Aggregatore di feed

Despite the seemingly chummy talks between American and Russian leaders, there is no end in sight to the war in Ukraine. The warring nations continue volleying strikes at each other, the U.S. president is persistently bombarded with calls to level more sanctions against Russia, and now Poland is proposing a NATO-backed no-fly zone over Ukraine.

A NATO-enforced no-fly zone in Ukraine would essentially pit the alliance in a war against Russia because enforcement would require NATO nations to shoot down Russian aircrafts. Moreover, given that the U.S. is NATO’s most military-robust member, the move would likely turn Americans into combatants against Russians.

Drones and No-fly Zones

On Monday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called on NATO nations impose the no-fly zone. He framed the proposal as a way to protect Europe. Said Sikorski:

We as NATO and the E.U. could be capable of doing this, but it is not a decision that Poland can make alone; it can only be made with its allies. Protection for our population — for example, from falling debris — would naturally be greater if we could combat drones and other flying objects beyond our national territory. If Ukraine were to ask us to shoot them down over its territory, that would be advantageous for us. If you ask me personally, we should consider it.

No-fly zones have been proposed before, notably by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But even the Biden administration had the sense to brush the proposal off. “It would require, essentially, the U.S. military shooting down Russian planes and prompting a potential direct war with Russia, the exact step that we want to avoid,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in March 2022. There is no indication as of now that the United States is on board with the Polish proposal.

Last week, the Poles reported having to scramble fighter jets and put their air defenses on standby after Russian drones violated their airspace. The Russians said they hadn’t targeted Poland, they never received evidence the drones were theirs, and that the episode was another attempt “by Warsaw to further escalate the Ukrainian crisis.” Russian media also reported that Belarus had warned Poland that some drones may have lost their way. You can read more about that in our previous report here.

That event was followed by a similar one in Romania on Saturday, reportedly. “Romania scrambled fighter jets after a Russian drone breached its airspace during an attack on neighboring Ukraine,” according to Western media. “Fragments of Russian drones have fallen into Romania repeatedly during the course of the war.”

Europe Stopping Peace?

As far as the Russians are concerned, “the Europeans are getting in the way” of a peace agreement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that “NATO is de facto at war with Russia. This is obvious and needs no proof. NATO provides direct and indirect support to the Kyiv regime.”

The Russians also claim that Polish leaders have turned down requests to discuss the incident. According to Russian Federation Council Deputy Chairman Konstantin Kosachev:

Of course, the provocation is man-made. I am certain that Ukrainians are behind it, as well as those who support and encourage them in their determination to prolong the armed conflict with Russia. The escalation is plainly visible. The situation could be comprehensively resolved through direct consultations between the relevant Polish and Russian agencies, without intermediaries. Since everything is being done except this, it is clear that the issue is not concern for security, but rather a desire to continue pressing the escalation pedal in the conflict in Ukraine.

At least one American expert on military matters believes the Europeans are trying to expand the war. President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor, General Mike Flynn, said last week, “The EU strongly desires a direct conflict with Russia and will pull every card, play any trick to find a way to drag NATO into a much more direct conflict. We must find a peaceful way out of this war.”

Oil Dependence

Over the weekend, Trump tested the Europeans to see how serious they were about applying more sanctions on the Russians. The Russians have already incurred more than 20,000 sanctions since they invaded Ukraine in 2022. But, along with a gaggle of American federal legislators, European leaders have been urging Trump to get tough and turn off Russia’s money spigot, which comes from its oil and energy sales. On Saturday, Trump said he was ready to do so — “when all Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA.”

Trump published a long post on his Truth Social account. He called out a fact that has been rarely reported in mainstream media, i.e., Europe’s dependence on Russian energy. Trump said, “As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking!”

The NATO nations still buying large amounts of Russian oil include Slovakia, Hungary, and Turkey, which is the third-largest buyer behind China and Russia.

But Europe is even more hooked on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). Western Europe’s foolish attempt to pivot to unreliable, inefficient green energy has, in part, made it a Russian financier. While Euro leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron are beating their chests, they quietly increased their purchase of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). France is the EU’s top buyer of LNG. According to European Newsroom (ENR), “Eurostat data revealed that the European Union imported Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) worth around 4.48 billion Euro in the first half of 2025, up from 3.47 billion Euro over the same period last year.”

But, apparently, this dependency will be nipped in the bud — in a few years. As ENR claims,

the European Commission has drawn up plans to phase out all Russian gas and oil imports by 2028. Under the proposal, new contracts would be prohibited from January 1, 2026. Existing short-term contracts would end by June 17, 2026, and long-term contracts would be banned from January 1, 2028.”

Chinese Connection

The Russians have also gotten a big boost from the two most populous nations in the world, China and India, which have significantly increased the amount of Russian oil they’re buying, according to recent analysis. Which is why Trump is calling on sanctions against China (the United States has already leveled 50 percent tariffs against India). Trump said in his social media post:

Anyway, I am ready to “go” when you are. Just say when? I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR. China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi responded to Trump’s call to sanctions, saying, “China does not participate in or plan wars, and what China does is to encourage peace talks and promote political settlement of hotspot issues through dialogue.”

Whatever happens next, Americans should pressure their government to get the U.S. out of NATO. Americans have little to gain, if anything at all, and a lot to lose, should NATO get involved in this war. U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has introduced a bill to withdraw the United States from NATO (check out this action page from The John Birch Society for more on that). NATO does not serve America’s best interests. It is a globalist organization, a tentacle of the United Nations, which was created from the beginning as the nucleus of a global government.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Tensions Between Russia and NATO Continue Rising appeared first on LewRockwell.

Two weeks ago the Foreign Minister of Poland Radosław Sikorski visited Washington and was proud to be included in talks about ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine. His ministry announced:

Secretary of State Rubio declared that Poland will be involved in arrangements to reliably provide Ukraine with future security guarantees. He said that the United States aims to guarantee a lasting peace in Ukraine.

But now Sikorski is, rightfully one must say, doubting the usefulness of any ‘security guarantees’:

The security guarantees currently being discussed for Ukraine are unlikely to work in the event of a new invasion, since there are no hunters in the West to fight with Russia. This was stated by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

“If we provide Ukraine with security guarantees, we say that we can start a war against Russia. And I don’t think it’s convincing that there is trust in it. Anyone who wants to fight with Russia can start it right now. But I don’t see any takers,” Sikorsky said.

There will never be any takers. Can we now finally bury that ‘security guarantee’ nonsense?

But Sikorski, being a neo-conservative, is still trying to push others into fighting with Russia:

Poland’s foreign minister called on NATO countries to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect Europe from Russian strikes amid the continuing fallout over the drone incursion into Poland last week, which prompted the U.S.-led alliance to scramble fighter jets.
…
“We as NATO and the E.U. could be capable of doing this, but it is not a decision that Poland can make alone; it can only be made with its allies,” he said. “Protection for our population — for example, from falling debris — would naturally be greater if we could combat drones and other flying objects beyond our national territory.”

“If Ukraine were to ask us to shoot them down over its territory, that would be advantageous for us. If you ask me personally, we should consider it,” he added.

The idea is as stupid as earlier ones. Russia would consider any foreign military stationing or actions like a no-fly zone in Ukraine as a war on itself:

Russia would consider NATO forces protecting Ukrainian airspace as a declaration of war, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

“Implementing the provocative idea of Kiev and other idiots to create a no-fly zone over ‘Ukraine’ and allowing NATO countries to down our drones will mean only one thing: NATO’s war with Russia,” the politician wrote on his Telegram channel.

Sikorski’s latest idea thus has the same problem as ‘security guarantees’. There will be no takers:

The United States and its major allies in NATO, including Britain, have previously rejected requests by Ukraine for no-fly zone that because of the high risk of direct combat with Russian aircraft, and there has been no indication that President Donald Trump is considering such a step — especially without Russian agreeing to a ceasefire.

No takers. At all.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine – As ‘Security Guarantees’ Get Buried Other Stupid Ideas Emerge appeared first on LewRockwell.

I had the pleasure of appearing on Charlie Kirk’s program a few times over the years and I always found him to be polite, respectful, and genuinely interested in ideas. Even in areas where we might not have agreed, he listened carefully. He was a strong advocate of free speech and he made a career of trying to convince the youth of the value of free speech and dialogue regardless of political differences.

At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country and as such he had enormous influence over the future of the conservative movement and even the Republican party. As I discovered during my Republican presidential runs, the youth of this country are truly inspired by the ideas of liberty, peace, and prosperity.

I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory, with an ever-changing plotline that makes little sense.

Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more non-interventionist approach. Tucker Carlson recently recounted that Kirk had even gone personally to the White House to urge President Trump to refuse to take military action against Iran. He was rebuffed by President Trump, Carlson informed us.

Likewise, conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, has stated on her program that Kirk was undergoing a “spiritual crisis” and was turning away from his past embrace of militarism and in favor of America-first non-interventionism, particularly regarding the current unrest in the Middle East.

Was Charlie Kirk murdered – directly or indirectly – by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views in such an influential leader? We don’t know.

If anything, those seeking to prevent the ideas of peace from breaking out would wish to cover it up, as they have done in so many past political killings. As I recounted in my most recent book, The Surreptitious Coup: Who Stole Western Civilization?, the turbulent 1960s saw several killings of major US figures, including JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, who were challenging the status quo and pushing for a shift away from the Cold War confrontationist mentality.

The real assassins of these peace leaders from last century were nihilists who did not believe in truth. They only believed in power – the power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas they preferred to snuff out any challenges and therefore decapitate any possibility that our country could take a different course.

More than sixty years after the murder of President Kennedy, the vast majority of the American people do not believe the official story of how he was killed and why. Truth will eventually break through even when the wall of lies seems impenetrable.

If it is true that Charlie Kirk was preparing to shift his organization toward a foreign policy embraced by our Founders, the killing was even more tragic. But no army – or assassin – can stop an idea whose time has come. That may be his most important legacy. Rest in peace.

The post Who Killed Charlie Kirk? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thomas Paine was not an anarchist.  He made it clear that his idea of anarchism (no government) aligned with government in its worst state: Utter chaos.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. — Common sense, January 10, 1776

Government for Paine was the one we know too well, that of a legal monopoly of violence over a specific land mass.  Quoting Rothbard, “it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion [overt taxation or monetary inflation].” And in his infamous “Letter to Washington” in 1796, Paine refers to his proposal for a central government:

But as to the point of consolidating the States into a Federal Government, it so happens, that the proposition for that purpose came originally from myself. I proposed it in a letter to Chancellor Livingston in the spring of 1782, while that gentleman was Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Later in the same letter Paine said he “did not see the propriety of urging it precipitately,” when he first suggested it.  He would’ve been more consistent had he never suggested it.

Given these statements, especially his claim that government is a necessary evil, why is Paine so much loved by anarchists today (including me)?

As my dad used to say, I’m glad you asked.

Unless otherwise specified, the following excerpts can be found in THOMAS PAINE Ultimate Collection, for the Thomas Paine price of $1.99 (Kindle).  All italicized text is mine.

Let’s begin.

Under how many subtleties or absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the credulity of mankind?

By “divine right” he was challenging Edmund Burke’s argument that kings are part of the long history of English liberty, though Paine’s question underlies any claim to political authority.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

In today’s world of shifting powers, the ones occupying the seats of government often view their election as a mandate to destroy the opposition.  They want revenge, not liberty.

What is called the splendor of a throne is no other than the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of parasites, living in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.

No one today refers to the splendor of the throne, but the Fed with its multi-billion dollar new building brings it to mind.  Given the Fed is corrupt by design and the primary reason for our accelerating collapse, calling it a parasite is flattering.

To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages, is to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that reforms can be expected.  [In Paine’s writings, “nation” refers to the people ruled.]

His reference to brutes derives from Common Sense, where he called the king the “Royal Brute of Great Britain.”

There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

Clearly, this is a version of anarchism that is consistent with Enlightenment principles and today’s libertarian philosophy.

The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole.

Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government. . . .

Scratch the word “almost” above and you have rational anarchism.

War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretense must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes. . . .

War and taxes go together like wood and axes.  Is there a genetic link between war and the State?  Randolph Bourne thought so.

The portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore on the ground of interest, opposed to both.

With war the order of every day, at least until the federal government collapses under debt or sets off a zoological genocide, there is no chance of establishing what some libertarians call “limited government” or the The Night-Watchman State.

As time obliterated the history of their beginning [i.e., the origin of governments], their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.

From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion?

Paine thought democracy was the answer to perpetual war, inasmuch as the people would never vote for it.  His knowledge of history suggests he was well aware of the power behind the throne, but it didn’t shake his confidence in people.

Paine’s view of sovereignty

He writes:  “Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness.”

True and important except for the opening assertion: Sovereignty is a trait of individuals who are at liberty to keep it or surrender it to any person or group they choose.  There is nothing about togetherness that produces sovereignty; power, perhaps, but not sovereignty.

The idea of individual sovereignty is best expressed in William Ernest Henley’s poem, Invictus:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

Anarchy as stateless civilization implies the full freedom — sovereignty — of each individual.

The post Masters of Our Fate, Captains of Our Souls appeared first on LewRockwell.

The problem that ethnic Americans face is that neither Republicans nor Democrats can represent their interest.

The Republicans represent Israel’s interest.  The reason for this is that Republicans tend to be more conservative, more religious, and more patriotic than Democrats and are often seen by their opponents as jingoistic. The Republican mentality toward Israel comes from the “Judeo-Christian ethic” and the long Cold War against the Soviet Union.

The Judeo-Christian ethic is an oxymoron.  God in the Old Testament is angry and vengeful.  In the New Testament he is loving and forgiving. The “Judeo-Christian ethnic” is a propaganda term that disarms Christians from seeing Zionists for what they are.

During the Cold War of the 20th century, there was much focus on the Middle East. Washington was determined to minimize Soviet influence and to control oil flows.  Israel was hyped as our ally, our base in the Arab Middle East against Soviet Communism.  Thus, for conservatives, Israel is just part of America.  

Two consequences are that conservative Americans are blind to Zionist Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians and to the fake “war on terror” which in actual fact was Israel’s use of American lives and money against Israel’s opponents in the Middle East.  Washington has spent the first quarter of the 21st century clearing away obstacles to Greater Israel.

