Lew Rockwell Institute

It’s as simple as this: the orgy of judicial lawfare put on by blob-adjacent Democratic Party seditionists trying to make the USA ungovernable is looking to get swatted. Hubris is a harsh mistress, but Nemesis is more like the gods’ re-po man, and he comes to the door with attitude, meaning bidness. Blob judges will get flushed out of their humid conclaves naked and find themselves, astoundingly, in the FO zone of FAFO-land.

Do you think AG Bondi is playing tiddlywinks in Main Justice or that Kash Patel is just sitting there buffing his nails over at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW? Where did we get the idea that federal judges can just act with impunity, jerking around the public interest like some show-off with a yoyo?

Case in point: Judge James Boasberg, head honcho of the DC federal district court stepped into the FAFO waiting room over the weekend when he ordered two planeloads of deported toxic human trash known as Tren de Aragua, bound for jail in El Salvador, to return to the USA. Mr. Trump’s White House refused, saying the planes were already over international waters, outside the judge’s jurisdiction. Dem-blob lawyer Mark Zaid made the predictable next move, claiming that the matter will be grounds for Impeachment No. 3 against Mr. Trump post the 2026 midterm election. But, of course: strategery!

The general purpose in this latest phase of lawfare is to choke the federal courts with so many restraining orders and injunctions that the White House lawyers find themselves locked into an endless Chinese fire drill of counter-filings, motions, writs, and appearances. It’s all that the so-called “resistance” has left, what with DOGE breaking up the racketeering operation that has funded the Dem’s defense of the blob for a decade. By which I mean the government funding of non-governmental orgs (ha!) to distribute payola to Dem foot-soldiers who do all the dirty work of protecting the rogue bureaucracy in a circle-jerk of power and payoffs. This includes the dirty work of Dem-blob lawyers such as Mark Zaid, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Marc Elias, Barbara McQuade, Joanna Lydgate et al.

The history of Judge Boasberg in particular presents a disturbing picture of a tool covering-up every act of the shadowy blob’s war against American citizens. Boasberg presided in the FISA court that fraudulently enabled the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane operation to attempt ousting newly-elected Donald Trump in 2017, and the many RussiaGate pranks that followed. As chief judge of the DC District, he oversaw the Jack Smith Special Counsel op and all the cases associated with it, including the Mar-a-Lago raid and the J-6 case in Tanya Chutkan’s crooked court. Boasberg allowed the prosecution of J-6ers under the unlawful use of the corporate fraud obstruction statute, 18USC§1512c2, a.k.a. the Enron law. He presided over the trial of Ray Epps, the shady character recorded on video repeatedly urging J-6 protestors to “go into the Capitol.” Boasberg gave Epps a suspended sentence while grandmothers who merely “paraded” through the rotunda between velvet ropes that day got sent to jail.

What can be done about judges like Boasberg? The prevailing view is: not much. I’m not so sure that’s true. While Rep. Brandon Gill (D-TX) announced last week that he will file articles of impeachment against Boasberg, a two-thirds majority would be required to convict him in any eventual Senate trial, so fuggeddabowdit. But federal judges are not immune from criminal investigation and prosecution, which is where AG Bondi and FBI Director Patel ought to come in. What’s probably standing in plain sight is a RICO conspiracy involving the aforesaid lawfare artists — Norm Eisen & Co — and the federal judiciary to deliberately bury the executive branch under burdensome fraudulent process, impede the executive branch’s ability to carry out its constitutional duties, and to obstruct justice.

Would you like to know if correspondence exists between these parties? Mr. Patel can ask them to produce it, and if they fail to, there’s a strong possibility that DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard can root it out of the NSA’s server farm. Depositions can be demanded. The lawfare lawyers will have to hire lawyers — just as all the targets of “Joe Biden” and Merrick Garland were obliged to lawyer-up when they were systematically persecuted from January, 2021 to January, 2025. The meters will run, ka-ching, ka-ching. It will be interesting to see who is footing the bill for that. You can be sure that it will be found out. Reid Hoffman? George and Alex Soros? Note: Dan Bongino was sword in as Deputy Director of the FBIat 8:00 o’clock this morning. Nemesis is open for bidness.

The lawfare gang would love all of this to ramp into a king-hell constitutional crisis. Could happen. Let them try. They don’t hold any of the levers of power the way they used to. A lot could go wrong for them. Welcome to FAFO-land.

Reprinted with permission from JamesHowardKunstler.com.

The post Welcome to FAFO-Land appeared first on LewRockwell.

Here is from the transcript by MSNBC, of their broadcast on 17 January 2025 of President Joe Biden’s final interview (which was the prior day, by the Democrat Lawrence O’Donnell, on his “The Last Word” show) — it included one of the decrepit Biden’s ever-increasing number of unintentional slip-ups saying the truth that he never had intentionally revealed during his prior and less-decrepit period (and, of course, his interviewer, this Democrat, O’Donnell, simply ignored what the President had just said, instead of diving into it so as to perhaps get more details about this crucially important matter):

“The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell – Jan. 16 | Audio Only”

21:42

[O’DONNELL]: WHEN THIS WAR STARTED, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS TENSION ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION,

21:48

THE POSSIBILITY OF VLADIMIR PUTIN USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. DID YOU HAVE ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION

21:55

WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN TO DETER HIM FROM USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

[BIDEN]: WELL, I DID.

22:00

WHEN HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT TACTICAL, I THOUGHT THIS GUY WANTS TO USE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NO.

22:06

I DON’T WANNA DO THAT. I DON’T DO THAT. NUCLEAR WEAPONS,

22:11

TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE SCARES THE HELL OUT OF EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS, INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS.

22:18

AND SO WHAT I, I MADE IT CLEAR TO HIM, LOOK,

22:23

HE SAID TO ME THAT WHAT HE WANTED WAS: HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WERE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE,

22:30

I MEAN, IN, UH, IN UKRAINE; THAT, UH, THERE WAS, THEY WEREN’T A MEMBER OF NATO;

22:36

AND, UH, THAT, UH, THEY WOULD NOT BE, UH, UH — AND HE,

22:41

HE STARTED OFF ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS BY SAYING: I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE ME OUT TOMORROW. I KNOW YOU CAN TAKE THEM OUT TOMORROW FROM UKRAINE.

22:48

YOU CAN STRIKE MOSCOW. YOU CAN STRIKE. I SAID, THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM. WE’VE ALREADY TAKEN THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OUT.

22:55

SO I TOOK THEM ALL OUT.

Ukraine is far nearer to The Kremlin than ANY other country is: around 300 miles or 500 kilometers away; and THIS is the reason why Russia will not allow Ukraine to be in NATO: It has the closest of all borders to The Kremlin.

