Aggregatore di feed

Chase Hughes is a former military Chief who specializes in behavior profiling, interrogation, and Human Intelligence operations. He now develops tactics for government agencies and businesses in ‘Enhanced Persuasion’ and people-reading skills.

Chase is also the bestselling author of ‘The Behavior Ops Manual’, and ‘Phrase Seven’.

Chase now teaches advanced behavior skills to law firms, businesses, and the general public. The courses range from violence-prediction and interrogation to extreme influence and people-reading.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination will dominate the headlines—but before the truth is even clear, the disinformation machine is already spinning. This video exposes how suppression, radicalization, and division are weaponized—not by ideology, but by systems designed to keep you outraged, divided, and distracted.

We’ll reveal: • Why suppression is the biggest red flag in history—and why it always signals weakness, not strength. • How highly suggestible people are radicalized—not by one side or the other, but through media outrage loops, algorithmic echo chambers, and deliberate manipulation. • The illusion of “left vs. right”—a distraction designed to pit neighbors against each other while corruption, corporate power, and elites escape untouched. • The common ground we all share: freedom, safety, stability, fairness—and what none of us want: corruption, endless wars for profit, elites with different rules, surveillance states, and justice systems that bend for the powerful but break for the rest of us.

This is not a partisan message. Suppression is weakness. Radicalization is manipulation. Disinformation is the bait. And if you don’t understand how this machinery works, you’ll keep falling for it. Stay until the end—because once you see how these systems operate, you’ll never look at a headline the same way again.

The post A Non-Partisan, Objective Expert Behavioral Analysis of the Charlie Kirk Shooting appeared first on LewRockwell.

Andrew Napolitano – What Ever Happened To The Constitution?

Today is Constitution Day, September 17, 2025. All Social Studies teachers in every high school are required by federal law to celebrate the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States.

When I was still teaching, this brief video is what I would show my students.

The post Today is Constitution Day, September 17, 2025. All Social Studies Teachers in every High School are Required by Federal Law to Celebrate the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

https://x.com/Rothbard1776/status/1968064033484890565

The post Post from Murray appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mike Benz is one of the wisest, most informed, articulate, and knowledgeable persons online.

Mike Benz, former government official and digital liberties advocate

• Executive Director, Foundation for Freedom Online: He currently leads this nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting digital liberties and restoring a free and open internet.
• Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State: During the Trump administration, Benz was responsible for the cyber portfolio in the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
• Former White House Speechwriter: Before his State Department role, he served as a speechwriter for President Trump and advised on technology policy.
• Advocacy: He is a prominent, highly respected voice in discussions about online censorship, including guest appearances on podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience, Tucker Carlson where he has discussed alleged government overreach in regulating online speech.
• Early Career: Before entering public service, he worked as a business law attorney in New York, representing tech and financial firms. 

The post Mike Benz – Will There Be More Assassinations? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post High Crimes On The High Seas appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

The post Heart Tumors Loaded with Spike Protein appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Breitbart

The post That’s what we want to hear – RFK turns tables on Demon rats! 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 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 la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso 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/e-possibile-sconfiggere-la-tirannia)

La scusa che un certo governo è migliore di quanto non fosse, o che avrebbe potuto essere, ha una durata limitata.

Ogni governo di transizione della storia ha utilizzato questo tropo. Si pensi ai Girondini in Francia, a Kerenskij in Russia, a Weimar in Germania, alla Seconda Repubblica spagnola, a Chiang Kai-shek in Cina e così via. Nell'ordine sono stati sostituiti da Robespierre, poi Napoleone, Lenin, poi Stalin, Hitler, Franco e Mao.

In ognuno di questi casi il governo di transizione è stato alla fine annientato dalle pressioni di entrambe le parti: da un lato i sostenitori industriali e intellettuali del vecchio sistema che detenevano il controllo ereditato, e dall'altro il radicalismo dei movimenti populisti che avevano portato al potere nuove persone.

Di questi tempi la storia insegna una lezione più di ogni altra: il nuovo governo deve essere brutalmente onesto sulla criminalità del vecchio sistema e lavorare con determinazione per smantellarlo il più rapidamente possibile. Qualsiasi cosa che non sia questa porta al suo stesso discredito e alla sua eventuale sostituzione.

In ogni ambito il governo odierno, con l'amministrazione Trump, sta entrando nella sua seconda fase e assistiamo all'opera di queste forze storiche. Il movimento popolare che ha superato ogni pronostico per portare al potere i nuovi arrivati ​​nutriva aspettative elevate, persino rivoluzionarie, dopo i cinque anni più orribili della nostra vita.

Alcune di queste speranze vengono parzialmente soddisfatte, ma bloccate in troppi altri modi. Questa dinamica si riflette sul bilancio, sulla richiesta di trasparenza e sulla sanità pubblica.

Di conseguenza l'ottimismo sfrenato che aveva accolto l'insediamento di Trump si è trasformato in qualcosa di diverso, un misto di incredulità della base elettorale e di indignazione e disgusto da parte dei media generalisti e dell'establishment che hanno combattuto questa rivoluzione in ogni modo.

Ciò solleva ulteriormente la prospettiva su cui abbiamo ripetutamente messo in guardia: l'amministrazione Trump potrebbe passare alla storia come un governo di transizione come ne abbiamo visti tante altre volte, un esperimento quadriennale di moderazione intervallato da diverse forme di totalitarismo da entrambe le parti.

Questa è una questione seria, non un gioco da salotto. Né si tratta di una tipica battaglia politica. Quello che è successo negli ultimi cinque anni è stato un evento epocale. L'economia mondiale è stata travolta da una fuga biologica in un laboratorio parzialmente finanziato dal governo statunitense. Il piano di riserva non annunciato, promosso in nome della scienza, prevedeva la distribuzione di un nuovo vaccino con una nuova tecnologia di alterazione genetica.

Il vaccino non ha funzionato. Non è stato efficace, non era sicuro, né sono stati adeguatamente controllati, perché imposti da un editto militare con la scusa di un'emergenza. Altre terapie sono state denigrate e vietate. I critici in ogni ambito sono stati censurati e messi a tacere; chi ha rifiutato l'iniezione è stato licenziato e la salute pubblica è crollata in nome della sua salvaguardia.

Questi danni non hanno trovato giustizia... non ancora almeno.

Nel frattempo, per finanziare questa calamità, la spesa pubblica è aumentata di $8-10 miliardi, caricando il bilancio del governo federale con $2 miliardi in più rispetto a quanto sarebbe accaduto altrimenti. I vaccini sono ancora sul mercato, nonostante i danni innegabili e ampiamente noti.

Niente di tutto questo è un segreto, come forse lo era in passato. Grazie alle tecnologie informatiche, le persone sono perfettamente a conoscenza di ogni dettaglio. Il cosiddetto “movimento populista” è diventato una vasta comunità di esperti, perfettamente in grado di gestire in modo efficace persone e istituzioni consolidate.

I nuovi leader – eletti per cambiare rotta su tutto quanto sopra e altro ancora, compresi i conseguenti problemi di criminalità e di immigrazione – hanno iniziato con grande spavalderia e con editti radicali che sembravano promettenti. Quattro mesi dopo, chiedono pazienza mentre affrontano ostacoli preesistenti da ogni parte, dalle molestie mediatiche ai blocchi giudiziari.

Il problema è che la fiducia della popolazione è completamente svanita. L'intero Paese, traumatizzato da anni di bugie, è diventato il Missouri: mostrate le prove.

Per quanto riguarda la trasparenza, sono stati fatti passi avanti, ma non sufficienti a mantenere le promesse. I fascicoli su JFK sono confusi e incompleti; non sappiamo più di quanto già noto sui due attentatori che hanno tentato di uccidere Trump; ci sono ancora molti interrogativi sul 9 settembre, sul disastro del Covid e su molto altro. Questa non è l'apertura che la gente sperava.

Poi c'è l'area politica della sanità pubblica dove abbiamo visto i maggiori progressi. Abbiamo un nuovo ed eccellente decreto esecutivo sulla scienza: i test Covid finanziati con fondi pubblici sono terminati; un contratto da $750 milioni per un vaccino contro l'influenza aviaria è stato annullato; ci sono nuovi limiti alla ricerca sul guadagno di funzione e gli esperimenti su beagle e altri animali sono terminati; molti pessimi contratti con l'NIH sono stati annullati, mentre parti del CDC sono state smantellate.

