Aggregatore di feed

Writes David Martin

See article here.

Huntsville, the largest city in Alabama, is now poised to become a central location in operations to expand U.S. military might to the cosmos to compete with rivals like Russia and China.

Alabama city population from my 2012 AAA Road Atlas:

Birmingham    242,820
Montgomery   201, 568
Mobile,             198,915
Huntsville       158,216

But, amazingly, the article is right.  Huntsville is, indeed, now the largest city in Alabama.

And why is that?  The article tells us in so many words:

The city is a major hub for defense contractors and aerospace companies, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. The Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command is also located in Huntsville, which is nicknamed “Rocket City” because of its role in building the first rockets that helped the U.S. reach the moon.

And what’s wrong with Colorado?

“The problem I had with Colorado, one of the big problems, they do mail-in voting,” Trump said. “So they have automatically crooked elections.”

Trump is really on the money with that one.  Check out Paul Craig Roberts’ latest article.

The purple state of Virginia better vote Republican in its off-year election this fall for the benefit of Wallops Island.

The post Why is Trump moving Space Command headquarters to Alabama? Inside the decision appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Global Research

The post How the Global Elite Prepares to Replace Governments with Global Agentic AI appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-caro-prezzo-del-declino-della)

La civiltà è fragile. Innumerevoli interazioni sociali e commerciali la costituiscono. In uno dei suoi saggi più importanti, Individualism: True and False, F. A. Hayek scrisse: “Sebbene possa non essere difficile distruggere le formazioni spontanee che costituiscono le basi indispensabili di una civiltà libera, potrebbe essere al di là delle nostre possibilità ricostruire deliberatamente una tale civiltà una volta che queste fondamenta vengono distrutte”.

Oggi un numero allarmante di persone vede il crollo come una cosa positiva. Alcuni, profondamente pessimisti, considerano le nostre istituzioni irreparabili, rendendo preferibile una ripartenza; altri attivisti radicali auspicano il crollo della civiltà occidentale.

Hayek potrebbe dire: fate attenzione a ciò che desiderate, pochi sfuggiranno alla carneficina che porterebbe il crollo della civiltà.

Se l'avvertimento di Hayek vi preoccupa, allora il magnifico libro di Alexandra Hudson, The Soul of Civility, rientra nella correzione educativa.

Scrivo correzione educativa perché la Hudson sostiene che se le nostre istituzioni stanno fallendo, è perché stiamo facendo scelte moralmente sbagliate. Possiamo e dobbiamo fare di meglio, non solo per noi stessi, ma per il bene dell'umanità. La Hudson scrive: “Non possiamo cambiare la società, ma possiamo cambiare noi stessi e il modo in cui operiamo nel mondo che ci circonda. E se un numero sufficiente di noi decidesse di cambiare sé stesso, potremmo essere in grado di cambiare anche il mondo in cui viviamo”. Questo non è un invito a eleggere leader migliori, o ad allinearsi a un'identità tribale.

La civiltà, ci informa la Hudson, “è il rispetto fondamentale che ci è dovuto in virtù della nostra dignità condivisa e del nostro pari valore morale come esseri umani. Lo dobbiamo agli altri indipendentemente da chi sono, che aspetto hanno, da dove vengono, se ci piacciono o no, e se possono o meno fare qualcosa per noi”.

Basandosi sul lavoro del filosofo Martin Buber, la Hudson sostiene: “Dobbiamo combattere consapevolmente la tentazione perenne di vedere il mondo e gli altri esclusivamente attraverso la lente delle nostre esperienze e del nostro progresso. Strumentalizziamo le persone quando ci fa comodo e siamo pronti ad (apparire) gentili e generosi quando abbiamo qualcosa da guadagnare”.

La Hudson fornisce una semplice linea guida: “Le abitudini morali che promuovono la prosperità umana sono virtù. Le abitudini morali che ci dividono – dentro di noi e tra noi e gli altri – sono vizi”.

La Hudson spiega che civiltà non è sinonimo di cortesia, e che una personalità colta non è sinonimo di carattere. Ci incoraggia a difendere principi senza tempo anche quando gli altri sono fortemente in disaccordo.

Sostiene che la virtù non può essere imposta per legge. Man mano che diventiamo più virtuosi, si ravviva in noi il sentimento morale che, per diritto di nascita, ogni essere umano è uguale agli altri.

La missione della Hudson è ispirare la virtù per salvare la libertà. Molti pensatori l'hanno influenzata, tra cui Ben Franklin, che ammoniva: “Solo un popolo virtuoso è capace di libertà. Man mano che le nazioni diventano corrotte e viziose, hanno più bisogno di padroni”.

Cita anche Edmund Burke, che scrisse: “Gli uomini sono qualificati per la libertà esattamente in proporzione alla loro disposizione a imporre catene morali ai propri appetiti”. Come Franklin, anche Burke capì che se il “potere di controllo” non si trova negli individui, lo si troverà all'esterno, nelle mani degli autoritari.

La Hudson condivide ciò che il giurista americano Learned Hand scrisse nel ventesimo secolo: “La libertà risiede nei cuori degli uomini e delle donne; quando lì muore, nessuna costituzione, nessuna legge, nessun tribunale può salvarla; nessuna costituzione, nessuna legge, nessun tribunale può fare molto per aiutarla”.

Perfect Days, un film di Wim Wenders di una bellezza immensa, racconta la vita di un addetto alle pulizie dei bagni pubblici di Tokyo. L'alto livello di pulizia di base nei bagni pubblici e nelle strade giapponesi è inimmaginabile nelle città statunitensi. La legge non impone questa attenzione individuale alla pulizia; è una dimostrazione di rispetto per gli altri.

Di recente, in un bar di Philadelphia, alcuni giovani hanno ballato e scattato selfie con un cartello che diceva “Al diavolo gli ebrei”. Uno degli studenti coinvolti ha affermato che si trattava solo di uno “scherzo”.

“Lo stato non può legiferare sul pensiero”, ha affermato il deputato Thomas Massie quando ha votato contro un disegno di legge che condannava l'antisemitismo qualche anno fa. Massie ha ragione, ma sta solo sostenendo il punto della Hudson.

Se volete vivere in una società in cui l'antisemitismo è normalizzato, non aspettatevi di sfuggire alle conseguenze.

“L'obbedienza alla spontaneità” è un concetto introdotto da John Fletcher Moulton, matematico e giudice inglese del diciannovesimo secolo. Moulton e la Hudson concordano sul fatto che in questa obbedienza risieda “la vera grandezza di una nazione, la sua vera civiltà”. La Hudson aggiunge: “Quanto più una società si affida all'autoregolamentazione – e quanto meno si affida alla legge, alla coercizione, al conflitto e al contenzioso – tanto più è libera”.

Sostiene che “una società libera dipende dalla decisione dei suoi cittadini di compiere azioni onorevoli e virtuose anche quando hanno la possibilità di non farlo”. La Hudson vuole che prendiamo in considerazione la nostra disponibilità a obbedire a virtù spontanee.

Se in una buona giornata vi tenete lontani dai social media e dalle notizie, potreste non avere motivo di pensare alle idee contenute nel libro della Hudson. In una giornata del genere la vostra vita funziona piuttosto bene. Avete l'elettricità a portata di mano, cibo in tavola e persone che vi amano e si prendono cura di voi. È improbabile che andiate mai in quel bar di Philadelphia.

Il nostro carattere non è messo alla prova dai nostri giorni migliori – i mari calmi della prosperità economica e della coesione sociale – ma dai periodi di difficoltà economica e dai periodi in cui i legami della società civile sono sfilacciati. Il libro della Hudson è medicina preventiva.

Di recente, durante la prova di una corona dentale per mia moglie, il dentista e la sua assistente hanno lavorato fino all'ora di pranzo per ottenere un risultato perfetto. Altri dentisti avrebbero potuto prendere scorciatoie, invece lui ha messo al primo posto le esigenze di mia moglie. La Hudson sostiene che abbiamo bisogno di più interazioni di questo tipo nella vita di tutti i giorni: “Le nostre interazioni quotidiane possono elevare o peggiorare la nostra esperienza di convivenza sociale. La nostra considerazione verso gli altri promuove la fiducia reciproca e, di conseguenza, la nostra libertà e il nostro benessere”.

Basandosi sugli scritti di Hayek, la Hudson sottolinea che esiste una differenza tra la fiducia visibile che nutriamo nei confronti di familiari e amici e la fiducia invisibile che potremmo costruire con gli sconosciuti.

Quest'ultima rende possibile la società commerciale. Infatti la Hudson scrive che essa “è una fiducia generalizzabile, ovvero quella fiducia che riponiamo negli innumerevoli sconosciuti con cui interagiamo ogni giorno. Essa riduce i costi di transazione nella nostra società anonima e si costruisce attraverso i nostri piccoli gesti di gentilezza e generosità verso gli sconosciuti”.

“La tranquillità della mente, così necessaria alla felicità [...] è meglio promossa dalle [...] passioni della gratitudine e dell’amore”, scrisse Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

La Hudson scrive: “Nessuna battaglia terrena vale il rischio di compromettere la salute e la vita della nostra anima. In fin dei conti, non possiamo controllare la civiltà o la maleducazione degli altri. Possiamo solo controllare noi stessi”.

Ognuno di noi oggi fallirà molte volte nel controllo di sé stesso. Ciò che conta non è che, in quanto esseri umani imperfetti, commettiamo errori, ma che siamo disposti a far sì che quegli errori vengano corretti dai legami affettivi che ci aiutano a prosperare.

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

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

Thanks, David Martin.

See this.

The post Former UN Chief Exposes October 7 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Bill Maden

Re: Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these “wars” have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.

The major owners of Corporate America are not interested in winning wars.  They are interested in their quarterly profit distributions so we get no-win wars.  The “rules of engagement” are always structured to protect the enemy from annihilation which our forces are easily capable of doing. 

