Lew Rockwell Institute

Could the massive gathering for Charlie Kirk’s funeral become a turning point for the silent majority? I sure hope so but doubt it very much. Let’s look at the problem without our happy glasses, the ones that only see what pleases us. The 200,000-person crowd at his funeral doesn’t mean a thing to the mainstream media; the latter looks upon them as misguided Christian fools at best, as dumb and ignorant white fascists at worse. The mainstream media sees those who have twice elected Trump president—the second time with a popular-vote win—as a minority fringe group of Christian fanatics and fools. And as Democrats rule all TV networks bar Fox, and late-night talk-show conservatives are as rare as virgins in Las Vegas, I don’t see things changing overnight.

Never mind that America is a moral Christian nation whose majority has absolutely no voice in media or entertainment. The fact that Hollywood and the TV industry totally ignore the majority—and make fun of it and insult it nonstop—has been obvious to many of us on the right, but those who run our screens could not care less. Do you think those five unfunny clowns who appear on the three main channels on late nights would ever make fun of those trans freaks that the Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson was part of? Of course not, but Catholics, nuns, priests, law-abiding Christians, and anyone on the right are legitimate targets for ridicule every night since the Johnny Carson epoch.

“Here are five clowns who make millions per annum kissing the backsides of dumb celebrities who don’t know the difference between Rambo and Rimbaud.”

Here are five clowns who make millions per annum kissing the backsides of dumb celebrities who don’t know the difference between Rambo and Rimbaud. Unlike Johnny Carson, who would raise an eyebrow when one of his celebrity guests would overdo the stupidity, the present clowns just gush. Then they heap abuse on, yes, you guessed it, anything or anyone conservative or even middle-of-the-road. A young father of two is murdered, and what these snide celebrity ass-kissers do is gloat. When a trans shoots and kills two young children in Minneapolis two weeks before Charlie Kirk’s murder, not a word against trans violence is allowed on the airwaves. Here are some facts and figures that Communist Soviet TV would have been proud of: In 2025 alone there were 1,128 jokes against Trump on ABC, 154 against Musk, and 71 against Hegseth. There were also 26 negative jokes against Biden, nine against Bernie Sanders, and five against Gavin Newsom. The same rate goes for the rest of the channels, with the exception of Fox. Only one Republican guest appeared on the Kimmel show in the past three years. Joseph Stalin would have thought that’s one too many. So, what do you think about these numbers? Do they sound as if they were taken in a democracy or a totalitarian state? Just imagine what the left would be saying if things were reversed—if the left had won big in the election, and the mainstream media was mostly right-wing and treated the majority of the country’s citizens as dumb, uneducated nobodies to be ignored. They’d be howling even louder than they are now against Trump.

So, what is to be done, as someone quite infamous once demanded? Focusing on station licenses that are supposed to operate in the public interest has obviously not worked. People in the entertainment business are mostly on the left, and those who are not pretend to be or else. It is a closed shop, hence the Trump administration has to install new rules. I say make it fifty-fifty or lose your license. It is now 97 percent pro-left, and they’re squealing like pregnant penguins because Kimmel was suspended for three nights.

Pro-trans militancy personified by the recent murders is a subject rejected by the mainstream media in Europe as well as in America. Reporters tend to look away when violent pro-trans freaks start shouting. An ABC reporter—half scared to death, I imagine—characterized the killer Robinson’s text messages to his freak boyfriend/girlfriend as “very touching.” Pass the sick bag, as we used to say when someone as ludicrous as that ABC reporter wrote such trash.

It is a sad day indeed when the freaks of this world have the upper hand and force great women like J.K. Rowling into defending themselves for stating the obvious. Sex is biological, and only freaks try to change it. I say to hell with them, and to hell with the cowards of mainstream media who are too scared to write the truth. These are the same people who tell us nightly and daily that those who voted Republican are inherently evil and destructive. Controlling information and media is the one and only step for authoritarian regimes. The left has had it for far too long in the good old US of A. Change is what has to be done.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Late-Night Losers appeared first on LewRockwell.

U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing his country into an uncomfortable direction. What might be the reasons for him to do so?