Here is — with full documentation in its links, so that you can immediately see the evidence for any assertion you might doubt — the actual history of how the war in Ukraine actually started on 20 February 2014 and ultimately produced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 — and all of it has to do with America’s determination to place its nukes a mere five minutes away from Moscow, and Russia’s determination to prevent that from ever being able to happen. Putin has done a terribly poor job of making clear to the public the reason why he invaded Ukraine on 24 Febuary 2022; but, as you will see from the evidences that are linked-to in the following, this — the distance to Moscow — is the reason why he did. Ukraine was far too close to Moscow. Putin needed to do this in order to protect Russia from the United States — to prevent a 5-minute blitz nuclear attack decapitating Russia’s central command. And it ALSO was the reason why the U.S. Government was so determined, for so many decades, to get Ukraine into its NATO military alliance against Russia. Putin didn’t only need Biden to remove America’s nukes from Ukraine — he knows that American Presidents come and go — he needed something irrevocable. Biden isn’t saying there that NATO will formally announce “Ukraine is banned from ever entering NATO.” Putin and all of Russia NEED that public and formal commitment. The historical truth is the exact opposite of what has been (and still is) touted by the media in the U.S. and in its colonies, as having been the case; America has been the aggressor, all along. This history is the exact opposite of the U.S.-empire myth about it; so, here it is — this is the historical truth about the matter:

The Ukrainian war started after the democratically elected President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010, shortly following that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in 2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to become allied with the United States against his adjoining country Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.

The war in Ukraine started in 2014, as both NATO’s Stoltenberg and Ukraine’s Zelensky have said. This war was started in February 2014 by a U.S. coup which replaced the democratically elected and neutralist Ukrainian President, with a U.S. selected and rabidly anti-Russian leader, who immediately imposed an ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the overthrown President. Russia responded militarily on 24 February 2022, in order to prevent Ukraine from allowing the U.S. to place a missile there a mere 317 miles or five minutes of missile-flying-time away from The Kremlin and thus too brief for Russia to respond before its central command would already be beheaded by America’s nuclear strike. (As I headlined on 28 October 2022, “NATO Wants To Place Nuclear Missiles On Finland’s Russian Border — Finland Says Yes”. The U.S. had demanded this, especially because it will place American nuclear missiles far nearer to The Kremlin than at present, only 507 miles away — not as close as Ukraine, but the closest yet. This shows how crucial to the U.S. Government’s strategic planning it is, that America must place its nukes into position for a decapitating first-strike blitz annihilating Russia’s central command so as to prevent any retaliation. It displays how crazy with power-lust America’s Deep State actually are. As America’s leading expert on nuclear weapons, the physicist Theodore A. Postol, of MIT, had argued on 20 December 2014, the U.S. Government was developing a radical new technology strictly for the purpose of enabling a decapitating blitz first-strike against The Kremlin. Then, on 1 March 2017, he announced that it was now operational and being installed, and that “it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.” Furthermore, the Government was lying about it to the public, portraying it “to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities” to first-strike-annihilate The Kremlin.)

Ukraine had been neutral between Russia and America until Obama’s brilliantly executed Ukrainian coup, which his Administration started planning by no later than June 2011, culminated successfully in February 2014 and promptly appointed a rabid anti-Russian to impose in regions that rejected the new anti-Russian U.S.-controlled goverment an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” to kill protesters, and, ultimately, to terrorize the residents in those regions in order to kill as many of them as possible and to force the others to flee into Russia so that when elections would be held, pro-Russian voters would no longer be in the electorate.

The U.S. Government had engaged the Gallup polling organization, both before and after the coup, in order to poll Ukrainians, and especially ones who lived in its Crimean independent republic (where Russia has had its main naval base ever since 1783), regarding their views on U.S., Russia, NATO, and the EU; and, generally, Ukrainians were far more pro-Russia than pro-U.S., pro-NATO, or pro-EU, but this was especially the case in Crimea; so, America’s Government knew that Crimeans would be especially resistant. However, this was not really new information. During 2003-2009, only around 20% of Ukrainians had wanted NATO membership, while around 55% opposed it. In 2010, Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean “protection of your country,” 40% said it’s “a threat to your country.” Ukrainians predominantly saw NATO as an enemy, not a friend. But after Obama’s February 2014 Ukrainian coup, “Ukraine’s NATO membership would get 53.4% of the votes, one third of Ukrainians (33.6%) would oppose it.” However, afterward, the support averaged around 45% — still over twice as high as had been the case prior to the coup.

In other words: what Obama did was generally successful: it grabbed Ukraine, or most of it, and it changed Ukrainians’ minds regarding America and Russia. But only after the subsequent passage of time did the American billionaires’ neoconservative heart become successfully grafted into the Ukrainian nation so as to make Ukraine a viable place to position U.S. nuclear missiles against Moscow (which is the U.S. Government’s goal there). Furthermore: America’s rulers also needed to do some work upon U.S. public opinion. Not until February of 2014 — the time of Obama’s coup — did more than 15% of the American public have a “very unfavorable” view of Russia. (Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, that figure had already risen to 42%. America’s press — and academia or public-policy ‘experts’ — have been very effective at managing public opinion, for the benefit of America’s billionaires.)

Then came the Minsk Agreements (#1 & #2, with #2 being the final version, which is shown here, as a U.N. Security Council Resolution), between Ukraine and the separatist region in its far east, and which the U.S. Government refused to participate in, but the U.S.-installed Ukrainian government (then under the oligarch Petro Poroshenko) signed it in order to have a chance of Ukraine’s gaining EU membership, but never complied with any of it; and, so, the war continued); and, then, finally, as the Ukrainian government (now under Volodmyr Zelensky) was greatly intensifying its shelling of the break-away far-eastern region, Russia presented, to both the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance against Russia, two proposed agreements for negotiation (one to U.S., the other to NATO), but neither the U.S. nor its NATO agreed to negotiate. The key portions of the two 17 December 2021 proposed Agreements, with both the U.S. and with its NATO, were, in regards to NATO:

Article 1

The Parties shall guide in their relations by the principles of cooperation, equal and indivisible security. They shall not strengthen their security individually, within international organizations, military alliances or coalitions at the expense of the security of other Parties. …

Article 4

The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.

Article 5

The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.

Article 6

All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.

And, in regards to the U.S.:

Article 2

The Parties shall seek to ensure that all international organizations, military alliances and coalitions in which at least one of the Parties is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 3

The Parties shall not use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party or other actions affecting core security interests of the other Party.

Article 4

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

Any reader here can easily click onto the respective link to either proposed Agreement, in order to read that entire document, so as to evaluate whether or not all of its proposed provisions are acceptable and reasonable. What was proposed by Russia in each of the two was only a proposal, and the other side (the U.S. side) in each of the two instances, was therefore able to pick and choose amongst those proposed provisions, which ones were accepted, and to negotiate regarding any of the others; but, instead, the U.S. side simply rejected all of them.