Per quanto riguarda le iniezioni a mRNA, il mercato è stato ristretto a solo le popolazioni vulnerabili, tralasciando il noto problema che anch'esse non dovrebbero rischiare.

Esistono nuovi standard per gli studi clinici randomizzati con placebo, ma non vi è alcuna garanzia che queste aziende li attueranno tempestivamente. Gli RCT per un prodotto di cinque anni con effetti immunomodulatori significativi non potranno mai essere una valida selezione di campioni, né la continuazione di tali esperimenti in alcuna forma è moralmente giustificata.

Con due straordinarie vittorie, i vaccini sono stati rimossi dal programma di vaccinazione pediatrica di routine, la prima volta che ciò accade per un prodotto mirato a una specifica malattia, a parte l'eradicazione o la sostituzione. Infatti il CDC/FDA stanno dicendo: è meglio contrarre il Covid che rischiare con questi prodotti. Un messaggio del genere porterà le inoculazioni a nuovi minimi, che alla fine si avvicineranno allo zero.

Inoltre il consiglio scandaloso del CDC che raccomandava alle donne incinte di assumerli è finalmente scomparso. Il promotore di quella linea di politica è fuggito.

Questi sono tutti cambiamenti positivi in ​​linee di politica che non avrebbero mai dovuto esistere fin dall'inizio. Ciononostante nessuno parla dell'elefante nella stanza: anche se queste vaccinazioni fossero state sicure ed efficaci, cosa che non sono, non sono mai state necessarie per la stragrande maggioranza delle persone. Il che solleva la profonda domanda su come e perché tutto questo sia avvenuto.

Ci sono anche altre iniziative riguardanti ad esempio la nutrizione alimentare, la salute mentale e altre questioni nella relazione della Commissione MAHA, tutti cambiamenti estremamente graditi rispetto al passato.

Chi detiene il potere in queste agenzie implora pazienza. Non è irragionevole. Ricordate che questi pochi incaricati si trovano ad affrontare una bestia più grande, più radicata e meglio finanziata di qualsiasi egemone nella storia dell'umanità. Il complesso farmaceutico/media/tecnologico/ONG/accademico è più grande e più potente della tratta degli schiavi, della Compagnia delle Indie Orientali, della Standard Oil, o persino dell'industria bellica che diede inizio alla Grande Guerra.

È certo che un simile Leviatano non può essere fermato in tre mesi, nemmeno con le persone migliori al comando. Tutto ciò di cui la base elettorale ha realmente bisogno è vedere prove di progressi e una spiegazione trasparente per i ritardi. Se le vaccinazioni non possono essere sospese ora, la gente deve sapere perché. Se i poteri di emergenza Covid non possono essere revocati, bisogna spiegare il perché. Se il nuovo vaccino Moderna era già in fase di sviluppo e non poteva essere fermato, la gente deve conoscerne le ragioni.

Chiunque abbia assistito a tutto questo è indeciso, a prescindere dalle fazioni in continua mutazione all'interno dei movimenti dissidenti che hanno visto la propria leadership salire al potere. I membri dei movimenti MAGA/MAHA/DOGE sono entusiasti dei progressi compiuti finora, tanto quanto i media generalisti e l'establishment sono furiosi per tutti questi cambiamenti.

Da parte mia, avendo seguito gli affari pubblici per decenni, questa è la prima volta che assisto a qualche progresso in almeno un ambito delle attività statali. È un risultato degno di essere celebrato. Non ho nemmeno bisogno di soffermarmi sui tanti modi in cui il miglioramento rispetto ai periodi più bui delle nostre vite è palese.

Ciò di cui abbiamo veramente bisogno è la cruda verità sugli ultimi cinque anni. Dobbiamo sapere che le persone in carica, elette o nominate, condividono ancora la profonda indignazione che ha alimentato il movimento che le ha portate al potere. Abbiamo bisogno di sentire un discorso franco sui danni, gli obblighi, le sofferenze, gli inganni, le tangenti, la corruzione, gli abusi, l'illegale violazione della libertà, della scienza e dei diritti umani.

Non basta proclamare una nuova Età dell'Oro e basta. Questo riguarda ogni aspetto della vita pubblica. Le conferenze stampa dei nuovi incaricati, con sorrisi e promesse di un comportamento migliore in futuro, non bastano, vista la massiccia perdita di fiducia, il cinismo dilagante e la furia popolare. È necessario parlare più apertamente, agire in modo più deciso, andando al nocciolo della questione e garantendo un certo grado di responsabilità.

Sentiamo voci quotidiane che tutto questo stia per accadere. Ottimo. In tal caso i nuovi leader devono chiarirlo. Le persone non sono intrinsecamente irragionevoli, ma sono coloro con cui la leadership deve ragionare – non “mandarle messaggi”, non imbonirle con sciocchezze, non intrattenerle con spettacoli digitali e non liquidarle con sufficienza come estremisti ignoranti e complottisti.

Ogni nuova leadership che eredita un disastro come quello degli ultimi cinque anni si troverà necessariamente schiacciata tra il sistema ereditato – comprese le sue vaste burocrazie e i suoi interessi industriali – e i movimenti populisti che lo hanno portato al potere. In questi casi lo status quo si rivela solitamente irresistibile, ma con conseguenze disastrose in seguito.

Ora è il momento di fermare questo disastro, che non può che aggravare gli errori del passato.

[*] 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, Ginny Garner.

The Grayzone

The post Billionaire Ackman Convened Stormy Intervention with Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

The word of the day for Catholics is “unity.” For the sake of it, entire congregations are ghettoized (TLM), bishops exiled (Strickland), faculties gutted (Sacred Heart), and dioceses fractured (Charlotte). Strange to think that the peculiar synodality project is more or less based on giving every wayward lifestyle and viewpoint a podium but the faithful who have dedicated their lives and relationships to Christ are pressed into passive, conforming ranks.

One of the many things the heavy hands on the tiller of the Church don’t realize is that unity cannot be forced. In the short term, they may be able to line people up like identical service robots, but it only fuels an equal and opposite reaction farther down the road. It’s Newtonian psychology.

Conformity in an evil age asks us to deny common sense, which is our use of reason. For unity’s sake, we’re told to believe that the Mass attended by almost every saint we’ve ever loved is now something pernicious. The “needle in every arm” campaign asked us to ignore the fact that a novel technology had no long-term safety testing. 1984’s Winston Smith had to swallow the non-sense that freedom is slavery and ignorance strength.

As long as society and the Gospel are in harmony about standards of moral behavior, it’s safe to be a conformist. The vast majority of humans are; rebels have always been anomalous. But when a society is Godless, pornographic, and corrupt, conformity can kill body and soul.

Genuine unity is spontaneous, based on shared belief and experience. It springs from joy and the “click” of recognition when we hear the truth. St. John Paul wrote: “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety.” So, if unity is really the goal, the road to get there is the whole deposit of faith and not a conniption of administrative flaps.

And yet, many bishops want to take the shortcut of uniformity, executed through cancellations, firings, and fiddly rules about our devotional gestures at Mass. Uniformity is like a knockoff Patek Philippe wristwatch; it looks swanky, but it stops telling time shortly after the street vendor packs up his case and makes a run for it.

All these firings and restrictions will never get us to true unity. The greatest pools of genuine unity are forming around those who are unjustly sidelined—not among the artificially uniform ranks of the compliant. Real unity draws people in; conformity just keeps them quiet.

When Bishop Joseph Strickland was dismissed from his diocese, there was mention of “lack of fraternity” with brother bishops. No one was supposed to say anything about the flaccid response to homosexuality in the Church, or the contradictory remarks of Pope Francis, or the failure to address the McCarrick crisis. As long as no one mentioned the elephant, the bishops were safe in their ballroom, shielded from the laity’s demands. The Strickland Problem was solved by booting him off the line to restore uniformity, a cheap and shortsighted solution.

Bishop Strickland noted recently in an interview for The Catholic Herald that “authentic unity in the Church is never built on silence in the face of error.” Far from losing his voice, the ostracized American bishop has just launched a new website to continue preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified.

When one person speaks up, it’s a reproach to the cowardly and furtive. And if they try to silence the upstart, the opposite inevitably occurs: truth is amplified. And truth will prevail; we are in the prefatory period, just before it does. We can hasten or slacken it by our willingness to do the hard work of discernment and speaking up ourselves.

