Aggregatore di feed

In questo pezzo viene ammesso ufficialmente che esiste una rete, una ragnatela, che controlla le rivolte di piazza. Non movimenti spontanei, bensì eterodiretti. Tutte le strade conducono ai Democratici. Essi sono in grado di dosare il modo in cui questa gente protesta, spacca tutto, distrugge e uccide, oppure minaccia solo di farlo, o rimane chiusa in casa. Questi sono movmenti che non nascono dal basso, chi ci sta dentro crede che sia una sua idea che nascano dal basso, ma in realtà sono controllati come un rubinetto dall'alto. Non c'è nessuna ragione per non ritenere, quindi, che la dinamica che vediamo oggi a Los Angeles sia la stessa e che il meccanismo di base sia lo stesso. I danni di questi movimenti servono per fare opposizione politica e vedremo che questa è solamente la prima iterazione di questi massacri cittadini e proteste violente. Senza contare che la retorica di Newsom è anch'essa pilotata ad hoc. Da uno dei principali donatori della sua campagna elettorale? No, lui è solo un intermediario come abbiamo visto nell'articolo della settimana scorsa. Il mandante è sempre il solito: Londra. Soprattutto ora che, come avete letto nel mio ultimo libro “Il Grande Default”, è stata tagliata fuori dalla rete di finanziamenti facili dell'eurodollaro.

____________________________________________________________________________________

da Time

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-storia-segreta-della-campagna)

Subito dopo le elezioni del 3 novembre accadde una cosa strana: niente.

La nazione si preparava al caos. I gruppi liberal avevano promesso di scendere in piazza, pianificando centinaia di proteste in tutto il Paese. Le milizie di destra si preparavano alla battaglia. In un sondaggio prima del giorno delle elezioni, il 75% degli americani esprimeva preoccupazione per la violenza.

Al contrario, calò un silenzio inquietante. Quando il presidente Trump si rifiutò di ammettere la sconfitta, la risposta non fu un'azione di massa, ma un grido di protesta. Quando i media annunciarono la vittoria di Joe Biden il 7 novembre, scoppiò invece un giubilo, con la gente che si riversava nelle città degli Stati Uniti per celebrare il processo democratico che aveva portato all'estromissione di Trump.

Una seconda cosa strana accadde durante i tentativi di Trump di ribaltare il risultato: le aziende americane gli si rivoltarono contro. Centinaia di importanti dirigenti aziendali, molti dei quali avevano sostenuto la candidatura di Trump e le sue politiche, gli chiesero di ammettere la sconfitta. Al presidente, qualcosa non tornava. “È stato tutto molto, molto strano”, disse Trump il 2 dicembre. “Pochi giorni dopo le elezioni abbiamo assistito a uno sforzo orchestrato per decretare il vincitore, mentre molti stati chiave erano ancora in fase di conteggio”.

In un certo senso, Trump aveva ragione.

C'era una cospirazione che si stava sviluppando dietro le quinte, una cospirazione che ha sia limitato le proteste che coordinato la resistenza degli amministratori delegati. Entrambe le sorprese sono state il risultato di un'alleanza informale tra attivisti di sinistra e titani dell'imprenditoria. Il patto è stato formalizzato in una concisa e poco nota dichiarazione congiunta della Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti e dell'AFL-CIO, pubblicata il giorno delle elezioni. Entrambe le parti avrebbero finito per considerarlo una sorta di patto implicito – ispirato dalle massicce, a volte distruttive, proteste per la giustizia razziale – in cui le forze del lavoro si sono unite a quelle del capitale per mantenere la pace e opporsi all'attacco di Trump alla democrazia.

La stretta di mano tra mondo imprenditoriale e sindacale è stata solo una componente di una vasta campagna interpartitica per proteggere le elezioni: uno straordinario sforzo ombra dedicato non a vincere il voto, ma a garantire che fosse libero ed equo, credibile e incorrotto. Per oltre un anno, una coalizione di agenti poco organizzata si è affannata per sostenere le istituzioni americane, sotto l'attacco simultaneo della pandemia e di un Presidente dalle tendenze autocratiche. Sebbene gran parte di questa attività si sia svolta a sinistra, è stata indipendente dalla campagna di Biden e ha attraversato confini ideologici, con contributi cruciali da parte di attori apartitici e conservatori. Lo scenario che i sostenitori ombra cercavano disperatamente di fermare non era una vittoria di Trump. Sono state elezioni così disastrose che non si è potuto intravedere alcun risultato, un fallimento dell'autogoverno democratico che è stato un segno distintivo dell'America fin dalla sua fondazione.

Il loro lavoro ha toccato ogni aspetto delle elezioni. Hanno convinto gli stati a modificare i sistemi e le leggi elettorali e hanno contribuito a ottenere centinaia di milioni di dollari in finanziamenti pubblici e privati. Hanno respinto cause legali per la soppressione del voto, reclutato eserciti di scrutatori e convinto milioni di persone a votare per posta per la prima volta. Hanno esercitato pressioni sui social media affinché adottassero una linea più dura contro la disinformazione e hanno utilizzato strategie basate sui dati per contrastare le diffamazioni. Hanno condotto campagne nazionali di sensibilizzazione pubblica che hanno aiutato gli americani a capire come si sarebbe svolto lo scrutinio nel corso di giorni o settimane, impedendo alle teorie del complotto di Trump e alle sue false affermazioni di vittoria di ottenere maggiore seguito. Dopo il giorno delle elezioni, hanno monitorato ogni punto di pressione per garantire che Trump non potesse ribaltare il risultato. “La storia non raccontata delle elezioni è quella delle migliaia di persone di entrambi i partiti che hanno portato al trionfo della democrazia americana fin dalle sue fondamenta”, afferma Norm Eisen, un importante avvocato ed ex-funzionario dell'amministrazione Obama che ha reclutato repubblicani e democratici nel consiglio del Programma di Protezione degli Elettori.

Trump e i suoi alleati stavano infatti conducendo una propria campagna per rovinare le elezioni. Il Presidente ha trascorso mesi a insistere sul fatto che le schede elettorali per posta fossero un complotto democratico e che le elezioni sarebbero state “truccate”. I suoi scagnozzi a livello statale cercarono di bloccarne l'uso, mentre i suoi avvocati intentarono decine di cause infondate per rendere più difficile il voto – un'intensificazione delle tattiche repressive ereditate dal Partito repubblicano. Prima delle elezioni Trump complottò per bloccare un conteggio legittimo dei voti e trascorse i mesi successivi al 3 novembre cercando di rubare le elezioni che aveva perso – con cause legali e teorie del complotto, pressioni sui funzionari statali e locali e, infine, convocando il suo esercito di sostenitori al comizio del 6 gennaio, che si concluse con una violenza sul Campidoglio.

I sostenitori della democrazia osservavano allarmati. “Ogni settimana ci sentivamo come se fossimo in lotta per riuscire a portare a termine queste elezioni senza che il Paese attraversasse un momento di disgregazione davvero pericoloso”, ha affermato l'ex-deputato repubblicano Zach Wamp, un sostenitore di Trump che ha contribuito a coordinare un consiglio bipartisan per la protezione elettorale. “Possiamo guardare indietro e dire che è andata abbastanza bene, ma a settembre e ottobre non era affatto chiaro che le cose sarebbero andate così”.

Questa è la storia dall'interno della cospirazione per salvare le elezioni del 2020, basata sull'accesso ai meccanismi interni del gruppo, su documenti inediti e interviste con decine di persone coinvolte di tutto lo spettro politico. È la storia di una campagna senza precedenti, creativa e determinata, il cui successo rivela anche quanto la nazione sia stata vicina al disastro. “Ogni tentativo di interferire con il corretto esito delle elezioni è stato sventato”, ha affermato Ian Bassin, co-fondatore di Protect Democracy, un gruppo apartitico per la difesa dello Stato di diritto. “Ma è di fondamentale importanza che il Paese capisca che non è successo per caso. Il sistema non ha funzionato magicamente. La democrazia non si auto-esegue”.

Ecco perché i partecipanti vogliono che venga raccontata la storia segreta delle elezioni del 2020, anche se sembra un sogno febbrile e paranoico: una cabala ben finanziata di persone potenti, provenienti da settori e ideologie diversi, che lavorano insieme dietro le quinte per influenzare le percezioni, cambiare regole e leggi, orientare la copertura mediatica e controllare il flusso di informazioni. Non stavano truccando le elezioni; le stavano rafforzando. E credono che la popolazione debba comprendere la fragilità del sistema per garantire che la democrazia in America duri.

L'ARCHITETTO

Nell'autunno del 2019 Mike Podhorzer si convinse che le elezioni fossero destinate al disastro e decise di proteggerle.

Non era il suo solito ambito. Per quasi un quarto di secolo, Podhorzer, consigliere senior del presidente dell'AFL-CIO, la più grande federazione sindacale del Paese, raccolse le ultime tattiche e dati per aiutare i suoi candidati preferiti a vincere le elezioni. Modesto e professorale, non è il tipo di persona con i capelli ingellati e “stratega politico” che appare nei notiziari via cavo. Tra gli addetti ai lavori democratici, è noto come il mago dietro alcuni dei più grandi progressi nella tecnologia politica degli ultimi decenni. Un gruppo di strateghi liberal da lui riuniti nei primi anni 2000 portò alla creazione dell'Analyst Institute, un'azienda segreta che applica metodi scientifici alle campagne politiche. È stato anche coinvolto nella fondazione di Catalist, la principale società di dati progressisti.

Le infinite chiacchiere a Washington sulla “strategia politica”, ritiene Podhorzer, hanno poco a che fare con il modo in cui si realizza realmente il cambiamento. “La mia opinione di base sulla politica è che è tutto abbastanza ovvio se non ci si pensa troppo o non si accettano completamente i modelli di pensiero prevalenti”, scrisse una volta. “Dopodiché, basta identificare incessantemente i propri presupposti e metterli in discussione”. Podhorzer applica questo approccio a tutto: quando allenava la squadra di Little League del figlio ormai adulto nella periferia di Washington, insegnò ai ragazzi a non tirare la maggior parte dei lanci – una tattica che fece infuriare sia i loro genitori che quelli degli avversari, ma che fece vincere alla squadra una serie di campionati.

L'elezione di Trump nel 2016 – attribuita in parte alla sua insolita forza tra gli elettori bianchi operai che un tempo dominavano l'AFL-CIO – spinse Podhorzer a mettere in discussione le sue convinzioni sul comportamento degli elettori. Iniziò a far circolare settimanalmente diversi promemoria a una ristretta cerchia di alleati e a tenere sessioni strategiche a Washington. Ma quando iniziò a preoccuparsi per le elezioni in sé, non voleva sembrare paranoico. Solo dopo mesi di ricerca espresse le sue preoccupazioni nella sua newsletter dell'ottobre 2019. I soliti strumenti di dati, analisi e sondaggi non sarebbero stati sufficienti in una situazione in cui il Presidente stesso stava cercando di ostacolare le elezioni, scrisse. “Gran parte della nostra pianificazione ci porta attraverso il giorno delle elezioni”, disse. “Ma non siamo preparati ai due risultati più probabili”: Trump che perde e si rifiuta di ammettere la sconfitta, e Trump che vince il Collegio Elettorale (nonostante la perdita del voto popolare) corrompendo il processo di voto negli stati chiave. “Abbiamo un disperato bisogno di formare sistematicamente una 'squadra rossa' in queste elezioni, in modo da poter anticipare e pianificare il peggio che sappiamo arriverà”.

Si scoprì che Podhorzer non era l'unico a pensarla in quei termini. Iniziò a sentire altri desiderosi di unire le forze. Il Fight Back Table, una coalizione di organizzazioni di “resistenza”, aveva iniziato a pianificare scenari in base al potenziale di elezioni contestate, riunendo attivisti liberal a livello locale e nazionale in quella che chiamavano la Democracy Defense Coalition. Le organizzazioni per il diritto di voto e i diritti civili stavano lanciando l'allarme. Un gruppo di ex-funzionari eletti stava studiando i poteri di emergenza che temevano Trump potesse sfruttare. Protect Democracy stava formando una task force bipartisan per la crisi elettorale. “Veniva fuori che una volta detto ad alta voce, la gente era d'accordo”, disse Podhorzer, “e la situazione ha iniziato a prendere piede”.

Passò mesi a riflettere su scenari e a parlare con esperti. Non fu difficile trovare liberal che consideravano Trump un dittatore pericoloso, ma Podhorzer era attento a evitare l'isterismo. Ciò che voleva sapere non era come la democrazia americana stesse morendo, ma come potesse essere mantenuta in vita. La principale differenza tra gli Stati Uniti e i Paesi che avevano perso il controllo sulla democrazia, concluse, era che il sistema elettorale decentralizzato americano non poteva essere truccato in un colpo solo. Questa rappresentava un'opportunità per rafforzarlo.

L'ALLEANZA

Il 3 marzo Podhorzer redasse un promemoria riservato di tre pagine intitolato “Minacce alle elezioni del 2020”. “Trump ha chiarito che queste non saranno elezioni regolari e che rifiuterà qualsiasi cosa tranne la sua rielezione, definendola 'falsa' e truccata”, scrisse. “Il 3 novembre, se i media dovessero riportare il contrario, userà il sistema informativo di destra per costruire la sua narrativa e incitare i suoi sostenitori a protestare”. Il promemoria delineava quattro categorie di contestazioni: attacchi agli elettori, attacchi all'amministrazione elettorale, attacchi agli oppositori politici di Trump e “tentativi di ribaltare i risultati delle elezioni”.

Poi, al culmine della stagione delle primarie, è scoppiato il COVID-19. I normali metodi di voto non erano più sicuri per gli elettori o per i volontari, per lo più anziani, che normalmente gestiscono i seggi elettorali. Ma i disaccordi politici, intensificati dalla crociata di Trump contro il voto per corrispondenza, hanno impedito ad alcuni stati di facilitarlo e alle giurisdizioni di contare i voti in modo tempestivo. Ne seguì il caos. L'Ohio bloccò il voto in presenza per le primarie, con conseguente bassissima affluenza alle urne. La carenza di scrutatori a Milwaukee, dove si concentra la popolazione nera democratica del Wisconsin, lasciò aperti solo cinque seggi elettorali, in calo rispetto ai 182 precedenti. A New York lo scrutinio richiese più di un mese.

Improvvisamente il potenziale di un crollo a novembre divenne evidente. Nel suo appartamento nella periferia di Washington, Podhorzer iniziò a lavorare dal suo portatile al tavolo della cucina, tenendo riunioni Zoom consecutive per ore al giorno con la sua rete di contatti in tutto l'universo progressista: il movimento sindacale, la sinistra istituzionale (come Planned Parenthood e Greenpeace), gruppi di resistenza (come Indivisible e MoveOn), esperti di dati e strateghi progressisti, rappresentanti di donatori e fondazioni, organizzatori di base a livello statale, attivisti per la giustizia razziale e altri.

Ad aprile Podhorzer iniziò a tenere una videoconferenza settimanale su Zoom di due ore e mezza. Era strutturato attorno a una serie di rapide presentazioni di cinque minuti su tutto, dall'efficacia delle pubblicità alla comunicazione fino alla strategia legale. Gli incontri, accessibili solo su invito, avrebbero presto attirato centinaia di persone, creando una base di conoscenze condivisa per il frastagliato movimento progressista. “A rischio di parlare male della sinistra, non c'è molta condivisione di informazioni”, ha affermato Anat Shenker-Osorio, un'amica intima di Podhorzer la cui guida alla comunicazione, testata tramite sondaggi, ha plasmato l'approccio del gruppo. “C'è la sindrome del 'non inventato qui', per cui le persone non prendono in considerazione una buona idea se non l'hanno avuta loro”.

Gli incontri sono diventati il centro galattico di una costellazione di operatori di sinistra che condividevano obiettivi sovrapposti ma che di solito non lavoravano di concerto. Il gruppo non aveva un nome, né leader, né gerarchia, ma manteneva sincronizzati i diversi attori. “Pod ha svolto un ruolo fondamentale dietro le quinte nel mantenere la comunicazione e l'allineamento tra le diverse componenti dell'infrastruttura del movimento”, ha affermato Maurice Mitchell, direttore nazionale del Working Families Party. “C'è lo spazio per il contenzioso, lo spazio organizzativo, i politici concentrati solo su alcune questioni, e le loro strategie non sono sempre allineate. Ha permesso a questo ecosistema di collaborare”.

