Aggregatore di feed

The post Israel Hits Gaza With Ground Invasion As JD Vance Cancels Tel Aviv Trip appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The Gateway Pundit

 

The post President Trump Names Archbishop Cordileone to New Religious Liberty Commission Advisory Board appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

ANNE FRANK DIARY IS FAKE ADMITS GERMAN MEDIA

See also “What Did Anne Frank Have against Americans?“

 

The post Anne Frank Diary Is Fake Media appeared first on LewRockwell.

 Rian Dunaway wrote:

Just another day in the consummate evil of modern culture.

Why anyone would still be on Facebook is incomprehensible. Wouldn’t a class-action lawsuit, on this matter alone, be enough to bankrupt Facebook?

Rogan Guest Reveals Facebook’s Secret Experiment That Manipulated 700,000 Users | ZeroHedge

 

The post Rogan Guest Reveals Facebook’s Secret Experi)ment That Manipulated 700,000 Users appeared first on LewRockwell.

On David Martin wrote:

It hits the nail directly on the head, I think.  If you get your “news” from Fox, you’d never even know about the wholesale slaughter of civilians going on in Gaza, and as the video suggests, I’ll bet the “liberal” mainstream ignored that heavy-duty protest at Bernie Sanders’ speech.  The media, especially Fox, would have us believe that only far left crazies object to their tax dollars going to pay for genocide.

See here.

 

The post Pariah State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

DeepNewz.com

 

The post U.S. Fed Buys $8.8 Billion in 30-Year Bonds, Totaling $43.6 Billion This Week Amid Stealth QE Concerns appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Why the Trump administration can’t be a mediator in the Ukraine War with Daniel McAdams appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Daley Abdullahstani.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-prepares-long-war-with-china-that-might-hit-its-bases-homeland-peter-apps-2025-05-16/ 

https://asiatimes.com/2025/05/us-betting-big-on-robo-fighters-to-win-a-taiwan-war/

 

The post US prepares for long war with China that might hit its bases, homeland appeared first on LewRockwell.

Christopher W Green wrote:

Lew,

It’s very long but that’s because it’s an unedited firsthand and full account of the experience of a J6 pardon recipient. He was witness to the Ashli Babbitt murder. 

The few people who have listened have found it very compelling. I believe this is the only interview of its kind. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Listen here.

 

The post J6 Pardon Recipient appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Krall:

No one believes them.

Body Language Analysis of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: “Yes, Epstein Offed Himself”

 

The post Body Language Analysis of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino: “Yes, Epstein Offed Himself” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

Here’s Why… | ZeroHedge

 

The post Tattoos May Be Linked To Cancer appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gail Appel wrote:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The post Bruce Springsteen Pays Tribute To Biden By Falling Onstage appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Hi Lew,  The Evil Woodrow Wilson: Lew Rockwell

Great article! I agree with Raico. Woodrow Wilson was the worst American president. He only won the presidency because that idiot, Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Shit Party, split the Republican vote. Taft would have won re-election otherwise.

The best WWI museum is in Kansas City. I’ve toured it twice. It is amazing. If you ever visit KC, check it out.

I also amazes me how politicians, especially presidents (JFK excepted) can be blind to the horrors of war. JFK saw the reality of war in WWII on his PT-109. It was rammed by a Japanese destroyer. JFK risked his life to save his crew. He’s the last president to see combat.

 

The post The Evil Woodrow Wilson appeared first on LewRockwell.

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 è una storia di cartelli, a livello sovrastatale e sovranazionale, la cui pianificazione centrale ha raggiunto un punto in cui deve essere riformata radicalmente e questa riforma radicale non può avvenire senza una dose di dolore economico che potrebbe mettere a repentaglio la loro autorità. Da qui la risposta al Grande Default attraverso il Grande Reset. Questa è la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso è accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Ramesh Thakur

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-gorgo-della-giustizia-strumentalizzata)

Come in una brutta barzelletta del tipo “Quando un pollo entra in un pub”, quando i querelanti entrano in un'aula di tribunale e incontrano giudici favorevoli alle ingiunzioni, il risultato è un gorgo di giustizia strumentalizzata. Nel discutere dell'attuale scompiglio giurisdizionale tra l'esecutivo e la magistratura statunitense, trovo impossibile ignorare il totale fallimento dei tribunali nel proteggere i diritti, la dignità e la libertà delle persone sotto l'attacco totale dello stato amministrativo durante gli anni della “pandemia”.

Negli ultimi anni è diventato tristemente evidente che la minaccia più grave alla teoria e alla pratica della democrazia non è l'ascesa del populismo, con aspiranti fascisti e neonazisti come tribuni seducenti, ma élite tecnocratiche che nutrono un disprezzo a malapena celato per le convinzioni politiche e il comportamento elettorale dei “deplorevoli”. Inoltre, mentre le barriere di resistenza all'avanzata populista crollano una a una sotto l'assalto degli elettori infuriati, l'ultima frontiera della resistenza delle élite sono i tribunali. Il clero giurisprudenziale – avvocati, professori di diritto e giudici – fa parte dell'élite al potere e rappresenta l'ultima linea di difesa per salvaguardare le vittorie già ottenute dai sostenitori della giustizia sociale nella loro lunga marcia per conquistare le istituzioni.

Fallibilità dei giudici

A differenza di ogni altra professione, la magistratura è infallibile? Chiaramente no, altrimenti non sarebbe stata complice della più grande violazione delle libertà delle persone durante gli anni della “pandemia”. Ogni Paese con uno stato di diritto credibile, di tanto in tanto, ribalta condanne ingiuste del passato. Tra gli esempi australiani più noti ci sono quelli di Lindy Chamberlain e del cardinale George Pell.

Di conseguenza i giudici sono individualmente infallibili e liberi da qualsiasi influenza di pregiudizi, convinzioni ed esperienze di vita personali? Anche in questo caso, chiaramente no. Se lo fossero, in ogni singolo verdetto emesso da un collegio di giudici, essi sarebbero unanimi e potremmo risparmiare tempo e denaro eliminando i vari gradi di appello. Dall'Australia si consideri ancora una volta il caso del cardinale Pell. Condannato da una giuria, la condanna è stata confermata con 2 voti a 1 dalla Corte d'appello statale, ma ribaltata all'unanimità dall'Alta corte d'Australia (la nostra Corte suprema). Stesse leggi, stesse prove, sentenze diverse.

Ogni giudice è un esempio di integrità e competenza giudiziaria? No. Alcuni sono corrotti o colpevoli di altri atti illeciti. Molti altri, sospetto, sono incompetenti piuttosto che disonesti o corrotti. I meccanismi per riconoscere l'incompetenza sono meno e meno invocati rispetto a quelli per individuare e punire la corruzione e gli illeciti. Eppure, anche su questi ultimi non si può sempre fare affidamento.

La notte del 14 marzo, in India, la residenza ufficiale di un giudice dell'Alta corte di Delhi, il giudice Yashwant Varma, è andata a fuoco. Vigili del fuoco e agenti di polizia, accorsi per domare l'incendio, hanno scoperto sacchi di iuta pieni di denaro bruciato. Il Commissario di polizia ha contattato il Presidente della Corte suprema di Delhi, il 15, per informarlo degli sviluppi, il quale a sua volta ha trasmesso le informazioni alla Corte suprema dell'India. Il Presidente di quest'ultima ha istituito un collegio di tre giudici per indagare sulla questione e la sua relazione, pubblicata online (con alcune modifiche) nell'interesse della trasparenza, dato l'intenso interesse pubblico, ha dimostrato che c'erano i presupposti per un'indagine completa e adeguata. Nel frattempo il giudice Varma è stato trasferito a un'altra Corte suprema (nonostante la protesta dell'ordine degli avvocati di quella Corte) in attesa di ulteriori indagini e provvedimenti.

