Aggregatore di feed

DOGE is ripping through the federal government like a tornado. This morning it has been reporting that DOGE sent out firing notices to 9,400 USAID employees, leaving only 611. Democratic politicians are furious, of course. But we hope, that when it’s all said and done, ALL politicians, Democrat AND Republican, are furious with DOGE. Then we will know that it was a job well done for the American people.

The post USAID Gutted! — Who’s Next? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Everything is remote-controlled nowadays.

“Here’s a mine for you, and for you, and for you…”

Someone is going to have to find those anti-tank mines someday and remove them one way or another.

Russian Army’s Secret Tank Warfare System: Video; Translated from Russian

The post Patrick Lancaster in Ukraine. Russia’s New Tank Warfare Weapon appeared first on LewRockwell.

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato-leurodollaro)

Il mondo si sta preparando per una crisi creditizia enorme. Le banche centrali e i governi saranno ancora in grado di finanziare le loro operazioni, e saranno ancora in grado di aumentare i prezzi (nominali) degli asset, ma non saranno in grado di proteggere il valore delle loro valute. Pensate, ad esempio, al recente exploit di DeepSeek: per quanto abbia fatto traballare Wall Street, non cancella affatto le criticità creditizie e finanziarie della Cina. Già adesso la vagonata di debiti accumulati sta portando a un'ondata senza precedenti di allentamento monetario per monetizzarli. Il problema è che questa azione, oltre a non funzionare più come in passato a causa della Legge dei rendimenti decrescenti, sta accartocciando lo yuan. Lo stesso discorso è possibile farlo per la rupia indiana o per l'euro. In sintesi, tutte le principali divise del mondo sono sulla graticola affinché le rispettive autorità che le supervisionano possano tenere in piedi il loro tessuto socioeconomico. Tutte tranne una: il dollaro.

Perché? È una situazione già vista nella storia economica del mondo, più precisamente negli anni '80 del secolo scorso. Allora l'incredibile forza del dollaro stava facendo a pezzi le altre valute, evento che condusse infine agli Accordi del Plaza e alla creazione del LIBOR, un tasso d'interesse mondiale (impostato a Londra) con cui venivano indicizzati i debiti a livello globale. La forza del dollaro venne smorzata e il resto del mondo entrò in un'epoca di (presunta) prosperità che l'avrebbe accompagnato fino al 2008. In questo senso il dollaro rappresenta come una sorta di buco nero che risucchia tutta la forza esistente dal resto delle altre divise: importa inflazione dei prezzi ed esporta disinflazione dei prezzi (o addirittura deflazione dei prezzi).

In realtà la terminologia usata è imprecisa, dato che non si tratta propriamente del dollaro che sta diffondendo ondate di incertezza e dubbio. Si tratta, invece, dell'eurodollaro che sta vedendo contrarsi la propria offerta, o per meglio dire la leva finanziaria cui è stato sottoposto nel corso del tempo. Le vette che aveva raggiunto erano spropositate e assurde, distorcendo a livelli inverosimili una valutazione corretta del rischio (nonché l'allocazione corretta del capitale). Il rialzo di oro e Bitcoin non fanno altro che segnalare questa proposizione: un ritorno lento a livelli sostenibili di rischio. Infatti la campagna di rialzo dei tassi della FED ha avuto come scopo quello di invertire la tendenza nel mercato dell'eurodollaro, aiutata anche dalla BoJ che ha proceduto anch'essa a uscire infine dal pantano dei tassi a zero e della yield curve control. Eurodollaro gonfiato attraverso la leva e carry trade sullo yen hanno rappresentato, soprattutto negli ultimi 16 anni, una fonte (presumibilmente) inesauribile di finanziamenti artificialmente a basso costo e azzardo morale senza freni.

Questa degenerazione, però, non è altro che l'ennesima deformazione finanziaria alimentata dall'attuale natura fiat del denaro. Ecco perché gli USA, sulla scia della vittoria di Trump e della fazione che rappresenta, ovvero i NY Boys, hanno iniziato a tessere le lodi di oro e Bitcoin. Se fino al 2022, anno in cui è stato defenestrato il LIBOR e sostituito dall'SOFR, lo status di valuta di riserva del dollaro era una condanna, adesso può trasformarsi in una benedizione: sganciati dal rischio sistemico esterno, gli USA possono gestire la propria politica monetaria in base alle necessità reali della nazione senza preoccuparsi più della possibilità di importare guai economici tramite indicizzazione esterna dei debiti. Questo per dire che se la stagnazione italiana costringerà a nuove misure di allentamento monetario (palesi) la BCE, ciò non si ripercuoterà direttamente sulla linea di politica della FED. Quest'ultima è stata la banca centrale del mondo fino al 2022; tutto il caos geopolitico ed economico a cui abbiamo assistito e assistiamo è solo un riflesso della sua effettiva indipendenza.

Ciò che l'eurodollaro ha dato, l'eurodollaro si sta riprendendo. La forza del dollaro strangolerà lentamente tutti coloro che nel tempo si sono approfittati di questo mercato ponendo come garanzia la sopravvivenza stessa degli Stati Uniti, economicamente e socialmente, fino a quando le varie altre fazioni mafiose di questa gigantesca cupola mafiosa non si presenteranno “spontaneamente” al tavolo delle trattative (in particolar modo la cricca di Davos). Attualmente stanno scegliendo di raddoppiare la posta in gioco e continuare a usare i risparmiatori come carne da cannone... non è rimasto loro nient'altro.

Per capire meglio come andrà a finire questa storia, e il meccanismo con cui il mondo si sta rimodellando, è necessario fare un passo indietro e capire per prima cosa cos'è l'eurodollaro.

L'ANTENATO DELL'EURODOLLARO: DENARO SCRITTURALE E RISERVE BANCARIE

Esiste un sistema finanziario “nascosto” al di fuori della giurisdizione del Tesoro americano o della Federal Reserve, ed è importante quanto o forse più importante di qualsiasi altro esistente. Questa economia sommersa opera nell'ombra, eseguendo transazioni e creando nuove forme di denaro mai viste prima. Fino al 2022 stava rappresentando la fine del dollaro. Benvenuti, quindi, nel sistema dell'eurodollaro.

Per comprendere appieno la struttura e la storia del sistema dell'eurodollaro, dobbiamo prima capire cos'è il denaro scritturale. Esiste da centinaia di anni e, nonostante ciò che molte persone pensano, la transizione dal gold standard avvenne molto tempo fa: il sistema con cui gli Stati Uniti e altre economie capitaliste hanno lavorato sin dal 1600 non era un vero standard basato sull'oro, ma piuttosto uno standard a riserva aurea. Le banche accettavano oro e argento ed emettevano banconote, che in origine erano certificati di deposito dell'oro, per dimostrare la proprietà dei metalli nel proprio conto. Queste banconote potevano quindi essere scambiate liberamente tra loro, ma in origine non esisteva alcun taglio standard. Con l'evoluzione del sistema bancario tra la fine del 1700 e l'inizio del 1800, divenne chiaro che il gold reserve standard, un rimedio ai “difetti” di un gold standard (si pensi a portare in giro borsellini pieni di oro e argento e dover chiedere/dare il resto esatto), era anch'esso imperfetto. Le banche dovevano detenere fisicamente le riserve auree presso le filiali e, poiché la crescita economica stimolava il commercio e gli affari, ciò significava che si verificavano sempre più scambi e le banconote emesse circolavano di più. I problemi iniziarono a emergere quando i viaggiatori, andando da una città all'altra, portavano banconote dalla loro città in quella nuova. Ad esempio, se un mercante viveva a New York, e doveva andare a Boston, avrebbe utilizzato le sue banconote per il commercio o per finanziare il viaggio. La maggior parte delle attività di Boston non accettava quelle banconote, poiché non ne conosceva l'affidabilità creditizia, quindi il mercante doveva recarsi in una banca locale, o in un mercato monetario, dove i trader valutavano il valore della banconota e la scambiavano con una locale, solitamente sotto il pari (ad esempio, acquistavano le banconote di New York a 90 centesimi sul dollaro).

Quindi le banconote di New York potevano accumularsi in una banca di Boston e, senza un sistema di riserva corrispondente, non c'era modo di regolare questi crediti se non ricevendo fisicamente le banconote e convertendole in oro o argento. Il problema è che, sapendo che molte delle banconote sarebbero state portate lontano e probabilmente non sarebbero state convertite in oro, molte banche locali avevano un incentivo a emetterne in quantità eccessive nella speranza che circolassero in luoghi lontani e non fossero mai riportate indietro per il rimborso in oro/argento fisico. Nonostante le sue imperfezioni, la struttura decentralizzata del sistema bancario pre-guerra civile concesse alle banche la libertà di esplorare autonomamente modi per migliorare il sistema. Non è ben noto che una di queste innovazioni fu una banca americana privata che portò organizzazione e praticità a numerose banconote emesse privatamente.

Presto nacquero le figure dei broker monetari, i quali acquistavano banconote a prezzo scontato dei viaggiatori e poi le trasportavano fisicamente nel luogo in cui erano state emesse per il rimborso in oro o argento. Questi broker erano odiati dai banchieri, ma svolgevano un ruolo essenziale in quanto contribuivano a limitare la crescita dell'offerta di denaro. Nel 1814 la New England Bank dichiarò il suo ingresso nel settore dei broker monetari; dieci anni più tardi erano diventate 6 le banche a livello nazionale che svolgevano tale compito. Il loro obiettivo, però, mutò col tempo: non tanto trarre profitto dal rimborso, ma piuttosto tenere a freno la quantità di banconote in circolazione. Credevano illusoriamente che così facendo, ci sarebbe stato un aumento nell'utilizzo delle loro banconote di qualità superiore, portando in ultima analisi a maggiori prestiti e profitti per esse. Tuttavia più ne acquistavano, più banconote di qualità ancora inferiore avrebbero preso il loro posto. Dato l'aumento del rischio associato, una di queste banche, la Suffolk Bank, propose ad altre sette banche locali l'istituzione di un fondo congiunto per acquistare e restituire le banconote alle banche emittenti. Questa coalizione, denominata Associated Banks, raccolse $300.000 per questo scopo. Col passare del tempo la Suffolk Bank avrebbe acquisito sufficiente forza per operare in modo indipendente. Inoltre aveva l'influenza necessaria per costringere le banche di altri stati a depositare oro e argento presso di essa, facilitando così il rimborso delle banconote. Nel 1838 quasi tutte le banche del New England rimborsavano le proprie banconote tramite la Suffolk Bank.

Essa forniva un servizio cruciale: accettava, alla pari, tutte le banconote depositate da altre banche del New England, accreditando i conti delle banche depositanti il ​​giorno successivo. Agendo come “stanza di compensazione”, la Suffolk Bank facilitò un sistema in cui qualsiasi banca del New England poteva ora accettare le banconote di qualsiasi altra banca, indipendentemente dalla distanza geografica, al loro valore nominale. Ciò ridusse significativamente il tempo e gli inconvenienti associati alla richiesta di rimborso in oro/argento da ciascuna banca. Inoltre si sviluppò un senso di certezza che le banconote delle banche associate al sistema Suffolk sarebbero state onorate alla pari. Questa garanzia inizialmente guadagnò terreno tra i colleghi banchieri e alla fine permeò la popolazione in generale. La fiducia è l'asset più potente di una banca e la più grande passività se viene persa. Lo strumento più potente della Suffolk per mantenere la stabilità era la sua autorità nel conferire l'adesione al sistema: ammetteva esclusivamente banche le cui banconote dimostravano una solida salute finanziaria. Sebbene non potesse impedire a una banca mal gestita di emettere banconote in eccesso, rifiutarne l'adesione garantiva che quelle banconote non avrebbero ottenuto un'ampia circolazione. Inoltre le banche associate che affrontavano una cattiva gestione potevano essere rimosse dall'elenco delle banche del New England approvate dalla Suffolk.

In sostanza, funzionava come una banca centrale che garantiva l'integrità delle altre banche. Così facendo, trasformò il New England in un baluardo di stabilità monetaria in un periodo in cui il resto dell'America era alle prese con turbolenze monetarie. Sebbene la banca alla fine fallì e fu liquidata, la Suffolk servì da prototipo di banca di riserva.

Le banche di riserva sarebbero esistite nelle principali città e avrebbero facilitato la negoziazione delle riserve bancarie. Il sistema bancario divenne così una struttura piramidale, in cui le banche di riserva più grandi erano custodi del denaro di centinaia di banche cittadine, le quali, a loro volta, erano custodi del denaro di migliaia di banche rurali. Quando fu creata la Federal Reserve, non fu un'idea nuova e innovativa: fu semplicemente un adattamento del sistema che esisteva prima. La novità era la stampa di denaro approvata legalmente, la capacità di una banca centrale di prestare quantità illimitate di riserve bancarie a banche in crisi e soddisfare le loro esigenze di gestione del capitale. Prima della FED, le banche di riserva erano limitate nella quantità di prestiti che potevano creare senza rischiare l'insolvenza. Queste misure di “check and balance” impedivano un azzardo morale diffuso e sottovalutato, e i padri fondatori questo lo sapevano, ecco perché la Costituzione americana sancisce che una creatura come la FED non poteva essere creata sul suolo americano. Ed è il motivo per cui si trova a Washington DC. Per quanto, a livello ufficiale, il suo ruolo sia quello di guardiano della “stabilità monetaria”, a livello ufficioso serviva a scongiurare la fine di interessi stabiliti come quelli della Suffolk: costringere le banche ben capitalizzate a salvare quelle meno capitalizzate.

