Aggregatore di feed

I used to love the show South Park. I thought it was often brilliant satire, and they seemed to be pretty much equal opportunity offenders. They produced some classic episodes, skewering pop culture and primarily utilizing their lead character, antihero Eric Cartman, they featured large doses of political incorrectness.

However, over the past five years or so, South Park has changed dramatically. And not for the better. I looked forward to their take on the COVID psyop. All that irrational hysteria and nonsensical “science” should have added up to comedy gold. But no, instead, they opted to make fun of anti-vaxxers, and seemed to take the “pandemic” all too seriously. And at that point, they really lit into Donald Trump. In fact, during the Biden presidency, the doddering codger was not once depicted on the show. He should have inspired some incredible laughs. Cackling Kamala Harris was missing as well. I didn’t really contemplate this too much at the time. Yes, it was disappointing to see the supposedly iconoclastic show peddle the party line on COVID, but it wasn’t until just a few months ago, with the debut of season 27, that it became clear that South Park was now little more than a cartoon version of Saturday Night Live.

First, Donald Trump is shown having an affair with Satan himself. The cartoon reveals them in bed together, and a great emphasis has been placed on Trump’s penis, which of course is portrayed as very tiny. You can’t mention Trump in Hollywood without referencing his micro-penis. It was bad enough to show Trump’s cartoon penis, but the episode I saw the other day, one blasphemously titled “Sermon on the Mount,” quite possibly represents the absolute nadir of our decadent culture. At one point, a very realistic looking Trump is striding through the desert, and begins to strip off all his clothes. There are long, luxurious glimpses of his very real looking big bare ass, and then he lays down on his back, and the audience is treated to a closeup of an utterly lifelike AI small penis. No public figure has ever been subjected to this kind of vitriol. Just picture that being Biden, or Obama. Or any female celebrity in the world.

What is most amazing is how Trump, who is renowned for responding in kind to any perceived slight, has totally ignored this truly pornographic attack on him. Why haven’t his sons, or the princess Ivanka, publicly taken South Park to task? Total silence. Why isn’t Trump threatening to sue, which he normally loves to do? And the alt right seems to think that this sacrilegious episode, and others starring Satan, school counselor Jesus, and Trump’s micro-penis, are hilarious. This is beyond when NYPD Blue started showing Dennis Franz’s sagging naked ass on television. This was a literal assault upon the sensibilities of the viewing audience. And judging from the tepid negative response, the viewing audience has been desensitized to such a degree that there hasn’t been a whimper of protest. The Republicuck reaction from the MAGA crowd was best expressed when J.D. Vance chuckled that he had “finally made it,” after being depicted as carrying the baby oil to lovers Trump and Satan.

South Park has been written and produced by Trey Parker and Matt Stone from its inception. Randolph Severn “Trey” Parker III came from a “comfortable” family, as the “III” in his name suggests. Outside of all the Black football players now using fantasy “III” and “IV” tags at the end of their names, only those from the upper crust boast this distinction. Matt Stone is, not surprisingly, Jewish. I don’t think you can have a successful entertainment product without a Jew playing a significant role. Parker’s first marriage, to a Japanese woman, was officiated by Norman Lear, the godfather of liberal television propaganda. That’s a decidedly odd choice for a supposed “libertarian” who loves to blast the Left. Stone is married to a Black woman. Parker and Stone’s longtime attorney Kevin Morris has financially supported and also represented Hunter Biden. Parker and Stone just happen to have received an incomprehensible $1.5 billion from Paramount directly prior to the 27th season.

So it obviously pays to play along with our thoroughly evil elite. If you can explain the business model for giving people who oversee a cartoon that kind of money, let me know- I am just a humble community college dropout. This figurative flagellation of Trump is merely the latest in a series of male humiliation rituals, which have been with us for a very long time. Think of all those male comedians who wound up in drag at some point. Pretty much every one donned a dress during their careers. And for unexplainable reasons, this is considered humorous. From “Uncle Miltie” Berle to “Tootsie” and “Mrs. Doubtfire,” this has been an ironclad entertainment industry trope. They say that in Shakespeare’s day, all the female roles were played by male actors at the Globe Theatre. Of course, they say a lot of things, most of them untrue. So people wanted to see men snuggling with males in drag, doing love scenes? In the seventeenth century? Maybe the transgender agenda is older than we think.

Although producing some undeniably classic work, Parker and Stone were always careful to stay within politically safe boundaries. Before Donald Trump seduced him, Satan was portrayed in a sexual relationship with Saddam Hussein. There was no spoof of “weapons of mass destruction,” and no damnation of Zionism. Zero criticism of Israel. South Park had a show that blasted 9/11 “Truthers” as well, and in the commentary for the DVD collection of their shows, they admitted that they thought anyone who believed 9/11 was an inside job was “retarded.” Bill Clinton was never lampooned on the show. Neither was Obama. No “Big Mike” jokes here, thank you. Dubya Bush was, but it was almost done fondly. Only Trump got this kind of special attention. Kanye West was raked over the coals in an earlier show; is it possible that his disdain for Jews dominating the industry was already known to Parker and Stone? No other Black figure was ever treated quite this disrespectfully on the cartoon.

A few years ago, at the Academy Awards (I think it was the Oscars, might have been the Emmys- it’s easy to confuse these shameless shows), former ‘rassler turned actor John Cena came onstage naked. For no reason. Now, he was holding a large placard in front of him, so no one saw anything. It wasn’t as bad as Trump’s AI penis in the desert. But who thought this was a good idea? Who thought this was relevant to a film awards show? Cena has little talent, and yet has been rewarded handsomely for it. So if he’s ordered to perform a humiliation ritual, he’s going to do it. Another good example was the 1981 movie Modern Problems, starring Chevy Chase. The lovely Patti D’Arbanville was the leading lady (she is at least somewhat of a fan of my work- maybe she’s reading this) and Mary Kay Place was in the cast. They kept their clothes on, but in one excruciating scene, Dabney Coleman just walks into an office stark naked. Struts around so the audience has a great view of his ass. No penises were allowed yet.

In the “comedy” Old School, the almost supernaturally unfunny Will Ferrell suddenly decides to strip in the middle of a road, and then starts running wildly, with his bare ass onscreen for far too long a time. There was as little reason for him to do this as there was for Dabney Coleman to be naked in an office around fully clothed women. They were humiliation rituals, and they are always reserved for males. Just picture say, Tina Fey, suddenly deciding to strip and run down the road naked. Do you think there would ever be the slightest chance of that? The audience doesn’t question it when a male decides to suddenly get naked. They don’t wonder why no females ever decide to do that. In The Simpsons Movie, Homer dared his ten year old son Bart to get naked and skateboard through town. Naturally, the makers of the film treated us to that, and included a groundbreaking shot of a ten year old cartoon penis. What would the reaction be if Marge dared Lisa to do the same thing? Cartoon child porn?

The nudity in adult cartoons is, and always has been 99% male. This includes male children, as in the frequently naked Bart Simpson. These are more symbolic humiliation rituals, which the public learns from. When male nudity occurs, it’s so that the audience can laugh at it. It’s never because someone in the audience might want to see it. When female nudity was far more common, in the 1970s, it was always done in a way that was respectful to the woman. Male nudity is never respectful. Old Jack Nicholson bared his ass for absolutely no reason in one of his last films. In his posthumously released film finale, Robin Williams was show walking along in one of those handy patient gowns that open in the back, the better to see male (but never female) patients’ asses with. It was a way of showing that even big stars have to undergo a ritual humiliation if ordered to. What was macho athlete Bruce Jenner’s “transitioning” into “Caitlin” supposed to be, other than the ultimate humiliation?

Why did Rudy Giuliani pose for that ridiculous video with Donald Trump, several years ago, where he was dressed in drag? Rudy and Trump seemingly became a bit too cozy, but Rudy was a made man by that point. Why denigrate himself like that? How many conservative Republicans have been outed as gay themselves over the past few decades? The conclusion is inescapable that public officials, and celebrities, are “installed” because they have such skeletons in their closet. If you have something that you want to remain hidden, you’re more likely to listen to orders, and be easier to control. Put on this dress and makeup- it will be good for a lot of laughs. Get naked. Now. This humiliation ritual stuff has spawned its own subsets of pornography. There’s the whole naked men/clothed women thing. And, of course, the ever popular White man being cuckolded by his wife, usually with a Black man.

But Donald Trump is the first national politician to undergo a ritual humiliation. Now, I think it’s just a very ugly part of the Trumpenstein Project, and he’s almost certainly in on the “joke.” Regardless, it represents a new cultural low, even for our Sodom and Gomorrah-like America 2.0. It’s a small step from showing his penis in gratuitous detail to severing his head and playing soccer with it, as our beloved military troops were known to do in Iraq. There have been pinatas and other nude figures based on Trump that have appeared in recent years, including a 43 foot tall naked Trump figure, complete with micro-penis, in Las Vegas. It’s just accepted. Imagine a 43 foot tall naked Hillary Clinton figure going up anywhere without mass opposition, and federal courts ordering it torn down. Can you picture a comedian with enough courage to laughingly suggest Barack Obama had a micro-penis? A proud half-Black man? He would be lucky to escape prosecution.

The cultural examples are endless. Why the running gag with the obnoxious older son on the TV series The Middle walking around the house constantly in just his underpants? You know they wanted him nude, but that may have to wait a few years. Why not his teenage sister, always walking around in bra and panties? Same thing for the son on the cartoon Bob’s Burgers. Just loves to get naked. Funny that his sisters don’t have the same strange impulse. This is just one way in which the cultural matriarchy is enforced. I can go way back to the early, pre-code talkies, when nudity was sometimes permitted. Only it was almost always male bare butts that were exposed. Sure, gays were a power in Hollywood even then, but did no one question this? Nudity is clearly defined as embarrassing and funny for males, but female nudity is never played for laughs. It probably would be funny, for example, if Rosie O’Donnell ran down the street naked. But we’re talking strictly male ritual humiliation here.

Read the Whole Article

The post The American Male Humiliation Ritual appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have long believed that public relations (propaganda) is one of the most powerful but invisible forces in our society, as again and again, I’ve seen professional PR firms create narratives most of the country believes (regardless of how much it goes against their self interests). Most remarkably—despite the fact the exact same thing is done again and again to the public—most people simply can’t see it, and oftentimes when you try to point out exactly how they are again being bamboozled by a PR campaign, they still can’t (instead often insisting you are paranoid or delusional).

As such, one of my major goals in this publication has been to expose this industry as once you understand their playbook (e.g., having “independent” experts parrot sculpted language which is then repeated by the entire media), it’s very easy to spot and saves you from falling into the traps most people do (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccines were facilitated by the largest PR campaign of our lifetime).

Furthermore, one of the least appreciated consequences of public relations (which I realized after reading an eye-opening 2002 article on the industry) is that many of our cultural beliefs ultimately originate from PR campaigns. This hence explains why so many widely believed things are “wrong” as were a belief to be true, it would not require a massive PR investment to instill in the society, and due to the power of PR, viewpoints it instills tend to crowd out the other cultural beliefs.

In this article, we will take a deeper look at what’s behind one of those implanted beliefs: “vaccines don’t cause autism.”

CDC Firings

RFK Jr., with Trump’s support, set out to reform America’s vaccine program and rebuild public trust in medicine through the seemingly innocuous task of:

• Having Secretary Kennedy uphold the vaccine safety requirements mandated by the 1986 the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

• Openly evaluate the data behind the risk-benefit ratio for each childhood vaccine.

• Require new vaccines to have clinical trials demonstrating their safety and efficacy prior to approval.

However, from the start, rather than be supported in this endeavor (particularly since medical authorities and legislators are becoming immensely concerned about the public loss of trust in medicine), he has been publicly attacked with a startling degree of hatred and fervor. Furthermore, beyond the partisan rancor and media defamation, vaccine zealots within the government have actively sought to sabotage all of RFK’s efforts to make raw vaccine data available to the public.

Because of this, the new CDC director (as she was the only one with the statutory authority to fire them) was requested to remove a few of the most problematic CDC officials, and after refusing to, was fired a month into the job. Immediately following this, those officials resigned.

One of those vaccine zealots, Demetre Daskalakis then decided to make a scene about RFK’s “war on science,” after which the public became rapidly aware he was an activist doctor with a strong commitment to promoting DEI (diversity equity and inclusion) and had a large number of public photos of him with other men in various fetish outfits, many of which also contained satanic symbology (and can be viewed here).

As many have tried to grasp how the CDC callously ignored the litany of reports they had the COVID vaccines were seriously injuring or killing their recipients, this led to many commentators highlighting Daskalakis’s personal preferences likely explained why he and others directed the CDC to abuse America by relentlessly pushing COVID vaccines.

When observing the DEI phenomenon, I’ve noticed that beyond many individuals having a religious zeal with it, in many cases, their obsession is akin to it being a fetish for diverse individuals. As, such, Rand Paul’s viral commentary about the CDC leadership immediately caught my attention and left me wondering if the same could be said about vaccines:

Note: the newborn Hepatitis B vaccine is one of the most controversial vaccines (as it is not safe, and to achieve its “benefit,” preventing a newborn case of Hepatitis B, hundreds of thousands of hospital babies need to be vaccinated). That argument, however, was a lie concocted to shield the actual reason for mass newborn hepatitis B vaccination, as the actual reason was not palatable to the general public (which will be covered in an upcoming article). Yet despite it not making sense, most people (especially those in medicine) reflexively believe we have a moral imperative to vaccinate children after childbirth to prevent them from catching it during childbirth—again illustrating how powerful these implanted beliefs can be.