L'accenno di corruzione sarebbe molto probabilmente passato inosservato se non fosse stato per il fortuito incendio scoppiato nell'abitazione del giudice. Questo di per sé è un atto di accusa all'inadeguatezza dei meccanismi di controllo per i giudici.

Un'ultima domanda preliminare: a differenza di tutti gli altri rami del governo, la magistratura e i giudici devono essere immuni dallo scrutinio degli stessi tribunali ed essere, quindi, rimessi al loro posto? Suppongo che una distribuzione così perfetta di autodisciplina tra i rami del governo sia possibile ma, essendo un vecchio cinico, perdonate il mio scetticismo. Non tutti i giudici hanno la consapevolezza di sé e la forza di carattere necessarie per resistere alla tentazione di abusare dei propri poteri e della propria autorità. Al contrario, i giudici hanno un interesse collettivo ad ampliare la portata della propria autorità su tutti gli altri settori e, di conseguenza, a proteggersi dalle pressioni altrui.

Un quesito successivo è: come si può conciliare il lento e deliberato processo decisionale giudiziario con la necessità di un'azione talvolta urgente da parte dell'esecutivo? La magistratura è abituata alla propria sequenza e al proprio ritmo di azione, pertanto, per i giudici, l'assoluzione definitiva del cardinale Pell da parte dell'Alta corte d'Australia è stata un trionfo delle istituzioni e del processo giudiziario. Per i comuni mortali il processo è stato una punizione in sé e la pena di 405 giorni trascorsi dietro le sbarre è stata un grave errore giudiziario.

In altre parole, dalla data dell'atto d'accusa nel giugno 2017, passando per due processi con giuria, un primo appello fallito, l'ultimo appello con esito positivo, il rilascio dal carcere nell'aprile 2020 e la morte nel gennaio 2023, ancora incapace di purificare completamente la macchia di pedofilia, più della metà del tempo che gli è rimasta da vivere sulla Terra il cardinale Pell l'ha passata tra processi e una punizione dolosa da parte di una schiera di attivisti anticattolici assetati di sangue. La nazione esigeva un capro espiatorio per gli abusi sessuali sui minori da parte del clero cattolico. Scrivo questo non solo da non cristiano, ma da ateo.

La strumentalizzazione della giustizia e la presa ideologica dei giuristi

Negli Stati Uniti, nei primi due mesi di Trump, sono state presentate più di 125 cause legali per contestare le sue linee di politica, principalmente contro i tentativi di ridimensionare dipartimenti e agenzie governative. Di recente, in un solo giorno, i giudici distrettuali hanno ordinato la sospensione degli ordini esecutivi di Trump nei confronti dello smantellamento della USAID, il ripristino dei finanziamenti DEI da parte del Dipartimento dell'Istruzione, la sospensione dei voli di espulsione di presunti membri di gang venezuelane e la sospensione del divieto di ingresso nell'esercito per i membri transgender. Trump ha forse sbagliato o esagerato nell'affermare che “questi giudici vogliono assumere i poteri della Presidenza”, che quest'ultima a volte deve “agire rapidamente e con decisione” e che gli Stati Uniti “sono in guai seri” se la Corte Suprema si rifiuta di “risolvere questa situazione tossica e senza precedenti” con urgenza?

Un articolo pubblicato sul Journal of Legal Studies nel gennaio 2018 osservava che, sulla base delle donazioni ai partiti, nel 2012 una minoranza del 35% degli avvocati americani e appena il 15% degli oltre 10.000 professori di diritto erano conservatori. I tre autori dello studio hanno osservato che all'epoca i conservatori controllavano tutti e tre i rami del governo federale e oltre due terzi dei governatorati e delle assemblee legislative statali, mentre gli elettori che si identificavano come conservatori superavano numericamente i progressisti con un rapporto di 35 a 24.

La patologia dell'uniformità ideologica e del disallineamento con l'opinione pubblica è peggiorata considerevolmente da allora. Derek Muller, professore di diritto alla Notre Dame University, dal 2017 all'inizio del 2023 ha esaminato le donazioni politiche dei professori di diritto per partito politico (queste informazioni sono di dominio pubblico negli Stati Uniti). Con sorpresa di nessuno, la loro inclinazione era preponderante verso i Democratici. Dei 3.284 donatori della facoltà di giurisprudenza in quel periodo di oltre cinque anni, il 95,9% ha donato denaro solo ai Democratici, il 2,7% ai Repubblicani e l'1,5% a entrambi i partiti. Scomponendo le donazioni in dollari, il 92,3% è andato ai Democratici e il 7,7% ai Repubblicani. Delle oltre 100 istituzioni esaminate da Muller, ognuna aveva più Democratici registrati che Repubblicani nella facoltà di giurisprudenza, per lo più con ampi margini.

Qualcuno crede seriamente che questo non porti a una discrepanza ideologica tra il clero giurisprudenziale nelle aule di tribunale e tra i giudici e il popolo americano?

Il giudice distrettuale James Boasberg ha ordinato la sospensione dell'espulsione di oltre 250 venezuelani illegali con legami con la gang Tren de Aragua, un'organizzazione terroristica straniera designata come tale a livello federale. Il giudice Boasberg fa parte della bolla di Washington. Questa città ha votato per la candidata democratica Kamala Harris contro Trump con un margine schiacciante del 93,6% contro il 5,5% (con lo 0,9% di voti per posta). Ai voli già in corso è stato intimato di rientrare. L'ordinanza del giudice non ha avuto luogo perché, secondo il governo, gli aerei si trovavano già nello spazio aereo internazionale e quindi la direttiva di non “trasferirli” dagli Stati Uniti era diventata vana.

Un consigliere senior di Trump, Stephen Miller, ha affermato che un tribunale distrettuale “non ha la capacità di limitare in alcun modo l'autorità del Presidente ai sensi dell'Alien Enemies Act”. A prescindere dalle opinioni degli esperti di diritto, la maggior parte degli elettori probabilmente si schiererà con l'amministrazione, sostenendo che l'entità dell'immigrazione attraverso il confine meridionale durante gli anni di Biden ha raggiunto la soglia di “invasione o incursione predatoria” ai sensi della legge, giustificandone l'arresto e la rimozione come “nemici stranieri”. Trump ha definito Boasberg un giudice di Obama “agitatore e provocatore” e che “dovrebbe essere messo sotto accusa!!!”.

I critici hanno messo in guardia contro un “attacco all'intero ordine costituzionale americano”. In una rara replica pubblica, il Presidente della Corte suprema, John Roberts (che è rimasto in silenzio quando un appello dei Democratici ha chiesto l'impeachment dei giudici), ha affermato: “Per oltre due secoli è stato stabilito che l'impeachment non è una risposta appropriata al disaccordo” sulle decisioni giudiziarie. Al contrario “il normale processo di revisione d'appello” fornisce il rimedio appropriato. Il 26 marzo la Corte d'appello degli Stati Uniti per il circuito di Washington ha confermato la sospensione temporanea delle espulsioni con una decisione a maggioranza di 2 a 1.

Roberts ignora una causa fondamentale dell'imminente crisi costituzionale: l'assenza di meccanismi che garantiscano che la magistratura rimanga al suo posto, pur esortando l'esecutivo a farlo. La separazione dei poteri impone limiti all'indipendenza di tutti e tre i rami. La magistratura non può essere l'unico arbitro della propria portata e dei propri limiti, così come di quelli del Congresso e del Presidente. Chi, allora, può identificare questi limiti? Le ingiunzioni nazionali incoraggiano gli attivisti a presentare un ricorso in una giurisdizione e con un giudice che probabilmente si mostrerà comprensivo. Inoltre “tendono a costringere i giudici a prendere decisioni affrettate, ad alto rischio e con scarse informazioni”, ha osservato il giudice Neil Gorsuch in una sentenza della Corte suprema del 2020.

