Aggregatore di feed

Click Here:

J. Lee’s Stack

The post Feeling Some Orange Buyer’s Remorse? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Matt Taibbi

The post At Last: John Brennan and James Comey Under Criminal Investigation for Russiagate appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

Infowars

The post Did Weather Weapon Cause Texas Flooding? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Sure, the state/feds spent 1/2 a billion dollars on a dump that never opened to receive the LA fire debris. Hahaha. Welcome to Hotel California.

The post The LA Fire Cleanup Situation Today: California Insider: appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

After being fully fueled, a DC-4 has a useful load of about 9,000 pounds. Fifteen 50-gallon drums of Avgas weigh 4500 pounds. So, that’s 4500 pounds of load left for the pilots, crew, and the generator. This looks like the generator they loaded: 

Cummins 450 kW diesel generator

The Cummins engine alone weighs about 4500 pounds. The DC-4 burns 240 gallons of AvGas per hour. That’s 1400 pounds of fuel gone in one hour of flight time. So the DC-4 weighed less when it picked up the generator than when the DC-4 left Yellowknife.

It’s a rough calculation, but the pilot could have left two 50-gallon drums of AvGas (600 pounds) behind in Yellowknife and taken the heater and small electric generator. One hundred gallons of fuel is less than an hour of flight time.

I can see why Joe was upset. 

The pilot was worried about a fuel cushion when he should have been thinking about the -40C temperatures.

The post Frozen DC-4 in the Arctic: Ice Pilots appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Krall.

The Epstein Client List — Why is Trump Breaking His Promise to Publish?

The post There Is a client list appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Chronicles Magazine

The post The Krakening of Bondi and Patel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Blaze Media

The post Was he a spy? Epstein, Ghislaine’s intel agency connections appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

LifeSite News

The post Priests in the last fully Christian town in the West Bank beg for help amid siege appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

LifeSite News

The post Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

LifeSite News

The post WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Chronicles Magazine

The post The Krakening of Bondi and Patel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Chronicles Magazine

The post A Model Neocon 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 è 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 è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è 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/oro-and-bitcoin-il-vincitore-e)

La competizione definitiva per diventare la moneta dominante al mondo avrà un solo vincitore.

Qualsiasi altra cosa equivarrebbe a un sistema di baratto inefficiente ed è per questo che le reti monetarie internazionali tendono a convergere su un unico elemento come moneta dominante.

In precedenza, la moneta dominante era l'oro; oggi sono il dollaro statunitense e i titoli del Tesoro americani. In futuro credo che saranno Bitcoin od oro.

Nel lungo termine miliardi di persone, attraverso migliaia di miliardi di transazioni – in altre parole, il libero mercato – decideranno in ultima analisi se vincerà l'oro o Bitcoin.

Sono assolutamente a favore della concorrenza del libero mercato nel settore monetario.

Io dico che vincerà la moneta migliore.

In un articolo recente ho analizzato i dieci attributi monetari più decisivi e ho verificato se l'oro o Bitcoin abbiano un vantaggio. La tabella seguente riassume i risultati.

Bitcoin vince in 6 delle 10 categorie, inclusa la durezza (resistenza alla svalutazione), che credo sarà il fattore più decisivo.

Sebbene l'oro abbia un vantaggio su Bitcoin in termini di durevolezza, tale vantaggio sarà rilevante solo nel caso di un inevitabile ritorno globale all'età della pietra. Un risultato talmente improbabile non è rilevante per le decisioni di investimento odierne.

L'oro ha anche un vantaggio fugace in termini di liquidità, fungibilità, privacy e riconoscimento. Tuttavia Bitcoin sta erodendo questi vantaggi ogni giorno.

Se le tendenze attuali continuano, credo che Bitcoin supererà l'oro in queste categorie negli anni a venire.

Riassumendo, i vantaggi dell'oro su Bitcoin sono irrilevanti o stanno scomparendo.

La conclusione inevitabile è che Bitcoin possiede caratteristiche fondamentali superiori che lo rendono uno strumento migliore per trasferire valore attraverso il tempo e lo spazio.

L'oro digitale è migliore dell'oro analogico.

In breve, è probabile che Bitcoin vinca la competizione finale e diventi la moneta dominante al mondo.