Questo sistema, nonostante fosse ancora basato sul gold standard, ora eliminava la necessità di oro fisico, anzi persino dollari (per le banche), perché le riserve bancarie potevano essere scambiate tra istituzioni che cercavano di puntellare la loro solvibilità. Le riserve rappresentavano un diritto su oro fisico o denaro contante, ma raramente venivano rimborsate, quindi la creazione di credito poteva essere ampliata più che mai. La maggior parte del denaro in questo senso era ora “denaro fantasma”, un derivato di terz'ordine della moneta base, ovvero l'oro. Si trattava di registrazioni sui libri contabili interni della banca di riserva, non esistevano da nessun'altra parte.

COS'È L'EURODOLLARO?

Questa anamnesi storica è propedeutica per capire non solo l'evoluzione del sistema bancario ombra, ma soprattutto per avere uno schema in mente da poter replicare adesso su scala maggiore. Infatti è possibile traslare quanto descritto finora a livello internazionale. Ma andiamo con ordine. La creazione di denaro è sempre stata ad appannaggio del sistema bancario commerciale nel suo complesso, quello centrale invece rappresentava una sorta di “smorzatore” o “attenuatore” degli eccessi che potevano verificarsi sulla scena economica. Le nuove riserve create dal sistema bancario centrale, infatti, servivano semplicemente a puntellare eventuali eccessi e spalmarli sull'intera economia. Ovviamente non agiva in risposta a qualsiasi crisi, come ad esempio accadde nella prima parte della decade del 1930 quando furono lasciate fallire migliaia di piccole banche negli USA durante la Grande depressione. Per quanto incredibile possa sembrare, la FED non era la banca centrale degli Stati Uniti ma una succursale di quella inglese e questa affermazione venne inizialmente corroborata dell'interventismo attivo della banca centrale americana durante i Ruggenti anni venti per impedire che la BoE vedesse defluire tutto il suo oro dalla nazione.

La presunta obsolescenza dell'Impero inglese dopo la Prima guerra mondiale era un bluff, dato che i capitali che volavano verso ovest avevano il preciso scopo di costruire il famoso complesso militare-industriale di cui Eisenhower mise in guardia gli americani. L'élite europea, che oggi chiamiamo cricca di Davos, ha sempre agito in questo modo: inonda un posto di capitali a basso costo, si ingrazia l'aristocrazia del luogo, lo fa sviluppare e poi come uno sciame di locuste consuma tutto. È un modello che è stato replicato più volte nella storia ed è di design prettamente inglese. Ancora adesso possiamo vederlo all'opera. Tornando a noi, invece, se gli inglesi non erano riusciti ad ammansire la loro colonia con la forza nel XVIII secolo, ci riuscirono nel XX con l'istituzionalizzazione della Federal Reserve e l'illusione che fossero alleati degli americani. L'avversione storica da parte americana al sistema bancario centrale istituzionalizzato era una consapevolezza di come la nazione sarebbe potuta cadere sotto l'influenza straniera nel caso in cui una concentrazione di potere così densa avrebbe potuto rappresentare una preda facile per chi avesse avuto l'intenzione di catturarla. La decentralizzazione statale americana, l'indipendenza che ogni stato ha conservato sulla scia della Guerra d'indipendenza, erano stratagemmi dei Padri fondatori per impedire a un qualsiasi agente malevolo di infiltrarsi e distruggere la nazione dall'interno.

La nascita della Prima e della Seconda banca degli Stati Uniti nel XIX secolo erano i tentativi primi per creare un tale cavallo di Troia. Ma come la storia ci ha insegnato, tutto ciò non fu sufficiente ad arginare la creazione di una banca centrale... sul suolo extra statunitense. È alquanto buffo notare come la trasformazione della FED, da presunto “guardiano passivo” degli eventi economici a figura attiva, è coincisa con la giravolta di Keynes su temi economici (rispetto alle sue posizioni espresse in The Economic Consequences of Peace e A Tract on Monetary Reform) e la sua assunzione a figura di riferimento per quanto riguardava le linee di politica da seguire a livello mondiale. Non vi suona familiare? Le voci contrarie, quali quelle di Hayek, Robbins e altri, silenziate e relegate ai margini del dibattito pubblico (nonché minacciate di estromissione dalla vita accademica). Un unico piano e un'unica linea di politica socioeconomica cristallizzati nella General Theory. Se gli ultimi 5 anni ci hanno insegnato qualcosa, è che la storia si ripete... o per meglio dire, si spingono determinati eventi affinché si possa ripetere.

Attenzione, questo non per dire che gli Stati Uniti sono stati una nazione passiva e completamente conquistata dagli inglesi. L'influenza esercitata oltreoceano, però, ha mosso le leve giuste affinché i risultati andassero a vantaggio dell'Inghilterra. Nella seconda parte esploreremo meglio questo tema, adesso limitiamoci a far scorrere il tempo e osservare come l'evoluzione del sistema bancario e monetario abbia creato un elefante talmente grande nella stanza da oscurare persino la sua presenza. Infatti, come suggerito all'inizio di questa sezione del saggio, portiamo a un livello superiore quanto appreso in quella precedente: immaginiamo, adesso, che il cambio delle banconote non avvenga più a livello nazionale (tra città statunitensi) ma a livello internazionale (tra capitali mondiali). Il sistema introdotto a Bretton Woods rendeva il dollaro la valuta di riferimento a livello mondiale per quanto riguardava il saldo tra Paesi, l'unica rimasta ad aver un ancoraggio (per quanto lasco) all'oro. Di conseguenza i dollari che uscivano dagli USA dovevano essere poi convertiti in valute locali (come marco, lira, franco, sterlina, ecc.). E uno degli eventi storici che più ha alimentato questo meccanismo è stato il Piano Marshall; infatti secondo alcuni punti di vista si potrebbe dire che il sistema dell'eurodollaro nacque esattamente da suddetto Piano.

Un inciso qui è d'obbligo. Sebbene molti possano pensare che l'eurodollaro sia una sorta di valuta a parte, in realtà si sbagliano: detto in parole povere, sono dollari che circolano all'estero. Così come il sistema bancario ombra non è affatto costituito da società, aziende, o istituti di credito che agiscono al di fuori di regolamenti e regole. No, sono entità che esistono “alla luce del sole” ma che, per usare un termine improprio e allo stesso tempo esplicativo, hanno una doppia contabilità.

In realtà, così come ogni altra cosa sui mercati, è stata la consuetudine a far sviluppare il fenomeno e poi la sua sedimentazione nelle pratiche “comuni” ha potuto far affermare che fosse nato. Per quanto disfunzionale o prono all'azzardo morale, non si può non riconoscere la natura di mezzo di scambio dell'eurodollaro e la sua elevata liquidità. Sebbene il rovescio della medaglia fosse un'elevata probabilità di disseminare l'ambiente economico di errori da correggere in futuro, il progresso abilitato a livello mondiale è innegabile. Il problema col denaro fiat, da che mondo è mondo, è solo uno: è dannatamente facile farsi sfuggire le cose di mano e andare fuori controllo. Ed è esattamente così che sono andate le cose. Vi prego ancora una volta di tenere a mente l'esempio storico riportato nella sezione precedente, perché è esplicativo di come si siano svolti gli eventi a livello internazionale poi, quando sulla scia di Bretton Woods il dollaro è diventato a tutti gli effetti valuta di riserva mondiale. Per quanto Robert Triffin avesse capito il malessere, non aveva capito l'origine. Infatti le stesse dinamiche viste in precedenza a livello nazionale si ripresentarono anche a livello internazionale, con la necessità di un surrogato della Suffolk Bank che in qualche modo “frenasse” la crescita dell'offerta di denaro. Ma quale offerta di denaro stava crescendo? Ancora si era ignari del problema causato dalla circolazione dei dollari all'estero.

La creazione di entità sovranazionali, come la Banca Mondiale e l'FMI, non furono affatto d'aiuto. Anzi hanno acuito il malessere. Le criticità, gli errori economici, saltarono fuori dopo più di un decennio dopo il Piano Marshall a causa del fatto che la guerra aveva distrutto enorme capitale (finanziario e umano) sul suolo europeo, quindi la ricostruzione dello stesso e il raggiungimento del benessere (al pari di quello statunitense) mascherarono il tutto. All'epoca, comunque, c'era ancora un freno all'azzardo morale rappresentato dall'oro, il quale poteva essere rimborsato su richiesta cedendo dollari. La creazione ombra di quest'ultimi, man mano che i problemi economici spuntavano qua e là a livello internazionale e i bilanci arrivavano a saturazione, aveva altresì creato rivendicazioni fasulle sul metallo giallo. Quest'ultimo è finito a differenza dell'infinita quantità a cui può arrivare il denaro fiat, tracciato o meno. Il deflusso di oro allarmò non poco le autorità statunitensi che decisero di creare, insieme ai loro “partner” inglesi, il London Gold Pool: un nuovo strato burocratico da aggiungere a quelli esistenti per cercare di frenare un fenomeno che iniziava a creare grattacapi agli USA. Ma come per ogni cosa che riguarda la vita umana, se non si arrestano le cause di un qualcosa, gli effetti andranno avanti e si aggraveranno. E così è stato fino ad arrivare al famoso 15 agosto del 1971 quando gli USA uscirono unilateralmente dalla finestra dell'oro.

Le autorità statunitensi avevano intuito che ci fosse qualcosa di sbagliato nel sistema, ma non riuscivano a capire esattamente cosa fosse e per guadagnare tempo decisero di legare il dollaro a un'altra commodity: il petrolio. L'offerta più flessibile di quest'ultimo permetteva di avere una copertura, per quanto lasca, del dollaro e allo stesso tempo ottenere il tempo necessario per identificare il problema. La grande inflazione degli anni '70, così come le carenze di benzina sul suolo statunitense, furono figlie di una delle prime grandi crisi dell'eurodollaro e del cerotto messo dalla Federal Reserve tramite un'ingente stampa di denaro supervisionata allora da Arthur Burns. Inutile ricordare che non servì a niente, anzi l'allentamento monetario e l'abbassamento artificiale dei tassi d'interesse non fecero niente per promuovere una crescita reale. Così facendo, infatti, gli USA stavano solamente dando più corda al sistema eurodollaro con cui impiccarsi. Si stava ponendo sul piatto la prosperità americana affinché fosse spolpata all'estero e permettesse un ambiente economico internazionale in cui i pasti gratis potevano essere presumibilmente portati avanti all'infinito.

La cosiddetta “cura Volcker” mise un freno a tutto ciò quando avviò un ciclo feroce di rialzo dei tassi e frenò la crescita dell'offerta di denaro. In quel momento gli USA iniziarono a capire qualcosa, ma non durò molto. La recessione risultate in patria costò la rielezione a Carter, all'estero invece la forza del dollaro scaraventò nel caos economico le altre nazioni. Le cose sembravano essersi risolte. Non bisogna scordarsi, comunque, che all'epoca i bilanci pubblici e privati erano ancora perlopiù sgombri e il Picco del debito era un ectoplasma. Ciò diede un impulso non indifferente a quella che oggi conosciamo come “finanziarizzazione dell'economia”: detto in parole povere, venne allungata la catena degli intermediari finanziari. Uno dei temi più importanti che affronta il mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, è esattamente questo: porta alla luce il cosiddetto “mistero dell'attività bancaria ombra”, dove il falso senso di sicurezza rappresentato da una quantità smodata di intermediari finanziari tra l'asset acquistato dall'investitore e chi lo emette è sintomo di ponderazione errata del rischio piuttosto che di diversificazione dello stesso. La globalizzazione commerciale, ovvero l'allungamento delle supply chain, non era altro che un riflesso della globalizzazione finanziaria, ovvero l'allungamento delle catene degli intermediari finanziari. Gli Accordi del Plaza sancirono questa “rinascita” e strada verso l'inferno economico, per quanto inizialmente apparisse un paradiso. Inutile dire che, data la pulizia effettuata dalla FED con la “cura Volcker” e la presenza di bilanci sgombri da poter saturare, il senso di crescita infinito permeò i vari ambienti finanziari portando a quello scoppio di benessere durato circa 20 anni. O perlomeno fino allo scoppio della bolla dotcom.

