Aggregatore di feed

As of 5 PM Eastern Time.  If these are accurate, Pox News viewers are really going to be disappointed about Ciattarelli, as the network has him pegged as a likely winner.  Jay Jones winning would be bizarre.  Wishing out loud that an opponent would get shot and his two children killed and still winning would be a first, but not a huge surprise in the land of government employees, Virginia.

The post Polymarket Predictions for Today’s Elections 11/4/25 appeared first on LewRockwell.

The national debt increased by $1 trillion during a 72-day period this year. Republicans have only themselves to blame. They control the House, Senate, and the presidency. They spend money just as fast as Democrats. The government has no money for food stamps but sent billions to Israel and Ukraine. Cursed be Republicans, as I have said for years.

The post Big-Spending Republicans appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Crazy Foreign Policy: White House To Host Former al-Qaeda Leader appeared first on LewRockwell.

 

This is what 77,303,568 people voted for a year ago as opposed to what we

have today.

The Meaning of MAGA

To Robert F. Kennedy Jr., MAGA means aligning his political and health agenda with Donald Trump’s movement, which he has embraced by taking on a key cabinet role in the “Make America Great Again” MAGA / “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) coalition. His approach frames MAGA as a vehicle for his health-focused policies, which include combating chronic disease through dietary changes and opposing what he views as harmful corporate influence in the food and pharmaceutical industries.

Make America Healthy Again (MAHA): Kennedy has adopted the slogan “Make America Healthy Again” as a health-focused reinterpretation of Trump’s MAGA slogan.

Health-centered agenda: He is the chair of the “Make America Healthy Again” commission, which aims to tackle chronic diseases and reform the food and drug industries.

Alliance with Trump: Kennedy has embraced the MAGA movement and is a powerful figure in the Trump administration, overseeing controversial actions related to public health and policy.

Policy focus: His policies include using the power of his commission to investigate the links between processed foods, pesticides, and chronic disease, and pushing for legislative changes to ensure food companies negotiate with him.

The post Betrayed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eugyppius

 

The post World’s most obnoxious carbon dioxide hysteric appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Not a Dime’s Bit of Difference appeared first on LewRockwell.

It is the insanity of US foreign policy in a nutshell that self-styled Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa is to be welcomed to the White House. Just before his (US-aided) rise to power in Syria last year he was head of the local al-Qaeda branch in Syria. Before that he worked with al-Qaeda in Iraq and is responsible for the death of numerous US service members.

The post Crazy Foreign Policy: White House To Host Former al-Qaeda Leader appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Global Research

 

The post Trump’s Proposed Annexation, Déjà Vu appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Martin.

The Duke Report

 

The post The Assassination of James Forrestal appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Shocking Allegations: Epstein, Andrew, Fergie, Philip & Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

Apart from his starring role in organizing mass murder in the Middle East and elsewhere as defense secretary and vice president, the one thing Cheney will most be remembered for is of course shooting his hunting partner in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun during a pheasant hunt.

He did make a contribution to business culture, however. During the Bush campaign he was appointed chairman of the vice presidential search committee. After a long and arduous search, reportedly leaving no stone unturned, Dick decided that he himself was the best candidate. They’re probably already teaching this tactic in Executive MBA programs.

The post Remembering Bloodthirsty Dick Cheney, the Don Corleone of the Neocon Crime Family appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Zero Hedge

 

The post Senior IDF Official Arrested After Leaking Footage Exposing Israeli Torture Of Palestinian POWs appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

The Grayzone

 

The post Israeli-Linked AI Drones Spy on US Cities appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tributes are pouring in. But why? He was pure neocon evil.

The post The Evil Dick Cheney Is Dead appeared first on LewRockwell.

Defend America First! No New Foreign Wars!

“Do Not Go Abroad In Search of Monsters To Destroy” – John Quincy Adams (Robert Barnes’ Distant Ancestor)

The phrase “do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy” is a quote from an 1821 speech by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams arguing against intervention in foreign conflicts.

He stated that while the U.S. would be a “well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” it should only be the “champion and vindicator of only her own”. This line is often cited by those advocating for a more restrained foreign policy.

Adams believed the U.S. should focus on its own security and interests and be a model of liberty, rather than acting as an international police force. He was specifically addressing the U.S. role in the Latin American wars for independence at the time.