Permettetemi di spiegare come vedo la situazione...

Non sto dicendo che sia certo al 100% che Bitcoin demonetizzerà l'oro.

Quello che voglio dire è questo: nel lungo termine – misurato in anni, probabilmente decenni – ci sono buone probabilità che Bitcoin demonetizzi l'oro perché ha proprietà monetarie superiori.

Tuttavia la stragrande maggioranza dell'umanità non capisce che Bitcoin ha il potenziale per diventare la moneta dominante... ancora.

Ci troviamo di fronte a un'enorme asimmetria informativa.

Con Bitcoin, è come se avessi scoperto l'oro prima che la maggior parte del mondo capisse che esso era utile come moneta.

Pensateci...

Avreste la possibilità di anticipare i principali investitori, le grandi multinazionali e persino gli stati, entrando in questo trend prima di loro.

La potenziale ascesa di Bitcoin a moneta dominante – un megatrend che mi piace chiamare la supremazia di Bitcoin – è un'enorme opportunità irripetibile e la più grande storia di investimento che abbia mai visto.

Ci sono un paio di chiarimenti necessari a questa analisi.

Chiarimento n°1: cigni neri

Qualsiasi evento con effetti attualmente inconcepibili e impossibili da prevedere – l'avvento dell'informatica quantistica, l'estrazione da asteroidi, la nanotecnologia, ecc. – potrebbe far pendere la bilancia in una direzione o nell'altra.

Chiarimento n°2: tempistica

Non credo che Bitcoin rappresenti una minaccia immediata per l'oro.

Molto probabilmente l'oro verrà rimonetizzato con il crollo del sistema monetario fiat, per poi essere demonetizzato da Bitcoin negli anni e nei decenni successivi.

Sebbene Bitcoin abbia migliori caratteristiche monetarie rispetto all'oro, potrebbero volerci molti anni, potenzialmente decenni, prima che la maggior parte delle persone se ne renda conto.

Un fattore importante nella tempistica è la velocità con cui il sistema monetario fiat crollerà.

Se dovessi pronosticare quando ciò accadrà, direi intorno al 2030.

Se il sistema monetario fiat crollerà più velocemente del previsto, probabilmente ne trarrà beneficio l'oro. Esso ha una maggiore riconoscibilità e più persone graviteranno verso ciò con cui hanno familiarità. Bitcoin è una novità e incompreso.

Se il crollo del sistema monetario fiat dovesse protrarsi a lungo, Bitcoin potrebbe trarne beneficio. Questo perché, con il passare del tempo e la crescente notorietà di Bitcoin, le persone si sentiranno più a loro agio con esso come alternativa alla moneta fiat. Salteranno l'oro e passeranno direttamente dalla moneta fiat a Bitcoin.

In ogni caso credo che Bitcoin non inizierà a demonetizzare l'oro sul serio prima che il crollo del sistema monetario fiat sia completo. La mia ipotesi è che ciò potrebbe accadere intorno al 2030 e poi potrebbero passare molti anni, forse decenni, prima che Bitcoin demonetizzi completamente l'oro.

Detto questo, un Bitcoin standard potrebbe emergere spontaneamente più velocemente di quanto chiunque si aspetti. Questo rappresenta un rischio per l'oro e un'ottima ragione per esporsi a Bitcoin.

Chiarimento n°3: allocazione del portafoglio

Non credo abbia senso puntare tutto su Bitcoin... o su qualsiasi altra cosa.

Un'esposizione al 100% su qualsiasi asset non è una gestione prudente del rischio, perché nulla nella vita è certo al 100%. Con l'aumento esponenziale della tecnologia, nemmeno la morte è certa, ma questa è una storia per un altro giorno.

Quello che posso dire con la massima sicurezza è che, per la prima volta in oltre 5.000 anni, l'oro ha un concorrente serio che potrebbe demonetizzarlo nei prossimi decenni.

Come minimo considero l'oro una copertura se Bitcoin non emergesse come la valuta dominante a livello mondiale nel lungo termine.

Nell'immediato futuro l'oro rappresenta un'alternativa monetaria superiore alla valuta fiat. Credo che ne trarrà i principali benefici dal crollo dell'attuale sistema monetario fiat negli anni a venire.