After reading: “The Brothers”, and “The Secret Team”:

I’m more convinced than ever that our alphabet agencies work directly for the major owners of Corporate America.  I believe that these wealthy families control our entire government but that the conduits of influence and control are shorter for the alphabet agencies than the other parts of government with the conduit for the CIA being the shortest.  The U2 that crashed in Russia to prevent the Paris Peace Summit back in 1960 was sabotaged during pre-flight.  According to Prouty’s book, it was not shot down, it flamed out due to a half-filled hydrogen tank.  The hydrogen was needed at high altitudes to maintain combustion.

The Cold War was very profitable and, like no-win hot wars, the profiteers wanted it to continue.

The post Re: Department of War? – Ron Paul’s 2 Sept. Column appeared first on LewRockwell.

The winner of New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary was Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist who has been a member of the New York State Assembly since 2021. Conservatives are ecstatic that they have a professing socialist to attack so as to deflect attention away from their support of socialistic programs and policies like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and public education.

Mamdani advocates higher taxes on rich property owners, corporations, and millionaires; free childcare for children up to five years old; rent control; fare-free city buses; raising the city’s minimum wage; single-payer healthcare; and city-owned grocery stores.

Although many conservative opponents of Mamdani are hypocrites, their criticisms of his plans are nevertheless spot on—except for one thing.

Mamdani has advocated the decriminalization of prostitution. He told reporters he wants his policies to reflect those of ex-mayor Bill de Blasio, who advocated “community-centered services” for sex workers instead of arrest.

Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and a socialist in all but the name, and an opponent of Mamdani in the November election, is now the darling of conservatives for making this remark:

I’m a man of God, just as Mamdani says he’s a Muslim. I don’t know where in his Quran it states that it’s OK for a woman to be on the streets selling their body. I don’t know what Quran he is reading. It’s not in my Bible. As a man who said he is of faith, I don’t quite understand what religion supports prostitution. You’re not doing any service to a woman who is on the street who is forced to sell her body for whatever reason.

So, is prostitution okay?

From a health and morals perspective, prostitution is certainly not okay, even if it is 100 percent voluntary and does not involve trespassing on someone’s private property.

I have no argument with anyone who says that prostitution is immoral, sinful, bad, unnatural, debauched, lewd, unholy, lascivious, indecent, shameful, unhealthy, risky, and potentially dangerous.

No one with any sense—except a deranged left-libertarian opposed to value judgments at all—would support or be ambivalent about his wife, daughter, aunt, mother, grandmother, granddaughter, mother-in-law, niece, or sister being involved in prostitution. No one but a libertine (which should never be confused with a libertarian) wants prostitutes hanging out on their street corner or near the local high school.

From a libertarian perspective; that is, a property and freedom perspective, prostitution is okay—not because it is wholesome, good, or harmless (it is just the opposite)—but because it is not the job of government to concern itself with how people choose to make a living, spend their money, or have sex as long as they don’t violate the personal or property rights of others when they are doing these things.

What consenting adults do on their private property, or on the property of others with permission, is none of the government’s business (and it is none of your business) as long as their actions don’t infringe upon the rights of others. This is still true even if what they are doing is immoral, and even if the majority of Americans don’t approve of what they are doing.

There is a big difference between not approving of someone’s actions and thinking the government should arrest, fine, and imprison someone for doing something that some people don’t approve of.

Two things that Mayor Adams said deserve a challenge: “I don’t quite understand what religion supports prostitution. You’re not doing any service to a woman who is on the street who is forced to sell her body for whatever reason.”

First of all, no religion “supports” prostitution. Not arresting, fining, and locking in a cage prostitutes and their clients is not supporting prostitution. And second, just because a woman is on the street selling her body does not mean that she is being forced to do so. Not every prostitute has a pimp, and not every pimp is forcing women to sell their bodies. And neither is poverty to blame. There are plenty of poor women in every city in the United States who would not even think of engaging in prostitution.

Now, none of it means that libertarians countenance trespassing, loitering, or other violations of property rights that might occur when prostitutes seek or service customers. And none of this means that prostitution that involves coercion, trafficking, children, assault, exploitation, or kidnapping is okay. These are real crimes that no free society would approve or tolerate.

So, from a moral standpoint, prostitution is not okay; however, from a property and freedom perspective, it is okay. Therefore, from a legal perspective, prostitution should be okay as well.

The post Is Prostitution Okay? appeared first on LewRockwell.

It’s always about hard work – for the common good. That’s what BRICS and SCO are fighting for.

Oh, what a show that was. A pan-Asia, pan-Eurasia, crossover Global South ball, with glittering dynamo Tianjin as backdrop, enjoyed as such by the overwhelming majority of the planet, while predictably generating cascades of sour grapes among the fragmented West – from the omnipotent Empire of Chaos to The Coalition of the Toothless Chihuahuas.

History will register that as much as BRICS finally stepped into the limelight at the summit in Kazan in 2024, the SCO replicated the move at the summit in Tianjin in 2025.

Among a feast of hightlights – hard to top Putin and Modi walking hand in hand – this was of course M.C. Xi’s ball. The original RIC (Russia, India, China), as conceptualized by the Great Primakov in the late 1990s, were finally back in the game, together.

But it was Xi who personally set the main guidelines – proposing no less than a broad, new Global Governance model, complete with important ramifications such as a SCO development back, which should complement the BRICS’s NDB, as well as close AI cooperation in contrast with Silicon Valley’s techno-feudalism.

Global Governance, the Chinese way, encompasses five core principles. The most crucial, no doubt, is sovereign equality. That connects with respect for the international rule of law – and not a shape-shifted, at will, “rules-based international order”. Global Governance advances multilateralism. And also inevitably encourages a much-lauded “people-centered” approach, away from vested interests.

Putin for his part detailed the role of the SCO as “a vehicle for genuine multilateralism”, in tune with this new Global Governance. And he crucially called for a pan-Eurasian security model. That’s exactly the “indivisibility of security” that the Kremlin proposed to Washington in December 2021 – and was met by a non-response response.

So taken together, BRICS and SCO are totally engaged in burying the Cold War-era mentality, a world divided by blocs; and at the same time they are visionary enough to call for the UN system to be respected as it was originally conceived.

Now that will be the Mother of Uphill Battles – including everything from taking the UN out of New York to completely revamping the Security Council.

The dance of Bear, Dragon and Elephant

If Xi set up the guidelines in Tianjin, the strategic guest of honor had to be Putin. And that extrapolated to their one-on-one meeting on Tuesday at the Zhongnanhai in Beijing: very private, as only special conversations are held at the former imperial palace. Xi greeted his “old friend” in Russian.

As Putin emphasized the central role of the SCO Development Program for the next 10 years, he was playing it very much the Chinese way, when it comes to all those successive, successful 5-year plans.

These roadmaps are essential to set long-term strategies. And in the case of the SCO, that means organizing its progressive shift from initially an anti-terrorism mechanism to a complex multilateral platform coodinating infrastructure development and geoeconomics.

And that’s where China’s new idea – the establishment of the SCO Development Bank – comes in. It’s a mirror institution to the NDB – the BRICS bank based in Shanghai, and parallel to the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the multilateral bank based in Beijing.

Once again, BRICS and SCO run intertwined, as their key focus is to progressively ditch dependence on Western paradigms and at the same time fight the effect of sanctions, which not by accident hit hard on the four top members of both BRICS and SCO: Russia, China, India and Iran.

And of course, among all the camaraderie in Tianjin, there was Modi in China for the first time in 7 years. Xi went straight to the point: “China and India are great civilizations whose responsibilities extend beyond bilateral issues.” And M.C. Xi once again hit the dancefloor: the future lies “in the dance of the dragon and the elephant.” Cue to the Three Eurasia amigos chatting amicably in the corridors.

The Tianjin Declaration – not as extensive as Kazan last year – still managed to emphasize the key points that apply to Eurasia: sovereignty, above anything else; non-interference in internal affairs of member-states; and total rejection of unilateral sanctions as tools of coercion.

Crucially, that should apply not only to SCO member-states but to partners as well – from the Arab petromonarchies to the Southeast Asian powerhouses. Development strategies of different nations already cooperate, in practice, with BRI projects, from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to the China-Belarus Industrial Park, extrapolating to cross-border e-commerce, AI and Big Data.

The SCO’s astonishing geographic scale, combined with half of the world’s population, carries tremendous potential across the spectrum – for instance on trade, transport infrastructure, cross-border investment and financial transactions. The potential is far from being realized.

But the high-speed trains are already rolling: geopolitical imperatives are guiding increased pan-Eurasia geoeconomic interaction.

Shanghai Spirit eviscerates “War on Terror”

So this is the top takeaway of the Tianjin Show: the SCO affirming itself as a solid strategic pole uniting a great deal of the Global Majority. And all that without the need to metastasize into an offensive military behemoth like NATO.

It’s a long way from a pavillion in a Shanghai park in 2001, only three months before 9/11 – which was marketed by the Empire of Chaos as the foundation stone of the “war on terror”. That other initially modest foundation stone – with Russia, China and three Central Asian “stans” – was the “Shanghai spirit”: a set of principles based on mutual trust and benefit, equality, consultation, respect for the diversity of civilizations, and an emphasis on common economic development.

How the Shanghai spirit actually outlasted the “war on terror” leaves us with much to ponder.

In his toast at the elegant banquet offered in Tianjin for SCO guests, Xi had to quote a proverb: “In a race of a hundred boats, those who row the hardest will lead”.

Hard work. Results of which can be seen by anyone facing Tianjin’s spectacular development. That has absolutely nothing to do with “democracy” – as debased by its allleged practitioners as it is across the collective West – opposed to “the autocrats”, or “villains”, or Axis of Upheaval, or any other stupidity. It’s always about hard work – for the common good. That’s what BRICS and SCO are fighting for.