The post Defend America First! No New Foreign Wars! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Wind and the Lion

Take time out of your monotonous busy day to enjoy this delightful Trumpian fantasy tale on the wonders and glories of U. S. military intervention in faraway exotic places.

Starring Sean Connery and Candice Bergan leading an epic cast. A rousing time will be had by all.

In this case the delusional, wildly popular president seeking attention on the world stage, is the egomaniacal patriarch Teddy Roosevelt and his crafty, Machiavellian Secretary of State John Hay (played impeccably by the great John Huston).

The film is loosely based on the real-life Perdicaris affair of 1904. Connery plays Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli, a Moroccan Berber rebel and anti-imperialist leader, and Bergen plays his American hostage Eden Pedecaris, a fictional character inspired by Ion Hanford Perdicaris.

An action romantic epic of the type that are rarely attempted by modern Hollywood, “The Wind and the Lion” excels on all cinematic levels. Great photography and editing, a memorable Jerry Goldsmith score, charismatic performances from Brian Keith (Teddy Roosevelt) and Sean Connery.

The post The Wind and the Lion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “La rivoluzione di Satoshi”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0FYH656JK 

La traduzione in italiano dell'opera scritta da Wendy McElroy esplora Bitcoin a 360°, un compendio della sua storia fino ad adesso e la direzione che molto ptobabilmente prenderà la sua evoluzione nel futuro prossimo. Si parte dalla teoria, soprattutto quella libertaria e Austriaca, e si sonda come essa interagisce con la realtà. Niente utopie, solo la logica esposizione di una tecnologia che si sviluppa insieme alle azioni degli esseri umani. Per questo motivo vengono inserite nell'analisi diversi punti di vista: sociologico, economico, giudiziario, filosofico, politico, psicologico e altri. Una visione e trattazione di Bitcoin come non l'avete mai vista finora, per un asset che non solo promette di rinnovare l'ambito monetario ma che, soprattutto, apre alla possibilità concreta di avere, per la prima volta nella storia umana, una società profondamente e completamente modificabile dal basso verso l'alto.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Mohamed Moutii

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-principio-di-precauzione-europeo)

Qualche secolo fa l'Europa era il cuore pulsante dell'innovazione mondiale. Dall'adozione della ragione da parte dell'Illuminismo al potere trasformativo della Rivoluzione industriale, è stata un centro di pensatori, inventori e imprenditori audaci che hanno sfidato i propri limiti.

Oggi quello spirito è svanito. L'Europa non è più all'avanguardia nell'innovazione tecnologica, non per mancanza di talenti o di esplorazione scientifica, ma a causa di un problema più profondo: un contesto normativo eccessivamente restrittivo. Mentre gli Stati Uniti progrediscono rapidamente nell'intelligenza artificiale, nelle biotecnologie e nello spazio, e la Cina investe massicciamente nella tecnologia avanzata, l'Europa rimane invischiata nella burocrazia, nell'avversione al rischio e in una rigida applicazione del principio di precauzione, che privilegia il controllo sulla creatività e la cautela sul progresso.

La crisi dell'innovazione in Europa

Negli ultimi due decenni l'Europa ha cambiato il suo carattere, passando da culla di rivoluzioni industriali e scoperte scientifiche a superpotenza normativa mondiale. Il cosiddetto Effetto Bruxelles – la capacità dell'Europa di plasmare gli standard globali attraverso il suo potere normativo – ha conferito all'UE influenza, ma in patria ha soffocato proprio l'innovazione che un tempo promuoveva.

Al centro di questo approccio c'è il principio di precauzione, ovvero l'idea che le nuove tecnologie debbano essere dimostrate completamente sicure prima dell'uso. Sebbene tal principio possa essere mosso da buone intenzioni, spesso blocca il progresso. L'innovazione viene vista come una minaccia e gli imprenditori si trovano ad affrontare l'onere quasi impossibile di dimostrare un rischio zero. Invece di gestire il rischio, le autorità di regolamentazione europee ne chiedono la totale eliminazione, bloccando la sperimentazione prima ancora che inizi.

A differenza degli Stati Uniti, dove prevale una cultura di innovazione senza autorizzazioni, gli innovatori sono generalmente liberi di sperimentare, a meno che non causino danni evidenti. Questa differenza di mentalità spiega perché gli Stati Uniti sono leader nell'intelligenza artificiale, nelle biotecnologie, nell'informatica quantistica e nella tecnologia spaziale, mentre l'Europa sta perdendo terreno (nella migliore delle ipotesi).

