Aggregatore di feed

LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON is a president who has escaped the scrutiny and judgment of history despite considerable documentation that should make him an outstanding candidate for historical review, critique, and analysis. His primary biographer, Robert Caro, consistently gets rave book reviews from mainstream media for his disingenuous puff piece books on LBJ. It’s entirely possible that LBJ is the most evil or one of the most evil presidents in US history. (ILLUSTRATION: The USS Liberty post-Israeli attack)

Some researchers believe that LBJ was the mastermind behind JFK’s assassination and researcher Phillip F. Nelson wrote a book documenting his investigation on this issue: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination.

However, one of the greatest unknown chapters in LBJ’s presidency is that he personally gave the order to Israel to bomb and utterly destroy the USS Liberty and its entire crew of 294 Americans. Astoundingly, when the mission went awry and Sixth Fleet Commanders were ordering the rescue of the besieged and bloodied USS Liberty crew, LBJ ordered that rescue operations be called back, at least twice. Against all odds, the USS Liberty survived but after the attack, 34 Americans lay dead. Except for four worthless .50 caliber machine guns, the USS Liberty was unarmed and defenseless against the far superior firing power of the Israeli navel and air force armada that descended upon it with relentless and unspeakable terror.

Not a whole lot has been written about the USS Liberty. It’s just another critically important issue that has been buried in history, but two extraordinary books document the truth. James M. Ennes Jr., is a retired US Naval Officer and a survivor of the Liberty attack who wrote a book that documents his investigative disclosure of the truth, here.

Peter Hounam, an investigative journalist, wrote Operation Cyanide, Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III. Hounam’s extraordinary book, published in 2003, relies heavily on the work of Ennis and also documents numerous interviews that Hounam conducted with the USS Liberty survivors as well as other folks in the US, British, and Israeli governments.

The “official” story of the USS Liberty, according to the government and mainstream media version of the event, is that on June 8, 1967 the Israelis accidentally bombed the Liberty off the coast of Egypt and killed 34 American sailors.

The real story is that President Johnson, who was being battered in the polls over the Vietnam War and facing a general election loss and even losing the Democrat primary, asked the Israelis to bomb the Liberty to create a casus belli and to secure a Gulf-of-Tonkin-style resolution to explode the world into war — because in America everybody loves an outraged and indignant president who will use the full force of the military at the slightest provocation, even a government-planned false flag attack.

The USS Liberty, however, encompasses far more than a murderous psychopathic American president resorting to hideously evil deeds to get re-elected. In addition to ordering the total destruction of the USS Liberty and potentially sending 294 Americans to a watery grave in the Mediterranean Sea, LBJ also ordered the nuclear bombing of Cairo, an event specifically designed to create a nuclear war by blaming the entire USS Liberty affair on Russia or Egypt. More horrifying, it’s documented that US planes were on emergency standby orders as pilots waited on the runways in their planes armed with nuclear weapons. The nuclear bombing of Cairo was called off only three minutes before the nuclear bomb drops.

As fate would have it, LBJ’s plan blew up in his face and the world got a reprieve from a US-induced nuclear holocaust.

How did all this happen? First, it must be understood that the USS Liberty was supposed to be destroyed and sunk within minutes and without any survivors.

The actual attack on the USS Liberty commenced at 2:00 p.m. Israel time on June 8, 1967. The USS Liberty was 13 miles off the coast of Gaza and moving slowly at five knots. The crew had observed several flyovers by Israeli reconnaissance planes earlier in the day.

When the USS Liberty was struck, it was struck with an awesome force. According to USSLiberty.org, a website created by the survivors to document and expose the truth, the ship was first struck by Israeli fighter aircraft:

“Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm. During the air attack, USS Liberty’s crew had difficulty contacting Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications jamming. The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to repel boarders.

After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty, opposite the ship’s research spaces. [20] Twenty-six Americans in addition to the eight who had been killed in the earlier air attacks, were killed as a result of this explosion.

Following their torpedo attack, the torpedo boats moved up and down the length of the ship (both the port and starboard sides), continuing their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21] In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun holes.”, link here.

USS Liberty Timeline, here.

0600: Israeli Nord 2501 Noratlas (flying boxcar) reconnoiters Liberty….

0603: Reconnaissance aircraft reports to Israeli naval headquarters that “GTR-5” is written on the ship, identifying it as an NSA intelligence vessel.

0720: Fresh American flag is raised….

1000: Two unmarked, rocket-armed, delta-winged jets circle Liberty three times. Liberty officers can count rockets and see the pilots, but see no identifying marks on the plane. The jets radio Israeli headquarters that the ship is flying an American flag….

1055: Pinchas Pinchasy, naval liaison officer at Israeli air force headquarters, reports to Naval Headquarters that the ship cruising slowly off El Arish is “an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was GTR-5.”…

1100 & 1130: Israeli reconnaissance aircraft again circle Liberty.

The above information is critically important because it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Israelis were well aware that the USS Liberty was a well-marked US spy ship. US spy ships are extremely easy to spot because, as telecommunication vessels, they are loaded with wires, antennas and other communication gear that are easily recognized and identifiable (unlike Russian spy ships that were realistically camouflaged as trawlers and fishing boats). The reason it’s important to understand this is because the cover-up of of the USS Liberty incident was so flimsy and fictitious that both the US and Israeli governments officially stated that the USS Liberty was mistook for an Egyptian vessel that hauls horses. This is simply impossible.

As the timeline unfolds, it’s clear that the attack on the USS Liberty had two goals: 1. first destroy and disable all communication capabilities and 2. sink the ship, her crew and guarantee that there were no survivors. The timeline continues:

1358: Two unmarked delta-winged Mirage jets attack Liberty. After taking out gun mounts, they target ship’s antennae and bridge with heat-seeking missiles.

1424: Three French-built 62-ton Israeli motor torpedo boats approach Liberty in attack formation.

1435: Torpedo boats launch five German-made 19-inch torpedoes at Liberty. One torpedo strikes starboard directly into NSA area, accounting for 25 of the 34 men who would be killed. Torpedo boats then circle, machine-gunning the ship with armor-piercing projectiles for another 40 minutes.

At this point, the USS Liberty was being pummeled by air and sea with everything that attack planes and motorized torpedo boats (MTB’s) could possibly throw at them. The decks were ablaze from napalm fires, the ship was being torpedoed by the Israeli Navy and bombs and rockets from the air rained down on them.

This is where the story turns extraordinarily heroic from human ingenuity that pretty much killed LBJ’s grand plan. One of the USS Liberty’s communication transformers had been down and not functioning, something the Israeli’s must have known in advance because it wasn’t destroyed or even hit. A courageous crew member managed to fix it by stringing long wires across a burning deck and rendered it operable, and, of course, capable of sending out a mayday message to numerous US aircraft that permeated the area. However, the Israeli planes had high tech jamming equipment that successfully jammed the signal. It’s probably also true that at that point the Israeli’s were not much concerned with the USS Liberty sending out a message because they believed that all communication equipment was knocked out permanently.

Peter Hounam writes in Operation Cyanide, “Liberty radioman Richard Sturman concluded that the attackers had carefully prepared for the attack with the specific intention of preventing the ship communicating with the outside world. To do so effectively they must have had prior knowledge from shore-based receivers of the five frequencies being used by the ship, so that jamming gear could be tuned to them. Sturman recalled his anger when he discovered that the international distress frequency, used for Mayday messages, was also jammed”.

The astute crew however made a startling discovery. The Israeli jamming capabilities did not work when they were actually engaged bombing and the USS Liberty crew had windows of a few seconds of opportunity in between strikes to send out a message.

Hounam writes, “At first, the signalmen felt their task was hopeless. Plane after plane was swooping in on the ship, firing cannon, shooting missiles and dropping napalm….Then someone spotted that there was a respite from the jamming, lasting just a few seconds, when the attacking planes fired their missiles. Halman grabbed the opportunity and shouted into the mike, ‘Any station, this is Rockstar. We are under attack by unidentified jet aircraft and require immediate assistance!’”. On the USS Saratoga (call-sign ‘Schematic’) the radioman picked up the message but it was garbled, possibly by further jamming. “Rockstar, this is ‘Schematic,’ he said. ‘Say again, you are garbled.’”

Eventually, the USS Liberty message was acknowledged and authenticated 10 minutes after the attack began. The USS Saratoga confirmed Liberty’s message with “Roger, Rockstar. Authentication is correct…”. The messaged bounced everywhere and was even acknowledged by two US embassies in the region. Furthermore, it was impossible for the Pentagon not to know of Liberty’s attack as all messages are also automatically routed to the Pentagon and other government agencies. The Israelis must have also intercepted the radio message.

The Liberty crew was relieved and believed that help was on the way. Wrong! Although fleet commanders quickly ordered rescue operations, twice the rescue missions were ordered called back by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a close friend and trusted associate of LBJ. In fact, it’s documented that during one of the conversations between the the Sixth Fleet Commander and McNamara, LBJ got on the phone and roared, “We will not embarrass an ally,” to reinforce McNamara’s direct command from LBJ to not rescue the ailing USS Liberty and her crew.

According to James Ennes, the entire attack lasted 1 hour and 15 minutes, although some crew members believe it was longer. Unquestionably, the attack was sheer hell for those on board the USS Liberty and the agony was prolonged by the fact that help from the Sixth Fleet never arrived as expected.

Then something extraordinary happened. The Israelis stopped attacking despite having more than enough firepower to finish the job of sinking the USS Liberty and her crew. Its been documented that the Israelis had commando helicopter crews hovering above the USS Liberty with a crew to finish the job. Clearly, the USS Liberty crew expected to die.

But with the message out and everybody knowing about it, including the Russians who knew what was going because they were close by in their own disguised spy ships as they intercepted the message or possibly even observed the USS Liberty being attacked, the Israelis panicked, called off the attack and never finished the job. Eventually, the surviving crew was rescued and many were badly injured.

Hounam documents an interview with one of the injured USS Liberty crew members, Joe Lentini:

I woke up, it was pitch-black and I was in water. I tried to stand up and put my weight on my left leg and it wouldn’t support me, obviously I fell back down; I didn’t know at the time I had six broken ribs, a collapsed lung, a fractured skull, both tympanic membranes in my ears were blown out, shrapnel all over me in my body…it never occurred to me that I didn’t have a leg and it never occurred to me that I was about to die.

Shockingly, the USS Liberty tragedy did not begin at 2:00 p.m. Israeli time according to the sanitized official version. It began earlier. According to Hounam, he interviewed a retired Air Force pilot, Jim Nanjo, who spent 20 years on the H-bomb attack force. The job of such pilots who lived on US air bases was to be ready to jump into a plane and carry out orders immediately.

Nanjo told Hounam about how he was awakened on the morning of 6/8/67 between 2:00 a.m. and no later than 4:00 a.m. by an alert that told him an emergency situation existed and he needed to man his plane immediately. Other bomber pilots were also manning their planes and revving up their engines waiting for the “go” order and their orders. They knew nothing about their mission and Hounam writes:

Nanjo was in no doubt that the world was near to Armageddon that day…

There was however one other significance of his story that he had not spotted. The klaxons had woken him at between 1 am. and 4 am; he was certain it was no later, but the Liberty was not attacked until 5 am California time. How were the American military and their commander in chief, Lyndon Johnson, able to anticipate the attack, and yet apparently not know the Israelis were behind it.

Hounam also documents that Nanjo was aware that other US Air Force bases were under the same highest alert in Guam, Britain, Moron, Spain as well as in the US. What was Nanjo carrying? Hounam writes:

Even after 35 years, he was reluctant to provide details of the bombs carried by his squadron that morning.: ‘Other than to say it was a weapon of mass destruction. I am not able to give you the nomenclature.’ Then he confirmed that they were carrying thermonuclear weapons — H-bombs…

It’s well documented that LBJ and his trusted Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were deeply and personally involved in the USS Liberty tragedy, the cover-up of the truth and even a scheme to explode the world into nuclear warfare.

To comprehend the severity of the situation, it’s imperative to understand the Cold War, the backdrop against which it was played, the prevalent paranoia at the time of the Communist threat and the incredible rise of America’s military industrial complex to the world’s sole superpower. Many who knew LBJ well feared that he was unstable, mentally ill, a psychopath, or even worse. He was notoriously crude and vulgar. Denis Healey, the Secretary of Defense in Britain so despised and distrusted LBJ that he wrote in his memoirs:

Lyndon Johnson was a monster….

[He was] one of the few politicians with whom I found it uncomfortable to be in the same room. Johnson exuded a brutal lust for power which I found most disagreeable. When he said, “I never trust a man unless I have his pecker in my pocket,” he really meant it. He boasted about acting on the principle, “Give me a man’s balls, and his heart and mind will follow.”… Source: Operation Cyanide

That LBJ was mad is validated by his numerous actions that fueled his personal ambitions over the decades and in the summer of 1967. LBJ was obsessed with one thing and one thing only: reelection. He was in grave danger of losing the presidency and his power. That he would do anything to maintain that power is 100% consistent with the depth of his evil.

But LBJ was also an extraordinarily clever master politician who profoundly understood how a raucous game of geopolitics could be played and manipulated to his own advantage, especially when it came to courting the approval of the American people. Vietnam was already a whopper of a failure and LBJ’s war was growing more unpopular by the second.

The Middle East has always been a disaster (some things never change), at least since oil came into play and the modern nation state of Israel was created by the United Nations in 1948. The rise of Arab nationalism was also heating up as Egyptian President Gamal Nasser and the Marxist styled Baathist movements were flourishing. Syria and Iraq had shed western imposed monarchs and were raising their own brand of dictators. Israel was becoming America’s unofficial 51st state as the Evangelical movement was rising in anticipation of fulfilling Biblical prophecy now that Israel existed for the first time since Biblical times.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Most Incredible Story Never Told: LBJ’s Order to Destroy the USS Liberty appeared first on LewRockwell.