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

The post The Tianjin Show: Let’s Dance to the Multipolar Groove appeared first on LewRockwell.

There are two types of war correspondents. The first type does not attend press conferences. They do not beg generals and politicians for interviews. They take risks to report from combat zones. They send back to their viewers or readers what they see, which is almost always diametrically opposed to official narratives. This first type, in every war, is a tiny minority.

Then there is the second type, the inchoate blob of self-identified war correspondents who play at war. Despite what they tell editors and the public, they have no intention of putting themselves in danger. They are pleased with the Israeli ban on foreign reporters into Gaza. They plead with officials for background briefings and press conferences. They collaborate with their government minders who impose restrictions and rules that keep them out of combat. They slavishly disseminate whatever they are fed by officials, much of which is a lie, and pretend it is news. They join little jaunts arranged by the military — dog and pony shows — where they get to dress up and play soldier and visit outposts where everything is controlled and choreographed.

The mortal enemy of these poseurs are the real war reporters, in this case, Palestinian journalists in Gaza. These reporters expose them as toadies and sycophants, discrediting nearly everything they disseminate. For this reason, the poseurs never pass up a chance to question the veracity and motives of those in the field. I watched these snakes do this repeatedly to my colleague Robert Fisk.

When war reporter Ben Anderson arrived at the hotel where journalists covering the war in Liberia were encamped — in his words getting “drunk” at bars “on expenses,” having affairs and exchanging “information rather than actually going out and getting information” — his image of war reporters took a huge hit.

“I thought, finally, I’m amongst my heroes,” Anderson recalls. “This is where I’ve wanted to be for years. And then me and the cameraman I was with — who knew the rebels very well — he took us out for about three weeks with the rebels. We came back to Monrovia. The guys in the hotel bar said, ‘Where have you been? We thought you’d gone home.’ We said, ‘We went out to cover the war. Isn’t that our job? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do?’”

“The romantic view I had of foreign correspondents was suddenly destroyed in Liberia,” he went on. “I thought, actually, a lot of these guys are full of shit. They’re not even willing to leave the hotel, let alone leave the safety of the capital and actually do some reporting.”

You can see an interview I did with Anderson here.

This dividing line, which occurred in every war I covered, defines the reporting on the genocide in Gaza. It is not a divide of professionalism or culture. Palestinian reporters expose Israeli atrocities and implode Israeli lies. The rest of the press does not.

Palestinian journalists, targeted and assassinated by Israel, pay — as many great war correspondents do — with their lives, although in far greater numbers. Israel has murdered 245 journalists in Gaza by one count and more than 273 by another. The goal is to shroud the genocide in darkness. No war I covered comes close to these numbers of dead. Since Oct. 7, Israel has killed more journalists “than the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined.” Journalists in Palestine leave wills and recorded videos to be read or played at their death.

The colleagues of these Palestinian journalists in the Western press broadcast from the border fence with Gaza decked out in flak jackets and helmets, where they have as much chance of being hit by shrapnel or a bullet as being struck by an asteroid. They scurry like lemmings to briefings by Israeli officials. They are not only the enemies of truth, but also the enemies of journalists doing the real work of war reporting.

When Iraqi troops attacked the Saudi border town of Khafji during the first Gulf War, Saudi soldiers fled in panic. Two French photographers and I watched frantic soldiers commandeering fire trucks and racing south. U.S. Marines pushed the Iraqis back. But in Riyadh, the press was told of our gallant Saudi allies defending their homeland. Once fighting ended, the press bus stopped a few miles down the road from Khafji. The pool reporters clambered out, escorted by military minders. They did stand-ups with the distant sound of artillery and smoke as a backdrop and repeated the lies the Pentagon wanted to tell.

Meanwhile, the two photographers and I were detained and beaten by enraged Saudi military police, furious that we had documented the panicked flight of Saudi forces, as we tried to leave Khafji.

My refusal to abide by press restrictions in the first Gulf War saw the other New York Times reporters in Saudi Arabia write a letter to the foreign editor saying I was ruining the paper’s relationship with the military. If not for the intervention of R.W. “Johnny” Apple, who had covered Vietnam, I would have been sent back to New York.

I do not fault anyone for not wanting to go into a war zone. This is a sign of normality. It is rational. It is understandable. Those of us who volunteer to go into combat — my colleague Clyde Haberman at The New York Times once quipped “Hedges will parachute into a war with or without a parachute” — have obvious personality defects.

But I fault those who pretend to be war correspondents. They do tremendous damage. They peddle false narratives. They mask reality. They serve as witting — or unwitting — propagandists. They discredit the voices of the victims and exonerate the killers.

When I covered the war in El Salvador, before I worked for The New York Times, the paper’s correspondent dutifully regurgitated whatever the embassy fed her. This had the effect of making my editors — as well as editors of the other correspondents who did report the war — question our veracity and “impartiality.” It made it harder for readers to understand what was happening. The false narrative neutered and often overpowered the real one.

The slander used to discredit my Palestinian colleagues — claiming they are members of Hamas — is sadly familiar. Many Palestinian reporters I know in Gaza are, in fact, quite critical of Hamas. But even if they have ties with Hamas, so what? Israel’s attempt to justify targeting journalists from the Hamas-run al-Aqsa media network is also a violation of Article 79 of the Geneva Convention.

I worked with reporters and photographers who had a wide variety of beliefs, including Marxist-Leninists in Central America. This did not prevent them from being honest. I was in Bosnia and Kosovo with a Spanish cameraman, Miguel Gil Moreno, who was later killed with my friend Kurt Schork. Miguel was a member of the right-wing Catholic group Opus Dei. He was also a journalist of tremendous courage, great compassion and moral probity, despite his opinions about Spain’s fascist ruler Francisco Franco. He did not lie.

In every war I covered, I was attacked as supporting or belonging to whatever group the government, including the U.S. government, was seeking to crush. I was accused of being a tool of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, Hamas, the Muslim-led government in Bosnia and the Kosovo Liberation Army.

John Simpson of the BBC, like many Western reporters, argues that the “world needs honest, unbiased eyewitness reporting to help people make up their minds about the major issues of our time. This has so far been impossible in Gaza.”

The assumption that if Western reporters were in Gaza the coverage would improve is risible. Trust me. It would not.

Israel bans the foreign press because there is a bias in Europe and the United States in favor of reporting by Western reporters. Israel is aware that the scale of the genocide is too vast for Western outlets to hide or obscure, despite all the ink and airtime they give to Israeli and U.S. apologists. Israel also cannot continue its systematic campaign of annihilation of journalists in Gaza if it has to contend with foreign media in its midst.

Israeli lies amplified by Western media outlets, including my former employer The New York Times, are worthy of Pravda. Beheaded babies. Babies cooked in ovens. Mass rape by Hamas. Errant Palestinian rockets that cause explosions at hospitals and massacre civilians. Secret command tunnels and command centers in schools and hospitals. Journalists who direct Hamas rocket units. Protestors of the genocide on college campuses who are antisemites and supporters of Hamas.

I covered the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, much of that time in Gaza, for seven years. If there is one indisputable fact, it is that Israel lies like it breathes. The decision by Western reporters to give credibility to these lies, to give them the same weight as documented Israeli atrocities, is a cynical game. The reporters know these lies are lies. But they, and the news outlets that employ them, prize access — in this case access to Israeli and U.S. officials — above truth. The reporters, as well as their editors and publishers, fear becoming targets of Israel and the powerful Israel lobby. There is no cost for betraying the Palestinians. They are powerless.

Call those lies out and you will swiftly find your requests for briefings and interviews with officials rebuffed. You won’t be invited by press officers to participate in staged visits to Israeli military units. You and your news organization will be viciously attacked. You will be left out in the cold. Your editors will terminate your assignment or your employment. This is not good for careers. And so, the lies are dutifully repeated, no matter how absurd.

It is pathetic watching these reporters and their news outlets, as Fisk writes, fight “like tigers to join these ‘pools’ in which they would be censored, restrained and deprived of all freedom of movement on the battlefield.”

When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?

“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.

“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.

“Israel army says six ‘terrorists’ killed in Monday strikes on Gaza hospital,” the AFP headline read.

“Initial inquiry says Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that killed journalists,” Reuters said.

“Israel claims troops saw Hamas camera before deadly hospital attack,” Sky News explained.

Just for the record, the camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.

When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al Sharif and three other journalists were killed on Aug. 10 in their media tent near Al Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?

“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.

The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”

The barrage of Israeli lies amplified and given credibility by the Western press violates a fundamental tenet of journalism, the duty to transmit the truth to the viewer or reader. It legitimizes mass slaughter. It refuses to hold Israel to account. It betrays Palestinian journalists, those reporting and being killed in Gaza. And it exposes the bankruptcy of Western journalists, whose primary attributes are careerism and cowardice.

This article was originally published on ScheerPost.

The post The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too … As Department of War we won everything…and I think we…have to go back to that.”

At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.

As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.

With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefitted the American people.

Trump misunderstands one very important thing in his stated desire to return to a “War Department,” however. A tougher sounding name did not win the wars. Before the name change, which happened after the infamous National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and the permanent national security state, we won wars because for the most part we followed the Constitution and had a Congressional declaration of war. That way the war had a beginning and end and a clear set of goals. Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these “wars” have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.

So go ahead and change it back to the “Department of War.” But let’s also stop pretending that maintaining the global US military empire is “defense.” It’s not.

The post Department of War? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the labored daze of AI hype and GDP “growth,” few seem to notice the workforce is tired of being exploited as an uncomplaining resource.

“Great Powers” claim their greatness on prestige technologies and military force, but how do they measure up if we change the metrics to how they treat their workforces. How great are they then? China and the U.S. claim the mantles of “Great Powers” but if we look at how well they treat their workforces, both rate poorly.

