Aggregatore di feed

U.S. power has become increasingly redundant and indeed something to repudiate.

President Donald Trump’s estimation of American power, like that of his own abilities, is increasingly seen to be badly overblown. This week, he threatened some 90 nations with tough trade penalties in the form of double-digit tariffs on their exports to the United States. It remains to be seen if he will actually implement the measures. Trump already cancelled a plan to impose worldwide tariffs back in April – his so-called Liberation Day – after no doubt realizing, or his more informed advisors realizing, that the U.S. cannot win a global trade war.

If there’s one thing about Trump, it is that he is as quick to reverse threats as he is to issue them. The erratic behavior speaks of the muddled thinking and lack of coherent analysis in his so-called policies. Trump’s reversals also speak of the limits to U.S. power as the world shifts to different realities in geopolitics and geoeconomics. The American power that Trump thinks exists is no longer.

This disconnect was evinced this week as Trump threatened tariffs on Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The so-called secondary levies were supposed to be related to Trump’s deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine. Countries buying Russian oil are “fueling the war machine,” he claimed. India hit back at what it called ridiculous hypocrisy, pointing out that the European Union purchased more Russian oil last year than India. The U.S. also buys billions of dollars-worth of Russian agricultural fertilizer, uranium, and other minerals.

In any case, the four countries targeted by Trump for secondary tariffs firmly rebuffed his threats. They dismissed Trump’s intimidation and vowed to continue exercising their sovereign right to do business as they deem necessary for their national interests.

It is not clear what the White House will do next in the aftermath of such defiance. Trump’s habit of extending deadlines for tariffs may postpone action.

The surprise announcement that Russian President Vladimir Putin is to meet Trump in person sometime next week, reportedly in Alaska, may also persuade the American side to drop the secondary tariffs plan. Trump’s egotistical craving to be seen as a peacemaker in Ukraine is such that a summit with Putin may be enough to appease his desire for headlines and a shot at winning the Nobel Peace Prize. His overblown claims about mediating peace between India and Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and between Israel and Hamas show him to be driven by superficial success.

The defiance of the BRICS nations this week in the face of Trump’s bullying was remarkable for several reasons. It demonstrated that the BRICS are emerging as a powerful, cohesive economic and geopolitical force. After 16 years since the international organization’s founding, its leverage is no longer abstract or theoretical. It’s becoming a concrete reality.

Brazil’s President Lula da Silva mockingly stated that Trump was “not the emperor of the world,” and he called for a special BRICS summit to galvanize a joint response to U.S. trade threats. China condemned Washington’s bullying and said that the unilateral imposition of tariffs was a violation of the United Nations Charter. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sent his top national security adviser to meet with Putin in the Kremlin. It was also reported this week that Modi is to travel to China later this month to attend the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. These developments suggest that the BRICS are solidifying their commitment to advancing a multilateral global order in response to Trump’s belligerence.

As with so much of Trump’s capricious conduct and attitude, he is rallying international forces that are hastening the demise of American standing and power, ironically for a president who boasts about “making America great again.” An article by renowned international economist Michael Hudson illustrates how ill-conceived Trump’s trade war with the planet is. Hudson contends that the tariffs will fuel consumer inflation in the U.S. as Americans pay more for expensive imports. Republican Senator Rand Paul agrees with this assessment. He claims that the tariffs will add $2 trillion in taxes on U.S. consumers.

Another impact that Team Trump seems unaware of is that the world economy is sufficiently diversified that countries will be able to find alternative markets for their exports. That will result in more countries being less dependent on the dollar for trade settlements, which, in turn, will weaken the greenback and the U.S.’s ability to keep piling up its astronomical national debt. The system is, therefore, liable to crash the more Trump imposes trade penalties on other nations.

It is also becoming clear that the BRICS represent a historic challenge to the U.S.-led Western order. The more Trump tries to undermine the emerging multipolar order, the more strongly it emerges. Earlier this year, Trump claimed that the BRICS were dead after he threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on what he labelled an anti-American bloc. His rumors of BRICS’ death are greatly exaggerated. The international forum keeps steadily growing, gaining a significant new member, Indonesia, this year – the fourth most populous country in the world. BRICS represent over 50 percent of the world’s GDP and about 40 percent of its population. It has surpassed the Western-dominated G7 group in terms of economic power.

Trump’s tariff tantrums have little to do with bringing peace to Ukraine and a lot more to do with trying to break up the BRICS, which is a growing challenge to U.S. hegemony. This week shows that the BRICS have acquired a new sense of their own confidence and purpose in creating an alternative to the U.S.-dominated system. Trump’s arrogance and lack of understanding of the new realities of the global economy and the world’s resolve for long-overdue justice and peace, particularly for the Global South, are precipitating the demise of the U.S.-run neocolonialist order.

Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, among many other nations, are showing a resilience and defiance to U.S. imperialist bullying that would have been thought unlikely only a few years ago. Their commitment to mutual development and a fairer world order is making the U.S.-dominated elite Western capitalist system less relevant and less viable. The enormous trade deficits that the U.S. has accumulated over decades, in line with its monstrous national debt of $37 trillion, mean that it needs the rest of the world to keep its essentially parasitic position intact. The integration of the multipolar global economy under the leadership of the BRICS is showing that U.S. power has become increasingly redundant and indeed something to repudiate. It is hitting a wall of solid BRICS.

On the ominous side, however, that is why the U.S. rulers are becoming so insanely warmongering. Will they try to blow up a dead-end?

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

The post Trump’s Trade Tantrums and Bullying Hit a Wall of Solid BRICS appeared first on LewRockwell.

Friedrich von Hayek considered the rule of law to be essential in minimizing coercion and enhancing individual liberty. In this context, he regarded “equality before the law” (formal equality) as essential to the rule of law. However, he emphasized that formal equality is the only concept of equality that is compatible with the rule of law. He criticized socialist and progressive attempts to theorize further notions of equality, which they package as “social justice,” as disguised attacks on liberty. In the Constitution of Liberty, he explains,

Equality of the general rules of law and conduct, however, is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish.