This is not the time for mindless conformity. It’s not the time to be silent, or to assume that someone else will take care of things. It’s not a time to allow corrupt men, even among the clergy, to drive us into uniform lines of spongy followers. After everything we’ve been through, it’s not the time to abdicate our responsibility to study and discern what’s being told to us by “experts,” including theological ones.

This is a hard call for Catholics because we live within a hierarchy. We’re accustomed to following leaders we assume to be led, in turn, by Christ. But what if they’re not? What of the ones who carry on secret lives, cover up for predators, use the monies we’ve put in the basket to fund support for abortion and other abominations, betray doctrine—and even those not guilty of such egregious violations, who stand silently by, which is a sin in itself for those entrusted with souls?

We have to take the counsel of our Lord, to obey the law of God, which they are charged with preaching (whether or not they do), but we must avoid following them into perdition. This now demands careful deliberation. It’s not the good ol’ days; we have to know our faith very well in order to assess what we’re told. That means study of the Catechism in particular because it is such a direct and concise explanation of the Faith. When bishops and clergy exhibit an ignorance—or a deliberate rejection—of the deposit of faith, we have to be informed enough to know what’s right and what’s not.

When bishops act and speak from their lawful authority on matters of faith and morals, we obey. But we don’t have to do it silently. In fact, canon law defends the dignity of the laity when they respectfully speak up:

Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they (the Christian faithful) have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Regina Magazine has just released a film, Bread Not Stones, which is a teaching response to Bishop Michael Martin’s attempt to impose uniformity of worship upon his diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina. It’s an excellent example of speaking up reverently to their pastor whom they believe may be acting against the good of the people and the Church.

Those who speak up for truth in this age, who will not conform themselves to falsehood or treachery, stand between us and ruin. Let’s expand their ranks. Within the limits of careful discernment, we must stand up and speak out. Conformity in an evil age is a mortal risk.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Do Not Be Conformed to the World…or to Church Leaders appeared first on LewRockwell.

Predicting the collapse of a country is like reading between the lines of history, economics, and politics. Some nations, however, are walking on thin ice, where even a small additional burden could lead to their downfall. In this article, we’ll explore 11 countries facing severe risks that could put them on the brink of collapse by 2027. Some of these might surprise you.

1. Lebanon: A country where nothing works anymore
Once hailed as the “Switzerland of the Middle East,” Lebanon is now in absolute economic chaos. Hyperinflation, currency collapse, and political corruption have brought the state to its knees. Ordinary citizens struggle to secure basic needs like food and fuel. Can Lebanon still be saved, or will it follow the fate of nations that fragmented into smaller entities?

2. Afghanistan: Taliban isolation and hunger
Since the Taliban regained power, Afghanistan has plunged into international isolation. Its economy is collapsing, people are starving, and humanitarian organizations cannot meet the overwhelming needs. If the situation doesn’t improve, the state risks fragmentation into territories controlled by armed factions.

3. Haiti: From freedom to a nation ruled by gangs
Haiti has been grappling with a crisis for years. With no functioning government, armed gangs dominate cities. Add to that natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes, and you have a recipe for complete collapse. Can Haiti ever rise again?

4. Sudan: A nation in perpetual conflict
Sudan’s civil war between the army and militias is spiraling into catastrophe. Thousands are dead, millions are displaced, and famine looms large. If the conflict continues, Sudan could disintegrate into smaller regions controlled by local warlords.

5. Venezuela: From riches to rags
Home to some of the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela has been in freefall for years. Hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass emigration have devastated the nation. Could Nicolás Maduro’s regime fall, or will Venezuela remain stuck in this “frozen collapse” for decades?

6. Myanmar: A coup that crushed hope
The 2021 military coup plunged Myanmar into chaos. Protests, uprisings, and ethnic conflicts have become the norm. If the military junta doesn’t relinquish power, the country risks breaking into warring regions.

7. Yemen: A nation where survival is a battle
Yemen is the epitome of disaster. Its civil war between Houthi rebels and the internationally recognized government has raged for years. Millions suffer from hunger and disease. If the conflict isn’t resolved, Yemen could vanish as a functioning state altogether.

8. North Korea: Behind the curtain of isolation
Kim Jong Un’s regime appears solid, but what if it isn’t? Economic sanctions, famine, and a possible power struggle after his death could lead to an unexpected collapse. If that happens, the chaos could be unimaginable.

9. Pakistan: Battling economic and political storms
Pakistan is grappling with an economic crisis deepened by debts and political instability. Extremism, corruption, and worsening relations with neighbors could weaken the country to the point of losing control over its regions.

The country is beset by enemies and is in a constant state of unrest. Frequent power outages and riots exacerbate the situation. The fact that Pakistan maintains the second-largest army does not help, given its current state.

I also feel that their military power is overrated. It’s hard to believe they rank as the seventh strongest considering the ongoing protests.

10. Somalia: A collapse that never ended
Somalia has been a failed state for decades. The terrorist group Al-Shabaab still controls large swathes of territory, while the central government remains weak. Without minimal international support, total disintegration seems inevitable.

11. Georgia

Georgia is a country in the Caucasus region. Located at the crossroads between Eastern Europe and Western Asia, it is bounded to the west by the Black Sea, to the north by the Russian Federation, to the south by Turkey and Armenia, and to the southeast by Azerbaijan. The country’s capital and largest… read more

Georgia is underrated. They are very similar to Ukraine, but it isn’t a full-scale war like in Ukraine. They face the threat from Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Also, the threat from a joint invasion from Russia and Armenia is possible. So, it is likely.

Why Do Countries Most Of Time Collapse?
Normally, the collapse of a state is always the result of a combination of factors:

• Economic instability: Hyperinflation, overwhelming debts, or resource shortages.
• Political corruption: Weak governments unable to address crises.
• Civil conflicts: Wars, ethnic tensions, or regional uprisings.
• Climate change: Worsening conditions, natural disasters, and resource depletion.
• International isolation: Sanctions or loss of foreign support.

Can Any of These Countries Be Saved?
History shows us that even nations on the brink of collapse can change course with the right leadership, international assistance, or societal unity. While rescue is possible, these cases will require far more than just hope.

Which other countries do you think are at risk? Let’s discuss.

Beyond the most vulnerable states, there are also numerous other countries that could face significant challenges if their situations do not improve.

Read the Whole Article

The post Countries Most Likely To Collapse in the Upcoming Future appeared first on LewRockwell.

I’ve always loved the timeless nature of folk wisdom. “Birds of a feather flock together” is one of my favorites; its predictive value rarely fails, which is especially frightening in our current moment. Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom has certainly gathered some feathers, and on one side, it’s quite a sight: Race idolators, militant transgender warriors, the “Squad” contingency, and—huddled sheepishly at the edges— Christians.

It’s not most Christians, though. It’s only a stale subset of believers who are inexplicably unable to extend any kind words toward Charlie Kirk. Sure, when civility requires it, they will mumble some obligatory phrases about “political violence” or blame “polarization.” Nobody wants to look like a monster, and those are risk-free things that even our irreligious buddies say. Beyond that, though, these believers must distance themselves from any kind of public conservatism; it doesn’t vibe with their favorite “empathetic” and “winsome” evangelical leaders.

As a result, the bullet that came out of nowhere did more than just create a martyr; it also caught these same believers off guard. People loved and respected Charlie Kirk? My kids watched his videos? I didn’t, but some reporters and a cool pastor told me he was divisive, so I believe it. Now what will I say? As it turns out, they won’t say much.

Who’s in this tepid yet holier-than-thou flock? In many cases, it’s believers who share the essentials of the faith but disdain political discourse. They are the evangelical Never Trumpers. They might’ve cast a “principled” and public vote for Clinton or Biden because “politics don’t belong in the church” or “Trump is divisive.” In the face of Charlie Kirk’s murder, they went quiet or—if necessary—tossed word salads and performed impressive gymnastics in order to avoid specifically referring to Charlie Kirk.

For these feathered friends, conservative thought is off-limits, unflattering, and not “winsome”. You can be a public school teacher, or you can be an artist, or you can work for a nonprofit that receives federal funding. You can advocate for green spaces and free scooters and after-school tutoring and nice things like that. You can compete and model Christian excellence in nearly any earthly venture. Whatever you do, though, don’t let faith inform your political life.