What matters in assessing the workforce isn’t just wages; what matters is the entire quality of life. In this regard, childcare matters, because 1) without children, the “Great Power” has no future, and 2) the lives and budgets of workers with children revolve around the ease or difficulty of caring for their children. The “Great Power” state can either do a lot, do a little, or do nothing to help working parents.

Now that China’s birthrate is plummeting, the state has launched a few modest initiatives to help parents with the high costs of raising children. If we consider the cost of childcare to per capita GDP, the cost of childcare and education in China is high. It’s also absurdly burdensome in the U.S., which has also left childcare expenses up the parents and market forces, which unsurprisingly have pushed the costs of having a child and childcare to the stratosphere.

China’s total fertility rate was 1.1 children per woman in 2024, far below the replacement level of 2.1 children needed to sustain a stable population. America’s rate is around 1.6, also below replacement.

Compared to nations that pay for three years of childcare leave so at least one parent can care for the child at home to age 3, the “Great Powers” aren’t even close to “great.” Abysmal is a better description.

Let’s consider another metric: how well do the “Great Powers” treat their small-scale farmers and the people who raise their food? Once again, both “Great Powers” rate poorly. While the financial media focuses breathless attention on AI and measures of consumption, few pundits bother looking at how well the “Great Powers” treat their small-scale farmers and ag workforce. Pensions for low-earning family farmers? Not “great” by any measure.

After all, who needs children or food when you have AI data centers and robots delivering ultra-processed snacks? In both self-proclaimed “Great Powers,” the workforce is viewed as 1) a resource to be exploited (China’s infamous “996,” the grind of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, and America’s equally infamous “on call all weekend if the Boss texts you”), or 2) as consumers driving economic “growth” by purchasing more ultra-processed snacks and commoditized experiences.

If life is so great for the “Great Power” workforces, then where did laying flat, let it rot, the garbage time of history and the Five No’s come from? The Five No’s: no house, no car, no extraneous consumption, no marriage and no children.

Laying flat (tang ping): rejection of the hyper-competitive rat race and diminishing returns for punishing workloads, the desire for a simpler, more satisfying and enjoyable life; disillusionment with the fast-receding “China Dream / American Dream,” and the realization that the promise that material abundance would make everyone blissfully happy is false, as manic consumerism doesn’t generate fulfillment, meaning, purpose or happiness.

Let it rot (bai lan) summarizes the realization that the present era is the garbage time of history, and the appropriate response is to “actively embrace a deteriorating situation, rather than trying to turn it around.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Labored Daze appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the aftermath of any headline event, like the trans-killer-who-shall-remain-nameless church killing last week, it is always instructive for me to read the liberal commentary solving it all by taking guns away from far-right literally-fascist racist-sexist-homophobes gun nuts — or transphobes, as the case may be.

My “living truth” is that everything is the fault of the educated class, because it is our educated liberals that sit on the commanding heights of both politics and religion, the locus of power in our society. They created today’s world with their secular religious faith that with the right politics they would create heaven on Earth. So if anything is anyone’s fault, it is the fault of our ruling-class liberals. Period, full stop.

For instance, it is coming into focus right now that SSRIs — “a class of antidepressants that work by increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain” — are being prescribed all over the place and some people react in crazy ways when drugged up on SSRIs. I know: why didn’t the experts tell us? Could it be that lots of experts have NGO grants to research the benefits of SSRIs? More research is needed.

But I noticed a couple of articles blaming “nihilism.” Nihilism? That means Nietzsche, and I have been a Nietzsche-aholic ever since I caught a North London luvvie calling Nietzsche “the Nazis’ favorite intellectual.”

As I wrote a while back,

Nietzsche argued that for moderns, God had Died, and this meant a brutal process of decadence — the dying off of the old order — followed by nihilism, the terror of the eternal recurrence, as in the movie Groundhog Day, and finally the birth of a new god with the revaluation of all values.

Do you not see, dear liberal friends, that we are in a period of “nihilism” because your old gods are dead, and you killed them, one Blank Slate at a time, and the new gods are still awaiting an Übermensch to summon them out of the vasty deep.

I may sound like I am being trite here, but really, I am deadly serious. I believe in Nicholas Wade’s idea that

That quote comes from The Faith Instinct in which Wade tells how, in hunter-gatherer societies, religion played a vital role in reducing the need for force.

What? You mean that religion reduces the need for politics? So what happens when you combine politics and secular religion? I wonder.

Today, all across the world, the liberal gods — of equality, of the welfare state, of anti-racism, of climate change, of helpless victims, of administrative government and experts — are dead. They are dead because they were false gods all along, merely puppets dressed up as gods that liberals invented to give themselves political and moral power. And now liberals are reduced to yelling “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

So now, per Fritzi, we are in a period of decadence, the dying off of the old order, and the nihilism and eternal recurrence of living the same day over and over again, just like Phil in Groundhog Day. Next up is the revaluation of all values and the appearance of the Übermensch, or, for you Joseph Campbell followers, the Sacrificial Hero. You tell me. Was Phil the weatherman an Übermensch, a Sacrificial Hero, or just a Mensch that helped little old ladies change a tire?

Oh no! Could it be that Don the TV Star is our Übermensch, appearing out of nowhere to run for President in 2016? And then descend into the underworld of lawfare, just like the heroes in the great myths, in order to travel the Hero’s Journey through death and rebirth and, through God’s Grace, to return to the land of the living to Make America Great Again?

I don’t think our liberal friends thought about what would happen if Trump actually survived his journey through the underworld of lawfare, because, in my experience, Margaret, our liberal friends are not that smart.

For instance, is it possible that by contesting everything Trump does in federal court our liberal friends will prod the Supreme Court into destroying the legal basis of the administrative state and its underground river of jobs and grants and status for educated liberals? And if all those educated liberal twentysomething Mamdani voters in New York City can’t look forward, one fine day, to jobs and grants and status, what would the robin do then, poor thing?

What will the new world look like, when we wake up one morning at 6:00 with Andie MacDowell in the bed with us? Is it possible to have a world with less government and more voluntary social cooperation, where people work together because we are good people and not because a politician is prodding us to fight the enemy or a priest is guilt-tripping us into being good?

Time will tell.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Nihilism? Look in the Mirror, Liberals appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is reason why the name of the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen is often mangled into von der Lying.

She is notoriously negligent with facts. Here she is caught outright lying to spread fake anti-Russian propaganda.

When I read the headline below, first published by the Financial Times, I immediately thought that something was very wrong with it.

Ursula von der Leyen’s plane hit by suspected Russian GPS interference (archived) – FT, Sep 1 2025

A suspected Russian interference attack targeting Ursula von der Leyen disabled GPS navigation services at a Bulgarian airport and forced the European Commission president’s plane to land using paper maps.

A jet carrying von der Leyen to Plovdiv on Sunday afternoon was deprived of electronic navigational aids while on approach to the city’s airport, in what three officials briefed on the incident said was being treated as a Russian interference operation.

GPS navigation is based on receiving radio signals from satellites. There is no way to selectively block or disturb these for just a single receiver. If someone would have manipulated GPS in that area it would effected every GPS receiver in the same geography. But I could not find any reports from Bulgaria that taxi drivers or other people using GPS navigation had any trouble with it. There was not a single tweet on X complaining about it.

“The whole airport area GPS went dark,” said one of the officials. After circling the airport for an hour, the plane’s pilot took the decision to land the plane manually using analogue maps, they added. “It was undeniable interference.”

The Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority confirmed the incident in a statement to the Financial Times. “Since February 2022, there has been a notable increase in [GPS] jamming and recently spoofing occurrences,” it said. “These interferences disrupt the accurate reception of [GPS] signals, leading to various operational challenges for aircraft and ground systems.”

The three anonymous “officials” the FT is quoting (which likely include von der Leyen) are lying. The statement by the Bulgarian Air Traffic Services Authority is just a general one. It does not say anything about the alleged incident.

GPS failure does not mean that one has to use “paper maps”. (There are by the way no longer any “paper maps” on professional airliners. Maps are stored digitally.) Modern planes do not depend on GPS. They mainly use their Inertial Reference System. They can also navigate by following ground radar signals. Airports for regular landing of jets have Instrument Landing Systems installed. Short range radio signals from the ground will guide the plane onto the runway. There is no need to wait “for an hour”.

As Simple Flying summarizes:

• The IRS, or Inertial Reference System, is the main navigational system in aircraft, independent of outside signals or input.
• GPS is crucial for navigation in modern aircraft, with other aids like VOR and NDB used for backup.
• Aircraft navigational systems are highly independent, with [Flight Management Systems] processing multiple positional data for precise navigation.

The claims of “paper maps” and “an hour” on hold, just like the whole story, did not make any sense to me.

It has now been confirmed that the story is wrong. It is a lie, made up out of whole cloth.

Flightradar24 is ..:

.. a Swedish Internet-based service that shows real-time aircraft flight tracking information on a map. It includes flight tracking information, origins and destinations, flight numbers, aircraft types, positions, altitudes, headings and speeds. It can also show time-lapse replays of previous tracks and historical flight data by airline, aircraft, aircraft type, area, or airport. It aggregates data from multiple sources, but, outside of the United States, mostly from crowdsourced information gathered by volunteers with ADS-B receivers and from satellite-based ADS-B receivers.

Here is what Flightradar was seeing at that time:

Flightradar24 @flightradar24 – 17:16 UTC · Sep 1, 2025

We are seeing media reports of GPS interference affecting the plane carrying Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Some reports claim that the aircraft was in a holding pattern for 1 hour.

This is what we can deduce from our data.

* The flight was scheduled to take 1 hour and 48 minutes. It took 1 hour and 57 minutes.
* The aircraft’s transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing.

bigger

Flightradar24 @flightradar24 – 17:50 UTC · Sep 1, 2025

The transponder signal transmitted by the aircraft contains a NIC value.
The NIC value encodes the quality and consistency of navigational data received by the aircraft.
Flightradar24 is using these NIC values to create the GPS jamming map at https://flightradar24.com/data/gps-jamming

The flight with Ursula von der Leyen on board transmitted a good NIC value from take-off to landing.