Le cose lì iniziarono a incrinarsi di nuovo. Perché? Il primo motivo: i bilanci iniziavano a saturarsi. Il secondo motivo: l'indicizzazione dei debiti mondiali al LIBOR faceva in modo che i guai interni di altre nazioni si ripercuotessero indirettamente sugli Stati Uniti, costringendo la FED a intervenire anche quando internamente non c'erano problemi o la nazione poteva permettersi di sopportare tassi d'interesse più alti. Un esempio propedeutico a tal proposito è il contagio che mandò quasi in bancarotta LTCM. A riprova tra l'altro che l'overstretching delle catene degli intermediari stava raggiungendo il picco. Il 2001 non fu altro che il proverbiale canarino nella miniera, evidenziando una falla ormai strutturale prossima ad andare fuori controllo. E ciò accadde sette anni dopo, dove la crisi del 2008 non rappresentò altro che una corda che si spezza. Il mercato dell'eurodollaro era stato tirato troppo a livello di leva finanziaria e riserva frazionaria, seminando in lungo e in largo nei bilanci dei vari istituti finanziari fragilità sistemiche tali da rompere il giocattolo più importante: quello della fiducia. La saturazione dei bilanci, nazionali e privati, non aiutò affatto a rimettere a posto le cose; così come i vari giri di quantitative easing non fecero nulla. Per quanto la FED cercasse di puntellare il sistema attraverso la creazione e lo stoccaggio di riserve in eccesso, esse erano una parte infinitesimale della reale necessità per coprire in pieno la mole di asset ombra che circolava.

Che il sistema fosse “al di là della redenzione” era ormai chiaro a tutti e, come ho scritto più ampiamente nel mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, è accelerata la scalata ostile agli USA per far emergere l'Europa come unico “porto sicuro” per il capitale in fuga. In mancanza di alternative, sarebbe stato più facile forzare un haircut in gola agli obbligazionisti, mettere una toppa al debito pubblico, applicare controllo capillare tramite CBDC e far tornare a girare la ruota per criceti. Le grandi banche commerciali statunitensi hanno detto “Niet!”, soprattutto nel 2016 (Brexit, prima elezione di Trump) e nel 2017 (inizio lavori per l'SOFR). L'amministrazione Obama, avendo lavorato in modo più spavaldo delle altre per vandalizzare il tessuto socioeconomico degli Stati Uniti, ha permesso ai cosiddetti New York Boys di capire finalmente cosa dovevano fare per arginare le infiltrazioni esterne nel processo decisionale degli USA e riprendersi il controllo della politica monetaria della nazione: isolare l'America dal resto del mondo, accorciando la catena degli intermediari e togliendo loro il nutrimento. Come? Prosciungando il mercato degli eurodollari. La contrazione della globalizzazione e la regionalizzazione delle supply chain è stato un riflesso di tale decisione.

Arrivati a questo punto, però, mi rendo conto che i lettori potrebbero chiedersi ancora: ma cos'è l'eurodollaro? Facciamo un esempio più pratico, e di stampo odierno, per capire come questo strumento è stato usato in modo intenzionalmente scriteriato. Immaginiamo un istituto di credito X. Esso accende un prestito in yen dato che i tassi impostati dalla BoJ sono negativi a livello reale; vende poi la nuova liquidità per dollari e con essi si rivolge a un money market fund dove acquista un T-bill americano; ora mettiamo che la FED taglia i tassi, il titolo in possesso di X aumenta di valore e può essere venduto permettendogli di avere nuovamente dollari con cui ripagare il prestito originale e comprare nuovi titoli fruttiferi, oppure prestarli (a riserva frazionaria). I dollari creati in questo modo non solo sfuggono alle metriche ufficiali, visto che vengono posseduti al di fuori dei confini statunitensi, ma creano una pressione inflazionistica sulla FED affinché soddisfi una domanda di dollari che non può tenere a bada. Non solo, ma è possibile anche usare i titoli americani come collaterale per creare prodotti finanziari da vendere in tranche: la parte senior collateralizzata con i bond americani, quella mezzanina dalle riserve in dollari dell'istituto X e quella junior dal suo bilancio stesso. La vendita di questi titoli di dubbia qualità è esplosa in particolar modo durante il periodo della ZIRP, quando la fame per rendimenti decenti da parte dei vari istituti finanziari li ha costretti a ignorare il rischio e comprare titoli spazzatura di ogni genere (soprattutto i fondi pensione che sono vincolati a rendimenti annuali fissi a causa delle prestazioni che devono erogare).

Questo esempio semplicistico riguarda una parte infinitesimale delle dinamiche con cui vengono a crearsi dollari dal nulla e al di fuori del controllo della FED, ce ne sono molte altre. Anni fa la metrica monetaria M3 negli Stati Uniti teneva traccia di una piccola parte della profondità del mercato degli eurodollari, ma adesso anche tale tracciamento è stato abbandonato. Questo dà l'idea di quanto sia ingarbugliato e nascosto questo mercato, tanto che è impossibile dare cifre precise. Questi dollari “fantasma”, intermediati fino a poco tempo fa dal LIBOR e quindi dalla City di Londra, hanno incentivato a loro volta la proliferazione di intermediari che facilitassero la loro circolazione: hedge fund, money market fund, fondi di assicurazione, ecc. sono tutti saliti sul carro e hanno usato i loro bilanci per creare una “doppia contabilità”, dando vita a quel sistema noto comunemente come “sistema bancario ombra”. Mentre la politica ha ingessato quanto più possibile il sistema bancario commerciale, ritenendolo la causa unica dei malesseri economici, la “domanda di aggiramento” è cresciuta di ordini di grandezza senza pari alimentando, quindi, un sottobosco di intermediari finanziari che potessero aggirare suddetti regolamenti.

Senza contare che quanto presentato nell'esempio sopra è solo un minuscolo granello di sabbia rispetto alla mole reale di scambi che avvengono ogni ora; ovvero, moltiplicate il tutto per 1000, 10.000 o addirittura 100.000. Gli ordini di grandezza, in realtà, nessuno li sa per certo. Ecco perché la FED è focalizzata sulla contrazione della leva nel mercato degli eurodollari, in modo da recuperare il controllo sulla politica monetaria della nazione e ricostruire la fiducia in essa. Senza fiducia tra gli istituti finanziari e di credito, non c'è via d'uscita dalla stagnazione che ha catturato il mondo intero. E un tassello importante per ricostruirla passa dalla sottomissione dei principali sfruttatori del mercato degli eurodollari, i quali l'hanno usato a proprio vantaggio e a svantaggio degli USA causando gran parte delle deformazioni economiche di cui siamo tuttora testimoni: Bruxelles e Londra.

Nelle prossime parti vedremo come si inseriscono in questo disegno Londra e Tokyo, ma soprattutto analizzeremo il motivo per cui Bitcoin viene benedetto dagli USA. Con esso hanno a portata di mano una soluzione al dilemma di Triffin.

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

???? Qui il link alla Seconda Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/02/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato_01881802337.html

???? Qui il link alla Terza Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/03/cio-che-leurodollaro-ha-dato.html

???? Qui il link alla Quarta Parte:

From the Tom Woods Letter:

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen various gatherings of Democrats, and they’ve concluded that they lost the election because of “racism” and “sexism,” and further that they should forge ahead with the DEI stuff as if nothing happened.

The more they do that, the better.

Along the same lines, they have decided to make a massive issue out of the President’s assault on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has nothing at all to do with the well-being of Americans.

Surely this only confirms to the American public where the priorities of these people are.

Of course, Democrats and the media are acting as if USAID exists because the U.S. government is just so darn nice, and it just wants to help people.

I could run down case after case with you about the idiotic spending at USAID, the lack of accountability, the whole thing, but the whole Internet is alight with stories like that right now if you’re curious. Let it suffice to say that putting the money in a furnace and burning it would be a better option.

When Senator Cory Booker tried to portray USAID as a wonderful and indispensable organization that nobody could ever want to challenge, Ronald Reagan’s budget director, David Stockman, shot back:

And here’s what Ron Paul had to say:

Many Americans may still have the idea that USAID is a government agency delivering relief at disaster sites overseas. They may still remember the bags of rice or grain with the USAID logo on them. But that is not USAID.

USAID is a key component of the US government’s “regime change” operations worldwide. USAID spends billions of dollars every year propping up NGOs overseas that function as shadow governments, eating away at elected governments that the US interventionists want to overthrow. Behind most US foreign policy disasters overseas you will see the fingerprints of USAID. From Ukraine to Georgia and far beyond, USAID is meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries – something that would infuriate Americans if it were happening to us.

So go ahead, Democrats: spend your time protesting in favor of an agency that is at best a sinecure for some and a gravy train for others, because that’ll look great.

But meanwhile, after a first two weeks filled with many actions I support, Donald Trump announced yesterday that the United States “will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too,” proposing that the U.S. take a “long-term ownership position” over Gaza:

We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous, unexplored bombs and other weapons on the site…. Level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.

Is this another Trump negotiating tactic? Is it flat-out craziness? It sure isn’t America First, but you didn’t need me to tell you that.

I posted this last night:

The post Trump Said What About Gaza? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Question 1: Western Media Bias?

Is the western media even-handed in its coverage of China? And how has this impacted public perception of China in America?

Ron Unz—I think the Western media has been overwhelmingly biased against China, a bias that stretches back for decades but has steadily grown worse during the 2010s and especially the last few years.

Coverage has recently become so extremely dishonest and distorted that it reminds me of how the old Soviet media portrayed the West even as the USSR went into severe decline and eventually collapsed, and I think that unfortunate analogy is a very relevant one. Furthermore, much of our academic world has followed this same pattern of totally distorting the reality of China and its relationship with the U.S.

Some of the worst examples of these media falsehoods only came to my attention during the last decade.

For more than 35 years the American media has annually denounced the Chinese government for its supposed 1989 massacre of protesting students at Tiananmen Square, but there seems overwhelming evidence that incident never happened, and was just a Western propaganda-hoax, endlessly repeated by our media.

For example, the former Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post personally covered those events at the time, and he later published a long article setting the record straight, but his account has always been ignored. Articles published in the New York Times by its own Beijing bureau chief said much the same thing, but these also had no impact. Numerous other sources, including secret American diplomatic cables disclosed by Wikileaks have confirmed these facts, but our biased, lazy, or ignorant journalists have never paid any attention and for decades continued to promote the myth of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Last year I published a long article summarizing all of this evidence.

Another egregious example was the 1999 American bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, an illegal attack that killed or wounded nearly two dozen Chinese. Our government and media have always described this as a tragic accident, while denouncing and ridiculing China for claiming that the bombing was deliberate.

But once again, there is overwhelming evidence that the Chinese government was entirely correct and our own government was lying, with our dishonest media endorsing and amplifying those lies. Indeed, a NATO officer was even quoted in a leading British newspaper as bragging that the guided bomb had struck exactly the intended room in the embassy. I discussed this in another section of that same article.

• American Pravda: Gaza Protests and the Legend of the Tiananmen Square Massacre
  Uncovering the False Media Narrative of Tiananmen Square
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • May 13, 2024 • 8,800 Words

A few years after America’s 2008 mortgage meltdown nearly brought down the world financial system, I published a long article contrasting China’s growing success with America’s recent record of failure. My piece emphasized that the Western media and much of the Western academic world often portrayed and contrasted the two countries in ways that were the exact opposite of the reality.

• China’s Rise, America’s Fall
  Ron Unz • The American Conservative • April 17, 2012 • 7,000 Words

As a short sidebar to that long article, I compared the very different Western coverage of a pair of major public health scandals.

In China, dishonest businessmen had adulterated baby food and other products with a plastic compound called melamine, protecting themselves by paying bribes to government officials. As a result, hundreds of infants were hospitalized with kidney stone problems and six died, resulting in a huge wave of public outrage and a massive government investigation and severe crackdown. Many of those involved received long prison sentences and a couple of the guiltiest culprits were executed. Western media outlets naturally had a field day describing how widespread Chinese corruption had resulted in dangerous food products. Nearly 17 years later, I sometimes still find Americans mentioning China’s food scandal and the dangers of Chinese imports.

However, around the same time, America was hit with the Vioxx scandal, in which Merck heavily marketed a lucrative pain relief medicine to the elderly as a replacement for simple aspirin. But Vioxx sales were suddenly halted when a government study showed that the medication had apparently been responsible for tens of thousands of American deaths. Internal documents soon revealed that Merck executives had known of those dangers for years but suppressed the evidence in order to reap billions of dollars of profit from their drug. American media companies had earned hundreds of millions of dollars in Vioxx advertising, so they quickly dropped the story and almost no Americans still remember it today. Although no one was ever punished, when I later examined the underlying mortality data, I discovered that the true Vioxx death toll may have actually reached into the hundreds of thousands.

Thus, the American media devoted huge attention to a Chinese health scandal resulting in six deaths while quickly flushing down the memory-hole an American health scandal whose body-count may have been as much as fifty thousand times larger. Therefore, today probably many times more Americans are aware of the former than of the latter.

• Chinese Melamine and American Vioxx: A Comparison
  Ron Unz • The American Conservative • April 17, 2012 • 1,800 Words

During the last few years, the media’s anti-China propaganda has gone into complete overdrive, portraying that country as suffering under a horrible, oppressive dictatorship.

As an example, in January 2020, top officials of the outgoing Trump and the incoming Biden Administrations both declared that China was committing “genocide” against the Muslim Uighur population of Xinjiang province, and our media has regularly repeated and amplified those outrageous accusations.

Xinjiang province is freely open to both Western and Chinese tourists, with huge numbers flocking to that colorful region, and as I pointed out in a December article, none of those many visitors have ever noticed any such horrifying events. Instead, many Westerners have who recently visited China or now live there have begun documenting their experiences in numerous YouTube videos, often very favorably comparing conditions in that country with those in America.

• American Pravda: Propaganda-Hoaxes vs. Chinese Reality
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • December 16, 2024 • 6,700 Words

A common refrain of those YouTubers has often been “The Western media has been lying about China.”