One must grant the man this: he possesses an unerring instinct for the vulgar moment. The setting was presumptively solemn—the Knesset, a chamber that has known its share of bombast and crisis. The occasion was ostensibly historic—the ratification of a ceasefire that has, for the moment, halted the slaughter in Gaza. And the principal actor was, of course, the 45th and 47th President of the United States, a man who believes that history is a trophy to be won and then brandished at the nearest camera.

He came not to mourn the Palestinian dead, whose numbers are so vast they have become a macabre abstraction, but to preside over a victory lap for the Israeli right. He came to receive the adulation he believes is his contractual due. And he came, inevitably, to talk. Oh how he talked. To listen to Donald Trump address the Israeli parliament is to experience a peculiar form of auditory waterboarding: a torrent of self-congratulation, bizarre digressions about gas stations in the sky and generals named “Raisin,” and a level of sycophantic praise for his host, Benjamin Netanyahu, that would make a North Korean newsreader blush.

The core of the performance, beneath the bluster and the off-the-cuff suggestion that his counterpart be pardoned for his various legal embarrassments, was a claim of world-historic triumph. The “age of terror and death” was over, he announced. The “new Middle East” was dawning. One half expected the walls of Jerusalem to part to reveal a choir of angels singing “Hail to the Chief.”

Let us, for a moment, apply the cold compress of reason to this febrile rhetoric. This “peace” was achieved not through diplomacy in the sense that grown-ups understand it, but through the application of overwhelming and indiscriminate force, bankrolled and armed by the United States. The Gaza Strip is now a leveled, toxic ruin, its population traumatized, starved, and displaced. To call this a victory for peace is like calling the bombing of Dresden a triumph of urban renewal. It is a peace of the cemetery, a peace that resembles nothing so much as a successful pest extermination.

And what of the vaunted “deal”? It is, in essence, the product of a simple and brutal equation: when one side possesses a modern military arsenal and the unconditional support of a global superpower, and the other side possesses little more than desperation and primitive rockets, the outcome is not a negotiation. It is a decree. The terms are not discussed; they are imposed. Hamas, suitably pummeled into a state of momentary incapacity, has been forced to swallow them. To call Trump a peacemaker for overseeing this process is like crediting a bulldozer with architectural innovation.

…when one side possesses a modern military arsenal and the unconditional support of a global superpower, and the other side possesses little more than desperation and primitive rockets, the outcome is not a negotiation. It is a decree.

The most nauseating spectacle, however, was the sight of a nation that styles itself the Middle East’s only democracy feting a man who has expressed open admiration for the world’s strongmen and a visceral contempt for the norms of liberal democracy. Netanyahu, a man clinging to power like a limpet to a rusting hull, lauded Trump as a “colossus” who will be “enshrined in the pantheon of history.” One can only assume this pantheon includes such other luminaries as Caligula and the Emperor Nero.

They thanked him for moving the embassy to Jerusalem, a cynical provocation that solidified apartheid-like realities. They thanked him for recognizing the stolen Golan Heights. They thanked him for withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, an act of such profound geopolitical stupidity that it gifted the mullahs a perfect pretext to accelerate their nuclear program, necessitating the very bombing campaign Trump now boasts about. They are thanking the arsonist for showing up with a single bucket of water after he spent years dousing the house in gasoline.

And then, with a staggering lack of self-awareness, Trump extended a hand to the Iranian regime he had just finished bombing. “We are ready when you are,” he cooed, as if addressing a spurned lover rather than a nation whose facilities he had just obliterated. It was a moment of pure, unadulterated performance, utterly divorced from statecraft, history, or basic logic. The message was clear: I can smash your capital to dust one day and offer you “friendship” the next, because it is all about *my* narrative, *my* deal-making prowess.

The whole tawdry affair—the groveling, the grotesque self-praise, the willful blindness to the mountains of corpses upon which this “peace” is built—was a perfect epitaph for our era. It was not the signing of a peace treaty. It was the celebration of a successful mob hit. The don flew in, collected his tribute, assured his capo he was the greatest, and promised everyone a bright future in his new racket. The only thing missing was the cigar.

History will record this speech, but not in the way its participants hope. It will be remembered not as the dawn of a new age, but as a gaudy, ill-mannered party thrown atop a mass grave. The guns are silent for now. But the hatred, the injustice, the utter humiliation—those have been poured into the foundation of this “new Middle East.” And that is a foundation that cannot hold.

The entire grotesque charade can be viewed here. But a fair warning: make sure it’s been a few hours since your last meal.

This article was originally published on The Goins Report.

The post On Trump’s Knesset Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump garnered some major political optics yesterday as he signed his Gaza Peace Plan, with a raft of European, Asian and Arab leaders sitting in the cheap seats watching the spectacle. But who has a signing of a peace agreement when neither of the two parties to the conflict are present? This is more than a bad joke… this is a scam. I can understand holding a funeral for the dearly departed even if the corpse ain’t present, but what took place Monday in Sharm El-Sheik was more like a royal wedding without a bride or groom present… Hell, neither chose to attend even via video conference.

I can guess why Bibi didn’t show… The majority of those attending had recently granted official recognition to Palestine as a state and Bibi did not want any photos of him shaking hands with the lot. Israeli officials, speaking to the Hebrew press, continue to insist that there will never be a Palestinian state.

Hamas, for its part, is the largest of the 14 Palestinian resistance groups. Even if Hamas agreed to disarm — which it will not do in my judgment — that still leaves 13 other groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Phase I, i.e. the exchange of hostages for jailed Palestinians, will conclude this week. I suspect that Hamas will not be able to return all of the remains because some of the Israeli hostages are buried under rubble as a result of attacks by the Israeli Air Force. I don’t discount the possibility that Bibi will use that as justification to return to the bombing campaign in hopes of forcing the Palestinians to vacate Gaza.

The wild card is Donald Trump. Many of the staunchest pro-Israel supporters in the West wrongly interpret today’s showing of the various Arab, Muslim, West Asian and European leaders as proof that there is a consensus on disarming Hamas. Yet, as I noted above, the majority of leaders present are on the record insisting that there will be a Palestinian state. I am pretty sure that Donald Trump told them what they wanted to hear, i.e. that he will push Israel to accept a Palestinian state, and I am also certain that he told his Zionist pals the exact opposite. So, regardless of what Trump does, one of those groups will be angry and disappointed.

Then there is Iran… I think there is a deal that could be made, e.g., Iran recognizes Israel in exchange for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The Zionists would reject that, but the majority of the world would enthusiastically embrace that solution, especially if the US agrees to lead the charge. Don’t get your hopes up.

Judging from history, there is no chance that this agreement produces the peace that Donald Trump envisions. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen numerous ceasefires (also called truces, hudnas, or armistices), primarily involving Israel and Palestinian groups like the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). These are often mediated by the UN, Egypt, Qatar, or the US and tend to follow escalations such as wars, intifadas, or Gaza operations. “Declaration” typically refers to formal agreements between the parties, though some are unilateral or UN-imposed.

Counting them precisely is challenging due to varying definitions—e.g., short humanitarian pauses vs. longer truces—and overlaps (e.g., the 1973 Yom Kippur War ceasefire applied to Egypt/Syria but had direct Palestinian implications). Based on comprehensive timelines from sources like CFR, Al Jazeera, Wikipedia, and IMEU, there have been at least 12 major ceasefires declared between Israelis and Palestinians since 1967. This excludes minor local pauses or non-Palestinian-specific Arab-Israeli truces (e.g., 1982 Lebanon). Many lasted days to months before violations or breakdowns, often due to rocket fire, airstrikes, or failed negotiations.

Key Insights:

Total Count: 12 major instances, but some sources (e.g., IMEU fact sheets) list 20+ if including shorter Gaza operations (e.g., 2019, 2022 PIJ clashes) or intra-Palestinian truces with Israeli involvement.

Average Duration: ~2–3 years for pre-2008 truces; <1 year post-2008, reflecting Gaza’s volatility.

Common Patterns: Most fail due to mutual accusations of violations (e.g., rockets vs. incursions). Gaza-focused ones (post-2007) are shorter, tied to Hamas rule and blockades. Broader ones (e.g., Oslo) lasted longer but didn’t resolve core issues like borders/settlements.

In light of this history, the chances that this peace deal will endure is slim.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan… A Wedding Without a Bride and Groom appeared first on LewRockwell.

For many years, there have been those who have been prognosticating an economic crisis – not just a recession lasting a year or two, but a full-blown Greater Depression that would eclipse any major event we’ve seen in our lifetimes.

That may appear to be an overstatement, but historically, it’s the norm for a time of major upheaval to occur every eighty years or so. And although some of us began analysing and commenting on the Greater Depression many years ago, it’s clear to all of us that we’ve now entered the leading edge of the crisis.

All of the traditional warning signs are present, and although technology has changed considerably over the millennia, human behaviour has not. We are witnessing the same symptoms that were present in major collapses of the past, going back at least as far as the Roman Empire.

We are therefore seeing not only the initial stages of an economic collapse but the concurrent events, such as an almost total corruption of the political structure, a move toward totalitarian rule, the destruction of currencies, and a loss of faith in leadership across the board. Along the way, we’re also experiencing a decline in logic and morality and an eroding sense of humanity.

That’s quite a lot to take in, yet, sorry to say; we’re only in the first stages of collapse. It will get quite a bit worse before it gets better.

As the economy begins its collapse in earnest, what we shall witness will be a population that will be unable to adapt quickly to the symptoms of the crisis as they increase in frequency and magnitude. The reaction to each will be, first, shock (an inability to comprehend that the impossible has occurred), then fear (a state of confusion and inability to adjust to rapidly-changing conditions), and finally, anger.

This last development should give pause to us all, as it’s the stage when those who have been most strongly impacted realise that there’s precious little that they can do to regain normalcy. When they find that they can’t get their hands around the necks of those who actually are to blame, they’ll take out their anger on whomever is in their proximity – each other.

So, the questions arise: Where will these problems be most prevalent? Where will the situations exist that should be avoided as much as possible, in order to minimize the likelihood that we’ll become collateral damage of the crisis?

Having studied previous similar historical periods, I can attest that this is a question that, unfortunately, requires an extensive and complex answer. However, as a rough guide, there are three considerations that will be overarching.

Regardless of any other concerns that may affect the reader individually, all persons would do well to stay clear (as much as possible) from the following:

First World Countries

Since 1945, the First World countries (the US, UK, EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) have led the world in both prosperity and power. Under the driving force of the US, they’ve created not only the advances of the last eighty years but also the rot that has led to the current crisis. As such, these countries are not only the countries where we’re seeing the most dramatic oppression of people; they will also experience the most precipitous fall economically, politically, and sociologically.

Although these countries have, until recently, seemed to be the most attractive locations in which to live, that condition has now begun a reversal, and in the coming years, they’ll represent the very nexus of decline. As such, they’ll become the most unpredictable and even the most dangerous places to be.

Conversely, the choicest countries in which to live will be those countries where change will be minimal. Those countries where the populations and governments have been relatively unambitious over the last half century or more, will be the locations that are the least likely to change dramatically during the crisis. That one fact speaks loudly to the reader’s economic, political, and social well-being in this period.

Cold Climates

The colder a location is, the less hospitable it will be in a crisis. When governments collapse economically and seemingly basic amenities can no longer be paid for, politicians will look after their own needs before those of the people they are meant to represent. Simple services such as snow ploughing may be dropped from city budgets that must experience cutbacks. More importantly, during an energy crunch, you’re likely to experience periods in which heat cannot be attained. This doesn’t mean that you will necessarily freeze to death, but it does mean that life will be much harder. In addition, produce cannot be grown in colder climates, which eliminates even the possibility of a kitchen garden in colder months.

Cities

By far, this is the riskiest of the three concerns. The more concentrated the population is the greater the risk. The larger your building, the less control you have over utilities. If the water, electricity, or heat is shut off due to energy shortages, you will have little or no recourse.

But, by far, the greatest risk in a city will be the inherent depersonalisation that exists even in the best of times. Even if you live in a very nice apartment building in a nice neighbourhood, you’re likely to be socially isolated from others. (You may not even know the people in the apartment across the hall.) People in cities tend not to help each other much at the best of times, but in a crisis, those around you can become a threat to your very existence.

Most importantly, food supplies are likely to be interrupted for indeterminate periods and, as Isaac Azimov stated, “After nine missed meals, a man will kill for food.” Even if you’re able to obtain a loaf of bread at a neighbourhood store, you may not be able to walk home with it without being waylaid. Even brief periods of interruption of food delivery to a population centre may result in a simple loaf of bread being worth killing for.

And even for those who live in prosperous neighbourhoods where the neighbours tend to be civil, poorer neighbourhoods are not so far away that their residents, if desperate, will not make the short trip to where they think others have the essentials.

Such breakdowns, as described above, tend to occur slowly, then suddenly. Those of us who have lived through city riots understand that tension builds as people attempt to maintain normal decorum, then some small event sparks off rioting. A citywide riot can go off like popcorn spontaneously. In good times, police can quell a riot in a few days or weeks, but when rioting is citywide, and the cause cannot be quickly remedied, riots can last for extended periods, potentially turning formerly-safe city streets into the equivalent of a war zone.

Of course, there’s the tendency to say, “Don’t be ridiculous – it can’t get that bad.” However, history tells us that whenever a major crisis period occurs, the above conditions almost always occur.