Proteggere le elezioni avrebbe richiesto uno sforzo di portata senza precedenti. Con l'avanzare del 2020, si estese al Congresso, alla Silicon Valley e ai parlamenti a livello statale del Paese. Trasse slancio dalle proteste estive per la giustizia razziale, molti dei cui leader erano una parte fondamentale dell'alleanza liberal. E alla fine raggiunse l'altra fazione, nel mondo dei Repubblicani scettici nei confronti di Trump, sconvolti dai suoi attacchi alla democrazia.

GARANTIRE IL VOTO

Il primo compito era quello di rivedere la fragile infrastruttura elettorale americana, nel mezzo di una pandemia. Per le migliaia di funzionari locali, per lo più apartitici, che amministrano le elezioni, la necessità più urgente era il denaro. Avevano bisogno di dispositivi di protezione come mascherine, guanti e disinfettante per le mani. Dovevano pagare le cartoline per informare le persone che potevano votare per corrispondenza o, in alcuni stati, spedire le schede elettorali a ogni elettore. Avevano bisogno di personale aggiuntivo e di scanner per elaborare le schede elettorali.

A marzo gli attivisti avevano fatto appello al Congresso affinché destinasse i fondi per gli aiuti COVID all'amministrazione elettorale. Guidati dalla Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, oltre 150 organizzazioni firmarono una lettera a ogni membro del Congresso chiedendo $2 miliardi in finanziamenti elettorali. L'iniziativa ebbe un certo successo: il CARES Act, approvato più tardi quel mese, prevedeva $400 milioni in sovvenzioni per gli amministratori elettorali statali. Invece la successiva tranche di finanziamenti di soccorso non sarebbe stata sufficiente.

Entrò in scena la filantropia privata. Diverse fondazioni contribuirono con decine di milioni di dollari in finanziamenti per l'amministrazione elettorale. La Chan Zuckerberg Initiative contribuì con $300 milioni. “È stato un fallimento a livello federale che 2.500 funzionari elettorali locali siano stati costretti a richiedere sovvenzioni filantropiche per soddisfare le loro esigenze”, ha affermato Amber McReynolds, un'ex-funzionaria elettorale di Denver che dirige l'istituto apartitico National Vote at Home Institute.

L'organizzazione della McReynolds è diventata un punto di riferimento per una nazione che fatica ad adattarsi. L'istituto fornì ai segretari di stato di entrambi i partiti consulenza tecnica su tutto, dai fornitori da utilizzare a come posizionare le cassette di raccolta. I funzionari locali erano le fonti più affidabili di informazioni elettorali, ma pochi potevano permettersi un addetto stampa, quindi l'istituto distribuì kit di strumenti di comunicazione. In una presentazione al gruppo di Podhorzer, la McReynolds illustrò l'importanza delle schede elettorali per corrispondenza in modo da accorciare le file ai seggi elettorali e prevenire una crisi.

Il lavoro dell'istituto aiutò 37 stati e Washington D.C. a rafforzare il voto per corrispondenza, ma non avrebbe avuto molto valore se le persone non ne avessero tratto vantaggio. Parte della sfida era logistica: ogni stato ha regole diverse su quando e come le schede elettorali devono essere richieste e restituite. Il Voter Participation Center, che in un anno normale avrebbe supportato gruppi locali che inviavano porta a porta i loro elettori e incoraggiarli a votare, condusse invece un focus group ad aprile e maggio per scoprire cosa avrebbe spinto le persone a votare per posta. Ad agosto e settembre inviò le schede elettorali a 15 milioni di persone negli stati chiave, 4,6 milioni delle quali restituite. Attraverso comunicazioni postali e annunci digitali, il gruppo esortò le persone a non aspettare il giorno delle elezioni. “Tutto il lavoro che abbiamo svolto per 17 anni è stato costruito per questo momento, per portare la democrazia a casa delle persone”, ha affermato Tom Lopach, amministratore delegato del Center.

L'iniziativa dovette superare il crescente scetticismo in alcune comunità. Molti elettori neri preferivano esercitare il proprio diritto di voto di persona o non si fidavano della posta. I gruppi nazionali per i diritti civili collaborarono con le organizzazioni locali per far sapere che questo era il modo migliore per garantire che il proprio voto venisse conteggiato. A Filadelfia, ad esempio, i sostenitori distribuirono “kit di sicurezza per il voto” contenenti mascherine, disinfettante per le mani e opuscoli informativi. “Dovevamo far passare il messaggio che questo sistema è sicuro, affidabile e di cui ci si può fidare”, ha affermato Hannah Fried di All Voting Is Local.

Allo stesso tempo gli avvocati democratici dovettero affrontare una serie storica di contenziosi pre-elettorali. La pandemia intensificò i soliti contrasti tra i partiti in tribunale, ma gli avvocati notarono anche qualcos'altro. “Il contenzioso intentato dalla campagna elettorale di Trump, in linea con la più ampia campagna volta a seminare dubbi sul voto per corrispondenza, si basava su affermazioni inedite e su teorie che nessun tribunale ha mai accettato”, ha affermato Wendy Weiser, esperta di diritto di voto presso il Brennan Center for Justice della New York University. “Sembrano più cause legali pensate per inviare un messaggio piuttosto che per ottenere un risultato legale”.

Alla fine quasi la metà degli elettori avrebbe votato per posta nel 2020, una vera e propria rivoluzione nel modo di votare. Circa un quarto votò in anticipo di persona; solo un quarto degli elettori votò nel modo tradizionale: di persona il giorno delle elezioni.

UNO SCUDO CONTRO LA DISINFORMAZIONE

Che attori malintenzionati diffondano false informazioni non è una novità. Per decenni le campagne elettorali si sono scontrate con tutto, dalle telefonate anonime che annunciavano il rinvio delle elezioni ai volantini che diffondevano diffamazioni sulle famiglie dei candidati. Ma le bugie e le teorie del complotto di Trump, la forza virale dei social media e il coinvolgimento di intrusi stranieri hanno reso la disinformazione una minaccia più ampia e profonda per il voto del 2020.

Laura Quinn, veterana dell'operatività progressista e co-fondatrice di Catalist, ha iniziato a studiare questo problema alcuni anni fa. Ha guidato un progetto segreto e anonimo, di cui non ha mai parlato pubblicamente, il quale monitorava la disinformazione online e cercava di capire come contrastarla. Una componente era il tracciamento di bugie pericolose che altrimenti avrebbero potuto diffondersi inosservate. I ricercatori fornivano quindi informazioni ai promotori della campagna, o ai media, per rintracciare le fonti e denunciarle.

La conclusione più importante della ricerca della Quinn è stata che interagire con contenuti tossici non faceva altro che peggiorare la situazione. “Quando si viene attaccati, l'istinto è quello di reagire, denunciare, dire: 'Questo non è vero'”, ha affermato la Quinn. “Ma più engagement ottiene qualcosa, più le piattaforme lo amplificano. L'algoritmo interpreta questo come: 'Oh, è popolare; allora la gente ne vuole di più'”.

La soluzione, ha concluso, era fare pressione sulle piattaforme affinché applicassero le loro regole, sia rimuovendo contenuti o account che diffondevano disinformazione, sia controllandoli in modo più aggressivo fin dall'inizio. “Le piattaforme hanno linee di politica contro certi tipi di comportamenti maligni, ma non le hanno applicate”, ha affermato.

La ricerca della Quinn fornì argomentazioni ai sostenitori che spingevano i social media ad adottare una linea più dura. Nel novembre 2019 Mark Zuckerberg invitò a cena a casa sua nove leader per i diritti civili, i quali lo misero in guardia dal pericolo delle falsità legate alle elezioni che si stavano già diffondendo incontrollate. “Ci sono voluti incitamenti, pressioni, conversazioni, brainstorming, tutto questo per arrivare a un punto in cui sarebbero state applicate regole più rigorose”, ha affermato Vanita Gupta, presidente e CEO della Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, la quale partecipò a suddetta cena e incontrò anche il CEO di Twitter, Jack Dorsey, e altri (Gupta è stata nominata Procuratore Generale Associato dal Presidente Biden). “È stata dura, ma siamo arrivati al punto in cui hanno capito il problema. Era sufficiente? Probabilmente no. Era più tardi di quanto avremmo voluto? Sì. Ma era davvero importante, dato il livello di disinformazione ufficiale, che avessero messo in atto quelle regole e che taggassero e rimuovessero i contenuti”.

DIFFONDERE IL VERBO

Oltre a contrastare la disinformazione, era necessario spiegare un processo elettorale in rapida evoluzione. Era fondamentale che gli elettori capissero che, nonostante le affermazioni di Trump, il voto per corrispondenza non era soggetto a frodi e che sarebbe stato normale se alcuni stati non avessero completato lo scrutinio la notte delle elezioni.

Dick Gephardt, ex-leader democratico della Camera diventato un potente lobbista, ha guidato una coalizione. “Volevamo creare un gruppo realmente bipartisan di ex-funzionari eletti, segretari di Gabinetto, leader militari e così via, con l'obiettivo principale di inviare messaggi alla popolazione, ma anche di parlare con i funzionari locali – i Segretari di stato, i procuratori generali, i governatori che sarebbero stati nell'occhio del ciclone – per far loro sapere che volevamo aiutarli”, ha affermato Gephardt, il quale ha sfruttato i suoi contatti nel settore privato per stanziare $20 milioni a sostegno dell'iniziativa.

Wamp, ex-deputato repubblicano, ha lavorato attraverso il gruppo riformista apartitico Issue One per radunare quei repubblicani a favore dell'iniziativa. “Abbiamo pensato di dover creare un elemento di unità bipartisan su cosa costituisse un'elezione libera ed equa”, ha affermato lo stesso Wamp. I 22 Democratici e i 22 Repubblicani del Consiglio Nazionale per l'Integrità Elettorale si incontravano su Zoom almeno una volta a settimana. Diffondevano annunci in sei stati, rilasciavano dichiarazioni, scrivevano articoli e segnalavano i funzionari locali riguardo a potenziali problemi. “Abbiamo avuto accaniti sostenitori di Trump che hanno accettato di far parte del consiglio basandosi sull'idea che tutto questo fosse onesto”, ha affermato Wamp. Sarà altrettanto importante, diceva loro, per convincere i progressisti qualora Trump avesse vinto. “Qualunque sia il risultato, resteremo uniti”.

Il Voting Rights Lab e IntoAction creavano meme e grafiche specifiche per ogni stato, diffuse tramite e-mail, SMS, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram e TikTok, sollecitando lo scrutinio di ogni voto. Insieme, sono stati visualizzati più di 1 miliardo di volte. La task force elettorale di Protect Democracy pubblicava relazioni e teneva briefing con i media con esperti di alto profilo di tutto lo spettro politico, ottenendo un'ampia copertura mediatica riguardo a potenziali questioni elettorali e una verifica dei fatti sulle false affermazioni di Trump. I sondaggi di monitoraggio dell'organizzazione rilevavano che il messaggio stava venendo recepito: la percentuale di pubblico che non si aspettava di conoscere il vincitore la sera delle elezioni era gradualmente aumentata fino a superare, verso la fine di ottobre, il 70%. La maggioranza riteneva inoltre che uno scrutinio prolungato non fosse un segnale di problemi. “Sapevamo esattamente cosa avrebbe fatto Trump: avrebbe cercato di sfruttare il fatto che i Democratici votassero per posta e i Repubblicani di persona per apparire in vantaggio, proclamare la vittoria, affermare che i voti per corrispondenza erano fraudolenti e cercare di farli annullare”, ha affermato Bassin di Protect Democracy. Definire in anticipo le aspettative del pubblico ha contribuito a smentire queste bugie.

L'alleanza riprese una serie di temi comuni dalla ricerca presentata da Shenker-Osorio durante le sessioni Zoom di Podhorzer. Gli studi dimostravano che quando le persone non credono che il loro voto verrà conteggiato, o temono che esprimerlo possa essere un problema, sono molto meno propense a partecipare. Durante la stagione elettorale i membri del gruppo di Podhorzer ridussero al minimo gli episodi di intimidazione degli elettori e represso la crescente isteria liberal riguardo al previsto rifiuto di Trump di ammettere la sconfitta. Non volevano amplificare false affermazioni coinvolgendoli, né dissuadere le persone dal votare insinuando un gioco truccato. “Quando dici 'Queste affermazioni di frode sono infondate', quello che la gente sente è 'frode'”, ha affermato Shenker-Osorio. “Quello che abbiamo osservato nella nostra ricerca pre-elettorale è che qualsiasi cosa riaffermasse il potere di Trump o lo presentasse come un autoritario diminuiva il desiderio delle persone di votare”.

Podhorzer, nel frattempo, avvertiva tutti quelli che conosceva che i sondaggi stavano sottostimando il sostegno a Trump. I dati che aveva condiviso con le testate giornalistiche che avrebbero annunciato le elezioni erano “estremamente utili” per capire cosa stesse succedendo con l'affluire dei voti, secondo un membro dell'unità politica di un'importante rete che aveva parlato con Podhorzer prima del giorno delle elezioni. La maggior parte degli analisti aveva riconosciuto che ci sarebbe stata una “svolta blu” nei principali campi di battaglia – l'ondata di voti che si sarebbe spostata verso i Democratici, trainata dai conteggi delle schede per corrispondenza – ma non avevano compreso quanto Trump avrebbe probabilmente fatto meglio il giorno delle elezioni. “Essere in grado di documentare l'entità dell'ondata di assenti e la varianza per stato era essenziale”, ha affermato l'analista.

POTERE AL POPOLO

La rivolta per la giustizia razziale scatenata dall'omicidio di George Floyd a maggio non era un movimento politico. Gli organizzatori che contribuirono a guidarla volevano sfruttarne lo slancio per le elezioni senza permettere che venisse cooptata dai politici. Molti di questi organizzatori facevano parte della rete di Podhorzer, dagli attivisti degli stati in bilico che collaboravano con la Democracy Defense Coalition alle organizzazioni con ruoli di primo piano nel Movement for Black Lives.

Il modo migliore per garantire che le voci delle persone fossero ascoltate, decisero, era quello di proteggere la loro possibilità di voto. “Abbiamo iniziato a pensare a un programma che integrasse la tradizionale area di protezione elettorale, ma che non si basasse sul coinvolgimento della polizia”, ha affermato Nelini Stamp, direttrice organizzativa nazionale del Working Families Party. Venne creata una forza di “difensori elettorali” che, a differenza dei tradizionali scrutatori, erano addestrati nelle tecniche di de-escalation. Durante il voto anticipato e il giorno delle elezioni, circondarono le file di elettori nelle aree urbane con un'iniziativa di “gioia alle urne” che trasformò l'atto di votare in una festa di strada. Gli organizzatori neri reclutarono anche migliaia di scrutatori per garantire che i seggi elettorali rimanessero aperti nelle loro comunità.

La rivolta estiva aveva dimostrato che il potere del popolo poteva avere un impatto enorme. Gli attivisti iniziarono a prepararsi a riprendere le manifestazioni se Trump avesse cercato di rubare le elezioni. “Gli americani pianificano proteste diffuse se Trump interferisce con le elezioni”, riportò la Reuters a ottobre, uno dei tanti articoli simili. Oltre 150 gruppi progressisti, dalla Women's March al Sierra Club a Color of Change, da Democrats.com ai Democratic Socialists of America, si unirono alla coalizione “Protect the Results”. Il sito web del gruppo, ora chiuso, conteneva una mappa con l'elenco di 400 manifestazioni post-elettorali programmate, da attivare tramite SMS già a partire dal 4 novembre. Per fermare il temuto colpo di stato, la sinistra era pronta a riversarsi in piazza.

STRANI COMPAGNI DI LETTO

Circa una settimana prima del giorno delle elezioni, Podhorzer ricevette un messaggio inaspettato: la Camera di Commercio degli Stati Uniti voleva parlare.

L'AFL-CIO e la Camera avevano una lunga storia di antagonismo. Sebbene nessuna delle due organizzazioni sia esplicitamente di parte, l'influente lobby imprenditoriale ha investito centinaia di milioni di dollari nelle campagne repubblicane, proprio come i sindacati nazionali ne riversano centinaia ai Democratici. Da una parte i sindacati, dall'altra i dirigenti, intrappolati in un'eterna lotta per il potere e le risorse.

Ma dietro le quinte la comunità imprenditoriale era impegnata in ansiose discussioni su come si sarebbero potute sviluppare le elezioni e le loro conseguenze. Le proteste estive per la giustizia razziale avevano inviato un segnale anche agli imprenditori: il potenziale di disordini civili con effetti devastanti sull'economia. “Con le tensioni alle stelle, c'era molta preoccupazione per i disordini legati alle elezioni, o per un collasso del nostro consueto modo di gestire elezioni controverse”, ha affermato Neil Bradley, vicepresidente esecutivo e responsabile delle politiche della Camera di Commercio. Queste preoccupazioni avevano spinto la Camera di Commercio a rilasciare una dichiarazione pre-elettorale con il Business Roundtable, un gruppo di amministratori delegati con sede a Washington, nonché con associazioni di produttori, grossisti e dettaglianti, invitando alla pazienza e alla fiducia durante lo scrutinio.

