TARGET You Didn’t Listen
David Krall wrote:
Back in 2023 I wrote:
Memo To Target Corporation Board of Directors
)”In order to restore integrity and financial soundness to the company you oversee, it is necessary that you clean house (fire all) at the highest levels of corporate executives from the CEO on down and replace them with an administration that is focused on the business of the company and the interests of its shareholders.
After that, all of you need to resign your positions on the board and let the stockholders elect a new BOD.
Further, none of you, executives and board members alike, should ever be allowed to participate in corporate activity anywhere ever again.
Thank you.”
Now, the Target Board of Directors has given us this:
The post TARGET You Didn’t Listen appeared first on LewRockwell.
FBI raids home of John Bolton
Horror: Israeli Intel Database Reveals 83% Killed In Gaza Are Civilians!
The post Horror: Israeli Intel Database Reveals 83% Killed In Gaza Are Civilians! appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Donkey and the Tiger Re-Revisited
The Pre-postmodernists Who Prefigured Postmodernism
The post The Donkey and the Tiger Re-Revisited appeared first on LewRockwell.
Jewish settlers attack in West Bank…
“You’re doctor needs to stop medications”
Writes Vicki Marzullo:
This is one of the doctors I follow. Wish I could find a doctor like him.
The post “You’re doctor needs to stop medications” appeared first on LewRockwell.
Did I Wound Senator Cassidy’s Vanity?
“In the Name of Every Man Who Hurt You, Forgive Me”
Click Here:
The post “In the Name of Every Man Who Hurt You, Forgive Me” appeared first on LewRockwell.
“Resignations from the Scientific Advisory Board . . .”
Writes John Leo Keenan:
Interesting post. Disrespectful to sign such a letter with just initials. Thankfully, you clarified who they were. I went back to that to know.
Hard to comment, but just his letter (or bill proposed in the Argentinean Congress), published by Mises.org, and sent by Dr. Huerta de Soto (called basically an idiot by HHH on that occasion), could be enough to justify even a “bust” in any Ludwig von Mises Institute. That he then proceeded to balance that budget, achieving a small surplus, drastically reducing the large inflation, looks Misesian indeed. He did it also while crediting the Austrian school of economics for his insights. Yet those insights are not enough, as Dr. Huerta de Soto well said in some context (which I think was that of his electoral triumph). It’s really his personal merit too. When we “talk Milei” as it were, it’s now about a major top-worldwide expert in defeating inflation (or hyperinflation for the U.S.). He could earn a lot of money as an economics advisor, being someone who “knows more than just theory.”
If it were the “Rothbard Institute,” it is also difficult to reject an award for him. Milei has made clear in Argentina that he is a classical liberal only in the midterm, that his long-term goal is to get rid of the State… Politically, that’s very daring of him. Just the fact that he gets up there without hiding his beliefs is extraordinary enough, and to double down on his libertarianism while in power could be a reason for another bust too.
The “on the other hand” part of the letter forgets the victory against inflation (typical), recognized now by all in Argentina.
“It is not enough that he pursue liberal goals with his policies. Rather, the political means must be objectively suitable for actually achieving those goals.”
“…whatever successes his policies may have had so far have been largely achieved through the usual means of inflationary government financing, i.e. by inflating the money supply and government debt.” (He could conclude, rather, that the victory over inflation backs up Milei’s theory that the high inflation was due to chronic budget deficits.)
The pros and the cons – as given – seem incompatible, not separate enough from each other:
“After his election, he immediately set about dismantling the state and, in many respects, he has pursued this policy more resolutely, more extensively and more successfully than any of his Argentine predecessors.” (Than most politicians anywhere.)
Of course, their point that it should only go to scholars is something different:
“In our view, a ‘Memorial Prize in honour of Ludwig von Mises’ could be awarded to scientists or politicians who have rendered outstanding services to the development, dissemination or application of Mises’ ideas.”
Milei also wrote libertarian books (I haven’t read). Huerta de Soto calls him his “student.” It’s assumable that he would like such a prize for Milei. He called him his professor, named him in his inaugural speech and later. Contrary to most predictions, his first year in power was successful.
The following is the conclusion of the linked news article from yesterday:
“From a mercantile standpoint, Argentina now runs a tighter fiscal policy, a more stable currency path, and a sharply lower inflation rate.
Investors see a country with falling poverty, improving fiscal accounts, and leadership willing to implement structural changes despite resistance. The October elections will determine whether Milei can sustain political momentum as social costs of adjustment remain high.”
The post “Resignations from the Scientific Advisory Board . . .” appeared first on LewRockwell.
La seconda Matrix
Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9
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/la-seconda-matrix)
Nell'articolo Leggere tra le bugie abbiamo esplorato come riconoscere i modelli di inganno istituzionale: le narrazioni accuratamente elaborate che tengono l'umanità intrappolata in una matrice di percezioni.
Theodore Dalrymple identificò il funzionamento di questa prima matrice di controllo nei regimi totalitari: “Nel mio studio sulle società comuniste, sono giunto alla conclusione che lo scopo della propaganda comunista non era persuadere o convincere, non informare, ma umiliare; e quindi, meno corrispondeva alla realtà, meglio era. Quando le persone sono costrette a tacere quando vengono raccontate loro le bugie più evidenti, o peggio ancora quando sono costrette a ripetere le bugie stesse, perdono una volta per tutte il loro senso di probità. Acconsentire a bugie evidenti significa, in un certo senso, diventare malvagi a loro volta. La propria capacità di resistere a qualsiasi cosa viene così erosa, e persino distrutta. Una società di bugiardi evirati è facile da controllare”.
Questo principio di partecipazione forzata non è scomparso, si è evoluto. Il sistema odierno non esige solo il silenzio, ma anche la complicità attiva per quanto riguarda le sue narrazioni, trasformando la resistenza stessa in un'arma di influenza. Osservare voci autorevoli denunciare la vera corruzione, solo per poi reindirizzarla verso soluzioni accuratamente preselezionate, rivela uno schema ancora più profondo: il sistema non si limita a creare propaganda, ma crea percorsi riservati per coloro che la vedono. Liberarsi dalla programmazione mainstream è solo il primo passo; ciò che segue è più sottile e altrettanto inquietante. Svincolarsi dalle narrazioni istituzionali crea un'immediata vulnerabilità: la necessità di nuove risposte, nuovi leader, una nuova direzione. Chi governa la prima matrice non lascerebbe le rampe di uscita senza supervisione.
Ciò chiarisce i meccanismi più profondi della seconda matrice: catturare il risveglio attraverso canali sofisticati di opposizione non autentica.
La meccanica dell'opposizione controllata
Lo schema diventa chiaro quando esaminiamo come viene gestita la critica sistemica: a chi denuncia la corruzione è permesso parlare, ma solo entro limiti rigorosi. Prendiamo ad esempio il settore bancario: anche chi denuncia la natura predatoria delle banche centrali raramente ne chiede l'abolizione. La crisi del 2008 ha portato le frodi finanziarie all'attenzione del grande pubblico attraverso denunce popolari come il film, La grande scommessa. Ciononostante la comprensione ha generato solo sfiducia: nessuna responsabilità, solo salvataggi per i responsabili dell'accaduto e un sistema più fragile per tutti gli altri. Come ogni sofisticato gioco di fiducia, funziona per fasi: prima si guadagna la fiducia attraverso rivelazioni reali, poi si crea dipendenza attraverso conoscenze esclusive “dall'interno”, infine si reindirizza quella fiducia verso risultati limitati. Osservate come le piattaforme mediatiche alternative seguono questo schema: denunciano la corruzione autentica, costruiscono un seguito devoto, quindi spostano sottilmente l'attenzione narrativa dalla responsabilità sistemica. Ogni rivelazione sembra condurre più in profondità in un labirinto di risveglio coordinato. Nota: evito deliberatamente di nominare obiettivi specifici, questa analisi non riguarda la creazione di nuovi eroi o antagonisti, ma il riconoscimento di modelli che trascendono i singoli individui.
Ciò che rende questo modello così efficace è che le stesse istituzioni che hanno trasformato il denaro da oro a carta trasformano anche la resistenza genuina in opposizione gestita. Come ho scritto in Tutto svuotato, proprio come la moneta sintetica sostituisce il valore reale, i movimenti di opposizione fiat offrono versioni sintetiche di risveglio indipendente, contenenti solo la verità sufficiente per sembrare reali, mantenendo al contempo l'opposizione entro limiti sicuri.
Comprendere questi schemi di opposizione controllata può sembrare opprimente. Ogni rivelazione sembra portare a un ulteriore livello di inganno. È come scoprire di essere in un labirinto solo per rendersi conto che ci sono labirinti dentro labirinti. Alcuni si perdono a documentare ogni svolta, discutendo di dettagli del sistema finanziario, discutendo di protocolli medici, analizzando mosse di scacchi geopolitiche. Oppure, nei “circoli del complotto”: il virus è stato isolato? Come sono crollate davvero le Torri? Cosa c'è veramente in Antartide? Sebbene queste domande siano importanti, rimanere bloccati in un'infinita mappatura di labirinti ha come risultato la perdita totale del focus. Un sano dibattito e un sano disaccordo sono naturali, e persino salutari, nei movimenti che cercano la verità, ma quando questi dibattiti assorbono tutta l'energia e l'attenzione, impediscono un'azione efficace verso gli obiettivi fondamentali.
Il viaggio della ricerca
Negli ultimi anni mi sono immerso profondamente nella scoperta dei meccanismi di controllo, non come un esercizio astratto, ma insieme a un team che include alcuni dei miei amici più cari, seguendo percorsi che sembravano condurre alla verità. Le rivelazioni sono state sconvolgenti: “fatti” fondamentali con cui siamo cresciuti si sono rivelati delle vere e proprie invenzioni. Siamo stati umiliati due volte: prima disimparando ciò che pensavamo di sapere, poi scoprendo che le nostre certezze su nuovi percorsi erano sbagliate. Percorsi che sembravano rivoluzionari hanno portato a vicoli ciechi; comunità che sembravano autentiche si sono rivelate canali progettati ad arte.
La verità più dura non è solo riconoscere l'inganno, ma accettare che potremmo non conoscere mai la storia completa, pur dovendo comunque agire in base a ciò che possiamo verificare. Ciò che è iniziato come una ricerca su specifici inganni ha rivelato qualcosa di molto più profondo: mentre devastanti guerre fisiche infuriano in diverse regioni, un conflitto più profondo si dispiega silenziosamente in tutto il pianeta... una guerra per la libertà della coscienza umana stessa. Ecco come si presenta la Terza guerra mondiale: non solo bombe e proiettili, ma l'ingegneria sistematica della percezione umana.
Questo modello di costruzione della fiducia prima del riorientamento riflette un sistema di controllo più profondo, che opera secondo l'antico principio alchemico di Solve et Coagula: prima dissolvere (rompere), poi coagulare (riformare sotto controllo). Il processo è preciso: quando le persone iniziano a riconoscere l'inganno istituzionale, si formano coalizioni naturali al di là delle divisioni tradizionali. I lavoratori si uniscono contro le politiche delle banche centrali; i genitori si organizzano contro gli obblighi sanitari; le comunità si oppongono all'accaparramento di terreni da parte delle multinazionali.