Like Ludwig von Mises, Hayek defended liberty on the basis that individual liberty is essential to Western civilization—he described it as “that ideal of freedom which inspired modern Western civilization and whose partial realization made possible the achievements of that civilization.” It would make no sense for anyone who values this civilization to undermine the very liberty that enables it to flourish. Attempting to eradicate inequality, while purporting to value the conditions that gave rise to that inequality, would be contradictory.

To Hayek, formal equality is not based on the essential equality of human beings, but on the ideal of liberty. He cautioned that,

[W]e must not overlook the fact that individuals are very different from the outset.… As a statement of fact, it just is not true that “all men are born equal.”

Formal equality is not based on the premise that people are equal—it is precisely because people are not equal that the law assures them of the equal protection conferred by the rule of law. The law assures us that rich or poor, tall or short, black or white, we are all subject to the same rules. As Hayek puts it, formal equality

…not only recognizes that individuals are very different but in a great measure rests on that assumption. It insists that these individual differences provide no justification for government to treat them differently.

Under the rule of law, people’s innate differences are deemed to be irrelevant, hence the classical reference to “blind justice.” The point of blind justice is not that differences do not exist, but that the law takes no account of them. Thus, Hayek emphasizes that equality before the law neither “assumes that people are in fact equal [nor] attempts to make them equal.” He adds,

Nothing, however, is more damaging to the demand for equal treatment than to base it on so obviously untrue an assumption as that of the factual equality of all men. To rest the case for equal treatment of national or racial minorities on the assertion that they do not differ from other men is implicitly to admit that factual inequality would justify unequal treatment; and the proof that some differences do, in fact, exist would not be long in forthcoming. It is of the essence of the demand for equality before the law that people should be treated alike in spite of the fact that they are different.

In other words, arguing that people are treated equally because they are in fact equal, would imply that if they were not in fact equal, then they need not be treated equally. Yet the whole point of the rule of law is to govern everyone by the same general rules despite their individual differences. It follows that the rule of law is not evaluated by reference to whether people are in fact equal, but by ensuring that the rules apply to all in the same way. State power is limited by the requirement that it must treat all citizens the same. It would make no sense to say that the way for the state to treat all citizens the same would be to treat people differently so that they all end up the same. This is the essential flaw in critical legal theories that expect all groups of people to end up “equal” following the eradication of all attainment gaps.

Hayek’s defense of the rule of law is in large part addressed to those who may not share his own moral preference for liberty—hence, he appeals to reason and rationality by highlighting the role of liberty in enabling society to flourish. He does not think much of the natural law, or the concept of free will, as justifications for liberty, observing that, “It appears that the assertion that the will is free has as little meaning as its denial and that the whole issue is a phantom problem, a dispute about words in which the contestants have not made clear what an affirmative or negative answer would imply.” Nor does he see anything “natural” about property rights, observing that it is not clear “What exactly is to be included in that bundle of rights that we call ‘property,’… There is nothing ‘natural’ in any particular definition of rights of this kind.”

Instead, like Mises, he emphasizes the fact that very few people could credibly claim to value equality so highly that they are prepared to give up liberty and destroy civilization in order to achieve a more equal society. In most cases, people who claim to want a tradeoff between equality and liberty simply hope and expect that they can reconcile the contradictions pointed out by Hayek. They suppose that they would be quite happy to have a little less liberty if that would yield a little more equality. But Hayek shows this expectation to be woefully misguided. He rejects all “social justice” demands, not only because the knowledge problems he highlights would make it impossible to achieve the expected tradeoffs, but more importantly because his aim is to maximize liberty by minimizing coercion. Any attempt to equalize people would go against that, and would in fact be “the opposite of freedom.” Liberty cannot be enhanced by destroying it.

Liberty is bound to produce inequality because people are essentially different. For example, if an athlete who trains harder than others is more likely to win the race, those intent on equalizing the performance of all runners must ensure that no one is at liberty to train harder than others, and that those who need catching up get special help with their training. Hayek explains, “the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently.” This is the premise underlying schemes like affirmative action and diversity, equality, and inclusiveness—to treat people differently in order to equalize their position, which Hayek refers to as “material equality.” Thus, Hayek explains:

Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time. The equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality.

Unlike Mises and Rothbard, Hayek accepts a role for “taxation and the various compulsory services, especially in the armed forces,” within the rule of law. He argues that although these are coercive, they are mitigated by being “predictable” and “as independent of the will of another person as men have learned to be in society.” He also accepts that state interventions may be required to protect individuals from the coercion of others. But Hayek does not accept that state coercion is ever necessary to make people equal: “the desire of making people more alike in their condition cannot be accepted in a free society as a justification for further and discriminatory coercion.” In his view, the desire for equalization is driven by mere envy, “the discontent that the success of some people often produces in those that are less successful.” The state has no role to play in promoting the destructive vice of envy.

As readers will know, Rothbard criticized some of the key aspects of Hayek’s philosophy of liberty, in particular his “compromising and untenable positions” in relation to taxation, conscription, and other state interventions as well as Hayek’s “brusque and cavalier dismissal of the whole theory of natural law.” As concerns the rejection of material equality, Rothbard was not convinced that socialist demands for “social justice” could be answered by dismissing it as meaningless and declaring its proponents to be merely envious of others. It may sometimes be the case that people genuinely regard inequality as unjust, not because they are envious but because they genuinely (albeit, as Rothbard shows, wrongly) believe in Marxist theories of class conflict and exploitation of the poor. In Rothbard’s view, a theory of justice is therefore needed to respond to claims that inequality is unjust, and he argues that such a theory is best grounded in the natural law principles of self-ownership and private property.

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

The post Equality Under the Hayekian Rule of Law appeared first on LewRockwell.

