Aggregatore di feed

President Trump has recently endorsed a policy that is arguably as socialist as anything proposed by New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani or Sen. Bernie Sanders — partial government ownership of private corporations.

Earlier this year, as a condition of approving Nippon Steel’s purchase of US Steel, President Trump demanded Nippon give the US government a “golden share” in US Steel. This golden share allows the US government to overrule Nippon’s management if the government determines Nippon is acting against US “national security,” which means the government can overrule many decisions made by Nippon‘s management.

Unfortunately, Nippon was not a “one-and-done” excursion into corporatism. President Trump recently struck a deal with computer chip manufacturer Intel to give the company 8.9 billion dollars in government subsidies in exchange for ten percent of Intel’s stock. This deal makes the US government Intel’s largest stockholder!

The Trump administration has promised that it will not use its position to undermine Intel’s board. However, the administration is reserving the right to counter Intel’s board if the administration determines the board is taking an action that would adversely impact the relationship of the company or its subsidiaries with the US government. So, the Trump administration is yet again giving itself power to manage a nominally private company.

Enabling the government to control a private company (even if the government does not actually exercise its power) means the company’s management will base its decisions on what will please those currently in power, rather than on the desires of consumers.

Government investment in corporations will cause politicians to make decisions based on what will profit the companies the government has “invested” in while those companies’ competitors will seek to attract government investment in order to win special privileges for themselves.

A corporation partially owned by government will be considered “too big to fail” since its failure would cause the government to lose the money “invested” in the businesses. So, the argument will be that a bailout will save the taxpayers money.

According to a 2024 analysis by the World Bank — an organization not known as a supporter of free-market economics, companies of which government owns ten percent or more are six percent less profitable and have workforces that are 32 percent less productive.

Some members of the Trump administration have suggested that the federal government take a partial ownership interest in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pointed out that big defense contractor Lockheed Martin, for example, is “basically an arm of the US government” since almost all its revenue comes from the US government. Secretary Lutnick has a point, but the closeness between the Pentagon and big corporations is an argument for restoring a noninterventionist foreign policy. Giving the government an ownership interest in defense contractors would allow the war party to argue that militarism is good for the taxpayer because it boosts the value of the government’s “investments”!

Government “investment” in private businesses will only worsen the twin plagues of corporatism and cronyism that afflict our political and economic systems. Instead of further entangling government and business, those seeking to make America great again should work to end the welfare-warfare-regulatory state and the fiat money system that makes it possible. The only path to prosperity is through a true free market, limited government, and a foreign policy of peace and free trade.

The post Making Corporatism Great Again appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writing in Chronicles about his “alleged collaborators in infamy,” Paul Gottfried skewers the tendency to lump together all arguments with which one disagrees, and to treat them as if they were all essentially one and the same argument by dint of the fact that one opposes them all. For example, the “woke left” and “woke right” are lumped together as two types of “woke.” Critics of “woke” lump together paleoconservatives (the traditional right whom they classify as woke right) and critical theory Neo-Marxists (whom they classify as woke left). Thus, we are to understand that there is no real difference between the anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the Frankfurt School Marxist Jürgen Habermas, and no real difference between the paleoconservative intellectual historian Paul Gottfried and the journalist Tucker Carlson. To their critics—who regard themselves as the center of all things—all these men are just different types of “woke,” though some fall to the left and others to the right. Gottfried explains:

They even try to group all the baddies to the left and right of the establishment by embracing a once-popular notion that I heard from my college instructors in the early 1960s. According to these teachers, the “extremes come together” and there is more that these extremes have in common with each other than with those nice people in the middle who reject them.

As Connor Mortell explains, these critics are “operating as if usage of the same or similar machinery means that the groups have the same or similar meaning.” Further, they treat political labels as if their meaning (that is, the meaning based on the critics’ own definition of the label) is agreed upon by everyone as the universal standard. For example, these critics label themselves “classical liberals,” but their ideas differ to such an important extent from those expressed by Ludwig von Mises in Liberalism in the Classical Tradition that the term “classical liberal” cannot be treated as a matter of universal consensus among its own adherents. A key controversy among contemporary classical liberals concerns the concepts of nationalism, the integrity of national borders, and the legitimacy of border control. As they see it, nationalism and border control impede free markets and individual liberty. By contrast, Mises’s concept of classical liberalism does not attempt to answer questions of nationhood. Mises emphasized that liberalism is a material doctrine that does not attempt to address the metaphysical needs of a people, such as the sense of belonging (or not) to a nation:

Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs.

The sense of nationhood or loyalty to a nation is one that emerges in large part from people’s “inner, spiritual and metaphysical” values, and is not based purely on an analysis of material welfare or economic outcomes. Rothbard highlights this point in “Nations by Consent”:

The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.

The aim here is not to explore the Misesian definition of nationalism, but simply to highlight the point that classical liberalism cannot tell anyone whether, how, or to what extent, to care about his family, language, culture, ethnicity, or religious beliefs, nor how to express that devotion, or the importance to accord to it. Many people care deeply about such matters, while others want to live in a world without nations and without national borders. Those who insist that loyalty to nation is “woke right” call themselves the only “true” classical liberals but, ironically, it is they who have rejected a core principle of classical liberalism—the scope for philosophical and moral disagreement on precisely such matters. The gatekeepers who have anointed themselves as the arbiters of classical liberalism presume this ideology to have a specific interpretation—their own—which is based on their own vision of social progress. Gottfried remarks: “Our critics have often justified their efforts to marginalize us by citing our stubborn opposition to what they view as social progress.”

This form of social progress is now championed by what Gottfried calls “Conservative Inc.” and includes feminism, genderism, and “the state worship of Martin Luther King Jr.” These, we are told by the gatekeepers, are classical liberal values and anyone who rejects them is some form of extremist—either woke left or woke right.

Gottfried acknowledges that “the notion that extremes touch may be true in some cases.” For example, many people have highlighted the convergence of fascist and communist policies, both of which rely on tyranny to maximize the power of the “total state.” But Gottfried also highlights the differences in these extremes, which are often the opposite of each other:

As a historian, I would never mistake 19th-century conservatives who favored a traditional hierarchical and preferably agrarian society with socialist revolutionaries. Entities that may be equally unacceptable to later historical critics do not become similar in nature by that fact… even a callow youth can realize that not all figures past and present with whom one disagrees were saying or doing the same things. Drawing parallels only works if they show striking likeness. Otherwise, they are clumsy or tendentious nonstarters. Even if I spent a week pondering this problem, I couldn’t explain why the LA hellraisers or the Seattle Autonomous Zone that soared into existence during 2020’s Summer of Love should remind me of the Southern planter class.

Therein lies the difficulty, as what counts as a “striking likeness” rather depends on what one seeks to emphasize. The “centrists” who classify their opponents left or right as “woke” look for similarities in language and form, so that, for example, everyone who complains about “systemic racism” is woke—complaining of racism against black people is woke left, while complaining of racism against white people is woke right. They see all rebellions as similar, so the Black Lives Matter Summer of Love is similar to the secession of the Southern states (they are all just rebellions!). It is perhaps, to a degree, quite natural to highlight what one wishes to see and gloss over inconvenient facts. As Macaulay put it, in reference to this tendency among historians, “Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavorable to it.” People will of course spin analogies and examples in such a way as to highlight the point they wish to make. But carried too far, anything could be argued to be similar to anything else, and the whole point of drawing upon analogies is lost. Rather than clarifying arguments, they serve to obscure the truth.

Gottfried argues that self-declared centrists—by drawing tendentious analogies classifying their conservative opponents as woke right—aim to ostracize those with whom they disagree, to “throw all their hated targets into the same ‘extremist’ dumpster.” Although they describe themselves as “classical liberalism,” their ranks are filled by progressive liberals of an academic bent who exclude all those who do not already share their own definitional framework. This is a weakness of all forms of progressive liberalism, a point made by David Gordon in his essay “The Problems of Public Reason”—progressive liberalism is “respectful and non-coercive — to those who accept its tenets. Those outside the ‘legitimation pool’ of these accepters do not count.” It is indeed tolerant of dissent, but only among those already within its own ranks. Everyone else is “woke right.”

The post Classical Liberalism and the Woke Right Extremists appeared first on LewRockwell.

Does Trump even enjoy the leeway from his unseen bonds to seize on nuclear détente as his Nobel Prize story, should he so choose?

The gloves are off. The SCO Summit was a clear demonstration of the reality of power starkly coalescing, on the one hand, and one of power visibly ebbing, on the other. The amazing military parade was the summit counterpart – it spoke loudly: You want to take us on? ‘We are ready’.

China has thrown down the gauntlet with precision timing. (You’d almost think they had planned it that way …). ‘History is being written – in Russian and Chinese ink’, observed one Russian commentator.

Western political systems are in turmoil, beleaguered by populist politics promising everything, yet lacking the tools by which to resolve anything. Western alliances are riven by doubt and uncertainty, with political stability fissuring under pressure from the failures of western borrow and spend policies. Even The Economist concedes that “a new reality is taking hold”.

Trump’s reaction to the SCO spectacle was a snarky dig at some perceived anti-American ‘conspiracy’. Yet, if he feels himself to be the ‘wallflower’ to this gathering of ‘friends’, it is because he chose not to go to Tianjin. He has only himself to blame. Should the SCO become defined in the western psyche as anti-western, then that too will be largely down to Trump – and how he chooses to frame the U.S.’ future.

Xi made this latter point in his opening speech: “Humanity is again faced with a choice of peace or war, dialogue or confrontation, and win-win outcomes; or zero-sum games”.

Unfortunately, Trump is probably too far down the road of pursuing American ‘exceptionalist greatness’ to expect much of a nuanced response from him. But then again, Trump often does seem to defy the obvious.

The default psychological mode of the West will be defensively antagonistic. The U.S. clearly has not been prepared psychologically to go onto any sort of equal footing with these SCO powers. Centuries of colonial superiority have shaped a culture where the only possible model is hegemony and the imposition of pro-Western dependency.