Ma Bradley voleva inviare un messaggio più ampio e bipartisan. Contattò Podhorzer, tramite un intermediario che entrambi hanno preferito non nominare. Concordando sul fatto che la loro improbabile alleanza sarebbe stata efficace, iniziarono a discutere su una dichiarazione congiunta in cui impegnavano le loro organizzazioni a sostenere un'elezione equa e pacifica. Scelsero con cura le parole e programmarono la pubblicazione della dichiarazione per ottenere il massimo impatto. Mentre veniva finalizzata, i leader cristiani manifestarono il loro interesse ad aderire, ampliandone ulteriormente la portata.

La dichiarazione venne pubblicata il giorno delle elezioni, a nome dell'amministratore delegato della Camera di Commercio Thomas Donohue, del presidente dell'AFL-CIO Richard Trumka e dei dirigenti della National Association of Evangelicals e del National African American Clergy Network. “È fondamentale che ai funzionari elettorali venga concesso lo spazio e il tempo necessari per contare ogni voto in conformità con le leggi vigenti”, si leggeva. “Invitiamo i media, i candidati e il popolo americano a mostrare pazienza durante il processo e ad avere fiducia nel nostro sistema, anche se richiederà più tempo del solito”. I gruppi aggiunsero: “Sebbene non sempre possiamo essere d'accordo sui risultati desiderati durante le votazioni, siamo uniti nel chiedere che il processo democratico americano proceda senza violenza, intimidazioni o qualsiasi altra tattica che ci indebolisca come nazione”.

PRESENTARSI, RITIRARSI

La notte delle elezioni è iniziata con molti Democratici disperati. Trump era in vantaggio rispetto ai sondaggi pre-elettorali, e vinceva facilmente in Florida, Ohio e Texas e tenendo Michigan, Wisconsin e Pennsylvania troppo vicini per essere definiti. Ma Podhorzer non si scompose quando gli parlai quella sera: i risultati erano esattamente in linea con le sue previsioni. Da settimane avvertiva che l'affluenza alle urne degli elettori di Trump stava aumentando. Mentre i numeri si abbassavano, capiva che, finché tutti i voti fossero stati contati, Trump avrebbe perso.

L'alleanza liberal si era riunita per una chiamata Zoom alle 23:00. Centinaia di persone si unirono; molte erano in preda al panico. “In quel momento era davvero importante per me e il team aiutare a radicare le persone in ciò che sapevamo già essere vero”, ha affermato Angela Peoples, direttrice della Democracy Defense Coalition. Podhorzer presentò i dati per dimostrare al gruppo che la vittoria era a portata di mano.

Mentre parlava, Fox News sorprese tutti scommettendo che l'Arizona sarebbe stata la scelta di Biden. La campagna di sensibilizzazione aveva funzionato: i presentatori televisivi si stavano impegnando al massimo per consigliare cautela e formulare con precisione il conteggio dei voti. La questione era quindi cosa fare.

La conversazione che seguì fu difficile, guidata dagli attivisti incaricati della strategia di protesta. “Volevamo essere consapevoli di quando fosse il momento giusto per chiedere di far scendere in piazza le masse di persone”, ha affermato la Peoples. Per quanto fossero ansiosi di dare prova di forza, una mobilitazione immediata avrebbe potuto ritorcersi contro di loro e mettere a rischio la popolazione. Le proteste che si fossero trasformate in scontri violenti avrebbero dato a Trump un pretesto per inviare agenti federali o truppe, come aveva fatto durante l'estate. E invece di amplificare le sue lamentele continuando a contrastarlo, l'alleanza voleva far passare il messaggio che il popolo aveva parlato.

Così si diffuse la parola d'ordine: ritirarsi. Protect the Results annunciò che “non avrebbe attivato l'intera rete di mobilitazione nazionale oggi, ma rimane pronta ad attivarla se necessario”. Su Twitter i progressisti indignati si chiedevano cosa stesse succedendo. Perché nessuno cercava di fermare il colpo di stato di Trump? Dov'erano tutte le proteste?

Podhorzer attribuisce agli attivisti il merito della loro moderazione. “Avevano dedicato così tanto tempo a prepararsi a scendere in piazza mercoledì, ma alla fine non è stato necessario perché ce l'hanno fatta alle urne”, disse. “Da mercoledì a venerdì non c'è stato un solo incidente tra Antifa e Proud Boys, come tutti invece si aspettavano. E quando questo non si è materializzato, non credo che la campagna di Trump avesse un piano di riserva”.

Gli attivisti riorientarono le proteste di Protect the Results verso un fine settimana di festeggiamenti. “Contrastate la loro disinformazione con la nostra fiducia e preparatevi a festeggiare”, si leggeva nelle linee guida di comunicazione che Shenker-Osorio avevano presentato all'alleanza liberal venerdì 6 novembre. “Dichiarate e rafforzate la nostra vittoria. Sensazione: fiduciosi, lungimiranti, uniti, NON passivi, ansiosi”. Gli elettori, non i candidati, sarebbero stati i protagonisti della storia.

La giornata di festa programmata coincideva con l'indizione delle elezioni del 7 novembre. Gli attivisti che ballavano per le strade di Filadelfia avevano attaccato Beyoncé per un tentativo di conferenza stampa della campagna elettorale di Trump; il successivo incontro dei sostenitori di Trump era previsto al Four Seasons Total Landscaping fuori dal centro città, cosa che gli attivisti ritengono non sia stata una coincidenza. “I cittadini di Filadelfia possiedono le strade di Filadelfia”, esultò Mitchell del Working Families Party. “Li abbiamo resi ridicoli contrapponendo la nostra gioiosa celebrazione della democrazia al loro spettacolo da clown”.

I voti erano stati contati: Trump aveva perso, ma la battaglia non era finita.

I CINQUE PASSI PER LA VITTORIA

Nelle presentazioni di Podhorzer, vincere il voto era solo il primo passo per vincere le elezioni. Dopo di che venivano la vittoria del conteggio, la certificazione, la vittoria del Collegio Elettorale e la vittoria della transizione: passi che normalmente sono formalità, ma che sapeva che Trump avrebbe visto come opportunità di sconvolgimento. In nessun luogo ciò sarebbe stato più evidente che in Michigan, dove la pressione di Trump sui repubblicani locali era pericolosamente vicina a dare i suoi frutti – e dove le forze democratiche progressiste e conservatrici si unirono per contrastarla.

Erano circa le 22:00 della notte delle elezioni a Detroit quando una raffica di messaggi illuminò il telefono di Art Reyes III. Un autobus carico di osservatori elettorali repubblicani era arrivato al TCF Center, dove si stavano contando i voti. Stavano affollando i tavoli dello scrutinio, rifiutandosi di indossare mascherine, e inveendo contro i lavoratori, per lo più neri. Reyes, originario di Flint e leader di We the People Michigan, se lo aspettava. Per mesi i gruppi conservatori avevano seminato sospetti sui brogli elettorali. “Il linguaggio era: 'Ruberanno le elezioni; ci saranno frodi a Detroit', molto prima che si esprimesse il voto”, ha raccontato Reyes.

Si diresse all'arena e inviò un messaggio alla sua rete. Nel giro di 45 minuti arrivarono decine di rinforzi. Mentre entravano nell'arena per fornire un controbilanciamento agli osservatori repubblicani all'interno, Reyes prese nota dei loro numeri di cellulare e li aggiunse a una catena di messaggi. Attivisti per la giustizia razziale di Detroit Will Breathe lavorarono a fianco di donne di periferia di Fems for Dems e di funzionari eletti locali. Reyes se ne andò alle 3 del mattino, consegnando la catena di messaggi a un attivista per la disabilità.

Mentre pianificavano le fasi del processo di certificazione elettorale, gli attivisti adottarono una strategia volta a mettere in primo piano il diritto di decisione delle persone, chiedendo che le loro voci fossero ascoltate e richiamando l'attenzione sulle implicazioni razziali della privazione del diritto di voto dei cittadini neri di Detroit. Inondarono la riunione di certificazione del 17 novembre della commissione elettorale della contea di Wayne con testimonianze; nonostante un tweet di Trump, i membri repubblicani della commissione certificarono i voti di Detroit.

Le commissioni elettorali erano un punto di pressione; un altro erano le assemblee legislative controllate dal Partito repubblicano che Trump riteneva potessero dichiarare nulle le elezioni e nominare i propri elettori. E così il Presidente invitò a Washington, il 20 novembre, i leader repubblicani dell'assemblea legislativa del Michigan, lo Speaker della Camera Lee Chatfield e il leader della maggioranza al Senato Mike Shirkey.

Fu un momento pericoloso. Se Chatfield e Shirkey avessero accettato di esaudire le richieste di Trump, i repubblicani di altri stati avrebbero potuto subire simili intimidazioni. “Temevo che le cose si sarebbero messe male”, ha affermato Jeff Timmer, ex-direttore esecutivo del Partito repubblicano del Michigan diventato attivista anti-Trump. Norm Eisen lo descrive come “il momento più spaventoso” dell'intera elezione.

I difensori della democrazia lanciarono una campagna stampa a 360 gradi. I contatti locali di Protect Democracy indagarono sulle motivazioni personali e politiche dei legislatori. Issue One trasmise spot televisivi a Lansing. Bradley, della Camera, tenne d'occhio l'intero processo. Wamp, ex-deputato repubblicano, chiamò il suo ex-collega Mike Rogers, che scrisse un editoriale per i giornali di Detroit esortando i funzionari a rispettare la volontà degli elettori. Tre ex-governatori del Michigan – i repubblicani John Engler e Rick Snyder e la democratica Jennifer Granholm – chiesero congiuntamente che i voti elettorali del Michigan fossero espressi senza pressioni da parte della Casa Bianca. Engler, ex-presidente del Business Roundtable, telefonò a donatori influenti e ad altri esponenti repubblicani di lunga data che avrebbero potuto esercitare pressioni sui legislatori.

Le forze pro-democrazia si scontrarono con un Michigan repubblicano trumpizzato, controllato dagli alleati di Ronna McDaniel, presidente del Comitato Nazionale Repubblicano, e di Betsy DeVos, ex-Segretario all'Istruzione e membro di una famiglia miliardaria di donatori repubblicani. In una chiamata con il suo team il 18 novembre, Bassin dichiarò che la pressione esercitata dalla sua parte non era all'altezza di ciò che Trump poteva offrire. “Certo è che cercherà di offrire loro qualcosa”, ha ricordato di aver pensato Bassin. “Capo della Space Force! Ambasciatore in chissà dove! Non possiamo competere con lui offrendo carote. Ci serve il bastone”.

Se Trump avesse offerto qualcosa in cambio di un favore personale, ciò avrebbe probabilmente costituito corruzione, ragionò Bassin. Telefonò quindi a Richard Primus, professore di diritto all'Università del Michigan, per verificare se fosse d'accordo e se avrebbe reso pubblica la sua argomentazione. Primus affermò di ritenere l'incontro in sé inappropriato e si mise al lavoro su un editoriale per Politico, avvertendo che il Procuratore generale dello stato – un democratico – non avrebbe avuto altra scelta che indagare. Quando l'articolo fu pubblicato il 19 novembre, il direttore della comunicazione del procuratore generale lo twittò. Protect Democracy venne presto a conoscenza del fatto che i legislatori avevano intenzione di portare avvocati all'incontro con Trump il giorno successivo.

Gli attivisti di Reyes controllarono gli orari dei voli e si riversarono negli aeroporti verso Washington, per sottolineare che i legislatori erano sotto esame. Dopo l'incontro i due annunciarono di aver fatto pressione sul Presidente affinché fornisse aiuti per il COVID ai loro elettori e lo informarono di non vedere alcun ruolo nel processo elettorale. Poi andarono a bere qualcosa al Trump Hotel in Pennsylvania Avenue. Un artista di strada proiettò le loro immagini sulla facciata dell'edificio, insieme alla scritta “IL MONDO STA GUARDANDO”.

Restava un ultimo passaggio: la commissione elettorale statale, composta da due democratici e due repubblicani. Un repubblicano, un sostenitore di Trump impiegato presso l'organizzazione no-profit politica della famiglia DeVos, non avrebbe votato per la certificazione. L'altro repubblicano del consiglio era un avvocato poco conosciuto di nome Aaron Van Langevelde. Non diede alcun segnale sulle sue intenzioni, lasciando tutti con il fiato sospeso.

All'inizio della riunione gli attivisti di Reyes inondarono la diretta streaming e riempirono Twitter con il loro hashtag, #alleyesonmi. Un consiglio abituato a una partecipazione di poche decine di persone si trovò improvvisamente di fronte a un pubblico di migliaia di persone. In ore di testimonianze gli attivisti sottolinearono il loro messaggio di rispetto per la volontà degli elettori e di affermazione della democrazia piuttosto che rimproverare i funzionari. Van Langevelde fece subito capire che avrebbe seguito i suoi colleghi. Il voto, infatti, fu 3-0 per la certificazione; l'altro repubblicano si astenne.

Dopo di che il domino cadde. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin e il resto degli stati certificarono i loro elettori. Funzionari repubblicani in Arizona e in Georgia si opposero alle prepotenze di Trump e il Collegio Elettorale votò secondo i tempi previsti il 14 dicembre.

QUANTO CI SIAMO ANDATI VICINI

C'era un ultimo traguardo nella mente di Podhorzer: il 6 gennaio. Il giorno in cui il Congresso si sarebbe riunito per il conteggio dei voti, Trump convocò i suoi sostenitori a Washington per un comizio.

Con loro grande sorpresa, le migliaia di persone che risposero al suo appello non incontrarono praticamente nessun contromanifestante. Per garantire la sicurezza e garantire che non potessero essere incolpati di alcun caos, la sinistra attivista stava “scoraggiando energicamente le contro-attività”, mi scrisse Podhorzer la mattina del 6 gennaio, con un'emoji con le dita incrociate.

Trump si rivolse alla folla quel pomeriggio, spacciando la bugia che i legislatori o il vicepresidente Mike Pence potessero respingere i voti elettorali degli stati. Disse loro di andare al Campidoglio e “combattere come matti”. Poi tornò alla Casa Bianca mentre loro saccheggiavano l'edificio. Mentre i legislatori fuggivano per salvarsi la vita e i suoi sostenitori venivano colpiti e calpestati, Trump elogiò i rivoltosi definendoli “molto speciali”.

Fu il suo ultimo attacco alla democrazia e, ancora una volta, fallì. Facendo marcia indietro, i sostenitori della democrazia superarono in astuzia i loro nemici. “Abbiamo vinto per il rotto della cuffia, onestamente, e questo è un punto importante su cui la gente deve riflettere”, ha afferma la Peoples di Democracy Defense Coalition. “Alcuni sono portati a dire che gli elettori hanno deciso e che la democrazia ha vinto, ma è un errore pensare che questo ciclo elettorale sia stato una dimostrazione di forza per la democrazia. Dimostra invece quanto sia vulnerabile”.

I membri dell'alleanza per la protezione delle elezioni si sono separati. La Democracy Defense Coalition è stata sciolta, sebbene il Fight Back Table sia ancora attivo. Protect Democracy e i sostenitori del buon governo hanno rivolto la loro attenzione alle riforme del Congresso. Gli attivisti di sinistra stanno facendo pressione sui Democratici affinché ricordino gli elettori che li hanno mandati lì, mentre i gruppi per i diritti civili sono in guardia contro ulteriori attacchi al voto. I leader aziendali hanno denunciato l'attacco del 6 gennaio e alcuni affermano che non doneranno più ai legislatori che si sono rifiutati di certificare la vittoria di Biden. Podhorzer e i suoi alleati stanno ancora tenendo le loro sessioni strategiche su Zoom, valutando le opinioni degli elettori e sviluppando nuovi messaggi. E Trump è in Florida, ad affrontare il suo secondo impeachment, privato degli account Twitter e Facebook che ha usato per spingere la nazione al limite.

Mentre scrivevo questo articolo tra novembre e dicembre, ho sentito diverse affermazioni su chi dovesse ricevere il merito di aver sventato il piano di Trump. I liberal sostenevano che il ruolo del potere popolare dal basso non dovesse essere trascurato, in particolare il contributo delle persone di colore e degli attivisti locali. Altri hanno sottolineato l'eroismo di funzionari repubblicani come Van Langevelde e il Segretario di stato della Georgia Brad Raffensperger, che hanno affrontato Trump a un costo considerevole. La verità è che nessuno dei due avrebbe avuto successo senza l'altro. “È incredibile quanto ci siamo andati vicini, quanto sia fragile tutto questo”, ha affermato Timmer, ex-direttore esecutivo del Partito repubblicano del Michigan. “È come quando Wile E. Coyote corre giù da un dirupo: se non guardi giù, non cadi. La nostra democrazia sopravvive solo se tutti ci crediamo e non guardiamo giù”.

