Skip to main content

Aggregatore di feed

Tommy Tuberville Blasts NFL, Vikings Over Male Cheerleaders

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 19:33

Writes Transportphenomena:

From Ragnar and Rollo the Conquerers to randy and his little pom-poms.

Breitbart

 

The post Tommy Tuberville Blasts NFL, Vikings Over Male Cheerleaders appeared first on LewRockwell.

California’s Hwy 395 in the Remote NE Corner of the State

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 19:32

Thanks, Tim McGraw.

Ghost of the Niles Hotel

Now that is a picture frame.

The post California’s Hwy 395 in the Remote NE Corner of the State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Victor Davis Hanson: Apologist for Mass Murder

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 19:01

He defends the atomic bombing of Japan. It was a “terrible decision, but the alternatives were even worse.” There is one alternative that was not worse: Not dropping the bombs at all. David Henderson takes down Hanson here.

The post Victor Davis Hanson: Apologist for Mass Murder appeared first on LewRockwell.

August 21, 1971

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 18:50

Writes Tim McGraw:

Today, August 21, 2025, is the 54th anniversary of the day. Oh, it was a big day. It was the usual hot and humid August afternoon in Lincoln, Nebraska. We hippies, all boys born in 1952, had come together at our communal house, the Garfield House at 14th and Garfield Streets.

The Garfield House was a big two-story white frame house. It had a full basement that we’d insulated with egg cartons and blankets so our band could play loud music. The house had a large yard and a two-car garage that no one used. No one had a car. 

August 21, 1971, was the day that a military poobah would pull our birthdates out of a lottery drum to see if we won a free, all expenses paid, trip to the Vietnam War. 

The old black & white TV was in the bay window. We all had beers, joints, and/or cigarettes in our hands. If our birthdate was one of the first 100 drawn, we were fucked. There was laughter covering up the tension in the room.

My best friend, Mark, was sitting in his big leather chair. I was sitting on the couch next to his chair. I was drinking cheap Schmidt animal beer. Mark was drinking a can of Olde English 800 Malt Liquor in one hand and the usual Old Gold cigarette in the other.

Mark’s birthdate came up as #28. His face went white. His hands shook. He was fucked. 

I got #279. My Irish luck came through.

Mark went on the lam to a farmhouse in South Dakota. He eventually was caught, arrested, and did two years of community service in Lincoln. When Mark received his pardon from Jimmy Carter, he had it framed and hung it over his toilet so that he could look at it every time he peed.

Yeah, August 21, 1971; helluva day.

 

The post August 21, 1971 appeared first on LewRockwell.

America Shocked After Learning Debt Must Be Paid Back

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 18:16

Vicki Marzullo wrote:

People aren’t “surprised,” they’re pissed because favored government employees, including teachers, had their loans forgiven and everybody else has to pay.

Zero Hedge

 

The post America Shocked After Learning Debt Must Be Paid Back appeared first on LewRockwell.

How Ukraine Is Collapsing

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 17:46

Click Here:

Eric Zuesse

 

The post How Ukraine Is Collapsing appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tulsi Cleans House

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 17:25

The post Tulsi Cleans House appeared first on LewRockwell.

Perché sempre più aziende, come MicroStrategy, stanno finendo nell'elenco Bitcoin Treasury

Freedonia - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 10:12

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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 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 la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________


da Forbes

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/perche-sempre-piu-aziende-come-microstrategy)

MicroStrategy, pioniere del modello Bitcoin Treasury, ha ribadito la sua convinzione con un nuovo acquisto di 7.390 bitcoin per un valore di $764,9 milioni tra il 12 e il 18 maggio, portando il suo patrimonio totale a 576.230 BTC, stando a quanto riporta The Defiant. Con Bitcoin trattato sopra i $100.000, un numero crescente di aziende sta seguendo il suo esempio, implementando la strategia Bitcoin Treasury come modello di business.

Un tempo considerato un esperimento, questo approccio si sta ora affermando come un vantaggio competitivo per le aziende lungimiranti. Cosa sta guidando questa adozione e come possono sfruttarla gli investitori? È tempo di scoprire perché l'iniziativa Bitcoin Treasury sta diventando il nuovo gold standard e cosa significa per il futuro della conservazione del proprio patrimonio.