His recent address to a gathering of all military commanders included the demand to fight the ‘enemy’ within the country:

He did, however, speak with great moral clarity about certain classes of Americans whom he views as a grave threat:

• • The American left: “They’re really bad. They’re bad people.” Again, he’s talking about Americans here.
  • His own domestic political opponents: “They’re vicious people that we have to fight, just like you have to fight vicious people. Mine are a different kind of vicious.”
  • American journalists: “sleazebags.”

• • Residents of American inner cities: “animals.”

His Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called on flag officers (Generals) to follow a conservative ideology. He has also announced a reduction of flag officer positions which will give him the chance to weed out those officers who have a more liberal standpoint.

Trump wants the military to use U.S. cities as training grounds (archived):

It was at that moment that the president recounted a conversation with his defense secretary: “I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

This seems to be, together with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) raids, a preparation for countering severe domestic unrest.  But there is, so far no reason for any a big unrest to happen. The U.S. society is generally not a rebellious one. Why would Trump perceive that unrest is coming?

On the other side Trump is clearly preparing for a more global war.

Another round of war with Iran is imminent. Air-tankers have been deployed to the Middle East, Israel’s air defenses have been beefed up with more THAAD launchers and a carrier group is entering the Mediterranean.

The increase of forces near Venezuela is also continuing. It is clearly a build up towards a regime change attempt (archived).

Trump has increase intelligence sharing with Ukraine to allow for deep strikes into Russia.

At the same time the U.S. seems to have largely given up on militarily countering the rise of China.

Regime change in Iran and Venezuela could bring a huge amount of additional energy resources under Washington’s control.

When the big stock market crash that everybody is warning (archived) about (archived) will finally happen, the U.S. economy will get severely damaged.

Unrest in the U.S. could then become real.

Having control over additional resource assets would dampen the negative effects for the U.S. dollar and debt position.

Is Trump expecting something like that?

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Musing About Trump’s Recent Moves appeared first on LewRockwell.

Every year, leaders step down. Some leave their roles quietly, chalking it up to exhaustion or “new opportunities.” Others implode publicly, and their fall becomes a public cautionary tale. From the outside, it’s easy to assume they burned out because of the relentless pace of leadership or the weight of expectations.

But if you study the pattern, you see something deeper.

Most leaders don’t collapse because of what they were doing. They collapse because of what they stopped doing.

They poured into their people, invested in their teams, and fought for results but neglected their own growth. They stopped feeding the very roots that once sustained them.

And when a leader stops growing, their influence will outpace their integrity. Their “job” will outgrow their character.

And eventually, their capacity will run out.

Why Leaders Burn Out

The greatest leadership danger is not always outside pressure. It’s inside neglect.

Burnout rarely begins with a full calendar. It begins with an empty tank.

Leaders pour into others but fail to refill themselves. They keep adding commitments without reinforcing capacity. At first, no one notices. They’re still gifted, still effective, still carrying momentum. But beneath the surface, cracks are forming.

Burnout is not just about workload. It’s about growth load.

If you are not expanding, you are shrinking. If you are not deepening, you are drying up. Leadership requires continual enlargement of our physical, mental, and spiritual health. Without those, you eventually collapse under the very weight you were called to carry.

Paul understood this dynamic when he wrote to his young protege Timothy:

“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
— 1 Timothy 4:16 NIV

Paul makes the connection crystal clear: leadership influence is inseparable from personal growth. A huge part of Timothy’s ability to lead others faithfully depended on his willingness to watch his own life carefully.

Timothy was leading in a hostile environment. The Ephesian church faced opposition from culture, pressure from false teachers, and the challenge of rapid growth. As a young leader, Timothy’s gifting was evident, but Paul knew gifting wasn’t enough.

Charisma can build momentum. Discipline sustains it.

That’s why Paul didn’t just tell Timothy to preach well. He told him to watch his life. He gives him a command to guard his inner world while protecting his growth rhythms. Because a leader’s collapse doesn’t just take them out, it weakens everyone they influence.

Paul tied Timothy’s faithfulness to the salvation of others. If Timothy persevered in growth, both he and his hearers would be saved. In other words, his private health had public consequences.

The same is true for us today. Your leadership stewardship is never just about you. The health of those you lead is tied to the health of your own growth.

The Hidden Cost of Stagnation

Many leaders assume burnout comes from doing too much. But the deeper problem is becoming too little.

When you stop growing, everything feels heavier. Situations that once energized you now drain you and conversations that used to spark creativity now feel routine.

You’re not overwhelmed by the amount of responsibility. You’re underwhelmed by your own development.