A mio parere la cosa prudente da fare è allocare capitale in oro e Bitcoin e aggiornare tale allocazione con il passare del tempo e l'evolversi dei fatti.

Nel breve e medio termine credo che sia l'oro che il Bitcoin prospereranno con il crollo del sistema monetario fiat.

Al momento desidero essere esposto a entrambi e alle azioni di società che beneficiano dell'aumento dei prezzi dell'oro e di Bitcoin.

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

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

Thanks, John Frahm.

21st Century Wire

The post BRICS: The Rise of a New Global Orde appeared first on LewRockwell.

Most of the faithful are familiar with both sides of the current Catholic coin: rampant unbelief and apostasy on one side and a small but powerful movement toward orthodoxy and tradition on the other. Many young priests have begun the hard work of improving catechesis and liturgy, emphasizing Confession, and building devotion to the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In many of their parishes, the exodus appears to have stopped. Parishioner numbers are beginning to stabilize and, in some select cases, even grow.

This a good sign, but even in these parishes there tends to be a lukewarmness. Though they call themselves Catholic and even attend Mass each Sunday, many parishioners refuse to fully embrace the faith. It takes a backseat to the things of the world. Far too many of the Catholics in the pews each Sunday are not in state of grace and are at risk of eternal woe. Why is it so difficult in today’s culture to get Mass-attending Catholics to fully embrace the faith?

This vital question holds one of the keys to stopping the exodus out of the Church and moving beyond its current crisis. If parishes are giving better catechesis and liturgy, emphasizing Confession, and building devotion to the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary, shouldn’t they be seeing more fruit? Shouldn’t these parishes be filled with fervent souls? So why aren’t they?

The hearts of many parishioners are hardened. Catholics, and many parishes, have succumbed to our modern-day culture and, in particular, its view of happiness, religion, and freedom. Although these ways of thinking are at odds with the Catholic faith, the Church is mostly silent about these fundamental dangers of the modern mindset.

In order for these Mass-going Catholics to embrace their faith and all that is being offered them, their mindset must change. While preaching against the culture and its worldview is never easy, these topics are necessary, and because of their relevance to everyday life, they are a great opportunity for priests to grab parishioners’ attention and lead them toward fully embracing and living their Catholic faith.

Out of a deep love for our Lord we must not only stop the physical exodus of Catholics from the Church, but we must also help those who remain fully embrace the faith to become true friends of Christ. This starts with parish priests. They have been ordained by God through His Church for this very task of leading the souls in their parishes to heaven. They are called to be the saints to lead us out of this crisis. But how?

To change the thinking of Catholics in the pews, they must change the culture of the parish, so let’s first understand culture’s components. Culture is made up of three elements: what we think (mentality), what we do (habits), and what we’re surrounded by (environment). These elements directly relate to the transcendentals of truth, goodness and beauty. The more a parish’s mentality is based in truth, its habits in goodness, and its environment in beauty, the more authentically Catholic its culture is, which brings its people closer to God.

“Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The first step to shifting the mentality of a parish is to preach Christ and the faith with boldness and confidence. Any sense of compromise diminishes the priest’s authority, along with the authority of the Church. It must be clear to parishioners that the priest teaches truths handed down from God through His Church. These teachings are not just one set of beliefs among many. Preaching in this way fights against relativism and the false idea of freedom, that one can do as he pleases, creating his own patchwork of truth and morals.

With the poor level of catechesis over the last half century, parishioners are ignorant about many elements of the faith. Through prayer and personal contact within the parish, priests should determine what topics must be taught in order to fight this ignorance. In many parishes, parishioners have lost interest in learning their faith, so a pastor might consider beginning with elements that will inspire them and pique their interest, drawing them further in and building a trust between the priest and his people. While sermons are the most obvious place for this to occur, many priests use podcasts, Facebook Live, bulletin inserts and regular parish talks to connect with parishioners and deepen their knowledge of the faith.

Preaching isn’t the only way to change a parish’s mentality. According to Aristotle, we learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction. Habits, the second element that makes up the culture, are also a primary tool for changing parish mentality. A habit as simple as the Morning Offering combats the idea that religion is something to make life better, a self-help tool. By offering themselves and their day to God each morning, parishioners can connect themselves to the priest’s offering at Mass. In time this changes the way they look at the faith. Their faith begins to become an offering to God.

