. Jacob Frank, born Jacob Leibowitz (1726-1791) led a major Satanic heresy that shook the Jewish world. They believed that the Messiah would return if the world went over to evil completely. Thus they encouraged all sexual license and satanic evil as the ultimate good.

Financed by the Frankist Rothschild banking syndicate, they subverted other Jews and the goyim by assuming every religious and political hue. They took over Freemasonry and are now in the final stage of establishing their world government, a.k.a “globalization.”

The incest abuse Polin suffered is a textbook example of how Illuminati families –Jews and non-Jews– treat their children. George W. Bush and Barack Obama may have suffered similar trauma and, (like Polin) have multiple personality disorder. Vicki is from Chicago and there is no telling how many Chicagoans surrounding Barack Obama are part of this satanic cult. Think Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett.

THE OPRAH INTERVIEW

Polin told Oprah that she witnessed babies sacrificed and consumed for the “power” this gave. These babies are bred within the extended family for this purpose.  She said she was raped several times, and elsewhere says she had five abortions due to intercourse with her father.

Polin said her family was “extremely involved” in these practices. Her mother is “on the human relations commission of the town that she lives in, and she’s an upstanding citizen. Nobody would suspect her. Nobody would suspect anybody involved in it. There are police officers involved in it. There’s, you know, doctors, lawyers…”

“I mean, to the outside world, everything we did was proper and right, and then there were the nights that things changed, that things just got turned around. What was wrong was right, and what was right was wrong. That’s what helps to create some of them to develop MPD.”

Polin’s therapist, Tina Grossman was on the show but not on YouTube. She told Oprah she had treated over 40 survivors from many states and Canada. They have never met each other yet say the “identical same things.”

Ms GROSSMAN: They are describing identical rituals, just the same as, since I’m Jewish, you could go to New York or California and describe a seder in one state or another and, as a Jew, you would recognize it. This is the belief system in evil and the power that evil gives you, and so it has these certain rituals, so they are very similar with all of the survivors.

OPRAH: See, but I am very surprised because the Jewish faith is the Jewish faith and worshipping the devil is not a part of the Jewish faith. I mean, Jewish people do not worship the devil.

Ms GROSSMAN: But before there was Christ and before there was a system of one God, there was Paganism- and it still exists in the world, and in many cultures, you still find the belief that there are strength and power in the actual consumption of human flesh or animal flesh.

The surprising origins of the idea that billionaire Bill Gates wants to feed you insects.

If you are someone like me — interested in issues like climate change, food systems and alternatives proteins — and you engage with these topics online, you may find yourself inundated with comments and replies about billionaire Bill Gates. I’m told, often, that Gates has a particular agenda when it comes to food.

“Bill Gates wants to get rid of the cattle industry, and have people eat his FAKE MEAT,” writes one commenter, adding, “Bill Gates wants us to eat bugs as well.” It’s a conspiracy theory that has picked up substantial steam in certain corners of the internet. But where did the Bill Gates bug-eating conspiracy come from, and how has the media been used to perpetuate it? In this explainer, we go back to the origins of the story that one of the world’s most famous billionaires wants to feed you insects.

History of Bug-Eating

The culinary tradition of eating insects is not new. Humans have eaten bugs for millennia, tracing back to prehistoric times when insects were a common part of diets worldwide.

Early humans foraged for bugs, and some Indigenous cultures consumed them as a protein source. Ancient Greeks and Romans savored locusts, while in Asia, edible insects became delicacies, where they remain so today. Colonization and industrialization led to a decline in bug consumption in some societies, branding it taboo and culturally “gross.”

While some early colonizers did partake in insect-eating, there was a push to move towards more European ways of eating — farming and slaughtering animals for meat. Colonizers, notes Atlas Obscura, “weaponized unfamiliar practices — including insect eating — as a sign of Native Americans’ inferiority.”

Insects as a Sustainable Food Source

In North America and Europe today, insects remain mostly off the menu, but the idea of bugs as a “future food” has been bandied about since the 2010s, when researchers and startups began looking into sustainable alternatives to meat.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations published a report in 2009 entitled How to Feed the World in 2050, stating that food production would need to increase by 70 percent in the next forty plus years to feed a larger and more prosperous global population. Annual meat production, states the report “will need to rise by over 200 million tonnes to reach 470 million tonnes”  — enough to fill the plates of 9.7 billion people, by UN estimates.

In 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled The Six-Legged Meat of the Future, positioning insects as a sustainable protein alternatives — high in protein but with a much lower environmental footprint. Then in 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation granted $100,000 to All Things Bugs, LLC to “develop a method for the efficient production of nutritionally dense food using insect species.”

The next year in 2013, the FAO released a subsequent report titled “Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security,” which advocated for the nutritional and environmental benefits of consuming insects.

That same year, the first cultured meat burger was developed and showcased to the world in 2013. And by 2016, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were launching their first meat-like plant-based burgers.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Global Elite’s End Goal is to Force-feed Humanity Food Sources Like Bugs, Feces, and — as Some Are Now Alleging — Human Remains. appeared first on LewRockwell.

A long time ago when I was a kid, our local hospital was one of the rocks of our community. While it was not usually a destination of choice, you had confidence that the hospital was there solely for the purpose of taking care of you or your family when something went wrong. The hospital was a distinct entity, separate from the various businesses in town whose primary and necessary objective was to turn a profit.

I would hazard to guess that if some speculator came in who wanted to buy the hospital, leverage it up to the hilt, squeeze every last nickel out of it by skimping on supplies, cancel vital services and risk running it into the ground, well, that speculator would have been run out of town on a rail.

Those days are gone.

Private equity firms are doing just that – and their tentacles in health care are growing. Last year, they owned 460 hospitals, according to the Private Equity Stakeholder Project’s hospital tracker. Now, they own 488 hospitals. That represents:

• 8.5% of all private hospitals
• 22.6% of all for-profit hospitals
• At least 27.7% of private equity-owned hospitals serve rural populations, which generally have a higher percentage of financially vulnerable patients and fewer healthcare options

The growth in PE-owned hospitals raises a myriad of ethical questions. While the bottom line is important to all hospitals, whether non-profit or for-profit, PE-owned hospitals are on a different level in emphasizing profits, and the consequences can be devastating as we are about to find out.

Cerberus and Steward Health Care

Steward Health Care, the nation’s largest for-profit hospital group, filed for bankruptcy in May 2024. The story of Steward is a tragic tale and is seen by many as indisputable proof that when a private equity fund, such as the one managed by PE giant Cerberus Capital Management, purchases hospitals and treats them strictly as financial assets, terrible things can and do happen.

According to Cerberus, they were Mother Teresa, investing to save a struggling healthcare provider, while making a profit for their investors and leaving Steward in fine shape when they exited in 2020.