This stagnation creates a vicious cycle:

• As your growth slows, your effectiveness diminishes.
• As effectiveness drops, you try to compensate by working harder, not wiser.
• Working harder without renewed growth accelerates exhaustion.
• Exhaustion shrinks perspective and weakens character.

And the people who suffer most? The ones you lead.

Leadership burnout rarely comes from external weight. It comes from internal neglect.

If burnout comes from stagnation, then sustainability comes from growth. The question is: what areas of growth are most essential for leaders to last?

The Three Pillars of Sustainable Leadership

Lasting leadership doesn’t rest on talent or charisma. It rests on three pillars most leaders neglect: spiritual discipline, personal development, and honest feedback. These three work together to keep leaders grounded, expanding, and accountable. Remove one, and the entire structure becomes unstable.

Pillar One: Spiritual Discipline

Every collapse starts privately before it shows publicly. Leaders burn out when they trade intimacy with God for something else.

Prayer becomes a last resort. Scripture becomes optional. Worship becomes a chore. Without realizing it, leaders start trying to give what they no longer possess.

But spiritual discipline isn’t optional. It’s the lifeline.

• Prayer develops patience and the ability to listen while being fully present. When you train your ear to hear God’s voice, you become more attentive to your team, your mission, and God’s protection in the process.
• Scripture builds discernment. Wrestling with the complexity of God’s Word equips you to navigate the complexity of organizational and relational challenges in ways you could never do on your own. The wisdom of God’s word is a secret weapon for leading organizations.
• Worship restores humility and perspective. Regularly remembering God’s sovereignty keeps you from overinflating your role or shrinking under the pressure. It puts things back into a healthy perspective quickly.

Think about Jesus’ own rhythms.

Even when crowds pressed in and miracles were demanded, Luke wrote that “Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.”

Jesus had the capacity to do more than anyone, but He modeled the wisdom of stepping back. If the Son of God guarded His spiritual rhythms, how much more should we?

Your public influence will only be as strong as your private devotion.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Silent Leadership Crisis appeared first on LewRockwell.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has deployed—or threatened to deploy—National Guard troops in at least five American cities, including Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and New Orleans. Many of Trump’s supporters have cheered this, claiming that it is the responsibility of the president to send federal troops wherever he determines they are needed.

In some cases, deployments have occurred over the objections of the governments in the states where the troops are deployed. This has led to a complex legal situation, with the governments of California and Oregon suing the administration over the deployments. Judges, pundits, and lawyers will surely continue to argue for some time over the current legality of these deployments—as interpreted by federal judges—in federal court.

The fact that this is a matter of debate at all, however, illustrates how far the United States has come from the American Revolutionaries’ original vision of a federal republic with a greatly limited and decentralized military force. In the founding era, Americans feared the existence of a standing army that could be deployed at the will of federal officials. Moreover, Americans demanded that the states maintain their own, independent militias that could not be subjected to federal control without the cooperation of state officials.

That attitude is now long gone.

Instead, we find that both Left and Right in the United States now generally support more federal control, depending on which political party is in power, or which group is on the receiving end of new federal prerogatives. At the moment, it’s the Right that is in power, and so it is now conservatives who are clamoring for more federal power to deploy troops, expand federal law enforcement, and further bury the last few vestiges of the sovereignty once enjoyed by state governments.

For those who are actually concerned about the further concentration of political power, and who support real limits on the federal government, the president’s habit of sending federal troops to American cities is serious problem.

The Dangers of a Standing Army, and the Creation of a Decentralized Military in America

In the very early years of the United States, American political sentiment was heavily against any standing army under federal control. As summarized by Griffin Bovée at the Journal of the American Revolution:

Few ideas were more widely accepted in early America than that of the danger of peacetime standing armies. This anti-standing army sentiment motivated colonial opposition to post-French and Indian War British policies, intensified after the Boston Massacre, influenced the writings of most founding fathers, and remained politically relevant well after the Revolutionary War ended. This sentiment remained largely unchallenged until the introduction of the U.S. Constitution to the public for ratification. The Constitution’s “army clause,” which allowed the U.S. Congress to raise and support armies with biennial funds, sparked a nation-wide debate that pitted tradition against innovation, precedent against necessity, and federalism against nationalism.

