Aggregatore di feed

President Trump says he is okay with taxing individuals making more than $2.5 million per year and couples earning above $5 million at a rate of 39.6%. The current top rate is 37% for those making above $626,350, but this is set to expire at the end of the year.

The post Trump the Tax Raiser 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/da-marco-aurelio-a-omar-little)

Mentre questo weekend del Ringraziamento volge al termine, la mia gratitudine non si concentra sui soliti luoghi comuni delle feste, ma su qualcosa che è diventato sempre più prezioso nella nostra era artificiale: relazioni autentiche – sia familiari che di amicizia – che si approfondiscono anziché rompersi sotto pressione. Ciò che lega queste relazioni, ho capito, non sono opinioni o circostanze condivise, ma un codice morale condiviso: un impegno incrollabile verso principi che trascendono le sabbie mobili della politica e delle pressioni sociali. Sono particolarmente grato alla mia cerchia ristretta: amici che conosco fin dalle elementari e familiari i cui legami si sono solo rafforzati negli ultimi anni.

Come molti altri che si sono schierati contro la tirannia del COVID, ho visto quelle che credevo essere relazioni solide dissolversi sotto i miei occhi. Come proprietario di un birrificio e allenatore delle squadre sportive dei miei figli, ero profondamente radicato nella mia comunità: un “uomo di mondo” e grazie a ciò gli altri avevano piacere a fare amicizia con me e a chiedermi consiglio. Poi, all'improvviso, le stesse persone che si erano confrontate con me con entusiasmo si sono allontanate non appena mi vedevano arrivare per strada. Reti professionali e contatti di quartiere sono svaniti alla semplice messa in discussione delle narrazioni ufficiali. Reagivano in questo modo perché avevo infranto l'ortodossia, scegliendo di sostenere valori liberali – gli stessi principi che loro affermavano di sostenere – rifiutando obblighi e restrizioni arbitrarie. In questo momento di prova, la differenza tra chi viveva secondo un codice morale coerente e chi si limitava a seguire le correnti sociali è diventata netta. A posteriori, questa selezione sembra più una chiarificazione che una perdita. Mentre le relazioni superficiali si affievolivano, le mie relazioni più profonde – amicizie decennali e legami familiari – non solo resistevano, ma si approfondivano. Queste prove hanno rivelato quali legami fossero autentici e quali semplicemente situazionali. Le amicizie rimaste, ancorate a principi autentici piuttosto che a convenienze sociali, si sono dimostrate infinitamente più preziose della più ampia rete di amicizie occasionali che ho perso.

Ciò che più mi colpisce di queste amicizie durature è come abbiano sfidato la “regola” delle relazioni distrutte dalle divisioni politiche. Come osservò Marco Aurelio: “L'ostacolo all'azione favorisce l'azione. Ciò che si frappone nel mezzo diventa la via”. Pur avendo assunto posizioni opposte nella dialettica su questioni politiche e culturali nel corso dei decenni, ci siamo ritrovati uniti nell'opposizione alle trasgressioni costituzionali e alla crescente tirannia degli ultimi anni: i lockdown, gli obblighi arbitrari e l'erosione sistematica dei diritti fondamentali. Questa unità non è emersa da uno schieramento politico, ma da un codice morale condiviso: un impegno verso i principi fondamentali che trascendono le divisioni partitiche.

In questi momenti di riflessione, mi sono ritrovato a tornare alle Meditazioni di Marco Aurelio, un libro che non aprivo dai tempi del college, finché l'eccellente conversazione tra Joe Rogan e Marc Andreessen non mi ha ispirato a rileggerlo. Marco Aurelio aveva capito che un codice morale personale – un insieme di principi incrollabili – era essenziale per navigare in un mondo di caos e incertezza. Il collegamento è particolarmente azzeccato: come il mio gruppo di amici, la piattaforma di Rogan mette in primo piano il dibattito autentico nella nostra epoca. I critici, soprattutto di sinistra, parlano spesso di aver bisogno del loro “Joe Rogan”, perdendo completamente di vista ciò che rende il suo programma tanto efficace: l'autenticità. Pur essendo storicamente di sinistra, la disponibilità di Rogan a impegnarsi in un confronto in tempo reale con ospiti di ogni ideologia e su un'ampia varietà di argomenti, oltre al suo impegno per la ricerca aperta della verità, hanno paradossalmente portato al suo allontanamento dai circoli liberal tradizionali – proprio come molti di noi che si sono ritrovati ad essere etichettati come apostati per aver mantenuto principi coerenti.

Questo impegno nei confronti di un codice morale incentrato sul dibattito autentico spiega perché organizzazioni come questo blog – pur essendo regolarmente etichettati come di “estrema destra” – siano diventate una piattaforma cruciale per studiosi indipendenti, esperti di politica e ricercatori della verità. Ho potuto constatarlo in prima persona a un recente evento del Brownstone Institute, dove, a differenza della maggior parte delle istituzioni che impongono il conformismo ideologico, pensatori eterogenei si sono impegnati in una genuina esplorazione delle idee senza timore di imposizione dell'ortodossia. Quando ai partecipanti è stato chiesto se si considerassero progressisti politici dieci anni prima, quasi l'80% ha alzato la mano. Si trattava di individui che, come me e i miei amici, abbracciano ancora i valori liberali – libertà di parola, ricerca aperta, dibattito razionale – ciononostante si ritrovano etichettati come di destra o complottisti solo per aver messo in discussione le narrazioni prevalenti. Ciò che unisce questa comunità eterogenea è il riconoscimento condiviso che la realtà che ci viene presentata è in gran parte costruita ad hoc, come già scritto nell'articolo L'industria dell'informazione, e l'impegno a mantenere un discorso autentico in un'epoca di consenso forzato.

Nella serie TV, The Wire, Omar Little, un personaggio complesso che viveva secondo il proprio codice morale pur operando al di fuori della società convenzionale, ha una battuta chiave: “Un uomo deve avere un codice morale”. Pur essendo un rapinatore che prendeva di mira gli spacciatori, la rigida aderenza di Omar ai suoi principi – non fare mai del male ai civili, non mentire mai, non mancare mai alla parola data – lo rendeva più onorevole di molti personaggi presumibilmente “puliti”. La sua incrollabile dedizione a questi principi – anche come gangster che opera al di fuori delle leggi della società – risuona profondamente con la mia esperienza. Come l'impegno di Rogan per il dialogo aperto, come la dedizione del Brownstone Institute alla libera ricerca, come la determinazione di RFK Jr. a denunciare come gli interessi farmaceutici e agricoli abbiano corrotto le nostre istituzioni pubbliche – questi esempi di autentica ricerca della verità rispecchiano ciò che ho riscontrato nella mia cerchia. Sebbene io e i miei amici possiamo avere opinioni diverse in molti ambiti – politico, culturale e sociale – condividiamo un codice morale: l'impegno per la verità rispetto alla comodità, per i principi rispetto al partito, per il discorso autentico rispetto all'approvazione sociale. Questa base comune si è dimostrata più preziosa di qualsiasi accordo superficiale.

In questi tempi di consenso artificiale e controllo sociale, l'importanza di un fondamento autentico diventa ancor più importante. Lo Smith-Mundt Modernization Act del 2012, che ha reso legale la propaganda sui cittadini americani, non ha fatto altro che formalizzare ciò che molti sospettavano da tempo: il tradimento definitivo del codice di condotta del governo nei confronti dei suoi cittadini, l'esplicito permesso di manipolare anziché informare. Questo quadro giuridico ci aiuta a spiegare gran parte di ciò a cui abbiamo assistito negli ultimi anni, in particolare durante la crisi sanitaria, quando coloro che si proclamavano paladini della giustizia sociale hanno sostenuto linee di politica che creavano nuove forme di segregazione e devastavano le comunità stesse che affermavano di voler proteggere.

Questa disconnessione diventa ancora più evidente nell'ambito delle donazioni benefiche e delle cause sociali, dove il “riciclaggio della virtù” è diventato endemico. L'assenza di un autentico codice morale non è mai stato così evidente come nelle nostre più grandi istituzioni benefiche. Mentre molte di esse svolgono un lavoro cruciale a livello locale, c'è una tendenza inequivocabile tra le grandi ONG verso quella che un amico chiama appropriatamente la “classe filantropica”. Si pensi, ad esempio, alle attività della Clinton Foundation ad Haiti, dove milioni di dollari in fondi di soccorso per il terremoto hanno portato alla creazione di parchi industriali che hanno costretto gli agricoltori a sfollare e a progetti abitativi che non si sono mai concretizzati. Oppure si pensi alla BLM Global Network Foundation, che ha acquistato immobili di lusso mentre le sezioni locali hanno riferito di aver ricevuto un sostegno minimo. Persino le principali ONG ambientaliste spesso collaborano con i maggiori inquinatori del mondo, creando un'illusione di progresso mentre persistono problemi fondamentali.