Shortly before the 2024 bankruptcy, Cerberus slobbered:

Cerberus’ initial investment in Steward in 2010 not only rescued but restored six struggling Massachusetts hospitals on the verge of closing that were critical to their communities. During our nearly 11-year ownership of Steward, we supported the revitalization of failing community hospitals into a leading healthcare system. Cerberus’ long-term investment made it possible for Steward to continue to serve its communities, employ tens of thousands of professionals, and positively impact millions of patients’ lives.

Cerberus also felt the need to mention that an investment from a Cerberus fund was essentially an investment made possible by “millions of teachers, firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and municipal workers as well as other pension funds, universities, and endowments.”

Salt of the earth helps salt of the earth.

However, Cerberus danced around the important fact that they and their investors were not charities.

The teachers and first responders (their pension funds), as well as Cerberus expected a significant return on their investment, and they expected it within five to 10 years. Therefore, it’s reasonable to ask what kind of return the Cerberus fund and its limited partners (the teachers and first responders) could expect from an investment in 37 struggling, indebted hospitals in Massachusetts, and later Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Struggling hospitals don’t jump out as a good private equity investment. They required significant time, money and a lot of risk. So, if you’re wondering why PE firms would buy so many hospitals, think of McDonald’s.

In the 2016 film “The Founder,” Ray Kroc is struggling to turn a profit on the 13 McDonald’s franchises he has granted. A young man named Harry Sonneborn immediately diagnoses Kroc’s problem and reveals the magic formula that makes him a billionaire:

“You’re not in the burger business. You’re in the real estate business.”

The same is true for Cerberus. Hospitals are an annoyance to get what they really want, which is to use the hospital’s real estate to suck out their investment and profits.

Many of the hospitals purchased by private equity have owned both the buildings and land with low levels of debt, some with none at all. Getting at that unencumbered real estate is where private equity hits pay-dirt using an age-old real estate strategy called “Sale and Leaseback.”

Working hand in hand with private equity firms are real estate investment trusts (REITs), which have $185 billion in healthcare holdings. Private equity managers like Cerberus sell a hospital group’s land and buildings to the REITs and turn a huge profit.

Meanwhile, the REIT portfolios the property, earning a steady stream of lease income from the target hospital and because they are a REIT, the income is tax free. The hospitals no longer own their real estate and are now on the hook for millions of dollars in lease payments to the REIT for years to come.

This is exactly what Cerberus did.

Read the Whole Article

The post Private Equity and Hospitals: Have They Finally Gone Too Far? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The last dozen years have been tragic; now we have work ahead of us.

It is so much easier to destroy than to build. It takes barely a second and hardly any effort to tear something down; it requires no imagination, dedication, or moral perseverance.

Watch a young child carefully build a crenellated castle out of blocks, an all-day labor of love, then proudly display his work to his parents. Watch another child eye the enjoyment and casually kick the castle down in an instant. The ratio of time and energy is 100 to 1.

A man can start his own business with a product he invented, building up something useful to the community—and a destroyer can come along with no expertise at all and burn the business down, physically or through commercial dirty tricks.

A parent pours all of his or her heart and life into raising a child, but a malefactor can come along and damage or destroy that child in a single moment. The ratio is incalculable.

It’s so easy to destroy.

It requires character, vision, and energy to build something, but absolutely anyone can destroy. The ratio is so overwhelming in favor of destruction that it’s a wonder we build anything at all. It’s all so fragile.

Pope Francis destroyed. I don’t speak to his intention, only his actions.

The destruction is not irrevocable, but there are a lot of gaping bomb craters and tumbled walls in the structure that took thousands of years to build. And it will require people with intelligence, virtue, and especially unshakable faith to rebuild what we have just witnessed being so cruelly and systematically destroyed.

When the surviving remnant of Judah came back to Jerusalem from Babylon, around 540 B.C., the Holy City was in tumbled ruins, a blackened, rotting, boneyard of shattered memories. It wasn’t just brick and mortar that had to be relaid; it was the moral capacity of the people to be willing to invest themselves all over again. How could they sink themselves into the work of rebuilding when the memory of what was once glorious was still a stinging sorrow in their souls?

It required constant encouragement from the leaders to put steel into the backbone of the returned exiles. They’d made the journey, they had permission, the materials lay ready, but the people were easily frightened into abandoning the work. It could be destroyed all over again, after all.

Will we have the heart and courage to rebuild the Church after the devastation of the recent past?

Perhaps the most grievous and insidious destruction, besides the people, communities, dioceses, and institutes, is a great intangible: the honor of Christ’s Church. After the twelve-year pontificate of Pope Francis, the Church is not taken seriously any more.

Christ’s own Church. Not taken seriously. That is damage of cosmic proportions.

Does the Church still teach that homosexual acts are a grave evil? Most of the world no longer knows. Can women be priests? The Synod on Synodality managed to convey a hopeful uncertainty. Does the Church even believe that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant? The rot has eaten away to the very foundations.

The Church was once perceived to have definitive teachings about certain things, flowing from the deposit of faith left by Jesus through the apostles. Those teachings may not have been universally popular, but they were clear. Now all we have is a shrug and a weaselly, “Who am I to say?” about critical, life-altering, eternal questions.

I remember leading a group of young adults to World Youth Day 2011 in Madrid. They were twitterpated, as any youth would be, at the prospect of an overseas trip to see one of the most recognized and significant men in the world. I was slightly concerned about how they would react to Pope Benedict’s soft-spoken, scholarly demeanor. Pope John Paul II had a rockstar persona that shone brilliantly at World Youth Days, but Benedict? I was afraid he’d bomb.

As pope, Benedict would never take the chance of accidentally misstating some article of faith or morals by speaking off the cuff, so he read his remarks. And the kids hung on his words like puppies begging for a Snausage. It didn’t matter that reading gave him a somewhat monotonous delivery; they wanted to hear every word he dropped, like baby birds in the nest. They jostled (mostly politely) to get closer to him. That is the power of the deposit of faith. It calls to the heart and mind, no matter how it is delivered.

Pope Benedict’s serious delivery was received in a serious manner. A person speaking casually is received in a casual manner.

Abusers (abusers, for goodness’ sake) have enjoyed papal protection and promotion under Pope Francis. Agreements that concern millions of Catholics have been negotiated by scurrilous, defiled men. We saw a convicted embezzler requesting to be allowed to vote in the conclave, when the ungodly tangle of Vatican finances has not even begun to be unsnarled. Could the image of our beautiful Church be any more sullied? (A risky thing to say, since Satan takes it as a challenge.)

Read the Whole Article

The post Make Straight the Way appeared first on LewRockwell.

The issue of sovereignty had been a hotly debated topic among the Revolutionary-era colonists.    In The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution historian Bernard Bailyn says that in “The last analysis it was over this issue that the Revolution was fought.”  Thomas Hobbes, writing in the mid-seventeenth century, Bailyn continues, argued that the only requirement of a sovereign was the capacity to compel obedience, which didn’t necessarily mean the king.

Final, unqualified, indivisible power was . . . only one part of the notion of sovereignty as it was understood by Englishmen on the eve of the American Revolution. The other concerns its location. Who, or what body, was to hold such powers?