The Democrats represent the interests of those who are alleged to be “oppressed by prudes and white racists.”  Democrats are the defenders of immigrant-invaders who enter our country illegally.  They champion “multiculturalism,” which is white replacement and a Tower of Babel. 

Democrats are the champions of sexual perverts.  It is more important to a progressive, liberal, leftist Democrat that a male who declares himself a female have access to women’s spaces and athletic competitions than for a criminal suspect to have a fair trial.  Democrats think that the most important civil right in the world is for biological males who self-declare themselves “transgendered” into females to take a woman’s place on a swim or soccer team and share the showers with the biological female members of the teams.  

The Democrats have no concern with the rights of the displaced real women to compete in sports.  Similarly, Democrats are concerned with the sexual preference rights of “minor-directed persons” (pedophiles), not with the sexual abuse of children.  Have you not noticed how vehement the Democrat progressive liberal left is in defending the rights of sexual perverts?  Indeed, you are not even allowed to use such a term as sexual perverts, because  sexual perversions have been normalized by the Democrat liberal left.  It is entirely possible that the Democrats will criminalize heterosexual sex, because it produces more “aversive racists,” thus perpetuating white racism.  Yes, laugh, but the prospect has already been explored in science fiction.

The consequence of the two parties’ indoctrinated biases is that it is impossible for either to represent the values and interests of the ethnic base of America.  By supporting whatever crime Israel commits, Republicans maintain their pro-Israel base at the expense of the moral values of their base.  Even red states such as Texas and Florida will not give you a state contract or job if you criticize or boycott Israel.

The Democrats, committed as they are to white replacement as all whites are aversive racists, refuse to protect American borders from immigrant-invaders.  Democrats are committed to emptying citizenship from meaning.

What is the result of the inability of either party to represent Americans?

If Republicans are in office, it means wars for Israel.

If Democrats are in office, it means open borders and wars against the family, wars against real Christianity not the fake Christian Zionist variety created by Israel, wars against normal heterosexuality, wars against merit and, thereby, the destruction of educational standards, and advancement based on skin color and perverse sexuality.  For the Biden regime the ideal candidate was a black transgendered. Biden’s black Secretary of Defense announced that there would be no promotion of white heterosexual males until “equity had been attained.”

Elon Musk was correct when he said that America needs a new political party, one independent of economic, foreign, and ideological interests.  But Musk did not say who would finance it.  It would take Musk’s entire wealth.  

The combination of the corrupt US Supreme Court ruling that it is legal for corporations to purchase the US government with campaign contributions and the stupidity of the annual subsidy of billions of US dollars to Israel, which is used by Israel to purchase the House of Representatives, the US Senate, the President and the  administration, make it abundantly clear that Americans have a government that is totally incapable of representing Americans.

Throughout the Western World it is not democracy that rules.  The Western World is ruled by vested interests whose campaign contributions determine policy.  When Putin and Lavrov negotiate with Washington officials, they are not negotiating with a government.  They are negotiating with representatives of the private interests whose money places Representatives, Senators, and Presidents in office.  

The two most powerful vested interests in America are the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby. As they share the interest in war and its profits in terms of money and territory, peace faces a powerful counterforce as peace does not serve the interests of the two most powerful interest groups in the United States.

One wonders if Putin, Lavrov, Xi, and the Iranians will wake up one day and be capable of recognizing reality.

Supporters, Friends, Readers, the situation is worse than I describe above.  Here is some of the evidence from this morning alone of Western collapse following the destruction of its beliefs:

The Satanic British Prime Minister Said the British Flag Represents “Diversity,” Not Ethnic British People

The Evil Starmer Declared the Ethnic British people “Divisive” for Protesting the Overrunning of their Country and Mass Rape of their Women.  

Starmer alleges that it is Ethnic British who cause violence, not immigrant-invaders.

It is extraordinary that the British people elected an anti-British Prime Minister.  But maybe it is not.  The Americans elected two anti-American presidents, Obama and Biden, and are almost certain to elect another once Trump is gone. 

Every day it becomes more clear that there is not enough self-belief in the West for the civilization to survive. All white ethnic peoples are being submerged in Multiculturalism. A Tower of Babel has replaced ethnic nationality.  Restorative leaders such as Charlie Kirk are simply shot down.  Others are “cancelled” and disposed of via censorship, firings, and threats.  The British prime minister has now aligned the British government with immigrant-invaders and declared the British government to be in opposition to the ethnic British people. 

The Western World is over and done with.  The West’s last contribution to humanity will be nuclear war.

Satanic German Soccer Team Interrogates Star Black Midfielder for Expressing Sympathy to Charlie Kirk’s Family

Under pressure Felix Nmecha deleted what he wrote:  “Celebrating the murder of a husband and a father of two, a man who peacefully stood up for his beliefs and values, is really evil and shows how much we really need Jesus Christ.”

Germans objected, which shows how lost to Satan the Western World is.

Nmecha possibly faces “millions of dollars in penalties for social media posts violating the club’s values.”  Amazing, a member of a German football team faces millions of dollars in penalties for expressing sympathy for an assassinated man’s family.  Nmecha should find another team and another country.  Clearly a man of God does not belong in Germany.

Trump files $15 billion lawsuit against New York Times

The NY Times is “the worst and most degenerate newspaper in the history of our country, a mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party”– Trump

Trump is correct. The Democrats are cheering Charlie Kirk’s assassination.  Makes you wonder if they did it.

The Democrats are an anti-American party.  Democrats are the party of immigrant-invaders, sexual perversion, Antifa/BLM violence, and suppression of free speech.  America is doomed, because almost half of the American population agrees with the Democrats.  Notice that it is the most educated states that are the most anti-American.  It was the universities that destroyed the belief system.

“We know where you live” violent Democrats threaten Trump voters

The post The American Dilemma appeared first on LewRockwell.

There was no need for the AWOL, Missing-In-Action Piers Morgan Media, which was never in Gaza, never stood up for Gaza, and never broke down barriers to reach and report about Palestinians sequestered in genocide. Thanks not to the MIA Media, but to Palestinian journalists, the living and the martyred, The Truth about genocide in Gaza continues to be conveyed faithfully and meticulously. ~ilana

With the Genocide of Gaza accomplished; a convoluted coverup has begun. The Johnny-Come-Lately culprits, the professional liars in media, politics, in advocacy and in the tech industry—also the custodians of The Narrative—have commenced their dull recital of excuse-making.

A dull mediocrity which was fully behind Israel—or, alternatively, had confined itself to occasional quips about mass murder in Gaza being antithetical to the American “national interest”—is suddenly simulating belated passion for the truth. Or, versions thereof. All to sanitize their sins.

Having carved out “a place of massive impunity” for Netanyahu and his complicit countrymen, these sinecured, “credentialed” Western elites have duly begun to hijack storylines—even chronology—to absolve themselves of the genocide of Gaza. The same “perpetrator block,” wading in the blood of Palestinians, intends, for now, to remain mum about the territorial asphyxiation of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There, strategic adaptations of the Twenty-First Century Gaza Holocaust are rapidly and energetically underway. Pursuant to popular demand in Israel proper, Jewish-Israeli settlers are purloining Palestinian land and lives in the West Bank.

I had imagined that the media organ’s formulaic production had reached a nadir in Iraq, when my own passion burned as hot as a Babylonian kiln against that war. The “Truth” about Iraq, I had then observed incredulously, arrived officially only once the Empire’s agents declared it so, and released it in massaged, flattering form. And only as exigencies of power allowed. The sizeable dissident community did not rate a mention.

The current crop of Israel apostles who’ve connived and colluded to suppress truth include, broadly speaking, the Western news, commentary, advocacy and policy-making classes; the overarching tentacular corporate media and its clientele—the military-media-congressional-industrial complex, if you will. In a word, the international Imperial Comitatus: the foot soldiers who share in the loot or aspire to do so (like “Washington’s Arab puppets, whose sound and fury signify nothing”).

The international Imperial Comitatus make themselves known by affinity and affiliation, but mainly by what they do: They “ravage, slaughter, usurp … and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” Originally by Tacitus, the words were popularized by economist Jeffrey Sachs in an epic essay about these influencers, Israel’s co-belligerents.

Israel’s helpers had covered up the Crime of The Century, and now it could out. And although they’ve made excellent time—Palestinian erasure is near complete—these special interests wish, nevertheless, to salvage their standing in the world. They’re doing PR (public relations).

“Gaza panics the pro-Israel media,” said Owen Jones, a dogged British media critic. The genocide-era journalists are “creating a record that’ll allow them to say one day, ‘Here is proof that we denounced and tried to stop the genocide,’” remarked Laith Marouf, a Lebanese geopolitical reporter and commentator. They waited until now, because the genocide comported, broadly, with their worldview. “Media has manufactured consent for the genocide with atrocity propaganda,” seconds Hamza Yusuf, a British-Palestinian writer and journalist. “They did this.” “Western media is Israel’s Iron Dome,” averred Bassem Youssef, commentator, comic and former surgeon.

Although Israel’s abominations have been watched by humanity for the best part of two years; and despite Israel’s industrious, industrial-scale mass murder playing interminably, on a loop—the truth watered-down will only be permitted to come into being, officially, on the say-so of gatekeeping interests and personalities.

Such as Piers Morgan and the Missing-In-Action Morgan Media (shall we call it?).

And so, with pomp and Piers, forever slow on the uptake, those in control of The Storyline prepare to “excavate” a modified version of “the truth” about the Gaza Holocaust.

In attempting to clear his name, Morgan, a spirited evangelist for Israel’s right to practice state terrorism—he calls it “self-defense”—sounded the worst false note: the Iraq Defense: “nobody knew,” nobody could have known. (See “Iraq Liars And Deniers: We Knew Then What We Know Now,” May 22, 2015.)

The reason “nobody knew, or could have known” about a televised genocide, proclaimed the lemon-faced Piers with trademark verbose vacuity, is that there have been no “credible, international journalists” in Gaza!

Did you hear that? Palestinian journalists don’t count! In an instant, the MIA Morgan Media set about canceling the work done by the greatest journalists to have lived and died on the job. As you can see, society’s gate-keepers are also wretched human beings. To further their scheme and vanity, these power-brokers imply that absent their AWOL, MIA Media, we cannot and could not have known what was underway in Gaza.

The Missing-In-Action Media was never in Gaza, never stood up for Gaza, and never broke down barriers to reach and report about Palestinians sequestered in genocide. Now, the same Media asserts that we cannot know—could not have known—what was underway in the tiny Gaza Strip without them. Only Morgan and his ilk could have given us the goods on Gaza.

The Palestinian truth-tellers who’ve been documenting their own demise so as to bring us The Truth, nothing but the manifestly obvious Truth, are being disappeared by their moral and professional inferiors, who had never defended or doffed a hat to the work of these Palestinian journalists—professional or citizen journalists.

Wearily I repeat what has been obvious early on to anyone with some cerebral agility:

There is no neatness and dispatch in the way Israel has destroyed Gaza. It’s not like we’ve got nothing to go on. There are no empirical loose ends to tie up in Gaza; no cobwebs to clear. From the air, from space, from the ground—for all to see—on display in Gaza is, was, has been, the utter annihilation of a civilization.

There is no “fog of war”; there is no fog (only ash). There is no war. There never was anything but a genocidal impetus and the attendant declared intent to commit genocide, followed, in quick succession, by an enacted genocide in which Palestinian humanity was crushed, dismembered and burned alive; dispossessed of home and history on live tv. By Israel.

From terra firma, Palestinian journalists have transmitted unimpeachable evidence of this annihilation. From space, pioneering scientists divined proof of genocide ongoing. Thanks not to the MIA Morgan Media, but to Palestinian journalists, the living and the martyred, The Truth continues to be conveyed faithfully and meticulously.

For the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza is as clear as day—has been since 2023’s end, which is when, for instance, scientists such as Corey Scher and Jamon Van Den Hoek (featured in my early Gaza essays) had used Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) to monitor the damage to buildings in Gaza. Their aim was to impart a picture of what saturation bombardment had done to Gaza’s habitat and humanity.

Some will experience a Homeric “D’oh!” moment at the next proposition: Beneath this well-documented damage—under the collapsed structures—lie the remains of human beings in their tens-of-thousands, murdered. By Israel.

At this late hour, we do not need the Morgan Media to tell us what is deductively true. “Reality is truth,” as I had put it. Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Believe your lying eyes was satirist Richard Pryor’s wry phrase for he who has been caught in flagrante delicto. “There is no question any more. There is no need of investigation,” said Martin Griffiths (belatedly, sadly), a former UN diplomat. “We can with confidence and we should with conscience tell it like it is” (08:49 minutes into “Is it a genocide?”).

Whether you speak the language of the law (res ipsa loquitur), the language of facts and apodictic logic (“reality is truth”); gazing upon Gaza, listening to its people and to the humanitarians who rushed to their aid and remained on the crime scene—this was sufficient to know what’s what. By January of 2024, Gaza was ashen and barren. Dresden-level destruction was there for all to see—from the air, from space, and on the ground. Genocide.

The Gaza Holocaust, moreover, has played to a packed house, the world. It has been both a democratic genocide as well as an international genocide, remarked perhaps the only scintillating “genocide scholar,” with a moral compass to match his intellectual heft.

Dr. Martin Shaw pierces the carapace of lies now under construction:

‘The genocide that is being committed now is being committed not just by the Israeli State and the Israeli army. There is a larger perpetrator block. It isn’t just these most obvious core-actors. This is what we could call a democratic genocide, carried out with the active contributions of the Israeli-Jewish population in arms, Israeli right-wing activists who have stood at the gates of Gaza and have tried to block even the little bit of aid that the Israeli government has been willing to let in. And it’s a genocide supported ideologically and practically by a very large segment of the Israeli society: by the political opposition, by most of the media, and by vast majority of public opinion. In this sense, it is a democratic genocide.  The other thing about it is that it’s an international genocide. It is being carried out by the essential support of the United States, which is now in direct partnership, trump with Netanyahu, to complete the project with the forcible removal of the complete population from the territory.’  (9:02 minutes until 10:40 minutes)

The obliteration of Gaza had been achieved well before Piers Morgan’s May, 2025 self-serving pivot, which arose out of “moral panic.” And well before an American whistleblower did the rounds on US media, in June of 2025, bearing witness to the death squads of the misnamed US-Israel Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

Picture this: A starving, emaciated, wee Palestinian boy kisses the hand that controls his fate, and cradles a face that looks upon him with some kindness. The American mercenary—a hired security subcontractor for the Isra-American GHF Gulag operation—he may wish to believe that the child does so out of abiding “respect” for our American soldiers.