To acknowledge China, Russia or India as having ‘detached’ from the ‘Rules-based Order’ and constructed a separated non-western sphere clearly implies accepting the end of western global hegemony. And it means accepting too, that the hegemonic era as a whole is over. The U.S. and European ruling strata are categorically not in the mood for this. The European ruling strata, like true believers, continue to bristle with hostility toward Russia.

So for the Europeans, there is no question that they too felt something judder, but did not understand what exactly had caused the tremor – and thus decided on rudeness as a response. Friedrich Merz stated his belief: “Putin is a war criminal. He is perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time that we have seen on a large scale. We must be clear about how to deal with war criminals: There is no room for leniency”.

The reality (and the little that we know) of what has emerged from China’s Tiananmen Square parade will undoubtedly cause consternation in Washington, Brussels and London: President Xi declared China’s rise to be “unstoppable”, whilst showcasing over 10,000 troops marching in perfect synchronicity and revealing impressive new Chinese weaponry (a nuclear, 20,000 km range ICBM; a laser-powered interceptor and giant underwater drones).

Most notably, President Xi (also for the first time) showcased the PLA’s land, sea, and air-based nuclear force – a complete and deadly triad.

At the victory celebration parade, Xi stood proudly with his U.S.-sanctioned allies, and sat on the dais with Kim Jong Un directly to his left and Putin to his right – a symbolic line up few can have expected. Equally, the bonhomie evident between Putin, Xi and Prime Minister Modi clearly was real and not contrived.

The practical output from the summit too will nonplus the West. The announcement of the Siberia 2 pipeline, Blomberg notes, effectively puts an end to plans for U.S. ‘energy dominance’.

As Blomberg’s editorial put it, “China may now stop importing more than half of its foreign LNG, and by the early 2030s, the share of Russian gas in China’s needs could reach 20%. Analysts quickly calculated the implementation of the Power of Siberia 2 project is equivalent to a drop in demand of about 40 million tons of LNG per year”.

“This means that many LNG production projects, which the U.S. had bet on, no longer make sense”.

What will be the other sequellae? The U.S. and European dark State will not take these events lightly. In their hostility, their anger will likely focus on Russia first and foremost (via Ukraine), and in parallel, via Russia and China’s strategic ally, Iran.

During the summit, Xi proposed the creation of a new international security and economic order, explicitly challenging the existing U.S.-led institutional system. He described the initiative as a step toward building a multipolar world. And having announced it – the first specific piece of SCO ‘action’ followed directly.

China and Russia joined Iran in rejecting a European initiative to reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran through the ‘snapback mechanism’. A letter signed jointly by the Foreign Ministers of China, Russia and Iran, and addressed to the UN Secretary General, stated in uncompromising terms that for the E3 to trigger ‘snapback’ provision “clearly contravenes the resolution, and therefore, is by default, legally and procedurally flawed. The E3’s course both abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council – whilst misleading its members as well as the international community concerning the root causes of breakdown in the implementation of the JCPOA and the UNSCR 2231”.

Harsh language, which nonetheless may not prove sufficient to stop the sanctions snapback from coming into effect in 30 days from the 28 August transmission of the E3 letter to the Security Council.

The E3 claim that their action actually provides ‘space’ for Iran to negotiate a return to full JCPOA compliance – but this is belied by the E3 tying the 30 day negotiation period to new demands for Iran’s missile inventory and its foreign policy posture to be integral to any agreement. They know that these further elements will never be accepted by Iran.

The E3 therefore effectively are setting up Iran for military action through the introduction of unrealisable conditionality.

It is clear that China and Russia’s statement implies that they will not comply with any snapback sanctions should they be imposed on Iran.

Trump periodically claims that he does not want war with Iran, but nonetheless, he already struck Iran’s nuclear facilities (on 22nd June).

The ‘snapback framing’ with its punitive conditionality seemingly intended to incur a breakdown in diplomacy did not arise out of the blue.

Recall that it was Trump, who in February 2025, signed a National Presidential Memorandum (a legally binding injunction) that U.S. objectives are to be that ‘Iran be denied a nuclear weapon; intercontinental ballistic missiles and that ‘Iran’s network and campaign of regional aggression be neutralized’”; that the Treasury Secretary should implement maximum sanctions pressure on Iran; and the U.S. representative to the UN should work with key allies to complete the ‘snapback’ of international sanctions and restrictions on Iran, whilst holding Iran accountable for its breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (amongst many other provisions included in the memorandum)’.

The February 2025 Presidential Memorandum set the table towards either eventual military action against Iran – or Iran’s total capitulation. Denying Iran its missile defence and links to regional allies was always a non-starter. Yet here these demands are resurfacing again with the latest E3 demands. Who’s behind this? Trump, and behind him – Netanyahu.

Round one on Iran has already been tried, and now, forces behind the scenes are pressing for a further round. They see Iran strengthening, Israel weakening, and the window of opportunity shortening. They are in a hurry.

The other strand of western retribution to the SCO ‘impudence’ in standing aloof from western primacy likely will take shape in Ukraine. More pressure, military and financial on Russia, will be the demand by the Europeans and Zelensky.

Russia no doubt briefed colleagues at Tianjin that it intends to convey the message to Trump that Russia will be continuing the Special Military Operation until all the set tasks and goals are fully achieved (since Washington seems unable to control the Ukrainians and Europeans). Should matters take a different course, Russia stands ready for a diplomatic path to end the conflict – but on its terms. The primary effort however, will be that of securing victory on the battlefield. Should Trump escalate in response, Russia will respond appropriately.

Trump subsists under huge pressures and (unknown) hooks. But what we have seen again and again with Trump is that he defies the obvious. He manages to survive things – to outlast them, and indeed to thrive in some sense precisely because of them. Adversity is his lifeblood. He has that inexplicable indomitable quality that those who know him well claim to feel.

Can Trump re-adjust in the post-Tianjin moment? Will a continuation of his demand for U.S. entitlement to financial hegemony now lead – in the face of a defiant SCO bloc – to a weakening of America? Was the timing of China ‘throwing down the gauntlet’ entirely fortuitous? Or, is the West’s financial status more brittle than generally understood?

Does Trump even enjoy the leeway from his unseen bonds to seize on nuclear détente as his Nobel Prize story, should he so choose?

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

The post Can Trump Re-Adjust in the Post-Tianjin SCO Moment? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thirty-five years ago this Thursday, President George H.W. Bush gave an important speech entitled “Toward a New World Order.” Wikipedia has excerpted a few of its central elements:

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and the cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the genuine prospect of new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a “world order” in which “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong …” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

Bush’s public address before a joint session of Congress emphasized the successful conclusion of our decades-long Cold War against Soviet Communism, a struggle ending in a complete victory for the West.

A year earlier the Berlin Wall had fallen and the Warsaw Pact established by the USSR to counter NATO had collapsed. The Soviet Union itself was on the verge of disintegrating seven decades after its original creation, leaving behind a shrunken Russian successor state that included only half that previous population. Moscow would soon be reduced to ruling territories far smaller than those held by Peter the Great in the early 18th century.

During that same summer of 1989, enormous pro-Western demonstrations by students and workers had filled Beijing’s central square, and although the Chinese government had successfully suppressed those Tiananmen Square protests with considerable loss of life, the Communist regime seemed to be tottering, widely expected to follow its Soviet counterpart onto the ash-heap of history.

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama also published his famous article “The End of History?” describing what seemed to be a sweeping and permanent ideological triumph for the Western system. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he dropped his question mark and expanded that analysis into a bestselling 1992 book of the same title.

Not only did America tower over the entire world politically and economically, but nearly all of the other large and successful countries were numbered among its longstanding allies, with Japan and the members of NATO looking to Washington’s leadership. And although the Japanese had seemingly challenged American economic dominance during the 1980s, that country had already entered a decade of economic stagnation, soon eliminating any such prospect.

Just a few weeks before Bush’s speech, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had invaded and occupied Kuwait, and many of our president’s statements regarding international law addressed this situation even as he began assembling a powerful coalition to defeat the aggressor and expel it from the territory it had seized. The ultimate result was a complete military triumph in February 1991, with the large and experienced Iraqi army being totally destroyed by our advanced weaponry with negligible American loss of life, further demonstrating that our power was completely unmatched by any possible rival.

So that same year saw both our sweeping victory in the Gulf War and the final collapse of our longtime Soviet rival. America entered what soon became known as the unipolar moment, with both our hard and our soft power entirely supreme across the globe.

No previous country in the history of the world had ever achieved such total dominance across so many different sectors, whether political, economic, ideological, or technological. Educated individuals from around the world received much of their information from American media outlets even as their populations were entertained by Hollywood productions. The children of the world’s ruling elites eagerly sought to enroll at American academic institutions, as did so many of the best and brightest youngsters of every country, thereby allowing America to shape the minds of the world’s next generation of leaders.

President Bush himself was one of our most establishmentarian political figures, someone who had spent the bulk of his entire career in public service, and he probably regarded the declarations in his speech as the final fulfillment of America’s longstanding political goals, the culmination of two generations of effort. In his mind, the New World Order that he hailed merely represented the proper functioning of the United Nations and other postwar international organizations. He assumed that America would play a dominant role in those institutions, but hardly a unilateral or dictatorial one.

As it happened, Bush’s choice of phrases was rather unfortunate. Both he and his speechwriters came from entirely mainstream backgrounds, so they were probably unaware that for decades the term “New World Order” had inspired severe paranoia in far right political circles. Such individuals believed that it represented the plotting of evil globalist elites to destroy American freedom and sovereignty and create a one-world government under their nefarious control.

Gary Allen, an influential figure in the conspiratorial John Birch Society, had published several books with that theme, often including “New World Order” in his titles. Many Republican grassroots organizations were dominated by the right-wing followers of Christian televangelist Pat Robertson, and in 1991 he published The New World Order, a book that expressed very similar fears and became a major bestseller. Indeed, that much demonized term became so widespread in such ideological circles that it was often abbreviated as the acronym NWO, associated with the dark, Satanic forces of the world.

