Lew Rockwell Institute

In “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment” Raoul Berger argues that the Fourteenth Amendment is treated by activist judges as a platform for “social and political revolution.” In theory, the role of the courts is to interpret the Constitution not to amend it. Nevertheless, by treating the Fourteenth Amendment as a “vague and elastic” tool designed to forge a brave world of racial equality, progressive judges have conferred revolutionary powers on themselves.

Progressive courts, while purporting merely to enforce the equal protection of the law, have reasoned that in order to give effect to equality it is necessary to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. This then allows the Bill of Rights to be litigated in anti-discrimination cases brought by civil rights activists against state governments. For example, the incorporation doctrine was relied on in the recent federal court ruling that schools named after Confederate generals violate the First Amendment free speech rights of black students by constituting a form of “compelled speech”.

David Gordon has also pointed out that the incorporation doctrine is not found in the Constitution itself, but has been crafted by activist judges as a way of centralizing federal power in a manner that is inimical to individual liberty. As Gordon observes,

Critics of incorporation such as Raoul Berger have persuasively argued that the doctrine has scant basis; additionally, it strikes at the states as independent sources of authority to the federal government. Is it not likely that more is lost to individual liberty by the increased subordination of the states to federal courts than is gained by decisions that on occasion strike down bad state laws?

Berger notes that the Fourteenth Amendment began life as political measure in the tumult of the Reconstruction Era but soon grew in such leaps and bounds that it is now “probably the largest source of the [Supreme] Court’s business and furnishes the chief fulcrum for its control of controversial policies.” This is a far cry from the original intention of the amendment. It was originally “intended only to protect the freedmen from southern Black Codes that threatened to return them to slavery” by ensuring that freedmen would have “the right to contract, to own property, and to have access to the courts.”

It is certainly true that these basic liberties, which are protected at federal level by the Fifth Amendment due process clause, struck many observers in 1865 as essential to give effect to the abolition of slavery. As an originalist, Justice Clarence Thomas has emphasized this aspect of the amendment, but he argues that it has extended over time far beyond its original purpose. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood, he commented on the misuse of the procedural provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (the Ku Klux Klan Act) which were intended to enable freedmen to protect their constitutional rights from violation by states in order to ensure that the equal protection clause could be meaningfully enforced. Justice Thomas outlined the legislative history of this law in Medina, further observing that

The 1871 Act was designed “to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment … in response to an ongoing pattern of violence and intimidation” against former slaves … [to provide] a means by which private plaintiffs could obtain redress from state and local officials for certain constitutional violations.

This is a classic example of laws being enacted to resolve an emergency, which subsequently continue in force long after the emergency is over, being put to various new uses that were never originally contemplated. When the Ku Klux Klan Act was passed to deal with the violence of the Reconstruction Era, it created emergency powers that would not usually be accepted by citizens. For example, it gave the President power to suspend habeas corpus. These emergency powers were temporary, and it was never contemplated that this law would leave behind in its wake a permanent new source of ever expanding power to be wielded by the federal courts over state legislatures. Yet, as Berger shows, “for the better part of a century the Supreme Court had been handing down decisions interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment improperly, willfully ignoring or willfully distorting the history of its enactment.”

In his foreword to the second edition of the book, Forrest McDonald observes that although Berger’s interpretation was predictably contested when it was first published in 1977, those who favor the centralization of constitutional authority soon decided that it does not matter anyway even if the courts have willfully distorted constitutional history. As they see it, it has all been distorted for a good cause – in the service of creating a better world. Progressives see that as a salutary effort on the part of the activist courts. They regard all this power-mongering by federal judges as indeed exemplary, as they believe federal oversight of state authorities is to be welcomed – in their view, credentialled federal judges fresh out of the Marxist law schools are far more trustworthy than the unreconstructed state legislators that the voters of the South might elect. It is an example of a pattern of progressive strategy which is becoming all too familiar – they begin by denying that they have subverted the law, but, when their protestations fail, they soon begin arguing that the subverted law is actually good. It’s not happening, but if it’s happening that’s very good! McDonald explains:

From the outset, the law reviews teemed with attacks on Government by Judiciary, some of them cautious and considered, many slipshod and semihysterical … So thoroughly did Berger rout his critics that, after a decade or so, they virtually stopped trying. Instead, advocates of judicial activism began to assert that neither the words of the Constitution nor the intentions of the framers are any longer relevant.

As McDonald argues, Berger’s analysis, first published in 1977, has stood the test of time in showing that the Supreme Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment as a method of “continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation.” In doing so, the courts stray far from their constitutional role and take upon themselves the mantle of social and political revolutionaries.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post How the Fourteenth Amendment Empowers Judicial Activism appeared first on LewRockwell.

This exploitation is indeed profitable, but there is a very high price to be paid for abusing our trust.

Price and Value–now there’s a twisted tale. We’ve been trained to compare price and buy the lower priced option as the better value, but price doesn’t reflect value, and we’re paying a very steep price as individuals and as a nation for confusing the two.

In economic theory, price is a signal, a flow of information between the producer, seller and buyer. Like all economic theory, this sounds nice, but what’s left out of this information flow is the value of the product or service, which is opaque / unknowable to the buyer.

Price can be low, but value can be lower–or even negative. Consider the aggregate / lifetime “value” of a diet of junk food, fast food, sugary beverages and ultra-processed snacks and foods. The price was presented as “a good value,” but what’s the “value” of a diet that generates chronic diseases that degrade our lives and cost a fortune to treat?

The “value” of a diet of junk food, fast food, sugary beverages and ultra-processed slop is extremely negative, for the aggregate health consequences are extremely negative and the eventual price of treating the chronic diseases is extremely high.

