Aggregatore di feed

“Healthcare” grift, graft, fraud and financialized skims / scams will bankrupt the nation.

I’ve been writing about America’s healthcare system for 18 years, emphasizing two enduring themes: 1) our lifestyle is unhealthy, with predictable consequences and 2) healthcare as it is currently configured will bankrupt the nation all by itself.

This recent article on how having a baby without complications now costs over $44,000 adds a third theme: the tragi-comic insanity and absurdity of the “healthcare” system that has been normalized, as if this is the only possible way to organize healthcare:

“And They Wonder Why The Birth Rate Is Declining”: A Mother Went Viral For Revealing The Costs Of Being Pregnant In America:

Lastly, Kayla reveals that her baby received a bill, too, which added up to $12,761.30 without insurance. For their family of five now, the cost of insurance per month is $2,500 — a nearly $400 increase from when they were just a family of four. “We’re still waiting for him to process on our insurance,” she explains, “so, for now, this is the cost without it.”

One user said, “America’s healthcare system is a joke… how does the newborn have a $12k bill?”

It’s more than a joke–it’s travesty of a mockery of a sham of a system that actually improves health. There’s an even darker side of the picture–the takeover of the system by financiers and fraudsters–which truth be told is a redundancy.

We can now add a fourth theme: stripped of purposeful opacity, America’s “healthcare” system is nothing more than a structured financial skim/scam. Before we dig into that, here are a few of the dozens of posts I’ve written on “healthcare” since 2008:

U.S. Lifestyle + “Healthcare” = Bankruptcy (June 19, 2008)

The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash (July 29, 2009)

Why “Healthcare Reform” Is Not Reform, Part II (December 29, 2009)

Sickcare Will Bankrupt the Nation–And Soon (March 21, 2011)

How Healthcare Became Sickcare (March 18, 2022)

Let’s start with what childbirth cost back when healthcare was paid in cash. Here are the costs of childbirth in 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital: $30:

According to the BLS Inflation Calculator, $1 in 1952 is $12.13 today, so adjusted for inflation, the $30 fee to deliver a baby would be $363 today. Here are maternity rates from 1952:

A private room was $19, or $230 in today’s currency. OK, so we have fancier equipment now, more staff, etc., but really–does that explain what once cost less than $1,000 in today’s money–paid in cash, no insurance–now costs $44,000? No. Here’s why: structured financial skims/scams.

Dutch Rojas (@DutchRojas) is a go-to source for explaining the opaque way “healthcare” skims / scams siphon off hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Consider these X posts:

Why is healthcare expensive?
You go to your doctor.
Same building, same service.
But now it’s 3x the price, because they sold to a health system.

The secret?
A “facility fee” was added.
Medicare and commercial payers just hand it over.

It’s not for better care.
It’s for ownership.

Every consolidation deal is a bet against the patient and you’re footing the bill.

And the politicians love every bit of it…

Provider Taxes: The Most Elegant Grift in American Healthcare
It’s not a tax.

It’s a laundering operation.

Here’s how it works:

North Carolina’s ‘nonprofit’ health systems are running a $40+ billion hedge fund operation disguised as healthcare.
They’re extracting hundreds of millions in tax exemptions while paying CEOs tens of millions.

This is the largest wealth transfer scheme in the American healthcare system.

This doesn’t even include outright Medicare/Medicaid fraud, overbilling, unnecessary tests, medications and procedures, and a nearly endless menu of other enrichment schemes passed off as “care.” These billions go to the “owners,” not the frontline healthcare providers / workers.

Read the Whole Article

The post America’s ‘Healthcare’ System Is Now a Structured Financial Skim/Scam appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday, I wrote about the decades-long obsession that the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — has had with Cuba. Long ago, as part of their Cold War against the Reds, U.S. national-security state officials convinced themselves that Cuba’s communist regime posed a grave threat to U.S. “national security,” whatever definition is placed on that ridiculous term. Of course, they’ve now got President Trump on the target-Cuba bandwagon.

Not surprisingly, there are tons of Republicans, conservatives, and, no doubt, even libertarian right-wingers who are ecstatic about Trump’s recent executive decree that strengthens and reinforces the brutal economic embargo that the U.S. government has had on Cuba for more than 60 years. Hope for regime change in Cuba springs eternal for these people notwithstanding more than six decades of deadly and destructive failure to achieve that goal.

What these people, many of whom call themselves “freedom advocates,” fail to realize — or maybe they do and just don’t care — is that the U.S. embargo against Cuba has destroyed the economic liberty of the American people. In fact, I’m willing to bet that most Americans don’t realize that. While the embargo, acting in tandem with Cuba’s socialist economic system, brings extreme impoverishment and maybe even death by starvation to Cubans, many Americans think that it is a neutral measure insofar as the American people are concerned.

Not so! Anyone who cheers for the embargo is, at the same time, cheering the destruction of his own liberty. That should hit home with everyone who celebrates the Fourth of July.

Many people believe that it is illegal under U.S. law to travel to Cuba. Actually, it’s not. The reason is that U.S. officials never wanted to portray themselves as destroying a right that has always been considered basic, natural, and fundamental — the right of freedom of travel.

Thus, to avoid doing that, U.S. officials instead made it illegal for Americans to spend money in Cuba. So, you’re free to travel there but as soon as you spend money there on anything, including food, hotel, transportation, or just a tip — you are in violation of U.S. law.

Let me qualify that. It’s only Americans who spend money in Cuba without the official permission of the U.S. government who are in violation of U.S. law. If you’re able to get official permission to spend money there, you’re okay. Thus, it’s not the actual spending of money that is considered to be a grave offense. It’s doing it without official permission that is the grave offense.

What happens to an American who travels to Cuba and spends money there without official permission? Upon his return to the U.S., he is fined. The fine can be hefty. For example, one company was fined $31,000 for doing photo shoots in Cuba. Another was fined $220,000 for doing hotel bookings there.

But while most of the actions taken involve fines, the U.S. government has the option of going after someone criminally under what has become a popularly used law from World War I — the Trading with the Enemy Act. Even though the two nations are not at war with each other, Cuba is considered to be an “official enemy” of the United States. Therefore, any economic activity on the part of an American could be said to be “trading with the enemy.” In that case, under the discretion of federal prosecutors, the violator is looking at the possibility of a felony indictment, prosecution, and punishment with fine and jail time.

A good example of this phenomenon was the U.S. criminal prosecution of two Americans who organized some sailboat races between Key West and Cuba in the late 1990s. U.S. officials went after them with a vengeance for daring to trade with “the enemy.” They were indicted and faced the possibility of 15 years in prison and $350,000 in fines. A judge later dismissed the charges, and the government ended up settling for $15,000 in fines.

What’s important to note about all this is that with its embargo, the U.S. government has destroyed the economic liberty and private-property rights of the American people. After all, as Thomas Jefferson implied in the Declaration of Independence, people have the natural, God-given right to do whatever they want with their own money. It’s their money after all. It doesn’t belong to the government. Thus, people have the natural, God-given right to travel to Cuba or wherever else they wish to travel and spend whatever amount of money they want — all without the official permission of U.S. officials.

A dark irony in all this is that in the effort to bring down Cuba’s communist regime, U.S. officials have adopted the same types of controls over the money and economic activities of the American people that the Cuban socialist regime exercises over the money and economic activities of the Cuban people. But hey, I’m sure U.S. officials would say: What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July than by cheering the destruction of our own liberty here at home through the targeting of innocent people with death abroad?

