Aggregatore di feed

To regulate itself, the body often relies upon sensors that detect something amiss and then emit a signal that is amplified by the body so that a process can be set in motion to fix the issue that set the sensor off. One of the key signals the body relies upon are hormones, as small amounts of these molecules being released are often sufficient to change the internal state of the body drastically.

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis is the body’s central stress response system. It has three main components: the hypothalamus and pituitary gland in the brain, and the adrenal glands on top of the kidneys. When you experience stress, the hypothalamus releases corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), which signals the pituitary gland to secrete adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). ACTH then travels through the bloodstream to the adrenal glands, prompting them to release the corticosteroid cortisol (the body’s primary stress hormone). Finally, once cortisol levels are high enough, they signal the brain to reduce CRH and ACTH production, creating a negative feedback loop that prevents over-activation of the stress response.

Cortisol, in turn, has a few key functions in the body:

Immune Modulation: Cortisol first enhances the immune system’s immediate response to threats (protecting the body during stress), then limits excessive immune activity to prevent autoimmunity. It does this partly by inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-1, IL-6) and reducing T-cell activity. Over time, this shifts to immune suppression, making synthetic corticosteroids, a popular treatment for inflammation and autoimmunity.

Note: at lower doses, this transition from immune stimulation to immune suppression takes much longer, whereas at high doses it’s faster (hence why high steroid doses are given for dangerous autoimmune flares).

Blood Sugar: When blood sugar is low, cortisol raises it by stimulating gluconeogenesis in the liver, mobilizing amino acids (from muscle) and fatty acids (from fat) for glucose production, and reducing insulin sensitivity in tissues like muscle and fat. Excessive cortisol can lead to diabetes, abdominal fat accumulation (obesity), weight gain, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular issues.

Connective Tissues: Cortisol promotes protein catabolism (breakdown) in muscles, providing substrates for glucose synthesis and inhibiting collagen synthesis. Excessive cortisol causes muscle wasting, bone loss (e.g., osteoporosis or osteonecrosis), poor wound healing (which is also a result of immune suppression), skin thinning, easy bruising, and purple striae.

Circulation: Cortisol raises blood pressure by increasing sodium and water retention, sensitizing blood vessels to epinephrine and norepinephrine. This causes vasoconstriction and an increased heart rate while also damaging the blood vessel lining. This elevates the risk for cardiovascular disease1,2,3 (e.g., a one-standard deviation increase in morning plasma cortisol is linked to an 18% higher risk of future cardiovascular events).

Cognition: Cortisol modulates arousal, attention, and memory consolidation. Chronic excess corticosteroids (from either endogenous cortisol or synthetic steroids) impair hippocampal function, causing memory deficits, increased pain sensitivity, attention issues, cravings for high-calorie foods, substance abuse, and, rarely, psychosis.

HPA Axis Dysfunction: Since the HPA axis is regulated by cortisol levels, once natural or synthetic corticosteroids are chronically elevated, the HPA axis becomes desensitized, leading to excessive cortisol secretion or loss of the ability to secrete cortisol when needed. This in turn creates many issues such as those associated with chronically excessive cortisol or varying degrees of fatigue (e.g., due to the adrenal glands not secreting cortisol when needed).
Note: excessive cortisol can also cause other effects such as blood electrolyte imbalances, alkalosis, cataracts, and glaucoma.

Because of this, many argue excessive cortisol secretion and HPA axis dysfunction (e.g., due to chronic stress, poor diet, poor sleep, alcoholism, too many stimulants like caffeine, social isolation, a lack of exercise, or irregular daily rhythms) is a root cause of disease (e.g., the metabolic syndrome afflicting our country). As such, they advocate for lifestyle practices that counteract these HPA axis-disrupting factors, and in many cases significant health benefits follow the adoption of those practices.

Corticosteroids

The hormone cortisol belongs to a class of steroids known as corticosteroids due to its release by the cortex of the adrenal glands. While many related corticosteroids (henceforth referred to as “steroids”) exist within the body, the body’s primary ones are cortisol (a glucocorticoid) and aldosterone, a mineralocorticoid that regulates blood pressure, volume, and electrolyte balance.

In 1946, the first synthetic steroid (cortisone) was synthesized. Two years later, enough had been produced to test on it a human, where it was discovered to improve rheumatoid arthritis symptoms (which won the 1950 Nobel Prize) and was immediately hailed as a ‘wonder drug.’ Before long, it was discovered that other inflammatory syndromes also responded to cortisone, and a rush of other steroids hit the market:

Following its success in rheumatoid arthritis, steroids (e.g., prednisone, hydrocortisone) were rapidly adopted for a wide range of inflammatory and autoimmune disorders, including systemic lupus erythematosus, inflammatory bowel disease, and multiple sclerosis, due to their ability to suppress immune-mediated tissue damage.

In the early 1950s, steroids were hailed as a revolutionary treatment for those conditions (and hence widely prescribed), with new steroids (e.g., prednisone) being rapidly introduced to the market, but in the late 1950s, serious side effects began to accumulate from long-term steroid use. By the early 1960s, steroid treatment was ‘‘shunned altogether by the rheumatology community” (to the point shortly after that NSAIDs like ibuprofen were named non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to distinguish them from the disastrous steroids) after which point steroids were prescribed with more caution and at lower doses until it was reborn in the 1980s under a low dose regimen.

Currently, steroids remain widely used, and their use has gradually increased. For example, in 2009, 6.4% of American adults had used oral steroids at least once in the last year, whereas in 2018, 7.7% did, while a 2017 study found 21.4% of adults (age 18-64) had used at least one oral steroid prescription in the last three years.

Note: after harms were discovered with steroids, a pivot was made that they are safe if “low doses” are given. However, over the decades, what constituted a safe “low dose” has greatly declined (i.e., doses now considered toxic previously were routinely prescribed), and that drop will likely continue to (e.g., in 2016, Europe’s Rheumatology group concluded in was unsafe to give more than 5mg a day of long-term steroids—a figure significantly lower than the current amounts used in America).

Steroid Side Effects

As you would expect, the side effects from taking steroids mirror those seen with excessive cortisol, although in many cases are much more severe.

Furthermore, they are quite common (e.g., one study found 90% of users report adverse effects, and 55% report at least one that is very bothersome). Consider this summary of what users across the internet have reported:

Likewise, much of that has been established within the scientific literature:

Bone Loss: Corticosteroids double one’s risk of a fracture (and even more so for a vertebra), with 12% of users reporting fractures. At typical doses, steroids cause a 5-15% loss of bone each year, and in long-term users, 37% experience vertebral fractures (additionally, high dose steroid use increases the risk of vertebral fractures fivefold). Steroid bone loss in fact, is such a common problem that treating it is one of the few official indications the FDA provides for bisphosphonates (which while widely prescribed for bone loss have many severe side effects—including making your bones more likely to break). Lastly, higher doses increase the likelihood of avascular necrosis (with 6.7% of users taking higher steroid doses developing it).

Weight Gain: approximately 70% of individuals taking oral corticosteroids long-term (over 60 days) report weight gain. One study found a 5.73–12.79 lb increase per year, and another found a 4-8% increase in body weight after two years of steroid use. Additionally, this fat typically stores in areas like the face, neck, and belly.

Adrenal Insufficiency: corticosteroids reduce the adrenal gland’s ability to produce cortisol (which can sometimes be life threatening). This is a huge problem that increases with the duration of therapy and systemic routes of administration (e.g., affecting 48.7% of oral users).

Diabetes: a systematic review found individuals taking systemic corticosteroids were 2.6 times more likely to develop hyperglycemia (with 1.8% of those receiving steroids in a hospital then developing diabetes). Likewise, patients who’d taken systemic corticosteroids at least once were 1.85 times more likely to develop diabetes. Finally, a meta-analysis found that, in patients without pre-existing diabetes, a month or more of steroids caused hyperglycemia in 32% and diabetes mellitus in 19% of them.

Cardiovascular: high doses of steroids have been observed to increase heart attacks by 226%, heart failure by 272%, and strokes by 73%.

Eyes: Steroids have been found to increase the risk of cataracts by 245-311% (with 15% of users reporting this side effect) and the risk of ocular hypertension or open angle glaucoma by 41%.

Gastrointestinal: Steroids are linked to many gastrointestinal events (e.g., nausea and vomiting) and have been found to increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation by 40%.

Psychiatric: between 1.3%-18.4% of steroid users develop psychiatric reactions (with the rates increasing with the dose), and around 5.7% experience severe reactions. Additionally, 61% of steroid users reported sleep disturbances, and steroids can also sometimes cause psychosis.1,2

Infections: Steroids also increase the risk of infections. For example, users of inhaled steroids were found to be 20% more likely to develop tuberculosis, and this increased at higher doses in patients with asthma or COPD. Similarly, patients on steroids were 20% more likely to develop sepsis (possibly due to the initial symptoms of the infection being masked by the steroids).

Skin: prolonged topical use of steroids also frequently causes skin issues (e.g., up to 5% experience skin atrophy after a year of use).

Lastly, certain steroids are much more potent than others, and the more potent ones that persist in the body (e.g., dexamethasone) are more likely to create systemic effects like HPA axis dysfunction.

Uses of Steroids

The toxicity of steroids greatly increases with prolonged doses and routes of administration that have systemic absorption (e.g., oral). Because of this, many now believe they should be reserved for life-threatening emergencies (with the side effects that frequently follow being an acceptable trade off) and for a prolonged period, only be used in a manner with minimal systemic absorption (e.g., topically).

Note: I recently interviewed a variety of specialists for their perspectives on using steroids in their fields of medicine. Collectively, they felt that while steroids can be helpful, they are frequently prescribed in an inappropriate manner that causes more harm than good (discussed here).

Inhaled Steroids

Inhaled steroids are routinely used to treat asthma and COPD. Since the systemic absorption of inhaled steroids is much less than from oral steroids, systemic side effects are rarer (but can still occur with prolonged use at higher doses).

While inhaled steroids (along with the other medications commonly prescribed for these respiratory conditions) can help and are often the only option available to patients, I believe in most cases natural therapies that directly treat the conditions are preferable. For example, COPD is seen as a progressive and incurable illness which can only be delayed or partially mitigated with the existing therapies. In contrast, when nebulized glutathione is used to replenish the protective lining of the lungs, it halts the progression of the disease, and unlike steroids does so without side effects. Likewise, many natural therapies exist for asthma.

Topical Steroids

Topical steroids are routinely used for skin issues and sometimes in other areas as well, such as for certain eye conditions, like preventing graft rejection after a necessary corneal transplant. In these instances, systemic side effects are rare, and most local issues result from prolonged use (e.g., skin changes or skin thinning—particularly on the face).

Note: I have long suspected topical steroids in part work by reducing fluid circulation to the skin (via the insterstitium), thereby preventing inflammatory toxins from arriving there and creating skin reactions (whereas agents like DMSO treat skin conditions by augmenting the skin’s microcirculation so stagnant toxins cannot irritate a set area). As such, due to the potential issues with suppressing skin symptoms, I typically treat skin issues with natural therapies like DMSO or by eliminating the underlying cause of the skin issue.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Hidden Dangers of Corticosteroids appeared first on LewRockwell.

While Jake Tapper leads the Mea Culpa Chorus singing Kumbaya in a minor key, absolutely nobody is fooled that the grotesque psychotic deformities of US politics can be reduced to a few White House factotums lying to the news media about “Joe Biden’s” cognitive abilities. For one thing, the news media was not lied to. The news media (including Jake) lied to the nation, consistently, flagrantly, mendaciously, for years, and most of all they lied about the gigantic racketeering operation that government had become in the age of Anything Goes and Nothing Matters.

Cases-in-point, as reported by Alex Krainer, the $93-billion barfed out of the Department of Energy between the November election and January 20 to scores of hastily-formed NGO gangs with no business model or record of competency. . . and the staggering $375 billion spread around similarly out of the EPA from a slush fund run by John Podesta (as Senior Adviser to the President for International Climate Policy and Clean Energy Innovation).

That was pure grift, you understand, and it was how the Democratic Party kept its activist troops of the so-called “marginalized” paid and happy. As it happened, the “marginalized” who dwell on the edge of society — and also just beyond the set of agreements that define reality — are out-numbered by the rest of us, who voted against the tyranny of the margin and their hallucinations. And so now, the country goes through a convulsion attempting to readjust to reality — for instance, the unhappy fact that all that money was unreal, mere bookkeeping entries by dishonest accountants.

One reality we struggle with is the doleful fact that there is no work-around for the nation’s monumental debt. Since it can’t possibly be paid off, there are two stark paths for it: default and ruinous deflation (that is, money vanishes and the nation goes broke); or a futile attempt to inflate it away with more fake money creation (you’ll have money, but it’s increasingly worthless, so you’re effectively broke). Either way, you’re broke. In the meantime, the remorseless interest that has to be paid on $36.2-trillion squeezes out everything else we’re supposed to care for as relates to the common good.

Every broke-ass family or individual person knows how debilitating money-worries can be. And since unpayable debt is the common denominator across all of Western Civ, this perhaps explains the gross, suicidal mental disorder displayed lately by leadership all across Europe, North America and Anglo-Oceania. Europe, especially, exhibits behavior that is completely cuckoo — inciting war with Russia, inviting in murderous hostiles from foreign lands, and sadistically policing their own citizens.

The exception is Mr. Trump, a businessman-outsider to government trying to pull off an escape from the deadly debt quandary. It’s probably impossible, but he is trying nonetheless. It has three main features: 1) to readjust trade relations that, in theory, would restore industrial production across the land — a bootstrapping operation to kick off “growth.” 2) to engineer a severe re-set of the money system that would effectively amount to defaulting on debt but somehow without the feature of disappearing money. At best, this would induce some kind of fall in living standards, but mostly among the small sector of financial buccaneers who thrive on swindles and the Boomers living on investment accounts (figment wealth), who are now dying off anyway — which is to say, Great Depression Lite. And 3) the least understood feature of Trumpism: to decouple the USA from the resource scarcity in the rest of the world, and the consequent strife it’s inducing, and withdraw into a sort of Fortress North America that can somehow carry-on self-sufficiently while everybody else collapses.

As big pictures go, this is a pretty wild one, stupendously ambitious, risky, and perhaps improbable. But what do Mr. Trump’s domestic opponents have to offer? To go back to their asset-stripping operation with its insane sideshow of race-and-sexual hoaxes and hustles? Let’s face it, the Democratic Party has utterly shot its wad. If it tries to start another civil war, it will have its ass handed to it. Despite all the desperate, rear-guard lawfare underway now, the party is already withdrawing into the political thickets to hide while it considers some drastic reorganization of its purpose and personnel. It may skulk there for many years, just as it did between James Buchanan (1857) and Grover Cleveland (1885).

And despite his daunting agenda, Mr. Trump at least presents a sense of confident determination to get the country righted in some fashion, to recover a sense of purpose and enterprise after years of feckless, dissipative drift into the hallucinatory madness of the Left. You must give him a chance. There is no one else right now with no other way.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post Trump’s Parlous Gambit appeared first on LewRockwell.