Every single-use plastic product was a “good value,” and now there’s micro-plastics everywhere, including our bodies. The full consequences have yet to be tallied, but it’s already clear that the “value” of single-use plastic products is extremely negative.
Microplastics Could Be Weakening Your Bones, Research Suggests: The review of more than 60 scientific articles showed that microplastics, among other effects, can stimulate the formation of osteoclasts, cells specialized in degrading bone tissue. (WIRED.com)

What is the “value” of an appliance that breaks down in a few years compared to the “value” of an appliance that lasts for decades? I’ve often noted the collapse of durability in appliances and other products that has tracked globalization and corporations’ exploitation of the fact the value of their products are unknown and therefore a matter of trust: we trust there’s value, and that trust can be easily exploited.

So 20 years ago we could buy an appliance that would last 20 years, and now we can no longer do so. The warranties are now one year, and appliances routinely fail in a few years.

This is a catastrophic collapse in value, so what “signal” is price telling us? What price is telling us is that we’re chumps, marks conned by corporations who exploit our naive trust that the products and services they’re selling have some sort of value that doesn’t turn out to be negative.

The nation is paying a steep price for the “low prices” of offshoring critical industrial supply chains. Corporations rushed to offshore production to reduce quality and durability (i.e. value) as the easy way to boost profits: the consumer, unable to discern the actual value of the product, was conned by the “low price” into believing it was therefore a “good value.”

So now the nation is dependent on frenemies for essentials–a catastrophic collapse of national security, something whose value is incalculable.

Reducing value and jacking up prices has done wonders for corporate profits. That these profits are the direct result of obscuring the decline of value–or the negative value over a longer time-frame–who cares, for all the matters now is corporate profits are rising and so the stock market bubbles higher.

What economists don’t dare say is that corporations boost profits by exploiting their reduction of value and obscuring the negative value of their products and services. This exploitation is indeed profitable, but there is a very high price to be paid for abusing our trust: the eventual collapse of trust in a system that glorifies exploitation because it’s so profitable.

There’s another price to be paid: the eventual cost of all the negative value is far greater than the initial price paid. Rebuilding our national security is not cost-free, and all the horrific health consequences of a negative-value diet and lifestyle have price tags so high no nation can possibly afford them.

Read the Whole Article

The post Price Doesn’t Reflect Value, and We’re Paying a Steep Price for Confusing the Two appeared first on LewRockwell.

A former Trump administration national security advisor suspects that people near the president are pushing him into a war with Russia.

Retired Gen. Michael Flynn said in a social media post on Monday that people within President Donald Trump’s orbit may be luring him into “a trap” that could cost American lives. Recent public rhetoric from high-ranking administration officials appears to support Flynn’s analysis.

On Fox News Live’s Sunday Briefing, U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Gen. Keith Kellogg told White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich that Trump is giving Ukraine permission to launch long-range missiles into Russia. At first, Kellogg walked around Heinrich’s question about long-range strikes, prompting the host to ask for clarification. “Are you saying, though, that it is the president’s position that Ukraine can conduct long-range strikes into Russia — that that has been authorized by the president?” Heinrich asked. Kellogg answered:

I think reading what he has said, and reading what Vice President [J.D.] Vance has said as well as Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio, the answer is yes. Use the ability to hit deep. There are no such things as sanctuaries.

President Trump has authorized long-range strikes into Russia, Special Envoy to Ukraine General Keith Kellogg says — but occasionally Ukraine has not been granted authority by the Pentagon to carry them out.

KELLOGG: “Everybody should follow what the President says. He’s the… pic.twitter.com/Zx36foTgnP

— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) September 29, 2025

Ukraine Needs Western Permission

Ukraine needs American approval to launch U.S. weapons deep into Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has in the past asked the U.S. for long-range missiles so he can take the fight directly to the Kremlin. He has asked for Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can hit targets more than 1,500 miles away. Before Kellogg’s statement to Fox, Vance said that Trump was “certainly looking” at another Ukrainian request for U.S.-made Tomahawks.

The Russians said they would “carefully analyze whether any American Tomahawk missiles that might be supplied to Ukraine were fired using targeting data supplied by the United States,” according to reports.

Russian head of state Vladimir Putin has said that if Western nations allow Ukraine to strike deep within Russia, it will be considered an act of war. Putin said a year ago:

This [lifting of restrictions on Ukraine’s use of longer-range Western missiles] will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.

Kellogg’s comments came in the midst of intense fighting between these sibling nations. “Russia launched more than 600 drones and dozens of missiles at Ukraine on Saturday night and Sunday morning,” according to reports. The Ukrainians volleyed back a strike of their own, on Moscow. “The Russian Defense Ministry said its forces intercepted 84 Ukrainian drones across several regions between late Sunday and early Monday,” Russian media reported.

Trump Pressuring the Kremlin?

Last week, Trump posted a statement on social media suggesting he had shifted his stance in support for continued fighting in Ukraine. “With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, [Ukraine’s reclaiming] the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option,” Trump said September 23. Trump also insulted the Kremlin’s military might, calling Russia a “paper tiger.”

The statement prompted the question of whether the president’s comments were part of a strategy to pressure the Kremlin into being more open to a peace deal, or the true sentiments of a president who is frustrated that, despite the talks, despite rolling out the red carpet for Putin, the fighting has only intensified.

Flynn: Work Harder at Seeking Peace

Regardless, Gen. Flynn is worried that his former boss is being led down a disastrous path. In a social media post on Monday, Flynn asked: “Is Ukraine is a foreign policy dead end or a trap?” He also said that someone near the president suggested that another nation’s leader be eliminated, presumably Russia’s. And he addressed Trump directly: “Donald Trump we want you to be the PEACE PRESIDENT.”

In his post, Flynn implied that the Eurocrats are pushing for escalation. “The NATO & EU need this war to shift their internal problems away from themselves and place it on an enemy who has massive physical capabilities and will use them (don’t underestimate this guidance),” he said. He has made similar accusations in the past.

Flynn also opposes selling weapons to NATO:

Selling weapons to “NATO” may make us feel good but never forget, we are NATO. if NATO gives those weapons to Ukraine, are we not in a PROXY WAR against Russia? Are we not now directly involved? Who provides the guidance systems, the intelligence, the information operations, cyber, space — warfare is multi-domain activity and not a simple bullet or missile flying through the air.