Im John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government he said man’s natural liberty was to be free from any power other than the laws of nature, but when people associate with one another, this changes slightly: “The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent.”

When Thomas Jefferson reluctantly undertook the task of writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, in addition to a list of indictments against the King, his rough draft included thoughts acknowledging what was required for people to get along peacefully:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Notwithstanding the issue of slavery, Lockean natural rights dominated intellectual discourse in the colonies, and Jefferson stayed the course in his draft and revisions.

In his absorbing work Patriots, A. J. Langguth tells us, “The ideas [Jefferson] would be including had been in the air for many years, and he knew the arguments so well that he didn’t need books or pamphlets in front of him as he wrote. . . ”  Jefferson had a list of essential books that in addition to those by Locke included Thomas Reid’s Inquiry into the Human Mind, in which he argued that moral truths could be reached through reason or presented as self-evident “to every man of understanding and morality.”  Thus, in revising his draft, Jefferson

struck out “sacred and undeniable” and wrote in “self evident.” He continued through his draft, paring words away to make his language bolder.

Government was to be established “by consent” of the governed.  “By consent” — did this answer the question of sovereignty?  Did Americans secede from England to establish sovereignty in a domestic body formed by the consent of the governed that would guarantee Jeffersonian liberty to those who granted consent?  And was this consent to be unanimous?  If not, what then?  Did their ideas on consent need refining?

In 1760, an impetuous but erudite lawyer, James Otis, had argued a writs of assistance case in Boston against his tutor in law, Jeremiah Gridley.  A young John Adams was in attendance, taking notes furiously. In defending the principle of a search warrant, Gridley argued, per Langguth,

How could a state protect itself against foreign enemies or subversives at home? Which was more important, protecting the liberty of an individual or collecting the taxes efficiently? Gathering public money must take precedence.

After Gridley finished, “in wig and black gown, James Otis stood up to speak, and something profound changed in America.”  To Adams, “Otis rose in the hall like a flame of fire. He seemed to overflow with dates, events, legal precedents, classical allusions.”

What did Otis say that shook the foundations of political theory?

Every man was his own sovereign, subject to laws engraved on his heart and revealed to him by his Maker. No other creature on earth could legitimately challenge a man’s right to his life, his liberty and his property. That principle, that unalterable law, took precedence—here Otis was answering Gridley directly—even over the survival of the state. [Emphasis mine]

In January 1776, six months before Jefferson authored his draft, Thomas Paine published Common Sense that denied the sovereignty of the king, claiming he originated as “the principal ruffian of some restless gang.”  Over time, the idea of hereditary rights developed and were crammed “down the throats of the vulgar” to add a false sense of dignity to the monarch.  “What at first was submitted to as a convenience,” Paine concludes, “was afterwards claimed as a right.”  To Paine, having a sovereign had been a convenience until it wasn’t.

Years later, in Paine’s Rights of Man, Part II, he clarified his position on government:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.

Do you get the impression Paine is describing the power of the free market?  If sovereignty implies ultimate power in a social setting, we should abandon the idea of consent to what turned out to be a robber state and allow the market to prevail.

In America it’s apparent the sovereign is not even the occupant of the Oval Office, but the Deep State (see THE DEEP STATE ENCYCLOPEDIA : Exposing the Cabal’s Playbook).  Étienne de La Boétie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, written as a teenager in 16th century France, argues that people are in charge of their own subjugation.  The solution?  Stop cooperating.  Allow your latent love of liberty to prevail over obedience to a false sovereign.

I have suggested ways of accomplishing this here.

The post Reclaiming Sovereignty appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

DropSite News

The post Israeli Airstrikes Decimate the Last Restaurant in Gaza City in Nightmarish Bloodbath appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

Yahoo News

The post Support by Americans for Israel Has Declined appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mark Kaplan wrote:

The post Role model Murray Rothbard, not Jimmy Fallon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Lifesite News

The post Globalists who proclaim ‘existential threats’ to justify tyranny are the real threats we face appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Lifesite News

The post Thousands protest proposed Australian state law to force Catholic hospitals to commit abortions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Andreatta G.:

Lew,

What do Palantir, NATO, assorted tech companies, defense contractors, the Israelis, and, last but not least, the U.S. government have in common? Answer: Conspiring to create a souped-up version of Project Maven meant to control, predict, and suppress populations, leading to “militarized technofascism on a planetary scale.”

The post Project Maven militarized technofascism appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Did Congress Kill DOGE? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Responsible Statecraft

The post ADL takes on shareholders questioning Israel arms sales appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Al Jazeera

The post From Gaza to Vietnam, what is the value of a photo? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Al Jazeera

The post Meet the Jewish students speaking to US lawmakers about Columbia’s protests 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/io-bitcoin)

I lettori del mio blog sanno che ho iniziato a interessarmi di Bitcoin alla fine del 2022.

Infatti è stato l'asset con le migliori performance tra tutti i titoli che ho menzionato e che stavo tenendo d'occhio per il 2023. Allo stesso modo, e per non rovinare la suspense, ho aggiunto di nuovo l'esposizione a Bitcoin alla mia lista di 24 titoli che stavo tenendo d'occhio nel 2024.

Forse non è stata una grande sorpresa quando ieri i miei iscritti mi hanno visto su X proclamare che i miei giorni di disprezzo per Bitcoin erano finiti. Tuttavia, dato che ho circa 210.000 follower su Twitter in più rispetto agli iscritti su Substack, si può dire che ci sono state comunque molte persone colte di sorpresa dal mio mea culpa e, cosa un po' allarmante, ancora più persone disposte a tessere immediatamente le mie lodi e a darmi il benvenuto nella community.

Per quanto riguarda il benvenuto, tutto ciò che posso dire è che lo apprezzo sinceramente. Mentirei se dicessi che un folto gruppo di persone che la considerava una decisione intelligente non mi avesse reso un po' nervoso. Tuttavia, come ho detto ieri nel mio post su X, so di essere circondato anche da persone molto più intelligenti di me.

In particolare coloro nella comunità del denaro sano/onesto, i quali tessono le lodi della loro esperienza con Bitcoin. Per me questa è stata la cosa più difficile da ignorare, e mi riferivo a persone come Lawrence Lepard, Luke Gromen e Lyn Alden per le loro incredibili intuizioni sul sistema monetario corrotto. Mi sono chiesto: perché non provare almeno a prenderli sul serio quando si trattava del loro punto di vista su Bitcoin? Sapevo, nel profondo, che avevano fatto un lavoro e raggiunto una comprensione che io non avevo, pur comprendendone alcuni principi fondamentali.

Ho iniziato ad avere un assaggio di questa comprensione ascoltando il mio amico Lawrence Lepard descrivere Bitcoin come un'invenzione a sé stante nel seguente podcast del dicembre 2022, paragonandolo a un parallelo di Internet, anziché a una semplice applicazione software.

