Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, John Frahm.

LifeSite News

The post Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

LifeSite News

The post WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Chronicles Magazine

The post The Krakening of Bondi and Patel appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Chronicles Magazine

The post A Model Neocon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Il manoscritto fornisce un grimaldello al lettore, una chiave di lettura semplificata, del mondo finanziario e non che sembra essere andato "fuori controllo" negli ultimi quattro anni in particolare. Questa è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/oro-and-bitcoin-il-vincitore-e)

La competizione definitiva per diventare la moneta dominante al mondo avrà un solo vincitore.

Qualsiasi altra cosa equivarrebbe a un sistema di baratto inefficiente ed è per questo che le reti monetarie internazionali tendono a convergere su un unico elemento come moneta dominante.

In precedenza, la moneta dominante era l'oro; oggi sono il dollaro statunitense e i titoli del Tesoro americani. In futuro credo che saranno Bitcoin od oro.

Nel lungo termine miliardi di persone, attraverso migliaia di miliardi di transazioni – in altre parole, il libero mercato – decideranno in ultima analisi se vincerà l'oro o Bitcoin.

Sono assolutamente a favore della concorrenza del libero mercato nel settore monetario.

Io dico che vincerà la moneta migliore.

In un articolo recente ho analizzato i dieci attributi monetari più decisivi e ho verificato se l'oro o Bitcoin abbiano un vantaggio. La tabella seguente riassume i risultati.

Bitcoin vince in 6 delle 10 categorie, inclusa la durezza (resistenza alla svalutazione), che credo sarà il fattore più decisivo.

Sebbene l'oro abbia un vantaggio su Bitcoin in termini di durevolezza, tale vantaggio sarà rilevante solo nel caso di un inevitabile ritorno globale all'età della pietra. Un risultato talmente improbabile non è rilevante per le decisioni di investimento odierne.

L'oro ha anche un vantaggio fugace in termini di liquidità, fungibilità, privacy e riconoscimento. Tuttavia Bitcoin sta erodendo questi vantaggi ogni giorno.

Se le tendenze attuali continuano, credo che Bitcoin supererà l'oro in queste categorie negli anni a venire.

Riassumendo, i vantaggi dell'oro su Bitcoin sono irrilevanti o stanno scomparendo.

La conclusione inevitabile è che Bitcoin possiede caratteristiche fondamentali superiori che lo rendono uno strumento migliore per trasferire valore attraverso il tempo e lo spazio.

L'oro digitale è migliore dell'oro analogico.

In breve, è probabile che Bitcoin vinca la competizione finale e diventi la moneta dominante al mondo.

Permettetemi di spiegare come vedo la situazione...

Non sto dicendo che sia certo al 100% che Bitcoin demonetizzerà l'oro.

Quello che voglio dire è questo: nel lungo termine – misurato in anni, probabilmente decenni – ci sono buone probabilità che Bitcoin demonetizzi l'oro perché ha proprietà monetarie superiori.

Tuttavia la stragrande maggioranza dell'umanità non capisce che Bitcoin ha il potenziale per diventare la moneta dominante... ancora.

Ci troviamo di fronte a un'enorme asimmetria informativa.

Con Bitcoin, è come se avessi scoperto l'oro prima che la maggior parte del mondo capisse che esso era utile come moneta.

Pensateci...

Avreste la possibilità di anticipare i principali investitori, le grandi multinazionali e persino gli stati, entrando in questo trend prima di loro.

La potenziale ascesa di Bitcoin a moneta dominante – un megatrend che mi piace chiamare la supremazia di Bitcoin – è un'enorme opportunità irripetibile e la più grande storia di investimento che abbia mai visto.

Ci sono un paio di chiarimenti necessari a questa analisi.

Chiarimento n°1: cigni neri

Qualsiasi evento con effetti attualmente inconcepibili e impossibili da prevedere – l'avvento dell'informatica quantistica, l'estrazione da asteroidi, la nanotecnologia, ecc. – potrebbe far pendere la bilancia in una direzione o nell'altra.

Chiarimento n°2: tempistica

Non credo che Bitcoin rappresenti una minaccia immediata per l'oro.

Molto probabilmente l'oro verrà rimonetizzato con il crollo del sistema monetario fiat, per poi essere demonetizzato da Bitcoin negli anni e nei decenni successivi.

Sebbene Bitcoin abbia migliori caratteristiche monetarie rispetto all'oro, potrebbero volerci molti anni, potenzialmente decenni, prima che la maggior parte delle persone se ne renda conto.

Un fattore importante nella tempistica è la velocità con cui il sistema monetario fiat crollerà.

Se dovessi pronosticare quando ciò accadrà, direi intorno al 2030.

Se il sistema monetario fiat crollerà più velocemente del previsto, probabilmente ne trarrà beneficio l'oro. Esso ha una maggiore riconoscibilità e più persone graviteranno verso ciò con cui hanno familiarità. Bitcoin è una novità e incompreso.

Se il crollo del sistema monetario fiat dovesse protrarsi a lungo, Bitcoin potrebbe trarne beneficio. Questo perché, con il passare del tempo e la crescente notorietà di Bitcoin, le persone si sentiranno più a loro agio con esso come alternativa alla moneta fiat. Salteranno l'oro e passeranno direttamente dalla moneta fiat a Bitcoin.

In ogni caso credo che Bitcoin non inizierà a demonetizzare l'oro sul serio prima che il crollo del sistema monetario fiat sia completo. La mia ipotesi è che ciò potrebbe accadere intorno al 2030 e poi potrebbero passare molti anni, forse decenni, prima che Bitcoin demonetizzi completamente l'oro.

Detto questo, un Bitcoin standard potrebbe emergere spontaneamente più velocemente di quanto chiunque si aspetti. Questo rappresenta un rischio per l'oro e un'ottima ragione per esporsi a Bitcoin.

Chiarimento n°3: allocazione del portafoglio

Non credo abbia senso puntare tutto su Bitcoin... o su qualsiasi altra cosa.