Charlie Kirk’s murder surely brought Christians together in mourning; but it also highlighted these lingering effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the church. This week, I read an email from a popular pastor whose response seemed only a lengthy effort to please a TDS constituency. While one could applaud his effort to address a difficult week of nationwide tragedy, his refusal to offer meaningful words for a murdered brother in Christ was rather jarring.

While Gospel Coalition regulars spent years pushing “Side B Christianity” and infusing sermons with nerdish Charles Taylor commentary, Charlie Kirk was teaching America’s students how to reason biblically, act like a man, and rebuild a nation. He spoke truth clearly, graciously, and even humorously. Now that he has been publicly and gruesomely murdered for his beliefs, those compassionate and “winsome” believers seem outright cold.

To be clear, there is no Biblical mandate to make a social media or public remark just because everyone else does. I don’t virtue signal, even for virtuous things. I rarely participate in the well-meaning “pray for Texas” or “Anytown Strong” kinds of posts. I refuse to participate in “awareness” campaigns. I don’t necessarily make public remarks when a famous believer dies of natural causes. Further, Christians aren’t required to be news junkies, protesters or political commentators.

Charlie Kirk’s murder, however, was something very different. A faithful American believer who applied faith to policy, who invited peaceful debate and shared the gospel in the process—and who remained calm when angry opponents insulted him—this bold man paid the ultimate price. His neck spewed blood in front of an entire nation. He left a young wife and two children who can now view that horrific footage for years.

Even nonbelievers and political progressives found this a shockingly sad day for free speech, with many even admiring his moral courage or gracious demeanor; yet professing Christians danced around the topic or remained uncharacteristically mute, unwilling to honor Charlie Kirk for his outspoken faith. They remained silent in big evangelical pulpits, afraid of offending their feminized brethren in today’s PCA and Southern Baptist Convention.

They weren’t always this quiet. They were proud to mention George Floyd when his death transfixed a nation; but to mention Charlie Kirk’s public murder was simply a bridge too far. General references to evil or “political violence” or “brokenness” would have to do. It was time to be winsome! It was also time to bow to the frowning idol of TDS.

I could go on, but my writing won’t approach the beautiful summary written by Stephanie Smith, president of the Alabama Policy Institute. I encourage everyone to read her op-ed, a pointed description of this wasting spiritual disease. She writes,

No one killed Charlie Kirk because of his position on immigration, tax policy, or limited government principles. He was murdered because he was knee deep in the bunker – fighting a spiritual war that pastors have shied away from due to the false gods of unity and winsomeness. Kirk was a public Christian apologist who spoke biblical truth without regard to temporal consequences. Charlie Kirk knew his opinion wasn’t popular, but he also knew that it was rooted in God’s word, and he regularly shared the Gospel publicly. His death was not a political assassination, but an anti-religious act.

Christian rejection of fellow believers who use their shared worldview to help form public policy are as sickening as atheists who deny Christ altogether. Those who display conjured moral superiority over fellow believers who enter the mission field of politics and pastors seeking tithes and false peace over truth would all be well served to re-read what Jesus said about the lukewarm.

Those believers who cannot honor Charlie Kirk’s death with even the smallest gesture present a puzzling picture, indeed. When you find your feathers matching those of some of the most God-hating and murderous characters out there, you might stop to ask yourself why.

This article was originally published on Restoring Truth.

The post Too Good for Charlie Kirk? appeared first on LewRockwell.

A month before Charlie Kirk’s killing, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman arranged an intervention in the Hamptons during which sources say he and others “hammered” Kirk for the conservative leader’s growing criticism of Israeli influence in Washington. Kirk came away fretting about Israeli “blackmail,” sources say, as he contemplated a Catholic conversion.

On September 11, one day after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman took to Twitter/X to trumpet his relationship with the late conservative operative. “I feel incredibly privileged to have spent a day and shared a meal with @charliekirk11 this summer. He was a giant of a man.”

The Grayzone has spoken to five people with intimate knowledge of Kirk’s meeting with Ackman, which was held in early August. According to one source, Kirk was left upset after the gathering turned into an “intervention” where he was “hammered” for his increasingly skeptical views on the US special relationship with Israel, and for platforming prominent conservative critics of Israel at his TPUSA events.

Since publishing this report, The Grayzone has learned from one attendee of the Hamptons event that Ackman convened the influencers under the auspices of a discussion about Zohran Mamdani and the supposed threat he posed to the West if elected mayor of New York. But the meeting went off the rails when Ackman personally confronted Kirk about his views on Israel. An unknown British woman joined in the argument, and began “screaming” at Kirk, according to the attendee.

When his hosts presented him with a detailed list of every offense he supposedly committed against Israel, Kirk was “horrified,” said one person. Ackman also allegedly demanded Kirk rescind his invitation for Tucker Carlson to speak at his upcoming America Fest 2025 in December.

“The whole thing was a disaster,” said an attendee.

The Grayzone reported on September 12, citing a longtime associate of Kirk, that Netanyahu had offered to organize a massive infusion of pro-Israel money into TPUSA, and that Kirk refused. Another longtime friend of Kirk has told The Grayzone that the conservative activist also rejected an offer Netanyahu delivered two weeks before his death to meet with him in Jerusalem.

Kirk, according to one person with inside knowledge of the meeting with Ackman, said he left feeling as though he’d been subjected to “blackmail.”

In a series of text messages with The Grayzone, Ackman described these account of his meeting with Kirk as “totally false.” He pledged to release a public statement providing his own account of the event, but refused The Grayzone’s request for clarification or further details. He would not accept phone calls from this reporter.

“I think I can easily put this to bed,” Ackman promised, “I have receipts as they say.” He did not abide when asked to provide the so-called “receipts.”

In an apparent bid to reinforce the pro-Israel tone at the Hamptons meeting, Ackman hosted a coterie of pro-Israel operatives and conservative influencers at the off-the-record engagement. One was Instagram influencer Xaviaer DuRousseau of Prager U.

Reached by phone by The Grayzone, DuRousseau sounded flustered when asked about his presence at the meeting. He repeatedly demanded to know how this reporter obtained his number, and eventually hung up, refusing to answer questions about the event.

Several Instagram posts by DuRousseau show him and his friend, conservative influencer Emily Wilson, in the Hamptons on August 8 outside Topping Rose House, a posh hotel and restaurant in Bridgehampton, New York.

Two weeks after the meeting, DeRousseau was reportedly junketed on an all-expenses-paid trip by the Israeli government to visit a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation “aid” hub guarded by the IDF on the Gaza frontier. There, he recorded an Instagram video denying that the population of the besieged Gaza Strip was experiencing a famine.

The Grayzone received a similarly agitated response from Wilson, known online as Emily Saves America. Following a phone call and exchange of text messages in which this reporter asked her numerous times about her attendance of the meeting in the Hamptons, Wilson refused to comment. Instagram photos place her in the Hamptons at the same time as DuRousseau.

CJ Pearson, a leading youth coordinator for the Republican National Committee, immediately referred The Grayzone to his communications director when asked if he attended the Hamptons gathering.

The strong-arm tactics of the pro-Israel billionaires who helped fuel the growth of TPUSA were said to have contributed to Kirk’s alienation with evangelical Christianity, which emphasizes uncritical support for Israel as a bedrock principle. Several sources with access to Kirk said he had begun attending Catholic mass with his wife, Erika, and was considering a conversion before his death.

Bree Solsdadt, a Catholic Twitter/X influencer, has publicly corroborated this account of Kirk’s religious realignment. Kirk’s friend, the podcaster and former TPUSA personality Candace Owens, also alluded to the shift when she reflected that he was undergoing a “spiritual transformation” before his death.

Read the Whole Article

The post Billionaire Bill Ackman Convened Stormy Israel ‘Intervention’ With Charlie Kirk, Sources Say appeared first on LewRockwell.

Years ago, Doug Casey stated, “When empires die, they do so with surprising speed.”

At the time, that comment raised eyebrows, yet he was quite correct in his observation.

Ernest Hemingway made a similar comment when a character in his novel The Sun Also Rises was asked how he went bankrupt. The answer was, “Gradually, then suddenly.”

Again, this sounds cryptic, yet it’s accurate.

Any empire, at its peak, is all-powerful, but the fragility of an empire that’s in decline is hard to grasp, as the visuals tend not to reveal what’s soon to come.