Ma guardate cosa succede dopo: questi movimenti unificati si dissolvono sistematicamente. Pensate alla rapidità con cui la resistenza unitaria si è frammentata dopo il 7 ottobre e a come le proteste dei camionisti si sono dissolte in narrazioni di parte. Ogni frammento si frammenta ulteriormente: dalla messa in discussione dell'autorità alle teorie contrastanti, dall'azione unitaria alle lotte intestine tribali.
Questa non è una frammentazione casuale, è una dissoluzione calcolata. Una volta scomposti, questi frammenti possono essere riformati (coagulati) in canali dialettici controllati, man mano che le persone tornano alla programmazione precedente su questioni che superano la loro unità.
Osservate come funziona il gioco della fiducia nei movimenti per la verità: prima arriva la rivelazione legittima (es. documenti autentici, informatori autentici, prove inconfutabili). La fiducia si costruisce attraverso intuizioni autentiche, poi inizia un sottile reindirizzamento. Proprio come la società viene smembrata in frammenti sempre più piccoli lungo varie linee di politica, razziali e culturali, i movimenti per la verità vengono smembrati in campi concorrenti. L'unità diventa divisione; l'azione diventa dibattito; la resistenza diventa contenuto.
Questa frammentazione sistematica dei movimenti di risveglio riflette un modello storico più profondo, che traccia l'evoluzione del controllo della percezione di massa dalla propaganda rozza alla sofisticata manipolazione biodigitale.
Dalla propaganda alla programmazione
La prima matrice ha plasmato i pensieri attraverso la programmazione diretta. Il percorso da Bernays alla supervisione biodigitale segue una progressione chiara: prima manipolare la psicologia di massa, poi digitalizzare il comportamento, infine fondersi con la biologia stessa. Ogni fase si basa sulla precedente: dallo studio della natura umana, al suo monitoraggio, fino alla sua ingegnerizzazione diretta. Da Bernays che scopre come manipolare la psicologia di massa attraverso desideri inconsci, al Tavistock che perfeziona l'ingegneria sociale, alla modifica algoritmica del comportamento, ogni fase introduce strumenti più sofisticati per la manipolazione della realtà. La tecnologia digitale ha accelerato questa evoluzione: gli algoritmi dei social media perfezionano la cattura dell'attenzione, gli smartphone consentono un monitoraggio comportamentale costante, i sistemi di intelligenza artificiale prevedono e modellano le risposte.
Mentre questi strumenti digitali si fondono con interventi biologici – dai farmaci che alterano l'umore alle interfacce cervello-computer – si avvicinano al controllo completo della percezione umana stessa. Ciò che è iniziato con una rozza propaganda si è evoluto in una precisa manipolazione digitale dell'attenzione e del comportamento. La seconda matrice crea canali approvati per coloro che si liberano – un ecosistema ingegnerizzato di alternative controllate. Proprio come le narrazioni mediatiche coordinate hanno addestrato la classe degli esperti a esternalizzare il proprio pensiero a “fonti autorevoli”, la matrice biodigitale ora si offre di esternalizzare la propria sensibilità, promettendo una cognizione migliorata e offrendo al contempo una programmazione più profonda. Questa rappresenta l'ultima evoluzione nella gestione della percezione: all'inizio si negava l'esistenza delle cospirazioni, quando poi ciò è diventato impossibile a causa di prove inconfutabili, sono stati creati canali ad hoc per le menti in via di risveglio.
Il processo a O.J. Simpson ha segnato un cambiamento cruciale in questa strategia: ha addestrato la società a elaborare indagini serie come uno spettacolo di intrattenimento. Come osservò Marshall McLuhan, “il mezzo è il messaggio”: il formato stesso dell'intrattenimento mediatico rimodella il modo in cui elaboriamo la verità, indipendentemente dal contenuto. Ciò che è iniziato come legittime domande sulla corruzione della polizia e sui pregiudizi istituzionali è diventato una soap opera alimentata dagli ascolti. Lo stesso schema continua ancora oggi: i crimini di Jeffrey Epstein diventano intrattenimento mentre i suoi clienti rimangono liberi, i crimini di Mangione generano molteplici produzioni in streaming a pochi giorni dall'evento, ancor prima della conclusione delle indagini (le vicende di Garlasco trasformate in intrattenimento per nascondere la corruzione dei giudici, ndT). Gli incidenti di Las Vegas e New Orleans ne sono una dimostrazione lampante: nel giro di poche ore eventi potenzialmente destabilizzanti vengono incanalati in narrazioni concorrenti, mentre l'apparato dell'intrattenimento è pronto a trasformare qualsiasi indagine seria in contenuto fruibile.
Le rivelazioni vere sulle reti di trafficanti e sulla criminalità organizzata sono diventate contenuti da guardare ininterrottamente. Le gole profonde diventano influencer; i documenti declassificati diventano trend su TikTok. Con una capacità di attenzione limitata e contenuti infiniti, la ricerca della verità diventa un'altra forma di consumo che pacifica anziché rafforzare. Osservate come passa il tempo e le “teorie del complotto” diventano luoghi di ritrovo limitati: la morte di JFK viene attribuita alla “mafia”, un comodo escamotage per le forze istituzionali che sostengono tale tesi. Modelli simili emergono con le rivelazioni sull'11 settembre.
Ecco la mia posizione, per quanto estrema possa sembrare ai miei amici ancora immersi in narrazioni convenzionali: dobbiamo considerare la possibilità che la struttura di potere controlli entrambi i lati della maggior parte dei dibattiti più importanti. Ogni narrazione mainstream ha la sua opposizione approvata; ogni risveglio ha i suoi leader sanzionati; ogni rivelazione conduce a canali amministrati. Comprendere questo schema potrebbe portare alla paralisi, ma non dovrebbe: significa invece riconoscere che abbiamo bisogno di nuovi modi di pensare e di organizzarci.
Come ha osservato la ricercatrice Whitney Webb su X:
Now that the people who fearmongered about "Russians" infiltrating and being to blame for everything are leaving power, now we have people on the other side fearmongering about "Islamists" infiltrating and being to blame for everything.
Oh, how the pendulum swings and how the…
Cambia solo il nemico designato: la spinta verso una maggiore sorveglianza e controllo rimane costante. Ogni “parte” ha il suo turno di alimentare la paura nella propria base, mentre le stesse istituzioni espandono il loro potere.
Nixon aprì le porte alla Cina; Clinton promosse il NAFTA; Trump accelerò l'Operazione Warp Speed. Sto osservando uno schema ricorrente, non sto accusando nessuno di cospirazione, ma sto notando come le figure politiche spesso agiscano in modo contrario alla loro immagine pubblica: Nixon, l'anticomunista, aprì le porte alla Cina; Clinton, che fece campagna elettorale per la protezione dei lavoratori americani, fece approvare il più grande accordo di libero scambio internazionale; Trump, l'outsider populista, promosse l'agenda di Big Pharma. Che siano pressioni istituzionali, realtà politiche o altre forze, queste contraddizioni rivelano uno schema sofisticato: il sistema pianifica entrambi i lati delle principali trasformazioni politiche, garantendo risultati controllati indipendentemente da chi sembra detenere il potere. Molte di queste figure potrebbero esse stesse rispondere a forze che a malapena comprendono: attori utili, o manipolati, piuttosto che orchestratori consapevoli.
Questa dinamica non si limita ai politici. Si pensi a Twitter/X che negli ultimi due anni si è autoproclamato baluardo della libertà di parola, mentre proprio questa settimana ha introdotto algoritmi per amplificare la “positività”. Inquadrato come un mezzo per promuovere un dialogo costruttivo, rispecchia le stesse linee di politica di moderazione un tempo criticate come censura.
Questo schema di opposizione controllata si estende a ogni livello dei movimenti di risveglio. Pensate a quanti dei miei amici, ancora intrappolati nella prima matrice, liquidano i seguaci di QAnon come dei perfetti idioti, prendendoli in giro come personaggi dei cartoni animati e ignorando la documentata corruzione istituzionale che il movimento ha denunciato. Ciò che non capiscono è che sotto gli elementi teatrali si nascondono prove significative di criminalità sistemica. Rimango aperto all'esame di queste affermazioni: dopotutto, il riconoscimento di schemi richiede di prendere in considerazione le prove senza pregiudizi. Ma il messaggio centrale del movimento, “fidatevi del piano”, rivela come il risveglio venga reindirizzato. Trasforma la resistenza attiva in un gruppo di spettatori passivi, in attesa che i “personaggi dietro le quinte” li salvino invece di intraprendere azioni significative.
È qui che traccio il limite. Non posso delegare il benessere della mia famiglia a entità sconosciute o piani segreti. Ciò richiede una vigilanza costante, attenta sia alle minacce evidenti che ai sottili depistaggi. L'aspetto più pericoloso dell'opposizione gestita non sono le informazioni che condivide, ma il modo in cui insegna un'impotenza mascherata da speranza.
La cattura dei movimenti autentici
Ogni nuova teoria e movimento aggiunge un ulteriore livello di complessità, allontanando ulteriormente chi la cerca tramite l'azione significativa. La controcultura degli anni '60 passò dal mettere in discussione la guerra e l'autorità alla passività del “sintonizzatevi, abbandonatevi”. Negli anni '80 gli ex-hippy divennero yuppie, la loro consapevolezza rivoluzionaria incanalata ordinatamente nel capitalismo consumistico. Ancora oggi il movimento contro la guerra mostra questo schema: una parte politica si oppone alla guerra in Ucraina mentre la sostiene a Gaza, l'altra ribalta queste posizioni. Ciascuna parte si dichiara contraria alla guerra quando non è il conflitto che preferisce. Occupy Wall Street ha seguito lo stesso schema: partendo da una potente denuncia della corruzione finanziaria, si è frammentata in cause di giustizia sociale concorrenti che hanno lasciato intatto il sistema bancario.
La seduzione sta nel contenuto di verità. I movimenti ambientalisti denunciano l'inquinamento aziendale, ma promuovono crediti sull'anidride carbonica e sensi di colpa individuali. I movimenti per la giustizia sociale denunciano le disuguaglianze, ma reindirizzano verso criteri DEI a livello aziendale. La rivoluzione del cibo biologico è iniziata come resistenza all'agricoltura industriale, ma è diventata una categoria di prodotti premium, reindirizzando preoccupazioni reali verso scelte di shopping esclusive. Ogni movimento contiene abbastanza verità da attrarre menti consapevoli, ponendo al contempo attente barriere su soluzioni accettabili, identificando problemi reali ma sostenendo soluzioni che espandono il potere istituzionale.
Questo schema si ripete a ogni livello. Nel corso della storia le strutture di potere hanno compreso il principio di fornire una leadership controllata ai movimenti emergenti. Questo schema continua ancora oggi in ogni movimento di risveglio.
Il modello è coerente:
• Un politico mette “coraggiosamente” in discussione i vaccini mentre accetta soldi dall'industria farmaceutica;
• Un esperto “smaschera” la corruzione dello Stato profondo mentre difende le agenzie di intelligence;
• Una celebrità “combatte la cancel culture” promuovendo i Green pass;
• Un guru della finanza “mette in guardia” dal collasso bancario mentre vende CBDC.
Questi modelli di riorientamento si manifestano vividamente oggi. Il movimento per la libertà medica dimostra questa dinamica: le preoccupazioni fondate sui danni causati dai vaccini rischiano di essere reindirizzate verso teorie contrastanti e dibattiti circolari, mentre la responsabilità rimane sfuggente. La recente controversia sul MAHA dimostra come anche le preoccupazioni fondate sulla sovranità alimentare possano potenzialmente distogliere l'attenzione da questa urgente crisi degli effetti collaterali causati dai vaccini e dalla relativa responsabilità.