Video Link

Question 2: The Han Chinese People

The Han Chinese are by far the largest ethnic group in China, comprising an estimated 92% of China’s population. In your opinion, is race or ethnicity a factor in China’s success?

Ron Unz— I do think that China’s overwhelmingly Han Chinese majority population has been an important element in the country’s national success in several different ways, but some of the key factors are not fully appreciated in the West.

First, because China’s total population is over 90% Han, the country is far more ethnically homogenous and culturally unified than nearly any of today’s Western countries. Contrary to the West’s dishonest anti-China propaganda, China’s numerous ethnic national minorities are not harshly mistreated let alone the victims of cultural or physical “genocide.” But they are still only a very minor element in Chinese society, especially because they are mainly concentrated in outlying, often thinly populated provinces.

I think a reasonable analogy might have been the overwhelmingly white America of the 1950s but without blacks. Americans of that era certainly knew that various non-white minorities existed in their country, including Eskimos in Alaska, Hispanics in New Mexico and Puerto Rico, Asians in Hawaii, and some Hispanics and Asians in California. But these were all very small groups, each amounting to only 1% or 2% of the total national population, so that most Americans never encountered them and considered their country’s population as essentially white European.

Moreover, just as the overwhelmingly white America of the 1950s was divided into white regional groups, with New England whites different from Southern whites or Midwestern whites, the Han populations of the different Chinese provinces have traditionally spoken different regional dialects that actually amounted to different languages, while always using the same written form. However, since the establishment of the PRC in 1949, younger Chinese have all learned the Mandarin dialect in the schools, an important step in strengthening national unity by ensuring that everyone could speak the same language.

Although Han Chinese think of themselves as a single people, to some extent they actually represent a fusion of different original groups who had existed prior to China’s unification, with the example of the Roman Empire providing a reasonable analogy.

Around 2000 years ago, the Han Chinese Empire and the Roman Empire were roughly contemporaneous, but although Rome fell and its territories fragmented into numerous different states, the Chinese Empire survived and generally remained united during all the centuries that followed.

However, if Rome had never fallen, it’s likely that all its different component peoples would have eventually come to regard themselves as “Romans,” though with regional differences. Thus, northern Romans might have generally been taller, with fairer skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, while the Romans of North African or the Levant would have been darker and shorter, with black hair and brown eyes. But all would have considered themselves Romans.

Similarly, northern Han tend to be taller than southern Han, and the different provinces—many of them as large as European countries—are often culturally different, traditionally spoke different dialects, and ate different foods, but they all regarded themselves as Han Chinese, though having differing regional characteristics.

But completely aside from China’s Han ethnic unity, another very important reason for China’s success has been its long and almost unbroken history as an organized, centralized state, which for thousands of years has been one of the most economically and technologically advanced parts of the world. The resulting cultural and economic pressures have greatly shaped the Chinese people over those centuries, ultimately producing many of their current characteristics.

By contrast, much of today’s Europe had never been a civilized part of the Roman Empire, and even those parts that were Roman later spent up to a thousand years living in the much more backward societies of the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages prior to the Renaissance.

The impact of this long legacy of civilized life in China was always noted by Western scholars. In my articles, I have pointed out that although most Westerners of the mid-twentieth century were very skeptical of future Chinese success, our leading public intellectuals of a century ago had held entirely different views, and would hardly have been surprised by China’s rapid economic advance in recent decades:

Although these developments might have shocked Westerners of the mid-20th Century—when China was best known for its terrible poverty and Maoist revolutionary fanaticism—they would have seemed far less unexpected to our leading thinkers of 100 years ago, many of whom prophesied that the Middle Kingdom would eventually regain its ranking among the foremost nations of the world. This was certainly the expectation of E.A. Ross, one of America’s greatest early sociologists, whose book The Changing Chinese looked past the destitution, misery, and corruption of the China of his day to a future modernized China perhaps on a technological par with America and the leading European nations. Ross’s views were widely echoed by public intellectuals such as Lothrop Stoddard, who foresaw China’s probable awakening from centuries of inward-looking slumber as a looming challenge to the worldwide hegemony long enjoyed by the various European-descended nations.

A tale of two countries.

The USA, who takes money from it’s people and sends it to other corrupt leaders in other countries and spends countless amounts on needless wars.

And China, who takes money and reinvested it back into their own country and people.

Can you tell which… pic.twitter.com/dLpGtMCdHO

— Noctis Draven (@DravenNoctis) January 16, 2025

The widespread devastation produced by the Japanese invasion, World War II, and the Chinese Civil War, followed by the economic calamity of Maoism, did delay the predicted rise of China by a generation or two, but except for such unforeseen events, their analysis of Chinese potential seems remarkably prescient. For example, Stoddard approvingly quotes the late Victorian predictions of Professor Charles E. Pearson:

Does any one doubt that the day is at hand when China will have cheap fuel from her coal-mines, cheap transport by railways and steamers, and will have founded technical schools to develop her industries? Whenever that day comes, she may wrest the control of the world’s markets, especially throughout Asia, from England and Germany.[5]

Western intellectual life a century ago was quite different from that of today, with contrary doctrines and taboos, and the spirit of that age certainly held sway over its leading figures. Racialism—the notion that different peoples tend to have different innate traits, as largely fashioned by their particular histories—was dominant then, so much so that the notion was almost universally held and applied, sometimes in rather crude fashion, to both European and non-European populations.

With regard to the Chinese, the widespread view was that many of their prominent characteristics had been shaped by thousands of years of history in a generally stable and organized society possessing central political administration, a situation almost unique among the peoples of the world. In effect, despite temporary periods of political fragmentation, East Asia’s own Roman Empire had never fallen, and a thousand-year interregnum of barbarism, economic collapse, and technological backwardness had been avoided.

On the less fortunate side, the enormous population growth of recent centuries had gradually caught up with and overtaken China’s exceptionally efficient agricultural system, reducing the lives of most Chinese to the brink of Malthusian starvation; and these pressures and constraints were believed to be reflected in the Chinese people. For example, Stoddard wrote:

Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.[6]

Stoddard backed these riveting phrases with a wide selection of detailed and descriptive quotations from prominent observers, both Western and Chinese. Although Ross was more cautiously empirical in his observations and less literary in his style, his analysis was quite similar, with his book on the Chinese containing over 40 pages describing the grim and gripping details of daily survival, provided under the evocative chapter-heading “The Struggle for Existence in China.”[7]

During the second half of the 20th century, ideological considerations largely eliminated from American public discourse the notion that many centuries of particular circumstances might leave an indelible imprint upon a people.

Thus, today’s Han Chinese are the heirs to the shaping pressures of thousands of years of life in an organized, stable, but very economically challenging civilization.

• American Pravda: The Racial Roots of China’s Rise
  Ron Unz • The Unz Review • November 4, 2024 • 13,300 Words

Read the Whole Article

The post Confucius, DeepSeek, and Why China Would Win a War With the United States appeared first on LewRockwell.

If there is anything we have learned from the American welfare state it is that from the very beginning it created a moral hazard problem whereby paying people for not working incentivizes them to drop out of the workforce and remain impoverished. It’s called “the welfare trap.” Much of so-called “foreign aid” is no different; it is just the internationalization of the welfare trap.

Many clear examples of this are provided by David Osterfeld’s book Prosperity versus Planning: How Government Stifles Economic Growth. For example, after the U.S. government “acquired” Micronesia at the end of World War II “the people of Micronesia were given free food, clothes, and other supplies. The result was bankruptcy of many local stores and the undermining of the incentive to work” as “Micronesians preferred to accept free and usually gratuitous welfare, thus avoiding the work and sacrifice required for real economic progress.” There are hundreds of other examples just like this one.

Since foreign aid goes to foreign governments the governments often pocket the money themselves or sell the in-kind aid on international markets and enrich themselves that way. During the 1970s famine in Ethiopia the government there sold the donated food while thousands starved, but spent $200 million to celebrate the nation’s Marxist revolution. They even charged cargo ships delivering “food aid” a $50/ton docking fee and turned back any ship that refused to pay it.

The type of “aid” is very often useless because it is government bureaucrats and not entrepreneurs who are making investment decisions. Foreign aid bureaucrats substitute their own random whims and hunches for the consumer-oriented decisions that entrepreneurs would make on the free market. Osterfeld cites giant oil refineries in countries with no oil and grain storage facilities that are not accessible by farmers as being typical.

When American manufacturers send tractors and other equipment to less developed countries, paid for by foreign aid funds, it is the corporations that are thereby enriched, not the aid recipients. Since all manufacturers have some percentage of their products are defective, these are the ones that are sent to foreign countries which then resent being dumped on in that way.

Since foreign aid is from government to government, the effect is to centralize governmental power in the recipient countries even more than it already is. Politics becomes more and more the way to make money as opposed to working, saving, investing, learning a marketable skill, and entrepreneurship. The domain of rent seeking and bribery is greatly expanded.

Massive shipments of grain through foreign aid programs pushes the price of grain to such a low level that scores of farmers are bankrupted and forced to move to the high-unemployment cities to seek employment and earn a living somehow. God only knows how many people in poor countries have starved to death because of such generosity. As in manufacturing, American corporate farmers are enriched by pawning off their excess grain (paid for by government) while people in poor countries suffer and die from it.

The foreign aid bureaucrats at the United Nations, heavily funded by U.S. taxpayers, live lavishly at U.S. Taxpayer expense. Osterfeld writes of individual bureaucrats who spend $60,000/year on limousine services and $100,000/year on ice water, for example. Millions are spent on international travel, seldom to impoverished countries but to “poverty seminars normally held at plush hotels in very attractive locations.” A U.N. bureaucracy called the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization routinely spends millions annually on such travel while throwing impoverished countries a few crumbs to “justify” all the extravagance. It generously allotted $7,200 for curriculum development in Pakistan in one year, and a whopping $1,000 to train teachers in Honduras.

The most pernicious type of American foreign aid is military “aid” which doesn’t necessarily impoverish people in other countries but kills them by the hundreds of thousands, as is on display for all the world to see today in Gaza. American greatness would be well served by abolishing all foreign aid and leaving such things up to private charities and individuals.

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

The post ‘Foreign Aid’ Enriches the Rich While Impoverishing the Impoverished appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: China’s DeepSeek artificial intelligence (AI) platform has stunned the world, outperforming US AI models while using just a fraction of their resources. Some are even calling it the “OpenAI killer.”

What’s your take on this development?

Doug Casey: Technology—all technologies—inevitably become better and cheaper over time. That trend has been in motion, at an accelerating rate, since at least the end of the last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago the hyperbolic curve has gone vertical.

Why, therefore, has DeepSeek surprised everybody? Its arrival is part of a very established and obvious trend. I’m just amused by the ironic fact that no existing AIs seem to have predicted it.

That being the case, somebody, or AI itself for all we know, has already come up with something even better than DeepSeek. That’s inevitable. “They” say that very soon AI will be vastly smarter, and arguably wiser, than humans. If so, maybe it will be kinder and gentler too. Unless its programmers have bad intentions—which is quite likely.

International Man: President Trump recently announced a $500 billion investment in AI development to secure US dominance in the industry.

However, with DeepSeek’s arrival, OpenAI and other US models may already be obsolete.

Is Trump’s $500 billion plan a necessary investment—or a boondoggle in light of DeepSeek’s advancements?

Doug Casey: I’m not a computer nerd—far from it—but I am a technophile.

Looking at the history of technology, starting with Heraclitus, Leonardo, Edison, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs, and thousands of others, almost all of the great breakthroughs in history have been made by individual geniuses working on their own or with small groups. Getting the government involved would almost certainly be a gigantic mistake.

Sure, they can throw a lot of other people’s money at things. But it’s always a grossly inefficient and wasteful allocation of capital when they do. Their cubicle dwellers, drones, and bureaucrats do things that are personally or politically productive but not necessarily economically productive. At a minimum, the money is taken from productive use by society at large.

You should recognize that since the nature of government is coercion and force, its AI spending—likely shepherded by outfits like the NSA, CIA, and FBI—will probably result in SkyNet and an army of Terminators. Life increasingly mimics art as technology advances.

Like every other government project, it will likely turn into a boondoggle. And yes, I suppose there have been exceptions, like the early days of NASA after the Russians launched Sputnik. Ten years later, the US was on the moon. But NASA has since devolved into just another bureaucracy. Proving that even a blind squirrel can sometimes find a nut.

International Man: With DeepSeek emerging as a dominant AI force, could this mark the beginning of China surpassing the US not just in AI but in overall technological and economic leadership?

What are the broader implications?

Doug Casey: Let me reiterate how happy I am that Kamala Harris and the Jacobins weren’t elected. Because, among many other reasons, it was their stated intent to centralize all AI, which would’ve slowed progress down tremendously and would have turned it towards bad intentions.

But now it seems Trump wants to do the same thing with his $500 billion initiative. Some politicians are obviously worse than others, but the real problem is the institution of the State itself.

Regarding China, we have to recognize that it was only in 1980 that Deng Xiaoping transformed the country from a clumsy behemoth full of ignorant peasants beating on dirt with sticks to a country as technologically advanced as the US. He didn’t do it with new government programs. He simply got the government out of the economy.