On 7 January 2022, the Associated Press (AP) headlined “US, NATO rule out halt to expansion, reject Russian demands”, and reported:

Washington and NATO have formally rejected Russia’s key demands for assurances that the US-led military bloc will not expand closer towards its borders, leaked correspondence reportedly shows.

According to documents seen by Spanish daily El Pais and published on Wednesday morning, Moscow’s calls for a written guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted as a member of NATO were dismissed following several rounds of talks between Russian and Western diplomats. …

The US-led bloc denied that it posed a threat to Russia. …

The US similarly rejected the demand that NATO does not expand even closer to Russia’s borders. “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.”

NATO-U.S. was by now clearly determined to get Ukraine into NATO and to place its nukes so near to The Kremlin as to constitute, like a checkmate in chess, a forced defeat of Russia, a capture of its central command. This was, but in reverse, the situation that America’s President JFK had faced with regard to the Soviet Union in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. would have invaded Cuba if Khrushchev wouldn’t agree to a mutually acceptable settlement — which he did, and so WW3 was averted on that occasion. But whereas Khrushchev was reasonable, Obama and Biden were not (they wanted to checkmate Russia); and, so, we again stood — and under Trump might still stand — at the brink of WW3, but this time with a truly evil head-of-state (Biden — no better than Obama), who might even be willing to go beyond that brink in order to become able to achieve world-conquest.

Russia did what it had to do: it invaded Ukraine, on 24 February 2022 (just as America would have invaded and taken over Cuba if Khrushchev had not agreed to the deal that JFK proposed during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis).

On 29 October 2022, I headlined “NATO wants to place nuclear missiles on Finland’s Russian border — Finland says yes”; and reported that if Finland hadn’t said yes, then the U.S. would have made sure that at least one of NATO’s member-nations would have said no to (i.e., vetoed) Finland’s joining. The U.S. Government controls NATO, and would have been able to do that (and routinely does wrangle votes within NATO for a U.S. objective). This Government started the war in Ukraine because a blitz decapitation-strike annihilating Russia’s central command is what the war in Ukraine (only 317 miles away from The Kremlin) has been about, ever since the war in Ukraine started on 20 February 2014.

The investigative historian Carleton Meyer presented, on March 15th, an excellent 12-minute video history of the U.S. Government’s hiring of Nazis and ‘former’ Nazis after World War Two in order to ultimately achieve what the U.S. Government and its European colonies almost achieved but now appear extremely unlikely to achieve (and you can also see about this my 7 April 2024 article “How & Why the UK, U.S., and Canada, Governments imported Nazis into Canada”): the usage of the former pro-Nazi organizations in Ukraine so as to enable the U.S. empire to add Ukraine to the U.S., Govenment’s list of colonies — and the closest border of them all to Russia’s central command. The title of Meyer’s video is : “Provoking Russian Intervention – Part 26 of The Anglo-American War on Russia”. That brief video places into the broader historical context of post-WW2 American history, the more-recent detailed history of the Ukraine war that I have documented in the present article (and, differently, in my 7 April 2024 article just referred-to).

All of this must be understood within the even broader context of the way that the U.S. empire functions; and this was brilliantly explained in a 16-minute video, by the author of the 2004 confessional book I Was an Economic Hit Man, “John Perkins at Thistle Hotel London in 2012”, which video summarizes and goes even beyond that best-selling and by-now-classic book. Natural resources have, thoughout history, been craved by imperialists and caused them to invade foreign countries; and no country is even nearly so rich in natural resources as Russia is. That’s what the phrase “natural resources curse” actually refers to, but imperialistic Governments define it instead as being the corruption within the unacquired-but-sought-after lands themselves, though this corruption is usually to a large extent greatly spurred-on by (or even mainly created by) the imperialist power itself, in the process of its acquiring the colony. And Russia is refusing to become acquired. Putin is refusing to be checkmated by the U.S. Government — refusing to allow Russia to be exploited by its enemies (such as John Perkins describes, from his personal experience, having carried out in other countries).

The U.S. regime knows that it is evil, and merely lies about it. The reason why it always lies about itself is that it ‘justifies’ its aggressions by saying that it is a democracy and the leader of ‘the free world’, while the nation it’s targeting for ‘regime-change’ is instead an “autocracy” or a “dictatorship.” But the truth is that, regardless of what the targeted-for-takeover country is, the aggressor is actually the U.S. Government itself, not the one it’s trying to take over. It is the U.S. Government that needs to be “regime-changed” and replaced by a totally new Government that ADHERES TO the U.S. Constitution — instead of (like the one we’ve had since 1945) routinely violating or even ignoring it.

The problem in America isn’t the Democrats versus the Republicans (such as the billionaires’ media portray it) but the billionaires versus the public; and it is the billionaires who must be pulled down and replaced by authentic democracy if ever Constitutional rule is to become restored in America.

This originally appeared on Eric’s Substack.

The post Biden Admitted That America Had Been Planning To Blitz-Nuke the Kremlin. appeared first on LewRockwell.

What has happened to the Western World that causes it to deny and bury its successes because the successes allegedly embarrass nonwhites? See this.

For decades the majority of Western intellectuals, “artists,” and university professors have worked assiduously to demonize Western accomplishments as accomplished via looting of superior non-white cultures.  Not long ago a Swedish anti-white activist made a “documentary” “proving” that the original inhabitants of Sweden were black. How blacks survived such low vitamin D absorption from such weak sunshine he did not say.  

It did not matter.  The Western intellectual world was delighted at this “proof” that the accomplishments attributed to whites were really an appropriation of black accomplishments.

The problem with this satisfaction is that there are no black or non-white precedents for Shakespeare from whom Shakespeare can be said to have stolen his work.  The solution is to deep-six Shakespeare for being a racist for embarrassing non-whites with the sublimity of his art.

We have reached the point in Western Civilization to the extent it still exists at which success is equated with “white supremacy.” As the Western intellectuals have arranged it, the only way the West cannot be racist is to be a failure.  This is why everywhere in the West the governments are making the Western countries into Sodom and Gomorrah Towers of Babel. 

For decades  Shakespeare, who in my student days was the example of the best use of the English language, is today portrayed in university courses as a racist, sexist, homophobic, white supremacist.

In Shakespeare’s day there was no such thing as a white supremacist. But facts are not a component of Western “scholarship” today.  The purpose of Western scholarship is denunciation of “racist” Western civilization.

Anti-western intellectuals use criticism as a weapon. Its object is an enemy it wants not to refute but to destroy.  Criticism is no longer an end in itself but simply a means. It essential pathos is indignation. Its essential task, denunciation. Criticism is hand to hand combat, and in such a combat the point is not whether the opponent is noble, equal or interesting, the point is to strike him.

Those of you who are well educated will recognize that I am quoting Karl Marx on the purpose and use of criticism. My use of Marx does not mean that I am a Marxist.  It is my illustration that Western intellectual and liberal-left professors are, whether they have sufficient education to realize it, utilizing Marx’s tools for overturning a society.