If President Bush had been deliberately trying to provoke a popular right-wing revolt in his own Republican party, his speech could not have done a better job. The resulting ideological backlash probably contributed to his unexpected reelection defeat in 1992, as large numbers of fearful and angry conservatives flocked to Pat Buchanan’s insurgent challenge in the primaries and then pulled the lever for Ross Perot in November. As a third party candidate, Perot drew nearly 19% percent of the national vote, an astonishing total for someone who had never held any political office.

Although Bush was replaced by Bill Clinton in the White House, the foreign policy positions of the two administrations were not so very different, and America’s commitment to the existing international structures that it had created and dominated remained strong.

But today our country is run by Donald Trump, a very different sort of American leader. If the world has spent the years since 1991 mostly living in what Bush once called the New World Order, the actions of our current president are overthrowing and replacing that international system with what might be called the Newer World Order, one that largely reverses many of its major elements.

According to some contemporaneous wits, the heavy-handed policies and political blunders of King George III played such a crucial role in inspiring the American Revolution that the British monarch should probably have been regarded as one of our founding fathers, perhaps even more important to the creation of our country than George Washington or anyone else.

In a very similar manner, day by day and week by week President Trump has been overturning the existing system of American global dominance that has endured for the last thirty-five or even eighty years, dismantling it brick by brick in ways that would have been far beyond the capabilities of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or any other American rival.

Although Trump’s actions are now producing the final destruction of American hegemony, the underlying trends responsible for this development actually stretch back for decades, beginning before Trump had even opened the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City, his first important real estate project,

The central factor in this changed international landscape has been the economic and technological rise of China, which since the late 1970s has advanced far more rapidly than any other major country in the history of the world, and I discussed this in a 2012 article.

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

Three years later, Graham Allison, the longtime founding dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, published a seminal 2015 article describing the high historical likelihood of a geopolitical clash between between a reigning power such as the U.S. and a rising international competitor such as China, a confrontation that he described as “The Thucydides Trap.”

• The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?
  In 12 of 16 past cases in which a rising power has confronted a ruling power, the result has been bloodshed
  Graham Allison • The Atlantic • September 24, 2015 • 3,700 Words

Allison then expanded this same idea into Destined for War, a national 2017 bestseller that attracted almost unprecedented praise from influential American policy-makers and intellectuals as it persuaded our ruling DC foreign policy elites that a global geopolitical clash with China was almost inevitable. Similar concerns were held by former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had been a career diplomat with decades of deep personal expertise on China, and he expressed these in his 2022 book The Avoidable War, bearing the grimly accurate subtitle “The Dangers of a Catastrophic Conflict between the US and Xi Jinping’s China.”

Even earlier, the eminent political scientist John Mearsheimer had released an updated 2014 edition of his 2001 book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, adding a long last chapter on the rise of China and the strong likelihood of a clash with America.

In his historical analysis, Mearsheimer explained that the usual geopolitical approach followed by American strategists had been to form a balancing coalition against a rising regional rival. In the case of China, he naturally assumed that this loose alliance would include Russia, India, and Japan, as well as smaller powers such as South Korea and Vietnam. Any rational American leaders would have taken this approach.

Read the Whole Article

The post President Donald Trump as Founding Father of the Newer World Order appeared first on LewRockwell.

Living with an inflammatory bowel disorder (IBD) like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis is a daily balancing act marked by unpredictability. Symptoms such as abdominal pain, urgent diarrhea, and fatigue can flare up without warning, disrupting plans and demanding constant awareness of diet, stress, and bathroom access.

Severe flares can escalate to the point of requiring hospitalization, where intense pain, dehydration, or complications like obstructions necessitate urgent medical intervention, often involving IV treatments or surgery.

During flares, the physical toll—cramping, bloating, and sometimes blood in the stool—can be exhausting, while remission periods offer relief but never erase the underlying uncertainty of potential hospital stays. Beyond the body, IBD carries an emotional weight: frustration from cancelled outings, anxiety about explaining the condition, and the quiet resilience needed to manage (frequently toxic) medications, doctor visits, hospital recoveries, and lifestyle adjustments. Likewise, owing to their complexity and frequent severity, inflammatory bowel diseases are often quite challenging for physicians to manage, hence frequently requiring specialized care.

Note: one highly under appreciated consequence of inflammatory bowel disorders is that they reduce the absorption of key nutrients (e.g., by up-regulating the liver’s production of hepcidin or reducing the ability of the intestinal lining to transport nutrients into the bloodstream) and as such, effectively managing these conditions frequently requires an extensive micronutrient workup.

Recently, I discussed the silent epidemic of chronic constipation (affecting 15–16% of adults), and the remarkable fact that almost all of it (14% of adults) is constipation that has no known cause—resulting in millions being placed on a lifetime of laxatives rather than the actual causes of their constipation being diagnosed and addressed.
Note: after publication, that article was significantly revised with additional treatments for constipation.

I would argue the situation with inflammatory bowel diseases (which affect approximately 1.17% of adults) is quite similar, as the rate of it keeps increasing. Yet, no one knows what causes it, allowing a costly status quo to perpetuate (where patients have no option except to spend thousands each year on the IBD drugs).

As such, this greatly disincentivizes research into the actual causes of them (e.g., specific pesticides and herbicides—like glyphosate—have been repeatedly linked to IBD—as have junk food diets1,2,3 and food allergies1,2). Likewise, we’ve seen numerous children who get their meningococcal vaccine for college develop Crohn’s disease but never seen this link be discussed—which may, in part, be due to Wakefield’s infamous 1998 paper showing that children who developed autism after the MMR had significant inflammatory bowel diseases (along with three earlier ones linking the measles vaccine virus to IBD1,2,3) making this topic be taboo to research further (despite numerous therapies being discovered which were able to improve autism by reducing bowel inflammation).
Note: the only research I know of on this topic was a large survey Steve Kirsch conducted, which found vaccinated children were 3.5X more likely to develop Crohn’s disease.

Likewise, one of the most common side effects of the COVID vaccines was an exacerbation of a pre-existing autoimmune disorder (e.g., an Israeli government study which found that 24.2% of those receiving a booster developed an exacerbation of a pre-existing autoimmune condition), and throughout the vaccine campaign, I saw numerous cases where this happened with IBD (including cases where vaccine supporting medical students and physicians acknowledged their issues were likely due the vaccine).

Note: the more severe a reaction is to a pharmaceutical, the rarer it is, and as such, the COVID vaccines disabled far more than they killed. While investigating the economic cost of the COVID vaccines, Ed Dowd’s team made the horrific discovery that the vaccines caused a massive spike in disability in America (16% more Americans are now disabled than they were at the start of COVID)—and this increase shows no signs of stopping (it’s actually beginning to accelerate). The above chart came from their investigation of England’s disability data (and virtually mirrors England’s increase in disability for immunological diseases).

Finally, as severe illnesses are rarer than mild ones, a much larger portion of adults are affected by chronic gut inflammation (e.g., 6.1% of Americans have irritable bowel syndrome)—with many of these disorders (e.g., leaky gut syndrome or moderate gluten sensitivity) being either understudied or outright dismissed by the medical system.
Note: we find irritable bowel disorders are frequently missed (e.g., because the scopes gastroenterologists use don’t reach much of the small intestine, and capsule endoscopies, which can do so are rarely used now). As IBD often occurs concurrently with rheumatologic disorders (particularly spondyloarthropathies), and many rheumatologic medications make IBD worse, it is often quite helpful to screen those patients for an antibody test for Crohn’s beforehand, and if positive, give them a rheumatologic drug that improves rather than worsens IBD—all of which is discussed further in this article on natural and pharmaceutical treatments for autoimmune disorders.

As such, while reviewing the literature on DMSO, I was immediately struck by the rapid and dramatic IBD improvements reported in many cases. These reports included diagnostic testing confirming complete remission of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, consistent and rapid relief of the colicky pain commonly associated with IBD, and successful treatment of an intermittent, severe colonic paralysis following colon cancer surgery alongside progressing scleroderma. Several authors specifically noted that IBD responded exceptionally well to DMSO—something one reader here also observed in their own ulcerative colitis patients.

Likewise, I periodically have exchanges like this (which I was given permission to share):

Hi! I’m desperately hoping you can help me. How would I take DMSO to help a diverticulitis flare up? Thank you so so much! I don’t trust anyone else but you!

I wrote a quick reply 19 minutes later, and then two hours and 12 minutes later received this reply.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart!!! You saved me.

Then, I asked how fast the response was:

It actually helped a lot very quickly!! I think taking it really helped to decrease the pain and inflammation.

I was ready to go to the hospital! Thank you again from the bottom of my heart!

Note: since I receive dozens of correspondences each day, I can’t respond to most of them. For this reason, I maintain monthly open threads where readers can ask any lingering questions from the previous month, and everyone else can also view the answers. Likewise, I try to answer all the questions I expect to arise in each article (e.g., 95% of the DMSO questions I receive are answered within the articles) or write new ones to address recurring questions I receive (e.g., how do you use DMSO for gastrointestinal disorders).

Umbrella Remedies

Given that DMSO is primarily thought of as a pain treatment (due to the rapid and dramatic improvement it frequently produces), it seems quite surprising that it could also create the profound bowel benefits described above. However, in medicine, there are a few therapies (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation) that have the ability to cure a wide range of diseases, and as such are referred to as “umbrella therapies.” This is because, rather than targeting a specific molecular receptor, they can address the root causes of many illnesses, such as poor circulation throughout the body, inflammation, and cells entering a state of shock where they stop functioning and eventually die.

DMSO does that, and in turn, has repeatedly been shown to be remarkably effective for a wide range of disorders including:

• Strokes, paralysis, a wide range of neurological disorders (e.g., Down Syndrome and dementia), and many circulatory disorders (e.g., Raynaud’s, varicose veins, hemorrhoids), which I discussed here.
• A wide range of tissue injuries, such as sprains, concussions, burns, surgical incisions, and spinal cord injuries (discussed here).
• Chronic pain (e.g., from a bad disc, bursitis, arthritis, or complex regional pain syndrome), which I discussed here.
• A wide range of autoimmune, protein, and contractile disorders, such as scleroderma, amyloidosis, and interstitial cystitis (discussed here).
• A variety of head conditions, such as tinnitus, vision loss, dental problems, and sinusitis (discussed here).
• A wide range of internal organ diseases, such as pancreatitis, infertility, COPD, and endometriosis (discussed here).
• A wide range of skin conditions, such as burns, varicose veins, acne, hair loss, ulcers, skin cancer, and many autoimmune dermatologic diseases (discussed here).
• Many challenging infectious conditions, including chronic bacterial infections, herpes, and shingles (discussed here).
• Many aspects of cancer (e.g., many of cancer’s debilitating symptoms, making cancer treatments more potent, greatly reducing the toxicity of conventional therapies, and turning cancer cells back into normal cells), which I discussed here.