The Chinese people have made unbelievable progress in the last 40 years, and I think that’s going to continue. Unbeknownst to most people in the West, China has about six special economic zones like Guangzhou, which is right next to Hong Kong. They’re almost independent countries within China, with essentially no regulation and minimal taxes.

China has approximately four times the population of the US, and most of the students in Chinese universities take STEM courses. They take them seriously. Unlike most Americans, who tend towards soft and easy courses. Many of the kids who do take STEM courses in the US are from China, and return there. In 2020, the Chinese had 3.57 million STEM graduates, and the US had only 820,000.

Americans have accepted the silly meme “We think they work.” But the fact is that the Chinese think just as well as we do. And they work much harder; the place has become the world’s factory.

It’s also said that the Chinese steal our technology. But the fact is that if you steal things, especially in high-tech, you deny yourself the fundamentals necessary to improve things from there. Theft is self-defeating, much like copying someone’s homework in school.

The Chinese are not stealing so much as imitating. Monkey see, monkey do. In the early days of the US, the British complained of Americans stealing their technology. But Isaac Newton had it right when he said that he could see further than others only because he could stand on the shoulders of giants. That’s how everybody advances, by standing on each other’s shoulders—not by theft.

International Man: What role should the US government play in shaping the future of AI?

Should it actively counter China’s push for AI supremacy or take a more hands-off approach to disruptive technologies?

Doug Casey: The simple answer is no. Zero. The “best and brightest” people—as they like to style themselves—never work for the government. It attracts drones and bureaucrats. There’s really nothing that the US government can bring to the party, other than money extracted from other parts of the economy. Who can say that the things that aren’t created because of that won’t be far more valuable than whatever they put into AI?

Anyway, AI itself is improving exponentially. We’ll soon be at artificial generalized intelligence (AGI) and then super artificial intelligence. AI won’t just duplicate human thought but think more broadly and deeply than humans. That could be wonderful. Unfortunately, anything the government does will emphasize conflict. The Department of Defense, NSA, CIA, FBI, and similar agencies will have massive inputs.

We may yet get SkyNet and the Terminator; they’ll be government projects for “national security” reasons. In fact, bipedal Terminators are now here. Highly intelligent robots have physical capabilities beyond those of top Olympic athletes. The technology is taking on a life of its own. That said, corporations can certainly be stupid and evil. But their essence is making a profit by producing consumer goods.

International Man: Following DeepSeek’s launch, we saw a sharp decline in US tech stocks.

What does this mean for investors? How do you think markets will respond to China’s AI breakthrough?

Doug Casey: Markets respond to hype and fantasy in the short run but reality in the long run. China’s AI breakthrough is a reality. It provides a better product for a fraction of the cost.

There’s an old saying: “High-tech, big wreck.” Last week provided an example, with NVIDIA losing hundreds of billions of market cap overnight. It was inevitable. Roughly 30% of the S&P’s value is in just seven tech stocks. That’s borderline insane and one of many indicators showing how overpriced the whole market is.

I don’t see any investment opportunities in high-tech or AI unless you can find a couple of geniuses in a garage who need some startup capital. But the odds of that are extremely small.

Absolutely everybody and his dog is aware of the tech market. And everybody who wants to be in it is already in it. Which is why these stocks are so unbelievably pricey at this point.

The answer to the question is that you should learn to use AI yourself. Rather than looking for investments in these gigantic stocks, you should use AI yourself to create businesses or improve your personal situation. It’s been said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You now have veritable magic at your command.

Don’t look to gamble with your money, throwing it at some huge black box company; you don’t know what’s in the black box. Instead use their products, which are not only magical, but free. Their data centers, costing multibillions, will probably soon be obsolete as AI gets smaller and cheaper. That won’t be good for shareholders.

As for me, I continue to save in gold, the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously someone else’s liability. That’s worked out very well so far, and it will continue to do so. I continue to speculate in generally crappy little resource stocks. They’re finally starting to perk up, and I expect that—at long last—they’ll have a massive day in the sun.

Reprinted with permission from International Man,

The post How China’s DeepSeek Could Disrupt Financial Markets and Global Stability appeared first on LewRockwell.

The king of Israel (with a red alpha tie) visited his vassal state in America where real-estate developer Donald Trump (blue beta tie) pushed the chair for his leader and offered him to cleanse the Palestinian population from all land the Zionists desire to take.

Via AP:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested that displaced Palestinians in Gaza be permanently resettled outside the war-torn territory and proposed the U.S. take “ownership” in redeveloping the area into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
…
The provocative comments came as talks are ramping up this week with the promise of surging humanitarian aid and reconstruction supplies to help the people of Gaza recover after more than 15 months of devastating conflict. Now Trump wants to push roughly 1.8 million people to leave the land they have called home and claim it for the U.S., perhaps with American troops.

“The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” Trump said at an evening news conference with Netanyahu by his side.

The internationally acknowledged Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics’ count of the population of Gaza in 2023 was 2,226,544. Trump wants to remove all Palestinians from Gaza and gives their number as 1.7 or 1.8 million:

Reporter: How many people are you thinking need to leave Gaza?
Trump: “All of them. Probably a million seven, maybe a million eight. They’ll be settled in areas where they can live a beautiful life.” (video)

This is an acknowledgement, by the president of the United States, that the genocidal Zionists have murdered up to 500,000 people in Gaza.

Despite that toll few in Gaza would move voluntarily:

Gazan residents generally want to stay on their land.

Trump did not specify where the new land for Gazans might be found, although he made his comments after repeating his desire for Egypt and Jordan to take in Gaza’s residents. Nor did he appear to grapple with the many Gazan residents who would not want to depart their home territory, nor with the practicalities of potentially forcing them to leave it.

“I do see a long-term ownership position, and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East, and maybe the entire Middle East,” Trump said.

Asked if U.S. troops would be deployed to take over Gaza, Trump said that “we’ll do what’s necessary. … We’ll take it over and develop it.”

Netanyahu said that he was open to the idea.

The plan for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is not new at all:

Afshin Rattansi @afshinrattansi – 23:37 UTC · Feb 4, 2025

This has been Israel’s dream for decades

Israel’s NSC Director Eiland in a cable from 2004 leaked by Wikileaks said Gaza ‘is a huge concentration camp’ and that Israel’s solution would be to expel the Palestinians of Gaza to Egypt’s Sinai Desert

The plan has bi-partisan U.S. support:

Harry Sisson @harryjsisson – 1:44 UTC · Oct 11, 2023

Amazing: President Biden is working on a plan with other countries that would allow civilians to safely leave Gaza and cross the border into Egypt. This is great news. President Biden is making sure that innocent people don’t die due to the actions of Hamas. That’s leadership.

It is a real estate developer’s dream:

Robin Monotti @robinmonotti – 23:47 UTC · May 8, 2024

GAZA 2035: A NEW SMART 15 MINUTE CITY BUILT ON THE MASS GRAVES OF PALESTINIAN CHILDREN: New plans in Israeli media reveal what Israel want to do with Gaza post genocide and land theft. The dystopian vision for the Gaza Strip is being currently approved by the Netanyahu government. Link below.

The long planned for and now announced final ethnic cleansing of Gaza would be in breach of a long list of international laws and conventions.

There is no agreement on where the Palestinian people would move to. Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries in the region have rejected the resettlement of any Palestinians to their land. The Foreign Ministry of Saudi Arabia issued a length statement against it at 4:00 am local time(!):

The Foreign Ministry affirms that Saudi Arabia’s position on the establishment of a Palestinian state is firm and unwavering. HRH Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Crown Prince and Prime Minister clearly and unequivocally reaffirmed this stance.

The leaders of those countries know that this would not be the end of the story:

These displacement plans do not end with Gaza. The West Bank, where Israel is escalating military operations, is considered by many right-wing extremists in Israel to be the real prize, and Jordan the preferred destination for Palestinians living there.

Still Trump may think he can win from this. As M.K. Bhadrakumar analyses:

Trump used the expression “take over” of Gaza Strip. He didn’t elaborate. Trump and Witkoff are two master-builders and they visualise the seamless potential of killing many birds with a single shot —

• • first and foremost, strengthening Israel’s security through the ethnic cleansing and resettlement in Gaza;
  • two, restoration of Israel’s regional dominance in the region in a medium and long term perspective;
  • three, a solution to the intractable Palestinian problem;
  • four, rendering obsolete the various outlandish ideas like “two-state solution”;
  • five, burial of the very notion of a Palestinian state;
  • six, Israel’s regional integration through Abraham Accords;
  • and, above all, massive business spin-off for American companies for decades to come out of the development of the “Riviera of the Middle East”.

…
Prima facie, Netanyahu lured Trump into a trap by enticing him with a seductive scenario of massive lucrative business in Gaza’s reconstruction. Trump’s imagination is running riot, completely disconnected from ground realities. Such naïveté is fraught with real danger of blowing up on his face sooner rather than later and turn into an albatross for his presidency. This has all the making of a quagmire for the Trump administration.

Should Trump pursue this policy it will come to define his presidency. It may well become his Vietnam.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump Wants To Take Over Gaza, Announces 500,000 Dead appeared first on LewRockwell.

For months before and after Donald Trump’s election win there was an army of naysayers crawling the internet claiming that he would “never follow through” on his promises and that deportations “were not going to happen”. Most of these people were leftists trying to sow the seeds of doubt. At least some claimed to be conservatives and were perhaps disenchanted with the inaction of Donald Trump’s first term in office. I know I was not expecting much back then.

In 2017 Trump’s cabinet confirmations took a decidedly swampy turn and his administration was overrun with Neo-Cons and banking elites. I criticized this outcome harshly at the time. However, I was willing to acknowledge a reasonable explanation – That Trump was being misled by advisers with ulterior motives. After all, every president has around 4000 positions to fill in their administration and most of them will defer that duty to their advisers.

Trump would go on to admit in multiple interviews that he had trusted his inner circle too much and made mistakes in choosing his cabinet. They had sabotaged his efforts.

His second term is so far a 180 degree flip from his first, and Trump’s shift in focus is evident. Like most liberty movement conservatives I’ll reserve judgment.  Trump’s presidency will likely be the most scrutinized in recent history, not only by his political opponents but by those who supported him.  We’ll be scrutinizing everything he does with primary attention on his policy efforts. “Will he take action?” is the question everyone is asking.

The answer has been a resounding “yes”. The illegal immigration issue is of course one of the most pressing crises of our era and I would consider Trump fulfilling his promise to counter the threat a bare minimum. He has to, or he loses his entire base of support and the country falls apart at the same time. Trump’s swift move to execute mass deportations is redeeming.

For decades conservatives and right leaning independents have been disillusioned with the Republican Party because of their incessant inaction. When leftists take power in government they waste no time exploiting every advantage – The only thing that stops them from total dominance is patriot culture and the fact that 50 million+ Americans are heavily armed. When the GOP takes power they change very little.

One factor that truly sets the Trump Administration apart from all other modern Republican Presidencies is the acknowledgment of the culture war. The leftists have been waging this war for at least 50 years and GOP leaders have mostly dismissed it as trivial compared to politics. It’s the reason why we came within a razor’s edge of total moral relativism and degeneracy under the Biden Administration. The left has been normalizing the hatred of basic American principles for generations.

Part of that effort has been the introduction of open borders ideology and mass illegal immigration. I consider this a kind of “final stage” of the leftist/globalist agenda – If you can demonize western culture to the point of self hatred, then people won’t care when you saturate the west with third-world migrants and put the final nail in the coffin.

Illegal aliens don’t want to assimilate, they want to pillage and if possible to conquer.  This is why you see hundreds of Mexican flags flying at every migrant protest march; they have no interest in becoming American, they only want access to American wealth.  They look at the US citizenry as rubes and easy targets for plunder.

There is also the danger of cultural replacement.  Many migrants from Latin American identify with the Marxist “La Raza” ideology, which asserts that America is “stolen land” that they have an ethnic claim to.  The globalists know this and use mass migration as a weapon, opening the gates and making it easy for the invasion to happen.  As we have seen in Europe and the UK, migrant hordes are like a mercenary army perfect for oppressing native citizens and preventing future rebellion against multicultural erasure.

The core of this process is to incentivize migrants with subsidies and jobs. And this lead me to the greater dilemma of the border crisis – Locking down the border is not so hard, but getting rid of the tens-of-millions of illegals that are already in the country is much more difficult.  Making sure they don’t come back is also a conundrum.

As we’ve seen in the first weeks of Trump’s presidency, establishment Democrats are intent on interfering with deportations in any way they can (all the future power of leftists requires forced immigration to the US from socialist leaning countries). By extension, leftist activists will seek to disrupt deportation efforts using civil unrest (when the weather warms up these goblins will come out in droves, bank on it).

On top of the internal sabotage, there are many foreign governments that will desperately try to obstruct the return of so many unwanted citizens. Keep in mind that the US is seen by these governments as a dumping ground for their refuse. America is a steam valve to release the pressure so that these countries can get rid of their criminals, revolutionaries and those in poverty.

Mexico, Columbia, Haiti and others continue to argue that they can’t take their own people back because it would lead to “societal catastrophe”. Why? Because these governments have been knowingly sweeping their problem children under the rug for years, and America is the rug.