L'assunto secondo cui nessun giudice agisce mai in modo ideologicamente partigiano è palesemente falso. Gli eventi nel mondo reale si muovono molto più velocemente del ritmo glaciale dei procedimenti giudiziari. Ciò significa che anche la Corte suprema deve agire più rapidamente e con decisione per frenare i giudici fuori controllo. Un'interpretazione alternativa all'allarmistica “crisi costituzionale” è quindi che le azioni di Trump possano contribuire a ripristinare l'integrità costituzionale e la responsabilità democratica, sottraendo potere e risorse allo Stato amministrativo e restituendoli al Congresso e all'esecutivo.

Le ingiunzioni nazionali da parte dei tribunali distrettuali sono rare quando Trump non è coinvolto. Secondo un articolo dell'Harvard Law Review dello scorso anno, ce ne sono state in totale 127 dal 1963 all'inizio del 2020. Più della metà (64) erano contro la prima amministrazione Trump. Nel periodo che comprende le presidenze di Bush senior e Obama, più i primi tre anni di Biden, ce ne sono state 32. Solo a febbraio di quest'anno ce ne sono state 15 contro Trump, secondo un documento depositato dal Dipartimento di giustizia presso la Corte suprema.

Il giudice Boasberg aveva precedentemente rilasciato una carta “esci gratis di progione” all'avvocato dell'FBI Kevin Clinesmith, il quale aveva modificato un'email per ottenere un mandato di cattura dal tribunale del Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) e sorvegliare il consigliere della campagna elettorale di Trump, Carter Page. Questo fu il preludio alla bufala sulla collusione con la Russia che ha gravemente danneggiato la prima amministrazione Trump. Boasberg ha condannato Clinesmith alla libertà vigilata anziché al carcere. Ha inoltre inflitto condanne controverse ai manifestanti del 6 gennaio 2020 e ha ordinato a Mike Pence di testimoniare davanti alla giuria che indagava sul ruolo di Trump in quelle rivolte.

Data la composizione del Senato, qualsiasi tentativo di mettere sotto accusa il giudice Boasberg non è fattibile come proposta politica. Questo è diverso dal valutare la legalità dell'azione. L'impeachment può essere abusato quando viene usato come arma o come barriera contro gli abusi giudiziari. Una singola decisione errata può essere gestita tramite il normale processo di revisione d'appello. Una serie di sentenze che dia adito al timore di parzialità può costituire un reato passibile di impeachment. Inoltre la crisi si è intensificata fino a questo punto a causa della timidezza istituzionale e della codardia della Corte suprema.

Roberts aveva precedentemente espresso preoccupazione per la “legittimità istituzionale” della magistratura federale. Una conseguenza prevedibile del suo implicito rimprovero a Trump è stata quella di incoraggiare giudici attivisti e ONG a ritardare e ostacolare il presidente nell'attuazione del suo programma politico approvato dagli elettori. Contrariamente a quanto afferma, il processo d'appello non ha funzionato in modo efficiente. La Corte suprema deve intervenire rapidamente per frenare l'eccesso di potere giudiziario dei giudici distrettuali e adottare sistemi ordinati di decisione in materia di urgenza.

Il senatore dello Utah, Mike Lee (R-UT), ha proposto una legge che impone a un collegio di tre giudici provenienti da diversi distretti – due giudici distrettuali e un giudice della Corte d'appello – di pronunciarsi sulle contestazioni ai provvedimenti presidenziali, con la possibilità di presentare ricorso direttamente alla Corte suprema. Questa potrebbe non essere la formula migliore, ma sembra un miglioramento rispetto all'attuale sistema imperfetto.

La patologia non è limitata agli Stati Uniti

Nel febbraio 2020 l'Alta corte australiana ha stabilito, con una controversa sentenza a maggioranza di 4 a 3 nel caso Love contro Commonwealth, che un aborigeno australiano che non sia effettivamente cittadino australiano non può essere considerato uno “straniero” ai sensi della Costituzione. A differenza dei non aborigeni residenti che non sono cittadini, gli aborigeni australiani non possono essere espulsi nemmeno se condannati per un reato. A quanto pare mantengono un legame mistico e inalienabile con la terra e il Paese.

Possiamo comprendere come e perché questa strana interpretazione della Costituzione sia potuta nascere analizzando una controversia che coinvolge una facoltà di giurisprudenza australiana. Nelle ultime due settimane l'Australian ha pubblicato una serie di articoli sull'indottrinamento razziale e di genere da parte dei corsi di giurisprudenza della Macquarie University, pena la bocciatura per errori di valutazione.

Alcuni di questi articoli sono stati scritti da studenti di quella facoltà che hanno scelto l'anonimato per evitare ritorsioni. Molte delle descrizioni per il dottorato di ricerca in giurisprudenza sono incoerenti e grammaticalmente discutibili. Spesso i moduli non hanno nulla a che fare con la materia principale del corso a cui si sono iscritti. Alcuni dei giudici di domani saranno laureati in queste scuole. Ci si può aspettare che applichino il diritto senza indottrinamenti e pregiudizi radicati?

Per chiudere il cerchio, uno studente anonimo ha scritto che gli studenti sono tenuti a:

scrivere un saggio che rifletta su come una o più di queste teorie critiche degli studi giuridici siano rilevanti per il nostro argomento di dottorato. E mi è stato chiarito che ci si aspettava che includesse qualcosa di simile anche la propria tesi, indipendentemente dall'argomento.

James Allan della Queensland University, uno dei pochissimi professori di diritto conservatori in Australia, sottolinea che quando il Primo ministro Boris Johnson prorogò il Parlamento del Regno Unito per far approvare la Brexit, “tutti i giudici della Corte suprema del Regno Unito, favorevoli al Remain, hanno ribaltato tre secoli di precedenti e hanno dichiarato” incostituzionale la sua azione, nonostante il Paese non abbia una costituzione scritta. Malgrado questo precedente da parte della madre della democrazia parlamentare, la Corte suprema canadese ha confermato il potere del Primo ministro Justin Trudeau di prorogare il Parlamento, esercitato affinché il suo governo potesse evitare una mozione di sfiducia prima che il suo partito avesse il tempo di scegliere un nuovo leader sotto il quale affrontare le elezioni successive.

Il fatto che Mark Carney, che non si è mai nemmeno candidato, né tantomeno vinto un'elezione, possa essere insediato come Primo ministro è di per sé una triste accusa dello stato in cui versa la democrazia canadese. Il cambio di leadership ha completamente trasformato le dinamiche elettorali. Non si tratta forse di un'interferenza giudiziaria nelle elezioni canadesi?

Mentre molte democrazie occidentali raggiungono un punto di svolta sull'immigrazione di massa, i tribunali sono diventati il ​​luogo in cui le democrazie vanno a morire. Il Primo ministro britannico, Keir Starmer, forse il più convinto sostenitore dello stato di diritto tra i leader mondiali e lui stesso avvocato per i diritti umani, il 13 marzo si è lamentato di “una sorta di industria di controllori e bloccatori che usa i soldi pubblici per impedire al governo di rispettare le priorità dei contribuenti”.

Il disprezzo dell'élite per il popolo

È difficile non concludere che i giudici riflettano sempre più un disprezzo dell'élite per il popolo, che si estende alle scelte politiche fatte dai cittadini. Perché Trump fa inorridire così tanto il resto del mondo democratico occidentale? Beh, stiamo iniziando a capirlo. Dice quello che pensa, fa quello che dice e vuole realizzare ciò che ha promesso di fare. L'approccio britannico ed europeo all'esercizio del potere non potrebbe essere più diverso. I principali partiti trattano i cittadini come dei perfetti imbecilli, fanno campagna elettorale in versi per promettere agli elettori tutto ciò che vogliono, poi, una volta al potere, governano in prosa per fare tutto ciò che “noi, l'élite” vogliamo. Le elezioni diventano un esercizio futile.