Anche il mondo delle crittovalute illustra questo schema: le critiche valide alle banche centrali si trasformano in guerre tribali tra comunità di token. Ognuna rivendica la propria verità esclusiva, estendendo potenzialmente la portata del sistema. Persino i dibattiti ragionevoli sulle soluzioni monetarie diventano una devozione religiosa verso monete concorrenti. Nel frattempo la promessa originale di Bitcoin – la prima crittovaluta e la sua visione di autonomia finanziaria – rischia di essere cooptata, mentre la tecnologia blockchain viene riproposta per le valute digitali delle banche centrali (CBDC), le identità digitali e la conformità automatizzata. Gli stessi strumenti pensati per liberarci dalla sorveglianza bancaria vengono riproposti per perfezionarla, ma la fusione del controllo finanziario con l'identità digitale crea qualcosa di molto più insidioso: un sistema in grado di imporre la conformità sociale attraverso l'accesso alle risorse di base, monitorare i pensieri attraverso modelli di transazione e, in ultima analisi, fondersi con la nostra stessa esistenza biologica. Questa architettura non riguarda solo il controllo del denaro, ma anche la programmazione delle menti.
La convergenza biodigitale: progettare la realtà umana
La fusione tra controllo digitale e biologico non sta solo cambiando il nostro modo di interagire, ma sta anche ridisegnando la percezione umana stessa. Man mano che le connessioni sociali si spostano sempre più online, la consapevolezza umana autentica viene sostituita sistematicamente da esperienze ingegnerizzate. Oltre al dirottamento dell'attenzione e alla manipolazione emotiva, il costo più profondo ci colpisce dove fa più male: nelle nostre relazioni umane. Ogni giorno vediamo persone insieme fisicamente ma separate da schermi, perdendo momenti di vera connessione mentre scorriamo realtà artificiali. Questa costruzione artificiale è destinata a rafforzarsi ulteriormente: Meta ha annunciato l'intenzione di popolare i feed di Facebook con contenuti generati dall'intelligenza artificiale e interazioni con bot entro il 2025, sollevando interrogativi sulla connessione umana autentica su queste piattaforme.
Le grandi aziende farmaceutiche hanno introdotto la capacità di alterare chimicamente la cognizione; le grandi aziende tecnologiche hanno perfezionato la capacità di indirizzare digitalmente l'attenzione e modellare il comportamento. La loro fusione non riguarda la quota di mercato, ma il dominio completo dello spettro cognitivo umano stesso. Quelle aziende che hanno promosso le pillole per anestetizzare una generazione, ora collaborano con piattaforme che ci rendono dipendenti dalla stimolazione digitale. Le aziende che hanno tratto profitto dai farmaci per l'ADHD collaborano con i giganti dei social media che manipolano deliberatamente i deficit di attenzione. Le aziende che hanno commercializzato antidepressivi uniscono le forze con i creatori di algoritmi che manipolano scientificamente le risposte emotive.
Come ha osservato Whitney Webb a proposito del passaggio dalla narrativa del nemico “russo” a quella degli “islamisti”, la minaccia designata cambia mentre l'espansione della sorveglianza rimane costante. L'agenda dell'identità digitale segue questo schema: mentre il World Economic Forum la presenta come un aiuto umanitario per l'inclusione finanziaria, costruisce l'architettura per un monitoraggio e una supervisione comportamentali completi. Ogni crisi, che sia sanitaria, di sicurezza o finanziaria, aggiunge nuovi requisiti che uniscono identità, servizi bancari, cartelle cliniche e tracciamento sociale in un unico sistema unificato. Ciò che inizia come partecipazione volontaria diventa inevitabilmente obbligatorio man mano che la sorveglianza digitale si estende al monitoraggio e alla definizione del comportamento umano stesso: il terreno di gioco perfetto per le valute digitali delle banche centrali.
Questa architettura di sorveglianza rappresenta la fusione di due pilastri fondamentali. Ciò che è iniziato con alterazioni chimiche dell'umore e del pensiero, e si è poi evoluto nella manipolazione digitale dell'attenzione e del comportamento, si sta ora fondendo in un'unica architettura per la gestione dell'esperienza umana. Osservate come le app per la salute mentale raccolgono dati comportamentali promuovendo al contempo la terapia farmacologica. Il punteggio di credito sociale si fonde con il monitoraggio della salute. Le stesse aziende che sviluppano sistemi di identità digitale collaborano con i giganti farmaceutici. Non si tratta di ipotesi future: sta accadendo ora. Mentre discutiamo dell'etica dell'intelligenza artificiale, loro stanno silenziosamente costruendo l'infrastruttura per fondere la cognizione umana con i sistemi digitali. La promessa transumanista di una maggiore consapevolezza attraverso la tecnologia maschera una realtà più oscura: ogni integrazione diminuisce la percezione umana naturale, sostituendo la coscienza genuina con una simulazione ingegnerizzata. Questa colonizzazione tecnologica del cervello umano cerca di recidere la nostra connessione con la consapevolezza naturale e la sovranità spirituale.
In una delle sue ultime lezioni, Aldous Huxley, il celebre autore del libro Il mondo nuovo, fece una previsione agghiacciante sul futuro del controllo sociale: “Nella prossima generazione o giù di lì, ci sarà un metodo farmacologico per far sì che le persone amino la loro servitù e per produrre una dittatura senza lacrime, per così dire, creando una specie di campo di concentramento indolore per intere società, cosicché le persone si vedranno togliere le loro libertà e ne godranno”.
Siamo a un punto cruciale in cui la cattura tecnologica della coscienza umana sta diventando irreversibile. Ogni nuova generazione nasce in una più profonda integrazione digitale, con una realtà di base sempre più sintetica. Ma riconoscere questo schema rivela sia la minaccia che la debolezza: pur perfezionando gli strumenti tecnologici per il controllo, non riescono a replicare appieno il potere della connessione umana diretta. Ogni istanza di interazione autentica, ogni momento di presenza immediata, dimostra ciò che il loro sistema non riesce a catturare. La risposta non è solo smascherare le bugie, ma creare spazi di connessione umana che esistano al di fuori della loro architettura di controllo. Ciò che rende questo momento senza precedenti non è solo la sofisticatezza del controllo, ma il suo metodo di attuazione: non attraverso la forza, ma attraverso la seduzione e la convenienza. Ogni convenienza che abbracciamo, ogni miglioramento digitale che accettiamo, ci avvicina alla loro visione di consapevolezza manipolata.
Liberare la coscienza, recuperare la connessione
Comprendere questi meccanismi non significa rifiutare la tecnologia o rifugiarsi in un isolamento paranoico: significa riconoscere che il vero potere inizia con l'autonomia e imparare a relazionarsi con la modernità alle nostre condizioni.
La battaglia per la nostra mente richiede consapevolezza e azione autentica. Mentre loro cercano di manipolare il comportamento attraverso sostanze chimiche e algoritmi, il nostro potere risiede innanzitutto nella liberazione di noi stessi, per poi estenderci attraverso la connessione umana diretta.
Il loro obiettivo finale – il dominio assoluto sulla percezione e la cognizione umana – rivela una debolezza fondamentale: non possono contenere pienamente menti liberate e relazioni umane autentiche che esistono al di fuori dei loro canali mediati. Questo sistema onnicomprensivo richiede un'opposizione gestita a ogni livello, allontanandoci da un autentico risveglio e da un coinvolgimento diretto.
L'intuizione cruciale è questa: l'opposto del globalismo non è il nazionalismo o i movimenti politici, ma la libertà individuale espressa attraverso l'azione locale. Il vero risveglio non può essere programmato. Emerge attraverso un chiaro riconoscimento e si diffonde attraverso una connessione autentica. Quando gli intellettuali nei think tank come il Brownstone Institute hanno trovato una causa comune con i vigili del fuoco, il sistema ha riconosciuto un precedente pericoloso. L'unità al di là delle tradizionali divisioni sociali – tra intellettuali, professionisti e lavoratori – dimostra come le persone veramente libere possano colmare le divisioni artificiali. Mentre le reti digitali possono facilitare l'organizzazione, il vero potere si manifesta nella comunità fisica.
Parlando per esperienza, queste reti digitali sono state inestimabili nel mio percorso: ho trovato anime gemelle, condiviso intuizioni e costruito amicizie durature attraverso le comunità online. Queste connessioni mi hanno aiutato a comprendere modelli che forse non avrei mai notato da solo. Ma la condivisione di informazioni è solo il primo passo. La vera trasformazione avviene quando portiamo queste intuizioni condivise fuori dallo schermo e nelle nostre comunità, trasformando le connessioni digitali in relazioni concrete e azioni locali condivise.
Ciò significa:
• Liberare le nostre menti mentre loro spingono il pensiero programmato (creando circoli di apprendimento locali per contrastare la loro ingegneria digitale-farmaceutica del pensiero);
• Creare connessioni mantenendo la componente individuale (creando vere e proprie comunità per resistere ai loro sistemi di credito sociale);
• Agire senza attendere il consenso (aggirando i canali di opposizione concordati);
• Coltivare cibo mentre si promuovono alternative sintetiche (mantenendo l'autonomia biologica mentre si promuovono dipendenze create in laboratorio);
• Costruire una comunità mentre vendono tribù digitali (creando una connessione genuina come antidoto all'isolamento tecnologico);
• Guarire noi stessi mentre loro commercializzano le dipendenze (sviluppare una resilienza naturale contro la loro convergenza biodigitale).
La verità più potente non è una rivelazione: è il riconoscimento che la coscienza può trascendere completamente i confini da essa costruiti. La via d'uscita richiede di andare oltre le sue infinite distrazioni e di rivendicare un'azione radicata e autentica. La convergenza biodigitale può catturare solo le anime che seguono i suoi percorsi prestabiliti; la nostra essenza non è mai stata veramente vincolata dai suoi confini.
Rimanete vigili, mettete in discussione tutto, liberate la mente e agite con intenzione. La rivoluzione inizia con spiriti sovrani e cresce attraverso una connessione autentica. Costruite dove loro distruggono, create mentre loro ingannano, connettetevi mentre loro dividono. La via d'uscita dalla loro Matrix è con gli occhi ben aperti e i piedi ben piantati nel terreno locale.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/
Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.
Israel’s Man Inside the CIA Betrayed the US, New Files Show
Veteran CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton secretly oversaw a top-level spy ring involving Jewish émigrés and Israeli operatives without “any clearances” from Congress or Langley itself, according to recently declassified documents published as part of the Trump administration’s pledge to disclose all available information on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The files provide a fresh and often disturbing look at a spy described by historian Jefferson Morley as “a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel,” detailing Angleton’s role in transforming the Mossad into a fearsome agency with global reach, while assisting Israel’s theft of US nuclear material and protecting Zionist terrorists.
Angleton established the Jewish emigre spying network in the aftermath of WWII, with the apparent goal of infiltrating the Soviet Union. But as the files show, the spymaster considered his “most important” task to be maintaining the supply of Jewish immigrants flowing from the Soviet Union towards the burgeoning Israeli state.
According to Angelton, his Jewish assets were responsible for 22,000 reports on the USSR, generating several intelligence masterstrokes. Chief among them was the publication of Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Kruschev’s famous 1956 secret speech denouncing Stalin, which the spymaster boasted “practically created revolutions in Hungary and Poland.” Elsewhere, Angleton bragged that his arrangement with Israel had produced “500 Polish intelligence officers who were Jewish” who “knew more about Polish intelligence than the Poles.”