Douglas Horne, the author of the watershed five-volume book on the JFK assassination, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, has a new blog post about his recent testimony before Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna’s Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets. Horne served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s. Posted today at JFK Facts is an article by Chad Nagle about Horne’s recent testimony.

In his blog post, Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s, addresses the failure of the mainstream media to cover that particular congressional hearing, which also included testimony from (1) federal judge John Tunheim, who served as chairman of the ARRB; (2) Dan Hardway, who served a counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reinvestigated the JFK assassination in the 1970s; and (3) Abraham Bolden, a Secret Service agent assigned to JFK. Complimenting Forbes News, which posted the video of Horne’s testimony on YouTube, Horne also points out the decades-long aversion of the mainstream media to conduct independent investigations of the JFK assassination.

The big question is: Why? Why was the mainstream press so eager to accept the official findings of the Warren Commission, no matter how ludicrous they were (e.g., the infamous “magic-bullet theory”), rather than assign fierce and competent investigative reporters to ferret out the truth behind the assassination?

My answer: Fear.

After all, why have big, powerful law firms capitulated to President Trump’s demands? Why have enormous universities done the same? In my opinion, the reason is fear. They know that with the overwhelming power of the presidency, Trump has the ability to do very bad things to them. Just ask the people running Harvard, which has decided to fight rather than capitulate.

The mainstream press back in 1963 knew that Lyndon Johnson, who automatically became president on the death of JFK, was a vicious man, one who would not hesitate to use the overwhelming power of the presidency and the federal government to smash anyone he wanted, including any national news media outlet.

In his multi-volume biography of Johnson, author Robert Caro describes how Johnson pressured the officials in two different newspapers in Texas to shut down investigations into Johnson’s corruption. Johnson mentioned the possibility of IRS action against one paper and adverse regulatory action against the other. Both newspapers promptly shut down their investigations.

There was also undoubtedly the fear arising not just from Johnson but also from the entire national-security establishment, specifically the military and the CIA. When a person or company is dealing with a governmental entity that wields the power of committing state-sponsored assassinations and the expertise to engage in cover-up, one must obviously proceed with caution when deciding whether to take on that entity.

Consider the people who Johnson appointed to the Warren Commission — a former director of the CIA, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, members of Congress, and a former member of the World Bank. What are the chances that any of those prominent mainstream people would ever target and accuse the military establishment and the CIA of the assassination? None! There was never any chance of that happening at all.

Moreover, to prove guilt would have required a fierce, no-holds-barred investigation of the military and the CIA, both of which would not hesitate to falsely deny and lie about their actions. What are the chances that those particular mainstream members of the Warren Commission would engage in such a fierce investigation of the military-intelligence establishment — and at the height of the Cold War? None! No chance at all.

Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream media outlet would recognize that and make a point about it? Nope. It was all considered to be “normal.”

In the 1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reopened the investigation of the assassination. It brought in a fierce and honest prosecutor from Philadelphia named Richard Sprague. He made it clear that he was going to target and investigate the CIA. Within a very short period of time, he was run out town on a rail and replaced by an attorney named Robert Blakey, who showed the proper deference to the CIA.

How could any self-respecting newspaper not see that something was wrong with this official picture, even with Johnson out of the presidency in 1968? Fear. It just wasn’t worth it to them to take on the most powerful branch of the federal government — the national-security branch — the branch that wields the power of state-sponsored assassination and cover-up — and to which the other three branches dutifully defer.

After the HSCA proceedings, a group of enlisted men, who had been released from vows of official military silence, began coming forward and telling a remarkable and shocking story about one aspect of the autopsy that the military conducted on Kennedy’s body on the very night of the assassination. They were stating that they carried the president’s body into the Bethesda military morgue almost an hour-and-a-half before the official entry time of 8 p.m. They said that the body was in a cheap shipping casket rather than the expensive casket into which the body had been placed in Dallas. Later, in the 1990s, the ARRB discovered the existence of a written report by Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian stating that the earlier casket delivery had taken place at 6:35 p.m.

Why would the mainstream press fail to investigate that? If what these men were saying was true, wouldn’t that be something so dark, auspicious, and suspicious that the mainstream press would deem it worth investigating? Why wouldn’t they be curious about why the president’s body was sneaked into the morgue early? What was done to the body in that hour-and-a-half? Why would military officials have covered that up and lied about it? Why would high military officials have required those enlisted men to sign secrecy oaths about what they had witnessed and also threatened them with court martial or criminal prosecution if they ever talked?

Even if mainstream editors and reporters  believed that those enlisted men were lying, wouldn’t that be a story in and of itself? After all, why would they lie about that? Indeed, if they were lying, wouldn’t high military officials accuse them publicly of being liars? Why instead adopt a policy of silence in the face of what these men were claiming? Wouldn’t you think all this would be something worth investigating?

Fear. Fear paralyzes people. It causes them to become submissive, compliant, and obedient. It causes them to fall into line, accept whatever they are told, and not ask questions. In my opinion, that’s what happened — and continues to happen — to the mainstream press in the Kennedy assassination.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Mainstream Press’s Fear of Investigating the JFK Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump’s original plan was to quickly get rid of foreign wars in order to focus on his presidential campaign’s domestic agenda to Make America Great Again.

Trump has discovered that Democrat “judges” and some RINO ones can block and distract him from removing illegal aliens who have no right to remain in the US, and from exercising his legitimate powers as president to reform the corrupt and ideological US civil service.  The civil service is responsible to the executive branch, not to the judiciary, but the judiciary, always seeking to expand its power, is seeking to establish control over the Office of the President.

On the domestic front the frustrations and delays of an over-reaching judicial system have shifted Trump’s focus abroad as an alternative way of Making America Great Again.

In a recent press conference with Genocide King Netanyahu, President Trump declared America’s possession of Gaza.  Questioned by media, Netanyahu seemed to agree, at least for the sake of avoiding conflict with Israel’s American sponsor.

Trump has begun to describe a new Middle East.  It is no longer one that Washington was creating for Greater Israel.  Israel  had Washington destroy  opposing Arab countries–Iraq, Libya, and Syria–disguised as a “war on terror.”  The New Middle East is to be Washington’s colonial empire, in which Washington achieves control over oil flows in a new way.

Unlike the old colonialism in which the British and French exploited the region, sending the profits home, Trump is offering Saudi Arabia, the last standing Arab country, a junior partnership. The junior partnership is also being offered to the Iranians. The Saudias and Iranians are tempted to accept junior partnerships as it saves them from US/Israeli attacks.

Gaza, Trump suggests, will be the highly developed anchor for making all of the Middle East rich.  The new American colonialism, unlike the old, is a profit-sharing empire.  And it puts an end to Israeli/Arab wars.

It is difficult not to see this as a brilliant settlement.  But the world never expected anything of this sort.  Perhaps the American Ruling Establishment sat down with Trump and explained the situation to him.

In place of the American neoconservative unipolar world of American hegemony there will be the division of the world between the three powers–Washington, Russia, and China.  Will the Zionist neoconservative American policymakers accept this or will they continue their pursuit of hegemony?

The path ahead is not clear.  President Putin is not interested in merely a negotiated end of the conflict in Ukraine.  Putin wants a Great Power Agreement that ends the West’s conflict with Russia.  Putin’s agenda goes far beyond merely ending the conflict with Ukraine.

Can Trump and Putin renew the effort of Reagan and Gorbachev and end the revival of the Cold War that the neoconservatives launched?

If not, war will be upon us.

The post On the Trump Front — a Change in the Agenda? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Okay, sports fans, here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth: The year was 1957 or 1958 or perhaps even later. Those were the days of starched shirts, good manners, white rather than yellow tennis balls, and wooden rackets. The tournament was in New York City, and I was playing against Yale No. 1 Richard Raskind. He had a big left-handed serve that he used to come up to the net with, and an even bigger left-handed forehand. The match was on a fast cement court that favored his aggressive net play. I remember thinking that Raskind would have been putty in my hands were we playing on slow European clay, my best surface. Dick Raskind won that day, and as we shook hands at the net he looked the depressed loser. I remember almost commenting on that but did not. I found him unfriendly, almost unpleasant. Many years later I think I understood why. Raskind was obviously suffering from what today is known as “gender dysphoria,” although that particular definition did not exist back then.

Many years later Raskind surfaced yet again on the tennis tour, this time playing as a woman called Renée Richards. My first thought back then was that I had lost to a female. Well, not quite, but you know what I mean. While on tour for many years my favorite hitting partner was Althea Gibson, the first black woman to win Wimbledon, in 1957. Althea and I obviously played many sets against each other, and we were about even. But she was No. 1 in the world, whereas I was way down the rankings back in those halcyon pseudo-amateur days. Which brings me to the point I wish to make: Even in a nonviolent sport like tennis, men have an enormous advantage—speed, strength, endurance, you name it, we’ve got it.

“Many years later Raskind surfaced yet again on the tennis tour, this time playing as a woman called Renée Richards.”

By the time Raskind declared himself a female he was already fending off Father Time. As a woman, Renée Richards won a tournament but became far better known for transitioning than hitting a tennis ball. He/she was also a very good ophthalmologist and is still with us at 90. I turned her transition into a joke by telling all my tennis buddies that I had lost to a woman while at my peak.

This was long ago, and now, finally, the U.S. has acknowledged the truth: Sex change treatment endangers children. The Department of Health and Human Services issued the world’s most comprehensive report on the topic—something I knew from day one, and I am someone who has trouble putting on a Band-Aid. Over in that crowded rainy place called Britain, transgender women will be barred from playing for women’s soccer teams after the Brit Supreme Court ruled that Britain’s equality laws were based on biological sex and that trans women did not fall within the legal definition of women. Again, I could have told them this, and I don’t know how to read a legal brief about a parking ticket.

The irony is that I don’t even know what these terms are—transgender, agender, nonbinary—but what I do know is what nonsense is. Nonsense is wasting our precious and finite energies on trivial issues such as “What is a woman?” Maybe we should allow this issue to collapse under its own absurdity. This nonsense, as few of us call it, counts a lot only where sport is concerned. Let’s begin with women entering men’s sporting competitions: There are none and never will be. Enough said. The men entering women’s competitions are cheaters when posing as women. The entire fiasco is based on lies and opportunistic cheaters. You cannot change sex.

So, how should a parent feel seeing their daughter get knocked out almost immediately in an Olympic boxing competition by a trans woman who hits like the proverbial mule and looks very much a man? Or watching their daughter left half a swimming pool behind by someone who until recently was swimming for the men’s team? I know what I would do. I would enter the ring and try to stop the match. Or jump into the pool and get in the way of the cheater. But the Olympic Committee is as cowardly as they come, as are universities, with coaches too scared of the trans lobby to throw the cheaters out and keep the girls competing against girls.

Perhaps now these cowards who have allowed these outrages to take place will finally react and ban the cheaters. But the incessantly complaining, self-pitying trans lobby is well funded and supported by Hollywood types like that awful trio of Eddie Redmayne, Emma Watson, and Daniel Radcliffe, all three trying to cash in while advancing injustice against female athletes. But leave it to The New York Times to devote a very long and incredibly boring article on the trials and tribulations of a San Jose State University volleyball player, a trans, and how she was eventually “outed” as an ex-man by some magazine.

Never mind. Trans women should compete against other trans women in sport, but not biological women. In the meantime, I have joined the victims of trans women competing in women’s sport by outing myself as having lost to Renée Richards. I lost to Dick Raskind, but unknown enemies say I lost to Renée.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Formerly Dick appeared first on LewRockwell.

The concept of an impending apocalypse has been a source of fascination, fear, and speculation throughout human history. From ancient texts to modern science fiction, the notion that our civilization could come to an end has sparked countless theories and warnings. While some may dismiss these ideas as mere fantasy or superstition, there are observable trends and events that suggest the potential for catastrophic changes in our world. In this article, we will explore eight warning signs that could indicate an impending apocalypse.

1. Environmental Degradation

One of the most pressing indicators of an impending apocalypse is the rapid degradation of our environment. Climate change, deforestation, pollution, and loss of biodiversity are all symptoms of a planet in distress.

The rise in global temperatures, largely attributed to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and industrial practices, has led to more extreme weather events—hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and flooding are becoming increasingly common. The accelerating melting of polar ice caps poses a direct threat to coastal communities worldwide. As ecosystems collapse and species go extinct at an unprecedented rate, the foundational elements that sustain life on Earth are unraveling.

This degradation does not only impact natural systems; it also poses significant risks to food security, water supply, and human health. As resources become scarcer and competition for them intensifies, social unrest and conflict may follow—potentially setting the stage for a more significant apocalyptic scenario.

2. Geopolitical Tensions

In an increasingly interconnected world, geopolitical tensions can escalate into larger conflicts with global ramifications. The rise of nationalism, authoritarianism, and territorial disputes has created a volatile international landscape. The possibility of nuclear confrontation remains a critical concern; nations possessing such weapons often find themselves in standoffs that could quickly spiral out of control.

Recent events highlight how fragile peace can be in certain regions. Disputes over resources like water and energy can inflame existing rivalries between nations, leading to potential warfare that could destabilize entire regions and lead to widespread chaos. Furthermore, cyber warfare has emerged as a new battlefield where digital attacks can disrupt critical infrastructure, sowing discord and fear among populations.

The combination of economic instability—often exacerbated by pandemics or climate disasters—can create perfect conditions for civil unrest. History has shown us that desperate times can lead to desperate measures: when people feel cornered or threatened, they may resort to extreme actions that could lead to societal collapse.

3. Economic Instability

Economic systems are inherently complex and interconnected; when one piece falters, the repercussions can be felt globally. Warning signs such as rising debt levels, stock market volatility, and increasing income inequality often precede major economic downturns.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how quickly economies can unravel due to unforeseen circumstances. Supply chain disruptions led to shortages of essential goods while unemployment rates soared in many countries. These factors combined with inflation have raised concerns about economic stability as governments struggle to provide support to their citizens.

As more people fall into poverty or see their standard of living decline, social cohesion may erode. Economic desperation can lead individuals or groups to act irrationally or violently in pursuit of survival. In a worst-case scenario, prolonged economic instability could trigger revolutions or regime changes—events that may serve as precursors to larger apocalyptic scenarios.

4. Pandemics and Global Health Crises

The world has witnessed how quickly a virus can spread across borders and disrupt daily life. The COVID-19 pandemic was a stark reminder of this reality—not only did it claim millions of lives but it also exposed weaknesses in global health systems.

As human populations continue to encroach upon wildlife habitats through urbanization and agriculture, the potential for zoonotic diseases (those transmitted from animals to humans) increases dramatically. Climate change also plays a role by shifting habitats and influencing disease patterns.