Palestinian mothers know better.

As an insightful American (novelist John O’Hara) had long-ago remarked: “You don’t keep friends by having them obligated to you,” much less when their very existence depends on your cruel whim. The achingly sad image of Amir, who kissed the hand of whistleblower Anthony Agilar, is that of a hungry, helpless, forsaken Palestinian boy, bowing-and-scraping like a beggar before his only “benefactor.” For these overlords might kill him or feed him as the fancy takes them.

Surrounded by the SS IDF, Palestinian boys like Amir kiss a hand, smile beguilingly, and hope for a miracle: That a kind stranger might rescue them, rather than make them run through daily cycles of “hunger games.” One day it’s the groin that the thrill-seeking gamers of the Israel Occupying Forces (IOF) have been reported to target; the next it’s center-mass they aim for. As recounted by humanity’s finest (the very many medics volunteering in Gaza), the GHF food-procurement massacres are rounded-off with headshot clusters, courtesy of the same gamers: the delirious marksmen of the IDF.

Nevertheless, a Homeric “D’oh!” was duly disgorged by a recent flyover reporter, who pretended to have just discovered genocide two years hence. Gone is “the soul of the place along with the souls who lived here,” intoned this particular ITV News editor, on August 4, 2025.

Our flyover visitor had popped in over Gaza, early in August, as party to an Israel-controlled, airborne contingent that was throwing “paltry, lethal parcels of food aid” on small sections of the Strip, “instead of forcing Israel to open the crossings to over 22,000 aid trucks that remain blocked from entering.”

Missions of mercy these air drops are not. By design, Israel shells the anthills from above. The imperious, complicit “Western and regional states” and their stooges throw parcels of food at the people whom they’ve bombed into oblivion—and into begging. Israel is loving it. Its vampiric i24 News network entertained one Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, friend of i24’s Laura Cellier show, who waxed fat about “flying ‘missions’ over Gaza.”

Throwing a few nutrient-free parcels of dry goods at starving Palestinians from the air; or herding them, for the ostensible purpose of feeding them, into “agricultural cattle pens, like animals in a human abattoir,” to be, then, sprayed with bullets, or targeted by the marksmen of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: These slow extermination-liquidation operations are, have been, part of Israel’s Final Solution to its Palestinian problem, for the best part of two years. Openly pursued, openly discussed in the Hebrew (with which I am fluent).

Full famine in Gaza has galvanized the West—not to feed Palestinians, but to feign action by convening forums of inaction.

To meager food drops, the West has added fuss and feathers—white noise—about the two-state diplomacy, and has given speeches about recognizing the State of Palestine. This is just what a people being starved and butchered need: speeches. Besides, upwards of 140 states had long-since recognized Palestinian statehood. Had that stopped Israel’s genocide? The fake, defunct two-state “solution” notwithstanding, rhetoric is not what’s needed in the face of a reality, whereby a many-times dislocated population made homeless is being starved and slaughtered out of existence.

If Israel has been exposed, so has the West, with America in the lead.

Israel’s extermination campaign has been sacralized at the highest of political and journalistic altitudes. It is these cagey characters—vicariously involved in genocide or on active duty—who now want to salvage their reputations by sullying the reputation of Palestinian, Gaza-based reporters.

Long months sequestered in genocide, notwithstanding, Palestinian journalists have nevertheless been crisscrossing Gaza, on the scene of every Israeli mass murder; every tent encampment incinerated by the heavy payload-weapons of the Israel Occupation Forces; interviewing and filming by-standers, healthcare workers, assisting the faithful civil-administration functionaries and rescuers (reduced to digging for survivors with homemade trowels); living alongside their families in nylon domes, and standing vigil over dead kin and colleagues in prayer. And now, the chroniclers of Palestine starve with their people.

In truth, it is the Morgan Media, ex officio town criers, that don’t count. Best to express their nullity was the fierce Francesca Albanese, a woman not desperate to feature on Piers Morgan’s low-intelligence, large podcast, alongside his other suck-up guests. Albanese had refused to get drawn into Piers’ broadsheet-sensationalism! The UN’s rapporteur for Palestine (an unpaid, punishing position) told the desk-bound “journalist,” “What you say, Piers, is worth zero.” Your opinion counts for zero.

The epitome of grace in a life-and-death struggle, Palestinian journalists, on the other hand, have been exceedingly polite to the Julius Streicher Media, given that the latter have colluded with the Israelis in the murder of 266 of their colleagues (and climbing). This is more than “the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan combined, according to a new report from Brown University’s Costs of War project.” (Via ForeignPolicy.com)

As is the case with the genocide of Palestinians, the news chyrons on your televisions are out-of-date as they scroll by. The Associated Press counted, but failed to name, Israel’s August 25 prey among Palestinian journalists. Four. It fell to readers to name the fallen. Newly martyred for Truth were:

Reuters’ Hossam al-Masri
Al Jazeera’s Mohammad Salama

Freelancer Maryam Abu Daqqa
NBC’s Muath Abu Taha

Forgive me. I should have known that the news scroll across our screens is also reliably wrong. The AP failed to accurately count the fallen. Five.  The AP omitted Ahmed Abu Aziz, a local journalist murdered. The “betrayal of Palestinian journalists in Gaza” peaked with the presstitutes of the International Women’s Media Foundation. Playing procurer and pimp for Israel; the IWMF withdrew a “Courage in Journalism Award” from Gaza-based Maha Husseini. (The reason? Likely “Antisemitism” or housing Hamas: You choose. I won’t dignify another Zionist blood libel.)

Martyred for truth before the five aforementioned were Anas Al-Sharif and his team (here is the live footage via real journalists). The veteran young reporter was the kind of human being whom members of the pampered Morgan Media can only dream of equaling. Like so many of these magnificent Palestinians, Anas Al-Sharif wrote his epitaph, final will and testament, in anticipation of his death because, as night turns to day, the world knows what Israel will do next:

Murder! All the more so if you are a Palestinian reporter chronicling a genocide of your people.

Piers Morgan, who announced in May of 2025 that he “was wrong,” was joined in public expiation by other genocidal British public figures, including politicians such as Tory MP Mark Pritchard. At the eleventh hour, Germany, Israel’s second largest supplier of baby-busting munitions, worried the optics, too. Nineteen months into the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza, Chancellor Friedrich Merzagain whimpered that Israel’s operations “no longer appear to [him] as strictly necessary for defending Israel’s right to exist and for combating Hamas terrorism.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stalled until August 27, which was when she condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as “beyond the principles of proportionality.” Editorialists in leading western publications joined this coalition of evil.

You know just what a confidence trick and a fraud the Piers-type Israel pivot represents—when a she-devil like podcaster Megyn Kelly feels called upon to add her shenanigans to the production. For glib viciousness, Kelly—whose métier is feel-good militarism and assorted “girly gutter journalism”—is unbeatable. Fifteen minutes and 22 seconds into a July 28, 2025 “visit” with the perfidious Briton, Kelly said this:

“I am reluctant to put too much stock in the images coming out of Gaza, because they are manipulated and they are masters of propaganda. They are fine having their own children starve, just so long as they can put them on camera and show them off to the world. That’s Hamas, and frankly, that’s a lot of Palestinians. So, I’m very skeptical at [sic] taking those images at face value, and saying that it’s Israel’s fault.”

Come August 19, 2025, in an attempt to both stay current and outshine her guest Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kelly was practically climbing over those “phantom” starving Palestinian children, to cast herself as an edgy resister and critic of AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, and its “multiple reachouts” to Me, Myself and I, Megyn Kelly.

Now please lead me to the Vomitorium.

Meloni and Merzagain, whose administrations, like all western nations, have not divested materially or diplomatically from the genocidal entity, share the moral pedigree of a Megyn Kelly and a Piers Morgan. They all resolved to stop framing genocide as self-defense long after the genocide in Gaza was completed.

It was in May-June of 2025 that Morgan morphed Israel’s status from the legitimate exerciser of self-defense to no longer exercising legitimate self-defense. For nearly two years, Morgan had watched Palestinians being “denied the right to life on an industrial scale.” He had tried and succeeded quite well in framing Israel’s mass murder ongoing as self-defense. Until one day when it was not. Piers’ posture is obviously forced, insincere and strategic. Why and where precisely was the pivot-point?

There is no reason in logic. Piers Morgan’s flabby reasoning is reliably circular and self-serving. The point of demarcation—where Israel went from legitimate self-defense to state terrorism—is measured in Piers Morgan Units: in the time it took Morgan to go from avid Israel supporter, to reluctant critic of the genocidal entity (14:41 minutes in).

Circular reasoning, indeed. What reasoning other than circular would one expect from the journalistic circle jerk?

What really motivated “august” members of the Media Circle Jerk, such as Piers Morgan or Megyn Kelly, to rap Israelis on the knuckles, suddenly, for that is all this is?

Joseph Massad, a Palestinian scholar, homes in on what’s afoot among these scullions. While the structure of genocide has been the same throughout, the “suddenly developed moral compunction” is about “the more recent phase of the genocide, where the continued outright bombing and incineration of Gaza in a holocaust is now compounded by the deliberate mass starvation of the Palestinian survivors,” remarks Massad. In essence, the sight of jutting baby bones and distended bellies   is not a good look.

If Piers Morgan and his clones were men of conscience, as they undoubtedly are not, they would come clean; lie low, listen, flagellate, be ashamed, stay ashamed. Piers should be begging Palestinian pardon—perhaps admit to being a mouthpiece of power, and endeavor to listen to his betters.

This staged reckoning comes against the backdrop of Israel’s ongoing, imposed famine-starvation in Gaza. Awash with evil, when Israel is not assassinating negotiators (Qatar) as well as entire governments, heads of civilian portfolios, and journalists across the Middle East (Yemen), the exterminatory Jewish Israel is willy-nilly murdering over 100 Palestinians each day and wounding many hundreds more, consigning the injured to slow death by sepsis and starvation, without hope for recovery.

The Gaza Strip Israel has demolished. Just in case, the genocidal entity has set about demolishing “around 300 residential units a day in Gaza City, aided by the Israeli army’s explosive-laden robots.” Soldiers the IDF are not. Here’s a “news” story from the crypt of an archaic, old-fashioned keeper of records: By November 15, 2023, ancient Gaza City, “the largest, oldest Palestinian city,” was near complete destruction. Given the state of the collective memory, it behooves me to remind readers:

The SS IDF has already crisscrossed the Gaza Strip in one way or another. When Israel announced its plan  to “conquer” Gaza City, you ought to have asked: As opposed to what? Destroy it? Done. Kill tens-of-thousands of its residents? Done. Concentrate the starving population for the purpose of killing more of it? Finalizing what has been a Final Solution? Done and done. Mere semantics. The place, Gaza—city and strip—is ashen and barren.

I deal in words. Stale, worn words. I have none left.

The “Dispossessed of the Earth” are being starved to death by evil-on-earth: Israel and its willing accomplices.

The people of the world are with the “Dispossessed of the Earth,” the Palestinians. The governments of the world and their mouthpieces, North and South, are either nowhere to be seen or, alternatively, with evil-on-earth, Israel.

And that includes the complicit, MIA, Piers Morgan-Megyn Kelly Media.

One of many selfless healers and humanitarians currently operating with great difficulty in Gaza is Dr. Tarek Loubani. By this point, day 711 of the genocide, what Dr. Loubani said on day 236 of Gaza’s Al-Aqsa Flood is amplified many times over. If you have been silent so far—or, enveloped by the warm smell of the herd, are conveniently piping up two years into the sacking of Gaza—you must not be forgiven.

Follow: https://rumble.com/v6toq73-the-real-israel-vs.-hasbara-history.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_f

Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedE2MSEgRE

*Image via screen picture https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/01/gaza-war-worst-ever-for-reporters-costs-of-war-project/

The post Gaza Genocide: The Coverup Begins. Johnny-Come-Lately Journos & Politicos Start Covering Keister appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week was the 24th year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  Hours after the attacks in 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided that the attacks were an act of war, rather than a crime.  That evening, President Bush declared before any investigation took place and without foundation that terrorists attacked the United States because they hated freedom.

Government officials intentionally obstructed the Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission to conceal the truth from the victims’ families and the public.  They did not want the truth to get in the way of their ability to wage brutal wars of aggression.  The US national security state elected to torture the alleged mastermind and facilitators of the attacks, instead of putting them on trial in a court of law with due process rights.  The US national security state wanted to establish their narrative of what happened instead of ascertaining the truth or providing justice to the victims and their families.

For example, the 9/11 Commission Report heavily relies on the testimony of the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which was extracted through torture.  By subjecting the detainees to torture, the military trials have been delayed for years because evidence extracted from torture is unreliable.  Furthermore, one detainee Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an alleged facilitator of the 9/11 attacks, will not stand trial because the military court concluded that he is unfit to stand trial due to the torture that he endured.

Another overlooked aspect of 9/11 is the role of the NSA, CIA, and FBI.  The 9/11 attacks, which were allegedly carried out by Al Qaeda, were successful despite the NSA monitoring all incoming and outgoing communications through the Al Qaeda communications hub in Yemen since 1996.  What messages were being relayed through the Yemen hub?  The NSA was also monitoring Osama Bin Laden’s cellphone and produced tens of thousands of pages of transcripts.  What was Bin Laden saying on his cellphone and why won’t the NSA release the transcripts?