Great countries are built upon traditional values – industriousness, self-reliance, honour, etc. But empires are distinctly different. Although it may seem to be a moot point, an empire is a great country whose traditional values have led it to become unusually prosperous. There are many countries, both large and small, that are “great” in their formative values, but only a few become empires.

Yes, the prosperity is brought about through traditional values, but a great country becomes an empire only when its prosperity is sufficient to allow it to branch out – to invade other lands – to plunder their assets and subjugate their peoples.

We tend to grasp, through hindsight, that this is what made the Roman Empire possible. And we accept that the Spanish Empire was created through its invasion of the Americas and the plundering of pre-Columbian gold.

And we understand that the tiny island of Britain achieved its empire by covering the world with colonies that it had taken by force.

In every case, the pattern was the same – expand, conquer, plunder, dominate.

As a British subject, my childhood understanding was that previous empires had come about through nefarious pursuits, but I was encouraged to believe that the British empire was somehow different – that my forefathers sailed the seven seas to liberate distant populations. That, of course, was nonsense.

The British empire is now long over, and the current empire is the United States. Around 1900, the then-great country of the US sought to achieve empire and, at that time, its president, Teddy Roosevelt, was insatiable in his desire to conquer foreign lands, both near (Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Puerto Rico, Cuba) and far (Hawaii, Philippines, Japan).

The results of his efforts were mostly successful, and although the countries taken were not called colonies, they were certainly intended to be vassal states. And there can be no question the US government’s methods were no kinder than that of the Huns. Some locations, like Hawaii, went fairly peacefully, whilst others, like the Philippines, required brutal slaughter on a grand scale.

And such tactics change the nature of a “great” country. Yes, it does allow it to become even greater, in terms of domination, but it ceases to be great in terms of its values.

In most cases, this plants the seeds of empirical collapse. The empire, even as it’s growing, is rotting from within, with deteriorating principles and morality – the very traits that created it.

This, in turn, causes the empire to develop a habit of subjugation – even over its friends and allies abroad – those countries that got on board to take part in the prosperity. While, to some extent, these loyalties by other nations are genuine, they are treated as lesser nations, eventually causing resentment of the empire.

As such, in the latter days of the empire, ally nations become toadies. Their hatred for the empire is palpable, but they maintain their obeisance, grudgingly.

Empires are built upon monetary prosperity. We can understand that an empire, in its heyday, attracts all and sundry to its shores. It builds up the ability to dictate to others since the whole world hopes to gain favour. But, towards the end of the empirical period, it’s resented by all those who were once genuine allies.

In its latter days, an empire becomes hollowed out. It’s burdened with a costly and top-heavy government. The middle class is expected to provide largess to the masses through bread & circuses, providing fealty for the political class. Traditional values are largely gone, and “everyone seeks to live off everyone else.”

At this point, the empire is a mere superstructure – one that’s becoming increasingly unsound. Importantly, the prosperity that made empire possible is replaced by the illusion of prosperity – debt.

Concurrently, the political class becomes increasingly tyrannical in order to hold the collapsing edifice together. In the final stages, tyrannical efforts increase in both frequency and magnitude in order to maintain the subjugation of the masses for as long as possible.

It may be beneficial for the reader to read this last line again, as this development is the most recognizable symptom of the final stage prior to the collapse of empire.

This final period is not only difficult to cope with, it’s highly confusing for those living within a dying empire.

The edifice still stands. With each election, the electorate hopes that somehow, a champion will spring forth and “put everything back the way it was.”

But it’s important to note that, historically, this never occurs. Whilst the average citizen hopes in vain for his political leaders to “wake up” and stop all the nonsense, he fails to grasp that, to the political leader, the most important pursuit is power. He cares not a whit for the well-being of the populace.

The political class has no intention of relinquishing even a small amount of power for the good of the people he was elected to represent.

Historically, in every instance, every empire has collapsed from within. Once the apple is truly rotten, it cannot be un-rotted.

And so, if we’ve been observant in the recent years and decades, we’ll acknowledge that the present empire has already passed its sell-by date. Its political structure is wholly corrupted on both sides of the aisle; the economy is doomed due to unpayable debt; the population has become unproductive, and it’s now in the process of alienating its former friends through increasingly desperate measures.

And here, we return to our opening paragraphs.

In its final stage prior to collapse, the empire sells out its toadies and is therefore no longer of any benefit to them. Suddenly, the empire becomes a liability. And, at this point, those who have had to tolerate the indignity of being toadies look forward to a fall, even a partial one, by the empire.

At present, the US empire maintains an illusion of dominance, but it cannot withstand a test. A defeat in warfare, a collapse in finance, the loss of the dollar’s reserve currency status, or any one of a host of triggers that are now looming would be sufficient to drop the US to one knee overnight. All that’s needed is for one of the triggers to be pulled.

It matters little what the event will be; it’s sufficient to understand that we are now drawing quite near and that the event is unavoidable. 

Historically, when an empire dies, all the notes suddenly come due. 

The political class of any empire arrogantly depends upon allies to do as they’re told, yet, when a decisive blow is dealt to the empire, those who had once been loyal allies are now as ready to abandon the empire as rats would abandon a sinking ship.

When this happens, the crutches that the empire has been counting on to hold it up pull away quickly. The collapse will have occurred “gradually, then suddenly.”

Once this is understood, the question for the reader becomes where he wishes to be when the edifice falls; whether he has prepared an alternative situation that will increase the likelihood that he will survive the debacle with his skin on.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post When Empires Die appeared first on LewRockwell.

The strike on the Hamas negotiating team assembled in Doha marks the end to an entire era – and “a new reality” for Qatar.

The strike on the Hamas negotiating team assembled in Doha to discuss the ‘Witkoff Gaza proposal’ is not just another ‘IDF operation’ to be passed over silently (as with the de-capitation of almost the entire civilian cabinet in Yemen).

It marks rather, the end to an entire era – and “a new reality” for Qatar.

It’s a landmark event. For decades, Qatar has played a very profitable game – supporting the radical An-Nusra jihadists in Syria as a lever against Iran, while maintaining American military bases and a strategic partnership with Washington. Doha presented itself as a mediator – dining with the jihadists whilst acting as a Mossad facilitator.

It was this multi-directional approach that gave Qatar the reputation of being the ‘eternal beneficiary’ in Middle Eastern crises and in Afghanistan. Even when Israel, Iran, or Saudi Arabia were under attack, Doha came out ahead. The Qataris calmly counted the profits from their gas and enjoyed the role of indispensable intermediaries.

Now this fairy tale is over: There will be no more ‘safe zones’. Most tellingly, the U.S. (reported Israeli Channel 11) had approved the action about which Trump was then informed. Despite questioning the attack, Trump said he applauded any killing of Hamas members.

We should have seen this coming. The Doha attack was yet another Trump-Israel sneak attack – a pattern that began with the sneak strike on the Hizbullah leadership assembling to discuss a U.S. peace initiative – a methodology then was copied for the Iranian de-capitation operation of 13 June, just as Trump touted JCPOA talks with the Witkoff team commencing in the days ahead.

And now, with Trump’s Gaza ‘peace proposal’ handed as bait to gather the Hamas leaders together in one place in Doha, Israel struck. Witkoff’s Gaza plan looks a mockery; or else a deliberate feint. For Israel had already decided to end the Qatari role.

Israeli logic is fundamentally simple and cynical – regardless of how many American bases you have or how important your gas is to the global economy. The killing of Ismail Haniya in Tehran, the strikes on Syria and Lebanon, the operation in Qatar – all are links to one chain: Netanyahu (and a majority in Israel is behind him in this) methodically demonstrates that there are no forbidden territories; no rules of law; no Vienna Convention for him in the Middle East.

The support for Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing; the failure to make any serious effort to prepare a political path for a settlement on Ukraine; the reliance instead on making war, whilst proclaiming peace – all these represent the essence of the Trump approach: An exercise of escalatory dominance, both at home and abroad.

The whole notion of Make America Great Again (MAGA) seems to rest on the calibrated use of belligerency, tariffs or military power to maintain a continuous potential for escalatory dominance over the longer term. Trump seems to think that achieving dominance at home and abroad to be the essence of MAGA. And that this can be achieved through calibrated domination – sold to his MAGA base by calling such threats bringing ‘peace’ or negotiating a ‘ceasefire’.

