Aggregatore di feed

The leader of the free world just announced that America’s long-standing interventionist foreign policy hasn’t done the world any favors.

President Donald Trump’s Middle Eastern tour through Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates has generated a lot of headlines, mainly for the hundreds of billions of dollars in business it’s generating. But something else significant happened this week. Tuesday, during his address in in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the president lambasted the neoconservative-prescribed foreign policy that has put American taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars and destabilized entire regions of the world.

Wrecking Rather Than Building

Trump said on Tuesday:

The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions … failing to develop Kabul and Baghdad. … In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built — and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.

Trump also suggested it’s been bad policy to try to take out every tin-pot despot and tyrant who poses no threat to the U.S., saying:

In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy to dispense justice for their sins. … I believe it is God’s job to sit in judgment. My job [is] to defend America and to promote the fundamental interests of stability, prosperity, and peace.

Moreover, the American president suggested it is time to end America’s long-standing obsession with turning Middle Eastern countries into Western-style “democracies” and let them flourish as they are — whether they be theocracies, monarchies, or dictatorships disguised as monarchies.

A Vibrant Middle East

Trump views an economically vibrant Middle East as one the U.S. can do business with, instead of one in which America’s military ends up mired in unwinnable conflicts. He told the audience:

A generation of new leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together — not bombing each other out of existence.

In addition to securing hundreds of billions of dollars in business deals with the three nations he visited, the president backed up his sentiment with the announcement that he planned to lift the sanctions on Syria. He admitted that his decision was influenced by his “good friend,” the prince of Saudi Arabia. The news was met with a standing ovation.

This is not the first time Trump has indicated a desire to dial back America’s presence around the world. At the very beginning of his presidency, only a few months ago, he sent shock waves through the international world when he announced that America would no longer serve as Europe’s bodyguard. He and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said it was time for Europe’s rich nations to learn once again how to protect themselves. Since then, major European nations — including Germany and a coalition of Nordic nations — have begun making moves to boost their defense systems.

The Founders’ Noninterventionism

What Trump is describing, and hopefully follows through with, sounds more like the foreign policy America’s founding generation prescribed than the one practiced over the last century. The first U.S. president dedicated the final portion of his farewell address to warning the American people about foreign intervention. In his September 19, 1796, address, George Washington highlighted Europe’s propensity for conflict and cautioned against getting involved in it. He said America should avoid permanent, entangling alliances, and should strive to always remain neutral. Prescribing a foreign policy in which the U.S. lives in peace with all nations, a policy in which America conducts business with any country that’s willing without regard for its politics, he said:

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct. … It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. … The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible.

Nearly 25 years later, on July 4, 1821, John Quincy Adams, the son of the second president and who would become president himself four years later, reiterated the importance of a noninterventionist foreign policy. He said:

[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. … She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own … she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. … She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

What Washington and Adams advocated is obviously not what the U.S. has practiced, at least not since the 19th century. After World War II, the United States emerged as the undisputed most-powerful nation in the world. Unlike Europe, its landscape and economy were unscathed by the ravages of war. In fact, the war so greatly disturbed the industrial capabilities of Europe’s most advanced nations that it opened up massive opportunities for America to fill the gap.

Read the Whole Article

The post Trump Skewers Neoconservative Interventionist Foreign Policy appeared first on LewRockwell.

“It’s not my war.” —Donald Trump (on board Air Force One on April 25)

President Donald Trump has said repeatedly that the Ukraine War is Joe Biden’s, not his. But now the Ukraine war belongs to Trump. He can no longer deny ownership.

From Defence-blog.com:

President Donald Trump’s administration has reportedly approved its first weapons sale to Ukraine since the start of his second term, with plans to authorize direct commercial exports valued at $50 million or more.

The move was first reported by Kyiv Post, citing diplomatic sources, and later confirmed through congressional records.

According to the report, the U.S. administration formally notified Congress on April 30 of its intention to allow the sale of military goods to Ukraine under the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program. This mechanism permits U.S. defense companies to negotiate arms exports directly with foreign governments, pending approval from the State Department.

Kyiv Post said the proposed sale would include military-designated goods, technical data, and related defense services. The approval was made under the Arms Export Control Act, which mandates notification to Congress for defense sales exceeding certain thresholds.

Additional confirmation came from European Pravda, which cited documentation available on the official U.S. Congress website. A record listed an entry dated April 29, cataloged as EC-859, referencing a memo from the State Department’s legal office to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The memo notifies Congress of “a proposed license for the export of defense articles, including technical data, and defense services to Ukraine for an amount of $50 million or more,” in compliance with U.S. export control laws.

This transaction represents the first defense-related export authorization to Ukraine under President Trump’s current administration.

While details of the specific equipment or systems involved have not been disclosed, the timing suggests a shift toward greater military support amid ongoing regional instability.

By the same token, the Israeli genocide in Gaza is now Trump’s genocide. This man who was elected president on the promise of ending America’s “stupid wars” (his words) is neck-deep in the continuation and escalation of these wars.

Per Trump’s wars on behalf of Israel comes this report:

The Israeli military is set to receive a “major new weapons shipment” from the US in the coming weeks to help prepare it for continued operations in Gaza and a potential attack on Iran, the Israeli news site Ynet reported on Monday.

The details of the arms shipment are unclear, but Ynet said it would include 3,000 munitions for Israel’s Air Force. The report said the bomb shipment was recently approved by the Trump administration.

The Pentagon’s Defense Cooperation Agency said on Monday that the State Department approved a $180 million arms deal for Eitan Powerpack Engines that will go to Israel, but it did not announce any new bomb shipments.

The Ynet report said the new weapons shipment will help prepare the Israeli military for a new “large-scale campaign” in Gaza and that it comes in addition to over 10,000 munitions that are expected to replenish Israeli stockpiles soon.

The Trump administration has approved a series of arms deals and weapons shipments for Israel, totaling more than $12 billion, including tens of thousands of 2,000-pound bombs, which Israel has dropped on densely populated civilian areas of Gaza.

Besides fueling Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, US military aid to Israel also supports Israel’s stepped-up military operations in the West Bank and its occupations of southern Lebanon and southern Syria.

Beyond that, Trump extended the U.S. wars in the Middle East to include Yemen. However, after spending over one billion dollars in bombs and military operations and losing three F/A-18 jet fighters surrounding our attacks on the Houthis, with the result of doing NOTHING to dismantle their ability to continue launching missiles against Israel in defense of the Palestinian people—but killing scores of innocent Yemeni civilians—our Navy warships were forced to leave harm’s way, giving Yemen a HUGE victory and utterly humiliating Trump and his Neocon Zionists in D.C.

Renowned international journalist Pepe Escobar explained the details of this humiliating defeat for Donald Trump’s war in Yemen in this interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Afterward, Trump does what he always does: LIE, telling America that he “cut a deal” with Yemen after that country “begged” him to stop shelling them and promised to stop launching their missile attacks against Israeli targets.

The truth is, Yemen said no such thing. The U.S. Navy was getting its tail whipped and was forced to leave the area or risk suffering much greater death and damage. This is seen by the fact that the Houthis continue launching missiles against Israeli targets.

And the only reason the Houthis are attacking Israel is due to the genocide in Gaza and the blockade of food and medicine put in place by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). During the brief ceasefire negotiated between the U.S. and Israel, Yemen STOPPED its missile attacks. The missile attacks resumed AFTER Israel broke the ceasefire and resumed the genocide and also broke its promise to allow food and medicine into Gaza.

As with every president of this century, Trump is just another lying, two-faced, duplicitous conman who tells the American people what they want to hear but, at the end of the day, is just another bought-and-paid-for lackey of Israel and the military-industrial complex—and now add the Musk/Thiel technocracy.

If Trump was sincere in his bodacious, bellicose blabber about wanting to be a “peace” president and ending the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, he could have done so within weeks of taking office. All he needed to do was turn off the spigot, stop sending military support to both Ukraine and Israel, and both wars would have ended almost immediately.

But what does Trump do? He continues the flow of military assistance to both countries unabated.

Neither Ukraine nor Israel could last a week on the battlefield without America’s military support. Both wars are AMERICA’S WARS. The warmongering Zionist Neocons in Washington, D.C., fight their perpetual wars around the world using proxy nations such as Ukraine and Israel—and now even ISIS in Syria—to do the bleeding and dying for them.

Remember ISIS? G.W. Bush launched two wars resulting in thousands of dead Americans and trillions of taxpayer dollars to destroy our great “enemy,” ISIS. Now, Donald Trump is using billions of taxpayer dollars, the CIA, the U.S. Navy and Air Force to provide cover, intelligence, training and equipment to underwrite our “allies” in Syria, ISIS.

Reports are now saying that Trump intends to finance and provide military assistance for ISIS to invade Yemen. Yet another proxy war for America.

How many times have I said it? There are not two parties in Washington, D.C. There is only one party in Washington: the WAR PARTY, also known as the ZIONIST PARTY.

And how long will the American people not catch on?

My fellow peace advocates in the alt-media continue to scratch their heads as to how the American people can continue to be blinded to the death grip that Israel and the defense contractors have on our politicians (of both parties) inside the Beltway. But there is a single tube of glue that holds this calamitous chicanery together: evangelical pastors and churches.

Without the constant, never-ending, continual, repeated, recurring (get the idea?) Dispensationalist/Prophetic Futurist/Scofieldist/Rapturist propaganda that is regurgitated twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year by America’s evangelicals regarding “end-times” prophecy, the entire charade would be seen for the fraud that it is, and the entire Neocon/Zionist/War agenda would come crashing down.

It really is that simple.

Plus, there is another by-product of the “end-times” cult, a spiritual one—perhaps the most damaging one. All this Dispensational “end-times” teaching resulting in the unconditional support of tens of millions of evangelical Christians for Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Middle East, the unconditional support for the war in Ukraine (because they say Russia is Ezekiel’s “Gog and Magog”) and the enthusiastic unconditional support for U.S. foreign wars in general are driving millions of people AWAY from Christianity.

Fewer people in America today are associated with establishment churches than at any time in our country’s history. And more people in America today identify themselves as “non-religious” or identify themselves with non-Christian religions than at any time in our country’s history.

In other words, the Rapture cult, with all its accompanying heretical tentacles, is doing more to paganize America than all the atheists and agnostics combined.

Mr. Trump can no longer say that the war in Ukraine is not his. He owns it (along with the wars in the Middle East) lock, stock and barrel—and so do America’s “end-times” evangelicals.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Donald Trump Now Owns the Ukraine War appeared first on LewRockwell.

di Francesco Simoncelli

(Versione audio dell'articolo disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-grande-riorganizzazione-degli)

Il motivo principale per cui ho pubblicato il mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, è stato quello di mettere in evidenza due punti sostanzialmente. Il primo: nessuna autorità è amica del contribuente o del cittadino medio, possono essere alleati temporanei o “cospiratori”, ma questo è un matrimonio che è destinato a finire non appena il “nemico” (che più di tanto non lo è) viene ridimensionato e condotto al tavolo delle trattative. Si tratta pur sempre di bande mafiose che sopravvivono grazie all'estorsione di risorse. Il secondo: distinguere tra l'eurodollaro e il sistema dell'eurodollaro. Il primo esisterà sempre dato che si tratta di liquidità che serve a saldare le transazioni internazionali e la domanda di dollari, soprattutto in questo frangente, è più viva che mai. Il secondo, invece, è quello a cui si stanno indirizzando le attenzione di questa amministrazione e prima di lei della FED. Infatti l'entrata in scena del SOFR non ha fatto altro che cambiare il modo in cui il dollaro viene prezzato al margine all'estero, dato che gli USA non sono mai stati in grado di controllarlo direttamente in passato.