For years American and British universities that are homes to Woke academics have refused to teach Shakespeare, thus depriving an English B.A. degree of content. Shakespeare, say the dumbshit professors, is racist, because he allegedly links beauty with whiteness.

The London theater  has initiated “anti-racist” seminars to discuss “decolonizing” Shakespeare’s plays.

So, what are white ethnicities confronted  with?  

They are confronted with being coerced by their own governments and intellectuals into accepting white inferiority. Whites can only justify their existence by submitting to the rule of non-whites. Jean Raspail correctly described Europe’s demise in 1973 in The Camp of the Saints.

If you haven’t read this book, you do not know your future.  It is independent of Trump, Macron, Putin, Zelensky. It is happening despite any Trump regime deportations of immigrant-invaders.

The simple fact is that white people are doomed, because their intellectuals, schools and governments have convinced them that they are racists guilty of racism, and that justice requires white ethnicities to accept second class citizenship in law.

The post The British Repudiate Shakespeare Because His Success ‘Benefits the Ideology of White Supremacy’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

On May 4 2014 I wrote about the February coup aftermath in Ukraine:

Two days ago a mob, supported by the fascists Right Sektor, killed over 30 federalist Ukrainians in Odessa by pushing them from their camp into a building and then setting fire to it. Those who escaped the massacre, not the perpetrators, were rounded up by police. Today pro-federalism people besieged the police headquarter in Odessa until the police released those it had earlier arrested.
…
The U.S. plan for Ukraine seems to be to bait Russia into an occupation. This would destroy EU-Russia relations, embolden NATO and help the U.S. to keep the EU as a secondary partner under its control. There would be lots of economic upsides for the U.S. in such a situation. Selling more arms and increasing energy market shares are only the starters.

There are two reasons to believe that this plan will fail:
…
Without Russian intervention and without German support the U.S. campaign against Russia is unlikely to reach its secondary target of isolating Russia. The primary target, Sevastopol harbor in Crimea, was already lost when Russia reunified with the island.

What is left to do then for Washington is to create more chaos in Ukraine and to hope that somehow out of total chaos some new chance may arise to stick it to Russia. For lack of real direction that strategy is also unlikely to succeed.

I was unfortunately wrong with the last sentence though it took the U.S. eight more years to succeed.

But it is the first paragraph I what to refer to today. The current two most popular pieces on the website of Strana are echoing it (machine translation):

From the first story (machine translation):

Demyan Ganul, who was killed today in Odessa, is a well-known radical activist, a native of the “Right Sector”. Later he founded his own organization “Street Front”.

Ganul was known since 2014, when he participated in the events of May 2, when dozens of people were killed in the House of Trade Unions. Later, he organized actions against Odessa residents, who laid flowers in honor of the burned-out anti-Maidan activists.
…
Ganul is also widely known for fighting in Odessa with “imperial” and Soviet monuments – to Catherine, Pushkin, and Soviet soldiers. He disrupted concerts of Russian performers, and also harassed residents of the city who spoke out for the Russian language.

Recently, Ganul actively “fought” against those who criticized the mobilization.

The most scandalous case occurred this summer, when Ganul beat up an Odessa fitness trainer after he criticized the recruiting office. After that, the coach disappeared and ended up, presumably, in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where he was bullied and probably raped.

Ganul himself, as far as is known, did not fight and was engaged in volunteering. But not without scandals. In 2023, he was beaten up, as reported, by the military of the “Foreign Legion” – because Ganul collected money for a car, but did not give it away.

Ganul celebrated each anniversary of the May 2 massacre by posting pictures of himself eating a shashlik, i.e. burned flash.

The guy was a Nazi, a brute and a thug.

He was shot on the street with a pistol. When he was down on the ground the killer put another bullet into his head (vid) to make sure that he was dead. The murderer then walked away.

There are many such Nazis in Ukraine who are too coward to take part in the war but ‘volunteer’ in support of police. They are the muscles needed to run various extortion rackets.

During his lifetime, Ganul was a scandalous person and had numerous conflicts. And not only with pro-Russian circles.

The motives for Ganul’s murder may not lie in the political sphere at all.

The victim has been engaged in volunteering since 2014, and also worked part-time as an “activist”, organizing actions against Odessa businessmen, politicians and city authorities.

For example, he actively supported the Odessa businessman Degas, who is in conflict with the Mayor’s office.

In addition, there have long been rumors in the city that Ganul is actually engaged in reket – looking for “victims” – cafes, restaurants, fitness clubs where you can find fault with something, for example, the staff speaks Russian. And then “helps” the owners of establishments.

In other words, he had many enemies. And not only for ideological reasons.

The other most popular news item at Strana relates to yesterday’s judgment by the European Court for Human Rights against the authorities of Ukraine:

In the case of Vyacheslavova and Others v. Ukraine the Court held that there had been violations of the right to life/investigation on account of the authorities’ failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014, to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events. It also held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life in respect of one applicant concerning the delay in handing over her father’s body for burial.

The courts press release describes the struggle that led to the case:

Maidan activists started setting fire to the tents. A group of pro-Russian protesters on the roof of the Trade Union Building threw Molotov cocktails at the crowd below; pro-unity activists retaliated by throwing Molotov cocktails at the building. Gunshots were reportedly fired from both sides.

Despite numerous calls to the fire brigade, which was less than 1 km away, the fire service regional head instructed his staff not to send any fire engines to Kulykove Pole without his explicit order.

At 7.45 p.m., a fire broke out in the Trade Union Building. The fire extinguishers in the building did not work. The police called the fire brigade, to no avail. Some of the people in the building including Mr Dmitriyev (application no. 59339/17) tried to escape by jumping from the upper windows. He survived the fall and was taken to an ambulance. A number of people fell to their deaths, including the son of Ms Radzykhovska (application no. 59339/17) and the son of Ms Nikitenko (application no. 47092/18). Video footage shows pro-unity protesters making makeshift ladders and platforms from a stage in the square and using them to rescue people trapped in the building. Other video footage shows pro-unity protesters attacking people who had jumped or had fallen.

The regional head of the fire service finally ordered fire engines to be sent to the scene. Fire ladders were used to rescue people from the upper-floor windows. Firefighters entered the building at around 8.30 p.m. and put out the fire. The police arrested 63 anti-Maidan activists who were still inside the building or on the roof. They were released two days later, when a group of several hundred anti- Maidan protesters stormed the local police station where they were being held.

The fire claimed 42 lives.

There are several others well know perpetrators of the May 2 massacre, like Demyan Ganul, who are still running free in Ukraine. Their unrestricted activities underline the necessity of denazification in Ukraine.

May the ECHR judgment and the death of Demyan Ganul give some solace to the victims of the May 2 2014 massacre.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama. 