Note: most of the above have also been shown for ultraviolet blood irradiation. Likewise, similar data exists for ozone, another umbrella remedy that I plan to focus on once the DMSO series is finished.

Additionally, DMSO possesses a unique ability to enhance the absorption and potency of pharmaceutical medications and natural therapies by facilitating their passage into the body. This property has transformed the way conventional and natural medicine is practiced, opening up nearly limitless possibilities for incredible therapeutic combinations (discussed here and here), and most importantly, DMSO is extremely safe (provided it’s used correctly).

As such, a wealth of data (detailed in the above articles) has accumulated, showing DMSO has a high rate of efficacy in a wide range of conditions. Since DMSO was widely available, it quickly spread like wildfire across America in the 1960s (particularly due to how rapidly it alleviated “incurable” pain). Regrettably, the FDA then stepped in and went to war with DMSO to protect the status quo. In the decades that followed, despite the public, the scientific community, and Congress petitioning the FDA to rescind their prohibition on DMSO, it all fell on deaf ears (all of which I chronicled here).

Eventually, the 1994 DSHEA Act (passed in response to public outrage over the FDA raiding supplement providers at gunpoint) simply took away the FDA’s ability to regulate natural medicines, and DMSO was able to re-enter the marketplace. Sadly by this time, despite thousands of studies supporting its use, many American pharmaceutical products using DMSO and it being widely used outside the United States, DMSO had become yet another forgotten side of medicine.

As what they did to DMSO has always really bothered me (particularly due to its ability to rescue people from a life of debility after strokes or spinal cord injuries), I decided to try publicizing it and do all that I could to give a strong case for its use. Fortunately, numerous readers here were willing to try it, bringing it to public consciousness, and much like the 1960s (when it first emerged) it again has rapidly caught on.

In turn, I’ve received numerous testimonials from readers around the world about the life-changing effects DMSO has had on them. Recognizing the importance of not letting these stories become forgotten, I’ve devoted a significant amount of time to compiling those I came across here—which has now totaled to over 3,000 reports of DMSO treating a wide range of conditions.

The majority of those testimonials align with the well-recognized functions of DMSO, but at the same time, I’ve received many astonishing ones, such as the diverticulitis example above. As such, this article will focus on exactly what the data shows DMSO does for the gastrointestinal system, and how many reader reports mirror what is displayed within those studies.

Note: one of DMSO’s key anticancer properties is that it causes cancer cells to differentiate (transform) into normal cells. Data also shows it can create this effect in stem cells1,2,3 and hence produce the cells needed to regenerate a damaged organ (e.g., this has been repeatedly demonstrated for the heart1,2,3,4,5,6 and kidneys1).

Stomach

I adore your substance. Your suggestion to try oral DMSO to heal my stomach issues [and my gut] is slowly but surely working. I have been seeing various docs about the issue for over 2 years now- and your suggestion was the first one to actually help! — from a retired M.D.

DMSO has been repeatedly shown to heal the stomach, stop life-threatening bleeds and modulate its function, particularly when injuries follow excess acidity:

•A study of 138 patients with chronic gastritis (stomach inflammation), duodenal ulcers (mostly in remission), or one gastric ulcer found that 50% DMSO applications to the epigastric area often reduced gastric juice volume and acidity in those with duodenal ulcers and hypersecretion, and enhanced antral mucosa neutralization in some with acidic conditions. In chronic gastritis with preserved acid secretion, the effects of DMSO varied (no change, reduced, or slightly increased secretion and acidity). In secretory insufficiency, DMSO had no stimulating effect, either unchanged or slightly reduced secretion. In short, DMSO consistently normalized excessive stomach acid production.

I have been drinking DMSO diluted in water daily for about 3 months with no known side effects…Since starting this pattern my reflux has disappeared and I am feeling great.

• In lab tests, 9% DMSO increased pepsin enzyme activity by 83.4%, lowered the Km value to 1.50 mg/mL, and altered pepsin’s molecular conformation without inhibiting aromatic amino acid absorption—hence making pepsin more effective at digesting protein.

Bleeding ulcers in the stomach and duodenum remain a major issue in medicine, with roughly 10,000 Americans dying annually from them, and around 10 billion dollars are spent each year on them. As such, DMSO’s ability to treat and prevent them is quite noteworthy:

• In 115 hospitalized patients with pelvic fractures or hypovolemic shock at risk for stress-induced gastric ulcers, 22% of 58 controls developed ulcers, compared to only 4% of 57 receiving DMSO and 3% of 62 receiving allopurinol. Notably, none of the DMSO-treated patients deteriorated or required emergency surgery, whereas 8 controls and 1 allopurinol recipient did, with 3 control patients dying.

• In 101 patients with hematemesis (coughing up blood) due to erosive gastritis, oral DMSO and allopurinol (administered every 6 hours for 5 days) resulted in 8% having further hematemesis episodes, and 9% having endoscopies showing hemorrhagic inflammation. In contrast, 29% of untreated controls had further hematemesis episodes, and 44% showed hemorrhagic inflammation. No treated patients required surgery, while three controls did, with one death.

• In 58 patients with NSAID-induced erosive gastritis, DMSO reduced re-bleeding, stabilized hemodynamics, and promoted gastric erosion healing (7% had erosions at 48 hours) compared to placebo (50% of 59 patients), with fewer patients requiring transfusions or surgery.

• In 40 patients with multiple fractures and hemorrhagic shock, DMSO reduced stress-induced acute gastric mucosal injury incidence to 2.5% (1/40) compared to 23.8% (10/42) with placebo, with fewer requiring surgery.

• In rats with corrosive esophageal burns, intraperitoneal DMSO reduced stricture formation by decreasing malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin-6 levels, lowering the stenosis index and histopathologic damage scores compared to controls.

• In rats, DMSO significantly accelerated healing of reserpine- and 5-hydroxytryptamine-induced acute ischemic gastric mucosal injury, reducing injury severity over 4 days compared to placebo.

• In three separate placebo controlled rat studies, DMSO at (1%, 2%, and 5%) demonstrated significant protection from a variety of injuries to the stomach lining in a dose dependent manner. In the first, 2 days of DMSO pretreatment counteracted ischemic injuries (from reserpine or serotonin) to the gastric mucosa, with 1% DMSO reducing the injury area, 2% protecting 60-80% of the stomach (depending on the injuring agent used), and 5% fully preventing it. In the second study, DMSO prevented ethanol (alcohol) from damaging the stomach, with 1% reducing injury in 70% of rats, while 2% and 5% eliminated it entirely. In the third, 1% DMSO reducing stomach ulceration by 40%, 2% by 80% and 5% by 100% (providing complete protection).

• DMSO (2 or 5% solutions) completely protected rats against aspirin-induced gastric mucosal injury (0% incidence vs. 30% without pyloric ligation and 80% with ligation in placebo) and ethanol-induced injury (0% incidence vs. 100% in placebo), without affecting H+ output.

• In rats subjected to water-immersion stress, DMSO inhibited gastric ulcer formation. Similarly, in rats with cold-restraint stress, DMSO, allopurinol, or their combination significantly reduced lipid peroxidation and stress-induced gastric and lung injuries compared to saline controls.
Note: other studies have also shown DMSO protects against gastric stress ulceration.

Other data also corroborates DMSO’s ability to heal severe gastric conditions and support recovery in challenging cases:

• A 1968 patent application reported oral DMSO effectively treated gastrointestinal conditions: 28 patients with acute gastritis resumed work within 5–8 days, free of nausea, vomiting, and pain, with 21 remaining symptom-free after one year; 13 patients with chronic gastritis improved after 1–2 months and stayed relapse-free for a year with periodic retreatment; 5 patients with recent peptic ulcers were cured without recurrence over a year; 6 patients with enterocolitis improved after 8 days and returned to work within 2 months; and 3 patients with mucomembranous colitis were cured after 3 weeks.

• In patients with refractory gastric and duodenal ulcers unresponsive to three months of cimetidine and one month of bismuth chelate, oral DMSO achieved complete healing within four weeks with no significant side effects, compared to placebo.

• In 126 patients with healed duodenal ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection, oral DMSO reduced one-year ulcer relapse to 6%, compared to 47% with placebo and 24% with cimetidine, showing superior efficacy. No comparison between DMSO alone and DMSO with allopurinol was reported.

• In 12 patients with refractory peptic ulcers (eight duodenal, four gastric), oral DMSO achieved complete healing within four weeks, compared to placebo.

Finally, DMSO has also been shown to alter other characteristics of the stomach (e.g., it made the stomach more transparent, increasing light transmittance by 29%; it increased the stomach’s sensitivity to vagal stimulation; and at concentrations above 50%, it decreased stomach acid secretion in a dose-dependent manner).

Note: Numerous key human studies cited in this section and the next (where DMSO was often administered orally with a nasogastric tube) were conducted by a DMSO researcher in Iraq between 1990–1994, during a period when its medical system was robust before economic sanctions and conflicts disrupted Iraq’s healthcare infrastructure, a pattern also observed in Libya post-NATO intervention (where pivotal DMSO research was also previously conducted)..

Read the Whole Article

The post How DMSO Heals the Gut and Cures Gastrointestinal Diseases appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a sense all I’m ever really pointing at here is the importance of taking responsibility. Taking responsibility as westerners for the suffering and destruction inflicted upon the world by the western power structure that we live under.

To be a westerner is to live in a civilization that is powered by the abuse and exploitation of the people of the global south. Every one of us benefits directly from the way resources and labor are exploitatively extracted from nations that are held in subjugation to the western empire at the barrel of a gun. The very electronic device you are reading these words on is a testament to this reality.