Other passages appear to show Angleton taking credit for securing the “release” of several Zionist terrorists affiliated with the Irgun militia before they could be convicted for bombing the British embassy in Rome. Though the group had been captured by Italian authorities, the newly-disclosed files indicate the terror cell was freed on the orders of the CIA.
The information was originally divulged in 1975 to senators serving on the Church Committee, which probed widespread abuses by US intelligence in the decades prior. Congress was particularly interested in claims by New York Times foreign correspondent Tad Szulc, who testified under oath that Angleton had personally informed him that the US provided technical information on nuclear devices to Israel in the late 1950s. The new documents show that Angleton was deceptive under questioning, and evaded questions on Israel’s nuclear espionage efforts on the record.
Additional unsealed FBI documents, which refer to Israel’s Mossad as Angleton’s “primary source” of information, confirm that the CIA’s head of counterintelligence relied heavily on Tel Aviv to solidify his position within the Agency – and also add to the growing body of evidence that Angleton may not have been operating with US interests in mind throughout his 21-year tenure.
Other newly declassified files from the FBI have shown that Angleton maintained a wildly lopsided relationship with the Bureau, which saw federal agents deferring to the CIA counterintelligence chief after they caught him surveilling the correspondence of huge numbers of Americans. The files show Angleton openly admitting he would have been fired if Langley caught wind of his leaks to the Bureau.
A side-by-side analysis of the now-unredacted Church Committee files compared with their previously-released versions from 2018 demonstrates that even after 70 years, Washington felt compelled to conceal details of its real relationship with Israel’s founders. Over a dozen references to “Israel,” “Tel Aviv,” or descriptions of figures as “Jewish,” which were scrubbed from the 2018 release, can now be viewed on the National Archives site.
The documents reveal that Angleton repeatedly lied to multiple Congressional bodies, including the Church Committee, which investigated CIA abuses, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which probed the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Angleton was similarly evasive when interrogated over Israel’s nuclear weapons program, and about CIA knowledge or complicity in the scheme.
Those documents also reveal that Angleton’s CIA counterintelligence staff ordered Lee Harvey Oswald’s removal from federal watchlists six weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, despite his classification as a high security risk. The surveillance of Oswald was personally overseen by a member of Angleton’s intelligence network of Jewish emigres, Reuben Efron, a CIA spy from Lithuania. Angleton had placed Efron in charge of an Agency program called HT/Lingual which intercepted and read correspondences between Oswald and his family.
Numerous historians have questioned why the CIA counterintelligence chief insisted for decades on personally overseeing what he described as the “Israeli account.” Though several off-the-record interactions remain impossible to parse, the documents show that when grilled about his “unusually close” connections to the Israeli Mossad, Angleton acknowledged forming an “arrangement” in which, “in most simplistic terms, [the Israelis] were informed that we would not work with them against the Arabs, [but] that we would work with them on Soviet bloc Intelligence and communism.”
Freeing Zionist terrorists
One of the earliest instances of Angleton’s cooperation with Zionist elements came as Zionist militants embarked on a terrorist campaign to pressure the British colonial authorities to leave Mandate Palestine.
In October 1946, three months after they bombed the British administrative headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, members of the right-wing Irgun militia planted explosives in the British embassy in Rome in a failed bid to assassinate the UK’s ambassador to Italy.
According to Angleton, after the Irgun “blew up the British embassy in Rome” in 1946, the CIA intervened to ensure they escaped Italy without prosecution.
click to enlarge
“We had the members of the group, and then we had the dilemma again as to whether we turned them over to the British authorities,” noted Angleton, who had served as counterintelligence chief for the Italian branch of the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s predecessor. “And we were in a position to make the decision one way or the other. And eventually we came down on the side of releasing them.”
A secret deal with the Mossad
As Washington sought to manage the political ruptures caused by the creation of Israel, and monitor the wave of Soviet migrants pouring into the self-proclaimed Jewish state, Angleton framed his takeover of “the Israeli account” as a convenient way for US intelligence to kill two birds with one stone.
“The other side of the Israeli problem was that you had thousands coming from the Soviet Union and you had the Soviets making use of the immigration for the purpose of sending illegal agents into the West and breaking down all the travel control, identifications and so on. And so there was both a security problem and a political problem.”
To manage these “problems,” the US and Israelis brokered a deal involving the secret exchange of “papers and signals, communications intelligence, [and] the other products of intelligence action,” Angleton stated. The spy chief claimed the only records of the 1951 arrangement held by the US side would be in the possession of the Agency, and admitted US Congress had been left in the dark, telling senators, “I don’t think there were any clearances obtained from the Hill.”
Asked by one legislator how it was “possible for succeeding directors of the intelligence agency to understand what the agreements were between” US and Israeli intelligence, Angleton responded: “Very simple. They saw the production to begin with. And they met with directors or the head of Israeli intelligence. And they met with Ambassadors and prime ministers. And they were very much involved.”
Grooming Zionist spies “outside the structure” of the CIAAngleton was especially protective of what he called “the fiduciary relationship” with Tel Aviv, assembling a close-knit clique of Jewish Americans with dubious loyalties to manage it as World War Two drew to a close. “I started from the south side with two Jewish men who worked with me during the war,” he explained. Having “sent them over as ordinary people under cover” to get their bearings in newly-formed Israel, Angleton “brought over six others and put them through some months of training, outside of the structure” of the CIA.
“To break down the fiduciary relationship – which is after all a personal business – all the men I have had, were men who stayed in it and came back to headquarters and went back to Tel Aviv, they went to the National Security Council, and went back to Tel Aviv, et cetera.”
“It was probably the most economical operation that has ever been devised in the U.S. Government,” Angleton crowed. “I don’t think there was [sic] more than 10 people that were hired in the same process.”
Having trained these spies “outside of the structure” of the CIA, it’s unclear how Angleton ensured they remained faithful to US national security objectives, or whether he ever intended to.
Enabling Israeli theft of US nuclear material, spying on America
Angleton’s role in enabling Israel’s wanton theft of nuclear material from an American facility is one of the more shocking episodes in the US-Israeli relationship. The scene of the crime was the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, a uranium processing facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania owned by a Zionist financier named David Lowenthal. In 1965, Zalman Shapiro, a fellow Zionist hired by Lowenthal to run the plant, illegally diverted hundreds of kilograms of nuclear fissile material to Israel. Posing as a scientist, the notorious Mossad spy Rafi Eitan visited NUMEC three years later to continue the heist.
As Jefferson Morley documented in his biography of Angleton, “The Ghost,” the late CIA counterintelligence chief made sure the CIA looked the other way as Israel constructed its first nuclear weapon out of the stolen fissile material. According to Morley, “Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than U.S. non-proliferation policy.”
A 1977 investigation by the US Government Accountability Office found that the CIA withheld information about the NUMEC nuclear theft from the FBI and Department of Energy, and “found that certain key individuals had not been contacted by the FBI almost 2 years into the FBI’s current investigation.”
The latest batch of Church Committee files add new detail about Angleton’s compromising of US national security to benefit Israel, and his attempts to cover up his betrayal.
During his testimony before the Committee, Angleton was pressed about media reports alleging that he and his counterintelligence unit provided Israel with technical support for constructing nuclear weapons. He strenuously denied the charges, insisting the CIA had never played any role in providing Tel Aviv with nuclear materials. However, when questioned about whether “Israeli intelligence efforts” were ever conducted in the US “aimed at acquiring… nuclear technology,” Angleton equivocated.
First, he blustered, “there have been many efforts by many countries to acquire technical knowledge in this country, and that doesn’t exclude the Israelis.” Asked if CIA counterintelligence had “certain knowledge” of Israeli agents “trying to acquire nuclear secrets in the US,” Angleton pleaded, “Do I have to respond to that?”
The Committee then went “off record” at the senators’ request, making Angleton’s responses impossible to scrutinize.
In a secret 1975 memorandum to the FBI, the ousted CIA counterintelligence chief disclosed that he had “avoided any direct answers” during his Senate testimony on Israel’s spies carrying out “intelligence collection” to gather “nuclear information” in the United States.
Just days later, a Bureau report on “Israeli intelligence collection capabilities” revealed Angleton entertained “frequent personal liaison contacts” with Mossad representatives at Israel’s Washington DC embassy between February 1969 and October 1972. This “special relationship” involved “the exchange of extremely sensitive information.”
Further, the 1975 FBI memo on Angleton disclosed the Israeli embassy’s establishment of a “technical intelligence network” seven years earlier which was directed by an Israel scientist who worked on Tel Aviv’s nuclear program. This may explain why Angleton was so cagey under Senate questioning.
“Israeli matters” trigger Angleton’s downfallThe Church Committee files show Angleton bristled at then-CIA Director William Colby’s efforts to apply a modicum of transparency to the Agency’s activities, especially as they related to Israel. The spymaster warned that if the USSR ever caught wind of Langley’s use of the self-proclaimed Jewish state as a de facto halfway house for communist turncoats, they would almost certainly end their policy of encouraging Eastern European Jews to migrate to Israel:
“This idea of opening the doors and letting the light in, and breaking down compartmentation, and breaking down the need to know, would inevitably put in jeopardy the immigration, if the Soviets should learn the extent of the activities,” Angleton stated.
Colby fired Angleton in 1974 after the New York Times revealed that he devised an illegal program of domestic spying targeting antiwar American dissidents. In his testimony, Angleton framed their clash as an interpersonal conflict, describing Colby as “not my cup of tea professionally or in any other way.”
Yet Angleton also acknowledged to Senate that a “dispute in connection with these Israeli matters” between himself and Colby contributed to his departure from the Agency. Was this a reference to the former spook’s involvement in Israeli theft of US nuclear secrets, enabling Israel to acquire the bomb?
Whatever the case, it was clear why Angleton would be remembered more fondly in Israel than inside the country he ostensibly served.
On December 4, 1987, the director of Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet intelligence services gathered in secret on a hillside in Jerusalem to plant a tree in honor of Angleton. They were joined there by five former Israeli spy chiefs and three former military intelligence officers.
Despite attempts to keep the ceremony under wraps, two local reporters managed to evade the cordon to record the ceremony for the former CIA counter-intelligence director, who had died seven months prior. Together, the Israeli spooks laid a memorial stone that read, “In memory of a dear friend, James (Jim) Angleton.”
This article was originally published on The Grayzone.
The post Israel’s Man Inside the CIA Betrayed the US, New Files Show appeared first on LewRockwell.
Land of the Deadliest Sins
Christianity has always emphasized the severity of the Seven Deadly Sins. The Catholic Church defined them as pride, greed, envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Looking around at America 2.0, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that Deadly Sinning comes as naturally to us as betrayal or dishonesty, which apparently don’t qualify.
Pride can be seen in the scrunched up duckfaces of every young girl, as she posts selfie after selfie, like all her fellow narcissist friends. It can be seen in the face of the bully, after he’s sucker punched someone. You know, as in the Knockout Game. You’ll find it on the glowing faces of executives who’ve outsourced or eliminated thousands of jobs, as they announce how much larger the tax free bonuses will be at Christmas. You’ll hear it in the excessively loud laughter of the practical joker, after he’s humiliated someone. But now we have a Pride Month. And it’s devoted to something no decent person should ever be proud of. Gay Pride gave way to LGBTQ Pride. It’s more inclusive. So the mother who pushes her son to become a “girl,” and the newly emasculated lad himself, become extraordinarily proud. But there is no pride in say, being a faithful husband or wife for a half century. Or just being a good Samaritan.