In questa intervista l'ha definito “l'invenzione della scarsità digitale”. Onestamente, non avevo idea di cosa significasse, e l'idea di “scarsità digitale” non mi sembrava poi così nuova. Ho semplicemente scrollato le spalle e ho pensato: “Se Bitcoin può farlo, anche le altre criptovalute possono farlo”. Mi sono chiesto: “Come può qualcosa essere scarso quando non esisteva in modo tangibile e sicuramente non esisteva 15 anni fa?”

Naturalmente, come una chiave usa più denti contemporaneamente per aprire una serratura fisica, Bitcoin ha iniziato ad avere senso per me solo dopo averlo compreso nel contesto del funzionamento della rete: tutti i denti della chiave (l'ideologia, la rete, l'invenzione crittografica) si allineano, contribuendo a sbloccarne la comprensione. Innanzitutto ho dovuto capire come funziona la crittografia di Bitcoin e perché è inattaccabile e, per il momento, il massimo della sicurezza. Ci sono riuscito guardando questo video:

In seguito ho dovuto comprendere il sistema di controlli e contrappesi che la rete crea per garantire la propria integrità. Certo, avevo capito l'idea di un registro decentralizzato che tutti potevano controllare: era relativamente semplice. Quello che non capivo veramente era come la maggior parte dei nodi sulla rete, che eseguivano lo stesso codice, mantenesse Bitcoin sacrosanto finché le persone avessero deciso di volerlo. Avevo sentito parlare di fork nella rete, ma solo dopo li ho capiti. Sono momenti in cui le persone pensavano di saperne di più e di dover riscrivere il codice di Bitcoin. La maggior parte dei nodi ha respinto queste idee, proteggendo così la sacralità del codice Bitcoin originale.

Una volta compresi la crittografia e la sicurezza della rete, è diventato ovvio che più la rete si espande e aumenta la sua adozione, più diventa sicura e indistruttibile. L'idea che la gente “la vieti” o, come ha detto un mio amico, che “Satoshi torni per cambiare l'offerta di monete quando vuole” non ha molto senso una volta capito come funziona. Se la gente vuole la rete Bitcoin e ha energia elettrica e una connessione Internet, la otterrà. La rete è come un pesce scivoloso che qualcuno cerca di afferrare: più lo tieni stretto e più cerchi di controllarlo, più velocemente ti sfugge di mano. Se il Canada la vieta, andrà in Messico. Se il Messico la vieta, i nodi andranno alle Mauritius. Se le Mauritius la vietano, i nodi andranno in Russia. Ci sarà sempre un posto nel mondo – almeno nel breve e medio termine – che accoglierà Bitcoin.

Per me è stato solo dopo aver capito come funzionava la crittografia e come la rete interagiva, in tandem, che ho iniziato ad attribuire a Bitcoin l'importantissimo “valore intrinseco”. Ero, e in un certo senso sono ancora, nel gruppo che vede l'oro come hard asset predefinito, grazie alla sua offerta come materia prima e alla sua storia di gran lunga superiore come riserva di valore. Ecco perché, nonostante abbia accettato l'idea su Bitcoin, la mia posizione sull'oro resta maggiore rispetto alla mia posizione su Bitcoin.

Ma i sostenitori di Bitcoin portano argomenti convincenti quando sottolineano che esso è più facile da trasportare e da verificare rispetto all'oro. Mi sono sempre trovato in difficoltà quando qualcuno mi chiedeva come avrei potuto portare oltre confine oro per un valore di $1 miliardo. Non si può fare. Con Bitcoin, però, si può. Anche se gli exchange sono soggetti a normative AML e KYC, Bitcoin stesso rimane una via d'uscita dalla centralizzazione del proprio patrimonio. L'idea, unita alla trasmissibilità e alla possibilità di verificarlo ovunque nel mondo in qualsiasi momento con una semplice connessione Internet e la corrente elettrica, lo rendono diverso da qualsiasi cosa sia mai esistita prima.

Per quanto mi riguarda non riuscivo sempre a capire esattamente cosa stavo comprando quando ho comprato Bitcoin. Ho dovuto convincermi a capirlo, descrivendolo a me stesso come l'acquisto di un posto su un registro decentralizzato con la più alta adozione a livello mondiale, che potenzialmente – non definitivamente – servirà da fondamento per un nuovo modo di pensare al denaro. In altre parole, si tratta di riservarsi un posto sul registro piuttosto che investire nell'invenzione di Bitcoin stesso. È un'idea davvero grandiosa – e il mio cervello è davvero piccolo – ed è per questo che ci ho messo così tanto a capirla. Ma, come si dice, “una volta che la vedi, non puoi più non vederla”.

E, come ogni altro investimento che faccio in qualcosa di nuovo che non è stato ancora pienamente adottato, accetto il fatto che ci siano rischi significativi e che il valore di Bitcoin potrebbe scendere notevolmente, o addirittura azzerarsi. Secondo me non accadrà, o almeno non nel breve termine. Anche nello scenario peggiore in cui Bitcoin non arrivi a 100 anni da oggi, penso che la sua adozione nei prossimi 5-10 anni sia già stata scontata.

In particolare, ascoltare Michael Saylor mi ha aiutato ad aprire gli occhi sul fatto che stavo acquistando proprietà digitali. Quest'intervista è tanto lunga quanto completa, e mi è piaciuta molto. Che Saylor si riveli il vero sostenitore di Bitcoin o la persona più fuorviata della storia, è difficile negare che non sia eccezionalmente intelligente e dotato di un'ottima parlantina:

Questa è un'altra lunga e complessa intervista che ho ascoltato per intero e in modo approfondito, e che mi ha aiutato a comprendere la rete e tutti i componenti che interagiscono e che costituiscono l'ecosistema Bitcoin:

E quindi, quando Saylor pone una domanda del tipo, “quanto tempo pensi che passerà prima che tutti i cellulari e i computer siano dotati di wallet Bitcoin?”, la risposta mi sembra ovvia: non passerà molto. Quindi, dal punto di vista dell'adozione, che si tratti o meno di 100 anni, al momento, è per lo più irrilevante. È come il potenziale impatto dell'informatica quantistica: ho ascoltato entrambe le parti in causa e ho praticamente accettato la posizione secondo cui si tratta di un ponte che dovremo attraversare quando ci arriveremo. Ehi, se questo ragionamento è abbastanza valido per Janet Yellen che guarda il nostro debito/PIL esplodere verso un punto di non ritorno, è abbastanza valido anche per me.

Ma il fatto che le agenzie di regolamentazione abbiano benedetto Bitcoin consentendo gli ETF, e che io possa andare su Twitter e vedere spot pubblicitari di gestori patrimoniali super seri come Franklin Templeton e Fidelity, che parlano di Bitcoin come una solida copertura monetaria e un modo per uscire dal sistema monetario globale gestito dalle banche centrali, è sbalorditivo.

È buffo come, una volta che ci sono delle commissioni in gioco, la gente sia felice di sostenere quella che ho sempre ritenuto la ragione moralmente giusta per inveire contro le banche centrali – la ragione che aspetto da tempo affinché la gente sostenga pubblicamente l'oro. In ogni caso, non mi interessa molto la vostra motivazione quando fate delle ottime osservazioni.

