How the Fed Messes It All Up
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
—12 U.S. Code § 225a (emphases added)
Maximum employment, stable labor prices, and minimum risk premiums on long-term interest rates each actually require maintaining zero growth of the money quantity — that is, holding the money quantity constant.
Congressmen and presidents instead push the Fed people to undercut each of their statutory mandates — first by simply existing, next by also making the money quantity increase.
The Fed is a cartel that fixes the price of money
Banking sustainably takes skill and work. Bankers collect depositors’ savings and lend out these savings. In exchange for this skill and work, bankers earn interest.
The Fed is a cartel of bankers whom congressmen and presidents grant an unconstitutional privilege to instead unsustainably create government money and lend it out. Freed from doing much work to collect savings from depositors, and freed to lend out money that they just create, these bankers rake in increased revenues.
To keep this privilege, Fed cartel bankers also create and lend government money that politicians borrow to spend.
Fed cartel bankers coordinate their actions by influencing government money’s prices, which are the money’s interest rates.
Fed cartel bankers won’t price money correctly or quickly
Fed cartel bankers set as their control setpoint that they will keep the price of government money low. Politicians like the resulting unsustainable short-term growth. Politicians also gain from the resulting crises by ratcheting up their control.
Fed cartel bankers’ control accuracy is unavoidably poor. One cause is that since the bankers make the money quantity increase, prices increase. At each link along supply chains, people end up having to make prices increase. Since making prices increase will make customers seek alternatives, people tend to delay, hoping for the best, but congressmen, presidents, and the cartel bankers make sure that true relief never comes.
A second cause making the bankers’ control accuracy unavoidably poor is that after inputs like prices change or outputs like sales volumes change, people not only delay before they first act but also take time to then make their actions. These lags occur in sequence along a supply chain. Lags that occur in sequence add delay before changes first begin downstream of the sequence.
Delays reduce people’s solvency, making their subsequent adjustments wind up bigger, adding chaos.
So, then, the Fed cartel is unconstitutional, sets its money-price setpoints unsustainably low, and controls these setpoints poorly. Increasing the money quantity leads people to add pure delay before adjusting, and each sequence of lags along a supply chain adds additional apparent delay. People’s control relies on feedback, so delay in feedback means driving blind. Control has to slow way down and gets unavoidably poor.
Until congressmen and presidents summarily repeal the unconstitutional privilege of creating government money to lend out, the sole lesser evil that a rights-securing Fed cartel could do would be to dampen the harm done creating money by modestly acting to keep the money quantity as close as possible to constant.
Instead, the Fed cartel bankers, with their lowballed prices, take away unalienable rights that congressmen and presidents were instituted and are required to secure.
Sustainable jobs create value that customers buy
When Fed cartel bankers push interest rates lower than are supported by current savings, this leads people to borrow and invest money they can’t sustainably earn back. This funds jobs that aren’t sustainable.
The Fed cartel bankers claim that their lowball pricing is what’s needed to maximize jobs. Actually, their lowball pricing is certain to reduce jobs soon, when the unsustainable borrowing fails.
Jobs are sustainable only when they create products that customers value highly enough to spend some of their current earnings or savings on.
Product prices naturally decrease as productivity increases
To drive interest rates lower than can be sustained by current savings, Fed cartel bankers create and loan government money, loaning most to people who pay it back, although also loaning nearly as much now to government people who never pay it back.
The created money gets added to the existing money. Adding it dilutes the existing money’s value, starting wherever the created money enters supply chains, and from there blowing like a weather front across supply chains, changing prices in its wake.
People keep performing tasks better and inventing ways to add more value. When bankers don’t dilute money, product prices keep getting decreased.
Meanwhile, labor prices — wages — hold steady or increase (other than in avoidable crises, when bankers have created and loaned out money but then failed, destroying money).
People don’t want product prices to stay the same. People want product prices to keep decreasing so that the same labor buys more products.
A level playing field for all money-users is a fundamental freedom
Money is a product. Congressmen and presidents have deprived customers of freedom to choose and use the money that provides the best value.
Future money will be stock-based. Holding it will be investing in productive businesses. Stock-based money will increase in value as stocks do, faster than any other large asset class.
In the past and up to now, the best money has been 100%-reserve gold. Holding it has been conserving value, plus sharing in the average productivity gains throughout the economy.
Anything less than these good moneys unduly deprives people of property.
Smaller deprivations have led to revolutions being fought — and won. Across the long arc of history, what has kept succeeding more and more has been freedom.
Freedom to choose and use good money is a fundamental freedom.
This article was originally published on American Thinker and was reprinted with the author’s permission.
The post How the Fed Messes It All Up appeared first on LewRockwell.
Please Keep the Government Closed
On Wednesday’s episode of The Peter Schiff Show, Peter lays out why recent market headlines—everything from the government shutdown to the wobble in crypto—point back to one theme: more easy money and bad policy. He connects the dots between Washington’s spending, tariff-driven price pressure, and risky mortgage fixes.
