Aggregatore di feed

The ideology of transsexualism is undoubtedly one of the most heated topics of our time.

One common misapprehension among those who argue against it is the assumption that this debate can be settled on the merits of the argument. This, however, is not the case.

Trans advocates have not arrived at their position by considering facts or evidence, nor do they operate by logic or reason.

For example, most human beings—including children—readily see and understand that biological men cannot become women, nor can women become men.

What trans activists advocate thus runs in complete contravention to the physical and physiological reality that is plain to everyone. These individuals are willing to assert, with a straight face, something that is obviously and patently untrue.

By taking this position, they reveal themselves to be fundamentally dishonest. This is why hard evidence, facts, and sound arguments do not typically carry weight with trans advocates. If they did, they would not espouse their position.

Because their stance is at odds with reality, they cannot defend it through argument or appeal to facts.

This is evident in how they typically respond to challenges. Rather than engaging in argumentation, they often become agitated and angry, quickly resorting to recriminations. Their usual strategy is to terminate the debate by leveling accusations of hate, transphobia, or similar charges.

They behave this way because they cannot rationally support their standpoint. If they could, they would naturally plead their position in a sensible and coherent manner.

The inability of pro-trans advocates to rationally justify their views explains their relentless efforts to censor the opposing side. It is highly revealing that perhaps no other issue is surrounded by such an extensive censorship infrastructure as that of transsexualism.

Opposing views are quickly shut down under the guise of hate speech, transphobia, or discrimination. So extreme is the drive toward censorship in the trans debate that its proponents are unwilling to even acknowledge legitimate objections to the pro-trans outlook. In an astonishing distortion of moral sensibility, those who oppose it are cast as morally deficient.

This extreme situation persists in mainstream discourse, even though a vast majority of the population considers the pro-trans position wrong and rejects the agenda advanced by activists.

The severe level of censorship surrounding the trans issue indicates the weakness of its advocates’ arguments. Unable to provide effective arguments to support their view, they resort to silencing the opposition. And they have been largely successful in this endeavor. We rarely hear meaningful critiques of trans ideology from official organs of sanctioned conversation.

This reflects a broader principle: the desire to censor is positively correlated with the weakness of the censors’ argument. If someone has a strong argument—or believes they do—they do not try to censor. On the contrary, they are eager to present their view to the opposition.

As a rule, we encounter the greatest levels of censorship to protect views that are the least defensible. Trans ideology, which so flagrantly contravenes obvious physical and physiological realities, is perhaps the most conspicuous example of this.

Other examples include the COVID vaccines or the allegedly unprovoked Russian aggression in Ukraine. Past instances include the Hunter Biden laptop or Joe Biden’s dementia, among others. All these are or were indefensible positions, which is why their proponents erected elaborate systems of censorship to forestall evidence-based, rational discussion. Those in opposition were immediately dismissed as morally deficient, evil, or outright crazy, labeled as conspiracy theorists, homophobes, anti-vaxxers, racists, Kremlin agents, and so forth.

Returning to the trans issue, it serves as a litmus test for basic honesty and integrity. Those willing to deny the obvious reality before everyone’s eyes cannot be considered good-faith participants in political discourse. Their stance shows they have little respect for evidence, reality, facts, reason, or truth and are inclined to disregard them for the sake of their ideological agenda.

This applies to anyone who advocates censoring their political opponents on any issue of concern.

Therefore, it was disappointing to observe the Trump administration attempting to silence those who sought to draw attention to the genocide in Gaza. As with trans ideology, the censorship in this instance is not explicitly admitted but is carried out under false pretenses—in this case, accusations of antisemitism.

Trump’s censorship effort is wrong for two main reasons. First, people should be able to say whatever they want as long as they do not directly incite violence toward others (as protected by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court). Second – based on what we daily see on our screens – those alleging genocide in Gaza cannot be too far from the truth. After all, Trump himself admitted during a press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu that the place has been turned into “a demolition site.”

It is unfortunate that Donald Trump, who has been severely victimized by censorship from the political Left, has resorted to this tactic himself. However, it should be noted that Trump’s censoriousness regarding Israel’s Gaza tactics is an exception, whereas censorship on the Left is systemic and widespread.

Nevertheless, Trump’s censorship attempt vis-a-vis Israel’s activities in Gaza is wrong and is potentially the first step down a slippery slope. We must be vigilant not to adopt the unjust tactics we rightfully condemn in our opponents.

The post Censorship Transsexualism, and the Tragedy in Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday the United Kingdom High Court of Justice refused to authorize an application for a new inquest into the death of a UK citizen during the 9/11 attacks.  The attorney general’s prior refusal to authorize a new inquest was “not justiciable” and immune from judicial review.

Geoff Campbell was murdered in the North Tower on 9/11.  His brother Matt Campbell provided to the UK courts compelling evidence that the North Tower was destroyed by pre-planted explosives and incendiaries rather than the impact of Flight 11 into the North Tower.

For example, William Rodriguez was in the basement of the North Tower on 9/11 and just before Flight 11 hit the North Tower heard and felt an explosion.  Rodriguez stated in an interview, “I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body.”

Why is the UK refusing to objectively investigate the murder of a British citizen on 9/11, especially when the victim’s family has provided evidence that shows that the impact of Flight 11 was not the cause of the North Tower’s collapse?

The United Kingdom was a main ally of the United States during the so-called “War on Terror”, which was launched after the 9/11 attacks.  We know that the US government refused to objectively investigate the 9/11 attacks and employed fear-mongering and jingoistic rhetoric to convince a frightened American public into supporting the brutal and unprovoked wars of aggression that were waged after 9/11.

An objective investigation into the 9/11 attacks would likely reveal very inconvenient truths for the United States government and its key allies such as the United Kingdom.

The post UK Court Denies New Inquest into Death of 9/11 Victim appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

The MAHA Report

 

The post In Explosive Interview on Tucker, Kennedy Blasts Corruption in Public Health appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Is The Ukraine Money Game Finally Over? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s war on American consumers is proceeding.  He announced today that imports from Vietnam will be taxed with a 20 percent tariff tax, 40 percent for goods that have to change ships during the journey.  This will allow certain American corporations to jack up their prices and, as some Vietnamese businesses drop out of the export market prices of those goods will increase even more.

The post A War Trump is Actually Winning appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

The post RFK Jr. on the REAL Cause of the Chronic Disease Epidemic appeared first on LewRockwell.

Two in favor, one against.  

The post Three American Declarations Regarding Independence and Voluntary Union appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa 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.

____________________________________________________________________________________

da The Epoch Times

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/gli-stati-uniti-possono-produrre)

Potrebbero volerci fino a cinque anni per sviluppare una filiera nazionale in grado di sostituire il monopolio globale della Cina nella lavorazione delle terre rare per trasformarle nei materiali necessari a produrre di tutto, dagli iPhone ai caccia F-35.

Secondo Melissa Sanderson, membro del consiglio direttivo dell'American Rare Earths e co-presidente del Critical Minerals Institute, gli Stati Uniti possiedono la maggior parte dei 17 elementi delle terre rare e 50 minerali essenziali nel sottosuolo, ma non hanno la capacità industriale di trasformarli in metalli lavorati e magneti.

“Attualmente negli Stati Uniti non abbiamo alcun produttore di magneti”, ha detto la Sanderson a The Epoch Times.

Ha affermato che è per questo che la Cina il 4 aprile ha imposto restrizioni all'esportazione di sette elementi “pesanti” facenti parte della categorie delle terre rare, in risposta all'annuncio di ulteriori dazi del presidente Donald Trump il 2 aprile. Dopo gli aumenti dei dazi, gli Stati Uniti stanno attualmente applicando un'imposta del 145% sulle importazioni cinesi, con l'esenzione per l'elettronica per ora.

“Spero vivamente che, mentre l'amministrazione sta lavorando su quest'area critica (senza tanti giri di parole, è un'area critica), si renda conto che c'è questo divario di vulnerabilità, un divario di quattro o cinque anni, indipendentemente da come lo si guardi, in termini di aumento della produzione nazionale”, ha affermato la Sanderson.

L'ordinanza di Trump del 2 aprile concede al Segretario al Commercio Howard Lutnick 180 giorni di tempo per suggerire in che modo il governo federale possa contribuire a sviluppare una filiera nazionale “circolare” per le terre rare.

Il presidente sta anche valutando la possibilità di un'ordinanza che autorizzi l'estrazione mineraria in acque profonde e lo stoccaggio commerciale.

Qualunque cosa faccia l'amministrazione, con un'adeguata riforma dei permessi, deregolamentazione e incentivi pubblico-privati, l'industria risponderà, ha detto l'economista Antonio Graceffo a The Epoch Times.

“La risposta breve è che se la Cina vietasse in modo permanente la vendita di minerali di terre rare agli Stati Uniti, sarebbe una cosa positiva perché costringerebbe gli Stati Uniti a trovare una soluzione”, ha affermato.

Graceffo, analista che scrive sulle relazioni commerciali tra Stati Uniti e Cina per The Epoch Times, ha affermato che esistono “un sacco di soluzioni” per costruire una filiera nazionale di terre rare, comprese le negoziazioni in corso con l'Ucraina.

“Certo, possiamo superare il problema”, ha detto, “a lungo termine andrà molto meglio se la Cina ci taglia fuori. [L'industria] troverà sicuramente una soluzione”.

Ian Lange, professore di economia alla Colorado School of Mines, concorda. “Sono ottimista”, ha detto.

Lange ha affermato che esistono materiali sostitutivi per le sette terre rare soggette a restrizioni e alcuni produttori gli hanno detto che possono sopravvivere anche senza.

Si è chiesto se la Cina possa sostenere le restrizioni all'esportazione di terre rare, dal momento che le industrie americane costituiscono il suo mercato più grande.

“Vedremo se si tratta di una vera impresa o solo dell'ennesimo ostacolo da superare”, ha detto Lange a The Epoch Times. “E negli ultimi due anni abbiamo gradualmente potenziato la catena di approvvigionamento”.

“Siamo quasi arrivati ​​ad avere qualcosa di concreto qui negli Stati Uniti”.

Ma “quasi” è un termine relativo quando si parla di estrazione mineraria e raffinazione, dove i progetti proposti possono richiedere normalmente dai 10 ai 20 anni per essere approvati.

“Lontano da qui”

L'American Rare Earths, con sede in Australia, fa parte di una serie di start-up negli Stati Uniti impegnate nell'estrazione di terre rare e minerali essenziali.

L'azienda processerà anche disprosio e terbio, due delle sette “terre rare pesanti” soggette a restrizioni, costruendo una raffineria vicino alla sua miniera di Halleck Creek, fuori Wheatland, nel Wyoming. Il disprosio è utilizzato nei magneti integrati in motori e generatori per turbine eoliche, veicoli elettrici e barre di controllo di reattori nucleari. I composti del terbio sono utilizzati in elettronica, semiconduttori e illuminazione fluorescente.

L'azienda, che possiede anche una miniera in Arizona, ha ottenuto una sovvenzione di $7,1 milioni dal Wyoming e una lettera di interesse per un finanziamento fino a $456 milioni dalla United States Export-Import Bank per produrre quella che afferma essere una fornitura ventennale di terre rare essenziali, tra cui disprosio e terbio.

Sempre nel Wyoming, Ramaco Resources sta avviando la costruzione di un giacimento di terre rare dal valore stimato di 1,5 miliardi di tonnellate e di un impianto pilota di lavorazione presso la sua miniera di Brook, mentre Rare Element Resources ha avviato “operazioni di lavorazione e separazione proprietarie” presso il suo impianto dimostrativo di Bear Lodge a Upton.

La USA Rare Earths, con sede in Oklahoma, che quest'anno aprirà una fabbrica di “neo-magneti”, ha prodotto quest'anno il suo primo campione di ossido di disprosio dalla sua miniera di Round Top, in Texas, e lo ha elaborato nel suo impianto di ricerca a Wheat Ridge, in Colorado.