The emphasis on escalatory dominance also has to do with the transformation of wars – in Trump’s mind – into huge U.S. profit-making ventures. The notion of turning Gaza into a lucrative investment project underlines the close linkage between war and making money. Ditto for Ukraine which has become a boondoggle for the U.S. money laundromat.

Do not believe that the U.S. will not come back to any particular war, in due time. That is why the escalatory ladder is never fully relinquished or removed, for its continued leaning up against the outer wall of a conflict offers a return to some form of further escalation at a later time (i.e. in Ukraine).

All these signs have rung warning bells in Moscow. Trump’s Anchorage Trip – from the Russian perspective – was to learn (if possible) how tight are the fetters that bind Trump; what is the extent of his latitude to act autonomously; what he wants; and what might he do next.

For the Russians, the visit demonstrated what the limitations are.

Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s principle foreign policy adviser, has explained that in Tianjin at the SCO summit, there were discussions with all of Russia’s strategic allies; it was understood that there had been a delay in sanctions pressure on Russia offered by Trump, but no implementation of any of the structures for continuing negotiations. No structures, no working groups, no further exchanges to prepare for the so-called trilateral meeting of Trump, Zelensky, and Putin. No preparation for an agenda; no preparation for terms.

That spoke to Trump’s future intentions – no structures, no signals, no real commitment to peace. Instead, the Russians see a Trump regime that is dallying with the opposite – with European plans to re-arm Ukraine.

The joint aggression by Israel and the U.S. against Iran – and yesterday’s strike on Qatar – are events of the same ideological substance, serving as confirmation of the predominant sway of ‘Israel Firsters’, and those in the circles around Trump – nursing ancient grudges against Russia from similar religious roots.

The predominance of this Israeli-centric policy has fractured Trump’s MAGA base. It has – more widely – permanently impaired U.S. global soft power and diplomatic trustworthiness. Yet Trump, held fast in its grip, dare not let it go – to do so would risk its self-destruction.

Israel is carrying out a second Nakba (ethnic cleaning and genocide) in Gaza and the West Bank, with Jewish society remaining largely trapped in repression and denial – just as it was back in 1948. Israeli filmmaker Neta Shoshani’s controversial documentary about the 1948 war was banned in Israel because it exposed many of the flaws in the ethos underlying the creation of the nascent State’s identity.

Shoshani wrote recently about her film, “I suddenly realized that in the past two horrible years the whole matter of the Israeli ethos has been totally shattered”:

“I grasped that an ethos has a great deal of power, that it contains society within certain boundaries. And even if those boundaries are breached – and they were certainly breached as early as 1948 – there was still something in society’s moral codes that at least caused it to feel ashamed. So for decades that ethos safeguarded [Israeli] society and the army, compelling them to preserve certain limits”.

“And when that ethos falls apart, it’s really scary. From this perspective, the film was difficult to watch from the get-go, but after the last two years it’s become unbearable” …

“If 1948 Was a War of Independence, the current war could be the one that ends Israel”.

Shosani’s warning that when a society’s ethical boundaries are erased in a bout of bloodletting (as they were in 1948), this loss of ethos structure can imperil the legitimacy of the entire project – leading to self-destruction as the state traverses all human limits.

This dark insight – very pertinent to today – may precisely be one tentacle tying Trump unreservedly to Israel’s ultimate survival. (Likely, there are unseen ‘other strong fetters’, too).

This comes at a time when the U.S. is moving further and further away from its 1992 Defence Planning Guidance (DPG) draft – known as the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’ which called for the U.S. to maintain unquestioned military superiority to prevent rivals from emerging and, if necessary, to act unilaterally to protect its interests and deter potential competitors.

The current draft National Defence Strategy is pivoting away from China, towards securing the homeland and the Western hemisphere. Troops will be brought back, initially to enforce the border. Will Schryver writes, “Elbridge Colby has apparently opened his eyes to the reality that it’s too late to arrest China’s dominance of the western Pacific. He already knew war against Russia was unthinkable. The only strategically meaningful option left is Iran”.

Colby perhaps understands too, that any further U.S. military failure would fatally expose Trump’s geostrategic bluster as bluff.

We may see then a new round of major geopolitical shifts as Trump abandons efforts to be ‘perceived as a global peacemaker’. Trump himself probably doesn’t know what he wants to do – and with many factions trying to elbow in to the vacant strategic space, he likely will turn to those Israeli war tactics which he so much admires.

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

The post Maintaining Escalatory Dominance: Trump and the Predominant Sway of ‘Israel Firsters’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Despite the seemingly chummy talks between American and Russian leaders, there is no end in sight to the war in Ukraine. The warring nations continue volleying strikes at each other, the U.S. president is persistently bombarded with calls to level more sanctions against Russia, and now Poland is proposing a NATO-backed no-fly zone over Ukraine.

A NATO-enforced no-fly zone in Ukraine would essentially pit the alliance in a war against Russia because enforcement would require NATO nations to shoot down Russian aircrafts. Moreover, given that the U.S. is NATO’s most military-robust member, the move would likely turn Americans into combatants against Russians.

Drones and No-fly Zones

On Monday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called on NATO nations impose the no-fly zone. He framed the proposal as a way to protect Europe. Said Sikorski:

We as NATO and the E.U. could be capable of doing this, but it is not a decision that Poland can make alone; it can only be made with its allies. Protection for our population — for example, from falling debris — would naturally be greater if we could combat drones and other flying objects beyond our national territory. If Ukraine were to ask us to shoot them down over its territory, that would be advantageous for us. If you ask me personally, we should consider it.

No-fly zones have been proposed before, notably by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But even the Biden administration had the sense to brush the proposal off. “It would require, essentially, the U.S. military shooting down Russian planes and prompting a potential direct war with Russia, the exact step that we want to avoid,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in March 2022. There is no indication as of now that the United States is on board with the Polish proposal.

Last week, the Poles reported having to scramble fighter jets and put their air defenses on standby after Russian drones violated their airspace. The Russians said they hadn’t targeted Poland, they never received evidence the drones were theirs, and that the episode was another attempt “by Warsaw to further escalate the Ukrainian crisis.” Russian media also reported that Belarus had warned Poland that some drones may have lost their way. You can read more about that in our previous report here.

That event was followed by a similar one in Romania on Saturday, reportedly. “Romania scrambled fighter jets after a Russian drone breached its airspace during an attack on neighboring Ukraine,” according to Western media. “Fragments of Russian drones have fallen into Romania repeatedly during the course of the war.”

Europe Stopping Peace?

As far as the Russians are concerned, “the Europeans are getting in the way” of a peace agreement. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that “NATO is de facto at war with Russia. This is obvious and needs no proof. NATO provides direct and indirect support to the Kyiv regime.”

The Russians also claim that Polish leaders have turned down requests to discuss the incident. According to Russian Federation Council Deputy Chairman Konstantin Kosachev:

Of course, the provocation is man-made. I am certain that Ukrainians are behind it, as well as those who support and encourage them in their determination to prolong the armed conflict with Russia. The escalation is plainly visible. The situation could be comprehensively resolved through direct consultations between the relevant Polish and Russian agencies, without intermediaries. Since everything is being done except this, it is clear that the issue is not concern for security, but rather a desire to continue pressing the escalation pedal in the conflict in Ukraine.

At least one American expert on military matters believes the Europeans are trying to expand the war. President Donald Trump’s former national security advisor, General Mike Flynn, said last week, “The EU strongly desires a direct conflict with Russia and will pull every card, play any trick to find a way to drag NATO into a much more direct conflict. We must find a peaceful way out of this war.”

Oil Dependence

Over the weekend, Trump tested the Europeans to see how serious they were about applying more sanctions on the Russians. The Russians have already incurred more than 20,000 sanctions since they invaded Ukraine in 2022. But, along with a gaggle of American federal legislators, European leaders have been urging Trump to get tough and turn off Russia’s money spigot, which comes from its oil and energy sales. On Saturday, Trump said he was ready to do so — “when all Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA.”

Trump published a long post on his Truth Social account. He called out a fact that has been rarely reported in mainstream media, i.e., Europe’s dependence on Russian energy. Trump said, “As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking!”

The NATO nations still buying large amounts of Russian oil include Slovakia, Hungary, and Turkey, which is the third-largest buyer behind China and Russia.

But Europe is even more hooked on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). Western Europe’s foolish attempt to pivot to unreliable, inefficient green energy has, in part, made it a Russian financier. While Euro leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron are beating their chests, they quietly increased their purchase of Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG). France is the EU’s top buyer of LNG. According to European Newsroom (ENR), “Eurostat data revealed that the European Union imported Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) worth around 4.48 billion Euro in the first half of 2025, up from 3.47 billion Euro over the same period last year.”