The longtime general then issued the reminder that “there remain peaceful solutions to ending this war” and that “we must work harder at seeking these.” He added that those who are pushing for war aren’t offering all the options.

Hegseth’s Gathering

This is all happening as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is bringing hundreds, if not thousands, of the top generals and admirals in the U.S. military to a Marine Corps base in Virginia for a meeting on Tuesday. Trump is also attending.

The unusual summoning has prompted a lot of questions. The president said there’s nothing ominous about the gathering. He told NBC, “It’s really just a very nice meeting talking about how well we’re doing militarily, talking about being in great shape, talking about a lot of good, positive things.” One official told news outlets that Hegseth plans to “highlight military accomplishments and to discuss the future of the Defense Department under his leadership.” But skepticism abounds, as this kind of information is usually communicated via memos or teleconferences.

“Is It Our Fight?”

Just days before Russia invaded Ukraine, TNA asked in our Feb. 14, 2022 print issue, “Russia vs. Ukraine: Is It Our Fight?” We noted that the eastern regions of Ukraine that Russia occupies either completely or partially are overwhelmingly ethnically Russian, and the local sentiment has been “decidedly in favor of either independence from the corrupt, kleptocratic, and discriminatory Ukrainian government, or of outright annexation by ‘Mother Russia’.” We also acknowledged that Russia is being encircled by NATO nations. The point of NATO, we noted, is to “prepare for the eventual consolidation of regional military alliances into a global military,” which we dubbed an “indispensable ingredient of a consolidated global government.”

But Russia and China, we said, might not be willing to go along with a Western-led global government:

Russia and China, their other deficiencies aside, remain extremely nationalistic and resistant to assimilation into existing international systems. Both countries are very reluctant to enter into any type of binding agreement or treaty with other countries or with any international authority, and typically flout the rules of any international organization that they do end up joining. And both countries are large enough and well-enough armed that even a Gulf War-style international coalition might not be able to compel them to accede to the demands of the “international community.” Thus the ultimate objective of the so-called international community, i.e., the internationalists whose policies and priorities completely dominate the foreign-policy agenda in the West, including the United States, is the establishment of a single world government — by consent if possible, but by force if necessary.

The globalists followed both 20th-century world wars with attempts at world government, first via the League of Nations, then, with more success, the United Nations, which continues to pose a threat.

People Learning About Globalism

But over the last decade, anti-globalist sentiment has grown exponentially around the world. A large reason for that is that more people have simply learned about the globalist threat. And an effective teacher was the Covid-19 experience. As the governments of “free” societies imposed overtly tyrannical measures, it prompted citizens to ask questions. And that asking led many to realize that an international infrastructure of control had been in the works for a long time, and that what they were experiencing was a result of it.

So, perhaps, the globalists are working to foment an event that brings devastation of a level so disastrous that it will render people desperate enough for order and security that they’ll accept anything — even globalism, which will be pitched as a way to prevent another world war. And perhaps they’ve encircled Trump with warmongers who flatter the president while egging on insane moves that could result in a hot war with Russia.

As we said back in 2022, “Risking a third world war, complete with nuclear weapons, over a territorial dispute in Ukraine might seem to be the very definition of insanity.”

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Ex-Trump Official Says Advisors Are Pushing War With Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety review of the abortion drug mifepristone that could lead to restrictions on the lethal pill.

Kennedy shared earlier this year that President Donald Trump requested he conduct a study of the pill’s safety for women. As Lila Rose of Live Action has noted, “A drug designed to starve preborn babies to death can never be considered “safe.”

RFK: President Trump has asked me to study the safety of mifepristone (aka the abortion pill).

A drug designed to starve preborn babies to death can never be considered “safe.” pic.twitter.com/mecIqHBLD7

— Live Action (@LiveAction) January 29, 2025

Kennedy announced the safety study together with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary in a September 19 letter to Republican attorneys general, writing, “Through the FDA, HHS will conduct a study of the safety of the current (safety protocol), in order to determine whether modifications are necessary,” Axios reported.

Given that about two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. are now chemical – the vast majority using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol – if further restrictions on the abortion pill are enacted, abortions in the country could significantly drop.

Kennedy pledged earlier this year to ask Makary to conduct a safety study of the abortion pill when pressed by lawmakers. Sen. Hawley asked if Kennedy was aware of the Ethics and Public Policy’s recent study that showed nearly 11 percent of women in the U.S. who take mifepristone suffer serious adverse events, a rate 22 times higher than what is reported on the drug label.

“It’s alarming,” Kennedy replied, adding that it “validates” previous studies and “at the very least, the label should be changed.”

Twenty-two state attorneys general recently urged Kennedy to carry out this study, stating, “Based on that review, the FDA should consider reinstating safety protocols that it identified as necessary as recently as 2011 in its issuance of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone, but which were removed by the Obama and Biden administrations.”

Safety protocols that were dropped included requiring that the abortion pills be prescribed by a doctor and that their adverse effects be reported.

The prevalence of chemical abortions in the U.S. has rapidly increased since 2000, when the abortion pill was first approved for use by the FDA, and especially as recent administrations have rolled back abortion pill regulations.

In 2011, the drug was placed under a safety system known as REMS after serious adverse events – including multiple deaths – were reported. REMS allows the FDA to monitor these adverse events. But under the Obama FDA in 2016, requirements to report all abortion pill complications were removed. Going forward, only deaths were to be reported, significantly hampering safety data.

In 2020, a new “no-test” deregulation removed requirements for labs, testing, and blood work used to accurately date a pregnancy and rule out deadly ectopic pregnancies before dispensing abortion pills.

By December 2021, the Biden FDA axed the requirement that the abortion pill be dispensed in person and allowed them to be permanently shipped by mail.

Advocacy groups have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of the abortion pill to women – to say nothing of its lethal danger to unborn babies – since its safety data has been coming to light. A 2020 open letter from a coalition of pro-life groups to then-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn noted that the “abortion pill has resulted in over 4,000 reported adverse events since 2000, including 24 maternal deaths.”

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post RFK Jr. Directs FDA To Study the Safety of Abortion Pills appeared first on LewRockwell.

