Aggregatore di feed

Thanks Christine R.

See this.

The post Just like Thomas Crooks, Kirk was cremated, and neither the autopsy nor the name of the doctor who performed it have been released appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bill Madden wrote:

The Constitution stipulates that real money (not fiat currency) be issued by Congress (not the private consortium of banks called the Federal Reserve).  Deficit spending by the government stimulates business activity and is therefore good for the economy but bad for the country – https://www.usdebtclock.org/ – so we have mostly deficit budgets.  The interest on our debt is about a trillion dollars a year and most of the debt was created from nothing.  Although the Fed creates the fiat currency from nothing to loan at interest into circulation, we have to earn, borrow, inherit or steal the fiat currency to pay the interest and/or to reduce the debt.  It is totally unfair but it happens because most of our elected officials are “influenced” to let it happen in spite of their oath to the Constitution. See this.

The post Stop Digital Currency Tyranny — Enact H.R. 1919 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

https://miri.substack.com/p/charlie-kirk-turning-point-or-tv 

https://miri.substack.com/p/his-story-her-story-and-the-truth

The post Charlie Kirk: Turning Point or TV Plot? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Saleh Abdullah wrote:

Stew Peters and others have suggested that Charlie Kirk was killed by Israel with a planted exploding microphone sort of like what the Mossad did with the exploding pager operation against Hezbollah. I’m not sure I agree with this theory, but I’m not prepared to totally dismiss it either. Kirk’s security people were definitely doing all sorts of weird things as the event unfolded. So based on that alone, the theory is not totally outside the realm of possibilities. It is also definitely much more believable than the bullshit lone gunman story. I do agree with Stew that Israel is suspect number one in the assassination. How they went about assassinating him is a detail to the larger story. There’s been a serious effort to discredit people who have been blaming Israel for the assassination even though the evidence keeps mounting that they were the most likely culprit.

Here’s Charlie Kirk’s real assassin. 

https://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1971087324680421499

https://x.com/realstewpeters/status/1970918233273426057

https://x.com/RyanMattaMedia/status/1971057325416087971

The post Post from Stew Peters appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

In his interview with Dialogue Works, Max Blumenthal explains how Charlie Kirk was leading a large grassroots political movement promoting a non-interventionist US foreign policy and as such was a grave threat to the neocons. Max also explains how the stage is being set for the US to fight a war in Iran because this is Netanyahu’s wish and Trump is afraid of the Israeli PM.

See here.

The post US on Path to War With Iran and Silenced Charlie Kirk was Leading US Conservative Antiwar Movement appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Can Trump Keep His Promise To Mideast Leaders? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post Secretary Kennedy’s Key Remark at Autism Press Conference appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Charlie Kirk Assassination Fuels Elite’s Reset Plan for Great Depression 2.0 – Ed Dowd appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Here’s The Dark Secret That Could CRUSH AI Stocks appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brian Dunaway wrote:

I have a number of opinions regarding AI – nearly all negative.

But, for one, AI is supposed to be that by which humankind accelerates toward the unfathomable event horizon of understanding, the exquisite singularity, touching the very face of God!

Uh-huh.

Except that every. single. day I receive an erroneous answer from some AI algorithm. Every day. Not that I ask that many questions – in fact, rather infrequently, but I would say at least a THIRD of the time I get a WRONG answer. And I don’t mean a biased emphasis or some alternate way of looking at something. I mean just WRONG.

In the example below, there is no subtlety. It is simply WRONG. Hexadecimal employs characters 0123456789ABCDEF. But instead of this base 16 system, this example appears to suggest a ((2×26)+10) base 62 system. Just WRONG.

Not all AI is equal, to be certain. For example, I have found far fewer errors in Google’s AI than Bing’s. I always compare for grins.

Thus far, that event horizon looks more like the swirling water in a toilet bowl. I can think of other more entertaining ways to collapse the entire northeastern power grid.

The post AI BS appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin  wrote:

The screeners for conservative talk show hosts must really be earning their money these days keeping people out who raise questions like these.

See also here.

The post RT has Kirk questions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

Heresy Central

The post U.S. Ratchets Up Censorship appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The American Conservative

The post The Big Free Speech Chill appeared first on LewRockwell.

A friend wrote:

Lew:

Like the Kennedy assassination, if Americans knew the full truth of their government regarding 9/11, they would never believe it.

Who Bought the Put Options on Airline Stocks Shortly Before 9/11?

The post Who Bought the Put Options on Airline Stocks Shortly Before 9/11? appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/bitcoin-apre-la-strada-a-una-nuova)

Hal Finney è stato un pioniere dell'informatica, crittografo e un importante esponente del movimento cypherpunk, che ha svolto un ruolo cruciale nello sviluppo iniziale di Bitcoin.

È stato uno dei primi sostenitori, contributori e utilizzatori di Bitcoin.

In breve, Finney è stato un visionario che ha compreso il potenziale di Bitcoin prima di quasi tutti gli altri.

Nel dicembre 2010 Finney scrisse:

C'è un'ottima ragione per cui possano esistere banche che supportano Bitcoin, che emettono la propria valuta digitale convertibile in Bitcoin.

Esso di per sé non può scalare in modo tale che ogni singola transazione finanziaria nel mondo venga trasmessa a tutti e inclusa nella sua blockchain.

È necessario un secondo livello di sistemi di pagamento più leggero ed efficiente. Allo stesso modo il tempo necessario per la finalizzazione delle transazioni Bitcoin sarà impraticabile per acquisti di valore medio-alto.

Banche che supportano Bitcoin risolveranno questi problemi. Possono funzionare come facevano prima della nazionalizzazione della valuta. Diverse banche possono avere linee di politica diverse, alcune più aggressive, altre più conservative. Alcune saranno a riserva frazionaria, mentre altre potrebbero essere coperte al 100% da Bitcoin. I tassi di interesse possono variare; il denaro di alcune banche potrebbe essere scambiato a un prezzo scontato rispetto a quello di altre.