But, apparently, this dependency will be nipped in the bud — in a few years. As ENR claims,

the European Commission has drawn up plans to phase out all Russian gas and oil imports by 2028. Under the proposal, new contracts would be prohibited from January 1, 2026. Existing short-term contracts would end by June 17, 2026, and long-term contracts would be banned from January 1, 2028.”

Chinese Connection

The Russians have also gotten a big boost from the two most populous nations in the world, China and India, which have significantly increased the amount of Russian oil they’re buying, according to recent analysis. Which is why Trump is calling on sanctions against China (the United States has already leveled 50 percent tariffs against India). Trump said in his social media post:

Anyway, I am ready to “go” when you are. Just say when? I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR. China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi responded to Trump’s call to sanctions, saying, “China does not participate in or plan wars, and what China does is to encourage peace talks and promote political settlement of hotspot issues through dialogue.”

Whatever happens next, Americans should pressure their government to get the U.S. out of NATO. Americans have little to gain, if anything at all, and a lot to lose, should NATO get involved in this war. U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) has introduced a bill to withdraw the United States from NATO (check out this action page from The John Birch Society for more on that). NATO does not serve America’s best interests. It is a globalist organization, a tentacle of the United Nations, which was created from the beginning as the nucleus of a global government.

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Tensions Between Russia and NATO Continue Rising appeared first on LewRockwell.

Two weeks ago the Foreign Minister of Poland Radosław Sikorski visited Washington and was proud to be included in talks about ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine. His ministry announced:

Secretary of State Rubio declared that Poland will be involved in arrangements to reliably provide Ukraine with future security guarantees. He said that the United States aims to guarantee a lasting peace in Ukraine.

But now Sikorski is, rightfully one must say, doubting the usefulness of any ‘security guarantees’:

The security guarantees currently being discussed for Ukraine are unlikely to work in the event of a new invasion, since there are no hunters in the West to fight with Russia. This was stated by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

“If we provide Ukraine with security guarantees, we say that we can start a war against Russia. And I don’t think it’s convincing that there is trust in it. Anyone who wants to fight with Russia can start it right now. But I don’t see any takers,” Sikorsky said.

There will never be any takers. Can we now finally bury that ‘security guarantee’ nonsense?

But Sikorski, being a neo-conservative, is still trying to push others into fighting with Russia:

Poland’s foreign minister called on NATO countries to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine to protect Europe from Russian strikes amid the continuing fallout over the drone incursion into Poland last week, which prompted the U.S.-led alliance to scramble fighter jets.
…
“We as NATO and the E.U. could be capable of doing this, but it is not a decision that Poland can make alone; it can only be made with its allies,” he said. “Protection for our population — for example, from falling debris — would naturally be greater if we could combat drones and other flying objects beyond our national territory.”

“If Ukraine were to ask us to shoot them down over its territory, that would be advantageous for us. If you ask me personally, we should consider it,” he added.

The idea is as stupid as earlier ones. Russia would consider any foreign military stationing or actions like a no-fly zone in Ukraine as a war on itself:

Russia would consider NATO forces protecting Ukrainian airspace as a declaration of war, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

“Implementing the provocative idea of Kiev and other idiots to create a no-fly zone over ‘Ukraine’ and allowing NATO countries to down our drones will mean only one thing: NATO’s war with Russia,” the politician wrote on his Telegram channel.

Sikorski’s latest idea thus has the same problem as ‘security guarantees’. There will be no takers:

The United States and its major allies in NATO, including Britain, have previously rejected requests by Ukraine for no-fly zone that because of the high risk of direct combat with Russian aircraft, and there has been no indication that President Donald Trump is considering such a step — especially without Russian agreeing to a ceasefire.

No takers. At all.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Ukraine – As ‘Security Guarantees’ Get Buried Other Stupid Ideas Emerge appeared first on LewRockwell.

I had the pleasure of appearing on Charlie Kirk’s program a few times over the years and I always found him to be polite, respectful, and genuinely interested in ideas. Even in areas where we might not have agreed, he listened carefully. He was a strong advocate of free speech and he made a career of trying to convince the youth of the value of free speech and dialogue regardless of political differences.

At the young age of 31 years old, he had already founded and ran the largest conservative youth organization in the country and as such he had enormous influence over the future of the conservative movement and even the Republican party. As I discovered during my Republican presidential runs, the youth of this country are truly inspired by the ideas of liberty, peace, and prosperity.

I do not believe we have anything near the real story about the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk last week. The narrative presented by the FBI and other government agencies is wildly contradictory, with an ever-changing plotline that makes little sense.

Some individuals close to Kirk have reported that his foreign policy position was shifting away from the standard neoconservative militarism in favor of a more non-interventionist approach. Tucker Carlson recently recounted that Kirk had even gone personally to the White House to urge President Trump to refuse to take military action against Iran. He was rebuffed by President Trump, Carlson informed us.

Likewise, conservative podcaster Candace Owens, who was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, has stated on her program that Kirk was undergoing a “spiritual crisis” and was turning away from his past embrace of militarism and in favor of America-first non-interventionism, particularly regarding the current unrest in the Middle East.

Was Charlie Kirk murdered – directly or indirectly – by powerful forces who could not tolerate such a shift in views in such an influential leader? We don’t know.

If anything, those seeking to prevent the ideas of peace from breaking out would wish to cover it up, as they have done in so many past political killings. As I recounted in my most recent book, The Surreptitious Coup: Who Stole Western Civilization?, the turbulent 1960s saw several killings of major US figures, including JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, who were challenging the status quo and pushing for a shift away from the Cold War confrontationist mentality.

The real assassins of these peace leaders from last century were nihilists who did not believe in truth. They only believed in power – the power that comes from the barrel of a gun. Rather than compete in the marketplace of ideas they preferred to snuff out any challenges and therefore decapitate any possibility that our country could take a different course.

More than sixty years after the murder of President Kennedy, the vast majority of the American people do not believe the official story of how he was killed and why. Truth will eventually break through even when the wall of lies seems impenetrable.

If it is true that Charlie Kirk was preparing to shift his organization toward a foreign policy embraced by our Founders, the killing was even more tragic. But no army – or assassin – can stop an idea whose time has come. That may be his most important legacy. Rest in peace.

The post Who Killed Charlie Kirk? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thomas Paine was not an anarchist.  He made it clear that his idea of anarchism (no government) aligned with government in its worst state: Utter chaos.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. — Common sense, January 10, 1776

Government for Paine was the one we know too well, that of a legal monopoly of violence over a specific land mass.  Quoting Rothbard, “it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion [overt taxation or monetary inflation].” And in his infamous “Letter to Washington” in 1796, Paine refers to his proposal for a central government:

But as to the point of consolidating the States into a Federal Government, it so happens, that the proposition for that purpose came originally from myself. I proposed it in a letter to Chancellor Livingston in the spring of 1782, while that gentleman was Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Later in the same letter Paine said he “did not see the propriety of urging it precipitately,” when he first suggested it.  He would’ve been more consistent had he never suggested it.

Given these statements, especially his claim that government is a necessary evil, why is Paine so much loved by anarchists today (including me)?

As my dad used to say, I’m glad you asked.

Unless otherwise specified, the following excerpts can be found in THOMAS PAINE Ultimate Collection, for the Thomas Paine price of $1.99 (Kindle).  All italicized text is mine.

Let’s begin.

Under how many subtleties or absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the credulity of mankind?

By “divine right” he was challenging Edmund Burke’s argument that kings are part of the long history of English liberty, though Paine’s question underlies any claim to political authority.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

In today’s world of shifting powers, the ones occupying the seats of government often view their election as a mandate to destroy the opposition.  They want revenge, not liberty.

What is called the splendor of a throne is no other than the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of parasites, living in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.

No one today refers to the splendor of the throne, but the Fed with its multi-billion dollar new building brings it to mind.  Given the Fed is corrupt by design and the primary reason for our accelerating collapse, calling it a parasite is flattering.

To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages, is to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that reforms can be expected.  [In Paine’s writings, “nation” refers to the people ruled.]

His reference to brutes derives from Common Sense, where he called the king the “Royal Brute of Great Britain.”

