Lew Rockwell Institute

Thanks, John Smith. 

WSJ News

The post The Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America’s UFO Mythology appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Guardian

The post US police agencies took intelligence directly from IDF, leaked files show appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Real News

The post ‘Deadly Exchange’: US sends hundreds of law enforcement to Israel to learn ‘worst practices’ from IDF appeared first on LewRockwell.

While many retailers are moving away from celebrating Pride month, Target still has over 100 items in its Pride collection, about the same number as last year. About half of its stores still sell special items for LGBTQABCXYZ Pride month.

The post Target Pride appeared first on LewRockwell.

For over two decades at LRC I have been writing about the Narcosaurus — The Narcosaurus in the Room; Narcosaurus Update: Banksters and Gangsters; and The Narcosaurus.

Along with the multinational petroleum and weapons/intelligence industries of the military-industrial complex, the global narcotics trade is one of the biggest and most lucrative businesses in the world. It is fueled and enabled by the intersection of drug money, intelligence and money laundering on a vast scale by banks and financial institutions.

I said that it was time to quit ignoring the Narcosaurus in the bankster board room (and the network newsroom) and come clean with the truth. Pieces of the story were starting to emerge from Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, in this brief article, “Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor.”

Researchers have connected the dots linking the “underworld” of organized crime (narcotics) to the “upperworld” of the Establishment (Wall Street banks and CFR-connected corporations/foundations/media). Interwoven within the nexus are the covert intelligence agencies of the deep state.

Besides the vast illegal proceeds from international drug trafficking and money-laundering, one of the important early covert sources of financing the syndicates’ Las Vegas Strip was from the Eccles brothers banking empire. George Stoddard Eccles was the heir of the largest Mormon fortune in Salt Lake City and one of the richest men in the Rocky Mountain West, while his brother Marriner Eccles was chairman of the Federal Reserve and key architect of the New Deal’s central banking system. Somehow it seems reassuring that along with gangsters Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, and Moe Dalitz, the head of the Fed was an important player in the building of this oasis of crime. What’s past is prologue. When will today’s unsavory truth finally come out about those Teflon Dons, Greenspan and Bernanke, and their roles in this mess? AUDIT (then END) THE FED!

It’s all about drugs. It has always been all about drugs. Researcher Peter Dale Scott has convinced me that the “deep politics” reality of our foreign policy with the Third World since the end of World War II has been narco-centric, behind the Cold War/War on Terror public facade or rationale. We clearly saw this in the 2008 revelations of AIG, Goldman Sachs, and the bailouts, which have begun to expose the Narcosaurus as never before.

As Larry Chin observed:

“AIG’s involvement to US covert operations stretches back to World War II, in its roots as C.V. Starr, the intelligence-related proprietary founded by OSS agent Cornelius Vander Starr. The Starr proprietary was connected to CIA/OSS figures Paul Helliwell and Tommy Corcoran. The notorious CIA fronts connected to C.V. Starr, including Civil Air Transport, Sea Supply, and Air America/Pacific Corp were exposed by Peter Dale Scott in his book Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. It is also a huge financial “pass-through”, whose counter-parties include Goldman Sachs and (not surprisingly) the same major financial institutions that are the top recipients of the US government’s TARP bailout.”

“It is no surprise that Barack Obama is the top recipient of AIG funds. AIG’s money also lines the pockets of other members of the Obama administration, and prominent members of Congress, including Senator Christopher Dodd, who has been accused of a sweetheart deal aiding AIG.”

For more on intelligence asset Barack Obama’s Wall Street connection, see Charles Gasparino’s book, Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.

It all goes to show that the essential predatory essence of the state has not changed for millennia. George Washington Plunkitt would be proud of his protégées in public plunder. Plunkitt, who became a millionaire due to his career in Tammany Hall politics, is famous for making the distinction between “honest graft” and “dishonest graft.” “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.”

In his brilliant book, American War Machine, (see page 26 following) researcher Peter Dale Scott points out that from the beginning of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) or the OPC (Office of Policy Coordination), these entities were dominated and staffed at the highest levels by former Wall Street investment bankers and lawyers, men well regarded by their elite peers in NYC Social Register circles.

This elite has always run intelligence. This is something that the anti-TARP tea parties or anti-corporatist Occupy groups seldom acknowledged.

These Machiavellian efforts, much like the evolution of the Fed, grew out of a hybrid symbiotic relationship.

These mercenary entities were no more “private” initiatives than earlier similar collaborative efforts such as the Bank of England, the British East India Company (the major player in much of early Indian and colonial American history, e.g., the Boston Tea Party), or The World Commerce Corporation (see pages 70 following in Peter Dale Scott’s American War Machine).

The common denominator among all these entities was narcotics. It all comes back to “the Narcosaurus,” lurking in the Wall Street bank board room, the TV network news room, or the covert-ops division in the intelligence services.

The post The Narcosaurus appeared first on LewRockwell.

Jordan Peterson’s recent appearance on Jubilee’s viral YouTube debate wasn’t just another skirmish in the culture war between belief and unbelief. It revealed something deeper and more unsettling: the ongoing drama of a man caught between archetype and Incarnation, between myth and metaphysical truth. The event was less about the 20 atheists who challenged him and more about the unresolved questions that have long surrounded Peterson’s theology or lack thereof.

For years, observers have speculated: Is Peterson inching toward Christianity, or is he crafting a symbolic system and even inventing a mythic religion of his own? The Jubilee debate threw that tension into sharp relief. What unfolded wasn’t so much a theological dialogue but perhaps more a public unraveling. The spectacle laid bare the limits of symbolic Christianity and raised a question that’s been simmering for nearly a decade: Can a man live as though Christianity were true without ever affirming that it is?

I’ll delve deep into the Jubilee debate not just as a cultural moment but as a revealing chapter in Peterson’s ongoing spiritual ambiguity. This essay explores his now-notorious theological hesitation, the well-meaning generosity of some Christian philosophers, and the quiet toll of refusing to cross the line into genuine faith.

The Long Road of Ambiguity

Jordan Peterson has long stood, as I noted in earlier reflections, as a paradoxical figure in contemporary religious, cultural, political, and philosophical discourse. From his first book, Maps of Meaning, which explored the deep structures of belief, to televised debates on God and morality, for close to two decades Peterson has occupied a public role wrestling with meaning. But while his psychological insights are often compelling, his metaphysical commitments remain elusive.

Peterson consistently stops short of theological affirmation. His notion of the sacred is grounded in evolutionary utility and symbolic resonance not in divine revelation. As I argued elsewhere, the real question is not whether God is a necessary archetype but whether He has spoken and has revealed Himself in human history, most decisively in Jesus Christ. Until Peterson engages this question directly, he will remain suspended between symbol and sacrament, between Logos as archetype and Logos incarnate.

These concerns are not new for me. In my 2018 article “The Peterson–Craig Encounter: A Missed Opportunity?,” I recognized Peterson’s cultural importance and psychological acumen, but I also warned of a deep tension in his thought. Although affirming moral objectivity and rejecting relativism, Peterson does so inconsistently, lacking a clear referential grounding—that is, God—thus demonstrating the inadequacy of a naturalistic and pragmatic framework. He admitted a kind of Platonic realm and even referred to the transcendent as “irrational.” I called attention to his conflation of methodological with metaphysical naturalism; his epistemological confusion between pragmatic and objective truth; and his evasions when it came to the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection, and the coherence of Christian belief. Though he rescued many from nihilism, I concluded that his philosophical vision was not equipped to defend Christian theism.

The Jubilee Format: Hostile Parade

The Jubilee debate was billed as a clash between Peterson and 20 atheists. Like the earlier episode “1 Atheist vs. 25 Christians,” which featured Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic), the format placed a single participant in the center, surrounded by rotating interlocutors. But while O’Connor’s debate was structured and relatively measured in tone, Peterson’s debate was far more adversarial and emotionally charged.

The most viral moment was not philosophical but emotional:

“You’re really quite something, aren’t you?” Peterson snapped.
“Aren’t I?” Danny replied. “But you’re really quite nothing, aren’t you? You’re not a Christian.”

This line reverberated across social media, spawning headlines and memes. For many, it exposed what they saw as Peterson’s bluff. For others, it symbolized an existential wound for both believers and nonbelievers.