Ucore Rare Metals sta sviluppando il Louisiana Strategic Metals Complex ad Alexandria con $20 milioni di incentivi statali, mentre Energy Fuels, una società di estrazione dell'uranio, sta elaborando sabbie di monazite per estrarre terre rare nel suo mulino di White Mesa nello Utah.

Entrambe sono società di proprietà canadese.

I due operatori più importanti nel settore delle terre rare negli Stati Uniti sono l'australiana Lynas Rare Earths, il più grande sviluppatore di terre rare al mondo al di fuori della Cina, e la MP Materials Corp. con sede a Las Vegas.

Entrambi sono essenziali per la lavorazione delle terre rare per il Dipartimento della Difesa degli Stati Uniti, che è a metà di un piano quinquennale per costruire una “catena di fornitura sostenibile dalla miniera ai magneti” per soddisfare le sue esigenze entro il 2027.

Nel 2023 la sussidiaria di Lynas Rare Earth, Lynas USA, ha ricevuto un premio di $258 milioni per costruire un impianto di separazione commerciale di 150 acri a Seadrift, in Texas, per la lavorazione di terre rare pesanti come disprosio e terbio.

A gennaio il Pentagono ha dichiarato di aver raddoppiato la richiesta iniziale di un progetto, andando oltre le esigenze militari, per “rafforzare la resilienza della catena di approvvigionamento per [...] l'industria high-tech in rapida crescita nonché [...] le esigenze di sicurezza nazionale”.

Nel 2022 il Dipartimento della Difesa degli Stati Uniti ha assegnato a MP Materials $35 milioni per costruire un impianto di lavorazione a Mountain Pass, in California.

E nel 2024 ha ricevuto un credito d'imposta federale di $58,5 milioni per costruire il primo impianto di produzione di magneti in terre rare completamente integrato del Paese a Fort Worth, in Texas, per i motori dei veicoli elettrici GM.

Nel 2024 MP Materials ha raggiunto il livello di produzione più alto mai registrato negli Stati Uniti a Mountain Pass, consegnando oltre 45.000 tonnellate di ossidi di terre rare e prodotti raffinati.

La produzione comprendeva un record statunitense di 1.300 tonnellate di ossido di neodimio-praseodimio, elementi chiave nei “magneti permanenti”, che mantengono la loro forza magnetica per decenni.

“Questa pietra miliare segna un importante passo avanti nel ripristino di una filiera di fornitura di magneti di terre rare completamente integrata negli Stati Uniti”, ha affermato James Litinsky, amministratore delegato e fondatore di MP Materials, in una dichiarazione di gennaio.

“Abbiamo raggiunto un punto di svolta significativo per la competitività di MP e degli Stati Uniti in un settore vitale”.

Tuttavia sia Lynas Rare Earth che MP Materials producono più terre rare di quanto possano processare. Per sostenere le attività, devono esportare gran parte di ciò che estraggono.

“MP è sostanzialmente il più grande fornitore offshore di terre rare della Cina”, ha affermato Jack Lifton, presidente esecutivo del Critical Minerals Institute, sottolineando che la Shanghai Resources Industrial & Trading Co., con sede in Cina, ha acquistato 32.000 tonnellate per un valore di $350 milioni da MP Materials nel 2024.

MP Materials non ha risposto alle telefonate né alle richieste di interviste via e-mail.

Se la Cina dovesse pagare un dazio del 145% per esportare terre rare lavorati negli Stati Uniti, “sarebbe un suicidio finanziario mantenere quel [ritmo di esportazione] perché non potrebbero farlo: costerebbe loro più del valore”, ha dichiarato Lifton a The Epoch Times.

Meredith Schwartz, ricercatrice associata presso il Progetto sulla Sicurezza dei Minerali Critici del Center for Strategic & International Studies, ha affermato che Lynas, pur essendo il maggiore produttore al di fuori della Cina, invia ancora ossidi in questo Paese perché non dispone di una capacità di raffinazione sufficiente.

Ha affermato durante un podcast del 14 aprile che, sebbene l'Australia abbia Lynas, continuerà a dipendere dalla Cina per la raffinazione delle terre rare almeno fino al 2026.

“Ma anche quando questi impianti saranno pienamente operativi” presso MP Materials e Lynas negli Stati Uniti, saranno ancora lontani dalla capacità commerciale e di produzione cinese, ha affermato la Schwartz.

Mentre MP Materials ha prodotto 1.300 tonnellate di ossido di neodimio-praseodimio nel 2024, “nello stesso anno la Cina ne ha prodotto circa 300.000 tonnellate”, ha affermato.

Ciononostante si stanno facendo progressi, ha affermato la Schwartz, osservando che, sebbene USA Rare Earths abbia definito la purificazione del suo primo ossido di disprosio “una svolta” per l'industria nazionale delle terre rare, “resta ancora molto lavoro per trasformare la produzione di campioni in laboratorio in una produzione commerciale su larga scala”.

“Anche con i recenti investimenti gli Stati Uniti sono ben lontani dal raggiungere l'obiettivo [del Dipartimento della Difesa] di una filiera dalla miniera al magnete indipendente dalla Cina e sono ancora più lontani dal competere con avversari stranieri in questo settore strategico”, ha affermato.

“Sviluppare capacità di estrazione e lavorazione richiede uno sforzo a lungo termine, il che significa che gli Stati Uniti saranno in svantaggio nel futuro prossimo”.

Permessi e riforma dei finanziamenti

La Schwartz ha affermato che i percorsi per la costruzione di una filiera nazionale di terre rare sono inclusi in una relazione del 2023 della Commissione Speciale della Camera sulla Competizione Strategica tra gli Stati Uniti e il Partito Comunista Cinese, intitolata “Reset, Prevent, Build: A Strategy to Win America's Economic Competition with the Chinese Communist Party”.

In essa si raccomanda al Congresso di incentivare la produzione nazionale di magneti in terre rare attraverso agevolazioni fiscali per i produttori statunitensi, un'iniziativa che Graceffo approva, purché accompagnata dalla tanto attesa riforma dei permessi.

“Servirà che Trump abroghi o riduca alcune delle restrizioni ambientali e probabilmente anche alcuni dei nostri alleati faranno lo stesso”, ha affermato, suggerendo che i produttori americani svilupperanno efficienze per produrre prodotti migliori e meno costosi.

“Una volta che riporteremo queste cose a casa, avremo tutte quelle menti brillanti, tutte quelle persone istruite, motivate dal profitto. Questo farà progredire lo sviluppo tecnologico perché troveremo modi migliori di fare le cose”.

“Quando si pagano $25 o $30 all'ora gli operai, si è fortemente incentivati a trovare modi più efficienti di fare le cose, piuttosto che quando si è in Cina e si viene pagati 8 centesimi all'ora”.

La Sanderson ha affermato che l'amministrazione Trump “sta compiendo uno sforzo eroico nell'affrontare le principali criticità che hanno colpito l'industria di questo Paese negli ultimi 50 anni circa”.

Ha affermato che la riforma dei permessi è il primo di questi punti critici.

“Il sistema è antiquato, inefficiente e soggetto a contenziosi, il che è ciò che mantiene i buoni progetti sulla lavagna per oltre 20 anni”, ha affermato. “È questo il problema da affrontare: rimuovere queste barriere”.

Lifton ha affermato che l'amministrazione Trump deve istituire un “mercato organizzato” per le terre rare senza la Cina. È sorpreso che i gruppi industriali non l'abbiano ancora fatto.

“Non c'è un filo conduttore, nessuna organizzazione comune. Si potrebbe pensare, ad esempio, che le case automobilistiche si riuniscano e dicano: 'Sentite, non parleremo dei nostri [problemi] competitivi, dei costi relativi, di come sarà il nostro modello per l'anno prossimo; parleremo invece di un approvvigionamento comune di motori a magneti permanenti a terre rare perché ne abbiamo tutti bisogno'”, ha affermato.

La Sanderson ha detto che un altro punto critico per le terre rare che l'amministrazione Trump sta affrontando è una nuova “forma di partenariato pubblico-privato” che utilizzi i fondi della Development Finance Corp. e del Dipartimento della Difesa “per fungere da ancora per attrarre investimenti privati”.

American Rare Earths, ad esempio, ha ricevuto l'autorizzazione da $456 milioni dall'U.S. Export-Import Bank attraverso le azioni esecutive del presidente che impongono la resilienza della catena di approvvigionamento, ha affermato.

“L'Ex-Im Bank non è mai stata istituita per finanziare questi progetti” finché non le è stato ordinato di farlo dal presidente, secondo la Sanderson.

Con i cambiamenti apportati dall'amministrazione Trump, un progetto minerario non necessita di un cliente “che abbia la garanzia di acquistare tutto o una parte del prodotto” per poter beneficiare di sovvenzioni e prestiti, il che rende il processo più rapido, ha affermato.

Il finanziamento è un problema nell'industria mineraria, ma è di grande preoccupazione nello sviluppo delle terre rare, ha affermato la Sanderson.

“Avete trovato un sacco di belle rocce nel terreno. Ottimo per voi. Ora avete bisogno di finanziamenti per trasformarvi in ​​una vera e propria società mineraria”, ha affermato. “Le banche statunitensi tendono a non concedere prestiti in questo settore”.

L'estrazione e la lavorazione delle terre rare richiedono “un capitale estremamente elevato e una volta investito e avviate le operazioni [...] non investiranno se non prevedono di gestire la miniera per 10 o 20 anni”, ha affermato Didier Lesueur, amministratore delegato del Western Research Institute di Laramie, nel Wyoming.

Lifton ha affermato che “i grandi capitali non sono interessati” alle terre rare. Ha osservato che le grandi società minerarie globali come Rio Tinto non vogliono estrarle.

“Quindi, per quanto se ne parli, si tratta di una piccola impresa [nel contesto dell'industria mineraria]”, ha affermato.

“[Estrarre terre rare da] rocce ospitanti [è] una specie di arte oscura. È un'attività proprietaria, molte operazioni sono proprietarie. Nessuno vi dice esattamente come si fanno le cose, e anche quando accade, bisogna essere un super specialista per capirlo”.

Ci sono molti passaggi costosi tra il terreno e il mercato, “e tra l'altro, bisogna scavare [...] ed è molto costoso”, ha detto Lifton.

La Sanderson ha affermato che è difficile estrarre le terre rare dal materiale in cui sono inserite “e concentrarle a un livello che renda il progetto economicamente sostenibile”.

“Non tutti i giacimenti si 'concentrano' a sufficienza da renderli bancabili” ha affermato.

Anche le tempistiche sono difficili da confrontare nello sviluppo delle terre rare, ha affermato.

“Qualsiasi stima fatta da un'azienda – in qualsiasi settore, del resto – su quando pensa che un nuovo impianto, una nuova miniera o un nuovo impianto di lavorazione entrerà in funzione, è sempre una stima approssimativa basata sullo scenario più favorevole, in cui la catena di approvvigionamento non crolla, il prezzo non diventa ingestibile, le condizioni meteorologiche sono favorevoli, ecc.”, ha detto la Sanderson.

Tuttavia, ha affermato Lifton, con oltre $400 miliardi in crediti d'imposta e altri incentivi disponibili attraverso l'Inflation Reduction Act del 2022 – almeno per ora – “Washington sta galleggiando sui fondi per questi progetti”.

Lesueur ha affermato che costruire una catena di approvvigionamento nazionale per le terre rare richiederà tempo e vale la pena prenderselo per farlo bene.

“È possibile farlo rapidamente? No”, ha detto. “In modo sostenibile? Sì. Ci vuole tempo perché la maggior parte di questi progetti, come la miniera di Halleck Creek di American Rare Earth, sono 'progetti greenfield', il che significa che partono da zero”.

Al momento l'industria nazionale delle terre rare è “solo una piccola cosa in un grande appezzamento di terreno”, secondo la Sanderson.