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Cheering the Destruction of Own Liberty appeared first on LewRockwell.

The defense ministers of all 10 members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) met last week in Qingdao, in China’s Shandong Province.

That, in itself, is the stuff drama is made of. Not only because it was a warm-up for the main SCO annual summit later this year in Tianjin with heads of state. But mostly because on the same table we had top BRICS members Russia, China, India and Iran, plus Pakistan; an Indian defense minister visiting China for the first time in five years and facing his Pakistani counterpart after their latest serious exchange of fire; and the Iranian minister closely consulting with Beijing immediately after the Israel–Iran ceasefire kabuki orchestrated by POTUS.

If that was not intriguing enough, the SCO meeting in Qingdao took place almost simultaneously with the NATO summit in The Hague.

Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif cut to the chase, remarking how, unlike NATO, the SCO can “further peace in this region.” China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun stressed that the SCO plays the role of a “stabilizing anchor.”

The now-fragmented (thanks to US President Donald Trump) collective west has no idea what the SCO is all about. The SCO is a 25-year-old multilateral organization, founded a few months before 9/11, and consists of 10 full member states, two observer nations, and 14 dialogue partners: nearly half of the world’s population, from Eastern Europe (Hungary) all the way to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Rim.

The SCO is not an Asian NATO – as in an offensive military alliance, and it doesn’t want to be; rather, in a quintessentially Chinese formulation, it prefers to affirm itself as a “giant ship of security.”

Initially conceptualized to fight against what the Chinese define as “three evils” – terrorism, separatism, and extremism – the SCO has seriously evolved into a mechanism of economic cooperation. Its latest round table at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum less than two weeks ago, for instance, was hosted by SCO Secretary-General Nurlan Yermekbayev, moderated by the ultra-experienced Sergey Katyrin, president of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and focused on the challenges of creating a common SCO logistics, financial and energy infrastructure.

This panel moderated by Alexey Gromyko, director of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences and with the secretary of the Union State (Russia–Belarus) Sergey Glazyev as the main speaker, intertwined the SCO with the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), debating what is the role to be played by the post-Soviet space in the emerging multipolar economy.

So the SCO today promotes not only joint counterterrorism drills and intelligence sharing, but also economic cooperation fine-tuned to the cultural expectations of different civilizations. It’s a multipolar organism by definition.

Strategic partners Russia–China get on board 

The heart of the matter in Qingdao had to evolve around what can be called the Primakov triangle – a nod to former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov who envisioned a post-Soviet, autonomous Russian powerhouse in a new multipolar order. Today, we see that prescience in a “RIC” composed of Russia, Iran, and China, and not India: These three independent civilizational states are, at the moment, the top three actors advancing the complex Eurasia integration process.

Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov met privately with Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun, as well as with Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nazirzadeh. At the SCO table, Belousov did not mince his words.

He said that US and Israeli attacks on Iran breach the UN Charter and international law; he confirmed that Moscow had proposed to broker a de-escalation; and he re-emphasized that “the role of international institutions designed to ensure global stability has fallen to an unacceptable level.”

Belousov also stressed all 10 Ministers’ top headache: that “terrorist ideologies” and “transit of militants” continue to spread from West Asia to Afghanistan.

On Ukraine, Belousov was quite predictable; Russia is steadily advancing, and Kiev resorts to “terror tactics” as it contemplates doom. None of the players at the SCO table would dream of contradicting him.

So, where was India amidst all this action? Well, refining its shopping list. Defense Minister Rajnath Singh personally asked Belousov for urgent upgrades to the Su-30MKI and much faster delivery of the remaining S-400 Triumf. These are part of a hefty $5.43 billion deal; three units have been delivered, and the next two will arrive by early 2026.

These S-400s were instrumental during Operation Sindoor – India’s mini-war against Pakistan.

Immediately after Trump’s Israel–Iran “ceasefire” kabuki, Tehran approached Beijing to examine buying options for a substantial batch (at least 40) of Chinese J-10CE fighters (the export version of the J-10C). These negotiations, by the way, have been going on for at least 10 years.

From an Iranian point of view, in terms of low cost and availability, the J-10C might be a better option than the Russian MiG-35s and Su-35Es (the export version of the Su-35S). But it’s important to remember that the Su-35 and the J-10C represent two different classes of jet fighters. Nothing prevents Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from buying both – a case of interacting strategic partnerships.

Diplomatic sources confirm that Iran already has Su-35s. It is unclear how many, but certainly more than two. Russia is more than ready to sell up to two squadrons. Each squadron would have 12, so a total of 24 jets.

The consensus in Moscow is that Iran will step up simultaneous purchases of top-of-the-line Russian and Chinese fighter jets. And certainly air defense, as in Russian S-400s. The drama that unfolded in the past two weeks goes way beyond the artificial and superficial debate on whether Tehran lacked help from its close, strategic Russian–Chinese allies.

While the IRGC wants those fighter jets after the painful lessons of Israel’s 12-day war, it needs most of all to fine-tune its internal counter-intelligence and insurgency apparatus. A substantial amount of punishment suffered by Iran came from domestic saboteurs who launched drones, planted bombs, and surveyed high-value targets to be murdered.

We want war against Russia and China 

Now compare all these Eurasian interactions in Qingdao with what happened in The Hague. Essentially, after being blackmailed by the appalling NATO Secretary-General Mark “Hello Daddy” Rutte, the European Union (EU) decided to allocate a whopping €650 billion (approximately $695.5 billion) of funds it doesn’t have to buy US weapons to declare war on Russia – and later China.

That brings us to the five percent kabuki. For every NATO member to spend five percent on offense, with their combined debt already exceeding 80 percent of GDP, they would need to nearly triple the €325 billion (approximately $381.2 billion) they spent on weapons in 2024, thus reaching nearly one trillion euros.

EU citizens with a brain can easily do the math: There will be a non-stop orgy of “cost-cutting,” tax hikes, and disappearing social benefits to finance the weaponizing. And stealing €300 billion (approximately $351.75) of Russian assets won’t help, because that won’t cover even a one-year increase.

All ministers at the SCO table in Qingdao knew that NATO was at war with Russia, and then China does not even qualify as a lousy Monty Python sketch. Russia already has 13,000 missiles and counting, and will soon be able to produce up to 300 hypersonic Oreshniks a year – more than enough to paralyze every single port and airport in Europe.

It was quite intriguing to observe Russian President Vladimir Putin’s immediate follow-up to what was discussed at the SCO in Qingdao. Cue to the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) forum in Minsk, at which Putin said, “thankfully, the situation in the Middle East is stabilizing. The longstanding conflict between Israel and Iran is, thanks to God’s grace, now behind us.”

Or, maybe not, if statements of Israeli officials are anything to go by. Still, for the Russian president, what always matters most is geoeconomics. At the forum, Putin highlighted the EAEU’s preferential agreements with Vietnam, Singapore, and Serbia, plus an imminent agreement with the UAE, saying: “Mutually beneficial relationships with countries across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America are actively advancing.” Not to mention further cooperation with the BRICS, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), ASEAN, the African Union, and, of course, the SCO.

And just as the ministers were leaving Qingdao, it was officially confirmed: Iran ditched the American GPS system for China’s Beidou. Talk about a sharp, bold move in the tech war chessboard. Next step: to snatch all those Su-35s and JC-10CEs.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.