Emerging infectious diseases pose not only health risks but also social and economic challenges. Overwhelmed healthcare systems may struggle to cope with outbreaks; misinformation can spread rapidly online, leading communities into panic or denial rather than informed action. If unchecked, these global health crises could become more severe over time—potentially contributing to societal breakdowns reminiscent of apocalyptic narratives.

5. Technological Dependence

Our growing reliance on technology presents both remarkable advancements and substantial vulnerabilities. As societies become increasingly digitalized—from smart cities powered by AI algorithms to decentralized finance—the risks associated with technological failures become paramount.

Cybersecurity threats can undermine infrastructures essential for day-to-day life—from power grids to healthcare systems. A coordinated cyberattack could cripple vital services within hours; ransomware attacks have already demonstrated their capacity to disrupt businesses across various sectors.

Moreover, technological advancements bring ethical dilemmas that society struggles to address—questions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), surveillance states, data privacy rights—creating divisions among populations struggling with these uncertainties. If mishandled or mismanaged, technology might contribute to more significant societal schisms or even lead us down dystopian paths akin to science fiction depictions of apocalypse scenarios.

6. Natural Disasters

The frequency and intensity of natural disasters have increased substantially over recent decades—a trend often linked back again towards climate change influences like rising sea levels or changing weather patterns leading towards more extreme events). Earthquakes , tsunamis , hurricanes , floods , wildfires all pose threats capable enough if left unchecked or poorly managed resulting into devastating consequences especially for vulnerable communities unprepared for such calamities hitting them unexpectedly .

Natural disasters not only inflict immediate destruction but also create long-term challenges—displaced populations struggle with access displacement issues; humanitarian aid becomes necessary yet often insufficient given lack capacity/resources . When multiple disasters strike simultaneously (as seen recently during hurricane seasons), overwhelmed responders may contribute towards exacerbating crises turning normalcy upside-down leaving behind chaos instead .

7. Resource Scarcity

Human civilizations have thrived due largely success utilizing available resources . However unsustainable consumption practices coupled increased population pressure threaten disrupt traditional resource management methods leading potential shortages essential food , clean water , energy supplies needed sustain daily life .

Water scarcity is currently emerging as one pressing issue affecting millions people worldwide . In many regions groundwater supplies depleting due over-extraction coupled climate change-induced droughts resulting dire circumstances requiring urgent interventions if we hope avert conflicts arise from competition limited resources .

Food production faces similar challenges ; yield decreases associated unpredictable weather patterns coupled growing demand require innovative solutions beyond current agricultural framework . As resource scarcity escalates – whether through natural disasters , systemic failures – societies face heightened tensions marked desperation when people fight limited supplies eventually leading breakdown order altogether .

8. Societal Division

Lastly another critical sign indicating impending apocalypse lies within societal divisions arising from ideological polarization . With social media platforms amplifying extreme views fostering hostile environments becoming increasingly common phenomenon seen all around the globe today .

Erosion trust institutions erodes ability communities work together solve collective problems whether climate change pandemics crime rates issues impacting society across board – divisions only deepen resulting gridlock progress making utopian visions seem further away than ever before .

When empathy wanes conflict arises individuals resort turn against each other rather than seeking collaborative solutions foster resilience required navigate potential apocalyptic realities ahead .

Conclusion

While predicting an apocalypse is fraught with uncertainty , recognizing these warning signs can help us prepare mitigate possible outcomes should worst-case scenarios unfold . Environmental degradation , geopolitical tensions , economic instability , pandemics technological dependence natural disasters resource scarcity societal division all interlinked creating web vulnerability facing humanity today .

Our best chance at survival lies within our willingness confront these issues holistically rather than remaining complacent believing everything remain status quo forever . By working together across borders towards sustainable practices equitable policies emphasizing empathy compassion humanity’s better nature—we cultivate resilience needed navigate uncertain times ahead while striving build brighter future generations yet come.

This article was originally published on MadgeWaggy.blogspot.com.

The post Warning Signs of an Impending Apocalypse to Watch for appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this article, I write about the trend of Celebrity Priests. So, I should define terms before continuing. When I refer to a Celebrity Priest, I do not mean a priest who happens to be well-known because of his virtues. Instead, I am referring to a trend of famous priests who are well-known not just because they have something good to say but because they are marketable as influencers and media figures because of good looks, youthfulness, and other attributes that facilitate viral media content.

Like most moderns, I spend more time than I should scrolling through various social media. For me, that means looking for videos to watch or listen to on YouTube and things to read on Twitter—I still can’t naturally call it . Now, I don’t want to go to Hell, so I stay away from TikTok and other more absurdly flashy and epilepsy-inducing social platforms. Also, I am under the age of 40 and not a woman, so I don’t use Facebook.

Much of what I watch or read has to do with the Catholic Faith; and because of that, the “algorithm” recommends things to me that fall under the umbrella of “Catholic content.” Among the most popular Catholic content is a stream of media that I can only refer to as “Celebrity Priest” media. More and more, I am seeing on my feeds videos of priests “reacting,” “responding,” or “reviewing” a host of things from the secular culture, whether that be movies, social media influencer videos, or stuff coming from the pope, among other things.

In addition, it is becoming more common to see priests recording videos of themselves in the same ways that Zoomers and undignified millennials do. Forgive me, but I am a bit of a Luddite when it comes to social media trends—and I truly despise almost everything that every pop-culture influencer does—so I don’t know what to call the videos. All I know is that I see priests doing stuff with selfies and jump cuts in their videos, basically trying to “Catholicize” the same garbage that people consume to waste their time.

The trend of priests acting in this way is bad enough, but there is more to be concerned about. In addition to the proliferation of these priest influencers—many of whom have become strikingly famous—it is clear that various media teams are behind the priests to help them promote their content.

While I personally stay in my lane and merely produce podcasts and written material, I do know a bit about how marketing and graphic design work when it comes to content production. It is clear that professional teams are producing the thumbnails, filming the videos, and generating the scripts and topics based on viral trend predictors for these priests. What is most disturbing, however, is that, in many cases, there is a clear intention by the producers to market the priest in a way that makes him look more handsome or attractive.

Of course, some priests are objectively handsome, and there is surely nothing wrong with this. However, there is a difference between Fr. So-and-So being handsome and marketing Fr. So-and-So in a way that accentuates his good looks. What is the point of this other than to attract women to watch the videos? Marketing teams and social-media graphics creators are well aware that in a sea of thumbnails, an attractive image will garner more clicks than a not attractive image. And, they are well aware that an attractive image of an attractive man will bring in clicks from women sucked in by the attraction.

I cannot for the life of me see how that could not be sinful.

In addition, it is not uncommon to see the most well-known of these priests in workout settings or even posting images of themselves flexing in gyms. Personally, I don’t think anyone should post an image of himself flexing, and a priest certainly should not do so; it is vainglorious, sensual, prideful, and seemingly gay.

Now, besides the most egregious offenders of the Celebrity Priest class who do things like showing off their muscles as if they are advertising on a dating app, the fact that they are becoming or have become bona fide “influencers” in the most secular sense of the term is troubling.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Disturbing Celebrity Priest Phenomenon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Deepest gratitude to our beloved Lew Rockwell, and to my good friend, Dr. Tom DiLorenzo, for inviting me here. I’m thrilled to be with you.

My topic is The Real Israel Versus Hasbara History. Hopefully some of you know what Hasbara is. When America’s regime historians reflect on history’s tragedies and travesties, they always praise Pax Americana. That is the idea that American empire, hegemony, brought peace to the world. Conveniently, they leave out the horrors of it.

Naturally, regime historians, the ones we are here to counter, speak a lot about Hitler. They hardly ever mention Hiroshima. Likewise, has Israel shaped its past, mixing some history with myth to render a myth history. The propaganda sustaining Israel’s counterfeit history is called Hasbara, which means explanation in Hebrew. Hasbara constructs serve to coat Israel’s real crimes against humanity with ideological respectability, to give them some purity of purpose.

Think of Hasbara as the steady supply of bogus artificial constructs to rape reality. Undeniably, compared to Hasbara, American foreign policy has a certain narrative talent. The injustices of imperial power notwithstanding, people are persuaded by the strut of it. Less obvious is the appeal of Israeli Hasbara and the Jewish supremacy that goes with it, and has seduced so many Christians into ignoring Christ’s teachings. Christ commands care, not for the oppressor and the predator, but for the poor and the oppressed.

Hasbara and official myth history aside, because of Gaza, you don’t have to know much history at all to arrive at the truth about Israel. Reality is truth. The reality of genocide gives rise to irrefutable truths. Because of Gazans, the living and the martyred, the truth about Israel is now ahistoric.

Shortly after October 7, with the commencement in Gaza of Israel’s Operation Swords of Iron, certain self-evident truths became crystal clear. By late October, Israel’s actions within and without Gaza had shown the world the absolute depravity of Israel, state and civil society.

One such emerged reality is that Palestinians, not Israeli Jews, as Hasbara teaches, are the most imperiled people in the world. Israelis, the most perilous. Another is that Israel, with overwhelming support from the Jewish Israeli public, has gleefully engaged in methodical, indiscriminate, industrial-scale murder and ethnic cleansing ongoing.

The Israel Defense Forces, IDF, were allowed to obliterate the fundamentals of physical, national, and economic life in Gaza, turning it into an uninhabitable post-apocalyptic wasteland. The strip has been reduced to its subsoil particulate elements only badly soiled. Gaza is now a mass grave along a small stretch of the Mediterranean Sea where living ghosts wander. Gaza’s soil is soaked through with a mix of millions of tons of building debris, the decaying bodies of tens of thousands of human beings, their pets, livestock, fauna and flora, all gone. An inferno of garbage, open sewage, and the byproducts and contaminants of munitions, like unexploded ordnance.

Said a scholar of the architecture of occupation: “Israel has stolen from Gaza’s Palestinians the very ability to produce food, or receive it, or use means of exchange to get it.” Banking was dismantled. Believe it or not, but under years of medieval blockade, Gaza’s farmers had, before October 7, fed a third of their people.

Indeed, Israel has systemized the mass murder and displacement of innocent Palestinian civilians, targeting them and their habitat for total warfare. Since war against civilians is a war on civilization, Israel, by extension, is the enemy of civilization.

Our ally Israel is a country in which genocide, snuff films, extrajudicial assassinations, rape, robbery, torture, and starvation of Palestinians are de facto legal. Israel is thus a criminal entity and a threat to the comity of nations. The indictment against Israel ought to have been hermetically sealed.

Israel’s ethnocide and genocide in Gaza is in violation of most systems of ethics known to man over intellectual history. It is in violation of God’s law, the Ten Commandments. These command not to covet, steal, or murder. It is in violation of libertarian law, the axiom of non-aggression. It is in violation of natural justice, the laws of war, although genocide is not war, as well as humanitarian law. And it is in violation of the systems of law within which the above is subsumed, the natural and the positive law.

Right and wrong are universal, not relative. The Sixth Commandment is neither opinion nor optional. Thou shalt not murder or mass murder is called a commandment for a reason. There is no tribal privilege clause attached to it. Like gentiles, Jews are enjoined against wanton murder. Yet Israelis now flout the Sixth Commandment with ugly audacity.

Over the months, I have closely observed Israel as it pulverizes population centers across the Levant. I’ve listened in Hebrew to Israeli Jewish public and political discourse. In Hebrew, the Jewish Israeli public personalities and the public express an impatient, snarling contempt for accusations of genocide, offering an unbroken stream of genocide justification Hasbara. It’s like Israeli Jews are yawning, waiting on the world to wake up to the fact that their lives do matter more, and that any aberrant action taken to make them feel safe must be allowed.

And it is allowed. Israel has played its genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza to a packed house, to the world. Israeli Jews don’t lack for facts, but most appear without the analytical and ethical faculties to examine their actions. They lead the unexamined lives of self-anointed superior beings. Societally, majorities appear to project the sense that their sectarian supremacy transcends the universal moral order to which international law, the natural law, and the Decalogue give expression.

The natural law is a system of ethics knowable through reason, revelation, and experience, whichever floats your boat. Because it’s anchored in the very existential nature of man and reality, the natural law is the highest law known to man and is therefore deductively true and just. An example is the libertarian non-aggression axiom. For reasons obvious, there should be no difference between how classical liberals or anarchists understand the non-aggression axiom, which is the organizing principle of libertarianism. Minarchist, anarchist, or statist, genocide is forbidden.

The positive law, on the other hand, is the creation of the state. Legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. In teasing out right from wrong, we discriminate between acts that are criminal because the state has criminalized them as opposed to acts which are universally criminal. Most civilizing systems of ethics stipulate that no one has a right to kill a single innocent human being, let alone hundreds of thousands of members of a group. There again, Israel’s sacking of Gaza is universally evil.

Lest I be accused of arguing in circles around the definition of genocide, I’ll briefly mention genocide in the context of international versus the natural law. Israel has aced the genocide bar, namely the prohibitions in Article II of the Genocide Convention on destroying a group in whole or in part and/or making life unbearable for that group. Mens rea, intent in Western jurisprudence and judicial philosophy is a component of genocide.

If Palestinians were accorded equality before the law, any law, national or international, then by 2023’s end, logically and perhaps legally Israelis would have been seen as having both spoken their guilty minds and acted out their genocidal intent on the ground. Mass murder is never unintentional when you know it is inevitable and incidental to your mission. If you know in advance that your actions will cause the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents, attached to your criminal actions is a guilty mind, mens rea.

America shares in Israel’s genocidal guilty mind. The U.S. regime has been a worshipful partner in Israel’s vice. It has supplied munitions for mass murder. It has provided diplomatic cover. It has issued seven vetoes and abstentions in the UN Security Council to enable Israel’s continued atrocities. America has menaced countries, legal organs, and American residents for wanting to expel, arrest, protest, or boycott Israelis.

America’s helped Israeli Hasbara in asserting self-defense to justify collective punishment, and America has helped Israel to frame state terrorism as self-defense, normalizing the structural violence that is the state of Israel. The genocide of Gazans was happily and willingly underwritten by the United States government, the American political class, and its Julius Streicher media, which even mid-murder, describe Israelis as victims.

On the matter of industrial-scale mass murder, international law is not at odds with the natural law or the libertarian law. Such is the case of Article Two of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It articulates mostly a set of negative rights. Their enforcement imposes no burden on anybody but the sadistic, sociopathic serial killers under discussion.

Most libertarians would concede that the state now acts extrajudicially, and that any remnants of the natural law once embedded in the US Constitution have long since been buried beneath the rubble of legislation and statute. Let us say then that to the extent that law, local, international, tribal, upholds no more than natural rights, law is okay. To the extent that law violates the rights to life, liberty, and property, law is bad. To the extent state law agrees with the natural law, to that extent it’s inoffensive. By extension, it matters not who upholds the rights of Palestinians to life and land, just so long as someone does. It matters not which state, which federal official, or international organization, or which platoon, Hezbollah or the Houthis, just so long as someone does.