There are some things to be justifiably proud of. Any parent’s face should be flushed with pride as they hold their newborn baby. Or watch them accomplish great things on the sports fields, or cheer them as they graduate from high school or college. Tear up as they walk down the aisle, and dance at their wedding. Genuine heroes should be proud. A firefighter who saves a child from a burning building. A soldier whose valor earns him a Purple Heart, even though the cause he was fighting for was senseless. Inventors who make all our lives better. Nikola Tesla had a right to be proud. The artist who creates a timeless work. But there’s a huge difference between any of that, and Pride Month, for instance. To paraphrase the late Norm MacDonald, that’s not an achievement. Or to revel in your obesity, for instance. The Fat Acceptance movement has created vain monsters out of those who shouldn’t be shamed as they often were in the past, but certainly shouldn’t be celebrated for an inability to control themselves.
Greed. Despite the enduring popularity of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, there are too many who have spirits only slightly less selfish than Ebeneezer Scrooge. We would not have the world’s most shameful disparity of wealth, and I could never have written a book exposing it, without the systemic greed that powers corporate America. Every family has a story of a miserly parent, or sibling, or adult child, that won’t help out a loved one, despite having riches to spare. I have found that, generally speaking, the more money one has, the less generous one is. I’ve heard a few old geezers explain, “How do you think I got rich?” No one gets rich pinching pennies, as Survival of the Richest shows. The same people who like to say, “You can’t take it with you,” very often act as if they do intend to take it with them. Or, conversely, spend it all before those they supposedly love the most in the world can inherit it. You’ll see photos of elderly parents taking lavish vacations, captioned, “spending my kids’ inheritance!”
Envy. Now, I’m as guilty of this as anyone else. I envy those conspiracy celebrities that inexplicably have millions of followers. We all have envied something our neighbor, or a family member, has. A bigger house. A newer car. We might envy someone’s good looks, or the fact he has a trophy wife. Or the great accomplishments of his children. The fact he has a cushy job with wonderful flexibility and outstanding pay. When you have a society where over 70 percent of you live paycheck to paycheck, and have less than $1000 in savings, that’s going to happen. How could it not? I think this is the one Deadly Sin that is the most explainable. I’m not sure that our younger people have any more envy than we had back in the misty days of America 1.0. But they probably have a more burning desire to be famous for fame’s sake. A social media “influencer.” A few people have accused me of being that. I think that’s ridiculous. If I thought I was one, I might very well be struck with a sudden burst of the Deadly sin of pride.
Wrath. This is a tough one. If we mean simple anger, we’re all guilty. All doomed to burn in the flames of Hell. Who doesn’t get angry from time to time? I would define wrath more as an anger with repercussions; wielding authority over those with less power. The Old Testament depicts a wrathful God. We all know that great power usually doesn’t come with great responsibility, despite what Spiderman’s Uncle Ben said. And wrath often interferes with the possibility of forgiveness. It’s not just scorned women who have such wrath. It’s very hard for most people to apologize. Or forgive. Mainly because they have pride. You could call it vanity or conceit. They’re part of the same family. Now I think some wrath is justified. For instance, you could fairly say that my writing is full of wrath, directed towards our politicians, business leaders, celebrities, etc. Basically anyone with real power. Call it Deadly Criticism.
Gluttony. One trip to a large public event will reveal this particular Deadly Sin in all its glory. The overpriced corn dogs, cotton candy, and beer stuffed into ever chubbier faces. The average woman today weighs 170 pounds. That was the average weight of a man in 1960. And the average man has a size forty waist. Even as a pathfinding obese child, I never got beyond a size thirty eight. When the Sheeple of America 2.0 aren’t chanting, “USA! USA!” they’re chanting, “Super size it!” The filmmaker who produced the great documentary Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock, died at only fifty three in 2024, of what they called “aggressive” cancer. Others would call it turbo cancer. Spurlock publicly chided McDonald’s for not giving employees the whole day off to get their vaccine. Ironically, Spurlock survived (barely) a month of nothing but McDonald’s, but was done in by the COVID psyop. When Victoria’s Secret starts glamorizing overweight models, you know that gluttony is being institutionally celebrated.
Lust. Perhaps the most prevalent Deadly Sin of all. I’m guilty of it all too often. They created an entire world of Deadly lust in online pornography. Sex has been used to sell virtually every product for well over a half century. They use sex with advertising because they know it activates the lust in so many potential consumers. At least for me, it’s the hardest Deadly Sin to resist. If you’re at the beach, or a swimming pool, and an attractive female in a bikini walks by, your head is going to turn robotically. That might not be lust exactly, but it is surely interest. Is interest a Deadly Sin? Half of all marriages end in divorce. In every case, it was because of someone’s lust. Few people leave their spouse for the nunnery or priesthood. Maybe the Muslims have the right idea. Does covering every inch of a woman’s body, and even her face, curtail the innate male lust? I’m just keeping it real, because we males are a lusting bunch.
Finally, we have sloth. I don’t think very many people were guilty of this Deadly Sin back in America 1.0. But now? Males and females, and all the assorted gender fluids, are comfortable in wearing pajamas in public. With all that massive weight gain, you’re going to need a lot of stretchable sweat pants. You wouldn’t want to pop a button while super sizing. And XXXL tee shirts. I don’t think they had anything bigger than an XL when I was young. XL is now pretty much the standard. You don’t have to dress like Ward and June Cleaver did around the house. But we used to at least try to be what they called “presentable” in public. Very few are presentable in public now. Look at all the “People of Walmart” photos. I don’t even know where they buy that kind of outlandish clothing. We’ve gone way beyond casual. Way beyond the untucked world I argued for in my radical youth. We are firmly in sloth land now.
I don’t mean to sound like a blue nose. I know I’m a hopeless sinner but I have faith the Lord will forgive me for my imperfections. I know I could never hurt anyone, let alone commit murder. I would never rape even the loveliest girl in the skimpiest thong. Sexual emergencies only apply to nonwhite migrants. I try to hold my envy in check, by remembering the blessings I have, and how many people might envy me. I don’t really display much pride. I could brag about having had ten books published. Perhaps if I’d sold as many books as a Stephen King, then I might have a swelled head about it. I might even look down my nose at the peasants who bought them. But having pride over being a heterosexual? I.E., normal? Pride at not undergoing a gender transition? Pride over my skin color? What am I, Aretha Franklin? You can be happy with yourself without spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Greed should be the easiest Deadly Sin to avoid. I know, you’re thinking- that’ easy for you to say, Mr. Share the Wealth. Huey Long is your hero. If you have the financial wherewithal to help a loved one in need, but don’t, then you’re greedy. Period. We all watch or read the story of Scrooge, and get the point. It makes us feel a special warmth at Christmas. And yet, does the message of the story really cause anyone to change? Demonstrating that the most wealthy are indeed the greediest, Warren Buffet is said to have refused to help his daughter pay for a kitchen remodeling, or help out with his granddaughter’s college tuition. He probably kicks puppies, too. Bill Gates, like many rich and famous entertainers and athletes, is a crummy tipper. Greed is the lifeblood of our corrupt and monstrously unfair economy. Our disparity of wealth is a Deadly Sin in itself. How many bankruptcies, suicides, and divorces, could be avoided with just the figurative pocket change of a One Percenter?
Anger, or wrath, can be a good thing, if channeled at the proper target. For instance, it would hardly be sinful for the masses who are suffering under the tyranny of our criminal overlords to be angry at them. I mean, how are we not angry at them? What exactly do they have to do in order to arouse our anger? I see their sinful wrath in every foreclosure, every repossession, and every unfair job termination. Sometimes, we should be angry. It’s cathartic. My good friend John Barbour, still vigorous at ninety two, told me, “Donald, there are two reasons why I have lived so long. One, is my anger. The other is my laughter.” A sadistic ruler turns his wrath upon the common riff-raff, just like an immature child steps on an anthill. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the great English populist Lord Acton reminds us. We have every reason to fear the wrath of the elite.
The post Land of the Deadliest Sins appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Ron Paul Institute’s “Blueprint for Peace” Conference
Not too far from where the principal military industrial complex power players work and live, hundreds of liberty-lovers congregated in the suburbs of Washington DC at the ninth annual Ron Paul Peace and Prosperity Institute (RPI) conference. RPI brings together voices of differing ideologies to achieve its core mission. In its own orderly, diplomatic manner, the event was a raging against the war machine and a reminder that there is opposition to the trillions spent on military budgets in pursuit of a global empire, an empire that is nonetheless destined to collapse. Yet the event also signaled a fostering of hope. When asked who was attending a Ron Paul conference for the first time, about one third of the several hundred in the audience raised their hands and many were young adults.
From the podium, institute executive director and conference organizer Daniel McAdams recalled that as his plane began its descent toward Dulles Airport, he flew over the Pentagon and the mansions in McLean where defense contractors and government workers reside, their salaries paid for by profitable U.S. overseas military interventionism and wars. “These people made money…to rob us,” he said. “And they are stealing our children’s future.” With defiance and expectation, he thanked the audience for their presence, acknowledging the next generation of the Ron Paul revolution: the 14 students who had participated in the scholars seminar the previous day.
Among the courageous and principled thought leaders and independent journalists speaking truth to power, a highpoint was the panel comprised of Col. Douglas Macgregor, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and his wife Anya Parampil. They were questioned by Judge Andrew Napolitano, whose “Judging Freedom” podcast livestreamed the discussion. You can watch the panel exchange preceded by Sachs’ speech here:
“No one has been more right than Ron Paul,” observed Macgregor, whose authentic heroism on the battlefield, brilliance as a military strategist, gravitas and physical presence qualify him as the man who should be the US president. Macgregor predicted an economic collapse has to happen before the wars end. “When the fake money collapses, we will focus internally.” The war machine sends Americans to die and they are of no value to those who start the wars. “The globalist class live around here and are enjoying life,” he said. “They have no accountability. They approve PowerPoint slides and attack defenseless people. The media doesn’t report on the vulture capitalists and fake news is the business model. Palantir, a CIA startup, is developing a digital prison for us all. The vets living in Pennsylvania and Ohio falsely believed they were fighting for US national security. We are governed by people who ride in golf carts,” he said. “The ruling class preach virtue and practice vice. The people who run DC have no business being there. We have a government of the corrupt by the conniving, crooked and connected. Trump’s MAGA base is eroding, and the diehards are going down with the Titanic. They got into the same car and changed lanes but the destination is the same.” Macgregor compared our situation in the US with 18th century France leading up to the revolution when wars were waged, leadership eroded and society began to rot from within. Macgregor’s blueprint for peace: Break up the financial cartels, make banks serve communities, restore sound money, restructure the national debt, defend the nuclear family, respect other cultures, be fearless, and build alternative structures. “The future is not written. They are counting on your apathy. Destiny rests on the shoulders of a few.”