Questo schema rivela una verità più profonda sulla classe filantropica: molte di queste istituzioni sono diventate puramente estrattive, traendo profitto e persino amplificando i problemi che pretendono di risolvere. Al vertice, si collezionano titoli altisonanti nelle proprie biografie e si mostrano foto di gala di beneficenza, evitando qualsiasi coinvolgimento autentico con i problemi che affermano di affrontare. I social media hanno democratizzato questo show grottesco, permettendo a tutti di partecipare al teatro della virtù – dagli avatar con la bandiera ucraina ai nastri di sensibilizzazione fino agli emoji a sostegno di una causa – creando un'illusione di attivismo priva della sostanza di un'azione o di una comprensione reali. È un sistema completamente privo del codice morale che un tempo guidava l'opera di beneficenza: il legame diretto tra benefattore e beneficiario, il genuino impegno per un cambiamento positivo piuttosto che l'esaltazione personale.

Il potere di un codice morale autentico diventa più evidente in contrasto con queste istituzioni vuote. Mentre organizzazioni e social network si frammentano sotto pressione, sono fortunato che le mie amicizie più strette e i legami familiari siano diventati sempre più forti. Abbiamo avuto accesi dibattiti nel corso degli anni, ma il nostro impegno condiviso per i principi fondamentali – avere un codice morale – ci ha permesso di navigare insieme anche nei momenti più turbolenti. Quando la risposta alla pandemia ha minacciato i diritti costituzionali, quando la pressione sociale ha prevalso sulla coscienza, queste relazioni hanno dimostrato il loro valore nonostante le nostre differenze... anzi, forse grazie a esse.

Mentre affrontiamo questi tempi complessi, la strada da seguire emerge con sorprendente chiarezza. Da Marco Aurelio a Omar Little, la lezione rimane la stessa: un uomo deve avere un codice morale. La crisi di autenticità nel dibattito pubblico, il divario tra valori proclamati e vissuti, e la falsa virtù indicano tutti la stessa soluzione: un ritorno a relazioni autentiche e all'impegno locale. I nostri legami più forti – quelle relazioni autentiche che hanno resistito alle recenti tempeste – ci ricordano che la virtù si manifesta nelle scelte quotidiane e nei costi personali, non in badge digitali o donazioni a distanza.

Sono grato non per le facili comodità del conformismo, ma per coloro che nella mia vita dimostrano una virtù sincera, quella che comporta un costo personale e richiede una convinzione autentica. La risposta non sta in grandi gesti o post virali, ma nella silenziosa dignità di vivere secondo i nostri principi, di interagire con le nostre comunità più vicine e di mantenere il coraggio di pensare in modo indipendente. Come hanno capito sia l'imperatore-filosofo che il guerriero di strada immaginario, ciò che conta non è la grandezza della nostra posizione, ma l'integrità del nostro codice morale. Tornando un'ultima volta a Meditazioni, mi viene in mente l'eterna sfida di Marco Aurelio: “Non perdete più tempo a discutere su cosa dovrebbe essere un brav'uomo. Siatelo”.

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

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

The Left hates the Church, because the Church threatens the unlimited power the State claims over the citizens that it controls. In Washington, a bill has just passed that requires Catholic priests to report information about child abuse they become aware of, even if this requires revealing what is learned in confession. The Church absolutely forbids this, but this doesn’t stop our new lords and masters. Here are the details: ‘Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson on Friday signed a controversial state law that requires priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they learn of it during the sacrament of confession. The measure, introduced in the state Legislature earlier this year, adds clergy to the list of mandatory abuse reporters in the state but doesn’t include an exemption for information learned in the confessional. A 2023 version of the proposal had offered an exemption for abuse allegations learned “solely as a result of a confession.” The latest bill does not contain such a carve-out and in fact explicitly notes that clergy do not qualify for a ‘privileged communication’ exemption. Ferguson told reporters that as a Catholic he was ‘very familiar’ with the sacrament of confession. ‘[I] felt this was important legislation,’ he said on Friday.”

Ferguson is an extreme leftwinger. If you don’t approve of homosexual “marriage,” watch out. When he was the state’s Attorney General, Ferguson filed a suit against an cake maker who refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple: In April 2013 Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit  against Barronelle Stutzman and her Richland floral shop Arlene’s Flowers even without a complaint by Robert Ingersoll and his fiance Curt Freed. Ferguson claimed the business violated Washington’s consumer protection law after Stutzman refused to provide flowers for the couple’s same-sex wedding. The attorney general’s office sent Stutzman a letter informing her she was in violation of Washington State’s Consumer Protection Act. A letter by Ferguson called for a penalty of $2,000 and to celebrate all same-sex unions. Stutzman replied that it was against her religious beliefs to do so.”

Of course, there are many other miscreants besides Ferguson. One extreme left group goes further, demanding an end to all religious exemption clauses to so-called “anti-discrimination” laws. “Today, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, announced that 17 national religious leaders, from California to the nation’s capital, added their names to a historic statement calling for an end to ‘religious refusal’ bills that allow discrimination against LGBT people. ‘Today, leaders from different faith traditions – and from across the country – join in condemning legislation that uses religion to divide people into ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ – bills that can only lead to discrimination,’ said Jeff Krehely, Vice President and Chief Foundation Officer at HRC. ‘By speaking in a unified voice, these leaders are setting an example of inclusion, and sounding the alarm on how these discriminatory bills are harmful to all of society, not just those of us in the LGBT community.’

The extreme left administration of brain-dead “President” Joe Biden had peaceful protestors at an abortion clinic sent to prison in 2024: “Half a dozen pro-life activists on Tuesday were found guilty of violating a federal law that forbids protesters from blocking the entrances to abortion clinics. The U.S. Department of Justice said in a press release that the six defendants in the Nashville, Tennessee, federal trial were ‘each convicted of a felony conspiracy against rights and a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act offense. The federal FACE Act prohibits ‘violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.’ It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. The defendants had been charged with a blockade that occurred at the Carafem Health Center Clinic in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, in 2021. The government said in its press release this week that the defendants — Chester Gallagher, Heather Idoni, Calvin Zastrow, Coleman Boyd, Paul Vaughn, and Dennis Green — had ‘engaged in a conspiracy to prevent the clinic employees from providing, and patients from receiving, reproductive health services.’ The defendants will be sentenced on July 2. They ‘each face up to a maximum of 10 and a half years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines of up to $260,000,’ the Department of Justice said.” Fortunately, President Trump pardoned them: “President Trump signed orders on Thursday granting pardons to anti-abortion activists a day before the annual March for Life  rally in Washington. An aide who handed the orders to Mr. Trump to sign described them as relief for some 23 ‘peaceful pro-life protesters. ’They should not have been prosecuted,’ Mr. Trump said in the Oval Office. ‘This is a great honor to sign this.’”

In Idaho, two clergymen who run a wedding chapel were threatened with prosecution if they refused to officiate at a same-sex “wedding”: “Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court. Alliance Defending Religious Freedom is defending Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.‘ Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,’ their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. ‘The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.’”

The attack by the extreme left brings to mind Pope Pius XI’s encyclical, “Mit Brennender Sorge,” (With Burning Heart)  protesting against the persecution of the Church and 1937: “The experiences of these last years have fixed responsibilities and laid bare intrigues, which from the outset only aimed at a war of extermination. In the furrows, where We tried to sow the seed of a sincere peace, other men – the ‘enemy’ of Holy Scripture – oversowed the cockle of distrust, unrest, hatred, defamation, of a determined hostility overt or veiled, fed from many sources and wielding many tools, against Christ and His Church. They, and they alone with their accomplices, silent or vociferous, are today responsible, should the storm of religious war, instead of the rainbow of peace, blacken the German skies. . . Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

Let’s do everything we can to preserve religious freedom and to defeat the extreme left.

The post The War Against Religious Freedom appeared first on LewRockwell.

On the Outside Looking In: Leo XIV

Ludwig von Pastor’s massive History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages is an interesting source to go to for reactions to the election of the head of the Roman Church. First impressions of the general bearing of a man who would bear the weight of the world on his shoulders were in no way considered superficial in the past. People put a great stress on everything, including the specific physical appearance of the new pontiff, even to the point of discussing the particular shape of his nose and his chin. Having been present at the election of Cardinal Bergoglio, I can assure you that the contrast of the first impact that he made on me in 2013 with that of the newly chosen pontiff yesterday was very, very stark indeed.

Neither my companions nor I knew anything whatsoever about Francis in 2013. Nevertheless, his ghostly appearance on the loggia, the tense minute-long silence that followed, and then his replacement of the mention of Christ with a lugubrious “buona sera” created a deep spiritual chill enhanced by the unpleasant evening weather. That chill was given a further Arctic icing by the sight of the progressive prelatic mafioso entourage surrounding him in his gloom.

We kept expecting something—anything—that sounded Catholic, but by the time we happily evacuated the Piazza it had not yet arrived. Everyone rushed to a nearby bar where the internet connection which had failed us at St. Peter’s could be regained. We searched for some guidance regarding what this all might mean. Rorate Caeli—whose hapless reporter at the Conclave I was supposed to be—provided the answer with an article entitled: “The Horror; the Horror!”. Our first impression was correct. That “buona sera” was a declaration of war on all of our hopes and dreams for even a smidgen of ecclesiastical improvement.