“Ma ehi, si inizia in piccolo e si cresce, giusto?” ha concluso.

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

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

On Friday, the Supreme Court clobbered perhaps America’s most aggressive and intolerant LGBTQ+ school indoctrination program. By a vote of 6 to 3 in the case of Mahmoud v.Taylor, the court upheld parents’ right to exempt their children from biased sex and gender lessons that violated their religious values. The court’s ruling is a bitter reminder that public education is the most expensive “gift” that most Americans will ever receive.

Montgomery County, Maryland is the most liberal turf in one of the most liberal states in the nation. The Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) system prides itself on injecting progressive values into its 116,000 students. MCPS launched a gender-sex education program beginning in pre-kindergarten. The mandate was wildly unpopular with parents. The program initially offered an opt-out option—similar to what almost every other school system in the nation offers. But after too many parents signaled they wanted their kids out, the county canceled the opt-out. County bureaucrats sounded like antebellum plantation owners complaining about too many runaway slaves. An organization representing Muslim, Ukrainian Orthodox, and Catholic parents sued the school system. Their goal was not to prohibit the controversial textbooks but to exempt their kids from the indoctrination.

I live in Montgomery County and I have heard the anguish over this policy from foreign-born Uber drivers with children in local schools. Those Uber contractors came to this nation to pursue the American dream and are horrified to see how teachers are becoming deadly enemies of their family values and of their children’s contentment with their own bodies. When the drivers implore me to explain the local school policy, I can only lament that “crazy as a loon” doesn’t translate.

In 2019, the state of Maryland issued regulations to promote “viewing each student’s” “gender identity and expression,” and “sexual orientation” as “valuable.” Government officials and political appointees arrogated to themselves the prerogative to redefine gender in the state of Maryland. In choosing books for the curriculum, the MCPS Board said it “would review options through an ‘LGBTQ+ Lens’ and ask whether books ‘reinforced or disrupted’ ‘stereotypes,’ ‘cisnormativity,’ and ‘power hierarchies,’” according to a court brief filed by parents. That brief also noted that “teachers are told to frame disagreement with [pro-LGBTQ] ideas as ‘hurtful,’ and to counter with examples of ‘men who paint their nails’ or ‘wear dresses.’ The guidance documents also instruct teachers—twice—to ‘disrupt the either/or thinking’ of elementary students about biological sex.” The goal is to instill in children “a new perspective not easily contravened by their parents,” as the MCPS Board admitted.

In 2020, MCPS reported a 500 percent increase in the number of black and Hispanic kids failing math thanks in part to pointless covid school shutdowns. But that was a trifle compared to the 582 percent increase in the number of kids self-identifying as “non-binary” in local schools. “Disrupting children’s thinking” has been so successful that school medical intake forms indicate that almost half of students identified themselves as non-binary. MCPS justifies keeping young kids’ gender transitions secret in order to protect children from their own parents.

No data has been disclosed on how many of those students have been swayed to take puberty blockers that will leave them barren for life—even though most kids who have gender doubts later accept what they were born with. There is no data on how many females have had double mastectomies or how many boys have had genital-altering surgery. Non-binary kids are far more likely to suffer mental illness, but the schools did not disclose any data on how their crusade boosted the use of antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs. One survey found that more than half of transgender and non-binary youth considered committing suicide in 2022.

No wonder the parents’ lawsuit complained that MCPS promoted “political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children.”

A few decades ago, supposedly only reactionaries objected to public schools providing sex education. If such “lessons” had been limited to how to avoid pregnancy and venereal disease, then there would have been little or no harm or controversy. But that became the camel’s nose in the tent. Sex education became obsessed with redefining gender and radically changing how kids viewed themselves and American society.

In order to mold kids’ values, Montgomery County schools destroyed the innocence of childhood by placing a massive focus on sex starting at age 3. Encouraging kids to doubt their gender and sexual orientation before puberty can blight their lives. Even the local association of school principals vehemently objected to the program, finding it “problematic to portray elementary school age children falling in love with other children, regardless of sexual preferences.” Principals also opposed books and programs that “support the explicit teaching of gender and sexual identity”; invite “shaming comments” toward students who disagree, and are “dismissive of religious beliefs,” according to a court brief. Pro-LGBTQ+ advocates have provided no evidence on the benefits of encouraging kids to torment themselves about their own gender for years before they reach puberty. It doesn’t take 10 years of indoctrination to sway teenage boys to lust for female bosoms.

This case epitomizes how “free” schools subjugate parents and other taxpayers. When the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case, Justice Jackson scoffed: “If the school teaches something that the parent disagrees with, you have a choice. You don’t have to send your kid to that school, you can put them in another situation.” But many of the parents objecting cannot afford either private schools or homeschooling their kids.

Justice Samuel Alito—writing for the court majority—declared,

A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses “a very real threat of undermining” the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill… And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.

Most parents pay taxes that could cover much if not all of the cost of their kids’ schooling. Parents’ rights vanish as soon as their tax dollar is deposited into government coffers. Paying for schooling indirectly turns parents from buyers into beggars. Public schools vivify how control over financing for a service leads to political controls over people’s lives. Justice Alito scoffed at the three Justices who opposed the opt-out: “According to the dissent, parents who send their children to public school must endure any instruction that falls short of direct compulsion or coercion and must try to counteract that teaching at home.” As long as government officials don’t strap children into their chairs and directly use electronic mind zappers, progressives assume officialdom hasn’t gone too far.

The Supreme Court made the right call in upholding parents’ right to opt-out their kids. But how did government schools ever become so arrogant as to claim a right to determine what each child thought about personal, moral, and religious issues? The power of government schools remains a dire threat to parents, children, and to the future of liberty.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post SCOTUS Strikes a Blow Against Public School Indoctrination of Young Children appeared first on LewRockwell.

In recent years, many Americans have become refocused on the Constitution in a spirit of returning the country to its original objectives and values.

This is not surprising. The US has deteriorated, both economically and governmentally, to such a degree that the very structure of the US is in danger of collapse. Small wonder that many Americans are hoping for a return to the simplicity and unified focus that can be found in the country’s original “business plan.”

The framers of the American Constitution borrowed ideas from historical governmental structures, particularly the Roman Republic. They added a few new ideas and came up with a document that may well be the finest concept that has yet been written by which to govern a country.

It is difficult for us to grasp today that, at the time the new Republic was created, it was viewed by the rest of the world as an experiment. Not even the framers of the Constitution were convinced that the Republic would last. After all, the country was broke from having fought a major war, they had no currency of their own and none of them had previously held political office.

It has been stated that the Constitution is brilliant in its brevity; that it had not become bogged down in reams of detail. This is true. One only need look at the weighty Constitution of the European Union as an example of how not to write a constitution.

The implication of the simplicity of the Constitution is that the framers were fully in agreement on the basics, and, that they felt that the rest could be sorted out later by the Legislature. This is partly true – thankfully, the framers were not politicians and they did believe that simplicity was better. But the document is also brief because the committee of ten that wrote it disagreed so extensively on some basic concepts that it was difficult to get anything on paper that they could all accept.

They did agree that they would form a Republic and that it would be run by democracy. (Today, these words have, to some extent, lost their meaning. A republic is a form of government in which each citizen possesses stated rights… while democracy is only a means of governing, in which each citizen has an equal vote. The US is no longer a republic and it can be argued that it is no longer run by true democracy.)

From the beginning, the primary disagreement was the role of the Federal Government.

John Adams, who later found the Federalist Party and became the first Federalist president, argued that a strong central government was essential to hold the states together (at that time, the word “state” meant “country”).  Jefferson disagreed, arguing that “That government governs best that governs least,” and sought to have as minimal a central government as possible. Jefferson later helped found the Democratic Republican Party and became the first Democratic Republican president. To a great degree, Jefferson won out backed by the Constitution’s principle author, James Madison, and others.

However controversial the founding concepts were, we assume today that once the Constitution had been signed, that was it, done deal. But this was not so. Almost immediately the various factions began to “interpret” the Constitution and even recommend amendments… each seeking to bend the Constitution into the direction that would allow him to achieve his personal goals for the union. (Does this sound familiar?)

From the start, Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury) sought to create taxation. When Jefferson admonished him by saying that they had just fought a war to end taxation by King George, Hamilton responded that this taxation was different, as they would be the recipients of the money, not the king. This event should remind us that in every country, in every era, there will always be those who adjust their ideals according to whether or not they themselves are in power.  At that time, Hamilton also attempted to create the Bank of the United States — a federal bank.

To Americans today, Jefferson has emerged as the hero of the Constitution and deservedly so. As president, however, when he had the opportunity to purchase Louisiana for the bargain price of $15,000,000… he couldn’t resist. He had previously often argued that the central government should not make major expenditures and then pass the bill to the states. Yet at the time, the Louisiana Purchase was the greatest expenditure that had yet been considered by the Federal Government.

Jefferson made possible the western expansion of the US by making the purchase. But in doing so, he allowed future presidents to take on huge expenditures. Was he right to sacrifice his own principles in order to do so?

This trend continues today on a grand scale. Even the most conservative politicians have their pet projects they feel should be fully funded… while de-funding the projects of others.

Human nature dictates that while we may strive to agree on basic principles, as soon as we have agreed, we begin making exceptions. Human nature also dictates that power corrupts. In the early days of the union, Washington, Jefferson and even Adams believed that to accept public office when called upon was a duty… but… that having completed a term or two, it was time to return to the farm. Yet they all found that once having been in office, they were reluctant to leave.

So, where does this leave us today? Has nothing changed? Actually yes, there have been significant changes… each one for the worse.

First, beginning with John Quincy Adams, the concept of career politician has come into existence. Ideally, each candidate for office should have had an alternate career prior to running for office. At the very least, this would provide some objectivity. But career politicians generally have a very poor grasp of the real world, because they have never worked in it.

Second, the bureaucracy has become so ponderous that the bureaucracy itself routinely takes precedent over the best interests of the country in the present day, pork is still being seen as more important to legislators than a balanced budget.

The US is now entering the greatest period of crisis since the creation of the union itself. What will be the fate of the Constitution? Will it be discarded? Will there be revolution?

I believe that the answer will be that the Constitution will remain… but will have ever-decreasing significance. The reasons are these: First, politicians of today no longer represent the voters. They represent those who pay for their campaigns. These groups are already in control of the country and, to them, the Constitution is irrelevant. Second, all Americans receive benefits of some kind from the federal government. They can wave the flag all they want, but when their pet entitlements are threatened, they will scream bloody murder. The fact that the entitlements are not allowed for in the Constitution will have little significance.

In the end, with or without electoral shakeups, with or without a second revolution, Americans will argue in favor of their own entitlements and against the entitlements of others.

This is not an issue that will reach a resolution. Just as in ancient Rome, once the republic had become watered down to the point of corruption on the one side, and entitlements on the other, the republic had run its course and the slow collapse began. Concurrently, the “barbarians” (the third-world of their day) took the lead both economically and governmentally and Rome became a backwater.

The writing of the American Constitution was a high-water mark in governmental history. Today, however, the truth is that not even those who profess to honor it would be prepared to make the sacrifice necessary to live by it. Just like the Romans before them who settled for “bread and circuses”, rather than economic recovery, Americans will choose the inevitable decline of their country rather than give up “entitlements.”

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post The Constitution – The Past and Present appeared first on LewRockwell.

The ‘long war’ to subvert Iran, weaken Russia, BRICS and China is on hold. It is not over.

At one level, Iran plainly ‘won’. Trump had wanted to be regaled with a reality-TV style, splendid ‘Victory’. Sunday’s attack on the three nuclear sites indeed was loudly proclaimed by Trump and Hegseth as such – having ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, they claimed. ‘Destroyed it completely’, they insist.

Only … it didn’t: The strike caused superficial surface damage, perhaps. And seemingly was co-ordinated in advance with Iran via intermediaries to be a ‘once and done’ affair. This is a habitual Trump pattern (advance co-ordination). It was the mode in Syria, Yemen and even with Trump’s assassination of Qasem Soleimani – all intended to give Trump a quick media ‘victory’.