Non essendo in grado di controllare la “stampante” dell'eurodollaro, l'offerta è andata fuori controllo ed è stato quello che ha condotto in ultima analisi alla demonetizzazione dell'oro e alla crisi del 2008. In sintesi, quando c'era bisogno di socializzare le perdite derivanti dall'azzardo morale nel sistema dell'eurodollaro, gli Stati Uniti venivano tirati per la proverbiale giacchetta affinché intervenissero. Il colonialismo franco-inglese non è mai terminato, in verità, ed è stato riciclato fino ai giorni nostri tramite il sistema finanziario: la capacità di controllare il prezzo offshore del dollaro. Non è un caso che il LIBOR era impostato da 18 banche nella City di Londra, 17 delle quali europee e una sola americana. In passato, quindi, se si vedeva un'inversione nella curva dei futures dell'eurodollaro ciò avrebbe innalzato spauracchi di recessione e condotto la FED a intervenire sui mercati per fornire liquidità reale in modo da coprire quella fittizia. Questo sistema era stato trasformato per andare a beneficio del dollaro offshore e di chi era in grado di prezzarlo al margine, facendo sanguinare il capitale americano (industriale, energetico, manifatturiero) oltreoceano.

Tenete sempre una cosa a mente, però, questo testo non viene scritto per assolvere gli USA. Non c'è dubbio che anch'essi abbiano i loro scheletri nell'armadio sin da Bretton Woods, stiamo pur sempre parlando di bande mafiose vorrei ricordarvi. Ciononostante bisogna anche ponderare il fatto che gli USA non sono mai stati veramente in controllo della politica interna, della politica estera e della politica monetaria sin dai tempi di Woodrow Wilson. Per tutto il XVIII e XIX secolo gli Stati Uniti hanno costruito un gigantesco stock di capitale e ai tempi delle guerre mondiali erano già la destinazione preferita dal resto del mondo per quanto riguardava gli investimenti esteri. Non era affatto nel miglior interesse della nazione scialacquare questa fortuna, sia in termini umani che non, per ricostruire il resto del mondo che bruciava e cercare di “diffondere la democrazia”. L'impero risultante dalla Pax Americana non era nel miglior interesse della nazione, soprattutto in un contesto in cui per mantenere questa enorme macchina di guerra avrebbe significato lasciare che il prezzo del dollaro all'estero venisse impostato dalla City di Londra. Quando si riflette su questi punti si comprende che tutte le strade conducono a Londra e alla Banca d'Inghilterra.

L'amministrazione Trump, e i NY Boys dietro di essa, hanno detto basta. Il loro compito, adesso, è quello di invertire la tendenza e cercare di riparare a decenni di malgoverno e, soprattutto, all'erosione del bacino americano della ricchezza reale. Gli USA sono una fonte non indifferente di capitale umano e di risorse, il solo stato dell'Alaska vale più di tutta l'UE messa insieme in termini di ricchezza del sottosuolo. Ed ecco perché tutti vogliono continuare a fare affari con lo zio Sam, malgrado i dazi: non possono permettersi di vendere l'output a un prezzo inferiore rispetto a quello ideato originalmente per il mercato americano, soprattutto la Cina. La guerra commerciale è solo una costola di una guerra più grande a livello finanziario, da come avrete capito. Infatti serve a distinguere tra “amici” e “nemici” degli USA; i primi otterranno linee di swap tramite la FED in caso di stress finanziario, i secondi no.

La cosiddetta cricca di Davos è costituita da tenenti, le persone che fanno parte del WEF sono facenti funzione di figure che rimangono nell'ombra. Quindi la strategia primaria è quella di farli venire a galla e vedere fin dove si spingono le loro trame, soprattutto sul proprio territorio. Poi si passa a togliere loro le fonti di finanziamento e di influenza. Solo dopo ci si sposta a livello internazionale. Ora, se si distilla tutto il rumore, il minimo comun denominatore è solo uno: smantellare il sistema dell'eurodollaro. Per essere più precisi, bloccare tutte le scappatoie all'euro e all'accesso al collaterale (finanziario, energetico, industriale). In questo contesto Tether serve a bypassare l'intermediazione non collateralizzata della City di Londra per soddisfare la domanda di dollari nel mondo (collateralizzata grazie ai titoli sovrani americani comprati da Tether) e prezzare al margine il sistema dell'eurodollaro secondo il volere di Washington, non altrui. La tokenizzazione degli hard asset e la possibilità di diffondere capillarmente nel resto del mondo una valuta coperta da oro e Bitcoin è quanto di più vicino ci possa essere a una garanzia che il dollaro resterà la divisa preferita nel commercio mondiale. Ed è solo l'inizio, viste le implementazioni con IA che possono essere applicate al denaro catapulteranno anni in avanti gli USA rispetto a una Unione Europea che ancora deve lanciare l'euro digitale che, oltre a dimostrarsi un fallimento, è già obsoleto alla luce di tutte queste innovazioni in ambito stablecoin e Bitcoin.

I titoli del Tesoro americani rappresenteranno il collaterale di qualità alla base di questo ecosistema. E, a proposito, le aste dei bond statunitensi continuano a far registrare numeri incoraggianti come dimostrato dall'ultima riguardante i decennali, mentre, dall'altra parte dell'Atlantico, i Bund prendono una sonora sberla. Ancora una volta possiamo accogliere con una vibrante pernacchia i titoli dei giornali secondo cui i titoli tedeschi sarebbero presto diventati la nuova frontiera degli asset di riserva. Non solo, ma sarà molto probabilmente la BCE a guardare in alto per vedere fin dove schizzeranno i rendimenti dei titoli sovrani europei. Lo stesso discorso vale per la Cina, dove si chiacchiera tanto di come possa usare lo yuan per sostituire il dollaro nel commercio internazionale e di come possa vendere il biglietto verde per arginare/contrastare la potenza dello zio Sam. Notizia per voi: un calo del dollaro significa ri-dollarizzazione. Negli ultimi 20 anni solo la Cina ha creato $60.000 miliardi in nuovi prestiti. Attualmente gli NPL (es. prestiti non performanti) sono il 5% di tale cifra. Ha $2.500 miliardi in debiti esteri ($1.100 miliardi solo in dollari) e riserve monetarie estere per $3.000 miliardi (2.000 miliardi in dollari). Se volesse ripagare il suo debito estero, rimarrebbe solo con $1.000 miliardi in riserve estere e un monte di NPL ancora in crescita. Senza contare la necessità di pagare per le importazioni (nessuno vuole yuan per davvero). Alla luce di tutto ciò, che fine farebbe il peg dello yuan col dollaro? Chi è, quindi, che verrebbe realmente travolto da una vendita di dollari e asset denominati in dollari? Ah, e l'economia cinese è in crisi già adesso.

Contro l'amministrazione Trump, quindi, è stata lanciata una gigantesca campagna di caos, confusione e corruzione. Molto probabilmente si evolverà di nuovo in violenza per le strade con BLM 2.0, tra Dem, infiltrati e cricca di Davos oltreoceano il mantra rimane quello di lanciare contro il proprio “nemico” tutti ciò che si è in possesso. O per essere più precisi, per avere un vantaggio negoziale decente al tavolo delle trattative alla fine della guerra commerciale/finanziaria. Quanti asset sono stati bruciati ultimamente per cercare di tirare giù Hegseth? Quando Politico, Axios, o il Wall Street Journal parlano di “fonti interne alla Casa Bianca” che vorrebbero Hegseth, ad esempio, messo alla porta, non esiste niente del genere. È confusione; Trump sa benissimo che l'attuale gabinetto rimarrà in carica come minimo per un altro anno. È caos quanto accaduto circa un mese fa dopo il “Liberation Day” nei mercati obbligazionari e azionari americani quando la cricca di Davos, tramite il proxy di Inghilterra ed Europa, ha venduto asset americani per sostenere i mercati monetari e obbligazionari europei.

Questi spasmi sono tutti la conseguenza dello smantellamento del sistema dell'eurodollaro e il SOFR ha resistito finora a degli attacchi inauditi contro di esso riuscendone indenne. Nel mio ultimo libro, Il Grande Default, descrivo gli avvenimenti del settembre 2019 quando il SOFR esplose al 10-11% intraday a causa di una corsa agli sportelli dei mercati pronti contro termine americani e una forte domanda di denaro. Diverse banche finirono sotto pressione e la FED fu costretta a intervenire affinché creasse liquidità temporanea e puntellasse i mercati. Il problema di allora era che il SOFR era ancora in “fase beta”, tanto per usare un termine preso in prestito dall'informatica, e molto illiquido, di conseguenza molto sensibile a sbalzi improvvisi. Avanti veloce fino al 2023, durante il crollo di Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank e Signature, la sua maturazione l'avrebbe portato ad assorbire il colpo permettendo al contempo a Powell di continuare a rialzare i tassi. Se ci pensate, qualcosa di inaudito per un banchiere centrale, ovvero rialzare i tassi durante una crisi bancaria. Avanti veloce fino al mese scorso quando, la seconda settimana di aprile, il SOFR mostra movimenti al rialzo nelle singole ore ordini di grandezza superiori rispetto ai movimenti giornalieri. Detto in termini semplici, era sotto attacco. Gli spike che vedete nel grafico del CME non dovrebbero accadere nemmeno nelle sessioni giornaliere “normali”.

Tutte le chiacchiere secondo cui la Cina stava scaricando i bond americani, i fondi pensione che scoppiavano in Giappone, o il “basis trade” erano una distrazione. Era invece un attacco al SOFR usando i titoli di stato americani a lungo termine per creare un avvallamento nella curva dei rendimenti nel medio termine e far gridare “recessione!” ai titoli dei giornali. L'obiettivo della cricca di Davos è sempre stato uno sin da quando il SOFR è entrato in gioco: delegittimarlo come meccanismo di prezzo del dollaro a livello internazionale. In passato era il LIBOR, un tasso non collateralizzato, dove i vari player si passavano tra loro le stesse passività per creare dal nulla liquidità temporanea e uno stock praticamente infinito di eurodollari con cui sommergere i loro problemi; ciò, a sua volta, avrebbe avuto ricadute sugli USA e sulla FED che sarebbe stata costretta a monetizzare questo mondo e quell'altro. Oggi devono attaccare il SOFR perché si tratta invece di un tasso collateralizzato a livello interno, basato sui mercati monetari interni agli Stati Uniti: niente più azzardo morale a spese del bacino della ricchezza reale statunitense, se si vuole accedere ai mercati pronti contro termine americani bisogna avere garanzie collaterali solide (solo titoli di stato USA). Oggi, quindi, sono necessari ingenti capitali per cercare di sovvertire un tale assetto e se tali attacchi vanno a vuoto chi li svolge perde molto rispetto al passato. Non possono essere reiterati ad libitum.

Il punto qui rimane solo uno: il sistema SOFR non si è rotto e la FED non è dovuta intervenire. Per quanto la stampa cerchi di fuorviare i lettori parlando di PIL in calo negli Stati Uniti, esso non misura né la crescita né la creazione di ricchezza reale, e il suo recente calo non è segno di debolezza bensì di forza: sono i tagli alla spesa pubblicano che lo stanno facendo scendere ed essi rafforzano l'economia. Dal punto di vista strategico è così che vengono portati allo scoperto i “nemici” ed è possibile individuarli. Trump ha davvero ricevuto tutte le telefonate che ha detto di aver ricevuto nel momento in cui ha approvato i dazi reciproci per tutti? Probabilmente no, probabilmente nessuno “ha chiamato”. Si tratta di avere la comunicazione strategica giusta per evidenziare i “nemici”. E ovviamente continuare a mettere pressione su di essi, perché la mancanza di accesso a finanziamenti facili come accadeva in passato significa altresì una ri-ponderazione del rischio su tutto lo spettro economico/finanziario mondiale.

Questo il motivo, in sostanza, per cui l'oro sale e continuerà a salire. Il metallo giallo è la forma definitiva di garanzia collaterale e c'è una corsa per accaparrarlo. Anche qui la City di Londra sta subendo altri duri colpi, perché l'oro adesso viene acquistato a New York e venduto a Londra. La LBMA è sotto corsa agli sportelli. In passato l'intermediazione dell'oro sintetico a Londra permetteva di tenere un tetto sul prezzo dell'oro fisico e veicolare l'idea che tutto fosse sotto controllo, che le crisi fossero sotto il controllo delle banche centrali. All'apertura di New York venivano scaricati i contratti e ricomprati alla chiusura, per poi continuare il gioco con apertura/chiusura in Europa. La presenza del LIBOR permetteva anche queste deformazioni. La credibilità/affidabilità degli Stati Uniti passa anche da un mercato dell'oro in ascesa in grado di stabilizzare e ripagare l'enorme debito pubblico della nazione. Ecco perché quel tetto adesso è stato smantellato e gli USA, rispetto ai loro avversari, sono la nazione con le riserve d'oro più grandi. Una volta rotto il gioco del LIBOR, a cascata tutte le distorsioni dei mercati sono venute al pettine.