In America, federalism means divided sovereignty, which if we are to take James Madison seriously, should make it difficult for states to begin executing their residents. Why would it be a matter of respect for a country’s sovereignty to allow Israel to systematically occupy and subjugate a population on the off-chance that they eliminate some terrorists, whom by now most consider resistance fighters? Most should.

Make no mistake, in human rights law, there is a responsibility to protect a community that is being evicted and eradicated. There’s a right to resist, under the Hague regulations on belligerent occupation. Neither offends the natural law. Resistance fighters argue that they are heeding this calling, the responsibility to protect. Israel ought to have been forcibly stopped, its innocent victims protected. You don’t placate a John Wayne Gacy and a Jeffrey Dahmer. You stop them, but not as the axis of genocide sees it.

The Arab societies are non-woke societies. The fact that Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Yemen were and are largely traditional societies, not co-opted woke societies, has certainly helped the West justify their mistreatment. You see, the woke masters of the Western universe consider non-woke societies as without the natural right of resistance. Their resistance we call terrorism.

Given that nobody has effectively upheld the legal responsibility to protect Palestinians, all but the spirit of Gaza is gone.

Consider the great Palestinian return to Northern Gaza in January of 2025. The erasure of over 2,000 Gazan bloodlines, family trees gone. An epic event took place despite that erasure. Processions of Palestinians in their thousands returned to their ruined homes in Northern Gaza. You see, the land is central to Palestinian identity. What greater proof is there of the ancestral homesteader claims that Palestinians have to Palestine than this devotion, this resilience?

Contrast this Palestinian rootedness and resilience with Israel’s squirrelly northern and southern sett- settler populations. Israeli Jews have not returned to towns in Israel’s north or south. Rather, their love of the land is predicated on its ethnic cleansing. Only if their army obliterates even the slightest danger posed by their indigenous neighbors would Israeli settlers return.

For yet more of a contrast, look too at the repulsive levels of Israeli environmental destruction in Gaza. This speaks among many other things to Israel’s profound alienation from an ecosystem it shares and claims to care about. Israeli Jews have a greed for the land, not a love of it.

Back to our nemesis, the state.

What about the moral authority of a democratic state? Surely our ally Israel shares our democratic values, or so we are lectured. Well, murder with majority approval is still murder, whomever the perpetrator. Whether it is committed by the decree of the one dictator or the will of the many, by actors within or without the state, by the designated good guys or by the bad guys, murder of innocents is always murder.

You would be correct to conclude, however, that this 21st century holocaust is popular.

Thumping majorities across Israel’s public and private sectors have throughout justified, finessed, and fibbed about their army’s AI high-tech-driven depopulation and extermination orgy in Gaza. Eager to write the Palestinian obituary as late in the genocide as February of 2025, 80% of Jewish Israelis signaled their support for Trump’s plan for Gaza. Only 3% thought it immoral.

Trump’s plan is an extension and completion of Joe Biden’s genocide, which included the internal displacement, depopulation, and large-scale extermination of the Strip and its people. First, Donald Trump has proposed to cover up Israel’s crime of genocide, removing the pitiful exhibits from the scene of the crime. Next, he planned to conclude Joe’s genocide by scattering the survivors across the Middle East. Israel will have been rescued. Gazans would have ceased to exist as a nation. The liquidation and extermination campaign in the Gaza ghetto would have been completed.

Debating and committing genocidal violence, forcibly displacing millions, starving a subjugated population, all this many of Trump backers called out-of-the-box thinking. Who said crime doesn’t pay? When the superpower inverts the moral order of the universe, the crime of all crime pays and then some.

In any case, genocide has won a plebiscite in Israel. No surprise. Remember, the IDF is Israel. It’s a citizen army in which every Israeli must serve. It’s the voice of the Jewish Israeli commonwealth. Israel’s sons and daughters are the stars in the country’s genocide constellation. We’ve watched them level Gaza, vaporize young men picking their way through rubble as though in a video game, mock the victims, snipe their kids, rape their men, rob their businesses, rummage through the intimate effects of people dead and dispossessed, invade and explode entire residential buildings. True, all Israeli Jews are conscripted and must enlist in this army. However, the military draft does not compel a conscript to commit, chronicle, and crow over what is institutionalized, legalized serial-killer-type crime. The pride and joy seen, recorded, and then transmitted to the world from thousands of IDF mobile phones over months has been voluntary, spontaneous, and organic to Israeli society’s tenor and project.

So please let us hear no Nuremberg defense. “I was only following orders” must not be tolerated in mitigation of the IDF. The evidence is conclusive, idea of shoot, loot, and bomb for fun. No doubt the Israeli state is genocidal, but by the numbers and by their statements, Israeli society is as sociopathic. From janitor to general, from soldiers to Supreme Court justices. As uncomfortable as this is for us, for the libertarian individualist, the facts are clear. On the matter of the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza, Israeli Jews, Israeli Jewish society does not stand apart from the Jewish state.

Throughout, polled opinion in Israel was not split between Jewish Israelis for mass murder versus Israelis against mass murder and ethnic cleansing. No. The division in Israeli society has been between Jewish Israelis for current levels of violence against Gazans versus those for greater or lesser industry in what were already industrial levels and methods of murder.

By the polls, nothing outside their self-righteous and self-obsessed selves mattered to a preponderance of Jewish Israelis. Israeli Jews, by and large, have become a sorority of Jewish supremacists, and Palestinians have paid a terrible price for Israel’s systemic societal sociopathy.

Ask Israelis about Palestinian babies shredded to bits, real beheadings, and they’ll dish Hasbara. “It’s all in self-defense, and it’s all the doing of a third party.” Guess who made them do the genocide? Hamas. “It’s not me,” says the criminal. “Hamas ate my homework.” “I mean my… I mean my conscience.” This is Israel’s third-party theory of culpability. Israel vomits it up, the West laps it up.

The Hamas made me mass murder non sequitur exposes Israel’s Hasbara for its irrationality. Since when do you blame a third party for your ongoing crimes in real time?

Put it this way, the state in which you live has no right to evict you from your home and bomb your neighborhood because its agents believe outlaws hide in your neighborhood. The crime of passion defense is bad enough. The third-party theory of culpability must never bolster it. The crime of passion defense we associate with a single event, not with sadistic serial killer… Serial killers loosed for months on end on millions of innocents across the Via Dolorosa that is Gaza.

Yes, Israel has an historic passion, all right, but for methodical mass murder. See, the idea of… It’s not a fighting force, it’s an air force. Judged from its actions over time, this air force’s objectives are not to defeat a regular army, but to pound population centers into submission in Gaza, across the Levant, and beyond. What other country has not only had killer practices codified in law, but also named… The Dahiya Doctrine is named after the southern suburbs of Beirut, upon whose Shia civilians the Israeli Air Force has perfected its predation. Mowing the lawn. That’s the term used across Israel to signal murder sprees periodical against Palestinian civilians to keep populations subdued.

Fans of true crime TV, me, will remember the Highway I-5 serial killer. Imagine his killer craft being dubbed the I-5 Doctrine, and Wikipedia describing this infamous serial killer murderer of women as an originator of the I-5 Doctrine.

Without a doubt, public protest too in Israel has followed a strictly “me, me” solipsistic self-interest. There was little transcendent humanity whatsoever in Israeli hostage protests. Remember this. By the numbers and by their own words, most Israeli Jews were simply demanding a return of their hostages. Said one Israeli pundit, “Israeli wants… want… Israelis want their hostages back. They don’t want Gaza back.”

If the Israeli state is a criminal entity, what then can be said about the US? Israel’s war on Gaza, the West Bank, and the Greater Levant is America’s war. Like it or not, Gaza is a genocide. We hear disinterested mumblings about the national interest, uh, “Don’t talk to me about Gaza. It’s of no national interest to the United States of America.” I’m afraid it’s too late for the national interest dodge. The US is an interventionist hegemon. It has aided, abetted, and partaken in via reconnaissance an extermination campaign in Gaza.

Besides often being immoral, the national interest argument is a form of statism. The premise of national interest political pragmatism leads to this perverse logic. If enabling the slaughter of Gazans and Iraqis happen to be in the American national interest, then those endeavors would have been justified in accordance with the national interest standards. In other words, if the US government considered genocide in the national interest, then genocide it is. America should act as the divine… on the… as… on its divine rights as global judge, jury, and executioner. No, genocide is not a foreign policy matter, it is a moral matter.

And the United States’ energetic support for the Gaza holocaust is a defining event in the annals of American foreign policy aberrations, and in the national life. While American foreign policy is a museum of horrors, Gaza is now the main exhibit.

Why is Gaza qualitatively different from foreign policy deformities that went before? Here’s why, in my opinion. So far, America’s foreign policy has been largely focused on regime change program where collateral damage is largely concealed but framed as incidental to a political program. Again and again, the American masters of the universe have gone to war to make the world woke. Namely, make it over in America’s image, as well as make the world safe for Israel, of course. Mass murder within the American foreign policy framework has generally been secondary to a program of warring to make the world work. Crudely put, “Be like us or we’ll kill you.”

In Gaza, however, America’s participated in mass murder for the sake of murder. In Gaza, Uncle Sam has finally achieved an official or formal inversion of all universal values.

What the US has approved and assisted in Gaza is a primetime 21st-century holocaust. In a sense, Israel has affected a radical ethical inversion in America. Sects of Christianity can no longer distinguish Satan from God, mutually exclusive categories. They favor apex edicts over the commandment of the prince of peace. But you are what you do. The Israeli state is genocidal, not by virtue of its actions and the declared intent accompanying these actions, not because it has been denounced as genocidal by so-called anti-Semites and terrorist sympathizers. Said Jesus, “Therefore, by their fruits, you will know them.”

Another of Hasbarah’s aims is to frame IDF’s ongoing extermination campaign against the population of cornered civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as byproducts of war, as incidental to a just war prosecuted by brave fighters.

If it’s portrayed as a war crime, genocide can be dismissed as no more than a case of, “Oops, bad things happen in the butcher shop of war.” In Gaza, however, Israel has waged genocide, not war. Dressing up a canned hunt as a war is pure Hasbarah. Genocide is not a war. The genocide-as-war-crime conceptualization provides cover and lends authority to criminals and criminality. You mitigate and minimize genocide when you call it a war crime. You see, genocide is not a war crime to which a set of mitigating and explanatory legal defenses can attach. Genocide is a standalone, indefensible crime of all crimes for which there are no legal or moral defenses. There are no extenuating circumstances, historical, legal, or other, for genocide.

True, Israel’s genocide has been disrupted by asymmetric warfare from non-state Palestinian resistance fighters, but there is an enormous power differential between occupier and occupied.

That the serial killers encounter organized regional resistance does not make genocide a war.

So far, I’ve anatomized what Israel state and society has done to the Gaza Strip and its people since October 7, but what have Gazans, the living and the martyred, accomplished? A great deal.

Outwardly captives, Palestinians are truly liberated from the liberal political propaganda that grips the West. They have made us see Israel as an irreparably corrupt force, morally and militarily. The genocide of Gaza has very plainly invalidated Israel and validated the Palestinian cause.

A moral, sentient human being need know nothing much about the history of the region to arrive at this conclusion. Here’s why. You’ve seen Israel for the contradiction it is. Israel astonishingly has engaged in the mother of all performative contradictions, denying genocide while publicly committing genocide, effectively asserting a birthright to do genocide. Israel demands to exist as a privileged protected aberration, carrying out satanic deeds with universal blessings and absolution. Think about it. Caught in the protracted planful act of committing genocide, the guilty party, Israel, persist in claiming for itself the right to kill and deceive without being considered and treated as a killer and con artist. The chutzpah.

To no avail, human action, as Mises taught us, is the undeniable key to man-made reality. Israel and the US have acted. They’ve been exposed. Ethnocide, depopulation, and domicide are never justified and can never be exculpated. To assert that you are just and justified as you carry out that which cannot be just or justified, this is to embody the most grotesque contradiction and to be less than human, less than coherent. At minimum, Israel deserves the revulsion and isolation reserved for entities whose existence is a confidence trick and a fraud upon us all.

The same ahistoric Hoppean argumentation, God bless Hoppe, applied to invalidate Israel will serve here to validate the Palestinians’ reality as they have been telling it over decades. Israel’s televised genocide has corroborated the reality of the Palestinians, their reason for rage, and their rights to resistance and recompense.

Palestinians have been telling us for decades that they have been set upon by murderers and thieves. Palestinians have told us they are being killed and robbed as a matter of course. Their reality has been irrefutably affirmed since October 7. Now, if supporters of Israel’s genocide in Gaza deny this, they too would be fraudsters living a lie. The liar’s life of lies we expose by compelling the denier of the Palestinian holocaust to live his own lie.

Deniers of the Palestinian reality, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, Biden, Bibi, Blinken, Douglas Murray, Dennis Prager, would be parachuted into occupied Gaza. Genocide would become their lived reality, not their rhetorical reality.

Running here and there as tanks advance on the denier, ducking and diving bombardments from above, as if you can escape the death radius of American-made 2,500-pound bombs. These Holocaust deniers would be recorded scratching for scraps, carrying jerricans of contaminated drinking water back to nylon dwellings, climbing over kilometers of decaying structures through ruins and twisted metal. Our camera will find these Holocaust deniers queuing with thousands to use a single functioning toilet, plumbing having been destroyed by the Israelis. The denier of the Palestinian holocaust would be filmed up close, suffering dysentery, sepsis, and starvation, intubated, amputated, or C-sectioned without narcotics. Twisting on a hospital floor smeared by blood and waste. Listening to the incessant whirring above of Israel’s quadcopter killer drones. The Holocaust denier will therefore live this absolute truth, the ontological truth of Israel’s final solution to its Palestinian problem.

The nature of Palestinian reality is, as they’ve been telling it, QED proposition proven.

In conclusion, books are now being written more about Israeli and Jewish anguish than about the victims. Being Jewish after Gaza is one.

Israel’s theocracy, Israel’s moral and military degeneration, Israel’s looming collapse. When did it begin? Right wing, left wing? Why? Why? Why? Everyone is beating on breast about Israel.

An apt response are the words of a character from Southern literature, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

And neither should you worry about the perpetrators of genocide only to the extent that punishment is exacted upon Israel for what it has done to the Palestinians, that reparations and restitution are extracted from Israel in perpetuity for the Palestinians. Thank you.

The post The Real Israel vs. Hasbara History appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

This is a good show. It shows what it’s like to fly these old WWII cargo planes in the NW Territories of Canada. Working on the planes is unforgiving. Everyone has to pitch in. I’ve never cleaned snow off the wings of a plane. At Chelan Airways, Nick, the owner/pilot, did it. I didn’t volunteer. To fall off the wing into an ice-cold Lake Chelan would not be a pleasant experience.

I’ve worked on a DC-3 (double engine change in St.Thomas, Virgin Islands), and have toured a DC-4 (Salmon & Cocaine Airways), but I’ve never worked on or been in a C-46. There was a C-46 parked on the tarmac near Cruzeiro Air at Belem International Airport when I was there. It never moved. 