In addition, the CIA monitored incoming communications to the Yemen hub.  The CIA knew that two Al Qaeda operatives, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who attended a major Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia and were associated with the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, Khallad, had US visas and traveled to the United States.  Hazmi and Mihdhar were provided financial and logistical support by Saudi intelligence assets such as Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan and cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, while living openly in the United States.  For years, the victims’ families have pursued litigation against Saudi Arabia for their role in 9/11.  The US national security state prefers that the Saudi role in 9/11 not be revealed.  Fortunately, a federal court recently ruled that the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia may continue.

The CIA prohibited two FBI agents, Doug Miller and Mark Rossini, who were assigned to the CIA’s Bin Laden Station (Alec Station), from notifying the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar’s visas and presence in the United States because the CIA alleged that the next attack would be overseas, which would not be a matter for the FBI.  Finally, less than 3 weeks before 9/11, the CIA notified the FBI about Hazmi and Mihdhar’s presence in the United States, yet the FBI failed to apprehend them despite the fact that simple searches would have enabled the FBI to have located them.

The CIA knew that Hazmi and Mihdhar would be involved in an upcoming attack and notified the FBI so the CIA would not be blamed for failing to inform the FBI.  The deputy head of Alec Station, Tom Wilshire, wrote in July 2001, “When the next big op is carried out by UBL, hardcore cadre, Khallad [bin Attash] will be at or near the top of the command food chain—and probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. Khalid Midhar [sic] should be [of] very high interest anyway, given his connection to the [redacted].”

The head of Alec Station, Richard Blee, said in July 2001 to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and CIA Director George Tenet, “there will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular.”

Prior to 9/11, FBI Headquarters prevented the Minneapolis FBI station from obtaining a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s laptop despite the fact that Moussaoui was connected to Al Qaeda and taking flight lessons in the United States.  The Minneapolis agents were, “trying to keep Moussaoui from crashing an airplane into the World Trade Center.”

According to FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley, “jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles … who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis’ effort.”

Per Kevin Fenton, the author of Disconnecting the Dots, if the Moussaoui investigation had not been obstructed, the FBI and CIA would have likely identified at least 11 of the 19 hijackers.  Moussaoui was financed by Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was closely connected to three of the alleged pilot hijackers, Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, and Marwan al-Shehhi.

Hazmi and Mihdhar were two of the alleged Flight 77 “muscle hijackers” during the 9/11 attacks.  Mark Rossini and former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke believe that the CIA was running an illegal operation on US soil using Saudi intelligence to monitor and flip Hazmi and Mihdhar and did not want the FBI to get in the way.

My view is that the CIA was using Saudi Arabia to ensure that the terrorist attacks on the United States were successful.  No one was punished for failing to prevent 9/11.  In fact, the head of Alec Station, Richard Blee, received a promotion.  The US national security state got the new Pearl Harbor that it needed to pursue its geo-strategic objectives.

To this day, we are still deprived the truth regarding 9/11 and whether elements of the US national security state allowed 9/11 to happen or made it happen on purpose.  We also do not the full story behind the roles of foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel regarding the 9/11 attacks.

Neo-conservative intellectual Irving Kristol said, “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

The 9/11 myth that terrorists attacked the United States because they hate freedom and that these terrorists were successful without any assistance from the US national security state and its key allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel must be questioned and investigated.

The post 9/11 Anniversary appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

John Leake

The post Kirk’s Recent Candor About the Deep State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

Candace Owens

The post They Are Lying about Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Ben Bartee

The post AG Bondi Declares War on ‘Hate Speech’ Post-Charlie Kirk Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Defending Massie, With Special Guest Tom Woods appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Eugyppius

The post German state media have systematically slandered Charlie Kirk in the wake of his assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post How NGOs and the CIA Took Over Ukraine – Mike Benz 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/quando-linformazione-aveva-un-peso)

Ogni sabato mattina, a metà degli anni '80, mia madre mi lasciava al mercatino delle pulci di Commack, nel centro di Long Island. Mentre gli altri bambini guardavano i cartoni animati, io passavo ore al tavolo delle figurine di baseball di Albert, assorbendo storie sull'anno da esordiente di Mickey Mantle, imparando a riconoscere le figurine false dalle sottili variazioni nella consistenza del cartoncino. La luce del mattino presto filtrava attraverso i teloni del mercato e l'odore di muffa del cartone vecchio si mescolava al caffè dei venditori ambulanti lì vicino. Albert, ben oltre gli ottant'anni, non era solo un venditore, anche se non lo sapeva, era un curatore, uno storico e un mentore. Avendo assistito in prima persona all'età d'oro del baseball, i suoi racconti erano storia vivente: racconti di un'epoca in cui il baseball era il vero passatempo nazionale americano, unendo le comunità nel boom del dopoguerra. Mi insegnò che la vera conoscenza non consisteva solo nel memorizzare statistiche; si trattava di comprendere il contesto, riconoscere gli schemi e imparare da chi era venuto prima.

Sebbene amassi il gioco, le carte erano manifestazioni fisiche di dati, ognuna un nodo in un'intricata rete di informazioni. Il mercato delle figurine del baseball è stata la mia prima lezione su come le informazioni creano valore. Le guide ai prezzi erano i nostri motori di ricerca, le rassegne mensili di figurine i nostri social network: incontri in cui i collezionisti trascorrevano ore a scambiarsi non solo figurine, ma storie e conoscenze, costruendo comunità attorno a ossessioni condivise.

Per me il baseball non era solo uno sport: era la mia prima religione. Trattavo le medie di battuta come versetti delle Sacre Scritture, memorizzandole con la devozione di uno studioso che studia testi antichi. Conoscevo ogni dettaglio dei tre fuoricampo di Reggie Jackson nelle World Series del '77, ma ciò che mi affascinava davvero erano i racconti quasi mitologici del lontano passato del baseball: l'elettrizzante carriera di Jackie Robinson e il suo gusto per il dramma, Babe Ruth che chiamava il suo tiro nelle World Series del '32 e i duelli tra Christy Mathewson e Walter Johnson nell'era della palla morta. Per me non erano solo fatti; erano leggende tramandate di generazione in generazione, ricche e dettagliate come qualsiasi mitologia antica. Gli adulti si meravigliavano, o si innervosivano leggermente di fronte alla mia conoscenza enciclopedica che abbracciava quasi un secolo di storia del baseball. Non si trattava solo di memorizzazione; era devozione (sebbene oggigiorno se i miei genitori mi lasciassero regolarmente con un ottuagenario che conosciamo a malapena in un mercatino delle pulci, probabilmente si troverebbero ad affrontare una visita dei servizi sociali).

Il mercatino delle pulci era solo una parte dell'infanzia della Generazione X, in cui la scoperta assumeva forme diverse. Mentre Albert mi insegnava a organizzare e valorizzare le informazioni, le avventure nel nostro quartiere – regolate dall'unica regola “tornare a casa prima che faccia buio” – mi insegnavano l'esplorazione e l'indipendenza. Le biciclette erano i nostri passaporti per il mondo, guidandoci ovunque la curiosità ci portasse. Che si trattasse di pedalare verso quartieri lontani, costruire fortini traballanti, o imparare nonostante le ginocchia sbucciate, scoprivamo costantemente attraverso l'esperienza diretta piuttosto che attraverso l'insegnamento. Ogni spazio offriva le sue lezioni su come imparare, pensare e trovare un significato nel mondo che ci circondava.

Con l'arrivo del liceo, la mia ossessione si spostò dalle figurine del baseball alla musica, e il negozio di dischi locale divenne il mio nuovo rifugio. Come in Alta Fedeltà, i ragazzi dietro il bancone di Tracks on Wax a Huntington furono le mie guide attraverso la storia della musica, proprio come Albert lo era stato con quella del baseball. Il mio viaggio iniziò con i vinili ereditati: le copie consumate dei miei genitori degli album dei Beatles, i dischi di Crosby, Stills & Nash sopravvissuti a innumerevoli traslochi e gli LP di Marvin Gaye che portavano con sé il DNA sonoro di una generazione. I ragazzi dietro il bancone avevano il loro curriculum: “Se ti piace Bob Dylan”, dicevano tirando fuori un disco, “devi capire Van Morrison”. Ogni consiglio era un filo conduttore che collegava generi, epoche e influenze. I poster e le spille che compravo diventavano distintivi di identità, indicatori fisici di chi immaginavo di essere: il mio gusto in evoluzione che diventava il mio io in evoluzione.

L'università aprì una dimensione completamente nuova alla scoperta musicale. Le stanze del dormitorio diventarono laboratori di gusto condiviso, dove la conoscenza fluiva tra pari anziché da esperto a principiante. Non studiavamo più solo la storia della musica: la vivevamo, scoprendo il sound della nostra generazione. Trascorrevamo ore a esplorare le nostre collezioni, dall'emergente scena grunge di Seattle ai ritmi innovativi di A Tribe Called Quest e De La Soul.

Nei negozi di dischi vicino al campus, l'atto fisico della scoperta era sacro: sfogliavi le casse fino a impolverarti le dita, strizzavi gli occhi leggendo le note di copertina fino a farti male e portavi a casa le tue scoperte come tesori. I limiti dello spazio fisico imponevano a ogni negoziante di fare scelte oculate per il proprio inventario. Questi vincoli creavano personalità; ogni negozio era unico, riflettendo la competenza del suo curatore e il gusto della comunità. A differenza degli infiniti scaffali digitali di oggi, i limiti fisici richiedevano una cura attenta: ogni centimetro doveva guadagnarsi il suo spazio.

Dopo la laurea nel '95, mentre la rivoluzione digitale era appena agli inizi, mi ritrovai a creare siti web per aziende: il mio primo “vero” lavoro in quella che presto sarebbe stata chiamata l'economia di Internet. Quella conoscenza ossessiva per le statistiche del baseball ha poi trovato un nuovo sbocco quando il mio amico Pete e io abbiamo fondato una delle prime community di fantasy sport su Internet. Eravamo passati dal cercare disperatamente altri fan tra le riviste alla creazione di un'intera community online. Quando Ask Jeeves acquistò la nostra azienda, rimasi affascinato da quella che sembrava la promessa definitiva: sbloccare le informazioni del mondo. La possibilità di cercare e accedere istantaneamente a qualsiasi informazione significava avere le chiavi dell'universo. Ripensandoci, probabilmente avrei dovuto capire che un ragazzino ossessionato dall'organizzazione delle statistiche del baseball sarebbe finito a lavorare nel fantasy sport e nei motori di ricerca. Alcune persone trovano la loro vocazione presto: a me è capitato di trovare la mia nelle sottoculture più nerd possibili.

Verso la fine degli anni '90 facevo previsioni grandiose su come il mondo sarebbe cambiato, anche se, a dire il vero, capivo a malapena come funzionasse davvero. Eccomi qui, passato dall'essere un adolescente che vendeva gelati in spiaggia e serviva ai tavoli, a pontificare improvvisamente sulla trasformazione digitale: un ragazzino che non aveva mai avuto un vero lavoro, completamente all'oscuro di catene di approvvigionamento, manodopera, produzione, o di come funzionassero effettivamente le aziende. Eppure, anche nella mia ingenuità, il mio istinto non si sbagliava. La nostra generazione si trovava a cavallo di un divario unico: eravamo gli ultimi a crescere completamente in analogico, ma abbastanza giovani da contribuire a costruire il mondo digitale. Comprendevamo sia i limiti che la magia della scoperta fisica, il che ci ha dato una prospettiva che né i nostri genitori né i nostri figli avevano. Siamo diventati i traduttori tra questi due mondi.

La trasformazione non si è verificata solo nello sport e nelle carriere. All'inizio degli anni 2000 Napster rese ogni canzone disponibile gratuitamente, Google rese l'informazione infinita e Amazon rese i negozi fisici facoltativi. La promessa era la democratizzazione della conoscenza: chiunque poteva imparare qualsiasi cosa, in qualsiasi momento. La realtà era più complicata. Come osservò una volta Noam Chomsky: “La tecnologia è solo uno strumento. Come un martello puoi usarla per costruire una casa, o per spaccare la faccia a qualcuno”. Ogni progresso tecnologico era allo stesso tempo creazione e distruzione: ha creato nuovi modi di accedere alle informazioni e demolito i vecchi modi di scoprirle. La rivoluzione digitale ha creato cose incredibili: un accesso alle informazioni senza precedenti, comunità globali, nuove forme di creatività... ma ha anche demolito qualcosa di prezioso nel processo.

Sì, le informazioni sono diventate abbondanti, ma la saggezza è diventata scarsa. Gli Albert e i ragazzi dei negozi di dischi sono stati soppiantati da algoritmi di raccomandazione ottimizzati per il coinvolgimento piuttosto che per la scoperta. Abbiamo guadagnato in praticità, ma perso la serendipità. Il catalogo digitale delle schede potrebbe essere più efficiente di quello fisico, ma non vi insegna a pensare alle informazioni: le serve e basta. Quando Albert mi parlava del valore di una figurina di baseball, non si limitava a citare una guida ai prezzi; mi stava insegnando la scarsità, le condizioni, il contesto storico e la natura umana: lezioni sull'autenticità che risultano particolarmente rilevanti nell'era odierna di personaggi online accuratamente curati e contenuti generati dall'intelligenza artificiale. Quando quei commessi nei negozi di dischi facevano raccomandazioni, non si limitavano a confrontare i tag di genere; condividevano la loro passione, trasferendo non solo conoscenza, ma un pezzo della loro umanità. Non si trattava di suggerimenti algoritmici, ma di momenti di genuina connessione, ricchi di contesto e vivi di entusiasmo condiviso. Non ricordi solo ciò che ti hanno insegnato, ma anche l'odore del negozio, la luce del pomeriggio che filtrava attraverso le vetrine polverose, l'entusiasmo nella loro voce quando ti presentavano qualcosa di nuovo. Non si trattava solo di transazioni: era un apprendistato su come pensare in modo critico alle informazioni che avevamo di fronte.