How can parish priests instill habits like the Morning Offering in their parishioners? Parishes are diverse, and the priest can’t reach everyone. Who should the priest focus his time and efforts on? According to St. John Paul II: the future of the world and of the Church passes through the family. The priest should focus his efforts on families, but even this is difficult. In today’s world, getting whole families together and then having material that works for children, mothers and fathers is nearly impossible.

So, how do priests most effectively reach families? Through fathers.

Read the Whole Article

The post Parish Priests Are the Cure to the Crisis appeared first on LewRockwell.

I think one of the reasons Americans love Donald Trump is because he is so transparent and wears his personality on his sleeve. He shows us when he is angry or happy and often reflects his inner thinking. This is quite different from many world leaders who often stick to official reasoned positions which reflect the needs of their country without getting into personal reflections. This is perhaps why Trump is so unique and difficult to deal with by other world leaders. This latest post of June 27th on Truth Social shows Trump and his personal feelings at its height. He displayed his anger over not being acknowledged as Trump the merciful, holding back the forces of the American military from doing further damage.

I think world leaders need to take a different approach to Donald Trump and speak to him on a level he can understand with a personal approach as opposed to a civic diplomatic approach.

Therefore, I imagined the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah responding to President Trump’s June 27th TRUTH SOCIAL post in a respectful manner acknowledging his points and pointing out other issues that would be beneficial to the nation of Iran.  I also worked this response out with assistance of AI as an editor to help craft a diplomatic positive response.

Below you will see the imaginary response of Ayatollah Khameni which I believe would have gotten a more constructive response from Mr. Trump.  The response acknowledges President Trump’s restraint, points out moral issues that America needs to work on, advocates for lifting sanctions as a means for Iran to enter the FLOW of the World Order and advocates for using Honey over Vinegar which Mr. Trump also advocates for. In effect, it takes the rationale of Mr. Trump and flips them into advocating for pro-Iranian positions which hopefully would bring about more peace.  The imaginary response is as follows:

Dear Mr. President,

The Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes the importance of avoiding unnecessary conflict and values any decision by the United States leadership to prevent further escalation in the recent confrontation. We acknowledge your decision to exercise restraint at key moments during a time of heightened tension.

As Iran’s Supreme Leader, I am personally grateful that, despite knowing my exact whereabouts during this period of great tension, you chose to refrain from targeting my location, even though you may have faced pressure to do so. This decision demonstrated a measure of moral leadership and restraint that I acknowledge. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. However, Mr. President, I must ask: if your technology is indeed so advanced that it can locate any individual with such precision, how is it that over 300,000 missing children who have crossed your border in recent years remain unaccounted for? Should this remarkable technology not be used to reunite those vulnerable children with their families? I believe your people — and the world — would welcome such moral leadership on behalf of the innocent.

I also acknowledge your expressed concern for the well-being of the Iranian people, which you showed by choosing to limit further devastation. If you wish to demonstrate this same moral leadership, there is no clearer way than by lifting the sanctions that continue to cause hardship for ordinary Iranian families. Such an act of compassion would not only ease their suffering but would earn the lasting gratitude of the people of Iran for generations to come. It would also help Iran rejoin the FLOW OF THE WORLD ORDER in a constructive and peaceful way — for how can we fully participate in this WORLD ORDER when we remain under heavy sanctions? This would be a powerful example of using HONEY instead of VINEGAR, which, as you yourself have wisely noted, often brings far better results.

Finally, Mr. President, since using HONEY over VINEGAR is a cornerstone of your foreign policy, do you think you could explain this difference to your buddy Mr.Netanyahu? His actions show that he doesn’t seem to understand the difference. Using more HONEY would go a long way to establishing peace in the Middle East.

We hope that, through mutual respect and constructive dialogue, not threats, the region can move toward a better future. We stand ready to discuss pathways that serve the interests of all people of the region, provided they are based on mutual respect and international law.

Sincerely

Ayatollah Khamenei

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

I really wonder how Trump would have responded to such a response. I am willing to bet he would then seriously consider lifting the sanctions. He directly stated that the response of the Ayatollah changed his mind about sanctions, perhaps a more positive yet firm response would have resulted in a different outcome. My goal for writing this article is to offer a different direction for responding to Mr. Trump. If one approach has not been working, then perhaps it’s time to try another.