Credo che questo sarà il destino finale di Bitcoin: essere la “moneta ad alto potenziale” che funge da valuta di riserva per le banche che emettono la propria valuta digitale. La maggior parte delle transazioni Bitcoin avverrà tra banche, per regolare i saldi netti.

Le transazioni Bitcoin da parte di privati ​​saranno rare quanto... beh, quanto lo sono oggi gli acquisti con Bitcoin.

Il sistema bancario basato su Bitcoin riprende il concetto di “free banking” e apporta enormi miglioramenti.

L'era del free banking negli Stati Uniti durò dagli anni '30 del XIX secolo ai primi anni '60 dello stesso secolo. Era caratterizzata da regolamentazioni minime e dall'assenza di una banca centrale.

Alle banche era consentito emettere le proprie valute, note come banconote, che circolavano come denaro. Queste banconote dovevano essere rimborsabili su richiesta in cambio delle riserve auree, o argentee, che rappresentavano.

Il valore di queste banconote oscillava in base alla solvibilità percepita della banca che le emetteva e alla distanza dalla banca stessa, poiché le persone erano meno disposte ad accettare banconote da banche lontane o sconosciute.

Analogamente le banche che supportano Bitcoin li detengono come riserva ed emettono banconote digitali eCash rimborsabili in Bitcoin (on-chain o sulla rete Lightning) in qualsiasi momento e su richiesta. Queste banconote eCash sono come versioni digitali delle banconote con copertura aurea dell'era del free banking, ma con diversi miglioramenti.

Il modo migliore per pensare alle banche che supportano Bitcoin è come un aggiornamento dei modelli bancari esistenti.

Di seguito sono riportati alcuni vantaggi.

• Transazioni private

• Fungibilità tra diverse banconote eCash

• Poche barriere all'ingresso

• Riduzione al minimo della fiducia in terze parti

• Costi di cambio bassi

• Comodo e facile da usare

• Riscattabile in qualsiasi momento

• Backup e recupero dei fondi

Innanzitutto dobbiamo comprendere la struttura di base di come potrebbe funzionare una banca che supporta Bitcoin.

È probabile che assumano la forma di una federazione.

Questo modello riduce la fiducia in terze parti distribuendo il controllo su un gruppo di persone o entità. Questo gruppo federato emette, verifica, trasferisce e amministra le banconote digitali, ma solo se c'è consenso tra i membri della federazione per intraprendere queste azioni.

L'idea principale di una federazione è che si riduce la quantità di fiducia in terze parti necessaria per gestire un sistema distribuendone il controllo.

La federazione conserva le sue riserve di Bitcoin in un wallet multisig, un tipo speciale di wallet che richiede l'autorizzazione di più persone per spenderne i fondi. Immaginatelo come una cassaforte che richiede più chiavi per essere aperta.

Probabilmente ci saranno un'ampia varietà di federazioni bancarie Bitcoin. Alcune saranno piccole e focalizzate sulle comunità locali, mentre altre saranno grandi e orientate a fornire operazioni su scala commerciale.

Naturalmente qualsiasi sistema che si basa sulla fiducia o su terze parti presenta dei rischi.

Anche le banche che supportano Bitcoin presentano dei rischi, ma il punto principale è che li riducono significativamente rispetto ai sistemi centralizzati. In particolare bisogna avere fiducia che i membri della federazione non raggiungano un quorum di maggioranza per rubare i bitcoin detenuti nel wallet multisig che garantisce i depositi dei clienti, o per svalutare le loro banconote eCash. Discuterò di questi e altri rischi più avanti.

Ecco come funziona.

Chi desidera ottenere banconote eCash deve prima scaricare il software per interagire con la banca che supporta Bitcoin. Poi invia i bitcoin (on-chain o con Lightning) alla banca federata e riceve in cambio banconote eCash.

Con una banca federata che supporta Bitcoin, si può anche vendere qualcosa e ricevere banconote eCash nel proprio wallet. Potreste anche guadagnare banconote eCash dal vostro datore di lavoro quando depositate lo stipendio, proprio come avviene oggi con un conto bancario tradizionale.

Le federazioni bancarie che supportano Bitcoin sono progettate per essere interoperabili con Lightning Network, una rete aperta peer-to-peer basata su Bitcoin che consente transazioni quasi istantanee e commissioni praticamente pari a zero. Potete utilizzare le banconote eCash ovunque sia accettato Lightning.

Con le federazioni bancarie Bitcoin, potete prelevare su un'altra federazione o sul vostro wallet Bitcoin (on-chain o Lightning) in qualsiasi momento e su richiesta.

A differenza dei wallet self-custody, le federazioni bancarie Bitcoin possono aiutare gli utenti a recuperare i propri fondi se perdono l'accesso ai propri wallet.

Supponiamo che vogliate spendere i vostri eCash con un commerciante di una federazione bancaria Bitcoin diversa. È qui che entrano in gioco i Lightning Gateway: market maker che forniscono liquidità tra Bitcoin (on-chain e su Lightning) e varie banconote eCash emesse da diverse federazioni bancarie a fronte di una piccola commissione.

Quando inviate un pagamento eCash a un commerciante di una federazione bancaria diversa, inviate l'eCash a un Lightning Gateway, che a sua volta lo invierà al commerciante giusto. Oppure supponiamo che il Lightning Gateway non abbia liquidità nelle banconote eCash del commerciante. In tal caso troverà un altro Lightning Gateway che ce l'abbia, invierà a quel Lightning Gateway un pagamento e il secondo Lightning Gateway lo inoltrerà al commerciante giusto.

In breve, i Lightning Gateway forniranno liquidità che aumenta la fungibilità tra numerose banconote eCash emesse da diverse federazioni bancarie Bitcoin.

È come inviare senza problemi un pagamento da PayPal a un utente su Cash App, Venmo o un'altra piattaforma.

Se tutto questo vi sembra complicato, non preoccupatevi: è la spiegazione di come funzionerebbe un'applicazione bancaria Bitcoin sul vostro telefono. Fa tutto questo in background, senza il vostro intervento. Per l'utente sarà un'esperienza fluida, come la semplice scansione di un codice QR e l'autorizzazione di un pagamento su un'applicazione per telefono.