All human societies are led by a confined group of especially influential people. These are the elites, and like them or not, they are unavoidable because humans are hierarchical chimps and they build the same social structures over and over again wherever they flourish.

The elites are not necessarily always and everywhere the wealthiest people, or the most persuasive people or the strongest people – although being wealthy, persuasive and strong certainly helps. They simply enjoy some combination of attributes that grants them social prominence. Lesser people take direction from them, imitate their habits and value their attention.

Knitting circles, learned societies, hunter-gatherer tribes and religious communities all have their own elites. Nations do too, and in politics the uppermost tiers of the national elite invariably form oligarchies. In the premodern era, oligarchs bestowed upon themselves special costumes and elaborate titles and they took substantial steps to ensure that their children could inherit their share in power. In the liberal West the very word “oligarchy” makes us uncomfortable, but that does not mean we have done away with the oligarchs. They are still with us. They no longer bear fancy titles and they have ditched their fur-trimmed robes. They determine their successors via institutional processes rather than descent. All of this makes our oligarchs a little harder to see, but that does not mean they are not oligarchs.

Oligarchs command the loyalty of the violence professionals who enforce things on the ground. Some may command this loyalty directly, but others do so indirectly, through intermediaries. They are (some portion of) elected politicians and (some portion of) the judiciary, but they do not all have formal political roles or titles. Only a minority of them have ever stood for election. De facto oligarchs are also to be found in media organs, non-governmental organisations, various areas of academia and of course large swathes of the state bureaucracy. These oligarchs are embedded within a broader elite class, not all of whose members necessarily have a say in government, but all of whom share a similar outlook and regard themselves as being on the same side.

Because the oligarchy aims above all to stay in power, a great part of politics involves the struggle of the reigning oligarchy to maintain their position and fend off incursions from the outside. These struggles are often camouflaged as disagreements over specific policies or as moral outrage over ostensibly impermissible political views. The entire German elite establishment, for example, claims to hate Alternative für Deutschland because of their alleged fascism. In fact, their real quarrel with the AfD is that their very existence and the reforms they demand threaten the oligarchy’s hold on power. Once upon a time, in the earliest years of the Federal Republic, there really was substantial overlap between those whose views might have fairly been called fascist (in some sense of the term) and potential rivals to power. Now the rivals have totally different political views but they must be forced into the fascist mould anyway, because “fascism” for our oligarchy has come to mean “unwelcome upstart.”1

Mere wealth, by itself, does not an oligarch make. Especially in heavily bureaucratised Western nations, money does not magically give you sway over the all-important rough men with guns. It can, however, be used to fund opposition parties, to buy favourable (or unfavourable) media coverage and to win the friendship of influential people. Money is also extremely useful for that most threatening of all activities, namely political organisation. You might notice that many of the wealthiest personalities in the West mire themselves in goofy charitable activities and give flabby media interviews in which they mouth whatever banal political orthodoxies happen to be the flavour of the month. They do this by way of advertising to the oligarchs that they are not a threat. “I am on your side, please do not arrest me or have me shot.”

So, money is not everything, but it is something. And money is very often a product of economic productivity, which is another probably even more important something. A great part of Western politics, since economic growth returned in the eleventh century, can be explained by the tensions that arise between a settled, closed and defensive oligarchy on the one hand; and the New Men whom economic success brings to the fore on the other hand. These New Men, because they have achieved their status and resources independent of the oligarchy, threaten the settled way of things. They make the oligarchs nervous.

The rabble harbour all manner of impulses, feelings, delusions and desires. Elites are wont to cultivate some of these for political purposes. Perhaps no single popular impulse has proven more explosive, powerful and useful to political elites than resentment of the wealthy. Since the Industrial Revolution, two groups in particular have seen in this resentment a powerful weapon to be wielded against enemies. Communist counter-elites used this resentment to fuel revolutions; the wealthy to be resented were the old oligarchs, and when they were ousted the communists simply established themselves as a new elite. Settled oligarchies, too, can find it useful to direct this resentment against threatening New Men. Counter-elite would-be revolutionaries on the one hand and threatened oligarchs on the other hand are most of the reason why we have had to hear so much about how bad the wealthy are, even as industrialisation and mass society have made us all vastly more prosperous and collapsed the vastness that once divided the nobility from the serfs.

Sending the peasants to storm the villas of the industrialists is only one very narrow tactic for dealing with the perennial threat of the New Men. A look at modern history will illustrate some of the grand strategies at work in this area. The National Socialists muscled the economic elite with threats, while granting those industrialists willing to play ball special favours, licenses and contracts. In this way they built a patronage economy rife with benefits for the ideologically aligned who agreed to toe the line. The Communists eliminated the threat of the New Men entirely by nationalising everything, effectively replacing the “capitalist” elite with a permanent managerial class. This resulted in poor economic conditions, which is exactly what the managers wanted: If your economy is in the toilet there will be precious few New Men to worry about. The lesson is that settled oligarchies often fear economic growth as a destabilising factor.

Liberal democracy has experimented with two strategies. Through the Cold War and for about ten years afterwards, states like Germany cultivated a very open elite and accordingly tried to align policy with the interests of economic heavyweights, believing that prosperity could be a stabilising force in itself. The oligarchs let the New Men into the fold and in many cases tried to govern on their behalf, while the left complained (not always without justification) about lobbyists and malign corporate influence. This was a period in which West competed with alternate political and economic systems and tried to construct itself as the superior option. There was, in other words, external pressure on the oligarchs to behave, even if they did not always get the balance right.

That pressure has long since vanished. Since Merkel, our oligarchs have revived various doctrines from the political left to keep the New Men away from power. Increasingly, their goal is to squeeze the dreaded “capitalists” by undermining economic growth and thereby cutting off the supply of New Men at the source. Frequently they have overreached, targeting also farmers and small businessmen, as they come to fear everybody who is not an institutionally approved and promoted political actor. It is a light version of the Communist strategy from the Cold War. Our present oligarchs believe there are no viable political alternatives and they need no longer worry so much about comporting themselves well.