—

Āris Cēders @arisceders – 1:14 UTC · Sep 2, 2025

Still, they radioed about the “GPS issue” and requested ILS approach which is significantly less convenient in this particular case.
Sound file attached

—

Flightradar24 @flightradar24 –

“Issue with GPS” can be any technical issue unrelated to GPS jamming. The aircraft was reporting a perfect signal. For sure they were not holding for 1h so the whole story just doesn’t make any sense.

The aim of the whole story, which is BASED ON LIES, is to denounce Russia.

The FT piece continues:

The European Commission later confirmed the incident. “There was GPS jamming but the plane landed safely in Bulgaria,” a spokesperson said.

“We have received info from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia.

“We are of course aware and used to the threats and intimidation that are a regular component of Russia’s hostile behaviour,” the spokesperson added.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the FT that “your information is incorrect”.

Other aircraft in the area appear to have been able to ascertain and report their positions without issue, according to online flight trackers, giving weight to the suspicion that the jamming of von der Leyen’s aircraft was a narrowly focused effort.

Again – there is no way to selectively disturb the receiving of GPS signals for a single airplane. Any such disturbance would have effected everyone in the area.

So-called GPS jamming and spoofing, which distorts or prevents access to the satellite-based navigation system, was traditionally deployed by military and intelligence services to defend sensitive sites but has increasingly been used by countries such as Russia as a means of disrupting civilian life.

EU governments have warned that rising GPS jamming blamed on Russia risks causing an air disaster by essentially blinding commercial aircraft mid-journey.

Russia has been using GPS jamming in Kaliningrad, St.Peterburg, Moscow and elsewhere to prevent Ukrainian drones from navigating by GPS to their targets. There were many complains by taxi drivers and others in those cities when their navigation systems were failing.

Russia did not and does not do this to “disrupt civilian life”. It is a protective measure necessitated by being under fire from GPS guided NATO drones. It is unfortunately not a selective measure.

Von der Lying is a liar. A propagandist who wants to push Europe into further hostilities against Russia:

Von der Leyen was flying from Warsaw to the central Bulgarian city of Plovdiv to meet the country’s prime minister, Rosen Zhelyazkov, and tour an ammunition factory when the incident took place.

She was on a tour of the EU’s frontline states to discuss efforts to improve the bloc’s defence readiness in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“[Russian president Vladimir] Putin has not changed, and he will not change,” von der Leyen told reporters while on the ground in Bulgaria on Sunday. “He is a predator. He can only be kept in check through strong deterrence.”

I’ll let you judge who is predating on whom with this.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Von der Leyen Is Lying About Russian GPS Interference appeared first on LewRockwell.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15

It would be easy to dismiss the following narrative with the conclusion that it is written from a position of hatred and racism.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This narrative is not directed against all the people claiming to be Jewish, for as later stated the top-level enemies conducting the war against Christians are not really Jews.  They are an organized band of evil liars, Khazarian Ashkenazi pretenders, calling themselves Zionists, claiming Hebrew lineage and heritage.  They hold no belief in our God, who is established and laid out in the Bible’s Old Testament.  Instead, they are strongly bonded to a Talmudic belief in their gods, of self, and of Satan.  As the war these people have waged against Christianity has played out on the stages of our lifetimes, those of us with a few gray hairs have noticed that many of the tools of war used by the evil villains have seemingly made no sense.  A few modern nonsensical examples are the Vietnam War, the policy of “Globalism,” the never ending “War on Drugs,” the obviously stupid and ineffective policies of “No Child Left Behind,” the policy of political correctness, the policy of multiculturalism, and now, the never-ending “War on Terror.”  Close inspection of these examples by a thoughtful person begins to reveal that they are nothing more than carefully manipulated tricks to destroy America’s once proud sovereignty and culture.

It is true that greed has played its part, and along the way some of these evil wrongdoers and their paid puppets have enriched their pocketbooks, but the primary thrust of the war has been destruction of America’s sovereignty and culture.  Sovereignty is the framework that enables liberty and freedom, and culture is the glue that holds sovereignty together.  Without these two bulwarks of our once strong country, liberty, and freedom, the foundations of our Christian culture, begin to vanish.  This war is not country versus country, race versus race, or poor versus rich.  This is the war of light versus darkness, good versus evil, and the truth versus the lie.  It is the War Against the Kingship of Christ.

The world has swallowed up our Christian children with decadence and moral decay. It is particularly galling to consider that this might have been no accident, and that it was the plan all along. Franklin Roosevelt once said, “In government and politics nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” So, if we are willing to consider that it might have been a plan for the US, then who are these evil, satanic perpetrators in the world, who are dead set on America’s moral destruction? To consider such a question, we must get outside the little comfort boxes of our lives. Sun Tzu, in his timeless book, The Art of War, stated that the first rule of war is to ‘know your enemy’. To discover that enemy who is intentionally camouflaged in the bustle of our busy schedules, we must brush off the distractions of trivia, divisive social issues, and false enemies that are planned for us by the media and get to ‘the head of the dog’, where the real power lies to determine world decisions. That power originates from the ownership of the financial system. These are the guys who hold the true keys of world power because of their authority to create money. We must dig deep to uncover the vital importance and identity of the financial system owners, because it is never mentioned or discussed by the media, our personal mind control machines.

Ownership of the financial system is like the head of a giant squid with many tentacles. The most important of these tentacles is the ownership of all mainstream media sources and Hollywood, who influence the minds of the masses with trivia, deceptions, omissions, and immorality, and can keep the truth concealed and unreported. Another tentacle of near equal importance is ownership of the politicians, who then control the next important tentacle– the appointments of the judiciary system. Control of the financial system also enables the power to appoint unelected foreign policy advisors, who adopt foreign policies that define our enemies and determine our war strategies.

So, who owns the financial system that many now call the Anglo Rothschild Banking System. And who either owns or controls all mainstream media and Hollywood? –all Zionist owned and controlled. And who are the predominant bribers of politicians? –the representatives and lobbyists of the Zionists. And who dictates the ‘suggested’ names of judicial appointees? And who now has four voices on the Supreme Court that almost always vote as a block to dethrone Christian morality? And who creates foreign policy, and chooses our enemies and wars? All the current power and money systems of the Western world are now locked down and controlled by the Zionists. With the media thinking for us, be it Facebook, Fox, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or the movies, and continually diverting our minds with cultural and historical revisions, divisive social issues and meaningless smut, we have conveniently forgotten how to think for ourselves.

And why would someone want to do such a thing—destroy America’s Christian culture and morality? To begin to understand the answer to that question we must travel back into the non-revised pages of history and remember that non-revised historical pages can be extremely difficult to find. Consider that the Jews have been persecuted and run out of almost every country or place that they have inhabited in the past 2,500 years, some countries and places more than once. An introspective person might ask if there were reasons for the repetitive persecutions. Nevertheless, the power that allowed those countries and places to evict the Jews was based on the sovereign powers and unique cultures of the countries and places that did the evicting. So, if you were the Zionist leaders of the persecuted Jewish tribe, and you wanted to ensure that these persecutions were unable to reoccur, what better and shrewder way than to create a plan for a ‘new one world order’, with you in control? Over many generations, the plan would be to destroy the sovereignties and cultures of all nations (the power to persecute), and replace them with the State, where there is no sovereignty and cultural loyalty, except to the State, and you own the State? When Statism (whose next step is Totalitarianism) is finally accomplished, and the goals of ‘all’ one color, ‘all’ one education level, ‘all’ one economic level and ‘all’ sharing common desires are reached for ‘all’ but the elite rulers, then the masses of humanity will be much easier to control, and to shove in the desired direction. ‘Freedoms’ and ‘liberties’ will be a historical footnote. We don’t have to get too far outside our little comfort boxes of the present to notice that we are living out this plan.

Many of the already achieved sovereignty and cultural destructions have been easier than others. In places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, sovereignty and culture were destroyed by military force. Some countries fell simply with the replacement of sovereignty by the trap of globalism, through the introduction of global bribes and global laws. Others, such as the UK, traded sovereignty and culture for the lures of Socialism. In Europe, sovereignty and culture were destroyed first by Socialism, and then using economic power, through the establishment of the European Union. The US has been a different and more difficult matter though. As G. Edward Griffin stated in his book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Statist plan for world domination has been slowed by the US, ‘the last rogue elephant’ in the room, with a Christian heritage, and a long and colored history of liberties and freedoms based on free markets and the rule of law.

With all this in mind, how would you begin to achieve the destruction of sovereignty and culture in the US? Ayn Rand said in her classic book, Atlas Shrugged, “Whenever destroyers appear among men, they always start by destroying money, for money is man’s protection, and the basis of a moral existence”. (For proof of the truth of Ms. Rand’s axiom, consider that it has been recently reported that the US Government operates an elite team inside our Treasury Department for the specific purpose of destroying the currencies of countries that we deem to be our enemies). In the US, this money destruction has been the linchpin used to bring our own sovereignty and culture to its knees.

To destroy money, the US financial system had to first be totally owned and controlled—a process enabled by the Rothschild family’s plan of monetary control, first put in place over 200 years ago. In modern times, remnants of the Rothschild Zionists still exercise control of world money through their ownership of the banking system; a process made easier by the US position as holder of the world’s reserve currency. This lockdown of financial system ownership had already been in progress for several generations, but it accelerated rapidly in the 1970s. In 1971 the US dollar was cut loose from any backing, other than a promise by the State to pay the paper obligations. Prior to the 1970s, the US market system was primarily industrial based, with a much smaller contribution from the financial base. But with the final untethering of the dollar from gold (sound money), the financial based part of the US market system was cut loose and zoomed forward on steroids. As of 2015, after a parabolic rise in both public and private credit market debt, the US is now officially $18 Trillion in debt, and the unofficial number is much higher. Were it not for the world’s most powerful military, the financial system, based on this insane, unpayable promise to pay, would have already crumbled.