For ages, if there was a way to subvert the law for electoral advantage, the Democrats would do it, but under new leadership Republicans are fighting back. If you accurately read the Democrats’ nonsense about “saving our democracy” as a plaint about saving their party, you wouldn’t be wrong. Just as these domestic outrages are being undone, the President has brokered a series of seven international peace agreements and is negotiating for an eighth (between Russia and Ukraine) this week in Alaska. He’s rightfully thrown up his arms at a Gaza deal because psychopathic Hamas is utterly irrational, but has made astonishing progress with 22 Arab nations who now distance themselves from Gaza. (It remains to be seen how the gormless Norwegians who gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for no reason at all will avoid awarding it to the man who rightfully deserves it.)

There’s nothing new about census taking. In the Bible the Lord commanded Moses to take one of those who had joined him on the exodus out of Egypt. In the United States seats in the House of Representatives and the allocation of trillions of dollars in federal assistance are based on census data. As the Project on Government Oversight informs us:

The federal government relies heavily on the data in several important ways. It allocates seats in the House of Representatives based on the decennial census results. It also uses the data to help direct trillions of dollars in federal assistance to states and communities. Those funds are used for hospitals, roads, schools, housing, supporting veterans, feeding children and families, economic development, and so much more. Agencies use census data for program evaluation and evidence-based policymaking. It is therefore essential to get accurate decennial census counts, yet numerous states had statistically significant errors in their 2020 decennial numbers.

So, if you pad the rolls with illegal aliens, your districts will get greater representation in Congress and more federal money to spend. The last national census was in 2020 and the Post Enumeration Survey revealed it was full of errors in at least 14 states.

Not only did the 2020 census count illegal aliens (like previous counts) — but it was wildly inaccurate — conveniently benefiting Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In a shocking report that has not received the attention it deserves, the U.S. Census Bureau recently admitted that its 2020 Census count of the American population was incorrect in at least 14 states.

And those mistakes were costly to certain states in terms of congressional representation, number of electors, and money those states are likely to receive from the federal government during the next decade. To put the scope of these mistakes into perspective, contrast the errors in the Census Bureau’s latest recount (the 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey, or PES) with the recount from a decade ago (the 2010 Post-Enumeration Survey) — in which there was a net overcount of a mere 0.01 percent (36,000 people), a statistically insignificant error.

As explained below, as a result of these errors, Florida did not receive two additional congressional seats and Texas did not receive one more congressional seat. Meanwhile, two other states, Minnesota and Rhode Island, each retained a congressional seat that they should have lost, and Colorado gained a new seat to which it was rightfully not entitled.

Traditionally the census is taken every 10 years, but the president has called for one to be done now.

According to White House Deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the Democrats manipulated the 2020 census to unfairly gain 20-30 congressional seats thanks to lax registration laws which allowed illegal aliens to vote. There’ s no constitutional bar to doing a new census now. The Constitution only mandates that there not be a greater than ten-year-gap between counts.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Gerrymandering War and International Peace appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today President Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff had a three hour meeting with President Putin of Russia. There is no announcement yet of the outcome of the talk.

But shortly after the meeting was over President Trump amended this Executive Order:

ADDRESSING THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

I have received additional information from various senior officials on, among other things, the actions of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to the situation in Ukraine. After considering this additional information, among other things, I find that the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066 continues and that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

To deal with the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066, I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem duty on imports of articles of India, which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil. In my judgment, imposing tariffs, as described below, in addition to maintaining the other measures taken to address the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066, will more effectively deal with the national emergency described in Executive Order 14066.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Tariffs. (a) I find that the Government of India is currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.

(b) Accordingly, and as consistent with applicable law, articles of India imported into the customs territory of the United States shall be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of duty of 25 percent.

How a total 50% tariff on products from India is supposed to counter alleged threats to the United States by the government of Russia is hard to explain.

The increased tariff on India will come into force in 21 days.

India’s President Narneda Modi has not yet commented on it. He will however visit China at the end of this month:

According to the plan, Prime Minister Modi will embark on a visit to Japan around August 29 and after concluding the trip, he will travel to the northern Chinese city of Tianjin for the SCO summit to be held from August 31-September 1.

Modi’s visit to China is being planned amid efforts by the two sides to repair their bilateral ties, which came under severe strain following the deadly clashes between Indian and Chinese troops in Galwan Valley in June 2020.

The grand U.S. plan of luring India deeper into the Quad alliance to fight China is likely dead. The leaders of the two biggest nations on this globe, plus Russia, will sit together and plan how to avoid further dealing with an unstable U.S. of A.

Baring any change the additional tariffs on India will hit U.S. consumers the most. The largest portion of goods coming from India to the U.S. are active pharma ingredients (API) used in generic medicines:

The US is India’s largest destination for pharma exports, accounting for over 31 per cent of the country’s total pharmaceutical exports. As much as 47 per cent of all generics consumed in the US are imported from India.

Imports from India are unlikely to stop. But it will be U.S. consumers who will have to pay the higher prices:

[T]he US will still be dependent on countries like India since the cost of manufacturing certain drugs in the US would be at least six times compared to that of manufacturing the same product in India, say industry sources.

The US market, which relies heavily on India for APIs and low-cost generics, would struggle to find alternatives, according to Namit Joshi, chairman of Pharmexcil (Pharmaceuticals Export Promotion Council of India). “Efforts to shift pharmaceutical manufacturing and API production to other countries or within the US will take at least 3-5 years to establish meaningful capacity,” he was quoted in media reports.

The price increase for medicines will contribute to an already stubborn inflation within the U.S., even while the president tries to bully pharma producers into reducing their prices.

There are other parts of the economy where Trump’s policies collide with themselves.