Alla fine, la democrazia ha vinto. La volontà del popolo ha prevalso, ma è assurdo, a posteriori, che tutto questo sia ciò che è servito per organizzare un'elezione negli Stati Uniti d'America.

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

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

Dispensationalism

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 09:29

Thanks. John Frahm.

Stephen Sizer

The post Dispensationalism appeared first on LewRockwell.

When did John McC(Pet)ain become a Traitor

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 09:24

Gail Appel wrote:

Hi Lew,

A remarkable article published in 2013 by Walid Shoebat, an Egyptian Coptic Christian eviscerating John McCain. It predates the emergence of ISIS, which was a spin off of the “Arab Spring Freedom Fighters”, aka Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/Al Qaeda. Other articles show McCain pictured with “rebels”, including Al Baghdadi.. who was armed courtesy of Obama,Biden, Killery,Clapper,Brennan,Power,Abedin,Lindsey Graham, Corker,Flake,Warner,Menendez,Cardin,Durbin and the monster, McCain.

Note that every coup,invasion and regime change during the Obama and Biden occupation targeted sovereign Arab and African nations that had banned the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles-Hamas,Hezbollah,Houthis,Al-Qaeda,Al Nusra..which were now.

See here.

The post When did John McC(Pet)ain become a Traitor appeared first on LewRockwell.

MAHA In Middle School

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

This is one of those essays I dread writing. It’s about a movement I cherish and about people whom I generally greatly admire.

Headline: MAHA leadership is risking a derailment; it risks losing President Trump and the Republicans the midterms.

The cause of this danger is an oddly adolescent, somewhat cult-y, and far too personalized approach to the challenges and rigors of national politics. I write this essay out of love and support for the MAGA/MAHA alliance, in the hope that MAHA can course-correct quickly. (MAGA, in my view, is doing more than fine).

I need to paint the picture in snapshots. As you know from my last post, I was the coauthor and signatory, along with my colleague commentator Shannon Joy of The Shannon Joy Show; analyst Sasha Latypova of Due Diligence and Art; and physician Dr Mary Talley Bowden of AmerciansforHealthFreedom.org, of an open letter criticizing HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s misleading announcements about having revised the CDC recommendations for the mRNA injection.

Though the announcement purported to be a step in the right direction, and was being welcomed rapturously by MAHA-aligned influencers as a removal of the mRNA shot from the CDC recommendations, we pointed out that it was still targeted against sick kids, and against all pregnant women. Our letter also took issue with the fact that HHS has not pulled the mRNA platform from the market, and is failing to deliver on various key MAHA policy goals, which we itemized.

The response to this letter has been extremely supportive, with signatures from many grassroots citizens and health freedom activists. It generated a good deal of press, including stories in Yahoo.com, coverage in podcasts such as Dr Drew, and so on.

Some seemingly positive MAHA deliverables were set in motion the following week. Sec Kennedy fired the corrupt ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) committee, for instance, and appointed 8 replacements. These included the science/ freedom hero, Great Barrington Declaration signatory Dr Martin Kulldorff. The well-known critic of lockdown excesses Dr Retsef Levi of MIT was also appointed (a slightly baffling choice upon deeper scrutiny, as his field is food security, not vaccines. He also spent 12 years in the Israel Defense Forces’ Intelligence Wing, but no matter). Self-described inventor of the mRNA platform, Dr Robert Malone, was a pick as well.

So this dramatic gesture of Sec Kennedy’s turns out not to be black and white. Shannon Joy rightly pointed out, for instance, that eight replacements are just short of a majority.

There will surely be more MAHA “victories” to come, and more questions to be raised about those “victories,” step by step by step. In other words, HHS had a positive-to-messy week, following high-profile pressure from an outside group, along with other internal and external pressures of all kinds, no doubt.

My point is this: this is how politics works.

“Principals”, meaning people situated as Sec Kennedy or President Trump are, try to weave, every day, through the thicket of competing agendas that surrounds them, and to draw down from the opposition all around them, the least amount of damage. Everyone is trying to avoid rousing unnecessarily the ire of the biggest investors in both parties’ campaigns: in this case, Big Pharma. There are belligerent watchdogs over Sec Kennedy on the inside — reportedly, Sen Bill Cassidy has placed a rigid gatekeeper in the mix — advisor Calley Means is also tasked with keeping too much real MAHA momentum from taking place, it appears — and the whole operation is overseen by another stern gatekeeper, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, former lobbyist Susie Wiles.

In all of this complexity, the base yells and screams about its own issues. Some accommodation is made, for a compromise that is no one’s ideal. And things move haltingly forward.

Everyone who has ever done politics at a national level, understands this chaotic, tug-of-war dynamic; and knows that this is the reality of power, all day, every day. Grownup, experienced national politicians and their chiefs of staff know that it is very useful for them when their base yells and screams about an issue, especially publicly, because it gives them cover to deliver outcomes that their voters want, but that lobbyists and special interests do not want the voters to receive.

MAHA leadership and insiders really have to learn about and understand this dynamic.

I remember Vice President Al Gore, who is quite a decent person, explaining this dynamic to me. He said that citizens don’t usually have a seat at the table, and that this can be very frustrating for decent “principals”, since special interests do always have a seat at the table. The best message he could give to citizens who wanted a specific outcome from him was for them not simply to complain about what he was not delivering, but rather, as he put it, to “Make me.” That is to say, citizens needed to organize and create formal pressure groups, and publicly press on the Principal and his or her team.

The example the Vice President gave was AARP — the American Association of Retired Persons. Before this pressure group existed, the elderly had little power or voice; but after it was organized, no President or Congressperson on the right or left wanted to infuriate American elders’ numerically powerful public advocacy group.

I took that lesson to heart.

But it appears that many MAHA insiders, and certainly many among the satellites of (sorry, I have to say it) men who are now informally surrounding Sec Kennedy, really don’t seem to understand this, or to get, in general, how to play grown-up politics.

MAHA insiders and the satellite spokespeople and “Bobby” “helpers” seem to be resorting to middle-school mean-girl tactics, rather than waging serious adult national politics on behalf of Secretary Kennedy.

These men are resorting, for example, to adolescent personal attacks at the least provocation.

When I raised questions on social media about Calley Means’ company TrueMed’s biometrics harvesting business model, the HHS advisor called me “unhinged.” He declined to debate me or publicly to discuss the issue. I later wrote an essay revealing that his sister, Surgeon General nominee and Levels cofounder Casey Means, had a company with nearly flat growth and with problems with the visitor base, but with a valuation of $313 million dollars.

A grownup HHS press office would have made sure that Sec Kennedy appeared with Dr Means in multiple venues, and would have booked her a round of TV, print, radio and podcast interviews, in which such questions, and those from others, could have been addressed. Or, if it turned out that Dr Means was unready for such appearances and that the problems I and others raised were insurmountable, grownup politicos would cut bait, release a lovely statement about Dr Means having other projects to pursue, and move on to another nominee.

But that is not what happened. Dr Means has been kept in some off grid location somewhere (I am joking. I mean that she vanished from sight).

Instead of our witnessing a grownup media strategy, I received a call from a close advisor to RFK Jr and colleague now of Calley Means’. The caller told me to be nicer about the Means siblings, if I wished to “support” RFK Jr, and not to be “divisive” to the MAHA movement in criticizing the Means siblings.

That wasn’t the end of my punishment from the kids at the coolest lunchroom table. I later discovered that it was Calley Means who was gatekeeper for the seating at Sen Ron Johnson’s hearing based on my Pfizer Papers team’s uncredited work – a hearing that we were told was “too full” for us to attend.

Darn it all — Stacy didn’t invite me to her prom afterparty.

A week or two later, Shannon Joy, Sasha Latypova, Dr Mary Talley Bowden, and I ran our open letter critical of the deployment of the mRNA injection recommendations targeting sick kids and pregnant women.

After that, MAHA middle school got really weird and punitive. Over by the lockers, rumors were rampant that there would be a fight by the bleachers during lunch period.

Dr Robert Malone called our group of signatories, publicly, a “hate group.” He wrote on social media that the critics of MAHA, clearly referencing our letter and Nicole Shanahan’s recent, separate critiques, had nefarious motivations: “There is a clique of historically liberal women influencers, mostly from California or the Northeast” who are “actively seeking to divide the MAHA movement.”

Dr Malone’s whole comment on Nicole Shanahan’s criticisms of HHS and MAHA for not delivering on campaign agendas, is worth reproducing:

“It is no question in my mind that the two movements [MAHA and MAGA], although they have overlap, come from very different, ideological roots, political roots. And you can see that in— Well, Nicole Shanahan kind of embodies that. Nicole Shanahan is basically a Bay Area, Silicon Valley type attorney […]Who met, you know, met one of the founders of Google at Burning Man. You know, that’s just the way it is. And they became married, had a child, and then separated, because the child had, let’s say, I don’t want to put words in her mouth, let’s say developmental disabilities, that plausibly could have been associated with the pediatric vaccine schedule, that led to a very contentious, divorce, major settlement for Ms. Shanahan. And she now lives a life of luxury, with a new significant other, this challenged child, and has decided to become not just politically active, but potential candidate for governor of California. And has apparently made a significant commitment to let’s say becoming an influencer and to some extent a media celebrity. … Her words that she used recently on X, are very consistent with someone who is seeking attention as a media celebrity. …Now, that position that she’s taken has a pretty dark component to it in that what she’s functionally saying…When a donor to a political campaign seeks to gain promises from a political candidate in exchange for their contribution, this is commonly referred to as influence peddling or in more severe cases as a form of political corruption or bribery. When a powerful person withholds support from a candidate to extract specific promises, this is also influence peddling. If powerful people are doing this to kill or support MAHA or MAGA goals or objectives, it is still influence peddling… So, not politically astute, kind of, comes across as angry, unnecessarily.”

Dr Malone here depicted Ms Shanahan, without whose advocacy and funding Sec Kennedy and President Trump would not now be in power, as being motivated by a desire for attention, hungry for celebrity, and “angry” — all of these being sexist stereotypes traditionally used to undermine strong women leaders.

He also tried subtly to smear Shanahan, noting that she met her husband-to-be “at Burning Man. You know, that’s just the way it is.” Men may miss the dog-whistle here, but every woman who reads this, understands what “You know, that’s just the way it is” and “Burning Man” mean, when used together within the lexicon of slut-shaming.

Finally he threateningly invoked a sometimes illegal act when describing the expectations that every major donor has, that his or her agenda will get serious consideration from the candidate whom he or she supported. “Influence-peddling” can be illegal, and is an offense close to bribery or coercion. The threat that Dr Malone made here, that Ms Shanahan’s expectations as a donor that her agenda be considered, could be recast by the Trump team as an illegal activity, is a serious threat.

Dr Malone also told an audience at Freedom Fest that he and I — “Naomi”, as he called me, though I always refer to him as “Dr Malone” — got into a “Twitter Twat”, a conflict that was spun up by “chaos agents.” In other words, he implied to this audience, one made up of my own community, that I was too stupid to figure out my own opposition to some of his views, and that my mind was being manipulated by some mysterious outside force.

As far as what a “Twitter Twat” is — I have no idea, but I want the T-shirt.

Read the Whole Article

The post MAHA In Middle School appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

Comments open on YouTube

The post Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

When Hawks Cry ‘Divine,’ America Pays the Price

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

Now beating their battle drums, Washington’s war hawks currently posture as divine crusaders, insisting that America’s sacred mission is to shield the State of Israel lest “God may quit us.” They thunder on that America’s refusal to wipe out Iran—and its roughly 91 million people—is the equivalent to blasphemy.

But who truly shoulders the cost when they let slip the dogs of war to defend a state born in 1948, well after the biblical prophecies bolstering the bloodthirst of today’s Christian Zionists had already faded to footnotes?

This is a fight for survival, they insist. Yet this current fracas in the Middle East isn’t about defending holy writ—it is about preserving the wallets and lives of working-class patriots on the home front.

Dispensationalist theology is famous for cherry-picking scripture, claiming that the Bible earmarked modern Israel for divine favor, and that Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones and the miraculous births predicted by Isaiah foretold a sovereign Jewish state. But those chapters describe restoration centuries before the Church and Isaiah’s prophecy about the coming of John the Baptist and the virgin birth of Jesus Christ—not 20th-century geopolitics.

The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948—just yesterday by prophetic standards. While age doesn’t disqualify prophecy, if sacred texts spoke so clearly of this nation-state, why did earlier political theologians spend their energies opposing European regimes rather than mapping out modern Zion?

Dispensationalism offers a systematic vision of biblical history, but it faces meaningful challenges from the ancient and traditional theological traditions. It erects literalist scaffolding where symbolism reigned, divorcing the Church from the Kingdom promised by Christ. It misreads sacred poetry as political warrants.

These attempts by end-times evangelicals to bind American policy with theological fantasy serves global financiers and neoconservative think tanks more than Main Street America.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Church stands as the true Kingdom of Israel, founded by Jesus Christ, the Messiah, in spiritual continuity with Old Testament saints.

Its bishops succeed the apostles. Its sacraments echo Sinai. The mission of the Catholic Church surpasses land grants and political borders. To claim otherwise is to ignore two millennia of ecclesial tradition and reduce divine covenant to real-estate speculation.

What of the Jewish people of today? Genealogical studies confirm that many modern Jews trace mixed ancestries, not unbroken lines to first-century Judea, and—taken as a whole—are not a “scattered people returning to their ancestral land.” Furthermore, those who rejected Christ at Pentecost became, by definition, enemies of the true Israel.

Faith transcends genetics.

America’s alliances should rest on shared values, not on the grievances of fringe ideologues—whether messianic rabbis or dispensationalist “Christians” with their crystal charts and rapture timetables.

The State of Israel exists in large part to accommodate the ideological caprices of zealots and political insiders. It is a sovereign nation, yes—but one no more divine than any other republic born of revolution or realpolitik.

Nevertheless, Iran’s regime is malignant. The theocratic terror of the ayatollahs threatens millions. Yet, America has no business wading into sectarian strife halfway around the globe. For every son and daughter Uncle Sam deploys, it feeds the dogs of war at home, fracturing families and draining the work force even further.

Should those bugling for bombs to drop in Asia not heed the counsel of John Quincy Adams? For it was over two centuries ago that the Secretary of State and future president said of America’s role in the world that, “She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.”

What, then, does America stand to gain in this latest escapade? Global prestige? Oil pipelines? Or the empty assurance that a supernatural guarantor will smile upon our ledgers?

This is not merely wrong, but dangerous. Remember the Cold War—when David Ben-Gurion’s new state balanced between superpowers while America paid homage to the promise of democracy, not dispensationalist dogma. That prudence earned the Marshall Plan, not wars of faith.

The reflexive pro-Israel crowd brands dissent as betrayal, yet true patriotism demands asking hard questions. Who are the economic patriots served by foreign bloodshed? Who profits when the American treasury writes blank checks to warmongers? Who suffers when American factories sit idle and our highways crumble under tax burdens for distant battlefields?

At hand is an existential choice: Bow to theological tribalism or defend the values that built Western civilization—family, faith, personal responsibility, respect for authority.

America first means America’s families, first. Let us reject the pious posturing of overseas secular crusades, raise our voices for the forgotten Americans, and close the ledger on messianic foreign policy.

President Trump must not unleash the dogs of war again for causes that endanger American liberty.

It is time to stand down the war cries, dismantle dispensationalist delusions, and rediscover moral clarity grounded in peace, not in adventurism.

The true Kingdom of God does not rest on sand. It endures in the Church that Christ bequeathed to us and in communities that honor tradition and uplift the common man.

Let us choose wisely—before the next howl of battle dims the lights of our own cities.

This article was originally published on The O’Leary Review.

The post When Hawks Cry ‘Divine,’ America Pays the Price appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Real National Emergency: Endless Wars, Failing Infrastructure, and a Dying Republic

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”—President Dwight D. Eisenhower (April 16, 1953)

Seventy years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the cost of a military-industrial complex, America is still stealing from its own people to fund a global empire.

In 2025 alone, the U.S. has launched airstrikes in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), bombed Houthi-controlled ports and radar installations (killing scores of civilians), deployed greater numbers of troops and multiple aircraft carriers to the Middle East, and edged closer to direct war with Iran in support of Israel’s escalating conflict.