Interpreting the Moment: Between Charity and Critique

Some Christian thinkers attempted to steelman Peterson’s approach. Trent Dougherty, in conversation with Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity, suggested that Peterson’s claim, “everyone worships something,” could be framed as powerful evidence for theism within a Bayesian framework. If humans are universally religious, then theism better explains this data than atheism.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, in dialogue with Sean McDowell, also offered a more pastoral reading. He proposed that Peterson’s evasiveness might stem from being a “baby Christian,” someone in the early stages of belief. He cautioned against harsh judgment: “We don’t know his heart…but he’s certainly evasive—and I think that’s deliberate.”

Craig speculated that Peterson’s ambiguity is strategic: “If I were his publicity agent, I’d say be as evasive as you can. That evokes the mystery, promotes the controversy.” But Craig also invoked Luke 12:8-9, warning of the danger for professing Christians in denying Christ before others.

Generous though they are, such interpretations only serve to illuminate the core dilemma: the uneasy coexistence of archetype and the Incarnation, where symbolic truths, though not false, become theologically hollow when severed from the concrete reality of divine revelation.

Theological Evasiveness and Linguistic Obfuscation

As I clearly indicated in my 2024 essay “Why We Should Be Cautious of Jordan Peterson,” his theological evasiveness is not new. When asked whether he believes in God or affirms Christ, Peterson typically shifts into symbolic language:

• God becomes “the highest value.”
• Belief becomes “what we live out.”
• Conscience becomes God.

This strategy often functions more as conceptual sleight of hand than serious theology. As Matthew Whiteley rightly observed in “The Sad Demise of Jordan Peterson,” such rhetorical shifts now appear more like obfuscation than insight.

When Peterson’s pragmatism is put to the test, particularly his claim to “live as though Christianity were true,” it collapses under the weight of Paul’s warning: if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile (1 Corinthians 15:17).

Peterson has cited Cardinal Newman to support his view that “God is conscience,” but this is a clear misreading. Newman never equated conscience with God Himself. Instead, he saw conscience as the echo of God’s voice—not its source, and certainly not God. Peterson psychologizes what Newman theologizes.

Read the Whole Article

The post He Who Wrestles With God in Public: Jordan Peterson Versus Himself appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar reminds us of subtle maneuvers by deep state actors to sabotage presidential policies.

When a U.S. spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union President Dwight Eisenhower had not be informed about its real mission. The CIA claimed that it had been a weather plane that went off course after its pilot was incapacitated. The president repeated that tale.

The Soviets then published that the wreckage of the U-2 spy plane had been recovered and the pilot captured alive. The Soviets were miffed of being lied to and Eisenhower’s attempt of detente with them failed.

Bhadrakumar sees a parallel in the recent Ukrainian drone attacks on strategic bomber on several Russian air field.

President Trump, in a call with the Russian president Putin, claimed that the U.S. had had no knowledge of the attack. That is, as several former CIA members confirm, implausible. The operation had been the making for 18 month which means that it had been initiated under President Biden. U.S. and/or British intelligence was certainly involved in designating the targets.

It seem that Trump, like Eisenhower before him, was not informed and thus embarrassed himself.

While Trump was talking with Putin Russian officials warned that deep state forces within the U.S. have not changed their anti-Russian aims:

Moscow should take very seriously reports that certain circles in the United States want to see Russia destroyed, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said at a news conference at TASS ..
…
“The fact that certain circles in the United States have been and are still hatching plans to move towards eradicating Russia as a state is also undeniable. It is enough to follow the discussions that are taking place, including on political science platforms. We should not underestimate the consequences of such a mindset,” the deputy minister noted.
…
His comments came in response to the words of Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in an interview with Le Monde, who argued that former US President Joe Biden, during his administration, mentioned a desire to destroy Russia.

Ryabkov probably though of an upcoming conference about the ‘fracturing states’ of ‘one of the globe’s last colonial empires’, i.e. Russia, by the CIA connected Jamestown Foundation. The invitation to the conference says:

The Kremlin’s imperial ambitions in Ukraine come at the cost of potential mutinies, fracture, and dissolution at home. Understanding the consequences of Russia’s deteriorating internal conditions will be the main topic of the upcoming conference, which will involve experts in foreign affairs, defense, and geopolitics, along with representatives of Russia’s captive nations long-recognized by the United States. Russia is one of the globe’s last colonial empires, denying captive nations the right to self-determination and independence. Whether it remains an aggressive imperial power committed to threatening its neighbors or otherwise devolves into fracturing states, U.S. and allied policymakers cannot afford to ignore Russia’s future.

While Trump is at least somewhat attempting to create better relations with the Russian Federation parts of the foreign policy blob are still dreaming of dismantling it.

We are seeing similar attempts of counteracting presidential policies with regards to China.

On May 11 during trade talks between the U.S. and China in Geneva both sides agreed to calm things down:

Both sides reduced their tariffs. China also promised to reduce some of its non tariff measures:

China will [..] adopt all necessary administrative measures to suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025.

The financial markets relaxed and everyone was happy about it.

But on May 14, the very same day the new rules were to apply, the U.S. introduced new and extremely harsh measures against Chinese products:

The US Commerce Department issued guidance stating that the use of Huawei Technologies Co’s Ascend artificial intelligence (AI) chips “anywhere in the world” violates the government’s export controls, escalating US efforts to curb technological advances in China.

The agency’s Bureau of Industry and Security said in a statement on Tuesday that it is also planning to warn the public about “the potential consequences of allowing US AI chips to be used for training and inference of Chinese AI models”.

While this may not have been a technical breach of the Geneva agreement it certainly violated the spirit of the agreed upon Joint Statement: …

In consequence China continued to withhold export licensees for rare earth products which U.S. industries need. Trump was furious about this but seemingly without understanding what had caused China to take that step.

On Thursday a phone called between Trump and President Xi tried to calm things down (archived).

The two leaders, speaking for the first time since Trump became president, agreed to another round of high-level trade talks to follow up on the truce reached in Geneva last month, and exchanged invitations for state visits.
…
Trump said on Truth Social “there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products,” but the Chinese readout didn’t mention the issue.

On Friday, just a day after the president’s attempt to calm down trade issues with China, four deep state actors set out to again sabotage him:

The U.S. in recent days suspended licenses for nuclear equipment suppliers to sell to China’s power plants, according to four people familiar with the matter, as the two countries engage in a damaging trade war.

The suspensions were sent to companies by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the people said, and affect export licenses for parts and equipment used with nuclear power plants.
…
Nuclear equipment suppliers are among a wide range of companies whose sales have been restricted over the past two weeks as the U.S.-China trade war shifted from negotiating tariffs to throttling each other’s supply chains. It is unclear whether a Thursday call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would affect the suspensions.

Why, just a day after Trump’s call with Xi, did ‘four people familiar with the matter’ found it necessary to inform Reuters of this?

This is, like the withholding of information on CIA operations in Russia, a measure to embarrass the president in eyes U.S. opponents. It is also an obvious attempt to sabotage trade with China.

The Chinese will note that the president’s words get counteracted by his administration. Why should they even talk with him when he is not able to impose his own policies on the people who are supposedly working for him?

In consequence U.S. companies will have wo wait longer to be allowed to purchase the rare earth products they urgently need and can only get from China.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post The Deep State Is Still Sabotaging Presidential Policies appeared first on LewRockwell.

The spectacle that unfolded late this week between Donald Trump and Elon Musk represents more than a collision of egos. What we saw emerge from their respective social media platforms on Thursday was a seismic fracture in the foundation of America’s populist revival.

The repercussions threaten to scatter—across the battlefield of petty grievances and wounded pride—a center-right coalition that delivered victory last fall. Likewise, this public demolition of what once appeared an unshakeable alliance reveals the nature of movements built on personality rather than principle.

These things are fragile.

Once, thanks to social networking, these fault lines were shown denuded, members of Trump’s base are now left to wonder if his second term will deliver on The Donald’s multitude of campaign promises or if a second term will characteristically devolve into the familiar chaos of Washington infighting.

The arc of the Trump–Musk relationship reads like a political tragedy penned by Shakespeare. At hand: two towering figures whose shared ambitions elevated them to unprecedented heights before their very natures doomed them to mutual destruction.

In November 2016, Musk remarked that Trump “doesn’t seem to have the sort of character that reflects well on the United States,” yet over time, their common objectives forged an unexpected partnership that reshaped American politics.

This transformation unfolded slowly at first… then all at once. During the first Trump administration, Musk served on economic advisory councils before departing over climate policy disagreements. While we didn’t know it then, this served as a preview of the ideological fissures that would later tear their partnership asunder.