In the era preceding the 1980s, the names of the US Fed Chairmen and Treasury Secretaries, were Burns, Martin, Fowler, Kennedy, Miller, McCabe and Connally—for the most part intellectual gentiles and Christians. In the 1980s an overwhelming majority of those money power names began to be replaced with names such as, Simon, Blumenthal, Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, Lew and Yellen—all direct Hebrew lineage, or in Paulson and Geithner’s case, of distant lineage, but still controlled. This financial system ownership has gone hand in hand with the clever use of the mind controlling media, that is totally owned or controlled by the Hebrews. So, with no money protection, as Ayn Rand stated above, and with no hope of truthful or ethical reporting from the propaganda spewing media, the ‘moral existence’ of our country has been intentionally torn apart. The US is nearing completion as a global, homogenized, bankrupt, non-culture. With our remaining sovereignty under constant attack, and our financial system intentionally weakened, we now stand ready to welcome in that ‘new one world order’. We are just one good financial crisis away from getting on our knees and begging for it. The only question remaining is what will be the ‘event’ that causes it?

Many still expect representation and support for our Christian culture and value system from the political and judicial system. Sadly, this expectation is a bad joke, for we cannot expect support from these fronts. Almost all politicians are not representatives of ‘we the people’; they are liars, and owned whores of the financial system. The judicial appointees that these political liars and whores appoint are all ‘suggested’ to them by their financial system owners. Because of the all-encompassing power of the money system, our carefully planned defenses of checks and balances provided for us in our Constitution have been checkmated. This checkmate mechanism has been aptly described by some informed sources as ‘the quiet coup’.

And what about America’s foreign policy, whose leaders are chosen and determined by those politicians who answer to their owners, the financial system? These unelected advisors and Pentagon chiefs are vitally important, because they determine our enemies and choose our wars. Beginning in the 1970s, with Zionists such as Kissinger and Brzezinski, and continuing into modern times with think tanks such as Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and its successor, the Foreign Policy Initiative, America’s foreign policy leadership names have been predominantly Zionists. Kagan, Perle, Feith, Friedberg, Abrams, Cohen, Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Chertoff and Kristol—these are the names who have narrowed the definition of America’s enemies to read; ‘anyone who stands against the Zionist banking system’, and its measure of counting—the ‘dollar’. For cover, the Zionists have conveniently labeled these dissenting countries as renegade, animalistic murderers, who are not democratic. In their uncontrolled wisdom, they have decided that ‘we’ need to impose America’s idea of democracy on the rebellious dissenters. For any countries who have dared to stand against ‘America’s idea of democracy’, the impending response has been a quick and ghastly program of genocide, and a scorched earth policy, leaving behind what Tacitus described as ‘a wasteland of peace’. Many who have studied this process have surmised that the American military pursues banker’s wars and operates as the Jew mule. Remember that the global Zionist Henry Kissinger once observed, “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy”.

If you are Christian and still believe that this Zionist leadership of America is accidentally happening, I pray that you might give these facts and dot connections appropriate consideration. When what is happening now does not make sense, no bribed status quo representative will willingly step forward to report the true plan for you. Those who have dared to venture into the waters of truth have been marginalized, relegated to the lost world of an ‘outsider’, deemed a ‘conspiracy theorist’, or in extreme cases, given a ‘dirt nap’. Unfortunately, all we are left with is a smokescreen of planned deception, and with a situation of connecting facts and dots, in an attempt to clarify the true picture. We must leave laziness and comfort behind, in this world of personal thought and investigation. The little boxes of our lives hold our comfort zones, and the mainstream media frantically continues to feed those boxes a steady stream of comfort food of distractions. It is painfully difficult and lonely to abandon those boxes. While praying and considering these thoughts, you might want to remember that in the last, long running ‘new one world order’ established in 1917 by the Jews in the Soviet Union (Trotsky, Marx and Lenin were Jews), and financed by their world financial ownership, Christianity was not allowed, and twenty million Russian Christians paid the price, and were annihilated.

Today, most people respond to thought provoking Jewish discussion and criticism with either anti-Semitic accusations, pre–Jesus Old Testament quotes, or reports that they have wonderful and lovely Jewish acquaintances and caring Jewish professional servants. It is true that the great majority of Jews are not at the top of the Zionist movement and are not aware or part of the cruel and evil plan being executed from the ‘Synagogue of Satan’. But it is also true that most Jews are along for the ride and will happily anticipate participation in this new kingdom of Zion.

A major misconception by almost everyone is a belief that these few top Zionist leaders who control the financial system, the media, our politicians, our judges, determine US foreign policy, and consequently run the world, are practicing Jews who have a shared belief in the same God that we Christians worship. These top Zionists hate our idea of God, and they particularly hate our Jesus. They are modern day Sadducees and Pharisees, and they are practicing an evil and satanic world control plan in which Christianity, its principles, and its followers, are the primary enemy. Jesus told the top Jewish leaders of His day in John 8:42 that they ‘wanted to do the desires of their father, Satan’. What makes you think anything has changed? That hatred of Jesus and all His disciples is still alive inside Zionism (the current day Sadducees and Pharisees).

If you don’t believe it, read the 2015 article in Newsweek about the stupidity and ignorance of Christians and Christianity, written by the twenty-six-year veteran New York Times editor of Jewish lineage, Kurt Eichenwald. The hatred literally drips off the page.

The evil Zionist’s loose ties to Judaism involve a belief in an elite culture, and a desire to protect and continue a perceived superior ‘gene pool’ of intellect, manifested in their lineage. For those who can see the perfection of the plan’s execution, this gene pool of superior intellect is real and awe inspiring.

Unbelievably, spokesmen such as Mike Huckabee and John Hagee are currently promoting and leading Zionist love ins, and from their positions of power, are misleading large crowds of Christians. Supposed conservative Christian politicians, such as Ted Cruz, currently continue to beat the drums of ‘a strong Israel in partnership with the US’. It is unclear whether these men are ignorant actors, or more likely paid puppets (owned whores)—you can decide for yourself. Regardless, they are extremely effective diversionaries, with the large audiences that they command and the scripts from which they read.

The primary historical culture of the US nation was originally based on Christianity and a Christian ethical system. For those who doubt this, read the Bible, the basis of our Christian culture, and compare it to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The destruction of this culture, that has accelerated with warp speed in the past fifteen years, has been blatant, and ‘in your face’. As Sun Tzu stated above, our only hope against such powerful forces is awareness of our enemy. So far, this awareness has not yet left the gate and consequently has gained no traction. With the ‘war on the kingship of Christ’ now winding down, and with the winners gloating over the death of the US Christian culture, an intuitive person must stand in awe at the shrewdness, cleverness and successful execution of the multigenerational plan.

“Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes the laws.”

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Voltaire

What is cognitive dissonance? —A system of comfy and cozy pens constructed in our mind by we sheep and cattle who are fueled by our pride. And the fences surrounding our pens, that need to be jumped, are highly electrified. And beyond those electrified fences is the terrifying unknown.

The post The War Against the Kingship of Christ appeared first on LewRockwell.

There’s a certain fellow from the Babylon Bee who has become one of these irritating policemen of the right: you can’t say X or question Y or talk to Z.

I’m a free American, as Dave Smith would say, so you know what? I just might say X or question Y or talk to Z, regardless of what the police think about it.

I have been known to push back against this particular fellow because the whole thing is so dull and tiresome. Platitudes from 1987 are not going to solve our problems, and as we survey the wreckage of our society and try to figure out precisely what went wrong, we may need to ask some big questions, even if (gasp!) those questions aren’t allowed by the New York Times.

We have all enjoyed and appreciated much of the content from the Babylon Bee, which is part of what makes the present situation so regrettable, and such an unforced error on their part.

It all started with this particular fellow warning that what he calls “the post-liberal Right,” because it doesn’t believe in equality as the central organizing principle of the American republic, is

fundamentally opposed [to] a core tenet of the American founding. It wants a different country than the founders established. But they can’t come out and say that openly because their movement would die. That’s why so many of them lie, obfuscate, and gravitate toward Machiavellian tactics. I’m all for the debate, but debate only works if both sides are honestly representing their own views.

Thus, knowing nothing about the movement he seeks to police, he alleges that people are too afraid to debate his desired topic. I had to break it to him:

M.E. Bradford had famously argued, “Equality as a moral or political imperative, pursued as an end in itself — Equality, with the capital ‘E’ — is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle.”

Bradford warned that once we decide that we are a nation “dedicated to a proposition,” then the federal government is bound to become a gigantic equality enforcement machine, and you have no right to be surprised or upset when this giant oaf begins to define “equality” in a way that is different and far more invasive from how you do.

Before you know it, every nook and cranny of your society has been turned upside down in the service of this unquenchable “proposition.”

Our Babylon Bee guy, so ready to expel people from the movement, is unfamiliar with this debate, and thinks we’ve been shrinking from it.

No, it’s that Conservatism, Inc., in its present form is too degraded to have a serious discussion of it.

After some more back and forth, I concluded with this:

As for your point that history matters less than scripture and your principles, my point is that the onus is on you, the one who is attacking others, to know that even Ronald Reagan, hardly an extreme right-winger, nominated as NEH director someone (the erudite Bradford) with the very opinions on equality that have you in your customary smear mode.

I think the reason you find yourself dealing with so many exasperated people on this platform is not that you are so wise and they so uneducable, but that the routine of pointing and shouting at people who are taking our present situation with grave seriousness, and who fear the old platitudes may be inadequate to present challenges, is not being done in good faith, but is rather being done in the manner of the left: that is to say, by denouncing heretics and calling names rather than making any real effort to address the arguments themselves.