Happy to tell Fox News about my proposal for a gold-backed Treasury bond as America enters its new Golden Age. Let’s restore monetary integrity to our currency as we increase productive output. Trump's economy is 'ready, willing and able': Judy Sheltonhttps://t.co/4e6gBVKby4

BACKGROUND STORICO

Ma facciamo un passo indietro. Quando si tratta di analisi macroeconomica, ci sono sempre innumerevoli pezzi in movimento e possiamo immaginarli come punti su una scacchiera. Per capire cosa sta succedendo nel mondo dobbiamo vedere quei punti per quello che sono nel miglior modo possibile e poi dobbiamo collegarli tra loro in un modo che abbia senso. Se ci riusciamo, scopriremo che raccontano una storia. Come qualsiasi altra storia, però, può essere vera o falsa. Per determinarlo, dobbiamo continuare a valutare i pezzi in movimento e capire se nuovi dati e sviluppi supportano o invalidano la nostra storia.

Dopo tre anni trascorsi a seguire questa storia e a valutare i pezzi in movimento, credo che la mia versione sia accurata, oltre al fatto che i nuovi sviluppi sembrano supportarla. Questa storia rappresenta la natura dell'attuale lotta di potere: non è una lotta fisica, ma finanziaria. È ormai chiaro che le potenze europee del vecchio mondo hanno influenzato la politica e l'economia americana da molti anni. La realtà è molto più sfumata, ma mi piace usare il termine “cricca di Davos” per descrivere queste potenze europee. Stiamo parlando di quelle potenze che stanno alla base di istituzioni globaliste come l'Unione Europea, la Banca centrale europea, le Nazioni unite, la Banca mondiale, il Fondo monetario internazionale, la Banca dei regolamenti internazionali, l'Organizzazione per la Cooperazione e lo Sviluppo Economico, il Forum economico mondiale (WEF) e entità simili. Queste istituzioni sono allineate nella visione del mondo e promuovono un programma simile: una governance globale centralizzata rispetto alla sovranità nazionale, e soprattutto rispetto alla governance localizzata.

Il WEF ha sviluppato un quadro politico per quantificare questo programma: “capitalismo degli stakeholder”. Klaus Schwab ha confezionato questo quadro come “Il Grande Reset” e lo ha pubblicizzato al mondo nel giugno 2020, nel mezzo dell'isteria per la crisi sanitaria. È chiaro che anche alcune grandi istituzioni americane si sono allineate a questo programma globalista ormai da anni e alcune lo fanno ancora. Bank of America, ad esempio, parla dell'implementazione del capitalismo degli stakeholder ogni anno nella sua lettera annuale agli azionisti. Tuttavia, è altrettanto evidente che altre importanti istituzioni americane hanno rotto i ranghi rispetto al programma globalista. Infatti si è verificata una frattura ai vertici della struttura di potere.

LA CONTRORIVOLUZIONE AMERICANA

Coloro che sono al centro del sistema finanziario americano sono ora in modalità autoconservazione: stanno portando avanti un piano per salvare il sistema finanziario basato sul dollaro, fondamentale per la loro ricchezza, il loro potere e la loro influenza. Questa dinamica ha iniziato a manifestarsi platealmente nell'ottobre 2022. La Federal Reserve aveva già rialzato il suo tasso di riferimento di 300 punti base dall'inizio di quell'anno e la cricca di Davos non ne era entusiasta. La campagna di rialzo dei tassi della FED spinse le Nazioni Unite a pubblicare un annuncio quello stesso ottobre, supportato da una relazione accademica intitolata Trade and Development Report 2022. La relazione delle Nazioni Unite chiedeva a tutte le banche centrali di interrompere immediatamente i rialzi dei tassi. Gli autori affermarono che sarebbe stato irresponsabile rialzarli ulteriormente, insinuando che ciò sarebbe stato paragonabile a un attacco ai Paesi in via di sviluppo.

Questa relazione era chiaramente rivolta alla FED: era un messaggio proveniente dal quartier generale globalista e proclamava che la FED aveva superato i limiti. All'epoca mi aspettavo che Jerome Powell facesse marcia indietro, dopotutto la FED aveva coordinato apertamente la politica monetaria con la BCE e altre banche centrali per anni dopo la crisi finanziaria del 2008. Sembrava proprio che fossero tutti dalla stessa parte. La settimana successiva Powell rialzò il tasso di riferimento della FED di altri 75 punti base e avrebbe continuato a farlo nei mesi successivi (+150 punti base). Inutile dire che attirò la mia attenzione: Powell non solo stava sfidando gli ordini di marcia globalisti, ma si stava muovendo contro di essi in modo aggressivo e senza scuse. Powell iniziò a parlare della necessità di una riforma fiscale all'interno del governo statunitense. In una riunione del Federal Open Market Committee, affermò esplicitamente di non ritenere che fosse compito della FED monetizzare il debito pubblico.

Nel frattempo, nel settembre 2023, l'allora Segretario al Tesoro, Janet Yellen, annunciò quello che definì un “piano di riacquisto di titoli del Tesoro”: il Dipartimento del Tesoro americano avrebbe acquistato regolarmente titoli di stato statunitensi per tutto il 2024. Si trattava ovviamente di un'operazione volta ad avviare quello che in gergo finanziario viene chiamato “controllo della curva dei rendimenti”. Si tratta di un'operazione in cui un'entità – in genere una banca centrale – acquista titoli di stato di determinate scadenze per impedire che i tassi d'interesse superino un certo livello. Il piano della Yellen assomigliava a una nuova “Operazione Twist”.

Quest'ultima era ciò che la FED aveva già implementato nel 2011. Fu allora che Ben Bernanke acquistò titoli del Tesoro a lungo termine e contemporaneamente vendette titoli a breve termine in grandi quantità. Ciò contribuì a spingere i tassi d'interesse a lungo termine più in basso di quanto sarebbero stati altrimenti. La Yellen si propose di applicare la stessa strategia l'anno scorso, ma c'era una sfumatura: il Dipartimento del Tesoro non può creare denaro dal nulla come la FED. L'unica cosa che può fare è emettere nuovi titoli di stato per finanziare la propria spesa. Ciononostante ha bisogno di investitori disposti ad acquistarli. Questo è il motivo per cui i programmi di controllo della curva dei rendimenti sono sempre gestiti da una banca centrale. Non funziona molto bene se non si possono stampare ingenti quantità di denaro per acquistare i titoli che si desidera comprare.

Perché la Yellen stava cercando di controllare la curva dei rendimenti? Non era Powell che avrebbe dovuto gestire questa operazione? La risposta è diventata chiara col tempo: la Yellen e Powell erano in squadre diverse.

La Yellen è una fedele sostenitrice della fazione globalista. Ha assecondato l'agenda globalista quando ha presieduto la FED dal 2014 al 2018 e ha fatto lo stesso dal suo incarico di Segretario al Tesoro durante l'amministrazione Biden. Powell, invece, lavora per la fazione americana, ovvero i NY Boys, che hanno rotto i ranghi con i globalisti. Powell, infatti, ha supervisionato il ciclo di rialzo dei tassi più aggressivo della storia, nonostante la struttura di potere globalista gli urlasse di fermarsi. E, come vedremo, ha avuto un ruolo fondamentale nel liberare la politica monetaria statunitense dalle influenze globaliste.

Per quanto io e altri abbiamo considerato la FED inetta e incapace, aveva messo in atto un piano da diversi anni: un tasso chiamato Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR).

RIPRISTINARE LA SOVRANITÀ FINANZIARIA STATUNITENSE

Il SOFR è ora il tasso d'interesse di riferimento per prestiti e derivati ​​denominati in dollari. Si basa esclusivamente sulle transazioni del mercato pronti contro termine del Tesoro statunitense. Il SOFR è stato creato nel 2018 e implementato gradualmente nel corso degli anni successivi. Ha poi sostituito il London Interbank Offered Rate nel gennaio 2022 ed è ora il tasso d'interesse di riferimento esclusivo negli Stati Uniti. Le istituzioni finanziarie utilizzano i tassi d'interesse di riferimento per determinare il prezzo dei prestiti. Prima del 2022, per i prestiti denominati in dollari si usava il LIBOR; ora si usa il SOFR. Ricordate, la Federal Reserve non può “impostare i tassi d'interesse”, tutto ciò che può fare è modificare il tasso Fed Fund (si tratta del tasso al quale le banche si prestano denaro overnight). Con il SOFR, il tasso Fed Fund ha un impatto diretto: stabilisce un limite minimo al di sotto del quale è improbabile che il SOFR scenda.

Invece il tasso Fed Fund non ha avuto un impatto diretto sul LIBOR; ha avuto solo un'influenza indiretta. Questo perché il LIBOR era calcolato sulla base di stime giornaliere fornite da un consorzio di 16 banche: 11 banche con sede in Europa, 3 banche americane, 1 banca giapponese e 1 banca canadese. Per questo motivo il tasso Fed Fund non poteva stabilire un limite minimo con il LIBOR, perché quel consorzio poteva sempre presentare stime inferiori per abbassare i tassi. Ed è esattamente quello che facevano. Nel 2012, quando è scoppiato lo “scandalo LIBOR”, abbiamo appreso che alcune banche del consorzio avevano presentato stime di tassi artificialmente basse per manipolare il LIBOR al ribasso.

Quando il LIBOR era il tasso di riferimento per i prestiti denominati in dollari, l'economia statunitense era vincolata ai programmi stabiliti dalle fazioni al potere che controllavano l'Unione Europea: quelle 11 banche del consorzio in Europa potevano manipolare i tassi d'interesse tramite il LIBOR, se ciò fosse stato favorevole ai loro programmi. Di conseguenza la differenza tra SOFR e LIBOR è fondamentale.

Il SOFR si basa esclusivamente sulle transazioni nel mercato dei pronti contro termine. Si tratta di transazioni reali che sono accadute. Al contrario il LIBOR, che si basava su stime presentate da un consorzio di banche, non faceva affidamento su transazioni effettive. Ciò significa che il SOFR consente al mercato di avere un impatto diretto sui tassi d'interesse a lungo termine. Questo è fondamentale per determinare il prezzo del credito con ragionevole accuratezza. Con il SOFR ora in vigore, le banche europee non hanno alcuna influenza sui tassi d'interesse denominati in dollari. Non è esagerato affermare che il SOFR ha liberato la politica monetaria statunitense dall'influenza globalista.

Questo ha aperto la strada a quella che chiamo la Grande Riorganizzazione americana.

NORMALIZZAZIONE, MERCATI E TASSI

Non è un caso che il presidente della Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, abbia iniziato a rialzare i tassi nel 2022, dopo quattro anni dal suo mandato. Powell ha dovuto aspettare finché il SOFR non avesse sostituito il LIBOR come indice di riferimento statunitense, altrimenti gli interessi finanziari legati all'UE avrebbero potuto vanificare i suoi sforzi manipolando il LIBOR al ribasso. In altre parole il SOFR ha permesso a Powell di rompere i ranghi con il cartello globale delle banche centrali. Ovviamente i media finanziari non ne hanno parlato in questo modo e molti analisti finanziari non si rendono ancora conto di cosa stia succedendo.

Quello a cui stiamo assistendo è un tentativo di “normalizzare” il sistema finanziario statunitense e la politica dei tassi d'interesse è una parte importante di questa normalizzazione.