He starts by flipping the common narrative about the government shutdown and gold, and explains why reopening the government actually tends to be bullish for bullion because business-as-usual in Washington means more spending and money creation, not less:
Now a lot of people might have thought intuitively, well wouldn’t that be bad for gold? I mean, wasn’t gold going up because the government shutdown was bad for the economy, it was creating uncertainty and that was benefiting gold, and so that once that uncertainty was behind us, once the government reopened and that was good for the economy, that would hurt gold. That’s what a lot of people might have thought, but the opposite happened because the government reopening isn’t bad for gold; it’s the government staying open that’s bad for gold, because when the government is open it’s doing bad stuff.
From there he contrasts gold’s stability with the volatility in crypto, warning that the country leading in crypto exposure stands to suffer the most when that bubble deflates—and that those losses will be another tailwind for gold as malinvestment unwinds:
I also want to juxtapose what’s happening in gold and silver right now to what’s happening in crypto and Bitcoin and the whole crypto industry. … Soon we’re gonna be the laughing stock of the world; the last thing you want to be is number one in crypto because the crypto bubble is deflating and there’s a lot more air that’s gonna come out of this thing. The country that leads in crypto is the country that’s got the most to lose when the bubble pops, so because we’re the leader in crypto we’re gonna be the leader in economic damage done from the bursting of this bubble.
Peter then shifts to housing policy and the push to rework Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, warning of the legal and economic contradictions in promising an implicit government guarantee while trying to privatize these government-sponsored entities:
Another of the Trump trades was the GSEs Fannie and Freddie, and a lot of people loaded up on shares. … The problem with the plan to privatize Fannie and Freddie was you couldn’t do it with a government guarantee because before they went bankrupt there was no government guarantee; the government went out of its way to warn everybody who bought Fannie and Freddie guaranteed debt that there was no government guarantee. Now Donald Trump stated that he wants to bring them public but revive the implicit guarantee; he says I want to bring them public with an implicit guarantee, but you can’t do that—the government can’t state yes we have an implicit guarantee because then that’s explicit.
He argues the obvious market-friendly fix—make homes cheaper by increasing supply—gets ignored while tariffs on lumber and on steel make building materials more expensive, an example of policies that contradict their own stated goals of affordability:
One thing the federal government could do is get rid of the tariffs on lumber and on steel—these are things that you need to build houses and Trump has made those things more expensive—so you can’t complain about the high cost of homes when you are pursuing policies that increase the cost of building homes. … If Donald Trump understands that he can lower coffee prices by lowering coffee tariffs, that means he knows that his tariffs are raising prices, and so obviously if tariffs are raising coffee prices then tariffs are raising home prices because you need steel and you need lumber to build these houses.
Finally, Peter warns that making mortgages fully portable or assumable—the policy some politicians endorse to help homeowners—would lock in low rates, discourage turnover, and force banks into a squeeze that looks like more easy credit and ultimately more inflation, again a setup that benefits gold and silver as the currency weakens:
If the Trump administration does this and transforms all these mortgages and makes them assumable and portable, they may never get repaid; all of them are gonna be there until maturity. … All of this is great for gold and silver because what is all this? Easy money, lower lax lending standards—this is all gonna be more inflation, it’s gonna lead to more quantitative easing, money printing, a weaker dollar; all of this is bullish for gold and silver.
This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.
The post Please Keep the Government Closed appeared first on LewRockwell.
Zionists Are Freaking Out About Losing Control of the Narrative
Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz made some very revealing remarks during an appearance at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly on Sunday, expressing frustration with the way younger Jews are dismissing pro-Israel arguments because of the carnage they’ve seen in Gaza.
“We are now wrestling with a new I think generational divide here, and I think that’s particularly true in that social media is now our source of media,” Hurwitz said. “It used to be that the news you got in America was American media, and it was pretty mainstream; you know it generally didn’t express extreme anti-Israel views. You had to go to a pretty weird bookstore to find global media and fringe media. But today we have social media, which is the global medium; its algorithms are shaped by billions of people worldwide who don’t really love Jews. So while in the 1990s a young person probably wasn’t going to find Al Jazeera or someone like Nick Fuentes, today those media outlets find them; they find them on their phones.”
“It’s also this increasingly post-literate media; less and less text, more and more videos,” Hurwitz continued. “So you have TikTok just smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza. And this is why so many of us cannot have a sane conversation with younger Jews, because anything that we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I want to give data and information and facts and arguments, and they are just seeing in their minds: carnage. And I sound obscene.”
The most insane part of this clip is when she claims that Holocaust education is problematic because today it is failing to make young Jews blindly love Israel, and instead, they are sympathizing with victims of racism, be they Black or Palestinian. What a wretched witch. https://t.co/rFZxR5G4HQ
— Richard Medhurst (@richimedhurst) November 18, 2025
Hurwitz went on to say that Holocaust education has begun backfiring, because it has been giving young people the wrong impression that genocide is always bad.