The post Ten Defense Ministers Walk Into a Room in China… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Okay, you sport fans out there, The Gilded Age is back on our idiot boxes, and it’s a welcome respite from the garbage that untalented directors and writers of today have been shoving down our throats. At least garbage had its uses before it turned to waste, but this recent stuff…words fail me. When was the last time we watched a black man speaking normal English, smiling, and not using the f-word nonstop while threatening to kill somebody white? On our screens, that is. Back in the good old days, screenwriters were terribly good writers with names such as Tennessee Williams, Irwin Shaw, Scott Fitzgerald, Gore Vidal, Tom Stoppard, and Billy Wilder among many other exceptional scribes, and they produced such classics as The Best Years of Our Lives, All About Eve, and Gone With the Wind, the latter with a little help from one Margaret Mitchell.

But I don’t want to dwell on the lack of talent among moviemakers today. (An exception is my friend Michael Mailer’s Hearts of Champions and Cutman, the latter an outstanding film.) It’s obvious that talent and Hollywood have parted ways, hence when a costume drama like The Gilded Age comes along, it’s welcome. Mind you, like Henry James and Edith Wharton before him, The Gilded Age auteur Julian Fellowes—a pretty good social climber himself—does overcook things. In other words, yes, one had to conform back then in order to be invited to Mrs. Astor’s balls, but definitely not as much as the abovementioned writers would have us assume. The Astor family began as German butchers, after all, so her snobbery was predictable. Here in America, social standing was based on only one thing—money—yet tradition played almost as big a role. If your ancestors had come over early, and especially if they had fought for the creation of what is now known as the US of A, you were special in the social ladder.

“Like Henry James and Edith Wharton before him, The Gilded Age auteur Julian Fellowes does overcook things.”

No longer. The WASP hierarchy has gone the way of the Titanic, while the Jewish ascendancy is at present in full bloom and rising. The WASPs had a good run, but unlike their aristocratic European counterparts, they blew it by drinking too much, spending too much on polo ponies, and paying too much alimony and tax. In other words, they didn’t make sure of their strong position both in society and in government. It is too early to tell, but their Jewish replacements will not make the same mistakes.

But back to The Gilded Age. The actor playing the Duke of Buckingham portrays him on the straight and narrow, the real-life Buckingham having earned his title by being King James’ bum boy back in the 1600s. (He had a grisly end.) Everyone seems to be on the make on the series, a gross exaggeration, I am sure, but nevertheless with some truth to it. The difference with European society is amazing. And I’ll tell you why: In the old continent, the Bible aside, the most important book that decreed who was who was the Almanach de Gotha—if you were in it, you were in; if you were not, you were out. Mind you, there were poets and writers and musicians and actors who would never be in the Gotha book but were ever present in the great salons of the aristocracy. The Gotha listed all titles, and Le Petit Gotha listed royal, princely, and ducal titles. (If you’re confused, don’t worry.)

×

Titles were handed out by ruling kings, and the highest were princely ones. I once tried to explain them to a sweet Texas lady, but I was unsuccessful. “If you’re a princess, why aren’t you royal?” she asked. “Because you’re a Serene Highness, not a Royal Highness,” said I. No go. Ironically, yours truly is in the Gotha book, but I came in through the back door. My wife was born a Serene Highness, so her hubby and children and their descendants are in for good. (The Schoenburgs have been nobles since the 11th century—a pretty good run, I’d say.)

So, while in the good old USA money got Mister Moneybags a good seat at the table, in Parisian, London, Roman, Madrid, and other European drawing rooms it was titles that came first. Landed gentry managed to keep their assets for hundreds of years because land is more stable than hard cash. And the nobility partook in politics and protected itself from the demands of the great unwashed. The latter are now scrubbed clean but still screaming their heads off when someone like Bezos makes a Venetian splash. I went to two grand Venetian balls when very young, back when Italians were really struggling, and I remember the crowds cheering as we disembarked from our gondolas into the palaces. Now they boo. Envy is the 21st century’s disease.

What watching The Gilded Age brought to mind was the following: What would those uptight Edith Wharton characters have thought of such “society” figures of today as the Kardashians, the Hiltons, the Kushners, and the Dillers, all attendees to the Bezos nuptials? American high society died some thirty years ago—Winston and C.Z. Guest were the last—and was replaced by celebrities like those just mentioned. God help us.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Act Your ‘Age’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Honestly at this point they should just get Netanyahu his own room in the White House and a desk in the Oval Office.

The prime minister of Israel is taking his third trip to the White House in the five months since Trump has been back in office. I have immediate blood family members who I love with all my heart and visit less often than this.

This comes as the Trump administration revokes the US visas of British punk rap duo Bob Vylan ahead of a US tour for chanting “Death, death to the IDF” at a concert in the UK. Trump’s sycophantic supporters who spent years complaining that their free speech rights were under assault appear fine with their government deciding what words Americans are allowed to hear in their own country.

This also comes as Trump actively intervenes in the Israeli judicial system to prevent Netanyahu’s corruption trial from moving forward.

The president has repeatedly taken to social media to demand that Israel abandon its corruption case against the prime minister, at one point even implying that the US could cut off arms supplies if his trial isn’t canceled.

“The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel,” Trump said. “We are not going to stand for this. We just had a Great Victory with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu at the helm — And this greatly tarnishes our Victory. LET BIBI GO, HE’S GOT A BIG JOB TO DO!”

It’s so revealing what the US government is and is not willing to threaten conditioning military supplies on, and what it’s willing to interfere in Israel’s affairs to accomplish.

Ever since the Gaza holocaust began we’ve been hearing lines like “Israel is a sovereign country” and “Israel is a sovereign state that makes its own decisions” when reporters ask why the White House doesn’t leverage arms shipments to demand more humanitarian treatment for civilians in the Gaza Strip. But the president of the United States is willing to leverage those same arms shipments to directly interfere in Israeli legal proceedings which have nothing to do with the US government in order to get Netanyahu out of trouble.

Wow, watch exchange with StateSpox@SMArikat: US-tax payers have given [] almost $23 billion in the last year, you have no leverage?

Miller: They’re a sovereign country

Said: That received $22 billion

Miller: That number isn’t correct

Lee: What is correct number

Miller:… pic.twitter.com/4a4w7TMJAD

— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) October 8, 2024

And it would appear that the president’s intervention has been successful; Netanyahu’s corruption trial has since been postponed.

When it comes to committing genocide using American weapons funded by American taxpayers, Israel is a sovereign state upon which the US can exert zero leverage or control. When it comes to meddling in the corruption trial of a man who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, the White House pulls no punches in protecting its favorite genocide monster.

There is no meaningful separation between the US and Israeli governments. They’re two member states in the undeclared empire that sprawls across the entire western world, and Trump and Netanyahu are two of the most depraved and most consequential managers of this empire today.

They are thick as thieves. They are partners in crime.

Call it the Trumpanyahu administration.

________________

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 The Trumpanyahu Administration appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today, July 4, America celebrates the 249th anniversary of the adoption of our Declaration of Independence.

On July 4, 1837, John Quincy Adams said these words about Independence Day:

Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [Independence Day]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?

Adams was exactly right. The United States of America is the only nation in human history established by (mostly) Christian people upon 2,000 years of Christian thought and God’s Natural Laws and dedicated to the purpose of religious and personal liberty and equal justice under the law.