The reader may wish to assess his exposure to the three conditions above. Ideally, he’ll find a location to sit out the crisis – a country that’s likely to be less affected by the events that are now unfolding. He may choose a location that’s warm year-round, where food is plentiful even in harder times. And he may try to locate himself in a community of lower population density, where neighbours habitually help each other.

But regardless of what the reader chooses to do, he should be aware that the future of his well-being and that of his family may hinge on the choices he makes in the very near future.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Where Not to Be in a Crisis appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brilliant Eurasian cultures converged, interacted and spread their wings on the Ancient Silk Roads.

DUNHUANG – Across History, the Silk Road – actually a network of roads – is the supreme Highway Star: the most important connectivity corridor ever, rolling across Ancient Eurasia, linking what Chinese scholars consensually define as the main civilization systems in the world: China, India, Persia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as showcasing several historical stages of economic and cultural exchanges between East and West.

Prof. Ji Xianlin, a top scholar of Dunhuang Studies, came up with a formulation certified to drive Western supremacists crazy for all eternity:

“There are only four, rather than five, influential cultural systems in the world: Chinese, Indian, Greek and Islam. They all met only on China’s Dunhuang and Xinjiang”.

Dunhuang’s prime geo-strategic position across History was inevitably bound to generate spectacular artistic achievements.

After years since my previous journeys, then the Covid shock, then China’s subsequent recovery, I have been privileged to finally embark on a renewed Journey to the West to retrace the original Ancient Silk Road, starting in Xian – the former imperial capital Chang’an – all the way through the Gansu corridor to Dunhuang.

Brilliant Eurasian cultures converged, interacted and spread their wings on the Ancient Silk Roads. Dunhuang – on the western end of the Hexi corridor in Gansu province – was the most vital hub in the eastern section of the Chinese Silk Road, framed by mountains to the north and south, the central plains to the east, and Xinjiang to the west.

Dunhuang, the “Blazing Beacon”, held a supremely strategic position controlling two passes – Yangguan and Yumenguan. Han Emperor Wu Di clearly understood that Dunhuang was the last major water source before the fear-inducing Taklamakan desert to the west, as well as sitting astride the three main Silk Road routes heading west.

Yumenguan was the all-important Jade Gate pass – set by the Han empire in the 2nd century B.C.: placed in the south Gobi and the western end of the Qilian mountains, actually marking the western limit of classic China.

The Jade Gate Pass. Photo: Pepe Escobar

I spent a whole blinding beautiful blue-sky day in the pass and its surroundings after striking a deal with a taxi driver in Dunhuang. It’s a thrill to admire how the Han dynasty organized their traffic management system, the beacon fire system, and the Great Wall defense system (remains of the Han Wall are still there) – guaranteeing the safety of the long-distance Silk Road connectivity corridor.

The remains of the Great Han Wall. Photo: P.E.

Talk to the caravan: the secret of “people to people’s exchanges”

At the impeccably organized Dunhuang Book Center, historical records refer to it as “a metropolis where the Han people and non-Han peoples meet”. Quite the antecessor to Xi Jinping’s “people to people’s exchanges.” The spirit remains, especially at the fabulous Night Market, a gastronomic feast with pride of place for Uyghur recipes.

Uyghur businesswomen at the fabulous Dunhuang Night Market. Photo: P.E. 

Silk and porcelain from the central plains, jewelry and perfume from “the western regions”, camels and horses from north China, grains from Hexi, everything was traded in Dunhuang. Merchant deals, migrations, military games, cultural exchanges, a profusion of literati, scholars, artists, officials, diplomats, religious pilgrims, military brought classic Chinese culture into an effervescent mix – Sogdian, Tibet, Uyghur, Tangut, Mongolia – all absorbed into what eventually became Dunhuang art.

Itinerant Buddhism, Nestorianism, Zoroastrianism, Islam – the sophisticated aesthetic feel of Dunhuang was progressively influenced by architecture, sculpture, paintings, music, dance, weaving, dyeing techniques all the way from Central Asia and West Asia.

“Silk Road” terminology in Xi’s “moderately prosperous” modernized China is an extremely nuanced business. For instance, already in Xian, at the Small White Goose pagoda, we see it described as “Silk Roads: The Routes Network of Chang’an-Tian Shan corridor”.

That’s a geographically correct interpretation, stressing the Tian Shan mountains instead of the politically correct Xinjiang (which was essentially part of the “western regions”, not necessarily Chinese territory, for centuries).

As for how the Silk Road began, that now follows a single, scholarly accepted version: Han Emperor Wu Di, in 140 B.C. sent Zhang Qian as an envoy to the “western regions” on two business missions. The “Records of the Grand Historian” show that Zhang Qian, as the first official diplomat in Chinese history, de facto opened channels of communications with the “western regions” and then all the states in the northwest started trading with the Han, especially silk.

From Xian’s Shaanxi History Museum to the Dunhuang Academy, and including the Gansu museum in Lanzhou, in interactions with scholars and museum curators as well as in complement to formidable Silk Road exhibits, it’s fascinating to retrace the now established official narrative on the Silk Roads, according to which “the civilization of ancient China represented by silk started to impact the states in the western regions, Central Asia and West Asia.”

It was way more complex than that – as spices, metals, chemicals, saddles, leather products, glass, paper (invented in the 2nd century B.C.), everything was on the market, but the general drift applies: merchants from the central plains defying deserts and mountain peaks in caravans laden with silk, bronze mirrors and lacquerware from China, seeking to exchange them for commodities, while merchants from the western regions brought furs, jade, felts to the central plains.

Talk about multi-ethnic “people to people’s exchanges”. And by the way, no one ever used the term “Silk Road”; it was “the road to Samarkand” or just the “northern” or “southern” routes around the ominous Taklamakan desert.

About the Tang dynasty monetary system…

By the 3rd century, Dunhuang was already at the apex of Silk Road connectivity; and that’s when merchants and pilgrims started to sponsor the construction of the nearby Buddhist Mogao caves.

The main pavilion at the Mogao caves. Photo: P.E.

The Mogao Caves are part of what is known in Gansu province as the five Dunhuang grottoes. It’s the same system of caves – 813 surviving, with 735 in Mogao. To approach Mogao is a major thrill in itself: we need to be in an official park bus, crammed with zillions of Chinese tourists, rolling through the desert, and suddenly we are in the eastern foot of the Mingsha mountains, with the Dangquan river running right in front of us, facing the Qilian mountains to the east, with the caves set back against and cut into the cliff face, connected by a series of ramps and walkways.

The caves started to be built as early as in the 4th century – all the way to the 14th century (the earliest wall paintings are from the 5th); it’s a group of caves in four levels, 1,6 km from north to south along a cliff as much as 30 meters high. The 492 caves in the southern area house more than 45 km of wall paintings, over 2,000 painted statues, and five wooden eaves. They were originally used for worshipping Buddhas.

At the Dunhuang Academy museum: where the artists came from. Photo: P.E.

What we are still able to see takes our breath away. Highlights include a wrestling scene from Buddha’s life on cave 290; a girl apsara – mythic dancer – on cave 296; the Deer King on cave 257; a hunting scene on cave 249; a Garuda – defined in Chinese as “the Scarlet Bird” – on cave 285; parables of the Magic City from the Lotus Sutra, a masterpiece of High Tang dynasty, on cave 217; a sitting Boddhisattva on cave 196; impeccably preserved worshipping bodhisattvas on cave 285.

One of the Buddha highlights of the Mogao caves. Photo: P.E.

Rules are extremely strict: visit only to selected caves, with an official guide, no photos, only the guide’s torchlight to illuminate the grottoes. I was privileged to visit guided by Helen, who studied in Dunhuang University and is now doing her PhD in Archeology. After the visit she explained in detail the ground-breaking conservation work of the Dunhuang Academy.

The construction of the caves was a spectacular undertaking in terms of division of labor. Just imagine: chiselers to dig and excavate a cave out of the cliff; stonecutters, who also dug caves; bricklayers to build wooden or earthen structures; carpenters, who also repaired wooden tools; sculptors to create the statues; and painters to paint the caves and statues.

Mogao, as an aesthetic experience, is unequaled in its striking collection of Buddhist wall painting criss-crossing China, Persia, India and Central Asian art.

And then there’s what we cannot see: more than 40,000 scrolls found in the library cave, the largest deposit of documents and artifacts discovered anywhere along the Silk Road, with texts on Buddhism, Manicheism, Zoroastrianism and the Eastern Christian Church (from Syria) showing how cosmopolitan Dunhuang was. That’s part of the European scholarly – and otherwise – plunder of the Dunhuang wealth starting in the late 19th century, a completely different, complex, and long, story.

In geoeconomic terms, for nearly ten centuries Dunhuang was extremely wealthy, especially during the Tang dynasty (6th to 9th century). The Tang had a fascinating monetary system – with three different currencies: textiles (silk and hemp), grain and coins.

The central government, in the imperial capital Chang’an, used a single aggregate unit to represent all trade. The Dunhuang garrison was a key strategic post: payments came in no less than six different types of woven silk. Well, each place paid their taxes with their locally produced cloth. What the Tang did was to transfer all these textiles to Dunhuang. The garrison’s officers then converted the tax cloth into coins and into grain, to pay local merchants and to feed the soldiers.

So in a nutshell the Tang dynasty was all the time injecting a lot of money – via woven cloth – into the Dunhuang economy. Talk about a public-private state development model – which certainly did not escape Beijing planners when they came up, in 2013, with the concept of the New Silk Roads.

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

The post Art, Trade and State Power at the Heart of the Silk Road appeared first on LewRockwell.

A federal court in Virginia recently ruled that the name of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, who is regarded as a great hero by many Americans, violates the free speech rights of black students. As summarized by the judge,

The complaint alleged that the name [Stonewall Jackson] created “an unlawful and discriminatory educational environment for Black students,” and accused the school board of violating the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Education Opportunities Act.

The judge’s reasoning was that where a school is named after a Confederate hero, families who consider Confederate history offensive have a cause of action against the school board for the violation of their First Amendment right to free speech because school names and symbols are “compelled speech.” Although the first amendment protects the right of anyone—including, in this case, a school in the Shenandoah Valley—to express freely their respect for their Confederate heritage, black people also have a free speech right not to be subjected to “compelled speech” and can get such symbols struck down. By what form of convoluted reasoning did the courts manage to turn the right to free speech into a power vested in civil rights activists to silence the expression of Confederate heritage?

This is where the Fourteenth Amendment comes in. Most people would not immediately associate the Fourteenth Amendment with free speech, which is better known as a First Amendment right. In this case, the judge relied on the case of Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931), which, according to the judge, held that “Plaintiffs have a cause of action for the violation of their federal rights, including those under the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (emphasis added). The judge explained that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause protects the right to free speech, and Confederate names, in his view, amount to compelled speech because students who attend the school cannot avoid “expressing” the school name and showcasing the school’s mascots. Hence, the judge ruled that,

By reinstating the name “Stonewall Jackson High School” and thereby compelling students to advance the School Board’s chosen message favoring “Stonewall Jackson” through the conduct of extracurricular activities rendered expressive by that name, the School Board has violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, against compelled speech.

In this way, the Fourteenth Amendment bypasses the First Amendment, in cases involving complaints that the free speech rights of some (expressing Confederate heritage) violate the protection from compelled speech “as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment” for civil rights groups demanding the equal protection of the law. This is by no means an accidental outcome—thwarting the First Amendment is the hallmark strategy of those who believe that free speech does not include “hate speech,” meaning any speech they hate. The roots of this strategy lie in legislation from the Reconstruction era, when the aim of the Radical Republican government was to give the newly-enfranchised freedmen, who were the guarantors of Republican power and control in the post-war South, legislative tools to challenge hostile state authorities for violating federal law.

The belief, at the time, was that state authorities in the South were “white supremacist” and the only way freedmen could enjoy the equal protection of the law would be through federal law enforcement. Based on this belief, the power of the federal government was enhanced to give it greater oversight over what were seen as “racist” state governments. Civil rights activists still view this as a major tool in their endless war against “white supremacy”:

The tool is known as Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code. It originally was Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, better known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history. That act was intended to protect Black Americans from white supremacist violence in the post-Civil War South.

Section 1983 allows an individual to sue a state or local government official [in this case a public school board] who has violated his or her constitutional rights. A violation could involve freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, and more.

Readers will be familiar with Murray Rothbard’s argument that civil rights—which he pointedly referred to as “phony civil rights”—violate the rights of self-ownership and private property. There could be no clearer example of this than people claiming a “civil right” to destroy anything which, in their opinion, is an emblem of “white supremacy.” In the Virginia case, the complainants relied on a long list of previous cases in which schools had been held to have the right to ban Confederate-themed apparel on grounds that it would provoke racial conflict among the students. While that may, arguably, fall within the discretion of the school authorities, it is a long way from saying the school authorities have discretion over what is necessary to keep order in the school to saying that students have a veto power over the school name if they consider the name offensive. The self-defined “victims” of civil rights violations argue that under the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, they are entitled to be protected from psychological “harm.” In this case they complained that Confederate names are “discriminatory and harmful.”

When Black students are compelled to attend schools that glorify the leaders and ideals of the Confederacy, they are subject to a racially discriminatory educational environment, which has significant psychological, academic, and social effects.

When students are required to identify as members of student bodies or teams named to honor Confederate leaders in order to participate in school activities, they are required against their will to endorse the violent defense of slavery pursued by the Confederacy and the symbolism that these images have in the modern White supremacist movement.

Leaving aside the partisan view of history exhibited by the complaint, and the fact that psychological “harm” could easily be avoided by going to a different school whose name is more pleasing to the complainants, the result of courts upholding these complaints is that the civil rights regime effectively gives its protected groups a veto over the liberties of others. This is yet another reason why there are good grounds to argue that the Fourteenth Amendment should be abolished:

The Fourteenth Amendment has had precisely the effect that its nineteenth-century Republican party supporters intended it to have: it has greatly centralized power in Washington, DC, and has subjected Americans to the kind of judicial tyranny that Thomas Jefferson warned about when he described federal judges as those who would be “constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.”