“And you know I think unfortunately, the very smart bet that we made on Holocaust education to serve as anti-semitism education in this new media environment, I think that is beginning to break down a little bit because, you know, Holocaust education is absolutely essential, but I think it may be confusing some of our young people about antisemitism,” Hurwitz said. “Because they learn about big, strong Nazis hurting weak, emaciated Jews, and they think oh, antisemitism is like anti-black racism, right? Powerful white people against powerless black people. So, when on TikTok all day long, they see powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians, it’s not surprising that they think, Oh, I know the lesson of the Holocaust is you fight Israel. You fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people.”
Hoo boy. Lots to unpack here.
It’s just so fascinating to see a former White House speechwriter making so many of the points that anti-Zionists have been making for years, but taking the exact opposite meaning from them:
- The mainstream legacy media has always hidden anti-Israel views from the public — and that was a good thing.
- Social media has now given Palestinians the ability to expose the truth about Israel’s abuses — and that’s a bad thing.
- People aren’t falling for the Zionist spin and narrative-diddling anymore because they’ve seen the carnage in Gaza with their own eyes — and that’s a problem.
- People who learned from Holocaust education that genocide is wrong have been applying those same lessons to the genocide in Gaza — and this means they’re “confused”.
Hurwitz isn’t denying Israel’s abuses or framing its genocidal atrocities as the problem, she’s just coming right out and saying that people obtaining information and moral clarity about those abuses is the problem. The atrocities aren’t wrong, what’s wrong is people seeing those atrocities and calling them what they are.
I love the way she complains that she looks “obscene” for trying to lay out arguments and narratives justifying the Gaza holocaust for people who’ve seen the “wall of carnage” from the genocide. I mean, yes. Yes obviously you’re going to look obscene if you try to tell someone why raw video footage of massacres, mutilated children and emaciated bodies is actually showing something that is justifiable and acceptable.
You can’t stand in front of a pile of child corpses justifying their murder and then whine when people ignore your spinmeistering and keep staring at the tiny bodies. That’s like murdering an entire family and then telling the cops, “But you’re not listening to my reasons for killing them!” They’re doing the normal thing while you are being obscene.
There’s a viral clip of this tirade going around Twitter and I was curious if Hurwitz had said anything after the video segment ended which might have made what she said sound less horrible, so I went to check out the original video on the Jewish Federations of North America’s Youtube channel, and nope. It didn’t get any better.
Hurwitz went on to say that people are wrong to carry the lessons of Holocaust education into opposition to Israel’s genocidal atrocities because the Holocaust was Nazi Germany blaming Jews for all their problems in the same way people think Israel is the source of all the world’s problems today.
She then mourned the way western Jews “re-imagined Judaism as a Protestant-style religion” in order to integrate into western society rather than retaining a strong identity that is loyal to the state of Israel.
“The problem is, we’re not just a religion,” Hurwitz said. “We’re a nation. Civilization. Tribe. Peoplehood. But most of all we’re a family. And so if you are a young person raised in America who thinks Judaism is a Protestant-style religion, then the seven million Jews in Israel are merely your co-religionists. So my co-religionists, if I look at them and they’re not practicing my religion of social justice and certain prophetic values then what do I have to do with them?”
“But that’s a category error,” says Hurwitz. “The seven million people in Israel, they are not my co-religionists, they are my siblings. But I think if you think of them as merely your co-religionists, it’s easy to slide into anti-Zionism. You don’t necessarily have that connection to them.”
Hurwitz is saying here that Jews around the world should be loyal to Israel no matter what Israel does, not because that’s the moral or truthful position but because Israel is where their loyalties belong.
I don’t know about you, but if my siblings were murdering civilians I would immediately become their enemy. I wouldn’t defend my brother if he was going around shooting children in the head like IDF snipers have been doing in Gaza, in fact I would feel a special responsibility to stop him exactly because he is my brother. Genocide doesn’t magically become acceptable if the perpetrators are your “siblings”, unless you are a sociopath.
It’s just incredible how hard Zionists have been freaking out about the way Israel has lost control of the narrative these last two years. More and more often we’re seeing them say the quiet parts out loud as they frantically scramble to manage perceptions and manipulate minds around the world.
Many things which used to be hidden are finding their way into the light.
______________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
The post Zionists Are Freaking Out About Losing Control of the Narrative appeared first on LewRockwell.
America’s Crime Syndicate Government: Profiteering, Protection Rackets & a Pay-To-Play Presidency
“It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business.”—Michael Corleone, The Godfather
Pay-to-play schemes. Protection rackets. Extortion. Corruption. Self-enrichment. Graft. Grift. Brutality. Roaming bands of thugs smashing car windows and terrorizing communities. Immunity for criminal behavior coupled with prosecutions of whistleblowers.
This is how a crime syndicate operates—not a constitutional republic.
What we are witnessing today is the steady transformation of the federal government—especially the executive branch—into a criminalized system of power in which justice is weaponized, law is selectively enforced, and crime becomes a form of political currency.
While the American police state has long marched in lockstep with the old truism that power corrupts—and absolute power corrupts absolutely—the Trump administration has ceased even the pretense of being bound by the Constitution.