When I was being interviewed for a documentary movie (I’m featured in 19 full-length documentary films and TV specials), the producer asked me to iterate the basic principles upon which America was founded. Based on my study of the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights and the copious supplemental writings of the Founding Fathers, here, I believe, are the principles upon which America was founded:

1. That man is created equal under God, and, as such, human life is a sacred gift of God.

2. That the Natural rights of the individual are unalienable and superior to the will of the state.

3. That government exists to protect the Natural rights and liberties of man, not to provide man with public benefits and favors.

4. That a man is innocent until proven guilty, that he has the Natural right to a trial by jury and the right to a defense attorney.

5. That people have a Natural right to choose their own form of government.

6. That individuals have a Natural right and duty to bear arms for their own protection and the protection of their communities.

7. That the power and reach of the central government needs to be limited, being held in check by independent sovereign states, free, independent juries and state citizen militias.

8. That religious liberty is the core of America’s freedoms.

9. That the people have a Natural right and duty to alter or abolish any government that has become tyrannical.

10. That America was created as a constitutional republic.

11. That only sound money would be used as legal tender so as to keep the federal government from amassing excessive debt.

12. That America would always promote and protect a free market economy with limited governmental interference.

13. That a man’s home is his castle and his personal property can never be seized except by arduous due process.

14. That a free society depends upon the acceptance and application of God’s Natural Laws relating to the pursuit of happiness and peace, upon governmental adherence to the Law of Nations and upon the promotion of our Creator’s foundational moral code of human conduct.

15. That liberty depends upon the unfettered exercise of the Christian faith, including strong, uninhibited preaching from America’s pulpits.

The Declaration begins:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. 

The Declaration ends:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Here are a few statements from America’s founders after the Declaration was approved by Congress:

John Hancock said,

There! His Majesty can now read my name without spectacles. And he can double the reward on my head. (The Crown had put a reward of 500 pounds sterling on Hancock’s head. That amounts to over $140,000 in today’s money.)

And never forget that John Hancock’s famous signature would not have even been on the Declaration of Independence had not Pastor Jonas Clark of the Church of Lexington and several of his brave congregants risked their lives to save Hancock from the British troops who had marched on Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, for the purpose of arresting (and killing) Hancock and Sam Adams (who was also protected by the men of the Church at Lexington) and seizing the arms of the colonists.

George Washington said,

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Thomas Paine said,

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

Stephen Hopkins, a signer of the Declaration from Rhode Island, said as he signed the document,

My hand trembles, but my heart does not.

Indeed, Hopkins (and the rest of the signers) had reason to tremble. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured, imprisoned and tortured. Several lost wives, children or entire families. Two wives were brutalized and tortured. All were, at one time or another, the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes by British soldiers. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned.

Carter Braxton, a wealthy planter and merchant, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.

Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family constantly. He served in Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were seized by the British, and he died in poverty.

At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr. noted that British General Cornwallis was using his home for his headquarters. Out of respect to Nelson, General Washington refused to fire on the dwelling. Nelson privately urged Washington to open fire on his home, saying it was no longer his home but was now the headquarters of the enemy. The home was subsequently destroyed. Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed by the British. They jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and all of his 13 children vanished. He never saw them again.

The two patriots most responsible for the Declaration of Independence, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both died on the same day: July 4, 1826—the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration. Daniel Webster gave the eulogy for both men on August 2 of that year. He concluded his remarks with these words:

It [the Declaration of Independence] is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now and independence forever.

Amen! This should be the living and dying sentiment of every American.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Independence Now and Independence Forever appeared first on LewRockwell.

There were three independence movements in America prior to the War to Prevent Southern Independence (1861-1865).  The American Revolution was a war of secession to gain independence from the British empire.  The New England Federalists plotted to secede from the union beginning with the Jefferson presidency (1801) and culminating with their Hartford Secession Convention of 1814 where in the end they decided to remain in the union, confident that New Englanders could control and dominate it (and they of course were right).

A mostly forgotten independence movement is the 1850s secession movements in “the middle states” – New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland – where there was a widespread desire to secede from the Washington, D.C. empire.  (See William C. Wright, The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States).  These states contained secessionists who wanted to join a Southern confederacy, form their own confederacy of states, and to just allow the South to secede in peace.  New Jersey had the largest secession movement, followed by New York City and New York state’s Hudson Valley.

The most popular position was to allow the Southern states to secede in peace, giving the lie to the refrain by “mainstream” historians that there was “unity” in the North regarding the invasion of the South in 1861.  Edward Everett, the vice presidential candidate of the Constitutional Union Party in 1860, said that “To expect to hold fifteen States in the Union by force is preposterous . . . too monstrous to be entertained for a moment.”

The majority of Maryland’s state assembly favored peaceful secession but in1861 the Lincoln regime imprisoned all of them, thereby prohibiting them from meeting to discuss the issue of peaceful secession.  At the time most Marylanders believed that forcing a state at gunpoint to remain in the union and governed by Washington, D.C. would destroy the founders’ concept of a voluntary union.

Fernando Wood, the mayor of New York City at the time, wanted the city to secede from the state and the U.S. and become a free trade zone.  (The Republican party, on the other hand, wanted to increase the average tariff rate from 15% to the 50% range).  The New York state legislature issued a resolution on January 31, 1861 condemning the use of force to force the Southern states to remain in the union.  Horatio Seymour, a former governor of New York, supported the creation of an independent “Central Confederacy” that would also secede from the Washington, D.C. empire.  New York Times editor Henry J. Raymond favored peaceful secession as did New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley.

Pennsylvania being a steel industry state, the Republican party there was strongly protectionist and pro-Lincoln, but the state Democratic party supported peaceful secession.  William C. Wright wrote that “The leadership of the [Pennsylvania] Democratic Party as well as most of its rank and file favored a policy of no coercion.”

New Jersey, “more than any of the other five Middle Atlantic states, said William C. Wright, supported the creation of a Central Confederacy” and its congressional delegation supported peaceful secession of the Southern states, as did a large majority of the state’s newspapers.

Delaware had strong support for a Central Confederacy as well, but Lincoln ordered the Federal army to occupy the state and, as with Maryland, prevent the state legislature from discussing the issue.  The “First State” was prevented from declaring the union to be voluntary under threat of bombardment by its own federal government.

What all of this shows is that: Secession was the very principle of the American Revolution; the New England Federalists, led by George Washington’s Secretary of State Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts,  understood this when they strategized over and plotted peaceful secession for thirteen years; at the outset of the War to Prevent Southern Independence everyone understood the union to be voluntary and not coerced, as with the twentieth century Soviet union.

Lincoln dreamed up a new and ahistorical view of the American constitution and forced his view on the country at gunpoint.  His theory, as summarized by legal scholar James Ostrowski, is as follows:

1. No state may ever secede from the Union for any reason.
2. If any state attempts to secede, the federal government shall invade such a state with sufficient military force to suppress the secession.
3. The federal government may require all states to raise militias to be used to suppress the seceding state (or states).
4. After suppressing the secession, the federal government may rule by martial law until such time as the state accepts permanent federal supremacy.
5. After the secession is suppressed, the federal government may force the states to adopt new state constitutions imposed upon them by federal military authorities.
6. The president may, on his own authority and without consulting any other branch of government, suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of Habeas Corpus.

If conservative self-proclaimed constitutionalists believe that all of this is constitutional, then they obviously possess a different constitutional document than you and I do.  Moreover, the reason why all of the above is essentially a forgotten part of American history is that it flatly contradicts the Official History concocted by the victors after the War to Prevent Southern Independence.