Wired reports that the number of drill rigs for gas and oil exploration continues to shrink even while Trump loudly promises to ‘Drill, baby drill’:

There is one key indicator of drilling levels that the industry has watched closely for more than 80 years: a weekly census of active oil and gas rigs published by Baker Hughes. When Trump came into office on Janunary 20, the US rig count was 580. Last week, the most recent figure, it was down to 542—hovering just above a four-year low reached earlier in the month.
…
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ quarterly survey of over 130 oil and gas producers based in Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico, conducted in June, suggests the industry’s outlook is pessimistic. Nearly half of the 38 firms that responded to this question saw their firms drilling fewer wells this year than they had earlier expected.

Survey participants could also submit comments. One executive from an exploration and production (E&P) company said, “It’s hard to imagine how much worse policies and DC rhetoric could have been for US E&P companies.” Another executive said, “The Liberation Day chaos and tariff antics have harmed the domestic energy industry. ‘Drill, baby, drill’ will not happen with this level of volatility.”

Roughly one in three survey respondents chalked up the expectations for fewer wells to higher tariffs on steel imports. And three in four said tariffs raised the cost of drilling and completing new wells.

“They’re getting more places to drill and they’re getting some lower royalties, but they’re also getting these tariffs that they don’t want,” Rapier said. “And the bottom line is their profits are going to suffer.”

Inflation in the U.S. continues to be stubborn and is likely to rise. Unemployment is up while services and manufacturing activities are shrinking. The government is spending excessively.

These are all signs of stagflation which, once it sets in, has proven difficult to defeat.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post By Punishing India Trump Is Creating More Tariff Damage for the U.S. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Official position on viruses in the Covid 19 reign of terror

The consulting firms that work for private equity and individual billionaire families, and then feed their demands to private and national intelligence agencies in Washington, Jerusalem, and around the world (as well as other consulting and lobbying entities) have intentionally created hundreds of mutually contradictory narratives explaining Covid 19 (of both the mainstream and conspiracy genres) that are meant to confuse us.

Moreover, there remain a large number of people on the “progressive” side who hold up the Covid 19 pandemic narrative in its original ridiculous form (and do so for payments) and on the “conservative” side who hold up the Wuhan virus gain-of-function virus narrative in its equally ridiculous form (and do so for payments). Both sides are equally corrupt and decadent.

Regarding what actually happened, the role of DARPA and military and intelligence agencies, has been pretty well documented, especially in the work of Sasha Latypova. We still do not have the details of how elites in basically every country in the world were bought off, or threatened, or both, so as to be brought into the promotion of this scam. It seems most likely that the primary movers were private intelligence in the United States and Israel at the start, and that they quickly tried to pin the operation all on China (which was not completely innocent) as part of their scheme—just as they blamed Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (which were not completely innocent) for 9/11.

Regarding the gain-of-function virus tale, it seems highly unlikely. There has been a lot of research on that topic since the Second World War and it turns out not to be that easy to create super germs, even with advanced DNA technologies.

It is clear, however, that some groups of people in prominent international cities were killed, or made very ill, so as to make the story more convincing. The number of people made ill, or killed, was likely not that large, in the thousands (maybe tens of thousands) and it was the amplification by the media, and by thousands of citizens who took the money to spread such fictions (I have met people who confessed to doing exactly that in Korea) that was critical.

Those who were made very ill, or who were killed, were poisoned, most likely by intelligence teams with extremely levels of high clearance. Which countries those teams reported to really did not matter for multi-billionaires and multinational private equity. Countries are meant for little people, not for the chosen.

If you are falling into a China vs. US narrative of the military origins of a deadly virus, whether Donald Trump on the one side, or Jeffery Sachs on the other, you are either part of the game, or you are being played.

We still do not know what exactly made those people ill. Perhaps it was a virus, but I doubt it. Most likely there were several different poisons employed at different locations to induce the desired illnesses.

We know the contours of what happened already. We should hold off judgment on what exactly killed people until we have conducted an international scientific investigation. That is what we should be demanding now, as well as demanding that the assets of all billionaires, and banks involved be seized.

Such an investigation will most likely not take place, however, until this unprecedented multi-faceted “omniwar” is over. So, we must demand the truth, but we must also be patient.

In any case, the number of people made sick or killed, by these poisons was quite small, and intentionally so. The primary purpose of the Covid 19 operation was to get vast numbers of people conforming with orders for masks, social distancing, and dangerous vaccines while they did not completely believe the narrative they were being fed.

It would have been possible to create a bogus “pandemic” that killed a lot more people. That was not done, and there was a reason for keeping the number actually sick so low.

The goal of the pandemic followed the basic strategy described in Joost A.M. Meerloo’s book The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing.

The point was to force people to do things they don’t really believe in, that are self-destructive and counterproductive, by using social and cultural pressure. That process serves to destroy self-confidence and sense of awareness in the individual and the community. The individual feels that he or she is guilty for what has been done to him or her because he or she participated willingly—it seems—in the experiment. Thus the individual or the group is incapable of organized resistance to the new totalitarian regime established.

That is why masks and vaccines were so important. The individual had to feel that he or she had chosen to conform of his or her own will and therefore had no right to question anything anymore. That mental manipulation on a massive scale opened the door to menticide (destruction of mental capacity) for everyone, including highly-educated experts. And that situation made it possible for a handful of IT billionaires to seize control of the entire earth.

I want to note, however, that the 9/11 incident, which was just as ridiculous as Covid 19, was the first major step in this operation.

That false flag operation in 2001 permanently disabled critical thinking in a vast number of intellectuals around the world. I would even venture to say that if you had not had 9/11 first, the elites could not have gotten away with Covid 19.

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

The post Official Position on Viruses in the COVID-19 Reign of Terror appeared first on LewRockwell.

I am fairly certain that most, if not all, of the mainstream press will decline to review Douglas Horne’s remarkable new documentary entitled “The Three Bethesda Casket Entries: Revisited.”

Why is that? After all, with his new documentary, Horne makes an absolutely airtight case for the deep state’s secret, surreptitious introduction of JFK’s body into the deep state’s military morgue prior to the start of the official JFK autopsy itself and then later lied about it and covered it up. Why would the deep state do that? There is no innocent explanation for it. The earlier secret casket entries had to equate to illegality and cover-up. There is no way around it. That’s the power of Horne’s new documentary.