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

The post How Civil Rights Activists use the Fourteenth Amendment to Bypass the First Amendment appeared first on LewRockwell.

These days the Wall Street Journal probably ranks as America’s most influential and credible print outlet, so Friday morning’s front-page story describing a sudden new escalation in our episodic trade war with China caught my attention.

As emphasized in the first several paragraphs, the Chinese had suddenly imposed an unprecedented new wave of licensing requirements on the import and use of the rare earths that they mine and refine, as well as the vital small magnets produced from those compounds. These extremely severe restrictions would now apply to any companies around the world whose goods contained as little as 0.1% of their value in that category, apparently encompassing an enormous range of major industries including cars, solar panels, and chip-making equipment. The entire supply-claim for phones, computers, data-centers, and AI systems would be covered, requiring individual permissions from the Chinese authorities for their use to continue on a case-by-case basis.

China’s newest restrictions on rare-earth materials would mark a nearly unprecedented export control that stands to disrupt the global economy, giving Beijing more leverage in trade negotiations and ratcheting up pressure on the Trump administration to respond.

The rule, put out Thursday by China’s Commerce Ministry, is viewed as an escalation in the U.S.-China trade fight because it threatens the supply chain for semiconductors. Chips are the lifeblood of the economy, powering phones, computers and data centers needed to train artificial-intelligence models. The rule also would affect cars, solar panels and the equipment for making chips and other products, limiting the ability of other countries to support their own industries. China produces roughly 90% of the world’s rare-earth materials.

Global companies that sell goods with certain rare-earth materials sourced from China accounting for 0.1% or more of the product’s value would need permission from Beijing, under the new rule. Tech companies will probably find it extremely difficult to show that their chips, the equipment needed to make them and other components fall below the 0.1% threshold, industry experts said.

The article emphasized that China has control over 90% of the refining and production of these small but vital technological components, with no obvious substitutes available. One quoted source described it as the “economic equivalent of nuclear war” and something that could “destroy the American AI industry.”

These new Chinese economic sanctions even extended to all the technologies and equipment related to the mining, refining, and fabrication of rare earth products. Such steps were obviously aimed at preventing any foreign competitors from developing alternate future supply chains able to weaken China’s current stranglehold. The total extraterritorial scope of China’s new restrictions was also dramatic.

As the MoA blogger brought to my attention, these issues were set forth most forcefully by Arnaud Bertrand, a longtime China observer based in that country:

This is actually big, potentially huge, notably because China’s new rare earth export controls include a provision (point 4 here: https://mofcom.gov.cn/zwgk/zcfb/art/2025/art_7fc9bff0fb4546ecb02f66ee77d0e5f6.html) whereby anyone using rare earths to develop advanced semiconductors (defined as 14nm-and-below) will require case-by-case approval.

Which effectively gives China de-facto veto power over the entire advanced semi-conductor supply chain as rare earths are used at critical steps throughout – from ASML (who use rare earths for magnets in their lithography machines: https://asml.com/en/news/stories/2023/6-ingredients-robust-supply-chain) to TSMC.

The export controls are also extra-territorial: foreign entities must obtain Chinese export licenses before re-exporting products manufactured abroad if they contain Chinese rare earth materials comprising 0.1% or more of the product’s value.

So China is effectively mirroring the US semiconductor export controls that were used against them, with its own comprehensive extraterritorial control regime, except with rare earths.

Naturally, the response of President Donald Trump was volcanic, and he quickly declared:

“It is impossible to believe that China would have taken such an action, but they have, and the rest is History.”

By late Friday the Journal reported that Trump had declared his plans to impose new, 100% tariffs on all Chinese trade goods, above and beyond the tariffs he had previously levied, along with sweeping new software export controls. These huge new tariff rates would amount to reestablishing a near embargo on Chinese imports so the result was a heavy selloff in the S&P 500, the worst since the president’s original tariff announcement in early April.

In recent weeks, trade relations between China and America had seemed to stabilize, so this sudden Chinese announcement might have seemed like a bolt from the blue. Only towards the bottom of the original article did the Journal writers explain that the new Chinese restrictions were in direct retaliation for similarly sweeping American export restrictions against Chinese technology companies imposed a dozen days earlier but given much less attention in our mainstream media outlets.

This merely continued the pattern of the last few years, with American economic sanctions suddenly imposed against China followed by waves of national outrage after the latter country responded with retaliatory measures.

For example, the Journal mentioned:

Vice Premier He Lifeng believed an informal “freeze” on new export controls had been agreed upon following recent talks in Madrid, according to people familiar with the discussions. But that understanding was shattered when the U.S. introduced new controls on foreign-owned companies.

According to the Journal, Chinese President Xi Jinping had grown weary of this endless game, and decided to hit back extremely hard, as indicated by the severity of the new retaliatory sanctions.

The Journal writers noted that earlier this year, American automakers warned that they would be forced to cease production in many of their factories if the supply of Chinese rare earth magnets were halted, stoppages as extreme as those caused by the Covid-19 outbreak, but that the current round of Chinese export restrictions could be even more severe.

Last month I updated the standard international estimates of the economic power of the world’s major countries and blocs to incorporate the latest 2024 financial statistics. These figures merely confirmed that the Real Productive size of China’s economy—sometimes considered the most reliable measure of true international economic strength—was now considerably larger than that of the entire West, even augmented by our Japanese vassal state:

In that same article, I also emphasized how the latest round of Trump’s outrageous international demands and tariff policies had finally driven populous, fast-growing India into the opposing camp, further strengthening the unfavorable correlation of forces arrayed against America and perhaps emboldening China’s new retaliation against the antics of our President Trump and his sycophantic subordinates.

I think that these potentially momentous developments illustrate the extreme recklessness of the Trump Administration and the tremendous risks that a country faces if its economic and trade policies continue to be governed by the autocratic whim of a Mad Emperor rather than carefully hammered out in public legislation. As I wrote soon after Trump’s original April tariff announcements:

Across thousands of years, the world has seen many important countries ruled by absolute monarchs or all-powerful dictators, with some of these leaders even considered deranged. But I can’t recall any past example in which a major nation’s tax, tariff, or tribute policies have undergone such rapid and sudden changes, moving up and down by huge amounts apparently based upon personal whim. Certainly Caligula never did anything so peculiar, nor Louis XIV nor Genghis Khan nor anyone else who comes to mind. Lopping off the heads of a few random government officials was one thing, but drastic changes in national financial policies were generally taken much more seriously. I don’t think that Tamerlane ever suddenly raised the tribute he demanded from his terrified subjects by a factor of ten, then a few days later lowered it back down by a factor of two.

This potentially devastating Chinese economic response would be bad enough but it came just after some new information revealed the extreme fragility of the American economy.

An October 7th article in Fortune described the important economic calculations of Harvard’s James Furman, echoed by other experts. According to his estimates, if we excluded investment in data centers and other information processing technology, American GDP growth during the first half of 2025 was almost nil, only 0.1% on an annualized basis. Consider also that probably almost all of this data investment has been due to the ongoing AI and Crypto booms, and that these have probably provided other major contributions to GDP growth, as the Financial Times argued:

The hundreds of billions of dollars companies are investing in AI now account for an astonishing 40 per cent share of US GDP growth this year. And some analysts believe that estimate doesn’t fully capture the AI spend, so the real share could be even higher.

AI companies have accounted for 80 per cent of the gains in US stocks so far in 2025. That is helping to fund and drive US growth, as the AI-driven stock market draws in money from all over the world, and feeds a boom in consumer spending by the rich.

Since the wealthiest 10 per cent of the population own 85 per cent of US stocks, they enjoy the largest wealth effect when they go up. Little wonder then that the latest data shows America’s consumer economy rests largely on spending by the wealthy. The top 10 per cent of earners account for half of consumer spending, the highest share on record since the data begins.

But without all the excitement around AI, the US economy might be stalling out, given the multiple threats…

Foreigners poured a record $290bn into US stocks in the second quarter and now own about 30 per cent of the market — the highest share in post-second world war history. Europeans and Canadians have been boycotting American goods but continue buying US stocks in bulk — especially the tech giants…

What that suggests is that AI better deliver for the US, or its economy and markets will lose the one leg they are now standing on.

Taken together, these results suggest that except for the torrid pace of AI and Crypto investments, America might have already fallen into recession during the first half of this year, and there are very widespread concerns that our AI/Crypto economy constitutes a classic bubble, only one far larger than the dot-com bubble of a quarter-century ago.

Late last week, a lengthy post on the Naked Capitalism blog cited much of this evidence, quoting a critical analysis by Ed Zitron:

Where we sit today is a time of immense tension. Mark Zuckerberg says we’re in a bubble, Sam Altman says we’re in a bubble, Alibaba Chairman and billionaire Joe Tsai says we’re in a bubble, Apollo says we’re in a bubble, nobody is making money and nobody knows why they’re actually doing this anymore, just that they must do it immediately.

And they have yet to make the case that generative AI warranted any of these expenditures.

Indeed, according to one recent MIT study, 95% of the AI pilot projects at companies are currently failing.

Others have noted that although many past investment bubbles have collapsed, most of the investment value was eventually recovered, with the over-built railways of nineteenth century Britain later getting use and the same also being true for the huge quantities of fiber-optic cable laid in the late 1990s.

However, a large fraction of all the current AI investment is going into cutting-edge AI chips, and within just a few years these tend to be supplanted by newer generations of much more powerful chips, so their value rapidly declines. This suggests that if and when the bubble bursts, a major portion of that invested value will be permanently lost.

The following day another lengthy Naked Capitalism post by an academic argued that the strong Trump endorsement of Crypto-based “Stablecoins” and other related derivatives has probably been fueling the growth of a huge and uninsured new “Shadow Banking” sector whose volatility could easily produce a new crisis along the same lines of the sub prime financial crisis of the 2000s, adding a financial bubble to the one possibly inherent in current stock valuations.

Read the Whole Article

The post Donald Trump as Our Mad Emperor of the Bubble appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ron Unz tells us the consequence of Trump’s Diplomacy by Threat.

The Chinese have “suddenly imposed an unprecedented new wave of licensing requirements on the import and use of the rare earths that they mine and refine, as well as the vital small magnets produced from those compounds. These extremely severe restrictions would now apply to any companies around the world whose goods contained as little as 0.1% of their value in that category, apparently encompassing an enormous range of major industries including cars, solar panels, and chip-making equipment. The entire supply-claim for phones, computers, data-centers, and AI systems would be covered, requiring individual permissions from the Chinese authorities for their use to continue on a case-by-case basis.

“China’s newest restrictions on rare-earth materials would mark a nearly unprecedented export control that stands to disrupt the global economy, giving Beijing more leverage in trade negotiations and ratcheting up pressure on the Trump administration to respond.

“The rule, put out Thursday by China’s Commerce Ministry, is viewed as an escalation in the U.S.-China trade fight because it threatens the supply chain for semiconductors. Chips are the lifeblood of the economy, powering phones, computers and data centers needed to train artificial-intelligence models. The rule also would affect cars, solar panels and the equipment for making chips and other products, limiting the ability of other countries to support their own industries. China produces roughly 90% of the world’s rare-earth materials.

“Global companies that sell goods with certain rare-earth materials sourced from China accounting for 0.1% or more of the product’s value would need permission from Beijing, under the new rule. Tech companies will probably find it extremely difficult to show that their chips, the equipment needed to make them and other components fall below the 0.1% threshold, industry experts said.

“The article emphasized that China has control over 90% of the refining and production of these small but vital technological components, with no obvious substitutes available. One quoted source described it as the “economic equivalent of nuclear war” and something that could ‘destroy the American AI industry.’

“These new Chinese economic sanctions even extended to all the technologies and equipment related to the mining, refining, and fabrication of rare earth products. Such steps were obviously aimed at preventing any foreign competitors from developing alternate future supply chains able to weaken China’s current stranglehold. The total extraterritorial scope of China’s new restrictions was also dramatic.  As the MoA blogger brought to my attention, these issues were set forth most forcefully by Arnaud Bertrand, a longtime China observer based in that country:

“This is actually big, potentially huge, notably because China’s new rare earth export controls include a provision (point 4 here) whereby anyone using rare earths to develop advanced semiconductors (defined as 14nm-and-below) will require case-by-case approval.

“Which effectively gives China de-facto veto power over the entire advanced semi-conductor supply chain as rare earths are used at critical steps throughout – from ASML (who use rare earths for magnets in their lithography machines) to TSMC.

“The export controls are also extra-territorial: foreign entities must obtain Chinese export licenses before re-exporting products manufactured abroad if they contain Chinese rare earth materials comprising 0.1% or more of the product’s value.

“So China is effectively mirroring the US semiconductor export controls that were used against them, with its own comprehensive extraterritorial control regime, except with rare earths.

“Naturally, the response of President Donald Trump was volcanic, and he quickly declared: ‘It is impossible to believe that China would have taken such an action, but they have, and the rest is History.’”

The post The White House Fool’s Provocations of China Finally Produces a Response appeared first on LewRockwell.

Our diocese has asked the priests to promote a short survey about the laity to the faithful for a projected USCCB Pastoral Letter on the Laity. I wish that there would have been a survey about what kind of pastoral letters we need from the Bishops’ Conference, for I think the vocation crisis might be a topic of great interest and importance. I suppose the Pastoral Letter on the Laity will address the growing trend of lay pastoral “coordinators” in priest-less parishes, which is having a moment.