At the current rate of deportations (around 1500 per day) we are looking at around 500,000 per year. At least 10 million illegals are projected to have entered the US under Biden’s watch, and that’s not counting the millions that were in the US previously. Estimates indicate that 16 million to 20 million illegals are living in America today. To expedite matters, illegals will have to be convinced to self deport.

There is evidence that this is happening to some extent. Border stations have seen an uptick in outgoing traffic into Mexico and border encounters have slowed (Texas has played a big part in the border slowdown with their Operation Lone Star). But how could the US pressure a majority of aliens to self deport and never come back?

Here are a few surefire methods…

Increased Penalties For Businesses That Hire Illegals

This is common sense, but a large part of mass immigration depends on access to the US jobs market. Our government has been turning a blind eye to low-wage migrant labor for a long time and usually, if caught, businesses will only be fined a few hundred dollars for each migrant they employ. The savings on wages make it worth the risk.

Federal fines should be increased greatly, changing the cost benefit ratio and making it less enticing for companies to gamble on illegal migrant labor. If companies stop hiring migrants then most aliens will leave the US overnight.

If an industry desperately needs foreign labor then they can hire people with work visas. The process could be streamlined for certain jobs, but there has to be PROOF that these industries cannot find American workers to fill those positions. Furthermore, migrants should not be allowed to work in the US for greatly reduced wages (this drives down wages for Americans). Companies should be required to pay the same wage they would normally pay an American citizen of equivalent skill and experience.

Permanently Cut All Government Welfare Subsidies For Asylum Seekers

A general cancellation of amnesty and “catch and release” policies might make this action a moot point, but under the Biden Administration most migrants had access to a list of welfare subsidies. These subsidies and various migrant programs are projected to cost American taxpayers over $150 billion dollars per year. This isn’t counting state and city expenditures on illegals (New York City alone spent over $5 billion on migrants in 2024).

Housing programs under HUD do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants and often migrants will receive preferential treatment by landlords because of guaranteed government payouts and tax incentives. This has helped to exacerbate the housing crisis in the US, driving up rent prices to extreme levels.

Shut Down NGOs Engaged In Supporting Illegal Immigration

The shut down of the USAID department is a good start in the battle against rogue NGOs, but there’s a lot more to be done.  Globalist NGOs are the worst perpetrators behind mass immigration movements and many use religious organizations as a front (the female Bishop who famously woke-lectured Trump at a church service held after his inauguration is coincidentally a recipient of NGO cash in exchange for helping illegal immigrants into the US).

These groups are very difficult to legally obstruct or punish for such actions. One thing Trump can do is take away the 501C3 tax exemption status of NGOs involved in encouraging mass immigration to the US; these efforts are entirely political in nature, which negates tax exemption. NGOs are also subject to lawsuits.

Ultimately the NGO problem needs to be addressed on a larger scale and as a country we need to examine the harm some of these organizations are doing. In many cases international NGO operations spend millions in foreign countries to entice migrants to cross the border, but they also run numerous programs to support migrants that are already in the US, mostly through litigation and interference with deportations.  Getting rid of them would go a long way in keeping illegals out of the country.

Cut Off Federal Funding To Sanctuary Cities

Trump has already threatened this response in light of Democrat resistance to deportations, but action may need to be taken sooner rather than later. The problem is that city governments often use federal dollars as a slush fund to fill the coffers of their migrant programs. Most cities do not have the funds to subsidize migrants on their own for very long, not without making extensive cuts to other parts of their budget.

Democrats claim cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities violates the underlying principle of the Tenth Amendment, which protects states and localities from federal overreach. This is a disingenuous argument – Cities are not entitled under the 10th Amendment to federal funds without restrictions or requirements. The Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution has been widely recognized as providing the federal government with the legal authority to offer federal grant funds to states and localities that are contingent on the recipients engaging in, or refraining from, certain activities.

There are legal restriction on the federal government as well in terms of how they refuse funds, but generally speaking cities and states cannot use federal funds to support people breaking federal law. The Constitution also specifically gives the federal government broad powers over border enforcement. Cities and states are not allowed to harbor foreign threats in the US in violation of border law. Without federal funds cash will dry up quickly in sanctuary cities and migrants will leave on their own.

Use “Griefing” Deportations For Repeat Offenders

There’s an endless supply of migrants boasting on social media this past week that even if they are deported they will simply pop right back across the border with little effort.  Since border encounters have plummeted significantly, these claims might just be bluster.  That said, what should the US do about repeat offenders?

Putting them in jail for months or years would cost taxpayers more money than deportations would.  We could take away their future ability to gain citizenship, but this assumes that they care.  My suggestion?  What if we use a different method – what the kids call “griefing”.

In other words, we make the lives of repeat offenders as difficult as possible.  For example, why does border patrol keep transporting migrants to cities directly across the national line where they can easily come right back?  If a repeat illegal is captured, why not put them on a plane and drop them off as far away from the border as possible (Mexico is 3000 miles long) and let them figure out how to get home?  There’s also the option of slowing down their processing for weeks, making them wait in lockup instead of sending them back quickly.  Do this for a year and watch the the number of returning illegals drop to zero.

The Economic Time Table

In order to have a dramatic effect on price inflation in the US many millions of migrants will have to be removed in a short period of time. To save the housing market and cut product costs, demand has to be diminished and the fastest way to do that is boot out the people that shouldn’t be here. Deportations through ICE are a good start, but they are slow. Even with the expansion of agents and enforcement the only way to achieve visible results is to make self-deportation an imperative for illegals.

Most migrants will have to leave on their own. It saves the taxpayer a lot of money in deportation costs, it saves time on arrests and makes it easier for everyone to get on with the process of making America better for Americans.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Why Mass Deportations Are Necessary and How To Keep Illegals From Coming Back appeared first on LewRockwell.

Israel is demolishing residential buildings in the West Bank, burning homes in Lebanon and constructing military facilities in Syria, all while continuing to kill civilians in Gaza.

This is what passes for peaceful times in the nonstop military operation known as Israel.

❖

My social media feeds are currently full of Democratic Party loyalists squealing with delight about Trump’s ethnic cleansing plans for Gaza, acting like this completely vindicates their apologia for the Biden-Harris administration’s genocidal atrocities in the months leading up to the election last November.

Nobody who’s saying “Haha you idiots should have voted for Kamala to protect the Palestinians” has ever supported the Palestinians. These are all the same people who spent last year telling everyone to shut up about Gaza and stop opposing an active genocide. They can get fucked.

They’re all like:

I bet all you stupid commies wish you’d supported Kamala now, huh? You could have had a president who merely wants to explode and incinerate Palestinians instead of ethnically cleansing them! But NO, you chose to stay home or vote for Jill Stein, so now you get mass expulsion instead of the sweet gentle embrace of nonstop military hellfire.

I bet you feel so dumb now. You could have had kinder, more polite mass atrocities. You could be sitting here feeling smug and correct like me, instead of sitting there feeling like a fool for insisting upon your ponies and unicorns pie-in-the-sky unrealistic fantasy of not supporting an active genocide. Now you have to sit there and watch them ethnically cleanse Gaza and cry, while I watch and masturbate.

Now you have to live with your decision you insolent, uppity peons. Soon you’ll be BEGGING for a chance to support an administration that spent 15 months turning Gaza into gravel, but it’s too late. Next election we’ll make you vote for a former IDF member who wants to nuke Iran, just to make sure you’ve learned your lesson. And then we’ll STILL spit on you.

Shame on you. Shame on you for failing to get on board the coconut train when you had a chance. You could have had a holocaust overseen by a competent and articulate woman of color. Now you get ethnic cleansing from an orange buffoon who tweets mean words. I hope you all get deported to the West Bank, and then I hope the West Bank gets obliterated — by a Democrat!

❖

An Australian sports journalist was just fired for retweeting factual information about Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza. He was told it was because the sound of his voice was now making Jews in Melbourne “feel unsafe”. I am not joking. This actually happened.

❖

The same people who say the middle east is always at war because there’s something wrong with Arabs or Muslims will go ape shit if you suggest the west’s unparalleled atrocities and abuses over the last five centuries occurred because there’s something wrong with white people.

❖

For those who don’t know, Itamar Ben-Gvir is without exaggeration one of the most evil and destructive people in Israel. He is not meaningfully different from the officials of Nazi Germany, and the fact that he’s so pleased with Trump says very, very bad things. https://t.co/DsZ9Go1bMq

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) February 5, 2025

❖

I hear some people saying Trump has lost a lot of his base with his freakish position on Gaza, but that’s not true. Trumpers will overwhelmingly support him no matter how bad he is on Gaza or anything else. At most they’ll get mad for a day or two and then come back around when right wing pundits start amplifying some story about a drag queen driving an ice cream truck or whatever.

❖

It’s so maddening hearing Trump administration officials wax compassionately about how devastated and uninhabitable Gaza has become like it’s been hit by a tragic natural disaster instead of an intentional demolition campaign that they all 100% supported the entire time.

White House national security advisor Mike Waltz was just on CBS saying, “I mean, you have literally nearly two million people living in a place that has thousands and thousands of unexploded ordinance and bombs. It’s in some places like a minefield. You have buildings that are collapsing and unsafe. You have no sewage, no running water. It has become completely unlivable with this war that Hamas started on October seventh.”

Waltz is a virulent warmonger who has supported all of Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza since October 2023. Now that the agenda has moved on from destroying Gaza to ethnic cleansing it’s “Oh no, look, the place is dangerous and uninhabitable! What choice do we have but to permanently move all these poor unfortunate souls to refugee camps in the Sinai desert?”

The millisecond the agenda changed, the narrative shifted from “The IDF is the most moral army in the world! They’re taking extraordinary precautions to protect civilian life in their righteous war of defense!” to “Don’t you guys know nothing is left standing in Gaza and all its civilian infrastructure has been completely destroyed? The whole place is covered with unexploded bombs! You expect people to LIVE there?? What kind of monsters are you??”

The only reason they can get away with this is because there’s been a change in presidential administrations, so they get to act like they inherited a disaster that had nothing to do with them and they’re just responding to it the best they can. In reality the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian territories has always been an Israeli agenda for generations before October 7, and both Biden and Trump have always been fiendishly devoted to giving Israel everything it wants. If you stop fixating on the two-handed puppet show of American partisan politics and just look at the US-Israeli power structure as a whole, this just looks like an empire scorching a stretch of land that it wanted to grab and then telling the survivors to leave. And that’s exactly what this is.

It’s interesting how the US empire advances interests based on which presidents are best suited for the job. Trump would have had a much harder time doing what Biden did because all the “Trump is literally Hitler!” liberals would have made opposition to the Gaza holocaust much more mainstream. Biden would have had a much harder time doing what Trump is doing because his faction needs to pose as the law-abiding upholders of the rules-based international order; saying “Yeah we’re just gonna get those people out of there and own Gaza so we can make some nice real estate” wouldn’t have jibed with their schtick.

All the Democrats trying to say “See you should have voted Harris because Trump is way worse on Gaza!” and all the Republicans saying “What else can Trump do? He inherited an impossible problem from Biden!” are (at best) completely missing the point. Biden and Trump are just the names and faces on the operation; the operation itself is one unified movement toward the permanent seizure of Palestinian land. When powerful people get what they’ve always wanted, it’s seldom a lucky coincidence. It’s the result of deliberate, calculating actions taken in that direction. The faces placed in front of those actions are irrelevant.

__________________

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

The post The Nonstop Military Operation Known as Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today, February 6, is when we are supposed to learn about President Trump’s “plan” for releasing CIA records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy, which the CIA has steadfastly and fiercely kept secret for more than 60 years — on grounds of protecting “national security” of course.

I remain doubtful that all of those decades-old records will be released, for the sample reason that I don’t believe that the CIA is going to permit Trump to disclose those records. I think it’s much more likely that the CIA will let Trump do what he did the last time he was president — release some records while keeping the rest secret. That would enable Trump to crow publicly about how he “released the JFK records” while the incriminating records continue to be kept secret.

After all, why didn’t Trump simply issue an order to the National Archives to immediately release all of the long-secret JFK-assassination-related records in its possession? Why didn’t he simply order the CIA to disclose all of its files on CIA officer George Joannides, who played a critically important role in the JFK saga? Why doesn’t he issue such orders today and just forget about coming up with a “plan” for releasing the records? What next? A committee to study the problem and come up with a report six months from now? (For more on Joannides, see FFF’s book Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation by Jefferson Morley and Morley’s January 30, 2025, article “JFK Most Wanted: The Joannides File.)

In any event, if and when those long-secret records are ever released, one thing I can say with 100 percent certainty: They will not include any records documenting the CIA’s dealings with the famous Zapruder film, the film in which Dallas businessman Abraham Zapruder captured the JFK assassination. That’s because such records would have documented the CIA’s participation in the cover-up of the national-security establishment’s violent regime-change operation in Dallas on November 22, 1963,

I detail the CIA’s dealings with the Zapruder film in my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story. The reason I consider this book so important is that it outlines the steps that the CIA secretly took on the very weekend of the assassination to produce an altered copy of the film, which became the extant “original” film that today rests in the National Archives and that we see on the Internet.