The so-called ‘ceasefire’ that rapidly followed the U.S. strikes – albeit not without some hiccoughs – was a hastily assembled ‘cessation of hostilities’ (and no ceasefire – as no terms were agreed). It was a ‘stop-gap’. What this means is that the negotiating impasse between Iran and Witkoff remains unresolved.

The Supreme Leader has forcefully laid down Iran’s position: ‘No surrender’; Enrichment proceeds; and the U.S. should quit the region and keep its nose out of Iranian affairs.

So, on the positive side of cost-benefit analysis, Iran likely has enough centrifuges and 450 kg of highly enriched uranium – and nobody (except Iran) now knows where the stash is hidden. Iran will resume processing. A second plus for Iran is that the IAEA and its Director-General Grossi have been so egregiously subversive of Iranian sovereignty that the Agency most likely will be expelled from Iran. The Agency failed in its basic responsibility to safeguard sites at which enriched uranium was present.

The U.S. and European intelligence services thus will lose their ‘eyes’ on the ground – as well as forego the IAEA’s Artificial Intelligence data collection (on which Israel’s identification of targets likely was heavily dependent).

On the cost side, militarily, Iran of course suffered physical damage, but retains its missile potency. The U.S.-Israeli narrative of Iranian skies as ‘open wide’ to Israeli aircraft is yet another deception contrived to support the ‘winning narrative’:

As Simplicius notes: “There remains not a single shred of proof that Israeli (or American, for that matter) planes ever significantly overflew Iran at any time. Claims of ‘total air superiority’ have no grounds. [Footage] up until the final day shows Israel continued relying on their heavy UCAVs [large surveillance and strike drone aircraft] to strike Iranian ground targets”.

Furthermore, drop tanks from Israeli planes were recorded washing up on Iran’s northernmost Caspian shores, suggesting rather, stand-off missile launches were being mounted by Israel’s Air Force from the north (i.e. from Azerbaijani airspace).

Up a level in the cost-benefit analysis, one must move to the bigger picture: That the destruction of the nuclear programme was pretext, yet not the main objective. The Israelis themselves say that the decision to attack the Iranian State was taken last September/October (2024). Israel’s intricate, costly and sophisticated plan (de-capitation, targeted assassinations, cyber-attack and the infiltration of drone-equipped sabotage cells) that unfolded during the 13 June sneak attack was focussed on one immediate aim: the implosion of the Iranian state, paving the path to chaos and ‘regime change’.

Did Trump believe in the Israeli delusion that Iran was on the brink of imminent collapse? Very likely, he did. Did he believe the Israeli story (reportedly concocted by the IAEA Mosaic programme) that Iran was speeding ‘towards a nuclear weapon’? It seems possible that Trump was suckered – or more likely, was willing prey – to the Israeli and U.S. Israeli-Firster narrative building.

As the Ukraine issue has proved more intractable than Trump expected, the Israeli promise of an ‘Iran ready to implode, Syria-style’ – an ‘Epic’ transformation to a ‘New Middle East’ – must have been alluring enough for Trump to brusquely sweep aside Tulsi Gabbard’s assertion that Iran had no nuclear weapon.

So, has the Iranian military response and the massive popular rallying to the flag been a ‘big win’ for Iran? Well, it is certainly a ‘win’ over the ‘brink of regime change’ pedlars; yet perhaps the ‘win’ needs refining? It is not a ‘forever win’. Iran cannot afford to let its guard down.

‘Iranian unconditional surrender’ is, of course, now off the cards. But the point here is that the Israel establishment, the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. (and possibly Trump too), will continue to believe that the only way to guarantee that Iran never moves toward threshold weapon status – is not through intrusive inspections and monitoring, but precisely via ‘regime change’ and the installation of a purely western puppet in Tehran.

The ‘long war’ to subvert Iran, weaken Russia, BRICS and China is on hold. It is not over. Iran cannot afford to relax or to neglect its defences. What is at stake is the U.S. attempt to control the Middle East and its oil as a buttress to its dollar trading primacy.

Professor Hudson notes that “Trump had expected that countries would respond to his tariff chaos by reaching an agreement not to trade with China – and indeed to accept trade and financial sanctions against China, Russia and Iran”. Clearly, both Russia and China understand the geo-financial stakes surrounding a ‘no surrender’ Iran. And they understand too, how regime change would make Russia’s southern underbelly vulnerable; how it could collapse the BRICS trade corridors, and be used as a wedge separating Russia from China.

Put plainly: the U.S. long war likely will be resumed in a new format. Iran notably has survived this acute phase of the confrontation. Israel and the U.S. bet all on an uprising of the Iranian people. It didn’t happen: Iranian society united in the face of aggression. And the mood is more robust; more resolute.

However, Iran will ‘win’ all the more if the authorities seize on the euphoria of a united society to impart a new energy into the Iranian Revolution. The euphoria will not last forever – absent action. It is a paradoxical and unexpected opportunity offered to the Republic.

Israel, by contrast, having launched its ‘psychic-shock war’ to overturn the Iranian State, has quickly found itself in a situation where its enemy did not surrender, but responded. Israel found itself the target of large-scale retaliatory strikes. The situation quickly became critical – both economically and in the depletion of air defences – as Netanyahu’s desperate appeals to the U.S. for rescue, duly attested.

Moving to the wider geo-political cost-benefit level, Israel’s standing (at the regional level) of being unassailable when fused to American power, has taken a blow: ‘Think of it this way, in ten or twenty years, what will be remembered … [the de-capitation strike and the targeted killings of scientists] … or the fact that Israeli cities burned for the first time; that Israel failed to defang Iran’s nuclear program, and flopped with every other major objective it had, including regime change?’.

“The fact is, Israel suffered an historic humiliation that has destroyed its mystique”. Gulf States will have some difficulty to digest the larger meaning to this symbolic occurrence.

And though Trump’s electorate seemingly is satisfied that America participated in the war minimally – and apparently is happy to reside cocooned in a miasma of exaggerated self-congratulation – there is significant evidence that the MAGA faction of the Trump coalition, simultaneously is reaching the conclusion that the U.S. president is increasingly becoming part of the Deep State system that he so ardently criticised.

There were two key issues in the last U.S. Presidential election: immigration and ‘no more forever wars’. Trump, today, despite highly confusing and contradictory massaging, is clear that a forever war is not off the table: “If Iran builds nuclear facilities again – then in that scenario – the U.S. will strike [again]”, Trump has warned.

That – and the increasingly bizarre posts that Trump pens – seem to have had the effect of radicalising the Populist base against Trump on this issue.

For the rest of the world, Trump’s recent postings are disturbing. Perhaps they work for some Americans, but not elsewhere. It means that Moscow, Beijing or Tehran find it harder to take such erratic messaging seriously. Equally troubling, however, is how divorced from geo-political reality, in a succession of cases, Team Trump has proved to be in their situation assessments. Amber lights are flashing in many capitals across the world.

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

The post What Means ‘Winning’? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The U.S. dollar just keeps getting weaker and weaker, and that is a major problem because our current standard of living depends on having a strong dollar.  When the U.S. dollar is strong relative to other national currencies, our paychecks stretch farther and we can buy more stuff.  Conversely, when the U.S. dollar is weak relative to other national currencies we can’t buy as much stuff and our standard of living goes down.  So the fact that the U.S. dollar is “having its worst start to the year since 1973” should deeply alarm all of us…

The US dollar — once a pillar of American economic strength — is having its worst start to the year since 1973.

President Trump’s whipsawing trade and economic policies have prompted investors to sell what is still the world’s dominant currency.

So far in 2025, the dollar index — which tracks the greenback against major currencies like the euro and pound — has dropped more than 10 percent.

That marks the sharpest first-half fall since the collapse of the gold-backed Bretton Woods system more than 50 years ago sent the dollar down 15 percent.

Were you alive in 1973?

If so, you probably remember that it was a horrible year.

The Vietnam War was raging, tax rates were sky high, crime rates were rising, the U.S. economy was in really rough shape, and Arab nations hit us with a crippling oil embargo.

Unfortunately, we are facing a similar scenario today.  We are involved in wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, the federal government is drowning in debt even though tax rates are still way too high, there has been rioting in the streets of Los Angeles and other major cities, economic conditions just continue to get worse, and a global trade war has erupted.

The rest of the world is losing confidence in us and in our currency, and the dollar index fell once again on Monday…

The dollar index , which measures the greenback against a basket of currencies including the yen and the euro, fell 0.15% to 97.05, on track for its sixth straight month of losses. It is set to mark its worst half-year since the 1970s.

The fact that the dollar index has now fallen for six consecutive months is a major national crisis.

Why aren’t more people talking about this?

The silver lining of having a weaker dollar is that it is supposed to make our products more competitive to the rest of the world and reduce our trade imbalances.  But instead, the U.S. current account deficit exploded to a brand new record high during the first quarter of 2025…

The U.S. current account deficit widened to a record high in the first quarter as businesses front-loaded imports to avoid President Donald Trump’s hefty tariffs on imported goods.

The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis said on Tuesday the current account deficit, which measures the flow of goods, services and investments into and out of the country, jumped $138.2 billion, or 44.3%, to an all-time high of $450.2 billion. Data for the fourth quarter was revised to show the gap at $312.0 billion instead of $303.9 billion as previously reported.

Meanwhile, our economy as a whole actually contracted at a 0.5% annualized rate during the first quarter of this year…

The U.S. economy contracted a bit faster than previously thought in the first quarter amid tepid consumer spending, underscoring the distortions caused by the Trump administration’s aggressive tariffs on imported goods.

Gross domestic product decreased at a downwardly revised 0.5% annualized rate last quarter, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) said in its third estimate of GDP on Thursday. It was previously reported to have dropped at a 0.2% pace.

One of the big reasons why our economic performance has been so dismal is because the U.S. housing market is having “its worst year in decades”…

Meredith Whitney thinks the housing market is set for “its worst year in decades.”

The CEO of investment research firm Meredith Whitney Advisory Group and senior advisor at Boston Consulting Group told Yahoo Finance that 2023 and 2024 were both bad years, but it’s now looking even worse with about 4 million sales of existing homes expected.

Whitney thinks the actual number may be significantly below that figure. “That poses a real problem for the general economy,” she said.

The Federal Reserve needs to reduce interest rates immediately.

But Fed Chair Jerome Powell seems to think that everything is just fine.

I can certainly understand why President Trump is so frustrated with him.

On top of everything else, now that the student loan payment pause is over we are facing a student loan delinquency crisis of unprecedented magnitude…

Another significant development for consumer spending power is the return of student loan delinquencies. After a 43-month payment pause, nearly one in four student loan borrowers (23.7%) were behind on their student loans in the first quarter of 2025.

The scale of this change is unprecedented. According to the Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit published by the New York Fed, more than 2.2 million newly delinquent borrowers have seen their credit plunge by over 100 points, while more than 1 million have experienced drops of at least 150 points.

This isn’t just about student loans – it’s about access to consumer credit going forward. An estimated 2.4 million delinquent borrowers previously had credit scores above 620, meaning they qualified for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards before these delinquencies hit their reports. Many no longer do.

We have got a real mess on our hands.

Nobody can deny this.

Looking ahead, there is a tremendous amount of trouble looming on the horizon.

In fact, CNN just published an article that warns that “economic hell” could be coming this summer.

According to that article, one of the reasons why “economic hell” could be approaching is because the pause on “reciprocal tariffs” on most of our trading partners ends on July 9th…

The first is July 9, which marks the end of President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on what he termed as “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of America’s trading partners. Unless those countries reach trade deals with the US, they could potentially face much higher tariffs.

That is a really big deal.

If tariffs suddenly go far higher on literally thousands upon thousands of imported products, that is going to cause an immense amount of economic pain.