We each have a moral obligation to end this abusive dynamic. We have a responsibility to oppose the mass murder, tyranny, theft and abuse which is being imposed upon the rest of the world by the nations in which we live.

This is one of the reasons why I have no patience for rightists who whine about immigrants. It is not legitimate to live in a civilization which bombs, destabilizes, exploits and extracts from the global south and then complain when the victims of the bombing, destabilization, exploitation and extraction move to your country to get away from the misery your society caused them.

Whenever I say this I get rightists telling me “It’s not OUR fault there are immigrants! It’s our leaders! They’re the ones doing this, not us!”

And to them I can only say, nah. You’re just shirking your responsibility. You’re being immature and irresponsible. You need to grow up and take responsibility for your part of the bargain here. You need to stop blaming your problems on the desperate victims of your country’s abuses, and start doing what you can to end those abuses.

Don’t whine to me about how powerless you are. You know who’s a lot less powerful than you? The immigrants you’re bitching about. The exploited, abused nations they’ve been driven from. You’ve got a hell of a lot more power to effect meaningful change than they do. They’re being blown about by the winds of circumstances which you directly benefit from. Quit your bellyaching and get to work.

Ferociously oppose genocide. Ferociously oppose war. Ferociously oppose militarism. Ferociously oppose imperialism. Stand in solidarity with the ordinary workers around the world who are being exploited by the empire under which we live. Do everything you can to wake your fellow westerners up to the reality of the empire’s abuses and help create a grassroots movement to tear it down. That’s your responsibility.

This is why I’m always dismissive of people who say “Why are you always criticizing the west? Why aren’t you talking about that evil regime over there in Asia or Africa?” Those aren’t my responsibility. I am a westerner. I live under the US-centralized western empire whose abuses dwarf those of any non-western power structure by orders of magnitude. I focus on the power structure under which I live, which also happens to be the most murderous and tyrannical power structure on earth, because that is my responsibility.

Obviously our rulers are far more culpable in the abuses of the western empire than the ordinary individuals who live here, but we in turn are far more culpable in those abuses than the non-westerners whose labor and resources are being extracted so we can have cheap stuff whenever we want it. I’m not saying this exploitation makes all westerners inherently evil, I’m just saying we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to help end an abusive situation.

We need to stop trying to offload the blame for our circumstances onto others and set to work opening eyes and fomenting a revolutionary zeitgeist. Our leaders aren’t going to cease their abuses of their own volition, so we’re going to have to find a way to force them to.

That is our duty. That is our responsibility. We will never create a healthy world and become a truly conscious species on this planet until we have gotten real about this.

________________

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

The post Westerners Have a Moral Responsibility To Help Curb the Empire’s Abuses appeared first on LewRockwell.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is communism.

During the past year I have read on various websites  articles that the West has become the Communist State that it once opposed.

Various legitimate examples are offered:  the use of law as a weapon as in Stalin’s show trials of the Bolsheviks who made the Russian Revolution;  suppression of free speech and protest as all over the Western world;  fake election results as in the 2020 US presidential election and in Europe by banning opposition candidates from running for office;  focus on “foreign enemies” instead of the domestic institutionalization of tyranny;  designation of Trump’s supporters as domestic enemies and insurrectionists.

As of yet, no one has put all of these concerns into one formula.  Allow me to try.

For 60 years liberals have transitioned the United States from merit to race and gender based entitlements.

The United States, whose foundational basis is English common law and the accountability of government achieved by the English Glorious Revolution of 1680, has been beset by progressives and liberals for many decades for being a society based on merit and equality under law.  Equality under law requires just that and thus prohibits DEI-based preferences.

A merit-based society allows and encourages those best able and qualified to take the leading positions.  But this excludes those less capable and, thereby, violates “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” which the liberal-left has raised as the new standard.  The “solution” is to put the less capable in charge. This requires demonizing merit as “racist” which has resulted in merit no longer being the requirement for admissions to Ivy League universities and formerly merit-based high schools.  Instead, admission is based on racial privilege.

Progressives and liberals since the regime of Franklin D. Roosevelt have succeeded in elevating DEI above merit, today dismissed as “white  racism.” The entire purpose of  the Democrat Party is to destroy a merit-based society. Trump is hated by the liberal-left for trying to restore a merit-based society.

For the liberal-left merit is discriminatory and thereby racist.  To escape racism, DEI must supplant merit as the basis of American society.  DEI is the Democrat Party’s weapon to overthrow a merit-based society.

Communism precludes incomes, influence, and status based on merit in theory but not in practice. In practice, Communist Party membership was the ladder to upward mobility.  But for ideologues it is theory that counts. Under communism equality regardless of merit is the standard.

Capitalistic, bourgeois society is based on merit with income, influence, and status based on success.  Therefore a merit-based society precludes equal results.

A merit-based society is “unfair” in the modern parlance. A fair society is one in which merit receives no reward and is handicapped by  preferences for those who are without merit. Kurt Vonnegut describes the liberal-left ideal in his short story, “Harrison Bergeron.”  Vonnegut thought it would be 2081 before the American liberal-left would be able to establish the Cabinet Department of Handicapper General.  But the transition began in 1965 when the EEOC stood the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head and imposed racial preferences for blacks known as “affirmative action.”  These preferences were explicitly prohibited by the 1964 Civil Right Act.  But the American liberal-left elevated its ideological agenda above the law.

Such a society will, of course, be mediocre and a laggard in intellectual and cultural advancement.  But as such advancements are merit-based, they don’t count. DEI is achieved when individual achievement becomes a criminal offense against society. In Vonnegut’s story, Harrison Bergeron is shot by the Handicapper General.  I once read a science fiction story in which at a certain age children were tested for intelligence.  If their intelligence was above the norm, they were terminated.

Already today September 8th, 2025, we have laws or regulations that penalize merit-based admission, hiring, and promotion decisions and criminalize disagreement with some official narratives, such as the Holocaust.  Various Democrat cities have passed laws that give legal immunities to non-whites.

Yet the West continues to claim free speech–obviously a false claim–and to redefine equality under law as equality of  result.  

As free speech guaranteed by the American Constitution is now impermissible, how does truth survive?  As truth is impermissible, how can good decisions be made?

As recent decades have made completely clear, good decisions cannot be made in the Western world.  Enemies are created instead of peace.  Law beakers are protected while their victims are punished. Borders are undefended at the expense of the ethnic citizens of the country.

As the immigrant invasions continue, the more entitlement takes over from merit and the less Western governments represent their ethnic base.  Thus we have arrived at The Camp of the Saints.

The post Is the Western World Degenerating Into Communism? appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report commissioned by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. indicates Tylenol use during pregnancy is one factor contributing to the U.S. autism epidemic, according to media reports.

Sources close to the matter said low levels of folate as well as the use of the acetaminophen-based drug will be named in the forthcoming HHS autism report as among potential causal factors behind autism.

Kennedy, secretary of the HHS, told Fox and Friends last week that his agency was about to reveal causes of autism and make government regulation recommendations accordingly. His remarks suggest that mothers’ Tylenol use and folate deficiency will be among a multitude of factors cited in the HHS report.

“There is not a single cause, there are many, many — there’s an aggregation of causes,” said Kennedy. “We are now developing sufficient evidence to ask for regulatory action on some of those, or recommendations.”

He noted the documented explosion in autism rates, which have gone from less than one in 10,000 in 1970 to one case for every 31 Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Even if autism is over-diagnosed, a significant portion of these children are severely impaired, indicating a real, notable increase in the disorder.

“Most cases now are severe,” Kennedy said in April while discussing the results of a CDC autism survey. He explained that “25% of the kids who are diagnosed with autism are non-verbal, non-toilet trained,” and have other dysfunctional behaviors typical of severe autism like hand-banging.

During a Senate hearing on Thursday, Kennedy also pointed to a link between the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.

“In 2002, CDC did an internal study of Fulton County, Georgia, children, and looked at children who got the MMR vaccine on time and compared those to kids who got them later. The data from that study showed that black boys who got the vaccine on time had a 260% greater chance of getting an autism diagnosis than children who waited,” Kennedy explained.

“The chief scientist on that, Dr. William Thompson, the senior vaccine safety scientist at CDC, was ordered to come into a room with four other co-authors by his boss, Frank DeStefano, who’s the head of the Immunization Safety Branch, in order to destroy that data,” said Kennedy.

This story was divulged by CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, one of the co-authors who intentionally omitted the 2004 study data showing the MMR vaccine-autism connection in black children.

While an evolving, broadening definition of autism may contribute to increased diagnoses, Kennedy believes “environmental toxins” have contributed to a full-blown epidemic of autism.

“We’re going to look at vaccines, but we’re going to look at everything. Everything is on the table, our food system, our water, our air, different ways of parenting, all the kind of changes that may have triggered this epidemic,” the HHS head previously told Fox News.

“It is an epidemic,” Kennedy insisted. “Epidemics are not caused by genes. Genes can provide a vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin.”

“We know that it is an environmental toxin that is causing this cataclysm,” said Kennedy, “and we are going to identify it.”

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post RFK Jr. and HHS: Autism Is Linked to MMR Vaccine, Tylenol Use During Pregnancy appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Donald Trump, who had snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu when he came to ask him to annex Gaza, is reportedly preparing to take control of the Palestinian territory. While Tel Aviv prepares to annex the entirety of Mandatory Palestine and, on the contrary, Egypt and Jordan have the keys to the Palestinian Authority, a vast real estate operation worth $100 billion is being considered.

President Donald Trump convened a meeting at the White House on August 27 to gather suggestions for the future of Gaza. Attending the meeting were Vice President J.D. Vance, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former first-term adviser Jared Kushner, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer.

No statement was issued after the meeting. However, according to the Washington Post , the Gaza Strip would be “administered by the United States for at least 10 years while it is transformed into a glittering tourist resort and a center of high-tech manufacturing and technology.” A whopping $100 billion would be invested there.

