Aggregatore di feed

We all knew that this was coming.  When voters came out in force last November to make sure that President Trump’s margin of victory exceeded Democrats’ systemic fraud, it was obvious what would happen next.  Democrats would do what Marxist globalists and Western Intelligence agencies have been doing across the world for many years: instigate riots, mayhem, sabotage, and general rebellion.

As any thinking person now understands, whenever the powers that be don’t get the election results they want, they just foment revolution and work to overturn the will of the people (see Victoria Nuland and the U.S. State Department’s Ukrainian coup d’état circa 2014).  Britain’s Establishment has undermined the Brexit vote, imported new Islamic voters, and locked up any native citizens who express outrage online.  France and Romania prosecuted their countries’ leading opposition candidates and banned them from holding office.  The Dutch Establishment blocked Geert Wilders from becoming prime minister and installed an Intelligence Community technocrat in his stead.  Germany is close to designating the most popular opposition political party a domestic terror organization.

In the United States, Democrats and their Intelligence Community co-conspirators orchestrated the Russia collusion hoax against President Trump, sabotaged his administration, subverted his lawful orders, attempted to remove him from office, used COVID to nullify election security laws, incited the 2020 summer riots, installed Dementia Joe Biden in a fraud-filled 2020 mail-in ballot dump that ludicrously rendered the Delaware Dummy the “most popular” candidate of all time, and spent years trying to imprison Trump for the rest of his life.

Across the West, the Establishment wages war against national populations that reject the politicians and bureaucratic tyrants running their countries into the ground.  Western “elites” undermine democracy in the name of democracy and throw anybody who objects into jail.  It’s insanely totalitarian…and entirely predictable.

For months, every American with two brain cells and a pulse has understood that Democrats were preparing for a 2020 “summer of love” reunion tour now that President Trump is back in the White House.  Just as they took advantage of fentanyl fanatic George Floyd’s death by railroading four Minneapolis police officers and kicking off a months-long rampage of arson, looting, and murder in Democrat-run cities across the U.S. five years ago, violent Democrats have been salivating at the chance to turn the summer of 2025 into a bloody, fiery nightmare for law-abiding Americans.  It’s what Democrats do.

This season’s production of the NGO-financed, Intelligence Community–choreographed, Chinese Communist Party–supported, and Democrat party–organized “color revolution” has a new theme.  Instead of bringing back Black Lives Matter for an encore performance of its widely acclaimed 2020 race riots (despite five-star reviews from the Establishment, that “fiery but mostly peaceful” theatrical production turned off much of the public), 2025’s murder spree will celebrate criminal illegal aliens’ war against Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

Forty million foreign nationals will prove why they should be allowed to break America’s immigration laws and bilk America’s taxpayers by burning down American cities, attacking America’s law enforcement officers, and endangering American lives.  California governor “Gruesome” Newsom sure is excited.  The same tyrant who sent armed enforcers after Christians who refused to mask toddlers over two years into the COVID pandemic (another Democrat-sponsored theatrical production that the press and politicians adored but the public despised) is doing everything he can to help illegal aliens set his state on fire.

Opening night for downtowns across the country is still a few weeks away, but the preview show in Los Angeles is already getting stellar reviews from all the very best people.  Celebrities say the Democrat party has really outdone itself.  Journalists argue that this is one sequel you won’t want to miss.  Anonymous sources from the CIA and FBI are ecstatic about this summer’s coming carnage and are already telling critics who have not yet seen the show, We absolutely love it when armies of foreigners wage war on Americans.  We all get raises, additional surveillance powers, and brand-new office space.

Democrat politicians can hardly contain their glee.  Whenever they show up on CNN and MSNBC, they cheer for rioters.  If “democracy” means throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails at police officers, robbing civilians, and burning down small businesses, then it makes perfect sense why the party of slavery and Jim Crow has never changed its name.

Read the Whole Article

The post Our Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Foreign Invasion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Two notable events have taken place since Pope Leo XIV ascended the Throne of Saint Peter: Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte angered pretty much every traditionally-minded Catholic in the Anglo-sphere, and 20,000 pilgrims, mostly young, marched the Chartres and attended an internationally televised/streamed Latin Mass said by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Bishop Martin’s actions became an international sensation and the documents leaked to the public came off like a temper tantrum by an unhinged ideologue who wanted to stick it to the Trads for not loving the New Springtime enough; whereas Bishop Schneider’s actions, along with the pilgrims, seemed simply Catholic and holy.

What we see in the dichotomous reception of these two events is indicative of an undeniable truth that the hierarchy must deal with, even if some want to ignore it: Tradition is winning and will win, whereas the experiment of the conciliar era will lose and is losing.

Even if we assume the best about the more “moderate” post-conciliar approaches—reform of the reform, etc.—what we find is that the fight is primarily between a general Novus Ordo parish paradigm, and Traditional communities that are bursting at the seams. Of course, I speak in generalities here, and there is not enough time to go into detailed specifics, so please forgive me if I fail to acknowledge some exceptions, which given their infrequency tend to prove the rule.

Now, the conciliar zeitgeist is far from dead, which makes sense since the Vatican II generation is still around and the youngest of it will be for a decade or so. Also, so many of the theologians and clerics who committed their lives to work for the Church during the 70s-90s did so when Tradition was barely acknowledged or maligned. I am thinking of the George Weigels of the world, and while they may not be as influential as they once were, they still get the front page of major journals and mainstream publications, which is a privilege Traditionalists rarely, if ever, are granted.

It is worth calling to mind that during the heyday of the John-Paul II conservative Catholicism, an attachment to the Latin Mass was seen as a problem to be solved. In 1984 under Pope John-Paul II, the famous “Indult” Mass was permitted, which was rightly—you’ll see why—referred to as the “Insult” by Traditionalists.

Released on behalf of the Polish Pope by the Congregation for Divine Worship, the letter Quattuor Abhinc Annos stated: “… [I]t appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called ‘Tridentine’ rite was almost completely solved… however, the same problem continues…”

Gee, how warm and fuzzy it must have been to hear from Rome, “You can have your pretty little missal, but we are giving you this because you are a problem that won’t go away.” Another example of the “pastoral” attitude of clerics in the wake of the pastoral Vatican II.

Now, the Indult failed in its true intention, which was to clarify “beyond all ambiguity that such priests [who say the TLM] and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.”

In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre went ahead with his consecrations, which I view as heroic and providential, and Tradition still continued to grow even though it was associated in the public mind with disobedience, schism, and excommunication. The communities established by Rome to try and pull traditionalists away from the SSPX or give those who were Tradition-curious a place to go continued to grow, and their priests, by and large, still don’t seem to be huge fans of the Novus Ordo or have glowingly positive things to say about Vatican II. I can say from personal experience as someone who has publicly professed himself to be a Lefebvre diehard that when I travel the world and interact with Catholics of all stripes, I constantly hear, “Keep up the good work, keep fighting.” I hear this frequently from priests of the FSSP, the ICKSP, and even diocesan bishops at times.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Toothpaste isn’t Going Back in the Tube: Tradition and the War of Attrition appeared first on LewRockwell.

“In the mountains of truth, you never climb in vain.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Early June. Dawn brings mist covered mountains and an empty road. The car’s capsule draws us together. I am taking my adult son to a trail that begins at the bottom of a ski slope where he will start a twenty-one mile run up and over a series of mountain peaks and through dense forests.

It is Sunday morning and soon many will awake and go into buildings to pray. Emerson and Thoreau suggested otherwise, and my son hears the same call. “Rise free from care before the dawn, and seek adventures,” said Thoreau. God is not caged in a building where preachers prattle about commonplaces meant to soothe bad consciences.

As he adjusts his running vest with its bottles of water, he walks toward the ascending path. From the rear, his curly hair and neck remind me of the little boy who loved nature so that he uncannily knew the names of every country and all their animals, as he now knows every bird and all their calls in an instant.

My heart opens like a flower as I watch him go.

Highly accomplished professionally and athletically, I think he runs to find the rhythm of life’s essence and the peace that passes all understanding. And to overcome himself. Always self-overcoming! I recall when I was his age how, when I went on much, much shorter and easier runs in natural surroundings, I would sometimes think of Leo Tolstoy or his character Andrei in War and Peace or Levin mowing with a scythe in Anna Karenina, finding the peace of the uncaged God in nature’s beauty and rhythmic movement. Now when I walk it is no different. And I too prefer to go alone.

I agree with Nietzsche, who wrote on scraps of paper while walking in the mountains: “Sitting still is the real sin against the Holy Ghost.”

I think of my father, with whom I talk regularly, who died thirty-two years ago and who walked city streets to different beats. He was conventional in certain ways, but from the stories I’ve heard about him when he was an age similar to my son’s, he did things that I would have warned against, but that I have come to realize are useless suggestions against God’s seal on one’s soul.  Quien sabe? (who knows?) was his favorite phrase. I don’t. Advice can be crippling. I am a recovering crippler out of love, but a love filled with fear for the safety of those I love, although I too was like my father and son, and many would say I still am, in a different way. Love is strange. So is daring.

When my father was in his twenties, he was in a bar with his brother (both became lawyers). An off-duty cop was drunk and looking for a fight. He was brandishing his gun. My father pinned his arm to the bar, grabbed the gun, ran outside, and threw the gun down a sewer. Risky business.

When in his late fifties, he was riding a subway with one other rider, an old lady. He was dressed in a bulky overcoat and a fedora, looking like a NYC cop of that era. Four young punks entered and demanded his wallet. One said to him, “Are you a cop?” He replied, “Why don’t you find out?” And he put his hands in his pockets. The train stopped at the next station and the four jumped out.

Fathers and sons. The links are mysterious but true, and very strong. My father, the only grandfather my son ever met, was a beautiful caring soul, a conventional Catholic and politically mainstream with a highly sophisticated mind. I became a theologian in my early years but a dissident Catholic and a political radical who was fired from teaching positions for “heresy.” My father disagreed with many of my positions but fully supported me in every way. My son, like many of his generation, took a step further away from religion. He disregards it, but he is such a deep thinker that he travels circuitous paths to the contemplation of the mysterious, to marvel at miraculous nature, what is clearly spiritual, however you want to define that word. What C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man sums up as the Tao, that Chinese term whose reality is beyond all predicates. “It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road.” One enters the Tao following one’s chest (the seat of magnanimity, sentiment) – full physically – sensing, however dimly, that one’s feet will lead one into a reality beyond words where “the head rules the belly through the chest,” the middle element of feeling that leads the soul on through trained habit.

In a world becoming more disincarnate and mechanical, what could be more important.

When my father read the English writer Edmund Gosse’s classic account of his Victorian childhood and his conflicted religious relationship with his father in Father and Son – subtitled “a study of two temperaments” – he wrote to me to say it sounded like us. There was a sadness in his words tinged with a wise understanding that this was inevitable, for separate generations are affected differently by changes in society, and yet and yet, the fundamental things abide.  Our deep love, most fundamentally.

My son and I have been affected by similar societal changes that have diffused the religious impulse into more diverse paths. Younger spirits don’t want to run on worn old soles. My son runs further and higher than I ever could. I thought I went deeper than my father. But the winding roads the three of us travel always intersect in ways our unknowing minds never know but our chests feel. These are the ties that bind us.

Wordsworth, in Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood tells us how they are rooted in childhood:

High instincts before which our mortal Nature
Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised:
But for those first affections,
Those shadowy recollections,
Which, be they what they may,
Are yet the fountain-light of all our day,
Are yet a master-light of all our seeing;
Uphold us, cherish, and have power to make
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
Of the eternal Silence: truths that wake,
To perish never;
Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavour,
Nor Man nor Boy, for beauty
Nor all that is at enmity with joy,
Can utterly abolish or destroy!

High on the mountain ridge two huge rattlesnakes eye my son the eagle as he passes a few feet from them. He thanks them for awakening him on his long journey and photographs them as he dances past their coiled bodies where a sublime vibrating landscape greets him. Beasts lead the way to beauty if you’re brave. “And he who is not a bird should not build his nest over abysses. . . . You stand there honorable and stiff and with straight backs, you famous wise men: no strong will and wind drives you. . . . Thus spoke Zarathustra.”

In his essay, “Create Dangerously,” Albert Camus tells us that beauty never enslaved anyone, just the opposite. Without beauty, we would perish. And in the Duino Elegies, Rilke tells us that “every angel is terrifying.” What is an angel but an image of beauty, and before transcendent beauty we can only bow down in reverence. Art takes a multiplicity of forms: words, paint, music, etc., but it is always incarnated expression to be true to human experience. Like mountain running.

Camus:

After all, perhaps the greatness of art lies in the perpetual tension between beauty and pain, the love of men and the madness of creation, unbearable solitude and the exhausting crowd, rejection and consent. Art advances between two chasms, which are frivolity and propaganda. On the ridge where the great artist moves forward, every step is an adventure, an extreme risk. In that risk, however, and only there, lies the freedom of art. . . . the free artist is no more a man of comfort than is the free man. . . . Danger makes men classical, and all greatness, after all, is rooted in risk.

Create dangerously, as he said.

Four hours later, I drive twenty-five miles to the southwest to meet my son. I wait in a little dirt parking lot where the seven mile trail down from the last mountain peak is so narrow that one can barely get through it. I push through and look up in fear and awe. The path cascades down over rocks and heavy brush. No one is in sight. Then, further up, I glimpse movement around a bend and down comes my son flying like a wild bird with feet – grinning.

“How was it?,” I ask him.

“Fine,” he says, in his laconic style.

When we get in the car to drive home and he is gulping the bottles of water that I have brought for him, his grandfather, my father, startles us from the back seat. He says, “Have you guys ever heard this poem?” And he begins to recite it in his mellifluous voice as we roll along.