The new federal military powers outlined in the proposed new constitution of 1787 sparked much resistance from the so-called anti-Federalists. Chief among them was Patrick Henry who initially opposed ratification of the new constitution on the grounds that the balance of military power under the new constitution favored the federal government. Henry wanted to ensure that an independent system of state militias would remain in place as a safeguard against centralized federal military power. In a 1788 speech, Henry railed against both the raising of a permanent army, and federal control over state troops: “Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress?”

Back then, it was assumed that the Congress would be the dominant power in the federal government, but if Henry were around today, seeing how the presidency now effectively controls the federal government, he would ask how Americans could resist federal power if the states’ militias were “put into the hands of the President?”

The idea here is that the states must not allow state troops—nowadays called the “National Guard”—to be controlled by the federal government.

For most of the nineteenth century—until the Civil War—the federal standing army was tiny. In effect, the federal government had access to very few troops for federal deployments of any kind. Federal control of state militias was still subject to veto by the state governments, and state governments were also known to use this veto. For example, the state governments refused to comply with federal attempts to take control of state troops in wartime in Connecticut in 1812, and Kentucky in 1861. In peacetime, state governments guarded their prerogatives over the militia even more jealously.

Turning State Militias Into a Federalized Military Force

By the late nineteenth century, however, state troops increasingly came under the control of the federal government, and the beginning of the end came with the Dick Act of 1903. As noted by David Yassky:

Statutes subsequent to the Dick Act have placed the National Guard under ever-greater federal control. Currently, anyone enlisting in a National Guard unit is automatically also enlisted into a “reserve” unit of the U.S. Army (or Air Force), the federal government may use National Guard units for a variety of purposes, and the federal government appoints the commanding officers for these units.1

The Dick Act introduced the use of the phrase “National Guard” in federal statutes. This new legislation also paved the way for the use of National Guard units to be used outside the territory of the United States, with a 1906 amendment specifically creating a provision for the use of militia units “either within or without the territory of the United States.”

This provision was later contested on constitutional grounds, but the Congress responded with the National Defense Act of 1916 which made it even easier for the president to call up state troops for federal purposes.

Over time, the line between state militias and federal troops became increasingly blurred, and today, state National Guard units today do not function independently of the United States government in any meaningful way.

Notably, the Dick Act also played a big part in overturning the idea that the general public constituted the informal militia of the United States. In the nineteenth century, there was a symbiotic relationship between the state militias and private gun ownership. This was due largely to the founding-era conception of the militia. Yassky adds:

 [I]n the Founders’ conceptual framework the militia consisted of the mass of ordinary citizens, trained to arms and available to serve at the call of the state. As George Mason put it: “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except [for] a few public officers. … When the Second Congress sought to exercise its constitutional authority to “provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia,” it directed “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states [except for persons exempted under state law and certain other exempted classes] … who is … of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years” to enroll in the militia of their states. Or as Patrick Henry declared at the Virginia ratifying convention: “The great object is, that every man be armed.”2

With the invention of the federally controlled “National Guard,” however, the legal concept of an “unorganized militia” was effectively abolished, and with it the perceived value of armed citizens. Even worse is the gradual subversion of the independence of the state militias.

Nonetheless, many modern-day conservative Trump supporters have apparently discovered their love of a federalized militia and the idea that the central government can deploy it at the whims of the central government. Trump has even proposed a permanent nationwide “reaction force” of National Guard troops for deployment to American cities at the president’s discretion. This would be the realization of a standing army specifically designed for use against Americans.

This was exactly what Henry, Mason, and the anti-Federalists feared and argued against. But, for Trump, it seems no amount of federal power is too much so long as it’s in the service of “owning the libs” and targeting political opponents. One would think that those who purport to oppose federal power and support individual liberty would balk at the idea of handing over even more coercive power to the federal government. Alas, if Trump supporters are any indication, this is apparently not the case.

The United States is already so far down the road of centralization and militarization that the average American of the founding era would find this country utterly unrecognizable. Americans of that era were far more realistic and less naïve about how abuses of power are carried out. The preservation of freedom often comes down to balancing one coercive power against another. A country where the central government holds almost all the military power, however, is a country where the central government is effectively free to do whatever it wants to its citizens in a time of emergency, either imagined or real. Those early Americans who sought to prevent the centralization of military power were right. But their words of warning are long forgotten.