Rather than abiding by the rule of law, this administration operates as if there are two separate legal systems: one for themselves and their cronies, and one for everyone else.
The corruption is off the charts, the conflicts of interest are in your face, and the brazenness is staggering.
For instance, President Trump wants his own Justice Department to put American taxpayers on the line to pay him $230 million in damages over FBI investigations into his alleged past misconduct.
Journalist David D. Kirkpatrick calculates that Donald Trump and his immediate family have made more than $3.4 billion from his time in the White House, including more than $2.3 billion from various cryptocurrency ventures alone.
In May 2025, Trump was accused of selling access to accumulate personal wealth when he hosted a private event for 220 crypto investors who had bought into his meme coin. News reports estimate that buyers spent about $148 million in total on the coin and associated perks, with some spending $1.8 million to attend.
The average American can’t get any kind of access to our elected representatives, but the wealthy can buy their way through the door.
Measured against this reality, Thomas Jefferson’s warning to bind government down “by the chains of the Constitution” sounds almost quaint.
How do you use the Constitution to guard against government misconduct when the government has effectively rendered the Constitution null and void?
It has become increasingly difficult to pretend that we are still dealing with a functioning republic.
What we have instead is a government that behaves like a criminal enterprise: rewarding loyalty, punishing dissent, monetizing public service, and enriching itself through favors, loopholes, and outright graft.
Consider the pay-to-play culture that now permeates the highest levels of power.
The Foreign Gifts and Decoration Act bars the president and federal officials from accepting gifts worth more than $480 from foreign governments (unless they’re accepted on behalf of the United States—meaning they would then belong to the American people—or purchased by the official). Yet congressional investigators have already documented more than a hundred foreign gifts to Trump and his family that went unreported for months in violation of disclosure rules.
The publicly-reported gifts being showered upon President Trump by foreign governments and politically connected foreign corporations include: a gold crown, a Rolex desk clock and a one-kilogram personalized gold bar worth $130,000, and a $400 million luxury Boeing 747.
These are not tokens of diplomacy; they are currency—investments in influence, access, and favorable policy.
As Richard Painter, a former chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, explains, “It’s unconstitutional in the United States for the president or anyone else in a position of power to receive anything of value from a foreign government. That is unconstitutional. But if the gift is from a foreign corporation or a private interest, it’s not technically prohibited under the emoluments clause of the Constitution. But it’s still a very, very dangerous precedent to set that foreign interests can give gifts to the president and then get a concession on tariffs or anything else.”
In many cases, these gifts went unreported to the State Department, only coming to light through House investigations and watchdog reports—concealed from the public and from Congress until after the fact.
That secrecy was not accidental. It was strategic.
At the same time, the conflicts of interest just keep piling up.
Federal contracts, regulatory decisions, and diplomatic overtures increasingly appear correlated with the interests of those giving the gifts. A growing number of domestic and foreign business interests appear to be receiving preferential treatment from agencies whose regulatory decisions align suspiciously with Trump’s personal business deals advancing behind the scenes.
And then there are more obvious pay-to-play schemes like the White House Ballroom, a projected 90,000-square-foot monstrosity funded by tech and defense giants such as Apple, Google, Palantir and Lockheed Martin—corporate donors who now help underwrite the president’s vanity project even as their regulatory and contracting interests sit squarely in his hands.
This quid pro quo governance—private profit in exchange for public policy—does not resemble republican self-government. It resembles a protection racket, where the powerful exchange favors not for the public good but for personal gain—and access and immunity are available for purchase by those willing to pay.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are told that the system is blind, impartial, and committed to the “rule of law.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
According to a bombshell investigation by the New York Times, career attorneys inside the Department of Justice spent the first ten months of Trump’s second term documenting—often in real time—how the justice system was being hijacked to serve political priorities rather than legal ones.
Federal lawyers told the Times that they were instructed to drop cases for political reasons, to hunt for evidence to justify flimsy investigations, and to defend executive actions they believed had no legal basis or were plainly unlawful. They also detailed the work they were told to abandon—cases involving terrorism plots, corruption, and white-collar fraud—because those investigations did not serve the administration’s political priorities.
As Dena Robinson, a former Justice Department lawyer for the Civil Rights Division, remarked on Pam Bondi’s transformation of the department into a political tool, “One thing that stuck out to me was her insistence that we served at the pleasure of the president and that we were enforcing the president’s priorities. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.”
Prosecution for enemies, immunity for allies, and indifference toward actual crime: this is the Trump administration’s modus operandi.
The courts are also growing increasingly leery over the federal government’s casual relationship with the truth.
In case after case—from prosecutions tied to the politically-charged James Comey indictment, to challenges over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, to lawsuits alleging the government is attempting to circumvent basic due process protections in immigration cases by shipping people to offshore detention facilities in third countries, often in partnership with private prison contractors, where legal safeguards are far weaker—courts have scolded federal lawyers for withholding records, mischaracterizing facts, or offering assertions that crumble under scrutiny.
When the government lies to the courts, it is not just lying to a judge but to the American people. We are the ultimate arbiters of justice. It is our rights that ultimately hang in the balance.