CDC Duplicity

Due to the attention Daskalakis’s fetishes attracted, much of the focus on those events was diverted away from a few other critical things revealed by the events. For example, when he resigned, Daskalakis posted a tone deaf resignation letter (you can read here) which, beyond accusing RFK Jr. of being a menace to science and society who was politicizing science to fit his agenda, repeatedly used the phrase “pregnant person” and accused “RFK and his minions” of being modern day Nazis and Eugenists that needed to be stopped at any cost.

As a result, rather than garner sympathy, his resignation post offended a lot of people and rapidly went viral (being seen by 20 million times). Following the pushback he received for these remarks (e.g., his DEI advocacy), he then went on a friendly news outlet (CNN), and, in a brief segment doubled-down on them.

This was noteworthy to me for two reasons. First, it illustrates how much of a bubble these people lived in (due to being shielded from any consequences for their abhorrent COVID actions throughout the Biden presidency), as Daskalakis both in his letter, and his subsequent CNN appearance believed his statements would garner public support for his position rather than thoroughly discrediting it—even when the feedback on Twitter was already making it clear his letter backfired.

Secondly, it illustrates how duplicitous these people are, as shortly after the initial interview, he went onto another friendly network (MSNBC) and gave a totally different interview where he spoke in a markedly differently manner and did not mention his unpopular positions (e.g., he said “pregnant women” instead of “pregnant persons”), Instead rolled out a long list of polished smears against RFK Jr. while simultaneously having the host (one of Biden’s Press Secretaries) repeatedly cast lavish praise upon him both him and his (ridiculous) letter.

From watching this, I was relatively certain Daskalakis was coached by a PR firm for this interview. As such rather than spend a few pages explaining why give or take every statement made by both parties was a manipulative lie, I felt this segment was important to highlight as it was a textbook example of how these people lie to us. For example, it was full of unnatural sculpted phrases designed to manipulate the audience, including fairly over-the-top ones such as using “those images are burned in my mind” (to describe CDC workers…giving him a round of applause when he left).

More importantly, as the prior context showed, it was anything but sincere, as beyond the language being entirely different from Daskalakis’s previous statements, he avoided the unpopular transgender-affirming language he had previously doubled down on the importance of.

Following this, RFK then went on Fox news where he stated the following about Daskalakis (all of which matches what my H.H.S. contacts told me earlier in the year):

Yeah, I mean, that individual actually came to my attention kind of early on during the measles outbreak. I promised Governor Abbott to send money down, badly needed money and help down to Texas, and this individual blocked that money for a month. I couldn’t figure out what’s happening. I gave the order. I’m running this agency. How come nothing’s happening?

Then we tried to get the Vaccine Safety Data Link, which is the data that the CDC is supposed to use to make good decisions on whether vaccines are hurting people and whether there’s side effects. For seven months, he stonewalled us so we couldn’t get the data.

He’s also the individual that runs the system, which is the surveillance system for injuries that captures, according to the CDC’s own study, fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries. This is malpractice. These people are the people who ordered our children to walk around in masks, the people who closed our schools, they’re the people who imposed social distancing with no science, shut down our businesses, and they need to go.

This in turn highlighted two critical points:

First, Daskalakis was placed in charge of vaccinations at the CDC starting in August 2023. Given that he actively defied RFK’s orders and concealed vaccine safety data in 2025, it is almost certain he also did so throughout COVID, particularly since the leadership at that time also wanted to conceal any evidence of COVID-19 vaccine harm (to protect the vaccine program).

Note: another CDC leader who resigned with Daskalakis stated he was “increasingly uncomfortable with the things he was being asked to do, including providing data for a new analysis of vaccine safety data for potential links to autism, even though dozens of studies have already examined that claim and not found a connection” (which again illustrates why no evidence of the link is ever found).

Secondly, one of the primary arguments which has been repeatedly raised to discredit RFK is that his vaccine skepticism will unleash a deadly and catastrophic wave of measles upon the country, whereas in contrast, the “real scientists” at the CDC will do everything they can to prevent the spread of measles and save Americans. Beyond this being a bit strange (as measles outbreaks are a minute health threat compared to many of the other issues we are dealing with), these remarks show Daskalakis willfully made the choice to sabotage the Texas measles response.

This is critically important, as it shows they never actually cared about measles and rather were just using it as a political tool to fulfill their agenda (as virtually all of RFK’s critics blamed both that measles outbreak and everything which went awry in it on RFK Jr). Likewise, it again illustrates how normal this degree of duplicity is within the CDC leadership.

Erasing Encephalitis

A key theme of George Orwell’s book 1984 is that language defines a culture, and if ideas aren’t in it, the populace can’t conceive of them (which is why 1984’s ruling party eliminated words like ‘freedom’, ‘rebellion’ and ‘justice’ from the new language).

While the extent classic “linguistic determination” like Orwell’s affects the population remains hotly debated, it is generally agreed to significantly influence certain key aspects of cognition. Likewise, I believe it has a significant impact, but it is much smaller in critically thinking individuals who also have significant creativity (as they are much more likely to move beyond the unsatisfactory frameworks in front of them).

However, what’s much less appreciated is that other (more effective) forms of linguistic determination are used to manipulate the public. One of the most common ones is to use an ambiguous term which is not clearly defined, so that depending on the needs of the situation, the audience can be steered towards the desired interpretation of it, even if those interpretations sometimes overtly contradict each other (effectively allowing the PR firm’s client to “have their cake and eat it).

Similarly, in a previous article, I highlighted how Fauci was a master of using slippery language to constantly get whatever he wanted with no accountability by implying but never explicitly stating his desired conclusion (which the media would then run with). One of the best examples of this tactic is having everyone in lockstep assert vaccines are “safe and effective” without ever defining what that actually means, thereby allowing the meaningless statement to be treated as “vaccines are 100% safe and effective,” yet simultaneously, having no accountability for lying as those who repeat it never actually said “100% safe and effective”. This was best demonstrated when Fauci (who continually told us the vaccine would prevent us from getting COVID) was grilled at a recent Congressional hearing, where in response to:

But we knew from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were subject to getting covid so was the covid vaccine 100% effective?

Fauci stated:

I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective.

Note: in a recent article, I also highlighted how the ambiguous phrase “brain death” was created to make people believe unresponsive individuals were in fact dead, thereby both removing the societal cost of perpetually caring for them and securing a reliable supply of donor organs.

One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerve and brain), and prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, as I showed in this article, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature—including many identical to what are seen in modern day autism.

In turn, what many do not know, is that it used to be widely recognized that vaccines could make you “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Consider for example the language at this 1983 debate between doctors which took place on the Donahue Show (that at the time was the largest talk show in America)—which to my knowledge was the last time a large publicized debate like was allowed to happen.

Given the taboo around “retarded” which exists now, it hence it quite a shocking contrast to see how normal that language was at the time—a shift which resulted from disability groups in the late 1990s and early 2000’s campaigning against it, a large 2008 campaign (ending the “r-word”) and in 2010, Obama signing a law which effectively outlawed the term by removing “mentally retarded” from all federal laws and statutes and replacing it with “intellectual disability” (something which has never been done with any other word).

Once I learned about this, I immediately realized what happened and was able to confirm that the vaccine brain injuries which made children mentally retarded were re-labeled as “autism” and more importantly that autism was given an extremely broad and vague definition which swept over all the concurrently occurring neurological injuries.

Because of this, the stark and unmistakable impression of a severe vaccine brain injury (e.g., “you know Sue’s son became severely retarded after their 2 month vaccines”) was displaced with a much more amorphous term that was easy to write off because it was too complex and vague to think about (hence providing easy mental escapes from an uncomfortable topic so people simply write it off and close their minds to it).

Note: the mechanisms through which vaccines cause autism are explained here.

Read the Whole Article

The post Erasing Encephalitis: Why Vaccine Brain Injuries Became Autism appeared first on LewRockwell.

As Thomas Jefferson foretold, 536 despots are surely as oppressive as one.  Today, a plural executive made up of the current 435 representatives, 100 senators, and vice president fills up the legislative calendar with logrolling, driving up spending.

These legislators extract their takings by taxing a lot away from everybody who adds value and by inflating away the rest from everybody who uses the politicians’ government-monopoly money.

Legislators’ grabbing and executives’ handover of the executive power to allocate budgets — legislators’ supposed line-item “power of the purse” — violates the Constitution to its core.

Constitution Secures Rights by Separating and Offsetting Powers

The Constitution defines fundamental rules to secure life, liberty, and property.  Like with all laws, the only thing that gives these rules force are the associated sanctions.  The Constitution’s sanctions are its offsetting powers.

Every government person is delegated powers by the people and by oath or affirmation is required to use those powers accountably.  He is to limit himself to within the boundaries of his own office, and also he is to limit others to within the boundaries of their offices.

The latter limiting is what’s crucial.  If each government person limits just himself, then most must do this before governments are limited.  In contrast, if some government people also limit others, then some of them will be enough to limit everybody, using offsetting powers.

But offsetting powers exist and work only if powers are kept separated.

A legislative line-item “power of the purse” violates the most critical branch separation: the boundary keeping the legislative power, which is the strongest branch power, away from the executive power, which is the next-strongest.  It’s hard to overstate how foundational this constitutional violation is.

My article “The Duty to Limit the Take,” in Lincoln Memorial University Law Review’s current issue, systematically explains these errors’ unconstitutionality by considering the economic reality that the founding generation lived, the Constitution’s text, the founding generation’s arguments and actions, and businessmen’s understanding of executive power — which has evolved far more rapidly than government people’s understanding, and as a result is far superior.

Pass a Single Overall-Total Appropriation

Separating the Executive’s budget-allocation power away from legislators will begin renormalizing legislators’ and executives’ main actions.

Constitutionally, legislators must sponsor and pass a single overall-total appropriation, as outlined below.

Legislators should hold the Executive accountable to immediately start executing the Constitution more faithfully.

In year one, the Executive could, for example:

• Cut defense 50%.  (Simply defend the homeland.)
• Cut interest 90%.  (Repudiate Progressive-rebellion debt other than to USA retirees.)
• Cut national welfare, education, and transportation 100%.  (State government people can pick up welfare and transportation 100% and experiment from there.)

Since the Executive could make cuts this large, legislators should pass a corresponding national single overall-total appropriation that’s cut by 36%.  This will leave national plus state spending cut by 24%.

Constitutionalist legislators should get this renormalization going by sponsoring or co-sponsoring this single overall-total appropriation, and by voting no to any alternative appropriations.

Business as usual can in effect be vetoed by a small minority of constitutionalists.  They must use this veto.  If at first a few get outvoted, more must join them.

Each incumbent who does this, and also each primary challenger who can be counted on to do this, will face massive spends from government cronies but will earn massive support from voters.

This would transform the 2026 elections.  What would otherwise be a Progressive tag-team changeover or stalemate will instead be a wave election for Republican constitutionalists.

Repeal Unconstitutional Statutes, Execute Constitutional Statutes

Having started reducing overall spending, legislators must start doing their main job: passing constitutional rules and sanctions.  Their first order of business must be to triage and repeal the sickening multitude of existing statutes that are plainly unconstitutional.

Each existing statute or new bill is unconstitutional unless it passes all of the following simple pass/fail tests:

(1) No misleading parts.

(2) Uses only powers enumerated for the national government.

(3) No delegation of legislative power.

(4) No grabs of executive power.

(5) No grabs of judicial power.

(6) Not noncritical, complex, or long, and not helping make the total corpus of law incomprehensibly complex or long.

There are mountains of statutes, so it would be a lengthy exercise to rigorously estimate what proportion of statutes would pass these tests.  A rough approximation has been made, using Grok to document the approximation’s basis.  All six tests might be passed by only 0.1% to 0.5% of existing statutes — one out of every 200 to 1,000.

Legislatively repealing the substantial scope that’s unconstitutional will greatly clear the way, leaving behind a much smaller, constitutional scope that the Executive can execute far better.

The executive, for his part, must correctly interpret which statutes and opinions are constitutional, and from there must optimally allocate and use the appropriation to faithfully execute those statutes and opinions.

Inflation is currently driven by total government spending of 43% of GDP.  In the USA through 1913, other than during the Civil War, total government spending was 4% to 8% of GDP.  In the American colonies, total government spending was 1% to 2% of GDP.

Our predecessors severely limited governments.  This was the key to how they started building up our current substantial prosperity.  We can limit ours, too, and build up even more prosperity.

Supporting the Constitution better will free us to radically build up peace and happiness.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post The Way To End Inflation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Canceling writers is pretty common nowadays, the latest being an old friend of mine, V.S. Naipul. V.S. won the Nobel Prize for Literature—among many other awards—something very few readable writers have achieved. The Swedish Academy likes to pick obscure writers from places unknown who write unreadable books, but sometimes the great talents of Papa Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, V.S. Naipul, and such stand out and cannot be ignored, hence they are recognized. V.S.’s brother Shiva, also a writer, was a close buddy, and we used to go out and get into trouble together. He died very young after smoking sixty a day while writing. The last time I saw V.S. he came with his wife to a book party of mine in a snooty London gentlemen’s club I belonged to, and he was very, very complimentary about the silly things I write about. V.S. has now been canceled by people whose own talents could fit in one of his toenails, which he cut very short. Such are the joys of today’s intellectual midgets judging intellectual giants.