The fact that you stumbled so badly when a podcast host simply asked whether you thought the Founding Fathers were “racist” shows you remain in the grip of the left to some extent.

We are inviting you to let the scales fall from your eyes, to see the world as it really is, and to reject the left and its works entirely, never again allowing yourself to feel confused or defensive. Then your work will be so much more valuable, because you will at last have understood the nature of the enemy.

This is not a fight between people who believe in “equality of opportunity” versus people who believe in “equality of outcomes”; nor is it a battle between “individual rights” and those who champion “group rights.” These are superficialities.

Every aspect of the revolutionary spirit needs to be uprooted from your mind if you are going to be the advocate for civilization and the good that your talents make it possible for you to be.

The people who understand this point are not evil. We are not the monsters of your imagination. We weep over what the left has done, all over the world. Our hearts burn for the West. We intend to do much more than weep, however, and step one in that process is to emancipate ourselves from the mental prisons in which our torturers have sought to confine us.

Never pay for a book again: TomsFreeBooks.com

The post I Hit Back at Thought Police appeared first on LewRockwell.

Labor Day originated as a celebration of the American worker and the gains organized labor won for him, most preeminently the fixed, 40-hour workweek. But not every “pro-labor” government mandate is actually what workers want.

Public intellectual Oren Cass summed up a just concluded Wall Street Journal series about where the money of today’s new parents goes—and, therefore, why young people are reticent about parenthood—as “the big math problem.” The finances of three families with young children in which both parents work revealed:

• For family 1, 75% of new, child-related expenses were the cost of a nanny.
• For family 2, 100% of those expenses were daycare.
• For family 3—where one parent decided to stay home with the child—no new costs but a major income loss because the stay-at-home parent was dad.

Cue Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and AOC announcing the government must expand subsidies for daycare to alleviate the costs for working parents. But surveys by Oren Cass’ think tank, American Compass, suggest that “solution” is actually backward. What many parents want is not daycare subsidies so they can work; they want a system where a parent can remain at home with young children during their formative years.

Why is the subsidies solution backward? Because two groups are looking at the problem in two very different ways. Most Americans look at the problem within the context of what Cass calls “Middle-Class Security”: What does it take to live a reasonably modest but comfortable, secure life? What the policy wonks look at is “how to solve the daycare costs problem.” It’s a difference between macro- and micro-visions.

What Cass calls “middle-class security” is what the average American once expected a provider’s honest, hard work should be able to provide: a house; affordable health care insurance you can use to stay healthy; being able to save toward kids’ college; retirement security. Note I wrote “a provider’s honest hard work.” Singular. One pay. One provider. In other words, what Pope Leo XIII described, more than a century ago, as “a living wage.”

As Cass sums it up:

most families don’t want subsidized childcare so that both ‘parents are freed up to work,’ they want to have a parent at home with young children. The problem is the paradoxical economic model in the United States that depends upon two incomes to obtain middle-class security, even though families rightly recognize that middle-class security requires being able to support themselves on one income.

Labor Day originated to honor a political decision about what constitutes an ethical economy—i.e., that an individual’s and nation’s prosperity should be achievable in an economy that demanded no more than 40 hours of work per week. That’s roughly one-quarter of a man’s life each week, one-third of his working days. Given he spends the other third sleeping, having one-third of his life for all his other obligations and rights outside of economic activity seems fair.

In other words, just as Labor Day was born in connection with taming the amount of time a job can take out of a worker’s week, the question for Labor Day today seems to be taming an economic model in terms of the time it can claim, as the price of middle-class prosperity, out of people’s lives. That means recognizing that other things—most preeminently families—may and should govern, even trump, that model.

Stable families in which good parenting is recognized as contributing at least as much to a commonwealth’s prosperity as the GDP makes political and economic—as well as moral—sense. Perhaps it doesn’t make sense to the economist guided by next-quarter earnings, but the work of creating good, solid, reliable, and prosperous future workers, businessmen, and consumers starts with long-term investments in families. That reality is overlooked by the Scylla of economic laissez-faireists who dismiss it as a purely “private” concern and the Charybdis of government interventionists who proffer expanded daycare as the solution to the “problem” of kids getting in the way of work. Consciously or not, the latter form common cause with the former because both reduce humans to homo economicus, refusing to see the problem may not be the kids but what Claudia Goldin called “greedy work.”

Labor Day was born of the conviction that a man’s prosperity should not consume his whole life. Forty hours was a moral boundary, not just an economic bargain: one-third of his week to work, one-third to rest, and one-third to family, faith, and civic duty. Today, the great question is not only how much time work demands but whose time. An economic model that requires two full-time incomes to secure middle-class stability has already failed the family, even if GDP rises. The measure of prosperity is not quarterly earnings but whether parents can give the gift of presence to their children.

The “labor” question in 2025 is: Should the “living wage” due for work require consuming the time of two parents to ensure familial economic security? Because, especially in the case of mothers, woman does not live by or on work alone.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Woman Does Not Live on Work Alone appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have spent the bulk of my career — on and off since the late Carter Administration — following the money that drives war and repression. What I have finally learned after so many decades of doing research on the war machine is that while research is critical, it must be in the service of a smart strategy backed by a lot of hard work by organizers from all walks of life.

My interest in using research to promote social change was sparked by my years at Columbia University in the 1970s, when I was a researcher and advocate in the divestment movement targeting the apartheid regime of South Africa and a participant in other social justice movements like the boycott in support of the United Farmworkers Union and the opposition to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile.

Henry Kissinger’s justification for the U.S.-backed coup in Chile that put Augusto Pinochet in power still sticks in my mind: “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

So much for the land of the free and the beacon of global democracy.

The U.S. role in the coup was eventually recounted by many media outlets, but for me the first and most important was the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), which devoted several issues of its magazine, then called The Latin America and Empire Report, to the origins of the coup, including the role of U.S. corporations. I was so impressed with their research and commitment that I applied to work at NACLA after graduating from Columbia in January 1978. They wisely demurred, since my background on Latin America was largely limited to what I had read in their own reports. Still, their skill in deploying detailed research to debunk the official lies that surrounded the coup stuck with me.

Research Against Apartheid

My real schooling in research, however, came in the anti-apartheid movement, starting with the divestment campaign at Columbia and expanding into my work with national anti-apartheid organizations like the American Committee on Africa (ACOA). Again, research was front and center. In order to make effective demands for divestment, we needed to know which companies were supporting the apartheid regime, and which of those companies our universities held stock in. ACOA was of great help in this, including through Richard Knight, who worked in a back room of their offices at 198 Broadway and had what may well have been the messiest desk in the history of progressive politics. But if my memory serves me correctly, he seemed to be able to remember exactly where he put a given document in one of the many piles of paper that obscured his desktop. The work he did, along with colleagues at ACOA, helped fuel the student divestment movement, along with research by students on campuses around the country.

Another key group at that time was Corporate Data Exchange (CDE). Tina Simcich, who worked at CDE and was also part of the New York Committee to Oppose Bank Loans to South Africa (COBLSA), did the definitive research on which banks were lending to the apartheid regime.

At Columbia, we made an interesting discovery that put the lie to the university’s position on divestment. In response to demands to divest from firms involved with the apartheid regime, university leaders argued that, if there were objections to the actions of companies they were invested in, they felt it would be more productive to support shareholder resolutions seeking to change their conduct than to divest from those companies’ stocks.

But after digging around in past Columbia University documents, we found a memo from a prior year in which the university had responded to a request to support a shareholder resolution on behalf of trade unionists in Chile, some of whom had been murdered by the Pinochet regime. The university’s position then proved to be precisely the opposite of what it said just a few years later when asked to divest from companies involved in South Africa: they didn’t think it was productive to engage in shareholder resolutions. If there was an ethical issue with one of their holdings, their preference was to divest from the stock of that company.

Although it was a small instance of hypocrisy, it was nonetheless revealing. At that point, the university had been determined to do absolutely nothing to hold companies that were complicit in repression accountable. Our divestment campaign of the mid-1970s did not succeed, but in 1985, another cohort of student activists did finally persuade Columbia to divest. The next year, in 1986, Congress passed comprehensive sanctions on South Africa, overriding a veto attempt by President Ronald Reagan.

Obviously, research was only partly responsible for our success. It was research in the service of organizing and sound strategy that won the day. The fact that the liberation movements in South Africa, including the African National Congress and the Black Consciousness Movement, were calling for divestment greatly strengthened our case. And inspiring organizers and speakers like the incomparable Prexy Nesbitt and the late Dumisani Kumalo, a South African exile who went on to be liberated South Africa’s first representative to the United Nations, played a huge role, as did thousands of campus activists, religious leaders, trade unionists, state and local officials, and heads of pension funds.

Eight years later, in 1994, Nelson Mandela was sworn in as the first president of a free South Africa. The vast bulk of the credit for that historic change goes to the people of South Africa, but the divestment campaign and the larger global boycott of the apartheid regime played an important supporting role, a role much appreciated by activists in South Africa.

As for me, my work in the anti-apartheid movement shaped my career. I worked for a while as part of the collective that put out Southern Africa magazine, an independent journal that supported the anti-apartheid movement and the liberation movements in Southern Africa. The original editor was Jennifer Davis, the brilliant exiled South African economist who went on to direct ACOA. I wrote articles about the divestment campaign, violations of the arms embargo on South Africa, and the role of U.S. firms in propping up the apartheid regime. The skills and values I learned there were far more important to my career than my philosophy degree from Columbia, an institution whose leaders have now covered themselves in shame by cracking down on students speaking out against U.S.-financed Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The Impact of ‘68

Our work against apartheid was inspired in part by the generation of 1968, whose research exposed the role of companies fueling the war in Vietnam, including Dow Chemical, which produced napalm that was used to kill and maim untold numbers of people. We were also influenced by publications like “Who Rules Columbia,” as well as a handy publication on how to research the corporate ties of one’s university, published by the ever-relevant and crucial NACLA. And groups like National Action Research on the Military-Industrial Complex (NARMIC) were invaluable for peace activists from the anti-Vietnam War period onward.