And the war between Israel and Iran could potentially erupt again at any time.  If that were to happen, the Iranians would likely close the Strait of Hormuz, and that would make the oil embargo of 1973 look like a Sunday picnic.

The first half of 2025 has been crazy, but I am even more concerned about the second half of 2025.

I believe that it is going to be filled with all sorts of unpleasant surprises, and that won’t be good for any of us.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post This Is the Worst Year for the U.S. Dollar Since The Oil Crisis of 1973 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Spoiler alert: this ends badly.

I have endeavored to explain how our economy has changed dramatically over the past 50 years beneath the surface. Nothing that’s going to happen in the future will make sense unless we understand this, so refill your beverage of choice and let’s go through what changed.

Wages gained ground 1945 – 1975, and lost ground 1975 – 2025. In the “glorious 30” (Trente Glorieuses) years of sustained global growth 1945 – 1975, wages’ share of the economy remained around 50% of the nation’s income. As the economy expanded, wages increased in step with the economy.

Since the mid-1970s, that trend has reversed. Wages have lost ground for the past 50 years. As the economy expanded, wages’ share declined, meaning the economy’s gains flowed to capital rather than wages. (Chart #1 below)

This wealth transfer was non-trivial: $150 trillion was siphoned from wages to owners of capital.

As the chart below shows, Federal debt as a percentage of GDP declined in the the decades of organic growth, meaning the economy expanded from increases in productivity, efficiencies and resource extraction, as opposed to the synthetic growth of using debt / financialization to boost consumption.

Financialization took off in the 1980s as unlimited credit for financiers enabled a synthetic boom of corporate takeovers and mergers. Financialization expanded into every nook and cranny of the economy in the 1990s and 2000s, so that assets such as the family home became commoditized assets that could be sold as securities to global capital.

As the Federal-debt-GDP charts illustrates, Federal debt rose faster than GDP as financialization hollowed out the US economy. The acceleration of globalization from 2001 advanced this hollowing out.

The destabilizing nature of financialization manifested in 2008 as the Global Financial Crisis, when heavily financialized subprime mortgage securities catalyzed a global meltdown.

the 2008-09 crisis and response was a critical juncture in American history , as the organic economy became subservient to the synthetic economy of debt, bubbles and “the wealth effect,” the toxic harvest of hyper-financialization and hyper-globalization.

Federal debt, which has risen from 40% of GDP in the early 1980s to 60% in 2007, exploded higher to 120% as the synthetic “growth” of using debt to inflate asset bubbles that generated “the wealth effect” became the engine of consumption.

As a result of policy decisions made in 2008-2010, our economy became dependent not on wages but on “the wealth effect” for consumption: as asset valuations bubble higher, the owners of the assets feel wealthier, and are incentivized to borrow and spend more of their phantom wealth.

The top 10% of US households now account for 49.7% of all US consumer spending: The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People: The highest-earning 10% of Americans have increased their spending far beyond inflation. Everyone else hasn’t. (WSJ.com)

The problem is that unlike wages, which are broadly distributed, asset ownership is concentrated in the top 10% of households, so “the wealth effect” dramatically boosted wealth and income inequality. So all the synthetic “growth” since 2009 has flowed to the top tier of households as wages’ share of the nation’s income continued losing ground.

This sets up a can’t win scenario: if the Everything Bubble that drives “the wealth effect” continues inflating, wealth inequality will crack our society wide open. If the bubble pops, consumption implodes, jobs will be lost and the Great Recession that was pushed forward in 2009 will kick in with a vengeance.

Beneath the superficial surface of rising GDP, the policies of inflating debt-bubbles to drive “the wealth effect” have hollowed out not just the economy but society. Courtesy of @econimica (X/Twitter), these charts show the pernicious consequences of relying on debt for consumption and channeling gains to the owners of assets.

The net effect was to load younger generations with debt while funneling the majority of Federal spending to the older generations who also happen to own most of the assets. Since younger workers couldn’t buy assets when they were cheap, few have gained from “the wealth effect.”

By effectively impoverishing the nation’s younger generations, we’ve chosen a demographic doom-loop as marriage and birth rates have collapsed from 2007. Guess what happens when you make starting a family and buying a house unaffordable to younger generations? They no longer start families and have children.

As the Boomer generation retires, the legacy of retirement programs designed in the 1930s (Social Security) and the 1960s (Medicare) is fiscal bankruptcy as these programs are driving the expansion of federal spending and borrowing.

It’s called a Doom Loop, with no exit, for all speculative asst bubbles pop. Once “the wealth effect” reverses, assets get sold off to raise cash and since only the wealthy can afford to buy them, there’s no buyers left, so valuations crash.

Read the Whole Article

The post The No-Win Bubble ‘Wealth Effect’: Either Way We Lose appeared first on LewRockwell.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “President Trump on Monday signed a presidential memorandum to restore hard-line U.S. policy toward Cuba, reversing the Biden administration’s late-term efforts to ease some restrictions on the communist-run island.”

Yawn! Same old, same old. Keep targeting the Cuban with the brutal, decades-old economic embargo in the hope of finally — finally! — achieving regime change on the island. When it comes to Cuba, hope springs eternal within the U.S. national-security establishment that the Cuban people, faced with death by starvation, will finally — finally! — revolt against their communist regime and replace it with another brutal pro-U.S. “capitalist” dictator.

The Journal continues: “The memorandum reinforces the Trump administration’s stance that Cuba is a U.S. national-security concern, reimposes a statutory ban on tourism, and doubles down on a decades‑old economic embargo.”

Ooh — “National Security”! The two most important words in the American political lexicon. Yeah, the Cuban army is right now making preparations to invade Miami. And the Cuban Air Force is getting ready to bomb U.S. nuclear missile sites. And Cuban officials are preparing lesson plans for teaching communism in America’s socialist public (i.e., government) schooling system. And Cuban sharpshooters are already here looking for people to assassinate.

No matter what definition is put on that meaningless, ludicrous term — “national security” — the notion that Cuba is a threat to “national security” is absolutely ridiculous.

In the long, sordid history of U.S.-Cuban relations, it has always been the U.S. government that has been the aggressor, and it has always been the Cuban government that has been the defender.

Cuba has never initiated an attack against the United States or against the American people.

It is the U.S. government that has invaded Cuba. It is the U.S. government that has engaged in state-sponsored assassination attempts in Cuba, including in partnership with the Mafia, one of the biggest criminal groups in history. It is the U.S. government that has committed acts of terrorism within Cuba. It is the U.S. government that has targeted the Cuban people with death by starvation with a brutal economic embargo.

Why can’t U.S. officials just leave Cuba alone? What is with it their never-ending obsession with Cuba?

It all goes back to the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Cuba was being ruled by a brutal dictator named Fulgencio Batista. He was a tyrant but what mattered was that he was a loyal member of the U.S. Empire. He did what U.S. officials told him to do.

The Cuban people finally had enough of that brute, especially when his goons began kidnapping underaged girls and furnishing them to the Mafia’s high rollers in Havana’s casinos. After the Cuban people successfully revolted, they installed Fidel Castro into power, a communist who refused to cow-tow to the U.S. Empire.

Nobody does that to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. The U.S. deep stated decided that Cuba now posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security.” Everything would be done to protect the United States from this grave threat, including invasion, state-sponsored assassination, terrorism, and, of course, a brutal economic embargo designed to target the Cuban people with death by starvation.

President Kennedy is the only president who was willing to put a stop to this vicious, malicious, deadly, and destructive misconduct. That was what his famous Peace Speech at American University was all about. In fact, on the day that the U.S. national-security establishment assassinated him on grounds of protecting “national security,” he had an emissary having lunch with Castro with the aim of bring an end to the U.S. national-security establishment’s war on Cuba. Kennedy’s assassination ensured that the U.S. embargo on Cuba would continue into perpetuity or until regime change was finally achieved.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that no president since Kennedy, including Donald Trump, has dared to buck the U.S. deep state when it comes to Cuba. And so it is that the brutal, deadly U.S. embargo continues — on grounds of protecting “national security” of course.

I’ve got a better idea. How about just finally leaving Cuba alone? How about lifting the decades-old U.S. embargo, which targets innocent people with impoverishment or death by starvation? Indeed, how about finally dismantling the U.S. national-security state, along with its totalitarian-like, dark side powers, and restoring America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic? Hasn’t it done enough damage to America, Cuba, and the rest of the world?

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Why Not Finally Leave Cuba Alone? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Operations “The Rising Lion” and “Midnight Hammer” were massive demonstrations of force. They lasted no more than 12 days in total. Their results are unknown, but much has been learned about those who planned them. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which relied on AI software rather than the observations of its inspectors, is now demonetized. The damage done to Iranian nuclear research sites is questionable. Only the assassinations of military leaders and civilian scientists have been documented.

Several elements of the “12-Day War” remain unexplained, but this does not prevent each major player (Israel, the United States, and Iran) from claiming to have won it. Above all, the questions raised about fundamental elements do not allow us to establish with certainty whether Washington deliberately violated international law or whether it believed it had to do so to avoid much worse.

Iran’s nuclear research program

We have, in these columns, explained at length the conflict surrounding Iranian nuclear research  [ 1 ] . It began in 1981 when the Islamic Republic of Iran demanded the enriched uranium to which it was entitled under the Iranian-French nuclear program, proposed by President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and Prime Minister Jacques Chirac to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as part of the US “Atoms for Peace” program. It was in this context, and in the face of France’s refusal to give the Islamic Republic what it had planned for imperial Iran, that attacks by the Lebanese Revolutionary Armed Factions, linked to Iran, eliminated US and Israeli diplomats in France.

This conflict developed from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Iraq (2003). Washington and London, who had invented the poisoning of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, extended it by that of Iranian weapons of mass destruction. They succeeded in having the United Nations Security Council adopt resolutions 1737 (December 23, 2006) and 1747 (March 24, 2007) which were to prepare for a war against Iran. However, following the Iraq Study Group , known as the “Baker-Hamilton Commission”, these wild ideas were abandoned by Washington and the conflict with France could be resolved  [ 2 ] .

The conflict flared up again when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a vast research program on nuclear fusion; a project that was by nature dual, meaning it could have both civilian and military applications  [ 3 ] . Supported by a majority of UN member states, he rightly refused to allow the Security Council to demand that Iran surrender one of its rights in order to “restore the confidence” of others in it (resolution 1696 of July 31, 2006); a polemic that exemplifies the drift that the West has influenced the United Nations with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Iran, which had already experienced the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, when he attempted to nationalize Iranian oil, could not fail to resist this Western attempt to prevent it from finding an inexhaustible source of energy. The controversy worsened when the Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 on 9 June 2010, again against the General Assembly.

The “revisionist Zionists” (that is, the disciples of the fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky) – not to be confused with the “Zionists” tout court, that is, with the disciples of Theodor Herzl – took up the subject. It was they who, fifteen years later, managed to infiltrate the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), of which Israel is not a member, and to influence its director, the Argentinian Rafael Grossi  [ 4 ] .

On April 2, 2025, Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, told the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly: “We only have a few months before the expiration of this agreement [the JCPOA, from which the United States withdrew]. If it fails, a military confrontation seems almost inevitable.”  [ 5 ] He added that new EU “sanctions” against Iran related to the detention of foreign citizens would be approved in the coming weeks.

On 28 April 2025, the United Nations Security Council held two closed-door meetings on the “Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” We do not know precisely what was said, but the meeting was stormy, as evidenced by the publication the following day of a letter of protest from the Islamic Republic of Iran (S/2025/261  [ 6 ] ). According to this document, Jean-Noël Barrot, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had flown in from Paris specially for the occasion, allegedly claimed that “Iran [is] on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Jean-Noël Barrot and his Minister Delegate for Europe, Benjamin Haddad, joined Michel Barnier’s government and were reappointed in François Bayrou’s. While Barrot’s thinking is not well known, that of his Minister Delegate is. Benjamin Haddad is not just a former senior official in the European Union’s foreign service; he was also a long-time employee of the Tikvah Fund of the “revisionist Zionist” Elliott Abrams  [ 7 ] . He was the one who defined Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy for convincing Europeans to support Israel against the Palestinians  [ 8 ] .