La maggior parte degli utenti di Internet non sa come funzionano TCP/IP o SSL, ma li usa quotidianamente in background mentre naviga sul web. Mi aspetto una dinamica simile con Bitcoin, Lightning Network, le banche federate che supportano Bitcoin e le varie banconote eCash coperte da Bitcoin.

Il grafico qui sotto illustra in modo eccellente come funzionerebbero le transazioni con diverse banconote eCash provenienti da diverse banche Bitcoin federate. È di Eric Yakes, autore di The 7th Property: Bitcoin and the Monetary Revolution, che considero la migliore risorsa per comprendere il potenziale strabiliante delle banche che supportano Bitcoin.

Banche, Bitcoin e privacy

La privacy finanziaria è uno dei maggiori vantaggi che le banche Bitcoin federate offriranno rispetto ai depositari tradizionali.

L'eCash chaumiano è ciò che la renderà possibile.

Il nome è un omaggio al crittografo e cypherpunk David Chaum, il quale ha creato un modo per garantire transazioni online sicure e anonime, proprio come l'utilizzo del denaro contante nel mondo fisico.

Con l'eCash chaumiano gli utenti possono spendere denaro online senza rivelare la propria identità o i dettagli della transazione a nessuno, inclusi il destinatario, le banche Bitcoin federate e i Lightning Gateway coinvolti nella transazione.

Una delle caratteristiche principali dell'eCash chaumiano è l'utilizzo di firme cieche, una tecnica crittografica che consente a una banca Bitcoin federata di firmare e convalidare le banconote eCash senza visualizzare i dettagli della transazione.

In altre parole, una banca Bitcoin federata sa che una banconota eCash valida è stata emessa e spesa, ma non sa chi l'ha spesa o per cosa. Inoltre non sarà in grado di conoscere i saldi dei singoli conti, né l'identità di coloro che riscattano una banconota eCash in Bitcoin.

Chi gestisce una banca Bitcoin federata potrà conoscere solo l'importo totale di BTC detenuti nelle riserve del wallet multisig della federazione e l'importo totale delle banconote eCash in sospeso per il riscatto.

Si tratta di un miglioramento rivoluzionario della privacy finanziaria rispetto alle soluzioni di custodia esistenti, che non offrono alcuna privacy.

Le solide protezioni della privacy offerte dall'eCash chaumiano consentono un altro vantaggio fondamentale: la resistenza alla censura.

Con PayPal, Venmo, conti bancari tradizionali e altri servizi finanziari di custodia è possibile bloccare un pagamento, o cancellare il vostro conto, in qualsiasi momento e con qualsiasi pretesto si ritiene opportuno.

Con le banche Bitcoin federate esse non sarebbero in grado di censurare, o bloccare, le transazioni. Grazie alle solide protezioni della privacy dell'eCash chaumiano non possono conoscere i dettagli di ogni transazione, quindi non possono bloccarle o impedirle.

In breve, con le banche Bitcoin federate e l'eCash chaumiano avremmo, per la prima volta, una soluzione di custodia comoda e resistente alla censura.

Fedimint

Forse l'implementazione più promettente delle banche Bitcoin federate è Fedimint.

Fedimint è un protocollo open source che consente a chiunque di creare una banca Bitcoin federata con pochi clic.

Utilizzare Fedimint per creare una banca Bitcoin federata non costa nulla; non sono necessarie licenze o autorizzazioni.

In breve, Fedimint potrebbe fare ai cartelli bancari quello che Uber ha fatto ai cartelli dei taxi.

Rischio di “rug pull”

Come tutte le soluzioni di Livello 2, le banche Bitcoin federate rappresentano un compromesso. Sono meno sicure dell'autocustodia, ma offrono maggiore praticità, facilità d'uso e privacy, tra gli altri vantaggi.

In particolare, è necessario avere fiducia che i membri della federazione non colludano per formare un quorum di maggioranza per rubare i bitcoin detenuti nel wallet multisig che supporta i depositi dei clienti.

La dimensione di tale quorum varierebbe da federazione a federazione. Maggiore è il quorum, più distribuito è il rischio.

Potrebbe essere una configurazione 2 su 3, ovvero tre utenti autorizzati e due necessari per spendere le riserve bitcoin nel wallet multisig della federazione, oppure una configurazione 99 su 100 e qualsiasi valore intermedio.

Il rischio di rug pull varierebbe da federazione bancaria a federazione bancaria.

Le federazioni bancarie Bitcoin locali potrebbero mitigare questo rischio perché verrebbero gestite da membri noti dalla comunità. Probabilmente subirebbero gravi conseguenze legali, reputazionali e fisiche per aver rubato il denaro dei vicini.

Con federazioni bancarie Bitcoin più grandi, i depositanti potrebbero mitigare questo rischio con assicurazioni private, agenzie di rating e altre soluzioni di mercato.

In ogni caso, sarà importante una due diligence continua delle banche Bitcoin federate. I depositanti dovranno farlo o trovare qualcuno che lo faccia per loro.

Rischio di centralizzazione

Le terze parti di fiducia sono vulnerabilità centralizzate. Gli stati possono catturarle e costringerle.

È esattamente così che questi ultimi hanno utilizzato il gold standard per avviare il sistema di valuta fiat.

Inizialmente le persone usavano l'oro fisico come moneta. Poi, per scalare, si sono necessariamente rivolte a terze parti, come le banche, che conservavano oro ed emettevano cambiali coperte dall'oro per facilitare gli scambi. Gli stati hanno catturato queste terze parti e poi hanno gradualmente rimosso la copertura in oro dalle cambiali fino a quando non sono diventate altro che coriandoli. In breve, è così che è nato il sistema di valuta fiat.

Potrebbe accadere qualcosa di simile con Bitcoin?

Esso ha grandi possibilità di evitare questo destino grazie alla sua estrema portabilità e decentralizzazione.

In passato gli agenti governativi potevano semplicemente presentarsi in banca e chiedere di consegnare le riserve auree fisiche a un depositario centralizzato.