Other influences on me from that generation of researchers and analysts included Michael Klare, whose reports and books like Supplying Repression, War Without End: American Planning for the Next Vietnams, and Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy were foundational in forming my understanding of U.S. military spending and strategy. And my perspective on the domestic factors driving Pentagon spending began with The Iron Triangle, written by my friend and mentor Gordon Adams (now Abby Ross).

The Corporate Role in Fueling Genocide in Gaza

Activists pushing universities to divest from companies profiting from Israel’s war in Gaza have made connections with the earlier generation of researchers described above, from webinars with members of NARMIC to essays that link to documents like “Who Rules Columbia?”

A key organization in the middle of current efforts is Little Sis — a powerful research organization whose name is based on the idea that they are the opposite of Big Brother. They facilitate research and make connections on a wide range of issues, but at this moment one of their most important products is a webinar they did with Dissenters, a youth anti-militarism group based in Chicago, on how to research the corporate ties of universities. It’s a tutorial on researching university ties to war profiteers, going well beyond the issue of stock holdings in arms makers to look at the connections of trustees, financial institutions, and other relevant ties to weapons makers.

Groups of dedicated students within the ceasefire and anti-genocide movements on U.S campuses have done excellent work in researching the corporate ties of their own universities. I appeared on Santita Jackson’s radio show in February 2025 and connected with Bryce Greene, a student at the University of Indiana involved in the ceasefire/Gaza movement there. He and his fellow students were researching the military ties of the university and they wanted me to review their research to see if they were missing anything. As it happened, they had dug up far more information than I would have, in part because of local connections. Their biggest find was related to the university’s ties to the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Crane Division, which provides technical support for everything from missile defense systems to Special Operations Forces. University professors had gone back and forth between Crane and campus, and Crane had a direct presence at the school. Students then started a “keep Crane off campus” campaign.

Researchers focused specifically on Israel/Gaza include the American Friends Service Committee, which has a web page on “Companies Profiting from the Gaza Genocide,” and No Tech for Apartheid, which, among other things, reaches out to workers at Google and Amazon to encourage them to take a stand against technology from tech firms going to support the Israeli war effort. One of the most valuable current resources is the United Nations report, “From the Economy of Occupation to the Economy of Genocide,” produced under the supervision of Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, which describes its purpose this way:

“This report investigates the corporate machinery sustaining Israel’s settler-colonial project of displacement and replacement of the Palestinians in the occupied territory. While political leaders and governments shirk their obligations, far too many corporate entities have profited from Israel’s economy of illegal occupation, apartheid and now, genocide. The complicity exposed by this report is just the tip of the iceberg; ending it will not happen without holding the private sector accountable, including its executives.”

Models of Research and Strategy

The most effective current model for using data to shape the debate on security issues is the Costs of War Project at Brown University. Their work on the costs of America’s post-9/11 wars ($8 trillion and counting), the number of overseas U.S. counter-terror missions, the cost of U.S. military aid and military operations in support of Israel (over $22 billion in the first year of the war in Gaza) is routinely cited in the press and by political leaders, and provides fuel for activists in their writing and public education efforts.

The best current example of merging research, organizing, and strategy is the new Poor People’s Campaign, co-chaired by Reverend William Barber of Repairers of the Breach and Reverend Liz Theoharis of the Kairos Center. Their campaign was inspired by the effort of the same name announced by Martin Luther King Jr. in November 1967. King was assassinated before his campaign came to fruition, but the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and other groups picked up the work of making its signature event, The Poor People’s March on Washington, happen.

One of the bedrock principles of the current Poor People’s Campaign is that the people most impacted by poverty should lead the movement. But cultivating such leadership, especially among those who have been excluded from the halls of power and influence for so long, requires an ongoing process of research, education, and training. Theoharis, director of the Kairos Center and co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, underscores this point in her new book on the history of poor people’s organizing, co-authored with Noam Sandweiss-Back:

“Without a continual process of learning, reflecting, and growing intellectually, our organizing is reduced to mobilizing, an exercise in moving bodies without supporting existing leaders and developing new ones . . . mobilizing people is important, but when it becomes our sole focus, we sacrifice long-term power for short-term action.”

As Theoharis notes, King made a similar point in Where Do We Go From Here?:

“Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy… Our policies should have the strength of deep analysis beneath them to be able to challenge the clever sophistries of our opponents.”

In the midst of the torrent of lies and repressive practices emanating from Washington, the use of research to guide strategy and support organizing is more important than ever. But as the Trump administration stops collecting some kinds of data and destroys other kinds altogether, the job of research will be ever more difficult. That can be partially compensated for by drawing on the collective knowledge of researchers, organizers, and community members alike, taking our lead from people who are on the front lines of dealing with repressive policies.

Occasionally, when I am giving a talk on how to reduce the influence of the war machine, I point out that, if there were not people organizing for change, my research would be little more than a peculiar hobby. That is only a slight exaggeration. We need to bring together researchers, organizers, and strategists, taking our lead from members of impacted communities, to work in partnership against the challenges we now face on a daily, at times hourly, basis.

This means the content of our work may take different forms. Rather than reports and briefings, we may need to rely on music, storytelling, art, and ritual to share insights on the political terrain and tales of resistance and revival in these times of escalating crisis. This may become even more to the point as traditional forms of protest continue to be criminalized.

We have a rich history to guide and inspire us, but the task is ours.

Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.

The post The Role of Information in Building a New World appeared first on LewRockwell.

This article is a report or summation of recent news reports about Tina Peters, a Mesa County, Colorado clerk, who was sentenced to prison for nine years for looking at the evidence and reporting Democrat vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election.  

Her “crime” was looking at the evidence, which scum Democrats, whore media, corrupt Democrat prosecutors and Democrat judge labeled “breaching the system,” which means looking at the evidence.  Finding evidence of vote fraud and letting it out was her second offense. Democrats have made it illegal to reveal the truth about stolen elections if the truth implicates them.

A Democrat activist judge, Matthew Barrett, who seems to epitomize lawfare, sent Peters to prison for 9 years for blowing the whistle on the Democrats’ vote-stealing operation.  To be sure the entire country understood his ruling was based on nothing but political pay-back, Barrett denounced the truth-teller standing in his corrupt court for insisting that she acted in the public interest:  “I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen,” he continued. “You are no hero. You abused your position and you’re a charlatan.”

Barrett could not make it more clear:  Peters was expected to be loyal and protect a crime. By truthfully accusing Democrats, she made herself a charlatan by failing to realize that Democrats are more important than mere truth and the integrity of elections.  Stealing elections is absolutely the Democrats moral duty or the evil Republicans will gain office.  How is it that people like Barrett don’t get pushed in front of a truck?

The principal function of Democrats is to steal elections so that racist white supremacist fascist white America, with open borders, can become a DEI Tower of Babel in which all sexual perversion is legalized and redefined as normal. Some of the crazed Democrats actually want to criminalize heterosexuals and to pass a law against marriage between a white man and women, which perpetuates “aversive racism” by producing white aversive racists.

Evidence has been revealed that clears Tina Peters.  The evidence consists of correspondence between Jessi Romero in the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, and two employees of Dominion Voting Machines, machines that experts have said are easily hacked and, if my understanding is correct, can actually be set up to steal elections.

Sheriff Dar Leaf has referred the evidence for criminal investigation.  He made it clear that the evidence was withheld by the Democrats from Tina Peters’ attorney. Thus the prosecution discredited the trial and conviction.

So here we have a patriot American imprisoned on totally false charges by a corrupt Democrat prosecution and a corrupt Democrat judge.  President Trump cannot pardon her because she is imprisoned for a state crime.  

This tells us what it means to live in a blue state.  In every blue state to speak any truth that is unfavorable to Democrats is a de facto criminal offense. They will get you.

The Democrat Party is the Party for the Obliteration of Truth.

This fact is beyond the comprehension of the average insouciant American who can’t stop scrolling his/her cell phone long enough to participate in reality.

The inattentiveness and ignorance of the American population is the reason America is rapidly declining into tyranny, a process that the next Democrat regime will complete. See this.

The post No Justice for Truth-Tellers appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Bruce McLane.

Zero Hedge

The post Robert “the chin” mueller, where’s the bathrobe appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

An aircraft mechanic has to check, double-check, triple-check, and with me, I’d check my aviation work four times before signing off on it. I also kept a good track of my tools. My toolbox was organized. I knew if something was missing. 

I feel sorry for Chuck, the mechanic who did the engine change, but you have to at least double-check the work, no matter how much management wants the job done yesterday. Chuck would have found his hammer if he’d checked over the engine installation with a flashlight.

With my Jeep Grand Wagoneer, the mechanic at the shop left his hose clamp tool on top of the V-8’s intake manifold. This metal tool concentrated the heat from the engine on the left valve cover, causing the valve cover gasket to leak at high temperatures. I have new chrome, ooooh chrome, valve covers, and new gaskets, but haven’t replaced them. I only drive the Jeep a few miles a week. The gasket doesn’t leak until about 10 miles of driving. 

I mailed the hose clamp tool back to the mechanic. Told him what it did. The shop offered to fix the problem, but the shop always keeps my Jeep for 5 weeks for repairs. No thanks.

The post Ice Pilots: C-46 Landing Gear Collapse appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Tim McGraw:

There are no heroes in the Middle East. Ronald Reagan was right. Avoid the place at all costs. Instead, Trump and Congress are fully involved and supporting the Zionists in Israel. General Douglas MacArthur was right. Anyone who says America should be involved in a war in Asia is insane.

See this.

The post Lt. Colonel Aguilar: Israel’s Gaza Plan appeared first on LewRockwell.