There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

Clearly, this is a version of anarchism that is consistent with Enlightenment principles and today’s libertarian philosophy.

The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole.

Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government. . . .

Scratch the word “almost” above and you have rational anarchism.

War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be increased without taxes, a pretense must be made for expenditure. In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes. . . .

War and taxes go together like wood and axes.  Is there a genetic link between war and the State?  Randolph Bourne thought so.

The portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom, and is, therefore on the ground of interest, opposed to both.

With war the order of every day, at least until the federal government collapses under debt or sets off a zoological genocide, there is no chance of establishing what some libertarians call “limited government” or the The Night-Watchman State.

As time obliterated the history of their beginning [i.e., the origin of governments], their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.

From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion?

Paine thought democracy was the answer to perpetual war, inasmuch as the people would never vote for it.  His knowledge of history suggests he was well aware of the power behind the throne, but it didn’t shake his confidence in people.

Paine’s view of sovereignty

He writes:  “Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not to any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of Government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness.”

True and important except for the opening assertion: Sovereignty is a trait of individuals who are at liberty to keep it or surrender it to any person or group they choose.  There is nothing about togetherness that produces sovereignty; power, perhaps, but not sovereignty.

The idea of individual sovereignty is best expressed in William Ernest Henley’s poem, Invictus:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.

Anarchy as stateless civilization implies the full freedom — sovereignty — of each individual.

The post Masters of Our Fate, Captains of Our Souls appeared first on LewRockwell.

The problem that ethnic Americans face is that neither Republicans nor Democrats can represent their interest.

The Republicans represent Israel’s interest.  The reason for this is that Republicans tend to be more conservative, more religious, and more patriotic than Democrats and are often seen by their opponents as jingoistic. The Republican mentality toward Israel comes from the “Judeo-Christian ethic” and the long Cold War against the Soviet Union.

The Judeo-Christian ethic is an oxymoron.  God in the Old Testament is angry and vengeful.  In the New Testament he is loving and forgiving. The “Judeo-Christian ethnic” is a propaganda term that disarms Christians from seeing Zionists for what they are.

During the Cold War of the 20th century, there was much focus on the Middle East. Washington was determined to minimize Soviet influence and to control oil flows.  Israel was hyped as our ally, our base in the Arab Middle East against Soviet Communism.  Thus, for conservatives, Israel is just part of America.  

Two consequences are that conservative Americans are blind to Zionist Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians and to the fake “war on terror” which in actual fact was Israel’s use of American lives and money against Israel’s opponents in the Middle East.  Washington has spent the first quarter of the 21st century clearing away obstacles to Greater Israel.

The Democrats represent the interests of those who are alleged to be “oppressed by prudes and white racists.”  Democrats are the defenders of immigrant-invaders who enter our country illegally.  They champion “multiculturalism,” which is white replacement and a Tower of Babel. 

Democrats are the champions of sexual perverts.  It is more important to a progressive, liberal, leftist Democrat that a male who declares himself a female have access to women’s spaces and athletic competitions than for a criminal suspect to have a fair trial.  Democrats think that the most important civil right in the world is for biological males who self-declare themselves “transgendered” into females to take a woman’s place on a swim or soccer team and share the showers with the biological female members of the teams.  

The Democrats have no concern with the rights of the displaced real women to compete in sports.  Similarly, Democrats are concerned with the sexual preference rights of “minor-directed persons” (pedophiles), not with the sexual abuse of children.  Have you not noticed how vehement the Democrat progressive liberal left is in defending the rights of sexual perverts?  Indeed, you are not even allowed to use such a term as sexual perverts, because  sexual perversions have been normalized by the Democrat liberal left.  It is entirely possible that the Democrats will criminalize heterosexual sex, because it produces more “aversive racists,” thus perpetuating white racism.  Yes, laugh, but the prospect has already been explored in science fiction.

The consequence of the two parties’ indoctrinated biases is that it is impossible for either to represent the values and interests of the ethnic base of America.  By supporting whatever crime Israel commits, Republicans maintain their pro-Israel base at the expense of the moral values of their base.  Even red states such as Texas and Florida will not give you a state contract or job if you criticize or boycott Israel.

The Democrats, committed as they are to white replacement as all whites are aversive racists, refuse to protect American borders from immigrant-invaders.  Democrats are committed to emptying citizenship from meaning.

What is the result of the inability of either party to represent Americans?

If Republicans are in office, it means wars for Israel.

If Democrats are in office, it means open borders and wars against the family, wars against real Christianity not the fake Christian Zionist variety created by Israel, wars against normal heterosexuality, wars against merit and, thereby, the destruction of educational standards, and advancement based on skin color and perverse sexuality.  For the Biden regime the ideal candidate was a black transgendered. Biden’s black Secretary of Defense announced that there would be no promotion of white heterosexual males until “equity had been attained.”

Elon Musk was correct when he said that America needs a new political party, one independent of economic, foreign, and ideological interests.  But Musk did not say who would finance it.  It would take Musk’s entire wealth.  

The combination of the corrupt US Supreme Court ruling that it is legal for corporations to purchase the US government with campaign contributions and the stupidity of the annual subsidy of billions of US dollars to Israel, which is used by Israel to purchase the House of Representatives, the US Senate, the President and the  administration, make it abundantly clear that Americans have a government that is totally incapable of representing Americans.

Throughout the Western World it is not democracy that rules.  The Western World is ruled by vested interests whose campaign contributions determine policy.  When Putin and Lavrov negotiate with Washington officials, they are not negotiating with a government.  They are negotiating with representatives of the private interests whose money places Representatives, Senators, and Presidents in office.  

The two most powerful vested interests in America are the US military/security complex and the Israel Lobby. As they share the interest in war and its profits in terms of money and territory, peace faces a powerful counterforce as peace does not serve the interests of the two most powerful interest groups in the United States.

One wonders if Putin, Lavrov, Xi, and the Iranians will wake up one day and be capable of recognizing reality.

Supporters, Friends, Readers, the situation is worse than I describe above.  Here is some of the evidence from this morning alone of Western collapse following the destruction of its beliefs:

The Satanic British Prime Minister Said the British Flag Represents “Diversity,” Not Ethnic British People

The Evil Starmer Declared the Ethnic British people “Divisive” for Protesting the Overrunning of their Country and Mass Rape of their Women.  

Starmer alleges that it is Ethnic British who cause violence, not immigrant-invaders.

It is extraordinary that the British people elected an anti-British Prime Minister.  But maybe it is not.  The Americans elected two anti-American presidents, Obama and Biden, and are almost certain to elect another once Trump is gone. 

Every day it becomes more clear that there is not enough self-belief in the West for the civilization to survive. All white ethnic peoples are being submerged in Multiculturalism. A Tower of Babel has replaced ethnic nationality.  Restorative leaders such as Charlie Kirk are simply shot down.  Others are “cancelled” and disposed of via censorship, firings, and threats.  The British prime minister has now aligned the British government with immigrant-invaders and declared the British government to be in opposition to the ethnic British people. 

The Western World is over and done with.  The West’s last contribution to humanity will be nuclear war.

Satanic German Soccer Team Interrogates Star Black Midfielder for Expressing Sympathy to Charlie Kirk’s Family

Under pressure Felix Nmecha deleted what he wrote:  “Celebrating the murder of a husband and a father of two, a man who peacefully stood up for his beliefs and values, is really evil and shows how much we really need Jesus Christ.”

Germans objected, which shows how lost to Satan the Western World is.

Nmecha possibly faces “millions of dollars in penalties for social media posts violating the club’s values.”  Amazing, a member of a German football team faces millions of dollars in penalties for expressing sympathy for an assassinated man’s family.  Nmecha should find another team and another country.  Clearly a man of God does not belong in Germany.

Trump files $15 billion lawsuit against New York Times

The NY Times is “the worst and most degenerate newspaper in the history of our country, a mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party”– Trump

Trump is correct. The Democrats are cheering Charlie Kirk’s assassination.  Makes you wonder if they did it.

The Democrats are an anti-American party.  Democrats are the party of immigrant-invaders, sexual perversion, Antifa/BLM violence, and suppression of free speech.  America is doomed, because almost half of the American population agrees with the Democrats.  Notice that it is the most educated states that are the most anti-American.  It was the universities that destroyed the belief system.

“We know where you live” violent Democrats threaten Trump voters

The post The American Dilemma appeared first on LewRockwell.