Sometimes A Man Stands Up During Supper

By Rainer Maria Rilke

Sometimes a man stands up during supper
and walks outdoors, and keeps on walking,
because of a church that stands somewhere in the East.

And his children say blessings on him as if he were dead.

And another man, who remains inside his own house,
dies there, inside the dishes and in the glasses,
so that his children have to go far out into the world
toward that same church, which he forgot.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

The post Fathers and Sons appeared first on LewRockwell.

Join Mark Groubert & Eric Hunley this Free‑form Friday as America’s Untold Stories dives deep into explosive new revelations and political flashpoints:

First, we unpack the CIA’s newly released RFK assassination files—what do they really mean? We also break down the surprising role of RFK Sr. as a CIA informant. In a dramatic legal standoff, Judge Breyer orders Trump to relinquish California Guard control—but an appeals court says otherwise.

Plus, we examine covert Mossad operations in Iran, the controversial shutdown of trans care at Children’s Hospital LA, an AI-powered NBA ad moment, and the hidden complexities of OpenAI’s legal defense—deleted chat logs and all.

Expect raw insights, probing analysis, and the unexpected angles behind the headlines. Tune in and uncover the untold.

Episode Highlights

1. CIA drops over 1,000 pages tied to the RFK assassination, including the chilling “Kennedy must fall” notation. What new insights emerge?

2. Declassified docs reveal that RFK Sr. acted as a CIA “voluntary informant”—what does this tell us about family legacy?

3. Judge Breyer orders Trump to return California’s National Guard control, but an appeals court blocks the order—what’s next?

4. Israel’s Mossad infiltrated Iran with secret drones and “smuggled missiles”—covering covert intelligence action.

5. Children’s Hospital L.A. ends transgender care amid political pressure—context and implications.

6. AI Ad of the Finals: Kalshi debuts AI-assisted advertising during NBA Finals with Google’s Veo 3 tech.

7. OpenAI lawsuit twist: The company stores deleted ChatGPT conversations in NYT litigation context. *****************************************

Join us November 21st–23rd, 2025 in Dallas at JFK Lancer Conference (or Virtually) Tickets now available at https://assassinationconference.com/

Virtual tickets start at $75.99 In-person tickets start at $149.99 Discount Code: Use UNTOLD10 at checkout for 10% off *****************************************

The post America’s Untold Stories – CIA Releases More RFK Files & National Guard Showdown appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The Friday the 13th superstition is attributed to various things in history, but the most likely was the raid by the King of France on the Templars in 1307. Pope Clement V jumped on the “Kill the Templars” bandwagon in 1312. Why not? The Templars were the bankers of that time and had all the gold and the debt that the King of France and the Pope owed to the Templars.

So, will Trump and the Pope attack the Bank of International Settlements today? Maybe the Federal Reserve? LOL. I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

Have a happy Friday the 13th, the day the bankers died. Bwah-ha-ha! Throw a dollar bill into the fire. “Let it go, Frodo! Be rid of it!”

The End of the Templars

The post Friday the 13th appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The post RIP Brian Wilson appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

DC Dave

The post Israel’s Iran Provocation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

See here.

The post Trump Confirms He’s Just The Front Man appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

AntiWar.com

The post Israel’s Insane Attack on Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thank, John Smith.

Haaretz.com

The post U.S. Authorities Detain Two Palestinians Invited to Speak With Jewish Groups in California appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Marjorie Taylor Greene rips Trump Mideast policy saying ‘Americans don’t want to bomb Iran’ for Israel |

The Independent

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene rips Trump Mideast policy saying ‘Americans don’t want to bomb Iran’ for Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

He said this (https://x.com/SecRubio/status/1933329943003623446), but:

1. Israel’s strike was not unilateral (yet US taxpayers paid for the planes, the bombs, and provided live recon and coordination via RC-135s).
2. We do not protect US citizens first — in fact, our troops in the region are red lines and marking targets, our military puts Israel first.
3. Nuclear armed Israel does not believe attacking Iran and assassinating Iranians every year is for its “defense” but rather it is Israeli policy, to maintain and grow greater Israel.
4. Trump has not taken all necessary steps to protect our forces, instead he has made new targets of them — bring the troops home!
5. Iran has every reason to attack and retaliate against US forces, people and interests.  The US makes the psychopathy of Israel possible.  

Marco Rubio, like the state he stands for — Israel — is a lying warmongering embarrassment.

The post Little Marco is a Liar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/come-gli-inglesi-hanno-inventato-ba4)

Nel 1993 molti in Europa si sentirono traditi.

Alcuni si lamentarono di un “complotto anglosassone”.

La Gran Bretagna aveva respinto l'unione monetaria con l'Europa, affermando che avrebbe mantenuto la sterlina britannica.

Gli animi si infiammarono, le lingue si sciolsero, la retorica iniziava a farsi decisamente razzista.

“C'è una sorta di complotto”, disse il Ministro degli esteri belga, Willy Claes. “Nel mondo anglosassone esistono organizzazioni e personalità che preferiscono un'Europa divisa”.

“Le istituzioni finanziarie anglosassoni” stanno minando gli sforzi dell'Europa per unificare le valute, accusò Raymond Barré, ex-primo ministro francese.

Parlando davanti al Parlamento europeo, Jacques Delors, presidente della Commissione europea, si scagliò contro “gli anglosassoni”.

Da quando i corazzieri di Napoleone caricarono le linee britanniche a Waterloo, il mondo francofono non esplodeva con tanta furia contro la perfida Albione. Le tensioni stavano aumentando pericolosamente.

Ma niente paura.

I soccorsi stavano arrivando.

L'operazione psicologica di Soros

Nella breccia si inserì Roger Cohen, nato e cresciuto in Inghilterra, laureatosi a Oxford e in quel momento storico scrittore per il New York Times.

Cohen cambiò astutamente argomento.

Chiamò l'ufficio di Willy Claes e chiese al portavoce Ghislain D'Hoop di identificare i cospiratori “anglosassoni”.

Ce n'erano molti, rispose D'Hoop, ma uno era George Soros.

D'Hoop era caduto nella trappola.

Aveva dato a Cohen ciò che voleva.

In un articolo del 23 settembre 1993 sul New York Times, Cohen osservò ironicamente: “Ma il signor Soros non rientra certo nella definizione tradizionale di anglosassone. È un ebreo di origine ungherese che parla con un accento evidente”.

Cohen aveva abilmente cambiato argomento.

Invece di un “complotto anglosassone”, Cohen proponeva un complotto alla George Soros.

In un articolo di 900 parole che si proponeva di discutere la crisi monetaria europea, Cohen ne dedicò un terzo a Soros, riflettendo a lungo sull'ingiusto “disprezzo” che Soros aveva subito per aver venduto allo scoperto la sterlina inglese nel 1992 e il franco francese nel 1993.

Mentre Cohen fingeva di difendere Soros, il suo articolo ebbe l'effetto opposto.

Cohen attirò l'attenzione su Soros, rendendolo il fulcro di una storia che non lo riguardava affatto, o almeno non avrebbe dovuto esserlo.

Cohen aveva così schierato una delle armi più potenti nell'arsenale della guerra psicologica britannica.

Io la chiamo la “Soros Psyop”.

Fornire copertura

Nel mio precedente articolo, Come gli inglesi hanno inventato le rivoluzioni colorate, ho spiegato come gli agenti britannici esperti di guerra psicologica svilupparono colpi di stato incruenti e altre tecnologie comportamentali per manipolare i governi stranieri in modo silenzioso e discreto nell'era post-coloniale.

La strategia della Gran Bretagna dal 1945 è stata quella di fare finta di niente, nascondendosi e lasciando che fossero gli americani a fare il grosso del lavoro di polizia nel mondo.

Silenziosamente, sotto i radar, la Gran Bretagna è rimasta profondamente coinvolta negli intrighi imperiali.

Uno dei modi in cui la Gran Bretagna nasconde le sue operazioni è usare George Soros e altri come lui come copertura.

Cattivo designato

Quando gli agenti britannici si impegnano in interventi segreti come la destabilizzazione di governi o l'indebolimento delle valute, George Soros sembra sempre spuntare fuori come un pupazzo a molla, facendo smorfie per le telecamere, rilasciando dichiarazioni provocatorie e, in generale, facendo tutto il possibile per attirare l'attenzione su di sé.

È quella che i professionisti dell'intelligence chiamano un'operazione “rumorosa”.

Soros è il cattivo designato, il capro espiatorio.

Si assume deliberatamente la colpa di tutto, anche quando non ne ha.

È uno strano modo di guadagnarsi da vivere, ma sembra essere ben pagato.

“L'uomo che ha distrutto la Banca d'Inghilterra”

Fino al 1992 la maggior parte delle persone non aveva mai sentito parlare di Soros.

Poi i media britannici lo soprannominarono “L'uomo che ha distrutto la Banca d'Inghilterra”. Soros divenne una celebrità da un giorno all'altro.

Si racconta che abbia venduto allo scoperto la sterlina britannica, ne abbia forzato la svalutazione e se ne sia andato con un profitto di uno (o forse due) miliardi di dollari.

In realtà Soros fu solo uno dei tanti speculatori che scommisero contro la sterlina, forzandone una svalutazione del 20% il “Mercoledì Nero”, ovvero il 16 settembre 1992.

Alcune delle più grandi banche del mondo presero parte all'attacco, insieme a vari hedge fund e fondi pensione. Eppure i media britannici si concentrarono quasi esclusivamente su Soros, sostenendo che fosse stato lui a guidare l'attacco e a trarne i maggiori profitti.

In realtà queste affermazioni hanno ben poche basi, a parte le vanterie dello stesso Soros.

Soros diventa una celebrità

I trader di valute sono notoriamente reticenti, timorosi dell'indignazione pubblica e del controllo governativo.

Quasi sei settimane dopo il Mercoledì Nero, nessuno era veramente sicuro di chi avesse fatto crollare la sterlina britannica.

Poi accadde qualcosa di inaspettato.

Soros confessò!

Il 24 ottobre 1992 il Daily Mail britannico pubblicò un articolo in prima pagina con un Soros sorridente che teneva in mano un drink intitolato “Ho guadagnato un miliardo mentre la sterlina crollava”.

Il Mail era in qualche modo riuscito a ottenere un rendiconto trimestrale del Quantum Fund di Soros.

Quest'ultimo affermò di essere rimasto sorpreso e allarmato dalla fuga di notizie, ma aveva uno strano modo di dimostrarlo. Soros andò direttamente al Times di Londra e confermò quella versione della storia, vantandosi che fosse tutta vera.

Arrivò al punto di dire che “Noi [di Quantum] dovevamo essere il singolo fattore più importante del mercato [...]”.

E così la mattina del 26 ottobre 1992, un titolo di prima pagina del Times proclamò che Soros era “L'uomo che ha distrutto la Banca d'Inghilterra”.

Nei mesi successivi il Times avrebbe preso l'iniziativa e iniziò a promuovere la leggenda di Soros.

Protettori nascosti

In un articolo del 15 gennaio 1995 sul New Yorker, Connie Bruck ricordò lo stupore che travolse il mondo finanziario per la confessione pubblica di Soros: “I colleghi di Soros nella comunità finanziaria, inclusi alcuni amministratori e azionisti di Quantum, sono rimasti sbalorditi dalle sue rivelazioni pubbliche; ancora oggi molti esprimono sconcerto per la sua azione. Una persona nella comunità degli hedge fund mi ha detto: 'Perché portare luce su questo argomento? Perché attirare l'attenzione su di sé?'”.

Questi finanzieri non sono riusciti a cogliere il quadro generale. Non hanno capito che Soros giocava in un campionato diverso, stava giocando una partita diversa.

Non era solo uno speculatore.

Era un soldato in una guerra psicologica.

L'uomo che ha creato George Soros

L'uomo responsabile della promozione di Soros in quel periodo fu Lord William Rees-Mogg, un eminente giornalista e membro della Camera dei Lord.

Il Financial Times lo ha definito “uno dei nomi più grandi del giornalismo britannico”.

Lord Rees-Mogg è morto nel 2012.

Fu direttore del Times per 14 anni (1967-1981), poi vicepresidente della BBC.

Era amico e confidente della famiglia reale, amico intimo e socio in affari di Lord Jacob Rothschild e padre del politico britannico Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Più di chiunque altro, Lord Rees-Mogg è stato responsabile della trasformazione di George Soros in un'arma.

Soros, salvatore della Gran Bretagna

Quando il Daily Mail accusò Soros di aver fatto crollare la sterlina, il Times intervenne per spiegare che Soros era un eroe, che invece aveva effettivamente salvato la sovranità britannica.

In un articolo di prima pagina del 26 ottobre 1992, il Times spiegò che Soros aveva salvato il Paese dal collasso economico e dalla schiavitù dell'UE.

La svalutazione della sterlina aveva costretto la Gran Bretagna a ritirarsi dal Meccanismo Europeo di Cambio (SME), bloccando così i piani britannici di aderire all'unione monetaria europea, aggiunse il Times.

Lord William Rees-Mogg fu particolarmente esplicito nella difesa di Soros.

“La Gran Bretagna ha avuto la fortuna di essere costretta a uscire dallo SME”, scrisse Rees-Mogg nel suo articolo del 1° marzo 1993 sul Times. “La politica economica di George Soros, per un compenso modesto, ha corretto quella del [Primo Ministro] John Major”.