The post America’s Forgotten Independence Movement appeared first on LewRockwell.

Two hundred forty-nine years ago, a series of events culminated in America’s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain.  On June 7, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia put forth a resolution for independence before the Second Continental Congress.  On June 10, Congress postponed consideration of Lee’s resolution for three weeks as members struggled to build a consensus.  Despite this uncertainty, more vocal proponents for independence persuaded Congress on June 11 to appoint a committee to draft a formal declaration.

That committee — consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston — worked from June 12 to June 27.  Or, more accurately, Jefferson worked on the Declaration, while Franklin and Adams provided several meaningful edits.  On June 28, a draft of the committee’s work was read in Congress.  After much debate and cajoling among representatives, the colonies officially severed ties with Great Britain on July 2.  (This is the date that John Adams believed would be celebrated as an American holiday.)

With additional revisions to Jefferson’s work, Congress unanimously approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence on July 4 and ordered it printed.  After the printing of about two hundred broadsides from John Dunlap’s Philadelphia print shop, The Pennsylvania Evening Post became the first newspaper to publish the Declaration on July 6.  Finally, Colonel John Nixon is credited as having given the first public reading of the Declaration to a crowd on July 8 in the Pennsylvania State House Yard (now Independence Square).

In honor of that last event, park rangers from the National Park Service hold a re-enactment of the Declaration’s first public reading outside Independence Hall (formerly the State House) on July 8 each year.  It is a grand spectacle and well worth attending.  It is also most likely an incorrect commemoration of history.  The July 8 reading definitely occurred, but there was an earlier reading on July 4 that was lost to history for two hundred years.

In a 1992 academic paper entitled “From the Here of Jefferson’s Handwritten Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence to the There of the Printed Dunlap Broadside,” historian Wilfred J. Ritz provides evidence of a public reading on July 4, 1776 — the day Americans actually celebrate as their country’s birthday.  Ritz highlights the eyewitness testimony of Charles Biddle, who wrote in his autobiography, “On the memorable Fourth of July, 1776, I was at the Old State-House yard when the Declaration of Independence was read.  There were very few respectable citizens present.”

Ritz also notes the personal diary entries of Quaker historian Deborah Norris Logan.  Logan describes the Declaration’s reading on July 4 thusly:

It took place a little after twelve at noon and they then proceeded down the street, (I understood) to read it at the Court House.  It was a time of fearful doubt and great anxiety with the people, many of whom were appalled at the boldness of the measure, and the first audience was neither very numerous, nor composed of the most respectable class of citizens.

The accounts of Biddle and Logan are significant because they both describe the gathering as filled with less than “respectable” citizens.  In other words, those Americans who first heard the Declaration of Independence were most likely common laborers and artisans — and not the wealthier Philadelphians who attended the festive official ceremony on July 8.

In a research paper published four years ago, scholar Chris Coelho provides additional testimonial evidence that the July 4, 1776 reading took place and argues persuasively that the likely orator was either the secretary of Congress, Charles Thomson, or his senior clerk, Timothy Matlack.  Coelho produces enough circumstantial evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that the revolutionary firebrand Matlack was the man who first publicly declared America’s independence from Great Britain.

Matlack was a delegate to Pennsylvania’s constitutional convention, a colonel in Philadelphia’s fifth militia battalion, and a well known public orator.  As Congress’s established penman, Matlack penned several petitions to King George III; George Washington’s formal commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army; and the signed, engrossed parchment now recognized as the official Declaration of Independence.  In other words, Matlack likely created and delivered a clean copy of the Declaration to the print shop of John Dunlap.  And Matlack was likely the speaker who addressed local Philadelphians on July 4, 1776 and read the Declaration of Independence publicly for the first time.

Why is it important to get this little bit of history right?  As Coelho argues, “the people who gathered outside Independence Hall” on July 4, 1776 “were the ones who drove the revolution in Pennsylvania.  Led by radicals including Timothy Matlack, the ‘lower sort’ forced Pennsylvania’s elite to accept independence.  Thanks to the pressure they applied in their colony, Congress was able to adopt the Declaration of Independence unanimously.”  What happened outside the Pennsylvania State House around noon on July 4, 1776 is much more than an esoteric footnote to a forgotten moment in history.  It rightly realigns that moment in history back to the common Americans, whose uncommon achievements birthed the United States.

Read the Whole Article

The post Treasure Your Inheritance This Independence Day appeared first on LewRockwell.

Today we will be treated to fireworks and speeches celebrating our liberation from the British in the latter part of the 18th century.  It is a false celebration, because many of our cherished freedoms described in the Constitution have been taken away, and in place of the British we have a new master–Israel–a master whose grip tightens on us by the year.

In the 21st century we have destroyed a number of countries for Israel, financed and provided the weapons and diplomatic over for Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and celebrated Israel’s indicted mass murderer leader with standing ovations in the US Congress.  President Trump speaks of the mass murderer as if he is the greatest person on earth. The US might yet be forced by Israel into war with Iran.

Red states such as Florida and Texas have passed laws against US citizens speaking or acting disapprovingly of Israel.  No such laws exist protecting US gentiles from politically incorrect words and protests.  US universities have lost to the Israel Lobby the ability to govern themselves.  The Israel Lobby was able to reach inside a Catholic university and block the tenure of Norman Finkelstein, himself a Jew, and to reach inside the University of Illinois to cancel the tenure granted to Steven Salaita.

Presidents of Ivy League universities were hauled before the US Congress and upbraided for not preventing students from protesting Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians.  Some were forced to resign.  A rule was imposed on the universities that students who protest Israel must be suspended or expelled.  If they are foreign students, they are picked up and deported.

Christian Zionists worship Israel, not Christ, and are indoctrinated with the conviction that God’s purpose for America is to serve as Israel’s protector.

The British never had such control over their American colony.  Far from being a free and independent people, Americans are the two-bit punk puppet of their Israeli master.  Who will liberate us from Israel?

The post July 4, 2025, Finds Americans More Enslaved than Ever and Not Only to Their Government appeared first on LewRockwell.

… by watching Tucker Carlson’s interview with Scott Horton.

The real backstory of the American Empire, its phony wars and war cronyism.  What every American needs to know before Washington sells us more neocon carnage!

The post HONOR THE IDEAL OF AMERICA THIS 4TH OF JULY appeared first on LewRockwell.

1) The Patriot

2) 1776

3) It’s a Big Country: An American Anthology

4) Deadline – U.S.A.

The post Here Are Four Superb Movies Enthusiastically Exemplifying the Patriotic Spirit of ’76 for the 4th of July Weekend appeared first on LewRockwell.

Heroic Republicans: there are only three of them in the Senate and two of them in the House who voted against Trump’s big, beautiful bill that raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Thom Tillis in the Senate (never in my life have I ever found a reason to praise Susan Collins) and Thomas Massie and Brian Fitzpatrick in the House all voted against this monstrosity. 

The post Heroic Republicans appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Krall wrote:

I feel like going out and invading Poland.  (To secure a strategic supply of Polish Vodka. 

The post When I listen to this… appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Global Research

The post Donald Trump’s Autocratic One-Man Government Regime: Doomed to Failure? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Big Beautiful Charade – Republicans Cave; Democrats Rave appeared first on LewRockwell.

Oscar Grau explains why “Javier Milei is a Neocon.”