Curiously, by 2024, Musk had become Trump’s most valuable ally—pouring millions into America PAC, attending rallies with the fervor of a convert, and lending the megaphone of his platform to amplify the populist message. Once skeptical, the tech mogul’s endorsement after the Butler, Pennsylvania assassination attempt on Trump represented his full embrace of the MAGA movement, transforming him from hesitant observer to committed participant.

Once Trump regained the White House, their honeymoon period resembled something from a political fairy tale. Musk practically took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, sharing late-night Häagen-Dazs sessions with the president and bringing his son “Little X” to scamper through the Oval Office.

The bond appeared genuine. For here were two disruptors who conquered their respective domains and found common cause against the establishment they both despised. Trump appointed Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), brandishing that golden key as symbol of trust bestowed upon his most essential ally.

But Washington has a way of corrupting even the purest intentions. The very proximity that bred intimacy also fostered friction. Musk’s grandiose promises to slash $2 trillion from federal spending quickly proved as inflated as his initial Tesla production targets.

The reality of governance—messy, incremental, and constrained by administrative prerogatives—clashed with Musk’s Silicon Valley sensibilities. Tensions mounted over tariff policy, Cabinet disputes, and staff conflicts until Trump privately confessed his weariness with the Tesla CEO.

The breaking point arrived not with dramatic confrontation but bureaucratic disappointment. When Musk’s handpicked candidate for NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, faced congressional resistance over past Democratic donations, Trump unceremoniously withdrew the nomination. For Musk, whose sheer will often reshapes the physical world around him, this marked a profound betrayal—a clear indication that Trump was prepared to impose limits on his power.

The surface explanation for this spectacular falling-out centers on Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” —the massive spending and tax legislation that Musk denounced as a “disgusting abomination” filled with “outrageous” pork. Yet this policy disagreement merely provided the spark for a conflagration fueled by deeper motivations rooted in wounded pride, threatened profits, and irreconcilable differences over the direction of America’s future.

For Musk, the bill represented a triple assault on his interests and ideology. The legislation eliminates electric vehicle tax credits that have proven essential to Tesla’s market dominance. One analyst called it a potential “death blow” to the company’s sales.

Beyond financial considerations, the bill’s massive spending increases violated Musk’s publicly stated commitment to fiscal responsibility, making him appear either hypocritical or powerless within Trump’s inner circle. Most galling, the rejection of his NASA nominee demonstrated that his vaunted influence had practical limits—a humiliation for someone accustomed to radically altering entire industries through determination alone.

Some argue, perhaps dubiously, that Trump’s motivation reveals the calculating mind of a master politician protecting his legacy and authority.

What is clear, though, is that the president did recognize Musk’s presence had become a liability. For instance, the negative comments from Musk to some of his fellow CEOs about tariffs undermined administration messaging, while some of the DOGE cuts even angered Republicans dependent on government services.

Fundamentally, Trump appears to understand that sharing the spotlight with another larger-than-life figure diminishes his own commanding presence.

The decision to ease Musk toward the exit represented pragmatic governance rather than personal animosity. That was until Musk’s public attacks transformed measured distance into open warfare.

The deeper impulse driving both men involves their competing visions of American renewal. Trump’s populism draws its strength from appealing to forgotten Americans whose concerns transcend the technocratic solutions favored by Silicon Valley moguls. Musk’s vision, rooted in technological disruption and global markets, ultimately serves elite interests despite his populist posturing.

This fundamental tension—between Trump’s America First patriotism and Musk’s borderless capitalism—made their eventual separation inevitable.

The public nature of this breakdown has forced allies and opportunists alike to choose sides, revealing the true architecture of power within what is broadly interpreted as the “conservative movement.” The responses illuminate not merely personal loyalties but competing theories of how populist politics should evolve in Trump’s second term.

Vice President JD Vance emerged as Trump’s most articulate defender, though his carefully calibrated response revealed the delicate balance required when managing feuding titans. Vance’s declared that Musk made a “huge mistake” in attacking Trump. This demonstrated his loyalty to the president while maintaining diplomatic language that still may leave room for eventual reconciliation with Musk.

By articulating that continued conflict “will be bad for the country” and his hope that Musk might “come back into the fold,” this also suggests other administration officials have likely recognized the high stakes involved in this dispute.

Vance’s position carries particular significance given his own complex relationship with both principal actors. Vance’s pre-political career included criticism of Trump, while his time in Silicon Valley created a natural affinity with Musk’s disruptive approach.

The measured response by Vance—defending Trump while avoiding gratuitous attacks on Musk—demonstrates the sophisticated political instincts that made him Trump’s chosen successor. When shown Musk’s explosive accusation linking Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, Vance’s immediate dismissal as “totally false” revealed the clear lines he will not allow enemies to cross.

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon’s response showcased populism’s more militant wing. Bannon called for Trump to seize Musk’s SpaceX under the Defense Production Act and to revoke Musk’s security clearance. This scorched-earth approach reflects Bannon’s longstanding skepticism of tech billionaires bearing gifts, viewing Musk as an elite interloper who never truly embraced populist principles.

Bannon’s prediction that Musk “won’t be forgiven by MAGA supporters” may represent wishful thinking, but it also reveals his own desire to purge the movement of uncomfortable allies.

The business community’s response proved more nuanced. Figures like liberal Trump ally Bill Ackman called for an outright reconciliation “for the sake of our nation” —a plea that Musk acknowledged with characteristic ambiguity. Wall Street’s brutal punishment of Tesla stock, quickly erasing $152 billion in value, demonstrated that markets view this feud as an authentic threat to Musk’s empire.

Financial pressure may ultimately prove more persuasive than political appeals when it comes to bringing the combatants to terms.

Furthermore, the role of JD Vance in this drama extends far beyond simple loyalty tests or diplomatic messaging. His response offered critical insights into how a potential future president might navigate the complex relationship between populist politics and technological power. Vance’s careful calibration suggests someone thinking beyond immediate controversies toward longer-term coalition management.

The vice president’s background uniquely positions him to understand both sides of this conflict. His venture capital experience in Silicon Valley provided intimate knowledge of how tech moguls think and operate, while his populist conversion gives him credibility with Trump’s base.

Vance’s analysis suggests that Musk’s behavior is shaped more by a lack of political experience than by any deep-rooted opposition to conservative or populist ideals. This more charitable view ensures that, while still unlikely at this point, a future alliance remains on the table.

When Vance handled Musk’s most incendiary accusation—the claim that Trump appears in Jeffrey Epstein files—it demonstrated both loyalty and strategic thinking. Rather than simply dismissing the charge, Vance used it to highlight media bias against Trump while positioning himself as defender of traditional principles against elite character assassination.

This response serves multiple purposes: defending his boss, delegitimizing future attacks, and establishing his own credentials as the potential guardian and inheritor of the MAGA movement.

Adding to the intrigue, Vance’s expressed hope that Musk might “come back into the fold” suggests someone thinking about coalition building beyond Trump’s presidency. At 40 years of age, Vance represents the future in right-of-center politics, and his reluctance to completely burn bridges with the world’s richest man reveals calculating ambition wrapped in diplomatic language.

This positioning could prove crucial if Trump’s feud with Musk does indeed damage their relationship permanently. Vance will emerge as the bridge between different factions within the broader movement encompassing Republican and populist circles.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Great Unraveling, Continued… How America’s Most Powerful Alliance Collapsed in 72 Hours appeared first on LewRockwell.

The silence of the bears will soon be ended and we will know more about Russian resolve.

Russia’s leadership is in ‘conclave’ determining its riposte.

Trump has been silent for two days. Unprecedented. In the last days, Ukraine and its facilitators attempted a massive attack on Russia’s strategic nuclear bomber-force; succeeded in collapsing two bridges onto civilian trains heading to Moscow; attacking the Kerch Bridge; and assassinating a Russian general via explosive body bomb.

As Clausewitz noted two centuries ago, the point of military force is to compel an outcome: i.e. that an adversary finally does what is wanted of him. Thus, in respect to military adventures there is need for clarity of thought from the outset. It must have a realisable political objective that has a prospect to be implemented.

What then, was the objective behind these Ukrainian ‘irregular’ attacks? One certainly was demonstrative – PR exercises to say that Ukraine and allied services are still capable of mounting special forces style, innovative operations. And are therefore worthy of continued support. As Colonel Doug Macgregor cautions:

“For the most part it was a PR stunt to try and convey the impression that Ukraine is capable of carrying on the war. Anything you hear from the Western outlets … are probably untrue or at least grossly exaggerated … We damaged ourselves and our relationship – what there is left of it – with Moscow … that’s the real fallout from this”.