Un'esposizione al 100% su qualsiasi asset non è una gestione prudente del rischio, perché nulla nella vita è certo al 100%. Con l'aumento esponenziale della tecnologia, nemmeno la morte è certa, ma questa è una storia per un altro giorno.

Quello che posso dire con la massima sicurezza è che, per la prima volta in oltre 5.000 anni, l'oro ha un concorrente serio che potrebbe demonetizzarlo nei prossimi decenni.

Come minimo considero l'oro una copertura se Bitcoin non emergesse come la valuta dominante a livello mondiale nel lungo termine.

Nell'immediato futuro l'oro rappresenta un'alternativa monetaria superiore alla valuta fiat. Credo che ne trarrà i principali benefici dal crollo dell'attuale sistema monetario fiat negli anni a venire.

A mio parere la cosa prudente da fare è allocare capitale in oro e Bitcoin e aggiornare tale allocazione con il passare del tempo e l'evolversi dei fatti.

Nel breve e medio termine credo che sia l'oro che il Bitcoin prospereranno con il crollo del sistema monetario fiat.

Al momento desidero essere esposto a entrambi e alle azioni di società che beneficiano dell'aumento dei prezzi dell'oro e di Bitcoin.

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

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

Thanks, John Frahm.

21st Century Wire

The post BRICS: The Rise of a New Global Orde appeared first on LewRockwell.

Most of the faithful are familiar with both sides of the current Catholic coin: rampant unbelief and apostasy on one side and a small but powerful movement toward orthodoxy and tradition on the other. Many young priests have begun the hard work of improving catechesis and liturgy, emphasizing Confession, and building devotion to the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In many of their parishes, the exodus appears to have stopped. Parishioner numbers are beginning to stabilize and, in some select cases, even grow.

This a good sign, but even in these parishes there tends to be a lukewarmness. Though they call themselves Catholic and even attend Mass each Sunday, many parishioners refuse to fully embrace the faith. It takes a backseat to the things of the world. Far too many of the Catholics in the pews each Sunday are not in state of grace and are at risk of eternal woe. Why is it so difficult in today’s culture to get Mass-attending Catholics to fully embrace the faith?

This vital question holds one of the keys to stopping the exodus out of the Church and moving beyond its current crisis. If parishes are giving better catechesis and liturgy, emphasizing Confession, and building devotion to the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary, shouldn’t they be seeing more fruit? Shouldn’t these parishes be filled with fervent souls? So why aren’t they?

The hearts of many parishioners are hardened. Catholics, and many parishes, have succumbed to our modern-day culture and, in particular, its view of happiness, religion, and freedom. Although these ways of thinking are at odds with the Catholic faith, the Church is mostly silent about these fundamental dangers of the modern mindset.

In order for these Mass-going Catholics to embrace their faith and all that is being offered them, their mindset must change. While preaching against the culture and its worldview is never easy, these topics are necessary, and because of their relevance to everyday life, they are a great opportunity for priests to grab parishioners’ attention and lead them toward fully embracing and living their Catholic faith.

Out of a deep love for our Lord we must not only stop the physical exodus of Catholics from the Church, but we must also help those who remain fully embrace the faith to become true friends of Christ. This starts with parish priests. They have been ordained by God through His Church for this very task of leading the souls in their parishes to heaven. They are called to be the saints to lead us out of this crisis. But how?

To change the thinking of Catholics in the pews, they must change the culture of the parish, so let’s first understand culture’s components. Culture is made up of three elements: what we think (mentality), what we do (habits), and what we’re surrounded by (environment). These elements directly relate to the transcendentals of truth, goodness and beauty. The more a parish’s mentality is based in truth, its habits in goodness, and its environment in beauty, the more authentically Catholic its culture is, which brings its people closer to God.

“Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). The first step to shifting the mentality of a parish is to preach Christ and the faith with boldness and confidence. Any sense of compromise diminishes the priest’s authority, along with the authority of the Church. It must be clear to parishioners that the priest teaches truths handed down from God through His Church. These teachings are not just one set of beliefs among many. Preaching in this way fights against relativism and the false idea of freedom, that one can do as he pleases, creating his own patchwork of truth and morals.

With the poor level of catechesis over the last half century, parishioners are ignorant about many elements of the faith. Through prayer and personal contact within the parish, priests should determine what topics must be taught in order to fight this ignorance. In many parishes, parishioners have lost interest in learning their faith, so a pastor might consider beginning with elements that will inspire them and pique their interest, drawing them further in and building a trust between the priest and his people. While sermons are the most obvious place for this to occur, many priests use podcasts, Facebook Live, bulletin inserts and regular parish talks to connect with parishioners and deepen their knowledge of the faith.

Preaching isn’t the only way to change a parish’s mentality. According to Aristotle, we learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction. Habits, the second element that makes up the culture, are also a primary tool for changing parish mentality. A habit as simple as the Morning Offering combats the idea that religion is something to make life better, a self-help tool. By offering themselves and their day to God each morning, parishioners can connect themselves to the priest’s offering at Mass. In time this changes the way they look at the faith. Their faith begins to become an offering to God.

How can parish priests instill habits like the Morning Offering in their parishioners? Parishes are diverse, and the priest can’t reach everyone. Who should the priest focus his time and efforts on? According to St. John Paul II: the future of the world and of the Church passes through the family. The priest should focus his efforts on families, but even this is difficult. In today’s world, getting whole families together and then having material that works for children, mothers and fathers is nearly impossible.

So, how do priests most effectively reach families? Through fathers.

Read the Whole Article

The post Parish Priests Are the Cure to the Crisis appeared first on LewRockwell.

I think one of the reasons Americans love Donald Trump is because he is so transparent and wears his personality on his sleeve. He shows us when he is angry or happy and often reflects his inner thinking. This is quite different from many world leaders who often stick to official reasoned positions which reflect the needs of their country without getting into personal reflections. This is perhaps why Trump is so unique and difficult to deal with by other world leaders. This latest post of June 27th on Truth Social shows Trump and his personal feelings at its height. He displayed his anger over not being acknowledged as Trump the merciful, holding back the forces of the American military from doing further damage.