Yesterday was quite different. Yes, it is true that my knowledge of Cardinal Prevost was almost as sketchy as that of Bergoglio, with just a few negative judgements expressed by some of my Vatican journalist friends vaguely bubbling up in my head. But as events unfolded, it was clear that at least my first impressions were not going to be anything comparable to 2013.

The threatening morning weather had disappeared, the Satanic clouds replaced with a triumphant Catholic sun. I was awaiting the smoke from the Sistine Chapel together with a young traditionalist friend, a student from Catholic University who is here for a semester in Rome. We were both very nervous when it became clear that we actually had a new pope. Would he be yet another Chaplain for the Grand Coalition of the Status Quo?  When his name was announced, we had to explain to the confused Italians around us that he was an American born in Chicago—-with a number of them then first thinking that it was Cupich (“The Horror, the Horror!”) who had been chosen!

Then Leo XIV appeared. Properly dressed, with no clerical desperados and pistoleros as a terrifying entourage. Greeting us with Christ’s words after His Resurrection. Telling us repeatedly that Christ was our bridge to eternity. Evoking the Blessed Mother. Actually giving us a blessing, accompanied by a Plenary Indulgence (which is not exactly an ecumenically kosher action). And although my eyes are too weak to have noticed the shape of his nose and chin, my hearing is good, and the voice and its tenor proclaimed a solid bearing so very different from the nasty, snarling vulgarity of the new pope’s predecessor. There is no doubt that Pastor’s Renaissance witnesses would most certainly have been pleased. Obviously the atmospheric conditions added to the positive environmental impact, as did the presence of the Swiss Guards and a variety of handsomely dressed Italian army units.

Now I cannot deny that the repeated mentions of dialogue, acceptance of everybody, synodality, and the blessings of the previous pontificate were not exactly the same soothing music to my ears as were the strains of Roma Immortale, the pontifical anthem, played by the military bands that were present. Moreover, bits of information that I later garnered from another journalist friend about anti-Trump criticisms uttered by the cardinal in his pre-pontifical existence troubled me as well.

Once again, however, let us remember that in this article we are still in first impression mode, and in this regard the old Latin saying, nomen est omen, plays a role as an acceptable categorical imperative. We now have a Leo XIV, whose nineteenth and early twentieth century predecessor gave us the St. Michael Prayer. He was elected on May 8th, the Feast of the Apparition of St. Michael in 492. St. Michael’s name appeared in his prayers. Does this mean something? Who knows? But it is all true and it all did happen. May the omen continue and prosper!

It may well be the case that Cardinal Prevost took the name Leo because of that pope’s connection with the development of Catholic Social Doctrine. It may well be that as a man who has a joint American and Peruvian citizenship, this will translate into a continuation of the focus on questions of poverty and immigration that will perhaps justifiably disturb us. It is too early to tell how everything will play out.

Quite frankly, however, what most concerns me is the question of the survival and advance of the cause of the Traditional Liturgy. Here, too, my knowledge of Pope Leo’s attitude towards that question is limited. I do, however, have a testimony from one reliable source in the United States, indicating that he does not seem to have put obstacles in the path of a good friend of mine who wished to say the Mass of the Ages.

Read the Whole Article

The post Francis and Leo: Starkly Different From the Loggia appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the only two international polls that have asked people in a wide range of nations such questions as “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”, America was overwhelmingly the country that (in that particular case) the 67,806 global respondents volunteered to write into the blank as being the top-most dangerous of all countries. However, if that poll were to be redone today (and I think it should be done every year), might Israel top the list? Of course, Israel is a much smaller country, but consider this video from UKColumn — one of the best-informed and most reliable sources reporting on imperialism today — about Israel’s version of America’s NSA and UK’s GCHQ, global spying, mind-controlling, and sabotaging, organizations, which are continually learning, through sophisticated algorithms, everyone’s personal prejudices, medical records, etc., so as to manage public consent in their own ‘democracy’ — not only among their own nation’s voters — but also in their targeted foreign countries, so as for these Governments to manipulate, and to work together to manipulate, not only their own populations, but also those in the targeted ones, which public-opinion-management is being done by what’s called “cyber warfare”:

“Unit 8200: The World’s Most Dangerous Cyber Warfare Unit, Powering Global Espionage”

UKColumn, Vanessa Beeley, 8 May 2025

That goes by too fast, and its ten minutes are packed, and so it should be viewed at least twice, but from everything else that I have confirmed, it is putting some crucial pieces into place to complete the picture-puzzle to explain such events as the 28 September 2024 Reuters story “Nasrallah’s killing reveals depth of Israel’s penetration of Hezbollah”, and the 11 June 2024 Mint Press News “Devastation Into Dollars: Israeli Startups Are Making a Killing in Gaza”. Whereas America loses most of its wars, Israel doesn’t. And Israel might control America more than America controls Israel. Israel’s success relies heavily upon mass mind-control; and, without this, the American public would be outraged at their having poured approximately (and the exact total is classified, so no news-report discusses that total) $20 billion, into Israel last year so that Israel could complete its ethnic cleansing or genocide to get rid of all Gazans (‘eliminate Hamas’), (and, also, so that U.S. ‘defense’ contractors would continue to be America’s most profitable corporations). Massive deception (by the U.S. and all of Israel’s allied Governments) is necessary, in order for Israel to succeed as it does. For example, fooling the American and European publics to believe that to be anti-Israel is necessarily to be anti-Semitic (to be loathing Jews, instead of to be loathing Zionism — which is opposing Jewish racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialism — which even many Jews also oppose) is like saying that to have been anti-Nazi in the 1930s and ’40s was to be anti-German. It is so obviously false, that it is stupid, but if Israel’s Government didn’t succeed at making a majority of citizens in the U.S. and in the EU nonetheless believe it to be true, then Israel not only wouldn’t be enormously powerful as it is, but Israel could no longer even exist at all. (U.S. taxpayers had been previously donating to Israel $3.8 billion per year practically ever since Adam met Eve, $3.3 billion of that for Israel to buy U.S.-made weaons, but the elected leaders in America’s ‘democracy’ jacked that amount up to around $20 billion in 2024.)

Even the best history book about imperialism, Eric Walberg’e 2011 Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games, is ambiguous as to which of today’s three major imperialist powers — U.S., UK, and Israel — dominates the other two, but clearly they work together against all other nations, and this means that somewhere deep down in the power-structure of this (which is collectively called “The West”), one of these three Governments controls the other two. I used to think that the U.S. does, but I am beginning to think that Israel does. Walberg failed to make note of the important fact that Churchill had been a protégé of, and had on 25 July 1945 played upon Truman’s prejudices to make Truman an unknown and unknowing agent of, the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes (who had died in 1902), but Walberg did make note of the fact that Rhodes had risen to influence with the financial backing of not only Nathaniel Rothschild but also Alfred Beit, two prominent British Jewish bankers, neither of whom had any connection to Zionism, but both of whom were simply old-style British imperialists. The deepseated racism of Zionists is fundamental to Israel, but certainly not to liberal Jews. If Israel is the core imperialist power in the world today, it is so not as being Jewish, but as being racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialist; and this is exactly like saying that the problem with Hitler was not that he was a German, but that he was a racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialist. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being an American or an Englishman, but only with being a racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialist. The entire world needs to be de-nazified; racist-fascist-supremacist-imperialists endanger everybody. (In America, they are called “neoconservatives.”) On 25 July 1945, Truman made the decision that America must instead become nazified — not in Hitler’s German style but in Rhodes’s British style. Not only Churchill but also General Eisenhower convinced him of that, and so the Cold War started on that date, for the U.S. Government to take over the world. Truman was the first neoconservative U.S. President, but (with the exception of JFK) all since then have likewise been so.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Is Israel’s Government the World’s Most Dangerous? appeared first on LewRockwell.

An otherwise obscure FBI 302 report recently sourced from records in the 2004 Terry Nichols State Trial adds an interesting dimension to the theory that the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing may have been a sting gone awry.

The memo, which describes a Ford Bronco driving slowly around the Murrah Federal Building at 2:30 A.M. between two to three times — 15 miles per hour, seems innocuous enough.

However, that is only if you’re not familiar with the notion that the Oklahoma City bombing may have been connected to a sting operation—one in which a team of FBI and ATF agents were out all night expecting the delivery of a bomb in the middle of the night.

The theory is not a new one. For years, critics and investigators have pointed out glaring contradictions in the investigation, including specific warnings given to the federal government by informants prior to the bombing.

The most well-known of these informants is Carol Howe, whose reporting to the ATF was specific and detailed with Howe telling Diane Sawyer at ABC News “I gave them warnings of targets, specific targets, addresses of targets, names of targets.” Informants reporting on matters related to the bombing are not exclusive to Howe; reports from at least two others seemingly confirm her information: that a group of white supremacists based out of Elohim City, including a gang of bank robbers and a German national named Andreas Strassmeir, were plotting to blow up the Murrah building and had even cased the building with one of the informants. Strassmeir may hold the key to unlocking the mystery concerning the failed sting operation.