Why is that important? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent film, any more than there is innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. A fraudulent film automatically means criminal culpability In the assassination itself. There is no way around it. (For details relating to the U.S. military’s fraudulent autopsy on JFK’s body at Bethesda National Military Hospital on the very evening of the assassination, see my book The Kennedy Autopsy.)

Ever since the day after the assassination, the official narrative has been that the Zapruder film was shipped to LIFE magazine in Chicago. As each decade passed since then, the CIA never made any effort to disavow that official narrative.

In the late 2000s, however, a man named Dino Brugioni came forward and disclosed that the official narrative was false. Who was Brugioni? He was the world’s most renowned photo analyst. Equally important, he worked for the CIA — for 35 years. At the time of the JFK assassination, he worked in the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington D.C. He had helped analyze the photographs of Soviet missiles during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Among his books is Eyeball to Eyeball, a history of U.S. imagery intelligence. For a more detailed biographical sketch of Brugioni, see his Wikipedia page here.

In the late 2000s, Brugioni disclosed that on Saturday night, November 23, 1963— the day after the assassination — he and a CIA photographic team were summoned to NPIC, where two men identifying themselves as Secret Service agents delivered the original 8mm Zapruder film to Brugioni. The film was viewed on an 8mm projector. Brugioni and his team were asked to make “briefing boards” on which selected images from the film were to be displayed.

From a legal standpoint, Brugioni should not have been disclosing this episode, not even in the late 2000s. That’s because he had been told that it was a highly classified operation. Since Brugioni had never been released from his vow of secrecy, he had to know that conceivably he could be criminally prosecuted for disclosing that Saturday night operation. He obviously concluded that federal officials would’t dare to do so and decided to go ahead and disclose the truth.

In my opinion, it would be standard procedure for Brugioni’s boss, Arthur Lundahl, who had instructed Brugioni and his team to report to NPIC, to type up a report of what had happened that night. That’s normally the way government bureaucracies work. But that’s assuming that operations are legal, legitimate ones. Given that this particular operation involved a cover-up of the national-security establishment’s assassination of a U.S president, the standard procedure would have been to not put anything about either the assassination or the cover-up in writing.

One thing is for sure: Any records relating to the Zapruder film, including a written report of the Brugioni operation, would be considered an assassination-related record. Therefore, if such a record existed, the CIA was required to turn it over to the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

But no such record was turned over. Moreover, it is a virtual certainty that it is not among the still-secret assassination-related records being held by the National Archives because the CIA would have been required to show that releasing information about the Brugioni operation would have threatened “national security” and, therefore, required another 25 years of secrecy. There is no way that the ARRB would have bought that argument.

It gets better. On Sunday night, an entirely different CIA photographic team was summoned to NPIC, where a man identifying himself as a Secret Service agent named Bill Smith delivered what was represented to be the Zapruder film. He stated that he had just brought the film from Hawkeyeworks, a top-secret CIA photographic facility located in Kodak’s headquarters in Rochester, New York.

A CIA official at Hawkeyeworks told Brugioni that they could do “anything” at Hawkeyeworks. In other words, whatever Hollywood could do with film, the photographic experts at Hawkeyeworks could match. That  would have included producing a top quality altered copy of  a film using what was called an “optical printer.”

Once again, if everything was on the up and up, there would naturally have been a written report of the Zapruder film being delivered to Hawkeyeworks and detailing what the CIA did with the film at that facility. No such record has ever been released, including to the ARRB.

The same holds true for the Sunday night operation, where new briefing boards were prepared for images taken from the altered copy of the film, which became the new original.

It is worth mentioning that the Saturday night and Sunday night operations were tightly compartmentalized. That is, the Saturday night team never knew about the Sunday night operation and vice versa. In fact, when Brugioni learned about the Sunday night operation in the late 2000s, he was shocked to learn that that had been kept secret from him, especially since he was not only the second in command at NPIC, he was also serving as duty officer in charge at NPIC on the weekend of the assassination.

(Note: Even though Hawkeyeworks was secretly located in the research and development center at Kodak’s national headquarters in Rochester, there is no evidence that Kodak officials participated in the Zapruder film operation.)

How do we know that the Sunday night film was an altered copy of the original? Several reasons, which I detailed in my book An Encounter with Evil.

One reason is that the Sunday night copy was a 16mm film, as the CIA team on Sunday night confirmed. The Zapruder film was a 8mm film. It is impossible to convert a 8mm film into a 16mm film. Therefore, the 16mm film had to be a copy. Once it was slit down the middle, it became the new 8mm Zapruder film.

Another reason is that when Brugioni was shown the extant film after he disclosed the Saturday night operation in the late 2000s, he unequivocally stated that the film he saw on Saturday night was significantly different from the film he was now being shown.

Another reason is that using modern-day film technology, various film experts who have examined the extant film have demonstrated the altered nature of the film, as I detail more fully in my book.

It’s also worth noting that there was absolutely no reason to take the film to Hawkeyeworks, except to produce a top-quality altered copy of it.

Thus, even if Trump follows through with his vow to release all — repeat all — of the still-secret JFK-assassination-related records, it is a virtual certainty that such records will not include any reference to the CIA’s classified operations on the Zapruder film on the very weekend of the assassination. That’s because such records were never created or because they were later destroyed. It would have been much too dangerous — and very dumb — to disclose them.

One can purchase An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story at Amazon.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Secret JFK Records: The CIA and the Zapruder Film appeared first on LewRockwell.

Let’s take it from the top: DEI was destroying Western values and the culture of meritocracy. The bigots of woke culture subverted our institutions yet claimed to occupy the moral high ground. A nation’s historic culture and values were thrown into the dustbin, while the sinister system abolished free speech. It was a systemic attack on our free society by so-called elites—in reality a nefarious bunch of lefties whose plan was to shut us all up. It was an Orwellian Big Brother all over again, except this time it was not fiction but fact.

The real scandal is that the media was in cahoots with the bad guys trying to do away with free speech. The Washington Post’s and the Los Angeles Times’ owners, Jeff Bezos and Dr. Soon Shiong, respectively, had to interfere and demand more fairness and objectivity just before the election. In fact, most of the journalists were in favor of DEI and tirelessly worked to keep sane voices quiet and off the TV screens. The abject awfulness of these people is due to their arrogant belief that they, not the public, know best. A recent horror that took place on that rainy and tight little island of Britain illustrates the problem.

“If this is justice, I’m a banana.”

Anyone not woke in Britain is more often than not—in fact almost always, including in conservative newspapers—referred to as hard right by the media. Hard right is now everyone who votes Conservative or Reform, at least where the BBC and most newspapers are concerned. No one can do anything about it because the left holds the reins where TV channels are concerned, and in any case, as I’ve said before, most journalists in Britain and America are lefties. Racial equity is big in Britain, so when a 17-year-old British-born black thug whose Rwandan parents had come over in the year 2000 had shown violent leanings and had purchased large knives delivered to his home by Amazon, no one did anything about it. The thug enjoyed what I call black immunity.

He turned into a vile murderer when he cold-bloodedly butchered three little white girls, all less than 10 years of age, while they were having a dancing and singing party in their school. He also knifed, wounded, and tried to murder a further bunch of little girls who survived his vile attacks. So what did the brave British government do? Officials did not immediately reveal the name of the killer because of his color, and a number of false claims circulated on social media. The misinformation helped fuel rioting throughout England.

False rumors that the murders had been committed by illegal migrants spread like wildfire. By the time the government and the fuzz decided to tell it like it was, towns and villages had been set alight by mostly white rioters who attacked hostels occupied by migrants. Axel Rudakubana, the vile murderer, was eventually arrested, tried, and given 52 years—not life, because he was a few short days younger than 18 years of age. In Britain criminals are let off after serving half their sentence, most times even just one-third. But the point of my story is that the state threw the book at the rioters, who may have thrown bricks and broken things but did not kill or injure anyone, and who had been almost led to riot by the state having refused to give information, leading to false conclusions by the rioters. The name-calling and abuse by the media were typical. How dare these whites take the law into their own hands? Ditto in America. One person, a pro-Trump woman, died invading Congress on January 6, but 1,500 were given stiff sentences, including a 22-year one for someone who wasn’t even there. During the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020, scores died and hundreds of businesses were burned to the ground, and no one spent a single night in jail. If this is justice, I’m a banana.

Read the Whole Article

The post Woke’s Gone Broke appeared first on LewRockwell.

Just a few short years ago, we all lived through the COVID-19 pandemic, including a huge number of shortages. What started out as the toilet paper shortage of 2020, soon spread to shortages of just about everything in the grocery store and many critical items in the pharmacy.

The long-term effects of the pandemic included shortages on major items, like cars and computers, which lasted a few years. We are just recently seeing car lots full again, as the automotive supply chain has filled with the necessary parts (especially electronic parts) necessary for manufacturers to build cars and trucks once again.

Granted, a lot of the early shortages in that disaster were because of panic buying. There was absolutely no reason for there to be a shortage on toilet paper; but that didn’t stop people from buying it. Once the supply started to get short, more and more people bought, trying to ensure that they’d have some if things got even worse.

The long-term shortages were actually more serious, caused primarily by changes in buying habits, which in turn were caused by the shutdowns. People who were working from home didn’t need to replace their cars, because they weren’t driving. They didn’t need to buy expensive wardrobes to impress everyone at work. Nor did they need to spend money eating at restaurants. On the other hand, many had to upgrade their home computers to work from and bigger television sets to while away their spare time.

Just as it appeared that we could forget about shortages, a new threat to the American supply chain loomed its ugly head. The International Longshoremen’s Association Union threatened a strike, then carried through on it, seeking higher wages and an end to the potential automation of ports. Thirty-six ports on the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico did shut down, briefly, as longshoremen walked off their jobs. This strike, which fortunately didn’t last more than a few days, had the potential of taking us back to the shortages we encountered during and after the pandemic.

Various prognosticators had already started spreading their message of doom, during the days leading up to the deadline and the few days of the strike itself. Had the longshoremen not come to agreement with the United States Marine Alliance, which represented the 36 ports affected by the strike, it could have gone on for weeks or even months. The head of the union had publicly declared that it was his intention to make the country suffer, if he didn’t get his way.

But the real message here isn’t about the differences of opinion between workers and management, or what a “fair wage” actually is; the real message is that at any point in time, we’re only one step away from disaster in our supply chain. Those longshoremen aren’t the only ones who could shut things down, making it hard for everyone.

According to some sources, all it would have taken would have been four weeks of those ports being shut down for entire industries to be closing their doors. The first week wouldn’t have been too bad. The second would have seen general shortages of all sorts of goods, with prices starting to rise. By the third week, stores will be rationing items, manufacturers will be slowing down, and some will furlough workers, until the supply chain should return to normal. But the fourth week is where things would really get bad, with small businesses being hit the hardest, just like during COVID. Shelves in the stores that are still open will be pretty bare, with the prices of goods making many things unaffordable to the average family.

That’s all the time it takes to put us back into the condition we were in after COVID. It has taken us a couple of years to recover from that, and in some ways, we still aren’t fully recovered. This second time around, if it had happened, would have been worse than the first, partially due to panic buying and partially due to the damage building upon previous damage.

Of course, this potential panic isn’t over yet. The agreement between the longshoremen and the ports is just a tentative agreement, put in place to end the strike. They don’t have a signed contract yet. So, there’s still a possibility that things could go south again.

Don’t be fooled; we haven’t fully returned to pre-pandemic times. There are a lot of things that have changed. The most obvious of these is the high inflation we’ve had for the last few years; thanks to all those trillion-dollar-plus bills that Congress passed. But our buying habits have changed as well, with people doing their grocery shopping online and picking up their orders at the curb. We’re also using much less cash, having gotten into the habit of paying everything with a plastic card.

Let’s Break Down Shortages a Bit More

There’s a tendency to think of shortages in the extreme. In other words, when we use the word “shortage,” people tend to think in terms of there not being any of those items available at all. We experienced that during COVID, especially things that we would normally buy in the grocery store.

But not all shortages are severe like that. The recent Hurricane Helene has turned out to be one of the deadliest hurricanes in history, being the deadliest since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. What didn’t look like it was going to be much of a hurricane, turned into a Cat 4 hurricane, with severe winds and huge amounts of inland flooding. The devastation in the Deep South is going to have a major impact on agriculture, creating shortages; specifically, cotton, pecans and peaches. All three of those come from areas which have been severely affected by the storm.

In this particular case, cotton is a short-term problem, which will affect the next year’s production of T-shirts, sheets, towels, Q-Tips and clothing in general. So, we can expect to see an increase in price for those items. Unless something happens to damage next year’s crop, things should be back to normal, but the prices won’t necessarily come back down.

While cotton is a much more important crop, the damage to peach and pecan trees is much more serious. Cotton plants can be grown in a few months, whereas those trees need several years to grow to the point where they are producing fruit and nuts. With miles of orchards having been uprooted, the farmers are going to have a rough go of it, trying to restore their farms.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be peaches or pecans, it just means that their price will rise. That’s the law of Supply and Demand in action. The wealthy will still be able to get as much as they want, as price isn’t a problem for them. Those of us in the middle class may make decisions to buy other food items, which are more affordable. We will still see peaches and pecans in our grocery stores; but many of us will likely just pass them by.

The people who will be most affected by those shortages, like all shortages, are the poor. They can’t afford to pay more for something, just because it is in short supply. Instead, they will adjust their buying habits, selecting other items which they can afford.