Supponiamo che gli agenti governativi sarebbero in grado di identificare qualcuno che gestisce una banca Bitcoin federata.

Cosa potrebbero fare?

Se la banca Bitcoin federata fosse istituita con una sufficiente diversificazione geografica e politica, non potrebbero fare molto. Potrebbero, al massimo, arrestare l'unica persona nella loro giurisdizione che la gestisce.

Supponiamo che ci sia un quorum di 7 su 10 e che gli altri nove membri della federazione si trovino in giurisdizioni politiche diverse. Le riserve di bitcoin sarebbero al sicuro perché l'unica persona arrestata dagli agenti governativi non avrebbe raggiunto il quorum per spenderle. Gli altri nove membri della federazione potrebbero quindi adottare ulteriori misure difensive per garantire la sicurezza dei BTC della federazione.

In breve, sarebbe esponenzialmente più difficile per gli stati catturare, costringere e centralizzare le banche federate Bitcoin rispetto a quanto fosse più facile fare lo stesso con il gold standard.

Hal Finney disse che probabilmente ci sarà un mercato per le varie banconote eCash e il loro valore fluttuerà a seconda di come il mercato ne valuterà il rischio. Mi aspetto che le banconote eCash con maggiore esposizione a giurisdizioni più rischiose applichino uno sconto sulle loro riserve bitcoin per riflettere tale rischio.

Ricordiamo che, con il protocollo open source Fedimint, chiunque può costituire facilmente una banca federata Bitcoin. Questa bassa barriera all'ingresso contribuisce anche a mitigare il rischio di centralizzazione.

Con il sistema bancario tradizionale, e con il gold standard, lo stato deve controllare un numero relativamente piccolo di banche ed entità. Con le banche federate Bitcoin, chiunque potrebbe potenzialmente gestirne una: non è necessaria l'autorizzazione di un cartello bancario centralizzato.

Ecco il punto.

Se gli stati tentassero di catturare, centralizzare e costringere le banche Bitcoin federate, credo che si tratterebbe di un inutile gioco “colpisci la talpa”.

Rischio di svalutazione

C'è anche il rischio che le persone che gestiscono una banca Bitcoin federata possano colludere segretamente per svalutare le loro banconote eCash.

Si consideri l'esempio dell'exchange FTX che ha creato molte più rivendicazioni su bitcoin rispetto a quelli effettivamente detenuti in riserva. I titolari di conti FTX che pensavano di possedere bitcoin e non hanno prelevato si sono ritrovati con un pugno di mosche in mano.

Penso che diversi fattori mitigheranno questo rischio con le banche Bitcoin federate.

In primo luogo, il costo del passaggio a un'altra banca Bitcoin federata, o del prelievo, è basso e può verificarsi in qualsiasi momento. La facilità con cui potrebbe verificarsi una potenziale corsa agli sportelli dovrebbe incutere timore in coloro che tentano qualsiasi schema di svalutazione.

Mi aspetto che altri incentivi basati sul mercato, come l'iscrizione a club esclusivi per le banche Bitcoin con la migliore reputazione e altri sistemi basati su quest'ultima, contribuiranno a ridurre al minimo il rischio di svalutazione.

La bassa barriera all'ingresso per la creazione di una banca Bitcoin federata e i bassi costi di passaggio significano che probabilmente ci sarà una concorrenza spietata. Se il mercato sospetta che una banca Bitcoin stia svalutando le sue banconote eCash, questa sarà un'eccellente opportunità per un concorrente di accaparrarsi quote di mercato.

Allo stesso modo gli speculatori potrebbero svolgere un ruolo importante. Saranno pronti per vendere allo scoperto le banconote eCash delle banche Bitcoin sospettate di aver commesso svalutazioni.

Conclusione

Bitcoin è un'innovazione rivoluzionaria a livello monetario e fornisce le basi per un nuovo sistema finanziario.

Si considerino le implicazioni della natura trustless di Bitcoin in combinazione con Lightning Network, le banche Bitcoin federate che emettono eCash chaumiano e altre soluzioni Layer 2 per scalabilità e praticità.

La quantità di valore che potrebbero sbloccare è sorprendente. Ciò potrebbe inaugurare una nuova era di free banking in tutto il mondo.

Sebbene il megatrend di Bitcoin non sia più agli albori, è ancora presto e non è troppo tardi. Bitcoin ha ancora molta strada da fare prima di emergere come la moneta dominante al mondo e soppiantare il sistema finanziario tradizionale.

Non ho dubbi che la supremazia di Bitcoin sarà uno dei maggiori trend finanziari del decennio e credo che gli investitori pazienti ne trarranno grandi profitti.

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

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

Sometimes a conspiracy-theory is true and the Establishment’s narrative is a lie.

Apparently, the blowback from the murder of Charlie Kirk is exposing what quite possibly, if not probably, are evidences that are forming themselves into a very credible narrative — not only about that killing, but about who the actual enemies of the American people are that are behind this murder — and this highly credible narrative is one that (which is the surprise here) both conservatives and progressives can accept (something that’s actually unprecedented ever since the American Revolution started on 4 July 1776). It consequently might bring America together, at long last, into the kind of effective mass-movement that will reverse the permanent-war economy and evil Government that have reigned in this country ever since 1945 — its hundreds of U.S. coups and invasions that are costly to everyone but the profiteers, who are U.S. billionaires, who profit from them, at the public’s expense.

I here link to, and describe, what I consider to be the best presentations of what could turn out to be a historically important emerging narrative that could have enormous political consequences in the United States:

——

“EXCLUSIVE! Another Photo Of Tyler Robinson | Candace Ep 238”

18 September 2025, Candace Owens opening 25-minute segment raises questions about the ‘evidences’ that the police have made public in their charge that their suspect Tyler Robinson was even near the scene of the shooting at the time when it occurred.

——

MY CLOSING COMMENT

What those presenters have offered is a credible but not conclusive case that Netanyahu should be investigated for this crime in America, and that the billionaires who had been funding Kirk’s operation ought also to be. Of course, since America is a dictatorship not a democracy, that won’t happen. But that outcome would only intensify this event’s consequences.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Evidences Charlie Kirk’s Killing Was a Professional Hit-Job appeared first on LewRockwell.