No one can come up with an innocent explanation for autopsy fraud. It necessarily equates to cover-up. And who is the only entity that the national-security establishment would be covering up for? It had to be itself, especially given that the scheme for the fraudulent autopsy was actually launched immediately after JFK was declared dead. That’s when a team of Secret Service agents, operating on orders, refused to permit the Texas medical examiner from conducting an autopsy on JFK’s body, which state law required, and forcibly removed the body for transportation to the Bethesda National Navy Medical Center.

My book The Kennedy Autopsy details numerous instances of fraud in the JFK autopsy. But for a much more detailed exposition of the autopsy fraud, see Horne’s watershed book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board and his video presentations on his YouTube channel, some of which he made for FFF conferences and for FFF projects relating to the JFK assassination.

But let’s just consider the three casket entries into the Bethesda morgue prior to the official start of the autopsy, which is the subject of Horne’s new documentary. U.S. military officials have always steadfastly maintained that there was only one casket entry — the official one at 8:00 p.m. by the Joint Service Casket Team.

With his documentary, Horne conclusively establishes that that has always been a lie. In fact, as Horne details, there were actually three casket entries. There can be no innocent explanation for three casket entries into the deep state’s morgue. None, especially when they lie about it.

So, why wouldn’t a documentary like this capture the attention of the mainstream press? Wouldn’t you think that some enterprising reporter or editor would find such a documentary worth reporting or commenting on?

Nope. And I’m convinced that the reason is fear — fear of the deep state — fear of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which, as I have long maintained, are actually in charge of running the federal government, especially in foreign affairs.

The mainstream press knows that the national-security state obviously does not approve of any articles, commentaries, editorials, or reports that challenge the official lone-nut theory of the Kennedy assassination. The mainstream press also knows what every person in Washington, D.C., knows — that it’s not wise to get crosswise with the national-security establishment. Bad things can happen to mainstream entities that violate the JFK assassination taboo.

After all, everyone knows that the national-security establishment gets away with assassinating foreign leaders. But who wants to grapple with a deep state that wields the power to get away with assassinating a U.S. president? Certainly no one within the U.S. mainstream press.

Thus, the mainstream press remains silently supportive of an official lone-nut theory of the JFK assassination that lost validity and credibility a long time ago while, at the same time, continues to simply look the other way when conclusive evidence to the contrary surfaces — such as Horne’s new documentary.

The Kennedy assassination is why the American people lost their trust in their own government a long time ago. It’s also why they lost their trust in the mainstream press. Thank goodness for the Internet.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Mainstream Press’s Fear of the Deep State appeared first on LewRockwell.

In order to understand the agendas and baggage that Trump and Putin (and their respective ‘news’-media) will be bringing to the Putin-Trump private meeting on Friday August 15th, an honest history of the war in Ukraine is absolutely essential.

As will be documented via the links here, the war in Ukraine started actually on 20 February 2014 when a long-planned bloody 7-day coup by U.S. President Barack Obama’s agents to overthrow the democratically elected internationally neutralist President of Ukraine and replace him by a rabidly anti-Russian leader appointed by Obama’s neoconservative agent who organized the coup, Victoria Nuland (of “Fuck the EU!” fame on that occasion) succeeded at all of the coup’s objectives except capturing and transforming into a U.S. naval base, which still remains Russia’s largest naval base. Ever since 1783, that naval base has been located in Crimea, which since 1954 had been Ukraine’s only independently administered — or “Autonomous” — Province (or “Oblast”) because the people there have, for hundreds of years, considered themselves to be Russians and a part of Russia, which they actually were until 1954, when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine.

Obama wanted the U.S. Government to control Ukraine so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow so as to decapitate Russia’s central command. As both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said, this war started in 2014, and NOT in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine (as the liars allege that the war in Ukraine started). Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine was instead Russia’s last-ditch effort to PREVENT there ever being ANY nuclear weapon from the U.S. or its colonies (‘allies’) from EVER being able to be positioned in the closest of all nations’ borders to the Kremlin, Ukraine. (Similarly, in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK was determined to prevent any Soviet nuclear missiles from ever being positioned in Cuba, a 15-minute missile-flight from decapitating America’s central command in DC.)

If you want to see a fuller description of the history of this war, click here, a 3,000-word (or ten-minute) article with 48 links to its sources, all online, so that you can immediately access the evidence and evaluate it for yourself. The only thing that I’ve said thus far in the present article that isn’t documented in that lengthier 3,000-word article, is Obama’s plan to change the Russian naval base in Crimea to an American naval base there, which is documented here, as having been a part of Obama’s coup-plan (the only part that he failed to achieve).

Consequently, all of the aggression in the Ukraine war was from the U.S. Government under Obama then Trump then Biden and now again Trump — and NEVER from Russia’s Government under Putin, who instead has been entirely reactive to, and defending Russians against, that U.S.(-and-‘allied’) aggression, which is aimed against, ultimately, Russia. Ukraine is, ever since Obama’s 2014 coup, merely the main tool in America’s long war to seize Russia. (To know the origin of that long war — “the Cold War” — click here. And Ukraine was a central part of the U.S. Government’s plan against Russia ever since America started the Cold War in 1945. So, Obama was actually culminating all of that prior 69-year U.S. Government operation to capture Ukraine — he achieved it.)

That is the real history of the war in Ukraine. However, U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-reporting assumes and presumes very different and largely OPPOSITE ‘history’ of the war in Ukraine, as will be shown by two typical examples of these ‘news’-reports, which will be cited here.