“V.S. has now been canceled by people whose own talents could fit in one of his toenails, which he cut very short.”

Trinidad-born Naipul has been condemned for his views on Africa—he correctly saw the continent as primitive and hidebound by superstition. I’d say he hit the nail on the head and had the courage to write the truth rather than think it and keep quiet, as the rest of the scribes do. Nobel Prize notwithstanding, V.S. was pilloried by so-called do-gooders after his first wife said some unflattering things about him. This I found very surprising. An ex-wife saying something unflattering about her ex must really be a first.

Never mind. Erasing a writer whose works are eternal is typical of today’s untalented. Cancellation is utterly pointless. Only a moron would follow suit, and morons don’t usually read good books. George Bernard Shaw is now considered a Nazi-lover, and his clever, socially minded books and plays are denigrated by those woke morons who make the rules today. And while I’m at it, one doesn’t look to artists as moral guides, but as artists.

The woke phonies have even included Charles Dickens among their baddies who should be canceled—Dickens of all people, who wrote nonstop in favor of the poor, but it is said he was a tyrant at home. Which I’m sure he was, having seen pictures of his wife. This canceling has to be a bad joke perpetrated by spotlight-craving fabulists who invent horror stories about their betters in order to be in the news. It is as simple as that, dear Takimag readers, so pay absolutely no attention to these lowlifes whose talents can only be appreciated in kindergartens and flophouses.

Now that we have established that people like Papa and V.S. are not to be read, let’s try to be with the in crowd and write woke. It is my first time, so please be kind: The other day here in Gstaad I ran into a birthing person chest-feeding, and I exchanged ideas with that person. Mind you, I reminded that person that gender-oriented correctness should be upheld at all times. I spoke with the inseminated person about the weather and the plight of incarcerated people suffering from involuntary confinement. The birthing person asked me whether I missed sex while under involuntary confinement. I answered with a question, whether she missed sex while inseminated? I fear I offended the birthing person because it left in a huff.

What do you, dear readers, think? This should pass the test with the woke crowd, n’est-ce pas, as they say in the land of 4,000 cheeses? So from now on let us Takimag readers respect the woke and their pronouns. And never, ever offend nonbinary people. And keep in mind that Mummy and Daddy have no right to leave their money to you because you have done nothing to earn it. By the same token, unemployment benefits should also be abolished because people on welfare also have done nothing to earn their keep except sleep all day and watch TV all night. And while I’m at it, flying the Pride flag year-round should be compulsory to all nations.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post V.S. vs. Woke appeared first on LewRockwell.

When you say, “No” to a face mask, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to the death jab, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to your child for wanting something bad for him, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to your neighbor when he starts talking about things that you do not want to be a part of, it is so much more.
When you say, “No” to a stranger misbehaving in public, it is so much more.

You are an adult.
You live in a free place.
Freedom is not free.
It costs.
Every society needs order.
Every society will have order.

It will have order through the civil ways that society can do that, or it will have order through the point of a gun. Those are our choices.

America has numerous founding documents, the most fundamental of those is the Bible. Appropriately, America’s second president, John Adams, wrote in 1798 in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Freedom and morality are partners, freedom cannot exist absent morality.

When you say, “Yes” to a child who needs to be told no, it is so much more.

When you say, “Yes” to a stranger misbehaving, it is so much more.

Your bold presence and your calm authority is needed everywhere you go.

There may be penalties for that. In fact, that is what most people say to me when I say that. They bring up the penalties that come with upright behavior.

Well, the fact that you bring up penalties in response to my insistence that you do the right thing, is simply proof that you are among the problem. You are among the fearful Americans — those who live in what is arguably the most free culture that has ever existed, arguably the most well-developed civilization on the planet, and you do not promote that, but you cower in fear. You fear what someone will say to you. You fear what someone will do to you. You shirk from responsibility, “so you can live to fight another day.” You shirk from responsibility so there “can be peace in my day.”

The coward is a moral cheapskate. He is unwilling to spend the capital. He is unwilling to spend the capital that it takes to build an upright society. He is very much willing to live in one, but when he is called on to build that society, he all of a sudden has nothing to offer.

And you see, the year is not 1953 anymore, nor is it 1973, nor 1993. Behaving yourself does not cut it. Back in the day when you were a mooch, living off the upright moral courage of others, maybe that did the job, but not today. An upright society is not formed by simply behaving. And we have a society that is today not upright, and that needs very much to return to being upright — and without a totalitarian to bring it to that place.

Because then, freedom is lost. Freedom is lost if we turn it all over to the strongman and ask us to build it for us. We will have neither freedom nor security from that cowardice.

When tasked with that work, you say it is just too expensive for you to stop and correct every misbehaving person in your life, it is too expensive for you to only stay silent around upright behavior. You profess freedom, but you show an unwillingness to do what it takes to return to freedom. If all you can do is to yourself behave upright and to be silent whenever anyone misbehaves around you, again, you are very much part of the problem of this era we live in.

You are the one who has always been a problem in a free society, because without your willingness to pay a price, there will be no freedom in your midst in your life. I am not saying there needs to be 51% of the population that behaves a certain way or 33% or 3% or any other number. That is a fatally flawed collectivist way of seeing the world. The world simply does not work that way. The way you behave impacts how the world around you treats you. That is how the world works — whether there be a so-called “critical mass” of people doing the same thing or not.

You, on your own, can be a leader walking through the world as a responsible man and consequently as a free man, or you can be an unfree man in the world. The rest of the world will tend to give you back what you give to it. The world may not like how you treat it. The world may wince or react loudly or violently at how you treat it. But you will generally be treated just as well as you treat the world around you. You will generally receive the standard back that you allow around you.

When you say nothing to a face mask, absolutely nothing, to a face mask worn in your presence, it is so much more.
When you say nothing to a child who needs to be told, “No,” it is so much more.
When you say nothing to a stranger misbehaving, it is so much more.

Those are the moments where society is formed. Those are the moments when an upright people are shaped. Those little areas of cultural pushback are times when you are able to grow the increasingly stronger spine that you need to live an upright life and to lead others.

This is not about a face mask.
This is about so much more.

“It is not my job!” you throw your hands up and say when a ghetto dweller acts ghetto in your presence, in a place that is not the ghetto. No, Sir, it is your job. It is your job to tell him to behave himself or to get out of there. Might you get shot when you do that. Maybe. But probably not. The more practice you get, the less likely you getting hurt becomes.

Again, the fact that you bring up penalties in response to my insistence that you do the right thing, is simple proof that you are among the problem. You are among the fearful Americans.

“It is not my job!” you throw your hands up and say when a child misbehaves in your presence and a parent does nothing. No, Sir, it is your job. It is your job to tell him to behave himself or to get out of there. It is your job to scold the parent for what takes place too. Might you get shot when you do that. Maybe. But probably not.

Again, the fact that you bring up penalties in response to my insistence that you do the right thing, is simple proof that you are among the problem. You are among the fearful Americans. When you stand up in such moments, you become better at standing up in such moments. When you speak bravely in such moments, you become better at speaking bravely in such moments. When you insist on a certain standard around you, you become better at insisting on a certain standard around you.

We are in a point in time where there are no standards.

People have the spurious debate about whether one should back the blue and have stricter policing or whether cops need to be more strictly watched for misfeasance. Both are true. The police need to be watched carefully and kept decent in their behavior, and there needs to be strict policing of crime. However, the police are not the answer. The totalitarian approach of stricter policing solving the problem of a morally lax people is a cat-and-mouse game that never works and that leads society down a bad path.

A more moral people is the real answer, a more moral people is the real answer that is needed from that distracting and spurious debate. If you are caught in that debate, you are missing the real answer. It can hardly be a surprise that such a debate is so often thrust in front of the public — because it never leads to the right answer.

The right answer is to work on yourself, and to lead everywhere you go, by example, but with more, with a much more important step — by not allowing nonsense in your presence.

The stop-gap answer is more policing. It’s not enough. It can help in an emergency. It’s not enough.

Having an upright man in a community is needed — a man who understands freedom, who understands morality, and who demands a modicum of each from all of those who wish to be around him. I am talking all day long. All day long, if there is another human being around you, it is your job to have a modicum of freedom and a modicum of decency from that person. And if there is not, it is your job to speak up.

The Karens are to be lauded, because they speak up.
The BLM protestors and cancel culture mob are laudable because they speak up.
The trannies who parade around the way they wish to are laudable because they speak up.

These people show the right behaviors required for shaping a society, only they tend to lack the moral underpinning in what they are doing.

That is where you come in.

“Live and let live,” may be a great saying when it comes to government regulation, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how to have a functioning society that does not need the government regulation. To have a day around other people that is “live and let live,” is a day in which you abrogate responsibility.

When you know that something is right or wrong, you need to speak that openly when aberrant behavior presents itself.

The time for coasting on the foundations built a century or more ago has passed.

I do not need to know who shot Charlie Kirk.
I do not care what lie I may or may not be told when the news starts to tell a story about who killed Charlie Kirk.
I know I live in a fearful America, a place that fears consequences too greatly to say, “No” to evil.
I know how significant that is.
That daily behavior, that daily unwillingness of upright man to communicate to his environment what is right and what is wrong, daily, all day long, leads to a decay that leads to the Charlie Kirk assassination and worse.

America is in a dark, dark place.
You do not realize the role you play in it when you abrogate responsibility.
You do not realize how hard it is to get back to what we had.

My Muslim friends, my Jewish friends, my atheist friends might not like this, but that will not stop me from pointing out a further detail of this dissolution of values and courage in America.

America does not need Trump, nor does it need any other man to save it.

America needs Jesus.

And America needs men who will stand up and stop letting everything around them fall apart. You can lead those in your midst, or you can watch those around you be led by the worst of influences. That choice is yours.

That choice is entirely yours.

Charlie Kirk’s lifeless body is in a casket because Americans lost the ability to identify evil and to denounce it in their midst.

What comes next in your life is up to you.

You can’t change the whole world.

But you can shape the part of the world that you interact with.

That choice is entirely yours.

The post The Fearful American — The Reason Charlie Kirk Is Today Dead appeared first on LewRockwell.

Story from Epoch Times

Researchers from the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan found that vaccinated children were more likely to develop a chronic health condition, but never published the findings, according to a copy of the study obtained by The Epoch Times.

Dr. Marcus Zervos, an infectious disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health, and colleagues studied 18,468 children born between 2000 and 2016 who were enrolled in the health system’s insurance plan, drawing data from medical, clinical, and payer records and supplementing with information from Michigan’s immunization registry.

After 10 years, 57 percent of the vaccinated children had a chronic health condition such as asthma, compared to just 17 percent of the unvaccinated children.

“This study found that exposure to vaccination was independently associated with an overall 2.5-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, when compared to children unexposed to vaccination,” the authors wrote.

“This association was primarily driven by asthma, atopic disease, eczema, autoimmune disease and neurodevelopmental disorders. This suggests that in certain children, exposure to vaccination may increase the likelihood of developing a chronic health condition, particularly for one of these conditions.”

There’s more to this story which you can read HERE

The post Researchers Found Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated – BUT Didn’t Publish Findings appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks,  Johnny Kramer.

The post Charlie Kirk’s Death — A Mortician Explains appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

I’ve got questions about Charlie Kirk’s assassination:

> He used to be an Israel loyalist
> He feared ‘Israel would kill him’
> He started *mildly* criticizing Israel
> He said Epstein was Mossad
> He said no Iran war on behalf of Israel
> He let anti-Zionists speak at his…

— Jackson Hinkle (@jacksonhinklle) September 12, 2025

The post Charlie Kirk Assassination Questions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Walter Frantz wrote:

On the rolling plains of Dixie ‘neath the sun-kissed sky, Proudly stands our Alma Mater, banners high. A black guy from Montgomery, Alabama, birthplace of so much of the evil the entire United States of America has lived under since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, apparently traveled down I-85 North, stopped off on the Loveliest Village of the Plains, and decided to take a stroll in park. There, he encountered Dr. Julie Gard Schnuelle, a White female professor in the Department of Clinical Sciences at Auburn University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. She was simply walking her dog

Read More Here.

 

The post Her name is Dr. Julie Gard Schnuelle: As She Walked Her Dog, White Female Auburn University Veterinary Professor Emerita Murdered by Black Male appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

 

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

Click Here:

Useful Idiots

 

The post Rep. Ro Khanna: “There’s Going To Be Consequences for Israel” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Johnny Kramer wrote:

Maybe I was wrong.

Glockleg on X: “@iansmithfitness I couldn’t take that shot, and I think a lot of these 2a people saying it’s an “easy shot” have never taken a shot quite like that. There’s only a tiny minority who can shoot 50 yards well, far fewer at 200, and far, far fewer who could do it under stress.” / X

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:01 AM Johnny Kramer <[email protected]> wrote:

Former Sniper Explains How This Could Have Been A Professional Hit On Charlie Kirk

Reportedly from 200 yards and apparently right through his left carotid artery — either a professional sniper or another “lone nut,” and this time one who made one of the luckiest, probably one-in-a-million shots in history. (In other words, a professional sniper.)