Imagine there was a violent cult that used scriptures from an ancient religion to convince its followers to do evil things.

Imagine the cult was given its own state.

Imagine the cult was given machine guns, tanks and war planes.

Imagine the cult obtained nuclear weapons.

Imagine the cult started committing genocide against the indigenous people who’d been living in the area where the cult’s state was established.

Imagine the cult had huge branches in the most powerful nation on earth, and the powerful nation defended the cult no matter what it did.

Imagine the cult flipped out and started relentlessly attacking and invading the surrounding nations.

Imagine the cult had so much influence and support in western society that western governments and institutions would censor, silence, fire, marginalize and deport anyone who criticized the cult’s actions.

Imagine the western media sympathized highly with the cult and spent the entire time framing its atrocities as entirely reasonable defensive actions, and framing critics of the cult as malicious bigots.

Imagine the cult kept getting crazier and crazier and more and more violent, but nobody could find a way to stop it because its actions were backed by this giant western power structure.

That’d suck, huh?

I think that’d be just about the most bat shit insane situation anyone could possibly imagine.

A nuclear-armed death cult just murdering and massacring mountains of human beings with total impunity, backed by the most powerful people on earth? That would be an unfathomable madness.

If someone made a movie about such a thing I’d stop watching halfway through, because I would find it too unbelievable.

I’d be like, come on man. Come up with a more realistic plot line. And come up with a more believable antagonist; nobody is that evil.

I’d be like come on Hollywood, you seriously expect me to maintain my suspension of disbelief when you’re putting out a movie about these cartoonishly evil bad guys who blow up hospitals and assassinate journalists and murder humanitarian workers and deliberately massacre starving civilians seeking food?

I’d be like, you really expect me to believe a violent cult could get all this power and do all these evil things and get away with it, just by lying about it all the time? Eventually people would stop believing their lies!

I’d be like, somebody would stop them. Not only does this movie have unbelievable antagonists, it also lacks any believable protagonists. Basic human decency would compel the world to stop all these atrocities being committed right out in the open. Where are the heroes in this story?

And then I’d storm out of the movie theater, glad to be outside that horrible fictional world where such freakish absurdities were taking place.

And then I’d stand in the parking lot and look up at the sky, and thank God I’m back in reality again.

_________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Imagine There Was a Violent Cult Committing Atrocities With Impunity appeared first on LewRockwell.

After offering thoughts a few hours after Charlie Kirk was killed, I decided to wait for some facts before providing more opinions.

Nine days later, I realize if I keep doing that I may never say anything (which most readers would probably appreciate).

This incident was obviously tragic. But it strikes closer to home, and further afield, than I initially knew.

Insulting Assumption

While I was familiar with Charlie Kirk, I wasn’t his target market. As I noted last week, I’d heard a few interviews and seen some clips.

Before I did, my impression was he was a run-of-the-mill conservative who made his name debating college kids… like a less abrasive Ben Shapiro.

After listening to more of him the last few days, I rescind that insulting assumption. For one thing, he was more pleasant and thoughtful than Shapiro. And his knowledge, intellect, and style were far superior to the standard Fox News mouthpiece or neocon shill.

My elder son (a recent college graduate) was a fan. But apparently he was more than that. The assassin took one of his admirable heroes. And Lord knows young men need more of those.

Not that Alexander agreed with everything Kirk said. But he respected how and where he said it… on college campuses, addressing opposing views with amicable debate. For doing so, Charlie Kirk lost his life.

Another Exception

How did this tragedy happen? Obvious analogs are Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the Kennedys. My son made the King comparison, which I initially considered a reach.

But I reacted too soon. After watching the overwhelming response since last week, I think Alexander had a point.

In our hubris, we tend to overrate the historic importance of current events. But the last decade we’ve witnessed many momentous occurrences and pivotal phenomena. This seems like another one.

I have no idea who killed Charlie Kirk, or why. But I doubt whatever the “authorities” say… if only because they’re saying it.

After years of “Russia collusion”, “two weeks to slow the spread”, “safe and effective”, “insurrection”, “unprovoked invasion”, “Epstein hoax”, and “we’re all in this together”, it’s prudent to instinctively distrust whatever government officials tell us.

For a decade, conservatives have been smeared as “fascists”, “Nazis”, “white supremacists”, “Hitler”, and “extremists”. So have people like Donald Trump, who twenty years ago would’ve been indistinguishable from a conventional Democrat. Because that’s what he was.

Tactically, hurling these absurd epithets has had the intended effect. To those who stoke culture wars to sow division and distraction, reasonable voices are the greatest threat. Like Charlie Kirk, they can be more persuasive (and therefore dangerous), especially to the extent they sway young minds.

Inoculating the Flock

The Left has long viewed juvenile brains as fertile terrain. That’s why public schools are so important, and a reason they encourage most kids to go to college.

With chapters proliferating at high schools, Turning Point USA was infiltrating their field and inoculating the flock. Kirk, a college drop-out, was famous for telling high schoolers that, for most of them, college is a mistake.

By doing so, he steered some sheep from academic wolves. But he was most known for grabbing his staff, and trying to shepherd those who joined the pack.

Kirk posed a threat because he was decent, powerful, and determined. He proved that last year. The 2024 election featured an unprecedented swing in the youth vote, a bloc Democrats typically took for granted. Donald Trump lost it by 25 points in 2020; in November the deficit was only four.

The shift was most notable among young men, who favored Trump by 14 points in 2024 while opposing him by the same amount four years earlier. This dynamic was particularly dramatic among young Latinos, who supported Trump by 44 points after favoring Biden by forty.

Some of this is due to the staggering deficiencies of the Democratic ticket. Few candidates have ever been as awful as Kamala Harris. But in most years, young people would’ve rejected such an insulting offering by not voting at all. Thru extraordinary effort, Charlie Kirk convinced many of them to cast a ballot for Donald Trump.

Barely thirty years-old, Kirk had established himself not only as a polished spokesman, but as an outstanding organizer. The one he built was much larger than I’d realized.