As usual, the show is always about the pilots, even the secretary/cargo organizer, but rarely about the aircraft mechanics. Typical. 

The post Ice Pilots appeared first on LewRockwell.

The first few weeks of the second Trump Administration were exciting and hopeful. Elon Musk, along with the support of a large majority of Americans, was going to dive into the Swamp in order free the American citizens. It actually looked as though it were going to happen. The pentagon would be audited, Ft. Knox would be visited, the Fed would be audited, and TRILLIONS would be cut from the budget! But alas, even the richest man in the world (armed with public opinion) would be stopped cold. None of the above would come. Government spending and debt are expected to skyrocket even further!

The post Neocon GOP Strikes Again! DOGE Is Out … Deficits & Debts Are Still In appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.  

Antiwar.com Blog

 

The post Marco Rubio’s Bizarre War on Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Grayzone

 

The post Docs expose Israeli influence on UK anti-genocide protest prosecutions appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

US Africa Command confirmed that no civilians were killed or injured in a press release, adding that “protecting civilians remains a vital part of the command’s operations to promote a more secure and stable Africa.”

https://nypost.com/2025/02/03/us-news/video-shows-trump-ordered-airstrikes-in-somalia/

Tell it to the Houthis and to the Palestinians slaughtered by the bombs we supply to Netanyahu.  

Trump’s been into the Somalia bombing for quite a long time: US Bombed Somalia Amid Russian Invasion of Ukraine | Common Dreams

Bombs and Propaganda

 

 

The post Bombing Somalia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Neal:

The anniversary of the Liberty Attack- A couple of us here have been discussing this event-

I plan to go up to Arlington for the ceremony- This video is a discussion with a historian who makes many documentaries about various events, and here he interviews Philip Tourney, a survivor of the attack.

The post The Liberty incident, June 8, 1967 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Pluto9999 wrote:

Hi Lew

Although a true “cashless” society would indeed be a hardship, Mr Barnes prediction of everyone actually having to contract electronically is shortsighted, in that he minimizes the power of the free – or in this case – the black market.  Despite the enormous waste of resources to combat the drug trade, it still hums along, avoiding most crackdowns.  In a “cashless” society that same power will be unleashed in providing people with another cash asset – most likely gold – to facilitate transactions.  In fact, in an ironic twist, the state cracking down on cash may finally move us toward a solid non-fiat currency – gold.

Have a great Tax Freedom Day June 12, and thank you for all that you and the Mises Institute do!

 

The post Here’s How a Cashless Society Will Impact the World appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Ron Desantis Says Property Taxes are a Scam: Damn Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-grande-riorganizzazione-degli-ae4)

COPRIRE IL DOLLARO E RICAPITALIZZARE L'AMERICA

I mercati hanno iniziato a scontare una ricapitalizzazione degli Stati Uniti il ​​giorno dopo le elezioni presidenziali, quando è stato chiaro che sarebbe stato Trump a vincere. È più comune parlare di ricapitalizzazione in termini di un'azienda, ma lo stesso concetto può essere applicato a un Paese. Fa riferimento a una ristrutturazione del quadro finanziario ed economico di un'entità, oltre a stabilizzare la struttura del capitale. Per gli Stati Uniti, questo deve essere fatto sui seguenti livelli:

• Debito pubblico e salute fiscale;

• Stabilità del dollaro;

• Rilancio economico.

Se il team DOGE avrà successo, il suo sforzo contribuirà notevolmente a consolidare le finanze del governo federale e a stabilizzare il dollaro. Eviterebbe anche una crisi del debito sovrano, poiché la domanda di titoli del Tesoro statunitensi aumenterebbe quasi certamente. E se riuscisse a tagliare in modo netto l'attuale struttura normativa e amministrativa, ciò contribuirebbe notevolmente alla rivitalizzazione economica. Ci vorrebbe del tempo, ma assisteremmo a una rinascita delle piccole imprese in questo Paese se lo Stato profondo venisse smantellato. Allo stesso tempo tassi d'interesse normalizzati contribuirebbero a invertire cinque decenni di finanziarizzazione, il che aprirebbe la strada a una rinascita della classe media americana, un tempo fiorente.

Ma non si può essere totalmente ottimisti: anche se tutto ciò si verificasse, non cancellerebbe 50 anni di pessime politiche economiche dall'oggi al domani. Né cancellerebbe il debito nazionale di circa $36.000 miliardi.

Ed è qui che emerge un nuovo, curioso piano...

La senatrice del Wyoming, Cynthia Lummis, ha presentato un disegno di legge per istituire una “Riserva strategica in Bitcoin” per il governo degli Stati Uniti. La legge propone che il Dipartimento del Tesoro e la FED acquistino 200.000 bitcoin all'anno per cinque anni. L'obiettivo è accumulare un milione di bitcoin, quasi il 5% dell'offerta totale. Ai prezzi attuali, ciò equivale a oltre $100 miliardi in Bitcoin, ma se la FED portasse a termine questo piano, il prezzo in dollari aumenterebbe notevolmente, probabilmente di 5 volte o più. Donald Trump ha espresso il suo sostegno a questo piano, così come numerosi dirigenti aziendali.

Marc Andreessen, fondatore di Netscape e della società di venture capital Andreessen Horowitz, è uno di questi. Di recente ha rivelato di aver trascorso circa metà del suo tempo a Mar-a-Lago a lavorare con la nuova amministrazione Trump dopo le elezioni. Alla domanda su quale sarebbe la destinazione d'uso di questa “Riserva Strategica in Bitcoin”, le risposte fornite sono vaghe, incentrate sulla stabilità economica, la sicurezza nazionale e il rimborso del debito pubblico... ma c'è anche un altro aspetto. La mia scommessa è che Bitcoin sarà reso una forma di collaterale e quindi utilizzato per ricapitalizzare il sistema bancario e coprire i mercati dei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi. Bitcoin sarebbe perfetto per questo compito.

Naturalmente questo non era il suo scopo originale, non è per questo che mi sono avvicinato a questa tecnologia nel 2011. All'epoca ero interessato a Bitcoin come moneta, non come un meccanismo per contribuire a ricapitalizzare il sistema finanziario attuale. Tuttavia ho imparato a non lasciare che la “perfezione” fosse nemica della “scelta migliore”.

IL PIANO “AMERICA FIRST” SI CONCRETIZZA

Trump ha nominato Howard Lutnick come Segretario al Commercio. Non credo che sia molto noto, ma è l'amministratore delegato della società di investimenti Cantor Fitzgerald. Essa offre ai clienti istituzionali una vasta gamma di servizi finanziari ed è anche uno dei 24 Primary dealer del Federal Reserve System. Si tratta di una posizione davvero privilegiata, dato che i Primary dealer partecipano all'asta dei titoli del Tesoro USA e ricevono accesso diretto ai finanziamenti a basso costo della FED attraverso la “finestra di sconto” e il mercato pronti contro termine. Tutto questo per dire che Lutnick è un vero insider ed è in sintonia con i meccanismi che stanno alla base del sistema finanziario basato sul dollaro. Ed è qui che la storia si fa interessante...

All'inizio di quest'anno Cantor Fitzgerald ha investito $600 milioni in una società chiamata Tether. Cantor ora detiene circa il 5% della società. Tether emette l'omonima stablecoin in dollari: una criptovaluta che funziona in modo simile a Bitcoin, solo che è agganciata 1 a 1 al dollaro. Ciò significa che un USDT equivale sempre a circa 1 dollaro. Mantenere questo ancoraggio è piuttosto semplice: gli utenti acquistano USDT con dollari, Tether prende poi quei dollari e li investe in vari asset, tra cui titoli del Tesoro USA, Bitcoin e oro. Questo crea una riserva di asset a supporto di ogni USDT emesso.

Poco dopo l'investimento di Cantor in Tether, negli ambienti finanziari ha iniziato a diffondersi la voce che stesse anche sviluppando un fondo per prestare dollari a fronte di garanzie in Bitcoin, con Tether come elemento fondamentale di tale infrastruttura. E ora possiamo vedere il piano iniziare a prendere forma...

Sotto la guida di Cantor Fitzgerald, vedremo il sistema finanziario tradizionale iniziare a prestare dollari coperti da Bitcoin, proprio come accade con altri beni durevoli come gli immobili. Ciò significa che il governo statunitense potrà prendere in prestito dollari coperti dalla sua “Riserva Strategica in Bitcoin”, ottenendo così una seconda fonte di finanziamento oltre all'emissione di titoli del Tesoro. L'effetto netto è che il dollaro sarà in una certa misura coperto da Bitcoin e quest'ultimo sarà monetizzato. Ciò a sua volta stimolerà anche la domanda di USDT, in quanto rappresenta lo strato intermedio tra i dollari tradizionali e Bitcoin. Con l'afflusso di capitali verso USDT, Tether li investirà in asset di riserva, rafforzando ulteriormente il dollaro; e con un Primary dealer come Cantor che ora sostiene l'azienda, possiamo aspettarci che Tether investirà anche in titoli del Tesoro statunitensi.

Più ci penso, più mi rendo conto che si tratta di un piano davvero brillante.

Il governo degli Stati Uniti acquisterà un milione di bitcoin nei prossimi cinque anni per creare la sua riserva strategica. Nel frattempo il sistema finanziario sta creando l'infrastruttura necessaria per erogare prestiti in Bitcoin come garanzia. Ciò significa che la “Riserva Strategica in Bitcoin” coprirà il dollaro. Allo stesso tempo altre istituzioni e individui useranno questi prestiti garantiti da Bitcoin, consentendo a quest'ultimo di fungere da riserva personale. Questo convoglierà un maggiore capitale in Tether, che a sua volta acquisterà titoli del Tesoro statunitensi, cosa che a sua volta sosterrà le finanze del governo americano riducendo la necessità di investimenti esteri. Una tale dinamica sbloccherà un'immensa quantità di valore attualmente depositata in Bitcoin. È logico che gran parte di questo capitale verrà utilizzato per stimolare l'attività economica e forse anche per iniziare a risolvere il problema delle infrastrutture americane in rovina.

E non deve per forza fermarsi a Bitcoin...

LA RIMONETIZZAZIONE DELL'ORO

Il governo degli Stati Uniti possiede ancora 8.133,46 tonnellate d'oro. Si tratta della più grande riserva aurea conosciuta al mondo. Precedenti funzionari, tra cui l'ex-presidente della FED, Ben Bernanke, hanno sempre minimizzato la questione. Quando gli venne chiesto perché il governo degli Stati Uniti detenesse ancora oro, Bernanke rispose che era “per tradizione”... a dir poco assurda come risposta. Ovviamente il governo degli Stati Uniti ha sempre riconosciuto l'importanza strategica della sua enorme riserva aurea, altrimenti l'avrebbe venduta molto tempo fa. Se il governo monetizza Bitcoin come descritto sopra, è ragionevole che monetizzi anche l'oro. La stessa infrastruttura utilizzata per garantire Bitcoin potrebbe essere utilizzata per l'oro.

È interessante notare che il Dipartimento del Tesoro degli Stati Uniti contabilizza ancora le sue riserve auree a un valore contabile di $42,22 l'oncia in bilancio. Questo valore stima l'oro del governo statunitense a $10,4 miliardi... una goccia nell'oceano oggi. Tuttavia l'oro oggi viene scambiato oltre $3.000 l'oncia mentre scrivo. Le riserve auree statunitensi valgono circa $800 miliardi ai prezzi correnti e il prezzo dell'oro salirebbe ancora di più se venisse rimonetizzato. Un aumento del prezzo dell'oro (in dollari) ricapitalizzerebbe ulteriormente l'America e contribuirebbe a fornire un'altra soluzione al debito nazionale.

Infatti negli ultimi anni abbiamo assistito a numerose proposte per operazioni del Dipartimento del Tesoro coperte dall'oro. L'ex-capo stratega di Trump, Steve Bannon, ha suggerito che la seconda amministrazione Trump potrebbe perseguire politiche monetarie coperte dall'oro nel tentativo di ridurre il debito nazionale; anche l'ex-candidata di Trump alla FED, Judy Shelton, ha promosso l'idea di titoli del Tesoro coperti dall'oro.

Inoltre il Project 2025 della Heritage Foundation richiede esplicitamente la rimonetizzazione dell'oro. Trump vi ha preso le distanze durante la campagna elettorale, ma due dei suoi nuovi membri del gabinetto vi hanno contribuito direttamente, tra cui il direttore entrante dell'OMB Russell Vought, il più influente per quanto riguarda le questioni monetarie.

Ripristinare il ruolo monetario dell'oro all'interno del sistema finanziario basato sul dollaro aumenterebbe quasi certamente la fiducia globale nel biglietto verde e nei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi. Insieme alla monetizzazione di Bitcoin, questo potrebbe anche sbloccare migliaia di miliardi di dollari di valore intrappolato che potrebbero essere utilizzati per ripagare il debito nazionale.

DAVVERO POTREBBE ACCADERE?

Prima di tre anni fa non pensavo che nulla di simile potesse mai essere possibile. Ero “black-pilled”, come si dice oggi: non pensavo che il sistema potesse essere riformato, soprattutto a causa di un'esperienza passata, ovvero quella di Ron Paul nel 2012. All'epoca esisteva un sito chiamato The Daily Paul attraverso il quale i sostenitori riportavano tutto ciò che vedevano accadere nelle loro contee e nei loro stati. I media tradizionali, inclusa Fox News, facevano di tutto per far sembrare Ron Paul un pazzo senza alcun supporto popolare; la realtà è che aveva il Partito Repubblicano contro. Arrivò addirittura un momento in cui un numero significativo di suoi delegati venne eletto alla convention nazionale, i quali avevano intenzione di votare per Ron Paul come candidato repubblicano alla presidenza. Ma gli imbrogli erano proprio dietro l'angolo: il Partito Repubblicano arrivò ​​al punto di revocare le credenziali a intere liste di delegati di Ron Paul e poi a sostituirli con quei nomi che più gli aggradava.

Per il Partito Repubblicano nel suo complesso, si trattava solo di assicurarsi che l'elettore repubblicano medio credesse che Ron Paul fosse un candidato marginale con idee folli. Non voleva che la gente sentisse cosa avesse realmente da dire, perché sapeva che avrebbe trovato eco in molti elettori. Una giornalista di nome Deborah Smarth ha scritto un libro su quanto accaduto durante quella stagione delle primarie repubblicane, intitolato America's Lost Opportunity: Stolen Victories 2012.

La Smarth ha documentato molti esempi di pratiche ingannevoli e ostili da parte del Partito Repubblicano durante quella campagna elettorale. Inutile dire che il cinismo era tutto quello che mi sono portato dietro dopo quell'esperienza, soprattutto quando si vede un candidato che sosteneva la riforma fiscale e un ritorno ai principi fondanti dell'America venir sostituito da un sostenitore dei globalisti come Mitt Romney.