La prova regina di questa strategia di trattare gli elettori come idioti (tenendoli all'oscuro e nutrendoli di letame) è il Primo ministro Starmer con la sua vittoria schiacciante nel Regno Unito. La prova successiva è il Cancelliere Friedrich Merz in Germania. La prova successiva ancora è il Primo ministro Anthony Albanese in Australia. Come in Germania e nel Regno Unito, la prova più lampante della realtà dell'Unipartito in Australia è come il Primo ministro, Scott Morrison, dopo aver vinto un'elezione opponendosi alla follia del cambiamento climatico, abbia abbracciato la follia di una scadenza per l'azzeramento delle emissioni di anidride carbonica al vertice ambientalista di Glasgow nell'ottobre 2021 e che violava le pari opportunità per tutti gli elettori. E il leader dell'opposizione, Peter Dutton, si rifiuta di abbandonare questa strada nonostante il resto del mondo abbia voltato pagina, soprattutto da quando Trump ha tirato fuori gli Stati Uniti dalla truffa dell'energia verde.

In Australia e nel Regno Unito gli elettori hanno ottenuto un aumento di tassazione e spesa pubblica, uno stato in espansione, immigrazione di massa e fanatismo ambientalista, a prescindere dal partito scelto alle elezioni e le loro promesse elettorali. I partiti di centro-destra nel nuovo Bundestag tedesco hanno ottenuto il 49% dei voti, contro il 28% dei Verdi e della SPD. Eppure sono proprio questi ultimi a essere tenuti da conto da Merz, utilizzando un emendamento costituzionale approvato dal Bundestag uscente, pieno di parlamentari che hanno già esaurito la carica. E tutto in nome della salvaguardia della democrazia! Chissà cosa ne pensa il vicepresidente Vance al riguardo... Nella vicina Romania la tutela della democrazia significa escludere il candidato principale dalle elezioni presidenziali, avvalorando ancora una volta le critiche di Vance alla corruzione della democrazia in tutta Europa.

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

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

Why did America abandon its traditional foreign policy of non-involvement in European power politics? With some exceptions, that was America’s foreign policy from the founding of our Republic to the end of the nineteenth century. when America’s pursuit of Empire began. The traditional policy was encapsulated in John Quincy Adams’s famous declaration in his Independence Day Oration of July 4, 1821 that “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

Of course, Wilson can’t be blamed for our pursuit of Empire in 1898. The primary responsibility for that lies with Theodore Roosevelt and his allies. But the policy of involvement in European power politics took a giant step forward when Wilson, an inveterate Anglophile, followed an unneutral course of conduct after the outbreak of World War I in August 1914. In spite of urging America to be neutral in thought, word, and deed, Wilson soon tilted our foreign policy toward the British cause. He insisted that the Germans strictly respect American neutrality while colluding with the illegal British hunger blockade of Germany, a blockade responsible for a vast number of deaths from starvation.

As Laurence White points out, relying on a book by Malcom Magee, “Wilson, who supported the views of his uncle James Woodrow on Theistic Darwinism, ‘believed the United States was divinely chosen to do God’s will on earth.’ The United States was the ‘redeemer nation’ destined by God to ‘instruct and lead the world.’ While president of Princeton, Wilson said in a speech that the mighty task before us was ‘to make the United States a mighty Christian nation, and to Christianize the world.’ Wilson viewed himself as ‘the divinely appointed messenger.’ The United States was his parish, and he would ‘be an evangelist, a missionary, for the export of Christian democracy.’ He compared himself to the prophet Ezekiel. He equated patriotism with Christianity and the United States with God’s chosen people. What is of most interest in What the World Should Be ( Magee’s book) is how Wilson viewed himself and the United States during World War I. He said soon after the war began that it ‘may have been a godsend.’ Comments Magge: ‘He was unshaken by the conflict since, despite the carnage, it seemed to open possibilities for his own mission to bring God’s order to the world. He was called by God.’ Being ‘predisposed to be an Anglophile,’ Wilson interpreted information ‘in a way that favored British interests and penalized Germany while continuing to believe that he and the country were being absolutely neutral.’ Wilson had some strange ideas about neutrality. His ‘active’ neutrality ‘allowed America to act on behalf of the righteous.’ The United States would ‘use its power as an aggressive neutral to conquer the forces of disorder and selfishness in the world on all sides.’ Wilson referred to his policy of neutrality as the ‘peaceful conquest of the world’ U.S. neutrality would ‘conquer, convert, and change the nations.’ The United States was chosen by God to be the ‘mediating nation of the world.’ America was the ‘house of the Lord’ and the ‘city on a hill.’ The entrance of the United States into the war meant ‘salvation’ to the Allies. Wilson believed in using ‘neutral force to mediate peace.’ Even as American soldiers were dying in Europe, the United States was ‘neutral in spirit’ in fighting a ‘righteous war.’ Naturally, before he led the country into war, Wilson advocated an increase in the military, the reserves, and military spending, but ‘purely for defense.’ If war became necessary, it ‘must be a peacemaking war’ He wanted a ‘new international order’ that would prevent such a war from happening in the future. The Versailles Treaty would allow him as president to ‘do great good for the downtrodden inhabitants of the world.’ The paternalistic Wilson had a tendency to ‘see the nonwhite peoples as being in need of instruction.’”

If the United States had remained neutral in World War I, it is very likely that a negotiated settlement would have brought the war to an end. In that case, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires would have remained in place, and Hitler never come to power. Instead, Wilson demanded that Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicate and end the German monarchy before he would consent to negotiate an armistice. He also insisted that the Austro-Hungarian Empire come to an end, thus unleashing the conflicts among rival ethnic nationalist movements that did so much to cause World War II.

Wilson said that the League of Nations, his pet project, would ensure lasting peace. Instead, it cemented in place the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. As the great  historian Ralph Raico noted in a lecture, “The world then, after 1919, when the conference takes place, seems to be pretty much under British and French control. The high point of British and French imperialism is reached—the greatest extent of the British and French Empires. And then they set up the League of Nations. Why was the League of Nations set up? As you know, the League of Nations was set up for all good things. There is not a good thing that the League of Nations was not set up for, right? There is another way of looking at this, which is this: Once the treaties of Paris are signed, what do we have in the world? We have established British and French world hegemony—British and French control of the world (with the possible assistance of the United States, if the U.S. is interested). But Germany has been demolished. Russia is involved in turmoil—it’s not going to be a problem for a long time. The British and French have come to the apogee of their empires. And now, let us freeze that for all time. Let us set up an international organization with all the power of all the international community behind it, which says that any crossing of any boundary is an act of aggression which is to be answered by the whole world community. And what have you got then? You have, locked in for all time, British and French control of the world. That’s, as I say, an alternative view of what the League of Nations amounted to.”  Raico rated Wilson as our worst president, and it is easy to understand why.

The post The Evil Woodrow Wilson appeared first on LewRockwell.

“For posterity’s sake.” Those words from President Joe Biden sum up the crushing impact of the leaked audiotapes from the interview between then-President Joe Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur. Not only did they remove any serious doubt over Biden committing the federal crimes charged against President Donald Trump, but they also constituted what is akin to a political racketeering indictment against much of the Washington establishment.

The interview from Oct. 8-9, 2023, has long been sought by Congress, but was kept under wraps by the government even as Biden campaigned for a second term.

Many of us balked at Hur’s conclusion that no charges were appropriate despite the fact that the President removed classified material for decades, stored it in grossly negligent ways, and moved it around to unsecure locations, including his garage in Delaware.

Given President Donald Trump’s indictment for the same offenses, it was hard to imagine how the Special Counsel could not recommend the same criminal charges (presumably after he left office).