La FED ha tagliato il tasso di riferimento di 50 punti base a settembre 2024 e secondo i media finanziari siamo tornati in piena corsa per tagli sempre più aggressivi. Infatti hanno affermato che la FED ha “cambiato rotta”. Non è affatto così. Powell ha dichiarato pubblicamente di volere che il tasso Fed Fund torni a essere “neutrale”. In altre parole, vuole che tali tassi siano determinati dal mercato, come consentito dal SOFR. È stato schietto e diretto a tal proposito fin da quando ha iniziato a rialzare i tassi dal 2022. Anche allora i media continuavano a dire che avrebbe “cambiato rotta”, ma non lo ha mai fatto. Se prendiamo Powell in parola, intende normalizzare i tassi d'interesse e ciò imporrebbe una massiccia riorganizzazione dell'economia americana.

Il fatto è che ogni aspetto dell'economia è stato “finanziarizzato” negli ultimi 50 anni: la società americana è stata rimodellata per favorire gli asset finanziari rispetto alla produzione di beni e servizi. Sebbene questo abbia rappresentato un grande vantaggio per Wall Street e il mercato azionario, ha anche svuotato la classe media americana e la piccola imprenditoria. Gli Stati Uniti sono risultati effettivamente in recessione per gran parte del decennio precedente, questo perché la politica monetaria allentata e la ZIRP svalutano tutto. Quando sono stati portati i tassi a zero e stampato migliaia di miliardi di dollari dal nulla, è stata incoraggiata la finanziarizzazione, la speculazione e gli sprechi.

Quello di cui sto parlando è una trasfigurazione della società americana: milioni di piccole attività commerciali nelle vie principali di tutta l'America sono state spazzate via. È così che sono spuntate fuori ville in periferia e auto di lusso che nessuno sa come riparare quando qualcosa va storto; è così che sono spuntati fuori centri commerciali e grandi magazzini ovunque e vie principali deserte; è così che sono spuntate fuori legioni di laureati in sociologia e studi sulla diversità e poche persone che sanno davvero come funziona qualcosa. Ma non dimentichiamocelo: c'è un tempo per ogni cosa e una stagione per ogni attività sotto il cielo.

Il SOFR che sostituisce il LIBOR e la rottura della FED con l'agenda globalista segnalano che è in corso una controrivoluzione americana e le briciole di pane iniziano ad allinearsi...

AFFRONTARE LO STATO PROFONDO

Questo significa, in sostanza, che l'era del denaro facile e dei tassi d'interesse artificialmente bassi sono alle nostre spalle. Ciò che è stato sostenuto da questi due meccanismi finirà con essi. E adesso ci spostiamo sul Congresso e sulla politica fiscale. Per decenni il Congresso degli Stati Uniti ha operato partendo dal presupposto di poter spendere denaro senza conseguenze. I tassi d'interesse a zero, favoriti da politiche monetarie ultra lassiste, hanno permesso deficit progressivamente crescenti senza ripercussioni immediate. Eravamo arrivati al punto in cui il Congresso sarebbe stato destinato ad aggiungere oltre $2.000 miliardi al debito nazionale ogni anno e questa era solo la punta dell'iceberg. Il livello di debito del governo degli Stati Uniti era diventato insostenibile. La spesa per interessi aveva superato i $1.100 miliardi nell'ultimo anno fiscale, rendendo il pagamento degli interessi la seconda voce nel bilancio federale. Per illustrare quanto fosse estrema questa situazione, diamo un'occhiata alle spese federali principali per l'anno fiscale 2024:

• Previdenza sociale: $1.500 miliardi

• Pagamento degli interessi: $1.100 miliardi

• Medicare: $869 miliardi

• Difesa: $826 miliardi

Il fatto che Elon Musk e Vivek Ramaswamy si siano uniti per formare il Dipartimento per l'Efficienza del Governo (DOGE) suggerisce che potenti figure abbiano capito la necessità di tagliare drasticamente la spesa federale ora, in modo da evitare una crisi del debito sovrano. Anche perché nei prossimi 4 anni arriveranno a scadenza circa $17.000 miliardi di debiti negli USA. Il team DOGE si è impegnato a pareggiare il bilancio tagliando quasi $2.000 miliardi in spesa federale. Ciò sta comportando l'eliminazione di ingenti somme di denaro dallo Stato sociale e una drastica riduzione del personale nel governo federale. Inutile dire che non mancano le resistenze. Inoltre il team DOGE sta intervenendo anche contro la regolamentazione, eliminando decine di norme e ingessando lo Stato amministrativo statunitense che opera come un governo ombra.

Questa è la lotta che sta impervesando e imperverserà per i prossimi anni: DOGE contro lo Stato profondo.

Il direttore dell'Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, ha articolato quello che ritengo un piano molto ben ponderato nella sua intervista con Tucker Carlson poco prima del Giorno del Ringraziamento. Mi è chiaro che comprendono il funzionamento interno del sistema e ciò che stanno affrontando: se non si ferma la spesa incontrollata del governo federale, ci sarà una crisi del debito sovrano entro i prossimi quattro anni. E poiché il dollaro e i titoli del Tesoro USA sono fondamentali per l'intero sistema finanziario globale, una crisi del genere porterebbe a qualcosa di ben peggiore di quanto visto nel 2008.

Inutile dire che la cricca di Davos consideri un tale evento come un'opportunità. I globalisti hanno già gettato le basi per il loro “Grande Reset” durante l'isteria del Covid, una crisi finanziaria globale di proporzioni epiche offrirebbe loro una finestra di caos attraverso la quale inaugurare il resto del loro programma.

La buona notizia per chi non vuole vivere sotto una grottesca forma di neofeudalesimo e tecnocomunismo è che l'America può ancora essere salvata.

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

???? Qui il link alla Seconda Parte: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/2025/05/la-grande-riorganizzazione-degli-usa_01519109095.html

Most of us who studied philosophy when we were young think of Socrates as the guy who questions everything in Plato’s Dialogues. For a long time I suspected that if I had attended a dinner party in Athens at which he was present, I would have found him annoying.

During the dark days of the pandemic, I read about the plague that struck Athens in 430 BC, when the city state was under siege by Sparta during the Peloponnesian War.

Over the following three years, most of the population was infected, and perhaps as many as 75,000 to 100,000 people died. The Athenian general and historian Thucydides left an eye-witness account. The symptoms he described are non-specific and could be present in multiple diseases. The best clue he offered was his description of a blistering rash, which seems to be consistent with smallpox.

During both the plague and the war with Sparta, literary observers marveled at the extraordinary equanimity of Socrates. While so many around him were losing their heads, he always remained calm and cheerful. He was an excellent soldier of whom Epictetus observed: “He was the first to go out as a soldier, when it was necessary, and in war he exposed himself to danger most unsparingly.”

During the plague, Diogenes Laertius observed, “Socrates was so well-disciplined in his way of life that when plague broke out in Athens he was the only man who escaped infection.”

I doubt he was the only man who escaped infection, but I still find the remark very interesting. By numerous accounts, even under the greatest pressure, Socrates was unflappable, and it seemed to give him enormous reserves of strength and resilience.

Toward the end of his life, when the war with Sparta was going badly for Athens, Socrates developed a strong reverence for Asklepios, the physician god, whom he regarded as a healer of all man’s afflictions—spiritual as well as physical.

As Socrates understood Asklepios, the god embodied the virtues of patience, diligence, caring, gentleness, and helpfulness. Asklepios was not interested in money, power, or self-aggrandizement.

Socrates perceived the war with Sparta to be a calamity resulting from Athens’s desire for money, power, and control—vices that he perceived to be embodied by the archaic gods of the Homeric era that were still worshipped in Athens. His lack of reverence for the old gods is apparently what brought upon him the charge of impiety.

It seems to me that Americans—and especially American men—could learn a great deal from Socrates.

For some time I have observed a childish emotionality in public affairs. Lashing out and using intemperate language—including the “F” word—is now commonplace, even in public discourse.

Such angry and aggressive outbursts are not merely a matter of poor taste or a sign of ill-breeding. They are expressions that many people who work in public affairs are not in control of themselves, and one who cannot master himself has no business being the master of others.

Socrates emphasized that many of the misfortunes that befall a man are the result of his own vices, weaknesses, and poor decisions. This being the case, he thought it childish for a man to blame his misfortunes on the perfidy of others.

He believed that war—including the war with Sparta—arises primarily as a result of mankind’s excessive love of money.

Socrates was married to a woman named Xanthippe, who was the mother of their three sons: Lamprocles, Sophroniscus, and Menexenus. In Xenophon’s Symposium, Antisthenes describes Xanthippe as “the most difficult, harshest, painful, and ill-tempered” wife. As Xenephon tells it, Socrates deliberately chose her as his wife because she was so difficult.

It is the example of the rider who wishes to become an expert horseman: “None of your soft-mouthed, docile animals for me,” he says; “the horse for me to own must show some spirit” in the belief, no doubt, if he can manage such an animal, it will be easy enough to deal with every other horse besides. And that is just my case. I wish to deal with human beings, to associate with man in general; hence my choice of wife. I know full well, if I can tolerate her spirit, I can with ease attach myself to every human being.

Nietzsche doubted this telling, and imagined that Xanthippe drove him to become a street philosopher.

Socrates found the sort of wife that he needed — but even he would not have sought her had he known her well enough: the heroism of even this free spirit would not have gone that far.

Xanthippe drove him more and more into his characteristic profession by making his house and home inhospitable for him: she taught him to live in the streets and everywhere that one could chat and be idle and thus shaped him into the greatest Athenian street dia­lectician : who finally had to compare himself to an obtrusive gadfly that some god had placed upon the neck of that beautiful horse, Athens, in order to keep it from finding any peace.

The following image simultaneously depicts Xanthippe dragging Socrates home from the agora and pouring water on his head, to which he quipped, “Did I not tell you that the thundering Xanthippe can also make water?”

One of the most lamentable results of America’s execrable education system is that it has deprived young people from learning about fascinating figures like Socrates and gleaning their wisdom. The point of education is to equip young people with wisdom so that they can avoid the pitfalls and ditches of life instead of stumbling into every one of them.

For the American Republic today, the example of Socrates is more relevant than ever.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Americans Could Learn From Socrates appeared first on LewRockwell.

Just last year in California, a federal court declared a first grader’s crayon drawing may constitute “impermissible harassment.” Ironic, perhaps, that such a decision was made in nation where—starting in elementary school—talk about the founding principle of liberty and the sanctity of an individual’s rights are drummed into the people daily.

Are such lessons serious? Were they ever?

This crayon drawing episode and its aftermath is not some dystopian fiction but came as a heavy dose of reality in an Orange County elementary school, where the phrase “Black Lives Mater” (sic), accompanied by the words “any life,” was deemed a punishable offense.

The case, B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., reads like a parody of modern American life. Yet it is all too real, and all too indicative of the country’s present trajectory. The simplicity of the facts, however, makes this episode noticeably chilling.

Reflect. Has venerable Orange County, long a bastion of conservativism and the last Republican stronghold within the Golden State, become a place where the freedom to think (or doodle) is subject to the whims of those styling themselves as arbiters of acceptable opinion?

For this is the same county that helped deliver California to Nixon three times in presidential elections, Reagan twice, Ford and Bush 41 once. In 1964, it was one of only five California counties to vote for Barry Goldwater, author of The Conscience of a Conservative. Today, a Republican only holds one of the six congressional districts serving Orange County residents.

Today, progressives and liberals dominate both the political and cultural landscape. Take the B.B. case where, in her first grade class, a six-year-old girl, referred to in court documents as “B.B.,” drew a picture. On it, she wrote “Black Lives Mater” in bold black marker. Beneath it, in lighter colors, the phrase “any life.”

She gave this drawing to a classmate.

For B.B.’s audacity, the principal summoned her to the office, accused the girl of racism, and forced her to apologize. B.B.’s other artistic endeavors were summarily banned, and she was barred from recess for two weeks.

Recall. This was the first grade.

Has the schoolhouse not become simply another battleground in the culture war, but the frontline in the theater of operations?

No longer are blackboards allowed. They’ve been replaced by an ideological whiteboard.

Within the classroom, the teaching profession has metamorphosed from those who deliver curricula to students to those serving as commissars of an aberrant culture.

Furthermore, the District Court’s decision was a masterclass in the art of abdication—abandoning reason, constitutional principle, and basic common sense. The court, in all its wisdom, determined that the First Amendment does not protect a first grader’s drawing if a teacher or administrator deems it “harassing” or “harmful.”