Prendiamo ad esempio l'AI Act dell'UE del 2024. Pur elogiato per i suoi obiettivi etici, il provvedimento impone rigide classificazioni dei rischi e costi di conformità elevati che solo le grandi aziende possono gestire. Le startup, prive di team legali e di capitali, vengono lasciate indietro. Di conseguenza l'Europa registra un calo delle startup incentrate sull'intelligenza artificiale, una riduzione dell'innovazione e un esodo di talenti verso Stati Uniti e Cina, dove un terzo degli esperti nelle università americane proviene proprio dall'Europa. E quando si tratta di guidare lo sviluppo dei modelli di intelligenza artificiale, il divario è ancora più ampio. Nel 2022 il 54% dei creatori di importanti modelli di intelligenza artificiale era americano, mentre la Germania, il Paese con le migliori performance in Europa, ne aveva solo il 3%.

Questo non si limita all'intelligenza artificiale. Nel campo delle biotecnologie il processo di approvazione europeo per gli organismi geneticamente modificati è tra i più lenti e restrittivi al mondo. Le tecnologie energetiche sperimentali sono impantanate nella burocrazia. Alle startup in settori ad alto rischio e alto rendimento viene regolarmente negato il capitale, non solo per la cautela degli investitori, ma perché un sistema finanziario iper-regolamentato è condizionato a evitare qualsiasi situazione di incertezza. Le rigide leggi sul lavoro aggiungono ulteriori attriti: le assunzioni sono poco flessibili, i licenziamenti costosi e l'adattamento diventa difficile.

L'esodo dell'innovazione dall'Europa

L'impatto cumulativo dell'eccesso di regolamentazione europea è sempre più difficile da ignorare: talenti, capitali e innovazione stanno costantemente defluendo dal continente. L'Europa è diventata un luogo in cui le idee nascono, ma raramente vengono sviluppate su larga scala. Quasi un terzo delle startup europee che raggiungono la maturazione alla fine si trasferisce all'estero, il più delle volte negli Stati Uniti, alla ricerca di ecosistemi più favorevoli e di un più facile accesso al capitale.

I numeri sottolineano l'entità del problema. Gli Stati Uniti dominano il panorama globale, ospitando oltre il 55% di tutte le startup giunte a maturazione e il 75% della loro valutazione totale. Al contrario l'UE ne ospita meno del 10% e solo il 3% del valore globale. Una delle ragioni principali è la disparità nel capitale di rischio: gli investimenti in venture capital europei sono scesi da $100 miliardi nel 2021 a soli $45 miliardi nel 2023, mentre le startup statunitensi hanno raccolto $170 miliardi. In percentuale del PIL, il capitale di rischio statunitense ha raggiunto lo 0,21% nel 2023, cinque volte superiore allo 0,04% dell'UE.

Nel deep tech il divario è impressionante. Sette delle prime dieci aziende di calcolo quantistico sono americane e nessuna ha sede in Europa. Nell'intelligenza artificiale oltre l'80% degli investimenti globali è destinato ad aziende negli Stati Uniti e in Cina, mentre l'Europa ne riceve solo il 7%. Questo divario di investimenti è aggravato dalla minore spesa in ricerca e sviluppo. L'Europa investe solo il 2,2% del suo PIL in ricerca e sviluppo, rispetto al 3,4% degli Stati Uniti e al 5% della Corea del Sud.

I segnali d'allarme sono belli chiari.

Dal 2015 la crescita della produttività in Europa è stata in media solo dello 0,7% annuo, meno della metà del tasso statunitense e appena un nono di quello cinese. Nel 1995 la produttività di Stati Uniti e UE era pressoché pari; oggi l'Europa è in ritardo di quasi il 20%, un divario che minaccia la sua competitività e la sua crescita economica a lungo termine.

L'Europa sta esaurendo il suo tempo. Con una popolazione che invecchia e una forza lavoro in calo, non può permettersi di adagiarsi sugli allori del passato. Senza una coraggiosa riforma strutturale, il continente rischia di trasformarsi in un museo di glorie passate anziché in una fabbrica di innovazioni future.