Unfortunately, the rot doesn’t stop there.
The presidential pardon—intended to be a mechanism for mercy—has become a political reward system.
The numbers speak volumes.
During Trump’s first term, he issued 238 pardons and commutations; less than a year into his second term, he has issued nearly 2,000 pardons, costing victims and taxpayers more than $1.3 billion.
According to The Marshall Project, among those pardoned by Trump, “One faced a four-year prison sentence in a $675 million fraud case for marketing an electric truck that wasn’t drivable. Another tried to overthrow the government. A tax cheat avoided prison and $4.4 million in restitution after his mom donated $1 million to the president.” Another pardon recipient was facing “charges of child pornography and the sexual assault of a preadolescent girl.”
Whether Trump pardons Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sex traffic teenaged girls, remains to be seen. However, since Trump has taken office, Maxwell has enjoyed dramatic improvements in her prison life: a transfer to a minimum-security federal prison, custom meals delivered to her cell, snacks and refreshments provided during private meetings with family and friends—even special access to a puppy and unlimited toilet paper.
As ProPublica details, Trump’s pardons overwhelmingly benefit political loyalists, donors, grifters, extremists, and individuals either convicted of crimes in pursuit of Trump’s ambitions or who might help to advance those ambitions in the future—or both.
A judiciary committee report found that “Trump’s pardons have made criminals $1.3 [billion] richer by allowing them to keep the money they stole from their victims and dodge their fines. The pardon power in Trump’s hands is a way to take a huge amount of wealth that is legally owed to victims and transfer it back to the criminals who stole it from them in the first place.”
These are not miscarriages of justice being corrected; they are protection payments, signals to future operatives: do what we need you to do, and we will take care of you.
The message is unmistakable: Commit crimes that benefit those in power, and those in power will absolve you.
The double standard is staggering.
Critics, journalists, students, and whistleblowers face investigations, surveillance, and in some cases arrest for constitutionally protected activities—while those charged with committing actual crimes in support of the administration are shielded, absolved, or financially rewarded.
That is not the rule of law. That is the rule of power.
In a constitutional government, the pardon power is meant to temper justice with mercy.
In an unrestrained government, the pardon power becomes a mechanism for shielding insiders, silencing potential witnesses, rewarding political operatives, and signaling to future enforcers that their loyalty will be repaid.
Once justice is weaponized—once the government becomes both the ultimate lawmaker and the ultimate lawbreaker—once the president decides that his own power, not the Constitution, is the highest authority—the distinction between governance and criminality collapses.
A government that can ignore transparency laws will hide its misconduct.
A government that can lie to the courts will lie to its people.
A government that can criminalize political opposition can criminalize anyone.
A government that can pardon loyal criminals can persecute those who expose them.
This is not hypothetical. It is happening now.
Look at the surveillance state: millions of Americans monitored through AI-powered tools, data-mined by private intelligence contractors, and flagged by opaque algorithms—while the government shields its own communications, decisions, and financial entanglements behind secrecy laws and executive privilege.
Look at policing: violent, militarized crackdowns on immigrants, journalists, and protesters—even as the administration dismisses, excuses, or encourages lawlessness among vigilantes, paramilitary groups, and politically aligned street militias.
Look at foreign policy: threats to bomb Venezuela—transparent attempts to distract from falling polling numbers and the widening Epstein scandal—being framed as “national security” rather than what they are: geopolitical aggression with no constitutional or moral grounding. This isn’t defensive war; it is a land grab masquerading as patriotism, no different in principle from Putin’s overreach in Ukraine or Israel’s expansionist aims in Gaza, except that the United States has even less pretense of legitimate territorial claim.
Look at governance: executive orders increasingly treated as substitutes for legislation, bypassing Congress, the courts, and constitutional checks. The president no longer requests authority; he assumes it.
Look at transparency: the administration’s refusal to release the October jobs numbers—an unprecedented hiding of core economic data—under the pretext that the government shutdown made the figures unusable. Former Labor Department officials warn that the missing report comes just as private data are flashing recession-level job losses. When a government refuses to share basic economic indicators with the public, it is no longer governing. It is manipulating.
This is not constitutionalism. This is consolidation—an executive branch absorbing the functions of lawmaking, law enforcement, and legal interpretation into a single, unaccountable center of power.
This is not “law and order.” This is the government redefining order in its own image and using law to enforce its will.
The Founders warned us about this.
Yet here we are, watching a government that no longer even pretends to fear the Constitution. A government that openly cultivates a culture of impunity, where criminality is not a hindrance to power but an asset—evidence of loyalty, aggression, and willingness to “do what needs to be done.”
A government like this does not serve the people—it rules them. It does not protect rights—it manages them. It does not uphold law—it deploys law as a weapon.
It is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the actions of the American government and those of a cartel—one that wears suits instead of masks, but engages in the same core behaviors: loyalty above legality, retaliation against critics, protection for insiders, secrecy, intimidation, and the monetization of public office.