 

The post Former Sniper Explains How This Could Have Been a Professional Hit on Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Rick Rozoff.

The post Andrew Tate: “I AM NEXT” After Charlie Kirk’s Death appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

Lawyer Robert Barnes reflects on the life of Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk and how his assassination is sparking discussion on political violence.

“I followed Charlie throughout his entire career … started out as sort of a normie conservative,” Mr Barnes told Sky News host James Morrow. “He was very accessible, he would do favours for friends … he’d do it for free all the time.”

III. Closing Argument: The Political Permission Slip for the Criminally Insane (Robert Barnes)

• Bloody Kansas. The turn of the century, a time when anarchy equated violence. The KKK’s notorious role post Civil War, then again at the turn of the century, returning to haunt America in the 1920s before being exposed, and then returning to harass civil rights petitioners in the 1950s and 1960s. And now today, when members of the woke left celebrate and cheer the assassination of Charlie Kirk. All founded on the acts of the criminally insane, but flourished when given a political permission slip by institutional actors within the broader culture and community.
• Any study of the history of such violence outbreaks will find the true cause of criminal depravity in the broken minds and stolen souls of the evil-occupied, mentally ill, minds long since divorced from reality as much as their souls divorce from humanity. But their fevered dreams of sick, twisted violent fantasies need a political permission slip from powerful actors in the broader community to convert such dark fantasies into a terrible reality for the rest of the culture.
• Consider the Klan. Their rise and fall didn’t come and go with a rise and decline of criminally ill minds and corroded souls in the broader society; those individuals just didn’t find the freedom in the broader culture to act out their sick fantasies or get directed to express them in violent exhibition during the declining eras of Klan violence, that rose and receded with the political permission slips afforded them, the political protection extended them, and the political patronage provided them. The Klan rose and fell directly proportional to the degree of cultural applause and institutional support they received. There’s a reason so many Islamic terrorists recruit from prisons rather than mosques.  The criminal rap sheet of Klansman, Antifa, communist and fascists alike express in explosions of politicized violence in the last century plus only when blessed by the political high priests of their common culture.
• To deter, we need to remember the Amish learned custom of shunning. The Bann, as they call it, excludes from the community life those who commit the most serious of moral offenses against the Ordnung, the Amish community rules. This conforms to the known utility, when used appropriately, of shunning. Shunning shames the bad actor for their actions, triggers empathy for those victimized by the person being shamed, and motivates correction and better empathy in the broader public. it puts a price on those trying to give political permission slips to the criminally insane to make them as guilty of solicitation, invitation, and accomplices to their moral horrors they politically permit.
• We need such shunning of all those who reward, welcome, embrace, encourage, promote or defend the political permission slip given psychopaths to engage in politicized violence against disfavored dissidents. Shame can enable humility, expand empathy, and heal the community from the pain inflicted by its bad actors, just as it can tie the community together to promote and protect the best of its virtues and values.
• Time to shame again, to restore the better angels of our nature in our civilized society. Debate, discussion, dialogue in civil and civic engagement without resort to violence remains a calling card of Dr. King, Gandhi and Charlie Kirk alike, and we recognize, respect, and reward their legacy by continuing that fine American tradition, trusting in the quality of arguments and the sincerity of the advocate not the tools of violence, as violence remains the worst form of censorship that exists. Saying no to politicized violence says no to censorship, and says yes to the legacy and life of Charlie Kirk, and those whose founding steps he followed.

The post Sky News Australia: ‘We’re Going to Face More of It’: Kirk Assassination Sparks Political Violence Discussion appeared first on LewRockwell.

There are more videos YouTube than there is time to watch them but, for me, when I’m looking for the simply explained truth on an important topic, I almost always start with Colonel Macgregor: I watch enough to learn the truth about the subject and then call it a day.

The post Veritas appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-grande-battaglia-del-nostro-tempo)

Di recente mi è capitato di vedere questo video su uno dei bari più famosi in Italia. Niente di correlato con la mia attività divulgativa... almeno all'apparenza. Poi ho capito. Quando ho scritto i miei primi due libri, L'economia è un gioco da ragazzi e La fine delle fallacie economiche, ho esposto ai lettori le regole del gioco, quelle che tutti di base dovrebbero seguire. La metodologia Austriaca, da questo punto di vista, è ottima nella descrizione e nell'approccio. Ma rimane un mondo ideale, distaccato dalla realtà delle cose. Così come rimane distaccato dalla realtà il sito web del Mises Institute, poiché immagina che tutti seguano le regole del gioco e che queste ultime puniscano chi si discosta eccessivamente da esse. Infatti il problema è il tempo: quanto tempo passa prima di una correzione violenta e inarrestabile del sistema in questione? Non si sa... le stesse regole descritte con dovizia di particolari, logica e rigore si rivoltano contro chi le spiega dato che il tempo è un concetto fondamentale nell'analisi Austriaca.

E se barare fa parte dell'azione umana, bisogna prendere in considerazione questo aspetto nella propria metodologia d'indagine e analisi. Quindi ho innovato il modello iniziale e l'ho riproposto secondo la mia ottica, la mia evoluzione della teoria. L'ho condensato infine nell'ultimo libro pubblicato, Il Grande Default. L'ho applicato anche sul blog e su tutti gli spazi di divulgazione in cui opero, compreso questo, sin da quando, nel 2021, mi sono posto la domanda: “E se la FED stesse iniziando a proteggere il dollaro, adesso, piuttosto che distruggerlo?” Questa semplice domanda ha spiegato con coerenza tutti gli eventi successivi: il SOFR, il ciclo di rialzo dei tassi di Powell, i dazi, Tether, la liquidità dei titoli sovrani americani, l'inclusione di Bitcoin e oro a protezione del dollaro e dei Treasuries, ecc.

Il mio metodo, quindi, la mia lettura della realtà, la mia area di consulenza, non si pone come obiettivo l'arrogante e ridicola invettiva, con tanto di dito indice alzato e scosso nell'aria, di “far rispettare le regole”; invece rallenta la mano dei bari e cerca, quanto più accuratamente possibile, di suggerire a chi legge, e cerca consulenza, il modo per trarre un vantaggio competitivo rispetto a chi scioccamente agita il dito in aria pretendendo che l'intera umanità aderisca al suo mondo ideale. Un nobile obiettivo da perseguire, senza dubbio, ma nel frattempo... occhio al portafoglio perché è questo, invece, il mondo che abbiamo.

DAL DOGMA ALLA STRATEGIA

Se le basi della dottrina Austriaca sono radicate profondamente nell'azione umana, è altresì vero che il sistema bancario centrale di per sé è solo uno strumento. Ciò che conta sono gli esseri umani e ciò che ne fanno. Inutile dire che esso incentiva all'arbitrio sconsiderato, ma un conto è usare un coltello per attaccare solamente... un altro è usarlo per difendersi. Ripeto si tratta del mondo che abbiamo e in cui dobbiamo vivere, lavorare per renderlo un posto migliore per noi stessi è sacrosanto, nel frattempo è altrettanto sacrosanto cogliere quelle vittorie che ci portano un passo in più verso l'obiettivo finale: la sostituzione del sistema bancario centrale con qualcosa di più sostenibile. Perché se è vero che la bancarotta è un fenomeno che avviene dapprima lentamente e poi improvvisamente, allo stesso modo la solvibilità è qualcosa che si manifesta dapprima lentamente solo infine improvvisamente. Con il colpo di stato perpetrato dai globalisti durante la pandemia Covid, era evidente che ci fosse un cambio di linea di politica al vertice; qualcosa era cambiato e bisognava capire cosa. All'inizio non è stato facile mettere insieme i puntini, visto che il piano è stato svelato a mano a mano e soprattutto c'era la chiave di lettura da cambiare: dal mondo che vorrei/vorremmo al mondo che ho/abbiamo.

Nel momento in cui ho capito che tutta quella storia verteva sullo smantellamento del sistema bancario commerciale così come lo conosciamo e l'implementazione della sorveglianza finanziaria (es. CBDC) per impedire alla popolazione di protestare nel momento in cui il “vecchio” debito sarebbe stato sottoposto a pesante haircut per poterne emettere di nuovo tramite i perpetual bond, riciclando quindi il “vecchio” sistema in quello “nuovo”, mi è stato chiaro quale fosse la guerra globale che si stava combattendo. Applicando questa visione delle cose agli eventi che accadevano, mi ha colpito l'ovvietà con cui Powell ha iniziato a restringere l'offerta di denaro americana ben prima delle altre banche centrali mettendo fine a una linea di politica coordinata tra queste istituzioni durata per più di dieci anni. Non solo, ma anche il modo con cui ha lottato per essere riconfermato per il secondo mandato: una realtà che si sarebbe manifestata solo con l'appoggio di istituti bancari come JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, ecc.

Una volta che si accetta questo background, ed è stato relativamente facile accettarlo visto che per anni ho denunciato l'UE su queste pagine come la seconda venuta dell'URSS, si capisce che la vera minaccia era la centralizzazione progressiva messa in campo da questa presunta unione di stati. Una volta che questo background si applica al resto del mondo, si nota che la conformità con la regolamentazione selvaggia messa in campo dall'UE altro non è che un gigantesco colpo di stato mondiale affinché tutti si conformino ai suoi dettami. Non mancano ovviamente infiltrati nelle stanze dei bottoni dei governi esteri per facilitare questa progressione, come ad esempio lo è stata l'amministrazione Obama, prima, e quella Biden, dopo. L'effetto centripeta dell'UE si è dimostrato, di fatto, un modello predittivo a sé stante, in grado da fungere da proverbiale “palla di vetro” per gli eventi futuri. Se infatti si ha un modello è facile scremare il grano (fenomeni che contano) dalla pula (titoli dei giornali).

È così, quindi, che il mondo deve essere visto: un adattamento alla realtà della serie di romanzi Il Trono di Spade. Questo ovviamente serve a catturare l'attenzione delle giovani leve, per così dire, dato che esiste un adattamento migliore a livello di letteratura ed è rappresentato dai romanzi di Dune, i quali sono un manuale eccellente per chi volesse capire l'emergere della geopolitica moderna negli anni '50 e '60 del secolo scorso. Oltre agli aspetti sociologici, è assolutamente affascinante notare come la religione sia il primum movens che motiva la gente comune a scendere in battaglia e viene costantemente tenuta sotto controllo attraverso di essa mentre le fazioni al vertice della piramide sociale si danno battaglia per il potere politico. E visto che siamo in tema di letteratura, come non citare il Ciclo delle Fondazioni sull'ascesa e la caduta degli imperi, e le opere di Philip K. Dick sul takeover della tecnologia rispetto all'umanità delle persone e l'ascesa della tecnocrazia. Oltre a fornire il modello attraverso cui leggere le informazioni che arrivano dall'esterno, e non adattare le conclusioni alle proprie idee, tutti questi manoscritti servono anche a essere un buon comunicatore piuttosto che ad “avere ragione su tutto”.

Infatti le informazione che arrivano dalla sfera geopolitica sono talmente fungibili che praticamente tutti, soprattutto coloro senza un modello, giocano al gioco delle probabilità e delle percezioni plausibili.A tal proposito diventa enigmatico per queste stesse persone farsi un'idea di cosa stiano combinando Trump e Powell, rimanendo sulla chiave di lettura superficiale in cui il primo vuole far fuori, politicamente, il secondo. Poi, però, ci sono fatti come il licenziamento di Lisa Cook e lo smantellamento di quella cupola di infiltrati alla FED che nel 2021 aveva cercato di sabotare la riconferma di Powell e mettere al suo posto un pupazzo della cricca di Davos. L'emarginazione dei fidati di Powell (Clarida, Rosengren e Kaplan) mirava a spiazzare la presa sulla banca centrale americana di quella parte del FOMC che voleva rialzare i tassi e iniziare a prosciugare il mercato degli eurodollari, avvantaggiando personaggi come la Cook che invece volevano che il dollaro continuasse a essere svuotato. Quello che Powell ha fatto sin dal 2021 è stato preparare la scena per quello che poi avrebbe fatto Trump una volta in carica, o per meglio dire, i NY Boys una volta che il loro rampollo avrebbe preso la carica appoggiato dall'elettorato americano.

Alla fine, tutto si riduce a porsi le giuste domande... un buon modello, tutto sommato, non credete? Chiaramente la parte ardua è arrivare alle suddette e su questo vi da una mano uno spazio divulgativo come questo che ha accumulato negli anni esperienza su esperienza. Sostenere questo lavoro vi permette di risparmiare tempo, oltre all'originalità delle tesi proposte. Perché è importante? Presto detto. Torniamo un attimo alla FED, quindi, e poniamoci la domanda: come fa Powell, a capo di un'istituzione il cui mandato è un obiettivo d'inflazione al 2%, prezzi stabili e piena occupazione, a tagliare i tassi nel momento in cui il compito di Trump è introdurre l'economia americana in un periodo di prosperità economica? Lo stesso Powell non è mai stato d'accordo con un obiettivo specifico d'inflazione, ma è una linea di politica sedimentata ormai; così come prezzi stabili e piena occupazione sono chimere keynesiane usate per giustificare un intervento costante nell'economia. Se l'economia americana sta andando bene, come si evince dalla tesi di Trump, allora il lavoro della FED è quello di continuare a rialzare i tassi... perché questo è esattamente il suo lavoro. A meno che, ovviamente, non si cambia il ruolo della FED. 