Instead, Hur declared it would have been hard to get a jury to convict Biden because he was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

It appears that Trump, on the other hand, was presumptively not sympathetic or well-meaning and possessed a good memory for prosecution.

The contrast was glaring and only reinforced the view of many citizens that there are two tracks for justice in Washington.

Soon after the report’s release, President Biden gave an irate press conference in which he lied about the findings of his culpability and lashed out at any suggestion that he had gapped or stumbled in the interview.

For example, when reporters raised how Biden forgot when his son Beau died, Biden angrily responded, “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Frankly, when I was asked the question I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.”

However, it was not Hur but Biden himself who raised the death of his son, and he forgot a wide array of dates, including when he served in office.

The interview shows that in 2023 it was clear that Biden was mentally diminished despite claims from many allies and former aides that there was a sudden loss of capacity just before the disastrous debate in 2024.  It is now undeniable that the White House staff actively hid the president’s incompetence from the American public. That includes the White House press secretary Jen Psaki (who left her post in May 2022) and Karine Jean-Pierre who insisted that Biden was sharp and “running circles” around the staff.

Of course, the media is now covering the story after the public saw the truth in the debate. Figures like CNN’s Jake Tapper have even written books that belatedly pursue the question despite previously insisting that there was no evidence of a diminishment in Biden’s mental state.

Tapper repeatedly dismissed the claim and even mocked Lara Trump for raising it. In one interview, he pushed a White House talking point that such suggestions were mocking Biden for a childhood stutter:

“It’s so amazing to me- a ‘cognitive decline.’ I think you were mocking his stutter. Yeah. I think you were mocking his stutter and I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody’s cognitive decline. I would think somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar.”

When Lara Trump insisted that this was clearly evidence of a “very concerning” cognitive decline, Tapper dismissed her statement by saying  “Thank you, Lara. I’m sure it’s from a place of concern. We all believe that.”

Keep in mind that others beyond Lara Trump were raising this issue and there were tapes showing physical and mental diminishment. The media simply refused to seriously pursue the story until the cover-up no longer mattered after the debate.

Over on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was equally apoplectic at those raising the issue and stated

start your tape right now because I’m about to tell you the truth. And F— you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I have known him for years…If it weren’t the truth I wouldn’t say it

This media effort continued all the way up to the debate itself. On CNN, Oliver Darcy wrote, “Right-wing media figures are desperately pushing conspiracy theories about Biden ahead of the debate.”

Once the public found out, the media was ready to tell the story when there was no longer any advance or ability to deny it. Articles began to appear with the same realization of “Oh you meant THAT mental decline. Well sure.”

It was the same belated acknowledgment that came, after the election, with Hunter Biden’s laptop. The media just moved on with a shrug and a collective “our bad” concession.

As for the President himself, the one moment of clarity in the interview may have been his most incriminating line. When asked why he removed classified material on Afghanistan, Biden admitted “I guess I wanted to hang on to it for posterity’s sake.”

That is precisely what critics on CNN and MSNBC accused Trump of doing: removing material as types of keepsakes or trophies.

One president was indicted for that and one was sent along his way to a second term in office.

The real indictment that comes out of these tapes is a type of political racketeering enterprise by the Washington establishment. It took a total team effort from Democratic politicians to the White House staff to the media to hide the fact that the President of the United States was mentally diminished. If there were a political RICO crime, half of Washington would be frog-marched to the nearest federal courthouse.

Of course, none of this complicity in the cover-up is an actual crime. It is part of the Washington racket.

After all, this is Washington, where such duplicity results not in plea deals but book deals.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

The post ‘For Posterity’s Sake’: Why the Biden-Hur Tapes Is a Virtual Racketeering Indictment appeared first on LewRockwell.

All Things are NOT Going-Well for Netanyahu.

Washington’s unspoken intent is to eventually scrap “The Greater Israel” project, while retaining the rhetoric. 

Confrontation between Netanyahu and Trump is currently unfolding, sofar behind closed doors. 

President Trump has confirmed his intent is to transform Gaza into an “American Territory” . It’s a neo-colonial project

US. Foreign Policy will eventually overshadow the so-called “Greater Israel” project.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Trump Says Goodbye to ‘Greater Israel’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lysander Spooner is well known as an abolitionist who argued that slavery was a violation of natural law. In his 1858 pamphlet, “A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery, and To the Non-Slaveholders of the South,” Spooner set out what he considered to be the relevant “principles of justice and humanity,” arguing that “so long as the governments, under which they live, refuse to give them liberty or compensation, [slaves] have the right to take it by stratagem or force.” Spooner argued that property owned by slave masters belonged, in justice, to the slaves. He called on his readers to help the slaves in the South to revolt and to seize their masters’ property by force:

…the rightful owners of the property, which is now held by their masters, but which would pass to them, if justice were done; to justify and assist them in every effort to acquire their liberty, and obtain possession of such property, by stratagem or force.

Spooner did not see slavery as a legal institution. His own interpretation of the United States Constitution was that the Constitution did not permit slavery. He therefore saw the institution of slavery as not only immoral and unjust, in the ethical sense, but also as illegal and unconstitutional. This is an important distinction. As readers of Murray Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty will be aware, Rothbard did not purport to set out the principles that are contained in the United States Constitution or in any positive (formal) legal instruments, but rather to set out moral principles of justice. By contrast, Spooner was a lawyer who had published a book called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Spooner’s reading of the Constitution goes a long way in explaining why he encouraged slaves in the South to rise up and seize their masters’ property. He explained that he did not see this as theft, but rather he saw it as merely vindication of what he called “a natural right to compensation (so far as the property of the Slaveholders and their abettors can compensate them) for the wrongs they have suffered” (emphasis added). He was very much in favor of slaves in the South “taking justice into their own hands” as compensation for their suffering:

Perhaps some may say that this taking of property, by the Slaves, would be stealing, and should not be encouraged. The answer is, that it would not be stealing; it would be simply taking justice into their own hands, and redressing their own wrongs.

Spooner’s argument was not simply that anyone who works on a resource becomes its owner, nor was he simply arguing that slaves should seize their masters’ property as compensation for their labor. Spooner did not show any interest in whether slaves were ever compensated for their labor, as might perhaps be expected if his concern was merely that slave labor was not directly paid. Historians have noted cases where slaves kept part of their crop and even cases where slaves worked for wages or were paid stipends. But this is not the issue Spooner had in mind when he talked of seizing the property of slave owners. The compensation Spooner had in mind was not for “unpaid labor” but for the unjust and (as he saw it) unconstitutional holding of men in bondage. Spooner regarded slavery as a war crime, and to him a slave revolt amounted to a just war. As he explained:

The state of Slavery is a state of war. In this case it is a just war, on the part of the negroes—a war for liberty, and the recompense of injuries; and necessity justifies them in carrying it on by the only means their oppressors have left to them.

Murray Rothbard also thought that seizing the plantations of slave owners and giving them to the slaves would have been an appropriate punishment for the crime of slavery. Thus, the abolitionist call for seizure of the plantations was not simply an application of Lockean homesteading principles of first acquisition or just acquisition of title, as many libertarians tend to assume. It was based on the notion of compensation and punishment for the injustice or crime of slavery. Spooner went even further, arguing for violence and killing of slave owners because, after all, as far as he could tell from the safety of his home in Massachusetts, nothing less than war would suffice to right this grievous wrong that was being carried on in the South. Spooner wrote:

In war, the plunder of enemies is as legitimate as the killing of them; and stratagem is as legitimate as open force. The right of the Slaves, therefore, in this war, to take property, is as clear as their right to take life; and their right to do it secretly, is as clear as their right to do it openly.