This possible operation corresponds to the vision of the “Jacksonians.” In 1830, President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) promulgated the Indian Removal Act. To end the Indian Wars, he proposed assigning them reservations rather than continuing to massacre them. The removal of the Indians was particularly deadly for the Cherokees (the “Trail of Tears” episode), but they accepted this form of peace, while almost all other Indian tribes rejected it. Two centuries later, only the Cherokee tribe has become rich and integrated, while all other tribes have been marginalized. Without a doubt, Jackson’s method succeeded in ending the genocide of the Indians, but at what cost?

Trump’s unfolding plan is as shocking to Palestinians as Jackson’s was to the Cherokee, but it offers a solution where no one else has one. Will it satisfy Palestinians, who have fought for their rights for generations,? International law states that no people may be expelled from their own land. The United Nations General Assembly has consistently guaranteed the right of return of those forcibly expelled in 1948—UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (December 11, 1948) and UN Security Council Resolution 237 (June 14, 1967). Seven years ago, Palestinian civilians organized the “March of Return.” The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) fired on a peaceful crowd, killing at least 120 people and wounding 4,000. It is obviously illusory to believe that such a people will easily rally to this project.

The White House meeting participants also considered paying $23,000 per person to any family that agreed to go into exile. Contacts have already been made with Libya, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Indonesia, and Somaliland, although none of these states have confirmed this. The Trump team is considering voluntarily displacing a quarter of Gaza’s population in this way.

According to the Financial Times , the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) held joint working meetings on the Gaza Riviera project, called The Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust (GREAT* Trust). It was during these preparatory meetings that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) project was born. During the summer, this Swiss-registered foundation distributed humanitarian aid in Gaza in place of the occupation authority, the United Nations, the International Red Cross, and various humanitarian organizations. This certainly resulted in the circumvention of Hamas, but also in the assassination by the IDF of nearly a thousand civilians seeking food aid. The GHF scandal was unanimously condemned, including by prominent Jewish Israeli figures. In practice, the GHF was created by the Mikveh Yisrael Forum, which brought together Yotam HaCohen, a strategic advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu and son of former General Gershon HaCohen; Liran Tankman, a former intelligence officer turned high-tech executive; and US-Israeli venture capitalist Michael Eisenberg. Most of the Mikveh Yisrael Forum’s leaders joined the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Ghassan Alian, in their belief that the Netanyahu government was doing nothing to help Gazans and that it was up to the Israelis to take the initiative. The “Foundation” was reportedly funded to the tune of $100 million by a European state whose identity remains secret.

TRIAL International, a Swiss-based NGO, has filed two legal submissions asking Swiss authorities to investigate the GHF’s ​​compliance with Swiss law and international humanitarian law. The central issue raised by TRIAL International is whether humanitarian organizations can use private military companies. Indeed, early on, GHF’s ​​executive director, former U.S. Marine Jake Wood, resigned. The “Foundation” then employed the services of Philip F. Reilly and his company Safe Reach Solutions. Reilly is a former soldier in the U.S. 7th Special Forces Group, which focused on counter-narcotics missions in Latin America. He went on to become head of the CIA’s paramilitary branch, then known as the Special Activities Division but later renamed the Special Activities Center. He was the CIA’s Afghan station chief around 2008 and 2009, as well as the chief of operations for the agency’s Counterterrorism Mission Center, which led the agency’s highly controversial drone strike program during the War on Terror. He then moved to the private sector as senior vice president of special activities for the private military contractor Constellis, owner of the mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater. Finally, he worked for another private military, Orbis. While it’s true that the IDF didn’t kill the Palestinian civilians who came looking for food, Philip F. Reilly’s men did.

The project for the future of Gaza, according to its real estate developers (the three professionals Jared Kushner, Donald Trump, and Steve Witkoff), is worthy of Dubai. Many transnational corporations have already joined forces.

To facilitate the regroupment of Gazans, the Revisionist Zionist government of Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the creation of a tent city for 600,000 people in Rafa. They would have access to food and hospitals, but would not be able to leave.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a conference on Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank on May 14: “Civilians will be sent south to a humanitarian zone, and from there they will begin to leave in large numbers for third countries.”

The Prime Minister himself finally made his decision on August 13 on i24News in Hebrew. He claimed a “historical and spiritual mission” and assured that he is “very” attached to the vision of a “Greater Israel.” At 75, he publicly claims to be his father’s mentor, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of “revisionist Zionism.”

Simultaneously, the Knesset passed a non-binding law on July 23, by a vote of 71 to 13, calling on the government to annex the West Bank before new permanent members of the UN Security Council fully recognize the State of Palestine.
Meanwhile, the IDF reports that 618 settler attacks were recorded in the West Bank in 2024, compared to 404 in the first half of 2025.
Republican Mike Johnson, Speaker of the U.S. House, has expressed support for annexation. He visited the settlement of Ariel in early August 2025 and stated that he believed “Judea and Samaria” belonged to the Jewish people and expressed support for extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. This was the first time that a US official of this level had visited Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Trump administration is cautiously staying away from this movement for the time being, especially since it is focusing all its efforts on strengthening the Abraham Accords with Arab states.
Israeli public opinion, for its part, according to a survey conducted in December 2024 by the Institute for National Security Studies, is 34% against annexing Palestinian territories, 21% support annexing existing settlements, and 21% support annexing everything.

For their part, Egypt and Jordan, unwilling to believe it, continue to train hundreds of young Palestinians loyal to Fatah to form a 10,000-strong private security force to bring the Palestinian Authority to power in Gaza. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France plan to fully recognize the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly, and the latter is preparing its declaration of independence.

Main sources:

“אמון באישיםובמוסדות” , Institute for National Security Studies , December 2024.
 “אור בקצה המנהרה: לקראת מערכה אזרחית”, יותם הכה in Dado Center for Interdisciplinary Military Thought, issue 41, July 2024.
 “  New Gaza Aid Plan, Bypassing UN and Billed as Neutral, Originated in Israel  ”, Patrick Kingsley, Ronen Bergman & Natan Odenheimer, The New York Times , May 24, 2025.
 “  Israelis, a former CIA official and $100M: The real players in the Gaza aid scheme  ”, Israel Hayom , Erez Linn May 25, 2025.
 “  Tony Blair’s staff took part in ‘Gaza Riviera’ project with BCG  ”, Financial Times , July 7, 2025.
 “  Tony Blair thinktank worked with project developing ‘Trump Riviera’ Gaza plan  ”, Ben Quinn, The Guardian , July 7, 2025.
 “  Israeli Official: Netanyahu Supports Plan to Concentrate Gazans Into ‘Humanitarian City’  ”, Liza Rozovsky, Haaretz , July 8, 2025
 “  Exclusive: Proposal outlines large-scale ‘Humanitarian Transit Areas’ for Palestinians in Gaza  ”, Jonathan Landay & Aram Roston, Reuters, July 11, 2025.
 “  Boston Consulting Group modeled plan to ‘relocate Palestinians’ from Gaza to Somalia  ,” Middle East Eye , August 7, 2025.
 “  Egypt Is Training Palestinian Forces to Take Over Postwar Gaza  ”, Summer Said & Benoit Faucon, The Wall Street Journal , August 27, 2025.

The post The Future of Gaza as Seen From the White House appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump’s second presidency has been on a downward spiral ever since he exploded at a question regarding the Epstein List, and started calling it a Democratic Party “hoax.” His Justice Department told the public, presumably with a straight face, that there was no Epstein List. Move along, nothing to see here.

Since I last wrote about our Giant Orange hero, he attempted to deflect criticism of the Epstein List comments ( with Trump becoming perhaps the world’s first Epstein Denier), and his Attorney General suddenly started talking smack about another of our beloved presidents, Barack Obama. Supposedly, Obama was about to be charged with treason, or something like that. Not sure which of the horrific acts they were going to prosecute him for; I heard nothing about the murder of a wedding party in Yemen, for instance, but there was a lot to choose from. But there the story ends. As it always does. File it with the $5,000 DOGE refund, or the dismantling of the IRS. You don’t have to be black pilled to understand that Obama is not going to be prosecuted any more than income taxes for those earning under $200,000 are going to be abolished (another of the countless populist Trumpenstein proposals).

But recently, rumors have begun to circulate that Donald Trump is a very sick man. Very, very sick. Those who make predictions, unlike me, have claimed he only has six months or so to live. This cyber diagnosis is based primarily on long range closeups of his swollen ankles and mysterious makeup on his hand. Sounds pretty serious to me. Some even have suggested he’s already dead, and been replaced by a clone. Now, it would admittedly be hard to find a clone like that; with unique orangish skin and the most creative hairdo in the history of politics. It is unknown if this clone is equipped with the orange micro-penis that millions of devoted haters insists that he must have. No Trump duplicate can be without it. This clone has done a pretty good job of mimicking Trump’s head shaking oratory. He/It can repeat the same phrase over and over again, and say “unbelievable” every other word, just as well as the original. Who knows? Maybe the clone will be better at keeping promises.

We’ve been down this rabbit hole before. When Jimmy Carter was president, one of the more interesting left-wing “conspiracy theorists,” Peter Beter, insisted that he’d been replaced shortly after the election. His evidence revolved around Carter abruptly parting his hair on the other side. Well, maybe he thought it looked more presidential? There were many allegations about Joe Biden. He, too, was said to be dead, dying, or cloned. To be fair, he provided a lot of ammunition for such accusations; shaking hands with empty air, wandering aimlessly like a lost patient at the local rest home, and speaking even more incomprehensibly than Trump ever has. During the 2016 primaries, predictions were that Hillary Clinton was deathly ill. There were pictures of her being rushed into an ambulance. When she seemed to recover fully from her near death experience, it was suggested that she, too, had been replaced by a clone. Or maybe executed at Gizmo. I get confused sometimes.

You’re going to have these kinds of theories when your leaders become as old as ours are. Trump is 79, and Biden is even older. Has Trump been wearing a catheter bag? Did Biden crap his pants? Or maybe that was Trump. Perhaps both of them. A female world leader was recently photographed figuratively holding her nose while sitting next to Trump. Of course, this was because his Depends hadn’t been changed. You have to admit that Trump has quite a spring in his step for a guy his age, who is saddled by both a catheter and an adult diaper. This would seemingly interfere with his ability to have that affair with the much younger, hard core Zionist Laura Loomer. Which we were assured some months ago was definitely happening. Well, maybe his Depends didn’t smell as bad then. Why has Trump continually been connected to this kind of stuff? Remember the whole imaginary “golden showers” dossier?