This is how nations fall—not through foreign invasion but through internal corruption.
When the government becomes the greatest violator of rights, the people lose faith in justice.
When the government becomes the greatest source of disinformation, the people lose faith in truth.
When the government becomes the greatest beneficiary of criminality, the people lose faith in democracy itself.
Democracy becomes theater. Elections become rituals. Rights become privileges granted or revoked at the discretion of those in power.
The Constitution is not a self-enforcing document. It has no army, no treasury, no enforcement bureau of its own. It binds only those who agree to be bound by its edicts. When officials refuse to be bound, the Constitution becomes a relic—a symbol invoked rhetorically but ignored in practice.
The only way out is the way the Founders intended: by rebinding government down with the chains of the Constitution. But those chains must be enforced by “We the People.” They must be tightened around those who wield power.
Without constitutional chains, the president becomes an imperial dictator.
Without oversight, the justice system becomes a political weapon.
Without accountability, government becomes a self-serving, money-laundering enterprise masquerading as legitimate authority.
If America is to remain a free nation, those chains must be tightened—not loosened, ignored, or replaced with partisan loyalty.
The rule of law must apply to the powerful, not just the powerless.
The justice system must serve the public, not the president.
And as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “We the people” must reclaim our role as the ultimate check on government misconduct.
For without constitutional restraints, there is no justice.
Without constitutional limits, there is no accountability.
And without accountability, there is no republic—only a crime syndicate masquerading as a government.
This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.
The post America’s Crime Syndicate Government: Profiteering, Protection Rackets & a Pay-To-Play Presidency appeared first on LewRockwell.
War Against Humanity
This GRTV video production addresses the complexity and diversity of modern warfare.
Digital control over a World population of more than 8 Billion People is an instrument of modern warfare, in liason with NATO and the Pentagon.
It’s the “smartphonization” of humanity which repeals fundamental human rights Worldwide.
“Economic Warfare” is carried out in coordination with the conduct of military operations. Its objective is to destabilize national economies, resulting in unemployment, poverty and despair.
The original source of this article is Global Research.
The post War Against Humanity appeared first on LewRockwell.
What the Founders Feared
“The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” — James Madison (1751-1836)
America today would terrify the Founding Fathers. Armed troops roam the streets of major cities, masked government agents arrest people without probable cause and disrupt the public speech that the president hates and fears, and the president kills foreigners on the high seas whom he says might commit crimes should their small speedboats miraculously make it 1,500 miles to the United States.
Here is the backstory.
Shortly after the Constitution was ratified and while the Bill of Rights was being crafted, the Federalists in Congress proposed the creation of a federal bank. James Madison, who had been the scrivener at the Constitutional Convention just four years earlier and who was chair of the House of Representatives committee drafting the Bill of Rights, argued forcefully against it.
In Madison’s famous Bank Speech, he articulated the views he offered when he wrote his portion of the Federalist Papers — namely, that the powers of the new federal government are few and limited and precisely written down, and a establishing a bank is not among them.
Madison lost the debate, as Congress approved the First National Bank of the United States. His argument, though, generally carried the day for the following 120 years, except for the Civil War era. That argument — known today as the Madisonian model — offers that the federal government may only govern in the 16 unique discrete areas of governance articulated in Article I of the Constitution.
The subtext of the Madisonian model was that the feds need the permission of the states or the people to do nearly anything. Safety was left to the states, and there’d be no troops in the streets as the colonists from Boston to Charleston had endured with British soldiers. And the Fourth Amendment — guaranteeing the right to be left alone — would apply to all persons and keep the government away from the peoples’ “persons, houses, papers, and effects” without search or arrest warrants.
By 120 years later, the Madisonian model had been discarded. The states lost their powers as checks on the federal government they had created, and the Wilsonian model — named after Woodrow Wilson — took effect. This model holds that the feds may govern in any area for which there is a national political will, except that which is expressly prohibited to them in the Constitution.
The subtext of the Wilsonian model is that the states and the people need the permission of the feds to do nearly everything. And those prohibitions — like “Congress shall make no law abridging … the freedom of speech” — well, they only apply to Congress, not to the president. Wilson actually made this legally erroneous and law-school-flunking argument when defending his arrests for speech he hated and feared.
Every president from Wilson to Donald Trump has wittingly or unwittingly embraced the Wilsonian model; and so has every Congress.
The growth of government and the diminution of personal freedom are often tied to wars and economic crises — real, created for this purpose and imagined. History teaches that personal liberty once lost does not come back, and government power once acquired remains.
The lessons of history, as instructive as they have been, are lost on Trump’s presidency. Three events which he triggered are instructive here. The first is killing noncombatants at sea, the second is disrupting lawful free speech, and the third is the arrest of persons and the acquisition of private data without judicially issued warrants.
The killings at sea will soon reach a federal court as the families of innocent murdered fishermen, and some survivors of botched killings, have signaled to the media their intention to bring actions against the government. Trump says the killings at sea are a war against foreign powers.