Ma il declino non è destino. L'Europa può ancora riconquistare il suo vantaggio innovativo, se è disposta ad abbandonare l'iper-regolamentazione e ad abbracciare una nuova era di libertà economica e dinamismo di mercato. Ciò significa accettare rischi e incertezza, dare libero sfogo all'innovazione senza autorizzazioni, ampliare l'accesso al capitale di rischio e riformare le rigide leggi sul lavoro e sulla bancarotta che soffocano l'ambizione imprenditoriale.

Gli Stati Uniti sono leader perché premiano le idee audaci e tollerano gli insuccessi. La cultura europea, al contrario, penalizza il rischio e allontana i talenti. La soluzione non è un controllo più rigido, ma una maggiore libertà.

Come spiegò il celebre Milton Friedman:

Le grandi conquiste della civiltà non sono venute dagli enti governativi, ma da individui che perseguivano i propri interessi. Ovunque le folle siano sfuggite alla povertà estrema, è stato grazie al capitalismo e, in larga parte, al libero scambio. La storia dimostra chiaramente che non esiste modo migliore per ottimizzare la sorte delle persone comuni dell'energia produttiva sprigionata dal sistema della libera impresa.

Finché l'Europa non imparerà ad avere fiducia nei suoi innovatori e imprenditori, rimarrà ai margini della corsa all'innovazione globale.

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

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

Resuming test nuclear explosions is the futile response of a loser.

Russia’s successful testing this week of two breakthrough nuclear-capable weapons, the Burevestnik and Poseidon, marks an absolute technological besting over the United States, which is why President Trump overreacted with warnings of renewed nuke testing.

The weapons unveiled by Russia shift the strategic nuclear balance decisively. In chess terms, they are tantamount to checkmate.

The United States and its NATO allies have no means of defense against Russia’s new nuclear weapon delivery systems. The Burevestnik is a supersonic cruise missile, while the Poseidon is an unmanned submarine vehicle. The unique feature is that both are powered by onboard miniaturized nuclear reactors, which give them unlimited distance capacity. The weapons can circumnavigate the globe indefinitely and strike at targets from multiple unknown directions.

In terms of engineering achievement, the development is revolutionary. There are endless possibilities for civilian, peaceful applications.

Russia disavows a first-strike option in its nuclear doctrine, maintaining that its arsenal is for defense only. By contrast, the United States asserts a first-strike, or preemptive attack, option. The U.S. doctrine is despicable and is an extension of its historic claim of being the only country to have ever used atomic weapons, as it did without warning against Japan in 1945, killing 200,000 people.

But these new Russian weapons will ensure that the United States’ first-strike threats for decapitation of enemies are now null and void. Some military analysts comment that Russia’s strategic advantage now ensures that World War III is avoided – unless the U.S. wants to obliterate itself along with the planet.

Other analysts point out that the United States must disabuse its delusions of seeking global dominance and enter into negotiations with Russia to end the conflict in Ukraine, as well as get serious about respecting arms control.

An amusing aside is that in recent weeks, Trump has been menacing Moscow with threats of possibly delivering Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine for use against Russia. The Tomahawk, developed four decades ago, flies about 2,000 km at subsonic speeds and can theoretically be shot down with advanced Russian air defense systems. Whereas the Burevestnik can fly around the globe multiple times at supersonic speeds, and the U.S. has no defense against it.

Trump’s posturing with the Tomahawk now looks ridiculous.

His response to the news of Russia’s new weapons was a crude overreaction. Other NATO powers have kept silent, no doubt reflecting their stunned realization of impotence.

Trump announced on Wednesday with his usual bluster: “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.”

This American president is not known for his ability to comprehend accurate details. And this is a classic case. His “instruction” to start testing nuclear weapons on an equal basis “immediately” is a non-starter because the U.S. has no weapons comparable to Russia’s. So, that suggests Trump is ready to resume testing on existing nuclear weapons. If he does proceed, and it is not certain if the Congress or Pentagon would permit that, it would mean ending a more than 30-year moratorium on nuclear test explosions.

A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been in existence since 1996, after nuclear powers realized the detriment to the planet from thousands of nuclear explosions carried out since the 1940s. Is Trump willing to break the taboo and go back to that bygone era?

Russia pointed out that the Burevestnik and Poseidon tests were non-nuclear. There were no warheads detonated. What was demonstrated was the capability of nuclear delivery systems.