Queste lezioni sulla connessione umana e sulla scoperta hanno assunto un nuovo significato osservando i miei figli orientarsi nell'attuale panorama digitale. Di recente, mentre aiutavo mio figlio a studiare per un compito di geometria sulla lunghezza dell'ipotenusa, mi sono ritrovato a usare ChatGPT, sia come ripasso di concetti che avevo dimenticato da tempo, sia come strumento didattico. L'IA ha scomposto il teorema di Pitagora con una chiarezza che mi ha ricordato le lezioni di Albert sulle figurine del baseball. Ma c'era una differenza cruciale: mentre Albert mi forniva non solo dati, ma anche contesto e significato, le piattaforme di IA, per quanto potenti, non riescono a replicare quella saggezza umana che sa quando spingere, quando fermarsi e come accendere quell'amore critico per l'apprendimento. Mark, uno dei miei più vecchi amici ed esperto in questo settore, ha approfondito molto più di me l'esplorazione di queste tecnologie, aiutandomi a comprenderne sia la potenza che i rischi. Il suo consiglio: testate l'IA solo su domande di cui conoscete già la risposta, usandola per comprendere i pregiudizi e le barriere del sistema, piuttosto che trattarla come un oracolo. Stiamo ancora imparando a integrare queste tecnologie nelle nostre vite, proprio come abbiamo fatto con i motori di ricerca e Internet: ricordate quando per rispondere a una semplice domanda di storia era necessario andare in biblioteca? O quando non si poteva controllare all'istante su IMDB se un attore era apparso in un film? Ogni nuovo strumento ci impone di sviluppare una nuova consapevolezza dei suoi punti di forza e dei suoi limiti.

Ciò fa eco a quello che Thomas Harrington ha scritto nella sua attenta analisi dell'istruzione moderna: trattiamo sempre più gli studenti come elaboratori di informazioni piuttosto che come menti in via di sviluppo che necessitano di una guida umana. Harrington sostiene che, mentre la nostra cultura venera le soluzioni meccaniche, abbiamo dimenticato qualcosa di fondamentale: che l'insegnamento e la comprensione sono processi profondamente umani che non possono essere ridotti alla mera trasmissione di dati. Ogni studente è, nelle sue parole, “un miracolo di carne e sangue, capace degli atti più radicali e creativi di alchimia mentale”. La tecnologia può rendere le informazioni più accessibili, ma non può replicare la saggezza umana che sa quando spingere, quando fermarsi e come accendere quell'amore per l'apprendimento.

Questo equilibrio tra strumenti tecnologici e saggezza umana si manifesta quotidianamente mentre osserviamo i nostri adolescenti orientarsi nel loro panorama digitale. Mia moglie ed io ci troviamo a combattere e ad abbracciare contemporaneamente la modernità. Ho insegnato scacchi al nostro figlio più grande, ma lui ha affinato le sue abilità tramite un'app. Ora giochiamo con una scacchiera fisica quasi tutte le sere, discutendo strategie e condividendo storie tra una mossa e l'altra. La stessa dinamica plasma il loro rapporto con il basket: combinano ore di allenamento fisico con infinite scorribande sui social media e sui tutorial di YouTube, studiando mosse e strategie in modi che a noi non erano accessibili. Stanno creando il loro mix personale di padronanza fisica e digitale. In quanto genitori di adolescenti, non possiamo più guidare il loro percorso; possiamo solo dare loro una spinta, aiutandoli a capire quando abbracciare la tecnologia e quando allontanarsene.

Il riconoscimento di schemi che ho acquisito attraverso le figurine del baseball, i negozi di dischi che mi hanno insegnato come gestire la conoscenza e, sì, persino la libertà di vagare fino a sera – di esplorare, di fallire, di imparare dai nostri errori – non sono state solo esperienze nostalgiche. Sono state lezioni su come pensare, scoprire e imparare. Mentre navighiamo in questa rivoluzione dell'intelligenza artificiale, forse la cosa più preziosa che possiamo insegnare ai nostri figli non è come usare queste potenti capacità, ma quando non usarle – preservando lo spazio per il tipo di apprendimento umano profondo che ha un peso reale – il tipo che nessun algoritmo può replicare.

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

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

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” ― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men.” – Captain – Cool Hand Luke

It is fitting that I use a quote from a communist to begin this article because it is the communist ideology of hate, murder, and propaganda that has led us to this point of no return. Charlie Kirk was right. America will never be the same. It might not even closely resemble the America at the start of this century by the time this period of upheaval and crisis resolves itself, with the shedding of much blood and death on a scale not seen since World War II. Charlie Kirk was Cool Hand Luke’d for daring to challenge the status quo and daring to question the psychopathic powers that be in this prison planet of our own making.

The senseless slaughter of Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk were the opening salvo in a new U.S. civil war, which is likely to spread to the U.K., Ireland, France, Germany, Australia and wherever else the globalist elite have planted the seeds of revolution through importing Muslim hordes, criminalizing whiteness, glorifying deviancy, outlawing free speech, bankrupting nations, and promoting WW3. The chaos, confusion, vitriol and mayhem is not happening by chance. It is being manufactured by those constituting the invisible government (aka Deep State) as a means to their end game – Digital IDs, CBDCs, Social Credit Scores, 15 Minute Cities (Gulags), Great Taking leading to the Great Reset, and the depopulation of millions with the dehumanization and subjugation of the survivors.

What is happening is not a bug, but a feature in the new world order they envision. The last couple weeks certainly meet Lenin’s criteria of decades happening, as the whirlwind of tragedy, anger, threats, retribution, legacy media lies, political posturing, international coalitions forming into war-like postures, all capped off by the cold blooded murder of “that white girl” by a feral psychotic dangerous black man set loose by a black woman pretending to be a judge, and the assassination of an earnest young christian conservative man who was trying to sway minds and hearts through debate, evidently by an ANTIFA inspired transgender dropout loser who spent his life online with other losers.

I say evidently because I don’t believe anything the government or media tells me. There are dozens of unanswered questions regarding this 22 year old Tyler Robinson as the shooter. Based on what we have been told by the authorities regarding Thomas Crooks, the 20 year-old Butler assassin, I don’t expect any truthful revelations regarding Kirk’s assassin. An official narrative will be concocted, fed to the MSM mouthpieces, and devoured by the ignorant masses as the truth. Questioning the official story will be shouted down as conspiracy theories, even though the conspiracy theorists are now 40 – o versus the official stories over the last decade. Our lives don’t matter, but narratives do matter to those pulling the strings.

Even worse was the complete blackout of Iryna’s murder by the far left dying legacy media. The alt-media forced the world to witness the consequences of left wing policies of encouraging crime and refusing to lock up dangerous black men. False narratives are all the left have. The dying legacy left media live up to Huxley’s observations regarding the truth:

“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.” – Aldous Huxley

Personally, the images of that beautiful helpless girl staring in stunned terror at the savage beast who just slaughtered her because she was white, and the instantaneous death of Charlie with the blood pouring out of his neck wound have disturbed and haunted me for this entire week. I haven’t been able to sleep. I feel like I’ve been going through the motions at work and at home, as a feeling of foreboding envelopes my consciousnesses. I’m sure others have a similar feeling.

The last time I felt this way was the week following 9/11. I knew the world had changed and the change was not going to be good. The world has once again taken a turn for the worse. There will be no reconciliation between the right and the left. There will be no peace. There will be no turning the other cheek and coming together as a nation. Unification is impossible. You will be required to choose a side, because the violence has only just begun. It will only intensify from this point until there are clear winners and losers.

That young refugee from Ukraine was going home from her shift at a pizza joint. It’s ironic that she would have still been living peacefully in Ukraine if the U.S. had not initiated the hostilities by overthrowing the democratically elected government in 2014, as the neocon/Deep State plan to overthrow Putin by goading him into WW3 was hatched. The millions of deaths and casualties in Ukraine are directly attributable to the dastardly actions of Obama, Biden, Nuland, Graham, McCain and the rest of the warmongering bastards that instigated this war. That racist feral dog that murdered Iryna in cold blood shouldn’t have been on that train either. The left wing communist DAs and judges who released this violent unhinged savage 14 times have her blood on their hands. Both seats should have been empty, but that image of savagery will now encourage a race war.

I know every right leaning talking head, twitter influencer, blogger and politician has been mourning the death of Charlie Kirk on social media at a deafening crescendo, trying to outdo each other in their level of tributes, video compilations, and pictures of his wife and children. He is being treated as a Jesus-like martyr, with connotations of JFK’s Camelot lost. Some said he was destined to be president within the next decade. Maybe so, but we will never know.

Truthfully, until he was murdered this week, I knew very little about the man. I knew he was a popular right leaning commentator, but I had never heard him speak or followed him on twitter. I pretty much lumped him with the other right wing influencers, who make a living off tweets, podcasts, youtubes, and blogging. Everyone’s gotta make a living somehow. They are in a constant battle for likes, retweets, impressions and eyeballs. I’m always suspicious about whether they are paid to support a certain point of view or actually believe what they say.

He was 31 and I’m 62. His Turning Point USA organization was geared to mobilize idealistic young conservative people to embrace conservative family values. After 17 years of trying to change hearts and minds, my site generally attracts cynical old dudes who despise the government and media, knowing change through the ballot box is a fruitless venture. The best we can do now is tribe up with like minded people, gather our preps, make sure we are heavily armed, and buy more ammo. Nothing I’ve seen in the last couple weeks tells me to do otherwise. This train is moving too fast towards the bend, and derailment is a certainty.

From what I could gather, Charlie was an intelligent, loving Christian family man, who loved spirited debates with those who had opposing points of view. His debating skills were clearly top-notch. The left wing loons in the media, on college campuses, and in politics despised him because he was more intelligent and articulate in presenting his viewpoint, as they shrieked at, threatened and cancelled those who supported him. The brainwashing of our indoctrinated youth by left wing communist ideology has convinced millions to actually believe Kirk, Trump, Musk, Carlson, etc., are nazis and fascists – deserving to be murdered for their cause. Their warped ideology kills.

Kirk’s Turning Point USA non-profit is essentially a rounding error compared to the Soros NGOs, Gates Foundation, and USAID grifts funding chaos and hate across the land. I checked their 990 Tax return and total donations were $85M, with Kirk’s annual compensation around $400k. Pelosi makes more than that with one insider stock trade. He surely also made significant income from Twitter, podcasts, books, etc. But, he wasn’t what I would call a grifter.

His views pretty much aligned with mine on most major issues – Ukraine war, the Israeli genocide, bombing Iran for Israel, abortion, tranny degeneracy, woke indoctrination in schools, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, covid vaccines, masks, Snowden & Assange, and the Deep State . He did not deserve to die and making him a martyr will ultimately backfire on those celebrating his murder. Cancellation goes both ways, they are finding out.

More people have now read and watched his speeches/debates in the last few days than would have ever been introduced to his views over their lifetimes. His death has created more anger and desire for retribution than I’ve witnessed in the course of my life. Will it be a Boston Tea Party/Fort Sumter moment, triggering a revolution/civil war? Time will tell, but we know one thing for sure, Fourth Turnings never de-intensify. I would say in this past week we have experienced an intensification of our ongoing crisis, with the bloodiest and most intense years yet to come. Tragic iconic photos from my lifetime have marked turning points for the country, and I believe the two photos above will sadly mark a new turning point of death and destruction.

I was six months old when my government murdered JFK. The images from the Zapruder film are disturbing and sad, but the murder of our young president because he threatened the CIA/FBI/Deep State changed the course of our country to the detriment of all but those constituting the Deep State and their billionaire benefactors. Our young have been dying, while those running the show have utilized all the propaganda tools at their disposal to breed hate and fear. Keeping the masses focused on their differences, ensures they don’t all realize the true enemy are those pulling the strings and manipulating the masses, as described by Edward Bernays.

Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they’ve always done before
Look at the hate we’re breeding
Look at the fear we’re feeding
Look at the lives we’re leading
The way we’ve always done before

Civil War – Guns N’ Roses

And history hides the lies of our civil wars
D’you wear a black armband when they shot the man
Who said, “Peace could last forever”?
And in my first memories, they shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
Civil War – Guns N’ Roses

Two tragically iconic photos during the Vietnam War were turning points in convincing average Walter Cronkite watching Americans we should not be there, sacrificing our young men, killing women and children, and turning our military against college students protesting against another war fought by the poor to benefit the rich. The American empire has degenerated into Murder Inc., spreading death and destruction across the globe to enrich the military industrial complex and the parasite politicians fueling the war machine with our tax dollars, while burdening our children with an unpayable debt.

So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall in D.C. to remind us all
That you can’t trust freedom when it’s not in your hands
When everybody’s fightin’ for their promised land and
I don’t need your civil war
Civil War – Guns N’ Roses

The photos of the World Trade Center towers on fire shortly before collapsing into their footprint became the defining moment of this century, thus far. We know the neo-cons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) who used the moron baby Bush to kick-start their agenda by pushing through the pre-written Patriot Act, ushering in the ever expanding surveillance state, have seized control of government and set us on a path to destruction. We’ve been spilling blood across the globe, while adding debt at a hyper-sonic pace, based upon lies, corrupt leadership, and at the behest of a globalist billionaire death cult. And here we stand at the brink of a civil war and global conflict, with unknown but likely terrible consequences.

Look at the shoes you’re filling
Look at the blood we’re spilling
Look at the world we’re killing
The way we’ve always done before
Look in the doubt we’ve wallowed
Look at the leaders we’ve followed
Look at the lies we’ve swallowed
And I don’t want to hear no more
Civil War – Guns N’ Roses

We are currently in an existential battle between good and evil. The murderous bastards who killed Iryna and Charlie were the personification of evil, motivated by the satanic urging of the Soros, Gates, Obama, Clinton cult of death. The Democratic party is infested with evil men and women, hellbent on the destruction of our country through the promotion of depravity, social chaos, and rampant criminality without consequences. The real deplorables in this country who cheered Kirk’s death and felt sorry for the black devil who slaughtered “that white girl” are evil. The despicable excuses for journalists in the far left propaganda media are evil.

All of these people are your enemy. Many of your neighbors, coworkers and family are your enemy. They would not shed a tear at your death. We have passed the point of no return. I wish I could visualize a near term positive outcome, but that is impossible after this week. As another old time cynic declared a century ago, normal people need to hoist the black flag.

“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ― H.L. Mencken

A current day cynic, and someone the left would also like to kill,  captures my thoughts exactly. I will not unite or let bygones be bygones with people who wanted me to die for refusing the covid jab and would spit on my grave based upon my views on the Constitution, unwarranted wars, the welfare state, surveillance state, government spending, and the degeneracy of the left. We are already at war, but most don’t realize it yet.