Each of these “new” fronts has been sold to the public as national defense. In truth, they are the latest outposts in a decades-long campaign of empire maintenance—one that lines the pockets of defense contractors while schools crumble, bridges collapse, and veterans sleep on the streets at home.

This isn’t about national defense. This is empire maintenance.

It’s about preserving a military-industrial complex that profits from endless war, global policing, and foreign occupations—while the nation’s infrastructure rots and its people are neglected.

The United States has spent much of the past half-century policing the globe, occupying other countries, and waging endless wars.

What most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with propping up a military-industrial complex that has its sights set on world domination.

War has become a huge money-making venture, and the U.S. government, with its vast military empire, is one of its best buyers and sellers.

America’s role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has already cost taxpayers more than $112 billion.

And now, the price of empire is rising again.

Clearly, it’s time for the U.S. government to stop policing the globe.

The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world.

American troops are stationed in Somalia, Iraq and Syria. In Germany, South Korea and Japan. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman. In Niger, Chad and Mali. In Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia.

Those numbers are likely significantly higher in keeping with the Pentagon’s policy of not fully disclosing where and how many troops are deployed for the sake of “operational security and denying the enemy any advantage.” As investigative journalist David Vine explains, “Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.”

Incredibly, America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world.

America’s military empire spans nearly 800 bases in 160 countries, operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually. As Vine reports, “Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.”

This is how a military empire occupies the globe.

For 20 years, the U.S. war machine propped up Afghanistan to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost. When troops left Afghanistan, the military-industrial complex simply shifted theaters—turning Yemen, Iran, and the Red Sea into new frontlines.

Each new conflict is marketed as national defense. In reality, it’s business as usual for the Pentagon’s global footprint, with American soldiers used as pawns in the government’s endless quest to control global markets, prop up foreign regimes, and secure oil, data, and strategic ports—all while being told it’s for liberty.

This is how the military-industrial complex, aided and abetted by the likes of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others, continues to get rich at taxpayer expense.

Yet while the rationale may keep changing for why American military forces are policing the globe, these wars abroad aren’t making America—or the rest of the world—any safer, are certainly not making America great again, and are undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.

War spending is bankrupting America.

Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.

In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $10 trillion waging its endless wars, much of it borrowed, much of it wasted, all of it paid for in blood and taxpayer dollars.

Add Yemen and the Middle East escalations of 2025, and the final bill for future wars and military exercises waged around the globe will total in the tens of trillions.

Co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

In fact, the U.S. government spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

Even if we ended the government’s military meddling today and brought all of the troops home, it would take decades to pay down the price of these wars and get the government’s creditors off our backs.

As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors. Indeed, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

The fact that such price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

Americans have thus far allowed themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

The bombing of Yemen’s Ras Isa port by U.S. forces—killing more than 80 civilians—is just the latest example of war crimes justified as national interest.

That needs to change.

The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It’s making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 human beings. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.

With the 2025 escalation, those numbers will only rise.

The U.S. government is not making America any safer. It’s exposing American citizens to alarming levels of blowback, a CIA term referring to the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant, repeatedly warned that America’s use of its military to gain power over the global economy would result in devastating blowback.

The 9/11 attacks were blowback. The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback. The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback.

The U.S. military’s ongoing drone strikes will, I fear, spur yet more blowback against the American people.

The war hawks’ militarization of America—bringing home the spoils of war (the military tanks, grenade launchers, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, gas masks, ammunition, battering rams, night vision binoculars, etc.) and handing them over to local police, thereby turning America into a battlefield—is also blowback.

James Madison was right: “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” As Madison explained, “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

We are seeing this play out before our eyes.

The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

The nation’s infrastructure is in shambles. Public schools are underfunded. Mental health care is collapsing. Basic needs like housing, transportation, and clean water go unmet. Meanwhile, government contractors drop bombs on third-world villages and call it strategy.

This isn’t just bad budgeting. It’s moral bankruptcy. A country that can’t care for its own people has no business policing the rest of the world.

Bridges collapse, water systems fail, students drown in debt, and veterans sleep on the streets—while the Pentagon builds runways in the desert and funds proxy wars no one can explain.

Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of overhauling.

We are funding our own collapse. The roads rot while military convoys roll. The power grid fails while the drones fly. Our national strength is being siphoned off to feed a war machine that produces nothing but death, debt, and dysfunction.

We don’t need another war. We need a resurrection of the republic.

It’s time to stop policing the world. Bring the troops home. Shut down the military bases. End the covert wars. Slash the Pentagon’s budget. The path to peace begins with a full retreat from empire.

At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:

The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

This is the “unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us not to let endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that emerged following the war—one that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.

We failed to heed his warning.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, war is the enemy of freedom.

As long as America’s politicians continue to involve us in wars that bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse, “we the people” will find ourselves in a perpetual state of tyranny.

In the end, it’s not just the empire that falls. It’s the republic it hollowed out along the way.

The post The Real National Emergency: Endless Wars, Failing Infrastructure, and a Dying Republic appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump, Israel, and the Death of MAGA

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

I’ve noted how often we’ve been told, by mainstream and alt media sources alike, that we are on the brink of WWIII. Never closer, as Alex Jones would say. That’s been at least three to four years now. It’s nonstop fear porn, which the COVID psyop taught us works really, really well. But is it real this time? Are you ready for a World War?

Israel’s attack on Iran recently, in the middle of peace negotiations, changed the equation. Trumpenstein at first appeared flustered. He had been at least saying he wanted to avoid war, something that no diehard Zionist has ever said. Iran has been the primary target of Zionists for decades now. They know they can’t drudge up any more alleged Nazi war criminals, and give them a Kafkaesque show trial like Eichmann. So Iran has been branded as the “state sponsor of terrorism,” whatever that means. According to the man who really runs U.S. foreign policy, Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran has been on the verge of developing nuclear weapons since 1979. As Bugs Bunny might have said, that last step is a doozy. Trumpenstein has ranted that as long as he’s president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. But Trump says lots of contradictory things, as we all know. He also continues to want to broker a “deal.” Alex Jones and others claim the decision has been made; we are going to war.

Now, it takes some real nerve to blame the Iranians for being bombed first. The Yiddish word for it is chutzpah. The mantra has always been that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” In this case, from what? A possible peace? One of those big, beautiful “deals” that Trumpenstein is renowned for? It will take all the powers of the state controlled press and subservient political “representatives” to portray Israel as the aggrieved party here. Why, exactly, is Israel so mad at the Iranians? For supposedly developing nuclear weapons? Which Israel was working on over sixty years ago, greatly angering President Kennedy. Right before he was assassinated. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why isn’t the world concerned about that? Don’t they prefer to defecate in the sand at beaches? Who trusts people who do that with nuclear weapons? And, of course, our beloved United States is still the only nation in history to use nuclear power on another country. Why would Iran trust us?

And why would Iran trust Israel? They are a rogue state, inserted onto land occupied by other people, with the backing of the world’s greatest military powers. In their early years, they featured the Irgun Gang, a group which included future Israeli leader Menachem Begin. I don’t know, they sure seem to have been terrorists. They blew up the King David Hotel, killing a whole lot of civilians. I don’t think the court historians can provide a discernable difference between the Irgun Gang, and the PLO. Or Al Qaeda. Or Hamas. Or Hezbollah. The Taliban. Isis. The list is pretty long. As someone once said, one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. If we had lost our War for Independence, they probably could have called the Minute Men “terrorists.” They were camoflauged while firing at the proud and arrogant British troops. When the communists did that later, they called it guerilla warfare. Who’s the “terrorist,” the Palestinian kid throwing rocks, or the IDF soldier bulldozing his former home?

Many prominent Trump backers have turned on him. This is a bombed bridge too far for them. Tucker Carlson. Steve Bannon. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even Alex Jones was kind of critical, but as always he held back and made sure to say he agrees with 95 percent of what Trump is doing. Trumpenstein retaliated by calling Tucker “kooky.” When it was reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had concluded Iran had no nuclear weapons, Trumpenstein scoffed, “I don’t care what she said.” Somehow, I don’t think Tulsi is long for this administration. To the degree that anything he does is sincere and unscripted, Trump appears to believe that his MAGA base is as committed to Israel as he and everyone else in Washington, D.C. is. Not all the MAGA faithful are waiting for the Rapture, or believe that going against Israel is going against God. Most see it for what it is; the antithesis of an America First policy.

The MAGA movement is reeling, with the primary point of contention being Israel. “America First,” which Trump used before the less scintillating “Make America Great Again,” is not compatible with unswerving support for another nation. The Christian Zionists and the millions who were thrilled by Trump’s oft cited disdain for the “forever wars” aren’t compatible, either. There is a huge difference between the Mark Levins and Ben Shapiros and the Candace Owens’s and the Tucker Carlsons. An America First foreign policy was a nonnegotiable issue with most MAGA supporters. If Trump puts Americans in harm’s way over Israel’s squabbles, then he is no different that Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Biden. Probably 100 million Americans are fed up with the two party duopoly, and want something that represents their interests. Going to war with Iran obviously doesn’t fall into that category.

There really hasn’t been much criticism of Israel from anyone in Washington, D.C. since November 22, 1963. An otherwise nondescript Republican, Rep. Paul Findley, had the audacity to buck AIPAC, and it ended his political career. He wrote the best seller, They Dare to Speak Out, but it changed nothing. Very few have dared to speak out against our “greatest ally.” Another Republican, Pete McCloskey, talked about how the ADL uses bullying tactics, and declared, “There is a strong Jewish lobby….I do not understand why the Jewish community should resent it being labeled as such.” McCloskey’s political career, too, was ended by these kinds of comments. James Trafficant was one of the last great Democrats in Congress. His criticism of Israel, and courageous defense of embattled Cleveland autoworker John Demjanjuk, resulted in him being expelled from Congress, and sentenced to seven years in prison.

As I wrote about in an earlier Substack, Rep. Thomas Massie gave a remarkable interview last year to Tucker Carlson, in which he spoke of AIPAC having a “babysitter” for every politician, and how he threw them out of his office. Shortly thereafter, his healthy wife suddenly died, after a vacation with their grandkids. I still haven’t read anything on what the cause was. She wasn’t vaccinated, so it wasn’t a case of “doctors baffled.” Maybe all these things are coincidences, and opposing Israel has no impact on one’s life or political career. We’ll see how many members in Congress join Marjorie Taylor Greene and Massie in opposing any U.S. involvement in the mess between Israel and Iran. Massie has introduced a bill about this, demanding that Congress hold a debate, and vote on any declaration of war, which is their role under the Constitution. But Congress hasn’t declared war since WWII. Needless to say, we have been at war somewhere almost continuously since then.

Iran has never done anything to us, other than the hostage situation just before the 1980 election, which ended with a real “October Surprise.” Perhaps Iran had had enough of our meddling in their affairs. After all, the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. It’s a “democracy” thing, you wouldn’t understand. The Shah was an American puppet. Remember that whole “consent of the governed” thing that we fought a revolution about. Now, Abraham Lincoln crushed that notion forever, but it’s still a timeless and profound concept. In more recent years, the U.S. backed Iraq, led by CIA asset to become foreign hobgoblin Saddam Hussein, during their war with Iran, poison gas and all. One of the few things Trumpenstein did the first time around was assassinate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, supposedly the most dangerous “terrorist” in the world at the time, although no American had heard of him before.

Now, we backed Iraq because Israel wanted us to. Trump assassinated Soleimani because Israel ordered him to, just like he bombed Syria twice at their behest. Barack Obama murdered an entire wedding party in Yemen, certainly an impeachable offense if ever there was one, but it is unknown if Israel personally requested it. The Gulf War, our senseless years in Afghanistan- all of it was because it was in Israel’s interest, not ours. What has Afghanistan, let alone Yemen, ever done to us? Donald Trump pulling out and holding a chair for Bibi Netanyahu was about as symbolic a gesture as could be imagined. Maybe Bibi asked him to. You don’t turn down Bibi. And you don’t make fun of a less than masculine nickname like that. Bibi apparently wants to kill the latest Ayatollah. That’s how out of step I am; I didn’t know there were multiple Ayatollahs. Trump allegedly stopped Bibi from doing that. I’m not sure that’s believable.

Read the Whole Article

The post Trump, Israel, and the Death of MAGA appeared first on LewRockwell.

End of the Penny and the Next Phase of Currency Debasement

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

International Man: President Trump has ordered the Treasury to stop minting pennies after 232 years, citing the fact that each one costs more than two cents to produce—calling it a waste of taxpayer money.

What’s your take on this move?

Doug Casey: It may seem odd that we’re talking about something as trivial as the disappearance of the penny while we may be staring World War 3 in the face any day now. We can visit that next week since the situation is so fluid.

But let’s turn our attention from a potentially traumatic war to a gradually degrading coinage, starting with a fun fact. People have forgotten that the US used to have a half-penny coin, which circulated from 1793 until 1857; it was pure copper and only slightly smaller than our current quarter. The debasement of coinage is a long-standing trend in the United States.

Now, the US is abolishing the penny. As usual, Trump is understating the negative, just as he always overstates the positive. It doesn’t cost two cents to produce a penny. It costs 3.7 cents. He mentioned that it’s uneconomic to mint them, but he should explain that it’s only because the currency itself is being destroyed. However, I’m uncertain that he understands the cause and effect of the matter.

It’s necessary to get rid of the penny because they cost the Treasury about $60 million a year to mint, even though nobody uses them. People don’t even bother picking them up off the street anymore. It’s estimated there are about 250 billion of the things pointlessly saved in mason jars. They’re a total waste of metal.

A bit of history is in order: When the first US penny was minted in 1793, it was pure copper and weighed 208 grains (13.48 grams), larger and heavier than the current half dollar. It was reduced to 168 grains (11 grams) in 1795. In 1856, it was further reduced to 72 grains (5 grams).

In 1864, it was reduced to 48 grains (3 grams) and was no longer pure copper but an admixture of 5% tin and zinc. This version of the penny lasted until 1982 when the government perpetrated a genuine fraud by replacing all the copper with zinc, disguised by a copper coating. Boobus americanus never noticed. Zinc usually trades at about a quarter of the value of copper. The weight of the penny also dropped to 38.6 grains (2.5 grams).

The trend of reducing the penny’s intrinsic value has been steady from the beginning. Now, the penny is being eliminated entirely. Gold went away in 1933, silver in 1964, copper in 1982. Soon, all coins will be gone, then the paper currency.

In 2006, the US government imposed a fine of up to $10,000 and/or five years imprisonment on anyone who melts or exports pennies or nickels for profit because people were doing just that—for the metal content. That’s something you’d expect in a Third World country.

International Man: What does the evolution of US coin designs tell us about the cultural and political transformation of America?

Doug Casey: Just as important as the degradation of the coins themselves is the symbolic significance of what is on the coins.

Up until 1909, US coinage always displayed a symbol of Liberty or something traditional like an Indian or an eagle—but not the portrait of a dead president. This changed starting with the Lincoln penny. The same thing happened in Rome when it transitioned from a republic to an empire. Before the time of Caesar, Roman coins bore ideals, noble concepts, perhaps a god. After Caesar, the money became instruments of propaganda, sporting portraits of the emperors while its silver content gradually went to zero. The same thing is true of the US. As a degenerate bankrupt empire, we’re following in Rome’s footsteps.

In 1909, the noble Indian on the penny was replaced with Lincoln. In 1938, the Buffalo on the Nickel was replaced with Jefferson. In 1932, Liberty on the Quarter was replaced with George Washington. This happened under Franklin Roosevelt, a statist who overturned many traditions that made America unique. But at least Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln were semi-mythical figures from our distant past. An even more disturbing change unfolded after Roosevelt died. The winged Mercury featured the dime was replaced with Roosevelt’s portrait in 1946. That was highly inappropriate for a free republic. Not as bad as putting a living person on the coins, but using a recently dead politician is symptomatic of the degradation and politicization of the currency.

That signaled a new trend. Benjamin Franklin replaced Liberty in 1946, and JFK replaced him in 1964. Eisenhower was put on a large faux silver dollar from 1971 to 1978, only to be replaced by a quarter-sized token commemorating Susan B. Anthony, basically a community organizer who agitated for women’s suffrage. She graced the coin from 1979 to 1981, when it simply went out of circulation.

Many other frauds have been perpetrated on the coinage. The biggest was in 1964, the last year there was silver in dimes, quarters, and half dollars. Since then, they’ve been made of copper with a wash that makes them look like silver—which is exactly what the Roman Empire did towards its end. Technically speaking, they’re not even coins. They’re tokens. Coins have value.