The post Response to Mr. Trump: Past the Bluster; A Personal Approach to Trump’s Rant on Iran. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Saagar Enjeti on the Dangerous New Developments in Pam Bondi’s Epstein Cover-Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I was in Congress, the least popular, least respected members were the biggest publicity seekers – the ones who were the first and quickest to run to the cameras. They were not regarded as serious legislators. Thus, I have not been a big fan of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. However, several days ago, she wrote some words on her X account which I think express the feelings and frustrations of the overwhelming majority of Americans. The following are her words:

“I’m 51 years old. I’m GenX.

“I’ve watched our country go to war in foreign lands for foreign causes on behalf of foreign interests for as long as I can remember. I was in 10th grade when Desert Storm started and my father before me was sent to Vietnam, another senseless foreign war.

“America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American.

“American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military industrial base profits.

“I’m sick of it.

“I can easily say I support nuclear armed Israel’s right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don’t want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel’s wars.

“Nor any other country for that matter.

“I’m sick of funding foreign aid and foreign countries and foreign everything.

“I want to fund American interests and issues.

“I want GREAT trade deals so American businesses and people can afford goods and be successful.

“I want low inflation and low interest rates.

“I want American construction, housing, and manufacturing to BOOM.

“I want Americans to be rich and have security in their future.

“I want my children’s generation to HAVE A GREAT FUTURE!!!

“My kids are 22, 25, and 27.

“It pisses me off beyond comprehension that my children’s generation can’t afford to buy a house, can’t afford insurance, and have little hope for their future!!!

“Americans are exhausted by all of this and rightfully so.

“I can also support President Trump and his great administration on many of the great things they are doing while disagreeing on bombing Iran and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started.

“That’s not disloyalty. Critical thinking and having my own opinions is the most American thing ever.

“Because contrary to what brainwashed Democrat boomers say, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and President Trump has surrounded himself with people who once disagreed with him and even ran against him for President.

“Also the same Democrats in Congress that are all of sudden clutching their pearls about Trump bombing Iran FULLY SUPPORTED AND VOTED TO FUND Dementia ridden Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and stood by Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“Hypocrites is all they are and they are just desperately trying to find solid ground to oppose Trump on because so far they’ve failed at grasping anything yet.

“Now what has been done is done and Americans now fear Iranian terrorists attacks on our own soil and being dragged into another war by Netanyahu when we weren’t even thinking about any of this a week ago.

“We don’t know what the future holds and I pray for the safety of all people and an end to the constant demand for America to go to war.

“Enough is enough.”

Rep. Greene is right. We should never fight another country’s war. President Reagan said we should fight only for a “cause that is vital to our national interest.”

He also said that “our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

Sen. Robert Taft, sometimes referred to as Mr. Republican in the 1940s and 50s, was so respected that he was one of only six senators featured in John F. Kennedy’s book “Profiles In Courage.”

Taft said: “No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted without reservation or diversion to the protection of liberty of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.”

Both Reagan and Taft used the words “last resort.” We were not anywhere even close to that point when we bombed Iran on June 24.

We have far too many military leaders, presidents and presidential advisors who have been far too eager to go to war. They seemed to lust for the power and feeling of importance that leading this country in time of war would give them.

This eagerness for war has also been led in part, or at least aided and abetted by, members of the House and Senate who wanted to show how tough and patriotic they were.

What a great day it would be if peace could be seen as more patriotic than war.

This article was originally published on The Knoxville Focus.

The post The Way Most Americans Feel About Foreign Wars appeared first on LewRockwell.

Elon Musk may find his effort to reach the Martian surface a much easier task than cracking the U.S. political system.

The U.S. leader dragged his former adviser over the coals after the tech mogul announced plans to bankroll the so-called America Party.

The wealthiest individual in the world announced the creation of the America Party in a series of weekend posts late on Saturday and early Sunday to X, formerly known as Twitter, the social media platform that is part of his private empire.

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” the South African native defiantly declared.

“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

Musk, who was chosen to slash federal spending through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) created by Donald Trump, has been an outspoken critic of the president’s “big, beautiful bill” that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said would increase the national deficit by $3.3tn (£2.85tn) through 2034.