Professor Sachs said all current “artificially prolonged” major military conflicts the U.S. is involved with can be easily resolved. JFK was killed by the CIA because he was for peace and he was the last truly independent US president, he stated. “Of course, the Mossad spies on and blackmails presidents,” he said. Presidents are either all afraid of the Mossad or they don’t know the true power controlling the presidency. “These people are crazy,” Sachs said of neocons like Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland who promote war at any cost. He called Netanyahu a “vile, misguided criminal” and decried the starving and shooting of Palestinians at food depots. The U.S. government is supporting “maniacs and murderers,” he said. “We are trapped.” The think tanks are bought and Americans are subjected to endless paid propaganda. The “zealots in Israel” and powerful Israeli lobby in America keep the US from joining the 192 nation state votes at the UN in favor of a Palestinian state. “We are now preparing for a war with China,” he warned, “the worst idea ever.”
Chris Rossini, co-host with Dr. Paul of the Liberty Report’s Friday editions, said Blumenthal and Parampil risked their lives by visiting Iran two months before the US bombing. What the couple witnessed was very different from what is “reported” by mainstream media. They said Christians and Jews are allowed to practice their faith, the churches and synagogues are full, and the Iranian leadership is anti-Zionist. Blumenthal denounced the Mossad’s assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and Palestinian journalists.
Dutch politician Thierry Baudet, the founder of the political party Forum for Democracy who was elected to the House of Representatives in the Netherlands, said he was the only European politician who opposed the Covid mandates: “This was the hill I was prepared to die on.” He denounced the “Russia-phobic paranoia” of his political colleagues and said the Israeli lobby is very powerful in Europe. The mainstream media and government conspire to oppose dissident voices, he said. While “change goes slower than we want it to,” he admitted, he believes the new generation is beginning to see through the lies.
Natali Morris, who hosts Redacted News on Rumble, YouTube and X with her husband Clayton Morris, asked why Fox News and CNN fight about the culture wars but not the real wars that kill children, women and men. “There is no daylight between them,” she said. “They share identical support for Israel” but have small audiences. The couple live in Portugal where the police patrol the beaches and mortgages have quadrupled. “How do they have these monsters in power?” she asked. “Europe must decide if it wants freedom. But there is still time to fight in America,” asserted the mother of three. “We must think about the future we want to leave our children.”
Before mathematical statistician and essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb spoke, I told him I did some research on him and concluded he was a genius. He responded by laughing. I was right. He told the audience the warmongers no longer have skin in the game compared to the days when there was a risk they could actually die. Taleb then explained seven economic points he had compiled. McAdams posted on X the speech was “one of the most incredible things I have ever heard. I could not believe how great it was. I kept texting my son who also loves Taleb about each thing he was saying in real time. Taleb challenged everyone and he did it with a smile. Many people had no idea what the hell he was talking about as they told me afterward. He blew everything out of the water. They weren’t absurd sound bites. They were reality bites. This is what made it legendary! Video coming!” So, if you want to know what Taleb was talking about, ask McAdams or his Space X engineer son. As for me, I’ll watch the video to see if I have more success in comprehending Taleb’s message.
This was the first time Dr. Paul did not appear in person at his own conference. As he explained during his live on camera appearance, his absence was due to serious family concerns and admitted it was disheartening to let his supporters down. He projected the same energy and enthusiasm he always has had and, at 90 years young, it is apparent he is still teaching, studying and learning. He said the battle is good vs. evil, the truth seekers vs. the nihilists. The world is waking up and starting to prepare for the collapse of the economy. “We have God-given individual rights and the government ought to butt out,” he said. “We need to return to the Constitution.” Dr. Paul remains optimistic because the message of liberty is an idea whose time has come and one that even armies cannot stop and, he said, everyone has a role to play.
It is a testament to the enduring ideals of liberty Dr. Paul has communicated throughout his life, the drawing power of the speakers, and the elation attendees feel by interacting with each other in person, an experience that has no substitute, that the conference stood on its own even without the physical presence of Dr. Paul. I treasure the times I have spoken with Dr. Paul and felt great joy as I have sensed the enthusiasm that emanates from him. And I understand I am in the presence of the greatest living American, the man ordained by destiny to be, as Judge Napolitano has called him, the Thomas Jefferson of our time. I will always believe that what makes Dr. Paul an important historical figure was not only that he spoke truth to power but that he entered the political arena and led the Ron Paul Revolution, a political movement that continues today.
While the conference was entitled, “Blueprint for Peace,” a detailed plan was not presented, so here is my takeaway summary based on the speakers’ content and side conversations with attendees: The younger generation will not tolerate the subordination of US foreign policy to Israel or any other foreign power. As Dr. Paul and Col. Macgregor pointed out, the wars will not end until the inevitable financial collapse forces them to end. The wars will then be unaffordable and, by necessity, America will be forced to turn inward to tend to its own problems. When this will occur is unknown but do all you can to prepare. Keep the faith. Be fearless. Pray. Act in faith. Have children, start a business, speak out, write, tell the truth, do whatever you can. And support the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Afterward, I drove home on roads that were wet from an earlier rainfall. In the distance ahead of me I saw a beautiful rainbow curved across the clear blue sky.
The post The Ron Paul Institute’s “Blueprint for Peace” Conference appeared first on LewRockwell.
Hospital System Will Pay $1 Million to Employees It Punished for Refusing COVID Shots
The Trump administration is delivering justice for employees who were forced out of their job for declining the abortion-tainted COVID shot – including a recent $1 million settlement.
Mercyhealth agreed to the settlement after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated the healthcare organization, which operates clinics and hospitals in Wisconsin and Illinois, for “denying [employees] a religious accommodation and either terminating their employment or subjecting them to a wage deduction.”
“The EEOC also found reasonable cause to believe that Mercyhealth discriminated against a class of similarly situated employees across all its facilities from September 2021 to May 2022 by denying them an opportunity to request a religious accommodation, opting instead either to terminate their employment or withhold money from their pay,” the commission announced.
The pay withholding was essentially a $60 monthly tax on individuals who chose to decline the COVID-19 jab for religious reason. The shots are derived from aborted fetal cell tissue lines, which raised serious ethical concerns for many Christians. The hospital system called the tax a “vaccine incentive charge.”
The EEOC notes that the hospital’s practices appeared to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which “prohibits discrimination based on religion.”
“Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on religion,” the EEOC stated.
Mercyhealth will “provide back pay and compensatory damages to the aggrieved individuals.”
It also agreed to further training on religious accommodation requests and monitoring by the EEOC.
Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas explained the importance of the settlement further in a statement.
“At the start of my tenure as Acting Chair of the EEOC, I committed to focusing our agency’s resources to address the very real problem of religious discrimination, and this resolution is just the beginning,” Lucas stated
“This is an example of what our agency can accomplish when we work with employers to ensure that the doors of our workplaces are equally open to religious employees,” she stated. “I am proud of the monetary relief that we have obtained here, and I am equally proud that these employees—who remained committed to their religious beliefs and practice at great personal cost—will receive job offers.”
“Mercyhealth respects the religious beliefs and practices of its employees,” Vice President of Clinical Operations Kara Sankey stated on behalf of the health organization.
Liberty Counsel, which represented Mercyhealth employees who objected to the vaccine policy, said the settlement is good but took too long.
“During the COVID mandates, Liberty Counsel assisted many Mercyhealth employees whose religious accommodations had been denied. While these health care workers are getting much deserved relief, the relief is very late as it has been nearly four years since their unconstitutional treatment,” the religious liberty group wrote on its website.
Chairman Mat Staver provided further analysis.
“This hospital system did not live up to its name and instead was merciless to its faithful and dedicated workers,” he said. “This class-wide settlement is rightly deserved for these health care employees who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the experimental COVID shot.”
Employees, Staver said, “should never have to choose between their faith and their job.”
Trump admin continues fight for religious libertyThe Trump administration has continued to pursue other cases of discrimination against individuals who decided not to take the COVID jab for religious or other reasons.
As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trump administration sued the Mayo Clinic for allegedly coercing a security guard into taking the COVID shot.
The lawsuit, filed on July 30, accuses the Minnesota-based clinic of violating the civil rights of security guard Cody Schultz by rejecting his religious exemption request from a COVID shot mandate in 2021. Schultz, a member of the Assemblies of God church, said taking the shot conflicted with his religious beliefs.
He eventually took the jab after exhausting his options to get exempted – including offering to wear a mask and submit to regular testing. He also had already contracted COVID, meaning he likely had the antibodies.
In addition to religious liberty concerns, the COVID shots have also come under scrutiny for being dangerous. In June, the Food and Drug Administration announced a new warning for mRNA COVID shots due to the risk of young men developing serious heart problems.
This article was originally published on LifeSite News.
The post Hospital System Will Pay $1 Million to Employees It Punished for Refusing COVID Shots appeared first on LewRockwell.
Previous History Indicates that War Is Our Future
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” — George Santayana
Our time is much like Europe during 1912-1914 and 1938-1939. War is brewing, and unlike the earlier periods today the countries likely to be involved, with the exception of Russia, China, and Iran, are not trying to avoid it. Between 1912-1914 the French President Poincare, Russian Foreign Minister Izvolski, later Russian ambassador to France, and Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov were deeply involved in a conspiracy to cause a war between Russia and France (with British approval and involvement) on one side and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other.
Poincaire’s goal was to recover Alsace-Lorraine for France. The Tsar’s ministers wanted Constantinople in order to control the straits that are the entrance from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Harry Elmer Barnes tells the story based on the notes the conspirators wrote to one another over the years the conspiracy was prepared and put into operation.
For telling the truth, Barnes, a top of the line American historian, lost his position at Columbia University. The official narrative was that Germany caused the war, a claim for which there is zero evidence. But assigning historical blame to Germany kept attention off the French-Russian conspiracy. As Barnes own fate proved, it did not pay for a historian to tell the truth. The road to professional success was to create a narrative that justified the winners. And the “winners” were actually winners because the Germans were deceived, having foolishly trusted US President Wilson’s “Fourteen points.”
The German emperor, a cousin of the British king and Russian Tsar, did everything he could to avoid war, and Germany was the last to mobilize.
The country responsible for war is never the last to mobilize.
Both the Germans, the British, and possibly the Tsar were disadvantaged by being unaware of the French-Russian conspiracy for war. The assassination of the Austrian Archduke and Austria’s punitive response to Serbia, was turned by propaganda into the cause for war. Most likely, the assassination was a part of the French-Russian war plot. Regardless, a dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia ended up causing a war that killed millions of people in the major European powers and enabled Lenin to overthrow the Russian government. France got Alsace-Lorraine, and Russia got a revolution. Austria-Hungary was destroyed along with the German monarchy. The result was the Versailles Treaty that ensured World War II. The flower of the British leadership class was destroyed along with British financial strength. Turkey remained in control of Constantinople.
Barnes, like David Irving, bases his history on official documents, whereas most historians create a career for themselves by justifying the winners and aligning with the rising political, social, and economic forces.
Izvolski arranged for Russian gold to be poured into bribes of French newspapers to silence war opponents, to make a case for war, and to bring Poincare into the French presidency. Russia also bribed leading Serbian politicians to engage in intrigues against Austria-Hungary.
We are watching the same thing today, only we don’t know it. The media don’t tell us. They too are bribed.
When we look at the American Witkoff and the nominal Russian Dmitriev, what is their real role? Could they be bribe makers whose job it is to produce outcomes that make their principles appear successful? One can hear the patriotic American’s disbelief: “Our country, never!”
But we know of the Clinton’s collection of bribes that have enriched their family. We know of the Hunter-Joe Biden collection of bribes and payoffs. Was the letter Trump’s wife had delivered to Putin about the alleged Ukrainian children the product of an Israeli bribe to get the focus off of Israel’s extermination of Palestinian children?