Proprio la settimana scorsa ho sentito qualcuno dire che tutti gli acquirenti di Bitcoin sono speculatori, non persone che cercano seriamente di uscire dal sistema monetario così com'è oggi, a lungo termine – e semplicemente non credo che sia la verità. Credo che ci siano molte persone là fuori, come me, che cercano solo di diversificare per uscire da un sistema fiat ormai in rovina, e Bitcoin è solo uno dei tanti modi per farlo.

Non c'è dubbio che ci saranno innumerevoli speculatori e trader. Non c'è dubbio che ci saranno truffatori e un'infinità di altcoin di bassa qualità. Non c'è dubbio che ci saranno frodi e riciclaggio di denaro, proprio come con il dollaro e i titoli registrati. Ma dire che questo sia tutto ciò che c'è in Bitcoin è un errore, a mio parere.

Basta che ci sia solo un piccolo gruppo di persone che continui ad acquistarlo e detenerlo in futuro per poi consumare e ridurre lo spazio sul registro. Se l'hashrate o l'adozione collettiva della rete fossero in calo, sarebbe un problema. Ma per ora non lo è. Non potete dirmi che un Paese come El Salvador che adotta Bitcoin come moneta a corso legale sia “speculazione”. Per me questa è “adozione”. C'è una grande differenza tra un paio di ragazzini in una chat room che cercano di fare daytrading di shitcoin e alcuni dei più grandi gestori patrimoniali del mondo, e persino alcuni stati che sostengono di voler piazzare la loro proprietà digitale nel registro, mentre milioni di persone in tutto il mondo acquistano Bitcoin solo per possederli. L'idea che tutti i coinvolti siano truffatori o stiano cercando di arricchirsi è, a mio parere, fuorviante. Per me c'è un'enorme differenza tra “cercare di arricchirsi rapidamente” e “cercare di preservare la ricchezza a lungo termine”. Indipendentemente da ciò che Bitcoin fa, la mia motivazione sarà sempre la seconda.

Il prezzo continuerà a essere volatile, ma è anche abbastanza facile giustificare il suo aumento. Se domani pago $200.000 per una casa e non faccio nulla, e non c'è un aumento della domanda, ma il potere d'acquisto del dollaro scende del 99% nei prossimi 50 anni, il prezzo in dollari continuerà a salire. Con Bitcoin c'è il vento in poppa dell'adozione globale, il vantaggio di un'offerta limitata e un crescente risveglio ideologico che ne sostiene l'esistenza morale ed etica.

È stato divertente ascoltare podcast su Bitcoin negli ultimi mesi, perché tutti iniziano la loro spiegazione esponendo gli orrori del sistema monetario fiat. Sono stato fortunato, nel senso che capisco già come funziona, come le maree, che si alzano e scendono, erodendo il potere d'acquisto delle persone e trasferendolo allo stato. Questa è stata una delle mie argomentazioni di lunga data a favore del possesso di oro. Man mano che Bitcoin continua ad essere adottato, diventa anche un'ottima ragione per possederlo, a mio parere. Una cosa che ho sempre detto su Bitcoin è che apprezzo quanto abbia aperto gli occhi a persone che normalmente non avrebbero compreso gli orrori della MMT e della politica monetaria globale.

Ciò che sarà ancora più interessante da vedere, a mio parere, è la FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) quando, e se, il prezzo supererà di nuovo i massimi storici. Se il prezzo di Bitcoin continua ad andare bene, i gestori patrimoniali che ora non hanno scuse per non acquistare Bitcoin (dato che ci sono ETF che operano all'interno del sistema in cui sono autorizzati a operare) saranno sommersi dalle chiamate dei loro clienti che si chiedono perché non abbiano alcuna esposizione a tale asset, anche se non lo capiscono.

E qui non stiamo parlando di GameStop, il che significa che una volta iniziata la FOMO sul prezzo, non ci sarà alcuna offerta azionaria at-the-money che arriverà e si diluirà a prezzi più alti. Se la corsa all'“accaparramento di tutto quello che puoi mangiare” sul libro mastro inizierà sul serio, non ci sarà nessuna nuova offerta che arriverà magicamente dal nulla per soddisfarla. Con la capitalizzazione di mercato totale di Bitcoin, mi sembra logico che i Paesi mediorientali super-ricchi saranno probabilmente i prossimi ad adottarlo e a inserirlo nei loro bilanci.

Molti podcast che ho ascoltato parlano di stati che minano Bitcoin ma non ne parlano. A un certo punto, è probabile che le luci si accendano a livello globale e tutti vedranno cosa detengono gli altri. Immagino che alcuni Paesi mediorientali ricchi di petrolio, anche se lo considerano un'opzione call con il potenziale di andare a zero, si diletteranno a inserire Bitcoin nei loro bilanci sovrani per cercare di diversificare e scommettere sul futuro del denaro. Queste persone guidano Bugatti per andare al lavoro e tengono tigri come animali domestici. Dire che non hanno abbastanza soldi per “speculare” sul potenziale futuro del denaro è ridicolo.

E poi, ancora una volta, torniamo a Bitcoin e la rete, e a come si integrano e lavorano in tandem. Più viene adottato, più diventa sicuro, più persone vogliono investirci, più diventa praticabile e diffuso. Bitcoin, per me, è l'equivalente del codice open source di una profezia che si autoavvera. Il modo in cui funziona lo rende un virus della libertà-denaro. È stato scatenato ed è diventato così grande che è quasi impossibile fermarlo nel breve o addirittura nel medio termine. Ho trovato azzeccate le analogie di Michael Saylor, secondo cui la rete è essenzialmente uno sciame di vespe. Come si ferma uno sciame? Si possono uccidere una o due vespe, ma alla fine dei conti si è in inferiorità numerica. E con Bitcoin, l'ideologia, più la rete, più la ridondanza, più il fatto che chiunque possa adottarlo, garantiscono che supererà i suoi critici sia in termini di nodi che di potenza di calcolo.

Non vedo l'ora di fare ulteriori ricerche sui potenziali utilizzi della rete e sui percorsi per l'adozione di Bitcoin in futuro. Non fraintendetemi, continuo a considerarlo un asset rischioso, nel senso che se l'adozione rallenta o regredisce, la rete si indebolisce. Ma la traiettoria su cui ci troviamo ora non suggerisce che ciò accadrà a breve. Ci sono rischi se gli sviluppatori principali decidessero di apportare modifiche drastiche, o se l'informatica quantistica rendesse la crittografia più facile da decifrare. C'è anche il rischio che i principali Paesi occidentali cerchino di vietare, regolamentare o tassare Bitcoin a morte, e ci sono moltissimi rischi sconosciuti che derivano dall'adozione ideologica di uno standard completamente nuovo.