Lots of things have changed over the years. The first motto on our coins, right after the country’s founding, was “Mind your business.” A great motto. But starting in 1864, “In God We Trust” was used. I’d say it’s questionable insofar as it mixes a religious concept with the nation’s currency. Perhaps “Allahu Akbar” will replace it someday…

International Man: With the nickel now costing nearly 14 cents to produce, is it next on the chopping block?

Doug Casey: Yes, it’s going out of circulation for the same reason the penny did. Let me point out that a nickel is 25% nickel and 75% copper. Nickel now trades for about twice what copper does. That’s quite cheap historically. Nickels will soon be history.

In fact, all US coinage is on the way out because it’s basically worthless. Quarters are the only denomination that still see some use, although they’re nearly worthless. You can’t even buy an arcade game with a quarter anymore.

It’s a pity. Kids used to collect coins, pulling them out of day-to-day circulation. That inculcated the value of money and saving. But they haven’t been worth collecting for years, because the coins are now just slugs without any intrinsic value. Soon we won’t have any coins at all, because they’re simply too worthless. Too bad. How will cool uncles amuse the kids with coin tricks?

International Man: The US has kept the $100 bill as its highest denomination since 1969—even though it now holds only about 10% of its purchasing power back then.

Why is the government so reluctant to issue higher-denomination bills even after decades of inflation?

Doug Casey: We saw this phenomenon in Argentina, where the government didn’t want to admit that inflation was that bad. For a while—before Milei took over—if you wanted to pay cash, you needed a briefcase to transport the inconvenient bills. The biggest ones were worth only $1 a piece.

We used to have $500 bills, even $10,000 bills, circulating in the US. But the government really wants to get rid of all paper currency—which is to say, all monetary privacy. We’re clearly heading toward a digital currency, which will be an utter and complete disaster. With paper currency, at least you had something physical that you could move and transport privately. But when we go to a digital currency, you’ll be completely under the thumb of the Authorities. Your account will be debited or credited at the will of the central bank.

International Man: What are the broader investment implications of eliminating the penny—and what does it reveal about the future of the dollar, inflation, and trust in fiat money?

Doug Casey: The dollar is going to suffer the fate of every other fiat currency from time immemorial. It’s being inflated out of existence as we speak. Or we could say digitized out of existence.

The government is running a two trillion-dollar deficit. That will soon be three, then four, then more. Almost all of it will be monetized since nobody sane will buy government debt at some point. Currency inflation will reach extremely high levels.

People are going to lose all faith in the dollar, both internationally and within the US. When that happens, we’re looking at a multilevel catastrophe.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post End of the Penny and the Next Phase of Currency Debasement appeared first on LewRockwell.

Nuclear War Ala Mode?

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

One of the more interesting aspects of the expanding war between Israel and Iran is the way the media and the crowd of “experts” have avoided any discussion of the possible, or perhaps even likely, upcoming decision of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dig deep into his secret nuclear weapons arsenal to enable the total destruction of Iran’s prime targets. Such targets are likely to include Iran’s own apparently civilian use nuclear develop program, which is protected deep underground in Natanz and elsewhere. Iran’s surviving military and civilian leaders are also now believed to be well protected underground after the recent debacle which saw the Israeli first strike kill a number of generals and other top officials. Netanyahu would like to finish the job by making a leaderless Iran unable to defend itself and maintain sovereignty as an independent nation.

The day-to-day back and forth of missile and drone strikes continues, and, given the first day’s success, Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have now also spoken of totally destroying the Iranian capital Tehran, a city of 18 million which would not be turned to Gaza-like rubble using conventional weapons. Should anyone doubt that the insane Netanyahu would do such a thing, initiating the first battlefield use of such weapons since 1945, they should examine the Prime Minister’s record on reckless behavior, in which he has no rival among national leaders. He would unhesitatingly “defend his country and his leadership” by initiating an escalation that could have devastating consequences if other nuclear powers like Pakistan get involved in support of the Iranians.

And then there is the role of President Donald Trump, whose tone deafness on any issue that might require a minimum of a few seconds of contemplation is well established. The Trumpster has already contradicted himself several times over whether he knew in advance about Israel’s somewhat of a surprise attack on Iran and whether the US was involved. He is now saying he “doesn’t want to talk about Iran” but is repeating the Israeli call for Tehran to be evacuated, adding that something “very bad” is coming if Iran does not comply with all of Washington’s demands. Those demands include the total ending of any and all uranium enrichment, even if is for medical or scientific purposes and even if it is fully and regularly inspected by the United Nations and other international bodies.

The irony of all of this is that Israel is being treated as the victim, as usual, even though it has a secret nuclear weapons arsenal consisting of around 200 warheads and Tel Aviv is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) that mandates regular inspections. As noted above, Iran is a signatory and has accepted the inspection routine. Furthermore, both US and Israeli intelligence have confirmed that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, so the country, which has not attacked either Israel or the US, constitutes no threat to either nation yet it is itself being attacked as if it is the aggressor. That reality has not stopped Netanyahu’s declaring that the threat of Iranian nukes was his casus belli before starting his war, which it appears Trump and his war machine, recently observered parading on Constitution Avenue in Washington, might soon be joining. Trump’s fractured and often contradictory way of expressing himself on issues suggest that war is coming and that it is, by default, all about Iranian enrichment of uranium.

Paul Craig Roberts is one of the most knowledgeable observers of what has been developing. In a recent article he asked “What Do We Do When President Trump Is in the Pocket of Mass Murderer Netanyahu?” He answers his own question with “Trump says he KNOWS that Iran is ‘very close to having nuclear weapons.’ How does Trump KNOW this? Netanyahu told him… [But] what did the US intelligence community tell Trump? American intelligence told Trump that US intelligence believes that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. But Trump doesn’t care what the US Director of National Intelligence tells him is the assessment of US intelligence [saying] ‘I do not care what she [Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard] said,’ Trump declared. Netanyahu knows better. So Trump supports Israeli acts of aggression against Iran and informs Iran that if they respond to acts of war the US will help Israel destroy Iran.”

In the latest wrinkle on Trump’s role in going after the Iranians on behalf of Israel, the US president has now threatened to “eliminate” the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, if Iran does not submit to unconditional surrender. He claims to know the “secret location” where Ali Khamenei is hiding, “but we won’t kill you yet.” In light of that and other comments from Trump, Roberts makes a very important point, that “This is the behavior of a crazy person. Trump is a massive failure as president. He has allowed a genocidal monster to take over the foreign policy of the United States. Trump has permitted Netanyahu to drag America to the threshold of war with Iran. Trump has permitted the genocide of the Palestinians so that Gaza can be turned into a resort. But I would go beyond all that as Trump is also giving Netanyahu a green light to start a nuclear war… Netanyahu has started a war that Israel Cannot Win and he Has Passed the War on to Trump.”

The sleeping dog United States Congress even seems to have finally waken to some awareness of just how dangerous the situation is. It is hurriedly drafting legislation that will block US involvement in any warfare authorized unilaterally by Trump to support military actions conducted by Israel against the Iranians. That would include providing any weaponry to Israel to conduct its war or money or even political cover to protect it when it, inevitably, commits war crimes. Trump would require consent and authorization from Congress in compliance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The bill is being promoted by Senator Time Kaine of Virginia, who explained, “I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict.” The legislation will meet strong opposition from MAGA, Neocon and National Conservative promoters, as well as from the Jewish dominated national media and from Trump himself, all of whom consider it Gospel, if one might accept that phrasing, to support everything Israel does, including mass murder. The gutless wonder Zionist lackey Speaker of the House of Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, “Bible-belt Mike,” has just postponed a trip to Jerusalem in Israel to address the Knesset, where one might have expected to witness his kissing Netanyahu’s butt with a passion seldom seen. To cite Paul Craig Roberts yet again, “Israel’s hold on the US government makes it impossible for Washington to represent American interests. In the entire US Congress there is only one member who is not in Israel’s pocket.” That one person would be Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, whom the Israel Lobby has vowed to defeat in the next election “no matter how much money it takes to do it.”

Trump appears to be so excited at the prospect of moving ahead with destroying Iran that he left early from a G-7 meeting, where his presence might actually have been useful on trade issues, presuming that he is actually briefed on the US interests and aware of what he would be saying. Easier to get involved in a war, perhaps, than worry about who owns what and is trading with whom. It might even be easier to get involved in a nuclear war if that is what Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu want. They only have to ask the Trumpster nicely!

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post Nuclear War Ala Mode? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The ‘Never Again’ Mantra

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

This week, instead of one, longer story, I’ll begin with two shorter ones.

Some parents feel they’ve failed their children if they don’t take them to Disneyworld. But the Magic Kingdom doesn’t always yield bliss. It’s hot and the lines are long. Sometimes the costumed characters are too much in kids’ faces. Plus, children load up on sugary snacks and beverages and crash emotionally after consuming these. And the rides at local or regional amusement parks are much better.

A couple I know brought their five-year-old son, an only child, there. Things didn’t go well. Late in the afternoon, the boy had a breakdown. As they reached the exit, he howled, through tears, “Don’t ever take me here again!”

When my wife, Ellen, and I heard this story, we laughed because this kid was kind of temperamental and though we hadn’t been to Disney, we suspected it was overrated. Many get swept up in the hype about “the magic.” The contrast between the idyllic Disney ads and the visual/audio image of this kid’s real-world meltdown struck us as funny.

Regardless, when Ellen and I go somewhere that disappoints us—as after a downright painful couples $20 “Accupressure” massage in a cramped upstairs “studio” in New York City’s Chinatown or a bad restaurant meal or day trip—one or the other of us will say, kiddingly but seriously, “Don’t ever take me here again!”

—

Over the years, we’ve all had embittering experiences, and known others who have. We’ve known and been crime victims, been cheated in commercial dealings, had hearts broken in relationships, etc. Typically, there’s no way to fix what happened. The criminals aren’t caught. The scammers worth suing. And it turns out that “let’s just be friends” is just something people say to soften the blow of a breakup. As Taylor Swift sang, “We are never, ever, ever getting back together.”

Lacking a way to change the past, humans console themselves by saying that the bad experience taught them about life or about themselves. They assert, “We’ll know better next time.”

—

Similarly, to make themselves feel better about the Scamdemic, many now say, “We know better now” and/or “Never again!”

Last week, I mentioned a 2021 book about the Vietnam War. That book’s author, a War veteran named Jeff Danziger, praises another author, Neil Sheehan, for writing a “majestic” book, A Bright and Shining Lie (1988), about that war, upon which Sheehan reported for years from Indochina.

I read Sheehan’s book when it was published. It deserved such praise. Those who say that “Covid’s over” and that therefore, people like me should stop mentioning it, deserve to be reminded that Sheehan’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book was released thirteen years after that War ended.

Danziger writes that A Bright and Shining Lie “told in hellish detail of endless American waste and failure. It told of intelligence ignored and wisdom cast aside.”

Sounds like Coronamania.

Danziger summarizes his in-person 1988 book tour interview of Sheehan. He describes Sheehan as courteous but dour and drained, both physically and emotionally, from the many years spent witnessing and thinking about that War. Danziger says he ended the interview by asking Sheehan what the War had meant.

Looking at the floor, Sheehan wearily replied, “They’ll never be able to do that again.”

Danziger says that he respectfully disagreed with Sheehan at that time. Then, in 2021, having seen the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Danziger writes that “whoever he (Sheehan) meant by ‘they’ could certainly do it again. And again. They learned that failure could be ignored.”

Danziger says that American history between 1975-2021 had shown that “we seem doomed to a Vietnam-like quagmire every few decades.”

—

While it’s hard to envision it now, and I hope we’re not doomed to witness a repeat of the “Pandemic response,” I wouldn’t rule it out. Many Americans naively, even enthusiastically, supported “two weeks to stop the spread.” Others said that it took them “only” a month to detect the Scam.

This realization came too late. By then, the Covid crazy train had left the station. Funded by trillions of federal government subsidies, Coronamania had already gained unstoppable momentum. With such backing, states and cities closed public places, including schools, and kept them closed. Thereafter, “Public Health” entities, “Pandemic Mitigation” industries, Pharma, teachers and PPP recipients collectively dipped their buckets into the deep river of printed CARES Act dollars. With that much money in reach, there was no going back.

Despite the endless fearmongering and “expert” worship, there was no need for onerous, costly interventions to manage this “Pandemic,” nor any other imagined crises, such as those suspiciously predicted months or years in advance by the biosecurity goons or the vaxx-manic WHO and the creepy Gates, Gottlieb, Hotez and Bourla. They had a solution in search of a problem. No modern era respiratory disease outbreak has widely killed healthy people. Nonetheless, a false Covid narrative will be used to justify hundreds of billions of public misspending on “Pandemic Preparedness” to prevent “The Next Big One.”

Those Americans who see the past five years as a Scam will reject attempts at Viral Mania 2.0.

But just as the US became entangled in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars despite Sheehan’s “never again” Vietnam takeaway lesson, a Scamdemic sequel still seems possible. The Biosecurity/Pharmaceutical Complex is the contemporary counterpart of the Military/Industrial Complex that drove post-Vietnam military misadventures. It seeks and creates opportunities to intervene in order to derive profits from and control easily manipulated Americans. As during post-Vietnam military interventions, the Biosecurity/Pharmaceutical Complex can buy off government officials and the media and can repackage the Covid narrative to make some other microbe sound sufficiently “novel” to build enough fear and close things down. Naive, fearful individuals with short memories will panic and comply.

Most Americans still falsely insist that lockdowns, masks, tests and shots worked. Their egos prevent them from admitting to others and to themselves that they were conned. Others liked being able to hide from others, skipping their commutes and getting free money. Others readily forget the past. Added together, these groups constitute a coalition majority that would submit to a future, “curve flattening” round of closures, restrictions and new shots. If the Scamdemic camel gets its nose under the tent again, extended authoritarianism will again ensue.

While I’d bet against this scenario, I don’t always predict well. I opposed the lockdowns from the jump. But I thought that most people would get bored and resentful and reject these within a month. My anti-NPI rooting interest caused me to project upon others my low fear of viruses and my desire for human interaction and to predict too optimistically. I succumbed to wishful thinking in order to stave off despair.

Read the Whole Article

The post The ‘Never Again’ Mantra appeared first on LewRockwell.

How America Goes to War: Iraq, Ukraine and Now Iran

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

After promising during the 2024 election to stop the USA’s ‘forever wars’ in the 21st century, in less than six months in office Donald Trump is about to start another ‘forever’ war with Iran.

There’ll be no prior vote in Congress, as required by the US Constitution. No seeking support of the United Nations or forming a coalition with allies. Nor even a preparation of public opinion, apart from the Fox News network that appears completely on board. There won’t even be a suspension of the War Powers Act, as occurred in previous ‘forever wars’.

Trump plans to simply order US aircraft to bomb Iran, within days or perhaps even hours. Certainly as soon as the three additional US aircraft carrier task forces he’s ordered arrive on station in the Arabian sea off Iran’s southern coast.

The carriers and planes are there to neutralize Iranian coastal and inland anti-aircraft missile forces to create a corridor for US B-2 strategic bombers flying from USA’s Diego Garcia island airbase in the Indian Ocean. The B-2s will drop US made GBU 43 bunker busting bombs on the three or more Iranian sites that Israel, and now USA, allege are producing nuclear material for use in an Iranian bomb.

The US bombing will occur on the flimsiest evidence supporting the claim Iran is just weeks away from having a nuclear weapon, as the US and Israel leadership and both countries’ media are saying. To the contrary, however, UN IAEA inspectors this past March 2025 publicly said there was no evidence Iran was near having such a weapon. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of the US Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates all 17 US intelligence services, also told Congress that same month there was no evidence.

Two days ago as Trump was leaving a G7 meeting in Canada he was asked by the media what he thought of Gabbard’s view and statement. Trump replied:

“I don’t care what she said. I say they’re working on a weapon…I don’t listen to her”.

So who does Trump listen to? Netanyahu? Israel’s CIA-like counterpart, Mossad, instead of US intelligence services?

Trump will send US planes and bombers into Iran— not to prevent an attack on the USA by that country; not in response to an actual or imminent attack by Iran on US bases or its 40,000 troops now in west Asia; nor in response to an attack by Iran on US warships or any international shipping. Iran is not at war with the USA nor plans to; nevertheless, the USA will soon be at war with Iran.

Iran publicly offered this past week to sign a treaty saying it has no nuclear weapon and agrees not to develop one—a move strongly suggesting it is not concerned US inspectors would find anything indicating it has.

Trump is thus preparing to take the USA into another ‘forever’ war, this time with Iran on behalf of a foreign nation—Israel—simply because its leader, Netanyahu, has asked him to do so. The Israeli leader has been asking the USA to attack Iran since 2002 when he addressed the US Congress on the eve of the USA’s imminent Iraq invasion in 2003. Now he’ll likely get what he’s been asking for: the USA to attack Iran on behalf of Israel.