This is what I think climatism is for, fundamentally. It is one of the primary instruments used to sap the economy and forestall the rise of New Men. All of the apparent drawbacks of Net Zero policies are in fact features rather than bugs when seen from this perspective. Chasing industry overseas means that other people have to deal with the New Men; our oligarchs are free of them. In a fully developed climatist regime like that which prevails in the Federal Republic, many businesses cannot operate without special subventions, tax breaks or other subsidies, which allows the oligarchs and their institutional apparatus to control who rises and who falls. And naturally, reconstructing the entire energy sector via heavily subsidised Green initiatives allows the reigning oligarchs to choose ideologically aligned winners.

Socialism-lite turns out to be a very delicate balancing act. The oligarchs need to constrict the economy sufficiently to mute the rise and influence of rivals, but not so much that they cause economic collapse or specific catastrophes that would result in them being discredited and thrown out. They were managing this balance fairly well until the Ukraine war messed it up for them, and now their backs are against the wall. At the same time, they have turned their gaze towards the Atlantic with trepidation. They see in Trump’s election a vision of the dark future that awaits them if they let New Men like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and whoever else get out of hand. They’ve also noticed that key actors in the American tech sector played some role in Trump’s victory, and this is yet another reason for them to hate the whole world of technological innovation, from the internet in general to social media and large language models and everything in between. It is a very worrying source of New Men.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think our oligarchs sat down at a table somewhere and hashed out climatism to mess up the economy. The oligarchy is very large and diffuse, but like everybody else they are inclined to believe things that redound to their practical benefit. Climatism emerged via a confluence of interests, but the oligarchs’ enthusiasm was decisive. As an ideological system, however, it is beginning to break down. New Men, after all, are not the only problem an oligarchy may face, and the rising populist right has become a much more immediate threat not only in Germany, but across Europe. For this the oligarchs need new narratives, about the evil Putler abroad and his fifth-columnist sympathisers at home. They might even need a halfway functional economy, but I doubt any of them have yet thought that far ahead.

1 A similar phenomenon once attended ancient and medieval theological disputes, where it often became expedient to brand one’s intellectual opponents “Arians” or “Nestorians” or whatever, even though their actual theological views had zero to with anything actual historical Arians or Nestorians ever espoused.

This article was originally published on Eugyppius.

The post Climatism as an Oligarchic Strategy To Cement Power and Preempt Rivals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier today, I had headlined “Trump Now Considers a U.S. Invasion of Russia”, and readers were incredulous; one commented “In what world do you imagine America having enough troops to invade Moscow without the logistical problems to make such happen?” to which I replied “Sending U.S. troops into Russia would be unnecessary in order to do this. You are thinking in old-technology terms like during WW2, but a WW3 would be entirely different and be over within an hour or two — none of it would entail invading troops.” Later in the day, Stephen Bryen, now retired but who has been the CEO of one of America’s biggest armaments-producers, and a top official at the Pentagon (which is that corporation’s main customer), headlined “Tomahawks for Kiev: A Dangerous Idea”, and he provided in greater depth of detail, from his own extensive expertise on weaponry, the historical background and technological details on why a U.S. President would need to be insane in order to even consider to allow Tomahawk missiles to become posted in Ukraine. So, I shall now quote from his excellent unquestionably expert account:

The US is poised to “sell” Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. US special envoy to Ukraine, retired general Keith Kellogg, says only the final decision has to be made. The US has already agreed, Kellogg said, for deep attacks on Russian territory, and only the release of the Tomahawks is pending, a decision left to US President Donald Trump. While it may be regarded as an open and shut case by Washington, that does not take away the decision as reckless and escalatory. It puts the US on a direct collision-course with Russia, one that could lead to a war in Europe.

The Tomahawk cruise missile was originally intended to give the US nuclear triad a system that could successfully deliver nuclear weapons against the USSR. The idea was to create a system that was nearly impossible for Soviet air defenses to counter, after it became clear that conventional bombers, especially the B-52, could not operate from high altitude over Soviet territory.

Tomahawk was designed to fly “nap of the earth: missions. That is, once it was over Soviet airspace, it was designed to drop down to near tree-top heights and follow the contours of the earth, making timely detection difficult if not impossible. …

Should the US deliver Tomahawks to Ukraine, the missiles would have to be operated either by US or UK technicians and would need to be supported by US overhead intelligence to select targets and program the missiles to hit them. Russia will regard the Tomahawks as a direct US intervention, and in fact there is no convenient way the US could deny it is operating the weapons. This means that if Trump authorizes the missiles, he also is directing the US military (or surrogate British) to use them against Russia. …

The Trump administration is operating on the assumption that Russia’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and the Tomahawks could help “seal the deal” and force the collapse of the Putin regime. …

One of the reasons why the US is seeking to try for a knock-out blow on Putin and Russia is Washington’s fear that Russia may launch a new, devastating offensive in Ukraine aimed at regime change there. …

How far Russia would go when provoked directly by the United States should be carefully assessed in Washington before it embarks on a venture that could backfire and lead to a wider war in Europe.

I would point out here that though Dr. Bryen is warning about “a wider war in Europe,” what is actually involved is a war between the U.S. and Russia, because the U.S. would be a direct participant in the usage of these missiles — as Bryen himself noted, “the missiles would have to be operated either by US or UK technicians and would need to be supported by US overhead intelligence to select targets and program the missiles to hit them. Russia will regard the Tomahawks as a direct US intervention, and in fact there is no convenient way the US could deny it is operating the weapons. This means that if Trump authorizes the missiles, he also is directing the US military (or surrogate British) to use them against Russia.”

Yes, America’s participating allies (such as UK) would also be involved in this invasion of Russia — and Ukraine itself, naturally would be — but no such war would encompass ONLY “a wider war in Europe”: it would instead be the world-annihilating WW3 that until recent decades was considered to be unacceptable even by the American Government (which has now gone entirely batty in its neoconservatism — its conviction that the U.S. Government must rule the entire world).