Negli articoli successivi Rees-Mogg si dimostrò sempre più entusiasta nel lodare Soros. Affermò che quest'ultimo aveva “salvato” il Regno Unito; che Soros era un “benefattore della Gran Bretagna”; anzi, che una sua statua avrebbe dovuto essere “eretta in Piazza del Parlamento, di fronte al Ministero del Tesoro”.

Agenda globalista

In realtà Rees-Mogg stava fuorviando i suoi lettori.

Non sosteneva la sovranità britannica. Rees-Mogg era un globalista, convinto che lo stato-nazione avesse esaurito la sua utilità.

Qualunque fossero le ragioni per opporsi all'unione monetaria con l'Europa, il patriottismo britannico non rientrava tra queste.

Rees-Mogg espresse le sue convinzioni globaliste in una serie di libri scritti a quattro mani con lo scrittore statunitense specializzato in investimenti James Dale Davidson.

In The Sovereign Individual (1997) gli autori profetizzarono che le “nazioni occidentali” si sarebbero presto “sgretolate come l'ex-Unione Sovietica, per essere sostituite da piccole giurisdizioni “simili a città-stato” che sarebbero “emerse dalle macerie delle nazioni”.

Gli autori prevedevano che “alcune di queste nuove entità, come i Cavalieri Templari e altri ordini religiosi e militari del Medioevo, avrebbero potuto controllare una considerevole ricchezza e un potere militare senza controllare alcun territorio fisso”.

Come ai tempi del “feudalesimo”, scrissero Rees-Mogg e Davidson, “le persone a basso reddito nei Paesi occidentali” sarebbero sopravvissute legandosi “alle famiglie benestanti come dipendenti”.

In altre parole, le classi inferiori sarebbero tornate alla servitù della gleba.

Tutto questo era per il meglio, scrissero gli autori, poiché avrebbe permesso alle “persone più abili” – ovvero il “cinque per cento più ricco” – di vivere dove volevano e fare ciò che volevano, libere da lealtà o obblighi verso una particolare nazione o governo.

“Mentre l'era dell'Individuo Sovrano prende forma”, conclusero gli autori, “molte delle persone più abili cesseranno di considerarsi parte di una nazione, come britanniche, americane o canadesi. Una nuova comprensione transnazionale o extranazionale del mondo, e un nuovo modo di identificare il proprio posto in esso, attendono di essere scoperti nel nuovo millennio”.

Queste non sono le parole di un patriota.

Il nuovo feudalesimo

Infatti non c'era nulla di nuovo nel “nuovo modo” promesso da Rees-Mogg nel suo libro.

Discendente da un'antica famiglia di proprietari terrieri, Rees-Mogg sapeva che il globalismo era sempre stato il credo delle classi abbienti, la cui unica vera lealtà era verso le proprie famiglie.

La saga di Harry Potter offre una metafora calzante per il mondo odierno, in cui le famiglie d'élite si muovono invisibili tra i “babbani” o la gente comune, gestendo silenziosamente le cose dietro le quinte, nascondendosi alla vista di tutti.

Negli anni '90 le famiglie privilegiate come quella di Rees-Mogg si erano stancate di nascondersi. Rimpiangevano i bei vecchi tempi, quando potevano vivere apertamente nei loro castelli e comandare i loro servi.

Il politologo di Oxford, Hedley Bull, si rivolse a questo pubblico quando nel suo libro del 1977, The Anarchical Society, predisse che “gli stati sovrani potrebbero scomparire ed essere sostituiti non da un governo mondiale, ma da un equivalente moderno e laico del... Medioevo”.

La previsione di Bull di un nuovo medioevo trovò eco nelle élite britanniche.

Con il crollo dell'Unione Sovietica, Rees-Mogg e altri della sua classe sociale iniziarono a celebrare apertamente la fine dello stato-nazione e l'ascesa di un nuovo feudalesimo.

Ripristinare l'ordine feudale è il vero obiettivo del globalismo.

A proposito di quel “complotto anglosassone”

Gli elogi esagerati di Rees-Mogg a George Soros suscitarono sospetti nel continente per un “complotto anglosassone”.

Ulteriori sospetti sorsero quando J. P. Morgan & Co. e la sua affiliata Morgan Stanley furono ritenute complici della rottura della sterlina.

Pur essendo nominalmente americane, queste banche avevano forti legami storici con la Gran Bretagna.

L'attività principale di J. P. Morgan era sempre stata quella di fungere da copertura per gli investitori britannici in America. Le ferrovie e altre industrie statunitensi si basavano in gran parte sul capitale britannico, erogato tramite le banche Morgan.

Junius S. Morgan, il padre di J. P., avviò l'azienda di famiglia nel 1854, trasferendosi negli uffici londinesi di Peabody, Morgan & Co. e rimanendo in Inghilterra per i successivi 23 anni.

I legami della famiglia Morgan con la Gran Bretagna sono profondi.

Nel periodo precedente al Mercoledì nero, J. P. Morgan & Co. vendette allo scoperto la sterlina britannica. Nel frattempo la sua banca gemella, Morgan Stanley, concesse ingenti prestiti a Soros, consentendogli di fare lo stesso.

Le accuse di un “complotto anglosassone” non sembrano inverosimili, alla luce di questi fatti.

È probabile che Soros e altri speculatori stranieri abbiano semplicemente fornito copertura a quella che era, di fatto, un'operazione di guerra economica britannica contro la propria banca centrale.

Come gli inglesi hanno reclutato Soros

Come sottolineò Roger Cohen sul New York Times, George Soros non è un “anglosassone”. Com'è finito coinvolto in quel complotto anglosassone?

Il giovane Soros era stato reclutato tramite la London School of Economics (LSE). Lì fu plasmato come arma del “soft power” britannico.

In un precedente articolo, Come gli inglesi hanno venduto il globalismo all'America, ho spiegato come la Gran Bretagna utilizzi il “soft power” (seduzione e cooptazione) per costruire reti di influenza in altri Paesi.

La Gran Bretagna si considera “il principale soft power al mondo”, secondo la Strategic Defence and Security Review del Regno Unito del 2015.

Gli inglesi devono il loro status di leader al loro incessante reclutamento di studenti stranieri nelle università del Regno Unito, un'iniziativa considerata una priorità per la sicurezza nazionale, supervisionata dal British Council, un'agenzia del Ministero degli esteri.

La Strategic Defence and Security Review del 2015 rilevava che “1,8 milioni di studenti stranieri ricevono un'istruzione britannica ogni anno” e che “più di un quarto degli attuali leader mondiali ha studiato nel Regno Unito”.

Dopo la laurea, questi ex-studenti britannici sono attentamente monitorati dal Ministero degli esteri britannico.

Secondo un documento del governo britannico del 2013, gli ex-studenti che sono destinati a posizioni di rilievo sono incoraggiati a cercare un “maggiore coinvolgimento” con i colleghi ex-studenti britannici, allo scopo di formare “una rete di persone in posizioni di influenza in tutto il mondo che possano promuovere gli obiettivi della politica estera britannica [...]”.

Modello di reclutamento

George Soros è un trionfo della strategia di soft power britannica.

Non solo ha raggiunto una “posizione di influenza” dopo la laurea, ma è rimasto vicino ai suoi mentori britannici e ne ha promosso gli insegnamenti.

In onore di Karl Popper, suo professore alla LSE, Soros diede alle sue ONG il nome di Open Society Foundation, la cui teoria della “società aperta” guida l'attivismo di Soros ancora oggi.

Il capolavoro di Popper del 1945, La società aperta e i suoi nemici, è una difesa filosofica dell'imperialismo, in particolare dell'imperialismo britannico, così come sostenuto dai fondatori della LSE.

I socialisti fabiani che fondarono la LSE credevano che l'espansione britannica fosse la più grande forza civilizzatrice in un mondo altrimenti barbaro.

Nel suo libro Popper difese espressamente la conquista imperiale come primo passo per cancellare le identità tribali e nazionali, per spianare la strada a un “Impero Universale dell'Uomo”.

“Pregiudizi britannici”

Soros arrivò a Londra nel 1947, rifugiato dall'Ungheria occupata dai sovietici.

Visse in Inghilterra per nove anni, dai 17 ai 27 anni (dall'agosto 1947 al settembre 1956).

Laureatosi alla LSE nel 1953, Soros ottenne il suo primo lavoro in ambito finanziario presso la Singer & Friedlander, una banca d'affari londinese.

Soros ammette di essersi trasferito negli Stati Uniti solo per fare soldi.

Progettò di rimanerci cinque anni, per poi tornare in Inghilterra.

“Non mi piacevano gli Stati Uniti”, raccontò al suo biografo Michael Kaufman nel libro, Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire. “Avevo acquisito alcuni pregiudizi britannici di base; sapete, gli Stati Uniti erano, beh, commerciali, volgari e così via”.

Società aperta & società chiusa

Il disprezzo per l'America non fu l'unico “pregiudizio britannico” che Soros acquisì alla LSE. Sviluppò anche una forte avversione per i concetti di tribù e nazione, seguendo l'esempio di Karl Popper.

Nel libro, La società aperta e i suoi nemici, Popper insegnava che la razza umana si stava evolvendo da una società “chiusa” a una società “aperta”.

Il catalizzatore di questa trasformazione era l'imperialismo.

Le società chiuse sono tribali, interessate solo a ciò che è meglio per la tribù, mentre una società “aperta” cerca il meglio per tutta l'umanità.

Popper ammetteva che le società tribali sembrano attraenti in superficie, sono strettamente legate da “parentela, convivenza, condivisione di sforzi comuni, pericoli comuni, gioie comuni e sofferenze comuni”.

Tuttavia i popoli tribali non sono mai veramente liberi, sosteneva Popper. Le loro vite sono governate da “magia” e “superstizione”, dalle “leggi”, “costumi” e “tabù” dei loro antenati.

Sono intrappolati in una routine da cui non possono sfuggire.

Al contrario, una società “aperta” non ha tabù né costumi, né tribù né nazioni. È composta solo da “individui”, liberi di fare o pensare come desiderano.

“Impero universale dell'uomo”

Popper sosteneva che tutte le società nascono “chiuse”, ma in seguito diventano “aperte” attraverso l'imperialismo.

Quando una tribù diventa abbastanza forte da conquistarne altre, le società “chiuse” sono costrette ad “aprirsi” al conquistatore, mentre il conquistatore diventa a sua volta “aperto” alle vie dei conquistati.

“Credo sia necessario che l'esclusivismo e l'autosufficienza tribale possano essere superati solo da una qualche forma di imperialismo”, concluse Popper.

Gli imperi rendono tribù e nazioni obsolete, disse Popper. Forniscono un governo unico, con un unico insieme di regole per tutti.

Popper sognava un “Impero universale dell'uomo” che avrebbe diffuso la “società aperta” in ogni angolo del mondo.

Frutto Proibito

Per molti versi l'Impero è più “tollerante” della tribù, sostiene Popper. I popoli detribalizzati scoprono di essere liberi di fare e dire molte cose che un tempo consideravano “tabù”.

Ma c'è una cosa che l'Impero non può tollerare: il tribalismo stesso.

Popper avvertì che l'umanità può solo progredire, non regredire. Paragonò la “società aperta” al mangiare dall'Albero della Conoscenza. Una volta assaggiato il frutto proibito, le porte del Paradiso si chiudono.

Non si può mai tornare alla tribù; chi ci prova diventerà fascista.

“Non potremo mai tornare all'innocenza e alla bellezza della società chiusa [...]”, scrisse Popper. “Più ci proviamo [...] più sicuramente arriviamo alla [...] Polizia segreta e al [...] gangsterismo romanticizzato [...]. Non si può tornare a uno stato di natura armonioso. Se torniamo indietro, allora dobbiamo percorrere tutta la strada: dobbiamo tornare alle bestie”.

Impero Socialista

Le idee di Popper non erano originali: stava semplicemente sposando la dottrina dell'imperialismo liberale a cui era dedicata la London School of Economics.

La LSE fu fondata nel 1895 da quattro membri della Fabian Society, tra cui Sidney e Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw e Graham Wallas.

Tutti erano ferventi imperialisti, oltre che socialisti, e non vedevano alcun conflitto tra i due. Anzi i Fabiani consideravano l'Impero britannico un ottimo veicolo per diffondere l'internazionalismo socialista.

In un opuscolo del 1901 intitolato, Twentieth Century Politics: A Policy of National Efficiency, Sidney Webb invocava la fine dei “diritti astratti basati sulle 'nazionalità'”. Respingendo quella che definiva la “fervida propaganda dell'Home Rule” irlandese, Webb condannava qualsiasi movimento che spingesse per l'autogoverno basato sulla “obsoleta nozione tribale” di “autonomia razziale”.

Webb sosteneva invece che il mondo dovesse essere diviso in “unità amministrative” basate esclusivamente sulla geografia, “qualunque fosse la mescolanza razziale”, come esemplificato da “quel grande commonwealth di popoli chiamato Impero Britannico” che comprendeva “membri di tutte le razze, di tutti i colori umani e di quasi tutte le lingue e religioni”.

Così Webb espose l'essenza della “società aperta” imperiale quasi 50 anni prima di Popper.

Socialismo invisibile

Non si sa se George Orwell fosse un Fabiano, ma condivideva il sogno di un Impero Britannico socialista.

Nel suo libro del 1941, Il leone e l'unicorno: il socialismo e il genio inglese, Orwell predisse la nascita di un “movimento socialista specificamente inglese” il quale avrebbe conservato molti “anacronismi” del passato.

Questi “anacronismi” avrebbero calmato e rassicurato l'anima inglese, proprio mentre la società britannica veniva sconvolta.

Un tale “anacronismo” sarebbe stata la Monarchia, che Orwell riteneva degna di essere preservata. Un altro era l'Impero, che sarebbe stato ribattezzato “una federazione di stati socialisti [...]”.