In quanto asset scambiato a livello globale, Bitcoin è ormai ampiamente riconosciuto sia come merce che come valuta. In quanto tale, potrebbe rivelarsi vantaggioso non solo per gli investitori al dettaglio, ma anche per le istituzioni. L'amministratore delegato di MicroStrategy, Michael Saylor, ha compiuto il primo passo nel 2020, inserendo Bitcoin nel bilancio della sua azienda, e ora altri stanno seguendo l'esempio.


La mossa audace di MicroStrategy: dal software alla strategia incentrata su Bitcoin

Nell'agosto 2020, quando MicroStrategy annunciò l'acquisizione di 21.454 bitcoin per $250 milioni, Saylor riconobbe le qualità distintive di questa nuova commodity digitale e andò all-in, trasformando la sua azienda in un veicolo di acquisizione di Bitcoin. Questa strategia si rivelò un grande successo. Secondo il suo rapporto sugli utili del primo trimestre 2025, l'azienda ha ottenuto un guadagno di $5,8 miliardi dalle partecipazioni in Bitcoin, raggiungendo il 58% del suo obiettivo annuale.

Di fatto le azioni di MicroStrategy (MSTR) sono diventate un intermediario tra TradFi e crittovalute: hanno dimostrato come investire legittimamente in Bitcoin (in precedenza, a volte era l'unico modo, insieme al fondo GBTC). Oltre a questo esisteva il mercato delle opzioni MSTR più liquido e più grande, e altri strumenti per incanalare capitali dalla TradFi a Bitcoin, come STRK, STRF e obbligazioni convertibili. Senza dimenticarci anche di MSTU, MSTY e MSTX.

L'ex-attività di MicroStrategy è stata abbandonata, quindi il cambio di nome è arrivato giusto in tempo: l'azienda non è più “micro” in alcun modo. È un colosso gigantesco che apre la strada ad altre aziende. La loro tesi è semplice: “Se si guarda alla performance di questo asset, si vede che Bitcoin è cresciuto del 60% all'anno negli ultimi quattro anni. Prendiamo le obbligazioni (con rendimenti annuali a una sola cifra nello stesso periodo). Stiamo parlando di un arbitraggio tra (quasi) lo 0% e il 60%”, ha dichiarato Michael Saylor in un'intervista del novembre 2024 su Barron's.

Pertanto se un'azienda detiene bitcoin, nel tempo può superare i suoi concorrenti gestendo la propria tesoreria aziendale in modo molto più efficiente. Comporta dei rischi? Certo. Anche Bitcoin può scendere. Ma se si è un operatore a lungo termine (tenete a mente i cicli quadriennali) e soprattutto se si acquista bitcoin allo stesso modo di Strategy (con debito non garantito), si è sostanzialmente al sicuro, poiché non può verificarsi un evento di margin call anche se Bitcoin scendesse ai minimi.


HODLing come tendenza in crescita

A oggi ci sono 101 tra le società quotate in borsa che hanno aderito all'iniziativa BTC Treasury, per un totale di 765.805 BTC. Tra queste figurano MARA Holdings, Tesla, Riot Platforms e Metaplanet, le quali hanno annunciato l'intenzione di raccogliere altri $250 milioni per espandere la propria strategia Bitcoin, secondo un post del 1° maggio su X.

Bitcointreasuries.net illustra vividamente l'evoluzione del trend negli ultimi anni. È facile osservare che la crescita esponenziale è iniziata all'inizio di novembre, subito dopo la vittoria di Trump alle elezioni presidenziali, segnalando un allentamento normativo e il via libera alle crittovalute. Anche a marzo e febbraio il trend è rimasto rialzista nonostante la correzione di BTC sotto gli $80.000.

E che dire dell'andamento delle azioni degli acquirenti? È troppo presto per giudicare, ma i nuovi arrivati – Cantor Equity Partners (CEP) e Asset Entities (ASST) – hanno registrato un'impennata dopo i loro annunci: CEP è salita di circa il 200% da inizio maggio, secondo Benzinga, mentre ASST è salita di oltre il 1.000% dal 6 maggio, come riportato da TheStreet.

Impressionante? Sicuramente.