Il mio peso in Bitcoin è a un livello tale che non mi dispiacerebbe perdere tutto. Prevedo che il prezzo scenderà del 90% più di una volta in futuro. Come hanno detto diverse persone, se vi preoccupate così tanto, il vostro peso è troppo alto. Gestisco il rischio di possedere Bitcoin come gestisco opzioni call o entro in un casinò. Non sarò sorpreso o devastato se e quando perderò tutto.

Ma per me, ideologicamente, ciò che Bitcoin si propone di risolvere ha senso. Guardo le cose attraverso una lente Austriaca e credo fermamente che il sistema e l'economia globale siano in crisi. Sarò sempre un sostenitore dell'oro e dell'argento, ma dire che sostengo un sistema monetario diverso e che non c'è spazio per l'opzione call ideologica di Bitcoin, ora che ho capito meglio, non ha più senso per me.

Una cosa che prima ridicolizzavo, ma che ora non ridicolizzo più, è l'idea che Bitcoin rappresenti la libertà digitale. Il bello della decentralizzazione e del peer-to-peer è che, sebbene possa apparire e scomparire gradualmente in alcune giurisdizioni, Bitcoin funziona se le persone lo vogliono. E, filosoficamente, non riesco a pensare a molte cose su cui preferirei scommettere come quella di dare potere al popolo.

[*] 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, Johnny Kramer . 

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Day Bed

The post Curb Your Enthusiasm: Day Bed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky has been tracking and analyzing the trajectory of U.S. military planning for the last two decades and has been at the forefront of dissecting the propaganda describing these projects as ‘self defense’ or a ‘humanitarian intervention.’

In June of 2018 he delivered a speech to the Regina Peace Council outlining his research and appealing for the re-invigoration of an anti-war movement that would confront what he considers to be a hegemonic project of world conquest, orchestrated by the U.S. and its Western allies.

“We’re dealing with a diabolical agenda where the United States is intervening under the banner of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ or ‘Global War on Terrorism.’

In other words it is providing a legitimacy to a war of aggression, or a sequence of wars of aggression. And the public is led to believe somehow that these are humanitarian undertakings.”

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post The Globalization of War. The Pentagon’s WWIII Scenario Against Four Strategic Countries. appeared first on LewRockwell.

In January 2024, the nine years long war Saudi Arabia waged against Yemen had just calmed down after the Saudis had been mostly defeated, the Houthi movement declared to shut down Israel related traffic through the Red Sea. The move was made in solidarity with the besieged people in Gaza.

To cover for Israel’s genocide in Gaza the U.S. and UK decided to fight down the Houthi and to reestablish marine traffic through the Red Sea. Their bombing campaign showed little results.

Eight month later a hawkish British commentator conceded defeat:

The Houthis have defeated the US Navy – Telegraph, Aug 24 2024

Soon thereafter the Biden administration recognized that the effort was useless and refrained from launching further strikes on Yemen.

In March 2025 the Trump administration repeated the error of the previous U.S. regime and engaged in a new bombing campaign against Yemen:

Announcing Saturday’s strikes, Trump said “we will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective”.

“Funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at US aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies,” Trump said on social media, adding that their “piracy, violence, and terrorism” had cost “billions” and put lives at risk.

Addressing the Houthis directly, Trump wrote that if they did not stop, “HELL WILL RAIN DOWN UPON YOU LIKE NOTHING YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE”.

But the Houthis have been unwavering in their response, saying the aggression would not diminish their support for Palestinians.

I made a short comment on the renewal of the U.S. bombing campaign:

• Bombing Yemen is stupid. The Saudis tried for years to get their way by doing that and were defeated.
• Yemen can and does shoot back.
• It is only a question of time until it hits a U.S. war ship and causes casualties.
• Then Trump will be hard pressed to escalate the war towards Iran.
• Iran can not be defeated.

The U.S. and UK military have since continued to bomb Yemen. There are signs that they have run out of identified targets as they are bombing just random stuff. Recently they hit a detention center that was holding African migrants killing some 60 of those. They dropped bombs on civilians near a quarry because some random guy on Twitter posted coordinates of the quarry claiming that it was a military site. Eight people died.

On Sunday a Yemeni missile hit Israel’s main airport Ben Gurion. U.S. supplied Patriot and THAAD, as well as Israel Arrow air defense system had failed to intercept the missile.

The Houthi warned of more to come:

Houthi military spokesman Brig.-Gen. Yahya Saree posted on Telegram that the missile strike was in response to expand its operations against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The decision to expand operations was agreed upon by the Israeli security cabinet on Friday night. Several IDF reserve brigades will be mobilized for the operation’s expansion.

The Yemen-based terror organization “calls upon all international airlines to take into consideration” their plans to target Israeli airports, Saree said in his Telegram post, and also recommended that airlines “cancel all schedules flights to the airports of the ‘criminal enemy’ to preserve the safety of their aircraft and their agents.”

Trump’s military campaign against Yemen, just like Biden’s previous one, has failed:

The Houthis have the upper hand. This is why (archived) – The Times, May 4 2025
Despite concerted American efforts, the Iran-backed Yemeni group continues to launch missile attacks against Israel and merchant shipping in the Red Sea

President Trump has promised to “annihilate the Houthis” and a campaign that involved 202 strikes during its first two months, under the Biden administration, has intensified to the point that more than 800 have been delivered.
…
The Houthis combine the nimbleness of a non-state group and an insurgent army, while having Iranian support, and boasting an arsenal of strike weapons that would put most countries to shame. So, there is danger for British and American pilots — the Houthis have shot down 19 Reaper drones (which cost $30 million each) since this blitz started. And Monday’s attempt to hit the Truman shows their continued ability to threaten nearby shipping with a blend of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as uncrewed aircraft and boats, testing their defences from all angles.
…
Intercepting these occasional launches of long-range Iranian-made weapons is one of the most expensive issues facing the Pentagon. The Israeli Arrow missiles used to counter them are $4 million each, the American Thaad missile defence systems cost $8.4 million, and the ship-launched SM-3 anti-ballistic missile is an eye-watering $27 million.

As for protecting naval vessels off Yemen, a salvo of defensive missiles costs millions, but the price of such a strike getting through, crippling a warship, could easily top a billion dollars.

A hit on a U.S. or British ship is sure to happen should the U.S. and UK continue its campaign.  But there is no hope that any bombing will defeat the nobles of Yemen:

Ultimately though, the Houthis, ruling through a combination of activism and coercion, have withstood attempts by western countries and Saudi Arabia to coerce them so will retain some capability to continue launching missiles.

There are ideas of instigating a local ground campaign against the Ansar Islam ruled parts of North Yemen. The Saudis, with help of the Emirates and al-Qaeda had tried that too. It had failed and will fail again should the Trump administration be stupid enough to try it again.

The Houthi can not be defeated . Soon a U.S. ship will get hit. From there the war could easily escalate into a war against Iran. There is a good chance that the U.S. would lose it.

It is high time for the Trump administration to pull back from its Yemen campaign.

The reopening of the Red Sea for all maritime traffic can only be achieved by reining in the Zionist maniacs.