The post Echoes of the May 2, 2014, Odessa Massacre appeared first on LewRockwell.

The last time we went through a great reset was when the Covid-19 pandemic shut down the world in 2020. Great meaning “remarkable in magnitude,” as defined by Merriam Webster, not great as in how we commonly use it as “good.” For many it was far from great—brutal, even. Heartbreaking, challenging, a time of loss and confusion. Still, we can’t deny that our nation and world went through a reset of indescribable proportions.

Whether or not you’ve noticed that our country is going through its own reset—which is impacting the world at large—it seems to me that many of us are also going through our own personal resets, great or otherwise. Instead of just haphazardly dealing with life and circumstances as they come our way, what if we thoughtfully approached the different areas of our lives to see where we might shore up any weaknesses, while we’re able? What if we considered that our own personal reset was, in a sense, part of a revolution?

For me, the past month just about knocked me out and I quickly realized that I had not been properly prepared in a few areas. World events aside, I worked at my publishing job every day for more than three weeks straight to meet some aggressive deadlines, and also endured some major transitions on my team that left me both heartbroken and overworked with no help toward meeting those deadlines, pushing me once again into an unsustainable survival mode. This, while also navigating some highly unusual personal and financial situations. I felt like the systems and institutions I had relied on for years—or decades, in some cases—were no longer a source of stability, and I was beginning to feel like I was living in an alternate reality. In short, I was mentally and physically depleted.

Can you relate on some level?

Now that the dust is beginning to settle (at least in my work life), I’m suddenly in need of a decently sized, if not great, reset for myself. This calls for a look at my life and lifestyle. If you feel called for something similar, I invite you to join me on this little exploration.

Why bother?

Because, according to the great wisdom of Switchfoot, “We were meant to live for so much more.”

Lightheartedness aside, let’s not forget that. There’s more available than merely surviving—and it’s also okay if that’s all we’re doing right now.Subscribe

What We Can Borrow from the Pandemic Reset

Whether or not you’re ready for a major life overhaul, it seems to me that with our nation going through a massive transition, we’ll need to individually and collectively consider how to navigate these times. I sense the need for us to—shall we say—“get ahead of things” while we’re still able. Because when I think back to what the pandemic forced upon us, a few things come to mind as far as major lifestyle shifts that may prove to be useful now.

• Forced Slowdown: Lockdowns and restrictions forced many of us to slow down, spend more time at home, and re-evaluate our priorities. This led to a greater appreciation for simple pleasures, like spending time with family, connecting with nature, and pursuing hobbies.
• Increased Focus on Health and Well-being: The pandemic heightened awareness of health and well-being, leading to increased interest in exercise, healthy eating, and mental health practices.
• Strengthened Local Connections and Community: With travel restricted, many people rediscovered their local communities, supporting local businesses and building stronger connections with their neighbors. There’s a renewed appreciation for local communities, with people seeking connection and support close to home.
• Increased Intentionality: This time prompted many people to live more intentionally, making conscious choices about how they spend their time, who they connect with, and what they prioritize.
• Greater Flexibility and Adaptability: The experience of navigating a global crisis has increased people’s resilience and adaptability. They’re more prepared to embrace change and adjust to new circumstances.

The pandemic undoubtedly had a significant impact on how we live, work, and connect with each other. It has accelerated some existing trends and created new ones, shaping the landscape of lifestyle in the years to come—and these shifts offer opportunities for us to design lives that are more aligned with our values and priorities—even when our nation’s values are in flux and perhaps contradict our own. Still, hope is not lost; this is a chance to not only create a lifestyle that’s comfortable or successful, but a life that is meaningful, fulfilling, and sustainable.

When to Reset: Recognizing the Signals

I find it next-to-impossible to want to reset in the middle of a major transition or during a crisis. It’s enough to just get by and to do the critical jobs at hand. Knowing when to initiate a reset is just as important as knowing how. It’s not always about waiting for a full-blown crisis to hit (in fact, I recommend you don’t wait until then; try to get ahead of it, if you can—hence my writing this today). Often, subtle signals indicate that a recalibration is needed, and this is a reminder to not ignore them.

If you’re smackdab in the middle of one of life’s storms, now might not be the time. Consider bookmarking this page for later when you’re ready. But if, like me, you’re able to catch your breath and “let the snow globe settle,” (as my husband likes to say), then maybe it’s time to take a simple inventory.

Sometimes it’s obvious when there’s an area of life that’s plain out of whack and in dire need of a reset. Other times, it can simply feel as though something is “off”—just not quite right. In those times, I like to visit the Wheel of Life chart, which, according to Positive Psychology, “came from industry pioneer Paul J. Meyer in the 1960s to help people realize their goals.” Perhaps you’ve heard of this before as it’s a popular tool used by coaches and therapists and professionals in the personal growth space. My husband, who works as a professional coach, has used this in his practice with his clients, but we’ve been using this together long before then. Some professionals, like author and coach Brendan Burchard in his High Performance Planner, recommend doing this weekly as a way to help you to stay on top of priorities, making minor adjustments as needed instead of major overhauls in an emergency.

I feel like we need to keep things uncomplicated these days, and find the Wheel of Life a simple yet useful tool to help gain clarity when everything seems chaotic or when I don’t know where to begin—like now. I’ve discovered that oftentimes it’s maybe only one or two areas that have gone off the rails that make it feel like everything else is in crisis. Hopefully, you’ll discover a couple of key areas that—when given a little time and attention—will create more peace and fulfillment, and spill over to all areas of your life, providing an overall sense of balance and harmony.

The segment names for the areas can vary, and there are dozens if not hundreds of models available online, but I’ve created a simple traditional model below for you to print out and use to get you started. Feel free to add your own categories for those things that are important to you. This could include things like home environment, community contribution, creativity, political activism, or even a specialized metric that you want to track.

Before you fill this out, let’s take a look at some key indicators or signs across these areas of life that may be telling you it’s a time for a reset.

Career/Work

Signs: Persistent dread of work, consistently working more than forty hours per week, chronic lateness, decreased productivity, frequent conflicts with colleagues, a feeling of stagnation, role or process confusion, a persistent sense of overwhelm, feeling like you can just never get back on track let alone ahead, or when work consistently drains your energy instead of providing fulfillment, it’s time to reassess.

Money & Finances

Signs: Financial anxiety, living paycheck to paycheck despite adequate income, accumulating unnecessary debt, neglecting savings, feeling a sense of helplessness regarding your financial situation, or when financial stress consistently impacts your well-being, it’s time to take control and reset your financial habits.

Health (Physical & Mental)

Signs: Unexplained fatigue, frequent illnesses, changes in sleep or appetite, increased irritability, persistent sadness or anxiety, neglecting exercise, or using unhealthy coping mechanisms, when your physical or mental health is consistently compromised, or when you receive a professional diagnosis or lab results outside of normal standards, it’s a clear signal to prioritize well-being.