The reasoning, if we can call it that, states: “deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder.”

The court openly admits that the standard is subjective. “Harm” is up to the school authorities to determine. The First Amendment, once a bulwark against tyranny, is now a mere suggestion, one that is easily discarded whenever it proves inconvenient to the reigning orthodoxy.

Justifying its constitutional vandalism, the court leaned on the Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Yet, the Tinker standard permits schools to limit speech only when it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”

Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Search the record for any evidence that B.B.’s drawing caused a riot in the lunchroom or even a murmur of discontent in the classroom and it will be in vain. We should also safely assume that classroom competitions of Heads Up, Seven Up still went on without a hitch.

Yes, the first graders merely went on about their days. The supposed adults were the ones throwing fits and tantrums.

The only “disruption” was that of the school administration’s ideological tranquility. Put in the hands of the District Court, Tinker also twists into a license for censorship when the claim becomes protecting someone’s feelings.

This case is not an isolated incident. It is the logical culmination of a decades-long campaign to transform American schools from places of learning into laboratories of ideological conformity.

To wit: The phrase “Black Lives Matter” has attained the status of secular scripture. Try to contextualize, qualify, or even gently expand upon it—like B.B. did by adding the words “any life” —and you’re branded a heretic.

The court’s opinion made this explicit. In a Reason.com article from March 2024 discussing B.B. v. Capistrano, Eugene Volokh writes, “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogan is accepted as the one orthodoxy, and any perceived dissent from the view that black lives should be specially stressed in this context can be forbidden.”

Thus, the child who dares to suggest that all lives have value is branded a bigot, and the machinery of the state is brought to bear against her.

Volokh correctly identifies the danger posed by the court’s decision. He notes that the ruling “seems to be that this viewpoint is stripped of First Amendment protection,” and that “any perceived dissent from the view that black lives should be specially stressed in this context can be forbidden.”

Read the Whole Article

The post The Thought Police Arrive appeared first on LewRockwell.

One of the most disastrous elements of the post-World War II conservative movement in America has been its commitment to severing the ideology of “classical liberalism” from its historical roots in antiwar and anti-interventionist foreign policy. What we now call classical liberalism—the ideology of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Richard Cobden, and Herbert Spencer—was consistent in opposing state power in all spheres, both international and domestic.

This was true in the United States up until the early twentieth century when the people called liberals—now known as “classical liberals” or “libertarians”—were characterized by anti-imperialism, restraint in military spending, and a general philosophy that is now maligned with the term “isolationism.”

After the Second World War, however, the new so-called conservative movement succeeded in neutralizing the old laissez-faire liberal opposition to foreign intervention in the name of fighting communists. The conservatives replaced the old laissez-faire factions with a new incoherent ideology that claimed it favored “freedom and free markets” while also promoting runaway military spending and endless foreign interventionism. This, of course, was all to be done in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”

Many American conservatives who consider themselves to be “classical liberals,” or in some other way the ideological heirs of laissez-faire, have fallen for this historical bait and switch for many decades now.

The Real History of Classical Liberalism: Opposing the State and Its Wars

To better understand how immense this turnabout really was—and what a victory it was for the forces of militarism—we need to first consider just how closely the ideology of laissez-faire liberalism was associated with antiwar sentiment during the formative years of liberalism.

In his history of political thought, historian Ralph Raico notes that the ideology we now call classical liberalism considered opposition to war and foreign intervention as central to the ideology. Even the milquetoast liberals like British Prime Minister William Gladstone put peace up front and center in their political programs. Raico writes:

Extolling peace has characterized the classical liberal movement from the eighteenth century, at least from Turgot, on through the nineteenth century to even Gladstone, who wasn’t, frankly, that much of a liberal. His slogan in mid-Victorian Britain was, “Peace, retrenchment, and reform.”

This propeace liberalism was the standard form of liberalism in Britain through Richard Cobden’s Manchester School, and also in France through popularizers and scholars such as the radical liberal editors of the political journal Le censeur européen. At the top of every issue of the journal was the phrase “paix et liberté”—peace and freedom.

Among the journal’s editors were Charles Dunoyer, a leading figure of the French liberal school—and the close ally of Charles Comte, the son-in-law of Jean Baptiste-Say. Like most liberals of his time, including those of both the United States and Britain, Dunoyer opposed standing armies. He wrote:

“What is the production of the standing armies of Europe? It is consisted in massacres, rapes, pillages, conflagrations, vices and crimes, the deprivation, ruin and enslavement of the peoples. The standing armies have been the shame and the scourge of civilization.

Similarly, Dunoyer’s views were reflected in the writings of Frederic Bastiat who sought to abolish France’s standing army. In an 1847 pamphlet titled “The Utopian,” Bastiat reminded his readers that military expenditure is generally an enormous waste of money, and that the exploitation of the taxpayers could be greatly reduced were the size of the French military drastically lessened. Specifically, Bastiat sought to abolish “the entire army” with the exception of “some specialized divisions” which would have to be staffed with volunteers since Bastiat, of course, also sought to abolish conscription altogether. Bastiat sought to replace the state’s army with a militia of private citizens in possession of private arms. As Bastiat put it: “Every citizen must know two things: how to provide for his own existence and how to defend his country.”

In this, Bastiat was echoing American sentiments. In the United States, of course, opposition to militarism took the form of vehement opposition to a centralized military force and an American standing army. The lack of direct taxation made funding a large military difficult as well.

As liberals like George Mason made clear, the military power of the US was to reside principally in the private ownership of arms and in the locally controlled militias of the several states. Culturally, Americans of the nineteenth century regarded federal troops with high levels of suspicion. While it was considered laudable to serve a stint in the volunteer militias, Americans regarded full-time federal troops as shirkers living off the government dole. (The modern culture of fawning over government employees—at least the military variety—and thanking them for their “service” would have been considered bizarre in classical liberal nineteenth-century America.) These reviews reflected those of many of the founding generation of Americans, including James Madiason, who according to Raico: “wrote of war as perhaps the greatest of all enemies of public liberty, producing armies, debts, and taxes, ‘the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.’”

Moreover, Raico shows that Dunoyer’s views were typical of the liberals of the “industrialist school” which pioneered liberal exploitation theory. Contrary to the modern-day myth that classical liberals rejected notions of class conflict, it was actually the liberals who pioneered the idea. In this view, the “tax-eating” class exploits the “tax-paying” class which is forced to support the regime. In the classical liberal view of the industrialist school, war was a central means by which the regime and its allies exploited the productive classes.

Raico notes that “A propeace position was central to the industrialist point of view … their attack on militarism and standing armies was savage and relentless.” Herbert Spencer—a British liberal who was also highly influential in the United States in the late nineteenth century—can also be included among those who subscribed to the industrialist school’s exploitation theory. With Spencer, state warfare remanent of the past, and destructive of both freedom and economic progress. Or, as Raico sums up Spencer’s view:

Spencer believed … that warfare was suitable only to mankind’s primitive stage. The Western world, however, had long since left the stage of militancy and entered the stage of industrialism. … War in the contemporary world was retrograde and destructive of all higher values. Early in his career, back in 1848, Spencer maintained, as the Manchester school did, that wars were caused by the uncurbed ambition of the aristocracy.

The reference to the aristocracy was also a common sentiment among the classical liberals who saw the state’s obsession with war as a characteristic of the absolutist and anti-liberal states of Europe.

Raico shared this view, noting that in the pre-liberal world, most people were simply pawns to be manipulated for the benefit of the central state and its agents. According to Raico:

In 1740 Frederick II of Prussia— called “the Great,” probably …. because he was a mass murderer— plunged the world into war. Afterwards, when they asked him why, he said “because I wanted to be talked of.” It was possible in this world before liberalism and capitalism to talk of war in those terms because liberalism and the liberal ideology had not yet made war into an awful thing.

The tradition of the ruling classes treating war with a capricious attitude was the norm before the rise of liberalism in the eighteenth century. The great French liberal Benjamin Constant notes this attitude among the rulers of the ancient world. As Raico puts it, Constant believed that “the ancients, the Greeks, and the Romans, for all their achievements, were basically societies that were founded on war and on constant war making, which included, of course, imperialism and plunder of other societies.” These societies did not understand the value of markets and voluntary exchange as the liberals do, and thus these societies constructed their value systems around war, conflict, and force. As Constant put it:

War therefore predates trade. One is wild impulse, the other is civilized calculation. . . . The Roman Republic, without trade, without letters, without articles, having no internal occupation other than agriculture . . . and always threatened or threatening, engag[ed] in the business of uninterrupted military operations.

Ludwig von Mises also identified the ancient preoccupation with war when, in his book Liberalism, Mises directly contradicts the Greek Heraclitus who had declared that “War is father of all and king of all.” Rather, Mises writes that “Not war, but peace is the father of all things.”

Murray Rothbard echoed these sentiments. In his history of the post-war American right wing, Rothbard remembers his realization at the time that that ideology of warmongering was not hardly a modern invention. Rather, the modern militarist consensus of the social democrats and conservatives after the Second World War “was a reversion to the old despotic ancien régime.” He continues:

This ancien régime was the Old Order against which the libertarian and laissez-faire movements of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had emerged as a revolutionary opposition: an opposition on behalf of economic freedom and individual liberty. Jefferson, Cobden, and Thoreau as our forbears were ancestors in more ways than one; for both we and they were battling against a mercantilist statism that established bureaucratic despot ism and corporate monopolies at home and waged imperial wars abroad.

By “we,” Rothbard meant the libertarians—the true heirs of the classical liberals—and not the conservatives of the “New Right.”

In this, Rothbard was also echoing the anti-imperialists of America in the late nineteenth century who sought to rein in America’s drift toward militarism and European-style global intervention. Raico notes that the anti-imperialist drive was centered around the classical liberals Edward Atkinson—a follower of the Manchester School—and E.L. Godkin of The Nation, which Raico describes as “the flagship classical liberal publication” in the United States at the time.

But perhaps the most famous strike against America’s turn toward global militarism—as illustrated by the US’s war against Spain in 1898—was the work of William Graham Sumner. Sumner, an influential classical liberal and Yale sociologist delivered a lecture at Yale in 1899 titled “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.” The title was a play on words, given that the US had, in military terms, easily defeated the Spanish military. Yet, Sumner feared that it was actually the US—or at least the quickly expiring antiwar sentiments of republican America—that had been defeated in the war. Rather, Sumner contends that the Americans had abandoned the restraint of laissez-faire liberalism in favor of, as Raico puts it “the grandeur of empire.” This would be attractive to those who delight in state power and prestige, of course, but, Sumner notes, it comes with a price: “war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental system, pomp, glory, a big army and navy, lavish expenditures, political jobbery — in a word, imperialism.”

The Post-War Defeat of the Anti-Interventionist Classical Liberals

Needless to say, most modern day Americans—of both left and right—would consider these ideas of the nineteenth century liberals to be quaint.

The modern mindset, however, represents the triumph of the forces of militarism and anti-interventionism over the spirit of laissez-faire.

How and when did this happen? On the Left, the old spirit of peace and anti-intervention was destroyed first by Woodrow Wilson’s war efforts in the Great War. The final nail in the coffin came with the Roosevelt administration’s enthusiasm for war in both Asia and Europe.

On the Right, however, the end of liberal antiwar sentiment was more gradual. On the Right, the classical liberal impulse in favor of peace was destroyed by the rise of the conservative movement.

Murray Rothbard describes this process in The Betrayal of the American Right. Rothbard shows that while the so-called New Right contained the old anti-interventionist, free-market libertarian coalitions—the people most connected to historical classical liberalism—this was not the dominant faction. Rather, this New Right, in contrast to the Old Right, came to be dominated by an “increasingly powerful gaggle of ex-Communists and ex-leftists.” This new conservatism was premised primarily on red-baiting and building up state power to fight Communists (both real and imagined) at both home and abroad. This was all eventually confirmed and solidified by the rise of William F. Buckley, Jr. as the preeminent theorist of the so-called conservative movement. For Buckley—who called for totalitarianism in the name of waging the Cold War—laissez-faire was little more than a convenient and cynical bone to throw to the remnants of the old laissez-faire liberals in order to keep them within the political right wing.