Orwell predisse che un vero socialismo inglese avrebbe “mostrato una capacità di assimilazione del passato che avrebbe sconvolto gli osservatori stranieri e talvolta fatto dubitare che si fosse verificata una rivoluzione”.

Nonostante le apparenze, la Rivoluzione sarebbe stata reale, in ogni suo aspetto “essenziale”, promise Orwell.

“Come una mummia insepolta”

In una strana eco di Orwell, Lord William Rees-Mogg suggerì anche che il suo nuovo feudalesimo avrebbe mantenuto molti degli aspetti esteriori della normale vita inglese, anche mentre la nazione britannica si disgregava.

Nel loro libro del 1987, Blood in the Streets, Rees-Mogg e Davidson predissero che, anche dopo che gli stati-nazione avessero perso il loro potere e la loro sovranità, “le loro forme sarebbero rimaste, come in Libano, come del resto la forma dell'Impero Romano, ovvero come una mummia insepolta, per tutto il Medioevo".

Nonostante la sua cupa visione del futuro della Gran Bretagna, Rees-Mogg continuò a spacciarsi per patriota britannico fino alla fine. Forse era questo il suo modo di salvare le apparenze, di contribuire a preservare la “forma” della Gran Bretagna, “come una mummia insepolta”, al fine di calmare e rassicurare l'anima inglese.

Vediamo quindi che il socialismo “specificamente inglese” di Orwell – in cui persino la monarchia sarebbe sopravvissuta – ha una strana somiglianza con il nuovo feudalesimo di Rees-Mogg.

Potrebbe persino essere opportuno chiedersi se siano la stessa cosa.

Soros, l'imperiale

Nel 1995 Soros dichiarò al New Yorker: “Non credo che si possa mai superare l'antisemitismo comportandosi come una tribù [...]. L'unico modo per superarlo è rinunciare al tribalismo”.

Non fu né la prima né l'ultima volta che Soros suscitò scalpore condannando il tribalismo ebraico come fattore che contribuisce all'antisemitismo. Quando Soros fece un commento simile nel 2003, ricevette un rimprovero da Elan Steinberg del Congresso Ebraico Mondiale, che replicò: “L'antisemitismo non è causato dagli ebrei; è causato dagli antisemiti”.

Per essere onesti, Soros stava solo ripetendo ciò che aveva imparato alla London School of Economics.

Le sue fondazioni, Open Society, sono espressamente dedicate agli insegnamenti di Popper, che si oppongono a qualsiasi tipo di tribalismo. Rifiutando il tribalismo del suo stesso popolo ebraico, Soros si limitava a essere intellettualmente coerente.

A livello personale, non posso certo condannare Soros per la sua critica al tribalismo ebraico, visto che mio padre, ebreo, aveva opinioni simili.

Uno dei modi in cui mio padre espresse la sua ribellione fu sposando mia madre, una bellezza esotica, metà messicana, metà coreana e cattolica di fede.

Comprendo pienamente il difficile rapporto di Soros con la sua identità ebraica.

Tuttavia nelle parole di Soros percepisco un'eco inquietante dell'ideologia imperialista di Sidney Webb, un'influenza che pervade e definisce la rete Open Society a ogni livello.

Effetto pifferaio magico

Nei mesi successivi al Mercoledì Nero, i media britannici promossero Soros come una star del cinema, costruendo la sua leggenda come il più grande genio finanziario dell'epoca.

Lord William Rees-Mogg fu il capofila.

Rees-Mogg e i suoi soci sapevano che, se un numero sufficiente di piccoli investitori fosse stato indotto a credere alla leggenda di Soros, se un numero sufficiente fosse stato manipolato per imitarne le mosse, comprando e vendendo secondo i suoi consigli, allora Soros avrebbe comandato l'ondata.

Avrebbe potuto fare la differenza sui mercati, semplicemente parlando.

Nel suo articolo sul Times del 26 aprile 1993, Rees-Mogg gettò un'aura mistica su Soros, dipingendolo come un Nostradamus dei giorni nostri in grado di vedere attraverso le “illusioni pubbliche” la “realtà” sottostante.

Altri giornalisti si allinearono, ripetendo i punti di vista di Rees-Mogg come sonnambuli.

“Perché siamo così stregati da questo moderno Re Mida?”, chiese il Daily Mail, con il tono svenevole di un innamorato disperato.

Non tutti credettero al mito di Soros.

Leon Richardson, editorialista finanziario australiano, accusò Rees-Mogg di aver cercato di trasformare Soros in un pifferaio magico, per sviare gli investitori.

“Lord Rees-Mogg ha elogiato Soros, definendolo l'investitore più brillante del mondo”, affermò Richardson nella sua rubrica del 9 maggio 1993, “di conseguenza la gente ha iniziato a seguirlo e a fare quello che fa per fare soldi”.

La truffa dell'oro

Chi teneva d'occhio Soros dopo il Mercoledì Nero non dovette aspettare a lungo per il suo successivo consiglio di investimento.

“Soros ha rivolto la sua attenzione all'oro”, annunciò Rees-Mogg il 26 aprile 1993.

Newmont Mining era il più grande produttore di oro del Nord America. Soros aveva appena acquistato 10 milioni di azioni da Sir James Goldsmith e Lord Jacob Rothschild.

Se Soros stava comprando oro, forse dovremmo farlo anche noi, insinuò Rees-Mogg.

Non tutti accolsero con entusiasmo il suggerimento di Rees-Mogg. Alcuni commentatori notarono che, mentre Soros acquistava azioni Newmont, Goldsmith e Rothschild le stavano svendendo – un segnale di acquisto tutt'altro che chiaro.

“Normalmente quando un insider vende azioni della propria azienda cerca di non farsi notare”, commentò Leon Richardson. “Questo è stato uno strano caso in cui l'insider stava cercando di ottenere un'ampia copertura mediatica sulla sua vendita”.

Ciononostante l'effetto pifferaio magico funzionò: il 2 agosto il prezzo dell'oro era schizzato da $340 a $406 l'oncia, con un aumento del 19%.

“Un nuovo modo di fare soldi”

Molti nella stampa finanziaria mormorarono dell'insolito livello di coordinamento tra il Times, Soros, Goldsmith e Rothschild.

“Soros è un enigma [...]” scrisse il London Evening Standard. “Non ha mai parlato bene dell'oro, ma d'altronde non ce n'era bisogno. La stampa lo ha fatto per lui, con il sostenitore di Goldsmith, Lord Rees-Mogg, che ha lanciato l'appello sul Times”.

“Non si può che ammirare la tempistica di Goldsmith/Soros e l'aura ben orchestrata del loro spettacolo per l'oro”, commentò EuroBusiness Magazine nel settembre del 1993. “Avevano anche un cast di supporto impressionante: una stampa che ha suonato come un coro greco al loro canto da sirene per l'oro”.

David C. Roche, stratega londinese di Morgan Stanley, concluse: “È un nuovo modo di fare soldi, una combinazione di investimenti giudiziosi al minimo di un mercato e di un colpo di scena pubblicitario”.

Gioco di squadra

Nonostante tutto il clamore, la bolla dell'oro è scoppiata a settembre di quell'anno, facendo crollare i prezzi dell'oro.

Molti persero... tanto.

Ma Goldsmith e Rothschild fecero un sacco di soldi, vendendo al picco.

Alcuni sospettavano che lo scopo dell'operazione fosse quello di aiutare Goldsmith e Rothschild a realizzare un profitto sulle loro partecipazioni in Newmont, precedentemente stagnanti.

Soros, d'altra parte, subì un duro colpo: quando vendette le sue azioni Newmont, dovette farlo a un prezzo inferiore.

Perché lo fece? Perché Soros avrebbe dovuto guidare un piano di propaganda dell'oro che gli portò pochi o nessun profitto?

Alcuni sospettavano che Soros potesse aver subito un colpo per la squadra.

Forse non era poi così anticonformista, dopotutto.

Forse il pifferaio magico era solo uno che segue gli ordini...

Profeta o pedina?

Come minimo, la mossa dell'oro dimostrò che Soros lavorava di squadra.

La sua immagine di lupo solitario era solo un mito.

Quando i riflettori della celebrità si posarono per la prima volta su Soros, lo trovarono a lavorare con una ristretta cerchia di investitori britannici, tra cui alcuni dei nomi più famosi della finanza globale.

Gli investitori di quel livello non si limitano a “speculare” sui mercati, quanto piuttosto a controllarli.

La truffa dell'oro rivelò che Rees-Mogg, Soros, Goldsmith e Rothschild erano legati da una intricata rete di relazioni commerciali.

Goldsmith, ad esempio, era un direttore della St. James Place Capital di Rothschild. Un altro direttore della St. James Place, Nils Taube, era contemporaneamente direttore del Quantum Fund di Soros.

Lo stesso Rees-Mogg era un caro amico di Lord Rothschild, nonché membro del consiglio di amministrazione di J. Rothschild Investment Management e direttore di St. James Place Capital.

Nel frattempo il giornalista del Times, Ivan Fallon – che contribuì a far uscire la notizia dell'acquisto dell'oro da parte di Soros sul Sunday Times, co-autore della relazione originale del 25 aprile – era il biografo di Goldsmith, autore di Billionaire: The Life and Times of Sir James Goldsmith.

Era tutto molto intimo.

“Una banda di insider”

“Questo tipo di connessioni, questa impressione di una banda di insider, è ciò che fa sì che gli investitori più tradizionali a volte sollevino un sopracciglio quando si tratta di Soros”, brontolò The Observer con disapprovazione.

The Observer aveva ragione. Soros era un “insider” che lavorava con altri insider e non c'era alcuna indicazione che fosse minimamente vicino a essere un socio senior del gruppo.

Soros era un servitore, non un profeta; un seguace, non un leader.

Ecco perché gridò allo scandalo quando fu condannato per insider trading nel 2002, in relazione allo scandalo francese Société Générale.

“È bizzarro che io sia stato l'unico dichiarato colpevole quando era coinvolto l'intero establishment francese”, si lamentò Soros alla CNN.

Soros riteneva chiaramente che i francesi avessero infranto le regole.

Secondo lui, quando “l'intero [...] establishment” di un Paese cospira per manipolare i mercati, è ingiusto individuare un singolo cospiratore e sottoporlo a processo.

Dopotutto, Soros stava semplicemente facendo quello che facevano gli altri.

Rivoluzioni colorate

Mentre Rees-Mogg stava raffinando l'immagine di Soros come il più grande guru degli investimenti al mondo, ne promuoveva anche le attività politiche.

“Ammiro il modo in cui ha speso i suoi soldi”, affermò Rees-Mogg nella sua rubrica sul Times del 26 aprile 1993. “Niente è più importante della sopravvivenza economica degli ex-Paesi comunisti dell'Europa orientale”.

Rees-Mogg si riferiva al lavoro della fondazione di Soros negli ex-stati sovietici, dove divenne rapidamente famoso come finanziatore e organizzatore di colpi di stato incruenti noti come “rivoluzioni colorate”.

Come per le sue transazioni monetarie, Soros non agì da solo quando si impegnò in operazioni di cambio di governo. Faceva parte di una squadra.

Soros e gli “atlantisti”

In una serie di articoli su Revolver News, Darren Beattie ha smascherato una cricca di agenti della sicurezza nazionale statunitense specializzati nel rovesciare governi attraverso “rivoluzioni colorate”.

Operano attraverso una rete di ONG sponsorizzate dallo stato, tra cui il National Endowment for Democracy (NED) e le sue due filiali, l'International Republican Institute (IRI) e il National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Beattie accusa questi gruppi “pro-democrazia” di aver organizzato un ammutinamento contro il presidente Trump.

Secondo Beattie, questi agenti “pro-democrazia” hanno avuto un ruolo centrale nell'intralcio delle nostre elezioni nel 2020, e i loro piani sono culminati nella cosiddetta “insurrezione” del Campidoglio, che Revolver ha ora smascherato come un'operazione interna orchestrata da provocatori dell'FBI.

Beattie definisce i cospiratori “atlantisti”, un eufemismo comunemente applicato agli anglofili del Dipartimento di stato che antepongono gli interessi britannici a quelli americani.

Uno di questi cospiratori “atlantisti” era George Soros, secondo Beattie.

La bocca che ruggì

Normalmente quando Soros si impegna in operazioni di cambio di governo, fa di tutto per rivendicarne il merito, proprio come fece per il fallimento della Banca d'Inghilterra nel 1992.

Ad esempio, nel suo libro del 2003, La bolla della supremazia americana, Soros confessò apertamente: “Le mie fondamenta hanno contribuito al cambio di governo in Slovacchia nel 1998, in Croazia nel 1999 e in Jugoslavia nel 2000, mobilitando la società civile per sbarazzarsi rispettivamente di Vladimir Meciar, Franjo Tudjman e Slobodan Milosevic”.

Quello stesso anno, in una conferenza stampa a Mosca, Soros minacciò pubblicamente di deporre il presidente georgiano Eduard Shevardnadze, affermando: “Questo è ciò che abbiamo fatto in Slovacchia al tempo di Meciar, in Croazia al tempo di Tudjman e in Jugoslavia al tempo di Milosevic”.

Quando Shevardnadze fu successivamente rovesciato durante una rivolta del novembre 2003, Soros ne rivendicò pubblicamente il merito.

“Sono felicissimo di quanto accaduto in Georgia e sono molto orgoglioso di avervi contribuito”, si vantò Soros sul Los Angeles Times il 5 luglio 2004.