Read the Whole Article

The post Living Through Another Wave of Shortages appeared first on LewRockwell.

This post will be a little different, because I want to talk about something that will surely earn some hate mail. If you’re a mom with school-aged kids, and if you’re sick of being bossed around by out-of-control social engineers, this one is for you.

According to school calendars, it’s spring. It’s hard to tell when you look out the window; the trees outside my window are still bare. Yet, while nature still sleeps under late winter’s spell, our calendars are in full bloom. Unlike nature’s spring, though, this burst of new life isn’t so magical.

In case you’re out of the “school mom” phase, I’ll set the stage for my forthcoming rant. Stick with me, because a deeper truth is at stake.

Once school families have returned from their glorious summer or winter breaks, they always face a frightful vibe switch. The machinery cranks up, sets their calendars in motion, and reminds them who is really in charge. The excessive rest that families enjoyed must be reigned in and repurposed for communal priorities.

A juggernaut of emails, announcements, and meetings is thus unleashed by an army of principals, teachers, PTA reps and team moms. And each year, everyone pretends to be surprised by this; “Fall is so busy!” Spring is always so crazy!” Nobody—not even the staff PhD—has any idea how to slow it; and despite frazzled minds and fractured spirits, nobody really wants to. It’s all part of the “fun” of spring.

Joining a middle school sports team? You can expect two emails, three signups, two team parents, and a parent meeting—and that’s all before the first baseball is thrown. The pressure increases for high school sports: you will do all the middle school stuff, but you must also work the concession stand. In either situation, you’ll need volunteers for the team party—and can you host?

As an aside, all these communications must occur on platforms other than email, which isn’t cool and “sexy” anymore. Using multiple layers of password-laden apps is preferred now. Part of the mothering day is spent checking a matrix of apps or digging through old messages to find out what time the bus returns to campus.

The unwritten rule here is simple: If you’re a parent whose child will participate in a school-sponsored sport, you must agree to clear your calendar and dedicate your life—with its flagging, perimenopausal energies—to the sports team. Your child is a Wildcat, or an Eagle, or a Knight—and now so are you. This is also true of travel sports, where parents must make the team their entire identity. Either way, such parents must spend late nights out, weekends away, wear team gear, and lose brain cells at group lunches and team dinners. One must never, never risk time alone.

But wait—there’s more. I’m now going to take aim at a sacred cow—and this will surely qualify me as borderline evil.

Long ago, someone decided that it was the job of school moms to run candy shacks for those who want to watch a two-hour football game. Fair enough—it’s a great way to raise money and keep bored siblings entertained. They served Skittles, Cokes, and hot dogs. Fast forward a few years, though, and now every sport is in on the game: soccer, track, lacrosse, you name it— they all require concession sales and, of course, a team of “volunteers”. The menu has expanded, too.

Why am I grousing about this beloved and uncontroversial tradition? Number one, the food is garbage, completely at odds with all the “healthy habits” we’re supposedly encouraging. Number two, most concession stands turn into lively roach motels once the last volunteer shuts out the light. These roaches boast sizes that would wilt the knees of the football coach; but go ahead, take your chances eating with those plastic spoons.

Most importantly, though, mothers are continually pressed to spend their guilty “free” hours running these stands. To enjoy a game guilt-free, you must first make the blood sacrifice of a signup; only then can you sit and enjoy watching your child play. Driving, buying uniforms, paying fees—none of that counts anymore. You have only been declared righteous by the team mom because your name is written down in the sacred book of Sign Up Genius.

I can already imagine some irate responses. “Wow, this is so harsh! Think of all the fun her kids have likely enjoyed through other moms’ sacrifices—all the pizza slices, goody bags, matching tee shirts. Doesn’t she enjoy community? Doesn’t she like serving others? It takes a village!”

That’s okay. I don’t mind being a contrarian now and then, and here’s why: most moms are afraid to utter these obvious truths, so they continue to push themselves and their families to their limits. Someone must therefore speak for harried victims of the social gods and their endless entanglements. Those with minds full of team spirit and school parties have devoured every else’s free time—hours that might have been spent in productivity or quiet refreshment.

Granted, some moms enjoy these village gigs, and if so, they are free to donate their time to serve others this way. In fact, this is a natural and logical overflow of multi-tasking, people-loving talent. (Looking at you, team moms!). Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not here to restrict non-compulsory efforts. I love sports, too, and we need friendship. All moms should feel free to bless others through their varied gifs and passions. People excel in a diversity of strengths—including things like running concession stands.

Here’s the reality, though: Many “busy” volunteer moms are already drowning in multiple children, piles of housework, a part-time job, aging parents, and even church commitments. Their quiet times are scattered at best. Their minds are frazzled, their homes are disordered, their husbands are stressed, and their kids need attention. All of these things rank well ahead of “the village,” despite the popularity of such talk among moms.

Read the Whole Article

The post Not That Kind of Mom appeared first on LewRockwell.

It would be fair to call President Trump as obsessed with tariffs. Import tariffs on every country that does not conform to his foreign policy ideas is the “rules-based order” converted into the “Trump-based order.”

Punishment by imposing tariffs is an ill-advised obsession of Donald Trump’s. He played this card already during his first Administration (2016-2020), and it was in most places, especially in China, ineffective and just hot air propaganda. First, because China had already then and even more today, developed other markets in Asia, foremost with the ASEAN countries and later with the Global South; and second, because the US depends more on imports of Chinese goods, than China depends on exports to the US. Hence, the enormous trade imbalance in favor of China.

In the course of a ten-year negotiation, China and Indonesia initiated the world’s largest Free Trade Agreement, based on the ASEAN association, the so called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), comprising 15 countries (Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), accounting for nearly 30% of the world’s population and 30% (US$ 30 trillion – 2024 est.) of global GDP. The RCEP is the largest trade block in history. It became effective on 1 January 2022.

Trump hopes to reduce the US-China trade disequilibrium by imposing tariffs on Chinese-made imports. What he does is putting a stick in the wheels of US industries depending on imports from China, thereby slowing the US economy; and US consumer goods becoming more expensive, contributing to US inflation, the very affliction he promised during his campaign to fight as number One Priority.

On a political level, imposing tariffs on countries he does not agree with is outright blackmail. Will Trump blackmail Canada into becoming the 51st State of the United States by his announced 25% tariffs for Canadian goods?

In Mexico, under another 25% tariff threat, President Claudia Sheinbaum promised to deploy 10,000 national guard members to 18 cities along the US-Mexico border as part of a deal to delay US tariffs. The Mexican National Guard has been created only a few years ago. They are unarmed and have so far little experience. They are operating under the Mexican military and are supposed to “prevent drug trafficking from Mexico to the United States, particularly fentanyl.”

Along with the understaffed Mexican military, they will also be confronted with the task to stop illegal immigration to the US. See this from the NYT.

The question arises as to what extent do these tariff impositions by President Trump contradict or violate the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada, and Mexico, signed in 1993, by then President Clinton? And let us remember, NAFTA was designed to benefit first and foremost the United States, resulting then in a strong critique, particularly by Mexico.

During his campaign, Trump promised he would take the Panama Canal back. The French started building the Canal in 1881 but ultimately failed. The project was taken over in 1904 by the United States and finished in 1914. Under a US agreement with Panama, the Canal was turned over to sovereign Panama on 31 December 1999.

There is no legal basis for interference by any country in the sovereign domain of Panama. Nevertheless, self-styled Emperor Trump said he wants to take the Canal back. He says it is managed by China. True. Panama, a sovereign country, has the right to grant a management contract for the canal, basically the two ports on the Caribbean and the Pacific side, to whomever Panama chooses.

China has a worldwide reputation for first class port management. One brilliant example is the Athens harbor of Piraeus. Another one is the recently inaugurated (November 2024), China-built, and managed merchant port of Chancay, Peru, arguably the largest on the South American Pacific Coast. To the chagrin of Donald Trump’s, it will most likely pool exports to Asia and the US West Coast, as well as imports of most South American nations.

President Trump has already anticipated high tariffs – 25% for all exports from Chancay to the US. In Peru, a vassal state of Washington, he may get away with it. And if so, not only killing economic benefits of the port for Peru, but also for those South American countries who were planning to use it.

That Mr. Trump does not like his economic competitor, China, is an open secret. To make his point stronger, he just added a lie that China charges US vessels higher tariffs for crossing the Panama Canal. This would be totally against the Canal management agreement of “neutrality” and would certainly not have survived unnoticed for a quarter century.

However, the lie may sell with the insouciant American people. Why would China do that? And no other US Administration since 2000 has noticed it?

When Trump first announced the threat of taking back the Canal, Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino resolutely said no way.

On 2 February 2025, Trump’s Foreign Secretary Marco Rubio met with Panama’s President Mulino in Panama using Trump’s reasoning for US “national security”, that the current position of influence and control of the Chinese Communist Party over the Panama Canal area is a threat to the canal and represents a violation of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal.

Secretary Rubio added that this status quo is unacceptable and that absent immediate changes, it would require the United States to take measures necessary to protect its rights under the Treaty.

The Canal is managed by a Hong Kong-based subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings which won the bidding process in 1997. Obviously, the company has not posed any threat to US national security during the last 25 years. Immediately after Secretary Rubio’s visit, Panama’s President Mulino had a change of mind and said he would not renew the contract with the Chinese port management company.

That was not enough for Emperor Trump, who wanted Mulino to immediately revoke the contract. Apparently Mulino was sufficiently pressured, coerced, or threatened – it is called blackmailed – that he agreed. He also said he would not renew Panama’s membership in the Chinese “Belt and Road” worldwide infrastructure program. Mulino also agreed to grant US military vessels free passage through the Canal.

Was the coercion just insane tariffs – or worse?

The contract revoking might open Panama to international arbitration on the basis that the move was a politically motivated expropriation. In addition, free passage for US military vessels could face further legal jeopardy, as this would amount to preferential treatment and be a clear violation of the canal’s commitment to neutrality.

*

President Trump’s reinstating of the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America seems clear, converting Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) again to Washington’s backyard. This will displease certainly many of the hitherto Latin American US allies.

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe’s seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ sphere of interest. At that time, more than 200 years ago, nobody thought of China.

So, China is de facto not part of the doctrine. However, Trump takes the liberty to expand the Monroe Doctrine – which, never had an international legal base – throughout the world, including China and Russia.

Will the new US Emperor Trump bully enforcement of the Monroe doctrine throughout Latin America with tariff blackmail? It is not impossible. At present LAC countries depend from 30% (Argentina) to 80% (Mexico) on trade with the United States. On average, LAC countries trade with the US may be close to 50% – making the US by far the largest single trading partner of LAC.

This percentage had hardly changed in the last 20 years when US governments had other priorities than enforcing the Monroe doctrine. This would have been the time for LAC countries to diversify their economies to escape the dollar pressure. They missed it. By neglect or false trust in their northern partner?

Compare this to Russia and China which realized latest with the western-instigated Maidan (Kiev) Coup in February 2014, that western belligerence was not about to ease within short. So, they reoriented their market economy towards Asia and the Global South. Today, Trump tariffs on Chinese goods are Trump propaganda stints, doing more harm at home in the US than to China.

LAC countries might be well advised to concentrate their economy on LAC-internal markets and on Asia. Though, this does not happen overnight, it is never too late, but high time to start their move towards economic, financial, and political independence.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post President Trump’s Obsession With Tariffs. Economic Ruse or Political Blackmail? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

Just what Ireland needs: another million immigrants from the Muslim world. Ireland doesn’t have the housing and infrastructure to even support its own population.

But, yeah, I’m sure the Palestinians will fit right in. They can work with the IRA.

Irish Times.

The post Israel Defense Minister Israel Katz, Says that Ireland, Spain, and Norway “Legally Obligated” to Take In Palestinians appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

Hi Lew,

Has anyone asked Hamas and the Palestinians what they think of Trump’s plan to rebuild Gaza? I’m sure Hamas would like the unexploded ordnance removed and the cleaning up of the rubble. But then what?

Miriam Adelson is riding Trump hard. Giddy-Yap! Miriam is yelling at Trump. The Israelis, her fellow countrymen, want Gaza. (That would make a great cartoon. Miriam Adelson riding on Trump’s back with the bit between Trump’s teeth. 100 million dollars would be hanging in front of Trump’s nose. (Miriam Adelson gave Trump $100 million for his campaign.))

Trump may be playing some kind of Gaza Ploy. No one in the Middle East wants more Palestinians in their country. Especially Gazans who were just bombed out of their homes. These folks aren’t happy.

Trump says to Miriam, “Miriam, I tried. None of the Arab countries want the Gazans. Even the Irish don’t want them. I did my best.” Miriam puts her hand to her chest. “But all that money, Donald. All that money we could make!”

Then, Trump cancels all aid to the Middle East and focuses on the USA and the Western Hemisphere.

I can dream, can’t I?

The post The Gaza Ploy appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Declassified UK

The post How Britain supported Zionism and prevented Palestinian freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Times of Israel

The post Footage apparently shows settler extremists vandalizing Palestinian hamlet in West Bank appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks , John Frahm.

The American Conservative

The post Not My MAGAza appeared first on LewRockwell.