A month later, the IAEA claimed in its two quarterly reports on Verification and Monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)  [ 9 ] and on the NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran  [ 10 ] that Tehran was hiding something. However, these documents were not based on objective observations, but on the findings of the artificial intelligence software Mosaic. This software, designed to detect terrorist plots from an infinite amount of data, did not simply analyze them, but presented warnings as certainties. For the first time, an AI, designed to detect anomalies, was used to describe reality. As a result, the anomalies detected in Iran were interpreted as the preparation of an atomic bomb. On this grotesque and expensive basis, Rafael Grossi alerted the Agency’s Board of Governors on June 12.

Mosaic software is a product of Palantir Technologies, a company whose main clients include the CIA, the Pentagon, the IDF, and the Mossad, as well as the French Directorate General for Internal Security (DGSI). It is owned by the South African-American-New Zealander Peter Thiel, a director of the Bilderberg Group.

In a particularly heated meeting on 12 June, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution  [ 11 ] stating that “the Director General, as stated in document GOV/2025/25, cannot provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.” Although China and Russia protested, the IAEA referred the matter to the UN Security Council. The Russian delegation to the UN then urgently circulated an analysis (S/2025/377) denouncing the duplicity of Germany, France and the United Kingdom and their misleading interpretation of IAEA data  [ 12 ] . Reading this document, it is clear that these three countries were not fooled by Rafael Grossi, but participated in his staging.

Only US radars cover Iran. To reach Iranian nuclear research centers, Israel needed access to satellite data from the US Middle East Command (CentCom).

Operation “Rising Lion”

Without waiting, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion. At this point, it is not certain that the three European countries conspired to pave the way for this operation. They may just have been manipulated into supporting it. However, previous episodes, such as that of June 2024  [ 13 ] , attest that these states and their allies were no longer respecting their obligation to lift their “sanctions” against Iran, particularly as signatories to the Vienna Agreement (JCPoA). Just as in the 1980s they no longer considered themselves bound by their signature of the nuclear agreement with Iran after the Islamic Republic succeeded the Iranian Empire, so today they no longer consider themselves bound by their signature of the JCPoA after the United States denounced it.
The first hypothesis is therefore the most likely.

On July 14, 2023, the United Nations repealed the sanctions imposed on Iran under Annex B of Resolution 2231 (2015), pursuant to the Joint Comprehensive Peace Agreement (JCPoA), but Germany, France, and the United Kingdom continue to apply them. They now constitute only “unilateral coercive measures” and are clearly contrary to international law. Berlin, Paris, and London consider themselves released from their commitments under the JCPoA, although, unlike the United States, they have not denounced it.

Officially, US President Donald Trump was also said to be convinced that Iran was preparing to build a nuclear bomb within two weeks. At least, that’s what he said, shutting up his National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard, who said Iran had no military nuclear program  [ 14 ] .

In any case, informed by the same Tulsi Gabbard of the imminence of an Israeli atomic attack on Iran (“Samson Option”) against its nuclear research centers, President Trump proposed to support a conventional Israeli attack on Iran, rather than allowing it to carry out a nuclear bombing. The Israeli Air Force therefore launched a massive attack against Iranian nuclear research centers, against its ballistic missile system and against several of its military leaders and nuclear scientists. All this while relying on intelligence from US radars at Camp al-Udeid (Qatar), as Israeli radars do not cover Iran.

According to the presentation that Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar made to the Security Council (S/2025/390  [ 15 ] ), Israel claims that it wanted to “neutralize the existential and imminent threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.” It relies on IAEA discussions (based not on observations, but on the artificial intelligence of the Mosaic software) to falsely claim that Iran is not complying with its obligations to the IAEA and has “accelerated its clandestine efforts to develop nuclear weapons.” But even assuming that Israeli leaders believed that Iran would soon have an atomic bomb and would use it against them, “Rising Lion” also targeted the ballistic missile system, as well as several of the military’s leaders and nuclear scientists. The Israeli attack is therefore not aimed at the announced objective, but at the destruction of Iranian defense and research resources.

The question of the violation of international commitments by Israel and the United States, that is, of international law  [ 16 ] , arises once again. Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Danny Danon, spoke of a “preventive and preemptive” war. Thus, Israel would have acted without being provoked (preventively) and in the interest of the international community (preemption). In this game, anyone could assassinate their neighbor at any time. It has already been noted, even before the “Iron Swords” operation in Gaza, that Israel behaves without taking into account the human lives of civilians, that is, to use the words of the Hague Conference of 1899 (foundation of international law), not “like a civilized nation, but like barbarians.” The military participation of the United States, with the radars of the al-Udeid base, allows us to formulate the same judgment on Washington’s behavior.

Israel has not limited itself to bombing from its planes. The IDF has also used drones, present in Iran, to assassinate military leaders and nuclear scientists in their homes. This is the second time this method has been used, the first being the Ukrainian attack by Russian strategic bombers (Operation “Spider’s Web”) on June 1, 2025. How can we not draw a parallel between the two operations, especially since it was noted at the time that this action had been coordinated with a foreign secret service, American or Israeli? Besides the fact that we should reconsider the possibility that Israel could have declared war on Russia, we must remember that the “integral nationalist”, General Vassyl Maliuk, director of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), is a great admirer of the SS officer Otto Skorzeny  [ 17 ] . However, after World War II, Skorzeny, protected by the CIA and MI6, founded an agency, the “Paladin Group,” which worked for Israel, among other things. Of course, Israel did not bomb the Bushehr nuclear power plant, where many Russian engineers worked.

Furthermore, the day before the Israeli attack, the Iranian press published the first nuclear documents stolen by Iranian intelligence in Israel. One of them is a list of nuclear scientists provided to Tel Aviv by Rafael Grossi. It turns out that this is the exact list of scientists assassinated during Operation “The Rising Lion.” This does not mean that the IAEA director himself designated the men to be killed, but it does make him complicit in their deaths.

Operation “Midnight Hammer”

President Donald Trump, for his part, launched Operation Midnight Hammer on the night of June 21-22. The aim was to destroy three Iranian nuclear research sites. According to the official version, the GBU-57 bombs could be launched one after the other into the same hole so as to penetrate 80 meters of granite. Maybe, maybe not. In any case, by assuring that the mission was accomplished, the US president intended to deprive West Jerusalem of any justification for continuing its attack on Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu made no secret of the fact that he was also working to overthrow the “regime,” and Donald Trump appeared not to be opposed to it.

While a controversy with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was raging in Washington, the IDF continued to bomb Iran, destroying fuel stocks and various infrastructure. This was a far cry from the stated objectives, just as in Gaza, starving the civilian population has no bearing on the sole stated objective of defeating Hamas.

President Trump then banged his fist on the table, and the Israeli planes still heading towards Iran were forced to stop their mission and return to their bases.

—

[ 1 ]  “  Who is afraid of Iranian civil nuclear power?  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , June 30, 2010.

[ 2 ]  However, under pressure from the United States, Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, the leader of the Lebanese Revolutionary Armed Factions, is still imprisoned in France, although, according to the law, he should have been released long ago for good behavior. He is the longest-serving French political prisoner.

[ 3 ]  “  The unspoken aspects of the Iranian nuclear program  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , June 24, 2025.

[ 4 ]  “  Argentinian Rafael Grossi, director of the IAEA, almost triggered a nuclear war  ,” by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, Translation Maria Poumier, La Jornada (Mexico), Voltaire Network , June 28, 2025.

[ 5 ]  “  International situation: hearing of Jean-Noël Barrot  ”, Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly , April 2, 2025 (listen at the 34th minute).

[ 6 ]  “  Iran protests against Jean-Noël Barrot’s false statements  ”, by Amir Saeid Iravani, Voltaire Network , April 29, 2025.

[ 7 ]  “  The Straussian coup in Israel  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , March 7, 2023.

[ 8 ]  “  The place of the United States and Israel in the governments of the EU and France  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , October 1, 2024.

[ 9 ]  Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015) , Report by Director General Rafael Grossi, International Atomic Energy Agency (ref: GOV/2025/24), 2 June 2025.

[ 10 ]  NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran , Report by Director General Rafael Grossi, International Atomic Energy Agency (ref: GOV/2025/25), 4 June 2023.

[ 11 ]  “  Resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors  ”, by IAEA, Voltaire Network , June 12, 2025.

[ 12 ]  “  Russia recalls that Germany, France and the United Kingdom are solely responsible for the reduction of IAEA verification activities in Iran  ”, by Vassily Nebenzia, Voltaire Network , June 12, 2025.

[ 13 ]  “  Vienna Agreement on the Iranian Nuclear Program (JCPoA): Iranian Perspective  ”, by Amir Saeid Iravani, Voltaire Network , June 5, 2024. “  Update from China, Russia and Iran on the verifications of the Iranian nuclear program  ”, by Amir Saeid Iravani, Fu Cong, Vassily Nebenzia, Voltaire Network , June 12, 2024.

[ 14 ]  “  Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community  ”, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, March 2025.

[ 15 ]  “  Israel’s presentation of Operation “Rising Lion”  ”, by Gideon Sa’ar, Voltaire Network , June 17, 2025.

[ 16 ]  “  What international order?  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , November 7, 2023.

[ 17 ]  “  Who is controlling the drones in Kiev?  ”, by Manlio Dinucci, Translation M.-A., Voltaire Network , June 9, 2025.

The post Behind the ’12-Day War’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

In discussion yesterday with Nima on Dialogue Works about the Israeli-Iranian-Trump-Netanyahu ongoings, I suggested a bold and innovative plan for the Middle East that Trump should present to the world in a speech to the UN General Assembly.  I even offered to write the speech.

I formed the plan from mulling over insights into Trump’s attitude toward the Middle East from Gilbert Doctorow, Michel Chossudovsky, and from Trump’s news conference with Netanyahu when Trump stated Washington’s claim to Gaza as an American possession.

Doctorow pointed out that it was irrelevant whether Trump had destroyed the three underground Iranian nuclear sites.  What mattered is that Trump’s assertion, true or false, had destroyed Netanyahu’s excuse for war with Iran. Is Netanyahu going to risk Washington’s protection by contradicting President Trump?

Chossudovsky pointed out that in the press conference at which Trump stated Washington’s claim to Gaza, Trump expressed the idea of a Gaza resort as the anchor for an American Middle East colony in place of Greater Israel.

In front of Netanyahu Trump unveiled a vision of a Middle East made rich by American management.  It would be a different kind of colonial management from the British/French approach that extracted assets and sent them home to Britain and France.  Trump envisioned a partnership in which the “colonies” would be shareholders sharing in the profits from economic development.  This would be good for Israel as well.  When a presstitute asked Netanyahu his opinion, Netanyahu did not disavow it.

I was surprised that Trump’s claim to Gaza and its reconstruction and his idea of a reconstruction of the Middle Eastern countries  that previous US regimes had destroyed for Israel did not get a big news play.  But Chossudovsky saw it, and he helped me to see it.

Ask yourselves, Is there any better solution to the Israeli-Muslim problem in the Middle East?

Israel is smaller in area than New Jersey.  Iran is 2.5 times larger than Texas.  Israel has fewer than 10 million people.  Iran has more than 90 million people.  Iran can produce modern missiles in greater quantities than Israel can be supplied from the US.  In a recent news conference in a demonstration of Israeli insanity, Netanyahu added the territory of Pakistan to Greater Israel.  Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a population of 250 million.

Israel has zero chance of winning a war with Iran and the same for Pakistan.

Israel knows this but is confident that the power that the Israel Lobby can exert over dumbshit American’s  lives and money guarantees that Americans will fight more wars for Israel.  The Israeli-subsidized Christian Zionists–a contradiction of terms–are all for it.  Amazing, isn’t it, Israel has even corrupted Christian evangelicals, paying their preachers to send Americans to war for Israel.  