—

1 See: David Yassky, “The Second Amendment: Structure, History, and Constitutional Change,” 99 Mich. L. Rev. 588 (2000).

2 Ibid.

The post Trump’s National Guard Deployments Centralize Power and Undermine Federalism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Blackmail, Bribes, and Fear: Netanyahu Claims He Controls Donald Trump and America. Tucker Responds. appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Israel Lobby Wants Thomas Massie Gone. Will American Voters Obey their Israeli Masters?

“Pro-Israel Republican megadonors recently set up the MAGA Kentucky super PAC with $2 million specifically to oust Massie. Paul Singer contributed $1 million, John Paulson added $250,000, and Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC provided $750,000. The Republican Jewish Coalition has promised “unlimited” campaign spending if Massie runs for Senate, with CEO Matt Brooks declaring that ‘if Tom Massie chooses to enter the race for US Senate in Kentucky, the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.’

“President Donald Trump has also jumped into the fray, branding Massie a ‘pathetic loser’ who should be dropped ‘like the plague.’ Overall, a constellation of pro-Zionist forces is mobilizing at full force to unseat Congress’s most principled non-interventionist politician since Ron Paul retired in 2013. In many respects, Massie has taken up Paul’s mantle of foreign policy restraint — a political agenda that has never sat well with organized Jewry. Massie’s legislative track record on foreign policy speaks for itself.” See this.

Paul Singer, John Paulson, and Miriam Adelson are billionaire Jews.  The money of these three Jews is sufficient to have the American electorate and Congress answerable to Israel.

That President Trump is so deep in the Jews’ pocket that he aligns against  one of the few members of Congress with the courage to represent American interests over Israel’s suggests the US will soon be at war with Iran.

In 2022 Trump had a different opinion of Massie, calling him “a Conservative Warrior” and”first-rate Defender of the Constitution,” but once Massie criticized Israel, he became a “loser” who should be “dropped.” It is easy for Israel to control a country that is not permitted to acknowledge Israel’s control.

How can America be made great again when Israel can simply buy the presidency and the Congress?  Israel has had Americans at war for Israel for a quarter century.  That’s what the “war on terror” was all about.

As I have said many times, no Western government represents its ethnic citizens.  Neither does America’s.

Read the full article here.

The post How Israel Controls America appeared first on LewRockwell.

Members of Congress still get paid when the government shuts down. They get every bit of their $174,000 salary, plus all the benefits and perks that come with being a member of Congress.

The post The Shutdown Won’t Affect All Government Employees appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brian Dunaway wrote:

In a post in these pages about a week ago I offered a few comments on AI euphoria, as well as a typical example of AI-driven search engine error.

Charles Hugh Smith (CHS) seems to have covered all my “earthly” concerns very well in an article here. (Perhaps my biggest concerns with AI are more metaphysical than physical, but I will not address them here.) CHS enumerates the current primary issues with AI, each of which is enormous.

CHS doesn’t appear to believe that AI is a “nothing” technology (neither do I), but he does characterize it as a con. No doubt there is some of that, but I think the AI euphoria is a genuine case of very poor understanding and judgment, fueled by The Promise of Singularity, and solving all the mysteries of the universe – and, easy money looking for the next big thing.

AI seems to have a lot of promise as a research tool, pointing primary research in directions that might have taken researchers many years to imagine. In this context, the researcher would employ scientific methods to verify the validity of an AI “conclusion.” As such, the AI entity would be part of the trial-and-error scientific process.

This is altogether different from what industry seems to think AI will accomplish: a Unified Field Theory of human endeavor. But at this point, AI just doesn’t seem anywhere near capable of doing what industry is trying to do with it.

A few additional comments, employing CHS’s numbered subheadings:

1. AI revenues are orders of magnitude lighter than the sums being invested 

In a similar vein to the subheading, a rule-of-thumb states that “if you buy stock at a P/E ratio of 15, then it will take 15 years for the company’s earnings to add up to your original purchase price – 15 years to ‘pay you back.’ That’s assuming that the company is already in its ‘mature’ stage, where earnings are constant. [Emphasis mine.]” “Assuming” – that’s the mother of all assumptions.

But, even if one is a “true believer,” even the market indicates AI technology is in its nascent stage. A typical AI large corporate P/E is around 50 (that is, when the “E” isn’t negative!). So, half a century? Sounds about right. That is, IF it ever works as advertised, with profit-making reliability in the distant future, and requiring enormous resources that aren’t even yet available. And a lot can happen in 50 years. This technology should be considered very high risk.