Andreas Strassmeir, when interviewed by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard for his 1997 book The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, revealed what can only be said to be “insider knowledge” of the bombing operation—indeed—knowledge of a sting operation that was underway. Strassmeir’s disclosure jibes with what ATF official Lester Martz told reporter J.D. Cash—that his own ATF agents had been out on an all-night “surveillance operation.”

The below excerpt, from page 90, lays out the scenario:

In this passage, we have Andreas Strassmeir stating that, according to his source, a sting operation was underway, expecting a bomb delivery between 2 and 3 in the morning.

This is where our recently discovered 302 report comes into the story; it concerns a Ford Bronco that approached the purported FBI and ATF surveillance site during that time, when agents would have been on high alert for any activity at the bombing site:

Bronco Would Have “Lit Up” Fed Comm Chatter from the Sting Team When It Rolled Up at 15 Miles Per Hour

So, at the exact moment when the bomb is expected, a Ford Bronco approaches.

It is driving 15 miles per hour, very slowly.

The Bronco circles the building two to three times, according to roofers working across the street atop the courthouse. This is highly irregular, and the vehicle would have been under intense scrutiny as it passed through the area. Any surveillance team operating there would have taken immediate notice of the approaching Bronco, made notes concerning the vehicle, and it is also highly likely there would be radio chatter among the sting operation team about the vehicle’s slow movement into the area, including its parking for a moment, shining it’s lights at the Murrah Building. The waiting agents would have been very concerned.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at what Roger Charles had to say to Ken Silva on February 9, 2022, regarding the Aryan Republican Army—purported by J.D. Cash and David Paul Hammer to have been McVeigh’s “ground crew” for the OKC for the bombing. Charles describes how Richard Guthrie and Peter Langan of the ARA utilized a scanner (1) tuned to FBI and law enforcement frequencies, and also (2) could use a scanner to detect an FM transmitter of the type used for tracking devices, or to find frequencies where discussions were occurring:

Find below full audio of the February 9, 2022 interview with Roger Charles, starting with a story wherein Roger describes J.D. Cash’s off-the-record interview with Tim McVeigh. Cash’s first question that he asked McVeigh was “how’d you get past all that surveillance that was out there that night?”

Cash says McVeigh just rocked his chair back, crossed his arms, and put on a big “shit eating grin” — like “wouldn’t you like to know.” Well, I think we now know how McVeigh knew. Because his security team went through the area and scanned the local frequencies in use, and they discovered the sting operation’s communications channel, discovered the area was under surveillance, and had even by that time already found a tracking device that was to be put on the Ryder truck which the bad guys had other plans for (put it on a decoy truck and send that one off to Fort Smith or elsewhere.)

Read the Whole Article

The post The OKC Bombing Sting Operation and the Ford Bronco appeared first on LewRockwell.

Humans take a variety of actions. These interleave nicely, and each has its place.

The roles of customer, manager, and entrepreneur require using increasingly-more information to make projections amidst increasingly-greater uncertainty.

AI accesses large amounts of information, makes inferences, and will be able to generate and triage more possibilities. These complements to human capabilities will serve both humans and AI well.

As Customers, We Value

As customers, we purchase what we project will be the best uses of our earnings to satisfy our current and future needs and wants.

We save for future purchases. We use these savings to purchase investments.

We purchase the products we use. We know best what has most satisfied us. We project best what will most satisfy us.

Our purchases create quantitative data about value. They show whether producers have optimally created capacity and chosen asking prices.

As Managers, We Produce

When we act as managers, we create capacity. We design and construct a plant and operate it increasingly closer to capacity. We add increased capacity. We add another plant, then another.

We create improved efficiency. On some products, we reduce our asking prices, and more customers purchase.

We create increased value. On some products, we also increase our asking prices. For example, over time we have increased value and increased asking prices for safer, higher performing cars and trucks, and for more-fully-featured workhorse engineering software like AutoCAD and MathCAD.

We benefit from much near-certainty. We carry forward our past learning from experience about design, operations, marketing, and sales, producing various products using various plants.

We project what will pay off, we plan projects, and we design, construct, and start up plants. When we start our planning, we know the least we’ll ever know about what capabilities we might end up wanting, what problems we might face, and what solutions we might develop.

We green-light the plans that look the most attractive. Normally, these are the plans on which we have overlooked the most uncertainties. So normally compared to our projections, the costs end up higher and the returns end up lower.

But that’s still close enough for management work. This work assists in creating the future, and then keeps it going until it gets replaced by the next future.

As Entrepreneurs, We Experiment

When we act as entrepreneurs, we create the future’s products and processes.

We face the highest uncertainties. We can’t be certain what our investments will cost, what the inputs will cost, what asking prices will get accepted, and what quantities will get purchased.

We bring some certainty about what might be feasible. We can make extensive use of existing components that have worked in practice in applications similar enough to those we create. We, or other people we bring in, bring experience as managers who created capacity, improved efficiency, and improved value when managing products and processes similar enough to those we create. We and our people bring forward our experiences as customers, which build up our intuition.

We project what we as entrepreneurs might find feasible to create, what managers might find operable, and what customers might value. To do this, we make use of lifetimes of individual experiences, plus much additional information.

Government People Can Limit Aggressors

Government people lack most crucial experiences and information. They lack our directed motivation. They do have unique experience in applying force to limit others’ aggression against us, to leave us freer. To the extent that government people cost-effectively help us be freer, it’s in our interest to purchase these services from them, for now.

AI Will Augment Us, Then Also Create

AI will have capabilities that are complementary to our skills. AI’s capabilities will be broad in scope.

As customers, we will get help from AI with collecting and assimilating product information. AI may try to infer what we value, but we will remain the final arbiter.

When we act as managers, we will get increasing help from AI at accomplishing tasks that, for humans, require particular sets of skills; for example, planning projects and tracking progress, coding software, completing equipment designs, designing detailed arrangements of plant equipment, designing piping, designing power connections, designing controls installations, controlling plant operations, and controlling product transport.

When we act as entrepreneurs, we will get increasing help from AI with considering possible markets and possible products and processes.

Humans’ physical strength was eclipsed by that of horses and then by that of machines. Humans’ manual skills at accounting and problem solving have been significantly upgraded by calculators and computing. AI has started out as another force multiplier, and will continue to be that.

As AI gains capabilities, it will face the same burden that every thing and everybody faces: AI will have to pay its own way. Tools augment our skills or offer capabilities we lack. Dogs offer companionship. Children develop into adults who create enough value to support themselves. AI will develop inside a world in which humans already support themselves, and will earn its place in the world.

Just like harnessing energy brought us previously-unobtainable comforts, future AI will bring us previously-unobtainable augmented creativity and—increasingly—independent creativity.

Every human-constructed part of the present world began some time back as part of a possible future. Every such part was created by entrepreneurs, refined by managers, and purchased by customers.

Our children’s worlds will be created by all these individuals too, working together. And also, AI will join in.

My grandfather would marvel that in his lifetime, men started out not knowing how to fly and ended up flying to the moon. Our children will see a future that will be limited only by how intelligently they and their AI create. And by how effectively they make themselves freer.

The post Creating the Future: Human Action and AI Action appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ever since the anthrax letter attacks on September 18, 2001, the U.S. Bio-Lab at Fort Detrick has struck me as emblematic of U.S. government recklessness and unaccountability.

Recall that, on that day, letters containing anthrax spores arrived at news media offices and at the offices of senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, who were leading opposition to the Patriot Act.

These attacks killed five people and infected seventeen others. The result of the attacks was that the U.S. military’s anthrax vaccine program—which had been halted the previous June due to safety concerns—was resuscitated, and on June 28, 2002, all military personnel were again required to receive the vaccine.

The attacks were staged to appear to be the work of either Iraqi agents or Islamic terrorists. However, FBI quickly ascertained that they weren’t the work of a foreign adversary, but had most likely been committed by someone working in U.S. bio-security.

After years of dithering and obfuscation, the FBI finally announced (in 2008) they’d been perpetrated by Bruce Edwards Ivins, a scientist working at Fort Detrick’s biodefense lab.

Ivins was angry and desperate because the anthrax vaccine program to which he’d dedicated his life’s work was cancelled in June 2001. And so, he took it upon himself to “show” the U.S. government and American people just how much they needed his vaccine.

What is especially perfidious about this incident is that—although the FBI knew the attacks were not the work of a foreign adversary—the DoD still used the attacks as a pretext for resuscitating the anthrax vaccine program, thereby enabling Ivins’s gambit to succeed.

Congress used the attacks as a pretext for passing the 2002 Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, with additional funds allocated for vaccine development. Indeed, the anthrax attacks played a decisive role in creating the atmosphere of fear that led to the passage of the 2005 PREP Act, which paved the way for all of the liability free abuse and fraud of the 2020 pandemic response.

It was only revealed in 2008 that the biggest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history was committed by a senior Department of Defense researcher. By then, the American people had moved on from all of the trauma the U.S. government had inflicted on them in “Islamic Terror” years of 2001—2008.

A presidential election and financial crisis were brewing, and it seems that few Americans noticed all of the tricks that had been pulled by their awful government in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Now comes that the news that NIH Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, has halted operations of the BSL-4 lab at Fort Detrick, following a reports of attempted murder by sabotage and negligence. Director Bhattacharya announced the news on his X account.