Spooner argued that slaves would be justified in violent revolt against “the governments, under which they live,” calling for abolitionists to establish a more “just” system of law enforcement to replace what he saw as the “corrupt” governments of the South:

To form Vigilance Committees, or Leagues of Freedom, in every neighborhood or township, whose duty it shall be to stand in the stead of the government, and do that justice for the slaves, which government refuses to do…

Spooner argued that abolitionists should “ignore and spurn the authority of all the corrupt and tyrannical political institutions, which the Slaveholders have established for the security of their crimes,” namely, the crime of slavery. It is worth reiterating that he did not use the term “crime” only in the moral or ethical sense, as Rothbard does in the Ethics of Liberty, but also in the legal sense, as he believed slavery to be a violation of the Constitution. But to many Northern abolitionists, the constitutionality of slavery was in any case irrelevant. They saw the Constitution itself as a “corrupt and tyrannical political institution.” The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison—also fulminating about slavery in the South from the comfort of his Massachusetts eyrie—referred to the Constitution as “a covenant with death and an agreement from hell”:

Garrison’s position was clearly and colorfully stated in 1854, when abolitionists convened in Framingham, Massachusetts to protest the return of a runaway slave, Anthony Burns. During his speech Garrison held up a copy of the Constitution and condemned it as “a covenant with death and an agreement from hell.” Then Garrison burned the Constitution while declaring, “So perish all compromises with tyranny!” Most of the spectators responded with amens.

According to Garrison, the Constitution was “the most bloody and heaven-daring arrangement ever made by men for the continuance and protection of a system of the most atrocious villainy ever exhibited on earth.”

Conservatives in the South were alarmed by this talk of revolt, death, and bloodshed. As Steve Byas explains:

John Brown had exacerbated the intensity of the national debate of the 1850s over slavery by murdering some settlers in Kansas in 1856. Brown and his fellow murderers slaughtered five of them, mostly using a sword to hack them to pieces. He later explained that he had had “no choice” but to kill them: “It has been ordained by Almighty God, ordained from Eternity, that I should make an example of these men.” While some slanted accounts describe the incident as Brown and his so-called Northern Army of terrorists killing some “pro-slavery settlers,” the truth is that none of his victims were slave owners, nor were they “pro-slavery.” They were simply farmers who had moved from Tennessee, a “slave state,” because they did not wish to compete with slave labor.

Even supposing the farmers from Tennessee had been pro-slavery, hacking them to pieces with a sword would still be wrong. As Rothbard makes very clear in the Ethics of Liberty, in his discussion of the proportionality of punishment, declaring anything to be a crime does not justify committing new atrocities which are much worse than the crimes one purports to be against.

To the Southern Democrats, the abolitionist terrorists of Massachusetts were a menace. They posed a real threat to law and order, to peace, and to the sovereignty of their states. Ensconced in Massachusetts—the heart of Puritanism—they were too wrapped in their own self-righteousness to have any concerns about the upheaval they were causing in the South. A primary reason why teaching slaves to read and write was banned in some states of the South in the 1830s—after the slave revolt led by Nat Turner—was to stem the influence of pamphlets spewing forth from Massachusetts encouraging slaves in the South to wage “just war” against their states. Spooner’s proposal that “Leagues of Freedom” supported by Northern abolitionists should run law enforcement in the South on behalf of the freed slaves was viewed as mischievous. Notably, as Donald Livingston has pointed out, there were more abolitionist societies in the South than in the North, but the abolitionists in the South favored peaceful means. Peaceful reform was also favored by the conservative Democrats in the North, regardless of whether they owned slaves.

It is in this context that the arguments of John C. Calhoun—the statesman and philosopher from South Carolina—should be read. The historian Clyde Wilson—who is regarded as the leading historian of Calhoun—explains that, “There is no doubt that in 1837 he [Calhoun] intended to change the political dynamic in regard to abolitionism.” Calhoun saw that all this talk of war and killing wicked Southerners was a threat to the harmony of the Union. Wilson explains:

With this introduction Calhoun was ready to reply to the abolitionist attack on the South, and to do so he had to discuss the realities of Southern life as he and his colleagues knew them. According to the abolitionists the South was a land of horrors devoid of religion and decency and law and order, inhabited by depraved white barbarians and black people out of whom all humanity had been crushed. Calhoun and all Southerners knew this to be a false picture. Neither the whites nor the blacks of the South resembled their portraits as painted by the abolitionists.

Mr Calhoun “insisted that the slaveholders of the South had nothing in the case to lament or to lay to their conscience…. Nor was there anything in the doctrines he held in the slightest degree inconsistent with the highest and purest principles of freedom.”

Calhoun sought to give the Constitution the attention he felt it deserved, as in his opinion the type of violent revolt which the abolitionists were calling for was not the best approach to resolving constitutional debates between North and South. In addition, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Radical Abolitionists—who were political opponents of the Southern Democrats—were now deploying the rhetoric of abolition in political debate for partisan purposes. Calhoun’s concern was not to defend slavery for its own sake, but to debunk the lies that were spread by New Englanders who had never been to the South, and to reject the notion that the constitutionality of slavery should be settled with armed conflict. As can be seen in the writings of both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens—the President and Vice President of the Confederate States of America—the interpretation of the Constitution at all times took center stage in their understanding of the conflict in which they were involved.

Modern historians often assume, wrongly, that abolitionism was generally popular in the North, and that there was popular support in the North for fomenting violent revolt in the South. In his book, No Party Now: Politics in the Civil War North, Adam I.P. Smith observes that there was, in fact, no widespread support for abolitionists in the North. Far from supporting abolition, the Republican Party was well aware that being associated with the abolitionists calling for revolt and bloodshed, and denouncing the Constitution as “an agreement from hell,” would tend to lose them the popular vote among ordinary Americans:

The defensiveness of leading Republicans, even those who fervently supported black freedom, revealed their acute awareness of the resistance of the majority of Northerners to the idea of emancipation. Even the great antislavery senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, urged in the fall of 1861 that, when it came, as he was confident it would, the freedom of the slaves should be “presented strictly as a measure of military necessity and the argument is to be thus supported rather than on grounds of philanthropy.”

Adams also mentions “the President’s old Illinois friend Orville Hickman Browning, who complained in his diary that ‘nothing should have been said on the subject of slavery.’” The point of Lincoln’s war, as the Republicans saw it, was not abolition. Their goal was to keep the Southern states in the Union. Tom DiLorenzo also shows in The Real Lincoln that Lincoln himself was no abolitionist. He had one primary goal, and that was to save the Union. As Murray Rothbard writes in “Just War”:

What was the North’s excuse for their monstrous war of plunder and mass murder against their fellow Americans? Not allegiance to an actual, real person, the king, but allegiance to a nonexistent, mystical, quasi-divine alleged entity, “the Union.”

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

The post Abolitionist Hypocrisies appeared first on LewRockwell.

The endgame is clear: the US losing the entire Eurasian land mass. Ukraine, under these immense geopolitical imperatives, is only a sovereign-deprived pawn in the (Great) Game.

Did President Putin really change the game by proposing the resumption of negotiations on the proxy war in Ukraine in Istanbul – over three years after the first ones were scotched by NATO?

It’s complicated. And depends on which “game” we’re talking about.

What the Russian move instantly accomplished was to throw into total disarray the European warmongering Three Stooges (Starmer, BlackRock chancellor, Le Petit Roi) Cocaine Express.

Irrelevant Europe was not even at the table in Istanbul – except via extensive previous briefing of the low-rent, shabby-dressed Ukrainian delegation. That was compounded by the noisy barking threat in the sidelines advocating “more sanctions” to “pressure Russia”.

In March 2022 in Istanbul, Kiev could have stopped the war. Every one of us who were in Istanbul at the time could foresee that Kiev would eventually have to be forced to the table all over again.

So in essence we are back to the same negotiation – with the same top Russian negotiator, competent historian Vladimir Medinsky, heading a delegation composed by pros, but with Ukraine now facing over a million dead; deprived of at least four regions – more on the way; what’s left of its mineral wealth de facto controlled by the US; and a horrendous black hole that passes for an “economy”. We are talking about country 404 territory.