Dr. Bryen also points out that Trump’s objective, if he okays this proposal, would be regime-change in Russia, and that this goal by the White House is based on “Washington’s fear that Russia may launch a new, devastating offensive in Ukraine aimed at regime change there.”

In short: the U.S. Government is considering to do this because it opposes regime-change in Ukraine. Think about that for a moment: It is saying that the U.S. Government is considering to force a regime-change in Russia so as to prevent a regime-change in Ukraine. It is ignoring that the result, if Washington decides to do this, will be no mere “regime-change” in one country but the destruction of the entire world (something that Dr. Bryen provides no hint that he recognizes to be involved here).

Consequently, Dr. Bryen’s headline “Tomahawks for Kiev: A Dangerous Idea” vastly understates what this would be: the destruction of our entire planet. And the purpose of this venture, if Trump decides to authorize it? If Dr. Bryen is correct here, the purpose of it would be to prevent regime-change in Ukraine.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Trump’s Considering To Invade Russia Is Insane appeared first on LewRockwell.

These are the 2020 Lublin Triangle (Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania), the 2022 de facto alliance between Ukraine, Poland, and the UK, and early August’s Odessa Triangle with Romania and Moldova.

Russia has in recent years consistently accused the West of turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia” for containment purposes, in response to which Putin authorized the ongoing special operation. A year and a half before it began, Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine formed the “Lublin Triangle”, which involves military cooperation and continues to lurch along five years after its creation. Exactly one week before the special operation started, the UK, Poland, and Ukraine then formed a de facto alliance.

These two triangles facilitated the UK’s efforts to sabotage spring 2022’s peace talks, for which Poland deserves equal blame as explained here, thus perpetuating the conflict till now. Right after the news broke that Putin and Trump would hold their first in-person meeting since the latter’s return to office, which later took place in Anchorage, Ukraine announced the formation of another triangle with Romania and Moldova. Their “Odessa Triangle” is thus the third one centered on Ukraine for containing Russia.

These three interlocking triangles are expected to play significant roles in the post-conflict future. The first one, the Lublin Triangle, includes Lithuania, which now hosts Germany’s first permanent base abroad. As for the second, it importantly involves the UK, which has always worked to divide-and-rule Europe. And lastly, France has a base in Romania and a security pact with Moldova, which could lead to Paris exploiting them as launchpads for strengthening its newly reported secret presence in Odessa.

Ukraine’s seven associated partners (five of which are formal while the other two – Germany and France – are informal) could therefore either continue funneling arms into the country for prolonging the conflict or continuing Ukraine’s militarization afterwards and/or prepare to deploy there one day. Poland, the UK, France, and Germany also clinched security pacts with Ukraine all across last year, which this analysis here argues already amount to a form of Article 5-like guarantees.

As was written, “[Article 5] obligates members to assist those of their allies that come under attack, albeit as each of them ‘deems necessary’. Although the use of armed force is mentioned, it’s ultimately left to individual members to decide whether to employ this option. Ukraine has arguably enjoyed the benefits of this principle for the past three years despite not being a NATO member since it’s received everything other than troops from the alliance”.

It’s therefore moot whether Ukraine ever formally joins NATO since that wouldn’t guarantee that its allies would dispatch troops in its support should another conflict erupt. More realistically, they’d likely only resume and then ramp up the aid that they’re already providing in order to avoid a potentially apocalyptic conflict with Russia. The EU’s rapid militarization coupled with progress on the “military Schengen” for facilitating related logistics could create enduring post-conflict threats to Russia’s security.

From Poland and Romania, Ukraine’s other five partners could therefore station a large number of troops, store lots of military equipment, and possibly continue funneling arms and ammo across the border for either prolonging the conflict or continuing Ukraine’s militarization afterwards. Russia will certainly take these credible threats into consideration when deciding upon the best way to end the conflict in accordance with its national interests as they’ve evolved 3,5 years into the special operation.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter

The post Ukraine Is at the Center of Three Interlocking Triangles for Containing Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Despite decades of public pressure and the passage of the JFK Records Act, the U.S. government continues to hide thousands of assassination records from the American people.

In this explosive episode of America’s Untold Stories, Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley sit down with Canadian attorney Andrew Iler, co-author of The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, to discuss a powerful letter sent to Congress demanding full compliance with the law.

What happened to the Final Determination Notifications (FDNs)—the legal orders to release records?

Why has the Archivist of the United States ignored mandatory duties for nearly 30 years?

How have agencies quietly avoided oversight and transparency? Can Congress be forced to act—and is a lawsuit next?

Why did Judge John Tunheim say records were never even seen by the original review board?

This is the deep-state cover-up you thought ended years ago—but it’s alive and well in 2025.

Get the book (affiliate link) The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Inescapably Prove There Was a Conspiracy https://amzn.to/42TdUu3 On Locals with a private chat and after party https://unstructured.locals.com/post/… *****************************************

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

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

The post America’s Untold Stories: 27,000 Government Secrets and the JFK Records Act appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm. 

The Federalist

The post Britain Is Turning Its Back On Western Civilization appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes, Brian Dunaway:

Within the last month, NATO military has claimed Russia has violated NATO airspace (specifically Baltic, Scandinavian, Balkan). (For hilarious characterization of these events by AP, read here.) Russia denies these violations.

Regardless of how these encounters are characterized, it is clear that Russia is sending a message. When these “violations” were first reported, in light of current events, it felt like something didn’t add up. The most reasonable hypothesis seemed to be that Russia has intelligence that NATO plans to invade Russia. (Of course, who needs intelligence? NATO’s belligerence from practically the day the Berlin Wall fell is hardly a secret.) Then, Trump, et al., blustered that these jets should be shot down.

Now, news of US considering direct participation in a Russia invasion makes that hypothesis seem a little more solid.