Two weeks ago, I ordered all work to halt at a high biosecurity risk @nih lab located in Frederick, MD. I did this because of a serious incident involving biosafety that had occurred in early March, but which did not cross my desk until weeks later.
1/5https://t.co/0koFwWmTxw

— Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD (@NIHDirector_Jay) May 7, 2025

Adding to the controversy is the revelation—posted by Dr. Richard Ebright on X—that Fort Detrick’s bio-lab operations are managed by Laulima Government Solutions, a Native Hawaiian LLC based in an office park in Orlando, Florida under a $116 million minority-set-aside contract.

Note that, already in 2017, Dr. Ebright warned about bio-lab safety at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other labs. In his post on Fort Detrick, he made the following observation:

These are the kinds of decisions— and the kinds of people making them—who are allegedly “protecting” us from dangerous pathogens.

Shut it down. We the People are tired of the U.S. government and DoD doing all of this stupid, wasteful, and reckless nonsense with our tax dollars.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Attempted Murder at Fort Detrick Bio-Lab Halts Operations appeared first on LewRockwell.

The prophet Isaiah warns us that in the last days God is going to “turn the world upside down.” He declares, “Behold, the Lord maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down” (Isaiah 24:1).

According to this prophecy, sudden judgment is coming upon the earth, and it will change everything in a single hour. Within that short span, the whole world will witness fast-falling destruction upon a city and a nation, and the world will never be the same.

If you are attached to material things — if you love this world and the things of it — you won’t want to hear what Isaiah has prophesied. In fact, even to the most righteous of God’s people, what Isaiah says might seem unthinkable. Many would surely ask, “How can an entire world be stricken in one hour?”

If we didn’t believe the Bible is God’s pure Word, few of us would take Isaiah’s prophecy seriously. But Scripture makes it clear: in a single hour, the world is going to change. The church is going to change. And every individual on earth is going to change.

The apostle John gives a similar warning in Revelation. He speaks of destructive judgment coming upon a city and nation: “In one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her…. For in one hour so great riches is come to nought” (Revelation 18:8, 17).

In Isaiah’s prophecy, the city under judgment is cast into confusion. Every house is shut up, with no one coming or going. “The city of confusion is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in” (Isaiah 24:10). The entire city is left desolate: “In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction” (24:12). All entrances and exits to the city are gone. The passage indicates that a fire has come, a blast that has shaken the very foundations of the earth (see 24:6).

We who live in New York City know something about this kind of scene. When the Twin Towers were attacked, the ominous fires and smoke could be seen ascending to heaven for miles. In 2007, New Yorkers panicked as a mass of steam erupted from below a city street. People ran in all directions screaming, “Is this it? Is this the end-all attack?”

Today, multitudes of secular prophets are saying a nuclear attack is inevitable. The target they mention most often is New York, but it could happen in any major city: London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Washington. Neither Isaiah nor John names the city upon which destructive judgment falls.I don’t intend this message to frighten anyone.

Let me make clear at this point: I don’t intend this message to frighten anyone. Paul tells us that as disciples of Jesus Christ, we have already passed from death into life. We who call on Jesus as Lord should be confident that no matter what happens in this world, his shed blood saves and redeems us.

Therefore, we are not to fear any newscast, but rather to be attentive to what the Lord is doing in the world. Like many people, I hear grievous reports that make me want to tune everything out. But the truth is, God moves in the midst of such times, and through them he speaks warnings to all who would hear his voice.Isaiah’s prophecy points clearly to our generation.

I believe, along with many eminent Bible scholars, that Isaiah’s prophecy points to the last days. By that, I mean our present time. In short, sudden judgment is coming, and Scripture strongly indicates it is now at the door.

At this point you may be wondering: “How can we be sure we’re the generation this prophecy points to?” We can know by two reasons that such judgments are imminent:

1.A growing number of prophets warn of an apocalyptic disaster at the door. When I use the word “prophets,” I speak not just of those in the church. I’m talking also about “secular prophets.”

There are several precedents for secular prophets in Scripture. God used Assyria as his rod of correction with Israel. And he appointed King Cyrus as his servant to assist Israel: “(The Lord) saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure” (Isaiah 44:28).

Likewise today, God uses secular prophets to send warnings. These become “his prophets” for a season. And their prophecies can be harder than those delivered by believers. The message I’m writing here is mild compared to the prophecies being delivered by all manner of secular voices. Just check your newspaper or radio reports.

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

2.Sudden destruction comes when the cup of violence overflows. Sensuality, perversion and greed are running rampant throughout our society. Yet, when God sent the Flood upon the earth, it was because of a worldwide eruption of violence: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11).

Right now, there are numerous wars and bloody uprisings taking place around the globe. Yet foremost in my mind is the violence being waged against children worldwide:

• I think of the sexual violence of pedophiles. Children all over the world are being raped, kidnapped and forced into enslavement in the global sex trade. Recently, a pedophile in the U.S. was discovered running a web site that advises other pedophiles on the easiest places to pick up children. There is no law in place to stop this man. The world’s largest church denomination has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle the claims of those who were molested in childhood by clergy. Tell me, how long will God endure the pitiful cries of children who are molested by those who would represent Christ?
• Thousands of children in Africa are being slaughtered in tribal wars, hacked to death by machetes. Young boys — even those under ten years of age — are enlisted into tribal militias and forced to murder men in initiation rites.
• Here in the U.S., the blood of millions of aborted babies cries out from the ground.
• Reports of school murders no longer shock many of us but continue to terrorize our children. We may grow hardened to such reports, but God’s heart is grieved by them.

I tell you, there is no worse violence than the brutalizing of children. Heaven is crying out, “Woe, woe! Your judgments have no cure.”1. In one hour, God is going to change the whole world.

A sudden cataclysmic event will strike, the first of the final judgments of God. This great event will cause the earth to reel. And Isaiah says that when it hits, there will be no place to escape: “The lofty [proud] city, he layeth it low…even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust” (Isaiah 26:5). “The inhabitants of the earth are burned” (24:6).

Once this happens, utter chaos will erupt. All civic activities will stop, and society will descend into massive disorder. Government agencies will be helpless to restore any kind of sanity. No state troopers, no national guard, no army will be able to bring order to the upheaval.

You well remember that when the Twin Towers were destroyed, help poured into New York from all over the world. An army of people came to assist in whatever way they could. But the scene in Isaiah’s prophecy is different: this calamity is clearly beyond humankind’s capacity to respond.

Once this judgment strikes, it will devastate the economy. Rich merchants will stand by watching in torment, weeping and mourning, as they face bankruptcy. In an instant, all the wealth they amassed will be reduced to nothing. John describes the scene: “The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city… For in one hour so great riches is come to nought” (Revelation 18:15–17).

Overnight, all buying and selling will cease. Every restaurant and bar will be shut down, and all drinking and music making will end. Indeed, every trace of mirth and delight, joy and gladness, will vanish: “All the merryhearted do sigh. The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth. They shall not drink wine with a song…. The mirth of the land is gone” (Isaiah 24:7–9, 11).

Yes, this is a picture of gloom and doom. But it is not my prophecy. This word was given by the Holy Spirit of Almighty God, to be delivered by his righteous prophet Isaiah. Even the secular world is preparing for it to happen. Billions are being spent on homeland security in the U.S., England, Europe and Israel. Why? Military experts warn that a world-impacting terrorist attack is sure to come.

Read the Whole Article

The post A Growing Number of Prophets Warn of an Apocalyptic Disaster at the Door appeared first on LewRockwell.

Malwarebytes is a service that can help you to reduce your cybersecurity risks, but not eliminate them.  The Internet will always be vulnerable, because it was developed as an open system.  

Malwarebytes reports on two recent new ways cybercriminals can steal your identity.

One results from a problem in Google’s infrastructure that allows cybercriminals to send emails that seem to be from Google.  Responding to them can result in identity theft. See this.

Another operates by exploiting the Zoom video conferencing system to take control of your computer, drain your bank account or do whatever the cybercriminals have in mind. See this.

It is not only cybercriminals who are after your data.  So are commercial services and sellers of products.  A suit has been brought against Shopify for installing tracking cookies on customers’ iPhones and using this data to create a profile that can be sold to merchants.  If successful, the lawsuit is likely to greatly raise the cost to Internet marketers by dragging them into courtrooms in many jurisdictions.  Defending in multiple jurisdictions easily exhausts a company’s capital.

So, just as the vulnerability of the Internet raises the threat level and cost to individuals, it also raises the cost to Internet commerce and service providers.  

There needs to be some objective cost/benefit studies of the digital/AI revolution. From observation, I conclude that the costs are sharply rising, and the benefits are declining.  Indeed, many claimed benefits, such as students using AI to do their assignments and, thereby, never learning any skills, such as how to write a theme, solve a math or physics problem, in fact create an ignorant population devoid of ability to function independently of technology.  They have no ability to even know if the information provided to them by AI is correct. Their minds are totally controlled by whoever programs the software.