Yahoo News is the best news-site to see lots of U.S.-empire ‘news’-reports published that day from other U.S.-empire ‘news’-media but adding to each such report — which the original site usually lacks — a fully open reader-comments section abut the article, which, comments, if they are read being set to “Sort by Top,” will immediately display the most-up-voted, least-down-voted, of all of the comments about that article, and thus (since Yahoo News serves neither Republican billionaires nor Democratic billionaires but instead bipartisanly all billionaires) is displayed an immediate ‘polling’ of a fair samling of the U.S. public, about the given ‘news’-propaganda article. Here are highlights from two such ‘news’-reports dated August 8th and 9th, regarding the upcoming August 15th U.S.-Russia Summit meeting between Trump (historically-speaking the aggressor) and Putin (historically-speaking the defender), which is set to occur in Alaska:

——

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-russia-plan-truce-deal-140847014.html

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/CnLyA

“US and Russia plan truce deal to cement Putin’s gains in Ukraine”

8 August 2025

(Bloomberg) — Washington and Moscow are aiming to reach a deal to halt the war in Ukraine that would lock in Russia’s occupation of territory seized during its military invasion, according to people familiar with the matter.

US and Russian officials are working toward an agreement on territories for a planned summit meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as early as next week, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The US is working to get buy-in from Ukraine and its European allies on the deal, which is far from certain, the people said.

Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede its entire eastern Donbas area to Russia as well as Crimea, which his forces illegally annexed in 2014. That would require Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to order a withdrawal of troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv, handing Russia a victory that its army couldn’t achieve militarily since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Such an outcome would represent a major win for Putin. …

It’s unclear if Moscow is prepared to give up any land that it currently occupies, which includes the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe. …

Trump hasn’t implemented any direct measures against Moscow so far. …

Putin has repeatedly insisted that his war goals remain unchanged. They include demands for Kyiv to accept neutral status and abandon its ambition of NATO membership, and to accept the loss of Crimea and the other four eastern and southern Ukrainian regions to Russia.

Parts of Donetsk and Luhansk have been under Russian occupation since 2014, when the Kremlin incited separatist violence shortly after the operation to seize Crimea. Putin declared the four Ukrainian regions to be “forever” part of Russia after announcing that he was annexing them in September 2022. …

——

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukraine-not-land-zelensky-says-072205444.html

https://archive.ph/d00g6

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-russia-plan-truce-deal-140847014.html

“Ukraine must be part of peace solution, Zelensky says ahead of Trump-Putin meeting”

9 August 2025, BBC

Zelensky said in a Telegram post on Saturday that “Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier”. He reiterated that Ukraine must be involved in any solution for peace, and said he is ready to work with partners for a “real” and “lasting” peace.

Zelensky said Ukraine “will not give Russia awards for what it has done”.

“The answer to the Ukrainian territorial issue is already in the Constitution of Ukraine. No one will and cannot deviate from this,” he added.

His statement followed comments from Trump at the White House on Friday that there “will be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both”.

Sacrificing land for peace has been the Trump position all along. …

“Any solutions that are against us, any solutions that are without Ukraine, are simultaneously solutions against peace,” he said.

“We are ready, together with President Trump, together with all partners, to work for a real, and most importantly, lasting peace – a peace that will not collapse because of Moscow’s wishes.”

This is what Ukraine, and many European allies, were always worried about – Trump and Putin trying to do a deal without Ukraine present. …

There is little evidence that Ukraine is willing to accept a peace at any price – much less one that will be forced on it without its voice being heard.

——

It is obvious from those and the rest of the ‘news’-coverage of Trump’s upcoming, first-ever, meeting with Putin, that the billionaires who control these media (and the U.S.-and-allied Governments) want the public to support their stooge-leader of Ukraine (Zelensky) and oppose anything that Trump would agree to that Zelensky (these billionaires’ agent) opposes. If you will look at the top-most “Sort by Top” reader-comments at each of the two articles, you will see that the public (their minds) have been effectively controlled by these billionaires: the comments are overwhelmingly pro-Zelensky and anti-Trump, and especially anti-Putin. This result displays what Walter Lippmann had referred to in 1922 as “manufactured consent” of the public to the given ‘democratic’ regime, and it is now done throughout the U.S. empire (if not throughout the world), in order to give the superficial appearance of democracy, where none actually exists.

America’s billionaires today are remarkably similar to the elite Southern plantation owners before the U.S. Civil War War who bred Black slaves, farmed them (after 1807), on huge plantations, by forcing female slaves to be constantly pregnant, through rape or otherwise, in order to increase production of that type of livestock, for sale. It produced around an additional million slaves in the northern south to be transported down to the “cotton” south to be auctioned off, without regard to any slave’s family or other personal ties. The basic mentality is the same as that of those slave-producers, auctioneers and other slavery-entrepreneurs. It’s the “libertarian” way: a person’s value is the person’s wealth; so, if all that a given person owns is his/her labor, then that is what the person’s value is. For the wealthiest, this is total freedom. That is the mentality of today’s billionaires, and of yesterday’s slavery entrepreneurs.

In order to provide reasonable hope for a better world, I have several times proposed replacing the “manufactured consent” type of ‘democracy’ that has been described here, and which is based upon elections to choose government leaders, and it replaces elections by using lotteries instead. This method of selecting leaders of the Government would prevent the ‘democracies’ that we have and that actually represent ONLY the few super-rich, and it would install instead authentic democracies, which truly REPRESENT the PUBLIC. That alternative and authentic type of democracy, is outlined here.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post The History of Ukraine’s War, vs. U.S-and-Allied ‘News’-Media’s Lies About It appeared first on LewRockwell.

Battle of Debaltseve

I will answer my question right up front: Yes! The reaction of the West, especially that of Donald Trump, to Russia’s current offensive all along the line of contact, is reminiscent of the panic that seized the West in 2015 following Ukraine’s loss in the Battle of Debaltseve. That battle came about in part because of the failure of Minsk I, and was the impetus for Minsk II.