2. AI tools are inherently untrustworthy and lend themselves to generating “going through the motions” slop

CHS offers a very good summary here: AI has a “superficial appearance of value but actually has negative value as it’s incomplete, misleading and/or incoherent. Sorting the wheat from the chaff actually takes more time because AI is so adept at generating a superficial gloss. In other words, AI generates time sinks rather than productivity.” Exactly.

Currently, I would place AI technology at a TRL (Technology Readiness Level, in NASA parlance) of around 4 (of 9) – and that is probably very generous – even at this level it simply seems unproven. At a TRL of 5 (component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment), it would be pretty difficult to make an argument other than that AI has proven to be unreliable and/or not cost effective at scale.

A few weeks ago Epoch Times penned an article that illustrates well the idea of “time sink” in the context of coding software with AI. One report noted 45% of code samples failed security tests. A programmer and IP attorney commented, “I’m surprised the percentage isn’t higher. AI-generated code, even when it works, tends to have a lot of logical flaws that simply reflect a lack of context and thoughtfulness.”

In the same article, in the context of law, “AI hallucinations have already made headlines for the problems they can create in the workplace. A 2024 study observed LLMs had a ‘hallucination’ rate between 69 percent and 88 percent, based on responses to specific legal queries. [Emphasis mine.]”

3. The rate at which major companies are adopting AI is rolling over

I have nothing to add here, other than to say that apparently larger companies that have the resources to understand the future of AI are pulling back from AI adoption. CHS includes a fascinating graph suggesting that firms with more than 50 souls had a negative AI adoption rate starting this last summer.

4. AI data centers are competing with other users for electricity, water and capital

AI power requirements alone are stratospheric, and as CHS notes, this is having an enormous impact on power bills. That would include the power bills of the most vulnerable – not just economically vulnerable, but cruelly, those whose jobs the overlords want to eliminate.

And regarding “singularity” – as defined – one study I read suggested that all the current power in the world would not be sufficient to achieve it. Added to that little detail are the ridiculous requirements of Green Fantasies like an EV in every driveway and net zero power generation, and all this with a backdrop of failing power infrastructure.

The post Will AI Crash the Economy? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Zero Hedge

The post Bondi DOJ Opposes Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

My parents grew up in Minneapolis. My American roots are in southern Minnesota. The poor leadership of the politicians in Minnesota and the Twin Cities has ruined the state.

The post “A Precarious State” Trailer: Documentary Video appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

In the last two years of his life, Charlie Kirk, up until then an unwavering supporter of Israel, began to ask questions about the Netanyahu government. On October 13, 2023 Kirk appeared on Patrick Bet David’s podcast and denounced “bloodthirsty neocons.” He described himself as a 30 year old Millennial tired of no win Middle East wars. “When America is not leading, at least diplomatically, you’ve got serious problems.” A transcript of the podcast and the video:

https://podmarized.com/episodes/pbd-podcast/charlie-kirk-pbd-podcast-ep-314

Kirk asked if Israel stood down on 10/7 (29:00 on video); was opposed to a kinetic war against Iran (at 41:00); revealed how the US’s coup in Iran resulted in radical Islam taking over (44:00). 

The post Charlie Kirk Opposed “Bloodthirsy Neocons” and No Win Middle East Wars appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

The post Charlie Kirk’s Death Planned Long Ago (Predictive Programming Shaping Humanity’s Consciousness) appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Bill Madden

vtforeignpolicy.com

The post Kirk assassination – Chris Martenson best analysis of the conspiracy; other theories are wrong, may be plants by the perpetrators appeared first on LewRockwell.

Johnny Kramer.

* not satirical

The Far Left Satirical Ad

The post The Far Left appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

iNewParadigm

The post Climate Change – 8 Counter Arguments to Debate Its Claims appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

Independent

The post Soros-linked NYC money manager arrested on trafficking charges that include ‘sex dungeon’ claim and Playboy models appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post ‘Mediator’ Trump Approves Intel For Deep Strikes Into Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

The post No Hercules to Slay the Swamp Hydra appeared first on LewRockwell.