In some ways, the coordination by laity is a throwback to the pioneer past of the Church in America. However, the small communities who were building community and church buildings and sacramental practice for their families did not hire someone to be a sort of substitute priest. The itinerant priests, who were like the Protestant circuit preachers, were still leaders and formators of the Catholic community and not just Mass priests or sacramental providers. In the rust belt, pastoral coordinators are tending to ever smaller congregations in some historic (and often, beautiful) churches, and it is hard to escape the suspicion that it is a program of downsizing, part of the managed decline of once densely Catholic dioceses.

“Professional” lay “coordination” of parishes has many loose ends. What kind of training and continuing formation is given to the lay coordinator? The emphasis on pastoral or formation leaderships would be interesting in terms of an evangelization project, but sometimes what is more necessary is management expertise in business-like practices. Parishes are not businesses, but old physical plants require much attention, and thin capital reserves need fiscal acuity and creativity. I think that priests might be able to be pastors of more than one parish if those burdens were taken care of by persons, perhaps retired professional management types, who could coordinate more than one congregation’s issues.

However, the questionnaire for the Pastoral Letter does not seem to address such concerns. It is written in a kind of “corporation” prose that could have been helped by AI. The first question is: “How does your baptismal identity impact your engagement with Church and society.”

Perhaps it is my limited experience that makes me think that most lay people will not have very eloquent answers to this question. Why couldn’t we start with something about Jesus? What is your relationship with Him, how have you felt the call to discipleship? And then from Jesus we could talk about the necessary relationship with the Church that Jesus founded.

“Engagement with society” is quite (dare we say “too”) broad conceptually. What about, “How is your discipleship connected to your everyday life? What are the specifics of your following Jesus and taking up the cross?” The next question could be tightened up, also: “How do you feel co-responsible for the work and mission of the Catholic faith?” Wouldn’t the correct word be “Church,” not “faith”? But are we asking “feeling” questions or data questions? “Feeling” co-responsible and understanding our participation in the Body of Christ might be two different things.

The potential for ambiguity in the survey continues: “Where do you see the Holy Spirit at work in your relationship/engagement with the Church?” I suppose the “relationship/engagement” word combo is supposed to be a fine kind of distinction. Again, something about Jesus might be to the point. Even if you were asking, “How do you understand the Holy Spirit working in your life and what has that to do with your parish/local community of faith?” it might provoke more concrete responses.

“What are your joys, hopes and visions for the role of the laity within the Church and society?” is the next question. I know this echoes Gaudium et Spes, but it reminds me too much of the campaign rhetoric (like “Hope and Change”). We are all members of the Church, although our activity “within” the Church should be of our whole person and not a category of involvement. The laity are the Church, just as the clergy and religious are, but there seems a note of alienation or at least differentiation in “activity within the Church.” It’s a nuance and perhaps a false connotation I am responding to, but it is awkwardly put.

So is the next shot, in my opinion: “How do you primarily interact with lay ecclesiastical ministers, formators and lay apostolate leaders?” This is perhaps the real agenda of the designers of the survey. My first reaction is what is the use of the adverb “primarily”? I think they are looking for something like “generally” here. Can you react “secondarily” to professional lay leaders? Leaders of “lay apostolates” seem to be in another category for these other coordinators, formators, etc. People involved in lay apostolates are usually volunteers with very specific roles.

De-clericalizing pastoral care is a more complicated thing than just filling roles. When Catholics talk about their parishes, don’t they usually ask who the pastor is? Are they now to ask who the lay ministers, formators, etc. are? If deacons sometimes encounter resistance in their ministry (e.g., “I want a priest for my child’s baptism,” or “Why is the priest not preaching?”) are we so sure that the parish can be reimagined with a coordinator who “hires” sacramental provider priests? Wouldn’t people respond better to a deacon as a coordinator. Deacons are usually professionals with other capacities, but couldn’t we hire those who are retired from their original profession?

“What concerns might you have around lay ministry, formation, apostolates or the church workplace?” In terms of this essay, I would say, “see above,” but it is a catchall kind of question, mixing apples and oranges. And why do we say “church workplace” and not “parish”?

Developing lay pastoral ministry as a kind of substitute for ordained ministry is my worry here. Laity should participate in Church life, without a doubt. But isn’t the focus of lay discipleship in the world? Isn’t a quasi-institutional lay ministry a more complicated thing much beyond night school certification as lay ministers? Do lay coordinators have to promise something to the bishop, or do merely contractual requirements take care of pastoral care of a community?

In Catholic schools we have “teacher-ministers” who really aren’t sometimes because scarcity of personnel means low formation of those in the classrooms. Is the vision of the pastoral coordinators wedded to a tacit acceptance of what is really extraordinary in Catholic life: a growing Catholic population and a diminishing clergy in a non-missionary context.

Which is why I would like a Pastoral Letter about the vocation crisis.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Joys of Consultation: The Pastoral Letter on the Laity appeared first on LewRockwell.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government has taken control of TikTok and plans to control the social network X as well. However, the State of Israel’s propaganda has long eluded its citizens. Its purpose has never been publicly discussed. A small group decides its messages alone, without considering what would be useful to Israelis—such as combating anti-Semitism. The state’s resources have been seized solely by “revisionist Zionists,” even though they are an ultra-minority.

Israeli propaganda (הַסְבָּרָה – hasbara ) has rarely been a function of Israeli governments, but rather an operation of associations partially funded by them. These associations, which have their own ideologies, are not accountable for their actions to the Israeli people, but exclusively to their sponsors, including the governments in Tel Aviv. The self-proclaimed “largest democracy in the Middle East” thus funds profoundly anti-democratic operations without the knowledge of its citizens.

Israel’s chronic instability since its founding and the habit of appointing central directors of ministries according to political criteria rather than competence have blurred Israel’s message. Several competing powers deliver different messages  [ 1 ] . Ultimately, an authority was created for “public diplomacy” (propaganda). It has become particularly secretive.

Before the founding of Israel, the term hasbara referred to the act of explaining a position in the Diaspora. But over time, it became synonymous with “propaganda.”

In 1974, following the Yom Kippur War, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin created a Ministry of Information, which he entrusted to General Aharon Yariv  [ 2 ] . But the latter resigned seven months later and devoted himself to the creation of a prestigious think tank, the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. It was not until 2006 that a “Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Hasbara” was again created (now the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy; a ministry that does not have a website and does not communicate, but which became famous in 2015 with its campaign against “the phenomena of delegitimization and boycotts against Israel”, that is to say the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement). This discreet ministry created its own ארגון לא ממשלתי המאורגן על ידי הממשלה (non-governmental organization organized by the government) (sic), Kela Shlomo (Solomon’s Sling) (later Concert, then Voices of Israel) led by Colonel Yossi Kuperwasser, Ambassadors Dore Gold and Ron Prosor and Brigadier Sima Vaknin Gill, former director of military censorship. Various companies (Black Cube, Psy-Group and Cyber ​​Shield  [ 3 ] ) spied on BDS activists on behalf of Kela Shlomo  [ 4 ] .

In recent years, approximately $200 million a year, or four-fifths of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy’s budget, has been given to the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). Ron Dermer, the current minister since 2022, was an advisor to Natan Sharansky and the author of his book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. He was entrusted by Benjamin Netanyahu in late 2023 with a plan to minimize the Palestinian population of Gaza  [ 5 ] .

Specifically, Sharansky is the president of ISGAP. He is a Ukrainian revisionist Zionist; a disciple of the other Ukrainian, Vladimir Jabotinsky. He played a central role in the fight against Russia during the USSR era. He was the main reference for Senator Henry M. Jackson’s Straussians, emigrated to the United States, was awarded the Congressional Medal by Ronald Reagan, and became a minister under General Ariel Sharon. In 2001, he founded One Jerusalem, the association that campaigns to have Jerusalem recognized as the capital of the “Jewish state” alone (and not that of the Palestinian state). He now heads ISGAP and, in this capacity, oversees almost all of the hasbara.

Hasbara has won many battles. The latest for ISGAP was the US Congressional hearings of university rectors, which resulted in several resignations and sanctions against pro-Palestinian associations.

However, one cannot help but be surprised by the ineffectiveness of their international campaigns against anti-Semitism. Eighty years after the founding of the State of Israel, not only has the problem not been solved, but it has worsened  [ 6 ] . During this time, machismo, homophobia and racism have considerably declined. It must be considered that anti-Semitism is a means of pressure by the Israeli authorities on their own population. Let us remember that the revisionist Zionists used anti-Semitism to advance their cause in the diaspora.

During his conference at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed that his country aims to control people under thirty-five via social networks  [ 7 ] .

According to YNetGlobal , he launched a campaign to take over social media and influence people under 25, “Project 545”  [ 8 ] . It was entrusted to Havas Media Network, the company of Yannick Bolloré (son of Vincent Bolloré and husband of Chloé Bouygues). The latter awarded Clock Tower X LLC a $6 million contract to “provide strategic communications, planning and media services in support of Havas’s commitment by the State of Israel to develop and execute a national campaign in the United States to combat anti-Semitism.” Clock Tower is the company created by Brad Parscale after he left Donald Trump’s campaign team.

According to a poll conducted for Israel in the United States, 47% of the population believes that the IDF is committing genocide.

The Israeli government’s main idea is to influence the responses of artificial intelligence by creating a multitude of social media accounts that will provide the narrative that ChatGPT and its rivals will feed on.

“Project 545” is the code name for this operation, funded to the tune of NIS 545 million, or $145 million, by 2025. It ended Israel’s contract with SKDKnickerbocker, the communications firm linked to the US Democratic Party.

According to Responsible Statecraft , the influencer network that Benjamin Netanyahu referred to during his speech at the Israeli Consulate General in New York was reportedly formed by Bridges Partners, the company owned by Yair Levi and Uri Steinberg. The campaign, titled Esther Project , has already cost $900,000. Fourteen to 18 influencers are believed to have published 75 to 90 posts during this period. The fees are being paid by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Three of the influencers have been identified. They are:
 by Lizzy Savetsky, a prominent online defender of Israel since the beginning of the war;
 of businessman Ari Ackerman, grandson of Israeli-American tycoon Meshulam Riklis;
 and digital creator Zach Sage Fox.

Uri Steinberg, meanwhile, is a former senior official in the Israeli Ministry of Tourism. He works at Natan Sharansky’s Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP).

A tax document allows Bridge Partners’ overheads to be assessed  [ 9 ] .

Journalist Candace Owens, who relayed Xavier Poussard’s revelations about Brigitte Macron’s real identity, published screenshots of Charlie Kirk showing that his funding had been cut and that he had been threatened two days before being assassinated  [ 10 ] . Charlie Kirk had just taken a stand against the massacres in Gaza.

During his speech in New York, Benjamin Netanyahu said: “The most important purchase that is being made is (…) TikTok. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it can be substantial. And the other one? X. We need to talk to Elon [Musk]. He’s not an enemy, he’s a friend. We should talk to him. Now, if we can achieve those two things, we will achieve a lot. We need to fight the fight, give direction to the Jewish people and give direction to our non-Jewish friends.”

Billionaire Safra Catz became executive vice president of Larry Ellison’s Oracle when it acquired 45% of the social network TikTok on September 25. She said, “We need to integrate love and respect for Israel into American culture.” Oracle will store TikTok’s US user data on its cloud computers.

At the same time, the Israeli Foreign Ministry has just created the company Show Faith by Work, which it has registered as a foreign agent of influence in the United States  [ 11 ] . This time, the aim is to disseminate the official version of the October 7 attack and messages against the existence of a Palestinian state to all American Christian Zionists. A budget of 3.2 million dollars has been planned, including the rental of a caravan which will allow propaganda films to be shown during Christian gatherings.

—

[ 1 ]  “Public diplomacy in army boots: the chronic failure of Israel’s Hasbara”, Gal Hadari & Asaf Turgeman, Hasbara, Israel Affairs , 24:3, 482-499 (2018), DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2018.1455374.

[ 2 ]  Israel’s Public Diplomacy. The Problems of Hasbara, 1966–1975 , Jonathan Cumming, Rowman & Littelfield (2016).

[ 3 ]  “  Spying on Linda Sarsour: Israeli Firm Compiled BDS Dossier for Adelson-funded US Group Battling Her Campus Appearances  ”, Uri Blau, Haaretz , May 28, 2018.

[ 4 ]  “  BDS is a dirty business. Those who battle it on Israel’s behalf must stay clean  ”, David Horovitz, The Times of Israel , June 17, 2018.

[ 5 ]  “  Netanyahu’s Goal for Gaza: “Thin” Population “to a Minimum”  ”, Ryan Grim, The Intercept, December 3, 2023.

[ 6 ]  Acting Propaganda: Viewpoints from Israel , Ron Schleifer & Jessica Snapper, Sussex Academic Press (2015).

[ 7 ]  “  @MiddleEastEye  ”, X , September 27, 2025.

[ 8 ]  “  Report: Israel to spend over half a billion shekels turning ChatGPT into public diplomacy tool  ”, Daniel Edelson & Raphael Kahan, YNetGlobal , October 6, 2025.

[ 9 ]  “  NSD/FARA Registration Unit  ”, September 26, 2025.

[ 10 ]  “  Turning Point USA responds: Yes, The Text Messages Are Real  ” Candace Owens Ep 249, YouTube, October 7, 2025.

[ 11 ]  “  Israel wants to hire Chris Pratt and Steph Curr  ”, Nick Cleveland-Stout, Responsible Statecraft , October 07, 2025.

The post Israeli War Propaganda on Social Media appeared first on LewRockwell.

This is a a story about a fight between titans in which Europe, due to its leaders stupidity, is the most significant casualty.