So what does this have to do with the current situation in Ukraine? I believe that the primary reason Donald Trump dramatically shortened his 50-day deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire to 10 days, was because of the dire situation Ukraine now faces all along the line of contact. Debaltseve was just one battle, which Ukraine lost. The current battles underway are far larger and encompass the following agglomerations:

Toretsk (Donetsk Oblast): Intense battles are ongoing near Toretsk, including Ukrainian advances within Katerynivka and Shcherbynivka, and Russian advances in nearby areas such as Rusyn Yar and Poltavka. Russian and Ukrainian forces are contesting several settlements along key axes northwest and west of Toretsk. Elements of Russia’s 20th Motorized Rifle Division, supported by artillery and drones, are actively engaged in the area.

Pokrovsk: Pokrovsk faces concentrated Russian assaults and is currently a focal point of fighting, with Russian forces intensifying attacks across the front. Ukrainian defenders confront urgent threats within and around the city as Russia adapts new offensive tactics.

Chasiv Yar (Donetsk Oblast): Russia recently captured Chasiv Yar, a heavily fortified eastern city. This victory allows Russia to target Ukraine’s so-called “fortress belt,” a network of defensive strongholds, and opens further offensive opportunities in the region.

Zaporizhia Region: Russia maintains high-intensity bombardments—over 400 airstrikes on 16 settlements—leading to heavy casualties and destruction, marking continued contestation in this southern front.

Let’s first review the importance of the Battle of Debaltseve, which was fought between January and February 2015, and marked a major setback for Ukraine the Donbas region. Its importance stems from several key factors:

1. Strategic Location: Debaltseve was a critical transportation hub, particularly for its railway junction connecting the Russian-backed separatist-controlled cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. Control over Debaltseve allowed influence over supply lines and movement in the region, making it a focal point for both Ukrainian forces and Russian/separatist forces.
2. Ceasefire Violations and Minsk II: The battle occurred during a period of intense fighting despite the Minsk Protocol (September 2014), which aimed to establish a ceasefire. The escalation at Debaltseve exposed the fragility of the ceasefire and led to the signing of the Minsk II agreement on February 12, 2015, as international mediators (France, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia) sought to halt the violence. However, fighting continued even after the agreement, undermining trust in the peace process.
3. Military and Political Implications: The battle resulted in a significant defeat for Ukrainian forces, who were encircled and forced to withdraw under heavy pressure from Russian-backed separatists, supported by regular Russian troops (as reported by Ukrainian and Western sources). The loss highlighted Ukraine’s military vulnerabilities at the time, including issues with coordination, logistics, and equipment, while boosting the morale and territorial control of separatist forces.
4. Human Cost and Humanitarian Impact: The battle caused significant casualties, with estimates of hundreds killed (both military and civilian) and thousands displaced. The intense shelling and fighting devastated Debaltseve, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the Donbas region and drawing international attention to the plight of civilians caught in the conflict.
5. Geopolitical Ramifications: The battle underscored Russia’s direct involvement in the conflict, as Western governments and organizations like NATO cited evidence of Russian military equipment and personnel in Debaltseve. This intensified sanctions and diplomatic pressure on Russia, further straining its relations with the West and solidifying Ukraine’s push for international support.
6. Long-Term Impact on the Conflict: The fall of Debaltseve consolidated separatist control over key areas of the Donbas, setting a precedent for the protracted, low-intensity conflict that followed. It also shaped Ukraine’s subsequent military reforms and increased its reliance on Western military aid to counter Russian aggression.

We subsequently learned that Minsk II was a sham devised by the West to permit Ukraine to rebuild its military force. Angela Merkel made statements about the Minsk II agreement in interviews in 2022, specifically in June and December. In a June 2022 interview with Der Spiegel, she indicated that the Minsk talks helped Ukraine “buy time” to strengthen itself against Russia. She elaborated in a December 2022 interview with Die Zeit, stating, “The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Ukraine used this time to become stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today.”

Following Merkel’s confession of the real purpose of Minsk II, Vladimir Putin publicly admitted that he had been deceived by the Minsk II agreements in statements made in November and December 2022. In a conversation cited in the book, Vladimir Putin. From the Annals of the XXI Century, Putin described the Minsk agreements as “nothing but sheer deception” and said that Western leaders used the process to buy time and prepare Ukraine for war. In December 2022, Putin elaborated that “no one was going to fulfill the Minsk agreements,” admitting, “It turns out that they also deceived us, and the point was only to pump Ukraine with weapons and prepare for combat operations. Apparently, we got our bearings late, to be honest.”

Now we have Donald Trump begging for a personal meeting with Vladimir Putin. While some in Russia have expressed fears that Putin is once again being offered the Charlie Brown meme of kicking the football, I think Mr. Putin has learned his lesson and is not going to reverse his stated policy. While many in the West are pushing the narrative that Putin will give up claims to Zaporizhia and Kherson, that is not true. Those two former oblasts of Ukraine are now, according to the Russian Constitution, legally part of Russia. Putin does not have the authority to change that fact without legislative action by the Russian Duma.

Given this fact, I believe the deal that Putin will offer to Donald Trump is a halt to military operations in Sumy and Kharkiv if, and only if, Ukraine withdraws its military forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia and Kherson; that NATO end all military support for Ukraine; and that the United States agrees to negotiate based on the draft treaty Putin presented to Joe Biden in December 2022. If Trump does not take that deal, the war will continue until Russia consolidates all territory east of the Dnieper River.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Has Putin Learned the Lessons of the Battle of Debaltseve and Minsk II? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Jesse Trentadue.

Gateway Pundit

The post The Patcon Caterpilar Has Just Grown Anohter Leg! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

Daily Kos

The post Zbigniew Brzezinski’s parents were from the (Polish-)Ukraine. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

This is a good, long video. I’ve always wanted to drive the length of Highway 395 along the eastern side of the Sierra. The scenery gets better and better heading north. I didn’t realize there were so many lakes. The Bodie ghost town is amazing. There is something special about the desert rats who lived along this highway. In the high desert, there’s nowhere to hide. 