Before Kirk was killed, Turning Point USA had affiliates on 2,100 campuses representing a quarter of a million students. Immediately afterward, applications soared… for 32,000 potential new affiliates (about 4M students).

It’s unlikely Donald Trump would’ve won without him, which is probably why so many cheered Kirk’s murder. They also (thought they) knew what this meant for the future.

But among Kirk’s many talents was selecting lieutenants. Whoever felled his tree may have fertilized his forest. When young people are energized, they tend to be active. The current crop has ample motivation, which Kirk unveiled and unleashed.

In certain quarters, this made him dangerous.

Revealing Reactions

He spoke with and for a disgruntled generation that’s inherited debt and inflation from its predecessors, was told to keep borrowing to pursue worthless degrees, and is made up of millions who can’t afford to start families or buy a home (average age for having a first child is almost 28; for first-time home-buyers is 38). Unlike Kirk (at least till recently), they also oppose arming Israel to obliterate Gaza.

How will his audience react to losing their champion? So far, they’ve done so as we’d expect… with prayers, vigils, mutual support, and shared condolences. In many places, they’ve erected memorials, which the usual savages (the types who praised torching and looting when George Floyd overdosed) have tried to destroy or deface.

Since the killing, reactions have been revealing. That of the Left has been revolting, with some pockets praising the murder.

Many were called out, and lost their jobs. That’s good (obviously). It’s bad enough to applaud this assassination. But to film your glee and post it online shows a lack of humanity and judgment that should cost you not only a job, but any respect from civilized society.

That fired employees were surprised at their fate reflects the echo chambers into which they sealed themselves. Their cultural segregation had clearly convinced them that “reasonable” people shared their warped opinions. Otherwise, why post such incriminating filth for all eternity to see?

Illegitimate Power

Others commentators indicted Israel… about which Kirk was becoming more circumspect. To downplay this, Benjamin Netanyahu – who apparently tried to buy (or at least buy-off) TPUSA – cynically waved letters proclaiming Kirk’s affection for Israel, used his death to urge strengthened US support, and implied (as always) his country was somehow a victim.

Predictably, the US government is using Kirk’s killing to assert illegitimate power. Attorney General Pam Bondi promised to “target” people for “hate speech”, particularly “antisemitism”.

As far as we know, antisemitism has nothing to do with Kirk’s murder. But wielding the Left’s “hate speech” hammer is particularly appalling. That notion has no place in American law.

Neither “hate” nor “speech” are crimes, and the US government has no right to “target” people for them. Any official promising to do so should (at the very least) be out of a job. A president accommodating such threats should be impeached.

As the Biden Administration muscled companies to impose its covid edicts and DEI demands, the Trump bunch is pressuring businesses to do its bidding. It seems to have done so with Disney, which just ousted the loathsome Jimmy Kimmel.

If Disney wanted to dismiss Kimmel for repulsive comments (which they were), that’s its prerogative. Companies should be able to fire employees for whatever reasons they want. If that’s what Disney did, it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

But was that what happened? As when the Biden Administration leaned on social media companies to stifle dissent, the Trump team certainly appears to be threatening voices it doesn’t like.

Here’s FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr before the firing, making an offer Disney couldn’t refuse:

“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

This is obviously unconstitutional. The U.S. government has no authority to prohibit or influence what anyone says, nor to urge employers to ensure no one says it. Even without overt force, government “encouragement” is implicit coercion.

Broken Dam

Many observers have punned that Kirk’s killing is a “turning point”. I agree, and it’s reasonable to wonder which way we’ll go.

But the better question is whether all of us should head the same direction. Like a train with engines at each end, Americans have been pulling apart for twenty years.

Unlike the tumultuous 1960s or the fractious 1850s, the United States are filled with people who not only don’t get along; they don’t want to. With no shared values or common culture, political opponents detest each other.

Like Sunni and Shia, their worldviews are irretrievably incompatible. Forcing them together is futile, and perhaps fatal.

Rather than expect them to swim together in the same current, these fish belong in separate streams flowing different directions. That’s a sensible solution, and the humane one.

At some point, it’s probably inevitable. But that doesn’t mean it’s imminent. The killing of Charlie Kirk seems more like Harper’s Ferry than Ft Sumter: an overture to something ominous… with ramifications few foresee.

It’s been said repeatedly since the shooting that the assailants murdered the “moderate” voice. That’s true. As Michael Malice said of Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk wasn’t the river.

He was the dam.

This article was originally published on Pretium Insights.

The post Ominous Overture? appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Those who created this country chose freedom. With all of its dangers. And do you know the riskiest part of that choice they made? They actually believed that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas. That we could be trusted to remain free, even when there were very, very seductive voices—taking advantage of our freedom of speech—who were trying to turn this country into the kind of place where the government could tell you what you can and cannot do.”—Nat Hentoff

The Trump administration is taking its war on free speech into the realm of thought crimes.

This is more than politics.

In declaring “Antifa”—a loose ideology based on opposition to fascism—as a domestic terrorist organization, the government has given itself a green light to treat speech, belief, and association as criminal acts. With this one executive order, political dissent has been rebranded as terrorism and free thought recast as a crime.

Critics will argue that “Antifa” means rioting and property destruction. But violent acts are already crimes, handled under ordinary law.

What’s new—and dangerous—is punishing people not for violence, but for what they believe, say, or with whom they associate. Peaceful protest, political speech, and nonviolent dissent are now being lumped together with terrorism.

Violence should be prosecuted. But when peaceful protest and dissent are treated as terrorism, the line between crime and thought crime disappears.

When the government polices political belief, we’re no longer talking about crime—we’re talking about thought control.

This opens the door to guilt by association, thought crimes, and McCarthy-style blacklists, making it possible for the government to treat peaceful protesters, critics, or even casual sympathizers as terrorists.

Protesters who identify with anti-fascist beliefs—or who, under this administration, simply challenge its power grabs and overreaches—can now be surveilled, prosecuted, and silenced, not for acts of violence but for what they think, say, or believe.