I think world leaders need to take a different approach to Donald Trump and speak to him on a level he can understand with a personal approach as opposed to a civic diplomatic approach.

Therefore, I imagined the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah responding to President Trump’s June 27th TRUTH SOCIAL post in a respectful manner acknowledging his points and pointing out other issues that would be beneficial to the nation of Iran.  I also worked this response out with assistance of AI as an editor to help craft a diplomatic positive response.

Below you will see the imaginary response of Ayatollah Khameni which I believe would have gotten a more constructive response from Mr. Trump.  The response acknowledges President Trump’s restraint, points out moral issues that America needs to work on, advocates for lifting sanctions as a means for Iran to enter the FLOW of the World Order and advocates for using Honey over Vinegar which Mr. Trump also advocates for. In effect, it takes the rationale of Mr. Trump and flips them into advocating for pro-Iranian positions which hopefully would bring about more peace.  The imaginary response is as follows:

Dear Mr. President,

The Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes the importance of avoiding unnecessary conflict and values any decision by the United States leadership to prevent further escalation in the recent confrontation. We acknowledge your decision to exercise restraint at key moments during a time of heightened tension.

As Iran’s Supreme Leader, I am personally grateful that, despite knowing my exact whereabouts during this period of great tension, you chose to refrain from targeting my location, even though you may have faced pressure to do so. This decision demonstrated a measure of moral leadership and restraint that I acknowledge. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. However, Mr. President, I must ask: if your technology is indeed so advanced that it can locate any individual with such precision, how is it that over 300,000 missing children who have crossed your border in recent years remain unaccounted for? Should this remarkable technology not be used to reunite those vulnerable children with their families? I believe your people — and the world — would welcome such moral leadership on behalf of the innocent.

I also acknowledge your expressed concern for the well-being of the Iranian people, which you showed by choosing to limit further devastation. If you wish to demonstrate this same moral leadership, there is no clearer way than by lifting the sanctions that continue to cause hardship for ordinary Iranian families. Such an act of compassion would not only ease their suffering but would earn the lasting gratitude of the people of Iran for generations to come. It would also help Iran rejoin the FLOW OF THE WORLD ORDER in a constructive and peaceful way — for how can we fully participate in this WORLD ORDER when we remain under heavy sanctions? This would be a powerful example of using HONEY instead of VINEGAR, which, as you yourself have wisely noted, often brings far better results.

Finally, Mr. President, since using HONEY over VINEGAR is a cornerstone of your foreign policy, do you think you could explain this difference to your buddy Mr.Netanyahu? His actions show that he doesn’t seem to understand the difference. Using more HONEY would go a long way to establishing peace in the Middle East.

We hope that, through mutual respect and constructive dialogue, not threats, the region can move toward a better future. We stand ready to discuss pathways that serve the interests of all people of the region, provided they are based on mutual respect and international law.

Sincerely

Ayatollah Khamenei

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

I really wonder how Trump would have responded to such a response. I am willing to bet he would then seriously consider lifting the sanctions. He directly stated that the response of the Ayatollah changed his mind about sanctions, perhaps a more positive yet firm response would have resulted in a different outcome. My goal for writing this article is to offer a different direction for responding to Mr. Trump. If one approach has not been working, then perhaps it’s time to try another.

The post Response to Mr. Trump: Past the Bluster; A Personal Approach to Trump’s Rant on Iran. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Saagar Enjeti on the Dangerous New Developments in Pam Bondi’s Epstein Cover-Up appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I was in Congress, the least popular, least respected members were the biggest publicity seekers – the ones who were the first and quickest to run to the cameras. They were not regarded as serious legislators. Thus, I have not been a big fan of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. However, several days ago, she wrote some words on her X account which I think express the feelings and frustrations of the overwhelming majority of Americans. The following are her words:

“I’m 51 years old. I’m GenX.

“I’ve watched our country go to war in foreign lands for foreign causes on behalf of foreign interests for as long as I can remember. I was in 10th grade when Desert Storm started and my father before me was sent to Vietnam, another senseless foreign war.

“America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American.

“American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military industrial base profits.

“I’m sick of it.

“I can easily say I support nuclear armed Israel’s right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don’t want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel’s wars.

“Nor any other country for that matter.

“I’m sick of funding foreign aid and foreign countries and foreign everything.

“I want to fund American interests and issues.

“I want GREAT trade deals so American businesses and people can afford goods and be successful.

“I want low inflation and low interest rates.

“I want American construction, housing, and manufacturing to BOOM.

“I want Americans to be rich and have security in their future.

“I want my children’s generation to HAVE A GREAT FUTURE!!!

“My kids are 22, 25, and 27.

“It pisses me off beyond comprehension that my children’s generation can’t afford to buy a house, can’t afford insurance, and have little hope for their future!!!

“Americans are exhausted by all of this and rightfully so.

“I can also support President Trump and his great administration on many of the great things they are doing while disagreeing on bombing Iran and getting involved in a hot war that Israel started.

“That’s not disloyalty. Critical thinking and having my own opinions is the most American thing ever.

“Because contrary to what brainwashed Democrat boomers say, Trump is not a king, MAGA is not a cult, and President Trump has surrounded himself with people who once disagreed with him and even ran against him for President.

“Also the same Democrats in Congress that are all of sudden clutching their pearls about Trump bombing Iran FULLY SUPPORTED AND VOTED TO FUND Dementia ridden Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and stood by Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“Hypocrites is all they are and they are just desperately trying to find solid ground to oppose Trump on because so far they’ve failed at grasping anything yet.

“Now what has been done is done and Americans now fear Iranian terrorists attacks on our own soil and being dragged into another war by Netanyahu when we weren’t even thinking about any of this a week ago.

“We don’t know what the future holds and I pray for the safety of all people and an end to the constant demand for America to go to war.

“Enough is enough.”

Rep. Greene is right. We should never fight another country’s war. President Reagan said we should fight only for a “cause that is vital to our national interest.”