This served to neutralize the laissez-faire movement during the Cold War, and this new ideology of conservatism served to divorce the old laissez-faire liberalism from its historical antiwar roots.

This shift can still be seen today in how the conservative movement, and its political arm, the Republican Party, has successfully grafted a patina of “freedom and free markets” onto what remains essentially a pro-government, militarist movement in favor of “spreading democracy” through a robust military establishment and surveillance state. Its origins are in the pro-government, militant anti-communism of the 1950s. This continues to be reflected in today’s conservative movement.

For decades, as ever more federal power was defended by this conservative coalition in the name of beating the communists. This same impulse then seamlessly transferred to the “global war on terror” and its new spy apparatus deployed against Americans in the wake of 9/11. Even today’s “MAGA” coalition, which is relatively less bad than the Bushian and Nixonian warmongering coalitions of the past, promises ever more military spending and even more federal surveillance in the name of “homeland security.” After all, a federal security and spy state is presumably necessary to round up people who write op-eds in support of Hamas or aliens who might get a job without the proper federal paperwork.

The Left, of course, has been lost almost entirely in this respect. What antiwar movement occasionally exists on the Left tends to completely disappear whenever there is a Democrat in the White House. Even worse, the Left now tries to beat the Right at its own game—the Left now routinely accuses its ideological enemies of being foreign agents to a degree that might even make Joseph McCarthy hesitate.

Among conservatives, however, there appears to be no corner of the globe which does not require US intervention. This attitude continues in spite of the fact that many “America First” advocates claim to be for a minimalist foreign policy. There is nothing minimalist, however, about continued intervention in both the Middle East and in Ukraine where the “America First” candidate has inked a new minerals deal that will keep the US government engaged there indefinitely. There is nothing “America First” about open-ended military aid to an Israeli state that never tires of efforts to draw the United States ever further into Israel’s regional wars. There is nothing “America First” about the Trump administration’s efforts to secure a trillion-dollar military budget and to keep funding an archipelago of hundreds of American military bases across Europe and Asia.

Of course, any true classical liberal—any true opponent of untrammeled state power—from Spencer to Jefferson to Cobden and to Bastiat—would denounce the standing army, the crippling military expense, and the de facto imperialism of endless global intervention. Were they here to do this, of course, they would likely be themselves denounced by conservatives, who would call the pioneers of laissez-faire “naïve pacifists” and perhaps even “traitors” for not embracing a strong American state.

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

The post The Classical Liberals Were Radical Opponents of War and Militarism appeared first on LewRockwell.

On May 4th, U.S. President Trump — about whom I had headlined on 4 December 2024, “Reuters reports Trump is set to continue Biden’s policies on Ukraine.” — told NBC News, that “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.”

Not only is that the exact opposite of what Russia is, in fact, deeply committed to — they’ve made clear, numerous times, that the five regions of the former Ukraine where voters in plebiscites have voted overwhelmingly to be Russians instead of Ukrainians will remain henceforth as being parts of Russia, and where they are being, and will forever be, provided with Russian Social Security and military protection, and all of the other rights of Russian citizens. But, ALSO, if Russia would reneg on those promises, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, would be overthrown by the Russian people, because his doing that would violate all of his repeated national-security commitments to the Russian people — such as that under NO circumstances would the nation — Ukraine — that has by far the nearest of all borders to The Kremlin (Russia’s Government), which is Ukraine, ever be allowed to join America’s anti-Russian military alliance, NATO.

For example, RT News, which is their equivalent to Britain’s BBC or America’s PBS, closed an article on May 13th by saying “Putin has maintained that Ukraine must abandon its plans to join NATO and renounce its claims to Crimea and four other regions that voted in 2022 to join Russia.” Obviously, therefore, Trump is simply ignoring Russia’s national-security red lines by demanding “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want.”

Trump is, indeed, committed to continuing Biden’s, and Trump’s, and Obama’s, war against Russia, in the battlefields of Ukraine, using Ukraine’s military, armed with U.S.-and-allied weapons and satellite intelligence, to conquer Russia. Anybody who had voted for Trump thinking otherwise, was merely fooled by his lies.

Previously, he had been committed to the Ukraine plan by his appointed Ukraine ‘peace’ negotiator, Keith Kellogg: 1. Ukraine’s membership in America’s anti-Russian military alliance NATO will be “delayed” (but will happen). 2. Russia will temporarily keep the five former regions of Ukraine that it now occupies, but Ukraine will continue to be their legal owner (and America will help Ukraine to get them back). 3. Sanctions against Russia will be partially lifted. 4. U.S. will continue arming Ukraine against Russia. 5. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks with Russia, the U.S. might discontinue weapons-supplies to Ukraine.

However, now, Trump has changed #2, and, “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine.” He is now reverting clearly to Biden’s full policy on Ukraine (which had simply continued Obama’s policy on Ukraine, ever since the war in Ukraine was started by Obama in 2014).

The reason why Trump is now committed to “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine,” is that, as I explained in my May 9th “The U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal is much more favorable to the U.S. than to Ukraine.”, I described there the ways, and the extent to which, Ukraine’s government sold-out to America’s aristocracy Ukraine’s minerals-wealth in order to get the U.S. Government fully again into the U.S.-and-allied coalition to conquer Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine. America’s billionaires will benefit significantly from controlling Ukraine’s minerals if Russia will be forced out of Ukraine; and, so, they will be even more determined than they had been before, to conquer Russia in Ukraine. Trump’s now hiking America’s commitment up from “2. Russia will temporarily keep the five former regions of Ukraine that it now occupies” to instead “Russia will have to give up all of Ukraine. Because that’s what they want” reflects Trump’s victory over the existing government of Ukraine, and this statement by him is a warning to Russia that America will now be even more determined to conquer Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine than it had been under Biden. This ALSO shows that Trump’s OTHER prior statements softening America’s war against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine — such as that America won’t send more troops into Ukraine — could likewise become no longer applicable.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Why Trump Now Says ‘Russia Will Have To Give Up All of Ukraine.’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: What’s your perspective on the claims Elon Musk and others made about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) during the campaign, and how would you assess the actual progress they’ve achieved since then?

Doug Casey: I hate to sound pessimistic, because the idea of DOGE was excellent, but it’s not making much in the way of progress. Musk first thought he could cut $2 trillion from the budget. I see how he could say that; it’s a very reasonable estimate. But as he discovered the depth of the resistance, he reduced it to $1 trillion. And now it’s $150 billion—and he’s probably not even going to be able to do that.

Why is it failing? One reason is that Congress has legislated and mandated most of the spending, and the hundreds of agencies that carry it out—and Trump can’t eliminate them. Congress has to abolish these programs and agencies. All DOGE can do is make recommendations.

It’s true that the USAID building is closed, but apparently, many of its employees and programs have just simply been reassigned to the State Department or other places. They’ve made no progress on getting rid of the Department of Education.

I’m sure Trump very much wants to see DOGE be successful, but unfortunately its very name is “Government Efficiency,” and I question whether we really want the government to be more efficient. The only way to solve the problem isn’t by making government more efficient, but by abolishing agencies wholesale—not just trimming some fat.

Will there be a fundamental change? That’s unlikely because, as I’ve said many times before, Trump has no philosophical center. Nor any understanding of economics, as evidenced by his tariffs scheme, which I think will fail utterly—and may even be the catalyst that sets off the Greater Depression. He’s flying by the seat of his pants.

Equally bad—or worse—he appears to want an industrial policy for the US, where he’ll be making investments in all kinds of things to make the US a manufacturing center again. It’s like what Argentina did under the Peronists. He does whatever seems like a good idea at the time…

International Man: With Elon Musk signaling his impending departure from DOGE, how do you foresee the future of DOGE and its initiatives unfolding without his leadership?

Doug Casey: As Chairman Mao once said, “The helmsman sets the course that sails the ship.” And if the helmsman jumps ship, it’s questionable whether other crewmen can take over successfully. Maybe they will. But without the public profile and moral suasion of Musk, I suspect that the people he leaves in charge of this advisory agency will flounder.

And, remember, DOGE itself has no power. But the Deep State has an immense amount of power, and they’re fighting it tooth and nail—both with go-slow policies and by filing lawsuits everywhere possible to stop it from happening.

In the long run, just cutting things back can’t possibly work. It’s like pruning a plant. Gardeners prune plants to make them healthier. If you just prune agencies, they’ll grow back even more virulent. The only solution is for scores of them—hundreds of them—to be pulled out by the roots and Agent Orange sown where they grew. That’s not happening.

For instance, take Ukraine. Zelensky has become a billionaire, as have all his cronies, and the fighting is still going on. Why? Because the US is still sending them money and materiel.

I’m afraid serious cuts are bluster, not reality. And where can they really cut things? Are they going to take money away from the Veterans Administration or military pensions? No. Certainly not from the military itself—Trump has said they’re going to increase spending from $800 billion to $1 trillion. Are they going to cut back Medicare or Social Security? Abolish Medicaid? They should, but they won’t. These things, along with interest on the national debt, equal about 85% of spending.

They can’t reduce the interest burden on the federal debt; it will continue growing with more spending and higher interest rates. Which, I suspect, are headed toward the levels we saw in the early 1980s, when the government was paying 20% for its money.

Musk has said he’s found thousands of egregious cases of waste, fraud, and abuse that should be referred to the Department of Justice. But that’s far, far more than the DOJ can handle. Where are the headlines about prosecutions for the things Musk has talked about? I’m quite disappointed. I’d like to see hundreds of heads on stakes, but it looks like the bedbugs and cockroaches are just going to hide while the lights are on.

International Man: Do you believe DOGE’s proposed cuts will lead to genuine, permanent reductions in government spending—or will they simply free up funds for Washington to redirect toward areas like defense?

Doug Casey: All kinds of obvious things aren’t being touched—like the $50 billion the US gives to foreign governments around the world, a bottomless pit of graft. That’s not going to change. Certainly not the $4 billion the US gives to Israel every year, or the $4 billion it gives to Egypt every year to bribe it into being Israel’s BFF.

One thing that will kill any real progress from DOGE is subtle threats from the Deep State in general, and the praetorian agencies in particular. The NSA knows everything about everybody. If any DOGE employee gets too aggressive about breaking rice bowls or imprisoning bigwigs, they’ll be intimidated. These agencies know, or can fabricate, inconvenient things about them.

Or perform a cover up. Look at the Epstein case. We were supposed to learn what Epstein was up to, and with who. But everything’s being heavily redacted to protect guilty but well-connected people. The elite always close ranks to protect each other.

It’s all smoke but no fire. These agencies—with all the information they have—can destroy anyone who attacks them. If not now, while Trump is still in office, they’ll certainly seek retribution after he leaves. Our best hope—but it’s a long shot—is that Trump will realize that it’s kill or be killed, and will try to destroy them utterly while he’s still in power. That would be inviting civil war… but he has no real alternative.

International Man: Given that DOGE represents the most significant attempt to reduce government spending in generations, what are the implications if it fails?

Doug Casey: The economy is on the ragged edge, and with the tariffs creating economic chaos the Democrats may be re-elected in 2028. In fact, they may even win the midterms, which would guarantee that all of Trump’s efforts fail.

If the Democrats regain control of the government, they’ll redouble spending to try to forestall the Greater Depression and kick the can down the road for a few more years. And they’ll be supported by the American people, who are going to miss all the freebies the government was bribing them with. The average American has become so corrupt that he doesn’t want to have his doggy dish taken away.

For a while, during the first month of Trump’s presidency, it looked like it was going to once again be morning in America. But we’re finding out that morning only lasts six hours—and we’re already past noon. Things look quite grim.

International Man: As the US debt crisis intensifies, what steps should individuals take to protect their wealth—and what speculative opportunities do you see emerging from this turmoil?

Doug Casey: Even if we avoid a major war, I’m afraid the trend that’s been in motion for many decades is going to stay in motion and continue accelerating until the whole mess collapses under its own weight.