Since 2002 Netanyahu has cleverly deepened Israel’s influence—and indeed control—of the US government through its lobbying group, AIPAC, and other personal connections within the US bureaucracy, aka its Deep State.

A majority in Congress has already been writing a blank check to Israel to cover the costs of its current wars in GAZA, Lebanon and Syria. Congress will no doubt rubber stamp quickly any US air attack on Iran, in order to legitimize US bombing Iran—an act of war and aggression by America by any definition of international law. Like Congress, the US government bureaucracy and Deep State is also deeply aligned with Israeli interests, as is the Trump administration and the president himself.

The two political systems—USA and Israel—are fused at the political hip and have been for some time. There has never been anything quite like the political integration of the two systems, America and Israel, in the entire 250 year history of the USA.

Israel is the American Empire’s landlocked aircraft carrier looking out over the entire middle east, enforcing US imperial interests; America is Israel’s military weapons industry and blank check writer. It is estimated more than $340 billion in aid has been given to Israel by the US government since the 1970s. Most of which gets recycled back to the US companies providing Israel US advanced weaponry.

The USA ‘How to Go to War’ Playbook

Since 2001 America has been embroiled in what can only be called wars of empire: Wars to expand the empire. Wars to punish those who try to break from it or dare to chart an independent path. Wars to pre-emptively attack those who pose a potential challenge to it in the future.

There have been three defining wars of empire in the 21st century: the Iraq war of 2003-10 (of which the Afghan war was a second front). The Ukraine proxy war of 2021-25. And the Israel-Iran proxy war of 2023-25.

In retrospect, there is a pattern in how the US prepares and initiates war across all three.

When the US imperial elites—in government, Deep State, and Military Industrial Complex—shift the machinery of war into first gear and the war train leaves the station there is no calling it back. The gears of war were set in motion in 2002 in the case of the Iraq war; in 2021 in Ukraine; and sometime during 2024 in the current case of Iran. War plans are developed and the funding sources identified and earmarked months, and sometimes years, before military action is initiated.

Once the decision is made what remains is mostly the timing, i.e. when is it best to pull the trigger. That timing depends on getting the necessary military assets in place, lining up agreement to go to war with key players in Congress and US allies, preparing public opinion by creating an imminent threat image with the US public, and, if time and conditions permit, staging a ‘false flag’ event to give credibility to the imminent threat.

Here’s how the playbook works after initial preparations, as the US war train shifts into higher gear as evidenced in the last three major wars in the 21st century: Iraq, Ukraine, and Iran:

The Case of Iraq 2003

First, the US raises a set of demands the target country must meet and engages in a period of negotiations with it.

In the case of the Iraq war of 2003 the US charged Iraq with possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that it was planning to use. Who can forget the visuals of Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN security council showing charts of African countries from where Iraq had purchased ‘yellow cake’ to make nuclear material. WMDs include chemical or biological weapons. But Powell’s presentation suggested Iraq’s WMDs were also nuclear.

UN and US inspectors found no evidence of WMDs in the run up to the war. And after the war it was confirmed there were none. That didn’t matter at the time. The US War train had left the station months before. Assets and allies, Congress and public opinion, were already prepared and in place. In negotiations on the eve of war, Iraq agreed to US initial demands. The US just moved the goalposts. It demanded instead of UN IAEA inspectors the Iraqi armed forces submit to the occupation of Iraq by US/NATO forces to ensure there were no WMDs. In other words, agree to de facto unconditional surrender.

The WMD issue was just a cover. The real US demand was regime change in Iraq and the deposing of Saddam Hussein as the country’s leader and dismantling of his political party. When the US goes to war it is always about regime change. The manufactured threat issue is always just a cover. Negotiations are never intended to reach a compromise. They are just a tactic.

The US war prep playbook is to never agree to a deal via negotiations but only make it appear one is possible. The US raises new, more unacceptable demands and ignores concessions offered by the target country as a basis for a deal. Negotiations are thus used to lull the opponent into thinking a compromise is possible when in fact no deal will ever be agreed to. However, as the US ratchets up demands and moves the goalposts, it issues public statements in parallel that discussions are going well and negotiators are getting closer to a deal to avert war.

In the weeks just prior to the Iraq war erupting, Saddam offered UN and US inspectors free access to all sites, including military, in Iraq to determine there were no WMDs. The US ignored Saddam’s offers. WMDs were just the pretext. It was always about regime change. It always is.

And then when all assets are in place, the war hammer drops. An attack is launched by surprise with no prior indication or warning.

The parallels with the current imminent US war with Iran are notable.

The Case of Iran 2025

Ever since the collapse of Syria in late 2024 and Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency, the US has been using negotiations to lull Iran into thinking a deal was possible to avert a US involvement in Israel’s war with Iran. When Iran agreed last week to sign a treaty indicating it had no bomb and would not develop one in the future, the US moved the negotiations goalposts: it demanded the Iranians open up their military sites to US and Israeli inspectors to verify if nuclear production machinery was creating fissionable material.

The US further demanded Iran turn over its entire existing stock of fissionable uranium. Iran agreed to do so for all its excess material except for what was needed to run its civilian nuclear power plants. It offered to turn over all its excess stock of uranium to be managed by a third party, in this case Russia.

The US responded Iran must turn over all its uranium stock, including that needed to run its civilian nuclear generating plants. In other words, Iran had to shut down its civilian nuclear power plants.

As negotiations proceeded last week, Trump publicly declared the US and Iran was close to a deal. He added the situation looked promising and a deal was likely on Sunday, June 15, when US and Iranian teams were scheduled to meet again. Within 48 hours of Trump saying a deal was imminent, Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran. It is naïve to believe Trump had no knowledge of Israel’s surprise attack launched in Friday, June 13. He as much indicated he knew. And he knew such an attack would lead to a cancelling of June 15 negotiations. He knew no deal was imminent. Negotiations had served their purpose to lull Iran into thinking a deal was possible, even imminent.

Whether this tactic resulted in Iran leaving its guard down on June 13 cannot be known for certain. What is certain is that Israel’s June 13 attack wiped out much of Iran’s air defense system and giving Israel aircraft more or less free entry into Iran air space to bomb not only military facilities but power plants throughout the country, including nuclear, as well.

It was the Israeli version of Colin Powell’s ‘shock and awe’ prediction of the prior US air war launch on Iraq.

Israel’s surprise attack not only neutralized many of Iran’s air defense facilities but Israel simultaneously carried out assassinations of high ranking Iranian military, government officials as well as civilian Iranian scientists. Israel thus included a ‘decapitation’ strategy, which had previously proved successful with Hamas in GAZA and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Purposely targeting and decapitating civilians is considered a war crime.

So is targeting civilian nuclear facilities. In the initial attack Israel bombed several, with reported nuclear radiation fallout occurring in several locations in the country.

To sum up: the US Iran war playbook has followed much of that employed by the USA in Iraq: engage in negotiations to lull the opponent into thinking a deal is possible. Keep moving the demands goalpost as the opponent makes concessions. Use a pretext like WMDs (Iraq) or nuclear bomb in weeks (Iran) to maneuver public opinion in support of the war. And as in the case of Iraq, the actual goal is regime change. Military action is designed to achieve political objectives. Launching a surprise massive air campaign is to inflict as much damage on the economy and disable the government in order to spark political uprisings to depose the regime and its leaders.

Neither WMDs or a nuclear bomb are ever the real issue or objectives. They are the excuse to launch a massive military air strike to wreck the economy and create political instability and engineer regime change. And negotiations in the run up to war are a tactic, not a step in a process to reach a compromise and a deal to avert war. Their purpose is to lull the opponent into thinking a deal is possible when it isn’t.

When the US playbook believes pretexts and excuses like WMDs or nuclear bombs are not sufficient to invade, it adds a ‘false flag’ operation to the playbook. Some notable false flags from earlier US wars include the alleged ‘Tonkin Gulf’ attack by North Vietnam boats on US destroyers that was used to justify US expanding its war in Vietnam; the claim the Cuban army had invaded Grenada and seized US medical students as hostage; the charge that Panama president Noriega was running a drug operation transporting Colombia cocaine to American cities as justification for the US invasion of that country in 1989; the claim that Assad, president of Syria, was using chemical weapons; Iraqis in 1990 were killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators. Every US war playbook engineers a pretext and/or a false flag operation leading up to initiating military action.

The Case of Ukraine

The case of Ukraine is a variation on these themes. In 2014 following the US financed and CIA directed coup in that country, Russia occupied Crimea to prevent NATO from seizing its naval base there, which would have led to NATO occupying the entire Black Sea. There were brief military conflicts in eastern Ukraine, followed by negotiations and a cease fire in a Minsk Agreement between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. Germany’s then Chancellor, Merkel, and France’s president, Holland, served as guarantors of the Minsk agreement. Later in 2022 they would both admit publicly the purpose of the Minsk negotiations and deal was to lull Russia into thinking the military conflict as over. Ukraine was not militarily prepared to go to war yet. It would require eight more years to prepare massive fortifications and weapons development and training of troops before it was.

The US/NATO decision to go to war with Russia in Ukraine was made by US president Biden around June 2021 when he met with Putin for the first, and last time. The US plans for the Ukraine war date back to 2015. They were shelved when Trump won in 2016 and thereafter quickly dusted off by Biden when he took office in January 2021. Biden in August 2021 ‘cleared the decks’ in Afghanistan by pulling out. US advisors and weapons thereafter began pouring into Ukraine. Putin attempted to ‘negotiate’ with the US from afar during the rest of 2021 without any progress. The US-Ukraine plan called for a major Ukraine offensive in February 2022 to defeat what remained of the local Russian ethnic resistance in Ukraine’s two eastern provinces, Lughansk and Donetsk. But the Russians pre-empted that and invaded first in late February.

Russian advances were swift even though it invaded with barely 90,000 troops across a combat line of 1,500 kilometers from Kiev to south Donetsk. That limited force was no where near sufficient to occupy Kiev or conquer Ukraine. Its purpose was intimidation to force Ukraine into a compromise deal which was tentatively reached in Istanbul, Turkey. As discussions in Istanbul were occurring, Russia was asked to show good faith by withdrawing its forces from Kiev which it did. A tentative deal was then reached between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul in April 2022 which was quite favorable to Ukraine. However, NATO convinced Ukraine president Zelensky to reject the deal and to continue the war. The Istanbul negotiations collapsed.

Twice Russia was lulled into negotiations to ‘buy time’, as Merkle and Holland admitted in 2015 with the Minsk deal and Ukraine did again in April 2022. US/NATO rushed in weaponry and advisers after Istanbul and Ukraine launched a major offensive that threw Russian forces back from Kiev and other locations to limited positions in Lughansk and Donetsk. Thus Russia was out-maneuvered twice by negotiations with US/Ukraine that were never intended to conclude with a compromise deal to end the war in Ukraine.

As in the cases of Iraq and now Iran, from the outset the US playbook in Ukraine proxy sought the ultimate objective of regime change in Russia. The admitted strategy was a military conflict in Ukraine, financed and provided with weapons by NATO, which the plan envisioned would lead to a collapse of the Russian economy, political instability, and the deposing of Putin by Russian oligarchs and military.

The US neocon and CIA analysis was Russia’s economy was weak and the Putin government even weaker. A military conflict, supported by extensive sanctions on Russia’s economy was argued in US war planning to lead to Russian implosion and NATO/Ukraine victory. Regime change was again the objective.

Negotiations at Minsk in 2015 or Istanbul in 2022 were never meant to reach a deal but to lull Russia into thinking one was possible. In 2025 the US and EU again tried to lure Russia into a negotiation that demanded as a precondition to negotiations that Russia agree to a ceasefire first. The preconditions in turn allowed Ukraine to rearm and mobilize and train more troops during negotiations.

It was clear the US/NATO 2024 proposal was another example of negotiations employed as a tactic to ‘buy time’ to prepare for another military offensive—after which the pretext of negotiations would be dropped. This time, however, Russia did not agree to ceasefire first and then negotiations. Nor will it again agree to negotiations as a delaying tactic after twice being manipulated and out-maneuvered in 2015 and 2022.

Unlike in the cases of Iraq in 2003 and Iran today, in the case of Russia the US playbook’s negotiations tactic as well as its strategic objective of regime change have both conclusively failed.

What’s Next in the US-Israel Proxy War on Iran?

The official position of the USA is that it isn’t involved in Israel’s war with Iran. Few believe that given the US provision of weapons to Israel, likely planning the operation for months, and obvious US satellite surveillance and targeting assistance. As US official spokespersons deny US involvement, Trump himself publicly refers to the Israel attack as “we”, calls on Iran to ‘unconditionally surrender’ and says the US knows where Iranian leader Khamenei is located and could ‘take him out’ any time. All of which hardly suggests no USA involvement. Will the US then overtly escalate its involvement by bombing suspected Iranian nuclear weapons development sites deep inside several mountains. No one yet knows for certain but it is very likely Trump will do so.

But what if the US GBU 43 ‘bunker busting’ bombs do not achieve their objective and destroy Iranian deep mountain sites? The only further weapon that can is a tactical nuclear US bomb. Will it risk that?

It is likely should Trump allow B-2s to drop bunker buster bombs that Iran will attack US naval bases in the Persian gulf located in Bahrain and elsewhere. The same response may occur should US carrier plans attack Iran’s Persian Gulf ports and naval installations. A large contingent of US naval forces are stationed in Bahrain. What happens if the Gulf erupts in military conflict? One outcome is certain: global oil and gas prices will quickly rise and so will US consumer energy costs and inflation in general.

There is also the question what will Russia, now a signatory to a mutual Russia-Iran defense agreement since January, do in response to a US direct military involvement in Iran? It is difficult to imagine Russia will not come to Iran’s defense. That would greatly undermine its credibility everywhere. Nor will China remain neutral. Reports are it is already shipping weapons to Iran by air. It is very unlikely Russia or China will permit its ally Iran to be militarily defeated or its government to collapse. And then there’s Pakistan that has vowed to provide Iran with nuclear weapons if either Israel or US use them on Iran.

Can an air attack by Israel, with or without the USA, actually succeed in bringing about regime change in Iran? That too is extremely unlikely. Iran is not Libya. Its leadership is not isolated from public support, as was Assad in Syria.

It is difficult to see how the Israel air attack, despite some of its initial successes, can succeed in the longer term in bringing about the primary objective of Iranian regime change. What then? Can Netanyahu then agree to compromise after significant Israeli military bases and urban areas have been seriously damaged by Iranian hypersonic missiles that have shown to penetrate Israeli air defenses and will continue to do so? Iran has a population of 92 million and has shown it will sacrifice millions dead in its 1980s war with Iraq if necessary.

Neither the US or Israel have sufficient ground forces with which to invade Iran. Israel is a population of 10m with military forces engaged in GAZA, Lebanon and recently Syria. It would be a disaster for the US to invade Iran with ground troops. Even an air attack on Iranian sites risks significant US losses of aircraft. Trump should remember the disastrous US air invasion of Iran during the Carter administration to attempt to rescue US hostages in Tehran. It failed miserably, with the US losing several aircraft on the attempted entry.

Despite these likelihoods US neocons like Lindsey Graham now call for the commitment of US troops to Iran. Thus proving once again that neocons never compromise or admit defeat; once their plans fail they simply double down and call for further escalation.

Trump should also consider the effect of a decision to bomb Iran on his domestic base. The initial phase of a MAGA movement realignment in domestic US politics may impale itself on Trump’s escalation in Iran. Already significant voices in the MAGA movement are challenging Trump’s imminent decision to bomb: Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and a growing list of MAGA members in Congress.

Millions of American voters in 2024 no doubt voted for Trump last November in part because of his campaign promise to end America’s ‘forever wars’. Bombing Iran after less than six months in office will reveal that was just another fake election campaign pledge that presidents feed the public for votes, then turn around and do the bidding of the neocons who’ve been running US foreign policy since 2001, the US military industrial complex and their Deep State allies in America.

Should Trump soon decide to bomb Iran that act will likely unleash global and domestic US responses not easily contained by the Trump administration. Trump’s advisers should remind him not only of Carter’s disastrous invasion in 1979, but of Nixon’s bombing of North Vietnam which only accelerated the collapse of US’s war in Vietnam.

Air wars are successful only when targeting small weak military state opponents. They worked with Serbia, Libya, in Sudan, and such. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan US ground troops had to be committed and then were forced to leave. And this time the US simply has no sufficient ground forces, short of reinstituting a draft. Europe has even less.