The post A “Warmongering Zionist Neocon” Masquerading as a Libertarian 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/il-93-di-tutti-i-bitcoin-e-gia-stato)

A maggio 2025 erano stati minati circa 19,6 milioni di bitcoin, pari a circa il 93,3% dell'offerta totale. Restano quindi circa 1,4 milioni di BTC ancora da minare e le coin rimanenti saranno minate molto lentamente.

La ragione di questa distribuzione irregolare è il programma di emissione esponenziale di Bitcoin, regolato da un evento chiamato “halving”. Quando Bitcoin è stato lanciato nel 2009, la ricompensa per ogni blocco era di 50 BTC. Ogni 210.000 blocchi, ovvero circa ogni quattro anni, tale ricompensa viene dimezzata.

Poiché le ricompense iniziali erano così elevate, entro la fine del 2020 era stato minato oltre l'87% dell'offerta totale. Ogni successivo dimezzamento riduce drasticamente il ritmo di nuove emissioni, il che significa che ci vorrà più di un secolo per minare il restante 6,7%.

Secondo le stime attuali il 99% di tutti i bitcoin sarà stato minato entro il 2035, ma la frazione finale, ovvero gli ultimi satoshi, non sarà minata prima del 2140 circa, a causa della natura della riduzione geometrica delle ricompense.

Questa scarsità progettata, unita a un limite immutabile all'offerta, è ciò che porta Bitcoin a paragonarsi a materie prime come l'oro. Ma Bitcoin è ancora più prevedibile: l'offerta di oro cresce di circa l'1,7% annuo, mentre il tasso di emissione di Bitcoin è in palese calo.

Lo sapevate? La curva di offerta di Bitcoin non è terminale nel senso tradizionale del termine. Segue una traiettoria asintotica – una sorta di paradosso economico di Zenone – in cui le ricompense diminuiscono indefinitamente ma non raggiungono mai veramente lo zero. Il mining continuerà fino al 2140 circa, data entro la quale sarà stato emesso oltre il 99,999% dei 21 milioni di BTC totali.

Oltre il limite dell'offerta: come le coin perse rendono Bitcoin più raro di quanto pensate

Sebbene oltre il 93% della riserva totale di Bitcoin sia stata minata, ciò non significa che sia tutta disponibile. Una parte significativa è definitivamente fuori circolazione, persa a causa di password dimenticate, wallet smarriti, hard disk distrutti o utenti pionieri che non hanno più toccato le loro coin.

Stime di aziende come Chainalysis e Glassnode suggeriscono che tra i 3 e i 3,8 milioni di BTC – circa il 14-18% dell'offerta totale – siano probabilmente andati perduti per sempre. Tra questi, anche indirizzi dormienti di alto profilo come quello che si ritiene appartenga a Satoshi Nakamoto, che da solo detiene oltre 1,1 milioni di BTC.

Ciò significa che l'offerta circolante di bitcoin potrebbe essere più vicina a 16-17 milioni, non a 21 milioni. E poiché Bitcoin è progettato per essere irrecuperabile, qualsiasi coin persa rimane persa, riducendone permanentemente l'offerta nel tempo.

Ora confrontatelo con l'oro. Circa l'85% dell'oro totale disponibile a livello mondiale è stato estratto – circa 216.265 tonnellate, secondo il World Gold Council – ma quasi tutto rimane in circolazione o conservato in caveau, gioielli, ETF e banche centrali. L'oro può essere rifuso e riutilizzato; Bitcoin non può essere ripristinato una volta perso l'accesso.

Questa distinzione conferisce a Bitcoin una sorta di scarsità crescente, un'offerta che non solo smette di crescere nel tempo, ma si riduce silenziosamente.

Man mano che maturerà, Bitcoin entrerà in una fase monetaria simile a quella dell'oro: bassa emissione, alta concentrazione dei detentori e crescente sensibilità alla domanda. Ma Bitcoin si spinge oltre: il suo limite di offerta è rigido, il suo tasso di perdita è permanente e la sua distribuzione è pubblicamente verificabile.

Ciò può portare a diversi risultati:

• Aumento della volatilità dei prezzi poiché l'offerta disponibile diventa più limitata e sensibile alla domanda del mercato;

• Maggiore concentrazione del valore a lungo termine nelle mani di coloro che rimangono attivi e sicuri nella gestione delle proprie risorse chiave;

• Un premio sulla liquidità, in cui i BTC spendibili vengono scambiati a un valore effettivo più alto rispetto all'offerta dormiente.

In casi estremi ciò potrebbe produrre una biforcazione tra “BTC circolanti” e “BTC irraggiungibili”, con i primi che acquisirebbero maggiore importanza economica, in particolare in periodi di liquidità di scambio limitata o di stress macroeconomico.

Cosa succede quando tutti i bitcoin verranno minati?

C'è un'ipotesi diffusa secondo cui, con la riduzione delle ricompense per blocco di Bitcoin, la sicurezza della rete finirà per risentirne. Ma in pratica, l'economia del mining è molto più adattabile e resiliente.

Gli incentivi al mining di Bitcoin sono regolati da un ciclo di feedback autocorrettivo: se diventa non redditizio, i miner abbandonano la rete, il che a sua volta innesca un aggiustamento della difficoltà. Ogni 2.016 blocchi (circa ogni due settimane), la rete ricalibra la difficoltà utilizzando un parametro noto come nBit. L'obiettivo è mantenere i tempi di blocco stabili intorno ai 10 minuti, indipendentemente dal numero di miner in competizione.

Quindi se il prezzo di Bitcoin scende, o la ricompensa diventa troppo bassa rispetto ai costi operativi, i miner inefficienti escono di scena. Questo fa sì che la difficolta diminuisca, riducendo i costi per chi rimane. Il risultato è un sistema che si riequilibra continuamente, allineando la partecipazione alla rete agli incentivi disponibili.

Questo meccanismo è già stato testato su larga scala. Dopo che la Cina ha vietato il mining a metà del 2021, l'hashrate globale di Bitcoin è diminuito di oltre il 50% nel giro di poche settimane. Ciononostante la rete ha continuato a funzionare senza interruzioni e, nel giro di pochi mesi, l'hashrate si è completamente ripreso, con la ripresa delle operazioni dei miner in giurisdizioni con costi energetici inferiori e normative più favorevoli.

Fondamentalmente l'idea che ricompense inferiori possano minacciare la sicurezza della rete trascura il fatto che il mining sia legato ai margini di profitto, non alle quantità nominali di BTC. Finché il prezzo di mercato sosterrà il costo dell'hashpower – anche a 0,78125 BTC per blocco (dopo l'halving del 2028) o inferiore – i miner continueranno a proteggere la rete.

In altre parole, non è la ricompensa assoluta che conta, ma se il mining rimane redditizio rispetto ai costi. E, grazie alla regolazione integrata della difficoltà di Bitcoin, di solito lo è.

Anche tra un secolo, quando la ricompensa per blocco si avvicinerà allo zero, la rete sarà ancora protetta da combinazioni tra commissioni, incentivi di base ed efficienza infrastrutturale esistente in quel momento. Ma questa è una preoccupazione lontana. Nel frattempo il sistema attuale –  l'hashrate si aggiusta, la difficoltà si ribilancia, i miner si adattano – rimane uno degli elementi più solidi della progettazione di Bitcoin.