He also said that “our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

Sen. Robert Taft, sometimes referred to as Mr. Republican in the 1940s and 50s, was so respected that he was one of only six senators featured in John F. Kennedy’s book “Profiles In Courage.”

Taft said: “No foreign policy can be justified except a policy devoted without reservation or diversion to the protection of liberty of the American people, with war only as the last resort and only to preserve that liberty.”

Both Reagan and Taft used the words “last resort.” We were not anywhere even close to that point when we bombed Iran on June 24.

We have far too many military leaders, presidents and presidential advisors who have been far too eager to go to war. They seemed to lust for the power and feeling of importance that leading this country in time of war would give them.

This eagerness for war has also been led in part, or at least aided and abetted by, members of the House and Senate who wanted to show how tough and patriotic they were.

What a great day it would be if peace could be seen as more patriotic than war.

This article was originally published on The Knoxville Focus.

The post The Way Most Americans Feel About Foreign Wars appeared first on LewRockwell.

Elon Musk may find his effort to reach the Martian surface a much easier task than cracking the U.S. political system.

The U.S. leader dragged his former adviser over the coals after the tech mogul announced plans to bankroll the so-called America Party.

The wealthiest individual in the world announced the creation of the America Party in a series of weekend posts late on Saturday and early Sunday to X, formerly known as Twitter, the social media platform that is part of his private empire.

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” the South African native defiantly declared.

“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

Musk, who was chosen to slash federal spending through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) created by Donald Trump, has been an outspoken critic of the president’s “big, beautiful bill” that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said would increase the national deficit by $3.3tn (£2.85tn) through 2034.

Opponents of the ‘BBB’ say it provides major tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, while slashing federal safety net welfare programs, with close to 11 million people forfeiting healthcare insurance.

The pair have sparred over the bill’s cost and consequences since Musk departed the government in May, and on Friday, when Trump signed his bill into law during a Fourth of July celebration on the White House lawn, Musk opened a poll on X: “Now is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system”.

Respondents voted two to one in favor of the plan, Musk announced late on Saturday. He provided journalists with scant details about the structure of his next big thing or a timeline for its future development. But his earlier posts suggested it would focus on two or three Senate seats, and eight to 10 House districts.

It’s a rather ingenious idea considering that both chambers of Congress are controlled by Republicans by a slim margin.

“Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,” Musk reasonably explained.

Trump scoffed at his former best buddy’s decision to start and fund a new U.S. political party, calling it “ridiculous” on Sunday. “Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it but I think it’s ridiculous,” the president told reporters traveling with him back to the White House aboard his helicopter Marine One after a day of whacking golf balls.

He then elaborated, at Trumpian length, in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,” the president wrote. “He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States”.

“The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS,” Trump added. The president then went on to claim that the Tesla and SpaceX chief was motivated by discontent over his plan to halt subsidies to promote the purchase of electric vehicles.

Musk, however, was not deterred by the U.S. president’s lengthy tirade, arguing rather naively that it would be “not hard” to break the two-party stranglehold in U.S. politics enjoyed by Democrats and Republicans. He went on to question “when & where should we hold the inaugural American Party congress? This will be super fun!”

But does the billionaire fully understand the depths of the swamp he’s getting himself into? By conservative estimates, Musk forked over about $275 billion of his personal fortune to get Trump elected for a second term in last November’s presidential race. While that may be mere chump’s change for the mogul, he will be expected to spend much more to shake up the petrified power structure now dominating Capitol Hill (While there is no requirement for new political parties in the U.S. to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) at the start of the process, reporting regulations begin once spending surpasses what the FEC calls “certain thresholds”). And let’s face it, Trump is right. America has never enjoyed a third choice for very long, and with very little success when those moments arrived.

With few exceptions, the U.S. political system has two major parties which have won, on average, 98% of all state and federal seats.

“The United States stands out among the world’s democracies for having an unusually small number of competitive parties;” Seth Masket wrote in Democracy. “[a]nd for such a large, diverse, and multiethnic society to have just two dominant parties means that those parties will be strikingly vast, complex, heterogeneous coalitions.”

Musk should be familiar with Duverger’s law, which holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and Britain, only 2 powerful political parties tend to control power. Citizens are encouraged not to vote for third party spoilers because, as the reasoning goes, they will just split votes away from the major party. Such a model diverts sharply from the European system where citizens are actively encouraged to create, join and vote for new political parties if they are unhappy with current choices. Such thinking is practically unheard of in the United States.

And try to wrap your head around this riddle: in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, Ross Perot’s independent run received zero electoral votes despite receiving 19% of the popular vote, the most won by a non-major-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Perot remains the only non-major-party presidential candidate since George C. Wallace in 1968 both to win counties and to finish as high as second place in any state.

And then the America Party will inevitably face the formidable firewall known as the U.S. media, which dutifully serves its powerful masters, i.e., those two heads of the same snake wielding the greatest political clout. It gets better. They are propped up by a shady organization known as the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a nonprofit corporation established in 1987 under the joint sponsorship of the Democratic and Republican political parties in the United States. Yes, you read that right. The organization created to ensure fair play and equal access to various resources (primarily in the media) during the debates is owned lock, stock and barrel by the two-party monopoly.

In 1985, the bipartisan National Commission on Elections recommended “[t]urning over the sponsorship of presidential debates to the two major parties”. The CPD was established in 1987 by the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican Parties to “take control of the presidential debates”.

Against such formidable odds, Elon Musk may find his effort to reach the Martian surface a much easier task than cracking the U.S. political system, constructed as it is in layers of formidable protection to guard against pesky ‘outsiders.’

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

The post Does Elon Musk’s Third Party Have a Prayer? Trump Is Not a Believer appeared first on LewRockwell.

I often wonder which of  two possible fates waiting in the wings will be ours.  Will Washington/Israeli hegemonic ambition, together with Russian/Chinese/Iranian denial, or perhaps avoidance, of reality, destroy us in nuclear war, or will the digital revolution and its bastard child–Artificial Intelligence–lock up humanity in endless tyranny?