Opponents of the ‘BBB’ say it provides major tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, while slashing federal safety net welfare programs, with close to 11 million people forfeiting healthcare insurance.

The pair have sparred over the bill’s cost and consequences since Musk departed the government in May, and on Friday, when Trump signed his bill into law during a Fourth of July celebration on the White House lawn, Musk opened a poll on X: “Now is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system”.

Respondents voted two to one in favor of the plan, Musk announced late on Saturday. He provided journalists with scant details about the structure of his next big thing or a timeline for its future development. But his earlier posts suggested it would focus on two or three Senate seats, and eight to 10 House districts.

It’s a rather ingenious idea considering that both chambers of Congress are controlled by Republicans by a slim margin.

“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,” Musk reasonably explained.

Trump scoffed at his former best buddy’s decision to start and fund a new U.S. political party, calling it “ridiculous” on Sunday. “Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it but I think it’s ridiculous,” the president told reporters traveling with him back to the White House aboard his helicopter Marine One after a day of whacking golf balls.

He then elaborated, at Trumpian length, in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,” the president wrote. “He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States”.

“The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS,” Trump added. The president then went on to claim that the Tesla and SpaceX chief was motivated by discontent over his plan to halt subsidies to promote the purchase of electric vehicles.

Musk, however, was not deterred by the U.S. president’s lengthy tirade, arguing rather naively that it would be “not hard” to break the two-party stranglehold in U.S. politics enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans. He went on to question “when & where should we hold the inaugural American Party congress? This will be super fun!”

But does the billionaire fully understand the depths of the swamp he’s getting himself into? By conservative estimates, Musk forked over about $275 billion of his personal fortune to get Trump elected for a second term in last November’s presidential race. While that may be mere chump’s change for the mogul, he will be expected to spend much more to shake up the petrified power structure now dominating Capitol Hill (While there is no requirement for new political parties in the U.S. to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) at the start of the process, reporting regulations begin once spending surpasses what the FEC calls “certain thresholds”). And let’s face it, Trump is right. America has never enjoyed a third choice for very long, and with very little success when those moments arrived.

With few exceptions, the U.S. political system has two major parties which have won, on average, 98% of all state and federal seats.

“The United States stands out among the world’s democracies for having an unusually small number of competitive parties;” Seth Masket wrote in Democracy. “[a]nd for such a large, diverse, and multiethnic society to have just two dominant parties means that those parties will be strikingly vast, complex, heterogeneous coalitions.”

Musk should be familiar with Duverger’s law, which holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and Britain, only 2 powerful political parties tend to control power. Citizens are encouraged not to vote for third party spoilers because, as the reasoning goes, they will just split votes away from the major party. Such a model diverts sharply from the European system where citizens are actively encouraged to create, join and vote for new political parties if they are unhappy with current choices. Such thinking is practically unheard of in the United States.

And try to wrap your head around this riddle: in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, Ross Perot’s independent run received zero electoral votes despite receiving 19% of the popular vote, the most won by a non-major-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Perot remains the only non-major-party presidential candidate since George C. Wallace in 1968 both to win counties and to finish as high as second place in any state.

And then the America Party will inevitably face the formidable firewall known as the U.S. media, which dutifully serves its powerful masters, i.e., those two heads of the same snake wielding the greatest political clout. It gets better. They are propped up by a shady organization known as the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a nonprofit corporation established in 1987 under the joint sponsorship of the Democratic and Republican political parties in the United States. Yes, you read that right. The organization created to ensure fair play and equal access to various resources (primarily in the media) during the debates is owned lock, stock and barrel by the two-party monopoly.

In 1985, the bipartisan National Commission on Elections recommended “[t]urning over the sponsorship of presidential debates to the two major parties”. The CPD was established in 1987 by the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican Parties to “take control of the presidential debates”.

Against such formidable odds, Elon Musk may find his effort to reach the Martian surface a much easier task than cracking the U.S. political system, constructed as it is in layers of formidable protection to guard against pesky ‘outsiders.’

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

The post Does Elon Musk’s Third Party Have a Prayer? Trump Is Not a Believer appeared first on LewRockwell.