Mi sono, quindi, aggrappato al cinismo per un decennio. Per il momento, però, l'ho messo da parte: c'è qualcosa di diverso in quello che sta succedendo oggi. Considerati tutti i punti che abbiamo collegato in questo saggio, e tutte le briciole di pane che ci hanno portato fin qui e raccolte nel mio ultimo libro intitolato Il Grande Default, credo che all'agenda “America First” gli si debba dare una possibilità. Certo, non è filosoficamente coerente come il piano di Ron Paul, ma è certamente migliore di quello che abbiamo ora ed è decisamente migliore di quello che i globalisti vorrebbero imporre.

Ecco cosa c'è di diverso in quello che sta succedendo oggi... Stiamo assistendo a una strana coalizione di giganti della tecnologia, addetti ai lavori di Wall Street, i nuovi media (con Joe Rogan e Tucker Carlson come protagonisti) ed ex-Democratici che si uniscono attorno al team di Trump e alla sua agenda “America First”. Anche Robert F. Kennedy Jr. è a bordo e il suo cognome rappresenta forse la dinastia politica più iconica del Partito Democratico nella storia americana. Sulla stessa linea Joe Rogan ha appoggiato Bernie Sanders nel 2016; ora sostiene attivamente il programma “America-First”.

Questa non è altro che una controrivoluzione contro il programma globalista. 

È di natura apartitica ed è guidata da qualcosa di più dell'interesse personale: è guidata dall'autoconservazione. Di chi? Del sistema bancario commerciale statunitense. Quindi sono convinto che lo sforzo di riforma a cui stiamo assistendo oggi sia sincero. C'è un piano in atto e non ha nulla a che vedere con l'amministrazione Trump del 2016, la quale nominò un gruppo di vecchi neoconservatori repubblicani (neocon) che alla fine fecero saltare tutto in aria. Ovviamente non so se i NY Boys e l'amministrazione Trump riusciranno a portare a termine il loro piano, ma penso che abbiano una ragionevole possibilità di successo. Sarà affascinante osservare come si evolverà il tutto.

E ci sono anche importanti implicazioni per gli investimenti...

INVESTIRE IN UN MONDO IN CUI L'AMERICA È AL PRIMO POSTO

Se ciò di cui abbiamo discusso oggi si realizzerà, entreremo in un mondo che nessuno di noi ha mai conosciuto prima. Non avrei mai pensato, nemmeno per un secondo, che una cosa del genere sarebbe stata possibile ma se i puntini si uniscono come li abbiamo uniti, ci troveremo in un mondo deflazionistico in cui la massa monetaria statunitense si ridurrà, così come la dimensione del governo federale stesso.

Questa non è una buona notizia per i multipli di valutazione nei mercati azionari. I titoli tecnologici in forte crescita, attualmente scambiati oltre 30X il valore di vendita, quasi certamente torneranno a livelli di valutazione più ragionevoli. Non credo però che questo scenario porterebbe a un'Armageddon nel mercato azionario, semplicemente perché il capitale d'investimento troverebbe probabilmente interessanti le azioni statunitensi in un mondo in cui la spesa pubblica è sotto controllo e la regolamentazione non è apertamente ostile alle imprese e al commercio. Inoltre il mondo che stiamo descrivendo è un mondo in cui 50 anni di finanziarizzazione verrebbero gradualmente invertiti.

Altro tassello che si inserisce nella "grande riorganizzazione" degli Stati Uniti. Oltre 40 anni di finanziarizzazione (qual è la "città nella città" più finanziarizzata del mondo?) vengono finalmente invertiti.https://t.co/CreSfPyX8e

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) May 23, 2025

In questo mondo, il mercato azionario tornerebbe gradualmente a rispecchiare l'economia reale. Proprio come ai vecchi tempi. Naturalmente ci saranno delle aziende che ne trarranno vantaggio e altre no. Nel frattempo Bitcoin e oro continueranno a salire in dollari. Per Bitcoin non c'è altro da fare che salire se il governo degli Stati Uniti inizierà ad acquistare 200.000 unità all'anno. Pensate a questo: ci saranno solo 21 milioni di bitcoin in circolazione, ma 19,8 milioni di questi sono già stati minati e ne restano solo 1,2 milioni da immettere in circolazione. Non solo, ma il protocollo di Bitcoin riduce esponenzialmente il numero di nuovi bitcoin minati nel tempo. Possiamo calcolare con certezza matematica che l'ultimo blocco non verrà minato prima del 2140; sono 116 anni da oggi e questa scarsità è il motivo per cui Bitcoin è prezioso come asset finanziario.

La prospettiva rialzista per l'oro in questo scenario non è così diretta. Infatti ci si aspetterebbe che la deflazione risulterà negativa per il suo prezzo in dollari. La rimonetizzazione dell'oro aumenterà la domanda da parte delle banche centrali e degli investitori istituzionali. Ogni istituto che attualmente detiene titoli del Tesoro USA come asset di riserva allocherà molto probabilmente anche una parte delle proprie riserve in oro.

Allo stesso tempo il dollaro si rafforzerà rispetto alle valute estere; soprattutto nei confronti dell'euro. Come investitori, penso che sostenere le proprie finanze con oro e Bitcoin sia la cosa più importante che si possa fare. Dovrebbero essere trattati entrambi come vere e propri asset di riserva, non come veicoli d'investimento. In altre parole, lo scopo di acquistare oro e Bitcoin non è investire valuta oggi nella speranza di ottenere più valuta domani. No, si tratta di scambiarla con le due principali riserve ufficiali mondiali. In questo modo ci si ritroverà un bilancio solido con una solida copertura finanziaria.

Questo apre una serie di strategie interessanti, soprattutto in un mondo in cui si possono usare queste riserve per collateralizzare e accelerare i propri investimenti. Una delle strategie più interessanti oggi, a livello aziendale, riguarda le “convertible note”: emettere obbligazioni a leva coperte da Bitcoin, ad esempio.

A livello individuale, invece, ci sono le “mortgage note” (cambiali ipotecarie). La maggior parte degli investitori sa che esiste un mercato immobiliare in ogni grande città degli Stati Uniti. Le persone comprano e vendono immobili ogni giorno. Non credo che molti si rendano conto che esiste anche un mercato per le cambiali ipotecarie: mutui su case unifamiliari e terreni. In qualsiasi momento ci sono centinaia di questi mutui in vendita e sono disponibili per gli investitori al dettaglio, senza bisogno di accreditamento. Acquistare cambiali ipotecarie è l'altra faccia della medaglia rispetto all'acquisto di immobili da dare in affitto. Con le cambiali non si possiede la casa, solo il debito. E questo significa che non si è responsabili per la pulizia dei tappeti, la tinteggiatura delle pareti o la riparazione della doccia che perde. Non ci sono spese impreviste che potrebbero intaccare il flusso di cassa mensile.

Inoltre si possono sempre trovare mutui a prezzi accessibili. Che ci crediate o no, la maggior parte delle cambiali ipotecarie disponibili sul mercato secondario si colloca nella fascia di prezzo più bassa. Questo perché banche, compagnie assicurative e hedge fund tendono a vendere le loro vecchie cambiali ogni volta che acquistano un blocco di cambiali più consistenti con durate più lunghe. Devono costantemente mantenere una “scala” di durata all'interno del loro portafoglio. Le cambiali ipotecarie sono un investimento molto interessante in un mondo deflazionistico, dove non bisogna preoccuparsi di un drastico calo del potere d'acquisto della valuta.

Inoltre le cambiali ipotecarie offrono rendimenti più elevati rispetto agli immobili in affitto nel clima attuale, dato l'aumento dei tassi d'interesse. Sono un ottimo strumento per creare un reddito mensile passivo. E se si usasse quest'ultimo per finanziare altri investimenti, inclusi investimenti con tassi di rendimento garantiti contrattualmente?

Ci sono parecchi pezzi di questo puzzle, ma una volta compresi – e come si incastrano tra loro – creare un sistema di investimento è alla portata di chiunque. L'idea alla base di un sistema di investimento del genere è semplice ed è quella che viene adesso usata da quelle aziende che utilizzano le “convertible note” per comprare Bitcoin: sostengono le proprie finanze con oro e Bitcoin, poi usano il loro flusso di cassa per coprire gli strumenti finanziari emessi e finanziare nuovi investimenti, inclusi quelli che aumentano ulteriormente il loro flusso di cassa. In questo modo si viene a creare un “effetto valanga” che aumenta il proprio patrimonio e il reddito nel tempo.

Il punto chiave è che questa strategia funziona meglio in un contesto in cui il potere d'acquisto del dollaro rimane relativamente stabile. Ecco perché il programma “America First” potrebbe rivelarsi un’importante manna per gli investitori in futuro.

• Generare un flusso di cassa mensile: investire, ad esempio, in cambiali ipotecarie per creare un reddito passivo senza le complicazioni della gestione immobiliare;

• Sfruttare il proprio flusso di cassa (sottoponendolo eventualmente a leva): usare tale questo reddito per finanziare altri investimenti ad alto rendimento, creando un “effetto valanga” che fa crescere il proprio patrimonio in modo esponenziale.

• Proteggere il proprio patrimonio: integrare i modi migliori per sostenere le proprie finanze con oro e Bitcoin, garantendo stabilità, anche in un contesto deflazionistico.

Inutile ricordare che si tratta di ipotesi personali e non rappresentano un invito automatico all'azione. Questi comunque sono temi che vengono trattati in maggiore dettaglio nel servizio di consulenza del blog prenotabile su Calendly.

CONCLUSIONE

Quando parlo della cricca di Davos mi riferisco a quel gruppo costituito da banchieri e famiglie europei le cui ambizioni colonialiste non sono mai scomparse. Il loro modus operandi è sempre stato uno: destabilizzazione, estrazione di ricchezza, crollo, obiettivo successivo. Il modo migliore per pensare a essi è quello di immaginarli come locuste: si spostano in un territorio, lo destabilizzano dall'interno, creano caos nella società, cambiano leggi/regole, estraggono il capitale, lo spediscono altrove e riniziano il processo da lì. Gli Stati Uniti sarebbero dovuti essere i prossimi e la Cina dopo di essi. C'hanno provato con la Russia ma sono stati rispediti al mittente. Lo strappo con gli Stati Uniti, invece, è avvenuto nel momento in cui Powell e Williams sono stati posti come governatore e vice, e hanno iniziato a lavorare sul SOFR (forse anche prima, ma con loro due alla FED è stato lapalissiano). Come ho scritto nel Capitolo 3 del mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, il coordinamento a livello di banche centrali sin dalla crisi del 2008 denotava una volontà comune di portare l'attuale sistema economico/finanziario post-Seconda guerra mondiale alla sua naturale morte e riciclare la classe dirigente che l'ha scombussolato in quello nuovo.

Se la classe oligarchica americana, la classe bancaria americana, ha infine guardato cosa c'era oltre l'orizzonte e ha capito che non avrebbero fatto parte di coloro che avrebbero dettato le regole nel nuovo sistema, allora avevano tutti gli incentivi di questo mondo a opporre resistenza. E il modo migliore affinché la opponessero era quello di combattere, inizialmente, a livello finanziario e poi seguire il flusso del denaro: passare successivamente al livello culturale, al livello giudiziario, al livello politico, ecc. Nel caso in particolare, controllare il flusso di denaro tramite la riconquista della politica monetaria da parte della FED avrebbe significato rimuovere quegli “agenti infiltrati” che facevano gli interessi dei globalisti. Ed è qui che siamo ora: la rimozione di quel cancro che ha corrotto le istituzioni americane. Inutile dire che questo passaggio è meglio esemplificato nella concretezza dal marciume portato a galla dalle investigazioni del DOGE.

Quanto detto accade internamente, a livello internazionale la stessa “pulizia” viene portata avanti dai dazi e dagli accordi commerciali. Avete notato come 48 ore dopo la visita di Vance in India e l'intavolamento di un nuovo accordo commerciale con Modi, Pakistan e India hanno rischiato di far partire i razzi nucleari? E chi ha profonde radici di intrallazzi nella regione? Gli inglesi. Quel tipo di relazioni sono vecchie e radicate, e cambiarne la dinamica comporta una reazione violenta ed esagerata. Ecco perché la stampa (di stampo inglese) attacca senza tregua la nuova amministrazione facendola passare per spacciata e ingenua. Non analizza per niente il suo piano messo in campo, facendo invece apparire i membri che ne fanno parte come spaesati e divisi. Classico esempio di modus operandi dell'MI6, tra l'altro.

La rinegoziazione dei vecchi accordi commerciali viene fatta, adesso, a vantaggio degli USA, non più un volano per spolpare la nazione della sua prosperità e trasferirla all'estero. Infatti la politica estera americana, ad esempio, è stata fino al 2024 in mano ai globalisti oltreoceano. Il passo successivo è quello di cambiare il modo in cui vengono tassati gli americani, riformando una delle più grandi ingiustizie fiscali del mondo: l'imposta sul reddito. Saranno gli altri a pagare per la gigantesca mole di debito emessa, ad esempio, dalla Yellen nel 2024 per fare un favore a Londra e Bruxelles. Non si può non partire da un fatto: il collaterale è ciò che conta e conterà sempre, e quello di qualità superiore a livello internazionale e che permette di accedere al mercato dei finanziamenti rapidi più liquido al mondo è rappresentato dai titoli di stato americani. E questo lo sappiamo dal fatto che, secondo un articolo recente della Reuters, la BCE è preoccupata dal fatto che non tutti gli stati membri dell'UE potranno accedere alle linee di swap della FED in caso di difficoltà. Ed è una realtà già adesso, visto che la BCE stessa deve presentarsi alla finestra di sconto della FED, cappello in mano, per ottenere prestiti. Li ottiene, però, a un tasso d'interesse superiore rispetto a quello pagato dalle banche americane (uno spread di circa 80 punti base). Questo a sua volta significa che il margine attraverso il quale la nazione può assorbire e sostenere il rollover del debito interno sta aumentando. Prosciugare all'estero il mercato degli eurodollari e all'interno far rimanere quanto più possibile i titoli di stato americani. Non scordiamoci che i più grandi possessori di obbligazioni statunitensi, a oggi, sono Londra e Bruxelles (insieme alle loro succursali) ammassati durante la presenza della Yellen al Dipartimento del Tesoro. Stanno usando questo stock per puntellare i loro di problemi economici, perché nelle prime fasi di una crisi della valuta, il valore della stessa aumenta dato che i capitali vengono richiamati in patria per affrontare i problemi. Poi scende. Sia l'euro che lo yen si trovano nella stessa situazione, ma per ragioni diverse ed entrambi sono alla mercé della FED. Gli accordi commerciali sulla scia dei dazi serviranno a capire chi è “amico” e “nemico” degli USA, e ovviamente chi avrà accesso alle linee di swap.