Lo sapevate? Il 20 aprile 2024, in seguito al lancio del protocollo Runes, i miner di Bitcoin hanno guadagnato oltre $80 milioni in commissioni di transazione in un solo giorno, superando i $26 milioni guadagnati con le ricompense per blocco. Questa è stata la prima volta nella storia di Bitcoin che le sole commissioni di transazione hanno superato il sussidio per blocco nelle entrate giornaliere dei miner.

Il futuro del mining di Bitcoin: il consumo energetico

È un'idea sbagliata quella secondo cui l'aumento del prezzo di Bitcoin comporti un consumo energetico infinito. In realtà il mining è vincolato dalla redditività, non solo dal prezzo.

Con la riduzione delle ricompense per blocco, i miner sono spinti verso margini più ridotti e questo significa inseguire l'energia più economica e pulita disponibile. Sin dal divieto al mining imposto dalla Cina nel 2021, l'hashrate è migrato verso regioni come il Nord America e l'Europa settentrionale, dove gli operatori attingono all'energia idroelettrica, eolica e alla rete sottoutilizzata.

Secondo il Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, tra il 52% e il 59% del mining di Bitcoin avviene ormai tramite fonti rinnovabili o a basse emissioni.

Le normative stanno rafforzando questa tendenza: diverse giurisdizioni offrono incentivi per il mining basato su fonti pulite o penalizzano le attività basate sui combustibili fossili.

Inoltre l'idea che prezzi più alti del BTC significhino sempre un maggiore consumo di energia non tiene conto del modo in cui Bitcoin si autoregola: più miner aumentano la difficoltà, il che comprime i margini limitando l'espansione dell'energia.

L'attività di mining basata sulle energie rinnovabili porta con sé le sue sfide, ma il futuro distopico di un hashpower alimentato solo da combustibili fossili è sempre più improbabile.

[*] 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 Declaration of Independence – Dramatic Reading by Celebrities — Kathy Bates, Benicio Del Toro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman, Mel Gibson, Whoopi Goldberg, Graham Greene, Ming-Na, Edward Norton, Winona Ryder, Kevin Spacey, and Renee Zellweger

Modern Historians Confront The American Revolution, by economist/historian Murray N. Rothbard

The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism, by Murray N. Rothbard

America’s Libertarian Revolution, by Murray N. Rothbard

America’s Radical Revolution, by Murray N. Rothbard

Economic Determinism, Ideology, and the American Revolution, by Murray N. Rothbard

American Revolution as a People’s War: A Bibliographical Essay by William Marina

Conceived in Liberty (Combined)  Volumes 1-4 Edition, Books by Murray N. Rothbard

Conceived in Liberty: The New Republic: 1784–1791 Volume 5, Book by Murray N. Rothbard

The post In Honor of Friday, July 4 –The American Revolution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.

Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.

However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.

1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that almost 2,000 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no CO2-induced climate emergency? These signatories have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made C02-induced climate change. See https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/

2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at United Nations Environment, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.

A book I published also provides ample evidence and testimony from renowned scientists that there is no ‘CO2-induced’ Climate emergency. The book titled ‘Climate CO2 Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Environment Movement’ is available on Amazon here.

3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim O’Brien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available at: https://www.icsf.ie/lecture-series

The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration “There is No Climate Emergency” (see https://clintel.org/ireland/).

4. The reality is that the climate has always been changing, the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and CO2 emissions (and methane from livestock, such as cows) are not dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to CO2 emissions (and also methane from cows) has no scientific basis. It appears to me the UN narrative is yet another example of fake science being used to drive an ulterior agenda, see also the book Godless Fake Science.

In truth I am against ‘real’ pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of ‘real’ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. See also this article. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.

5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following

There is no [CO2-induced] climate emergency… The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.

6. In the above book I reference the relevant work and scientific presentations of some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Let us examine some of the work and testimonies of these scientists:

“deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that Co2 from human industry was a dangerous plant destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that Co2 the life of plants was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” – Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.

Dr Nils-Axel Mörner was a former Committee Chairman at the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was an expert involved in reviewing the first IPPC documents. He says the UN IPPC is misleading humanity about climate change.  He tried to warn that the IPPC were publishing lies and false information that would inevitably be discredited. In an interview, he stated: “This is the most dangerous and frightening part of it. How a lobbyist group, such as the IPPC, has been able to fool the whole world. These organised and deceitful forces are dangerous” and expressed shock “that the UN and governments would parade children around the place at UN Climate summits as propaganda props”. He states:

“solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2… something is basically sick in the blame Co2 hypothesis…  It was launched more than 100 years ago and almost immediately excellent physicists demonstrated that the hypothesis did not work.

I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialist… I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paper… I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrong…The scientific truth is on the side of the sceptics… I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated.

In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrong… Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession – they live on it.… I suspect that behind-the-scenes promoters… have an ulterior motive… It’s a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling people” – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC, and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm

Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials that has broken rank is Dr Mototaka Nakamura. He asserts:  “Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world”. Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from MIT, and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. Dr Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on and that: “Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data”.

Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data, see Endnote [i]. I summarise the main points from his analysis below:

“The established global warming theory significantly misrepresents the impact of extra greenhouse gases; the weather that affects people the most is not becoming more extreme or more dangerous; temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today; between 1895 and 2015, 14 of the top 15 years with the highest heat records occurred before 1960; the temperatures we are experiencing now in 2021 were the same as 120 years ago…

the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/year… Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally – the trend is flat… Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decade… worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!”

In a lecture titled The imaginary climate crisis – how can we change the message? Available on the Irish Climate Science Forum website, see Endnote [ii]. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:

“in the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2… the narrative is absurd…  it gives governments the power to control the energy sector… for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteria… Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.”

“CO2…  it’s not a pollutant… it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis…  if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:

“the whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake science… of course climate change is real it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not caused by people… climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warming period actually began about 300 years ago when the little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of and all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants.

I was one of the (Greenpeace) founders… by the mid-80s… we were hijacked by the extreme left who basically took Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to an organisation based on sensationalism, misinformation and fear… you don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the cities…” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace

Professor William Happer, Princeton University, Former Director of Science at the US Department of Energy, is also a strong voice against the myth of man-made global warming. He states: “More CO2 benefits the Earth”.

7. The UN IPCC cherry picks data, uses flawed modelling and scenarios not remotely related to the real world

The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that – they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised ‘system’. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in the above book.

“The computer models are making systematic dramatic errors… they are all parametrised… fudged…  the models really don’t work” – Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science

Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the UN IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [i].  He describes that in relation to climate modelling, the IPCC detached the models from socio-economic plausibility. In creating the models, instead of first completing integrative assessment models (IAMs), the IPCC skipped this essential step and jumped straight to radiative forcing scenarios and thus these scenarios are not based on competed IAMs. This led much of climate modelling down the wrong track. I quote points from Dr Pielke’s analysis as follows:

“The four IPCC scenarios came from a large family of models so instead of splitting modelling from socio-economic assumptions the models already had the assumptions faked and baked in to them, because they had to have those assumptions to produce the required radiative forcing (to produce a desired climate ‘crisis scenario’ outcome)… There are thousands of climate assumptions, but only 8 to 12 of them are available currently for climate research. The IPCC report even states that “no likelihood is attached to the scenarios in this report”. The likelihood is considered low they admit – This is an incredible admission by the IPCC.

These extreme unlikely scenarios dominate the literature and the IPCC report; therefore, the IPCC report is biased. Bottom line is that there is massive confusion. The IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem! The IPCC currently uses RCP 8.5 as the ‘business as usual’ scenario, but RCP 8.5 is wild fantasy land and not remotely related to current reality at all… climate science has a scientific integrity crisis.” – Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado

8. Financialization of the entire world economy is now based on a life-killing ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions strategy.