Regardless, someone who looks and sounds just like Trump has been doing some pretty non-MAGA things lately. His whole law enforcement fetish has exploded now, with the National Guard patrolling Washington, D.C., and supposedly doing what the police there couldn’t or wouldn’t do. You could perhaps make a case for that, given that until Home Rule was established in 1973, our nation’s capital was run by the federal government. But now Trump is talking about Chicago, and then perhaps other cities that are crime ridden. Not because of Democrats on a nonstop crime spree, as gutless conservative “influencers” would describe it, but because of Black thugs on a nonstop crime spree. For the country’s most renowned “racist,” Trump does a remarkable job of restraining himself from identifying the racial minority group that is responsible for all of the street crime in Washington, D.C. And Chicago, for that matter. Well, I suppose they probably are Democrats as well.

Today, stories are breaking saying that Trump is proclaiming that his tariffs could replace income taxes. Again. He did say this before, after all. It was somewhere between ending the IRS and scrapping the Department of Education. Which is still up and running, I believe. I wonder if he’s more serious this time. I’m still waiting for those new factories to be constructed here. You know, to provide a bit of domestic industry to compete with the foreign products that are being tariffed. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will now hold a second press conference, as she did over a month ago, to announce the imminent arrest of Barack Obama. I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word “imminent.” I can’t even speculate on what RFK, Jr. is really doing. What poisons have been removed from the food and water? What exactly is the truth about his efforts on vaccines? Maybe I should check with Rabbi Shmuley.

Other America First things Trumpenstein is doing include burying a study showing a link between alcohol and cancer. That’s odd, given Trump’s very vocal teetotaling lifestyle. Imagine what he’d do with a study linking cancer to his precious Diet Coke. And Trump is digging in deeper on his inexplicable Epstein stance. His Epstein Denial shown through clearly as he reacted to the disclosure efforts of Congress’s best member, Thomas Massie (who Trump, of course, loathes) by declaring, “This is a Democrat hoax that never ends…they’re trying to get people to talk about something that’s totally irrelevant to the success that we’ve had as a nation since I’ve been president.” Just who is that supposed to appeal to? It’s almost as if Trump is an actor, hired to play the part of a fake populist rebel, and is now bizarrely trying to make himself look guilty. You could refer to it as the Trumpenstein Project.

Trump has also been mysteriously mentioning heaven a lot lately. He said recently, “I want to try and get to heaven, if possible. I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I hear I’m really at the bottom of the totem pole.” Say what you will about him, but no other president has ever talked like this. In 1990, Trump told Playboy magazine in an interview, “I don’t believe in reincarnation- heaven or hell- but we go someplace.” Not exactly the sentiments of a real Christian, but how many loud Christians walk the walk? I’m sure his most faithful MAGA backers could rationalize this, not to mention all the other un-Christian debris from his past. Can the email being mentioned on conspiracy forums, which begins with “I want to try to make it to heaven,” and closes with “Send $15,” possibly be real? This whole grifter aspect of Trumpenstein’s character has really gotten out of control. Like Jim Carrey’s wild overacting.

Read the Whole Article

The post Has Trumpenstein Left the Building? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, I have written about 20 columns critical of Netanyahu and his government for the extreme hatred and almost unbelievable cruelty he and it have exhibited toward the Palestinian people.

As hard as I have tried, though, nothing I could ever write would even come close to the feeling, the emotion expressed by Tom Fletcher, the UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs, in a recent three-minute speech.

This very moving speech can be seen simply by typing in “Tom Fletcher Famine Speech” on your IPhone or IPad. The one-sided slaughter of Palestinians would stop almost immediately if there was some way to get everyone to watch or listen to it.

Mr. Fletcher repeated the words “It is a famine” before each of these clauses: “…that hits the most vulnerable first, each with a name, each with a story….that forces a parent to choose which child to feed….that forces people to risk their lives to seek food….that strips people of dignity before it strips them of life….that is openly promoted by some Israeli leaders as a weapon of war.”

Mr. Fletcher added that it “ is a famine caused by cruelty, justified by revenge, enabled by indifference, and supported by complicity.” It is the “world’s famine, a famine that will and must haunt us all” and, worst of all, a famine that is occurring while stacks and stacks of food sit just a few meters away, prevented by Israel from being brought in.

I know that almost every member of Congress-many of them friends of mine-have been bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby. They are intimidated by money the Lobby can get from all over the Country to be used either for or against them.

They will not watch the Fletcher speech because they are good and kind people who cannot bear to see the gruesome photos or read or hear about the killing, starvation or horrors that are part of the daily life in Gaza. In this purposeful ignoring of the Gazan horrors, they are like the Japanese tale of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

It has sickened me to see photos of starving children, to read stories of little children having legs or arms amputated without anesthesia and medicine to help wounds heal, and watching news reports showing dead children in their father’s arms while their mothers wail agonized tears.

It horrified me to read an August 16 story in the Drudge Report that said our own State Department announced “it would stop issuing visas to children from Gaza in desperate need of medical care after an online pressure campaign by Laura Loomer,” a Jewish woman who claims to be close to President Trump.

And it disgusted me to read a report from the medical charity Doctors Without Borders which said “Israeli forces and American private contractors have engaged in targeted and indiscriminate violence against starved Palestinians at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites.” AI reported that at least 1,373 Palestinians had been killed by Sept 1 trying to get to the food at these sites.

Unfortunately, our government in cooperation with the Israeli government, with US taxpayer millions, has setup this fake “humanitarian” foundation that has furthered the starvation and killing of Palestinians. I challenge anyone who doubts this to listen to Tucker Carlson’s interview with former Green Beret Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar.

Col. Aguilar was hired by this fraudulent Gaza Humanitarian Foundation at $1,381 a day but resigned in protest after he saw what was really going on. He said the UN had 400 food sites until it was kicked out when the total Israeli siege began at the end of March. Then when Israel finally let in a totally inadequate amount of food at the end of May, it limited distribution to four sites.

People had to walk miles and dodge Israeli bullets to get pitiful bits of food, if any. My dog is fed much better every day. Doctors Without Borders said the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation “is a scheme (that) is degrading Palestinians by slaughter masquerading as humanitarian” and that it “must be immediately dismantled.”

A neurosurgeon from Houston who was a volunteer in Gaza said the situation “is the worst thing I have ever seen in my life by far.” He told of two seven-year-old boys shot by Israeli soldiers, one dead on arrival and one horribly wounded in the scrotum,  a 25-year-old shot in the spine with arms and legs paralyzed,and how doctors had to use and reuse surgical items that should have been thrown away after one use. He said even the doctors were starving.

Evangelical Christians who still support the slaughter in Gaza need to explain how it is Christian to starve little children and murder many thousands of innocent, unarmed women, children, and old men.

The post I Wish Everyone Would Watch Tom Fletcher Famine Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier this year, medical researchers from the University of Texas published the results of a bombshell study documenting the mental health impact of so-called “gender-affirming” surgery.  The study included nearly 110,000 male and female patients who were eighteen or older and diagnosed with gender dysphoria.  Among those patients observed, some underwent surgery, and some did not.

The results were clear: Two years after surgery, those who “transitioned” had “significantly higher” rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation.  This was true for both males and females.

The study’s authors were careful not to draw conclusions beyond the scope of the data: “Findings suggest the necessity for gender-sensitive mental health support following gender-affirming surgery to address post-surgical psychological risks.”  Pro-“trans” publications framed the research in sympathetic ways, with one insisting, “While affirming surgery remains a crucial step for many, this research highlights the urgent need for post-surgical mental health support.”

However, even those wary of jumping to conclusions recognize that the study underscores the risks to people who undergo “drastic, life-altering procedures” that “demand lifelong management.”  Too many patients are encouraged to make “irreversible changes” to their bodies with hormone therapy and surgery “only to regret” those changes in the next few years.

The Minneapolis “trans” terrorist who murdered praying children on their first day of school confessed in a manifesto, “I am tired of being trans, I wish I never brainwashed myself.”  He admitted that he disliked his long hair but felt cutting it would be an “embarrassing defeat.”  He wrote, “I hate my face” because it “never matches how I feel.”

The “trans” terror attack against Christians in Minnesota is an exclamation point to the University of Texas research that suggests that enabling people to believe they are something that they are not is dangerous both for those who suffer from delusions and those who are expected to interact with the delusional in real life.

Unfortunately, corporate news publications pretend not to see this connection.  On the contrary, the majority of corporate news stories that have been published since the “trans” terror attack in Minneapolis attempt to blame the victims.  If only American society had more completely embraced the delusions of the “trans” terrorist, these apologists for a child-murderer explain, the carnage never would have been necessary.  Christians, many pro-“trans” voices callously suggest, are the true culprits responsible for “trans” terrorism.  Because they acknowledge biological reality and encourage others to love God, Christians are viewed as threats to the “trans” community.

However else one feels about the issue of “transgenderism,” it seems reasonable to say that “trans” terrorism did not exist until the medical profession turned “trans-ing” into a profitable industry.  With experimental hormone treatments, pharmaceutical drugs, and surgeries sold as “solutions” for delusional men and women who wish to be something they can never be, biological lies now generate massive profits.  With left-wing medical institutions and government-subsidized health insurance insisting that these radical “treatments” are legitimate “health care,” the practice of butchering healthy bodies is applauded as “gender-affirming care.”

Once again, the “first, do no harm” army of white coats has chosen to justify harm for money.  To be fair, licensing boards, medical journals, and hospital systems that have gone all in on “trans” madness while branding skepticism “dangerous hate speech” have made it nearly impossible for medical professionals to resist this decade’s pre-eminent pseudo-science fad.  Only those doctors willing to defend real science, moral conscience, and the Hippocratic Oath while risking dismissal, social ostracism, and the loss of a medical license have demonstrated the requisite strength of character to speak out against intentional harm sold as “health care.”