La rete del Regno Unito

Soros non si affrettò a rivendicare il merito della Rivoluzione arancione del 2004 in Ucraina, ma fu un suo collega, Michael McFaul, a farlo per lui.

“Gli americani si sono intromessi negli affari interni dell'Ucraina? Sì”, scrisse McFaul sul Washington Post del 21 dicembre 2004.

McFaul – che all'epoca era professore associato a Stanford, ma che in seguito fu ambasciatore in Russia sotto Obama – proseguì elencando vari “agenti d'influenza americani” che, a suo dire, avevano preso parte alla Rivoluzione arancione, tra cui l'International Renaissance Foundation, che McFaul descrisse in particolare come “finanziata da Soros”.

L'Ucraina è un Paese pericoloso e violento, dove gli agenti stranieri corrono rischi. È difficile capire perché McFaul abbia deliberatamente messo in pericolo Soros e una serie di agenti americani implicandoli pubblicamente in ingerenze elettorali, a meno che non stesse cercando di distogliere l'attenzione da altri partecipanti non americani.

Uno di questi partecipanti non americani era la Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD), un gruppo britannico “pro-democrazia” finanziato dal Ministero degli esteri britannico. La WFD ha avuto un ruolo cruciale nella Rivoluzione arancione.

McFaul ha forse messo a rischio i suoi connazionali americani per fornire copertura agli inglesi?

Come Rhodes Scholar e laureato a Oxford, McFaul è un ex-studente britannico che ha raggiunto una “posizione di influenza”, esattamente il tipo di persona a cui il Ministero degli esteri britannico si rivolge abitualmente per contribuire a promuovere “gli obiettivi della politica estera britannica”.

La mano nascosta della Gran Bretagna

Uno dei cosiddetti “agenti d'influenza americani” smascherati da McFaul sul Washington Post era Freedom House.

Come rivelato nel mio precedente articolo, Come gli inglesi hanno inventato le rivoluzioni colorate, Freedom House fu fondata nel 1941 come corpo di spionaggio britannico, il cui scopo era quello di spingere gli Stati Uniti a entrare nella Seconda guerra mondiale e di aiutare la Gran Bretagna a condurre operazioni segrete contro i pacifisti statunitensi.

Non c'è motivo di credere che Freedom House abbia cambiato schieramento da allora.

Descrivere Freedom House come un “agente d'influenza americano” mette un po' a dura prova il termine “americano”.

Freedom House esemplifica perfettamente quel tipo di fronte anglofilo che Darren Beattie definisce “atlantista”.

Dov'è Soros?

Sospetto che il vero ruolo di Soros tra gli operatori delle “rivoluzioni colorate” sia simile al suo ruolo nel mondo finanziario.

Distoglie l'attenzione dalle operazioni britanniche rivendicandone a gran voce il merito.

Allora, dov'è Soros adesso?

Perché non si vanta della figura decaduta del presidente Trump, come fece con Meciar, Tudjman, Milosevic, Shevardnadze e tanti altri?

Forse Soros ha ricevuto una chiamata da Londra.

Forse i suoi superiori lo hanno avvertito che la situazione si stava facendo un po' rischiosa con queste rivelazioni su Revolver.

Forse hanno detto a Soros di tenere la bocca chiusa.

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

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

“But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” – Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death

 “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.” – Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death

I find myself ruminating about whether there is anything myself or any other average Joe can do to make a difference in this world, controlled by psychopaths, satanists, egomaniacal billionaires, corrupt evil politicians, a cabal of greedy financiers, neocon warmongering globalists, and the propaganda entertainment complex. When a complex entity becomes too large, it becomes inefficient, bureaucratic, corrupt, and uncontrollable.

The corruption, waste, and purposeful use of governmental power to enrich politicians and their billionaire benefactors, to the detriment of the country and the average citizen, has grown to an incomprehensible and uncontainable level. Whether DOGE was a legitimate undertaking by Musk and his tech geniuses to cut wasteful spending and uncover fraud, or nothing more than a PR stunt designed to keep the MAGA army satiated with the appearance of making America great again, it appears to have sunk into the swamps of DC, foiled by the uni-party once again.

But the show must go on, and this past week’s episode of “As the Empire Crumbles” was certainly entertaining, with the most powerful politician in the world hurling insults at the richest man in the world, who responded by accusing the president of pedophilia, while calling for his impeachment and the creation of a new political party. The MAGA acolytes were flabbergasted, as their two heroes, who were going to usher in a new golden era, came to blows and have irreconcilably broken up. Who could have predicted that the two biggest egos on the planet would ultimately clash and dissolve their partnership? Many of the twitterati were convinced it was just more 4D chess, just as they believed the Q bullshit during Trump’s first term.

The world was captivated and enthralled by this trivial social media war, while NATO/Ukraine desperately attempted to initiate WW3 with their attacks on Russian airbases, the Crimean bridge, and Russian passenger trains. Thousands of tweets and hundreds of articles have been written about this Trump/Musk bickerfest, while the world is imploding and we are accelerating headlong towards a global war, initiated by the three stooges running France, U.K. and Germany, and cheered on by the likes of Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo.

Trump’s campaign trail promise to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours has proven to be nothing more than his predictable bloviating bullshit. It has become clear he has absolutely no sway over the EU warmongers, or his own Deep State CIA operatives carrying out the attacks on Russia, as his weak and ineffectual efforts to end the conflict start to diminish his presidency from the outset.

The Gaza genocide continues, with American financial and military support, even though Trump promised to end that conflict. Iran continues to resist efforts to stop its nuclear enrichment program. China pretends to be negotiating with Trump on tariffs but is content letting the Soros installed leftist judges across the country place roadblock after roadblock in the way of Trump’s tariff, deportation, and governmental downsizing agenda. Foreign leaders know they can wait out all of Trump’s threats by just slow walking negotiations and hoping the Republicans lose the House in 2026.

China is biding its time until they believe America is sufficiently preoccupied with its own domestic turmoil and its Ukraine quagmire, and they will initiate their inevitable Taiwan takeover. The United States has not won a war in 80 years and is in no position to wage war in Europe and Asia simultaneously. Trump professes to be for peace, but the Deep State actors controlling the government and the globalist billionaires pulling the strings will force him into WW3. That is how Fourth Turnings roll.

With the intense opposition to the Big Beautiful Bill from Musk and key Republicans in the Senate, the next few months could get messy on the fiscal front. Musk is entirely correct, calling the BBB a massive, outrageous, pork-filled disgusting abomination of congressional pork. When the mind numbingly stupid media outlets declare it will add $3 trillion to the national debt over ten years, that means $3 trillion more than the $21 trillion of additional debt already projected. And this assumes no recessions, no financial crisis, no wars, and no fake pandemics. They purposefully give the impression our national debt only goes up by $3 trillion over ten years.

I’m absolutely certain the average prole, distracted by their technological bread and circuses, has no clue our debt is on automatic pilot to increase by nearly 70% over the next ten years. The average person remains trapped in a false comfort zone, designed by their overlords, to keep them satiated with toxic foodstuff, propaganda disguised as entertainment, and believing going deeper and deeper into debt, buying trinkets and baubles makes them wealthy. Until that comfort zone is shattered by the bitter reality of the next financial implosion, the masses will do nothing to try and alter the disastrous course plotted by their overlords.

The GOP passage of $9.4 billion of DOGE cuts is nothing more than a PR stunt to convince the ignorant masses they are actually doing something about the deficit. The dopes making bets on Draft Kings and posting videos on Instagram have no concept about how ridiculously out of control our government has become. They add $6 billion to the national debt every single day, so their $9.4 of “cuts” will be gone in 37 hours. Our deficits are big, but they are not beautiful. Our deficit in FY24 was $1.8 trillion. Through the first 7 months of FY25 the deficit is $1.049 trillion. At the current rate of spending, the deficit will be $2.2 trillion by the end of the fiscal year.

Interest on the national debt is now the second biggest expenditure and has gone from $500 billion during Trump’s first term to $1.3 trillion today. These deficits are clearly unsustainable, and anything which is unsustainable will not be sustained. But the corrupt, captured politicians and insatiably avaricious Wall Street bankers will keep dancing until the music stops. Then they will use their next engineered financial crisis to take more of our money and further restrict our liberties and freedom. CBDCs and social credit scores anyone?

The real reason Trump and the GOP need to pass the big beautiful, bloated pig of a bill is because our Ponzi scheme economy depends upon the never-ending issuance of trillions in debt every year to give the fabricated appearance of stability. This is why the GOP applauds Musk’s low hanging fruit DOGE cost savings and ignores them in their outrageously corpulent budget bill. The truth is any actual reduction in government spending (36% of GDP) would ripple through an economy entirely dependent upon government largess and immediately create a massive recession and probable depression.

Ponzi schemes have to keep growing until they run out of suckers believing the bullshit underlying the Ponzi. This is where those controlling the levers of society (Bernays’ invisible government) utilize their limitless well of propaganda techniques, technological distractions, and mindless entertainment venues to keep the ignorant masses amused, delusional, and living in denial of the reality staring them in the face.

Since the 2008 financial crisis we have been muddling through economically at a 10,000 feet macro level, with periodic crisis episodes (housing collapse, fake pandemic) utilized by the powers that be to issue trillions more debt as the antidote to the initial crisis created by too much debt. At a micro level, the average American has seen a significant decline in their standard of living, as official government reported inflation has eroded 40% of their purchasing power, when in reality they have lost more than 60% of their purchasing power. The reality for the average American prole is debt slavery, either self-imposed to keep up with the Joneses or forced upon them to survive this globalist-imposed death by a thousand cuts economy.

Credit card debt of $1.3 trillion is at an all-time high, up $350 billion (35%) since 2020. The average balance on those credit cards is over $7,000 and the average interest rate on those unpaid balances is over 21%. Student loan debt of $1.8 trillion is at an all-time high, up $100 billion since 2020, with over 25% of these loans in default. Auto loan debt of $1.7 trillion is at an all-time high, up $350 billion (27%) since 2020. The average length of these loans is now 70 months. The borrower is underwater by the fifth year of these loans. Shockingly, credit card and auto loan delinquencies have been soaring in the last year, with credit card delinquencies above 3% for the first time since 2012, and auto loan delinquencies surpassed 8% for the first time since 2010. Does that sound like a consumer on solid ground?

In addition, the housing market is a disaster looking for a trigger. The Wall Street hedge funds (Blackrock) bought up millions of homes, driving prices 140% (Case Siller Index) higher than the 2012 low, while outstanding mortgage debt has risen from the 2012 low of $13 trillion to $21 trillion today. Prices are ridiculously high and mortgage rates of 7% make it virtually impossible for an average working stiff to buy even a small home. The market is frozen.

This is why Trump and his GOP minions must avoid a recession at all costs by continuing to rack up $2 trillion annual deficits. A recession would result in millions of layoffs, which would mean unpaid mortgages, which would mean foreclosures and slashing of home prices, which would trigger housing collapse 2.0, which would turn the recession into a depression, causing a stock market collapse. Now you know why they are desperate to pass this big, beautiful behemoth of bilge.

The Fed is in a precarious position of their own making, with all choices pointing towards disastrous outcomes. They are already sitting on over $1 trillion of unrealized bond losses, while their Wall Street owners sit on another $400 billion of unrealized bond losses. If these entities ever have to realize those losses, our entire banking system would collapse. The Fed has cut rates by 1%, but market rates went up, as their power to mislead market players diminishes.

They have reduced their balance sheet from $9 trillion to $6.7 trillion. The last time they tried to reduce their balance sheet in 2019, the repo market spasmed and they used the Covid cover to drastically print more fiat. Trump is mocking Powell and demanding interest rate cuts. Powell is pretending to be independent, but he is praying for some kind of crisis to again set the printing presses to hyper-speed. I’m sure the ruling oligarchs are hatching a new crisis to expand their wealth, power, and control, while further impoverishing and enslaving the plebs.

It is clear at least to me, we stand on the precipice of an economic conflagration capable of putting the final nail in the coffin of this empire of debt. At the same time there are unrelenting evil forces who are frantically creating the casus-belli to initiate World War III and the massive death and destruction that would produce. The simultaneous commencement of these two events would produce the type of climax expected in the waning years of a Fourth Turning, with a final resolution expected by 2032.

Most people are blissfully unaware of the imminent demise of their comfortable existence, so addicted to their techno-gadgets and mindless social media performance art, they are incapable of critical thought regarding the dystopian world they inhabit.

“People will come to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think” ― Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death

“If politics is like show business, then the idea is not to pursue excellence, clarity or honesty but to appear as if you are, which is another matter altogether.” ― Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death

If you ever needed proof politics is nothing but show business, it is this big, beautiful bill episode of drama, fiction, comedy, and tragedy. Excellence, clarity, and honesty have no part in this absurd psychodrama of lies, accusations, and continued downward spiral of this empire of debt. We know Huxley believed the masses could be sufficiently distracted by their own ego driven pursuits, but I don’t think even he realized how much power the technological “advances” of our times (TV based mass media, the internet, corporate/government controlled social media, Big Pharma) would be used by the ruling elite to control, manipulate, sedate, and scare the ignorant masses into voluntary subservience. Everything we are witnessing and living through is nothing more than a theater production, designed by Bernays’ invisible governing authorities to herd us towards their technological gulag, with the slaughterhouse as the other alternative.

Huxley’s 1932 dystopian vision, which he believed was more likely than Orwell’s 1949 dystopian vision of the future, and reinforced in a letter to Orwell in 1949 shortly before his death, has been the pre-dominant method used by our overlords to rule over, manipulate, and exploit the foibles of the unthinking masses. They have kept their citizens distracted with pleasures, drugged into passivity, taught to feel rather than think in government run indoctrination centers (public schools) and overloaded with so much useless trivial information, they are incapable of distinguishing between good and evil – actually believing their servitude is freedom.