Under this executive order, George Orwell—the antifascist author of 1984—would become an enemy of the state.

This is how dissent becomes labeled as “terrorism” in a police state: by targeting political thought instead of criminal conduct.

Once you can be investigated and punished for your associations or sympathies, the First Amendment is reduced to empty words on paper.

Nor is this an isolated development. It is part of a larger pattern in which the right to think and speak freely without government interference or fear of retribution—long the bedrock of American liberty—is treated as a conditional privilege rather than an inalienable right, granted only to those who toe the official line and revoked from those who dare dissent.

The warning signs are everywhere.

The Pentagon now requires reporters to pledge not to publish “unauthorized” information. Broadcasters silence comedians after political outrage. Social media platforms delete or deplatform disfavored viewpoints.

The common thread running through these incidents is not their subject matter but their method.

Government officials don’t need to pass laws criminalizing dissent when they can simply ensure that dissent is punished and compliance rewarded.

The result is a culture of self-censorship.

The First Amendment was written precisely to prevent this kind of chilling effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that speech does not lose protection simply because it is offensive, controversial, or even hateful.

Yet today, by redefining unpopular expression as “dangerous” or “unauthorized,” government officials have come up with a far more insidious way of silencing their critics.

In fact, the Court has held that it is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment…that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” It is not, for example, a question of whether the Confederate flag represents racism but whether banning it leads to even greater problems—namely, the loss of freedom in general.

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

If citizens cannot stand out in the open and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives, and its policies without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment—with all its robust protections for speech, assembly, and petition—is little more than window dressing: pretty to look at, but serving little real purpose.

Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right—whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign.

That is what the First Amendment is supposed to be about: assuring the citizenry of the right to express their concerns about their government, in the time, place, and manner best suited to ensuring those concerns are heard.

Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it little more than the right to file a lawsuit against those in power.

In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges authority, exposes corruption, or encourages the citizenry to push back against injustice.

The machinery of censorship is more entrenched than ever.

With growing monopolies of the media, a handful of corporate gatekeepers dominate the digital public square. Government regulators hold powerful levers—licenses, contracts, antitrust threats—that can be used to manipulate content so that only what is approved is publicized. And a public increasingly conditioned to equate harm with offense becomes an unwitting accomplice to suppression, cheering the silencing of adversaries without realizing that the same tools will be used against them tomorrow.

This crackdown on expression is not limited to government action.

Corporate America has now taken the lead in policing speech online, with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube using their dominance to censor, penalize, and regulate what users can say. Under the banner of “community standards” against obscenity, violence, hate speech, or intolerance, they suspend or ban users whose content strays from approved orthodoxy.

Make no mistake: this is fascism, American-style.

As presidential advisor Bertram Gross warned in Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, “Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties, or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. . . . In America, it would be super modern and multi-ethnic—as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.”

The appeal here is the self-righteous claim to be fighting evils—hatred, violence, intolerance—using the weapons of Corporate America. But those weapons are easily redirected. Today they are aimed at “hate.” Tomorrow they will be aimed at dissent.

The effect is the same: the range of permissible ideas shrinks until only government-approved truths remain.

Combine this with Trump’s Antifa executive order, and the danger becomes unmistakable.

By labeling a loose ideology as terrorism, the government opens the door to treat political opposition as criminal conspiracy. Combine that with corporate censorship, and the result is chilling.

Together, they create a chokehold on dissent.

The Constitution’s promise of free speech becomes little more than words on paper if every outlet for expression—public or private—is policed, monitored, or denied.

“Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

We have entered an era in which free speech has become regulated speech: celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority, tolerated when it doesn’t, and branded “dangerous” when it dares to challenge political, religious, or cultural comfort zones.

President Trump, who regularly mocks critics while trying to muzzle those who speak out against him, may be the perfect poster child for this age of intolerance. Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, anti-bullying policies, hate-crime statutes, zero-tolerance rules—these legalistic tools, championed by politicians and prosecutors across the political spectrum, have steadily corroded the core freedom to speak one’s mind.

The U.S. government has become particularly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against its many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that is being flagged, censored, surveilled, or investigated by the government: “hate speech,” “intolerant speech,” “conspiratorial speech,” “treasonous speech,” “incendiary speech,” “anti-government speech,” “extremist speech,” and more.

By rebranding dissent as dangerous speech, government officials have given themselves the power to police expression without judicial oversight.

This is not a partisan issue.

Under one administration, speech may be stifled in the name of fighting “misinformation.” Under another, it may be curbed in the name of rooting out “dangerous” or “hateful” speech.

The justifications change with the politics of the moment, but the outcome is the same: less speech, narrower debate, and more fear.

The stakes could not be higher.

If we no longer have the right to tell an ICE agent to get off our property, to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before entering our home, to stand outside the Supreme Court with a protest sign, to approach an elected representative to share our views, or  if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how offensive, intolerant, or politically incorrect—then we do not have free speech.

Just as surveillance stifles dissent, government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, smothers independent thought, and fuels the kind of frustration that can erupt in violence.

The First Amendment is meant to be a steam valve: allowing people to speak their minds, air grievances, and contribute to a dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When that valve is shut—when there is no one to hear what people have to say— frustration builds, anger grows, and society becomes more volatile.

Silencing unpopular viewpoints with which the majority might disagree—whether by shouting them down, censoring them, or criminalizing them—only empowers the Deep State. The motives—discouraging racism, condemning violence, promoting civility—may sound well-intentioned, but the result is always the same: intolerance, indoctrination, and infantilism.

The police state could not ask for better citizens than those who do its censoring for it.

This is how a nation of free people becomes an extension of the surveillance state, turning citizens against each other while the government grows stronger.

The path forward is clear.

As Justice William O. Douglas wrote in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.

The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.

What is required is more speech not less—even when it offends.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s time to make the government hear us—see us—and heed us.

This is the ultimate power of free speech.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Would Orwell Be Branded a Terrorist? The Government’s War on Thought Crimes appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have explained on many occasions in writing, interviews, and podcasts that an American president has little more than nominal control over the policies of his administration.  