The US has become a giant multicultural empire revolving around the Washington Beltway. It could go down catastrophically the way Rome did. Or it may just degrade slowly like Spain or England. They still exist, but they’re hollow shells of their previous selves.

The financial, economic, political, and social problems we’re laboring under are leading to a breakup of the country. So, instead of the US getting bigger with the extremely expensive acquisitions of Greenland, the Panama Canal Zone, and—God forbid—Canada, the US is more likely to get smaller.

All you can do is try to insulate yourself. The way to do that is by diversifying your money safely out of the country and continuing to build significant positions in gold, silver, and Bitcoin. With hopefully some successful speculations along the way.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post DOGE, Deficits, and the Coming Financial Earthquake appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives approved yet again legislation (this time H. Res. 352) to counter “antisemitism” — something the US government has been redefining for its purposes as going beyond being related to race, ethnicity, or religion so that it also includes criticizing the government of Israel. In its concluding section the resolution states, in addition to a couple other demands, that the House “calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and counter all acts of antisemitism.”

Here the desire is to cling deceptively to the designation of “antisemitism” that has significant weight because it is still commonly understood as not including criticizing the government of Israel. The expanded meaning “antisemitism” label can then be used as a tool to try to suppress growing distaste among Americans for Israel government actions undertaken with the enthusiastic and critical aid of the US government, including congressional leadership that is all in on supporting the Israel government.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) cast the sole “no” vote on H. Res. 352.

I want here to zero in on one of the supporting arguments made in the resolution. “Whereas, according to the American Jewish Committee, almost 70 percent of Jewish adults report experiencing antisemitism online, including on social media,” the resolution proclaims. Looking to the mentioned source, you can see that in answer to the question “Over the past 12 months, have you seen or heard any antisemitic content, such as comments, posts, or videos, online or on social media?” seven percent of a poll’s respondents said “yes, one time” and 60 percent said “yes, more than one time,” while 33 percent said “no.”

Big whoop. Sure, many people who look at least somewhat often and somewhat widely through the internet would answer “yes, more than one time” to the question no matter if “antisemitism” means what it is commonly understood to mean or has the meaning under the US government pushed definition. The catch is many people would have good reason to give the same answer if content “anti” a long list of alternative races, ethnicities, religions, and governments were asked about instead of “antisemitism.” Welcome to the internet where plentiful negative comments are available for viewing. Thin-skinned people may be wise to tread with caution.

Reprinted with permission from The Ron Paul Institute.

The post A Peculiar Measure of the Prevalence of ‘Antisemitism’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iván Archivaldo Guzmán recently evaded capture by Mexican police by using escape tactics that he learned from his father Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. The Journal described Iván as “Mexico’s Most Wanted Drug Kingpin.”

But wait a minute! I thought that when U.S. officials recently sentenced El Chapo himself to life in a U.S. prison, the war on drugs was supposed to have been won. Alas, apparently not. It turns out that El Chapo has several sons who took over the family drug business.

Darn! And here I thought that the drug war was finally over. Who would have thought that the busting of one big drug lord only means that new drug lords are there to take their place? Gosh, so does that mean that if officials capture or kill all the Chapitos, the drug war will finally be over? If you believe that, I’ve got a nice bridge across the Rio Grande I’d like to sell you.

President Trump knows that the drug war is a long way from being over, no matter how many Chapitos are killed or captured. Trump now wants to use military force against drug cartels inside Mexico. He says the drug dealers are more than drug dealers. He says there are also “terrorists.” So, he wants to kill them by dropping U.S. bombs on them, firing missiles at them, or using U.S. troops to shoot them — inside Mexico. Trump obviously feels that by winning the war on drugs in Mexico, he will be winning the war on drugs here at home.

Unfortunately for Trump, however, when he asked Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum for permission to use U.S. military force inside Mexico, she said no. That must have undoubtedly surprised Trump, given that he has been praising her for several months and even cut her some slack on his tariff campaign. In fact, Trump was so miffed over Sheinbaum’s rejection of his request that he responded by suggesting that she was just scared of the drug cartels.

However, it’s not difficult to understand why Sheinbaum has rejected Trump’s request.

For one thing, Trump’s request is a variation of “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you.” Who believes that one? Not anyone in Mexico, including Sheinbaum.

Another thing to consider is that if U.S. troops enter Mexico ostensibly to combat the drug cartels, there is a good possibility that they will never leave. After all, aren’t there still U.S. troops in Iraq? Indeed, aren’t there post-World War II troops still in Germany? Why would Mexico want a permanent occupation by the U.S. national-security establishment? Would Americans want a permanent occupation of the United States by the Mexican army?

A third thing to consider is that the U.S. government hasn’t exactly done a great job in smashing its own illicit drug distributors here inside the United States. After all, if it had done so, U.S. officials could have declared victory and an end to the drug war. Instead, implicitly acknowledging defeat domestically, they now feel that they need to go into Mexico to win the drug war over there. One can understand why Mexico would question the competence of U.S. officials to win the war on drugs in Mexico when it can’t even win the war on drugs inside the United States.

Something else to consider is all of the innocent people who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against Mexican drug cartels. Remember: U.S. officials don’t exactly put a high value on the lives of Mexicans. After all, isn’t that one of the countries that U.S. officials say is filled with rapists, murderers, thieves, and robbers who are invading the United States? Given such, I can’t imagine that U.S. officials are going to be very upset about the large number of Mexican citizens who would be killed in a U.S. military campaign against the drug cartels.

Finally, based on what happened in the Mexican War, one can understand why Sheinbaum and the Mexican people would be a bit skittish about permitting a U.S. invasion of their country. When the U.S. government provoked that war, U.S. officials used the war to steal the entire northern half of Mexico. Who’s to say that the U.S. government wouldn’t do the same thing today — after forcing all Mexican citizens to move south, of course, to avoid having them become U.S. citizens.

As President Trump has pointed out, Sheinbaum is a very sharp person. She is smart to say no to Trump’s request to invade and bomb her country in the name of winning the ongoing, never-ending, perpetual immoral and destructive war on drugs.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Will Trump Invade or Bomb Mexico to Win the Drug War? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Favoring capital over wage earners is the long-established policy of both political parties.

Cribbing a line from a Grateful Dead song (“ain’t it a shame”) seems appropriate when discussing the prospects of America’s burgeoning Precariat Class who are increasingly depending on tips, side hustles, credit cards and buy now, pay later schemes to survive in a stupidly high-cost economy where all the media-hyped “GDP growth” benefits the few at the top, a fact well-documented here courtesy of FRED-Federal Reserve charts.

Living on Meds, Vitamin C and Ibogaine is not a high quality of life, and the only thing that has any real meaning is the quality of life of the majority of the citizenry, particularly the bottom 60% who own the fewest income-producing assets (i.e. capital).

If the quality of life of the majority is tanking, all the glowing economic statistics in the world are nothing but the self-serving bleating of financial toadies, apparatchiks and sycophants who are part of the problem, not the solution, as all the statistics they tout are misdirections.

My focus on the quality of life of America’s Precariats is rooted in my own experiences as a Precariat. Construction is notoriously boom and bust, and when work dries up, precarity is the order of the day. In the brutal 1973-74 recession, work dried up and I emptied my boyhood piggy bank to buy a few gallons of gas.

In the brutal recession of 1980-82, I was down to around $100 cash, which in today’s money is equivalent to about $25.

Small business owners face a particularly intense level of precarity due to their responsibilities for employees and high fixed costs. When work finally picked up in 1983, cash flow didn’t, as banks only release construction loan payments after the work has been done, so my partner and I had to take cash advances on our own credit cards to make payroll for our crews. We couldn’t afford to pay ourselves so we lived on fumes until the cash flow increased–often a couple of months.

This is common in the world of small businesses: after paying your crew, there’s nothing left for you.

The reality is even outwardly successful small businesses are going broke and the owners are burning out. Expenses are increasing in leaps and bounds, but there’s only so much you can charge customers. So small business owners sacrifice themselves to try to make it work–something that is increasingly impossible.

‘Doesn’t make financial sense’: Michelin-starred SF restaurant calls it quits. “Even with the busiest the restaurant’s ever been, it just doesn’t make financial sense,” Stowaway said. “We’ve done a lot of great things and we’re proud, but the financial instability starts to affect everyone, and you have to make big changes.”

Free-lance writing has always been poorly paid, and being paid $150 or $250 for an article was typical in the go-go 1990s. I was so far below “poverty level” (generally considered 80% of median income in one’s region) in the high-cost, high-income San Francisco Bay Area that to me a “poverty level” income was like a king’s ransom.

We hear that high-paying jobs are stressful. Yes, they are, but precarity is stressful without the reward of ample compensation. Most people working for a living are stressed out, and so anti-anxiety / anti-depression meds, pain-killers, etc., are part of the self-medication menu, along with supplements (Vitamin C, etc.). But no med or supplement can fix what’s actually broken–our economy and society.

Ibogaine makes the list because it’s being studied as a treatment for PTSD / traumatic experiences, addiction and severe depression. These have a high correlation with precarity, for those with these conditions have a difficult time escaping precarity, and precarity is itself a low-level trauma that few economic cheerleaders acknowledge.

Ibogaine Inspires New Treatments for Addiction and Depression: Targeted Molecules Are More Powerful Than SSRI Antidepressants and Avoid Dangerous Side Effects.

What to Know About Ibogaine: Some researchers hope the drug, still illegal in the United States, may be considered as a treatment for addiction, PTSD and brain injuries.

Read the Whole Article

The post Living on Meds, Vitamin C and Ibogaine: American Precarity appeared first on LewRockwell.

While waiting with a friend on the southbound platform at the crowded junction of Medellin, Colombia’s two Metro elevated train lines in February 2017, a short, bespectacled, wavy-black-haired, thirtyish man approached me and asked, in Spanish, where I was from.

I answered, “Los Estados Unidos.”

He replied, “Gracias para derrotar Alemania en la segunda guerra mundial” and walked away, smirking.

I can say most of what I want to say in Spanish and understand most of what natives say to me. But after Japanese, Spanish is the world’s second fastest spoken language. Sometimes, as on that occasion, I don’t immediately comprehend what Spanish speakers say.

Thus, it took me about five seconds to figure out that the Colombian had said, completely out of context, “Thanks for defeating the Germans in World War II.”

I chuckled. Incongruity amuses me. I told my non-Spanish-speaking-friend what the man had said. My friend also thought it was funny.

Many a truth is said in jest. But some people who aren’t joking still love America for something it did eighty years ago. No thanks to me.

And of course, even given the passage of time, the death of young soldiers is the opposite of funny.

—

I haven’t been to Europe in 38 years. For reasons I mentioned a few weeks ago, I prefer to travel in the US and Latin America. I appreciate that Europe has countless elegant, old buildings. Some book I read, perhaps William Manchester’s A World Lit Only by Fire, accurately described Europe as a 500-year art, architecture and historic preservation project. Needs more trees though.

Rick Steves is known for his European guidebooks and hundred-plus episode public TV series portraying Euro destinations. Steves is a cultural archetype: an affluent, androgynous Caucasian from Seattle who spouts progressive platitudes and complains about climate change as he jets around the world and encourages others to do the same.

Home alone tonight, I switched on the TV. PBS showed a new, uncharacteristically dark Rick Steves installment entitled “Fascism in Europe.”

During a pledge break, Steves explained that he produced this episode because, while his travelogues routinely portray Europe as a chill and “progressive” smorgasbord of wine, baguettes and cheese, chill cafes, pubs and plazas, art museums, castles and cathedrals and punctual trains and oompah bands—my summary, not his—between 1930-45 fascism took hold in Italy and Germany and Spain. Steves said he wanted to acknowledge and preserve the memory of that grim period.

As he retraced those years, he solemnly enumerated the strategies and actions of these nations’ oppressive governments. As he did, I couldn’t help but notice that even though the 1930-45 regimes in those three nations killed more people—at least until the Covid lockdown and vaxx effects have fully manifested themselves—American, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and European governments applied similar social control tactics during the Covid response.