Dutch government seizes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia – Politico.eu, Oct 13 2025
The move could inflame wider trade tensions between Beijing and the European Union.

The Dutch government has granted itself the power to intervene in company decisions at Dutch-based Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia.

The highly unusual step, announced late Sunday, grants the country the power to “halt and reverse” company decisions — meaning Nexperia cannot transfer assets or hire executives without Dutch government approval, according to national media.

The move is a significant escalation in relations between the Netherlands and China and could inflame wider trade tensions between Beijing and the European Union, with Europe caught in the middle of a tit-for-tat chips war between the U.S. and China.

The Dutch have effectively stolen a big Chinese owned company.

The background via Pekingology:

Wingtech Technology is a privately-run, Shanghai-listed Chinese electronics and semiconductor conglomerate headquartered in Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province. It began as an original design manufacturer (ODM) for smartphones and consumer devices and has since grown into one of China’s most prominent integrated technology companies, combining electronics assembly, chip design, and semiconductor manufacturing.

Wingtech in 2019 acquired Nexperia, a Dutch semiconductor firm that was formerly part of Philips’ chip division, NXP. Headquartered in the Netherlands, Nexperia is a global semiconductor company with a rich European history and over 12,500 employees across Europe, Asia, and the United States.

In December 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce added Wingtech to its Entity List, restricting its access to American components and technology. The U.S. unilateral sanctions threatened heavy losses and forced the Apple supplier to announce, in March 2025, the spin-off of a major part of its operations.

Zhang Xuefeng is the founder of Wingtech and CEO of Nexperia, which closed the 2024 financial year with a total revenue of $2.06 billion.

A successful businessman from China bought the Dutch company. He invested heavily and the company grew with several research and manufacturing sides throughout Europe and the world. The company paid a lot of taxes and the Dutch were happy.

In late 2024 Wingtech was put on the U.S. entity list to block Chinese semiconductor development by cutting it off from U.S. products and technology licenses.

In June 2024 the U.S. planned to extend the entity list. Not only would chip companies in China be prohibited from use of U.S. content but any international company that was 50% or more owned by a Chinese entity would likewise be penalized.

On September 30 2025 the U.S. Commerce Department extended its export restrictions:

A U.S. Commerce Department interim final rule vastly expands the number of entities subject to export control restrictions by extending the Entity List and MEU List restrictions to non-U.S. entities 50% or more owned, directly or indirectly, by listed parties effective as of September 29, 2025.

(The new Chinese export controls on rare earth metals and certain other technologies are a direct response to those new U.S. restrictions.)

The U.S. move cut of Nexperia and other partially Chinese owned companies in Europe from U.S. content.

The Dutch government, which had been forewarned and pressed by the U.S., panicked:

US officials told their Dutch counterparts that the Chinese CEO of Nexperia “will have to be replaced” for the company to be exempt from Washington’s entity list, newly disclosed court documents show.

The disclosure comes after the Dutch government effectively seized control of the semiconductor firm, a subsidiary of the Chinese company Wingtech, forcing a change in management under an obscure law known as the Goods Availability Act.

In doing so, the Dutch authorities removed founding CEO Zhang Xuezheng from his role, sparking fury in Beijing.

Court documents released by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on Tuesday show that the United States told Dutch officials in June about a forthcoming change in the entity list, which bars American companies from trading with firms on the list.

On Sunday October 12, after the company was seized, Wingtech dropped a bombshell filing with the Shanghai Stock Exchange. It describes how Nexperia’s 2nd level management, under Dutch government pressure, deposed of the Chief Executive Officer and owner of the company:

On 1 October 2025 (Netherlands time), Ruben Lichtenberg, a Dutch national who serves as the statutory director and Chief Legal Officer (CLO) of both Nexperia Holding and Nexperia Semiconductor, filed—with the support of two other executives, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Stefan Tilger and Chief Operating Officer (COO) Achim Kempe, both German nationals—an urgent petition before the Enterprise Chamber requesting a corporate investigation and immediate provisional measures on behalf of both Nexperia entities.

On the same day, the Enterprise Chamber granted several emergency measures immediately, without a hearing, which took effect at once. These measures included suspending Mr. Zhang Xuezheng from his positions as executive officer of Nexperia Holding and non-executive director of Nexperia Semiconductor; suspending the operation of Article 3 of the Board Rules of Nexperia Semiconductor, which defines the CEO’s duties and authorities; and placing all shares held by Wingtech subsidiary 裕成控股有限公司 Yuching Holding Limited (a Hong Kong-registered company and the sole shareholder of Nexperia Holding) under temporary management by an independent third-party trustee for management purposes, effective until the Enterprise Chamber’s oral hearing scheduled for 6 October 2025 and its subsequent ruling on the request for immediate relief.

Wingtech’s official WeChat blog released a scathing announcement, which was widely distributed in China.

Internal Legal Actions Are a Malicious Extension of External Pressure

Certain foreign executives within Nexperia have attempted to use legal means to forcibly alter the company’s ownership structure.

Their actions are closely aligned with the Dutch government’s administrative directives and, in essence, represent an effort to usurp shareholder rights and subvert lawful corporate governance under the guise of “compliance.”

We strongly condemn such politically motivated attempts to seize control.

We Will Resolutely Defend Our Lawful Rights
…

Today the Chinese government reacted to the Dutch raid of the Chinese owned company by cutting it off from Chinese technologies and products:

Chipmaker Nexperia, a subsidiary of China’s Wingtech Technology and a major supplier of mature chips for the automotive and consumer electronics sectors, announced on Tuesday that it has been banned by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce from exporting products made in China, including those produced by its subcontractors, after the Dutch government took over the company using a Cold-War-era law to secure Europe’s chip supply.

Nexperia said it is seeking an exemption from the export ban, which could affect Dutch access to its chips. The company operates an 80,000-square-meter assembly site in Guangdong province near Hong Kong, as well as fabrication, assembly, and testing facilities in Germany, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Britain.

If the Dutch government does not retract its decision to practically confiscate Nexperia the company will die. Its business is globalized. Parts of its products are made all over the world. Its products and sales in Europe depend on subcontractor products which are made in China.

The company is important to Europe. It produces some 90 billion bread and butter components per year which flow into other higher value European products. Sure, other Chinese companies will be happy to replace those parts. But where is the win for the Netherlands or Europe in that?

In the trade war between U.S. and China Europe should have stayed neutral. It should not have buckled under pressure from either side but rely on its own substantial trade powers to stay out of the fight. It is a fight in which the U.S. has no chance to win.

It was a huge mistake by the Dutch to submit to U.S. demands and to seize Nexperia. It was a huge mistake for Europe to submit to U.S. demands.

The minions leading Europe who have allowed for this deserve to be fired over their utter strategic stupidity.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post China Reacts After U.S. Pushed Netherlands To Seize Chinese Owned Company appeared first on LewRockwell.

The pool of speculative fervor will be drained, as impossible as that seems in this moment in history.

2025 may go down as The Year When Everything Happened in No Particular Order, tracking William Gibson’s famous line that “The future is already here, it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

Those expecting inflation will find it, those expecting deflation will find it, those expecting a stock rally will get a rally, those expecting a crash will get a crash, and so on.

The forces that drove reliable trends have all weakened or reversed:

1. ever-lower interest rates lowered the cost of credit/capital to near-zero.

2. the deflationary forces of globalization: everything got cheaper and disposable.

3. expanding workforces increased income and consumption.

4. credit/asset bubbles created wealth without productivity improvements or sacrifice.

5. energy supply kept up with rising consumption.

6. the external costs of the “waste is growth” Landfill Economy (pollution, depletion, etc.) were ignored / not priced in.

These titanic forces still have the momentum of recency bias: most people expect the rest of the 2020s to be an extension of the 40+year Bull Market in Everything.

Feedback (doing more of what’s failed) and buffers (print more money and everything will be fixed) are working to maintain the status quo sand castles as the tide rises.

Those castles closest to the sea will dissolve first (the periphery I often refer to). Those with resources will be shoveling sand to build walls around their castles.

But the tide is relentless and so we’re in a period of flux where those benefiting from the status quo are fighting the erosion of all the forces that enabled the status quo to reach such heights.

As they lose ground, they redouble their policy efforts, pushing policies to new extremes–extremes which further destabilize the system.

The global economy is a complex self-organizing adaptive system, and so blunt-force policies intended to protect the status quo stability end up generating unintended consequences which have their own consequences (the second-order effects I often mention).

Those trying to control the system find their control is imperfect.

Long cycles are now in play. Interest rates fell for 40 years–the longest such run in recent history. Now interest rates will rise for some period of time, likely culminating in a financial crisis with no easy resolution, because printing money–the solution for the past 40 years–will be the problem, not the solution.

Demographics are also in play. Workforces are shrinking, retirees living off the earnings of the workforce are soaring.

The world desires ever greater quantities of energy and consumption, but the cheap, easy to exploit materials have already been exploited. Now everything will become more expensive, regardless of technological improvements.

Physical, chemical and cost limits will matter.

Whatever we seek, we can find–but that may prove ephemeral.

Everyone’s on the lookout for Black Swans, but that’s not the way Black Swans work.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Year When Everything Happens in No Particular Order appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Ron Paul

 

The post Zelensky Back To White House – Again! Will He Get The Tomahawks? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Zelensky Back To White House – Again! Will He Get The Tomahawks? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

 

The post Hamburg pass referendum committing Germany’s leading industrial city to deindustrialise completely in 15 years eugyppius appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Left is now crowing that “libertarianism” has ruined the Argentinian economy as Milei is in D.C. today begging for a $20 billion bailout.  The article in the link cites establishment D.C. Beltway libertarians at the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation (and National Review) as the chief defenders of bailout beggar Milei.

The post Conclusive Proof that Hoppe and Other Milei Critics were Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

New York, come tutte le altre roccaforti democratiche sono un inferno dal punto di vista della quotidianità. Chi ci vive lo sa bene. La recente decisione di Trump di invaire la Guardia nazionale a Chicago e Portland, ennesime due grandi città americane che vengono attenzioante da tale provedimento, è una rispsota a una situazione che rischia di andare fuori controllo. Come a Detroit. I sindaci di tutte queste città democratiche hanno reso i posti da loro amministrati delle zone di guerra... letteralmente. Le ragioni sono sempre le stesse, le conosciamo bene: qualunque cosa toccano i democratici si trasforma in un girone infernale. Non c'è più nemmeno il beneficio del dubbio di pensare che siano degli incapaci, a questo punto anche i più scettici devono cedere all'unica idea possibile rimanente: c'è un disegno nel distruggere il tessuto sociale americano, distruggere la tenuta del patto sociale stesso. Mandare la Guardia nazionale era il minimo che Trump potesse fare visto che sono diventati, a tutti gli effetti, enclavi criminali. Tutte le grandi città che finiscono nelle grinfie di questa gente sperimentano un degreado verticale della qualità della vita; poi ci sono anche interi stati, come ad esempio la California, roccaforte della cricca di Davos. Non si può non concludere, quindi, che questo è qualcosa di voluto, un risultato ricercato, figlio di quelle contromosse avviate da suddetta cricca di Davos per mettere i bastoni tra le ruote all'amministrazione Trump e minimizzare, quanto più possibile, i danni che sta subendo dalla riorganizzazione del Paese. Il caos sociale, i venti di secessione e la spada di Damocle della guerra civile sono tutti strumenti nella “cassetta degli attrezzi” della cricca di Davos.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Barry Brownstein

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/i-newyorkesi-flirtano-con-il-programma)

Vivere a New York City non è facile. Il Cato Institute classifica lo Stato di New York come quello meno libero degli Stati Uniti. Oltre alle elevate imposte statali sul reddito, i residenti di New York City pagano un'imposta aggiuntiva del 3,876% sui redditi superiori a $50.000. L'imposta sulle vendite totale di New York City è dell'8,875%.

Oltre al carico fiscale, i residenti di New York City e dello Stato devono sopportare pesanti oneri normativi. Burocrazia imponente e corruzione vanno di pari passo, e New York non è certo priva di entrambe.

A New York, burocrazia e corruzione si traducono in un costo scolastico per studente sbalorditivo, pari a $36.293, il più alto del Paese. Sarebbe sbagliato credere che una spesa talmente ingente si possa tradurre in eccellenza educativa.

E ora, il candidato democratico a sindaco, Zohran Mamdani, afferma di voler “abbassare i costi e semplificare la vita” ai residenti di New York spendendo ancora di più. Promette il congelamento degli affitti, autobus gratuiti, asili nido gratuiti e negozi di alimentari gestiti dall'amministrazione pubblica.

Mamdani ci dice che i suoi negozi di alimentari si concentreranno “sul mantenimento dei prezzi bassi, non sul profitto”. Questi negozi pubblici non pagheranno l'affitto, o le tasse sulla proprietà, e “trasferiranno i risparmi ai clienti”. Mamdani promette di ricreare magicamente il miracolo della distribuzione alimentare in chiave moderna: “Acquisteranno e venderanno a prezzi all'ingrosso, centralizzeranno lo stoccaggio e la distribuzione, e collaboreranno con i quartieri locali per prodotti e approvvigionamento”. Nel suo spot su TikTok ci dice che i prezzi dei negozi di alimentari privati ​​sono “fuori controllo” e che i suoi negozi non aumenteranno i prezzi.

Alle primarie democratiche Mamdani ha ottenuto i voti dei laureati. Uno dei sostenitori di Mamdani, analfabeti economicamente ma “colti”, proveniente da una “famiglia conservatrice del nord dello stato di New York”, ha scritto un messaggio alla madre dopo le elezioni: “È stato bello sentire che il mio voto contava e che stava contribuendo ad aprire la strada al mondo in cui voglio vivere”.