Partner/Love Relationship

Signs: Decreased intimacy, frequent arguments, communication breakdowns, feeling emotionally distant, a sense of resentment, romantic curiosity about other people, or when the connection with your partner feels strained or lost, it’s time to refocus on the relationship.

Family & Friendships

Signs: Feeling isolated or lonely, neglecting social connections, experiencing frequent conflicts, feeling burdened by relationships, feeling a lack of emotional support, not having anyone to have meaningful conversations with, or when your social connections are a source of stress rather than support, it’s time to reset your social life.

Personal Growth

Signs: Feeling stagnant or unfulfilled, losing interest in hobbies, lacking motivation, feeling a sense of purposelessness, or when you feel a disconnect from your passions, it’s time to reignite your sense of purpose.

Fun/Recreation

Signs: Never having time for leisure activities, feeling constantly stressed or overwhelmed, losing your sense of humor, feeling like life is all work and no play, or when you consistently neglect activities that bring you joy, it’s time to prioritize fun and relaxation.

Read the Whole Article

The post Now Is The Time For a ‘Great Reset’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Tuesday’s episode of the Peter Schiff Show, Peter Schiff tackles the chaotic state of the markets following another round of tariff increases from President Trump. Peter critiques the logic behind tariffs, examines the unraveling of consensus trades like the AI investment frenzy, and highlights potential pitfalls facing American investors who have placed misguided faith in dollar strength. He also reflects on the recent turbulence in the stock market, warning listeners about the dangers of overlooking fundamental economics in favor of politically-driven narratives.

Opening with an overview of the recent turmoil in the stock market, Peter puts the market drop into historical context, underscoring how perception can overshadow reality when analyzing market moves:

But anyway, so the stock market yesterday was a big drop. The Dow at one point was down over 1,000 points, which I know is not that much when you’re talking about a Dow above 40,000. So a 1,000 point drop in the Dow is not what it used to be a couple of decades ago. Remember, the ’87 stock market crash, the big crash, was 508 points because the Dow was 2,800 or something like that. But we’ve had a lot of 1,000 point drops in the Dow, but they always grab the headline because it still sounds like a lot. It’s a big number.

The volatility was largely triggered by new tariff announcements. Peter voices concern over Trump’s latest tariff hike on Canadian aluminum and steel, outlining the downstream consequences for American businesses and consumers:

But we got some negative positive news on tariffs. First Trump is going to double the tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel from 25% to 50%, which is a big problem for every company that needs steel and aluminum to make something. Those are important parts of automobiles, housing, appliances, aircraft. We use a lot of those metals, and now they’re going to be a lot more expensive. Trump announced that. The markets didn’t like that.

Peter argues that the widespread optimism around tariffs inflating the U.S. dollar was fundamentally flawed from the start. He reiterates his earlier warnings, now proven accurate, that protectionist tariffs would ultimately weaken, rather than strengthen, the dollar:

I said that as the dollar was rallying, and everybody was saying, ‘Oh, the dollar is going to go up because Trump’s going to impose tariffs, and the tariffs are good for the dollar.’ I kept saying, ‘No, they’re not.’ They’re not good for the dollar. Now that we actually have the tariffs and they’ve started, the dollar is tanking. Part of the reason that people thought that foreigners will pay the tariffs is they said, ‘Well, the dollar is going to go up, and so those imports are going to be cheaper because of the currency, and that will offset the tariff because the dollar will be so much stronger that we’ll get these products cheaper.’

Continuing his critique of misguided investment narratives, Peter takes aim at the crypto craze, ridiculing the notion that countries competing to amass Bitcoin constitutes sound economic policy:

The other nonsense they were saying is it’s going to be like a race, like an arms race. Once the U.S. starts buying Bitcoin, well, then every country is going to want to buy it. It’s going to be a race to see which country can get the most Bitcoin. That’s the race that you want to lose, right? Because whatever country has the least Bitcoin wins, right? Whoever has the most loses because you blow money buying nothing.

Peter emphasizes that the tide is turning in the marketplace, claiming vindication for his long-held view favoring foreign markets, commodities, gold, and gold mining stocks over U.S. domestic equities:

The entire Trump trade is reversing, and it’s playing out the way I believed it would in favor of foreign markets, commodities, gold, gold mining stocks, the opposite of what people expected. … People said, you know, I’m not worried now, Trump’s going to pay down the debt, the problems are solved, Trump’s going to make America great again, I don’t want to invest abroad. I don’t think I’m going to buy US stocks, and the absolute worst thing you could have done, because not only did you buy into the peak of an overvalued US market, and you’re already down considerably, but you’ve missed out on the rise in the foreign stocks, in gold stocks, and it’s just getting started.

Further illustrating the illogic of punitive trade barriers, Peter scrutinizes Trump’s hostile rhetoric against Canada, highlighting the inefficacy of such retaliations:

Donald Trump earlier today said that he was going to destroy– because he got really pissed off at Canada because they retaliated with some tariffs and then they threatened some export tariffs on energy, electricity, which comes from Canada down here. He got particularly offended and he said something like, ‘I’m going to destroy Canada. It’s going to be biblical. It’ll be in the history books. I’m going to destroy Canadian manufacturing.’ Well, how is he going to do that? Assuming that Trump made it impossible for Americans to buy anything coming out of Canada, it wouldn’t destroy Canadian manufacturing.

Finally, Peter reiterates his call to action, urging the U.S. to reject isolationist tariffs and instead focus on fostering genuine economic competitiveness rooted in sound fiscal policy, deregulation, and free markets:

What we need to do is to make America a more competitive place to manufacture without the tariffs. Then people will make the investments if it’s not artificial. We can’t be dependent on a barrier to competition. Of course, again, those barriers end up making a lot of our companies less competitive globally because now they have to buy their imported parts at a higher price and now they have to export it, and they’re not as competitive as foreign producers. We have to make America attractive on its own.

This originally appeared on SchiffGold.com.

The post We Can’t Rely on Trade Barriers appeared first on LewRockwell.

There’s a great moment in Henry James’s short story The Aspern Papers, when the reader realizes that the narrator—who seems like a cultured and sympathetic scholar—is actually a ruthless and deceptive weasel. Because James was such a cool and subtle writer, the reader doesn’t see it coming until the old woman whose privacy the narrator is plundering declares that he is a scoundrel. At that moment the reader realizes, “Holy smokes, the lady is right. This guy is a self-serving jerk.”

Years ago I knew a very brave Austrian journalist who covered Iraq after U.S. forces withdrew and let ISIS walk into the place and turn it into hell on earth. Listening to his tale of horror, I asked myself, “Is it possible that Saddam Hussein—for all of his tyranny—was, relatively speaking, the good guy, while we Americans—who wrecked the place and turned it over to devils—are the killer angels?