Partly this is due to the vast size of the US government that the liberals have created, far different from what the Founders intended.  The government is far too large for anyone to keep up with no matter the AI tools in his possession.

But the main reason the President has no effective control is the incentive faced by his political appointees.

The government is in the hands of several hundred presidential appointees–Assistant Secretaries, Undersecretaries, and Secretaries–who must be confirmed in office by the Senate and, thereby, are knighted for life with the title of “Honorable.”  We are properly addresses as “Mr. Secretary.”

An Assistant Secretary is not an assistant to the Secretary.  Assistant Secretaries are presidential appointees.  They are the most powerful members of an administration because the federal departments report to them.  Thus, Assistant Secretaries control the flow of information in the government.

The US government is involved in everything–health care, education, justice, pensions, retirement, work conditions, emissions, transportation, communication, broadcasting, agriculture, you name it.  Laws are passed and regulations written that benefit some at the expense of others. Some industries and corporations are bailed out of their difficulties, and others are not. 

The incentive of a presidential appointee is to serve the interest group that can best serve his career.  The administration might have a foreign policy, a health policy, and so forth, but the real policies will be the ones preferred by the lobbies that the presidential appointees decide to support. The lobby and the presidential appointee then push that policy in the media, and it becomes the administration’s policy.

It does happen that on occassion–I haven’t studied how often–a president is elected to office who has ambition beyond being elected president.  He might want to reform something or to introduce something new.  If his agenda is not threatening to powerful interests, he might succeed with his agenda.  However, avoiding war is not an agenda that knows much success, and even less so today.  President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961 that the US military/industrial complex had become sufficiently powerful and entrenched as to pose a threat to American democracy.  He did not mean a military coup.  He meant that American foreign policy was moving out of the hands of the voters and their representatives.

In the Reagan administration I was President Reagan’s choice as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.  Reagan had adopted the Supply-side policy as a cure to stagflation, a policy that I had developed for Rep. Kemp and Senator Roth–the Kemp-Roth Bill–and had taught the Republicans how to offer the Supply-side approach as an alternative fiscal policy while serving in the Congressional staff.  Reagan figured that as it was my policy, I would be less likely to sell it out than some campaign contributor from Wall Street.

The pressures to sell out Reagan’s economic policy were intense. If I had not served with distinction in the Congressional staff and had not come into the administration from the Wall Street Journal from which I could fire back at my opponents who were using other media against me, Reagan’s tax bill never would have gotten out of his administration. 

The way presidential appointees accommodate private interests without appearing to sell out the president’s policy is to adjust the president’s policy to the lobby’s policy as a successful compromise that serves both interests.  The media helps by dressing the sell-out as a compromise that benefits all, even though it fails to correct the policy problem.  

President Reagan’s chief-of-staff, Jim Baker, Vice-president George H. W. Bush’s main operative, explained how easy it was for all of us to be successful if we accommodated the fear of the economically ignorant imbeciles on Wall Street that Reagan’s tax cut would widen the deficit, cause inflation, send up interest rates, and destroy the values of their bond and stock portfolios.  All we had to do, Baker said, was to reduce the 30% cut in marginal tax rates to a 5% cut.  That would give us a “victory” without upsetting Wall Street.  Baker made it clear that the last thing an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury should do is to upset Wall Street, or there goes his career and multi-million dollar income. I explained that a 5% reduction in tax rates would be wiped out by inflation and have no policy effect.  Jim Baker did not see the importance of my comment as he was interested in appearance, not result.  Framing the issue as tax cut vs. no tax cut, a 5% cut would be a victory.

In meetings I would explain that our job was to cure stagflation, not to appease the ignorant on Wall Street.  But it didn’t go over well with those who saw “saving Wall Street from voodoo economics” as their path to riches.  I didn’t give in.  I described the resulting fight here.

Reagan’s plan was that once the economy was fixed, which was the reason he begin his first term with getting his economic policy passed, the second of his two agenda items–the end of the Cold War–could be undertaken by challenging the broken Soviet economy with an arms race.  Reagan did not really intend an arms race any more than Trump seems to intend his threatened high tariffs.  It was a threat to achieve a result. Reagan reasoned that as the Soviets lacked the economic ability to compete in an arms race, the threat would bring them to the bargaining table and the Cold War could be ended.

This time the problem was the US military/security complex which did not want to lose its highly profitable Soviet enemy.  The CIA told President Reagan that it would be a mistake to start an arms race with the Soviets, because they would win.  Reagan asked how a smaller broken economy could win over a larger well-functioning one.  The CIA said that the Soviet Union had a planned economy and could put all the resources of the economy into the military, whereas Reagan would have trouble increasing military spending beyond 6% of GDP. 

Generally speaking, presidents cannot ignore the CIA’s positions when those positions serve the military/security complex.  If the president does, the military/security complex has a Congressional committee chairman flush with military/security complex campaign funds to call a hearing.  In the hearing the CIA, pressed by Congress,  “admits” that the president’s policy would endanger the US, exposing us to nuclear attack and all that.

Reagan, allegedly senile according to the whore liberal media, understood all this.  He created a secret presidential committee with the authority and power to interrogate the CIA as to how it had come to its conclusion.  Having read my book on the Soviet economy and remembering my service to him in the Treasury, he put me on the committee.

It became apparent even to the anti-Reagan members of the committee that the Soviet economy was in serious trouble.  Indeed, it was apparent to Soviet economists themselves who were beginning to write about it. As the anti-Reagan members  (from the elite universities, of course), were not in favor of nuclear war, they agreed that the CIA was protecting its budget and power by opposing the end of the Cold War.  Reagan said when he received the report: “I knew this, but I had to have a report.”

What I am telling you is how things really are.  The real story is not the official narrative that you read in the whore media or in the histories written by court historians who pander to advance their careers.

What I am telling you is that Americans do not know anything about how and what really happens, what the truth really is.  They sit lazily in front of the indoctrination machine and are brainwashed about reality.  The total incomprehensibility of the insouciant American public is why they have lost their country.

The post America: A Lost Nation appeared first on LewRockwell.