We’ve tried to live in peace, minding our own business, turning the other cheek, and hoping the crazed leftists would fade away, because their ideas are evil and insane. We just wanted to be left alone, but they forced millions to get jabbed with Big Pharma poison under threat of being fired, hoisted their transgender deviancy upon our children, indoctrinated our young with communist bullshit in government schools, opened our borders to third world invaders, burned our cities while making a drug addicted black criminal their fake martyr, placed low IQ diversity stooges in key positions of power, encouraged criminality with no consequences, stole elections, and now they are killing the best of us. It is now time for all normal people to channel William Munny and do whatever is necessary to defeat the evil forces opposing us. Words matter, but actions speak louder than words.

Reprinted with permission from The Burning Platform.

The post Images, Words & Narratives Matter appeared first on LewRockwell.

We have had Unmitigated Treason for more than 80 years. The American people have suffered a monumental loss of Lives, Freedom, and Prosperity because of Wars for Profit that have nothing to do with National Security. But they have everything to do with obscene profits for the Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC) and Congress.

The greed and corruption is so entrenched in Congress and the people are so brainwashed by the media that all attempts to stop this Treason have failed. It is understood by most that the PSRRC, the  Jewish Lobby and Media, control our government. My solution is to let members of the Military resign from the service if the government enters an armed conflict with a nation that can’t invade us, and there is no Declaration of War, or if it is War for Profit. Attacks on pirates or the rescue of American hostages would continue. These requirements are simple to understand, and are the only way I can see to stop these wars for the profit of the PSRRC and Congress at the expense of The People.

How can you find fault with this dramatic and scary proposal if it saves our young people and returns us to the American Dream and prosperity when nothing else has worked?

Following are the critical and sad facts that support any radical attempt to stop Wars for Profit, Unconstitutional Wars without a Declaration of War, and Wars against Adversaries who can’t invade us:

1. We have engaged in Wars for profit for 80 years, and lost every one of them.
2. We lost 105,000 members of our armed forces, killed millions, destroyed entire nations and incurred hatred of the entire world.
3. Every single war was for profit, not National Security, as we had no direct interest.
4. Effectively, Congress sold our military as Mercenaries to Big Money aka PSRRC.
5. Today, Congress is spending $428.4 Billion on Foreign Aid, Deployed Military and Bases Overseas, without any boots on the ground, yet this costs about 10% of its income.
6. Foreign Expenses of any kind are causing Inflation and lowering the living standards of Americans, pushing us closer to Economic Dystopia.
7. We need our military at home to confront and deport Illegal Invaders. The need is so great we may have to resort to the Draft. Our military numbers only 2.1 million, while Invaders are more than 20 Million. The numbers should be reversed for the Guerilla Warfare that many are predicting.
8. The United States can’t be invaded because of our oceans, making reciprocal defense treaties with NATO a sick joke on us. The proper defense posture for United States is non-involvement, for we can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction or from within.
9. There is absolutely no justifiable Constitutional or rational reason for foreign expenditures of any kind  Wars for profit, with or without a Declaration War, are Treason.
10. We have 177,209 Troops deployed in 80 countries. They are like canaries in a cold mine that serve no National Security Purpose. If they are attacked, we can’t save them.

The single most important reason for this unconstitutional government is the failure of the corrupt and complicit FBI to investigate, prosecute, and convict criminals in government.

President George Washington in his 1796 Farewell speech warned us against forming permanent alliances and engaging in foreign entanglements that could pull us into Europe’s conflicts. He further stated that we have NO DIRECT INTEREST in Europe’s wars. This advice would have kept us out of World War One and Two, and the last 80 years of Wars for Profit. Japan attacked us because of our actions against them.

If we had followed President Washington’s advise and the Constitution, we would now have prosperity beyond all comprehension.

The post We Must Stop Wars for Profit, Wars With No Declaration of War, or Wars Where Adversary Can’t Invade…Otherwise GIs Could Resign! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Ascending Crisis

America is rapidly changing; the post-war consensus of 1945 is beginning to break among young conservative Americans. Recently, with the assasination of Charlie Kirk, the rhetoric among the online right and even centrist Americans has boiled over into calls of action. Along with this, there is also a massive Christian element to this rhetoric, more than merely calls to prayer and fasting; Kirk is being seen as a martyr for the Christian faith, the interview where he states he wants to be remembered for his faith if he dies being particularly popular. High-ranking clergy like Bishop Barron also weighed in on the event and asked, “Who are we becoming?” Charlie Kirk’s rival, Nick Fuentes, had encouraged his followers to “pray for Charlie Kirk’s soul, his young family, and our country” and has made it clear to all his followers that “if you take up arms, I disavow you.” The empathy being displayed is noble, but as with most emotional events, facts get muddled, and actions are taken out of emotion rather than sense. It is true that the United States is in a period of political and economic instability; this explains the religiosity. In his 1900 essay, “The Rise and Fall of Elites,” Vilfredo Pareto outlines the rise of religiosity during times of ascending political crisis, stating:

“Even a most superficial study shows that among the civilized nations, the religious sentiment has grown in the last years and is still increasing. This has benefited not only all religious forms already in existence, which would be the various Christian denominations, but it has lent vigor mainly to a new order of religious sentiments which manifest themselves in socialism. Moreover, patriotism has risen to new heights and is assuming the form of religion-in Germany, where an authoritative review goes so far as to speak of the “German God.”

It is no secret that there has been a rise in traditional religious institutions among the younger generations of Americans and Europeans. A 2024 AP article talks about a sudden shift in the culture of some Catholic parishes, women in lace head coverings, demands for the return of the Traditional Latin Mass, and a heavier emphasis on confessions and penance, all of which steers away from the modernization of the Church following the Vatican II council. However, it would be foolish to take these reports at face value. If it is true that the early 20th century of Europe showed a similar increase in religiosity, then why did the political parties take on the role of clergy and godhood in the midcentury, such as the Nazis and Bolsheviks? Is the young traditional sect of Americans merely a trend? A revolutionary force? Or a passive movement? To answer this and the aforementioned Bishop’s question of “who are we becoming,” we must first understand the mindset of the American masses, why the religionists of the country will lose the political battle, the true nature of power, and a confrontation with the country itself.

The Animating Spirit

With so many American conservatives calling for change, struggle, and action to change the downwards course of the country, the animating spirit of the movement can be probed. All nations, whether just established or entering into a new phase in their existence, require an animating spirit that their citizens look towards for inspiration. For modern America, Henry R. Luce had coined the term “American century” in 1941; America would be the leading global superpower and this American exceptionalism was carried with great enthusiasm by American media and the general population during the post-war boom. The animating spirit that seems to be currently establishing itself on the American right is one not dissimilar to the Soviets. After the death of Lenin in 1924, members of the Politburo, such as Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, saw themselves as heirs to Lenin’s work towards the proletarian revolution, or at least used that excuse to legitimize their claim to power. Lenin’s body was placed in a mausoleum, his body continually embalmed to prevent decay, and he was raised to a deity status. Gorbachev admitted in Vitaly Mansky’s film, “Gorbachev. Heaven,” that he “still sees Lenin as our God.” Decisions that the General Secretary made were cross referenced with Lenin’s work.

The point of intersection between the body of Lenin and American conservatives is the martyr status of Charlie Kirk. Ben Shapiro made it clear that they’re “going to pick up the blood-stained microphone where Charlie left it.” Although many conservatives disagreed with Kirk on many issues, his commitment to free speech and discussion is now met with admiration, but how long will this image last? With still so many reiterating a civil war narrative, future fractures within this new movement can already be seen; this is exactly what happened between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky believed that his goal of world revolution was the true heir to Lenin’s mission, but Stalin, more pragmatic, rejected a world revolution as he saw communism struggling to take hold in the new Soviet state. The Moscow trials saw Trotskyists purged from the party and exiled from the country, with Trotsky himself being assassinated in Mexico City. This was required to stabilize the country and consolidate Stalin as supreme leader. The emotional event of Kirk’s assasination has united the American right to great fervor, but how long can this last, no movement seeking true power can develop a manifesto so dedicated to free speech. While no definite conclusion can be made on how it all ends, the Christian sect is doomed to fail in American politics.

It is doomed to fail because it is not a revolutionary force, while the Christian churches modernized and became contained by the western secular culture through events like Vatican II, Islam underwent an opposite transformation. During the street battles that emerged during the 1979 Iranian revolution, fighters would often chant slogans reminiscent of the Marxist revolutions, whilst mixed with Islamic proclamations; some include: “God’s help and victory is near; death to this deceitful monarchy; we do not live under the burden of oppression; we sacrifice our lives in the path of freedom; worker, peasant, oppressed, sufferer; armed struggle is the road to freedom.” This mix of ideas is attributed to the work of Iranian revolutionary Ali Shari’ati, and French Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre. Shari’ati had met Satre in Paris, and after returning to Iran, he would become known as the foundation layer of the Iranian revolution. Britannica explains:

“Shariʿati’s teachings may be said to have laid the foundation for the Iranian revolution because of their great influence on the Iranian youth. His teachings attacked the tyranny of the shah and his policy of Westernization and modernization that, Shariʿati believed, damaged Iranian religion and culture and left the people without their traditional social and religious moorings. Shariʿati called for a return to true, revolutionary Shiʿism. He believed that Shiʿite Islam itself was a force for social justice and progress but also that it had been corrupted in Iran by its institutionalization by political leaders.”

Shari’ati combined the Marxist ideas of armed struggle with Shia Islam, who up until then had been considered an apolitical group. However, Ayatollah Khomeini had taken this group and organized the multiple sects of Iranian society in overthrowing the Shah, and in the Ayatollah’s first sermon, he made this declaration:

“Yes, we are reactionaries, and you are enlightened intellectuals: You intellectuals do not want us to go back 1400 years. You, who want freedom, freedom for everything, the freedom of parties, you who want all the freedoms, you intellectuals: freedom that will corrupt our youth, freedom that will pave the way for the oppressor, freedom that will drag our nation to the bottom.”

It is unlikely that Pope Leo, or Patriarch Bartholomew will call upon the faithful to take up arms against the secular western governments. This is the exact reason the growing religiosity of the early twentieth century gave way to the religion of a party apparatus, and with the Christians noble disdain of violence, they’re unlikely to commit to any true positions of power.

Rudderless Americans

Among the American masses, there is a paradox on violence that shows itself in full force after recent events in the world. The “Gen Z revolution” in Nepal was met with great enthusiasm in the American sphere. When videos of Nepal’s finance minister being stripped naked and chased into the river by an angry mob or when the Nepali parliament was burnt to the ground, Americans responded with Thomas Jefferson quotes on Twitter. Political violence is met with great enthusiasm by Americans when it is done in other countries but is met with shock and disbelief when it happens in their own country. Of course, the situation in Nepal does not matter to America; similarly, the assasination of Charlie Kirk means little to the average Nepali, but it begs the question of what Americans, especially the American conservatives, want. Reuters had recently reported on some of the online dialogue of the American right, with one X poster reportedly saying that the nation was “teetering between a political rupture and civil war; we’re past words.”

There will be no civil war; the American conservative movement has little to no basis of power within the United States except that of podcasters and independent media, with donors deciding on what is reported and how it is portrayed. The Confederates, for instance, had the backing of large Southern plantations, Democrat politicians, and military men who deserted the Union to fight for the South, such as Robert E. Lee; their secession was backed by legitimate power. Modern American conservatives would be foolish to organize any armed group. Insider had interviewed an undercover FBI agent named Scott Payne, who had managed to infiltrate biker gangs, the KKK, and neo-Nazi groups over the course of a twenty-year career; who’s to say any new movement won’t face similar moles? Finally, there are the conservatives who continually advocate for prayer and peaceful collective action, but this can only go so far. True change can only come within the confines of power; can these Christian Americans go that far? When the popular Catholic influencer Voice of Reason was revealed to have been texting an adult woman in a sexual nature, he was condemned by the Catholic online sphere. Positions of power often require making sinful decisions; if text messages can cause such a scandal, what would a truly Catholic president be faced with?

The current rebelliousness that conservatives are portraying since Kirk’s muder will also face the same problems that the hippies of the 1960s confronted. Their counterculture, far from tearing down the system at which it was aimed, had instead been absorbed and commercialized. Their anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism, and anti-authoritarianism became products of this cultural trend. The colorful dress, long hair, and rock and roll became staples in American culture in the decades following the rebellion. Woodstock is remembered with great fondness, with other concerts commemorating the original being held in 1994 and 1999. The conservatives, in particular the more traditionally minded Christian youth, have already undergone this process. The ideal of the traditional wife manifests itself in online personalities dressing as women from a bygone era; rosary beads become a commercial product with discounts if you use a code given to you by an influencer. The new counterculture, while opposed to the hippies, will also be absorbed by the system, and their rebellion will be sent back to them in the form of products.

Road to Terror

The American conservative lacks the fundamental qualities necessary to produce a leader that will lead to a true change in policy and power. If they were bold enough to attempt a civil war or a coup d’etat, their very own American nature of vanity would lead to its failure. The very foundation of this current movement is also entirely based on empathy for a man who made free speech his career and proposed to live a faithful life; these are qualities incompatible with leaders seeking true change in a country rife with violence. Curzio Malaparte, an Italian writer who accompanied Mussolini on his march to Rome, expertly examined the art of insurrection in his book “Coup D’etat.” He references discussions between Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin begins:

If we want to carry out the revolution as Marxists, that is to say as an art, we must also, and without a moment’s delay, organize the General Staff of the insurrectional troops, distribute our forces, launch our loyal regiments against the most salient positions, surround Alexandra theatre, occupy the Fortress of Peter and Paul, arrest the General Staff and the members of the members of the government, attack the cadets and cossacks with detachments ready to die to the last man. We must mobilize the armed workers, call them to the supreme encounter, take over the telephone and telegraph exchanges at the same time, quarter our insurrectional staff in the telephone exchange and connect it up by telephone with all the factories, regiments, and points at which the armed struggle is being waged.”