The American side should learn from history that its arrogant unilateral conduct is self-defeating.

The United States under George W Bush unilaterally pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 because it wanted to encircle Russia with offensive missile systems in Europe. Sure enough, the U.S. expanded NATO towards Russia’s border and installed Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania as a means of intimidating Moscow.

In response to the U.S. abandonment of the ABM Treaty, Russia has developed a suite of new weapons that far surpass anything in the American arsenal, and for which there is no U.S. air defense. Russia has hypersonic missiles, Avangard, Zircon, Khinzal, and Oreshnik that can fly at Mach 10, or over 12,000 km/h, in unpredictable trajectories.

The unveiling of the Burevestnik and Poseidon weapons means it’s game over for the American Dream of dominating and terrorizing the world.

The upper hand that Russia has acquired is a result of the U.S. trying to be underhanded.

Trump’s warning of resuming nuclear explosive testing is a crude overreaction that betrays American admission of being bested by Russia.

Resuming test nuclear explosions is the futile response of a loser.

What the American side needs to do is begin treating Russia with respect and get down to the business of negotiating security and arms control treaties on a mutual basis for the sake of global peace.

A more troubling question is: Is the United States capable of such reasonable negotiation?

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

The post Trump’s Nuke Testing Is a Crude Overreaction to Russia’s Nuke Besting appeared first on LewRockwell.

According to data collected by the research firm Statista, 29 percent of Americans cannot afford to take a vacation this year. A vacation is not the only thing Americans are struggling to afford. The failure of wages to keep up with price inflation is why household debt hit a record level of 18.4 trillion dollars this year, with the average household owing more than 100,000 dollars.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for the decline in American living standards and the rise in income inequality. The turning point in the people’s economic fortunes was on August 15, 1971. That is when then-President Richard Nixon closed the “gold window,” severing the last link between the dollar and gold. This left America with a purely fiat currency and no restraint on the Federal Reserve’s ability to create money.

When the Federal Reserve pumps money into the economy the new money is not equally distributed. It first goes to wealthy and well-connected individuals. These individuals benefit from having increased purchasing power before the new money has caused price increases.

The Fed also contributes to economic instability and inequality by creating bubbles that distort the signals sent by the market. This causes over-investment in some sectors. When bubbles burst, workers employed in certain sectors lose their jobs, while those at top often suffer at most a modest setback. The government bails out the “too big to fail” corporations, but the government never considers workers and homeowners too big to fail.

The Federal Reserve facilitates the growth of the welfare-warfare state by purchasing Treasury bonds, thus monetizing federal debt. The majority of government spending is on programs benefiting powerful special interests. This includes in large part the military-industrial complex that gobbles up more money from the government each year.

The Federal Reserve’s continued devaluation of the dollar to finance an empire abroad and a welfare state at home is the driving force behind the erosion of the people’s living standards. As the dollar loses purchasing power, demand for government assistance increases, leading to more government spending, more debt monetization, and a further decline in living standards.

The fact that almost a third of Americans cannot afford a vacation illustrates how fiat money harms average Americans. Continued growth of federal debt and Fed-created inflation will lead to a major economic crisis. This will either induce or be caused by a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. The result will be a rise of demagogic authoritarians of both left and right and increased political violence, leading to an increase in government repression.

Those of us who know the truth must continue to explain that the solution to our problems is a vacation from the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that facilitates government growth at the expense of the people’s standards of living and liberty. Limited government, free markets, and peaceful relations and free trade with as many nations as possible are components of the path to lasting peace and prosperity.

The post Can’t Afford a Vacation? Blame the Fed. appeared first on LewRockwell.

The old comfortable world is not coming back. The young – if anything – are much more radical.

U.S. foreign policy, drenched in the hubris that the U.S. won the Cold War militarily (in Afghanistan); won it economically (liberal markets); and culturally too, (Hollywood) — and therefore rightly deserves, as Trump puts it, the “fun” of “running both the country the world”. Well, that policy is now in contention for the first time.

Will this matter?

This month, the RAND Organisation, an institution whose shadow has long lain across U.S. foreign policy matters, has challenged the Cold War hubris in respect to China.

Though the report focuses on America’s preoccupation with the threat of China’s ascendency, the implications of questioning the doctrine — that no challenger to U.S. hegemony, financial or military, can be tolerated — does cut to the absolute heart of U.S. foreign policy practice.