What might be reducing Israel’s control over America is the weakened position of Netanyahu, under two Israeli court indictments for crimes, and by the destruction inflicted on Israel by its irresponsible attack on Iran, culminating in Netanyahu’s plea to Trump to stop the war before Israel had to sue for peace.

This leaves Trump with the upper hand.  Israel now understands that it cannot exist without Washington’s protection.  Thus Trump can force Netanyahu to give up the unrealistic Zionist goal of Greater Israel and comply with Trump’s vision of a colony under America’s redevelopment of the Middle East.

If Trump would take this plan to the UN, it would silence Israel and the American neoconservative zionists and save us from war that  could turn nuclear.  

If Trump establishes peace and cooperation in the Middle East, he can do the same with the West and Russia.  Russia was the ally of Britain and France in both WW I and WW II.  It is not difficult to come to terms with a former ally.  There is no ideological reason and no territorial reason for conflict between the West and Russia.

Think about America’s waste of resources and prestige during the first quarter of the 21st century.  Trillions of dollars spend destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Somalia with zero gain.  No one except military/security war profits got anything from these wars. There was no terrorist threat. Washington brought no one democracy, only destruction.

Think about the destruction Washington brought to entire countries for no purpose than Israel’s absurd idea of a Greater Israel.  The millions of dead, permanently maimed, and dislocated people, many of whom have located in Europe and the US burdening those taxpayers with their upkeep. WHO BENEFITTED??

Let’s give Trump a chance.  An American partnership in the Middle East is far better than the conflicts inherent in  Greater Israel.  If Israel refuses to go along, Trump should just run over them.  Israel is of no consequence in the world.  Israel since its existence has never been anything except a cause of conflict, death, and destruction.  Why a people like this has been tolerated, I do not know.

Can Sunni and Shia be brought together and Muslims brought together with Jews?  Seems fantastic.  But perhaps they will see it as preferable to the continuation of endless bloodshed.

If Netanyahu has any sense, he will let Trump rescue the Israeli people.

The post President Trump’s Plan for the Middle East appeared first on LewRockwell.

Voters can act more in their own best interests when they have foreknowledge of the ways their normal perceptions and anticipations get used against them.

Voters get misled by listening to gatekeepers, by focusing on near-term negatives, and by looking for positives.

Envision Best Actions

Even in the best circumstances, making sense of new information takes a lot of attention.

This human limitation gets exploited by media people, activists, and politicians. All of these gatekeepers draw our attention to their priorities and away from ours.

To get on course and stay there, we need to generate a stronger setpoint signal ourselves. We can do this by considering these fundamentals:

• What action would a government person take if he supported the Constitution on a given issue?
• How would this action impact what matters most: life, then liberty, then property?
• What overall course of action would best make our rights secure?

Legislators currently spend most of their time taking unconstitutional actions. They grab the executive power to allocate budget line-items. They grab the executive power to manage the faithful execution of rules and sanctions.

Executives also currently spend most of their time taking unconstitutional actions. They enact regulatory rules and sanctions. They interfere with our saving, working, and shopping. They command troops in undeclared wars. They enact tariff taxes.

We need legislators to spend most of their time formally repealing the many unconstitutional existing statutes. We need executives to spend most of their time closing the many unconstitutional administrative departments and agencies, and recommending formal repeals.

We can help ourselves get on course and stay there by making good use of a constitutionalist voting scorecard.

We can use a scorecard to help us appreciate how little government action gets voted on in a given session. We can read the positions taken in the scorecard to help us review our own thinking. We can gage how well a politician supports the Constitution based on his votes—in the most-recent session, and in past sessions when his party was in power and his votes helped decide what could become law.

A time-tested voting scorecard is John Birch Society’s Freedom Index. The Freedom Index explains constitutionalist positions on major votes, and scores the votes of congressmen and state legislators.

See Long-Term Negatives

In most counties, most voters strongly desire to live freer and to live better.

Progressives are the USA’s socialists. Some are business-crony socialists, and others are activist-crony socialists.

To the extent that there is freedom, producers are controlled by customers. To the extent that there is Progressive crony-socialist tyranny, producers are controlled by politicians.

Customers relentlessly seek more of what they value themselves. Politicians also relentlessly seek more of what they value themselves. But what one customer values, other customers value. What politicians value, customers don’t value.

Most voters naturally recoil at potentially having the most-openly Progressive politicians hold offices for any time at all. They naturally anticipate that this would cause serious losses. They naturally try to prevent those losses by voting against those Progressives.

But what they anticipate doesn’t match reality. Having the most-openly Progressive politicians hold offices for a term isn’t what actually leaves us stuck with serious losses.

During any given politician’s term in office, other officials are called on to limit what losses he can cause during his term. State-government officials are called on to legislate against and punish national-government officials who take unconstitutional actions. National-government officials are also called on to use their offsetting powers to limit unconstitutional actions.

Many losses could be prevented or mitigated if voters would choose each politician wisely, and if voters would call on politicians to use their offsetting powers to limit Progressives.

Typically, though, people don’t do their duties.

Even so, we mostly only get stuck with serious losses in the succeeding terms. In these later terms, the latest politicians are called on to not execute and to formally repeal any and all past tyrannies. We have plenty of time, but no representation.

The latest politicians don’t do their duties. That’s what does us in.

After tyranny has been advanced by openly-Progressive Democrats, Progressives protect those advances, ratcheting those gains into place—courtesy of Republican Progressives.

Seek Long-Term Positives

Misidentifying an openly-Progressive Democrat as a problem that’s urgent and that’s the most serious warps most voters’ perceptions.

Most voters decide that a Republican Progressive alternative is good, or see him as the lesser of two evils. They anticipate that they’ll see positives, they begin to seek out positives, and they begin to see positives.

After the Republican Progressive is elected, many voters keep anticipating that they’ll see positives, and they keep seeing positives. What negatives they see, they see as still being the lesser of the two evils, just like they had anticipated.

Governments exploit voters’ natural inclinations to collaborate. Likewise, the Republican Party further exploits voters’ natural vulnerabilities to getting flooded with information from gatekeepers, to focusing on near-term threats, and to looking for what’s good in their past decisions and current circumstances.

But armed with foreknowledge of these vulnerabilities, we can instead achieve the fastest gains possible, by refining our perceptions and by voting strategically.

We should practice keeping in the forefront of our minds how constitutionalist politicians would use their powers in all areas. We should prioritize life, then liberty, then property. We should make use of constitutionalist voting scorecards like The Freedom Index. And always, in Republican primaries and in general elections, we should vote for the most-constitutionalist candidates and let the chips fall where they may.

When enough voters stop electing Republican Progressives, in subsequent elections all voters will finally get to elect majorities of constitutionalists. This will bring a sea change for the better, a change we’ve been needing since before the last small-government major party changed for the worse in 1894.

Constitutionalists will severely limit governments, better than ever. Finally, suddenly, freedom will rise up, stronger than ever.

The post Voting Perception-Action appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post RFK Jr. Provides an Update on His Mission To End Skyrocketing Autism and Declassifying Kennedy Files appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Senate is on the verge of passing the distinctly misnamed “big beautiful bill.” It is, in fact, one of the ugliest pieces of legislation to come out of Congress in living memory. The version that passed the House recently would cut $1.7 trillion, mostly in domestic spending, while providing the top 5% of taxpayers with roughly $1.5 trillion in tax breaks.

Over the next few years, the same bill will add another $150 billion to a Pentagon budget already soaring towards a record $1 trillion. In short, as of now, in the battle between welfare and warfare, the militarists are carrying the day.

Pentagon Pork and the People It Harms

The bill, passed by the House of Representatives and at present under consideration in the Senate, would allocate tens of billions of dollars to pursue President Trump’s cherished but hopeless Golden Dome project, which Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists has described as “a fantasy.” She explained exactly why the Golden Dome, which would supposedly protect the United States against nuclear attack, is a pipe dream:

“Over the last 60 years, the United States has spent more than $350 billion on efforts to develop a defense against nuclear-armed ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. This effort has been plagued by false starts and failures, and none have yet been demonstrated to be effective against a real-world threat… Missile defenses are not a useful or long-term strategy for keeping the U.S. safe from nuclear weapons.”

The bill also includes billions more for shipbuilding, heavy new investments in artillery and ammunition, and funding for next-generation combat aircraft like the F-47.

Oh, and after all of those weapons programs get their staggering cut of that future Pentagon budget, somewhere way down at the bottom of that list is a line item for improving the quality of life for active-duty military personnel. But the share aimed at the well-being of soldiers, sailors, and airmen (and women) is less than 6% of the $150 billion that Congress is now poised to add to that department’s already humongous budget. And that’s true despite the way Pentagon budget hawks invariably claim that the enormous sums they routinely plan on shoveling into it — and the overflowing coffers of the contractors it funds — are “for the troops.”

Much of the funding in the bill will flow into the districts of key members of Congress (to their considerable political benefit). For example, the Golden Dome project will send billions of dollars to companies based in Huntsville, Alabama, which calls itself “Rocket City” because of the dense network of outfits there working on both offensive missiles and missile defense systems. And that, of course, is music to the ears of Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), the current chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who just happens to come from Alabama.

The shipbuilding funds will help prop up arms makers like HII Corporation (formerly Huntington Ingalls), which runs a shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi, the home state of Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss).  The funds will also find their way to shipyards in Maine, Connecticut, and Virginia.

Those funds will benefit the co-chairs of the House Shipbuilding Caucus, Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA). Connecticut hosts General Dynamics’ Electric Boat plant, which makes submarines that carry ballistic missiles, while Virginia is home to HII Corporation’s Newport News Shipbuilding facility, which makes both aircraft carriers and attack submarines.

The Golden Dome missile defense project, on which President Trump has promised to spend $175 billion over the next three years, will benefit contractors big and small. Those include companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon (now RTX) that build current generation missile defense systems, as well as emerging military tech firms like Elon Musk’s Space X and Palmer Luckey’s Anduril, both of which are rumored to have a shot at playing a leading role in the development of the new anti-missile system.

And just in case you thought this country was only planning to invest in defense against a nuclear strike, a sharp upsurge in spending on new nuclear warheads under the auspices of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) has been proposed for fiscal year 2026. Thirty billion dollars, to be exact, which would represent a 58% hike from the prior year’s budget. Meanwhile, within that agency, nonproliferation, cleanup, and renewable energy programs are set to face significant cuts, leaving 80% of NNSA’s proposed funding to be spent on — yes! — nuclear weapons alone. Those funds will flow to companies like Honeywell, Bechtel, Jacobs Engineering, and Fluor that help run nuclear labs and nuclear production sites, as well as educational institutions like the University of Tennessee, Texas A&M, and the University of California at Berkeley, which help manage nuclear weapons labs or nuclear production sites.

Weakening the Social Safety Net — and America

And while weapons contractors will gorge on a huge new infusion of cash, military personnel, past and present, are clearly going to be neglected. As a start, the Veterans Administration is on the block for deep cuts, including possible layoffs of up to 80,000 employees — a move that would undoubtedly slow down the processing of benefits for those who have served in America’s past wars. Research on ailments that disproportionately impact veterans will also be cut, which should be considered an outrage.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of veterans from this country’s disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue to suffer from physical and psychological wounds, including traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cutting research that might find more effective solutions to such problems should be considered a national disgrace. In the meantime, active-duty personnel who are getting a tiny fraction of the potential Pentagon add-on of $150 billion are similarly in need.

Worse yet, turn away from the Pentagon for a moment, and the cuts in the rest of that “big beautiful bill” will likely have an impact on a majority of Americans — Democrats, independents, and MAGA Republicans alike.  Their full effects may not be felt for months until the spending reductions contained in it start hitting home. However, enacting policies that take food off people’s tables and deny them medical care will not only cause unnecessary suffering but cost lives.