As the realities of what is really underway are not exposed to the light of day, the populations in the US and Europe really have no idea what is going on. Commentators, depending on who is paying them, either spread optimistic hopes or allege Trump is selling out Ukraine. The reality is different.
The reality is that the world is headed into war because of (1) the US foreign policy imperative of American hegemony, and (2) the apparent problem the Russians have of putting themselves in the hands of their hopes instead of acknowledging reality. When a country’s foreign policy doctrine requires the prevention of the rise of any country that can serve as a constraint on its unilateralism, and there are rising countries, there can be no peace.
In 1939 the British government gave a guarantee to Poland similar to the NATO guarantee the West wants to give Ukraine. The immediate consequence was World War II.
The post Previous History Indicates that War Is Our Future appeared first on LewRockwell.
Another Federal War on Free Speech
“If it is known that authorities have power to coerce, few people will wait for actual coercion,” economist Friedrich Hayek wrote in the 1956 foreword to his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s insight could be the Rosetta Stone for understanding the Trump administration’s zealotry for assailing freedom of speech.
On March 25, six masked federal agents seized a Turkish graduate student on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. Rumeysa Ozturk, who was wearing a hijab, was a Fulbright scholar working on a doctorate at Tufts University. Ozturk didn’t know what was happening when she was first grabbed and later said she thought she might be killed.
She was abducted and vanished into the maw of the federal detention system. She was put in leg shackles and had a chain placed around her waist. She was frog marched out like a terrorist kingpin.
A federal judge speedily ordered the Trump administration not to remove Ozturk from New England. But Trump administration officials ignored that court order and hustled Ozturk from Massachusetts to federal detention facilities in Louisiana.
Criticizing Israel
Almost a year before she was seized on the streets near Boston, Ozturk had coauthored an op-ed piece for the Tufts student newspaper criticizing the university’s refusal to divest from Israel despite “credible accusations of … indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians and plausible genocide.”
That was all it took to nullify the formal student visa that the U.S. government had previously approved for Ozturk. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson justified seizing the 30-year-old graduate student: “DHS and ICE investigations found Ozturk engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans. Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be terminated.” Ozturk never mentioned Hamas in her op-ed. Ozturk has not been linked to any campus protests at Tufts or elsewhere. She simply cowrote an opinion piece. As the New York Post noted shortly after her arrest, DHS “alleged that Ozturk was a supporter of Hamas but has yet to provide any evidence to that effect.”
The video of the arrest spurred tidal waves of online celebrations by groups who wanted to forcibly silence all campus protests. When Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked about the case while traveling in Guyana, he justified revoking Ozturk’s visa: “If you apply for a visa … and you tell us that the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds but because you want to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos — we’re not giving you that visa.” Rubio added: “It’s crazy — stupid, even — for any country to let people in who say, ‘I’m going to your universities to riot, take over libraries, and harass people.’ We gave you a visa to study and earn a degree — not to become a social activist tearing up our campuses.”
Rubio promised: “Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas.” Is criticizing a foreign government now considered proof of lunacy in the White House? Does the Trump administration consider op-eds to be a weapon of mass destruction? Or did the secretary of state somehow become an omniscient expert on derangement?
A state kidnapping
On March 27, more than 30 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanding information on the case in which the video “looked like a kidnapping.”
On March 28, federal judge Denise Casper blocked the Trump administration from deporting Ozturk and ordered the administration to respond to Ozturk’s legal challenge (now aided by the ACLU) to her detention.
Ozturk was moved from state to state — including Vermont — so the Trump administration could avoid a habeas petition in federal court challenging her detention. In a subsequent congressional hearing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declared that “habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right.” Actually, habeas corpus expresses an individual’s right to be brought before a judge and formally charged — or be released. The Constitution recognized the right of habeas corpus even before the Bill of Rights was added to the original document. But perhaps Noem and other Trump policymakers decided to go Lincolnesque.
Ozturk has asthma and had several asthmatic attacks in lockup. At the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, she slept with 23 other people in a cell meant for 14. “None of us are able to sleep through the night. They come into the cell often and walk around triggering the fluorescent lights. They shout in the cell to wake up those who work in the kitchen around 3:30 am each day,” she said.
Ozturk stated that a federal officer told her: “We are not monsters. We do what the government tells us.” So, of course, federal officials are blameless for any rights that they violate. The “we are not monsters” line has been around the track a few times. Historically, it didn’t do well in 1946 as a defense at Nuremberg.
The First Amendment
Trump administration officials talked as if alleged protesting was sufficient to banish any foreigner they targeted. But the First Amendment doesn’t specify that it only applies to people that the White House approves. Former ICE Chief of Staff Deborah Fleischaker slammed the targeting of Ozturk as “a First Amendment violation. ICE had a policy in place that said that First Amendment activity was not to be the basis of enforcement action. That’s not why you enforce.”
On April 13, the Washington Post detonated the Trump case against Ozturk by publishing extracts from a confidential State Department memo. Prior to Ozturk being seized outside of Boston, senior DHS official Andre Watson sent a memo to the State Department stating that “OZTURK engaged in anti-Israel activism…. Specifically, [Ozturk] coauthored an Op-ed article” that “called for Tufts to ‘disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.’” But the State Department found that no federal agency had turned up any evidence that Ozturk “engaged in antisemitic activity or made public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization.” Despite Rubio’s vilification of Ozturk, the feds didn’t have squat on her. But the State Department covertly nullified her visa anyhow, paving the way for the DHS ambush outside Boston.
The court hearing
At an April 14 federal court hearing, a Trump Justice Department lawyer declared that the federal judge had no jurisdiction over the case. Federal judge William Sessions III responded: “If the government then says, ‘oh, no, she can’t be released because we have a detention order in immigration, which is inviolate, and she’s not going to be released,’ then we’re in a constitutional crisis.” The Trump administration lawyer speedily denied wanting any constitutional crisis.
DHS wanted Ozturk expelled from the United States under a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that entitles the Secretary of State to deport any foreigner if there are reasonable grounds to believe their presence has “adverse policy consequence for the United States.” But there was no such evidence for Ozturk, so the Trump administration instead used a legal authority under which the secretary of state can deport anyone on his own decree — no evidence required.
On May 9, Sessions ordered that Ozturk be immediately released. Sessions declared, “There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the Op-Ed.” Sessions also declared: “Her continued detention cannot stand,” stating that keeping her locked up “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” Sessions said that Ozturk raised “a very substantial First Amendment claim” as well as a “substantial claim” that her due-process rights were violated. As the “LawDork” blog summarized the judge’s comment from the bench during the court hearing, “Addressing the question of [Ozturk’s] ‘dangerousness’ and ‘risk of flight,’ Sessions noted that he was not going to be deferring to an immigration judge, who, he pointed out ‘are executive branch employees,’ subject to executive branch oversight. Instead, he found, ‘There is absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence or advocated violence.’”
Mahsa Khanbabai, Ozturk’s attorney, declared, “When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?” Jessie Rossman, another attorney for Ozturk, commented, “For 45 days, Rümeysa has been detained in Louisiana — over 1,300 miles from her friends, her community, and her lawyers. During that time, she has suffered regular and escalating asthma attacks. And at the same time, the government has failed to produce any justification for her detention.”
But this farce isn’t over yet. As Politico noted, “Sessions’ order, while expressing severe doubts about the constitutionality of Ozturk’s detention and deportation, only applies to her immediate confinement. Efforts by the Trump administration to deport Ozturk will continue in immigration court.”
The danger to Americans
It would be the height of folly for Americans to presume they face no peril from entitling the feds to seize boundless power to punish students’ speech. Ozturk’s name was provided to the Trump administration by Betar, an organization that the Washington Post characterized as a “militant Zionist group.” U.S. citizens are at risk as well. A spokesman for Betar declared: “We provided hundreds of names to the Trump administration of visa holders and naturalized Middle Easterners and foreigners” who have criticized Israeli policies. Last February, the Anti-Defamation League condemned Betar as an extremist organization. The Trump administration canceled the visas of more than 1,500 foreign students, many of whom were accused of having joined protests in the prior year and a half. Some of those cancellations were later revoked after a surge of bad publicity.
Any precedent for blanket censorship will propagate like a COVID virus. Many conservatives and libertarians may shrug off Ozturk’s degradation because they have no interest in criticizing the policies of foreign governments. But the Ozturk case hinged on collective guilt — on assuming that anyone who advocates a position is culpable for any crimes committed by any other advocate with the same view.
Ozturk’s persecution could be a linchpin in the Trump administration efforts to silence all protests that rile up his donors. Trump, discussing the protests over Gaza, promised wealthy supporters at a May 2024 fundraiser: “One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they’re going to behave.” In April 2025, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard University cease enrolling any foreign students who Trump appointees label “hostile to the American values.” Or at least “American values” as defined by the current White House. On May 22, the Trump administration formally banned Harvard from admitting any foreign students — the ultimate solution to vexatious foreigners who caterwaul about atrocities.
American history demonstrates that persecution that starts with foreigners often snowballs into targeting American citizens. Three months after the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft proclaimed in congressional testimony: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” In other words, critics were traitors — regardless of how many civil liberties Ashcroft actually destroyed. And the definition of pernicious speech continually expanded. In 2004, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, stumping for President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, told audiences: “Political criticism is our enemy’s best friend.”
To subvert freedom of speech after 9/11, it wasn’t necessary for the feds to formally nullify the First Amendment. One of the nation’s most prominent pundits, Michael Kinsley, admitted in 2002 that he had been listening to his “inner Ashcroft”: “As a writer and editor, I have been censoring myself and others quite a bit since September 11.” Kinsley conceded that sometimes it was “simple cowardice” that sparked the censorship. I also experienced plenty of such cowardice from editors after 9/11 and long beyond.
From Trump to Nixon
Has the Trump administration gone “Full Nixon” barely two months after the inauguration? In 1973, Nixon White House aide Tom Charles Huston lamented in congressional testimony the tendency of the FBI “to move from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign, and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing candidate. And you just keep going down the line.”
The Nixon administration’s systemic paranoia led it to launch preemptive attacks on its suspected opposition, from secretly searching psychiatrists’ offices to bugging the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972 did not save him from the exposure of the cover-up of White House crimes.
Does the Trump administration feel entitled to kidnap anyone who espouses an idea it disapproves of — or only those of foreigners? What will be the next opinion to sanctify in-broad-daylight federal kidnappings? Are federal policymakers trying to frighten everybody into submission and silence?
This article was originally published in the August 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.
The post Another Federal War on Free Speech appeared first on LewRockwell.
Macron Once Again Proposes EU Direct Participation in Ukraine
Despite recent joint efforts by Russia and the US to reach a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian conflict, European countries continue to insist on maintaining a destabilizing stance, boycotting the diplomatic process. Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron resumed his campaign to send European troops to Ukraine on a possible “peacekeeping mission,” which in practice makes any fruitful dialogue to de-escalate the war impossible.
Macron stated during an interview with journalists after the summit between Vladimir Zelensky and Donald Trump in Washington that EU member states should participate in a future joint peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, in case the negotiations succeed in reaching a ceasefire agreement or definitive peace. According to him, it is necessary for Ukraine’s allies to be involved in peacekeeping operations to prevent any violations by Russia.
“We will need to help Ukraine with boots on the ground (…) We will need peacekeeping operations which allies of Ukraine are willing to supply,” he said.