While Huxley’s dystopia continues, the ruling class fears their passive mind control methods aren’t as effective in achieving their great reset agenda, and in need of some Orwellian censorship, disinformation, brute force, government intimidation, harsh mind control, and guaranteeing compliance through fear. Aren’t we lucky to be experiencing the best of both dystopian visions. Those controlling the levers of society have used the school system to create a soulless amalgamation of hedonistic mass consumers; purposeless, apathetic, with muddled brains unable to understand their unintended enslavement to the evil demons running our world and controlling their lives.

Knowing most of what we see on our screens and hear from supposed “experts”, left wing corporate media talking heads, and Fox News bimbos, is gibberish and propaganda, it is hard to distinguish real threats from clickbait, purposeful disinformation, and scare tactics designed to make you do what they want you to do. The precarious financial situation of the country is real. The danger from an AI cage built through a tech-state merger with Palantir to surveil and digitally profile everyone is real.

The threat of the Ukraine-Russia conflict morphing into WW3 is real. The desire by billionaire globalists to introduce a Great Reset, Great Taking, and CBDCs is real. The planned, funded, and executed invasion of our southern border during the Basement Dummy administration by third world dregs, with the sole intention of destroying the social fabric and finances of the country, run by the Soros/Clinton/Obama triumvirate is real.

Even with the dismantling of their USAID insurrection funding source, this week’s festivities in Los Angeles kicked off the summer of civil war. There is nothing real or spontaneous about these riots. Whenever pallets of bricks suddenly show up on streets in city centers, you know Soros and his ilk are behind the organized destruction of that particular city. The brick and bomb throwers are being paid to riot and take photo ops. This will assuredly be rolled out in our other Democrat controlled urban shitholes across the land. The governor of California and the communist mayor of Los Angeles are paid acolytes of Soros, stoking insurrection and should be arrested and thrown into the dungeons of DC, like the grandmothers and patriots who sauntered through the Capitol on January 6.

We find ourselves on the precipice of a financial, social, and military calamity, all driven by the three driving forces of this Fourth Turning: debt, civic decay, global disorder. Anyone not noticing events are intensifying, conflict is expanding, anger is building, and the world is accelerating towards that precipice at breakneck speed, is simply ignorant or their minds are so numbed by their i-gadgets and government school indoctrination, that it’s beyond their comprehension to acknowledge reality.

At this point in history, I do not believe there are enough awakened critical thinking citizens to make a difference during the waning years of this Fourth Turning. We can’t vote our way out. We likely can’t shoot our way out. We can’t buy our way out. When the majority are proud of their ignorance and believe it is superior to actual knowledge, your society is pretty much screwed.

“What is happening here is that television is altering the meaning of ‘being informed’ by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation. I am using this world almost in the precise sense in which it is used by spies in the CIA or KGB. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information–misplace, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information – information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing. I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed. Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?” ― Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death

The existing financial, social and political paradigms will have to collapse and be swept away for any real change to occur. The problem is it appears that is exactly what the billionaire globalist elite are trying to trigger. In the aftermath, amidst chaos, financial ruin, civil and global war, social strife, and a political vacuum, they envision establishing an authoritarian global world order, with CBDCs, social credit scores, 15-minute cities, and Big Brother level surveillance. If this vision prevails, Orwell wins the award over Huxley for the most accurate dystopian nightmare.

Our only hope resides in the hubris and arrogance of the ruling class. Once the collapse is underway, its course is unpredictable and unstable. The best laid plans have a way of going awry. This could offer an opportunity for normal rational people to make their stand. If a liberty movement, backed by the 300 million firearms residing in the red states, could re-ignite the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men, maybe we could reset the course of our country. The odds probably aren’t worse than they were in 1776. At this point, all we can do is prepare mentally, physically, and spiritually for the coming storm. Buy supplies, guns and ammo. And remember what your forefathers accomplished with far less. The choice is slavery or freedom.

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” ― Samuel Adams

“The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.” – George Washington

Reprinted with permission from The Burning Platform.

The post We Are Being Amused and Abused to Death appeared first on LewRockwell.

This year, 2025, marks 1,250 years of the German region of Westphalia, the place where a celebrated treaty was signed in 1648 which laid the legal foundations of the modern nation state. Ours is now an age of globalists, however, at least on the EU-governed continent of mainland Europe, where, at the behest of the little people’s political “betters,” all expressions of traditional national and civilizational identities are to be systematically dismantled from above—particularly that of Christianity.

This is how we ended up with a recent farcical display being staged within the (formerly) hallowed halls of Paderborn Cathedral. On May 15, a secular ceremony of thanksgiving was allowed by the area’s Catholic archbishop, Udo Markus Bentz, to be staged—seemingly without him having checked up on its content properly beforehand. While German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier stood at the pulpit and spoke of the need for “spatial and temporal orientation” in an age of profound spatial and temporal disorientation—which liberal politicians like him had helped unleash onto the world in the first place—it seems these words were insincere, at least to judge by what followed next.

A German performance-artist group, Bodytalk, presented an extract from their musical Westphalia-Side Story, a piece of left-wing, environmentalist-related agitprop which, according to their website, bemoans how the rural portion of the region “sometimes seems like the home of the Hobbits from The Lord of the Rings” (i.e., white, conservative, German Christians).

However, in the modern, globalist era of EU-facilitated mass immigration, demographic and cultural differences between conservatives, liberals, and immigrants will have to be ironed out somehow, which is why the musical possessed “the leitmotif of ‘Flowing Borders,’” aiming to get rural and urban areas to know one another better via the medium of song and dance. Far from being a bastion of stolid religious illiberalism, why not instead rebrand the countryside from a more “global perspective” as a potential hotbed of “animal welfare” and “sustainability,” whose farmers could shift away from their traditional role of creating food toward becoming a cadre of valuable educators in fields like “nutrition/ecology/climate change” instead?

In practice, what this meant was two semi-naked topless men, in receipt of 79,500 Euros of public funding, together with one more-fully-clothed woman, prancing around the cathedral’s transept with scythes. Approaching the altar, which was fully laid with a cross and six candles, the trio produced not a holy chalice containing blessed wine or bread but a profane metal bowl from which they scooped out plucked chickens dressed in diapers. These poultry items were then juggled about in midair whilst Bodytalk sang the words “meat is meat” to the tune of Live Is Life, a 1984 hit single by the Austrian soft-rock giants Opus. As far as can be told, this was meant to discourage factory farming, or to promote veganism, or something. Who knows?

Whatever its message actually was, President Steinmeier enthusiastically applauded it; but, once footage of the performance spread online, the ordinary Catholic population of Germany did not. A petition condemning the event as “disturbing, blasphemous and profane” has gained over 26,000 signatures, demanding Archbishop Bentz reconsecrate the cathedral and condemning him for just sitting there in silence and watching events unfold. After all, as the display appeared to be an inverted parody of the Eucharist (whether intentionally or not), wouldn’t this rather imply the archbishop had just willingly attended a form of Black Mass?

Bentz and the cathedral canons have since apologized, condemning the show as disrespectful. But the question still remains: even if their carelessness meant they didn’t know precisely what was going to unfold that day, why didn’t they try to stop it once proceedings had begun? Yes, it would have been exceedingly socially embarrassing for them to have done so, but you may have thought the continued sanctity of the cathedral’s interior would have been more important to them than considerations of personal humiliation. The sight of Archbishop Bentz marching up toward the altar and ordering the dancers to cease may actually have won him some public respect, at least from actual Catholics—who, let’s not forget, the building is really supposed to be for, not professional state-subsidized chicken-tossers.

In the words of cathedral authorities’ eventual mea culpa: “The Metropolitan Chapter of Paderborn express their express regret that the performance hurt religious feelings. Such an effect was never intended and does not correspond to our claim to this place with its special religious, historical and cultural significance.”

The truly sad thing is that this statement may even have been made in all sincerity, not just with the aim of saving their own skin. There is a clear trend for facilitating unholy performances within churches across today’s West, like the time in 2023 when scantily-clad pop singer Sabrina Carpenter was allowed to parade up and down Blessed Virgin Mary Lithuanian Church in New York, acting somewhat less than a Blessed Virgin herself, cavorting amid a display of pastel-colored coffins bearing non-canonical messages like “RIP, BITCH!” on them.

As with this May’s scandal in Paderborn Cathedral, the Sabrina Carpenter debacle came about as a result of presiding church authorities failing to check out what the precise (or even vague) content of the routines scheduled to take place would be. Far worse are those times when churchmen possess full knowledge of what they will involve.

To return to Germany itself, in response to 2018 revelations about children being abused by renegade priests in the country, the German Catholic Church decided it would be good to make amends for these crimes by publicly raping the altar of Frankfurt Cathedral. Another extremely dark performance-art piece, called Verantworch:Ich (“Responsible: I”), was staged there in 2023—in front of a large audience of clergymen. Dancers dressed as demons, representing morally fallen Catholic priests, ritually tied up young women in black bondage ribbons and sexually molested them.

Once footage emerged, many devout believers criticized it as being “satanic,” but such critics rather missed the point. It was supposed to be satanic! Just as the pedophile priests had defiled the House of God symbolically, the Catholic custodians of Frankfurt Cathedral set out to defile it literally in revenge—in what amounted to an act of sympathetic magic (the old folk-medicine/witchcraft idea that “like cures like,” so you should temporarily hold a frog in your mouth to cure a croaky throat or suchlike).

Read the Whole Article

The post Defiling Consecrated Ground appeared first on LewRockwell.

[This article is a selection from Chapter 5 of Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal.]

Whenever anti-Semitic attitudes or acts are mentioned, de Zayas observes, Goldhagen speaks of “the Germans”—not “the Nazis,” or even “many Germans”—offering no justification at all; it is simply a polemical trick. He neglects to mention well-known facts, e.g., that everyone connected with the killing of the Jews was bound by Führer Order no. 1, as well as by special orders from Himmler, mandating the strictest silence, under penalty of death. So it should not be surprising that, for example, the former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, during the war a Luftwaffe officer, testified that he had never heard or known anything of the annihilation of the Jews; or that Countess Dönhoff, publisher of the liberal paper, Die Zeit, should state that, despite her connections to many key people during the war, she knew nothing of the mass-killings in the camps, and that “I heard the name ‘Auschwitz’ for the first time after the war.” Goldhagen simply disregards major standard works that contradict his thesis. He claims, for example, that the German people approved of and joined in the Kristallnacht (the widespread 1938 murder of Jews and destruction of synagogues and businesses by Nazi thugs) in a kind of nation-wide Volksfest. Yet Sarah Gordon, in her authoritative Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question” wrote: “there was a torrent of reports indicating public disapproval of Kristallnacht . . . [whatever the motivation] what is not in doubt, however, is the fact that the majority did disapprove . . . after Kristallnacht, the Nazis deliberately tried to conceal their measures against the Jews.”

None of the scholarly critics made much of an impression on audiences that witnessed the debates in the United States or during Goldhagen’s tour of Germany late last summer, and certainly not on sales of the book. In any case, most of them, except for de Zayas, overlooked the function performed by a work such as Goldhagen’s. While he indicts the Germans as pathologically anti-Semitic and while some of his critics retort that, no, all of Christendom, indeed, Christianity itself, is implicated in the Jewish genocide, attention is kept fixed on the supposed single great crime of the recent past, if not of all of human history to the virtual exclusion of all others. In particular, the misdeeds of Communist regimes are unduly neglected.

A decade ago, Ernst Nolte, then of the Free University of Berlin, ignited the Historikerstreit, or dispute of historians, and became the target of a campaign of defamation led by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, by asking: “Didn’t the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ come before Auschwitz? Wasn’t the ‘class murder’ of the Bolsheviks the logical and factual presupposition of the ‘race murder’ of the National Socialists?” These are still good questions. In fact, Stalinist—and Maoist—offenses, while acknowledged, are generally downplayed and have achieved nothing remotely approaching the publicity of the Nazi massacre of the Jews. In the United States, it is possible for a person who keeps abreast of the news media to encounter references to the Holocaust virtually every day of his life. Yet who has heard of Kolyma, where more people were done to death than the present official count for Auschwitz? The figures for the victims of Maoist rule that are starting to come out of China suggest a total in the range of tens of millions. Do these facts even make a dent in public consciousness?

Moreover, there is an aspect of Stalinist atrocities that is very pertinent to the “Goldhagen Debate.” In their history of the Soviet Union, Utopia in Power, Mikhail Heller and Aleksandr M. Nekrich touch on the issue of whether the German people had full knowledge of the Nazi crimes. They state no opinion. But regarding the Soviets’ murderous war on the peasantry, including the Ukrainian terror famine, they write:

There is no question that the Soviet city people knew about the massacre in the countryside. In fact, no one tried to conceal it. At the railroad stations, city dwellers could see the thousands of women and children who had fled from the villages and were dying of hunger. Kulaks, “dekulakized persons,” and “kulak henchmen” died alike. ey were not considered human.

There has been no outcry for the Russian people to seek atonement and no one speaks of their “eternal guilt.” It goes without saying that the misdeeds of Communism, in Russia, China, and elsewhere are never debited to internationalism and egalitarianism as those of Nazism are to nationalism and racism.