Il mondo che questo elettore immagina non sarà quello in cui vorrebbe vivere.

Invece di una riforma fiscale e normativa, i piani socialisti di Mamdani risolveranno tutto con regali, spese folli e una generosa dose di “globalizzazione dell'Intifada”, antisemitismo e sentimenti anticapitalisti.

F. A. Hayek spiegò perché molte persone sostengono i politici che promuovono progetti socialisti. Nel suo libro, The Road to Serfdom, scrisse che le persone vogliono essere “sollevate dalla necessità di risolvere i [propri] problemi economici e [...] dalle scelte difficili che questo spesso comporta”.

Mamdani attribuisce al capitalismo la responsabilità delle scelte economiche che tutti dobbiamo affrontare. Per usare le parole di Hayek, gli elettori “sono fin troppo propensi a credere che la scelta non sia realmente necessaria, che sia loro imposta dal sistema economico in cui viviamo”.

Con queste mentalità Hayek ci avvertì di aspettarci “discorsi irresponsabili su una ‘abbondanza potenziale’”.

Il politico che fa campagna elettorale con un piano, per quanto ridicolo, ha un vantaggio quasi insormontabile rispetto al politico che cerca di spiegare come il processo di mercato risolva i problemi senza l'intervento dei pianificatori centrali. Quando le persone sono astoriche e analfabete in materia economica, desiderano ardentemente un piano.

Ciò che gli elettori non vedono è che una tassazione e una regolamentazione eccessive compromettono il funzionamento del mercato. Più il mercato è debole, più il governo interviene per dirigerlo, e per condizionare noi.

Hayek è stato chiaro sul dove tutto questo porta: “Dato che nelle condizioni moderne dipendiamo per quasi ogni cosa dai mezzi che i nostri simili ci forniscono, la pianificazione economica implicherebbe la direzione di quasi tutta la nostra vita”.

Oggi l'attuazione dei piani di Mamdani per i negozi alimentari non porterà a diffuse privazioni e carestie. Perché? Mamdani non può mettere fine a tutte le alternative dei negozi alimentari privati. Chi desidera l'esperienza del DMV quando fa la spesa può fare acquisti nei negozi di Mamdani. A seconda di quanti soldi dei contribuenti intende sprecare, Mamdani potrebbe indebolire i negozi tradizionali, soprattutto per quanto riguarda i prodotti di prima necessità come latte, uova e carne. I negozi statali metterebbero fuori mercato alcuni negozi tradizionali. Le più a rischio saranno le piccole botteghe a conduzione familiare.

Nonostante le accuse di Mamdani di speculazione sui prezzi, il supermercato medio opera con un margine di profitto di circa l'1,6%. I supermercati sono spinti a operare in modo efficiente con il minimo spreco a causa della forte concorrenza. I burocrati non sanno nulla di efficienza, né hanno la conoscenza per gestire i supermercati. Con una contabilità onesta, i supermercati di Mamdani opererebbero con perdite enormi.

I capitalisti contro cui si scaglia Mamdani non sempre si comportano virtuosamente, ma come sottolinea John Mueller nel suo libro, Capitalism, Democracy and Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery, il processo di mercato nel capitalismo tende a “premiare comportamenti imprenditoriali onesti, equi, civili e compassionevoli, e ispira una forma di assunzione di rischi che può essere definita eroica”.

Nel suo libro, Conscious Capitalism, il fondatore di Whole Foods, John Mackey, osserva: “La fiducia è fondamentale per avere un buon rapporto con i clienti”.

Market Basket è una catena di supermercati del New England. Qualche anno fa clienti, dipendenti e venditori hanno scioperato durante un'acquisizione ostile, costringendo a un'inversione di tendenza. Market Basket, insieme a Wegmans, è nota per la forte fedeltà dei suoi clienti e anche dei suoi dipendenti. L'amministratore delegato di questa catena di supermercati ritiene che “Market Basket abbia un obbligo morale nei confronti delle comunità che serviamo”. Sostiene le sue parole offrendo prezzi bassi ai clienti e avanzamenti di carriera per i dipendenti. Market Basket promuove i dipendenti in base al merito, non all'anzianità. Al contrario, l'anzianità fa avanzare i dipendenti pubblici, che sono molto difficili da licenziare. Nei negozi di Mamdani dovreste aspettarvi che i dipendenti si comportino come i negozianti dell'era sovietica.

Wegmans figura costantemente nella lista delle “100 migliori aziende in cui lavorare” della rivista Fortune. Il suo ex-presidente, Robert Wegman, ha affermato, riferendosi al suo trattamento dei dipendenti: “Non ho mai dato più di quanto ho ricevuto”. In questa dichiarazione di principio, si percepisce la convinzione che il mondo degli affari sia un'impresa “win-win”, non “win-lose”.

Le persone attratte dal socialismo vogliono ricevere prima di dare. I loro eroi, come Mamdani, credono che ai miliardari non dovrebbe essere permesso di accumulare tanta ricchezza. Se Mamdani venisse eletto, aspettatevi che i ricchi newyorkesi fuggano dalla città.

Oggi i supermercati offrono fino a 60.000 articoli diversi. Supponiamo che i punti vendita di Mamdani funzionino più come un Trader Joe's, con solo 4.000 articoli. Su quali basi tali punti vendita decideranno cosa tenere in magazzino? Nel suo libro, Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union, Scott Shane ci aiuta a rispondere a questa domanda.

Shane era curioso di sapere perché “alcune delle file più lunghe a Mosca fossero per le scarpe”. Naturalmente dava per scontato che “l'inefficiente economia sovietica non producesse abbastanza scarpe”.

Con sua sorpresa, Shane scoprì che per ogni adulto e bambino, l'Unione Sovietica produceva “più di tre scarpe all'anno”. Come poteva esserci una carenza di scarpe?

Shane ce lo spiega: “La comodità, la vestibilità, il design e la combinazione di taglie delle scarpe sovietiche erano così fuori sintonia con ciò di cui la gente aveva bisogno e desiderava che essa era disposta a fare la fila per ore pur di acquistare ogni tanto un paio di scarpe, solitamente importate”. I pianificatori sovietici avevano scelto una scarpa di consenso, ed era una che soddisfaceva poche esigenze.

Persone come me che vivono in campagna non penserebbero mai che i consumatori pagherebbero due o tre volte il prezzo per uova biologiche certificate, allevate al pascolo, rispetto a quelle “normali”. Eppure la quotidianità ci dice che sono disposti a pagare un sovrapprezzo, e i supermercati dedicano un notevole spazio sugli scaffali a marche diverse di uova.

Lo stesso tipo di decisione viene presa in ogni corsia di un supermercato. Fermatevi un attimo nel reparto yogurt per dare un'occhiata all'incredibile varietà di scelta: greco, bulgaro, islandese, biologico, non biologico, latte intero, parzialmente scremato, senza grassi, zuccherato, non zuccherato e un numero sorprendente di gusti.

Mamdani condanna il capitalismo e i profitti, ma non comprende il meccanismo del mercato. Prezzi e profitti aiutano gli imprenditori a individuare il mix di prodotti ottimale per i loro clienti. Nel socialismo le decisioni vengono prese in base ai capricci dei burocrati.

Hayek nel suo saggio, The Use of Knowledge in Society, scrisse:

Sono convinto che se [il sistema dei prezzi] fosse il risultato di un deliberato progetto umano, e se le persone guidate dalle variazioni dei prezzi capissero che le loro decisioni hanno un significato che va ben oltre il loro obiettivo immediato, questo meccanismo sarebbe acclamato come uno dei più grandi trionfi della mente umana.

Mamdani non è impressionato dal miracoloso processo di mercato; è impressionato dalle invettive della sua mente presumibilmente superiore.

Vivevo a Baltimora quando, negli anni '80, arrivò una nuova ondata di emigrati sovietici. Le famiglie ospitanti, che aiutavano questi nuovi arrivati ad adattarsi alla vita americana, mi raccontavano dei primi incontri degli emigrati con la cornucopia del nostro Paese. Raccontavano di emigrati sbalorditi dall'abbondanza nei supermercati. Alcuni rimasero paralizzati, sopraffatti dalla vastità della scelta; altri riempirono freneticamente i carrelli, temendo che gli scaffali sarebbero rimasti vuoti il ​​giorno dopo.

Rimasero stupiti nello scoprire che nessun funzionario governativo dettava l'ubicazione dei supermercati, o gli orari di apertura dei negozi; nessun funzionario dettava cosa vendevano, o chi erano i loro fornitori.

Non molti anni dopo, nel 1989, Boris Eltsin, allora membro del Parlamento sovietico, visitò un supermercato in un sobborgo di Houston. Nemmeno le élite sovietiche avevano accesso a una tale abbondanza. Sbalordito e perplesso, Eltsin chiese: “Quanto costa? Serve un'istruzione speciale per gestire un supermercato? Sono tutti così i negozi americani?” Jon Miltimore sottolinea: “L'esperienza di Eltsin quel giorno era in contrasto con tutto ciò che sapeva”.

Mamdani ha sperimentato la cornucopia generata dal processo di mercato; non ha le scuse di Eltsin. Per promuovere il suo programma socialista, Mamdani indossa intenzionalmente dei paraocchi e induce gli elettori a credere di non dover assumersi la responsabilità delle proprie scelte economiche.

Alcuni ignorano la sua ascesa, sostenendo che l'adesione dei Democratici a candidati così radicali sia autodistruttiva per il loro partito. Ciò che mi preoccupa è la probabilità che una crisi economica pre-2028 possa creare sostegno per candidati presidenziali in stile Mamdani. Se gli elettori di New York City non lo sconfiggeranno alle urne a novembre, potremmo avere nuovi casi di devastazione dei mercati.

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

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

Comments open on YouTube

The post Ukraine General Admitted It’s Over — The West Lied About Victory appeared first on LewRockwell.

The federal government should have four-day work weeks.

America will benefit by giving federal employees more time away from their daily redistributive work to do something productive, such as work on a side business. For those who do not wish to be productive, this extra day each week can be used for leisure, spending time with their family, or practicing a hobby. However it is spent, it will be better for the American people than if federal employees are at work.

For this reason, it is hard to have too many federal holidays. Of course, private businesses need not follow the calendar of federal holidays. I, for one, do not recall the last time I took a Monday off of work simply because the government said I should.

Below are 12 more reasons federal employees should get another day off work.

1.) October 14 — Charlie Kirk Day

Charlie Kirk was born October 14, 1993. If politics can be put aside, Kirk is an appropriate representation of American ideals: upstanding, person of faith, open to discussion, well-read, encouraging others to better themselves, to have big families, and to speak truth in the world around them. That is someone emblematic of the finest values of American culture from Plymouth to this day.

But Let’s Not Stop There

President Trump should lead the US Congress in adding these 11 other holidays to the federal calendar — days that focus on the heart of what America seeks to represent.

2.) Late August/Early September — Entrepreneurs’ Day

To be celebrated the Friday before Labor Day, Entrepreneurs’ Day brings into focus the fact that there would be no labor without risk-taking capital and risk-taking entrepreneurship.

3.) November 11 — Mayflower Compact Day

Signed on November 11, 1620, the Mayflower Compact starts, “IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN.” It is a testament to the Christian founding of America, a detail not to be forgotten and worthy of annual remembrance.

4.) February 24 — Marbury v. Madison Day

The US Constitution does not offer the judiciary a supreme check on the rest of government. This crappy case does. The unanimous decision, written by John Marshall, was released on February 24, 1803. It should be remembered and debated in perpetuity, even long after it is overturned.

5.) November 2 — James K. Polk Day

This US President, born November 2, 1795, brought the expansion of the US to its present lower 48 boundaries. Though there were gory moments, I am grateful for the decisive people who helped bring America to its present boundaries.

6.) January 6 — Patriots’ Day

January 6, 2021 was part of the 2020 color revolution against the American people. After allowing our CIA and State Department to launch color revolutions all over the world from the end of World War Two until the present day, that behavior finally came to be visited upon our own country.

In 2020, the Covid lockdowns, the mail-in ballots, through to the stolen election, and all the way up to Inauguration Day, a color revolution was launched against the American people by its deep state and established interests, who had no desire to see sensible and popular peaceful reform take place through the ballot box.

As many as one million Americans showed up on January 6, in Washington DC to oppose that coup. Thousands of regular people had their lives disrupted for peacefully engaging in protest, a protest at which a very small number engaged in violence. This evil on the part of law enforcement was done with effectiveness and alacrity uncommon in our government.

The movie J6: A True Timeline, succinctly tells the story of that day. Often in too unbiased of a way.

The one million or so people who showed up that day, not paid and bussed in, not funded by their unions, but on their own dime and their own time, were making a bold statement and showing the American people and the deep state that America was still alive and well and would not give up in their pursuit of living in a more free land. The actions of that million or so people are worthy of remembering long into the future. This holiday begs the questions: “What kind of country do we want?” Those pulled into the legal system that day, targeted for retribution, will forever be regarded as heroes.

Making January 6 Patriots’ Day has a dual purpose — it provides a day for celebrating Christmas in the old Eastern calendar, as well as for those who celebrate January 6 as Epiphany, or Three Kings, a fitting behavior for a Christian land.

7.) December 20 — Secession Day

December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union. It did this in the spirit of 1776, in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, complaining that the US Government had gotten out of line in the amount of tax it was levying on the people, and for other reasons less significant, but more highly bandied about by history in order to suppress the just nature of secession.

8.) June 30 — Thomas Sowell Day

Thomas Sowell was born June 30, 1930, making this a day to celebrate a great American.