È sempre stato questo l'obiettivo dei NY Boys. Ancora di più in quest'ultimo mese che Bruxelles e Londra hanno manipolato attivamente la curva dei rendimenti americana per tenere a galla i rispettivi mercati obbligazionari e valute. https://t.co/fIkkUSO4z3

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) May 23, 2025

E mentre con l'UE vengono aumentati i dazi, con il Giappone...Questa è, in estrema sintesi, la differenza di cui parlavo nei miei pezzi tra "amici" e "nemici" degli USA.https://t.co/9uqOhP6nIM

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) May 24, 2025

Questa strategia viene ulteriormente portata avanti dalla proposta di legge al vaglio adesso al Congresso, la quale prevederebbe il decadimento delle agevolazioni fiscali per quelle compagnie estere che decidono di acquistare titoli obbligazionari americani. Per quanto possa esserci un selloff iniziale, i titoli di stato americani rimangono ancora il collaterale per eccellenza nei mercati mondiali. Il SOFR ha cambiato tutte le carte in tavola e adesso per avere dollari bisogna andare solo dalla FED. In parole povere, contrazione dell'offerta di dollari all'estero, rimpatrio di capitali, rinnovo del debito americano in scadenza attraverso la domanda interna e strangolamento degli avversari tramite carenza di dollari (BCE e BOE). Infatti gli USA non hanno affatto bisogno di $36.000 miliardi in debito da emettere, ma solo $4-5.000 miliardi per rendere liquidi i mercati monetari interni. Ecco perché il resto del mondo avrà un prezzo per i dollari che circoleranno all'estero diverso da quelli che circoleranno internamente.

L'obiettivo principale dei NY Boys è quello di difendere il prezzo del dollaro in patria, non all'estero. Il LIBOR, invece, era stato progettato per ottenere il contrario. Adesso saranno gli altri a pagare un premio per usare i dollari. I cambiamenti messi in moto sono epocali e stanno segnalando la fine di un'era che ci portiamo dietro sin dalla nascita della Banca d'Inghilterra.

La "frammentazione" del dollaro a livello interno è funzionale allo smantellamento di un singolo "honeypot" da catturare. Ecco come si porrà fine alla FED senza che il Paese subisca un takeover da parte di player ostili (leggi BOE o BCE). https://t.co/xz3m1oieKG

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) May 23, 2025

Senza togliere di mezzo quei figuri che hanno corrotto il denaro, non ci potrà essere denaro sano/onesto o libertà individuale. E la guerra tra i NY Boys e la cricca di Davos è la miglior occasione per ottenere entrambi come sottoprodotto delle loro schermaglie. Non esistono player più potenti sulla faccia della Terra della Federal Reserve e del Dipartimento del Tesoro statunitense che lavorano insieme; e se l'indipendenza degli USA passa dalle strategie che ho messo in evidenza in questo saggio e se anche solo la metà di esse verranno messe in pratica, allora questa è l'occasione d'oro che stavano aspettando anarcocapitalisti e libertari. È a dir poco ironico che potranno essere quelle due entità a realizzare il loro sogno. In passato erano divisi, oppure catturati dall'unica visione delle linee di politica impostata dal Partito democratico e dai globalisti. L'Unipartito del passato, infatti, ha costantemente lavorato per sconquassare l'America; il nuovo Unipartito sta lavorando per rimettere insieme i cocci e assicurarsi che per i prossimi 20 anni i Democratici rimangano a bordo campo.

Come ho documentato nel mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, è stata la crescita incontrollata del mercato dell'eurodollaro che ha distrutto il Paese, che l'ha fatto arrivare sull'orlo della bancarotta dal punto di vista dei bilanci. Per quanto riguarda la questione fiscale, non è difficile mettere a posto le cose... basta solo la volontà di farlo. Lato attivi e passivi, invece, beh lì è più complicato. Però pensate a questo adesso: davvero gli USA sono in debito per la cifra ufficiale che ascoltiamo sempre? E se parte di quel debito può essere cancellato mandando in bancarotta quelle entità a cui è dovuto? E se il sottosuolo dell'Alaska venisse finalmente contabilizzato attraverso i fondi sovrani che Trump vorrebbe creare in tutto il Paese?

1/3
E qui tutte le critiche all'insostenibilità delle finanze degli Stati Uniti vanno a morire.https://t.co/4cCI1UPcRQ

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) May 16, 2025

E se, sempre restando in termini di attivi, il problema di Fort Knox non fosse l'assenza di oro fisico bensì la presenza di un numero superiore di metallo giallo rispetto alle cifre ufficiali?

I giorni in cui i globalisti erano al comando negli Stati Uniti sono finiti e questo significa anche la manipolazione del mercato dell'oro per pompare l'eurodollaro e facilitare il ripagamento dei prestiti esteri, nonché accedere a finanziamenti facilitati senza garanzie, sono finiti. Sono finite le manipolazioni all'apertura di Londra e New York in cui l'oro subiva violenta volatilità si stabilizzava durante l'apertura dei mercati asiatici e infine veniva abbattuto alla chiusura di New York. Se, però, Trump riuscirà a staccare un accordo di pace durevole in Europa orientale l'oro quest'anno terminerà la sua corsa... almeno fino alla crisi del debito sovrano che imperverserà nell'UE. E se un accordo di pace verrà trovato anche in Medio Oriente, allora il capitale restante in Europa non avrà altra scelta che volarsene in toto negli USA dato che non vedrà alcun futuro nel Vecchio continente.

3/4
Emirati Arabi, Yemen, Arabia Saudita, Qatar, Siria... le ultime visite di Trump in Medio Oriente, se guardate sulla cartina, sono praticamente un muro innalzato tra Israele e Iran.

— Francesco Simoncelli (@Freedonia85) May 15, 2025

Man mano che l'amministrazione Trump continuerà a ridurre “G” nel conteggio del PIL e gli investimenti privati ne prenderanno il posto, i prezzi delle commodity saliranno in risposta alla domanda industriale. La FED, di conseguenza, non avrà alcuna pressione a rialzare i tassi, anzi potrà abbassarli anche in virtù del fatto che l'economia statunitense, date queste premesse, è una cold economy ovvero gli aumenti dei prezzi sono trainati dalle materie prime, principalmente il petrolio. Ci sono tre modi in cui l'amministrazione Trump sta sgonfiando il prezzo di quest'ultimo (rompendo il cartello dell'OPEC e costringendo i mercati arabi alla trattativa):

1. Nuovi permessi per le raffinerie;
2. Smantellare i privilegi per l'industria dei veicoli elettrici;
3. Porre fine alla miscelazione dell'etanolo dal mais.
   

Man mano che la ri-industrializzazione farà il suo corso, i prezzi nel lungo periodo tenderanno a scendere e favorire una crescita economica organica. Questo fornirà anche la giustificazione ideale per la FED affinché tagli i tassi e agevoli il mercato del credito interno. Come detto in passati articoli, in questa nuova era la FED non tornerà più allo zero e la sua linea di politica si assesterà intorno al 3% dei tassi di riferimento senza la paura di una crisi del credito. Un piano già in moto e di cui vedremo i risultati tra 18 mesi, giusto in tempo per le elezioni di medio termine.

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

???? Qui il link alla Prima Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/05/la-grande-riorganizzazione-degli-usa.html

Recently, I watched a documentary on Larry Nassar. He was the team doctor for the U.S. Women’s national gymnastics team from 1996-2014. In January, 2018, Nassar was convicted of possessing child pornography and ten counts of sexual assault. He was sentenced to an astounding 100-235 years in prison.

Nassar had been accused of sexually assaulting at least 265 young girls. This was a real case of #MeToo Syndrome, as seemingly every girl he had coached eventually joined in, telling their own stories, which as far as I can tell were extremely scant on details. Color me skeptical, as usual. I have yet to hear any media outlet tell Nassar’s side of the story. What was his explanation? I’ve watched two specials on Nassar, and there wasn’t a single talking head, a single defense lawyer, who at least attempted to provide some context. The most incredible aspect of these charges was that the accusers- again, not sure how many, but perhaps all of them as far as I know- revealed that their parents were present during the abuse. You might be thinking, wait a minute, how could a sexual assault happen in front of parents? Yeah, that’s what I was wondering about. If I understand correctly, Nassar is accused of touching these girls inappropriately, while their parents were right there in the same room.

Again, the case is a bit fuzzy on specifics, as happens all too often in the #MeToo world. It seems that Nassar’s conduct was first reported in June, 2015, when the personal coach of a female gymnast heard her discussing Nassar with another girl. Once the #MeToo effect kicked in, it was eventually alleged that Nassar had been abusing girls since as early as 1994. Some victims would claim they reported his behavior to his superiors at Michigan State University in 1997. I suppose Michigan State initially denied this, but I don’t know for sure, because the media coverage is essentially a prosecutorial brief. Three former gymnasts would appear on 60 minutes in February, 2017, to accuse Nassar of sexually abusing them. They also, very tellingly, used the virtue signaling phrase “emotionally abusive environment.” Nassar was accused of inserting his finger in the vaginas of an unclear number of girls, in the presence of an unclear number of parents, who somehow never recognized it.

In October, 2017, Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney did indeed use the #MeToo hashtag on Twitter, charging that Nassar had repeatedly molested her for eight years. Once the parade of former gymnasts read their victim impact statements in court, Nassar had zero chance at any kind of impartial justice. I think I’m the only one in the world who is opposed to victim impact statements, which are not evidence, and serve only to emotionally manipulate the proceedings. Apparently, Nassar was still claiming to be “an innocent person” behind bars, when he was stabbed ten times in July, 2023. I’d sure like to know what Nassar’s defense was. You certainly can’t find out from any television program on the subject, or anywhere else online. If Nassar is the monster he’s being portrayed as, then I’m guilty of asking pointless questions. But I can’t help but be skeptical about these kinds of collective tales of victimhood.

“Victims” and “survivors” are all the rage in our society. And they’re almost always female. Was there ever some kind of #MeToo moment for sodomized altar boys? I must have missed that. Do they get to call themselves “victims” and “survivors” of sexual assault for the rest of their lives? And I’m pretty sure that virtually all of them who were abused were abused by penises, not fingers. The same thing with boy scouts. A lot of them came out later and claimed abuse. But it just wasn’t the same. There was no giant cavalcade of now male adults who’d been in the same troop coming forth belatedly with “yes, I was abused too” allegations. Few of them were granted softball interviews, where they were treated as “victims” and “survivors,” not human beings who were making serious allegations long after the fact. There is a strange camaraderie between female “survivors,” which you just don’t see with males.

The same media which accepted without question any gymnast’s belated accusation against Nassar went apoplectic at suggestions that the John Podesta emails, published by Wikileaks, contained “coded” references to child sex, because of the massive and inordinate use of the terms “pizza” and “pasta.” In one email, there was a ridiculous reference to a napkin left behind at a party, that contained a “pizza related map.” The owner of Comet Ping Pong certainly posted some bizarre things on Instagram, but that was all “debunked.” The entire media- including most of the alt media- assures us of that. Some suitable “nut” fired a gun in Comet Ping Pong, and that somehow settled the case. Ignore the photo of the little girl duct taped to a table there. Recently, that gunman just happened to be shot dead by our brave law enforcement officers during some kind of traffic stop. Nothing to see here. Just ask the fact checkers.

What is odd is how easily such claims are accepted, when the alleged abuser is a lone individual, like Nassar, with no powerful political connections. Compare that to the kids who alleged sexual abuse- and again, not with fingers- from the most powerful people in Nebraska, as detailed in John DeCamp’s book The Franklin Cover-Up. Not only were those almost all boy victims ignored by the media, the only female victim, Alisha Owen, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to 9-29 years in prison. She had accused the most influential local figures, from a newspaper publisher to the chief of police, with genuine rape. No parents present. The only documentary ever produced on the case, Conspiracy of Silence, was pulled from airing at the last moment, and can only be seen online, in a very poor quality video copy. The accusations were detailed, and included an inadvertent description of Bohemian Grove, where our top leaders cavort, with no females anywhere in sight, every July in the California hills.

The preschoolers who made identical accusations against those who ran the McMartin Preschool in California were again treated much more skeptically than the girl gymnasts would be. Despite the fact that a doctor testified to evidence of anal trauma in the vast majority of these preschoolers, the entire mainstream media took the side of the adults accused of much more graphic sexual crimes than Nassar ever was. The preschoolers were scoffed at. Much as one of the main boy accusers in the Franklin case was found dead under highly suspicious circumstances, the woman who first reported her concerns about McMartin would later die in questionable fashion as well. That tends to happen to those who point out examples of what the late Dave McGowan called the international Pedophocracy. If you’re a wildly unbalanced woman like E. Jean Carroll, your claims of rape in some unspecified year long ago are believed. But not if you’re a preschooler with a traumatized anus.

My radar is triggered when I hear constant references to not only dubious #MeToo “survivors,” but also upon noticing how every woman (again, not men) whose cancer goes into remission can don the mantle of “survivor.” As someone who wrote Bullyocracy, the definitive word on bullying, I’ve long wondered why middle-age adults, still haunted by what they experienced at the hands of other kids decades earlier, aren’t called “survivors.” Can those who’ve been ripped off in some financial scheme claim they “survived” that? They surely were real victims. Hasn’t any husband who was cheated on “survived” his wife’s adultery? What about all the blue collar workers, and common laborers, who’ve been mistreated and abused by excessively strict bosses over the decades? Weren’t they “victims?” Can’t they say they “survived” a very bad experience? We’ve all been sold defective products- lemons. Why can’t we virtue signal about being “victims” and “survivors” of crony capitalism?

What about Jared Fogle, the former Subway spokesman? Again, I watched a one-sided documentary on his case, and I still don’t know exactly what he really did with underage girls. He had a female friend, who was a former radio DJ, and oddly took it upon herself to expose him for something she had no idea he was guilty of at first. She recorded all their phone calls, and like an undercover cop in a chat room pretending to be a 12 year old, she did everything she could to lead him on, even insinuating that she thought such things were ‘hot.” The clearly smitten Fogle, who’d been bullied himself as a fat youngster, I think just started telling her what she wanted to hear, naively believing it would impress her. At any rate, Fogle was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years for child pornography and child sexual abuse. But it’s unclear just what children Fogle abused, and if so, the circumstances surrounding it.

I’ve never been raped, or sexually abused. It must be awful. According to the information I found online, the average prison sentence for rape is eight years. Believe it or not, the average sentence for murder is only 15-25 years. So how does a guy like Nassar, who was accused of inserting his fingers into various vaginas, most often while parents were present, get 100-235 years? I mean, even if he did do that to hundreds of girls, certainly that must be considered a lesser offense than actual rape, or even murder? Maybe I just don’t understand the #MeToo mindset. Perhaps I’m shamefully insensitive to all the tearful victim impact statements. I’m a civil libertarian, and my first impulse is to look for loopholes in any prosecution. I’ve found very few cases where there weren’t tons of loopholes. Reasonable doubt everywhere. But you can’t fight #MeToo, and the victimhood of “survivors.”