Continuerà? Secondo la teoria dei giochi qualsiasi comportamento specifico che conferisca un vantaggio competitivo sarà ampiamente adottato. Quindi è molto probabile. Questa ondata è appena iniziata, quindi possiamo aspettarci ulteriori notizie sulle aziende che aderiranno allo standard Bitcoin. Ma i maggiori vantaggi andranno a chi si muoverà per primo.


Bitcoin Treasury potrebbe fungere da porta d'accesso per gli investitori individuali

Come può un singolo investitore capitalizzare su questa tendenza? È una buona domanda. Per chi è pronto ad assumersi il rischio, potrebbe essere saggio tenere d'occhio le aziende con solide attività quotate in borsa che investono parte della propria liquidità in Bitcoin. Un simile approccio offre il potenziale di rialzo di Bitcoin mantenendo un rischio moderato, perché gli oggetti d'investimento sono aziende solide, non solo il “denaro magico di Internet”. Secondo Blockworks, tra ottobre 2020 e novembre 2021, il titolo MicroStrategy è salito da $165 a quasi $900, con un guadagno del 440% trainato dall'aumento di Bitcoin da $11.000 a $69.000 nello stesso periodo.

L'ultimo mercato rialzista ha dimostrato che le aziende nell'elenco Bitcoin Treasury tendono a sovraperformare i propri concorrenti, e quello attuale potrebbe essere lo stesso. Con la sua comprovata esperienza di performance superiori agli investimenti tradizionali, Bitcoin offre una valida copertura contro l'inflazione e un percorso per la conservazione del proprio patrimonio a lungo termine, nonostante la sua intrinseca volatilità (cosa che sta cambiando anch'essa, ndT).

L'ondata di adozione di Bitcoin è solo all'inizio e chi ne riconosce il potenziale oggi potrebbe raccogliere i frutti più grandi domani. Che siate un'azienda o un investitore individuale, il messaggio è chiaro: l'iniziativa Bitcoin Treasury sta ridefinendo il futuro della finanza... ed è meglio farne parte.


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


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


Total Eclipse of the Heart”: Portuguese Brazil version

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 07:41

When I was in Belem, Brazil, in the Amazon for six months in the summer of 1990, this was one of the top three songs played in the dance clubs of Belem. They played the English version by Bonnie Tyler. The Brazilians are the most romantic people I’ve ever met. They don’t just listen to romantic music, watch romantic TV shows, and read romantic novels; they live them.

Belem is an amazing place. You won’t find people like the Belemese anywhere else on Earth.

The post Total Eclipse of the Heart”: Portuguese Brazil version appeared first on LewRockwell.

World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 06:13

For 28 years I taught World History to high school students. Here is a listing of their assignments. It includes assignments focusing upon this excellent series below —

World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West is a 2008 six-episode BBC/PBS documentary series on the role of Joseph Stalin and German-Soviet relations before, during, and after World War II, created by Laurence Rees and Andrew Williams.

It contains new controversial material which only became available to the public after the fall of communism from the Soviet archives, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Each episode lasts approximately one hour and features reenactments of the situations subject.

 

 

 

The post World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West appeared first on LewRockwell.

In Ukraine, the ‘Buts’ Win in the End

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 05:01

I love you, BUT I’m not “in love” with you.  You don’t have to go home, BUT you can’t stay here.  You may continue fighting, Martial Law President Zelensky, BUT the American people won’t be following you into World War III.

No matter how agreeable the first half of a sentence might sound, the “buts” change everything on a dime.

President Trump has been clear that he wants the Russia-Ukraine War to end, but he says Zelensky must choose to end the conflict.  When the war began, 73% of Ukrainians wanted to fight Russia until Ukraine secured victory, but 69% now want the war to end as soon as possible through negotiations!  Perhaps that is why Z-Man agreed to meet President Trump in D.C.  It was widely rumored that U.S. officials encouraged the battledress-wearing comedian to don a real suit for the occasion, but the holdover-president wore a military-style jacket in all black.  The guy who plays piano with his penis still looks out of his element at the White House, but he does dress like someone attending his own funeral.

With the titular head of the Ukrainian government back at the White House — surrounded by an entourage of European honchos eager to butt in — we will finally discover whether some kind of peace between Russia and Ukraine is tenable.  To be sure, there are many powerful people in the United States and across Europe who would prefer to keep Ukraine a battlefield for years to come.

Why?

As a man holding onto the presidency eighteen months beyond his elected term, Zelensky might finally bring peace to his war-torn country, but he will likely be voted out of office once the exigencies of martial law disappear.