E qui ritorniamo al ruolo di questo blog nella lettura del mondo: la maggior parte degli investitori, dei broker e dei consulenti finanziari guarda agli indicatori principali (es. Phillips Curve, ecc.) e ritiene, per formazione professionale, che la FED deve “impostare” il “prezzo” del denaro affinché tutti questi altri rapporti vengano “coordinati” e “armonizzati”. Come fa quindi ad abbassare i tassi quando, per definizione stessa del sistema attuale, c'è praticamente piena occupazione, i mercati azionari sono vicini ai picchi assoluti e le commodity sono ancora a prezzi inferiori rispetto a quando Powell è stato riconfermato? Fino allo scorso luglio la situazione fiscale e geopolitica era ancora in subbuglio... come avrebbe potuto tagliare i tassi Powell? Come avrebbe potuto farlo se prima Trump non avesse mostrato qualcosa di concreto al pubblico americano? Il petrolio stava schizzando in alto durante la crisi tra Iran e Israele, e la percezione comune, data dalla stampa internazionale, era che a Trump stavano sfuggendo le cose di mano. Powell doveva essere la voce della stabilità, far capire che avesse le cose sotto controllo. Poi Trump ha iniziato a segnare alcune vittorie sul suo tabellone: l'approvazione della Big Beautiful Bill, la pacificazione di varie aree in Medio Oriente (dal fondo della penisola arabica fin alla pace tra azeri e armeni), ha disinnescato l'escalation tra Israele e Iran, sta dimostrando che i dazi non sono inflazionistici, ecc. In sintesi, è ora di abbattere i miti keynesiani (piantati accuratamente dagli inglesi) nella testa di tutti quegli investitori e consulenti prima di procedere con il cambiamento strutturale del ruolo della FED.

Non è tanto una questione di “poliziotto buono” e “poliziotto cattivo”, bensì di “poliziotto caotico” e “poliziotto stabile”. Ma una domanda che segue naturalmente quella che ci siamo posti prima è: se Trump vuole i tassi bassi perché si preoccupa dell'economia nazionale, perché tutti gli altri si stracciano le vesti affinché segua questo percorso? L'eco che il resto del mondo fa a Trump sul taglio dei tassi da parte della FED equivale a uscire allo scoperto riguardo le loro vere intenzioni: hanno bisogno come l'acqua di liquidità in dollari. E qui casca l'asino keynesiano: è sempre servito per scopi diversi da quelli spacciati ai gonzi che hanno studiato questo ciarpame sui libri di testo. È questo il famoso redde rationem di cui si è tanto parlato su queste pagine in passato. E tutto ciò, ironia della sorte, supporta la tesi di Trump sui dazi! “L'indebolimento” del dollaro sin da quando s'è insediata la nuova amministrazione non è stato altro che una ri-dollarizzazione dell'economia mondiale perché le nazioni del mondo hanno rimpatriato i fondi quando la FED ha iniziato il ciclo di rialzi e Trump ha avviato le nuove politiche commerciali della nazione. Un doppio dazio per tutti, un ribilanciamento veloce del commercio mondiale! Se Powell avesse tagliato in precedenza, l'euro, ad esempio, sarebbe finito a 1.1 col dollaro e il comparto industriale tedesco avrebbe ottenuto un sollievo per quanto riguarda il suo languire.

L'altro lato dei dazi sono i tassi di cambio: davvero credete che la BCE non si preoccupi del tasso di cambio dell'euro? Non piace affatto che sia a 1.17 al momento della stesura di questo saggio. Quindi gli USA stanno fortificando il mercato dei titoli sovrani, indebolendo (strategicamente) il dollaro nel breve termine, stanno tenendo i tassi di riferimento alti forzando una stretta nel mercato delle garanzie collaterali, mentre il resto del mondo si arrabatta per impedire alle proprie divise di salire (vendere dollari e comprare titoli sovrani americani).

UN ASSET IN RAPIDO DEPREZZAMENTO: LA FED

Il mondo in divenire così come si sta configurando in base alle nuove necessità degli Stati Uniti non ha più bisogno di una Federal Reserve onnipresente per tutto e per tutti. Ritengo che Powell sia il primo a sostenere che la FED così com'è nel contesto attuale non è affatto necessaria e la campagna di relazioni pubbliche di Trump, che ha messo al centro dell'attenzione pubblica lo stesso Powell, rappresenta un modo per spiegare alla vulgata il motivo per cui non è necessaria una FED che salva tutto e tutti. Piuttosto che una Coordinated central banks policy, come accaduto fino al 2021, adesso abbiamo una Coordinated central banks submission, dove viene usato il potere della banca centrale americana per emanciparla dalle influenze estere che erano felici di ingrassare a scapito della ricchezza reale americana. Il post-Powell sarà caratterizzato da un dollaro onshore e da uno offshore; massima liquidità in patria, minima liquidità all'estero. La querelle Trump-Powell è una sceneggiata per impostare il dibattito pubblico lungo questi binari e introdurre le necessità di questo assetto al grande pubblico, giustificando la contrazione del mercato dell'eurodollaro e la sostituzione dello stesso con Tether.

Infatti l'infrastruttura messa in campo per le stablecoin esistenti e stablecoin emesse dalle banche commerciali rappresenterà il mezzo attraverso il quale gli USA vogliono tornare a una forma di “denaro privato” e una forma di “sistema bancario comunitario”. È così che si struttura una transizione da un mondo finanziario in cui la FED è la banca centrale del mondo a uno in cui è la banca centrale degli Stati Uniti. Il segno distintivo è stata la transizione dal LIBOR che prezzava il dollaro a livello mondiale in termini di eurodollari, al SOFR, che prezza il dollaro in termini di mercato americano.

La traiettoria è quella in cui la FED imposterà il valore del dollaro all'estero, mentre servirà per sostenere i mercati interni. Un ritorno alla sua concezione originale, un'istituzione eretta per fornire liquidità d'emergenza al commercial paper market, non una rete di salvataggio per istituti finanziari/bancari sull'orlo del fallimento. Infatti se l'economia americana è in buona salute, non ha bisogno di alcuna liquidità aggiuntiva dato che è in grado di fornirla da sé tramite suddetto commercial paper market, un'esclusività dell'economia statunitense. Inutile dire che questo a sua volta significa una decentralizzazione dell'emissione dei dollari.

Per il dollaro, ormai, essere una valuta di riserva mondiale è un peso; non lo è, invece, essere la valuta di saldo internazionale. Per l'appunto, le leggi incentrate sulle stablecoin vanno a rafforzare esattamente questo effetto di rete. Tutte le chiacchiere relative a un'ascesa dei BRICS e di una loro eventuale valuta di riserva mondiale sono gossip, esattamente perché gli USA non cercano più di imporre la propria valuta come riserva. Quel modello era stato creato per innescare cicli di boom/bust più violenti e trasferire, a prezzi stracciati, la ricchezza reale verso coloro che davvero gestiscono il sistema bancario centrale: la cricca di Davos, o più precisamente la City di Londra (il vecchio conglomerato di colonialisti londinese/olandese). L'imposizione di un fiat standard si riduce esclusivamente a questo: non erano gli americani a farlo, bensì questa rete di vecchi interessi bancari che per sostenere le varie valute fiat hanno soppresso il potenziale di oro, prima, e Bitcoin, poi, in modo da mantenere vivo un apparato di sottrazione di risorse in grado di soddisfare la sempiterna massima “vivere al massimo col minimo sforzo”. In fin dei conti è quel che fanno i colonialisti, solo che a lungo andare questo assetto finisce sempre in un declino per tutti, come scrisse anche Chodorov in uno dei suoi migliori libri. Emergono inevitabilmente i cosiddetti accordi vicendevolmente svantaggiosi (“lose-lose”) e c'è un fuggi-fuggi per dirigersi anticipatamente verso le uscite con quanto rimane del “malloppo”. L'euro digitale, per l'appunto, è la strategia d'uscita della cricca di Davos, dove la “exit liquidity” sono i risparmiatori europei.

Per farvi capire meglio cari lettori, attualmente il DAX tedesco viaggia intorno ai 24.000 perché gli investitori europei stanno vendendo Bund e comprano azioni tedesche. È una scommessa su quanto la BCE stamperà in futuro e quanto di questo denaro finirà nei bilanci dell'industria della difesa. Il rapporto P/E del DAX è circa 18; l'ultima volta che era a 16 si trattava del 2008 quando l'intero sistema finanziario era sottoposto a massiccia leva finanziaria. Pensate, quindi, che il mercato azionario tedesco sia sostenibile? Certo, il Dow Jones è trattato a un rapporto P/E superiore ma gli USA hanno prospettive a loro favore, vedono capitali scorrere verso di essi. Nessuno vuole inaugurare una nuova fabbrica in Germania, mentre invece tutti vogliono farlo negli Stati Uniti (il miglior paradiso fiscale “in chiaro” al mondo).

Under President Trump, capital markets are roaring back. Companies are taking calculated risks, spending, and pursuing deals in this economy.

Since June, $1.1 trillion in M&A has been announced, including nearly $300 billion in August—the busiest summer since 2021. pic.twitter.com/yWUZUSs7Ki

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) August 28, 2025

Oltre alla posizione fiscale, c'è anche quella normativa le cui prospettive di snellimento non fanno che migliorare con il lavoro messo in atto dal DOGE. Se a questo ci aggiungiamo che i dazi terminano anche il rent seeking estero tramite l'arbitraggio sulle valute, l'invito a delocalizzare negli USA è decisamente forte. Quello che stiamo osservando è una riorganizzazione del modello di business degli Stati Uniti e un'espressione dei propri vantaggi competitivi attraverso un dollaro più efficiente, ecco perché i vari stati del mondo stanno staccando accordi commerciali secondo i termini proposti da Trump. Questo renderà più facile il compito della FED e Powell ha fatto il suo lavoro: evidenziare il problema e buttare giù quel sistema che ha deformato l'economia statunitense. Ciò che arriverà dopo richiederà tutta una serie di altre capacità. Questo perché non sempre chi distrugge, prima, è anche un buon costruttore, poi, come ci ricordano anche Herbert, Tolkien, ecc.

LA NUOVA MAPPA DEL MONDO

La maggior parte delle volte che viene presentata la mappa del mondo, l'Europa è sempre il punto di partenza. Ora invece di aprire la mappa del mondo in questo modo predefinito, fatelo sull'oceano Pacifico. Per quanto possa essere noiosa la visuale ci sono tre grandi Paesi che si interconnettono: Russia, Cina e Stati Uniti. Questo nuovo assetto emergente serve a porre fine al sistema di estrazione di ricchezza che faceva confluire tutto a Londra e in Europa. Dopo Azerbaijan e Armenia, anche India e Cina si sono riappacificati. Cosa ha a che fare questo con suddetto nuovo assetto? Tutta la parte dell'Asia centrale è fondamentale perché la politica estera inglese ha tenuto sotto scacco la zona per centinaia di anni affinché non si integrasse. I titoli dei giornali si concentrano sul fatto che l'India, a causa della nuova politica commerciale americana, viene spinta “tra le braccia” della Cina, non che essa viene allontanata dalla sfera d'influenza inglese ed europea. Anche qui, il piano degli USA è quello di spingere l'UE e la cricca di Davos a mettere in gioco i propri di capitali per ricostruire ciò che resterà della demolizione “controllata” del tessuto socio-economico che hanno avviato nel 2020 (sulla scia della decisione epocale degli Stati Uniti di ridimensionare il mercato degli eurodollari, per la precisione la leva finanziaria spropositata in esso).

In debt based monetary system there is never enough money to satisfy the debt. This is why expression “you cannot taper a Ponzi” exists. And that is the case for Eurodollar market. So the idea the world can move from Eurodollar system to another new system without chaos/pain is… pic.twitter.com/tD1JbU4egY

— Santiago Capital (@SantiagoAuFund) September 6, 2025

Il gioco di estrarre ricchezza dal contribuente americano e ottenere “pasti finanziari gratis” con cui controllare capillarmente il mondo è finito: la Francia sta vedendo sbriciolarsi il suo impero in Africa centrale, la Germania è stata tagliata fuori dall'accesso a energia a basso costo per la sua industria, il Regno Unito sta perdendo il controllo sulle assicurazioni nel commercio navale e sui saldi nel mercato del Forex, ecc. Per la ricostruzione dell'Europa o la cricca di Davos mette sul tavolo i propri capitali stipati in banche offshore, oppure Russia-Cina-USA l'affamerà dal punto di vista dei finanziamenti tanto che non potrà far altro che ricorrere alla predazione dei risparmiatori europei... almeno inizialmente. Ecco perché sono importanti gli asset congelati russi per la stabilità dei bilanci europei. Finché la Lagarde rimarrà a capo della BCE sarà questo il piano: introdurre l'euro digitale e cambiare il modo in cui hanno sinora funzionato i mercati dei titoli sovrani europei per implementare l'integrazione fiscale e la nuova emissione degli stessi sotto il comando della Commissione europea.