Okay. But PR stunts are no strategy, nor do the attacks hold any prospect for a shift in the overall strategic military paradigm. It doesn’t say that the West or Ukraine has suddenly discovered a political strategy towards Russia per se. That doesn’t exist. For the most part, the innumerable western declarations come as a hodge-podge of fantasies.

The second objective however, may indeed have had a clear strategic end-state – and has demonstrated feasibility and the possibility to compel a desired outcome: The various attacks have imposed on Trump the uncomfortable reality that he, as President, does not control U.S. foreign policy. The collective Deep State has just made that plain.

As General Mike Flynn has warned:

“The Deep State is now acting outside of the control of the elected leadership of our nation … These persons in our Deep State are engaged in a deliberate effort to provoke Russia into a major confrontation with the West, including the United States”.

In effect, the likes of Generals Keith Kellogg and Jack Keane, with their adolescent narratives that only through pressure, more pressure and pain will compel Putin (always presumed to be weak) to accept a frozen conflict in the hope that it can obvert from an American defeat in Ukraine.

The British during WW2 similarly believed that the Nazi regime was not strong, and could be overthrown by strategic bombing, intended to bring about the collapse of German society. Today, General Kellogg advocates ‘bombing’ Russia with sanctions – mirroring the British conviction that such tactics ‘must be bad for morale’.

Trump’s advice from his Generals either did not meet the criterion of political realism – because it was based on fantasies of incipient Russian collapse and a hopeless misreading of Russia and its Army. Or perhaps his Advisers, either inadvertently or deliberately, ‘shafted’ Trump and his agenda of normalising relations with Russia.

What will Trump say now to Putin? That he was indeed forewarned (recall his writing just days ago that “bad things – if it were not for me – I mean REALLY BAD things would already have happened to Russia”) and claim that his advisers did not give him the full details; or will he candidly admit that they deceived him? Alternatively, will he take the line that the CIA was merely operating to an old Presidential ‘Finding’ that authorised attacks into the depth of the Russian hinterland?

All such putative answers would spell one thing – that Trump is not in control. That he and his European allies (such as Britain) cannot be trusted.

Either way, Trump’s advisers will have understood that Zelensky and by extension his NATO enablers, were exploiting the SALT/START Treaties’ vulnerability – in order to use concealed drones, hidden in civilian containers, to attack the very bombers covered by USA-Russia treaties: Article XII of the START treaty specifically requires “a display in the open of all heavy bombers within the airbase”. This provision was a confidence building act (visible monitoring) to guard against a surprise ‘first strike’ nuclear attack.

START 1 cut long-range or strategic nuclear arsenals by 30-40 percent. New START slashed accountable deployed strategic arms by another three-quarters. In 2021, Presidents Biden and Putin extended New START until February 2026.

Of course, these unidentified enablers understood the gravity of striking the strategic nuclear force of a major rival nuclear weapons power.

How would the U.S. respond if an adversary (perhaps a non-state actor) launched a strike against strategic long-range nuclear capable bombers in the USA using cheap and easily available drones hidden in containers? We are in a new era of risk – one in which pagers and cell phones can be weaponised as bombs – and of ‘sleeper’ drones that can be remotely activated to attack airfields, either civilian or military.

Larry Johnson has observed that after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941, intended to destroy the U.S. aircraft carriers berthed there, the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto reportedly said the following in the aftermath of Japan’s great victory at Pearl Harbour: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve … We have won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbour and thereby lost the war”.

The silence of the bears will soon be ended and we will know more about Russian resolve; but a relationship in which Trump is understood to ‘mean what he says, and does what he says’ likely is over. The Russians are furious.

What happens next is unknown.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post The Silence of the Bears appeared first on LewRockwell.

Where have all the globalists gone? Yes, unfortunately they’re still out there free when they should be rotting in a frozen gulag or fertilizing an unmarked field somewhere.  I get that.  However, if you’ve been tracking the elitist cabal as long as I have you might have noticed a sudden and abrupt shift in public activity among the most prominent globalist institutions.

From at least 2019 onward the mask had come completely off. The elites were flooding western media with woke propaganda through their NGO operations. You couldn’t go anywhere without being bombarded with multiculturalism, DEI and LGBT nonsense. There was a clear attempt to engineer a massive cultural shift in the western world; an expedited progressive coup.

Conservatives were relentlessly targeted as “insurrectionists” and a “threat to democracy”. Pandemic hysteria opened the door to an array of mandates as well as legislation designed to erase constitutional protections in the name of “health safety”. The plan was openly admitted: An endless cycle of covid lockdowns and vaccine passports. A perpetual loop of medical tyranny. Globalists were ecstatic, reveling in the fear and calling for the implementation of forced vaccinations, covid tracking apps and even covid camps for people who refused to comply.

In the midst of the frenzy the WEF and other organizations pushed their economic agenda, asserting that the world needed to go cashless, that carbon controls and “climate lockdowns” needed to become normalized.  They wanted what they called a “Great Reset” of the global financial framework. Everything was admitted, they barely tried to hide their intentions. It was the New World Order we “conspiracy” analysts had been warning about for decades.

In the past they would mention details of the plan in obscure white papers or in moments of unguarded discussion. Over the past five years the globalists were essentially dancing in the streets and advertising the NWO for all too see. Why? Because they thought they had already won.

Fast forward to 2025 – The covid mandates and lockdowns are defeated and abandoned. The multicultural invasion is being reversed with a majority of the American population in support of secure borders and deportations. Bans on the transing of kids are being established across the US and LGBT propaganda is being removed from schools. DOGE and Trump instituted cuts which have greatly damaged the government-to-NGO revolving door (which is why many DEI programs are disappearing).

BLM is dead. Pride Month is a dud (so far). Covid is being exposed as the nothingburger it always was. The climate change agenda is fading. The masses are generally suspicious of organizations like the WEF and no one supports a cashless CBDC based system. The globalist ideal has been relegated to the garbage heap and we didn’t even need to fire a shot. Is this what winning looks like?

Not quite.

We have won the information war in the US (for the most part). Europe is taking longer, but conservatives movements are gaining ground; so much ground, in fact, that the elites are arresting people for speech, not to mention arresting their political opponents for being right leaning. This is a sign of panic, not power.

The globalists flew too close to the sun too fast and they got burned. Nearly every major elitist institution has stopped openly promoting “Great Reset” related policies. They’ve limited their media interviews and their think tanks have stopped releasing revealing white papers. Some globalists have suggested in media encounters that globalism is dead. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink even used a Financial Times op-ed to argue that “globalization is over”.

I’ve never seen them back off from their agenda so completely, and I’m highly suspicious of the radio silence.

As I warned in my article ‘World War III Is Now Inevitable – Here’s Why It Can’t Be Avoided’, the globalist plan for a Bolshevik coup has failed, but this only means they will move on to more historically predictable tactics. Meaning, exponential economic crisis and world war.

European political leaders have made it nearly impossible to negotiate a legitimate ceasefire in Ukraine because they continue to give Kyiv hope that NATO will step in with boots on the ground. Even if the US completely pulls all support, the Ukrainians believe Europe will fill the gap. This is ridiculous, of course; the EU has no capacity to fight an attrition war with the Russians and they are much more likely to trigger a nuclear event than liberate Ukraine.

What concerns me more, though, is a specific strategy being used by NATO and Kyiv:  I’m talking about the deliberate targeting of Russian nuclear infrastructure. This has been an ongoing problem since the beginning of the conflict and it seems to me as if the elites WANT some kind of catastrophic escalation.

Ukraine has used multiple drone attacks to strike nuclear power plants, including its OWN Zaporizhzhia and Chernobyl plants. The Kursk offensive (now failed) pushed towards a nuclear power plant in the region and Russia accused Ukraine of trying to hit the plant with drones. In early 2024, Ukraine long range drone and missile attacks hit two separate Russian “over the horizon” early warning nuclear radar installations.

The Voronezh-DM stations were positioned outside the city of Orsk and the region of Krasnodar (Armavir); far away from the front lines in Ukraine. I warned about this development in June of last year in my article ‘False Flag On The Horizon? The Strange Case Of The Destroyed Russian Nuclear Radar’.

This past week confirmed my suspicions when Ukraine initiated a complex covert strike on a base holding Russian long range bombers. These bombers were primarily nuclear readiness aircraft and are not generally used to launch FABs or other weapons against Ukrainian targets. The attack could not have been achieved without NATO aid and once again follows the odd pattern of targeting Russian nuclear infrastructure.