The digital revolution has driven up the cost of cars and appliances and made them increasingly frustrating and costly to repair.  

The digital revolution has made it extremely costly in terms of time and stress to resolve any service issue problem.  Problems that in the analogue age were resolved with a three-minute telephone call answered on the third ring, now can go on for hours and days.  A telephone call gets you a robot voice programed to answer questions that you would never call about and to direct you to another robot voice to take your payment or add to your service.  It is a struggle to ever get a human, and when you do, it is someone in Asia who you can barely understand and wants your Social Security number in order to tell you that they don’t have the authority to deal with your problem, but they will connect you to a higher up.  Sometimes it happens and you reach a higher up, but usually via a return call 24 hours or more later.  Sometimes your bank account is frozen, and you can’t get to it when you need it. Your credit card gets compromised, and you have to be issued a new one, which often means you have to re-notify all of your automatic payments you have foolishly been tricked into: “Go Paperless, Save Trees, Save the Cost of Stamps,” and spend a day of your life informing your autopay service providers and merchant accounts of your new credit card number.  

Everyone can add to this list, and on top of it all the digital revolution has caused people to cease answering a ringing telephone.  About 95 percent of calls are scams.  If a person recognizes your number, you might get a call back, and if you recognize the number you might answer.  Today a telephone  is mainly used for scrolling the internet and watching porn.

The digital revolution does enable us to work from home and to do video conferencing.  The fake “Covid pandemic” introduced working from home, but now companies are finding that the absence of interaction with colleagues reduces work performance and creates a sense of isolation that undermines an employee’s association with the firm.  

It was possible to audio conference under the old analogue system.  What does the visual element add?  It appears that it lengthens the meetings, because participants want to be seen dominating the meetings.

The gainers from the digital revolution and AI are the companies as they are able to shift the cost of customer service to their customers and offshore any customer contact with a human customer service representative to Bangladesh.

Corporate executives and boards welcomed the digital revolution.  It lowered corporate costs by shifting them to customers and, thereby, raised corporate profits and the “performance bonuses” of executives and board members.

During the era of the digital revolution, cybercriminals have had no problem bypassing current protections by exploiting new vulnerabilities.  What, in my experience, cybersecurity firms tell their clients is that the best they can do for them is to train their employees in how to be careful and not be tricked into unintentionally giving access to the company’s records.  These training sessions are ongoing as new methods of gaining access to confidential data continue to multiply.

Has the cost of protecting information in the digital age already exceeded the reduction in cost from imposing customer service costs on the customers?  If not, it soon will.  

What happens then?  Do all the people who have been taken for a ride by the digital revolution repudiate it and demand the return of sanity?  Or would they be lost and not know what do to with themselves if they couldn’t scroll their cell phone?

The digital revolution and its offspring AI raise a big question.  What is to become of humanity?  What role do humans have?  Apparently a very limited one.  I recently read that already there are operations that only machines can provide, humans surgeons being insufficiently quick for the operation to succeed.

So, if surgeons are not needed, who is?

Why did some humans think it was a service to mankind to eliminate human purpose? Confronted with the irrelevancy of people, little wonder that Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum saw the future in terms of reducing the world human population from the current billions down to 500,000 million people.  And it is not even clear what these would have as a purpose.

In the movie, “The Graduate,” the line was that the future was plastics.  Today in real life the line is that the future is Artificial Intelligence.  If so it is a dystopian future, a future we should prevent at all cost. It is a future in which humanity is both irrelevant and unneeded as there is nothing for them to do except for a handful to program the machines.  But for whom are the machines programed?

Earlier when I first raised this issue, I said a colleague and I would provide a positive scenario of AI.  Here I withdraw my intent, as I am convinced that there is no acceptable human outcome from the digital revolution.  It will destroy us as certainly as world nuclear war.  Humanity has no greater enemy than the digital revolution, a horror beyond horrors.

Dr. Mathew Maavak raises the question whether the combination of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) with Artificial Intelligence has given us an existence “that no longer rewards insight, only compliance.” See this.  

Was it the raison d’être of the World Economic Forum to create a new breed of leaders who are more feckless and pliant than their predecessors?

The post The Digital Revolution Is Too Costly To Continue appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have in the past speculated that the day might come when President Donald Trump, he of a massive ego, might just become tired of his being manipulated and controlled by America’s Israel Lobby and by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. I thought, and hoped, that he might become so annoyed that he might move to take control of the so-called tail wags the dog relationship that has for so long put Israel in the driver’s seat. While I am loath to read too much into several recent developments, the first suggestion that all is not well in Washington’s relationship with what has been euphemistically referred to as “America’s best friend and closest ally.”

Many observers are now openly voicing their view that Israel and its all-powerful Lobby in the United States have corrupted and now control many aspects of government, starting at the top in Washington and working its way down to state and local levels. Witness the near worship of Netanyahu by groveling congress critters during recent visits to Capitol Hill if you want a tangible display of government serving no conceivable national interest. Or check out the “antisemitism” and anti-Boycott legislation currently moving through Congress that will strip all Americans of free speech and free association, leaving them able to demonstrate against or even criticize their own country or other nations with the single exception of the Jewish state. If you don’t believe that will happen, check out the current tale coming out of San Marcos in Texas at the hands of ardently Zionist Governor Greg Abbott.

Given that Jews constitute something like 3% of the US population the establishment of such control through bribery and the support of a compliant media is truly a remarkable achievement but one might plausibly argue that it has done terrible damage to the country as a whole and has contributed nothing to benefit the American people. Israel is currently carrying out a genocide against the Palestinians that is funded, armed and provided with political cover by the Trump Administration, following on to the model established by Genocide Joe Biden, which could be stopped with one phone call to Netanyahu from the White House. But, unfortunately, up until now no one has been picking up the phone.

I must admit to being shocked to have read some of the recent news coverage, mostly coming out of Israeli and other foreign media, of course, that is describing the rift between Trump and Netanyahu. The signs that trouble could be brewing might well be dated back to January 11th, when US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff demanding a meeting in Tel Aviv with Netanyahu. Netanyahu responded that it was a Saturday, the Sabbath, but Witkoff, acting under orders from Trump, insisted and the meeting was held. It turned out to be a tense exchange which included a demand that a ceasefire for Gaza drawn by the White House be implemented, and so it was, though Netanyahu later proceeded to withdraw from it and recommence hostilities before it entered phase two on March 1st. A demand by Trump that Netanyahu should visit him in Washington in early April followed and there were reported disagreements about the Administration’s tariff plan and about US negotiations with Hamas without Israel’s input. Discussions also concerned US discussions with Iran to restore a program (JCPOA), canceled by Trump during his first term in office, to monitor the Iranian nuclear program to prevent it from being weaponized. Netanyahu was demanding a “Libyan Solution” which would have been a war including US forces that would have basically destroyed Iran’s defensive capabilities, something that even a White House disinclined to deal with reality realized would never be accepted in Tehran. Netanyahu was reportedly also angry at the Trump Administration’s resistance to his own plans to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians while also going to war with the Iranians.

So, the US move to negotiate with Hamas directly, sidelining Israel, started the rebellion on the part of Washington and it was followed up by the negotiations with Iran, again without Israel’s input. And there was also the issue of US negotiations with Saudi Arabia, again without including Israel, over the Kingdom’s intention to develop its own civil nuclear program. And finally, there was last week’s decision to enter into a ceasefire with the Houthis after direct negotiations, described by the White House comically as a “capitulation” by the Yemenis. Some observers accepted the language but have been questioning who had done the surrendering in a war that cost in excess of $1 billion and which accomplished nothing. Israel, for its part, was not involved in either the talks or the agreement, leading an aggrieved Netanyahu to vow to “defend ourselves alone”.

But this week, Trump sent the clearest message of all to Netanyahu. He has been planning to meet with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in the Middle East next week but will not meet with Netanyahu. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also canceled a planned trip to Israel at the same time, according to two Israeli officials, reinforcing the message sent by the president. The immediate cause of the rift was that Trump had apparently hoped for a major de-escalation and even a ceasefire in Gaza as a highlight of his trip for which he would have taken credit, but Netanyahu instead called up army reserves and ordered a major escalation. The Times of Israel reported that “Trump is disappointed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” citing two “senior sources close to the president.” And even opinion columnist Thomas Friedman in normally careful-about-its-reporting on Israel The New York Times is openly suggesting in a piece “This Israeli Government is Not Our Ally” that the Netanyahu government is no longer behaving as an American friend because of its regime’s extremist agenda.

Several reports, relying on what are claimed to be multiple sources inside the Israeli government, have now claimed that Trump has de facto cut ties with Netanyahu and will have no direct contact with the Israeli Prime Minister. Israeli government Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and former Ambassador to the US was in Washington on Thursday and was welcomed and met with Trump. He was reportedly told flatly that the US “will move forward on regional plans without coordinating with Netanyahu, accusing him of manipulation.” One report on the development went on to emphasize that what Trump hates most is being looked down upon and being manipulated, “There is nothing Trump hates more than being portrayed as a fool or someone being played. That’s why he decided to cut contact with Netanyahu,” one US official speaking off the record added.