The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that would seemingly disable the current fossil-fuel-based mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. Yet the narrative is quite hypocritical as the production of green energy infrastructure, and mining of rare earth metals for batteries for electric vehicles, is, and will most likely continue to be, very fossil-fuel intensive. Globalisation resulted in much of humanity becoming largely dependent on the trans-national industrial economy rather than on traditional more self-sufficient local/regional economies. Therefore, one has to ask where is this all going to lead if the plug is truly pulled on fossil fuels? Almost all of us are seemingly locked into, and have become dependent upon, the current economic paradigm of globalisation. A system rigged by debt-money created from nothing; created and controlled by private mega-banks and behind the scenes money-masters; and which can induce boom, bust, bailout scenarios that detrimentally effect the populace.

It should be noted that for decades, these same political, government, and corporate powers have rampantly promoted corporate economic globalization and fossil fuel dependency. Whilst, at the same time actively hindering the funding, creation, or government support of, more self-sufficient local communities/regions, and local co-operatives. Most of the world population thus became reliant on the globalized fossil-fuel driven system. I explore this topic in the books Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers and Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability

Purchase here

Zero carbon emissions, in essence, means pulling the plug on current systems of industrial agriculture, transport, goods production, electricity production, etc. This could have terrible consequences, particularly in locations and countries, that are currently unable to produce much food. In Ireland, the deluded greens in government had planned to close the coal-fired power station Moneypoint, in the name of reducing CO2 emissions. However, as the price of electricity increased and the dawn of so-called ‘green energy’ began to evaporate like the Irish morning mist, the government scrapped this plan in 2022, instead deciding to convert the station to an oil-burning facility. The Irish Times newspaper reported:

“With growing concerns over security of the energy supply in the State, the Government is not in a position to decommission Moneypoint as a fuel-burning station in the near future. It was confirmed by the Irish Government in 2022 that Moneypoint will convert to oil generation from 2023.” See Endnote [ii]

The so-called ‘green economy’ (for it is not environmentally friendly in reality) and UN Agenda 2030 are resulting in increased energy poverty and decreased energy independence for the masses, while also developing trillions of dollars for the behind-the-scenes mega-banks. “Stop burning coal and wood logs that causes climate change don’t ya know” my deluded neighbour informed me last year, having threw out her wood burning stove and installed solar panels. Then a typical winter storm in Ireland last month left many thousands of people without electricity or heating for almost a week, shivering and wishing for a wood burning stove, while their solar panels produced little electricity in winter.

9. Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay (1967 – 2016), former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Summary

In summary, CO2 reduction is the main focus of the UN-promoted climate-change-hysteria that has been rampant among the world’s population. However, the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only.  The cult of ‘manmade climate change’ is a media and UN politically-promoted ‘ideology’, that is used for a wider political and corporate agenda. Manmade climate change is not based in fact, and has hijacked real environmental concerns.

Due to incessant UN, government, and corporate-promoted climate change propaganda, many people are, thus, in a media-induced state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. The unpalatable reality is that people’s access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via bogus climate change policies, inflation, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war.

We cannot understand how to create a truly resilient society unless we correctly perceive the current society we live in and how it came to exist. Unless we recognize the untruths of the current paradigm, even if it is not ‘politically correct’ to do so, then we will not be able to make the correct adjustments to our communities and local/regional networks, or create a truly resilient thriving society. In this spirit of truth, new networks are emerging worldwide.

—

[1] Source: Irish Climate Science Forum lecture titled Testing Climate Claims 2021 Update available at www.icsf.ie

[1] The Irish Climate Science Forum website URL is www.icsf.ie

[1] Source: Irish Climate Science Forum lecture titled What does IPCC AR6 say on scenarios and extreme weather? available at www/icsf.ie

[1] Source:  https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2022/11/27/plans-to-decommission-moneypoint-by-2025-delayed-by-government-over-fears-of-power-outages/

The post 1900 Scientists Say ‘Climate Change Not Caused by CO2 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Scripture and Magisterial teaching is clear that dispensationalism is a grave error and the 1948 Zionist entity is not historical and biblical “Israel”, but also quite clear is historical and geo-political and cultural reality. And a paradigm shift has happened in which certain historical and geo-political and cultural realities can now be talked about without instant demonization and censorship. What have the rulers of the Zionist entity specialized in since its birth in 1948? Unbiased research tells us: Assassinations, aggressive unjust wars, false flag terrorism, moral and cultural subversion of other countries, espionage, propaganda, genocide. But why has this satanic behavior been shrouded in lies and propaganda for so long?

Because of the obvious malicious and deliberate genocide of Gaza, which simply can’t be covered up, and because we now know beyond any doubt, thanks to courageous researchers and truth tellers, that the Israel Regime murdered American sailors in 1967 on the USS Liberty, is it not reasonable also to suspect the State of Israel of being a main accomplice in the murder of JFK and the obvious false flag terror event of IXXI? Is such really beyond the pale of rational inquiry in light of recent events? Is historical and political reality dictating what we permit ourselves to question, or is it decades of propaganda? Consider the implications if it turns out that Zionists, not Muslims, murdered a sitting American President and 3000 of its citizens?

Until and unless the full truth of Zionist crimes becomes viral, things will only get worse. Catholics with a platform should be the first to announce the truth from the rooftops. Why aren’t they? Moronic “Christian” Zionists like Ted Cruz and Cartoonish “Catholic” propagandists for Zionism, like this pathetic guy, are not the real enemy, for their propaganda is blatantly obvious and are thus easily unmasked and discredited. It’s the ones who every “conservative” Catholic praises and who seem to have the most financial and backing and largest platforms that are the most dangerous and complicit in their silence. Oh, they may criticize Zionism, but they never get around to naming the crimes. I wonder why. And forget about the Catholic academics and Bishops. They are a lost cause. Telling the truth, whenever it means any risk to their livelihood, is just not their thing, even though it’s their very vocation. The treason against humanity they committed during the scamdemic will live in infamy; they showed their true colors.

A good number of Jews condemn Zionism and the state of Israel. And they are hated for it. All Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people of good will need publicly to distance themselves from and vociferously condemn the satanic agenda of their leaders. This includes the rulers of not only Zionist and Wahhabist regimes, but also the present American Empire-Regime, in both its godless woke left and godless Zionist right iterations. We must expose and condemn the traitors who and ideologies that rule our country, whether in official or unofficial positions of power, but we do so as American patriots who love our land and people, not as leftist communists who despise them.

Finally, Jews, like every human being born into this world is objectively obligated by truth and love to do to save his soul, need to repent and recognize Jesus Christ as their savior and messiah, and become Catholic. God is counting on us to evangelize them, in spite of the lies we’ve been told by some of our own traitorous and faithless clergy that the Church “has no mission to the Jews.” Bishop Barron was wrong. Jews cannot be saved unless they reject their rejection of Jesus Christ. Every human being has to judge if Jesus Christ was innocent or guilty, and whether his crucifixion was just or not. Each human being before he dies has to answer personally and existentially the question Jesus posed to His disciples: “Who do you say that I am?” Let us Catholics be conduits and mediators of Jesus Christ for all people, including the Jews, whom we are called to love.

This article was originally published on Children Beware of Idols.

The post Collusion in 1948 Zionist Supremacy appeared first on LewRockwell.