I had the same thought years later while visiting wounded soldiers at the VA Hospital in Palo Alto. They were just a few of the tens of thousands of men who’d sustained traumatic brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the by the time I visited them in 2012, they been largely forgotten by their people, while their families—often young mothers with children—were left to deal with the wreckage. We, the American public, had moved on from Iraq and didn’t want to hear about it anymore.

I got to be pals with their treating psychiatrist, who told me privately over dinner that most of his medical colleagues at the VA were, in his experience, the most dishonest careerists he’d ever encountered.

Recently I’ve been following the news that, since the “bad guy” Assad was overthrown in Syria, the place has been taken over mostly by former Al Qaeda terrorists. Again, who is the “bad guy”—Assad or the U.S. who supported a band of homicidal fanatics?

Then there is the news the U.S., British, and German intelligence agencies have known all along that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab with U.S. biotechnology, mostly developed by Professor Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill. Over the years, Baric has received hundreds of millions of grant money from Anthony Fauci’s NIAID. Again, who are the bad guys?

Now we come to the ultimate question, the mere posing of which will likely cause a large cohort of Americans to lose their minds—namely, is it possible that we (the United States) are the bad guys in this showdown with Russia over Ukraine?

By all accounts, Vladimir Putin has long been one the most moderate, pro-Western politicians in Russia. Oh, I know, I know, Putin is a ruthless character with a shady KGB background.

On the other hand, do the American people really think that an idealistic liberal who listens to NPR and just wants everyone to be friends is going to assume power in Russia and govern the vast, multi-ethnic, multi-religion country? The 19th century Czar, Alexander II, was an idealistic, liberal chap who freed the serfs in 1861. In return, a student revolutionary assassinated him.

Since World War I, when we celebrated that the “Yanks are comin’” (bearing Spanish Flu) to save the world from Prussian militarism, we Americans have become far too conditioned to believe—in the most unexamined way—that we are the good guys, and that the rest of the world is infested with bad guys.

Is it possible that we (the U.S.) are the bad guys?

The Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, once pointed out that none of us can grow up and achieve full moral maturity unless we are willing to examine our own dark side and consider that maybe we are not as nice as we think we are. Maybe our desire to congratulate ourselves for our virtue causes us to overlook our own vices and selfishness.

The idea was comically captured in the following British skit.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

The post Are We (the U.S.) the Bad Guys? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Rick Sanchez: Fired and Threatened With Jail for Refusing to Spout Zelensky’s Talking Points appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trump has been issuing executive orders left and right and targeting many federal agencies. However, there is one agency that Trump has not announced any cuts: the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA. As much as I am opposed to practically every agency of the federal government, getting rid of the DEA should be high on the list of anyone who treasures individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, and private property.

The post The One Agency that Trump Won’t Cut appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Barnes and Baris Episode 89: What Are the Odds? What is Wrong with the California Republican Party? Plus, the Need for Reforming the Judicial Branch is Becoming More Evident appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Pardon Me? Trump Blasts Biden’s ‘Auto-Signed’ Get Out Of Jail Free Cards appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

I watch this video frequently, this man predicted the future and still some people dismiss this at their peril

– Roy Ben-Tzvi

Read on Substack

The post Warning from the UAE appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Mike Sanders.

Live Science

The post Mice administer ‘first-aid’ to friends — even trying to bring the dead back to life appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Hi Lew,

Carl Sagan was once iconic, particularly among liberals . A brilliant American.

Add Sagan to the wise men whose warning fell upon deaf ears.

Huxley,Orwell,Welch,McLuhan,Serling,Asimov, Vonnegut… they tried.They were right and the liberals are no longer liberal. They’ve become what we were warned of.

See this.

The post Carl Sagan’s Final Warning on the Importance of Scientific Skepticism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Andy Thomas.

From David Patrick Harry’s podcast (Eastern Orthodox).

The post Fake Christianity: Paula White and Christian Zionism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

It was Agenda 21 before renamed Agenda 2030- Remapping the U.S., British Columbia and a portion of Mexico  into “ Mega-Region Smart City States”. This was drawn up in 2013.

See this.

The post Ready to have your mind blown? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Meaning the child did not have measles, but tested positive after receiving the live virus MMR vaccine.

See this.

The post Measles Death By Pneumonia By Measles Vaccine appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Jackie:

Lew,

Another key point seldom discussed is that if the CIA were to come clean with full disclosure, they would have to open up to various degrees about how they fed some of their own people and incidental associates into the death mill.  Not only Oswald, but David Sanchez Morales and George de Mohrenschildt and even by extension Ramblin Rose Cheramie as other obvious examples.  And today they probably do not want to make a living example of squealing on Ruth Paine either.  If today’s agents and accessory employees found out how expendable they are, and how any time the wind changes their status can evaporate to cannon fodder or less than nothing, such disclosures wouldn’t be good for morale or recruitment or retention.  Or at least that is the argument they can use to scare and tame any random president.  Something like the South African reconciliation efforts of thirty years ago might have a glimmer of a chance, but that would require the devil to develop some scant bits of morality.  From a world where there is no bottom.

The post CIA Recalcitrance About JFK Disclosure appeared first on LewRockwell.

Kemosaby wrote:

Are you aware of  http://www.maebrussell.com  ?  Listening to her on her weekly JFK radio show out of Carmel Ca. back in the 70s was the main catapult that brought me to the realization of the criminality of our government. It enabled me to reject all the government lies about Vietnam and all the lies since then, 9-11, Covid, you know. At first I thought she was crazy but as she went into detail after detail about JFK I realized the reality of our government was quite different from our mass programing. She ended up with numerous file cabinets documenting everything she said. On the site is the story of how she went to the Monterey airport to warn RFK’s mother that he was slated for assassination two weeks before it happened.  She was amazing, just wanted to make sure you are aware of her.

Thanks for all!

The post JFK and the Unspekable appeared first on LewRockwell.

Why should we care today about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963? That fateful day in Dallas is, after all, a long time ago: those of us, like me, who can remember the day are at least in their sixties. The short answer is that it reveals something essential for us to know about the American government and the Deep State that runs it.

Kennedy had become deeply suspicious of the CIA and other American intelligence agencies. They had given him bad advice about Cuba, which almost got us into a nuclear confrontation with Soviet Russia. Also, he planned to stop escalating the war in Vietnam, which made him profoundly abhorrent to the warmongers running the Pentagon.

Because of these, the Deep State decided to kill Kennedy. The best book on this subject is JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, whom I interviewed a number of years ago. Here is what Jim Douglass told me:

“Now, Jim, you were close to Thomas Merton, influenced by Thomas Merton, and part of this title comes from Merton. Would you explain DOUGLASS: Yes, Lew. Thomas Merton wrote a book called Raids on the Unspeakable, a series of essays. He talked about the unspeakable as a kind of power and a kind of reality that went almost beyond the power of speech. It was suggested for him by the nuclear arms race, by the Vietnam War, and by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Malcolm and Martin and RFK. It was a kind of evil where we don’t want to go. That might be one way of coming up with what he meant by the unspeakable.