Pointing to Communist crimes is not meant to “trivialize” the destruction of European Jewry, nor can it do so. The massacre of the Jews was one of the worst things that ever happened. But even supposing that it was the worst thing that ever happened, couldn’t some arrangement be worked out whereby Communist mass-murders are mentioned once for every ten times (or hundred times?) the Holocaust is brought up? Perhaps also, if we must have publicly financed museums commemorating the foreign victims of foreign regimes, some memorial to the victims of Communism might be considered, not on the Mall itself, of course, but maybe in a low-rent area of Washington?

If the crimes of Communism go relatively unmentioned, what are we to say of crimes committed against Germans? One of the most pernicious legacies of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao is that any political leader responsible for less than, say, three or four million deaths is let off the hook. This hardly seems right, and it was not always so. In fact— the reader may find this incredible— there was a time when American conservatives took the lead in publicizing Allied, and especially American, atrocities against Germans. Historians and high-level journalists like William Henry Chamberlin, in America’s Second Crusade and Freda Utley, in The High Cost of Vengeance pilloried those who had committed what Utley called “our crimes against humanity”— the men who directed the terror bombing of the German cities, conspired in the expulsion of some twelve million Germans from their ancestral lands in the east (in the course of which about two million died—see de Zayas’s Nemesis at Potsdam), and plotted the “final solution of the German question” through the Morgenthau Plan. Utley even exposed the sham “Dachau trials” of German soldiers and civilians in the first years of the Allied occupation, detailing the use of methods “worthy of the GPU, the Gestapo, and the SS” to extort confessions. She insisted that the same ethical standards had to be applied to victors and vanquished alike. If not, then we were declaring that “Hitler was justified in his belief that ‘might makes right.’ ” Both books were brought out by the late Henry Regnery, one of the last of the Old Right greats, whose house was the bastion of post-World War II revisionism, publishing works like Charles Callan Tansill’s classic, Back Door to War.

Keeping the Nazi period constantly before our eyes serves the ideological interests of a number of influential groups. That it benefits the Zionist cause, at least as many Zionists see it, is obvious. It is highly useful also to the advocates of a globalist America. Hitler and the crying need for the great crusade to destroy him are the chief exhibits in their case against any form of American “isolationism,” past or present. Any suggestion that our Soviet ally in that crusade was guilty of even greater offenses than Nazi Germany, that the United States government itself was incriminated in barbarous acts during and in the aftermath of that war, must be downplayed or suppressed, lest the historical picture grow too complex.

The obsession with the never-ending guilt of the Germans also advances the ends of those who look forward to the extinction of the nation-state and national identity, at least for the West. As the philosopher Robert Maurer argues, it inculcates in the Germans “a permanent bad conscience, and keeps them from developing any normal national self-awareness.” In this way, it functions “as a model for the cosmopolitan supersession of every nationalism,” which many today are striving towards. Ernst Nolte has recently suggested another strategy at work, aiming at the same goal. Nothing is clearer than that we are in the midst of a vast campaign to delegitimize Western civilization. In this campaign, Nolte writes, radical feminism joins with Third World anti-Occidentalism and multiculturalism within the Western nations “to instrumentalize to the highest degree the ‘murder of six millions Jews by the Germans,’ and to place it in the larger context of the genocides by the predatory and conquering West, so that ‘homo hitlerensis’ ultimately appears as merely a special case of ‘homo occidentalis.’ ” The purpose is to strike at “the cultural and linguistic homogeneity of the national states, achieved over centuries, and open the gates to a massive immigration,” so that in the end the nations of the West should cease to exist.

There seem to be cultural dynamics operating that will intensify rather than abate the present fixation. Michael Wolffsohn, an Israeli-born Jew who teaches modern history in Germany, has warned that Judaism is being emptied of its religious content and linked solely to the tribulations of the Jews through history, above all, the Holocaust. More than one commentator has noted that as the West loses any sense of morality rooted in reason, tradition, or faith, yet still feels the need for some secure moral direction, it increasingly finds it in the one acknowledged “absolute evil,” the Holocaust. If these claims are true, then the growing secularization of Judaism and the moral disarray of our culture will continue to make victims of the Germans and all the peoples of the West.

The post Remembering the Crimes of Totalitarian States appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Palantir is a data analytics and AI company known for its work with governments, particularly in defense, intelligence, and law enforcement.

Critics argue it enables mass surveillance, predictive policing, and military applications. A significant portion of its revenue comes from classified government contracts, and some allege ties to the Deep State.

What is your perspective on Palantir?

Doug Casey: When Palantir was founded in 2003, all the initial funding came from Peter Theil and In-Q-Tel, an investment arm of the CIA. The US government and its agencies are by far its biggest customers, along with foreign governments and large corporations. Its revenues have grown around 40% annually since it went public in 2020.

The nature of Palantir’s clientele underlines what I’ve been saying about fascism as an economic system: Almost every country in the world is fascist—the economic system characterized by a total melding of the interests of government and large corporations.

Remember that Benito Mussolini coined the word “fascism” and defined it to mean the integration of the State with privately owned business. It’s different from socialism, where the State owns the means of production.

Fascism makes it possible for businessmen to become wealthy by catering primarily to the needs of the State, as opposed to the public. Corporations, by their nature, focus on creating wealth. That wealth becomes available to their shareholders, their managers, the State, and the apparatchiks in government who help the corporation. Fascism is naturally much more efficient than socialism, which always and inevitably generates losses. While fascism can look like capitalism, its prime interest is serving the State—not serving either consumers or workers.

Palantir is the Platonic ideal of a fascist business. It caters exclusively to the State and large corporations, to manipulate the public.

International Man: If Palantir’s viability relies heavily on government contracts and support, can it genuinely be classified as a legitimate private enterprise?

Doug Casey: In the Constitution, State intervention in the economy is justified with just a few words in Article 1, Section 8. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” And the General Welfare Clause, which grants Congress “the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” It’s quite a leap from those little clauses to the government essentially controlling the entire economy.

Companies like Palantir rely on the government and big business—not the people—for their revenue.

Palantir has grown like a cancer since its founding, but that growth has really metastasized under Trump. That’s rationalized by the fact that, if the US is going to round up the 10 or 20 million migrants who are in the US illegally, it needs to find out who they are. So Trump strongly supports “REAL ID,” which facilitates the government knowing exactly who everybody is, where they came from, where they live and work, who they associate with, and everything else about them. That will make it easy to extract the migrants from society. Everyone’s “papers” must be in order. But to do this, legitimate Americans will need the same ID.

The very name of the company, Palantir, is a tip-off. In Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, the Palantir is a stone that allows the viewer to see everything about the past, present, and future. You couldn’t hide from it. Peter Thiel chose that name for a reason.

That’s what the company is supposed to do: integrate data from everywhere. Right now, the data of government agencies is basically siloed. What one agency or department knows is not readily available to another. But Palantir will integrate and centralize all of it, plus everything they can scrape from corporate and other private data banks. This is extremely dangerous. Super dangerous. This thing is going to be a truly all-seeing eye.

Does Trump understand this? Or is he just a thoughtless useful idiot? Once the infrastructure for integrating all government data, plus what they can scrape from the internet, corporations, public cameras, cell phones, and you-name-it is in place, it’s pretty much game over.

Even if the Trump regime doesn’t use it in a genuinely nefarious way, as the Democrats claim he will, there’s no guarantee that the next president won’t use it. In fact, it’s almost certain the next president will. Once you have a tool, you use it. Anyway, the Deep State has a life of its own, independent of the two parties. The data that Palantir is putting together will definitively centralize political and economic power within the Washington Beltway.

International Man: The Israel Defense Forces use Palantir’s AI to identify and target locations in Gaza, the US Department of Defense employs it for drone surveillance analysis, and the Los Angeles Police Department has adopted Palantir’s predictive policing tools to forecast crime trends. And Palantir is creating a Federal database on American citizens.

Where is this going?

Doug Casey: It’s most regrettable, but also inevitable. That’s because anything that can be imagined—including dystopian things predicted by science fiction—can probably be done in the real world. Anything that can be done probably will be done. And now that the technology exists, it is, in fact, being done.

Palantir is centralizing all the data in society. And with the growth of the State taking an increasingly large percentage of GDP—from perhaps 5% 125 years ago to close to 50% today—we’re well on our way toward becoming a police state. Newton’s First Law of Motion states that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. This trend has been in motion for many years, and it’s accelerating.

This is the perverse thing about DOGE, the Department of Governmental Efficiency, which seemed like a good idea at the time. It’s the tyranny of good intentions. Cutting waste seems like a good thing. But the State, as an institution, corrupts everything it touches. When it’s tending toward tyranny, efficiency is the last thing you want.

Companies like Palantir are changing the very nature of the US. In years past, if you made a mistake that damaged your reputation, you could go to a new town and try again. But now, anything on your permanent electronic record is with you forever. We may devolve into a high-tech version of the Hindu caste system, where once you’re classified in a certain way, that’s where you stay.

Palantir will make it easy to identify libertarians, classical liberals, free thinkers, and other potential enemies of the State. You’d better be careful about what you say. It may be why journalist Glenn Greenwald prefers to live in Brazil. His writing has proved embarrassing to the Powers That Be, and he may not want to be easily available when AI, aided by Palantir’s data bank, decides to round up the usual suspects. This is why I’ve said, for years, that a prudent person will diversify as the US, the Anglosphere, and Western Europe devolve.

Will Americans soon be classed by risk, the way Palantir has classed Gazans? The total information awareness that Palantir will give the government will certainly help them find some bad guys. But who’s a bad guy can be very arbitrary, as many people in England and Germany who are being jailed for what impresses me as innocuous speech are discovering.

International Man: Peter Thiel, a co-founder of Palantir, often presents himself as a libertarian. However, his actions and true allegiance appear to align with the Deep State and secretive international organizations like Bilderberg. What about Thiel?

Doug Casey: It’s clear that Thiel has a thorough intellectual understanding of the principles of libertarianism. But it doesn’t appear that he’s translated intellectual understanding into the world of what’s moral, what’s right or wrong. It’s long been said that power corrupts, and Thiel, who is said to be worth over $20 billion at this point, has an immense amount of both financial and political power.

Perhaps he reasons that this technology has a life of its own. I certainly think it does. If so, it’s going to grow almost independent of who is involved. After all, that’s what Artificial Intelligence and its immense data centers are all about; they’re almost independent entities at this point. Perhaps Thiel thinks that, since it’s going to happen anyway, it’s better that it be under the control of the quote-unquote “good guys” as opposed to someone else.

I can understand that, but it’s fallacious reasoning. It didn’t matter whether the Sorcerer’s Apprentice was a good guy. The Deep State, which will control Palantir, is itself out of control. I don’t think there’s any way we can put the genie back in the bottle. It augurs for a dystopian future.

International Man: Palantir’s market capitalization has skyrocketed from about $50 billion a year ago to approximately $300 billion today, surpassing the valuations of major companies like Coca-Cola and General Electric.

What are your thoughts on this extraordinary growth, and what are the investment implications?

Doug Casey: That’s shocking and perverse. Coke and GE have been around for a century, producing valuable products that people want and need. Palantir has products that are actively destructive, but the market loves it. Lenin was right when he said that the capitalists would sell their enemies the ropes used to hang them.

Let’s look at Palantir both as a company and as a stock. Since it went public in 2020, it’s run from $10 a share to $135 a share. Its current price-to-earnings ratio is 500-1, and its price-to-sales ratio is 100-1—these are outlandish numbers. It does a billion or two billion shares a day in volume.

This is fantastic growth, but what’s really interesting is that the stock took off in June of 2024. It’s gone up about six or seven times in just a year. What’s disturbing is that most of the move coincides with the election of Donald Trump.

The stock is grossly overpriced by all traditional parameters. But its valuation shows that the market believes its business will keep growing rapidly. It can go a lot higher; it could be the next Nvidia. I don’t want any part of it for lots of reasons, not least that its success is a proxy for the collapse of personal freedom and Western Civilization. Of course, here I’m not speaking as a speculator but as a moralist… sorry, sometimes it just can’t be helped…

On the bright side, there’s an old saying in the market: “High tech equals big wreck.” So perhaps the evil thing will self-destruct.

The Praetorian agencies of the US government are all about gathering data. They use it, directly and indirectly, not just to control the public in general, but powerful individuals in particular. They’re able to control the leaders of both governments and corporations. If they know something about you, they can use that information to intimidate you. And if you aren’t intimidated, they can use it to ruin your life.

So, the wrong people, the kind of people who are drawn to agencies like the CIA, NSA, IRS, FBI, and a score of others, have control of all the data and all the power. They’re not good people, and they won’t use all this data, money, and power in benevolent ways.

So, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Palantir: The Intersection of Government and Corporate Power appeared first on LewRockwell.

Most patients with chronic pain will typically first be recommended a variety of pain medications and physical therapy, then once those fail, steroid injections, and then a joint surgery. Unfortunately, each step in this process is often ineffective at addressing the patient’s pain or creates a variety of complications that make their situation even more unbearable. For this reason, it is critical to understand the risks of each part of this process and the safer alternatives that can permanently alleviate joint and spinal pain.

Note: persistent or recurrent pain after spinal surgery, back pain following spinal surgery is referred to as “Failed Back Surgery Syndrome” and affects between 10-40% of people who receive a spinal surgery.

Common Spinal Pain Generators:

In most cases, joint pain has a cause that must be identified to treat it. For example, when treating spinal pain, we find it is critical to address:

• Tight muscles—rarely recognized despite being common (particularly of the iliopsoas and quadratus lumborum—two large and frequently tight muscle groups which directly attach to the lumbar spine). Physical therapists typically focus on strengthening rather than stretching/releasing tight muscles.
• Misalignment—requires adjustment and lifestyle corrections. A common cause of misalignment are uneven leg lengths which tilt the pelvis and hence the spine (and can be corrected with an appropriate heel lift).
• Ligamentous laxity—often the primary cause of spinal arthritis, muscle tightness, and disc problems as tight ligaments are necessary to ensure bones stay in the correct location and do not impinge tissues.
• Disc herniation—not the most common cause of back pain but sometimes a significant contributor (and frequently used as a justification for disastrous spinal surgeries). In most cases, disc herniations result from vertebrae bending too far forward, which pushes the discs back and compresses the nerves behind them.