I know I’m going against the grain here, as usual. I’m used to being in the distinct minority. Recently, Kat Timpf, a young regular on Fox News’ popular Gutfeld program, was diagnosed with breast cancer when she gave birth to her first child. I think they said it was Stage 1- which is the beginning stage, according to my limited knowledge. Stages of cancer are sometimes like categories of hurricanes. It’s confusing. At any rate, Timpf rather surprisingly chose to undergo a double mastectomy, which doesn’t seem to have been necessary. Maybe she remembered the example set by actress and CFR member Angelina Jolie, who had a mastectomy even though she didn’t have cancer. And wasn’t “transitioning.” She said she did it because of her family history. I’m not close to being a member of the CFR, so that doesn’t make sense to me. At any rate, opting for such radical measures seems to augment the whole “survivor” status.

What is often glossed over is the fact that women do make false rape claims. And when that is exposed, they are rarely prosecuted for it. Look at the Duke lacrosse case, where racial politics were front and center, and caused an unquestioning state controlled media to not only accept the Black stripper’s ludicrous story, but also dox the White players accused, by publishing the home addresses of their families. How many men have languished in prison for years, or even decades, and then been cleared of rape by DNA evidence? How many of those who falsely accused them, robbing them of a large portion of their lives, were ever prosecuted? Isn’t that kind of the ultimate disinformation? You know, the kind the government is so concerned about? I guess it depends upon which side your disinformation is buttered on. You could argue that serving years in prison for a rape you didn’t commit is as bad as rape itself.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Feminization of Victimhood appeared first on LewRockwell.

On June 4th the Florida Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in a free speech case that could affect all attorneys and other professionals in the state and their basic right to free speech. The case involves Attorney Christopher W. Crowley, a former candidate for State Attorney in Florida’s 20th Circuit. Crowley was a target of a bar complaint, and the Florida Bar is trying to take away his legal license for political speech during a partisan Republican Primary race for State Attorney.

Crowley lost in a combative political campaign, against Amira Fox for State Attorney. After the campaign, Crowley was targeted with what appear to be frivolous Bar complaints by political opponents. Instead of dismissing the complaints, the Florida Bar has engaged in an anti-First Amendment crusade. The Florida State Bar charged Christopher Crowley with defamation of his political opponent, Amira Fox, after Mr. Crowley raised concerns about his political opponent during their political campaign in a Republican primary.

The referee, in the case recommended Christopher Crowley, Esq. to a 60-day suspension of his law license, for engaging in ‘controversial’ political speech during a Republican Primary campaign in Florida’s 20th district for State Attorney. Crowley appealed this decision, and the case will be heard in the Florida Supreme Court on June 4, 2025.

Nonpartisan judicial races have strict rules for attorneys campaigning for those offices, these rules have not been construed to apply to all political races. There currently is nothing in Florida Bar rules about restrictions on running for partisan political office. This judge’s creative application of judicial rules to non-judicial races disregards the First Amendment in an area that is considered the most sacred form of speech, political speech.

The Florida Bar appeared to be applying Maoist tactics in the case attempting to coerce Crowley to metaphorically put on a dunce hat and apologize for his incorrect speech during his political campaign.

Crowley’s ordeal is featured in a chapter in a new book by Lisa Miron, called WORLD ON MUTE: How Workplace Speech Committees are Destroying our Nations, and Eliminating our Civil Liberties. The book addresses the issue of professional organizations attempting to silence free speech under the threat of licensure removal.

Surprisingly, the case has not garnered much attention from alternative media. The outcome may impact all attorneys running for political office in the State of Florida and potentially all licensed professionals.

The campaign was nasty back and forth and Crowley made an issue of his opponent Amira Fox’s father’s book that was dedicated to his daughters and her uncle who had allegedly been a PLO member. Crowley was arrested because supporters held a raffle to raise money, which he never deposited and returned. At the time Crowley alleged that it was Amira Fox who had him arrested. Crowley then alleged that Amia Fox was corrupt claiming that Amira Fox interfered with a grand jury in a case.

The actual accusations and political mudslinging are irrelevant. The issue is whether the First Amendment applies to political races. The answer should be an obvious yes.

Crowley’s attorney is arguing that his speech is protected and that the Court must use a subjective rather than an objective standard, meaning that the speaker must knowingly make false statements:

“Nor is professional speech entitled to any lesser weight on the constitutional scales. The Court “has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advoc. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 767 (2018). Thus, a “State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights.” Id. at 769 (citation omitted). “For example, th[e] Court has applied strict scrutiny to content-based laws that regulate the noncommercial speech of lawyers.” Id. at 771. Thus, the First Amendment will not tolerate tipping the constitutional scales in favor of the State by excusing the requirement that an attorney-speaker be shown to have a subjective recklessness before penalizing defamatory speech of a public official or figure—even a public legal officer or candidate.”

Since 2020, Western nations such as Canada and Western Europe have denigrated into countries resembling former Soviet bloc countries, while Eastern Europe has appeared to be greater defenders of liberty. In America the ‘Cancel Culture’ has become a common term as individuals are cancelled on social media.

Arguably, the Florida Bar is acting under the color of law and is therefore restrained by the Constitution. The Florida Bar, while a private organization, is an instrument of the government. Since being a member in good standing is a requirement of licensure in the legal profession it is painfully obvious that the Florida Bar is acting on behalf of the State of Florida.

Read the Whole Article

The post Florida Supreme Court Case Could Affect Professionals’ Right to Free Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.

How would people react if, on the third time their broken-down car was towed to the same repair shop for the same problem, the swaggering mechanic told them: “Sure — the engine doesn’t work today but — follow me on this — next year, you will drive from coast to coast, and get 90 miles to the gallon!”

Yet if a politician promises to fix the world, people applaud and follow him regardless of previous crashes.

Woodrow Wilson revolutionized the political exploitation of idealism. In his 1917 speech to Congress calling for war against Germany, Wilson proclaimed that “the world must be made safe for democracy.” He described the U.S. government as “one of the champions of the rights of mankind” and stated the goal of the war was to “bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.”

Wilson endlessly invoked the ideal of liberty as he seized nearly absolute power over Americans, including the power to conscript millions of Americans to fight wherever he chose (including Siberia) and to commandeer entire industries.

While Wilson is today hailed as a visionary, in his own time, he became loathed as a demagogue. The more people embraced the ideals he proclaimed, the easier it became to defraud them. Americans’ idealism was fanned by ruthless censorship of any criticism of the government’s war effort.

The 1919 Paris peace talks shredded Wilson’s pretensions and made a mockery of the cause for which he sent more than a hundred thousand Americans to their death. One of Wilson’s top aides, Henry White, later commented: “We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell’s dirtiest work.” Historian Thomas Fleming, the author of The Illusion of Victory, noted, “The British and French exploited the war to forcibly expand their empires and place millions more people under their thumbs.” Fleming concluded that one lesson of World War I is that “idealism is not synonymous with sainthood or virtue. It only sounds that way.”

The 1920 presidential election was a referendum on Wilson-style idealism. As H. L. Mencken wrote on the eve of the vote, Americans were tired “of a steady diet of white protestations and black acts; they are weary of hearing highfalutin and meaningless words; they sicken of an idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.” Mencken explained why a typical voter would support Warren Harding: “Tired to death of intellectual charlatanry, he turns despairingly to honesty imbecility.”

Herbert Hoover’s subjugation idealism

Herbert Hoover, who campaigned as the Mastermind of the Age when he was elected president in 1928, invoked idealism to perpetuate subjugating foreigners to U.S. rule. When Congress enacted a bill to provide for the independence of the Philippine Islands, Hoover vetoed it in early 1933 because “We have a responsibility to the world … to develop and perfect freedom for these people.” Hoover rejected Congress’s bill because “it does not fulfill the idealism with which this task in human liberation was undertaken.” As long as the United States had not given Filipinos “perfect freedom,” it was entitled
to keep them under its thumb. Hoover’s assertion that idealism spurred the U.S. policy is difficult to reconcile with the killings of scores of thousands of Filipinos who resisted the U.S. takeover of their islands in the early 1900s. Hoover’s veto ensured that the United States remained mired in the Philippines until the Bataan death march and beyond.

FDR’s practical idealism

President Franklin Roosevelt was hailed as an idealist because he urged people to have faith in government to solve the nation’s problems. FDR assured the Young Democratic Clubs of America in 1940 that “you need practical idealism to make the present machinery function better.” “Practical idealism” signified FDR’s boundless faith in his own economic manipulations, such as setting the price of gold on a whim, reversing policies at the flip of a coin, and whipsawing anyone who counted on his promises. During World War II, FDR idealized American allies, touting the Soviet Union as one of the “freedom-loving nations.” Roosevelt’s glorification of the Soviets helped beget the infamous Yalta agreement that effectively consigned 100 million plus Germans, Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians to serfdom under Stalin. By deluding Americans, FDR’s idealism set the stage for a backlash that propelled the Cold War.

JFK’s service idealism

John F. Kennedy exploited idealistic appeals to capture the presidency in 1960. JFK talked as if the U.S. government could practically solve all problems, from ending tyranny (intervening everywhere against Communism) to ending worldwide poverty (with Peace Corps volunteers magically lifting foreign nations simply by their mere presence). Kennedy’s glorification of public service was simply an updating of the 1920s cult of service. But since he appealed for people to join the government instead of the Kiwanis, he was considered a visionary.

LBJ’s Vietnam idealism

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “For 188 years, the strongest fiber of America has been that thread of idealism which weaves through all our effort and all our aspiration.” Three years later, amidst rising antiwar protests, LBJ warned, “Idealism without commitment is like a bright light burning in a vacuum. Commitment without idealism can easily become frenzied and destructive.” At a 1968 presidential prayer breakfast, Johnson combined God and idealism to try to redeem his biggest muddle: “Belief in a divine providence is … a compelling challenge to men to attain the ideals of liberty, justice, peace, and compassion. It is often — as it is today in Vietnam — a call for very great sacrifice.” Johnson’s comment came the day after the start of the Viet Cong’s Tet Offensive, which stunned Americans who had swallowed LBJ’s boasting about how the enemy was nearly vanquished.

Nixon’s corrupt idealism

The backlash from LBJ’s “credibility gap” helped elect Richard Nixon, a politician renowned for dirty pool since his first red-baiting congressional victory in 1946. After his defeat in the 1960 presidential race, Nixon rebuilt his political fortunes as a born-again idealist. Bromides permeated his first presidential term: “Idealism without pragmatism is impotent…. The key to effective leadership is pragmatic idealism.” Alternatively, “Idealism without realism is impotent. Realism without idealism is immoral.” Nixon declared in 1971 at the University of Nebraska: “I believe one of America’s most priceless assets is the idealism which motivates the young people of America.”

Nixon’s invocations on idealism did not dissuade him from lying and lawbreaking across the board. Nor did gushing over youthful idealism deter him from perpetuating the Vietnam War and sending 20,000 potential American idealists to their deaths.

Reagan’s hypocritical idealism

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan told the Conservative Political Action Committee: “There is, in America, a greatness and a tremendous heritage of idealism which is a reservoir of strength and goodness. It is ours if we will but tap it.”

Reagan was deified by conservatives for preaching that “government is the problem, not the solution.” The Reagan presidency illustrates how idealizing a politician allows him to do as he pleases. The trust and support Reagan garnered enabled him to dictate a national drinking age (18), rev up the drug war, create new handouts for business and farmers, and bankroll guerrilla conflicts and repression abroad. But because Reagan constantly praised liberty, his power grabs were asterisks instead of outrages.

Clinton’s bombing idealism

Bill Clinton captured the presidency in 1992 in part thanks to idealistic-sounding  appeals for reviving faith in government. In his first term, his idealism was personified by AmeriCorps — the paid “volunteer” program that provided cheering squads when Clinton arrived at airport tarmacs around the nation. Throughout his second term, Clinton continually assured audiences: “I’m more idealistic today than I was the day that I took the Oath of Office” — as if his idealism was proof of his virtue. Clinton portrayed the  U.S. bombing of Serbia in 1999 as American idealism at its best: “Because we believe every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … we are proud to stand with our Allies in defense of these ideals in Kosovo.” But the U.S. bombing merely reversed the roles, permitting the Kosovo Liberation Army to terrorize Serb civilians as the Serb Army had previously abused ethnic Albanians.

Bush’s military idealism

President George W. Bush portrayed his invasion of Iraq as American idealism at its best. In his May 1, 2003, “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush hailed “the character of our military through history” for showing “the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies.” Speaking three weeks later at a Republican fundraiser, he bragged, “The world has seen the strength and the idealism of the United States military.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius declared in late 2003 that “this may be the most idealistic war fought in modern times.” Bush’s ideals did nothing to resurrect the American soldiers or Iraqi civilians killed after his perpetual brazen false claims paved the way to the U.S. attack on Iraq.

Obama’s assassination idealism

Barack Obama probably did more damage to idealism than any president since Woodrow Wilson. In his first inaugural address, Obama declared that America’s “ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.” But one of Obama’s most shocking legacies was his claim of a prerogative to kill U.S. citizens labeled as terrorist suspects without trial, without notice, and without any chance for the marked individuals to legally object. Obama’s lawyers even refused to disclose the standards used for designating Americans for death. Drone strikes increased tenfold under Obama, and he personally chose who would be killed at weekly “Terror Tuesday” White House meetings that featured PowerPoint parades of potential targets.

In 2011, Obama draped his decision to bomb Libya by invoking “democratic values,” and the “ideals” that he asserted were, he said, “the true measure of American leadership.” Obama was so convinced of the righteousness of targeting dictator Muammar Qadaffi that his appointees signaled that federal law (such as the War Powers Act) could not constrain his salvation mission.  At that point, the terrorist groups fighting Qaddafi were already slaughtering civilians.  In the chaos that subsequently engulfed Libya, ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. When their corpses arrived back in the U.S., Obama hailed the victims for embodying “the courage, the hope, and yes, the idealism, that fundamental American belief that we can leave this world a little better than before.” Obama’s soothing rhetoric failed to deter the proliferation of slave markets where black migrants were openly sold in Libya.

Idealism and tyranny

Nowadays, idealism is often positive thinking about growing servitude. Idealism encourages citizens to view politics as a faith-based activity, transforming politicians from hucksters to saviors. The issue is not what government did in the past — the issue is how we must do better in the future. Politicians’ pious piffle is supposed to radically reduce the risk of subsequent perfidy.

Idealistic appeals permit politicians to stack the deck in listeners’ minds. To believe an idealistic speech is to “do good” — akin to displaying a “Support our Troops” decal on one’s automobile. Idealism is the most dangerous species of political lie. The idealistic draping confers an obligation to believe, or at least to defer. The moral bonus a politician receives for invoking ideals usually exceeds any demerits for lying. Thus, lying about ideals is a guaranteed win for politicians.

Self-government cannot survive people idealizing their rulers. Telling citizens to glorify contemporary politicians is like urging battered wives to idealize their husbands. Why should we expect political idealism to be more honest than politics? It is time to cease being idealistic about idealism.

This article was originally published in the May 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.

The post The Deadly Perils of Predatory Idealism appeared first on LewRockwell.