The post NATO’s Last Threat to Russia’s Survival? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eric’s Substack

The post The Insanity of The West’s Pro-WW3 Leaders Forcing Russia to Start It appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

John Leake

The post America’s Bloated Flag Officer Class appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Drewberquist.com

The post Liberal Group PUSHING Government Shutdown appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Trump’s ‘Deal’ For Gaza Drops As US Support For Israel Craters appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eric’s Substack

The post Trump Now Considers a U.S. Invasion of Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Michel Chossudovsky

The post Are Al Qaeda “Freedom Fighters” “Good Guys” or “Bad Guys”? appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

There’s a simple solution to this problem.  Never hold the Ryder Cup competition anywhere near New York City.  Farmingdale, where the Bethpage Black course is located, is in the heart of Long Island.  Give it a permanent location, preferably in the South like the famous East Lake course in Atlanta, one of the Pinehurst courses in North Carolina, or the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club course near me in Northern Virginia, which has hosted several President’s Cup events, and fan deportment will never be a problem.

See here.

The post U.S. Golf Fans’ Misbehavior appeared first on LewRockwell.

Everyone knows that the Evil Ones operate a Criminal Enterprise within the Federal Government by bribing government officials and bureaucrats. The Evil Ones consist of the Jewish Lobby, Media, and Deep State, aka Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class Wealthy Families. They are the ones responsible for Waste, Fraud, Abuse, Bribes, Kickbacks, Deaths of our military, Deaths of Millions, Destruction of entire countries, Wars for profit, Inflation, Wars without a Declaration of War, all manner of Crimes and Treason, et al.

The Evil Ones really took control of our country with the Coup of 1913. I have written 17 articles on this complex subject from many angles during July, August, and September of 2025.

Politicians, including President Trump and Congress, are petrified of the Evil Ones, and are willing to accept bribes to allow them to continue to impoverish the American people and the World. This could no longer be true, for I saw the Greatest of all American Revivals at the Charlie Kirk Tribute on Sunday.

This was no ordinary tribute or revival. It lasted for six hours, with hundreds of thousands of participants who were visibly moved and deadly serious as they PUT ON THE WHOLE ARMOR OF GOD. It was clear to everyone that this was a dedication to Faith, Family, and Country in pursuit of Justice and the American Dream.

It was clear that the criminal activities of Politicians and the Evil Ones would no longer be tolerated as the People were going to rely on their faith for guidance rather than the lies of government and media. Let’s hope that our Churches and our government can meet the need and repudiate the Genocide in Gaza and other crimes. Many Evangelical churches wrongly support the Anti-Christian Zionist actions in Gaza. I don’t think you can find any support for Genocide in the words of Jesus Christ.

A majority of Americans are ignorant and apathetic, but I think that has changed in a major way for those who believe in God. This is important because their loyalty to a Political Party is replaced by a greater loyalty to Faith, Family, and Country. Many people consider the Government to be their enemy and that must change…or the government will be changed. Read the Declaration of Independence Preamble of many similar grievances.

There is no need for our military to be overseas at great cost. None. Nor is there any need for Foreign Aid. These two expenses total $428.4 Billion and are about 10% of government’s budget.

As an Economist, I can tell you that if we mind our own business, our prosperity and freedom would be unlimited, and fulfilling the American Dream would require only one income.

Inflation is impoverishing the American people, and can be eliminated by ending the Federal Reserve Bank and returning to gold and silver money.

Do these four things and you can return to Justice and the American Dream on single income.

By eliminating Foreign Aid, you do the Christian thing and end the wrongful support of Genocide in Gaza. Both sides in the conflict hate one another for cause. But it is none of our damn business!  I just witnessed a ground swell of support for Faith, Family, and Country, which is a major shift towards religion and away from criminal government at the expense of the people.

It is not disputed that Charlie Kirk, President Trump, Congress, and most people with power are petrified of the Zionist Jewish Lobby. They all received significant funding from the Jews, and are also blackmailed to do their wishes. We know that Charlie Kirk took exception to the Gaza Genocide, and consider what happened to him. The American people are furious with our support of Gaza Genocide, and if President Trump does not change he will lose his base and key to greatness. If you want additional convincing evidence listen to Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens.

I think government and the Evil Ones ignore this clear message from the People at their peril.

Dedication to God, Family, and Country can’t be defeated by any enemy, much less the Communists and politicians. When the left is losing, they resort to violence…but they can do nothing to defeat a man’s belief in God. If the left continues its violence, the people will return it in kind. That is Biblical.

The post Fidelity to Faith, Family, and Country Is Surging From a Great Revival That Can’t Be Defeated. appeared first on LewRockwell.

In my first column after the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, I criticized those who called the protest a “coup,” pointing out that, “Some of the same politicians and bureaucrats denouncing the ridiculous farce at the Capitol as if it were the equivalent of 9/11 have been involved for decades in planning and executing real coups overseas. In their real coups, many thousands of civilians have died.”

The media at the time played up the violence committed by a relative few at the protest to stoke a national outcry and demands for “justice.” More than 1,500 Americans were charged over the incident and nearly 500 were imprisoned, including outrageous prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like entering the Capitol building through doors opened by the police, and filming the event.

While most Democrats and Republicans in Congress harshly denounced the January 6th “insurrectionists,” a few Members displayed the appropriate skepticism over accepted government narratives. Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, was relentless in his search for answers to a simple but critically important question: How many of the “insurrectionists” were actually undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement officers and what role might they have played in inciting the violence.

Massie grilled then-Attorney General Merrick Garland several times, but Garland would not budge. He refused to say whether there had been any undercover federal agents in the crowd, though of course he must have known.

Last week we learned a little more of the truth. With the release of the FBI’s long lost “after action” report, we now know that more than 250 undercover agents were in the crowd. According to the report, they were given roles including crowd control that they were not suited for. Some agents cited in the report complained of political biases in the Bureau against conservatives. What other tasks might have been given to a “politicized” FBI undercover team?

In addition to the undercover agents, there were more than two dozen paid informants in the Jan. 6th crowd. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the subcommittee investigating the matter, asks an important question: “With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”

Were they paid to inform, or to instigate? That is a good question. We do know that the event was used by the incoming Biden Administration to demonize and persecute the political opposition. There is no telling how many Americans would have liked to use their First Amendment guarantee of free speech to criticize the Biden Administration but were silenced by fear of persecution, or worse. It’s easy to conclude, seeing so many arrested and handed long sentences for non-violent “crimes,” that it’s better to keep quiet. At the time, the US was still in the grip of Covid tyranny, where speaking out against “the Science” could get you “cancelled” or worse. This was another way to silence people who were not “going along with the program.”