Trump’s decision to bomb Iran will result in forces of global and domestic US political entropy spinning out of his control. But like the US neocon community—which Trump has now apparently joined—looking beyond the immediate situation to possible consequences is not part of their mental apparatus nor in either of their war time playbooks.

Looking back in the months to come, the USA proxy war in Ukraine may be understood as the dress rehearsal to World War III. But a US-Israel war on Iran will be understood as the actual start of a global conflict.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post How America Goes to War: Iraq, Ukraine and Now Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation Revolutionized Medicine

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

I have attempted to make the case that we are routinely denied vital knowledge, treatment, and care to protect the interests of the medical industrial complex. For example:

• I’ve highlighted how unsafe pharmaceuticals make it to market because approval panels were stacked with people taking money from manufacturers (which was a tactic Anthony Fauci weaponized against America).

• I‘ve discussed how the American Medical Association was taken over by unscrupulous businessmen who funded the association by promoting anything they were paid to (which is why there were so many AMA advertisements of doctors promoting smoking) while using the government to outlaw competing therapies.

• I’ve shown how American society has been separated from fundamental health requirements (e.g., sleep or sunlight), how damaging losing these is, and how far the marketing industry goes to ensure we never reclaim these basic health requirements.

This suggests that remarkable medical innovations exist that have been overlooked or forgotten. I will discuss one—ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI)—because there’s vast evidence for its use and unlike many other lost medical technologies, it’s still relatively accessible.

The Importance of Sunlight

A widely held view exists that sunlight (particularly its ultraviolet component) is dangerous and must be avoided. Remarkably, much of that came from a 1980s public relations campaign that the struggling dermatology profession used to rebrand themselves as cancer fighters by creating a hysteria about benign sunlight-induced cancers while downplaying that the deadly skin cancer, melanoma, actually results from a lack of sunlight. Treating skin cancer is both straightforward and highly lucrative, making dermatology one of the most sought-after medical specialties.

Note: a 20 year prospective study of 29,518 Swedish women found that those who avoided sunlight were 130% more likely to die than women who had regular sunlight exposure. They were much more likely to develop various medical conditions (e.g., they were twice as likely to get cancer).

As such, I’ve attempted to shine light on the critical benefits we receive from sunlight, how many illnesses result from artificial lighting and a lack of sunlight, and that the same changes observed in plants and animals due to unhealthy lighting are also observed in humans (all of which is discussed here). Key points I covered there included:

• Unhealthy light causes and exacerbates cancers and significantly increases infection risk (particularly in livestock).

• Unhealthy light contributes to behavioral disorders (e.g., ADHD).

• Healthy lighting significantly increases the health, fertility, and productivity of domesticated animals.

• The circadian rhythm (which regulates sleep and healing) is heavily disrupted by unnatural lighting.

• Many biological structures are highly sensitive to specific light wavelengths, which is problematic because artificial lighting has narrow bands rather than a complete spectrum.

• Light plays a critical role in generating circulation and protecting blood vessels.

• Ultraviolet light is particularly critical for health. The most dramatic benefits of light therapies occur when appropriate UV light is administered to the body.

• Glass blocks essential UV light, so modern life prevents access to that light, creating widespread UV deficiency.

• Since skin has difficulty absorbing UV light, we receive much light through the eyes. When individuals wear glasses blocking sunlight from entering their eyes, health problems can ensue that resolve once addressed.

The major challenge with light therapies is getting light inside the body. Fortunately, methods have been developed to do this, producing remarkable results for over a century.

The History of Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation

One of the oldest “proven” therapies was having people bathe in sunlight. It was one of the few things that actually succeeded in treating the 1918 influenza. Prior to antibiotics, it was one of the most effective treatments for tuberculosis and was widely used for other diseases (e.g., erysipelas and mumps). One UVBI pioneer noted that low doses of externally applied UV light stimulated general resistance to infection in animals and humans.

The medical field concluded that part of sunlight’s value was that ultraviolet within it was a sterilizing agent, and UV devices were developed to sterilize things. For example, one of the most effective ways to prevent COVID-19 indoors was exposing air to UV light, and one promising approach explored for treating COVID-19 was safely putting UV light inside the respiratory tract to sterilize viral particles (which is what Trump was actually describing during his infamous disinfectant remark).

Since blood-borne infections (septicemia) were a major problem, in 1927, Emmett K. Knott (who was not a doctor) decided to try sterilizing blood by extracting it, exposing it to UV light, and returning it to the body. Initially, when testing this by infecting dogs with lethal bacteria, he found that while treated dogs didn’t have bacteria in their blood at death, they still died after about a week.

Eventually, in 1928 an accident happened and Knott dramatically under-dosed a septic dog, after which the dog had a dramatic recovery—leading Knott to realize only a small amount of blood should be irradiated. Shortly after, Knott received a request from a doctor friend whose sister was dying from septicemia for blood irradiation. The UVBI treatment worked, and the woman made a complete recovery.

For five years, Knott refined his method without testing it on humans, likely due to the difficulty in finding willing doctors and the Great Depression. Eventually, in 1933, another Seattle doctor with a septic patient on the verge of death reached out to Knott, and again UVBI resulted in dramatic recovery.

Knott began traveling the country with his massive machine, and beginning in 1937, successfully convinced skeptical hospital doctors to use UVBI. As the therapy proved itself, more people adopted it, and by the 1940s, pioneering physicians who tested it on hundreds of patients found that UVBI consistently treated conditions such as sepsis, pneumonia (including viral pneumonias), kidney disorders, asthma, polio, botulism, rheumatic fever, and viral hepatitis.

UVBI almost always worked if administered early in the infection, often yielding miraculous results even when patients were on the verge of death, and significantly shortened hospital stays.

Note: Dr. George Miley, who had done the most UVBI work, commented on Knott’s work in 1940: “I think personally that this is one of the greatest contributions to medicine ever made by a citizen of the United States.”

By the early 1950s, UVBI was being used in approximately 50 American hospitals, with doctors reporting they had used it on thousands of patients and consistently seen immediate and miraculous results alongside a complete absence of side effects.

These doctors documented their work in a significant body of literature: 50 papers by 20 different authors (published in 18 different medical journals) covering over 3000 patients with 36 different diseases—all finding remarkable UVBI benefits. UVBI was promoted in mainstream media (e.g., The New York Times and Time Magazine).

Here’s one case from a physician who between 1938-1943 successfully treated over 400 patients with 35 different diseases using UVBI:

A patient had thrombosis of the cerebellar artery (brain blood clot), pneumonia, bacterial blood infection, lung emboli, leg blood clot, and paralysis of his left side and vocal cords—a hopeless and terminal case. When seen by Dr. Barrett, the patient was delirious and irrational, had eaten nothing except Coca-Cola for 11 days, and had lost 45 pounds.

He was immediately treated with UVBI and had an almost instant response. After a second treatment in three days, there was further dramatic improvement. Although it took several months, he recovered completely, regaining the 45 pounds he had lost and adding another ten.

This patient would almost certainly have died within days without UVBI therapy.

Market Monopolization

At this point, the American Medical Association (AMA) became involved and attempted to extort Knott by offering to conduct a study validating UVBI for $100,000 (approximately $ 1 million today) and to purchase the rights to Knott’s device in return for a small sales cut.

After Knott refused (as did physicians across America advocating for UVBI), the AMA decided to do its study anyway. It was overseen by a friend of the AMA director (who was designing a competing device) and curiously, prior to being done, JAMA announced it was likely to fail. The study had various issues (e.g., no one could inspect the machine, when returned they discovered a film had blocked UV light from reaching blood, it only had 68 test subjects, many cases were conditions UVBI wasn’t used for). Nonetheless, no adverse events occurred, no one died (despite many having dangerous conditions), and many patients experienced significant improvement.

Despite this, the 1952 study concluded:

“We have concluded that none of our patients derived benefit from the irradiation of blood with the Knott hemo-irradiator.”

Because of this “definitive study,” hospitals across America quickly abandoned UVBI and became fully committed to emerging antibiotics. Knott stopped producing his machine and died in 1961. The Salk vaccine also eliminated interest in finding polio treatments.

Note: fortunately, UVBI revived in Russia, the former Soviet states, and Germany. Unlike America, these countries couldn’t afford extravagant medical spending and lacked routine censorship of scientific ideas that threatened the medical industrial complex. Operating on shoestring budgets, they were motivated to find economical disease solutions.

The most noteworthy aspect was that the exact same thing has been done to many other promising therapies. For example, around this time, the AMA approached the inventors of alternative cancer therapies (such as the Krebiozen, Hoxey’s herbs, Rife’s frequency’s and Koch’s catalysts) and pressured them to sign away almost all of the rights for the treatment to the AMA or be blacklisted. In each case, the inventor refused because they wanted it to remain affordable to everyday people, after which the AMA launched a blitz against the therapy, and then with the help of the FDA, buried it (which was later corroborated by a 1953 Congressional investigation). In short, because of the power the AMA wielded, a single fraudulent negative study could immediately erase large bodies of independent research showing otherwise.

As Pierre Kory details in “The War on Ivermectin,” this happened throughout the pandemic with unpatentable COVID-19 treatments. With hydroxychloroquine, the Lancet published a trial arising from overtly false data (later retracted) showing HCQ was killing people, leading to worldwide trial terminations. In contrast, numerous independent studies found HCQ was one of the safest and most effective COVID-19 treatments if used early, and prior to COVID-19, the “incredibly dangerous” HCQ was considered one of the safest and most essential medications in existence.

Note: similar absurdities occurred with ivermectin and vitamin D (which for decades has proven more effective at preventing flu than annual flu shots).

Paul Marik (widely considered the world’s top critical care expert) repeatedly demonstrated that IV vitamin C is transformative for sepsis when administered early, dramatically reducing death rates (e.g., his hospital’s sepsis death rate dropped from 22% to 6%, and in a study, from 40.4% to 8.5%). Yet this therapy was “debunked” because studies only gave IV vitamin C late in hospitalization (where it no longer works), making it nearly impossible to get IV vitamin C at American hospitals.

Note: during the early days of AIDS, Anthony Fauci suppressed lifesaving AIDS treatments while pushing a dangerous failed cancer drug that became standard AIDS treatment based on fraudulent studies.

The costs of each of these are huge. Sepsis for example, is the third leading cause of death in hospitals and kills 350,000 Americans each year. Similarly, the primary cause of death from cancers is metastases, and many of the extreme approaches used to treat cancer are justified under the possibility that they might prevent a metastasis. Likewise, COVID-19 being “incurable” cost our nation trillions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Conversely, whenever an industry supported drug comes to market, it doesn’t matter how dangerous or ineffective its data shows it to be (e.g., the data for both the COVID-19 vaccines and remdesivir showed they had significant dangers and provided minimal benefit), a method will always be found to argue they are in fact extremely “safe and effective.”

Sadly, while awareness of UVBI’s miraculous properties has now largely disappeared thanks to the AMA’s control of the media, reports of it still emerge. For example, last year Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore discussed how Trump discussing placing UV light inside the body to treat COVID was misconstrued as “injecting bleach” and the how the AMA erased this revolutionary therapy.

Read the Whole Article

The post Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation Revolutionized Medicine appeared first on LewRockwell.

The First Great Mistake

Lew Rockwell Institute - Ven, 20/06/2025 - 05:01

For any of you out there hoping against hope that Israel might stop the bombing of Iran, forget about it. Israel, along with Uncle Sam, who now wears a blondish haircut, will not stop until there is regime change in Iran. As oil prices go through the roof, Israel will continue to destroy an unarmed nation with help from America. The Iranians aside, the biggest loser in this one-sided war is Putin, who now has only China and North Korea as close allies.

I don’t care about the ayatollahs and the Persians in general, but I do care about the unheard-of crimes being committed by the Israelis in Gaza, using dynamite, bombs, bullets, and starvation to persuade close to 2 million Palestinians to leave once and for all for places unknown. It is an unheard-of crime, and Israel is committing it, with Uncle Sam watching and at times even approving it. Whatever happened to compassion? What about fairness, and the rights of the weak? I suppose we forget about them when the Israelis are involved. Their crimes simply don’t count, or do they? I fear for those among us who have the guts to call it as they see it: Israel is a racist occupying power that feels safe with Uncle Sam’s support while it enslaves and steals land from the Palestinians. Furthermore, it holds the world hostage by attacking Iran, killing its leadership, and falsely claiming that the ancient land was about to develop a nuclear bomb.

“What I fear most is that Trump is deeply involved and will play ball with the arch war criminal who leads Israel at this moment.”

And I ask you, dear readers: Since when can a country deprive another of its nuclear right to enrich uranium, albeit at low levels that can be used for civilian purposes? Who the hell are the Netanyahus, Katzes, and others of their ilk to decide? And why is Uncle Sam going along with a rogue regime like Israel’s, and why is The Donald not holding the gangsters to account?

Well, I’ll tell you. Uncle Sam is in on it, and has been in on it since the start. Israel has been busy since forever trying to get rid of the following countries: Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and, of course, Palestine. The biggest catch was and is Iran. Now Israel has finally hit the jackpot. Every country I have mentioned above is a shipwreck, and shipwrecks rarely make comebacks. Zionists have always insisted that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, and we now have an American ambassador to Israel who insists that this outrageous and criminal claim is correct.

So, what is to be done? Anything one says or writes will immediately be called anti-Semitic unless one agrees with the murderous Netanyahu. It is the oldest and most successful con trick in the world. What I fear most is that Trump is deeply involved and will play ball with the arch war criminal who leads Israel at this moment. What actually should happen if Trump were unattached would be the following: No American toleration of settlement expansion—22 new ones are being built at the expense of Palestinians as I write—and the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, as President Macron of France has envisioned. Trump should at the same time recognize the Palestinians as a people who have a right to self-determination. Last but not least, Trump should tell Netanyahu that if he doesn’t wish to end up in a European jail like some ex–African strongmen, he should stop the killing of innocents and retire.

I know, it sounds like Alice in Wonderland stuff, but I can dream, can’t I? The misguided invasion of Iraq was also a war to forestall nukes, and the result was thousands upon thousands of dead, and the only nukes found were in the dreams of neoconservatives—all Jewish—who managed to persuade an idiot president to wage war in order to have Israelis sleep sounder. A war with Iran will have the same effect but with far more innocent casualties. Which is Netanyahu’s overall strategy, to get Uncle Sam into the fight. But history shows that bombing a country turns the people being bombed against the bombers. This will happen with Iranians, but Trump and Netanyahu have not read history, only their press agents. The Donald is making his first great mistake.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post The First Great Mistake appeared first on LewRockwell.

[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]

Sostieni il sito

Amazon It - UK

Item

Accesso utente

Navigazione

Cerca

Interventi recenti del blog

continua

Commenti recenti

Stiamo più larghi
8 settimane 4 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
10 settimane 1 giorno fa
Stiamo più larghi
10 settimane 6 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
15 settimane 7 ore fa
Stiamo più larghi
18 settimane 7 ore fa
Stiamo più larghi
19 settimane 6 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
21 settimane 5 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
26 settimane 6 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
27 settimane 4 giorni fa
Stiamo più larghi
31 settimane 2 giorni fa

Chi è on-line

Ci sono attualmente 0 utenti e 18 visitatori collegati.

Nuovi utenti

melania
Fontainebleau
ClaudioTip
Marco Caco
flying

Ultime recensioni

Lo Spot del Vaticano

Fede come patate (Faith like Potatoes - 2006)

Giudizio: Indigesto

Come ridurre ogni riflessione sulla spiritualità a un dogma stereotipato: istruzioni per l'uso

Cuore d'acciaio e cervello in ammollo

Iron Man (id 2008)

Giudizio: Si Dimentica in Fretta

Se sei uno sfigato qualsiasi ti tocca vivere con una batteria da auto a tracolla, ma se sei bello, ricco e geniale, puoi costruirti un microreattore nucleare da infilarti nel sedere e riempire di legnate tutti i fantozziani di questo mondo.

La Banca Attorno a Te

The Internationl (Id 2009)

Giudizio: Incerto

Solo gli europei sembrano in grado di affrontare argomenti scomodi che sembrano banditi dal cinema americano da intrattenimento sempre più imbecille. Ma si ha l'impressione di una grossa occasione sprecata.

Quando tocchi il fondo, puoi sempre cominciare a scavare

Quantum of solace (id 2008)

Giudizio: Repellente

Pensavamo non si potesse fare peggio di Casinò Royale, ci sbagliavamo. Se già il primo era la pietra tombale della serie, questo nuovo episodio dimostra che 007 non esiste più

Le ombre oscure della civiltà

Milk (id 2008)

Giudizio: Da Vedere

Gus Van Sant, regista discontinuo ma sempre interessante ci regala un ritratto sui lati oscuri della tolleranza.