Trotsky, however, disagreed with this notion, he replies:

“That is all quite reasonable, but it is too complicated. The plan is too vast and it is a strategy which includes too much territory and too many people. It is not an insurrection any longer, it is a war. One must concentrate on small tactics, move in a small space with few men, strike hard and straight. Hit your adversary in the stomach and the blow will be noiseless. Insurrection is a piece of noiseless machinery. Your strategy demands too many favorable circumstances. Insurrection needs nothing. It is self-sufficient.

American conservatives may argue that they do not want to carry out a revolution like Marxists, that it is Marxist rhetoric, and hate that killed Charlie Kirk, but as Trotsky had explained to Lenin, “Insurrection is not an art; it is an engine. Technical experts are required to start it and they alone could stop it.”  The Christians will be too passive to begin such an undertaking; the podcasters and media talking heads are outside of the spheres of power; they cannot start an insurrection nor put an end to one.

No Country for Old Men

America is a brutal land; the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska, the assasination of Charlie Kirk, and the mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic school mass are devastating but not surprising. In Cormac McCarthy’s 2005 book “No Country for Old Men,” Sheriff Bell, a small-town lawman, is unable to deal with the violent wave of crime occurring in his county; he realizes that “this county is hard on people, you can’t stop what’s coming. It ain’t all waiting on you. That’s vanity.” The warnings in this fictional novel are prophetic; the crimes in the book are no different than the ones seen on local news. The sheriff’s understanding of his reality is key to turning this country around:

“Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lotta folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough’d never carried one; that’s the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins wouldn’t wear one up in Comanche County. I always liked to hear about the oldtimers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can’t help but compare yourself against the oldtimers. Can’t help but wonder how they would have operated these times. There was this boy I sent to the ‘lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn’t any passion to it. Told me that he’d been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he’d do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. “Be there in about fifteen minutes”. I don’t know what to make of that. I sure don’t. The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure. It’s not that I’m afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don’t want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don’t understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He’d have to say, “O.K., I’ll be part of this world.”

The pitiful revolution, which started in 2016, has undergone multiple phases. The death of Charlie Kirk is not necessarily a turning point, but it is merely a new phase in this revolution. Just as Germany had suffered through phases following the 1918 revolution in the form of the chaos of the Weimar Republic, or the Soviets after the failure of Perestroika, Russia entered the chaotic and pathetic rule of Yeltsin, only for stability to arrive after Putin’s rise to power. Indeed. America is entering into a chaotic phase, one that can only be described similarly to William Yeats’ poem, “The Second Coming,” written at the end of the First World War:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer, things fall apart, the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Everywhere the ceremony of innocents is lost, the best lack all conviction and the worst are full with passionate intensity. What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem, to be born.”

The turmoil facing America is not new; the great fear the Latins faced at the fall of Rome seemed like the end, but it wasn’t. Oswald Spengler once described civilizations in the form of seasons. America is in the winter, the final season after spring and summer pass. The conservatives and Christians who are today demanding action, perhaps organizing themselves, or plotting to be president one day must face this question. Do you have what it takes to run a country not meant for old men? The Indians used to scalp frontier settlers; mobsters were gunning each other down during the gangland wars of the 1920s and the Colombo Wars in the 1960s and 1990s; today, the cartels have massive control over Latin America and flood the country with drugs; violent street gangs run wild in many inner cities; and now, innocent people are getting stabbed and shot in the neck. True Power will lie in the hands of those ready to take the positions needed to fix these problems, someone with the cunning of a fox and the strength of a lion, a Machiavellian who silently says, “Ok, I’ll be part of this world.”

The post American Religiosity: Trend, Revolutionary, or a Passive Movement appeared first on LewRockwell.

I don’t spend any time on social media nor do I have any interest in the mainstream conservative movement, so I’d only been very slightly aware of Charlie Kirk prior to his sudden assassination on Wednesday, shot dead at the age of 31 by a sniper while speaking at the University of Utah Utah Valley University.

I’d vaguely known that Kirk was a young conservative activist who had dropped out of community college as a teenager about a dozen years earlier to found Turning Point USA, an activist organization intended to draw youthful Americans into his ideological camp, and heavily funded by mega-donors, it had grown large and successful over time. Those bare facts exhausted my total knowledge.

Given that I’d paid so little attention to him, I was initially shocked by the enormous outpouring of media coverage his killing generated, seemingly greater than might have been accorded many important American elected officials or even major world leaders under similar circumstances. All our top newspapers gave his story large, front-page headlines, and the discussion of Kirk’s assassination and its implications entirely blanketed much of the Internet.

I’d always regarded Kirk as a rather bland mainstream Trump conservative, hardly the sort of figure most likely to inspire lethal hatred. I wondered whether my impression had been mistaken so I sought to assess his views and positions, and get a better sense of why he had been targeted in that deadly attack.

Given his brutal slaying at such a young age, I was hardly surprised that a large fraction of the commentary amounted to hagiography, with even most of his erstwhile ideological foes mourning his death as a tragedy and casting aside any past criticism. Indeed, when Matthew Dowd, a prominent former Bush-Cheney Republican political consultant made some disparaging remarks about Kirk, he was immediately fired from his longstanding position at MSNBC, demonstrating the risks of straying from that widespread position.

Fortunately, I found some important exceptions to this pattern of unremitting praise.

I’d occasionally read pieces by Michael Tracey, a prominent moderate or liberal-leaning Internet writer and the day after Kirk’s death he published a harsh 1,400 word column providing a very different perspective on Kirk.

Many of Kirk’s supporters had described him as a political truth-teller, with President Donald Trump declaring that he had been “a martyr for truth.” But Tracey was scathing in his criticism, portraying him as essentially a political propagandist, someone who regularly shifted his positions to conform to those of Trump, his leading patron:

He was a government functionary. A mouthpiece. He trafficked in ludicrous propaganda on behalf of the Administration he loyally served. And was doing this basically 24/7, in the extremely recent past.

Perhaps most notoriously, after taking a personal phone call from Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk hopped on his podcast the next day and proclaimed, “Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration. I’m gonna trust my friends in the government.” He then bizarrely tried to deny that he said this, or insist it had somehow been taken out of context — which it hadn’t. The context was that Trump got annoyed that a bunch of people had criticized him over Epstein at Kirk’s “Turning Point USA” conference, and then Trump called up Kirk, and then shortly thereafter, Kirk announced he was going to do the government’s bidding. That’s just what Kirk was, and the role he played in US political affairs — notwithstanding how people might now want to exalt him as a paragon of truth-telling virtue because of his untimely death.

Charlie Kirk: “Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration. I’m gonna trust my friends in the government.” pic.twitter.com/OaHHpvc3RT

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 14, 2025

His conduct was even more egregious in the run-up to Trump bombing Iran in June. During that episode, he pretty much served as a blatant government disinformation agent. Harsh as that might sound after he was brutally gunned down yesterday, it’s simply true. His mission was to demand uncritical faith in the US government, during a time of war — which is totally inexcusable for anyone who would consider themselves anything even remotely approximating a “journalist.” But that’s clearly not what Charlie Kirk considered himself. He instead considered himself a government media mouthpiece. On April 3, he said “A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.” Then by June 17, as drumbeats for the joint US-Israeli war against Iran were intensifying to full volume, Charlie changed his tune to mollify Trump, whom his whole identity was built around sycophantically serving. “It is possible to be an extreme isolationist,” Charlie Kirk warned his massive audience. “President Donald Trump is a man made for this moment, and we should trust him.” This was just pathetic. Turn off your critical thinking skills and place unquestioning “trust” in the US government to wage a war on false pretenses! What awesome, noble “truth-telling”!

Kirk then called for Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, for the peace-bringing act of launching a new war in the Middle East. As I wrote at the time, “The shamelessness of these people has no bottom — it’s gotten to the point where you just have to marvel at the spectacle.” That was Charlie Kirk. He openly deceived his viewers and listeners, falsely insisting that Trump had been courageously pursuing “peace,” when in reality Trump was mobilizing for war in conjunction with Israel. At the time, I labeled Kirk a “depraved minion” for doing what he did, and I’m not about to retract that accusation just because he got killed yesterday. That would be absurd.

“We must trust Trump,” declared Charlie Kirk, the martyred truth-teller:

I stand by this completely, and there is zero reason to revise my assessment in light of Kirk’s death:

Charlie Kirk had been a cog in the propaganda machine of the Republican Party, declaring totally baselessly that a vote for Trump in the 2024 election was a vote to “bring peace to the Middle East.” And when the exact opposite happened, Charlie was imploring his followers to simply “pray” and uncritically trust the President. He was detestable.

And he wasn’t just some random commentator or podcaster. He was a full-time, extremely influential Republican Party apparatchik. His mega-donor funded outfit “Turning Point USA” ran “Get Out The Vote” operations for the Trump Campaign in the 2024 election. I’m not saying Charlie Kirk wasn’t entitled to engage in these political activities in a free society with lots of billionaire largesse available for ambitious operatives willing to serve as Republican Party Youth Galvanizer. I’m just saying I’m not obliged to fawningly express reverence for him now, simply by virtue of his sudden and hideous death.

Furthermore, I am very much entitled to challenge the hagiography and mythology that is so quickly congealing around him, such that he’s now being expeditiously put into the pantheon of martyred American saints — which is completely ridiculous. However, I’m fully aware that my limited efforts in this regard will have virtually zero effect. The absurd reverence-fest will continue unimpeded.

• Yes, the killing of Charlie Kirk was heinous. No, he was not a martyred truth-teller
  Michael Tracey • Substack • September 11, 2025 • 1,400 Words

Even more hostile was the reaction of right-wing Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin, who maintained his angry, contrarian reputation by quickly publishing a series of posts ferociously denouncing the slain conservative activist. The lengthiest of these drew more than 500 comments on our website, with Anglin’s deeply emotional reaction probably explaining the obviously missing word in his title.

Sharply attacking Kirk from the right, Anglin eagerly dredged up quotes that demonstrated the victim’s notably liberal views on various hot-button issues. This hardly surprised me since it merely reflected the leftward shift of our conservative movement, whose right-wing MAGA partisans these days espouse many positions on social issues that would have marked them as extreme progressives as recently as the 1990s.

For example, Anglin noted that one of Kirk’s Tweets praised Trump’s strong support for global gay rights and condemned the media for failing to give the president sufficient credit on that score:

Anglin also highlighted another Kirk clip in which the conservative activist ridiculed the academic dogma that there are 47 different genders while strongly affirming his own support for ordinary transgenderism, saying that men had the right to declare themselves women and vice-versa.

“Conservative” Charlie Kirk:

“Okay, there’s two genders. Now can someone who might be born as a man choose to be a woman? Yes. There’s two genders, pick one.”

wut pic.twitter.com/NYsxjecDq2

— The Columbia Bugle (@ColumbiaBugle) November 2, 2019

This last example seems to perfectly exemplify the nature of our modern conservative movement. The promotion of totally insane ideas by the mainstream media and the academic community has provided self-proclaimed conservatives with considerable necessary cover, allowing them to win popular support by proudly advocating ideas that are only somewhat less insane in comparison.

As an example of Kirk’s personal support for transgenderism, Anglin noted that his organization heavily promoted an activist of that ilk called “Lady MAGA,” going much farther in that regard than most other pro-Trump conservatives. This certainly seemed to contradict early media reports suggesting that Kirk had been killed for his hostility to transgenderism.

According to Anglin, Kirk had also been a leading proponent of the notion that “America is an idea,” with our ideology and our constitutional principles defining what it means to be an American. Anglin located a 2019 clip in which Kirk took exactly this position, while simultaneously proclaiming that Israel should rightly remain “a blood and soil nation,” falling into a different category because of the holy connection to its land:

Video Link

As with many conservatives, Kirk apparently had some strong libertarian roots, and during Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign he had emphasized that wide open America could easily accommodate almost unlimited numbers of hard-working, productive legal immigrants. Anglin actually claimed that Kirk had invented the meme of “stapling green cards to diplomas” and indeed in this clip the latter proposed that any foreigner who graduated from an American university should be issued a green card allowing permanent legal residency. Kirk even suggested that our country could reasonably absorb an astonishing fifty million new legal immigrants over the next ten years.

Video Link

Anglin was obviously mining Kirk’s record to find those public statements most likely to infuriate the many right-wingers now mourning Kirk’s martyrdom, and I’m sure that clips could also be found in which Kirk sometimes took the opposite side of these same issues. For example, by 2023 he had apparently proposed halting all immigration.

But that’s the crucial point. Like so many other conservative activists, Kirk’s views on most ideological issues were hardly set in stone, and instead might easily change over time as Trump and other national leaders of his movement chose to move in different directions. This hardly indicated that Kirk was the sort of fanatic ideologue most likely to attract a deadly assassin.

All of this suggested that Tracey’s more cynical criticism of Kirk was probably much closer to the mark.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Assassination of Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Transgenderism has rapidly become one of the most contentious political issues in our country and due to its rapid rise, a variety of theories have been put forward to explain where it emerged from. Remarkably, I almost never see what I believe to be one of the most important facets of the topic discussed—the immense dangers of hormonal blockers routinely used in this field or the appalling history of these drugs and how again and again, they’ve been thrust into new markets they had no place ever being used in because of how profitable they are.

As such, when laws are periodically passed banning their use in children (which has now happened in many Red States), I rarely see the actual dangers of these drugs discussed, and when I’ve spoken to left-wing colleagues (including pediatricians) opposing these laws about the topic, most are genuinely unaware the drugs have negative side effects. Because of this, I believe it is vital to expose the actual truth behind these drugs.

How Hormonal Blockers Work

There are a variety of ways you can block the production of hormones in the body. Since the signal to produce sex hormones (e.g., estrogen and testosterone) begins in the brain, cutting that signal off mostly eliminates the body’s production of hormones. The most powerful hormonal blockers, the GnRH agonists, work by overstimulating the brain’s GnRH receptors so that they becomes “burned out” and no longer respond to the natural release of GnRH in the body, thereby short-circuiting the body’s production of sex hormones (which in many cases is a permanent short circuit).