The key finding from RAND is that “China and the U.S. should strive to achieve a modus vivendi” together through “each accepting the political legitimacy of the other, constraining efforts to undermine each other, at least to a reasonable degree”.

To propose that each side should acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of the other, rather than see ‘the other’ as a malignant threat, would in itself represent a small revolution.

Were it to apply to China, then why not to Russia or Iran too?

More telling: RAND prescribes that the U.S. leadership in particular should reject notions of ‘absolute victory’ over China – as well as to accept the One China Policy by stopping provoking China through military-minded visits to Taiwan designed specifically to keep China threatened and on edge.

This comes on the eve of Trump’s scheduled meeting with President Xi Jinping in Kuala Lumpur, in which Trump is seeking a ‘trade deal’ with China that reaffirms his dominance and gives him space for his radical plans to re-structure America’s financial landscape – if he can.

Can the pivot proposed by RAND truly be accepted in DC? RAND does possess real weight in Washington – so does this report reflect a split in the structural architecture of the Dark State? Other signs (in the Middle East/ West Asia) point in the opposite direction.

The U.S. has been running the same foreign policy playbook for decades. So, is the U.S. even capable of such radical cultural transformation, as advocated by RAND?

The West is in decline – yes. But does that make it easier, or harder, for it to accept some RAND servings of common sense? It does seem, in respect to China, that a technical view has formed within U.S. defence circles that ‘no way’ can the U.S. take on China militarily.

Yet any profound change takes time to fully register and can be overturned by unexpected events. There are a number of potential black swans circling us, at this time.

And who would lead such a change in national self-perception? Would real (institutional) change emerge from top-down, or come from bottom up?

By ‘bottom up’, could this emerge as a populist ‘America First’-driven impulse resulting from Trump and the GOP losing the House at the Midterms?

In one sense, RAND is clearly right that beyond hyping a piece of short-term theatre, the U.S. no longer can win an economic or tech war – or a military conflict with China – in the longer-term. An uneasy truce seems, for now, to be in prospect.

But for how long?

The Wall Street Journal has suggested a different perspective to the usual Washington consensus: “During his first term, Trump often frustrated Xi Jinping – with his freewheeling mix of threats and bonhomie”.

“This time the Chinese leader believes he has cracked the code”, the WSJ writes: Xi has thrown out traditional diplomatic practice and tailored a new one specifically for Trump. After long preparation, the WSJ argues, Xi has decided to hit back even harder, in a bid to gain leverage over Trump, whilst projecting strength and unpredictability — qualities he believes the U.S. president admires.

Seemingly, China is intent on asserting itself forcefully. It wants to drive the dynamic, and is confident that this hardline approach will gain a resoundingly positive response within China (— and in the rest of the world, the WSJ neglects to acknowledge).

The question is how might Xi’s riposte play-out in the U.S.? Yet the big question remains unanswered: Who controls U.S. foreign policy anyway?

One obvious answer after the Budapest (no) summit débacle is that Trump has little or no agency in this corner of foreign policy. He is wholly co-opted. And was sent a bunt ‘reminder’ to this effect, from the ‘powers that be’ – ‘No normalisation with Moscow’.

Ceasefire, ‘yes’; because a frozen conflict, unencumbered by restrictions on Ukrainian re-armament, would give the NATO Establishment scope to redefine the conflict – from one of NATO’s strategic defeat to a ‘holding’ victory, through promulgating the narrative of a Russian economy progressively weakening.

This contrived formulation holds out — at least in the minds of Europeans – the promise of some final ceasefire at a later stage, by imposing continuing serial costs on Russia that finally compel that ceasefire.

The ‘fly in soup’ to this scam is that Moscow absolutely will not agree to a frozen conflict — and anyway sees the battlespace working towards Russian victory.

The reality is that the Ukraine final outcome will be whatever ‘it is’. The Europeans know it, but cannot say it because they cannot orient to a world in which their way of seeing it does not prevail. If this Luddism be counted as western ‘leverage’, then it is ephemeral and will fade as economic realities bite in Europe.