ROCKWELL: Well, Jim Douglass, thank goodness you have gone where maybe others have feared to go. And all the people that I’ve talked to – and I’ve read, myself, a good amount of Kennedy revisionism, but I was extremely impressed by all you’ve done. And the people I’ve talked to who are the real experts tell me this is the best book and the most important book ever written on the Kennedy assassination. So not only do you go over why, clearly, this was a conspiracy, it just wasn’t a typical lone nut who appears from time to time in American history and is of great use to the power elite, but you show us why he was killed, why this is so important, and why we should all be concerned about it, not simply a historical event we can forget about, but why it continues to have impact on the nature of American society, of the wars that the government fights, what’s happening in terms of the police state here at home, and why it affects every person here today listening to this show.

DOUGLASS: Yes, I really appreciate your emphasizing the whys, because all I hoped to do was to tell the story of the why. I, of course, included the plot, but the only reason I did that was to fill in the picture. My point is not, and I did not write an analysis of the Kennedy assassination. It was to tell the story of JFK, and of all of us, for that matter. It was representing everyone in this country and, because of the nature of the conflict, in some sense, everybody in the world. We’re talking about weapons that could destroy the world. And that story, and of his turning – I use that word advisedly. It comes from the Hebrew Scriptures – his turning away from that kind of destructive power, towards peace, that’s the ‘why’ of his assassination.

ROCKWELL: You know, we hear, for example, about his speech where he said he was going to undo the CIA as an organization. Was that part of it, I mean, in terms of what the CIA did then, what it does today, what the Pentagon does, the Military-Industrial Complex?

DOUGLASS: He underwent a break with the CIA relatively early in his administration at the Bay of Pigs because he understood – he was not a stupid man. He was a very shrewd person. (Laughing) And he understood that he was being manipulated and set up at the Bay of Pigs so that he would have to call in the U.S. troops to win against Castro, and the CIA lied to him to set him up, they lied about the conditions of the uprisings that they told him were going to occur in Cuba and all this kind of thing. And the whole Bay of Pigs invasion had been organized during the Eisenhower administration. But when Kennedy realized afterwards the extent to which he had been lied and set up, he said, I want to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind. And he very deliberately did take steps to impair the CIA from doing that in the future. He fired the man in charge, Allen Dulles, who had been the cold warrior up to that point, and fired his main subordinates who had set him up in the Bay of Pigs. And then, of course, after his assassination, who does Lyndon Johnson, his successor, appoint for the so-called Warren Commission as the major influence within it, but Allen Dulles. He should have been considered, rightly, as the main suspect in the assassination rather than appointed to investigate it. That’s the fox investigating the murder in the hen house.

ROCKWELL: Can you look at the Kennedy assassination as a coup d’etat?

DOUGLASS: Yes. But it’s a very subtle coup d’etat in that the propaganda is so enormous and the transition is done so fluidly into an administration under Lyndon Johnson, that is reversing all of Kennedy’s main decisions. That happens with so little disruption. I mean, Kennedy’s main advisors don’t all surrender and say this is a coup d’etat or anything like that. Everybody sort of surrenders. This is Cold War thinking. This is the mission to the Powers That Be, if you want to put it in biblical terms. And so, although it is, in fact, a coup d’etat in terms of the power – and the way Kennedy was moving, he had become so isolated, and even his closest – well, most of his closest advisers were so subordinate to the Powers That Be that it was not seen as anything like that.”

Because of what the CIA did, it is vital that we get all of the documents from the CIA and FBI about the assassination. And I do mean all of them. President Trump promised to release all these files, but he hasn’t done it. Jacob Hornberger, a long-time libertarian researcher on the Kennedy association, tells the story: “It has now been two months since Donald Trump assumed the presidency. The question naturally arises: Where are those long-secret JFK Records that he repeatedly promised to release to the American people? Or to be more precise, why are those long-secret JFK records still secret? What’s up with the delay, President Trump?

After all, it takes about one minute to write and sign an executive order that states as follows: ‘I, President Donald Trump, hereby order the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, the National Archives, the Secret Service, and all other federal entities to immediately disclose all records, files, documents, films, and other matters relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, including, but not limited to, the disclosure of all files and records relating to CIA official George Joannides, as well as the elimination of all redactions in JFK-related documents.’

It’s not as if Trump doesn’t know how to issue and sign an executive order. He’s issued more than 53 since he took office this time around. The first time he was president he issued 220 executive orders.

It’s worth pointing out that Trump did issue one executive order relating to those long-secret JFK records. On January 23, he ordered his Director of National Intelligence and his Attorney General to present Trump with a plan for the full and complete release of those long-secret JFK records.

A ‘plan’? Why a ‘plan’? Calling for a plan for disclosure and release is not exactly the same thing as ordering disclosure. What next? A committee to study the plan and make recommendations on modifying the plan? Why not just order disclosure? Why order a plan for disclosure?

As it turns out, that plan for releasing those long-secret JFK records was submitted to Trump on February 7, more than a month ago.

What did the plan say? We don’t know! The reason we don’t know is that Trump, for some unknown reason, has chosen to keep the plan secret from the American people.

What? A secret plan under the Trump administration for releasing those long-secret JFK records? Does that even make any sense? We now have secrecy piled onto secrecy under Trump! Trump hasn’t even explained why the plan has to be kept secret, but my hunch is that it has something to do with protecting ‘national security,’ the two most important (and meaningless) words in the American political lexicon.

What’s really going on here? My hunch is what I’ve been saying the whole time about those long-secret JFK records, which is that the CIA simply will not permit Trump to release those long-secret records. The CIA has succeeded in keeping those long-secret records secret for more than 60 years.

Let’s not forget that during Trump’s first term as president, he proudly announced that he was going to release those long-secret records. He repeatedly made that announcement up to the week of the statutory deadline. Then the CIA stepped in and had a conversation with Trump. After that conversation, Trump buckled and acceded to the CIA’s demand that those long-secret records continue to be kept secret.

My hunch is that this time around, the CIA has again informed Trump that it will not permit him to release those long-secret JFK records. That includes the records that were ordered to be released by the JFK Records Act back in 1992 and it also includes the CIA’s files relating to its officer George Joannides. My hunch is that Trump is too embarrassed to let people know that it is the national-security establishment (e.g., the CIA), not the president, that is ultimately in charge of running the federal government. But how long can Trump remain paralyzed over what to do before more people begin asking him about what he intends to do about those long-secret JFK assassination-related records?”

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

Let’s do everything we can to get all the CIA documents released, as Trump as promised. We have a right to know the truth.

The post Kennedy Assassination Mysteries appeared first on LewRockwell.