• This can frequently result from a weakening of the spinal ligaments or poor posture which eliminates the natural backwards curve in the neck and low back.

• Note: tight muscles, joint misalignments, and ligamentous laxity also create issues in other regions of the body (e.g., the knees).

Additional Pain Generators:

• Trapped emotions: chronic stress and emotional distress frequently exacerbate pain (and in some cases are the primary cause of back pain). Dr. Sarno for example, addressed back pain through psychotherapy and generated a large following as his approach helped many (but not everyone).
  Note: we frequently find a direct release of trapped emotions (rather than psychotherapy) is necessary to address chronic emotional trauma.
• Nervous system dysregulation—over-activation of the sympathetic nervous system alongside under-activation of the parasympathetic system exacerbates pain.
  Note: A common effect of unresolved trauma is fight-or-flight system over-activation.
• Chronic inflammatory conditions (e.g., dietary allergies, mold toxicity, Lyme disease, spike protein injuries) often worsen pain patterns.
  Note: many individuals have found that eliminating dietary food allergens resolves arthritis.
• Scars from surgeries can frequently generate significant autonomic dysregulation and pain, and frequently, treatment of those scars yields dramatic improvements.
• Altered brain pain processing—often due to chronically over-activated nerves or microstroke injuring the thalamus (which otherwise dampens pain signals). In these instances, small stimuli can be extremely painful.

Systemic Medications

Since joint or spinal pain has multiple causes and diagnosis is time-consuming, physicians typically prescribe pills or refer patients elsewhere rather than address the root causes of their pain. Common medications include NSAIDs, Tylenol, Steroids, Gabapentin (or Lyrica), and Opioids—all with major issues.

Note: due to the high rate of addiction which follows opioid prescriptions (and the societal damage that follows), more and more, the government has moved to restrict opioid prescriptions. Because of this, patients in significant pain who will only respond to opioids, despite their best efforts, often cannot get these drugs and instead are given another ineffective option (e.g., NSAIDs), hence making it imperative that effective non-opioid solutions for pain be made available to the public.

NSAIDs

NSAIDs (e.g., ibuprofen, naproxen) temporarily reduce pain but only partially, leading patients to overuse them—often dangerously, as NSAIDs are toxic at high doses (which frequently occur since NSAIDs are taken for pain and are available over the counter). Many consider NSAIDs among the most hazardous drugs in the U.S. because:

• They are the leading cause of drug-related hospital admissions—often due to heart attacks, strokes, bleeding, and kidney failure.
• Kidney damage is a significant risk. One study found a 20% increased risk of kidney disease from NSAIDs; others found up to 212%. Amongst kidney failure patients, 65.7% were found to be chronic NSAID users.
• NSAIDs raise cardiovascular risks. NSAIDS also increase the risk of heart attacks and death (e.g., extensive studies have found between a 24-326% increase1,2,3). Two of the worst ones, Vioxx (Merck) and Celebrex (Pfizer), were designed to reduce stomach bleeding but instead caused heart attacks and strokes. Merck hid data on Vioxx’s risks; eventually it was withdrawn after an estimated 120,000 deaths. Celebrex, still on the market, has been linked to 75,000 deaths. Merck’s handling of Vioxx later informed how pharma pushed the HPV vaccine and mRNA vaccines.
• Gastrointestinal bleeding is common and often fatal. In 1999, over 16,000 Americans died from it. NSAIDs also cause small bowel damage in over 50% of chronic users—often undetected—leading to “small bowel enteropathy” and possibly chronic illness through gut permeability.
• They impair healing, especially of ligaments, creating long-term re-injury risk.

Trials alleging the benefit of NSAIDs are frequently intentionally deceptive and frequently create the illusion of a benefit where none exists. What this means is that many patients ruin their lives with drugs that did almost nothing for them in the first place.—Peter Gøtzsche

Unfortunately, NSAIDs remain amongst the most commonly prescribed drugs, and are frequently given for musculoskeletal injuries.

Note: the dangers of NSAIDs are discussed further here.

Tylenol

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is one of the few over-the-counter alternatives to NSAIDs and is generally considered safer, though often ineffective for severe pain. Still, it carries serious risks:

• Liver Toxicity: Overuse leads to 56,000 ER visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths annually in the U.S. due to Tylenol toxicity.
• Fever Suppression: Tylenol reduces fevers, which are key immune defenses. Suppressing them can worsen or prolong infections—a pattern observed during COVID-19. Many parents of vaccine-injured children reported symptoms (e.g., autism) appeared after using Tylenol to suppress high post-vaccine fevers, explored in this 2021 paper.

Gabapentin and Pregabalin

Gabapentin (Neurontin) was originally approved to treat epilepsy—a small market. After approval, Pfizer aggressively pushed it for unapproved uses, especially neuropathic pain, despite limited evidence. The federal government fined Pfizer nearly $1 billion for illegal promotion.

While less toxic than NSAIDs, side effects for these drugs are common and include: lethargy, dizziness, sedation, and cognitive impairment, as well as rarer but serious reactions like respiratory depression and hypersensitivity. Gabapentin can also be habit forming.

Note: since gabapentin and pregabalin (Lyrica) only work for specific types of pain (e.g., neuropathic pain), they typically do very little for most patients’ pain. However, they are widely prescribed because they lack many of the severe risks associated with other pain reducing drugs, and as a result, many are placed on inappropriate prescriptions for them.

Corticosteroids

Initially hailed as a wonder drug, corticosteroids like prednisone and hydrocortisone gradually were discovered to have significant side effects (e.g., weight gain, adrenal suppression, heart attacks, diabetes, insomnia, and psychiatric effects). Since corticosteroids trigger tissue breakdown, they also often greatly weaken the body’s structural integrity, impair wound healing and weaken collagen synthesis.

Furthermore, corticosteroids double one’s risk of fracture (especially vertebrae), with 12% of users reporting fractures. Steroids cause 5-15% bone loss yearly, and 37% of long-term users experience vertebral fractures. High doses increase vertebral fracture risk fivefold. Higher doses also cause avascular necrosis in 6.7% of users. Likewise, they greatly impair wound healing, collagen

Note: the primary drugs used to treat Osteoporosis (bisphosphonates) have severe side effects have severe side effects including making the bones more likely to break. In turn, one of the few approved uses for bisphosphonates is steroid-induced bone loss.

Since both collagen, ligaments (which are composed of collagen) and bones are weakened by steroids, chronic use leads to joint weakening and chronic pain. Because of this, we frequently encounter patients who achieved a temporary alleviation of joint pain (e.g., in the spine or knee) who then have their condition worsen and require surgery. Unfortunately, this side effect is rarely disclosed to patients, leading to many surgeries that could have been prevented.

Note: in many cases, if joint pain is instead treated by strengthening the ligaments (e.g., with nutritional supplementation or prolotherapy), the pain will resolve and future surgeries can be prevented.

The Surgery Funnel

Surgeries often have risks that patients don’t learn about until after complications occur, which is problematic since you can’t “undo” surgery. For this reason, patients should seek unbiased second opinions from doctors who aren’t being paid to do a proposed surgery.

Unbearable pain (e.g., in a joint) is one of the strongest motivators for surgery, and spinal surgeries are the most common elective surgery I’m consulted about. Unfortunately, since spinal surgeries are one of the most profitable areas in medicine, there’s reluctance to consider if risks outweigh benefits or if safer and more effective alternative exist, and over the years I’ve become increasingly skeptical of them, as while some are necessary and help patients, many are not.

Likewise, despite trillions spent on spinal pain (e.g., in 2016, 134.4 billion dollars was spent on neck and low back pain in the USA), most patients remain stuck with chronic pain and experience significant side effects from treatments.

Note: there have been numerous newspaper investigations of spinal surgeons who recklessly performed large volumes of unnecessary surgeries, killing or injuring many of their patients who were nonetheless protected by their hospitals because of how much revenue they generated.

Read the Whole Article

The post What They Don’t Tell Us About Treating Pain appeared first on LewRockwell.

The parasites have been feasting for so many decades that they’ve lost the ability to discern reality: their survival now depends on feeding on other parasites.

Let’s conduct a thought experiment. First, set aside all the usual economic-ideological certainties, mythologies and filters–capitalism and free markets are the fountains of endless wealth, socialism is the answer, etc.–and then look at our culture not as a monetary-economic machine but as an ecosystem of parasites and hosts. From this perspective consider this statement:

Now that the parasites have consumed the host, they only have each other to feed on.

In this scenario, the US consumer is the host and industries, cartels and corporations are the parasites (along with local governments, whose tax revenues are drawn from transactions and bubble wealth valuations), seeking to “maximize shareholder value” (i.e. profits) by any means available without killing the host.

The problem is the “profit motive” knows no limits and lacks the mechanisms to detect the host is about to keel over. In the natural world, parasites are in a feedback loop with the hosts they’re feeding on, as the death of the host means the death of the parasites.

In our culture, the parasites assume the host is immortal, due to the Federal Reserve and federal government’s ability to create money out of thin air and distribute it to the host. The parasites can suck as much wealth as they want from the host and the host may stumble but will never collapse because the Fed and Treasury will inject another few trillion dollars into the host to keep it slogging along.

But these injections aren’t a true measure of the host’s health. These financial injections can keep the patient alive but comatose, which suits the parasites just fine, but that doesn’t mean the patient is healthy and immortal.

Greed is infinite but the host is not. The host needs to be physically healthy and financially healthy to support a host of voracious parasites, and neither of these conditions apply.

Over 73% of US adults (i.e. the host) are overweight or obese, conditions which greatly increase the risks of a range of chronic illnesses. Only 26% of the adult populace is normal weight. To call this “healthy” is delusional.

Financially, the bottom 60%–some 200 million people–are on fumes. A strong case can be made (based on wages’ share of the economy and astronomical wealth inequality) that the bottom 80%–275 million Americans–are on fumes, but some percentage holds fast to the delusion they’re still “middle class,” i.e. financially secure and reasonably wealthy, due to the bubble valuations of stocks and housing.

Consider these statistics, courtesy of the St. Louis Federal Reserve database (FRED). (Statistics are the latest available in May 2025, and are rounded: $107.7 is $108, etc.)

Of America’s total household net worth of $160 trillion, the top 1% of households own $50 trillion, or 31%.

The top 10% own $108 trillion, or 67%.

The bottom 50% own $4 trillion, or 2.5%.

The top 1%–3.4 million people–are worth 12.5 times what the bottom 50%–170 million people–are worth.

Statistics like these are difficult to grasp, as they are abstractions. A real-world analogy helps us understand what the numbers mean.

Consider a vast expanse of desert. Divide this enormous space in half. On one side, there are the 19 wealthiest families in the U.S., who own a net worth of $2.6 trillion. This is larger than the GDP of Italy ($2.4 trillion, with a population of 59 million).

On the other side, there are 110 million Americans, 65% of the bottom 50% of the populace (170 million). These 110 million Americans also have a net worth of $2.6 trillion.

It’s difficult to fit 110 million people into the vast parcel, as this is the combined population of California, Texas, Florida and New York–the four most populous states in the U.S..

Read the Whole Article

The post Now That the Parasites Have Consumed the Host…. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Well it looks like the US is on the precipice of war with Iran again.

US officials are telling the press that they anticipate a potential impending Israeli attack on Iran while the family members of US military personnel are being assisted with evacuation from bases in the region.

This comes as Tehran issues a warning that it will strike all US military bases within range of its missiles if it comes under attack. There are reportedly some 50,000 US troops in 10 bases which could come under fire should this occur.

The US is also evacuating its embassy in Iraq, and has authorized the departure of non-essential personnel from its embassies in Kuwait and Bahrain.

Asked by the press about the evacuations, President Trump said, “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens. We’ve given notice to move out.”

Trump is openly declaring a willingness to strike Iran if nuclear negotiations fall through, while saying he is now “much less confident” that any deal will be made.

“If they don’t make a deal, they’re not gonna have a nuclear weapon; if they do make a deal they’re not gonna have a nuclear weapon too,” the president said in an interview published on Wednesday, adding that “it would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying.”

If the US backs an Israeli attack on Iran and then Iran retaliates by killing a bunch of US military personnel, we could be looking at a full-scale direct war between the US and Iran.

As I’ve said in this space many times before, this would be the absolute worst-case nightmare scenario for the middle east, unleashing horrors that dwarf all the other terrible abuses currently happening in the region. As Trump’s now-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in 2019 (back when she publicly opposed Trump’s warmongering), “What is important that the American people know is a war with Iran would make the war in Iraq look like a cakewalk.”

It’s so stupid that this keeps happening. This could all be avoided by the US simply ceasing to support the genocidal apartheid state of Israel no matter what it does. The fact that Washington has continued to pour weapons into Israel despite all its warmongering and genocide since 2023 means the US supports everything that Israel has been doing.

If a war with Iran does occur, you will doubtless hear western pundits and politicians trying to spin this as America getting “drawn into” another war in the middle east, or Trump being tricked or manipulated into war. But make no mistake: the US could have turned away from this path at any time, and still can.

If this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be because the US empire knowingly chose to open it.

________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my mailing list, social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Staring Down the Barrel of War With Iran Once Again appeared first on LewRockwell.