I read idealistic accounts of AI in which we all have an AI assistant that manages our daily schedules, our health, diet, weight, and what we eat and drink, manages our investments, protects us against fraudulent bills, keeps watch over our identity and bank account, and ensures all bills are paid, all the while greatly increasing our productivity in our jobs and delivering entertainment.

The propaganda makes people feel secure and comfortable, especially really busy people and elderly people.  But in fact it makes them insecure and unaware of how insecure they are.  All of their information is in one place where it can be hacked or erased  along with their identity by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). 

Technology’s true believers see technology in an unrealistic way.  It is always an improvement in human existence.  But that is not true.  Initially technology improved human performance, but eventually it displaces human performance as AI and robotics are doing.

In the long ago days of the 1950s, or perhaps it was the 1960s, Mad Comics produced an issue in which everything worked for humans without their participation.  Then one day the system broke, and no one knew how to repair the system.  They all died.

Already today, education is training students not to think for themselves, not to learn how to solve math, physics, chemical, biological, and other problems, but how to ask AI to do it for them.  Students now hand in assignments written for them by AI.

Students no longer need to know language or how to use it to write a theme.  They just give the assignment to AI. Education today amounts to learning how to use AI.

But what or who is AI?

AI is the ability to peruse information in a data base much faster than a human and to arrive at a conclusion faster than a human can think.

The accuracy of the AI conclusion depends on the accuracy off the information supplied to AI.  

In other words, the outcome depends on who controls the information base. 

We already live with this problem. The information base consists of the official narratives. Censorship kept truthful information about the dangers of the Covid “vaccine” and truthful accounts of “Russiagate,” Ukraine conflict, and most other events off of social media and unable to find with a Google search.  If you are outside the official narratives, you are not included in the information base. AI makes Orwell’s Big Brother universal and unchallengeable.

For now the official explanations are in the hands of the American Establishment and their whore media.  Perhaps in order to protect their own histories, cultures, and ways of thinking, other countries will develop their own AI system in order to escape being ruled by Washington’s data base. Otherwise, Washington’s official narratives will become every country’s official narratives.

What we have at this time is indoctrination disguised by the language of neutrality and presented as truthful information.  Liberal-left ideologies, such as transgender theory, the alleged racism of white ethnicities, and Jewish and black victimization are default settings. But it is worse than this. Who controls the algorithm controls the menu not only of explanations but of what events actually happened.

All countries are in danger of being subsumed into Washingtons’ explanations, just as they have been left powerless by being subsumed into the SWIFT bank clearing system and the US dollar as world money.  Many will accept Washington’s free ride to the obliteration of their memory of themselves.

The post Two Possible Fates Waiting in the Wings appeared first on LewRockwell.

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has gone full Nazi after changes were made to its programming to give it a heavier right wing bias, sparking international headlines with its tweets praising Adolf Hitler’s treatment of Jews and babbling about Jewish conspiracies to spread anti-white hate.

The official X account for Grok announced that the team is “aware of recent posts made by Grok and are actively working to remove the inappropriate posts,” saying “xAI has taken action to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X.”

So apparently they’re having a hard time teaching their chatbot specifically what kind of right wing bias they want it to have.

Shit’s getting weird, man. The age of AI is weird.

AI is presenting a very interesting dilemma to each of us. We now each have to decide as individuals just how human we wish to keep our experience, because we’re hitting a point where we can become just about as divorced from the things that make us human as we want to be.

We can choose to let AI do our critical thinking for us if we want to. We can choose to let it do our reading and writing for us. We can choose to let it create the art we produce and consume. We can choose to let it formulate arguments for us justifying our opinions and our worldview, or to let it reshape our worldview altogether. We can even choose to anthropomorphize it and have relationships with it if we are lonely.

We all have to choose for ourselves where the line is now. What point we will not cross beyond. What parts of our humanity we are willing and unwilling to trade for convenience or cognitive ease.

Just how far into the guts and gristle of humanity do you want to be?

How deeply do you want to be immersed in the breathing, sweating, pulsing fleshiness of the human adventure?

How fully do you want to feel the erotic ticklings of creativity moving through you, and the frustration you’ll experience on the days when it doesn’t show up?

To what extent do you want to experience the highs and lows of intimate human relationships, and all the unpredictability and insecurity that comes with them?

How much cognitive discomfort are you willing to push through in order to form a new opinion, learn about a new subject, or understand an unfamiliar idea?

How separated are you ready to become from that within us which produces the perfectly imperfect art, music and literature of our species?

How much do you want to feel the earth beneath your feet, the wind in your hair, and the sacred thrum of existence in your veins?

These didn’t used to be questions we needed to answer for ourselves. If we wanted something written, we had to write it. If we didn’t know how to write, we had to learn. If we didn’t put in the work, the thing we wanted to write never got written.

Now it’s a conscious choice for us how far we’re each willing to move into this new AI thing. We all have to decide for ourselves how far is too far, with the understanding that every step we take in that direction is costing us something. Maybe something very dear to us. Maybe something we can never get back.

_________________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my mailing list, social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post In the Age of AI, We Each Have To Choose How Much of Our Humanity We Want To Keep appeared first on LewRockwell.

With Gaza ceasefire negotiations under way and President Trump raising hopes of a deal being reached by week’s end, Defense Minister Israel Katz on Monday revealed that the IDF will create what it calls a “humanitarian city” in the wasteland that is Rafah, and then forcibly concentrate Gaza’s entire population of nearly 2 million people inside it.

Though the Israeli government and its advocates will likely to condemn already-widespread usage of the term “concentration camp” to describe this undertaking — likely claiming it’s somehow antisemitic given the parallels to Nazi Germany — it’s unambiguously applicable under the Merriam-Webster definition of the term:

concentration camp (noun) a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard  

In the first phase, the IDF plans to round up 600,000 displaced Palestinians who are living in the coastal Mawasi area and move them to Rafah, a city in southernmost Gaza that borders Egypt and Israel. Eventually, every Gaza resident will be moved. After security screening, Palestinians will be ushered inside the camp, with IDF guards ensuring that none are able to leave, Katz said.