From the earliest days of his ministry to the mid-1960s, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King told a story of the importance of black Americans behaving upright, having strong families, and holding themselves accountable for their own actions. King presented a powerful Christian message on this topic until around 1965 when he began to cater increasingly to a northern urban audience, rather than a southern Christian audience. Though King never abandoned the message of individual accountability, his life has been twisted by his most vocal disciples into one big support for perpetual grievance culture and more welfare programs. Few Americans have their interest served by the divisive manipulation of this topic.

Dr. Sowell takes us in a different, healthier, and far more impressive intellectual direction that supports the American experiment. Sowell has excelled in economics, policy, ethnic relations, the economics of liberty, economics of immigration, social phenomena of all manner, social theory, and has appealed to both an academic audience and a popular audience.

Sowell is worthy of praise, though he has been criticized for glaring mistakes, such as: attempting to describe the real estate boom and bust without considering the role of The Federal Reserve Bank, being a brilliant economist but a terrible philosopher, terrible on foreign policy, and a “useless” historian on the topic of World War Two, improperly researching the work of Jean-Baptiste Say while criticizing Say’s Law, misunderstanding the critique of Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk against Karl Marx and erroneously ending up nearly in favor of Marx in his labor theory of value, even showing “a surprising sympathy for Marxism,” publishing old and overly sympathetic ideas of his on Marxism from his time as a Marxist in the 1960s rather than throwing those ideas in the garbage where they belong, accordingly publishing a book that is entirely pro-Marxist with the exception of its final chapter. These criticisms would not be appropriate to ignore.

Sowell is brilliant in so many areas and is a counterpoint to our overly divisive and toxic mainstream discussions on race and ethnicity in America that his life’s work allows for healing and a day to honor him is appropriate.

For example, Sowell dismisses the legacy of slavery argument, claiming it an appeal to emotion rather than based on facts:

“If we wanted to be serious about evidence, we might compare where blacks stood a hundred years after the end of slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the liberal welfare state….Despite the grand myth that black economic progress began or accelerated with the passage of the civil rights laws and ‘war on poverty’ programs of the 1960s, the cold fact is that the poverty rate among blacks fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent by 1960. This was before any of those programs began.”

Sowell blames the welfare state as a source damage in black homes:

“A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression. In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.”

His voice is a welcome one for our era, in which so few people are willing to take responsibility for their own lives.

9.) August 22 — Good Samaritan Day / Iryna Zarutska Day

On August 22, 2025, a woman seeking refuge in the US was murdered by a violent criminal who had been released leniently many times. America has a duty for its guests and for Americans, alike, to keep the country free of crime. This is the day that Americans are reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and encouraged to be helpful to others in need, and in which prosecutors and courts are told to give deference to the one who helps, rather than the one who sits idly by, or even callously walks off. Judges are to be held accountable for their neglect.

10.) Late November — Family Day

The day after Thanksgiving is widely known as Black Friday, a long coveted day by American politicians and retailers to encourage consumer spending in the United States in preparation for Christmas. More appropriate and edifying is to celebrate this as a day focussed on family, whether or not money is spent procuring gifts on this day.

11.) Late November / Early December — Christ The King Day Observed

To be celebrated the Monday after Thanksgiving, bringing Thanksgiving to an even longer weekend. This is a day to celebrate Jesus Christ as Lord over all the earth, appropriate for a Christian country.

12.) August 23 — Dolly Madison Day

On August 24, 1814, Dolly Madison, after her husband provoked a war with Great Britain, was forced out of the White House. She behaved so admirably.

The White House Historical Association writes:

“On August 24, 1814, during the War of 1812, British troops invaded Washington, D.C. First Lady Dolley Madison ordered the Washington painting to be saved, and it was taken down off the wall and sent out of harm’s way by a group of individuals–Jean Pierre Sioussat, the White House steward; Paul Jennings, an enslaved worker; Thomas McGrath, the White House gardener; and two men from New York, Jacob Barker and Robert G.L. De Peyster. Later that night, British troops set fire to the White House and destroyed many of the first family’s possessions. They could not, however, claim the capture or destruction of George Washington’s famous portrait. The portrait currently hangs in the East Room of the White House, paired with a full-length portrait of Martha Washington.”

In a letter to her sister, Madison depicts how the President had left the White House to continue governing elsewhere and knew that the evacuation of the White House, if needed, could be handled under her capable charge.

In this behavior by Mrs. Madison, the values of Proverbs 31, are highlighted, values that should be promoted in our culture, rather than the caustic relationships between men and women that contemporary American culture tends to promote. Every upstanding parent can hope to raise such trustworthy daughters as this resilient and sensible Madison.

In contrast to the toxic celebration “International Women’s Day,” a divisive communist creation, which celebrates a person for simply being born, this is a holiday that celebrates virtue, and encourages discussion of that virtue.

This is the same war in which the Star Spangled Banner was written, September 14, 1814. The effects of that war in the development of central banking in the United States were extensive, as well as taxation, and federalization of power. All of these are important matters, and are further addressed in the existence of the next three holidays I will write about.

What holidays do you think need to be added to the federal calendar of holidays?

The post It’s Time To Add Another Federal Holiday: Charlie Kirk Day (And 11 Other Suggestions) appeared first on LewRockwell.

Continued U.S. ‘dominance’ requires striking out in multiple directions, because the unidirectional war on Russia unexpectedly has failed.

Trump: “This problem with Vietnam … We stopped fighting to win. We would have won easy. We would have won Afghanistan easy. Would have won every war easy. But we got politically correct: ‘Ah, let’s take it easy!’. It’s that we’re not politically correct anymore. Just so you understand: We win. Now we win”. All these would have been easy – along with Afghanistan.

What was the meaning to Trump’s reference to Vietnam? ‘What he was saying is that ‘we’ would have won Vietnam easily, if we hadn’t been woke and DEI’. Some veterans might amplify, ‘You know: we had enough firepower: We could have killed everyone’.

“No matter where you go”, Trump adds, “no matter what you even think about, there’s nothing like the fighting force that we have [including] Rome … No one should ever want to start a fight with the USA”.

The point is that in today’s Trump circles, not only is there no fear of war, but there is this unsubstantiated delusion of American military power. Hegseth said: “We are the most powerful military on the history of the planet, bar none. Nobody else can even come close to it”. To which Trump adds, “Our market [too], is the greatest in the world – no one can live without it”.

The Anglo-U.S. ‘Empire’ is backing itself into the corner of ‘terminal decline’, as French philosopher Emmanual Todd puts it. Trump is attempting, on the one hand, to coerce into being a new ‘Bretton Woods’ in order to re-create dollar hegemony through threat, bluster and tariffs – or war, if needs be.

Todd believes that as the Anglo-U.S. Empire falls apart, the U.S. is lashing out at the world in fury – and is devouring itself through the attempt to re-colonise its own colonies (i.e. Europe) for quick financial shakedowns.

Trump’s vision of U.S. unstoppable military force amounts to a doctrine of domination and submission. One that runs counter to all the former narrative-talk of western values. What is clear is that this policy shift is ‘joined at the hip’ with Jewish and Evangelical eschatological creeds. It shares with Jewish nationalists the conviction that they too, in alliance with Trump, verge on quasi universal domination:

“We crushed Iran’s nuclear and ballistic projects – they are still there, but we took them back with the help of President Trump”, Netanyahu boasts. “We had a precise alliance, within the framework of which we shared the burden [with the U.S.] and achieved the neutralization of Iran”. According to Netanyahu, “Israel emerged from this event as the dominant power in the Middle East, but we still have something to do – what started in Gaza will be ended in Gaza”.

“We need to ‘deradicalise’ Gaza – as was done in Germany after World War II or in Japan”. Netanyahu insisted to Euronews. Submission however, is proving elusive.

Continued U.S. ‘dominance’, however, requires striking out in multiple directions, because the unidirectional war on Russia – which was supposed to provide the world with an object lesson in the ‘craft’ of Anglo-Zionist domination unexpectedly has failed. And now time is running out on America’s deficit and debt crisis.

This – whilst articulated as the Trumpian desire for domination – is also throwing out nihilistic impulses for war and at the same time fracturing western structures. Bitter tensions are arising across the globe. The big picture is that Russia has seen the writing on the wall: The Alaska summit has born no fruit; Trump is not serious about wanting to recast relations with Moscow.

The expectation in Moscow is now leaning toward the expectation of U.S. escalation in Ukraine; a more devastating strike on Iran; or some punitive, performative action in Venezuela – or both. The Trump team seem to be talking themselves up into a state psychic excitement.

The Jewish Oligarchs and the right-wing of the Cabinet in Israel, in this emerging picture, existentially need America to remain as a feared military hegemon (just as Trump promises). Without the American ‘unstoppable’ military cudgel and absent the centrality of dollar use in trade, Jewish Supremacy becomes nothing more than an eschatological chimaera.

A crisis of de-dollarisation, or a bond market blow up – juxtaposed with the rise of China and Russia and BRICS – becomes an existential threat to the supremacist ‘fantasy’.

In July 2025, Trump told his cabinet, “BRICS was set up to hurt us; BRICS was set up to degenerate our dollar and take our dollar … off as the standard”.

So what comes next? Plainly the U.S. and Israeli initial goal is to ‘sear’ Hamas’ psyche with defeat; and if there is no visible expression of utter submission, the overarching aim likely will be to drive out all Palestinians from Gaza and to install Jewish settlers in their place.

Israeli Minister Smotrich – a few years ago – argued that complete displacement of the Palestinian and Arab non-submissive population would only be finally achieved during ‘a major crisis or big war’ – such as occurred in 1948, when 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes. But today, despite the two years’ of massacres, Palestinians have not fled, nor submitted.

So Israel, for all Netanyahu’ boasts of having crushed Hamas, has yet to defeat Palestinians in Gaza – and some in the Hebrew media are calling the Sharm el-Sheik aAccord “a defeat for Israel”.

Netanyahu and the Israeli Right’s ambitions are not circumscribed by Gaza.They extend much further – they seek to establish a State on the full ‘Land of Israel’, which is to say, Greater Israel. Their definition of this colonial project is ambiguous, but likely they want southern Lebanon up to the Litani River; probably most of southern Syria (up to Damascus); parts of the Sinai; and maybe parts of the East Bank, which now belong to Jordan.

So – despite two years of war – what Israel still wants, Professor Mearsheimer opines, is a Palestinian-free Greater Israel.

“Furthermore”, Professor Mearsheimer adds:

“you have to think about what they want with regard to their neighbours. They want weak neighbours. They want to break their neighbours apart. They want to do to Iran what they did in Syria. It’s very important to understand that [while] the nuclear issue is of central importance to the Israelis in Iran, they have broader goals – which is to wreck Iran, turn it into a series of small states”.

“And then the states that they don’t break apart – like Egypt and Jordan – they want them to be economically dependent on Uncle Sam, so that Uncle Sam has huge coercive leverage over them. So, they’re thinking seriously about how to deal with all their neighbours and make sure that they’re weak and don’t pose any kind of threat to Israel”.

Israel clearly seeks the collapse and neutralisation of Iran – as Netanyahu outlined:

“We crushed Iran’s nuclear and ballistic projects – they are still there, but we took them back with the help of President Trump … Iran [now] is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles with an 8,000 km range. Add another 3,000 and they can target New York City, Washington, Boston, Miami, Mar-a-Lago”.

As a possible ceasefire deal begins to take shape in Egypt, the wider regional picture is that the U.S. and Israel to seem intent on provoking a Sunni–Shia confrontation to encircle and weaken Iran. The last days’ EU–GCC joint statement on the UAE’s claims to own sovereignty over Abu Musa and the Tunb Islands reflects a growing analysis in Tehran that Western powers are once again using Gulf monarchies as instruments to stir regional instability.

In short, this is not about the islands or oil – it is about manufacturing a new front to weaken Iran.

And with all such projects for the re-ordering of the Region to acquiesce to Israel’s hegemony, the big Jewish donors want to ensure a situation whereby the U.S. supports Israel unconditionally – hence the large funding directed at the MSM and social media to ensure an across all society support for Israel in America.

The two-year anniversary of 7 October poses a question: How does the balance sheet stand? The U.S.-Israel partnership has succeeded in destroying Syria, turning it into a hell of internecine killings; Russia has lost its foothold in the region; ISIS has been revived; sectarianism is on the upsurge. Hizbullah was decapitated but not destroyed. The region is being Balkanised, fragmented and brutalised.

JCPOA Snapback for Iran has been triggered and on 18 October, the JCPOA itself expires. Trump then is left with a ‘blank sheet’ on which he can write an ultimatum demanding Iranian capitulation, or military action (if he so chooses).

On the other side of the account, were we to look back to the Resistance’s initial objectives of exhausting Israel militarily; creating internecine warfare within Israel; and putting into moral and practical question the principle of Zionism that confers special rights for one population group over another, then it might be said that the Resistance – at a heavy, heavy cost – has had some success.

More significantly, Israel’s bloody wars have already lost it a generation of young Americans, who are not coming back. Whatever the circumstances to the killing of Charlie Kirk, his death has let the genie of ‘Israeli First’ dominance in Republican politics escape free from the bottle.

Israel has already lost much of Europe, and in the U.S., the Trump and Israeli Firsters’ intolerant insistence on fealty to Israel and its actions has triggered intense First Amendment push-back.

That puts Israel on track to ‘loose’ America. And that could be existential for Israel, who may need to fundamentally re-assess the nature of Zionism (which was, of course, Seyed Nasrallah’s stated objective).

How would that look? Accelerating migration – leaving a patchwork of Zionist holdouts surviving amidst a stagnant economy and global isolation. Is that sustainable?

What will be the future that heralds for Israel’s grandchildren?

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

The post Waiting on Images of Abject Submission That Don’t Appear appeared first on LewRockwell.