In the end, January 6th, 2021, was a coup of sorts. It was a coup against the First Amendment. The lesson for all of us is that if we do not regularly but peacefully exercise our First Amendment guarantees we will definitely lose them, regardless of who is in power.

The post The Real Jan. 6th Coup appeared first on LewRockwell.

You will likely ask: Why is your headline about Venezuela but you begin your article by discussing the new leader in Syria? A fair question, and here is the simple answer: Given the massive buildup of US forces off the coast, is the supposed threat posed by Tren de Aragua genuine, or is it an intelligence operation designed to create a justification to carry out a regime change in Venezuela?

We know from publicly available evidence that the CIA has a history of providing support to radical Islamic groups in contravention of publicly stated US policy to oppose such groups. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which is headed by the newly installed president of Syria, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, is the latest example.

Al-Sharaa was born in 1982 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to a Syrian Sunni Muslim family from the Golan Heights, and he grew up in Damascus, Syria. He joined al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) shortly before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and fought in the Iraqi insurgency for three years. He was captured by American forces in 2006 and imprisoned until 2011.

After his release, coinciding with the start of the Syrian Revolution, he founded the al-Nusra Front in 2012, an al-Qaeda affiliate aiming to topple Bashar al-Assad’s regime during the Syrian civil war, which happened to coincide with US policy… Just a coincidence?

By 2016, al-Sharaa cut ties with al-Qaeda, rebranded his group, and merged with other factions to form Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which controlled much of Idlib Governorate. HTS operated a technocratic administration known as the Syrian Salvation Government, providing some public services but also suppressing dissent. I believe that this separation from al-Qaeda coincided with him becoming affiliated with Western intelligence organizations.

Although he was brought to power with the assistance of Western intelligence organizations, multiple reports and investigations from multiple sources confirm that forces aligned with Ahmed al-Sharaa and his government in Syria have continued to carry out widespread sectarian violence, persecution, and massacres targeting religious minorities including Christians, Alawites, Druze, and Shia Muslims. Key points include:

• From March 2025, a series of mass killings targeting Alawite communities occurred, involving door-to-door interrogations and executions based solely on sectarian identity. These massacres resulted in over a thousand deaths and involved Syrian government forces and allied militias. Al-Sharaa denied direct responsibility and blamed remnants of the Assad regime, but human rights groups have implicated forces loyal to him in the violence. Videos have surfaced showing Ministry of Defense personnel engaging in sectarian killing operations.

• The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported ongoing religious persecutions by forces loyal to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which al-Sharaa once commanded. Persecutions against Alawites, Druze, Shia Muslims, and Christians have included mass killings, kidnappings, intimidation, and looting by Islamist militias affiliated with the new Syrian government.

• Despite pledges from al-Sharaa’s government to protect religious minorities, evidence indicates continued violence and discrimination. Christian and Druze populations report fear and suffering under the new regime, which retains militant elements associated with terrorist designations.

• Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have called for full investigations into the civilian killings and human rights abuses under al-Sharaa’s government.

This evidence shows that the situation for religious minorities under Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rule is precarious, with significant reports of sectarian violence and persecution alongside official denials or counterclaims from the government. And yet, the US government aligned itself with this head-chopper.

Based on this precedent, it is not a wild leap to ask the question: Is the CIA involved with creating the Tren de Aragua threat in order to justify a regime change in Venezuela? Circumstantial evidence says, yes!

First Mention in News Media

The earliest documented mention of Tren de Aragua in US news media appears in a June 9, 2024, CNN article titled Tren de Aragua: The Venezuelan gang infiltrating the US. This report detailed the gang’s origins in a Venezuelan prison, its expansion into South America, and emerging activities in the US, including over 70 linked cases in law enforcement documents. Prior mentions in international media (e.g., in Peru in 2018) exist, but this marks the first significant US-focused coverage, coinciding with federal investigations into its US operations. Pay attention to the 2018 date… More about that in a bit.

First Mention in a US Government Publication

The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) first officially mentioned Tren de Aragua on July 10, 2024, in a press release sanctioning it as a transnational criminal organization. The release highlighted its involvement in human smuggling, trafficking, gender-based violence, money laundering, and drug trafficking across the Western Hemisphere, including the US. This predates subsequent actions, such as DHS references to arrests starting in May 2023 (retrospectively noted in 2025 reports) and later designations in 2025.

No publicly declassified or confirmed CIA operation specifically named for the purpose of overthrowing Nicolás Maduro’s government exists in available records. The US government has consistently denied direct involvement in coup attempts or assassinations, labeling such Venezuelan claims as categorically false. However, reporting reveals a secret Trump-era CIA-assisted covert initiative aimed at regime change through nonviolent disruption, such as a 2019 hack of Venezuela’s military payroll system to sow discontent among troops. This unnamed program involved internal CIA debates over resources and alignment with broader US policy, but it did not achieve Maduro’s ouster and remains partially classified.

These reflect a pattern of US maximum pressure tactics (sanctions, indictments, cyber ops) since 2018, but no single, named CIA overthrow operation has been acknowledged or declassified. Maduro frequently accuses the CIA of plots to justify repression, though evidence is often lacking. Did you catch the date in the preceding sentence? The maximum pressure to oust Maduro started in 2018, which just happens to coincide with the first mention of Tren de Aragua in the Peruvian press in 2018. Hmmmm… Just a coincidence? I know based on my previous experience that it is highly likely that CIA assets were used to plant stories in the media, including social media, to build a narrative that Tren de Aragua is a threat to the US that justifies the use of military force.

Is it possible that Donald Trump signed a classified finding in 2018 that authorized a CIA covert action program to remove Nicholas Maduro from power, and is it likely that program is still in operation? I think so… What do you think?

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Is Tren De Aragua a CIA Operation in Order to Justify an Attack on Venezuela? appeared first on LewRockwell.