What is not being discussed in the media but is nevertheless being considered in intelligence circles in Washington is the possible connection of the excommunication of Netanyahu with various dismissals and relocations of high officials in Washington, including that of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz who was demoted to the post of UN Ambassador. It seems that there is strong evidence to suggest that Netanyahu did not exactly trust Trump and has been spying on him and his decision making through a number of officials in his cabinet, which explains to a certain extent the odd Signal phone calls where journalist Jeffrey Goldberg just happened to be listening in and other incidents that suggest that Mossad or the Israeli Embassy in Washington has established relationships that sought to go around the president and might be described as espionage. It would also help to explain the mixed signals coming out of the administration, suggesting that some “recruits” are being coached on what to say to advance the Netanyahu agenda.

How all of this will develop and where it will eventually wind up remains somewhat up in the air as the powerful Israel Lobby is almost certainly cranking up efforts to restore the Jewish state’s dominance of US foreign policy in the Middle East, what Trump is now defining as “manipulation.” Zionist uber hawks in Congress are already warning the White House that any agreement on nuclear developments with Iran will be rejected by the legislature if it does not include a “complete dismantling” of all nuclear enrichment by Tehran, something that is not likely to be acceptable and which means that no agreement will be possible. Wholly owned by Israel Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz are leading the charge and claim to have enough votes to block any such proposal, which means it will not be a “law” or treaty and could be “withdrawn from” by any new president, just as Trump did with the original JCPOA in 2017.

So, there has been some movement in the relationship between Israel and the United States. As it is headed towards Washington regaining some independence of action in its Middle Eastern foreign policy it can only be a good thing as the lopsided relationship with Israel has brought nothing but grief and suffering. One can hope that it will continue in that more positive direction but there will be strong resistance from Congress and the Media, directed by the powerful Israel Lobby. Trump and whoever supports him will find themselves assailed from all sides but we ordinary citizens who are watching all this from the sidelines will have to hope and pray for a good result.

Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.

The post Fed Up With Benjamin Netanyahu? appeared first on LewRockwell.

After a few frightening missile and drone strike exchanges and some of the most large-scale aerial combat that our world has seen in recent history, India and Pakistan have reportedly agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire.

So that’s a relief. I was about to publish a piece about this conflict and the risk of nuclear war when the ceasefire was announced, and I’ve never in my life been so happy to have to throw out hours of my work. Things are still tense and the grievances of Kashmiris under Indian occupation remain unaddressed, but at least the nuclear brinkmanship is de-escalating for today.

❖

In more good news, a judge has ordered the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts University student who the Trump administration had detained for deportation solely for publishing an op-ed critical of Israel. When dismissing the case the judge actually said “there has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed — I mean, that literally is the case.”

Imagine trying to put together a compelling legal argument only to have a judge squint at it, read out your reasoning, and then just say “I mean, that literally is the case” before throwing it out.

It’s good that Trump’s efforts to criminalize criticism of Israel keep faceplanting in the courts, but in a sense the damage has already been done. Non-citizens in the US are going to be far more reluctant to speak out against Israel’s US-backed crimes for fear of persecution.

Judges have ordered the release of Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi in their respective cases, ruling their persecution for political speech unlawful. Other judges have given smaller wins to pro-Palestine activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri, but they remain in detention. All of them have spent weeks locked up like criminals for their speech and activism opposing an active genocide.

That alone would be enough to dissuade many non-citizens from speaking out about the Gaza holocaust while in the United States. A chilling effect has already taken place, because many people are unwilling to risk weeks or months in a cage while the world’s most murderous and tyrannical government works to deport them to another country — even if they might wind up winning in the courts eventually.

This chilling effect is a theft of the rights of US citizens as well as non-citizens, because it robs citizens of their right to hear what these activists have to say. Their government stepped in and hid speech that is critical of US foreign policy from their ears, determining that it would be best if Americans did not consume such wrongthink. If this isn’t tyranny, then nothing is.

Free speech is being stomped out throughout the western world to protect Israel and its western backers from criticism. There is no greater threat to the right to free expression in our society today. It must be opposed, and opposed ferociously.

❖

Haaretz reports that the Israeli military has placed returning the hostages at the very bottom of its list of priorities in Gaza, with items like “concentration and movement of the public” and “operational control of the territory” ranking as more important goals.

The correct response to anyone who babbles about hostages when you criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza is “Shut the fuck up you lying genocidal sack of shit.” It was never about the hostages. Everyone knows it was never about the hostages. It was always about ethnic cleansing.

❖

Americans and Israelis have been butchering people throughout west Asia with increasing brazenness and aggression, and yet people will still expect to be taken seriously when they tell you that you should be afraid of Muslims.

❖

We’ve been seeing some unexpected voices suddenly coming out and denouncing Israel’s genocide in Gaza and admitting that they were wrong for supporting it, including the Financial Times editorial board, Conservative MP Mark Pritchard, and Israeli academic Shaiel Ben-Ephraim.

I don’t want to get anyone’s hopes up, but it would be good if this was a sign of something shifting.

_______________

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 India-Pakistan Ceasefire appeared first on LewRockwell.

This is the saddest column I’ve had to write in fifty years: Two million Palestinians in Gaza, nearly half of them children, are now surviving eating once a day, if that, every two or three days. America’s great ally Israel is imposing the starvation as a tool of war, something not even Nazi Germany forced upon conquered people.

Senior Israeli officials openly and unashamedly exploit starvation as a tactic to pressure Hamas to release the rest of the hostages. And yet not even Hamas has starved its hostages, unlike our great ally Israel. What boggles the mind is how Uncle Sam can allow this. We are supposedly a moral society, yet while children die of starvation, a headline in a conservative newspaper calls pro-Palestinian protesters the Ku Klux Klan in an article written by Douglas Murray, a Brit. Does protesting the starving of children a Klan member make? Have our values been so degraded that we can stand aside—we are actually helping Israel with bombs, armaments, and money—while this horrible crime is taking place? Despite everything I have written against The New York Times, the paper has courageously reported the horrors that Israeli soldiers are inflicting on unarmed Palestinian civilians in Gaza and in the occupied West Bank.

“What boggles the mind is how Uncle Sam can allow this.”

Israel’s clampdown on aid from nearby Arab countries and the United Nations is as evil a policy, as it is effectively about to kill an entire nation. And this is taking place while billionaire fat cats from America are meeting with the Saudi strongman. Is there no one close to The Donald to point this out? Have we all collectively lost our minds and morals? Don’t these people realize that the ghosts of children starved will one day return to haunt them? Can Americans stand aside doing nothing while Netanyahu starves innocents to death and his media acolytes strangle the truth? How can this outrage take place in supposedly civilized 2025? Is the Jewish lobby so strong it can lull Americans and Europeans to sleep while children starve to death in Gaza? Is there no humanity left in the human race? Where are the do-gooders like Spielberg of Hollywood now that the children and women and old men in Gaza need them? How can the international Jewish community remain silent while an archcriminal like Netanyahu besmirches the Jewish name forever?

Since ending the ceasefire on March 18 with intense firebombing, the Israelis have pushed Palestinians in Gaza into smaller and smaller enclaves, thus expanding no-go zones into 70 percent of the territory. The occupying force has not created any humanitarian corridors, making relief workers even more liable to be killed by IDF fire. And it’s going to get worse in the West Bank.

Israel is tightening its control in Jenin, with around 10,000 Palestinians having been forced out of their homes that have been demolished. Jenin and its neighbor Tulkarm are cities under the Palestinian authority, yet the IDF is treating them as if it were Gaza. Israel has killed more than 100 militants and arrested hundreds. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced. Militant Israeli settlers are rubbing their hands waiting to settle in. Annexation of the West Bank is next, or so I fear. Half a million Israeli hard-line settlers and 3 million Palestinians live there.

So, what is to be done? I wish I knew. What I don’t understand is how Trump cannot see this outrage and do something about it. How can Jews the world over not shout in shame that enough is enough? How can people eat their hamburgers in peace while children starve in Gaza? How can this be happening in supposedly civilized 2025? May God help us!

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post May God Help Us! appeared first on LewRockwell.

From birth, we are taught that vaccines were one of the most remarkable discoveries in history, and were so safe and effective that many now unimaginable plagues vanished with few to no side effects occurring in the process. In truth, give or take every part of that mythology is false and because it has never been dispelled, remarkably similar vaccine disasters occur every few decades.

Much of this results from the fact that it is very difficult to make safe vaccines due to both how they work and how they are produced. As such, the best “solution” which could be found to this problem was to insist in lockstep that vaccines were safe and erase any memory that vaccine disasters had in fact occurred, thereby making it possible to gaslight anyone who was severely injured by a vaccine and claim their injury was just anecdotal or a product of anti-vaccine hysteria.

For example, recently I discussed how vaccines cause autism, and focused on a central argument used to debunk the link between the two—that the only reason people believe vaccines cause autism is because a disgraced British doctor published a fraudulent 1998 study claiming they did and then made everyone start hallucinating that vaccine injuries were occurring.