More than that, he reinforced the idea that Ukraine needs to be “strengthened,” emphasizing the ability of Western European countries to expand Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. He advocated sending more military assistances to the partner country, completely ignoring Russia’s goals of neutrality and demilitarization in Ukraine.
If Europe continues to send reinforcements to strengthen the Kiev regime, Russia will have no security guarantees, and no peace will be possible. Macron, like every other European leader, certainly knows this, but deliberately ignores this reality because he is not truly interested in ending the war, but rather in pursuing irrational and warmongering plans against Moscow.
This isn’t the first time Macron has endorsed the idea of Europe putting “boots on the ground” in Ukraine. He has been the leading voice for direct EU or even NATO participation in the war, disguising his pro-war plans with a proposed “peacekeeping mission.” More recently, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer joined the French president in this plan, but both failed to gain support from other European leaders to form a joint action plan to send troops to Ukraine.
Obviously, the Russian government completely rejects any plan involving the participation of Western troops in Ukraine. Moscow considers it unacceptable that soldiers from countries hostile to Russia be deployed on “peacekeeping missions.” For Russia, troops from NATO countries would not only be seen as legitimate targets but also as a serious threat, which is why this measure could escalate the conflict to even more worrying levels of violence.
The US recognizes Russia’s interest in avoiding the direct involvement of NATO members in the war, which is why Washington has refused to participate in European plans. Even during the extremely bellicose and anti-Russian Joe Biden administration, the US refused to participate in Macron’s irresponsible initiatives.
Now, however, the split in the Collective West generated by the divergence of interests between Trump and the EU is leading the Europeans to act more “independently” regarding Ukraine. Initially, these independent actions are limited to sending arms and money to the Kiev regime, but unfortunately, it is still impossible to rule out Macron sending troops to the country in the near future.
Some analysts believe that Macron’s desperation to send soldiers to Ukraine is due to an attempt to “legalize” and “explain” the massive deaths of French mercenaries on the battlefield. There are so many French casualties that the families of the mercenaries are already demanding answers from the government.
By sending troops to Ukraine, and knowing in advance that the Russians would consider them legitimate and priority targets, the French government could include the names of previously killed mercenaries in the casualty list, thus attempting to “clean up” the situation, legalizing the deaths, and guaranteeing the families their legitimate rights to pensions and assistance.
However, not all European countries are willing to participate in Macron’s warmongering venture to rehabilitate the names of dead mercenaries. Germany, Poland, Spain, Romania, and Croatia have already ruled out any idea of committing their troops to a hypothetical “peacekeeping mission.”
Furthermore, there are European countries that directly oppose any form of intervention in Ukraine, whether with troops or simply by sending weapons, such as Hungary and Slovakia. If Macron succeeds in carrying out his plan, he will have to do so outside the collective sphere of the EU, which makes the situation even more dangerous for France itself and its potential supporters.
The best thing Macron can do is simply abandon the interventionist rhetoric and let the interested parties reach an agreement, if possible. Proposing the involvement of Western troops is just a way to prematurely thwart any diplomatic dialogue.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
The post Macron Once Again Proposes EU Direct Participation in Ukraine appeared first on LewRockwell.
Loudoun County Schools Suspend Boys Who Didn’t Want Girl in Locker Room
Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) is suspending two high-school boys after a “transgender” student secretly videorecorded them in the boys’ locker room questioning why she was there.
WJLA reported Monday:
LCPS’s Title IX Office launched an investigation based on that video and the male-identifying student’s complaint. That office has now determined the two boys are responsible for sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination, according to attorney, Josh Hetzler, who represents the families.
Hetzler said they were notified by LCPS Friday evening.
The punishment includes ten days of suspension and a no-contact order with the complainant, including not being able to be in any of the same classes. The boys are also required to meet with school administrators to determine a corrective action plan, according to Hetzler.
Title Deeds
The transgender student first began using the boys’ locker room during physical-education classes at Stone Bridge High School around September 2023. She was able to get away with this thanks to LCPS’ Policy 8040, which requires students to “be allowed to use the facility that corresponds to their consistently asserted gender identity.”
The girl filed her first Title IX complaint against one of the two boys in October 2024 on the basis that he had told a friend he was uncomfortable having a girl in the locker room. LCPS took the accusation seriously enough to question the boy about it, although no further action was taken.
The other now-suspended boy discussed the locker-room situation with his P.E. teacher. The teacher allegedly told him that he was stuck with it because of district policy — and that he should keep quiet about it.
In March, the girl surreptitiously took video in the boys’ locker room and used it as evidence for another Title IX complaint, this time against three boys. As The New American reported, the girl “accused the boys — two Christians and a Muslim — of making disparaging comments about her, threatening her with violence, and ‘misgendering’ her.”
Her punishment for violating school policy by taking the video? In-school suspension.
The boys’ punishment for saying things that, not long ago, would have been considered uncontroversial even in Loudoun County? A Title IX investigation culminating in 10 days’ at-home suspension and other humiliations.
Perturbed Parents
In June, after investigating the matter, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said his office had uncovered “a disturbing misuse of authority by” LCPS in opening a Title IX investigation into the boys. According to his report:
The single available video recording captures only a statement about needing a separate locker room due to the presence of a biological female. Most notably, the video does not record any disparaging remarks, profanity, or any threat against [the female student]. My Office is unaware of any corroborating witnesses who would substantiate [the female student’s] claims.
Nevertheless, LCPS proceeded with its investigation and ultimately disciplined two of the three accused students. (The third was acquitted.)
Those students’ parents, naturally, are livid over this turn of events.
“I would say the first reaction was some anger, because we’re just really concerned with all this stuff,” Seth Wolfe, father of one of the boys, told WJLA. “[We’re] saddened by the decision-making process and how that went.”
“[We’re] absolutely floored that they came back and branded my son responsible for sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination with no solid evidence whatsoever,” Renae Smith, another parent, told WJLA. “It’s wrong, and it should terrify every single parent.”
Smith moved her family to North Dakota, so her son will not actually be punished by LCPS, but the findings of the investigation will go on his permanent academic record.
That is also a concern for Wolfe. Both boys will be juniors this year and applying to colleges, which are unlikely to desire students with Title IX convictions on their records.
The parents also believe LCPS is using their boys to send a message to other students about disagreeing with the district’s gender policies. “I think this has gone a little too far and that they are trying to make an example of our students,” Wolfe told WTTG.
Forfeiting Federal Funding
LCPS isn’t commenting on the situation. But the Richmond-based Founding Freedoms Law Center (FFLC), which is representing the families, had plenty to say.
“The Founding Freedoms Law Center is working with our clients on next steps, but we are not going to let these boys go down without a fight, we’re going to stand with them all the way till they are innocent,” FFLC President Victoria Cobb told WJLA.
“LCPS, once again, shows that it is willing to harm students in the name of woke ideology,” she said. “These boys in particular are being made examples of what happens when someone crosses school indoctrination.”
Miyares referred the Title IX matter to the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Neither agency has acted on the referral yet.
However, reported WJLA, the Education Department has told LCPS and four other northern-Virginia school districts that they will lose federal funding if they do not change their pro-transgender bathroom and locker-room policies, which the department contends violate Title IX. As of Friday, all five districts remained intransigent, and the Education Department told WJLA it had started the process of slashing their funding.
The schools, the department said, “will have to defend their embrace of radical gender ideology over ensuring the safety of their students.”
This article was originally published on The New American.
The post Loudoun County Schools Suspend Boys Who Didn’t Want Girl in Locker Room appeared first on LewRockwell.
Ukraine’s Future – A ‘Steppe Corridor’ – A Neutral, Transit-oriented State
While Russia is confidently prosecuting the war in Ukraine towards its inevitable end.
Meanwhile the ‘West’ is still negotiating with itself about the conditions under which it will have to capitulate.
Discussions continue about ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine even as the only serious ones are those that Russia is willing to give.
The confused arguments about ‘guarantees’ are reflected in the reports of them. Consider this nonsense:
A security guarantee could encompass a wide range of issues. In return for Russia ending its invasion, a security pact could include a pledge of U.S. air support for any European-led operations should Russian troops resume their assault.
If Russia ends the war NATO like ‘security guarantees’ are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?
How is that supposed to compute? Russia started this war to prevent a further extension of NATO into Ukraine. Why should it end the fighting if, in consequence, Ukraine would end up as a quasi-member of that pact?
All the ‘security guarantees’ talk is just obfuscation of the attempt by some European leaders to prolong the war by further dragging the U.S. into it:
Days before the [sanctions] deadline expired, Putin invited Witkoff to Moscow and offered a proposal, seen by the White House as sufficient grounds to set up last week’s Alaska summit meeting. There, Putin succeeded in convincing Trump that an immediate ceasefire to allow for complex peace negotiations was not required, allowing Russia to continue its attacks on Ukraine, without the risk of new U.S. sanctions.
The move alarmed European leaders, who raced to Washington on Monday to back up Zelensky during a meeting at the White House. After the meeting, they appeared satisfied by Trump’s openness to security guarantees. If Putin does not accept the terms, that could make the Kremlin the obstacle to Trump’s peace deal, insulating Ukraine from having to choose between untenable concessions of territory and inviting Trump’s ire.
Russia is not going to allow any of this:
[O]n Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov struck a blow at another major part of Trump’s peace effort, downplaying expectations for a swift bilateral meeting with the Ukrainian president, and further blocking the prospects for any deal on security guarantees for Ukraine. He said Russia would only agree to the measures if it had an effective veto over future efforts to defend Kyiv.
Russia will simply stick to its plan:
Russia’s conditions to end its war would essentially subvert Ukraine’s sovereignty, neuter its military and seize territory in eastern Ukraine that it has not captured in battle. Moscow wants to also permanently bar Ukraine from NATO and other international groupings and prevent it from hosting foreign troops — terms that would force Ukraine into a close, unwanted economic and political partnership with Russia.
A close economic and political partnership with Russia, unwanted or not, is indeed the most likely future for whatever is by then left of Ukraine.
Some Ukrainians, like the former presidential advisor Alexander Arestovich, do understand that:
The key task for Ukraine today in all these Alaskan tales is to preserve political independence in the long term.
…
Ukraine has only one way to preserve it: acknowledging the shared symbolic capital with Russia and Belarus, adopting a neutral status, and building good-neighborly relations with Russia and Belarus while maintaining political independence and the unique role of a “crossroads of worlds”- between Russia and Europe.
Economically, the most promising role is that of a “steppe corridor” – between Russia, Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the EU.
In short, this is about a fundamental shift in project orientation – from a narrow, nationalist one to a broad, transit-oriented one.
In a sense, this could be called a “Great Return” – to Ukraine’s natural historical and cultural role.
By way of analogy – modern Kazakhstan.
…
In conclusion, the fundamental challenge for Ukraine lies not in tactical maneuvers but in recognizing the strategic perspective: the necessity of reimagining its role as a neutral, transit-oriented state in order to preserve independence in the emerging geopolitical order.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
The post Ukraine’s Future – A ‘Steppe Corridor’ – A Neutral, Transit-oriented State appeared first on LewRockwell.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/exr24_eu_en_2.gif)
Commenti recenti
5 giorni 10 ore fa
5 settimane 2 giorni fa
8 settimane 3 giorni fa
18 settimane 12 ore fa
19 settimane 4 giorni fa
20 settimane 2 giorni fa
24 settimane 3 giorni fa
27 settimane 3 giorni fa
29 settimane 3 giorni fa
31 settimane 1 giorno fa