During the negotiations on Friday, Medinsky went straight to the point:

“We don’t want war, but we are ready to fight for a year, two, three – as long as it takes. We fought with Sweden for 21 years [the Great Northern War, 1700-1721, as it is known in Russia]. How long are you ready to fight?”

That’s the geopolitical/military state of things for Kiev and their “to the last Ukrainian” warmongering backers: either you capitulate, or we’re going to hurt you even more.

What’s the point of these negotiations?

Turkiye under uber-opportunist Sultan Erdogan in fact hosted a P.R. meeting between Moscow, Kiev and itself – with the Ukrainians unleashing a blitzkrieg of infantile tantrums only designed to influence global public opinion. In sharp contrast, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, did his best to put a positive spin on the proceedings.

Istanbul 2.0, Dmitriev asserted, achieved a large exchange of prisoners (1,000 on each side); ceasefire options to be presented by both sides; and a continuation of dialogue.

That’s not much. Well, at least they discussed in the same language: Russian. Nothing was lost in translation.

A serious case can be made that to propose the resumption of these negotiations, under this format, was meaningless. There’s no evidence in the horizon both parties might touch the fundamental issue anytime soon: the whole geopolitical strategic equation in Eastern Europe, from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea and beyond – leading to an “indivisibility of security” new deal with global repercussions.

That implies that whatever track these negotiations may follow further on down the road, they are an objective impossibility. Meanwhile, the proxy war in Ukraine – and the SMO – will go on.

That would also suggest that the Moscow security establishment considers the neo-nazi instrumentalized goons in Kiev at best as a re-enactment of the 6th Army of Paulus, with which you negotiate the end of a battle, but not the end of the war.

Even NATO semi-realists as retired Commodore Steven Jermy have been forced to admit that “Russia is in the driving seat” and clueless Europeans “appear to believe that the losers should dictate the terms of ceasefire or surrender.”

All the barking by the – European – chihuahuas of war cannot disguise the fundamental geopolitical/military fact: a massive NATO humiliation. Trump’s humongous problem is that he has to manage it – and sell it to domestic public opinion and the global public opinion as some sort of “deal” he struck with Putin.

It’s enlightening once again to go back to Grandmaster Lavrov, always the uber-realist, back in September 2024: “In April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached agreement in Istanbul. If that agreement had been observed, Ukraine would have preserved part of Donbass. But every time another agreement, always accepted by Russia, is broken, Ukraine shrinks in size.”

The (Great) Game, revisited

Now back to the (Great) Game. Kiev negotiators eventually admitting Ukrainian capitulation means a NATO capitulation and an Empire of Chaos capitulation. That’s the ultimate anathema for the US ruling classes. Even an ultra-negotiated, carefully managed Ukrainian surrender will be an impossible sell – not to mention Washington under Narcissus Drowned Trump acknowledging a strategic defeat.

Because that will mean the Empire of Chaos losing Eurasia for good: the ultimate Mackinder/Brzezinski nightmare. Coupled with the consequential solidification of the multi-nodal, multipolar world.

The Russia-China stategic partnership is very much aware of every nook and cranny in this larger-than-life process. Beyond the current Turkish kabuki, they clearly understand the Big Eurasia Equation.

Beijing is fully aware NATO’s real goal was always to confront it via Russia.  Ukraine was NATO’s pawn to take down Russia then get to China from the West. The goal of the US ruling elites as they configured their thalassocratic empire remains to blockade China from the West by land and sea, using Russia; then use Taiwan as a staging area to blockade China from the East by sea. No wonder control of Taiwan is a Chinese strategic imperative.

Enter Mackinder panic – all over again: the China-Russia strategic partnership can beat NATO hands down – and Russia, by itself, is already doing it. Xi and Putin once again discussed the chessboard in detail, in person, prior to the Victory Day parade last week in Moscow.

The endgame, once again, is clear: the US losing the entire Eurasian land mass. Ukraine, under these immense geopolitical imperatives, is only a sovereign-deprived pawn in the (Great) Game.

As for the tantrum-addicted clown in Kiev, he is merely an actor with no authority whatsoever, negotiations included. He is completely dominated by Ukrainian neo-Nazis who will kill him if and when the war is over. He merely fronts for them and gets paid off. And that’s why – enthusiastically supported by inconsequential London, Paris and Berlin – he’s obsessed to continue a Forever War destroying the very nation he claims to represent.

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

The post The Istanbul Kabuki – Decoded appeared first on LewRockwell.

Back in the “War on Terror” days, the UK security services fabricated multiple fake terror plots. There was, for example, the 2009 Easter Bomb Plot in Manchester, taking entire front pages of newspapers. Gordon Brown as PM hyped it as a “very big terror plot”. It was a total fabrication, nobody was convicted and it eventually emerged that the trumpeted “bomb-making ingredient” the police confiscated from kitchens was sugar – in normal quantities.

The Great Ricin Plot in in 2003 was again kitchen obsessed, and the media that ran screaming headlines about the discovery of ricin did not bother to later report that the amounts the police announced they had discovered turned out to be the almost undetectable trace which might be found in any kitchen.

The propaganda was the purpose, all ramping up Islamophobia to justify the Western destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. When the Manchester Arena attack eventually did happen, it turned out that MI5 had been the perpetrator’s sponsor and he and his father had been ferried from Libya by the British armed forces. Sponsorship of terrorism abroad is always likely to result in blowback at home.

The propaganda is now being ramped up again to promote the Islamophobia intended to drive public support in the UK for the Genocide in Gaza and a forthcoming attack on Iran.

MI5 Head Ken McCallum is arguably the most prolific and sustained liar in the history of the UK public service. He has not yet generated the deaths with his lies that Alistair Campbell caused, but give McCallum time for his Goebbels-like repetition to pay off. McCallum has a much more compliant media landscape to work with than existed a quarter of a century before.

I have to remind myself that my continued outrage at the destruction of millions of very real and ordinary people in the Middle East from 2003 onwards, to secure hydrocarbons for rich and evil men and based on total lies about Iraqi weapons, is something extremely vivid and fundamental to me, but the average university student was not even born at the time.

The myth of a “good” West continually self-propagates. The media distracts and obfuscates in a constant and prolonged process of attrition of the truth; it is tempting to believe that the Genocide in Gaza has awoken a public consciousness which may be a historic break of the system. But it is already becoming harder to access true news from Gaza. Fewer images are available as the murder of countless citizen journalists and the throttling of internet in Gaza takes effect.

Social media suppression of the reach of pro-Palestinian accounts and massive boosting of Zionist accounts are reinforced by systematic state persecution of pro-Palestinian voices.

Even as Israeli ministers openly proclaim their Genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza, European ministers continue to deny it. I am reminded of Harold Pinter’s great acceptance speech for his Nobel prize, speaking in particular of the lies and atrocities of the Iraq War:

This is the reality of power. Power does not have to justify itself. Power does what it wants, and the rest of the world is expected to accept it.

But there is another reality, one that is rarely reported. The reality of resistance. The reality of people who refuse to accept the lies, who refuse to be silenced. In every country where the United States has intervened, there have been people who fought back – not just with weapons, but with words, with ideas, with courage.

These voices are often ignored by the Western media, which prefers to focus on the narrative of American benevolence. But they exist, and they are growing. From Latin America to the Middle East, people are standing up to imperialism, to exploitation, to lies.

We are still standing up, but the lies keep coming, the exploitation keeps coming and the murder keeps coming.

Now let us return on to the arch-propagandist Ken McCallum and his latest invented plot. This is a biggie – the largest state-promoted terrorism scare for twenty years.