A variety of different GnRH over-activators are sold, such as Decapeptyl (Triptorelin), Lupron (Leuprorelin), Suprefact (Buserelin), Synarel (Nafarelin), Zoladex (Goserelin). Since Lupron is the most commonly used one, henceforth, I will only discuss it, but much of what I will say about Lupron also applies to the others as well.

Note: there are also numerous similar drugs which instead temporarily shut down hormone production by directly blocking the GnRH receptor (e.g., Orilissa). Additionally, there are other GnRH over-activators which are only used in animals and have similar side effects to those observed in humans.

Since testosterone fuels the growth of prostate cancer, there was a lot of research on cutting of the body’s testosterone to treat it. Initially the most promising approach was to counteract testosterone with an estrogen analog (DES) which was eventually pulled from the market because it caused a wide variety of issues (e.g., heart attacks, female cancers, and a variety of severe problems in the children of mothers who took DES—which has led many to argue the COVID-19 vaccines may become “the new DES”).

Since Lupron, by burning out GnRH receptors, chemically castrates males (and thereby eliminates their testosterone), a 1984 study was conducted comparing the use of DES to Lupron for patients with prostate cancer which had metastasized to the bones and was hence likely to be fatal. It found Lupron slightly increased their survival rate (although half still were dead within two years of starting the therapy) and it had a slightly different mix of severe symptoms when compared to DES, which in turn was used to argue it was a viable alternative to DES.

When the FDA reviewed this study, the reviewers noted the study had a variety of serious issues so it was difficult to draw any firm conclusions from it. As a result (despite the FDA knowing Lupron had real longterm risks that had not been investigated and other critical aspects of the drug like how the body metabolizes it remaining unknown to this day), Lupron was approved in 1985 as a “palliative treatment of advanced prostate cancer,” a situation which is frequently so debilitating and painful for cancer patients, anything which could potentially somewhat improve it is viewed as justified.
Note: six months ago, Scott Adams, who had advanced prostate cancer, shocked the online community by saying the torture of it had made him decide upon committing suicide in a few months after an important life event had passed—providing a clear example of how dire “advanced prostate cancer” can be.

Since that time, Lupron’s approval was never updated. For those interested, a detailed explanation of why that approval was overtly fraudulent and unwarranted can be found here.

Note: in addition to Lupron offering a very small survival benefit, a strong case can be made that since it is frequently observed to causes a variety of severe complications (e.g., a large increase in fatal heart attacks or diabetes), its reduction in the prostate cancer death rate is actually an artifact of it killing the patients in another manner before a slow growing prostate cancer would. This perspective for example was shared by the Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society.

Once Lupron was approved, it use transitioned from only the most severe prostate cancers to all of them (even though, as shown by a 2009 study of 19,271 men, using Lupron actually increased the death rate). At the same time, a variety of other copycat drugs entered the market. The FDA in turn approved them (or Lupron) for advanced prostate cancer, advanced breast cancer, endometriois (along with its pretreatment prior to surgery), the pretreatment of fibroids before surgery, and preventing precocious (early) puberty.
Note: while I believe the risks of these treatments greatly exceed their benefits, it is also true that a subset of patients exist with those conditions who benefit from Lupron and suffered minimal side effects from the drug.

Additionally, a variety of other off-label uses were concocted, such as:

• “Treating” every imaginable gynecological problem (e.g., large fibroids, difficult menstrual cycles, ovarian cysts).

• In-vitro-fertilization and egg donation protocols.
Note: many young women are paid thousands of dollars to donate their eggs. Unfortunately, a portion of those donors suffer significant complications they are not warned about beforehand and then are left on their own to address. This is likely in part due to the fact Lupron is frequently part of the protocol. Likewise, significant birth defects (which Lupron has been shown to cause in the majority of pregnancies) are frequently reported following IVF—which may explain why despite Lupron being originally patented as a fertility medicine, it could never be formally approved for that use.

• Chemical castration for sex offenders (e.g., pedophiles).

• Helping children become taller (by delaying puberty so their growth plates take longer to close).

• Preventing puberty in a transgendered youth
.
Note: a more detailed list of the off-label uses can be found here. It is truly remarkable how many different tactics were used to seed these additional uses (e.g., bribing countless doctors and medical charities to promote these drugs) and likewise how many other uses (e.g., for Alzheimer’s disease and Autism) came very close to becoming off-label uses as well.

In turn, there are three important things to take away from all of this.

1. While these drugs were initially developed for men (i.e., prostate cancer), they are frequently given off-label to women. This for example is why Lupron’s FDA insert states its only indication is for the palliative treatment of advanced prostate cancer but it simultaneously warns against pregnant women taking it (even though it’s also used for egg harvesting)

2. Despite having been on the market for decades, there is very little evidence to show these drugs actually benefit those who take them.

3. Given this, along with how incredibly toxic they are (especially to women), it raises a fairly simple question—why on earth are these drugs so popular?

Selling Lupron

Lupron’s manufacturer was stuck with a rather large challenge—how could they got doctors to begin prescribing an incredibly dangerous and ineffective drug? This in turn was accomplished through one of the most overt acts of physician bribery I’ve seen in American medicine.

Since Lupron initially did not sell well, Lupron’s manufacturer took advantage of the existing “standard” which allows chemotherapy drugs to be sold for a very high price and be “forgiven” for their extreme toxicity. This was done by reformulating Lupron into a long acting monthly shot urologists could directly administer to their (prostate cancer) patients and hence directly profit from marking up when they resold it (e.g., Medicare paid 1200 dollars per shot—or roughly 2400 in today’s dollars, and in many cases urologists charged far more, all of which allowed many urologists to make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year administering the shots).
Note: TAP frequently advertised to urologists they could make over $100,000 annually selling Lupron and later cited similar figures to OBGYNs.

To further sweeten the deal, Lupron’s manufacturer frequently bribed urologists and gave them free Lupron samples they “resold.” This was illegal—and eventually resulted in a 875 million dollar fine…but no pharmaceutical executives going to prison.

Because Lupron was immensely profitable, more and more urologists jumped on it, and by the late 1990s Lupron treatments were costing almost a billion dollars per year and accounted for 40 percent of all Medicare payments to many urology practices in the late 1990s. To address this, in 2001, Medicare clamped down on urologists reselling discounted Lupron and in 2003 Medicare lowered the reimbursement for Lupron. In turn from 2003-2005, the rate of inappropriate use of hormonal treatment for prostate cancer dropped from 38.7% to 25.7% and many urologists at the time reported their income had been halved.

Note: one survey found 53% of the urologists who did not believe prescribing Lupron benefitted certain prostate cancer patients still prescribed the drug to them.

This Medicare crackdown on excessive Lupron prescribing for prostate cancer created a major problem for the industry. “Fortunately,” since Lupron was so profitable, many others specialities appeared eager to jump on the Lupron bandwagon, particularly OBGYNs (despite the existing data on using Lupron for gynecological conditions being very poor and in many cases overtly fraudulent). This in turn led to a rapid proliferation of new off-label “uses” for the drug, such as the ones listed above. Remarkably, despite the fact Lupron has been on the market for decades, it is still extremely expensive.

Lupron hence is a very lucrative drug. However it is unclear to me exactly what the current reimbursement is for it (e.g., when I’ve looked online, many patients said they were billed over 10,000 dollars for a single injection).

A recent article exploring the subject found that puberty blockers can cost tens of thousand dollars per year. While insurance typically covers these drugs around 72% of the time, without insurance, according to once source, they cost $4,000–$25,000 per year and according to another source a 3 month Lupron injection is $9500 while a competing 3 month option (histrelin) is $39,000.

Similarly, a 2022 NPR article detailing a man’s prostate cancer experience (where he was given unwarranted Lupron shots) reports he was charged $35,414 for the first shot and $38,398 for the second by a Chicago “non-profit” hospital, and after two years of haggling, was forced to pay the $7,000 not covered by his health insurance.

Let’s compare that to how much Lupron costs (this table designates the average wholesale price pharmacies pay for drugs):

Note: these costs are unusual as they are much higher than what pharmacies typically pay for a drug (especially an older one). The above table is from 2023, and just a year later in 2024, the cost of Lupron went up almost 10%.

Since all of this demonstrates that Lupron is marked up by 5-10 times its original cost when it is resold to patients, I would argue those who provide these medications may have an ulterior motive in giving them to patients which frequently causes the drugs to be inappropriately prescribed.

Note: one of the most common stories I hear reported from Lupron victims is a tendency for doctors to gaslight them and insist their myriad of health problems could not have come from Lupron, hence making one of their greatest challenges be finding a doctor who can actually help them (or say qualify them for disability since they’ve lost the ability to work). I believe this is partly due to the unusual nature of their injuries and because many doctors have a direct personal investment in believing Lupron is safe and effective (as they aggressively pushed it on their patients—for instance many reported the doctor saying “are you brave enough to try Lupron?”).

Read the Whole Article

The post The Dark History of Hormone and Puberty Blockers appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you’re like me and have been watching the news feeds and social media for developments on the Charlie Kirk assassination, you have probably also come across a disturbing army of leftists online cheering for the conservative speaker’s death. Some posts, featuring people laughing and celebrating, have tens-of-thousands of upvotes. It’s not just the comments, it’s the mob of crazies supporting the comments.

What I see in this mountain of degenerate psychopathy is confirmation. I and many other analysts have been warning for years that the fight for what remains of the western world will happen on two fronts: The globalists at the top, and the leftist hordes on the bottom. While it’s true that globalists often fund woke groups through NGOs and corporations, they are simply giving aid to people that already have the will and the intent to destroy the US.

If you have any doubts about the nature of the progressive cult just watch how they revel in the blood and maybe then you will understand. These people are not human beings, they are monsters, and now they feel very emboldened because they think they can get away with political killings.

A prime example is in the numerous arguments they present to justify Kirk’s assassination. Social media is rife with them, thousands of posts supported by hundreds of thousands of people. What I would like to do is break some of the most common arguments down and identify if the ideas are retarded, or evil (or both). Let’s get started…

Leftist Claim: “Charlie Kirk’s words were offensive and caused harm, therefore he deserved to die.”

Diagnosis: Retarded And Evil

The political left has long treated words as being equal to violence. For them there is no distinction. This is the foundation of the “wrong think” ideology. Charlie Kirk never harmed a living soul and under the law he had every right to express his views regardless of whether or not people get offended. He never led a mob to burn down a city block. He never organized a terror cell. He never advocated for violence. He never even punched a commie. The most he did was advocate for the right to self defense.

If opinions are violence, then anyone can be killed for their opinions. Thinking you are immune because you have the “right opinions” is perhaps the most ignorant assumption a person can make, but leftists are generally low IQ individuals.

On the other hand, there is also the underlying agenda among elitist groups to make “hate speech” a subject of government enforcement. We have seen this in full swing in the UK the past year and it’s getting ugly. ANYTHING can be designated hate speech, from posting jokes online to flying your national flag.

Strangely, only conservatives seem to get arrested for speech violations. It’s almost as if only conservative ideas are being outlawed.

Hate speech laws are the doorway to mass censorship, and if progressives and their globalist partners can’t put those laws in place, then they have decided to enforce color of law through political violence so that conservatives are afraid to speak.

Leftist Claim: “It’s Ironic That Charlie Kirk Was Pro-Gun And Then He Was Killed By A Gun…”

Diagnosis: Retarded

It’s actually not ironic at all. Kirk often pointed out that the majority of gun violence is committed by leftists – In leftist controlled cities and in minority neighborhoods which vote predominantly Democrat. If leftists were removed from the equation, gun crimes (and crime overall) in the US would plummet.

Charlie was most likely murdered by a leftist (the evidence released so far indicates this). We’ll find out soon enough. If so, then the assassination only supports his argument that the political left is the danger. Not gun rights.

Leftist Claim: “Where Was The Good Guy With A Gun To Protect Charlie…?”

Diagnosis: Retarded

Good guys with guns stop at least 1.8 million crimes per year according to surveys on DGU (Defensive Gun Use) data. But Kirk never argued that the presence of good guys with guns makes him bulletproof. Good guys with guns die all the time, especially if they are targeted for political assassination. The gun is to give someone a fighting chance if they see the threat coming. It doesn’t make them invincible.

Leftist Claim: “If only Charlie hadn’t defended gun rights, maybe he would be alive today…”

Diagnosis: Evil

When leftists make this argument what they are really saying is: “If you don’t give up your gun rights, we have the right to shoot you.”

Leftist Claim:  “Kirk would have been saved by the increased gun control he opposed…”

Diagnosis:  Retarded

The murder weapon was a basic .30 Cal hunting rifle, probably holding a maximum of four rounds.  It’s not the type of firearm on any ban wish list that the Democrats have put forward.

If leftists are going to make this argument then they will have to admit that their true intention is to ban ALL guns, not just scary “black rifles”.

Leftist Claim: “Charlie Kirk Lived By The Sword And Died By The Sword…”

Diagnosis: Retarded

As noted earlier, Kirk never attacked anyone, never harmed anyone, and only fought for the right to speak his views without being censored or threatened. If debate is a threat to the political left then their ideas must not hold up to public scrutiny. In other words, they killed Charlie Kirk because he exposed their ideas as faulty.

That’s not “living by the sword”, that’s being nice. Leftists don’t want to see us truly take up the sword, which is why the media is currently scrambling to call for peace.

Leftist Claim: “Kirk Was A Radical And Now Is A Time To Abandon Radicalism And Make Peace…”

Diagnosis: Evil

Lets be clear, the vast majority of the violence is only coming from one side, and that’s the progressive Marxist/globalist side.  It’s rather convenient that progressives suddenly want peace after years of violent rhetoric and actions. Why are they doing this? Because they know that retribution on a large scale is so near. When an opponent has waged aggressive war for years and then suddenly wants a ceasefire, it’s usually because he’s about to get hurt and he wants to regroup.

Woke activists have been begging for an ass kicking for at least the past decade and now they are starting to realize they just might get it.  They desperately want our anger over Kirk’s death to fizzle out over time.

Kirk was not a radical in the slightest. He only spoke the facts to the best of his ability. Facts cannot be radical. The truth is never extreme. However, now that he has been killed, I suspect leftists are going to see a lot of actual “radicals” in the near future.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Leftist Arguments Justifying the Murder of Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.