There are two obvious dangers attached to this scenario: First, Russia responds with a devastating bombardment of population centers to prove the strike on the bombers did nothing to prevent them from hitting Ukrainian cities from afar. Second, Russia assumes that NATO’s plan is to weaken their nuclear readiness in preparation for European troops entering the war, or in preparation for a nuclear exchange.

In either case, WWIII is the result. Establishment commentators have tried to spin the bomber attack as a Ukrainian victory without consequence, but they deliberately omit the primary purpose of the aircraft.  Best case scenario, Russia pounds a few Ukrainian cities with massive ordnance. At worst, the nuclear threat becomes tangible and we edge towards a missile exchange.

I continue to believe that the globalists want to avoid full spectrum nuclear war.  Why would they deliberately vaporize the very control grid it took them decades to build?  But I do think we will see a limited nuclear event in the near future (perhaps a limited nuke event in Ukraine).

The continuing attacks on nuke related armaments and infrastructure suggest to me an attempt by Kyiv and NATO to create a situation so chaotic that it opens the door to troop deployments and direct confrontation with Moscow before anyone can catch up to what is happening.

Without war, the globalists have nothing. Maybe they can pull off an economic crisis (all the pieces are certainly in place), but in a vacuum they could get the blame. War offers a valuable distraction for the masses and an ever adaptable scapegoat. People broke and starving? Well, that’s just war. The dollar crashing? Currencies are at risk during war. Freedoms being curtailed? Hey, people need to set aside their liberties for the sake of “security”.

There’s a reason why multi-nation wars almost always occur just after historic economic declines.  The two crises feed into each other, but the wars also provide cover for extensive centralization schemes.  Each successive world war brings us a step closer to world government and a centrally controlled global economic system.

The globalists in Europe are doing everything in their power to prolong the conflagration. They know Ukraine is never going to get their lost territory back. They know that Russia is generating a massive breakout on the front lines in the east. They have no peace plan. Their purpose is to force a direct confrontation between NATO forces and Russian troops. It’s the only explanation for the attacks on Russian nuclear armaments. It’s a provocation designed to end all chances of a ceasefire and take the war to the next level.

The unsettling quiet from normally boisterous NWO reps within think tanks and the media suggests to me that a memo has been posted from on high.  All other programs have been scrapped and all eyes are on Ukraine and Russia.  Perhaps the globalists have suddenly gone quiet because they’ve set Plan B in motion, and this time they don’t want any of their people talking out of turn until total war is accomplished?

As the old saying goes, loose lips sink ships…

Of course, there’s always the chance we see escalation in Iran, or a Chinese move on Taiwan.  There are more than a few precarious powder kegs in place right now.  The elitists are mostly tight lipped about it, but an inordinate amount of financial and political energy is flowing into the region.  It’s clear that the next couple of months will be highly unstable as tensions mount.

Diplomatic pathways are fading fast.

Most likely scenario?  Ukraine cities get hammered in a relentless Russian bombardment and Europe vows to deploy its forces to intervene.  Even if Trump cuts off all US ties to Ukraine and walks away, there’s little that can be done to prevent the disaster that comes next.

It’s not necessarily a scorched earth option for the globalists, but it certainly seems like a last resort – Conjuring a calamity big enough to distract the masses while total centralization is instituted.  I’m not saying the plan will work, I’m just saying that this is their most viable strategy.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Globalists Go Radio Silent as NATO Flirts With World War III appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this article, I will focus on one my major frustrations with the medical system—the war against salt.

Note: the war against salt began in 1977 when a Senate Committee published dietary guidelines arguing for reduced sodium consumption despite the existing evidence not supporting this. Since then, like many other bad policies, it has developed an nearly unstoppable inertia of its own.

Is Salt Bad For You?

Many people you ask, particularly those in the medical field will tell you salt is bad, and one of the most common pieces of health advice given both inside and outside of medicine is to eat less salt.

Over the years, I’ve heard two main arguments for why salt is bad for you.

First, salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is deadly, so salt is too and should be avoided.

Second, with individuals who have heart failure, eating too many salty foods will create exacerbations of their condition, and as a result, after holidays where people eat those foods (e.g., the 4th of July) more heart failure patients will be admitted to hospitals for heart failure exacerbations.

Note: excessive sodium causes these exacerbations because an excess amount of fluid accumulates in the body (e.g., because the weakened heart can’t move enough blood to the kidneys to eliminate it), which then overloads other parts of the body (e.g., causing swelling and edema, which, if in the lungs, can be life threatening).

Because of these two things, many in the medical field assume that salt must be bad for you and hence strongly urge patients to avoid it (to the point you often see an elderly patient who loves her salt be aggressively pushed into abandoning it). Unfortunately, the logic behind those two arguments logic is less solid than it appears.

Many things in medicine resulted from what approach to patient care was the most profitable, not the most helpful. In turn, since recurring revenue is a foundational principle of successful businesses, a key goal in medicine often ends up being to have as many patients as possible be on lifelong prescriptions.

In most cases, the drugs that are developed and approved have real value for specific situations, but those situations are not enough to cover the exorbitant cost it requires to get a drug to market. As a result, once drugs are approved, the industry will gradually come up with reasons to give them to more and more people and in turn quickly arrive at the point where many of their customers have greater harm than benefit from the pharmaceutical.

One classic way this is done is by creating a drug that treats a number, asserting that the number has to be within a certain range for someone to be healthy, and then once that is enshrined, narrow and narrow the acceptable range so less and less people are “healthy” and hence need the drug (e.g., this happened with cholesterol once statins were invested). Likewise, this characterizes the history of blood pressure management:

Because of this, many people (particularly the elderly) are frequently pushed to excessively low blood pressures which reduces critical blood perfusion for the organs . This then makes them significantly more likely to get a variety of significant issues (e.g., kidney injuries, cognitive impairment, macular degeneration), the most studied of which is lightheadedness or fainting leading to (often devastating) falls. Additionally, blood pressure medications also often greatly reduce one’s quality of life (e.g., by causing fatigue or erectile dysfunction).

Note: for those interested in learning more about the great blood pressure scam (a lot of what we’re taught about blood pressure is less than accurate), it can be read here.

The Great Blood Pressure Scam

Low Sodium

A corner stone of cementing the blood pressure market has been to make everyone terrified of salt (much in the same way making people terrified of the sun is a cornerstone of the lucrative skin cancer treatment market—despite the fact the deadly skin cancers are actually due to a lack of sunlight).

Remarkably, much like the great dermatology scam (which has been able to make a massive amount of money from removing cancers that almost never become life threatening) the link between blood pressure and salt consumption is actual quite tenuous.

For example, the most detailed review of this subject found that drastic salt reduction typically results in less than a 1% reduction in blood pressure. Likewise, doctors rarely recognize that patients in the hospital are routinely given large amounts of IV 0.9% sodium chloride, in many cases receiving ten times the daily recommended sodium chloride we are supposed to consume—yet their blood pressure often barely rises.

Note: some people and certain ethnicities are salt sensitive and will experience greater increases in blood pressure consuming salt (but this does not apply to the majority of the population).

Despite this, patients are often pushed to eliminate all (or almost all) salt from their life. Beyond this significantly reducing their quality of life (as people like salty foods) it can be dangerous. For example:

• A study of 181 countries found countries with lower salt consumption have shorter life expentancies.

• Low sodium levels (hyponatremia) are strongly correlated with a risk of dying (e.g., the salt consumption target we are recommended to follow increases one’s risk of dying by 25%). Likewise, a common reason for hospital admissions, are symptoms resulting from hyponatremia (as once sodium levels get too low, it can be very dangerous), and 15-20% of hospitalized patients have low sodium levels at admission.
Note: mild hyponatremia is also associated with an increased risk of death.

• Reduced salt consumption, not suprisingly, increases one’s risk of hyponatremia (e.g., one study one study found salt restriction made hypertensive patients 9.9 times more likely to develop hyponatremia).
Note: many blood pressure and psychiatric medications put you at risk for dangerously low sodium levels (e.g., SSRI antidepressants make you 3.16 times more likely to). Additionally, certain patients (e.g., those with with autonomic nervous issues) are much more sensitive to salt restriction causing hypotension (low blood pressure).

• Low dietary sodium intake causes a 34% increase in cardiovascular disease and death.