Per Steves, in both periods, governments began by inciting fear to manipulate their citizens. Just as fascists fanned fears that Soviet Communism would spread to Germany, Italy and Spain, during Coronamania American, European and Oceanian officials incited terror about a virus that they said would ravage their nations. They convinced the populace that governors and the governed had to pull out all stops to crush a microbial invasion.

Both frenzied periods were driven by cults of personality. People believed that visionaries would rescue them. Europe had Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. Coronamania was driven by Fauci, Birx and Collins. The hype surrounding these evil individuals fueled fandom and fanaticism.

Officials from each era relied on a central lie. Italians, German and Spanish fascists convinced many citizens that they were part of a superior race and culture. Covid Era officials sold the lie that a respiratory virus threatened people of all ages but that enlightened people could defeat this scourge by “Following The Science.”

Relatedly, during both periods, officials scapegoated specific groups for ruining life for everyone else. During fascist years, Jews, Slavs, communists and others were blamed for the poverty and malaise that gripped Europe following World War I. During Coronamania, the division was based more on socioeconomic status, political affiliation and Covid-measure compliance than on ethnicity. Laptoppers and vacation homeowners skipped their commutes while vilifying MAGA “superspreaders” who refused to stay home, wear masks and inject mRNA.

European fascists curtailed individual identity and civil liberties. They urged national unity with discipline. Everything was purportedly done on behalf of the collective, embodied by The State. During Coronamania, Western governments promoted, and many people fervently internalized, the same collective, restrictive ethos. Since we were said to be “all in this together,” those who questioned any government-imposed restriction or demand for sacrifice were angrily labeled “reckless” and “selfish.” They were deemed Enemies of the State.

In both eras, officials defied constitutions and democratic principles and invoked Emergency Authority. They peremptorily, opportunistically and dishonestly asserted that they needed to suspend basic rights in order to protect peoples’ security. The masses bought in.

Steves notes that fascism was implemented incrementally. Similarly, the Covid response began with “two weeks to stop the spread.” Following the fascist playbook, when the shots were introduced, 2020-2021 American officials assured the public that these wouldn’t be mandated. These, and other, pledges were soon abandoned and more extreme measures were implemented.

During both the period spanning 1930-45 and 2020-2025, the State relied on media control, propaganda and suppression of dissent. Fascist rallies and radio broadcasts resembled Covid Era government briefings and TV ad blitzes. Fascist censorship, including book-burning, resembled Covid Era-captured news outlets and internet deplatforming and shadow-banning. Those who dared to question the human cost of the lockdowns, school closures, masks and tests were subjected to government-directed “devastating takedowns” in order to quash open discussion of the badly overblown Covid risk and the extreme and foolish government interventions.

Overt coercion occurred in both periods. The Europeans had secret police who raided and abducted civilians. Coronamanic police made examples of the non-compliant by chasing, tackling, handcuffing or fining those who didn’t stay home or mask. Covid shot decliners were fired on a mass scale. Concentration camps were big in fascist Europe. These were proposed in the US during Coronamania, but not built. Instead, viral house-arrest and hotel quarantines were common here and abroad.

Both fascism and the Covid response were economically disastrous. In 1930-45 Europe and during Coronamania, governments spent prodigious sums of borrowed or printed money to implement their strategies and subsidize cronies, saddling the general public with mountains of intergenerationally impoverishing debt. I suspect that, despite a net worth exceeding $20 million, Steves got PPP money when lockdowns disrupted travel and show filming.

Read the Whole Article

The post Rick Steves, the Fascist Playbook and the Covid Response appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a recent post on her Substack newsletter, Sarah Cain made a statement that, although predictable and already common in such difficult times, always gives us pause for thought: “Pope Francis was the biggest impediment to my conversion. I know that I’m not alone in that.”

Clearly, Cain is not the only one who has had to overcome such a difficulty. Terrible problems and doubts have confronted all those converts to Catholicism who, like myself, embraced—out of ignorance or excessive enthusiasm—a hyper-papalist interpretation of Pastor Aeternus, the famous dogmatic constitution from the First Vatican Council. Without a doubt, this type of purification of our Faith is one of the most painful imaginable.

Putting aside for now the discussions about “good popes/bad popes” and all the consequences of disastrous pontificates (especially when, at least through ambiguity, our faith is put at risk), many of those who have found themselves facing the walls of hyper-papalist Jericho still believe in the authority of the hierarchical structure of the Church as ordained by God and in the necessity of the papal office.

Unfortunately, there are also many Catholics who have not passed the test. If I mention only the names Rod Dreher and Michael Warren Davis, I am sure you will immediately understand whom I am referring to. These are all those who, scandalized by the ambiguity of the pontificate that has just ended, not only left the Catholic Church but went so far as to deny the very existence of the papal office.

It is tragic that such former Catholic thinkers and authors claim to be “orthodox” while denying a teaching—the dogma of infallibility—which is a Truth of faith confessed by saints like Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and Theodore the Studite. A careful reading of the section titled “La Monarchie Ecclésiastique fondée par Jésus-Christ” (“The Ecclesiastical Monarchy Founded by Jesus Christ”) from Vladimir Solovyov’s work La Russie et l’Église Universelle (Russia and the Universal Church) might help them discover some of those testimonies of the Holy Fathers—Greek and Latin—who recognized both the primacy and the infallibility of the Apostle Peter and his successors.

In any case, I hasten to add that the denial of the pope’s infallibility on the part of the “orthodox” does not stop there. In the end, it leads to the rejection of the very existence of the papal office. It is as if an “orthodox” scandalized by the sins of a certain metropolitan or bishop were not only to criticize that particular hierarch but to deny the very function itself. He might do so directly, but more often—and this is usually what happens—he does it indirectly, by denying the main prerogatives of the office.

The Protestants took things to the extreme: they denied any form of sacramental hierarchy in the name of the “universal priesthood” of all the baptized. Naturally, such an attitude—especially from those of our brethren who have left the Church—cannot leave us indifferent.

It is true that my special sensitivity to this subject stems from the fact that I converted to Catholicism precisely because I discovered (thanks to the brilliant Russian philosopher—himself a convert to Catholicism—Vladimir Solovyov) that there is no Church without the pope. Yes, the Holy Father is the visible head of the Church, the “reflection” of its absolute and invisible Head, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

In other words, the Christian faith that is truly orthodox also has an ecclesiological dimension: the belief in the hierarchy instituted by our Savior Christ, which includes, as the visible head of the Church and “servus servorum Dei,” the Supreme Pontiff. My Ancient Greek professor, passionate about Christian sacred symbolism and translator of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, taught us that the hierarchy existing in the Kingdom of Heaven—whose head is God Himself—is mirrored by the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Militant Church—whose visible head is the pope.

Despite the debatable pontificates of recent decades, not for one moment has this conviction of mine wavered. Today, in such troubled times, we must work more than ever to strengthen this faith. Of course, we should not do this in the hyper-papalist spirit so well captured in an anecdote told by the historian of religion at the University of Chicago, Mircea Eliade.

He heard a meaningful joke from a Jesuit priest and noted it in his journal. It is said that a cardinal, speaking enthusiastically about conversion to Catholicism and the essential condition for recognizing and validating such a decision, asked rhetorically and casually: “Does he believe in the Pope? Yes? Then it’s good. He is a true convert. If he believes in the Pope, that’s enough! Who cares if he believes in God or not?”

Although it is just a joke, it clearly contains a jab aimed at the convictions—so widespread in our times—of those Catholics who regard the pope as a kind of superman or oracle who can never be wrong under any circumstance, whether speaking ex cathedra or merely expressing a personal opinion. Let us remember it only as a joke.

Read the Whole Article

The post Yes, the Visible Head of the Church Is the Pope—This Is Our Christian Faith appeared first on LewRockwell.

During the 1988 campaign, George W. Bush came to the Courthouse in Maryville, TN to speak at a rally for his Dad. As we were leaving, I told my friend and later Chief of Staff, Bob Griffitts, “Bob, he is better than his Dad.”

When he ran for President in 2000, then Governor Bush went all over the Country saying we needed a more humble foreign policy, and according to Foreign Policy Magazine, he “famously campaigned against nation building.”

The Independent Institute reported that in a 2000 debate, candidate Bush said “If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us; but if we are a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”

Wikipedia says Bush criticized President Clinton as being too interventionist and said: “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem down the road, and I’m going to prevent that.”

Because of statements like these, along with my favorable impression from 1988, and my strong opposition to Vice President Gore, I became enthused about the Bush campaign.

During all of my 15 campaigns for Congress, I held a Duncan Family Barbecue with 6,000 to 8,000 in attendance. I was very pleased when Gov. Bush rearranged his schedule just a few days before the election on very short notice to also attend.

We marched into the Knoxville Coliseum behind the University of Tennessee Pep Band, and he stood in the receiving line much longer than I expected. When I walked him back to his limousine, I said “Governor, you’re going to carry Tennessee.” He replied “If I do, I’ll win the  election,” and that is exactly what happened.

That night, my son, Zane, said “Dad, I have never heard you so excited as when you shouted ‘the next President of the United States, George Bush!”

I had been a Pat Buchanan-American Firster all through the 90s, so you can imagine my disappointment when President Bush allowed himself and, more importantly, his foreign policy to be controlled by Neocons.

Of course, in spite of being put into a little secure room at the White House with Condoleeza Rice and the top two leaders of the CIA so they could put pressure on me, I shocked my district and voted against going to war in Iraq.

And then, over the next many years, Reps. Ron Paul and Walter Jones and I were the only Republicans in the U.S. House who consistently and repeatedly spoke and voted to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan many years before we did.

Then, after Sen. Rand Paul decided not to run for President in 2016, I became one of the first members of Congress to endorse Donald Trump for President. I did this because I thought he was the least hawkish of all who were running for the Republican nomination, and he had made some critical comments about the decision to go to war in Iraq.

But I was disappointed once again when he put Neocons like John Bolton and others into key positions in his Administration, appointments I think he later regretted.

With this history and background, you may think I am very foolish, but my hopes are up once again because of President Trump’s Inaugural Address and even more so because of his speech in Riyadh on Tuesday.

In his Inaugural Address, he said: “We will measure our success not only by little battles we win, but also by the wars that end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

Then I was ecstatic when I heard what he had said in his speech in Riyadh: “But in the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.”

“No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation builders’, Neocons or liberal non-profits, like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Baghdad and so many other cities.”

He added: “The birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves—the people that are right here, the people who have lived here all their lives, developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions and charting your destinies in your own way.”

Trump also said what he called the “great transformation” of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East “has not come from western interventionists…giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.” These are words Ron Paul himself could have said.

This speech, along with numerous reports that Trump is tired of being manipulated by Netanyahu, his ending sanctions against Syria, entering negotiations with Iran, stopping the bombing of Yemen, and leaving Israel off his Middle East trip, all give hope for a different and perhaps more diplomatic, less hawkish U.S. foreign policy.

When you add to all these hopeful signs from Trump the May 9th column by Thomas Friedman entitled “This Israeli Government Is Not Our Ally”, change may be in the air.

Friedman wrote that “Netanyahu is not our friend” and added: “On the Middle East, you have some good independent instincts, Mr. President. Follow them.” This may be one of the very few times I have ever agreed with one of the longest-serving employees of the New York Times.

Now, I just wish there were a few more in Congress with the courage of Thomas Massie.

The post Can Trump Slip the Grip of the Neocons? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Dave Smith: Debating Douglas Murray, the ‘Woke Right’ Narrative, and the Moment He Found God appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tucker Carlson – Warren Commission Stooge and Deep State Shill

The post Tucker Carlson’s “Evolving” Views on Lee Harvey Oswald and Who Murdered JFK appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Watch on YouTube

The post Why You Wouldn’t Last 24 Hours in Medieval Times appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

The Hill

The post Haley furious that American officials can be bought by Qatar appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Newsweek is hardly a “ right wing” publication, but if you watch the MSM, Black South Africans are the victims.

Because Trump is a White Supremacist.

Newsweek

The post A White Farmer Is Killed Every Five Days in South Africa and Authorities Do Nothing about It, Activists Say appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Writes Gail Appel:

This IS real!

News.com.au

The post South Africa farm murders: Jacob Zuma calls for white land to be confiscated appeared first on LewRockwell.