Unfortunately Trump lacks the balls to even attempt that.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Yemen – They Defeated The Saudis, Then Biden, Now Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump—and many of his most prominent right-wing supporters—are directly linked to some of the most radically pro-war, pro-Israel organizations in the country. These connections form a sprawling web of lobbying groups, tech billionaires, and media figures who consistently promote Israeli interests above those of ordinary Americans.

Why has the pro-Trump right suddenly pivoted from branding itself as a bastion of free speech to openly supporting censorship and state-led crackdowns? This MintPress News investigation uncovers a donor-driven advocacy network driving that ideological shift.

The Horowitz Connection

Since the early 2000s, writer and activist David Horowitz has been at the center of a movement that claimed to defend free speech while portraying Muslims and leftists as existential threats to Western civilization. In the aftermath of 9/11, Horowitz called for the profiling of “Palestinian” and “Islamic” people and infamously stated that “the Palestinians are Nazis.”

Through the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC), founded in 1998, he and his donors built a media and policy network that shaped the careers of nearly every major pro-Trump conservative figure active today. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated the DHFC a hate group, and it has received anonymous dark money routed through Donors Trust, which has also funded white nationalist causes.

Horowitz focused much of his activism on college campuses, pushing inflammatory anti-Islam and pro-Israel narratives intended to provoke backlash. He then framed protests against his appearances as proof that the left and Muslim communities oppose the First Amendment.

This strategy laid the foundation for figures like Ben Shapiro, who built his early career on college campus tours, defending even hate speech as protected expression and popularizing slogans like “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Shapiro began as a fellow at the DHFC, and his first book, “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth,” was published in 2004.

Shapiro would later become editor-in-chief of Truth Revolt, a website funded by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, where his managing editor was Jeremy Boreing. The two would go on to co-found what is now The Daily Wire. Both also worked with organizations linked to Israeli intelligence circles before eventually hiring Jordan Peterson. Although Peterson had previously said little about Israel, upon joining the Daily Wire he adopted a vocal pro-Israel stance and later met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The DHFC has also funded or aligned with numerous high-profile right-wing figures, including former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, former national security adviser John Bolton, Pamela Geller, and Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Trump’s current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, received $30,000 in speaking fees and honoraria from the Freedom Center between 2023 and 2024.

Candace Owens, now a high-profile conservative commentator, was initially recruited by Horowitz, but later came under attack from his affiliated activists after publicly expressing support for Palestinian rights.

“I started my career, my political career, on YouTube making just funny, satirical videos, and I got an email from David Horowitz inviting me to this conference, and let me just tell you what a big deal it was for me. I had no connections whatsoever,” Owens once recalled.

Following Horowitz’s death on April 29, 2025, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk acknowledged his influence: “Without David Horowitz, I’m not sure Turning Point USA would exist. Over 90% of our earliest major donors were introduced at a David Horowitz event—thanks to his warm endorsements and generous introductions. His support opened doors that would have otherwise remained closed.”

What Kirk revealed is crucial: Horowitz operated as a connector within an elite donor class that used his introductions to finance pro-Israel right-wing media and political infrastructure.

The Tech Bros

Elon Musk’s growing alignment with Israeli policy became publicly visible in 2024, when he forged a surprise relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu. But his ties to the Freedom Center ecosystem began earlier. Musk has amplified Freedom Center talking points, including a study falsely claiming that USAID helped fund the Taliban—a narrative later used to justify calls to defund the agency.

More consequentially, when SpaceX sought to raise $750 million in January 2023, the lead investor was the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, co-founded by Ben Horowitz—David Horowitz’s son.

Andreessen Horowitz holds investments in several companies linked to Israeli intelligence and surveillance, including TOKA, founded by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Ben Horowitz was also involved in early efforts to organize a pro-Trump tech elite alliance before stepping back.

SpaceX itself has collaborated with Israeli weapons firms and state-linked companies such as Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and ImageSat International (ISI), helping launch military satellites.

Another key Freedom Center financier is Robert Shillman, founder of Cognex Corporation. Shillman and his family foundation have supported right-wing figures like Laura Loomer, Bridgette Gabriel, and Project Veritas. He also donates to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative think tank that has played a central role in pushing for regime change wars in the Middle East.

From 2002 to 2013, Shillman donated over $2.4 million to the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF), a U.S.-based nonprofit that aid to Israeli military personnel.

In 2018, The Guardian revealed that Shillman funded a fellowship supporting far-right provocateur Tommy Robinson, who received a salary of about £5,000 a month to work at the Canadian outlet Rebel Media.

Propaganda and Politics

The Gatestone Institute, another key node in the network and donor to Tommy Robinson, was founded by Nina Rosenwald—dubbed by critics as “the sugar mama of Muslim-hate” for her role in bankrolling anti-Muslim and pro-Israel media initiatives.

Gatestone has supported figures like Douglas Murray, a British pundit who was recently mocked for making a bizarre appeal to authority during his appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” where he called for more airtime for pro-war “experts” to push a pro-Israel narrative. Murray has described anti-Muslim blogger Robert Spencer as a “brilliant scholar.” Unsurprisingly, Spencer’s website, Jihad Watch, was long sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman also fits into this ecosystem. In 2024, Ackman promoted the Shirion Collective—a campaign that encouraged doxxing of pro-Palestinian students and faculty, and has been accused of inciting physical violence and using AI surveillance tools to suppress dissent.

Ackman and Marc Andreessen were both appointed as advisors to the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a now nearly defunct initiative aimed at federal reform.

Another element of the broader advocacy network resurfaced with surprising aggression in late 2023: the militant group Betar.

Founded nearly a century ago by fascist Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky, Betar had long faded into obscurity. But following Israel’s offensive in Gaza, the group reemerged—mirroring the tactics of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), which was previously designated a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities.

Betar activists have revived street-level intimidation tactics, including threatening prominent scholars and UN officials with symbolic “pagers”—a reference to a notorious 2024 Israeli covert operation involving explosive-laden devices that caused mass casualties in Lebanon.

Human rights observers have exposed how the group is compiling watchlists of pro-Palestinian academics, organizers, and public figures, which it presents to Trump-aligned officials as candidates for future deportation or prosecution.

The group has also openly praised military operations that resulted in the deaths of civilians, including children.

Betar’s resurgence has been widely attributed to Israeli-American public relations executive Ronn Torossian, a contributor to FrontPage Magazine—an outlet created by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

From Free Speech to Authoritarianism

From Silicon Valley investors and right-wing influencers to defense contractors and political operatives, a vast and interconnected donor class has reshaped the American right in the image of a hardline pro-Israel agenda. Their messaging recasts Muslims as enemies of the West, delegitimizes anti-war and pro-Palestinian activism, and presents dissent as a threat to national security.

This same network, once obsessed with defending free expression, now embraces censorship, blacklists, and government surveillance—so long as it targets their ideological opponents.

This article was originally published on MintPress News.

The post Meet The Think Tanks Behind MAGA’s New Free Speech Crackdown appeared first on LewRockwell.