While the Israeli military will secure the perimeter, the Netanyahu government is looking for some type of international organization(s) to take charge of the interior, to include overseeing the distribution of aid, an enterprise currently managed by the shadowy Gaza Humanitarian Foundation with the IDF dishing out mass killings of Palestinians approaching the aid points; more than 600 are reported dead around the aid stations since late May. Whistleblowing soldiers have told reporters that lethal weapons are being used against unarmed people as brute-force crowd control.

Katz’s announcement contradicts what the IDF Chief of Staff’s office told Israel’s High Court on the very same day. In response to a petition filed by IDF reserve soldiers asking the court to determine if Israel was violating international law by forcibly displacing Palestinians with perhaps the ultimate goal of expelling them, the Chief of Staff’s office said there was no plan to move masses of Gaza residents or to concentrate them somewhere in the territory. However, that assurance is itself seemingly contradicted by the operations order for “Gideon’s Chariots,” the IDF’s latest operation launched in May, which says one objective is “managing and mobilizing the civilian population,” Haaretz reports.

On Monday, Katz also reiterated Israel’s intention to subsequently facilitate Palestinians’ departures to other countries, telling reporters that Israel will implement “the emigration plan, which will happen.” Separately, however, an official told Haaretz that Israel’s overtures to various countries have all been refused. While Israel’s champions commonly claim such refusals prove that Palestinians are dangerously undesirable people, Middle East governments are intensely wary of being perceived by their own populations as facilitating ethnic cleansing by Israel, for fear of domestic backlash up to and including insurrections.

RAFAH, GAZA BEFORE & AFTER.

-TRT World pic.twitter.com/EusxcxEHdP

— International Defence Analysis (@Defence_IDA) July 3, 2025

For somewhat similar reasons, Israel is likely to struggle to find what Katz called “international partners” to run the interior of the Rafah concentration camp. Human-rights-oriented groups and foreign governments will recoil at an invitation to serve as a key component of a scheme that most objective observers would characterize as a war crime. Given that, we could see the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation fill the void, which would only compound the controversy.

Meeting with President Trump at the White House on Monday evening, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck an optimistic tone about the prospect of mass Palestinian emigration, and characterized the idea as voluntary in nature:

“If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave. We’re working with the United States very closely about finding countries that will seek to realize what they always say, that they wanted to give the Palestinians a better future. I think we’re getting close to finding several countries.“

Trump echoed Netanyahu’s optimism, saying, “We’ve had great cooperation from … surrounding countries, great cooperation from every single one of them. So something good will happen.”

Though the implementation phase is apparently now imminent, the idea of corralling all of Gaza’s population into Rafah and then moving them out has been circulating since the very beginning of Israel’s response to the Hamas invasion of Oct 7 2023. A Ministry of Intelligence policy paper dated Oct 10 2023 and obtained by +972 Magazine that same month recommended herding Gaza’s entire 2.2 million residents south and then forcing them into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

More recently, as Dave DeCamp notes at Antiwar.com, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich outlined a forcible displacement scheme in candid and grim terms that belie Netanyahu’s characterization of coming emigration as “voluntary.” In May, he boasted to attendees of a West Bank settlement conference that Palestinians will have no choice but to abandon a land rendered uninhabitable by the IDF:

“Within a few months…Gaza will be totally destroyed. The Gazan citizens will be concentrated in the south. They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places.”

Where, exactly, will those “other places” be?

This article was originally published on Zero Hedge.

The post Israel Defense Minister Unveils Plan for ‘Concentration Camp’ in Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

From the Tom Woods Letter:

Auron MacIntyre, who’s been a Tom Woods Show guest several times, makes an excellent point about making our intellectuals into “content creators”:

The right is facing a serious problem about how to handle its intellectuals.

The left has the university, where it can assign smart people good-paying, high-status jobs where they can explore and cultivate ideas.

The right has no similar institutions, so right-wing intellectuals end up in think-tanks or content production.

This creates the “public intellectual” who comes onto the scene with a burst of insight.

Content production is a grind: even if you’re saying intelligent things eventually the need to say something about everything leaves you little time to think deeply about anything.

Academics are also not really equipped to be public figures; they are not built to do battle with a hostile public on a regular basis.

I think this is a lot of what has happened with guys like Jordan Peterson. He should be given the time to reflect on an issue and put out something every few months. Instead, the content churn and social medial battles make it difficult for him to say anything new or interesting.

With no time to reflect on and cultivate new ideas, the public intellectual has less and less to say and more and more demand for saying something.

Not trying to make Peterson a victim here, but the right needs a better plan to cultivate its serious thinkers. Throwing them into the content mill is not a sustainable plan.

This is obviously true. Whatever benefits we may derive from social media, it is deeply unnatural for genuine intellectuals — or any person, for that matter — to feel obligated to have a ready-made opinion on every matter of importance as it occurs.

I myself refuse to do it. There are plenty of issues you will search my social media or email newsletter in vain to find commentary about, simply because I either (1) have nothing particularly unique to say, or (2) I haven’t given the matter the kind of dedicated thought it deserves.

I can’t imagine trying to make a living as an “influencer,” always trying to stay ahead of the news cycle, as well as other influencers. Sounds like a recipe for a nervous breakdown to me.

Instead of doing that, I get to be a podcaster who interviews interesting people and shares the odd provocative opinion when he feels like it. I’m not in a race with anyone, I don’t have to pretend to know everything about everything, and I can travel when and where I want, without worrying that I should be on Instagram or writing Facebook posts or in general “creating content.”

I’m able to do that because thank goodness I’m not trying to make a living as an influencer.

I watch these poor souls drive themselves mad trying to do it — and they don’t even know how to do it. They build up a huge following on some platform, they get kicked off that platform, and they have spent a total of zero minutes building up a Plan B.

Never pay for a book again: TomsFreeBooks.com

The post Our Intellectuals Have Nothing Valuable To Say appeared first on LewRockwell.