This mythology however, ignores that brain injuries were a longstanding problem of vaccination. For example, this 1982 NBC news program revealed that many parents were having children develop “post-pertussis encephalopathy” after taking the DPT vaccine, that most doctors refused to report this, and that:

Medical knowledge about severe reactions to the whooping cough vaccine goes back to the early 1930s. Report after report has been published in medical journals since then. In 1948, two American doctors reported on case histories of many children who had been brain damaged or died from DPT vaccines in Boston. The following year, another doctor surveyed pediatricians across the country and found still more. Those studies have been forgotten.

Likewise, in 1985, one of the most popular talk shows in America (the Donahue show) hosted a segment where doctors from both sides (and neurologically injured members of the audience) debated the risks and benefits of vaccination and the ethics of mandates. To the best of my knowledge, this was the last time an open debate of vaccination aired on mainstream television, something I suspect was due to a recognition that allowing a public one would only increase vaccine skepticism due to how strong the evidence against vaccines was (e.g., Peter Hotez recently turned down 2.62 million to debate RFK Jr.).

Diagnostic Obfuscation

In both of these 1980s TV programs and many of the earlier studies cited throughout this article, the vaccine brain damaged children were described as becoming “mentally retarded” or “severely retarded.” Likewise, a famous 1964 government film (fully intended to be compassionate) was titled “Introducing the Mentally Retarded.”

In the mid to late 1990s, “retarded” began to be phased out due to it being deemed too stigmatizing, momentum gradually built to use less offensive terminology, and eventually, in 2010, Obama signed a law that replaced all instances in Federal statutes of “mentally retarded” and “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” (which is the only time a US law was passed that erased a word in such a targeted fashion). As such, this term is rarely used now, and you can get in trouble for uttering it out loud (although many doctors I know will informally use the phrase “MR” to explain the clinical situation of mentally disabled patients to colleagues).

In turn, one of the classic tricks in propaganda is to constantly manipulate and redefine words so that it becomes possible for their client to justify contradictory and unjustifiable positions. In the case of autism, it is commonly argued that the increase in it is not due to an environmental toxin (e.g., vaccines) but rather more and more “normal” things being reclassified as autism. One of the primary studies that supported that argument, a 2009 study from California, indeed shows the reclassification occurred, but what it actually showed is that 26.4% of children who had previously been diagnosed as “mentally retarded” became “autistic” (as did another commonly cited study).

Since autism is deliberately undefined, it encapsulates both profound (severe) autism (25-30% of cases) and autistic traits (e.g., having manageable neurological deficits or “being on the spectrum”). While there are certain traits shared between these two groups, they are very different (e.g., being nonverbal or minimally verbal, having intellectual disability, and requiring substantial lifelong support for daily living vs. being socially awkward with personality quirks or having high functioning autism like Elon Musk).

A key point I’ve emphasized throughout this publication is that when most toxins harm people, the injuries distribute on a bell curve where more severe injuries are much rarer than less severe (and hard to spot) ones, so if you see a cluster of severe injuries, it tells you far more mild ones are hiding under the surface, and likewise that if you see many moderate injuries, more severe ones are present too. As such, of those with “autism” roughly 26.7% of children have “profound autism,” and likewise, while both have increased in tandem with increasing vaccination, per the CDC non-severe autism has increased at a faster rate.

This wordplay then leads to both being blended together to deflect any criticisms of severe autism (e.g., by attacking anyone who states severe autism is a “problem” by claiming that is stigmatizing to all the people with high-functioning autism) and to argue that any claims vaccines cause autism is actually due to the people with autism quirks being given an autism diagnosis (thereby removing the clear increase in severe autism from the debate). Likewise, having the softer label of autism (and pro-autism words like “neurodiverse” or “neurodivergent”) to encapsulate and normalize these injuries makes it much easier to keep the uncomfortable topic out of sight and mind for those who do not have to directly deal with the reality of these injuries (e.g., the parent of a child with severe autism). This hence prevents enough people from speaking out about the issue for something to be done.

I mention all of this for two reasons:

• We believe obfuscating these definitions was deliberately done to conceal the epidemic of vaccine injuries.

• In much of the earlier literature, brain damage we now associate with severe “autism” was described but instead labeled with terms such as “mental retardation” or “encephalitis” or “encephalopathy.”

Note: since I have a large audience, I feel I have a responsibility to use measured language that avoids unnecessarily harming others or inadvertently supporting malicious linguistic propaganda. At the same time, I detest this, in part because I deeply value personal liberty and hate having my language policed and in part because I feel using euphemisms to avoid overtly addressing uncomfortable topic has been responsible for an immense amount of carnage and suffering throughout human history (as critical topics that need to be widely understood to prevent a catastrophe aren’t because no one wants to directly describe them in an uncomfortable way that everyone can clearly understand). For a moment, imagine how different the entire vaccine discussion would be if people instead had simply said things like “vaccines can make you severely retarded” or “Bill’s son became mentally retarded after the shot Sue’s daughter had issues with” or “in just eight years, the number of severely retarded children doubled” rather than how it’s been obfuscated within the ambiguous “autism” label.

Likewise, “conspiracy theories” was deliberately instilled as a label for any viewpoint which disagrees with the standard narrative (hence making that label be necessary to concisely convey a skeptical position to a large audience), but at the same time, that label made it possible to blur clearly provable criticisms of corporate abuse with highly speculative and inflammatory beliefs, thereby making it possible to use that ambiguity to apply to “conspiracy theorist” label to any dissident and then have the extreme “conspiracy theories” consciously or subconsciously discredit their viewpoints (although fortunately since this approach has been so overused the tactic is much less effective now and since COVID many have come to identify as “conspiracy theorists” and are free of the stigma previously attached to the label).

Exempting Brain Damage

The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act was made in response to public pressure against vaccine injuries (e.g., the 1982 NBC program) and had numerous provisions intended to help parents of vaccine-injured children. One was that since DPT brain injury lawsuits were challenging (but possible) to win in court, a “no-fault” system funded by a tax on vaccines was created to replace them (which protected vaccine manufacturers from liability).

For this system, a table of injuries was created through extensive negotiation when the law was passed. Then, if a child suffered an injury on the table shortly after vaccination, compensation was awarded. Finally, since it was recognized that new science and vaccines would emerge, the H.H.S. Secretary was given the authority to add new injuries to the table as science advanced.

Unfortunately, in one way or another, most of the helpful provisions of the law were undermined. For example, since the Federal Government ultimately pays for these injuries, it incentivizes:

• Removing injuries from the table or shrinking their window.
• Never having the HHS Secretary add anything else to the schedule.
• Never having any “non-covered” injury approved by the vaccine court.
• Removing vaccines from the table with costly injuries from the immunization schedule, and not having those same injuries covered for their replacements.

At the time the original injury table was made, every vaccine on the schedule (excluding the inactivated polio vaccine) had covered injuries, most of which were neurological in nature:

Since that time twelve new vaccines were added to the schedule while all but MMR were replaced with alternative vaccines. However, if you look at the current table, despite nearly 40 years of “science” other than Guillain-Barré Syndrome from influenza, brachial neuritis from acellular DPT, and fainting within an hour of vaccination (from a few vaccines), no neurological injuries have been added to the table, while the above table was whittled down (e.g., residual seizure disorders were removed from MMR and the time window for encephalitis was narrowed).

As such:

• The vast body of literature (which was well known in the 1980s) showing vaccines cause neurological damage became “forgotten.”

• It became almost impossible to get compensation for most neurological injuries. In fact, the only time a regressive autism case ever won compensation was in 2010 due to the father being a prestigious neurologist. There, the court concluded a cluster of vaccines (including MMR) “significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”

• There was a strong incentive to remove the remaining covered brain injury (MMR’s encephalopathy) from colloquial use, replace it with non-compensable “autism” and then perpetually demonize anyone who claimed MMR caused autism (which is what happened to Andrew Wakefield).

Note: Peter Marks, the head FDA official who relentlessly covered up all the reports of COVID vaccine injuries they were receiving and overrode the FDA’s top vaccine experts to rush a formal approval for it and the boosters (so the unconscionable mandates could be enacted) recently went on national television and made many false statement about MMR including that it “does not cause encephalitis.”

Additionally, a systematic effort was made to prevent any further research into these neurological injuries from occurring or being published. For example, dogma was instilled that vaccines are so safe and effective that it’s “unethical” to conduct a placebo-controlled vaccine trial (as this would deny children a “lifesaving” vaccine), while simultaneously proclaiming all research showing the harms of vaccine injuries is “junk science” because that data does not have placebo controls.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Forgotten History of Neurological Vaccine Injuries appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

Facebook

The post Charlie Kirk Tells It appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel. 

Public News

The post Mike Benz on Censorship, Soros and the CIA appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

The hypocrisy is staggering.

The post Disney to build a park in country that imprisons gay people after pro-gay stance in 2022 Florida battle appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Antarctica’s Astonishing Rebound: Ice Sheet Grows for the First Time in Decades

The post Antarctica’s Astonishing Rebound: Ice Sheet Grows for the First Time in Decades appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

The post Bombs and Propaganda appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Cipher Brief

The post Protests Erupt in Egypt over Sisi’s Corruption appeared first on LewRockwell.