• Rapidly lowering blood sodium levels reduces cardiac output and blood pressure in a manner resembling traumatic shock (which frequently raises the heart rate as the heart tries to compensate for insufficient blood). Low salt consumption, in turn, has been repeatedly linked to tachycardia (and atrial fibrillation).
Note: aging kidneys have a reduced ability to respond to changes in blood sodium levels (putting them at greater risk for hyponatremia following sodium deprivation).

• Many have reported discovering low salt consumption was the cause of their fatigue and lightheadedness (which has also been proven in a clinical trial which treated postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome with increasing dietary sodium).
Note: chronically low blood pressure (e.g., POTS) has been shown to be one cause of chronic fatigue syndrome,1,2 and POTS is often treated with increased dietary sodium.

• Chronic sodium depletion has been linked to fatigue and insomnia.

Note: a variety of other health issues (e.g., worsening of diabetes or a stomach hydrochloric acid deficiency) have also been linked to insufficient dietary sodium.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Truth About Salt appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have never understood why rioters, protestors, whatever you want to call them, burn people’s cars.  Insurance seldom covers  such events.  Violent protests harm innocents.

I also don’t understand why the National Guard is called out as they are not permitted to use their weapons.  Try to imagine the National Guard using deadly force to break up looting and burning of property.  In America the defense of property and livelihood plays second fiddle to the lives of criminals.  Property can be protected only as long as the criminals stealing and damaging it are not harmed.

It seems to me that Hispanics have taken back California.  We might as well cede the state back to Mexico.  America, or what is left of it, would be better off as California is a main source of Woke, left-wing, anti-white influence.  America would be much better off without California.  The Democrat governor of California says that the immigrant-invaders are “his people, his community.” See this.

Indeed, the argument can be made that immigrant-invaders who have been permitted to live in the US for a number of years now have  roots in America and squatters’ rights to citizenship. Squatters’ rights–the legal term is adverse possession–has long been a legitimate legal concept. Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to acquire title to real property by continuously occupying it without the owner’s permission for a statutorily defined period. The non-enforcement of borders creates squatters’ rights. There is little doubt that courts would include citizenship as a right of adverse possession.

Without a border a country is just an open area to which anyone can come.  Other states and cities under Democrat control want citizenship given to whoever walks across the non-existing border.  

For now the forces rising to the defense of immigrant-invaders are limited to a small area of Los Angeles.  If the deportation attempts continue, the opposition can spread and become more violent.  White Democrats will join the rising simply because they oppose Trump.

Perhaps a more promising approach would be to encourage the enculturation of immigrant-invaders, transforming them into Americans with American mores, behavior, and language, and with Christianity supported instead of attacked.  The entire race thing which demonizes white Americans would have to be dropped or suppressed along with multiculturalism which the Democrat left-wing has used for divisive purposes.  If the Democrats succeed with their agenda, which Trump’s attempted deportations might be helping, the immigrant invaders will become hostile opponents instead of fellow citizens.  The border would have to be closed to give enculturation time, and legal immigration would have to be halted or slowed to a trickle.  It perhaps is late in the game for this to succeed.  Indeed, it seems that left-wing intellectuals want America’s destruction, not its preservation.

Decades ago President Reagan faced the problem caused by the need by agribusiness and California fruit and vegetable growers and US chicken processors for labor that US citizens did not want to undertake.  Agri-business interests persuaded the Reagan administration to amnesty millions of illegals.  But nothing was done about the border.  Consequently, now the problem is much worse.

It is impossible to have a nation without borders as the nation dissolves into a Tower of Babel, the ever-closer fate of all Western countries.  The US no longer consists of  European ethnicities and enculturated American blacks.  Today there are large and growing populations of Hispanics, Asians, Arabs.  The language and religious base of the country is decaying.  There is no doubt that the United States is transforming into a Tower of Babel. See this.

When you look at the news photos and videos, it is interesting that so many white Americans are in the streets claiming California for immigrant-invaders.

It is likely that America is already lost.  Deportation of millions of illegals is impossible. Israel can’t get rid of 2 million Palestinians with bombs and bullets and is having to impose starvation and disease.  America’s illegals will end up with amnesty.  As soon as the Establishment gets rid of Trump, the border will be reopened.  Jean Raspail’s prediction for the  fate of the Western World is locked into place.  European ethnicities have pissed away their existence.  All Western ethnicities should be labeled “endangered species.”

The post The Camp of the Saints appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week’s dramatic blowout between President Trump and his one-time top collaborator Elon Musk was shocking yet predictable. According to media reports, a cold war had been brewing between Musk’s people and Trump’s appointees and it was bound to break out into the open. It was only a matter of time.

On the campaign trail, Musk provided much energy and helped ramp up enthusiasm for Donald Trump. His support for Trump made him a lightning rod for Trump-haters and he saw his personal wealth take a hit for his troubles.

After Trump’s victory, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project was truly revolutionary. Americans were able to see up close and in real time just how government operates. Not only did the billions and trillions of dollars spent by the federal government not achieve the stated goals, but much of the spending actually harmed the United States.

Americans were able to see that the “aid” they send overseas does not provide food and relief for those suffering through disasters but is actually used to create a global US empire encompassing everything from the media to military spending to non-profits.

Once USAID was targeted by DOGE, for example, we learned that 90 percent of the “independent” media in Ukraine was US government controlled. Other countries chimed in to say that much of their own “independent” media is propped up by the US government.

Foreign “journalists” paid by the US government are going to publish what the US government wants to be published. That is one reason Americans to this day are so ill-informed about Ukraine and what started the war. For example, how many Americans know that their own government staged a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that directly led to the disaster we have seen these past three years?

The message was there for anyone who wanted to see it: The United States is being undermined by a government that demands the right to intervene in every aspect of our lives – and of the lives of everyone on the planet. It is not sustainable.

In the end it was Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that broke it all apart.

The US House served up a massive funding bill that, as usual, blew up the national debt with more spending and promised that sometime down the road spending cuts would kick in and we would start saving money. We’ve seen this movie many times before.

In a post seen by over a hundred million people on his social media platform X, Elon Musk finally could hold his tongue no longer. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” he wrote. Within hours this break escalated seemingly beyond the point of no return and the Trump/Musk split was seemingly finalized.

Musk was no-doubt frustrated that despite all of the work he and his team did to uncover government waste, he hit a brick wall in a Washington that recoils from any attempt to shrink its size and level of interference in our lives.

Can Trump and Musk “make up” and find a way to work together in the future? After the smoke has cleared we can only hope for a return to the principles of DOGE and the idea that current levels of spending and debt are unsustainable. Surely both men can agree on that.

The post Can Trump and Musk Make Up? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Contrary to what we thought in 1991, the fall of the “American Empire” will not resemble that of the USSR. Washington’s Western European allies intend to perpetuate it, with or without their leader. It follows that President Donald Trump will abandon them in the cold.
After decoupling the United States from the “revisionist Zionists” in power in Israel, President Trump is decoupling it from NATO and the European Union: he no longer wants his country to have anything to do with the “American Empire” and its hired guns, the Ukrainian “integral nationalists.”

After decoupling the United States from Israel  [ 1 ] , Donald Trump began to decouple it from the European Union. As with Israel, he initially gave the impression of giving carte blanche to EU members and the UK, and then began the undocking.

Remember: President Trump allowed Western leaders to convince themselves that they could fight Russia in Ukraine alone. At numerous meetings in Paris, London, and Kyiv, EU and UK leaders made every effort to announce that they would together ensure the continent’s security against the danger of a “Russian invasion.” They considered placing all their nations under the British and French nuclear umbrellas, rather than the US one. They envisioned a continental war against Russia and a reorganization of alliances around the UK, France, Germany, and Poland.

And then: nothing. The United States has suspended its coordination with the EU  [ 2 ] . They no longer consult each other about the unilateral coercive measures they are taking against Russia. The 17th package of EU “sanctions” was the last one agreed in Brussels with Washington. The 18th will be agreed alone. It is announced that it will be of an unprecedented size, but without the United States, it is already doomed to failure.

The United States has observed within the Council of Europe the preparation of an “international criminal tribunal to judge Russian crimes in Ukraine”, but they are keeping aloof from it  [ 3 ] . In their eyes, this jurisdiction makes no sense. The criminal tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo had followed the Allied victory over Nazism, but this one anticipates the victory of the Ukrainian “integral nationalists”, collaborators with the Nazis, over Russia. It has not been validated by the United Nations and has no chance of being so, given the Russian right of veto.