Background

For the past 100+ years, the Middle East has been plagued by western-initiated conflicts and wars no end. The purpose is to dominate one of the world’s largest energy resources. Other energy-rich countries are Russia and Venezuela. Both are in the crosshairs for US-western domination. Venezuela is being aggressed, as I speak, by President Trump’s US Navy. However, China sends her Navy to President Maduro’s rescue. It is clear the plates of world dominion are shifting away from the west.

Russia is in the forefront of US and western aggression for her resources and vast territory, and has been for over hundred years, with two world wars directed to subdue Russia. To no avail. Today, Russia’s alliance with China is stronger than ever, and after the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit of 31 August-1 September 2025, the Global South under the leadership of the BRICS-plus is no longer looking up to the west – but is calling the shots to the detriment of the gradually “extinguishing” importance of the western “Empire”.

Just a few impressive figures: The Global South accounts for about 85% of the world population and close to 50% of the world’s GDP; compare this with the fading G7’s 40% of world GDP.

Similar with China, her success story during the last 76 years, unmatched by any country in recent history, cannot be simply accepted but must be dominated by the west. “China is a danger for western hegemony” … is the going slogan, although China’s non-aggressive, peaceful behavior with the rest of the world is legendary proof for the contrary.

The west will not be able to subdue China either. Far from it. China is said to be the second largest world economy. However, in terms that really count for the living economy, in Purchasing Power Parity or PPP, China is and has been the world’s number one economy for the last at least five years.

China represents peace – peace is light, and light will overcome darkness. Darkness and confusion is what we are living today.

Let us hope the Middle East saga – aggression by the same self-styled empire and the Zionist forces behind the US empire, as well as its European vassals – will make a turn towards the light and peace, lest they may fail and fall too.

Now to the Middle East – Or Rather Western Asia

It would appear fair to say that one of the first “disturbances” in Western Asia was the Zionist-initiated Balfour Declaration, a public statement issued by the British Prime Minister Arthur James Balfour in 1917, during the First World War which eventually led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, in what was known for hundreds, actually thousands of years as Palestinian territory.

The Balfour Declaration was initiated in a letter from then self-nominated Zionist Chief, United Kingdom (UK) Lord Rothschild, to then British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour.

The UK Government submitted this proposal to the newly created United Nations (1944) with then only some 51 member-states, almost all western-oriented. The UN approved the British proposal. Israel was created within Palestine in 1948. This was a major “declaration of aggression” for Palestine and for the Arab world.

Tensions between the Jewish and Arab populations began already in 1925 and deepened when the UK agreed in principle to the establishment of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. Before 1948, Palestine was a land of bustling cities like Jaffa and Haifa, serene villages, ancient olive groves, and a deep cultural and artistic heritage. Images from this era provide a window into Palestine often absent from modern history textbooks.

.

Crates of Jaffa oranges being ferried to a waiting freighter for export, circa 1930 (Public Domain)

.

The UK-sponsored preparation for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine may have laid the cornerstone for future conflicts in the Middle East.

The expansion of Israel beyond Palestine, taking over Lebanon, Syria, and now attempting to capture also Iran, Iraq and parts of Saudi Arabia, with Jordan an easy annexation, is the long Zionist-planned realization of Greater Israel. It does not bode well for peace.

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, what the world is witnessing today is genocide, ethnic cleansing, outright expulsion of Gazans from their land, of unheard-of proportions, carried out on a once autonomous nation Palestine, by a western-implanted nation, Israel, and its US-Zionist backing, which the irresponsible vassalic non-union, the so-called European Union, whole-heartedly supports.

In Gaza, an additional reason for western aggression and Israel’s expansion may be enormous gas reserves offshore of Gaza – of an estimated worth of US$ one trillion, possibly more.

It is like a red line through the myriads of wars and aggressions – all western-initiated and perpetuated, often through specially for this purpose created terror groups, like ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), later shortened to IS (Islamic State), and more are prime examples.

They were created by the infamous triad of the Israeli Mossad, the UK MI6, and the US CIA. Likewise, Hamas (Gaza) and Hezbollah (Lebanon) are western Secret Services creations, similar to Al-Qaeda, created by the US in Pakistan in 1988.

Such “counter-terrorist” groups are required to justify the West’s armed intervention in countries they want to overthrow, take over and dominate. The reason for domination is their wealth – mainly their hydrocarbon wealth, their strategic geographic position, their anti-US political position, or their alliance with a perceived US enemy.