U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen may publicly express their desire for lasting European peace, but the Russian bogeyman has long been the perfect scapegoat and distraction for European societies self-immolating from mass immigration, censorship, and “climate change” communism.

The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and other august organizations ostensibly dedicated to global welfare might applaud an end to bloodshed, but all of their depopulation enthusiasts will no doubt regret the loss of a conflict zone chalking up more deaths than births.

BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and other international investment houses will be happy to make money from lucrative rebuilding projects in Ukraine, but they will lament that the war did not topple President Putin and open up Russian lands to their profit-seeking conquest.

Weapons manufacturers will be glad to have so much demand from American and European militaries desperate to restock munitions after years of supplying Ukraine, but their boards of directors will be busy finding new places around the globe to slaughter in the cutthroat business of war.

So there may well be happy faces and cheers over the next few days and weeks when it comes to the prospect of Ukrainian peace, but there will be plenty of villains scowling behind the scenes — all hoping that the tentative peace breaks and the carnage resumes.

Those European and Chinese power-players who have long seen war between the Russian Federation and the United States as an opportunity to diminish both countries simultaneously will say all the right things in upbeat social media postings praising compromise, but they will regret that the America-last Biden administration is no longer around to stumble recklessly into nuclear war.  Spy agencies across the West may pause their “color revolution” activities long enough to install a new Ukrainian puppet into the presidency, but they will continue their hybrid warfare operations in former Warsaw Pact countries.

London and New York City bankers will perhaps allow Russian citizens to access their overseas assets once again, but Western central banks will pursue monetary policies that cause enough domestic turmoil in target countries to return the West to a state of war in the near future.  In sound bites, everyone loves peace, but in the world of big business, war means profits.

War is big business, but it is also a convenient political distraction.

During the destructive interregnum of the Biden installation, Democrats laundered trillions of dollars in “Green New Deal” spending through the Build Back Better Act (cynically relabeled the Inflation Reduction Act to appeal to idiotic members of the press).  While that legislation stole from taxpayers and accomplished nothing for the American people, it put enormous sums of money into the bank accounts of Democrat-run NGOs structured as “social justice” and “environmental justice” front groups.

Combined with Democrats’ ongoing war against inexpensive hydrocarbon energies, the inflation-triggering money-printing of that harmful legislative handout to Establishment insiders and crony capitalists doubled grocery prices in the United States.  How did Democrats explain away their disastrous handling of the economy to struggling American families?  They simply blamed Russia (as they have for the last decade) and called the spike in the cost of living “Putin’s price hike.”

Sure, the cost of food, fuel, and basic necessities rose precipitously during the bungling Biden administration, but Russia, Russia, Russia!  Americans were even encouraged to view their growing household bills as a patriotic form of suffering worth enduring in America’s undeclared alliance with Ukraine against the Russian Federation.  First, Democrats blamed Hillary’s 2016 election loss on imaginary Russian bots and contrived Russian collusion.  Then they blamed the massive spike in prices on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Europe has played the same cynical game against its citizens.  Instead of admitting that “green energy” totalitarianism is destroying the continent’s industrial competitiveness and household wealth, mendacious politicians blame the War in Ukraine for their crumbling economies.  Of course, the rise in energy costs across Europe might also have something to do with ineffective sanctions against Russian energy companies (that merely divert Russian products to China and the greater Global South); the convenient sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines; and Ukraine’s military attacks on key pipelines transporting oil and natural gas from Russia to households in Hungary, Slovakia, and other parts of Europe.  The more expensive ordinary goods become, the louder Eurocrats insist that the problem is not “green energy”–induced inflation but rather Russia’s war in Ukraine!

For European politicians, the Russia-Ukraine War supplies many ancillary benefits.  It provides already indebted nations an excuse to borrow more money for defense spending.  It creates a common enemy for the European Commission to exploit as a life-and-death reason for member states to relinquish national sovereignty.  It creates a distraction from the rising frequency of social conflicts related to rampant illegal immigration.  It provides a pretext for canceling inconvenient election results in Romania and designating popular political parties as national security threats.  It allows the prevailing Establishment to entrench its control over the European bureaucracy.  As Democrats in America and socialists in Europe are fond of whispering, Never let a crisis go to waste.