I mercati, però, si stanno rivoltando contro l'idea di una Germania al centro dell'UE come evidenziano soprattutto i rendimenti dei titoli sovrani. Il differenziale di rendimento tra il decennale tedesco e quello italiano, ad esempio, adesso ammonta a 87. Questo significa che alla Meloni viene data la possibilità, se “ripulisce” Roma, di far diventare l'Italia il nuovo centro dell'Unione Europea; oppure di guidare il nuovo blocco del Mediterraneo che si staccherà dagli stati europei del Nord dividendo in due ciò che rimarrà dell'attuale UE.

Sarà interessante quando il differenziale di rendimento tra i titoli sovrani italiani e quelli inglesi/francesi/tedeschi si assottiglierà fino a (chissà) un "flippening". Il messaggio del mercato obbligazionario è: gli USA hanno un occhio di riguardo nei confronti dell'Italia. pic.twitter.com/n6mZQ2gf1c

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) August 26, 2025

La cricca di Davos, comunque, è composta da gente che non si da per vinta tanto facilmente. Ancora hanno operazioni sul suolo americano: Newsom è una di queste, Mamdani è un'altra. È una guerra che non finirà tanto presto, perché nel frattempo Trump sta usando la NATO come leva per stringere il cappio al collo di UE/UK. Adesso devono pagare se vogliono armi da inviare il quel buco nero chiamato Ucraina; così come Israele ha dovuto vedersela da solo quando ha attaccato l'Iran. Niente più pantani bellici per gli Stati Uniti in cui avrebbero speso enormi capitali solo per finanziare gli altri. E questa spero sia la miglior interpretazione di ciò che sta accadendo ora: Putin sta verificando se gli USA possono davvero tenere al guinzaglio l'UE, ricostruendo una fiducia andata persa a causa di tutte le macchinazioni nell'ombra ordite dallo Stato profondo americano.

Cina, Russia e Stati Uniti non saranno “grandi amiconi”, ma nemmeno nemici: saranno semplicemente quelle nazioni che rimodelleranno il mondo in quella che verrà ricordata come Yalta 2.0.

EFFETTI DI RETE E VALUTE

Nel campo monetario ognuno avrà il proprio sistema monetario e tale sistema sarà interoperabile. Non voglio essere qui colui che fa propaganda per altre crittovalute, ma non si può ignorare un fatto: Ripple sta emergendo come l'asset digitale da usare come mezzo di pagamento e mezzo per fornire liquidità. Ma quale sarà il collaterale? Titoli sovrani affidabili, oro, Bitcoin e altre commodity. Perché c'è questa frenesia intorno all'oro a livello di banche centrali? Perché oro e avanzo/disavanzo commerciale verranno tokenizzati a un certo punto, o attraverso una stablecoin ancorata al dollaro o attraverso Bitcoin. Per costruire un sistema del genere c'è bisogno di tempo. Perché Bitcoin ha vinto nel corso del tempo rispetto alla “concorrenza”? Effetto di rete. Perché il dollaro è la migliore valuta del mondo? Effetto di rete. Perché Tether è la stablecoin preferita per digitalizzare il dollaro a livello mondiale? Effetto di rete (400 milioni di utenti in tutto il mondo e in crescita). Qualunque sistema verrà scelto in Oriente (es. mBridge) e in Occidente essi saranno interoperabili.

Se i gold bug vogliono davvero che l'oro ritorni a essere centrale nell'attuale società, devono ficcarsi in testa che non si possono muovere centinaia di tonnellate d'oro. È per questo, tra gli altri motivi, per cui l'oro ha smesso di essere mezzo di pagamento ed è stato spostato, durante la Seconda guerra mondiale, dall'Europa agli Stati Uniti. Man mano che il mondo si sposta verso un sistema diverso, uno in cui le riserve saranno tokenizzate, la fiducia nei partner commerciali sarà determinata da cosa si deterrà in tali riserve. È, in sostanza, quello che stanno facendo adesso i cinesi: non stanno più riciclando i loro avanzi commerciali nei titoli sovrani americani, bensì in altre parti del mondo (es. comprano il nickel dall'Indonesia, ferro e carbone dall'Australia, ecc.). La Cina ha ancora una avanzo della bilancia commerciale nei confronti degli Stati Uniti, ma il suo peso nei titoli di stato americani detenuti all'estero è diminuito negli ultimi 3 anni. Dove stanno finendo quei soldi? Circolano nel resto del mondo, e più è interoperabile il sistema meno c'è bisogno di detenere riserve in valute locali... e una volta che la tokenizzazione degli asset farà il suo corso scompariranno anche le restanti frizioni che ancora si porta dietro il mondo analogico (spostare grandi capitali a livello digitale costa spiccioli).

Di nuovo, agli americani non interessa che il dollaro sia detenuto in riserva; interessa principalmente che il biglietto verde sia usato come mezzo di saldo principale nel commercio internazionale.

Bitcoin sarà collaterale, l'oro sarà collaterale, per il prestito locale e quello internazionale; entrambi saliranno di prezzo in relazione al valore nominale degli asset finanziari dove i flussi di denaro hanno imperversato per anni (es. mercato immobiliare, azionario, ecc.). Non credo che assisteremo a una deflazione dei prezzi di massa in questo sistema che si sta spostando verso una minore leva finanziaria come tutti si aspettano: gli hard asset saliranno in termini di prezzo nominale. Ora immaginate la loro inclusione nel circuito di Tether che sta integrando a più livelli gli asset del mondo reale: ciò farà lievitare anche i salari e quegli asset che da tempo immemore sono stati inseriti nelle scelte delle famiglie come “salvadanaio” (es. immobili). Infatti la possibilità di permettersi una casa è un guaio che le neonate famiglie si portano dietro da due decenni ed è qualcosa che si può risolvere o aumentando i salari, o aumentando il valore del collaterale a garanzia, o abbassando le tasse (Lutnick ha fatto sapere che uno degli obiettivi dell'attuale amministrazione è cancellare l'imposta sul reddito per coloro al di sotto dei $150.000 all'anno).

CONCLUSIONE

I mercati dei capitali rappresentano una sorta di pensiero orientato al futuro: a loro non importa del passato. Il meccanismo di prezzo dei mercati dei capitali è scontare il futuro. Quindi gli Stati Uniti mettono in ordine i loro bilanci fiscali e i soldi si muoveranno verso di essi. È una questione di domanda: chi ha gridato allo scandalo quando nella Big Beautiful Bill è stato alzato il tetto del debito non ha pensato al fatto che i $5.000 miliardi in più di titoli emessi verranno venduti e il deficit di bilancio sarà sempre più esiguo. Questa domanda arriverà sulla scia di un miglioramento delle condizioni fiscali, un rafforzamento dello Stato di diritto, un ridimensionamento dello Stato amministrativo, un abbassamento delle imposte sul reddito, uno snellimento delle normative burocratiche, un vantaggio competitivo per coloro che investiranno negli USA (detrazioni fiscali, niente dazi), ecc.

Siamo stati raggirati quando ci è stato fatto credere che quello che ci stiamo lasciando alle spalle è il migliore sistema economico di sempre. L'era del colonialismo tramite l'arbitraggio delle valute è al tramonto e sarà un mondo completamente diverso. I mercati dei metalli (oro, argento e rame principalmente) sono un indicatore potente a tal proposito, non solo il loro aumento di prezzo, ma anche la decentralizzazione delle borse valori di riferimento. Dopo il SOFR, che ha mandato in pensione i tassi d'interesse mondiali gestiti dalla City di Londra, il nuovo exchange di San Pietroburgo manderà in pensione la LBMA e la relativa manipolazione pluridecennale del mercato dell'oro fisico tramite quello sintetico. Il compito arduo che s'è sobbarcata l'amministrazione Trump è quello di smantellare la piovra della cricca di Davos mediante una determinazione dei prezzi genuina in ogni ambito economico.

È una cosa per cui rallegrarsi. Non il mondo perfetto, ma uno migliore in cui vivere e costruire.

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

Perhaps it’s just an association of ideas, but the slaughter of the Ukrainian girl, Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte train, and President Trump writing “Here We Go!” on his Truth Social account in response to a breach of Polish airspace by Russian drones, made me wonder if the “Fourth Turning” is upon us.

The United States can’t even keep known homicidal maniacs off its public transportation, but it still wants to control the world. The murder of Iryna Zarutska from Kiev on a train in Charlotte is especially ironic, given that the U.S. has been fervently baiting the Russian Bear to attack Ukraine for at least a decade. As Hillary Clinton once stated, the objective of this Bear Baiting was to turn Ukraine into a Russian graveyard along the lines of the Soviet Afghanistan adventure in 1979, when the CIA armed “valiant Mujahideen” like Osama bin Laden to teach the Soviets a lesson.

For those unfamiliar with the “Fourth Turning” concept, it comes from Strauss–Howe generational theory, devised by William Strauss and Neil Howe, describing a recurring generation cycle in American and Western history.

The four turnings are as follows:

1. The High
   • Characteristics: An era of social cohesion, institutional strength, and confident expansion.
   • Societal Mood: Upbeat and collective.
   • Example: The post-World War II era in America.
2. The Awakening
   • Characteristics: A period of spiritual exploration, moral awakening, and social activism.
   • Societal Mood: Passionate, with a focus on individual values and renewal.
   • Example: The counterculture movement of the 1960s and 70s.
3. The Unraveling
   • Characteristics: A time when individualism flourishes, and institutions weaken or come under scrutiny.
   • Societal Mood: Discontented and cynical, with a focus on personal rights and consumerism.
   • Example: The period from the 1980s leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.
4. The Crisis (The Fourth Turning)
   • Characteristics: A period of profound crisis and upheaval, when the nation faces existential threats and must reinvent itself.
   • Societal Mood: Urgent, with a focus on collective action and rebuilding institutions.
   • Example: Events like World War II or the American Civil War, as well as the predicted period beginning in 2008.

American institutions have been unraveling for some time, and an alarmingly large number of Americans—especially those who infest the mainstream media—have been acting like scalded chimps with zero critical reasoning faculty.

Going to war with Russia over Ukraine would be the apotheosis of deranged folly. President Trump is apparently unwilling or unable to do what John and Robert Kennedy did in 1962, when they defused the Cuban Missile Crisis through a negotiated settlement with Soviet Russia.

In this respect, President Trump has proven to be a colossal disappointment. If it comes to war with Russia, all his achievements in domestic policy will have been for nought, and he will go down in history as just another stupid puppet of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about in 1961.

Could an immensely destructive war—along the lines of World War II, but with much bigger nukes—be the “Fourth Turning” that restores reason to the Americans who survive the conflagration?

An extremely unfortunate feature of the human race is that many of its most intelligent members are incapable of resisting our most destructive instincts. A notable example of this was the extraordinary genius, John von Neumann, who may have been the most intelligent man who has ever lived.

And yet, he vociferously advocated a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia, including Moscow, in the fifties. Von Neumann’s strategic idea of taking out the Soviet Union and totally destroying Moscow and all of its inhabitants was identical to Hitler’s reasoning when he launched Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Von Neumann apparently inspired the titular character Dr. Strangelove in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 masterpiece—the greatest depiction of human intelligence unmoored from reasoning, unable to resist our archaic impulses.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Are We Approaching the ‘Fourth Turning’? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Abomination definition:

A thing that causes disgust or hatred
Extreme aversion or hatred

Desolate definition:
noun
a state of complete emptiness or destruction:
anguished misery or loneliness:

The state of being desolate, which includes devastation and ruin.
A feeling of loneliness and unhappiness, often associated with loss.
The condition of a place that is empty or destroyed.
The action of desolating, which implies widespread destruction.
In summary, desolation encompasses both physical devastation and emotional emptiness.

As events in the world become more turbulent and chaotic, people seek deeper answers to understand where we are heading and what all the events mean. The Bible mentions a great deal about the future, and as God’s word, predicts what will happen to humanity and how the events leading to the end of the age will unfold. Most people do not believe in God and therefore do not believe God. For this reason, they will be deceived by the many events that will take place and sadly, make the wrong decisions.  The most frightening book of the Bible is the Book or Revelation. It depicts in symbolic language, events that will occur, which will impact all who live on earth. Everybody wants to know the future, and there have been numerous interpretations of the events depicted in this book. Already we are seeing and hearing various people in the world making statements that seem to fulfill what was prophesied long ago in the pages of the Bible.

One of the themes of the Bible that is weaved across time is the principle of duality. There is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant; a first Adam and a second Adam. There was a first Elijah, and a second Elijah. And then there is the abomination that makes desolate (or abomination of desolation), first mentioned in the book of Daniel 11:31, and then mentioned again by Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to Matthew.

As the Middle East becomes more turbulent many wonder how the current events “fit” with the prophecies in the Bible. This has become even more acute as various politicians in Israel, the epicenter of the turmoil, have begun to publicly mention the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

Another important theme, which is directly related to what is occurring now in the geopolitical arena, is the Temple in Jerusalem. There is no temple now. The temple refers to the last temple that existed in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ, which was subsequently destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans. This event looms large in church and Jewish history. The reason why the Jews were scattered all over the world is because of that event, and the results are still with us today.