What then accounts for Trump’s Russian débacle? On the one hand, it was the veto of pro-Israel mega-donors, for whom a militarily hegemonic U.S. – supporting Israel – must be preserved at all costs. Israel cannot exist without it. Many, if not all Team Trump, have been imposed from the outside – by certain zealot donors and likeminded billionaires. (Trump was surprisingly candid about this reality during his address at the Knesset last month).

Some of these Trump donors are also part of the (separate) Wall Street faction who, besides being pro-Zionist, have wider financial concerns in mind. The U.S. financial system desperately requires reinforcing with collateral (i.e. assets having inherent value: such as oil, natural resources, etc.) as underpinning to an over-leveraged U.S. shadow banking system.

This Wall Street (Frankish) pro-Israel faction still harks after a reprise of ‘Russia in the nineties’ (however unlikely). But they share also, with the main pro-Israeli donor block, Israel’s determination to keep Russia out of the Middle East; and extended by the Ukraine conflict. On 7 October this year, Netanyahu begged Putin not to arm Iran, reportedly threatening retaliation in Ukraine.

The China trade deal calculus – for such donors – is wholly different. Should Trump agree a ‘strong’ trade agreement with China, it would be seen in the White House as undercutting the ability of Canada to assemble cheap component goods derived from China and elsewhere – for transhipment and sale into the U.S. market. A China deal would give Trump additional leverage, heading into the 2026 USMCA (CUSMA) dissolution phase.

The latter is important as Trump seeks to fold the whole western hemisphere – from Argentina to north Antarctic — into the U.S. ‘fold’.

Agreement with China on rare earth export controls however, would be clearly crucial to the entire U.S. tech sector. China’s grip on the rare earth supply chain is not just dominant — it’s nearly unassailable. With 70% of global rare earths (a 100% in a few metals) and with 94% refining capacity, Beijing has prepared and built a fortress around one of the most critical inputs to modern technology.

There is another reason – perhaps even an overriding reason – why the U.S. needs a ‘rescue’ by China, urgently.

The legal basis for Trump’s global tariff onslaught has strayed ever further away from the ‘economic emergency’ exceptionality – to the U.S. Constitution’s clarity that the authority for raising of revenues, in principle, falls to Congress – and is not a prerequisite of the Executive. (Tariffs, it will be argued, are revenues.)

Clearly, Trump has stretched the ‘economic emergency’ justification to the limit. Initial tariff cases will come before the Supreme Court very shortly (1 November). Were the Court to find against Trump, it could order all tariff revenues so far gathered to be repaid.

How would this impact on the foreign policy of the United States, given that tariffs have been instrumentalised to force states to pay huge sums to the U.S. (in respect to inward capital investment)?

It is too early to tell. But in the case of China, Trump and the U.S. badly need a deal. Trump’s economic policy more generally (unless reversed by the Supreme Court) marks a permanent change in the economic and geopolitical landscape. There’s no going back to the ex-ante as it existed before November 2024.

The once-prevailing globally interconnected order of things is being swept away, and a new one of standalone economic blocks with their own internal alliances, supply chains and technologies is taking its place.

In other foreign policy areas such a radical change in direction is less likely – at least for now. The pro-Israeli ruling billionaires behind Trump will stop at nothing in their efforts in support of Israel in its goal of imposing a Greater Israel founded amidst a new Nakba.

But in the longer-term, pro-Israel dominance over foreign policy is less assured. Support amongst young Americans for Israel is bleeding out. The Congress will remain ‘bought’ by AIPAC, and Trump has irreversibly defined himself as an unwavering supporter of Israel. A breach between Trump and his MAGA base has begun. And Israel has begun to panic about the America First, anti-Israeli vibe shift taking place amongst young Americans.

In spite of possible re-districting of constituencies in America’s South prompted by challenges to the 1965 Voter Registration Act (that may give the GOP an extra 12 House seats), Trump could still lose the Midterms. This means that effectively Trump’s agenda would have but one year to run – until overwhelmed by Democratic obstruction, investigations or even impeachment efforts begin.

The reason for Trump’s rush is plain. Of course, none of this may occur, and the U.S. (and European) ruling strata may sink back into their cushions, with a sigh of relief that the old agenda can be revived. But complacency would be misplaced. The old comfortable world is not coming back. The young – if anything – are much more radical.

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

The post U.S. Foreign Policy in Contention: Is Trump Allowed To Agree a Deal With China (But Not Russia or Iran)? appeared first on LewRockwell.