Turning Russia into an irredeemable bugaboo and Ukraine into some saintly bastion of “democracy” worthy of every European’s sacrifice is how we have gotten to the point when all of Europe’s problems are brushed aside.  Serious people may be warning about a looming civil war in the United Kingdom, but Ukraine’s territorial integrity is all that matters.  Churches in France may be burning down for unexplained reasons, but Russians are the real threat.  The German economy may be fundamentally unsound, but military spending will create jobs.

Americans and Europeans should want the killing in Ukraine to end, but there are just so many politicians and bankers who find that outcome disappointing.  In all likelihood, this war would have continued for many more years.  But, thankfully, the American people elected President Trump.

Hat tip to Megan Draper, M.S.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post In Ukraine, the ‘Buts’ Win in the End appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mining Network: Borrowing Short Puts the Country at Risk

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 05:01

Peter recently returned to the Mining Network for an interview with Peter Gadsdon. In this interview the duo covers executive overreach, unreliable government jobs data, a weakening dollar, and why persistent inflation will keep the Federal Reserve from cutting rates. Peter ties all of these threads to a larger theme — loss of confidence in fiat money and the growing logic for holding sound money.

He opens by calling out a recent deal struck by President Trump and Nvidia that oversteps constitutional authority and functions like an export tax. Peter sees it as another example of presidential power expanding at the expense of constitutional limits and ordinary commerce:

Trump doesn’t have the authority to do this. And also, it amounts to an export tax, which is completely unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t even give the government the power to tax exports. They can tax imports, but those are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives, not with the White House. So Trump is making a mockery of the Constitution. He is dramatically expanding the power of the government, particularly the presidency.

He follows that up by questioning the motives behind a recent politically-motivated firing and connects it to what he sees as a systematic problem with jobs numbers. Peter thinks the administration has been misreading — and taking credit for — data that is often revised substantially after the fact:

The crazy part about the fact that he fired her was why. He didn’t fire her because all six of the last jobs numbers have been wrong, right, because everyone was revised way down. Meanwhile, every time one of these jobs reports came out better than expected, Trump was taking credit, even though we now know that every single jobs report that he took credit for wasn’t a beat, but it was a miss. In fact, the last two reports were revised down by the most in 50 years. So the job creation record so far on Trump’s watch has been dismal.

From domestic statistics he moves to international consequences. Peter warns that if the United States keeps treating its fiscal position as flexible — relying on inflation to erode real debt burdens — foreign holders of dollars and government debt will lose faith and reduce their holdings. He expects this to accelerate a shift away from the dollar and into hard assets:

Well, I mean, I think there’s a loss of confidence in the dollar and in the fiscal integrity of the United States. I think it should be clear to our creditors that we’re never going to get our house in order, that we’re going to inflate away any debt obligations that they’re foolish enough to hold onto. So I think the de-dollarization trend is going to continue and accelerate. I think central banks will keep the investing of dollars and moving more and more of their reserves into gold. I think the world will continue to wean itself off of the US dollar for global payments and transactions.

He also explains why attempts to lower the government’s interest burden by leaning on short-term borrowing are dangerous. Borrowing at the short end only helps if long-term yields cooperate; if they rise, the strategy can leave the country exposed to refinancing risk and sudden increases in interest costs:

The US would only save that money if they do all the borrowing at the very short end of the curve. Because if I’m right and the Fed cuts rates and the yield on long-term bonds goes up, that doesn’t help the government. Right? So the only way the government would save money would be to keep borrowing real short. But that is in a very risky position to put the country in.

Finally, Peter turns to gold markets and the distinction between paper claims and physical metal. He warns that much of the activity in gold is speculative — futures are rolled rather than delivered — but a real run for physical metal could expose the limits of that paper market and create a squeeze. That, in his view, is precisely the kind of event that reveals the value of holding real, deliverable assets rather than promises:

But I do believe that eventually there could be a run on the futures markets because normally people are buying gold futures. They don’t need the gold and they don’t want the gold. They’re just trying to bet on the direction of the gold. They’re happy to roll over the contract to the next month as the contracts mature because they don’t actually need the gold. … Maybe you get the COMEX going bankrupt if the COMEX stands behind all these commitments that the shorts have made.

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post Mining Network: Borrowing Short Puts the Country at Risk appeared first on LewRockwell.