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.”—James Madison

We are being frog-marched into tyranny at the end of a loaded gun. Or rather, hundreds of thousands of loaded guns.

Let’s not mince words: President Trump’s April 28 executive order is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: martial law masquerading as law and order.

Officially titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” this order is a “heil Hitler” wrapped in the goosestepping, despotic trappings of national security.

Don’t be fooled by Trump’s tough-on-crime rhetoric, cloaked in patriotic language and the promise of safety.

This is the language of every strongman who’s ever ruled by force.

The White House claims the order will “empower state and local law enforcement to relentlessly pursue criminals and protect American communities.” But under this administration, “criminal” increasingly includes anyone who dares to exercise their constitutional rights.

The order doesn’t merely expand policing—it institutionalizes repression.

It sets us squarely on the road to martial law.

If allowed to stand, Trump’s executive order completes our shift from a nation of laws—where even the least among us had the right to due process—to a nation of enforcers: vigilantes with badges who treat “we the people” as suspects and subordinates.

Without invoking the Insurrection Act or deploying active-duty military forces, Trump has accelerated the transformation of domestic police into his own paramilitary force.

With the stroke of his presidential pen, he has laid the groundwork for a stealth version of martial law by:

• Expanding police powers and legal protections;
• Authorizing the DOJ to defend officers accused of civil rights violations;
• Increasing the transfer of military equipment to local police;
• Shielding law enforcement from judicial oversight;
• Prioritizing law enforcement protection over civil liberties;
• Embedding DHS and federal agents more deeply into local policing.

Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has moved systematically to dismantle what little accountability remains:

• Terminating the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database;
• Halting DOJ investigations into abusive police departments;
• Expanding immigration enforcement while eliminating oversight;
• Dismissing internal watchdogs at DOJ and DHS;
• Weakening civil rights tools and body camera requirements;
• Suspending or eliminating consent decrees nationwide.

All of this has occurred without congressional debate, judicial review, or constitutional scrutiny.

Through it all, Trump has emboldened police forces to act with near impunity, reinforcing a trend long embraced by powerful police unions, bureaucratic cronyism, and laws providing for qualified immunity that shield misconduct from public consequence.

For years, we have watched as the government transformed local law enforcement into extensions of the military: outfitted with military hardware and trained in battlefield tactics.

However, this executive order goes one step further—creating not just a de facto standing army but Trump’s own army: loyal not to the Constitution or the people, but to the president.

This is the very danger the Founders feared: a militarized police force answerable to a powerful executive, operating outside the bounds of the law.

While the Posse Comitatus Act was intended to prevent the military from becoming a domestic police force, this administration has found a workaround: transforming civilian police into a paramilitary force armed and trained like the military, but without the legal constraints.

In doing so, the federal government has effectively sidestepped both constitutional checks and statutory prohibitions meant to guard against military rule on American soil.

This is martial law without a declaration.

The battlefield is here.

Law enforcement today is equipped like the military, trained in battlefield tactics, and given broad discretion over who to target and how to respond. But these are not soldiers bound by the laws of war. They are civilian enforcers, wielding unchecked power with minimal oversight.

And they are everywhere.

Armored vehicles on neighborhood streets. Flashbang raids on family homes. Riot police in small towns. SWAT-style teams deployed by federal agencies. Drones overhead. Mass surveillance below.

We are fast approaching a reality where constitutional rights exist in name only.

In practice, we are ruled by a quasi-military bureaucracy empowered to:

• Detain without trial;
• Punish political dissent;
• Seize property under civil asset forfeiture;
• Classify critics as extremists or terrorists;
• Conduct mass surveillance on the populace;
• Raid homes in the name of “public safety”;
• Use deadly force at the slightest provocation.

In other words, we’ve got freedom in name only.

It’s the same scenario nationwide: in big cities and small towns alike, militarized “warrior” cops—hyped up on power—ride roughshod over individual rights by exercising almost absolute discretion over who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence has already ensured that unarmed Americans—many of them mentally ill, elderly, disabled, or simply noncompliant—will continue to die at the hands of militarized police.

From individuals shot for holding garden hoses, to those killed after calling 911 for help, these tragedies underscore a chilling truth: in a police state, the only truly “safe” person is one who offers no resistance at all.

These killings are the inevitable result of a system that rewards vigilante aggression by warrior cops and punishes accountability.

These so-called warrior cops, trained to act as judge, jury and executioner, increasingly outnumber those who still honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the public.

Now, under the cover of executive orders and nationalist rhetoric, that warrior mentality is being redirected toward a more dangerous mission: silencing political dissent.

Emboldened by Trump’s call to reopen Alcatraz and target so-called “homegrown” threats, these forces are no longer going to be tasked with enforcing the law—they will be deployed to enforce political obedience.

Backed by the full power of the state and unbound by meaningful accountability, these police state enforcers operate with the tactics of a military force but without its legal constraints. They are not soldiers governed by the rules of war. They are the foot soldiers of the police state.

And their numbers are growing.

This is not a theory. It is a reality unfolding before our eyes.

Battlefield tactics. Camouflage gear. Mass arrests. Tear gas. Strip searches. Drones. Water cannons. Rubber bullets. Concussion grenades. Intimidation. Laws abandoned at will.

We are living in a creeping state of undeclared martial law.

The militarization of police and federal agencies over recent decades has only accelerated the timeline toward authoritarianism.

The groundwork was laid long ago: the NDAA’s indefinite detention powers; court rulings that excuse shootings of unarmed citizens; the normalization of asset forfeiture, round-the-clock surveillance, and militarized drills in American cities.

This regime of lawless enforcement has been built over time—by legislators, courts, and a public too willing to look the other way.

Don’t be fooled: this is not law and order. This is constitutional demolition under the color of authority.

We are being trained to accept militarized policing, normalized surveillance, and injustice disguised as safety.

This is how freedom ends—not with a loud decree, but with the quiet, calculated erosion of every principle we once held sacred.

We’ve come full circle—from resisting British redcoats to submitting to American forces with the same disdain for liberty.

Our constitutional foundation is crumbling, and with it, any illusion that those in power still serve the public good.

Congress, for its part, has abdicated its role as a constitutional check on executive power—passing sweeping authorizations with little scrutiny and failing to rein in executive overreach. The courts, too, have in the past sanctioned many of these abuses in the name of national security, public order, or qualified immunity. Instead of acting as constitutional safeguards, these institutions have largely become rubber stamps.

Indeed, the president, Congress, the courts, and the police have come to embody the very abuse the Founders fought to resist. Only now are the courts beginning to show glimmers of allegiance to the Constitution.

This is not about partisanship. This is about power without restraint.

As tempting as it is to place full blame on Trump for this full-throttle shift into martial law, he is not the architect of this police state. He is its most shameless enabler—a useful frontman for the Deep State in its ongoing war on the American people.

As we warn in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.

We ignore these signs at our peril.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Martial Law Disguised as Law and Order: The Oldest Trick in the Authoritarian Playbook appeared first on LewRockwell.