Meanwhile, the same office in the Department of Justice that told George W. Bush that he could torture people and Barack Obama that he could kill nonviolent Americans overseas has apparently told Trump just what he wants to hear — that he can wage an undeclared war on select foreign persons and keep secret the legal rationale for doing so. Where is that in Madison’s Constitution, which says only Congress can declare war?
Secondly, in September, Trump directed federal agents to disrupt speech that is anti-Christian, anti-capitalism or un-American, and to use their own judgment as to which speech to disrupt. Never mind that all political speech is protected from government interference and never mind that Trump took the same oath as Madsion and Wilson — to protect the same First Amendment rights.
Thirdly, last spring the Department of Homeland Security began arresting Americans and foreigners on suspicion of unlawful presence in the United States. They do this without arrest warrants based on probable cause of crime, and they wear masks so as to startle victims and retard identification in subsequent court proceedings.
Secretly, they have begun collecting biometric data on persons whom they encounter — facial structure, iris sizes and touchless fingerprints (all of which they can acquire from a distance with their mobile phones) — without warrants. The Fourth Amendment expressly prohibits searches and seizures without judicially issued warrants based on probable cause of crime.
As if all this is not enough to rouse Madison from his grave, there’s a new phenomenon in law called “The Kavanaugh Stop.” This is derived from a bizarre concurring Supreme Court opinion recently written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he argued that race, ethnicity and presence at a car wash are permissible characteristics upon which the government may stop and demand to see papers. And if the feds stop you, he opined, it’s no big deal. Just show them your papers; prove your citizenship.
In Justice Kavanaugh’s strange new world, East Germany has been reborn here. That’s just what the Founders feared most.
The post What the Founders Feared appeared first on LewRockwell.
Israeli Security Officials: Settler Violence Has West Bank on the ‘Brink of Explosion’
Thanks, John Smith.
The post Israeli Security Officials: Settler Violence Has West Bank on the ‘Brink of Explosion’ appeared first on LewRockwell.
As Israel’s image collapses, US billionaires move to silence dissent
Thanks, John Smith.
The post As Israel’s image collapses, US billionaires move to silence dissent appeared first on LewRockwell.
IDF chief in Dallas
The post IDF chief in Dallas appeared first on LewRockwell.
A ‘Secret’ Peace Deal For Ukraine?
The post A ‘Secret’ Peace Deal For Ukraine? appeared first on LewRockwell.
John Mearsheimer addresses the European Parliament on the topic of “Europe’s Bleak Future”
The post John Mearsheimer addresses the European Parliament on the topic of “Europe’s Bleak Future” appeared first on LewRockwell.
Hitler and Stalin: Roots of Evil
Sex and the Swastika: Secret History
In this thought-provoking video, we delve into the complex and often controversial intersections of sexuality and symbolism during the Nazi regime. “Sex & The Swastika” explores how the swastika, a symbol of hate and oppression, was juxtaposed with themes of sexuality and desire in the context of 20th-century Germany.
Through historical analysis and expert commentary, we uncover the ways in which Nazi ideology influenced personal relationships, sexual norms, and societal expectations.
Did Hitler murder his niece Gelli after a bizarre sadomasochistic sexual relationship where he had her urinate and defecate on him? Did she commit suicide? Was she murdered by his henchmen because she had become an embarrassment to him? How many of Hitler’s other women committed suicide?
Join us as we navigate these challenging topics, shedding light on the darker aspects of history and their implications for contemporary discussions on sexuality and identity. We will examine how the Nazi regime’s oppressive policies not only targeted marginalized groups but also shaped the sexual landscape of the time, leading to a complex interplay between repression and desire.
In “Sex & The Swastika,” we confront the unsettling connections between the Nazi emblem and the realm of human sexuality. This video presents a detailed exploration of how the swastika was not only a symbol of terror but also a representation of the sexual politics of the time. Through a blend of historical context and expert insights, we discuss the implications of Nazi ideology on sexual behavior, gender roles, and the repression of sexual minorities.
The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams.
Reviewers Praise The Pink Swastika:
“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were – Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education
“The Pink Swastika is a tremendously valuable book, replete with impressive documentation presented in a compelling fashion.” William Grigg, The New American
“…exposes numerous lies, and tears away many myths. Essential reading, it is a formidable boulder cast into the path of the onrushing homosexual express…”
Stan Goodenough, Middle East Intelligence Digest
“The Pink Swastika is a powerful exposure of pre-World War II Germany and its quest for reviving and imitating a Hellenistic-paganistic idea of homo-eroticism and militarism.”
Dr. Mordechai Nisan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
“Lively and Abrams call attention to what Hitlerism really stood for, abortion, euthanasia, hatred of Jews, and, very emphatically, homosexuality. This many of us knew in the 1930’s; it was common knowledge, but now it is denied…”
R. J. Rushdoony, The Chalcedon Report
See also The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (.pdf); The Hidden Hitler, by Lothar Machtan; Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power, by Konrad Heiden; Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin, by Mel Gordon (.pdf); Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider, by Peter Gay; Sex and the Weimar Republic: German Homosexual Emancipation and the Rise of the Nazis, by Laurie Marhoefer; Gay Berlin: Birthplace of a Modern Identity, by Robert Beachy; Germany’s National Vice, by Samuel Igra (.pdf); and Ernst Röhm, by Eleanor Hancock.