As President (and former general) Dwight D. Eisenhower, a very different kind of Republican, said more than 70 years ago, the ultimate security of a nation lies not in how many weapons it can pile up, but in the health, education, and resilience of its people. The big beautiful bill and the divisive politics surrounding it threaten those foundations of our national strength.

Clash of the Contractors?

As budget cuts threaten to make the population weaker, distorted spending priorities are making arms producers stronger. The Big Five — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — produce most of the current big-ticket weapon systems, from submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles to tanks, combat aircraft, and missile-defense systems. Meanwhile, emerging tech firms like Palantir, Anduril, and Space X are cashing in on contracts for unpiloted vehicles, advanced communications systems, new-age goggles for the Army, anti-drone systems, and so much more.

But even as weapons spending hits near-record or record levels, there may still be a fight between the Big Five and the emerging tech firms over who gets the biggest share of that budget. One front in the coming battle between the Big Five and the Silicon Valley militarists could be the Army Transformation Initiative (ATI).  According to Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, one of the goals of ATI is to “eliminate obsolete systems.”

Driscoll is a harsh critic of the way members of Congress put money in the budget — a process known as “pork barrel politics” — for items the military services haven’t even asked for (and they ask for plenty), simply because those systems might bring more jobs and revenue to their states or districts. He has, in fact, committed himself to an approach that’s incompatible with the current, parochial process of putting together the Pentagon budget. “Lobbyists and bureaucrats have overtaken the army’s ability to prioritize soldiers and war fighting,” he insisted.

Driscoll is talking a tough game when it comes to taking on the existing big contractors.  He’s evidently ready to push for “reform,” even if it means that some of them go out of business. In fact, he seems to welcome it: “I will measure it as success if, in the next two years, one of the primes is no longer in business.” (“Primes” are the big contractors like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics that take the lead on major programs and get the bulk of the funding, a significant portion of which they dole out to subcontractors all over the country and the world.)

Ending pork-barrel politics in favor of an approach in which the Pentagon only buys systems that align with the country’s actual defense strategy, as Driscoll is suggesting, might seem like a significant step forward. But be careful what you wish for. Any funds freed up by stopping congressional representatives from treating the Pentagon budget as a piggy bank to buy loyalty from their constituents will almost certainly go to emerging tech firms ready to build next-generation systems like swarms of drones, weapons that can take out a hypersonic missile, or pilotless land vehicles, aircraft, and ships. Driscoll is a major tech enthusiast, as is his friend and Yale law school classmate J.D. Vance, who was first employed by Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who then backed his successful run for the Senate from Ohio.

Since the tech firms don’t have the equivalent of the Big Five’s extensive production networks in key congressional districts, they need to find other ways to persuade Congress to fund their weapons programs. Fortunately, the Silicon Valley militarists have a significant number of former employees or financial backers in the Trump administration who can plead their case.

In addition, military-tech-focused venture capital firms have hired at least 50 former Pentagon and military officials, all of whom can help them exert influence over both the Trump administration and Congress. The biggest “catch” was Palantir’s hiring of former Wisconsin Congressman Mike Gallagher, who had run the hawkish Congressional special committee on Communist China.

Some journalists and policy analysts have wondered whether the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk will hurt the military tech sector. Well, stop fretting. Even if Trump were to follow through on his threat to cut the government funding of Musk’s firms, the tasks they’re carrying out — from launching military satellites to developing more secure Internet access for deployed military personnel — would still proceed, just under the auspices of different companies. There would be some friction involved, simply because it’s hard to shift suppliers on a dime without slowing down production.  And the transition, should it occur, would also add cost to already exceedingly expensive programs.

But Trump’s threat to cancel Space X’s contracts may just be more grist for his verbal combat with Musk rather than anything his administration plans to follow through on. Even if Musk and his president never reconcile, the DOGE cuts to international diplomacy and domestic social services that Musk spearheaded will still do serious damage for years to come.

Money Can’t Buy Security

A shift toward emerging military tech firms and away from the Big Five will be about more than money and technology.  Key figures among the growing cohort of Silicon Valley militarists like Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir, see building weapons as more than just a necessary pillar of national defense. They see it as a measure of national character.

Karp’s new book, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, mixes the Cold War ideology of the 1950s with the emerging technology of the twenty-first century. He decries the lack of unifying concepts like “the West” and sees too many Americans as slackers with no sense of national pride or patriotism. His solution, a supposedly unifying national mission, is — wait for it! — a modern Manhattan project for the development of the military applications of artificial intelligence.  To say that this is an impoverished version of what this country’s mission should be is putting it mildly. Many other possibilities come to mind, from addressing climate change to preventing pandemics to upgrading our educational system to building a society where everyone’s basic needs are met, leaving room for creative pursuits of all kinds.

The techno-optimists are also obsessed with preparing for a war with China, which Palmer Luckey, the 32-year-old founder of the military tech firm Anduril, believes will happen by 2027. And many in his circle, including Marc Andreessen of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, are convinced that any potential risks from the development of AI pale in comparison to the need to “beat China,” not just in getting to sophisticated military applications first, but in winning a future war with Beijing, if it comes to that. Talk of diplomacy to head off a war over Taiwan or cooperation on global issues like climate change, outbreaks of disease, and building a more inclusive, less unequal global economy rarely come up in discussions among the hardcore militarist faction in Silicon Valley.  Instead, that group is spending inordinate amounts of time and money seeking to influence the future of U.S. foreign and military policy, a dangerous development indeed.

Whether the emerging tech firms can build cheaper weapons with superior capabilities will be irrelevant if such developments are tied to an aggressive strategy that makes a devastating conflict with China more likely. While the fight between the Big Five and the tech leaders may prove interesting to observe, it is also ominous in terms of this country’s future economic and foreign policies, not to speak of the shape and size of our national budget.

The rest of us, who aren’t billionaires and don’t draw $20 million in annual compensation packages like the CEOs of the big weapons firms (directly or indirectly funded by our tax dollars), should play a leading role in rethinking and revising this country’s global role and our policies at home. If we don’t rise to that challenge, this country could end up swapping one form of militarism, led by the Big Five, for another, spearheaded by hawkish, self-important tech leaders who care more about making money and spawning devastating new technologies than they do about democracy or the quality of life of the average American.

Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.

The post Feeding the Warfare State appeared first on LewRockwell.

We live in an age when many scientists still clumsily reduce the mind to nothing more than neurochemical activity, namely, the mere interactions of neurons and neurotransmitters. Such scientists often react with hostility at even the suggestion that substance dualism might be true. Therefore, it is refreshing to witness the person with the world’s highest recorded IQ affirm what theologians, philosophers, and mystics have long understood: that consciousness cannot be reduced to mere matter.

For over a century, prodigies like William James Sidis, whose estimated IQ approached 300, captivated the public imagination but left the deepest questions of life, matter, and mind unanswered. Today, Dr. YoungHoon Kim, whose IQ is reportedly verified at 276 and who holds a bachelor’s degree in theology (perhaps proof that the most intelligent begin with first things), recorded a message three months ago that has since gone viral on  and other platforms, declaring: “Our consciousness continues beyond death, definitely.”

Kim has studied various subjects, including psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, and theology. He has also received honorary doctorates in cognitive science, education, and psychology and held research positions at both Cambridge and Yale. This interdisciplinary approach has equipped him well to reflect deeply on the subjects of quantum information, consciousness, the afterlife, and God.

Unlike evolutionary biological models such as neo-Darwinism, which are often accompanied by the philosophical assumption held by many of their adherents (though not logically required by the theory itself) that consciousness ceases entirely once brain function stops, Dr. Kim appeals to quantum physics to argue that information never truly disappears but only changes form. He suggests that if consciousness is a kind of quantum information, it may persist beyond the death of the body, much like data stored in “the cloud.”

It is important to note that information is not bound to a single material medium. It can transfer across various substrates such as a USB key, hard drive, book, or brain without necessarily losing the essential informational content. Even when the material substrate is destroyed, the information it holds can persist. Since the revolutionary work of James Watson and Francis Crick in identifying the structure of DNA, it has become increasingly evident that biology is fundamentally governed by information systems.

This growing recognition of information’s primacy in biology has been a central focus of the Intelligent Design movement. Proponents of Intelligent Design, including William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Michael Behe, have increasingly highlighted the challenge that information theory presents to reductionist biology. This challenge has also been acknowledged by philosopher Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos, where he argues that the materialist framework is fundamentally inadequate for explaining the origin of life and the emergence of consciousness.

More importantly, Kim’s public witness does not stop at quantum speculation. In a world that idolizes IQ tests and technocratic expertise, he openly confesses what so many refuse to say aloud: that Jesus Christ is divine. On , where his words reached millions, he declared, “As the world’s highest IQ record holder, I believe that Jesus Christ is God, the way and the truth and the life.” In our day and age, to witness the world’s highest IQ holder publicly and willingly bend the knee to Jesus, an itinerant carpenter from the first century, is a stunning feat that surpasses any viral claim about quantum information or the reality of the afterlife, especially given our culture’s mistaken association of high intelligence with skepticism and nonbelief.

In my own writings, particularly in my book On the Origin of Consciousness and in one of my presentations for the 2020 Science of Consciousness conference, “AI, the Nature of Consciousness, Information, Reality and the Possibility of the Afterlife,” I have argued that materialist accounts of the mind are philosophically inadequate and can be rendered scientifically obsolete. If the mind is merely a by-product of electrochemical signals, then human freedom is an illusion, and so is any hope for meaning that transcends our brief biological existence. It is worth noting that over the past one hundred years, philosophical developments in the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of mind—as well as scientific developments in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology, chemical evolution, and neuroscience—have increasingly pointed away from the scientific materialist paradigm.

Dr. Kim’s thought and public profession of faith align closely with the central trajectory of my own research. In my presentation at the 2020 Science of Consciousness conference, I argued that recent developments in artificial intelligence, information theory, and quantum physics have brought the question of the afterlife back into legitimate scientific and philosophical discourse. Kim’s analogy to quantum entanglement and the “cloud” strikingly parallels what I have long maintained: that information, in its most meaningful and structured forms, presupposes intention and is often indicative of mind. Quantum entanglement refers to a phenomenon in which two or more particles become linked so that, regardless of the distance separating them, the change in one simultaneously affects the other.

This broader metaphysical resonance is not unique to Kim. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku has analogized the multiverse to numerous radio stations occupying the same space, each broadcasting on a different frequency. The implication of this comparison is that even though we perceive only one reality, others may coexist beyond our current perception. This “tuning” metaphor, like Kim’s “cloud” analogy, opens the conceptual space for consciousness to endure across dimensions not subject to physical decay once freed from the body.

Kim points out that quantum mechanics teaches that information never truly disappears but changes form. This aligns with the orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) theory developed by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, which I discuss in my research. If consciousness emerges from quantum processes within the microtubules of neurons, it is plausible that it can persist beyond the dissolution of the brain. In other words, the self may survive the body’s decay by virtue of the deeper informational order inscribed into reality by the Creator.

If true, this insight refutes the most reductionist strands of scientific materialism. Even many atheists and futurists now toy with mind uploading or transhumanist hopes to escape death digitally. As I pointed out in my presentation, such visions wrestle with severe philosophical problems of identity and continuity. A digital copy is not you, just as a photograph is not a person. Yet Kim’s quantum perspective points to a better answer: consciousness as a unified, immaterial reality, grounded not in data storage devices and servers but in the very structure of the created order.

In Kim’s viral video, he provides a profound yet simple analogy of a video game avatar, whereby an avatar may disappear from the screen but the player persists. This example conveys a deep theological truth and the possibility that the soul survives physical death and can await the future resurrection, much like the empty tomb of Christ provides the historical context for this possibility.

Read the Whole Article

The post Dr. YoungHoon Kim: How the World’s Highest IQ Confirms the Harmony Between Science and Christian Doctrine appeared first on LewRockwell.