Today, the United Kingdom and the EU must face the facts. They lack the military means to back up their policies. They have become entrenched in their contradictions, denouncing the Ukrainian collateral losses of the Russian special military operation, while remaining satisfied with the much greater Palestinian collateral losses of the Israeli war against Hamas. They have themselves distanced themselves from the United States, which they have failed to take seriously.

They have one weapon left: confiscating the Russian assets they have already frozen. This would allow Ukraine to rebuild without having to pay for it themselves. However, confiscating assets for political reasons violates property rights. Such a decision would be irreversible. It is only possible in times of war against an enemy. Confiscating these assets, therefore, amounts to declaring war on an enemy several times more powerful than the UK and the EU combined.

Apart from the fact that their armies would not last two days in a war against Russia, the EU would then scare all its partners on the planet: if it is possible to confiscate Russian assets, why would Brussels stop there and not also confiscate the assets of states that have not condemned Russia?

Let’s understand what’s happening. President Donald Trump had announced that he was demanding that all allies devote 5% of their GDP to military spending. Since this figure was impossible to achieve—it would require a doubling of spending—the United States’ withdrawal from NATO’s integrated command was predictable. At the same time, the president had repeatedly asserted that the European Union was created to harm the United States, while the EU is the civilian component of the “American Empire,” of which NATO is the military component. Now, after recognizing that neither the United Kingdom nor the EU are capable of challenging the “American Empire,” that their leaders are dependent on the “American Empire” to the detriment of their citizens, and that they refuse to be free and independent, Washington is cutting ties with them.

On February 14, at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President JD Vance warned the UK and the EU. He said: “The threat I’m most concerned about to Europe is not Russia. It’s not China. It’s not another external actor. What I’m concerned about is the threat from within—Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values ​​that are shared with the United States of America.”

Note that Donald Trump is not attacking Western Europeans. He is simply letting them drift in pursuit of a pipe dream.

For those, like me, who have been envisioning the dissolution of NATO and the EU since the Soviet Union, this is a step forward. But for British subjects and European citizens, it is a catastrophe. In the coming months, we will witness the reconciliation of the United States and Russia. Everything that has shaped our way of thinking will be thrown out the window. The time has come for Westerners to replace their elites and rethink their societies. They are completely unprepared for this.

While in 1991 we envisioned the dissolution of the “American Empire” like that of the USSR, we see that President Donald Trump intends to achieve a completely different scenario. Like Mikhail Gorbachev, he wants to bring his country back to its fundamentals ( Make America Great Again! ), but his European allies, for their part, intend to prolong this Empire.

In Brussels, the EU administration still hasn’t accepted this cowboy. It hopes he’ll be assassinated soon or lose the midterm elections and be forced to fall into line. In a way, what’s happening today is the end of the Cold War, when NATO’s stay-behind services made and unmade Western European governments. EU leaders, starting with Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, are direct descendants of these covert operations. They are children of the “American Empire” and intend to perpetuate it.

—

[ 1 ]  “  Donald Trump decouples the United States from Israel  ”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network , May 13, 2025.

[ 2 ]  “  Russland-SanktionenEnde der Absprache mit den USA  ”, Florian Flade & Ben Huebl & Joerg Schmitt, Süddeutsche Zeitung , May 27, 2025.

[ 3 ]  Press release 3526 “  The justice of the victors who have lost  ”, Voltaire, international news – No. 135 – May 30, 2025.

The post Donald Trump Decouples the United States From the European Union appeared first on LewRockwell.

Translation is a tricky thing, especially if you’re translating a word that has a seemingly direct equivalent in English. Sometimes the equivalent translation fits, sometimes it doesn’t. Often, it’s a mixed bag. That brings me to the Third Person of the Trinity.

I don’t know when and why the Latin phrase Sanctus Spiritus switched from being translated as “Holy Ghost” to “Holy Spirit.” I can understand the translation of “spirit.” You can see it in the word spiritus, and it is sensible to modern ears whereas “ghost” seems almost Gothic. “Spirit” also covers another meaning of spiritus which is “breath,” and it has that elusive quality of wind, water, cloud, and fire, which are symbolic of the Third Person. I wonder, though, if we have lost something in abandoning the word “ghost.”

Those very reasons which make “spirit” an acceptable translation also make it a problematic one. For one, especially to modern minds, it has a connotation of emotion and feeling, almost whimsy. Is it a coincidence that the shift from “ghost” to “spirit” came at a time when our culture shifted our responses to situations from the head to the belly (or farther below) where the emotions hold sway?

A ghost, on the other hand, is definitely a person—someone who speaks to you, commands you. Ghosts are out of fashion now, but they were once part of our culture. I, for one, enjoy ghost stories of the old-fashioned kind. (And, as an aside, if you aren’t doing anything next October, before Halloween, read the ghost stories of Russell Kirk. They will show you what ghosts are really like.)

A ghost haunts, that is, inhabits a place, and the word “guest” is related to “ghost.” He annoys us, besets us, hounds us. His message may be consoling or convicting, but a person is telling you to do something and He won’t let you rest until it is done. Seek to evade him as we will, the Ghost is there. The Holy Ghost, as the guest of our soul, haunts us, as our conscience does—or should do if we haven’t deadened it with screens, entertainment, drugs, sex, and “news.” This is why we invoke the Holy Ghost when we examine our conscience.

A guest can make us uncomfortable. We must ask Him in, make room for Him, and talk to Him. We have to be on our best behavior. It’s a difficult thing to do for a culture bent on distraction and wanting to do its own thing. Perhaps the ghosts we are most familiar with are the three in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. They came to remind Scrooge of his past, what was really happening in his present, and where he may end up in his future.

A ghost in old stories came to right wrongs, to reveal hidden things that needed correction, to see justice done. He won’t “let sleeping dogs lie,” as we want to do with our sins that “didn’t hurt anyone” or that are so far in our past that they “don’t matter anymore.” A ghost wants the truth revealed and accounted for, no matter who knows or how far in the past—those secrets we hide even from ourselves; those things we would like to forget or overlook; those “skeletons in the closet” (another sobering image) that are the very things we need to confess.

A ghost illuminates our minds to the truth of the present. Nothing is hidden from him; there are no secrets from him. Nothing is private. He sees all; knows all. He shows us the reality of a situation instead of the charade we often make it to be, as Banquo’s ghost did to Macbeth when he came to crash the dinner party.

A ghost, because he is from beyond the grave, reminds us of death—a morbid thought, perhaps, but a salutary one. He knows what is beyond the grave, which is why ghosts often seem to pop up in graveyards. He shows us, as he did Scrooge, what could happen when we die should our course not be altered. It brings to mind those portraits of the saints sitting with skulls on their desks showing us the fleetingness of this life. This is something good for an age that is frightened of death and avoids the inevitability of it either by relentlessly pretending to be young or trying to have it on its own terms. A ghost reminds us that death is never on our terms, for our life was never our own to begin with.

A ghost does not come, pace charismatics, amid fervent bouts of singing and Sister Act hand waving—but in silence. In those moments when we are alone, at the beginning or the end of the day. That soft whisper, that uneasy feeling that something, or someone, is there. He is numinous with that sense of awe you get during a thunderstorm, or when at the foot of the Rockies, or on the edge of the Grand Canyon, or when you stand on the beach and see the sun rise over the ocean. You are small. You are not in control. You don’t know everything.

A ghost, like an angel, reminds you that there is another world out there—a world that is larger and more real than the one on your iPhone, at work, or in your head. You must reckon with it, for it is the Truth.

If these reflections are too melancholy, remember that a ghost can also protect and bring comfort and security, as in the delightful story (and even more delightful movie) The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. Those little nudges we get—“don’t go there,” or “stay away from that person,” or “don’t click on that”—can be the Holy Ghost seeking to guard us. And ghosts don’t always reveal gloomy things, they often tell where hidden treasure is buried, as happens in The Ghost of Dibble Hollow. The Holy Ghost has many riches He wants to lead us to.

In the new liturgical calendar, we mark the weeks after Pentecost as “ordinary time” instead of weeks after Pentecost. Can there be such a thing as “ordinary time” after the Third Person of the Trinity has come to dwell in our souls? Time itself is a sacred thing. Each moment is haunted with fear and trembling, delight and wonder. We cannot waste a moment.

Our Lady is the spouse of the Third Person. A spouse, like a ghost, is a person. A spouse is the one you give your life to and are most intimate with. We imitate Our Lady when we give our lives to the Holy Ghost and become intimate with Him. Your spouse knows the truth about you—all your faults and foibles; your spouse inspires you and calls you to account. Feelings and emotions become subservient to the Truth because of love. When we are wedded to the Holy Ghost, He does the same.