The first mention of the abomination of desolation refers to a specific event that occurred in 167 BC[1]. The Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a descended of one of Alexander the Great’s generals, Seleucus I Nicator. Antiochus Epiphanes (he called himself Epiphanes which means “The Illustrious One, The Magnificent One” — it was his own appraisal of himself — but his courtiers called him Antiochus Epimanes, the Madman), is called “the Antichrist of the Old Testament,” a most despicable character, and yet a remarkable man in many ways. He reigned from 175 to 164 B.C.

He launched a campaign against Egypt, and led his army into Egypt, but this time the Egyptians had sent for help from the Romans. The Roman Senate sent a general named Popilius, who led a legion against Antiochus. They arrived in Roman galleys which are referred to in Daniel 11:30 as “ships of Kittim.” Popilius insisted that Antiochus return to his own land, keep the peace, and acknowledge the authority of Rome. Antiochus asked for time to consider these terms, but Popilius drew a circle around him with his sword and told him to decide before he stepped out of that circle. This is when the proverbial line in the sand first occurred.

So, Antiochus retreated and agreed to keep the peace, but on his way back to Syria returned to Jerusalem to take out his spite on the Jews. Instead of keeping peace, he did what is recorded in Daniel 11:31. Antiochus went up to Jerusalem, entered the temple, and erected there a pagan altar to Zeus. He offered a sow, an unclean animal to the Jews, upon the altar, took the broth of the pig and sprinkled it around the sanctuary, thus defiling it. Then he set up a statue of Zeus and insisted that the temple be dedicated to that pagan god. This is what is called “the abomination that makes desolate.” All this is extremely important because it was a preview of another abomination of desolation that was yet to come.

Note that Daniel was told that the vision was not concerning his own days but “pertains to many days hence.” The critics insist that this was fulfilled in the turbulent days of 70 A.D. when the Roman general Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, which followed the same pattern of desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. But though that was undoubtedly an historic fore view of a second, final “abomination of desolation” it could not have been the complete fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, for Jesus would not have said that men could yet expect to see “the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place.”  The “holy place” associated with the temple ended after the crucifixion, when the Old Covenant and the sacrifices came to an end.

The second mention of the abomination that makes desolate is in the Gospel according to Matthew 24:15-22, where the Lord Jesus Christ mentions events that will occur at the time of the end of the age, when His return approaches. He specifically refers to and draws special attention to the events that will happen in Jerusalem, involving the temple and seemingly, acts that will put an end to sacrifices. However, he does not mention any stopping of sacrifices which would cause desolation of the temple, but rather He mentions only the abomination, or rather something that causes abomination.

Many interpret all these events to be similar, involving a literal temple made of stones, animal sacrifices, actual Levite priests. It is important to realize that several events have occurred and passed, rendering such interpretations improbable.

First, lets us examine in detail the events in 167 B.C. The Jews were under the Mosaic Law, the Old Covenant, which was a physical covenant between God and His people. What specifically, under the Old Covenant, made the actions of Antiochus an abomination?

He offered a sacrifice in the temple. What made the act abominable was that it was the wrong sacrifice offered by the wrong person. Pigs were considered unclean animals, to be avoided by God’s people. They were not the only unclean animals, just one of many. It was a means of distinguishing God’s people from the rest, to depict, in a physical way the difference between cleanliness (purity) and uncleanliness (impurity). A person became ceremonially unclean if exposed to unclean animal, but that was until evening that day; it had an expiration and it could be “corrected.”

Sacrificing a pig was therefore the wrong sacrifice. It was not only wrong, but it was meant as a direct insult against God and against the people of God. Antiochus knew this but did it anyway. It was a deliberate act of blasphemy. Nonetheless, the consequences were temporary, and eventually the effect of the act would pass. It would not have a permanent effect on people, and in that sense, it was not unredeemable.

The second factor that made the desecration of the temple an abomination was that the wrong person made the sacrifice. Only Levites were allowed to serve in the temple, to perform priestly duties. No one else was allowed to serve as priest. Appointment of non-Levites as priests was condemned by the prophets as idolatrous and rebellious (1 Kings 12:31).

The events that occurred in 167 B.C. will be “mirrored” or repeated later, in fact prior to the end of the age and the return of Christ. The description in Daniel of the abomination of desolation uses such extreme language, that it leaves the strong impression that the historical events that have already occurred somehow do not reach the magnitude and seriousness of what is described. The events that will occur at the end will be worse, and more consequential than the previous ones. Jesus himself mentions (or perhaps Matthew inserts it; some translations attribute (let the reader understand) to the writer, Matthew). In Matthew 24:15-16, Jesus said

So, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

That there will be a terrible event that will lead directly to great world upheaval and eventually culminate in His return. This event will be so awful, that those in Judea are told to flee to the mountains to escape what will happen. This was interpreted to pertain to the events in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, but clearly, the comments that follow imply an upheaval in the entire world prior to the end. Most readers, commentators and scholars of the Bible assume that that there will be a temple in Jerusalem, that there will be a priestly class who will offer sacrifices that will have some kind of theological meaning. Interruption of these sacrifices will usher terrible consequences.
Notice that Jesus did not specify that these elements will exist in identical ways as under the Old Covenant, but rather said that it will be like the prophet Daniel described. So, we must analyze and discern how will the events yet to occur be the same but different from the ones in 167 B.C.

So, at the time of the end, there will arise a series of events that will be an abomination that brings desolation. Broadly speaking, there will be an attempt to offer sacrifice to God, but it will be the wrong sacrifice made by the wrong person, just as in 167 B.C. It will not be Antiochus Epiphanes, but another person doing this. Many believe that the person fulfilling this role is the person whom the Bible calls the Antichrist.
How will it be?

The Old Covenant

The Old Covenant that was initiated at Sinai by Moses has ended at the cross. Jesus Christ came into the world to atone for man’s sins, the ultimate sacrifice that brings forgiveness and reconciliation with God. This event was demonstrated physically after Jesus died on the cross, when the curtain that separated the Holy of Hollies was torn (Matthew 27:50-51).

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
And behold, thecurtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.

This event signified that the separation between God and people due to sin no longer existed, and that now there was no longer any obstacle for man to enter God’s presence. This event atoned for sin once and for all and ended the old covenant with its animal sacrifices. There is never to be a return to that. Jesus Christ, with his death on the cross, established a New Covenant, which is discussed in detail in the Book of Hebrews (Hebrews 8:13).

In speaking of a New Covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So, any mention of the reinstitution of an animal sacrificial system based on the Old Covenant would never be according to God’s will.

But this is exactly what some Jews in Israel are planning, and, sadly, some alleged Christians in the world support these efforts. If the wrong sacrifice by the wrong person was the cause of the first abomination of desolation, in a similar way, the wrong sacrifice by the wrong person will cause the second abomination of desolation which will be so awful that it will lead to world calamity culminating in the end of the age and the return of Christ.

Who is the wrong person to offer sacrifices?

Under the Old Covenant, only the Levites were authorized to officiate in the temple to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people, whom they represented before God. The High Priest only was allowed to enter the Holy of Hollies, and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, to make a sin offering. The Levitical priesthood was abolished with the Old Covenant.
We now have the real high priest, Jesus Christ, as written in the Book of Hebrews 8:1-2:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high  priest, one who is
seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy
places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.

Our High Priest is Jesus Christ. He is the only one who can and has made true atonement for man’s sins, and only He can officiate before God. Anybody else who tries to perform, in effect usurp, His duties, is guilty of blasphemy and would in effect be an abomination. Such a person would set himself up in the place of Christ, as if he were equal or better than Christ, the Son of God (Hebrews 4:14-15).

Since then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the
Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

What is the wrong sacrifice?

The purpose of the animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant was to atone for sin. They were a temporary measure, a shadow of things to come, to be offered by the priests continuously on behalf of God’s people. They were a temporary substitute, pointing to the actual effective sacrifice, that Jesus would make (Hebrews 9:11-15).

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
The mediator of the New Covenant is Jesus Christ, who, having offered a perfect sacrifice of his own blood, forever purified God’s people. There is no need for further sacrifices or for any repetition (Hebrews 11:24-28).
For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so, Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Any return to the Old Covenant is blasphemy, a true abomination. It would be a complete rejection of the blood of Christ, and insult to God. In effect, the ones attempting to do this declare that the blood of the Son of God is not enough, no, that we need to offer animal blood instead. Based on what was mentioned in this article, clearly, such a scenario is completely wrong. As stated in Hebrews 10:14-18:

For by a single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

When the resumption of sacrifices will occur, as it is being planned now, that will be the abomination of desolation. It will be an act of supreme blasphemy, which God will not tolerate or allow to continue. It will trigger severe retaliation (Hebrews 10:26-31)

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

These warnings should not be ignored. The apostle Paul echoed the same warning when he addressed the Galatians, whom he called foolish and bewitched, for returning to practicing “the works of the law.”

The abomination of desolation will be the resumption of animal sacrifices. It will be a blasphemous act or rebellion against God and Jesus Christ. But will those doing this not realize that? The Jews who are planning this know what Jesus did and what he represents. But because they rejected Him and His word, they will deliberately offer animal sacrifices to show their contempt, in the same way Antiochus Epiphanes showed his contempt for God and His people, now the Church. It is deliberate rebellion, to insult and mock. Those who participate will come under the direct and immediate wrath of God. The events that lead to the sacrifices will lead further to the cataclysmic events described in the Bible in the book of Revelation.

Will there be another temple?

We are now in the ministry of the spirit. God is a spirit and as Jesus said in John 4:21:

God is a spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

The relationship between God and His people is now a spiritual one, far deeper than the ministry of the Old Covenant could offer. God does not dwell in buildings made by human hands. The temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. had outlived its purpose. There was no further need for it, and in fact its usefulness ended at the cross. Any mention of temples in the New Testament must be viewed through a spiritual lens.

The first such indication can be found in John 2: 18-21:

So, the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

Here we see Jesus referring to his body as the temple. Why? Because where God is, that is where the temple of God is. This is further clarified in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So, glorify God in your body.

So, in the New Covenant, the real temple of God is the body of Christ, or the Church, because the Holy Spirit dwells in all believers. With that in mind, when the prophecy of the book of Daniel and Revelation are examined, whatever will occur will occur in the Church, where the Antichrist will appear and seek to reinstitute the animal sacrifices pretending to honor God, but in effect adding or seeking to replace the sacrifice that Christ made.

This will be the abomination that makes desolate (or the Abomination of Desolation), which will bring about the wrath of God, manifesting in the terrible events before the end of the age. True believers will never participate in these practices, but those heading for judgement in the lake of fire will.

Footnotes:

1.Stedman, R ”The Time of the End,” Ray Stedman.org, https://www.raystedman.org/old-testament/daniel/the-time-of-the-end.

[1]

The post Abomination appeared first on LewRockwell.

Introduction

During a Democratic fundraiser at the New York Historical Society Library on September 9th, 2016, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made disparaging remarks about half the country. Half of Trump’s voting base, she believes, are a “basket of deplorables,” with the other half needing compassion because they believe the government has let them down. By doing this, Hillary Clinton had effectively alienated herself as an out-of-touch elite, a member of the swamp, and someone who needed to be drained from the system. But there is something Hillary was correct on: many felt that the system in which they lived actively worked against them. The financial crash in 2008, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the spying on U.S. citizens by the NSA-to the average American, all were actions of a hateful elite, and so Donald Trump was elected, a slap in the face to the system. Then there is another aspect in which Hillary is correct, those “deplorables” who would crusade for Trump would defend this new revolution not from the halls of Congress, but in studios and street corners, far away from the centers of power. They were deplorable for this very reason, a revolution cannot be stopped outside of power, meaning the system would have to contain it. Oswald Spengler, in his essay “Prussian Socialism,” had predicted the disastrous consequence of the German revolution of 1914 and 1918, events that European academics scoffed at, saying that such actions could not even be considered “revolutionary.” Spengler writes in 1919:

“Make no mistake, the revolution is not yet ended. No matter how you interpret it, as senseless or significant, as a failure or as an auspicious beginning, as the prelude to a world revolution or merely as a mob uprising in a single country. The fact that we are in the midst of a crisis. And like everything organic, like every disease, this crisis will follow a typical course that cannot be influenced by artificial means.”

Frenchmen may be disgusted at such a notion that the 2016 election of Donald Trump could even be considered a revolution, but the events since that election have proved to be unstoppable; although there were no guillotines, it was a revolution nonetheless. The populist movements of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street had no basis of power, not even in the media. Trump, being a member of the elite, started an America First revolution, and like a living organism, will eventually end. To understand why this revolution will continue to fail, we must first understand who the leaders were, the men and women at the forefront of the movement, who were merely members of the fourth estate. They failed to truly grasp the concept of Power, and had also failed to understand the mass mind and human nature of the modern American. Finally, confronting the truth that America, much like the Soviet Union, is in a state of collapse. What happened in the Soviet revolution of 1985 had culminated in a fifteen year revolution that ended with Putin, America is already on the same path.