Do you wince when you hear someone rip “capitalism” for some alleged evil, then propose a new government program to correct it?  Are you frustrated when hearing people demand the soaking of the rich to relieve the poor?  Are you frustrated further when realizing the poor are still poor after government has intervened?

Are you exasperated at the media for lying about origins of the US-Ukraine war on Russia or dismissing the reality in Gaza?  Do you have a sinking feeling when you see MAGA supporters dump on Elon for criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill?

Do you curse the public schools when Mark Dice takes to the street and interviews random passersby who come up empty about basic American history or the value of gold coins?  Do you see societal decay in the works when talented people are sidelined for mediocrities because of race or gender?  Are you wondering why people study economics if a president can violate sound theory and impose tariffs as a tactic to save American jobs?

Do you want to SCREAM when you hear Trump calling for the Fed to lower interest rates or threatening a government take-over of the Fed?  Do you want to scream again remembering how popular Ron Paul was with voters when he called for ending the Fed?

Knowing you’re not alone doesn’t help much, but there might be a better way to view the propagandized, coercive scene.  Most people have to earn a living, and they do it by trading their time and talent for what passes for money.  They don’t do it with a first-hand, in-depth analysis of what’s going on in Washington — that’s the job of the bought and sold mainstream media that they’ve learned to distrust.  They don’t have the time, skills, or energy to research it in-depth.  If their jobs are stressful they might seek relief doing something different, but that excludes introducing more stress into their lives, such as listening to talking heads or reading about politics.

Butler tells them the cold truth

That profound book you’re working on will not reach most people because most people don’t read profound books.  Your choir might read it, and if enough do, it could make the Times bestseller list.  But the political machine rolls on regardless.

Consider the books exposing in bloody detail the military-intelligence-complex.  This list is long and damning, but far from complete.  What impact have they had?  One of them, War is a Racket, written by two-time Medal of Honor recipient Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler, opens with these words:

WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. (Emphasis mine)

Published in 1935, his book is based on speeches he gave during a nationwide tour in the 1930s.  It was condensed by Reader’s Digest, which helped transmit his message.  It’s available on Amazon Kindle for less than a dollar.  It can be read in one sitting.  Given his background and the clarity and power of his writing, his message about war corruption could not have been missed, yet today it’s just another anti-war classic most people have never heard of because it had no influence on government policy.  Turned out war solved FDR’s unemployment problem when his Keynesian New Deal had let him down.

Ellsberg exposes the war machine

Not included on the MIC book list was Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, the first installment of which was published in the NY Times on Sunday, June 13, 1971 under the title “Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement.”

The article was based on a 7,000-page, top-secret Defense Department history of American involvement in Vietnam leaked to the newspaper by disillusioned former Pentagon employee Daniel Ellsberg. To keep the scoop secret, the Times kept it from most of its own employees and rented a suite at a Manhattan hotel where a small hive of reporters feverishly parsed the leaked information.

Shortly after President Nixon saw the article he accused the Times of treason.

By Monday night, Attorney General John N. Mitchell had spent a furious 24 hours assessing legal options for preventing further publication of the Pentagon Papers, which the Times had teased as a multi-part series.

On June 15, Nixon obtained an injunction to block further publication, citing national security risks.  Other newspapers, including the Washington Post, defied Nixon’s injunction and began publishing excerpts of their own.  On June 29, 1971 Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska obtained a copy and read 4,000 pages into Congressional Record, making it available to the public. Nixon’s fight against the Papers led to a landmark free-speech case that became the focus of the 2017 Spielberg movie, The Post.

In New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Court avowed that “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” . . . “The Government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” Regarding the Times and the Washington Post, the Court agreed with the lower courts that “the Government had not met that burden.”  On June 30, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the papers.

Later, Ellsberg was indicted on 12 felony counts under the 1917 Espionage Act and faced up to 115 years in prison, but the case was dismissed after Judge Matthew Byrne discovered White House “plumbers” had illegally broken into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist ’s office.

Conclusion

How confident are you today that US courts would side with Ellsberg and the First Amendment?  Or other government whistleblowers?  Ever wonder why Edward Snowden is still living in Russia?  How many newspapers published legal challenges to the Big Pharma Covid narrative?  Why were challengers routinely punished with loss of jobs? As Ryan McMaken has written,

It has become abundantly clear that the federal government—and especially the executive branch—regards legal and constitutional limits on federal power as mere inconveniences to be ignored. Debates over constitutionality are now, for the most part, a relic of an earlier age.

What might have been a trend toward freedom with Butler and Ellsberg turned out to be another fleeting moment.  Perhaps the best strategy for survival is not to become a news junky but to follow the survivalists’s credo of self-sufficiency.  Don’t count on a government approach to make America great again.  Stay far away from its wars but do listen to Tulsi’s warning about nuclear war.  Don’t get lost in day-to-day minutiae.  Pick your gurus advisedly.  The federal government is pursuing a path of self-destruction with its unlimited spending facilitated by the Fed and its counterfeit money.  When government checks bounce, make sure you can live without them.

The post The Political Machine Rolls on Regardless appeared first on LewRockwell.

On June 18, the Supreme Court ruled that a Tennessee law banning dangerous “gender-affirming care” for minors did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Skrmetti should be applauded as a victory for restoring sanity and protecting children from barbaric procedures. However, a specter looms over the Court’s jurisprudence on sex and gender that has the potential to wreak havoc.

The infamous “textualist decision”—Bostock v. Clayton County—looms over each Court case related to sexual orientation and civil rights. While the Court rejected Bostock’s logic in this instance, the Supreme Court needs to do the right thing and overturn that case.

Much ink has been spilled regarding Bostock’s holding.

In a confounding majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch declared that the legislators behind Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act understood the word “sex” to include sexual orientation. Gorsuch attempted to revise history by arguing that “because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex,” Title VII needed to be amended to reflect this fact.

The real salt in the wound was Gorsuch’s attempt to posit the decision as a victory for the originalist school of interpretation. But as Justice Samuel Alito wrote, it represented “the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”

Alito’s dissent compared the majority to a pirate ship—sailing “under a textualist flag” while representing the judicial philosophy disdained by textualists. The “illogical” and “arrogant” opinion could not survive its logic.