An Interesting Historical Omission

Lew Rockwell Institute - Gio, 21/08/2025 - 05:01

Almost everyone knows that Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939 and on account of that, the British and French declared war on Germany. Thus began World War II, as every schoolboy knows.

But what about the other thing?

How many schoolboys know that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland shortly after the Germans did? How many who do know that have ever asked how come Britain and France did not declare war on Soviet Russia? Very few. No doubt because they have not been encouraged to ask such impolite questions by the government schools, which impart a redacted and politically correct version of “history.”

This redacted and politically correct version of history frames Germany as the incarnation of All That Is Evil but avoids scrupulously informing schoolboys of the Evil that was Soviet Russia. They are not told the interesting history of the meeting at Yalta – where Stalin introduced Lavrenty Beria to Roosevelt as “our Himmler.” Heinrich Himmler is a name known to most schoolboys. Beria not so much. His predecessors, Yagoda and Dzershinsky even less so.

Why is that?

Himmler was a baddie, certainly. As the head of the German equivalent of Stalin’s Cheka/NKVD “Blue Hats,” Himmler had lots of innocent people rounded up, sent to camps and dispatched to the next life. Drzhinsky, Yagoda and Beria did the same. How many schoolboys know this?  Perhaps a better question is: Why is it that they are not told of this?

Vachyslav Molotov was Soviet Russia’s Joachim Ribbentrop. Both were the foreign ministers of their respective states. Both were key players (behind the scenes) in the dissection of Poland by their respective states. Ribbentrop was sentenced to death and hanged as a war criminal by the postwar Nuremburg Tribunal, at which a Soviet judge named Vyshinksy was among the presiding. The latter was the judge presiding at Stalin’s infamous “show trials” of the 1930s, at which various politically incorrect people were convicted of being just that and sentenced to death. Yet Vyhshinsky sat in judgment of Ribbentrop, while Molotov clinked glasses at postwar celebrations of victory over Germany. He lived a long life and died an old man, of natural causes. Ribbentrop dropped from a height with a rope around his neck and was no more.

At Nuremburg, Herman Goring – the head of the German air force during the war and also Hitler’s designated heir and successor – made his accusers squirm when, after having been charged with being a key player in the attacks upon other countries that had not attacked Germany first, pointed out that his accusers’ countries had all done the same things. The United States, for example, had codified chattel slavery and did to the natives of North America very much what the Germans did to populations of similarly inconvenient people. The entire British empire was based upon imperial plunder. Cecil Rhodes can be fairly compared with Hans Frank, the German governor of occupied Poland.

It was the British, Goring pointed out, that first bombed civilian targets for the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population. Germany retailed in kind; which is not to suggest either was right to do what was done. The point is they both did the same things but only one was excoriated for having done them. The losing side.

Goring was a baddie, of course. But what of his counterparts? For example, Arthur Harris, the architect of the fire-bombing of Dresden? Schoolboys are not told of this and most could probably not tell you who Harris was.

Why not? Is it not history? The unredacted version?

The truth is almost always nuanced. It is rarely binary, though schoolboys are very much encouraged to believe that it is. The so-called Civil War is another example, beginning with the misleading use of that term to describe what was in unredacted fact the attempt made by a confederacy of Southern states to form their own nation by separating from a “union” they believed had become overbearing and tyrannical to their interests. In other words, the states of the Southern confederacy were very much motivated by the same desire as the American colonies and neither of them had any designs to take over the country. The South wanted to separate from the North, not rule over the North – just as the 13 colonies wanted to separate from the British Empire, not rule it.

A “civil war’s” defining element is two sides vying for control of a country. The British Civil War was a civil war. What occurred in America in 1861-1865 was nothing of the sort. Most schoolboys believe otherwise, though – because it is important that they believe it.

Napoleon famously said that history is a lie agreed upon. He was not wrong, but it’s more than just that. Lies are usually overt. The history imparted to schoolboys is subtler. Exaggerrations and omissions. Half-truths rather than the whole truth. To get the latter, it is necessary to suss it out for yourself. As you do, you will often find that what was imparted to you when you were a schoolboy was not the truth but a narrative. One written and imparted by the victors.

This article was originally published on Eric Peters Autos.

The post An Interesting Historical Omission appeared first on LewRockwell.

Condividi contenuti