The Fourth Estate

The warriors of this aimless revolution were members of the journalist class, the fourth estate. In the early days of 2016, the pantheon consisted of people like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and many other conservative podcasters. During this time, these independent podcasters and public speakers had attacked the mainstream news outlets, who they claimed merely spread fake news and liberal propaganda; they attacked Antifa and BLM, along with blue-haired feminists on college campuses. But they failed to realize that all these groups and institutions were merely instruments of power. The elite theorist, Gaetano Mosca, understood that the media, whether it be newspapers or on the radio, were ultimately instruments for the ruling class to both promote its political formula and to engineer perception against the masses-an instrument for the organized minority against the disorganized majority. Putin understood this when, in the summer of 2000, he gathered 21 of the richest oligarchs in the country, the men who hollowed out Russia in the 1990s and created a situation where four out of ten Russians lived below the poverty line. He gave them an option: cooperate, or lose everything. Since then, Putin has remained in power, unchallenged in politics and in the media; he understood the nature of power.

But in America, these independent media outlets, who were the loudest voices for Trump, believed themselves to be in a civil war with the mainstream media, a fruitless endeavor that can be well seen today. Spengler highlights this class’s weakness when establishing socialism in Germany, writing:

“Instead of initiating action, they bellowed the slogans “soviet,” “dictatorship,” and “republic” so often that within two years time they will have become a laughing stock. The only “action” that occurred was the overthrow of the monarchy. And yet a republican form of government has nothing at all to do with socialism. All this proves, as opposed to the rest of the people, the fourth estate, which is actually a negative concept, is incapable of constructive action.”

The American conservatives were too mesmerized with the opportunity to debate college liberals on street corners, make fun of crying SJWs, and fall for the cultural war rage bait of BLM. They had helped Trump get elected twice, their energy spent on promises of a golden age; now that Trump is in office, he has nearly dragged America into war with Iran on behalf of Israel, rejected any notion of the Epstein files, and failed in his promises to end the war in Ukraine. The old guard of 2016, like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, conduct damage control for Trump still, showing their unrelenting support for Israel and splitting the base into multiple disorganized factions, still within the confines of the fourth estate. They lacked the basic understanding of power, putting ideology and dogma over realism, but they also lacked the basic understanding of the American masses.

The American vs The “Race”

Is there any benefit to listening to your enemies? Or at the very least, those who may be ideologically opposed to your ideas? Julius Evola, the traditionalist philosopher; Envr Hoxah, the communist dictator of Albania; and Ayman Zawahiri, Osama Bin Laden’s right-hand man, may seem like a disparate trio; yet all three, despite radically different world views, had come to the same conclusion about America. The liberalism that was built into its people was subversive to their nations and humanity. Julius Evola had argued in his book “The Bow and the Club” that much of the degenerate culture that flooded into Germany and Italy by the 1920s was a result of American eroticism; the jazz that flooded the dance halls had no soul and corrupted the youth into sexualized dancing. He had questioned if the inhabitants of America could even be considered European; he notes:

“Emigrating to America, Men of the most diverse peoples receive the same imprint; after two generations, except in rare cases, they lose almost all of their original characteristics, reproducing a type which is fairly homogeneous in terms of mentality, sensibility, and behavior; the American type.”

By race, thinkers like Evola and Spengler did not mean it in the biological zeitgeist of our era or the racism of the Nazis. It was referring to a spirit belonging to different groups of people: the Chinese spirit, which had produced Confucius; the Latin spirit which had produced the Roman Empire; and the Western spirit which had developed our modern world. The Americans, being a part of a “melting pot,” had seemingly melted the identity of any original culture within a generation. The culture America produced could even stretch over oceans. The communist dictator of Albania railed against this in his 1969 speech against Soviet revisionism, saying:

“Of what fight against bourgeois ideology can the Soviet revisionists speak while revisionism is nothing else by a manifestation of the bourgeois ideology in theory and practice, while egoism and individualism, the running after money and other material benefits are thriving in the Soviet Union, while careerseeking and bureaucratism, technocratism, economism and intellectualism are developing, while villas, motor-cars and beautiful women have become the supreme ideal of men, while literature and art attack socialism, everything revolutionary, and advocate pacifism and bourgeois humanism, the empty and dissolute living of people thinking only of themselves, while hundreds of thousands of western tourists that visit the Soviet Union every year, spread the bourgeois ideology and way of life there, while western films cover the screens of the Soviet cinema halls, while the American orchestras and jazz bands and those of the other capitalist countries have become the favorite orchestras of the youth, and while parades of western fashions are in vogue in the Soviet Union? If until yesterday the various manifestations of bourgeois ideology could be called remnants of the past, today bourgeois ideology has become a component part of the capitalist superstructure which rests on the state capitalist foundation which has now been established in the Soviet Union.”

Even the radical Islamist and number two man of Al-Qaeda, Ayman Zawahiri, wrote in his manifesto “Knights Under the Prophets Banner” that saw American culture as an external threat towards Islam that needed to be met on the battlefield. He said:

“Sayyed Qutb affirmed that the issue of unification in Islam is important and the battle between Islam and its enemies is primarily an ideological one over the issue of unification. It is also a battle over to whom authority and power should belong – to God’s course and Shari’ah, to man-made laws and material principles, or to those who claim to be intermediaries between the creator and mankind”

What should this tell the American conservatives? Many wish to return to a more traditional way of life, with family, marriage, morality, and church at the center. Yet the way each American views these concepts is inherently liberal. From a divorce rate of 0.7% in 1900 to 40% in 2024, modern music and clothes are immodest, but the super freak songs and cross-dressing rock stars of the 1980s were the pinnacle of culture. What the American conservatives want is untenable; if a jihadist, a communist, and a super-fascist all come to the same conclusion, then perhaps there is truth in what they say.

Right Containment

During the 1991 Soviet election, Boris Yeltsin, the leader of the Democratic Russia movement, faced off against four other opponents. His main opponent was Mikael Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union and head of the CPSU. But Yeltsin faced an unexpected problem: another candidate, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, also ran on an anti-communist platform with a strident Russian chauvinism. Rumors spread that the KGB purposefully ran Zhirinovsky to split the vote between Yeltsin’s coalition of republic separatists and the Russian nationalists’ disdain for the republics that had relied upon Russian taxes collected by the Center. In Vlaislov Zubok’s book “Collapse,” he notes that Gennady Burbulis, who managed Yeltsin’s campaign, believed that Yeltsin’s rivals had been “carefully chosen” to appeal to every major niche in Soviet society. The revolution that started in 1985 with Perestroika entered a new phase with the election of Boris Yeltsin, but it did not end. Similarly in America, Trump was reelected, but he has by all counts been absorbed by the system. His base that once supported him has split into multiple factions, accommodating every niche aspect of American society, whether it be Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Judging Freedom, or the Daily Wire.

Yeltsin’s eventual victory and subsequent years in office were met with disarray, corruption, crime, and poverty. In every revolution, no matter the past fanaticism of the ideology, the people will eventually demand security over freedom. When this point is reached, the revolution has ended; the masses would prefer a strong man over an ineffective parliament. This is what happened to Russia when a KGB agent rose to power, and similarly, America will enter into a post-revolutionary era.

The post The Pitiful Revolution Ongoing Since 2016 appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: The US government recently took a 15% stake in MP Materials and a 10% stake in Intel to counter China’s dominance in rare earth elements and revive the domestic semiconductor industry.

Are these national security necessities, or a fundamental break from free-market capitalism?

Doug Casey: First, whenever you hear the term “national security,” rest assured, some grifter is selling you on a fraud.

It’s natural for the State, like all living entities, to want to grow. The problem is that the State has coercive power, unlike other entities in society. Force and coercion are antithetical to free market capitalism. Worse than that, people think that the State is something magical. They think that “we the people” own the State. So they’re favorably inclined toward State-owned industries, idiotically believing they’re “stakeholders.” Sure. Just like Soviet citizens were stakeholders.

Trump is making some huge mistakes with what you just mentioned about MP Materials and Intel. As well as taking a so-called golden share in US Steel, and forcing Nvidia to pay 15% of its revenue on sales to China. This is all right out of Mussolini’s playbook.

Most people don’t know that Mussolini coined the word “fascism.” In ancient Rome, an ax, which represented the State, was surrounded by rods called fasces, which strengthened it. Mussolini’s idea was that the State and large corporations would be hand in glove, working together in a “public-private” partnership. Unfortunately, everything that Trump is doing these days is headed in that direction.

International Man: Government equity stakes risk blurring the line between politics and business. Do they build real long-term resilience, or are they politically driven projects destined to fail without state support?

Doug Casey: The State does things because they’re politically productive, not because they’re economically productive. And when you do things that are economically counterproductive, no matter how popular they may be with the hoi polloi, the result will be the failure of the enterprise and a lower standard of living for everybody.

The State is not oriented to political power, not economic profit. And because the State isn’t oriented to profit, nobody has a real stake in the success of its ventures. It’s naturally inefficient. It destroys capital. Trump seems to think that, because he is in charge, things will be different. He’s wrong. MP and US Steel will start to resemble the Post Office or the DMV.

Or the US railroad industry. High levels of regulation caused passenger trains to fail. The government then put them together as Amtrak—losses went higher, efficiency went lower.

Or NASA, which had a day in the sun when it first started. That was before, like all state enterprises, it devolved into a bureaucracy. That’s why almost everything is being done now by SpaceX and other private enterprises.

What I’m afraid of is that Trump will inadvertently, unwittingly, Sovietize the US economy. His idea of negotiating a good deal is to increase the size of the State.

His most recent cockamamie scheme is to have a “Sovereign Wealth Fund.” Which means the bankrupt US Government must borrow money in order to capitalize companies. Great idea. Print money so the State can have ownership and control of even more of the economy.

International Man: Under Peronism, Argentina took similar stakes in the name of sovereignty—with disastrous results.

Do you see parallels today, and what lessons should Americans learn?

Doug Casey: Under Juan and Evita Perón, Argentina actively modeled itself on Mussolini’s fascist Italy. Everything was about State intervention. The State was involved in absolutely everything. Argentina went from being one of the world’s richest countries to just another dysfunctional Third World backwater.

Trump’s big thing right now is massive, arbitrary tariffs. They amount to a national sales tax, thereby reducing the average American’s standard of living. But worse than that, they cut the US off from foreign products and innovations, which become too expensive to bring in. Worse yet, they bureaucratize international trade. As Tacitus said 1900 years ago, “The more corrupt the State, the more numerous the laws.” It’s equally true that the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the State…

One of the reasons Trump has put on these tariffs is that he thinks it’ll bring manufacturing to the US. That’s what Mussolini and Peron thought, too. But the way to do that is to cut taxes and regulations. High taxes and regulations were major factors driving manufacturing out of the US. Trump seems to think putting 100% duties on Guatemalan bananas will result in a domestic banana industry.

International Man: Reports suggest nuclear energy may be next in line for US government equity stakes. How does that shape your outlook on uranium?

Doug Casey: The utility industry is already a creature of the State. It’s highly regulated, and commissions set the prices that utilities charge. That limits their ability to build more generation and transmission capacity.

There’s no question that nuclear power is the safest, the cheapest, and the cleanest form of mass power generation. Small modular reactors, roughly the size of those on nuclear submarines, are undoubtedly the answer. Hundreds of them could be built and placed where needed, to basically run on a set-and-forget basis for 10 years. Energy is critical to the advancement of any economy, but the US has been falling behind in energy generation for many years.

Therefore, I remain extremely bullish on uranium, which is currently around $75 per pound. And the companies that mine uranium.

Not only do the fundamentals favor nuclear, but, as we speak, the mining industry is totally out of favor with investors. Miners’ proportion of the US stock market is at the lowest level in history, about 1% of market capitalization. In the past, it averaged more like 8% to 12%. Things revert to the mean. That includes mining stocks in general, and uranium stocks in particular. They’ll go from something that everybody hates to something that everybody loves. It’s already happening…

International Man: Where is this trend ultimately headed, and what are the implications for investors and speculators?

Doug Casey: It seems the United States– and therefore the whole world—now revolves around Trump. Harris Kupperman, the hedge fund manager, did a hilarious piece that appeared in Zero Hedge. An investor’s whole day amounts, involuntarily, to just reacting to what Trump does and says.

It’s funny, of course, but it’s also scary. In an increasingly politicized world, everybody feels they can’t act without second-guessing The Donald.

Remember how MAGA started out talking about abolishing the IRS, with no tax for anybody who earned less than $200,000? And how anybody who lived offshore would be tax-free? We don’t hear about these things anymore. We also heard about how MAGA was going to have no wars, ending the Ukraine war overnight. But the US is still sending billions of dollars and thousands of missiles to the Zelensky regime.

It looks like Israel will become the 51st state, with the US bombing Iran. And if that’s not enough, the Navy has a flotilla off Venezuela, sinking a speedboat containing 11 people, without warning, in international waters, with a Hellfire missile. Iran and Venezuela are likely the next tar babies the US will get stuck in.

DOGE started off great—and it still exists, of course—but it’s lost all momentum. Instead, we’re building a new bureaucracy in the form of ICE. Although it serves a useful purpose right now in getting rid of illegal migrants and lawbreakers, when the current crisis is hopefully solved, it will still exist. Like the TSA, it won’t go away. It will be another dangerous armed bureaucracy that can be redeployed in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, the government is running multi-trillion-dollar deficits, financed by printing money. I’m afraid that MAGA isn’t even talking the talk anymore, forget about walking the walk.

The Greater Depression approaches. As does WW3, and something like a civil war in the US. I suggest fastening your seat belt.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Why Trump’s Policies Are Right Out of Mussolini’s Playbook appeared first on LewRockwell.