Alito wrote:

The Court argues that an applicant could not answer the question whether he or she is homosexual without knowing something about sex… Just because an applicant cannot say whether he or she is homosexual without knowing his or her own sex and that of the persons to whom the applicant is attracted, it does not follow that an employer cannot reject an applicant based on homosexuality without knowing the applicant’s sex. 

In addition to the “textualist” decision, Alito also raised concerns regarding the application of Bostock. Specifically, Alito warned, “the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety. No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty.” Gorsuch arrogantly dismissed this reasoning, stating, “We have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today.”

Gorsuch could not have been more wrong, as his small gesture had “unexpected consequences.” A couple of months later, the Biden Administration issued an Executive Order preventing LGBTQ+ discrimination, which directly cited Bostock. The Executive Order sought to “prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.” Thankfully, President Trump rescinded the Order on his first day in office.

Those consequences continued, however, as many religious institutions are facing discrimination suits, empowered by the Bostock decision.

For instance, Liberty University, a Christian university, is being sued for discrimination for the termination of a transgender employee. Liberty Counsel wrote that the university’s decision was rooted in its sincerely held religious beliefs, and “Title VII’s text exempts that religious decision from employment discrimination suits.” However, the federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit, citing Bostock as part of the reasoning. Despite the supposed protections for religious institutions under doctrines such as the “ministerial exception,” the Court will likely have to readdress the underlying logic of Bostock.

Thankfully, in Skrmetti, the Court refused to expand the logic of Bostock outside of Title VII. Roberts, for the majority, wrote that since the Tennessee law did not “exclude any individuals on the basis of transgender status,” but rather age and medical use, Bostock was inapplicable.

Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas reaffirmed his disdain for the infamous opinion. Thomas wrote that Bostock’s majority opinion “fails on its own terms,” and applying Bostock to this issue “would depart dramatically from this Court’s Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence” so the “courts need not engage Bostock at all.”

The larger problem reveals itself within these opinions. The Court is dealing with a precedent that conflates “because of sex” with one’s sexual orientation and gender identity. If the makeup of the Court were a little different, Bostock’s logic would probably have been extended outside of Title VII.

The Skrmetti decision was not just a victory for common sense but also for proper judicial interpretation. However, the victory does not mean that America is out of the woods yet. The Court has, unfortunately, been the primary source of many of America’s political problems. Whether it is redefining marriage, writing what is ostensibly poetry in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or rewriting statutes, the Court has transformed from a bench of watchful guardians into unaccountable legislators.

The Court must overturn Bostock. Just as the late Antonin Scalia called the Lemon test a “ghoul in a late-night horror movie,” Bostock haunts the Court’s jurisprudence on sexual orientation and gender. It’s time for the Court to send Bostock to the ash heap of history.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Overturn Bostock! appeared first on LewRockwell.

O Jewish man or woman,
does your heart swell with pride
when you contemplate the Gaza genocide?
Do you make excuses like
“It’s a complicated situation” or
“Israel has a right to defend itself” or
“The Palestinians are not really a people”?
Do you follow the MAGA crowd, supporting its
genocidal cult leader Donald Trump?  Are you
one of the sheeple, as he aids and abets the bombing,
slaughter, starvation, and mass murder of two-and-
a-half million people?
Or does the Israeli/US/UK-engineered genocide
leave you repulsed and nauseous?  If so,
then why is your voice so timid and cautious?
Why aren’t you shouting your anger and protest
in every synagogue service, every public forum,
every newspaper, every college campus, every
B’nai B’rith gathering across the land?
Do you understand that Trump is a totally-owned
Zionist tool who does Netanyahu’s bidding, as was
the senile pervert Joseph Biden and the cackling hideous
Kamala Harris?  Trump’s buddy Jeffrey Epstein, a Mossad
agent who ran a sexual blackmail racket, probably has
a load of incriminating tapes featuring The Donald with
underage girls.  Trump’s first priority is not Make America
Great Again, it’s Make Israel Great Again.
Do you realize that the U.S. Congress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Zionist State of Israel, through bribes and blackmail?  And millions of Trump’s Christian Zionist supporters believe that Palestine must be wholly Christian to pave the way for The Rapture.  These forces exert a stranglehold on the American political system and the un-free press.

The Israeli people by and large support the genocide, according to the latest polls.  “It’s either us or them.  We stole the land from them, and we’re not about to give it back.  So it’s okay if Israeli soldiers shoot babies in the head and murder pregnant Palestinian mothers.  It’s okay when we bomb hospitals, schools, kill starving people lined up for food supplies, destroy over 80% of Gaza’s infrastructure, and turn the Strip into a wasteland of rubble.”

Israel is a profoundly sick society, immoral to the core.

The state of Israel was founded through ethnic cleansing, terrorism, land theft, imperialist backing, and mass murder.  The UN partition plan of 1947 awarded the Zionist Jews over half the land—and all the fertile land—even though they were only around one-quarter of the population.  Needing to be in the majority in order to create a theocratic Jewish nation-state, the Zionists launched a systematic terror campaign between 1947 and 1949.  They demolished 570 Palestinian towns, villages, cities and urban neighborhoods, bulldozed and set fire to Palestinians’ homes or stole and occupied them, carried out more than 50 point-blank massacres of Palestinian men, women and children, and forced over 800,000 people—half the non-Jewish population—into exile.

Now the Palestinians’ cramped place of exile has been obliterated by the genocidal partners, Netanyahu and Trump.  The first one’s nomination of the second one for the Nobel Peace Prize takes degeneracy to a whole new level.

The post Making Excuses for the Gaza Genocide appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Jay M.

Is it common knowledge that we get ALL of our enriched uranium from Russia?  Not the highly enriched weapons grade, but the lesser enriched for use in nuclear power plants, etc.

The post Enriched Uranium appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Tom White.

The post Green Energy appeared first on LewRockwell.