A globalist hegemony cannot tolerate independent, sovereign states with resources sustaining their autonomy and sovereignty.

*

As history evolves in dynamic ways, the wars in the Middle East – alias Western Asia — has recently been expanded by a new one. On 13 June 2025, Israel –  unprovoked –launched dozens of airstrikes against Iran targeting Iran’s nuclear program, military facilities and killing Iran’s top commanders and nuclear scientists in a devastating large-scale attack that pushed the Middle East into a new war.

Russia Today (see this) reports that while armed conflicts are a constant presence in West Asia, this time the stakes are higher. Israel has found itself in direct confrontation not with a proxy or insurgent group, but with Iran – its principal geopolitical adversary and a likely future nuclear power and not only a member of the BRICS, therefore a key member of the Global South, but also newly a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Not to forget, Israel has nuclear warheads since the 1960s. Nobody officially talks about them and Israel has never signed the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). However, Iran did sign the treaty (NPT).

The Israel-Iran war started already in 2024, when the two countries exchanged direct strikes as far back as April 2024. For decades before that, they waged what is commonly known as a “shadow war,” primarily through intelligence operations, cyberattacks, and support for regional proxies. But now, at Israel’s initiative, the conflict has escalated into open warfare.

Be sure, Israel attacks Iran only with the consent of the US.

On his Truth Social platform, US President Donald Trump warned, or you may call it “blackmailed,” Tehran, saying that the next “already planned attacks” on her would be “even more brutal”, adding that “Iran must make a deal [on its nuclear enrichment program], before there is nothing left (of Iran].”

Strangly, lately it has been quiet around the topic of Iran’s alleged enrichment program.

After the US Air Force and Navy attacked three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, in an operation called “Midnight Hammer”, President Trump says Iran’s nuclear program is over; there is no more need for Israel to keep bombing Iran – “Iran is finished.” That is what Trump says. But by now the world knows that Trump lies. He promised he would within days of his taking the Presidency end all wars. He is now almost eight months in office and wars are raging like never before.

Iran is far from finished; Iran being a member of the Chinese Strategy Center, the SCO, as well as of BRICS.

Is this leading to or is it already the beginning of WWIII?

Let us meditate it is not – and peace will prevail.

Read the Whole Article

The post Peace in the Middle East – An Engine of Growth Towards a Shared Future for Mankind appeared first on LewRockwell.

Kiev is planning a false-flag operation in the EU involving the deployment of a sabotage group to Poland posing as Russian and Belarusian special forces, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has said.

Earlier this month, Warsaw claimed that 19 Russian drones had entered the Polish airspace and called the incident a deliberate provocation by Moscow intended to test NATO’s response. Similar claims of a drone incursion were later made by Romania.

The SVR said in a statement on Tuesday that the drone incursions into the EU were part of continued efforts by Ukraine, which is losing on the battlefield, aimed at “drawing European NATO countries into armed conflict with Moscow.”

“Another provocation is currently being worked out” by the government of Vladimir Zelensky, the statement read. It would revolve around “a sabotage and reconnaissance group deployed into Polish territory and allegedly consisting of special forces servicemen from Russia and Belarus,” it added.

Members of the unit have already been selected from the ranks of the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Belarusian Kastus Kalinouski Regiment, which have been fighting for Kiev in the Ukraine conflict, the agency said.

According to the scenario being prepared by Ukraine’s military intelligence (GUR) together with Polish spy agencies, after “the ‘detection and neutralization’ of the group by the security forces of Poland, its members are expected to appear before the media and give confessions, implicating Russia and Belarus in attempts to destabilize the situation in Poland,” the SVR stressed.

The belief in Ukraine is that, following the drone incursions, “such an event should leave no doubt in the minds of the Poles and other ordinary Europeans that Moscow and Minsk stand behind all the hostile actions,” it said.

“Kiev expects to prompt European countries to respond to Russia as harshly as possible, preferably in a military manner,” the SVR warned.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk claimed on Monday that the Ukraine conflict was “our war” and urged Western Europe to mobilize against Russia.

Speaking at the UN General assembly last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that Moscow has no aggressive plans against NATO, but warned that any aggression against the country would be met with “a resolute response.”

This article was originally published on RT News.

The post Ukraine Plotting False Flag in EU – Moscow appeared first on LewRockwell.