As usual, there is not any actual evidence. This straight propaganda piece from the Guardian accidentally makes that plain:

Of course, the weapons the police are searching for may yet magically turn up under the bed. I recall the search of Charlie Rowley’s house after the death of poor Dawn Sturgess. The police searched the home for five days, looking for a small phial of liquid, with no luck. Then it amazingly turned out that the perfume bottle had been sitting in plain sight on the kitchen counter all along!

That perfume bottle obviously had miraculous qualities and could materialise and dematerialise at will, because it had also sat undetected inside a regularly emptied charities’ donation bin for over three months. I suppose an RPG may yet materialise under the settee in the current search; when the British police and security services are involved, the laws of physics are frequently suspended.

As usual, Ken McCallum’s “five plots” last year had not resulted in any convictions, or indeed evidence, and in fact the claim was modest for McCallum – who has claimed that MI5 had foiled “twenty plots” since 2022. Even that was not his record.

McCallum reminds me of the man walking around St. James’ Park scattering rubber bands “to keep the elephants away”. When told there are no elephants, he stated “See, it works, doesn’t it?” McCallum has kept vast amounts of Iranian terrorism at bay in a similar fashion.

But, unusually, in 2023 one of McCallum’s fictional “Iranian plots” did result in an actual conviction, and I would like you to look at this one as a window into the twisted psyche of the security services.

In a crowded field, Iran International is probably the world’s dodgiest media channel. A Saudi Arabian-funded niche Farsi language operation, it caters to those Iranians who support Israel, support the restoration of a Shah and support Saudi Arabia.

As I said, it is very niche.

Yet this tiny media operation was set up with a Saudi investment of a quarter of a billion dollars. Yes, you did read that properly, 250 million dollars. Just where all that money really went is an interesting question. There have been persistent rumours of money laundering and of ties to Eastern-European-organised crime.

There was a brief period, after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, when the UK media would print disobliging things about the Saudis. In that short window, this article appeared in the Guardian.

Iran International, perhaps unsurprisingly, specifically supports a Sunni Arab terrorist organisation operating within Iran: the “Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz” – ASMLA. This is a Sunni ethno-nationalist group conducting armed struggle for the secession of certain Arab districts of southern Iran from the predominantly Persian and Shia state.

ASMLA has exactly the same covert backers as HTS in Syria: namely, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Israel, and Western security services.

In September 2018 ASMLA carried out an attack in Ahvaz which killed over 60 people (ISIS also claimed the attack, but the two organisations are linked). Iran International carried an interview with an ASMLA spokesman which very definitely supported ASMLA, and where he insisted on ASMLA’s right to armed resistance and specifically claimed responsibility for the attack as a victory.

In an era where Western activists are routinely arrested for supporting “terrorism” if they oppose the Gaza genocide, you might imagine that this would be an offence by Iran International. But supporting Western- and Saudi-backed terrorists is not only tolerated, it is official British government policy, and in response to complaints OFCOM found that Iran International were entitled to interview the advocate of the right sort of terrorism.

So how does this relate to the single conviction from all of Ken McCallum’s alleged terrorist plots?

Somebody from Iran International has been convicted of glorifying terrorism, right?

Don’t be silly. Iran International is pro-Saudi and pro-Israeli, and in December 2023 it opened a second HQ in Washington DC with additional CIA funding. Remember they are on the same side as HTS. Iran International are the “victims of terrorism” here.

The conviction under the Terrorism Act was for taking photographs of the Iran International HQ building in Chiswick.

In December 2023 Magomed-Husejn Dovtaev, a Chechen with Austrian citizenship, was sentenced to three and a half years in jail for photographing Iran International HQ in Chiswick, which was deemed to be in preparation for a terrorism offence.

The prosecution case was specifically that Dovtaev was operating on behalf of the Iranian Government.

This is the important bit. No evidence of any kind was presented in court of connections between Dovtaev and Iran. There was nothing on his phone and nothing from surveillance. He had not spoken to any Iranians or mentioned Iran.

The prosecution argued – and I kid you not – that Dovtaev was Chechen, which is in Russia, which is geopolitically allied to Iran, and therefore he was probably acting on behalf of Iran. That was it. It really, really was.

This ultra circumstantial argument is a reach enough anyway, but ignores several individual factors.

Dovtaev is a Sunni, therefore not aligned to Iran. He is definitely not one of those Chechens allied to Russia. His family arrived in Austria as refugees from the Chechen war of Independence and he is an anti-Russian Chechen nationalist and an Austrian citizen. He was actually wearing Chechen Independence gear when caught photographing the building.

The prosecution argument, that Dovtaev must be working for Iran because of Russia’s links to Iran, is therefore complete and utter nonsense. But it fits the official anti-Iranian narrative we are being force-fed. And it was rammed down the throats of the jury.

I might add that the evidence that Dovtaev was indeed casing the joint for some ulterior purpose was very strong, and I do not doubt it. But there was no evidence of any kind that it was for Iran, or for terrorism, as the prosecution alleged. The judgment is not published, which is why I do not link it.

That is the one conviction for Iranian terrorism for all McCallum’s false claims – and no connection at all to Iran was shown.

Which leads me to the only other actual arrest – though not yet conviction, until this week – in all of McCallum’s so-called Iranian terrorist plots. Two young Romanians were extradited from Bucharest to London for stabbing in the leg an employee of … you guessed it, Iran International.

Nandito Badea, age 19 and George Stana age 23 were arrested for stabbing in London the Iran International presenter Mr Pouria Zerati. The assault was captured on CCTV.

Now, you might remember that I said at the beginning that there are alleged links between the dodgy finances of Iran International and Eastern-European-organised crime? Well, the story reported from Bucharest is that the defendants admit to the stabbing but say it was a warning with regard to a business debt. Which, when you think about it, makes far more sense. The CCTV shows that the attackers could have killed the victim, but stabbed him in the leg instead. That is a gangland warning, not a state operation.

The notion that Iran is hiring random teenage Romanians to slightly wound people is a nonsense. Furthermore, does not the “business dispute” narrative make infinitely more sense in the case of Dovtaev, who had no links to Iran? The gangster scenario would fully explain why he would keep his lips firmly sealed about who really hired him and what he was doing, even at the cost of a harsher “terrorism” sentence.

So that is all the concrete evidence, or lack of it, in existence about McCallum’s multiple Iranian terrorist plots. This is now, of course, augmented by this new screamed narrative about a planned Iranian attack on the Israeli Embassy in London.

As the Gaza genocide proceeds, you could write a long essay about the ethics of attacking an Israeli Embassy (and Israel has not shown restraint in attacking other nations’ diplomatic premises, but I shall let that pass as not relevant to the current case).

You have to ask, “cui bono?”. Iran has shown tremendous restraint in avoiding being dragged into a wide war over Gaza in face of continued attacks, and is in the midst of a tense negotiating process over its nuclear programme. The idea that, at this moment, it would attack the Israeli Embassy in London is crazed.

However, the narrative very strongly serves the UK interest, as support for the Genocide in Gaza dwindles further, especially among Labour Party supporters, and of course such an attack, or even the allegation of a planned attack, also boosts the perpetual Israeli narrative of victimhood. MI5’s arrangement of this fake plot now is totally predictable; in fact I have been predicting false-flag operations since the genocide started.

My guess is that there is probably an agent provocateur operation at the base of this, where some poor young men have been entrapped into agreeing with wild statements or a fantasy plan. Alternatively, as usual it will prove to be a complete propaganda invention to influence public opinion at a key moment.

It is worth noting that the United States has this last few days currently concentrated four B-52 and six B-2 bombers on Diego Garcia. This is an extremely rare concentration and indicates preparedness for a major operation; Iran is the most likely target. This kind of force is very much greater than anything deployed against Yemen to date. This anti-Iranian propaganda is not being ramped up right now to no purpose.

This article was originally published on CraigMurray.org.uk.

The post MI5’s Fake Terror Plots appeared first on LewRockwell.