The post Highway 395 along the Eastern Sierra; California’s Best Road Trip appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The American Conservative

The post Israel IskNot an Ally—It’s a Liability appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Activist Post

The post The Unlucky Elderly of America 2.0 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Without the Scot Dam and Lake Pillsbury supplying water to the upper Russian River, the Russian River will go dry in late summer (August and September). This means Healdsburg won’t be getting any Russian River water in late summer.

I’ve asked the Water Department of Healdsburg and the Mayor a few times about what the hell they are going to do about this. They reply that they are negotiating with Sonoma Water for water from Lake Sonoma, just north of town on Dry Creek. Also, water conservation, water recycling (an 8% drop in the bucket to supply, just enough to cover the hotels’ demand). A new well field is being developed. Basically, less water for us residents. Many have already bought water tanks and buy water delivery in dry months. That’s expensive. 

PG&E doesn’t want to operate the Eel River dams anymore. PG&E has Governor Gavin Newsom and Congressman Jared Huffman in its pocket. PG&E has proven over and over again that it has caused deadly fires by not maintaining its equipment. It pays out big money to executives and shareholders of PG&E. But PG&E doesn’t give a flying bat fart about the customers.

PG&E Starts Draining Lake Pillsbury. Shuts off Water to Farmers & Ranchers

The post PG&E Starts Draining Lake Pillsbury. Shuts off Water to Farmers & Ranchers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Hi Daniel,

I just read your article on LRC. You did a great job of writing. The article is very well done, and oh, so true. Ron Paul changed my life. I was always anti-government, but I didn’t understand the economics of it all. Dr. Paul taught me about the Fed and Austrian economics. His two presidential campaigns as a Republican transformed politics. Dr. Paul showed that there were many Americans who were pro-peace, for liberty, and wanted to be left alone by the state. Dr. Paul showed the evil incompetence of the Fed.

Thanks for writing the article.

The post Re: How Ron Paul Changed the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brian Dunaway wrote:

Mr. Trump certainly has a right to take a victory lap. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against US District Judge James Boasberg, who “said he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt because it purportedly violated his orders to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.” In strong language, the Court of Appeals responded that “the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.”

But of course, winning is relatively unimportant, not even being the primary purpose of lawfare. The spectacularly evil part of lawfare is that it, in various circumstances: consumes the only irreversible physical attribute in the universe (time); permits evil to continue unabated while right action is slowed, hindered, corrupted or quashed; and in many cases, bankrupts and embitters the persecuted parties.

To be certain, that is the raison d’être of lawfare: to consume time, consume resources, consume wealth, and consume the souls of those whom it targets for persecution or prosecution.

The post Lawfare Unbound appeared first on LewRockwell.

Paul Roberts wrote:

This needed to be said.

By Chuck Baldwin Comment by PCR:   I am worried that in his meeting with Putin Trump will blow up as he often does, and the die will be cast.  There is a lot of hope placed on the Trump-Putin meeting,  No one seems to realize the danger. Where others see hope, I see danger.

This meeting has aspects of a set-up.  If Trump wants peace, why did he just deploy more Ohio class submarines closer to Russia?  Why did he just return the intermediate-range missiles, which Reagan had removed, to Europe? What does it mean when the US director of plans for strategic command says, “We’re ready to have a nuclear war with Russia, and we’re going to win.”

If Trump wants peace, why did he raise the nuclear threat to Russia?  Is this Trump’s practice of bluffing them into submission? As A.J.P. Taylor shows in his histories of both World Wars, bluffs produce wars.

Trump bemoans all the people being killed in Ukraine, but he does nothing to stop the killing in Palestine.  Let’s pray he doesn’t convince Putin that there is no security for Russia.

Has Trump renounced Washington’s hegemony?  No.  He asserted it:
“I rule America and the world.”

Has Trump ceased to serve the profits and power of the US military/security complex?  No.  He has just completed a deal with Europe to purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American weapons for Ukraine. Will the purchases take place and the profits be realized if peace is achieved?

Can peace prevail over the American doctrine of hegemony and the power and profit of the US military/security complex?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/08/09/in-the-year-2025/ 

The post A serious matter appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Gateway Pundit

The post Fed Persecution of Conservative Catholics Will Involve Infiltration, Says Lawyer Who Uncovered FBI Infiltration Playbook appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John  Frahm.

Mises.org.

The post America’s War on Arab Christians appeared first on LewRockwell.

LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2025, please remember to DONATE TODAY!

1. Terrain Therapy: How To Achieve Perfect Health Through Diet, Living Habits & Divine Thinking 
   
2. Dr. Chase’s Old-Time Home Remedies
   
3. Transcending the Climate Change Deception – Toward Real Sustainability
   
4. Pipe Hitters Guide to Long Range Rifles & Sniping (Pipe Hitters Guides)
5. Thriving Beyond Fifty (Expanded Edition): 111 Natural Strategies to Restore Your Mobility, Avoid Surgery and Stay Off Pain Pills for Good
6. The Blue, the Gray, and the Green: Toward an Environmental History of the Civil War (UnCivil Wars)
7. Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease: The Revolutionary, Scientifically Proven, Nutrition-Based Cure
8. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
9. Blowback: The Untold Story of the FBI and the Oklahoma City Bombing
10. The Anatomy of Stretching, Second Edition: Your Illustrated Guide to Flexibility and Injury Rehabilitation
11. Eye Exercises to Improve Vision: Make Your Vision Better with Simple Vision Training for Every Day.
12. Isaiah Speaks to Modern Times
13. JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated
14. National Geographic Road Atlas 2026: Adventure Edition
15. When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany
16. How To Reverse Aging: A Comprehensive Guide To Copper Peptides
17. This Is How They Fool Us: How Companies Influence Our Buying Habits and What We Can Do About It
18. The Ultimate Guide To Red Light Therapy
    
19. The War Between The States: 60 Essential Books
    
20. Classical Economics (Large Print Edition): An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Volume 2

The post Top 20 Books That LRC Fans Are Reading This Week appeared first on LewRockwell.