This rush to betray scientific principles, medical ethics, and morality in the name of “trans” ideology eerily mirrors the medical industry’s support for abortion.  After fifty years of covering up the harms women suffer from abortion procedures and a massive cultural-political campaign to celebrate the murder of babies as a “constitutional right,” it is rare to find anyone in the medical profession willing to stand up for the lives of the unborn.

As is true of hormone therapy and so-called “sex change” surgeries for “trans” patients, competent medical scientists have long known that induced abortions often cause women long-term, if not permanent, harm.  A major research study back in 2013 examined the link between abortion and mental health risks.  It concluded, “There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy.”  On the contrary, following an abortion, a woman is 30% more likely to feel anxiety, 70% more likely to feel suicidal, 130% more likely to abuse alcohol, and 300% more likely to abuse drugs.  Additional studies suggest that women have an 85% increased risk of mental health problems after an abortion and that they are twice as likely to require psychiatric hospitalization.

These are not numbers that abortion lobbyists want women to know.  They prefer women to “shout their abortions” as if they were noteworthy accomplishments and to lie to emergency room doctors when they experience serious complications from abortion pills (so as to hide those statistics from the real world).  As writer Laura W. recently noted on Twitchy, mifepristone — a drug commonly used to induce abortion — negatively interacts with at least 671 other drugs and at least six diseases.  With regard to drug interactions, 364 can cause major harm and 285 can cause moderate harm.

Girls and young women who are encouraged to see abortion as some kind of “rite of passage” or badge of feminist “independence” are generally unaware of the serious physical dangers to their lives or likely mental side-effects they will experience from abortion.  On the contrary, those who celebrate abortion shamelessly describe it as “life-saving care.”

Last week the Democratic Women’s Caucus and Reproductive Freedom Caucus celebrated Planned Parenthood’s role in killing over sixty-five million children since Roe v. Wade legalized casual murder in 1973.  Congresswoman Rose DeLauro praised the abortion conglomerate for “saving women’s lives.”  Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici thanked Planned Parenthood for “providing health care to people who need it.”  Amid the smiles, laughter, and festivities, no one mourned the deaths of millions of women whose lives were cut short before their births, and no one took the time to express sadness for the millions of women who struggle with mental health problems today because of past abortions.

Just as is true of “trans” butchery euphemistically called “gender-affirming care,” millions of Americans will continue to suffer because the medical industry covers up the harms linked to abortion and defends the killing of babies as “health care.”  It is difficult to say who is more monstrous — the politicians who sacrifice lives in pursuit of an ideological agenda or the medical professionals who disregard their oaths to do no harm in service to the corporations, political parties, and NGOs that offer them money and awards.

As Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. works to overhaul the CDC, the FDA, and all of the other public health agencies under his authority, self-described “experts” within the medical community are strenuously resisting his efforts to “make America healthy again.”  Medical doctors and scientists call for his resignation every day.  Regardless of their individual qualifications, it is important to remember that many of these same people called for mandatory injections with the experimental COVID “vaccines.”  They closed schools, forced toddlers to wear masks, and inflicted great harm on an entire generation’s childhood development.  They pushed for home confinement but made exceptions for Black Lives Matter protesters and “climate change” activists.  And most support “trans” surgeries and abortions for minor children without parental consent.

Doctors who behave like devils cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post When Doctors Act like Devils appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tucker tackles what I think is an extremely important topic.

Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring is a psychiatrist and former FDA medical officer who exposes psychiatry’s hidden harms and industry-driven myths about psychiatric drugs.

I’ve had my own very limited experience with SSRIs about 25 years ago due to stress caused by some fairly dire medical conditions at the time. Not so ironically, those conditions were also caused by pharmaceutical side effects, and started me down a path towards the recognition that the *entire* mainstream medical establishment is captured and corrupted by the drug industry and that you need to question every single medication and procedure your doctor recommends and explore every possible natural alternative to them in order to get to root cause of the condition. This is how I absolutely, 100% knew the Covid jabs were going to be rigged towards revenues instead of outcomes.

Up to 20% of the country is on these things and if taken when pregnant, creates amygdala changes in the fetus, then predisposes those children to emotional issues throughout life. It is the self-licking ice cream cone.

The good doctor here affirms something I learned through my experiences decades ago with mainstream medicine — they are only interested in symptom management via pharmaceuticals as a means of recurring income streams. Your actual health as measured by understanding the root of why your body is behaving the way it is, usually because of nutrient or lifestyle choices either is not understood or honestly doesn’t matter to them. Your body is a system that responds to chemicals that creates desired outcomes. The mainstream medical community is a service that dispenses those chemicals in order to make an income. You are not seen as a person, let alone an individual that has a slightly different physiology than the next person, with different issues, concerns, and needs.

I think most LRC readers won’t be surprised at all by this. The FDA’s funding model is the veritable definition of fraud and captured. Forbes puts this at about 75% of the budget is from pharmaceutical companies via the PDUFA Act. How can yours and my bests interests be at heart at the FDA? It’s not possible.

This is a fantastic interview and it anecdotally mirrors my experience.

Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring on The Tucker Carlson Show

The post SSRIs and School Shootings, FDA Corruption, and Why Everyone on Anti-Depressants Is Totally Unhappy. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

The post University Bio-Labs Putting Public at Risk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

Gold and Geopolitics

The post Is Trump Ignorant or Are His Advisors Lying About the Importance of the US Market to Indian Exporters? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post WTC Building 7: Sabotage in Plain Sight appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Dennis A.:

Greetings,

What you didn’t mention, although I don’t know the statistics,  was that it is easier to kill, murder many people at once with a single gun rather than trying to do so by hand of your husband, wife or children or members of a meeting. How much of that happens in the US?

In the UK guns can be available on the black market but they are rarely used. If many house holders had guns, as in the US, I suspect there would be many murders and random shootings. In the US police  stopping any car assumes, quite rightly, that there could be gun play. That doesn’t happen in the UK as people don’t have guns. Citizens having guns cannot stop any govt. force doing what they want.

The post Gun control? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post MAGA Frowns As Trump Hosts Big Tech ‘Demons’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post A Murder That Says So Much About U.S. appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/le-leggi-dellue-sul-comparto-tecnologico)

Negli ultimi decenni l'Europa ha creato ben poco di realmente rilevante in termini di piattaforme tecnologiche, social network, sistemi operativi, o motori di ricerca. Al contrario, ha creato un ampio apparato normativo progettato per limitare e punire chi ha effettivamente innovato.

Invece di produrre alternative ai giganti tecnologici americani, l'UE ha scelto di soffocare quelle esistenti attraverso normative come il Digital Services Act (DSA) e il Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Il DSA mira a controllare i contenuti e il funzionamento interno delle piattaforme digitali, richiedendo la rapida rimozione dei contenuti ritenuti “inappropriati”, in quella che equivale a una forma moderna di censura, nonché la divulgazione del funzionamento degli algoritmi e restrizioni sulla pubblicità mirata. Il DMA, a sua volta, cerca di limitare il potere dei cosiddetti gatekeeper, costringendo aziende come Apple, Google, o Meta ad aprire i propri sistemi ai concorrenti, a evitare preferenze personali e a separare i flussi di dati tra i prodotti.

Queste due normative avranno un impatto maggiore sulle aziende tecnologiche statunitensi rispetto a qualsiasi legislazione nazionale, in quanto si tratta di norme emanate a Bruxelles ma applicate alle aziende americane in modo extraterritoriale. E vanno ben oltre le sanzioni: impongono modifiche strutturali alla progettazione di sistemi e funzionalità, qualcosa che nessuno stato dovrebbe imporre alle imprese private straniere.

Nell'aprile 2025 Meta è stata multata di €200 milioni ai sensi del Digital Markets Act per aver presumibilmente imposto un modello “consenso o pagamento” agli utenti europei di Facebook e Instagram, senza offrire una vera alternativa. Oltre alla multa è stata costretta a separare i flussi di dati tra le piattaforme, compromettendo così il sistema di pubblicità personalizzata che sostiene la sua redditività. Si è trattato di una palese interferenza nel suo modello di business.

Nello stesso mese Apple è stata multata di €500 milioni per aver impedito a piattaforme come Spotify di informare gli utenti su metodi di pagamento alternativi al di fuori dell'App store. L'azienda è stata costretta a rimuovere queste restrizioni, aprendo iOS ad App store esterni e sistemi di pagamento concorrenti. Ancora una volta, si è trattato di un'intrusione indesiderata e di un attacco diretto al modello basato sull'esclusività dell'ecosistema Apple.

Anche altre aziende come Amazon, Google, Microsoft e persino X sono sotto esame; quest'ultima è stata particolarmente colpita dalle norme DSA, essendo stata oggetto di un'indagine formale nel 2023 per presunta inosservanza delle norme sulla moderazione dei contenuti.

Le Big Tech, per loro stessa natura, rappresentano il bersaglio primario e mirato di questo nuovo quadro giuridico europeo. Queste aziende operano su scala globale, si basano su modelli di business incentrati sulla raccolta e la monetizzazione dei dati, integrano verticalmente più livelli dell'ecosistema digitale e detengono posizioni dominanti in settori chiave come i motori di ricerca, i social network e i sistemi operativi.

Con circa 450 milioni di consumatori e un elevato potere d'acquisto a livello digitale, l'UE è il secondo mercato più grande al mondo in tale settore. Per le Big Tech lasciare l'Europa non è un'opzione ed è proprio da qui che Bruxelles trae il suo potere: imponendo regole rigide, impone cambiamenti a livello globale, poiché mantenere diverse versioni di un prodotto per ogni regione è costoso e tecnicamente irrealizzabile. In questo modo, l'Unione Europea diventa di fatto un legislatore mondiale, esportando la sua visione normativa al resto del mondo.

Pur vivendo in realtà istituzionali diverse, europei e americani condividono valori fondamentali: libertà individuale, iniziativa privata e innovazione aperta. È in nome di questi valori che devono ora percorrere un percorso comune di resistenza a questa eccessiva regolamentazione, riaffermando un'alleanza transatlantica in difesa dell'innovazione, della sovranità digitale e della libertà stessa.

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

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