So, while the Holy Spirit is a good translation, it may also be well to call upon Him as the Holy Ghost and allow Him to haunt us, to bring to mind all we have done or failed to do. We can ask Him to come into our lives as a guest and stir us up and tell us what to do now. Let Him disclose his wealth, which He will do if we are silent and listen. And, before it is too late, permit Him to remind us of our death and the accounting we must make of this sacred time we call life.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Whatever Happened to the Holy Ghost? appeared first on LewRockwell.

And pretty soon, expect action in a dozen other states, you can be sure, because just as it was in the scorpion’s nature to sting the frog crossing the river in the old parable, it is likewise in the Party of Chaos’s nature to sow chaos in an American summer.

The operation to cue riots over the removal of illegal immigrants has been well-planned in advance. Chief lawfare artists Norm Eisen and Mary McCord have engineered the legal strategy to oppose enforcement of US immigration law. They will clog the courts with lawsuits to prevent it and enlist their allied federal judges to issue injunction after injunction paralyzing the deportation process. They will work day and night to get their violent street cadres out of jail, just as they did in the 2020 George Floyd riots, so that these mutts can go back into the streets to loot and burn some more.

It is, of course, the most cynical operation imaginable. The Democratic Party hustled XX-millions of border-jumpers into the country under the authority of their phantom president, “Joe Biden” for one purpose: to flood the swing election precincts with enough new voters to keep the Party of Chaos in power permanently. Now that the illegals are here, the party will do anything it can to foil their removal. All the hand-wringing and crocodile tears over “fearful families and communities” is just stage-business to dress-up the CNN videos.

The ultimate goal of this operation is to goad President Trump into declaring some kind of national emergency to put down the violence, and the objective of that is to point at him and holler, “Behold the fascist tyrant!” That’s the game. The catch is, the Democrats are mistaken in thinking they can replay the George Floyd hustle.

This time around, more than 70-percent of the American public is not-insane. They are not fooled by the term “undocumented” — as if some mysterious clerical error was made by the federal bureaucracy in processing these millions. The actual error was allowing them to stroll freely across the border in the first place, with massive assistance from NGOs that provided smart phones loaded with helpful apps, plus free plane and bus tickets, plus freshly-minted debit cards for walking-around-money, plus posh hotel reservations.

You can blame former Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas — since “Joe Biden” was demonstrably non compos mentis during his term in office — for what was a patently treasonous act. How is it possible that Mr. Mayorkas remains unindicted? By the way, before he was sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security, he was a board member of one of the most aggressive NGOs actively assisting the recent massive wave of illegal immigrants: the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). The org, founded in 1881 under very different circumstances, has been enlisted to serve the Democratic Party’s program for flooding the voter rolls — just as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center have been transformed into attack dogs against the Democratic Party’s political opponents.

So, you watch now as the streets of Los Angeles fill with violent mobs waving Mexican and Palestinian flags burn cars, fling missiles and fireworks at police, and interfere with the deportation process of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. They are coming close to presenting themselves as a foreign enemy army and, as such, would invite a response from the defending US military.

It has the odor, at least, of insurrection, while Democratic Party politicians pretend that this is all just “peaceful protest.” LA Mayor Karen Bass skates at the edge of sedition as she orders her city’s law officers to “not cooperate” with federal authorities who seek to find-and-deport illegal immigrants. In her youth as a leftist activist, Ms. Bass joined the Cuba-sponsored Venceremos Brigade. She traveled to Cuba eight times in the 1970s for training in regime change operations. (She claims it was only to do “humanitarian work.”) Ms. Bass is also alleged to have been affiliated in the 1980s with the Oakland-based Maoist organization Line of March.

California Governor Gavin Newsom appears to be just recklessly grandstanding, looking for a kayfabe fight with Donald Trump as he primps for his party’s 2028 nomination. You have to wonder whether the citizens of California — that is, documented citizens with bona fide US birth certificates — have noticed how Governor Newsom managed to wreck the state during his terms-in-office (and before that, as Mayor of San Francisco). By now, even the steadfast, Woked-up Democratic voters of Pacific Palisades must be a little bit suspicious that Governor Newsom does not really have their best interests at heart as he blusters at the president.

There’s another angle on the current violence, you understand. As the old song goes, Summer’s here / and the time is right / for dancing in the streets. Or fighting in the streets, as the Rolling Stones famously updated the idea in December 1968 — after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in August that year. Street fighting is one of the capital amusements of the sore-beset Gen Z, stuck with unpayable college loans, faced with a daunting job market, reduced to living in Mom’s basement, addled with sexual bamboozlement, and jacked-up on prescription drugs and other mind-altering substances.

All of that feeds a lack of purpose and meaning, one of the more baleful plights of the human condition, in turn, feeding mass delusion, mob violence, and social upheaval. But it’s also party time, an opportunity to get outside in nice weather and consort with your peers, Z’s among fellow Z’s, illegal immigrants with fellow illegals. It affords opportunities for intrepid acts of derring-do — taunting the cops, flinging bricks, doing wheelies and “donuts” with motor vehicles — in order to impress potential sex partners. In other words, looking for fun and excitement, as youth will.

Alas, none of this works too well in an era of profound boundary problems — exploited very deliberately by the Democratic Party, which has erased the moral boundaries between decent behavior and crime, just as it tried to erase the boundary between the United States and Mexico. All of that needs to be fixed. Mr. Trump is aiming to fix it. It is liable to be a heck of a struggle, perhaps even as bad as a new civil war.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post California Dreamin’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

A few days ago, I had the great pleasure to sit down again with my good friend James Patrick in person, in Monte Brè. It was a truly spontaneous and unfiltered conversation about the current state of the world, the bizarre geopolitical situation and the tragicomical moment in history that we find ourselves in. We talked about the extreme, and likely unprecedented, risks we face in the global economic and financial system and I’m very glad we decided to record this conversation, as I truly believe many of the points raised in it have the potential to directly impact a lot of investors and ordinary savers, especially those who understand history and can already identify important patterns.

I’ve known James for quite a few years already and he was one of the very few people who had the courage to speak out against State abuses and to defend individual freedoms when it was truly uncomfortable and unrewarding to do so. At the height of the covid hysteria, he produced the eye-opening documentary “Planet Lockdown”, which I was honored to contribute to. James shares a lot, if not most, of my own viewpoints, but due to his keen eye for detail, he often goes even further in his deductions and his extrapolations. Regardless of whether I agree with or challenge his conclusions, he is always eager to elaborate, to counter argue and to engage in a sincere and sophisticated debate with me.

Quite reliably and predictably, this usually makes our discussions particularly enjoyable, spirited and intense, but also enlightening and thought provoking. It is an increasingly rare and elusive experience that I, as well as most independent thinkers out there, are finding all but impossible to engage in these days. The general level of public discourse and the catastrophic deterioration in the capacity for most people to defend their positions and beliefs though rational argumentation, has rendered too many “debates” inconsequential and it has reduced a lot more to entirely futile shouting matches that appear to have more in common with a circus performance than an respectful, open and real human interaction.

I hope you’ll enjoy this conversation as much as we did.

If you have troubles because of automatic audio translation YouTube; please click on the following link for original in englisch: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Eh2MLSX5c0ex

The post A Politically Incorrect ‘Where Are We Now?’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Barnes and Baris Episode 91: What Are the Odds? Trump Surged on Sunday Amid L.A. Riots Over Immigration, Latest on Elon’s Big Beautiful Bill Breakup, and Fake MAGA Replacing Anti-MAGA in U.S. Senate appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Jay Stephenson:

I know a lot of people have been surprised at the recent statements from Kash Patel on Jeffrey Epstein but they shouldn’t be. Like everyone else in Trump’s cabinet, he’s pro-Israel and hawkish on Iran. Same with Dan Bongino.

And they always use the “I’m your buddy, you can trust me” routine on these podcasts while  making some correct statements on COVID or Russiagate. But that just might be part of the deception. 

When Joe Rogan realizes Kash Patel has been compromised 

https://youtu.be/qtKhe0D_wag?si=NxzUIAKTUFfS1F_g

Kash Patel: Israelis can’t take on Iran alone

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6362954750112

The post Mash Patel should never have been trusted appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Jesse Trentadue.

Headline USA

The post 30-Year Cover-Up appeared first on LewRockwell.