The post Hitler and Stalin: Roots of Evil appeared first on LewRockwell.
Israel Seeks 20 Year Foreign Aid Deal
Lew,
Why make the US Congress vote to give $ 3.8 billion each year in foreign aid to Israel when the Zionist state can get an agreement without needing a vote by the elected representatives of the American people for another 20 years? The public is increasingly opposing support to Israel, so this is the ideal solution.
See here.
The post Israel Seeks 20 Year Foreign Aid Deal appeared first on LewRockwell.
DHS Immigration Raid in Chicago was all Theater
Writes Ginny Garner:
Lew,
Remember that militarized raid by the DHS in Chicago that used Black Hawk helicopters that was supposed to arrest and deport members of a terrorist gang? Jimmy Dore explains how it was all a big show – there were no charges filed against anyone. It was to give the impression that Trump was doing something about illegal immigration while upsetting the left/Democrats, all designed to keep Americans fighting with each other. And it probably cost $ 500 million.
The post DHS Immigration Raid in Chicago was all Theater appeared first on LewRockwell.
Il piano dell'UE per soffocare la privacy online è terrificante
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.
____________________________________________________________________________________
(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-piano-dellue-per-soffocare-la)
I lettori abituali ormai conoscono il Digital Services Act (DSA) dell'UE di cui abbiamo parlato in diverse occasioni dal luglio 2023. Per chi non lo sapesse, una breve introduzione: il DSA impone alle piattaforme online di grandi dimensioni (VLOP) e ai motori di ricerca online di grandi dimensioni (VLOSE) l'obbligo legale di intervenire tempestivamente contro i contenuti illegali ospitati sulle loro piattaforme, rimuovendoli, bloccandoli, o fornendo determinate informazioni alle autorità competenti.
I VLOP e i VLOSE sono inoltre tenuti ad adottare misure contro rischi che vanno oltre i contenuti illegali, tra cui vaghe minacce al “dibattito civile”, ai “processi elettorali” e alla “salute pubblica”. Spetta alla Commissione o alle autorità nazionali definire cosa potrebbero comportare tali minacce. È qui che ha iniziato a prendere forma il regime di censura di massa dell'UE.
L'obiettivo principale del DSA è combattere, ovvero sopprimere, la disinformazione online, non solo in Europa ma potenzialmente in tutto il mondo. Si inserisce in una tendenza più ampia dei governi occidentali e delle istituzioni delle Nazioni Unite che spingono per censurare le informazioni su Internet, perdendo gradualmente il controllo sui principali filoni narrativi.
Le piattaforme che violano la legge rischiano multe salate, fino al 6% del loro fatturato annuo globale. Pertanto è lecito supporre che pecchino di prudenza, cancellando contenuti che potrebbero essere considerati dannosi, anche quando sono del tutto legali. Inizia così la china scivolosa della censura sistemica online.
Come ha avvertito il giudice tedesco in pensione, Manfred Kölsch, in un editoriale sul Berliner Zeitung, il DSA non solo rappresenta una minaccia esistenziale alla libertà di parola in Europa, ma viola anche molte delle leggi dell'UE sulla libertà di espressione e di informazione:
Uno sguardo attento dietro la facciata dello stato di diritto rivela che il DSA mina consapevolmente il diritto alla libertà di espressione e di informazione garantito dall'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE, dall'articolo 10 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e dall'articolo 5 della Legge fondamentale (la Costituzione scritta della Germania, approvata dagli alleati nel 1949, quando fu istituito il primo governo del dopoguerra nella Germania occidentale).Il testo dell'articolo 11 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea recita quanto segue:Ogni individuo ha diritto alla libertà di espressione. Tale diritto include la libertà di opinione e la libertà di ricevere o comunicare informazioni e idee senza che vi possa essere ingerenza da parte delle autorità pubbliche e senza limiti di frontiera.Come avevamo anticipato nel 2023, è probabile che le ripercussioni del DSA si estendano ben oltre i confini dell'UE e potrebbero persino avere portata globale, proprio come il suo predecessore, il Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati (GDPR). Tali preoccupazioni sono state ribadite da un rapporto pubblicato a gennaio dalla Commissione Giustizia della Camera dei rappresentanti degli Stati Uniti, che ha definito il DSA una “minaccia di censura estera”:[Il rapporto] include informazioni non pubbliche su come la Commissione europea e le autorità nazionali attuano le norme, tra cui informazioni riservate provenienti da workshop dell'UE, e-mail tra l'esecutivo dell'UE e le aziende, richieste di rimozione di contenuti in Francia, Germania e Polonia, e resoconti di riunioni della Commissione con le aziende nel settore tecnologico.
“Sulla carta il DSA è pessimo; nella pratica è anche peggio”, si legge nel rapporto.
“I censori europei” nella Commissione e nei Paesi dell'UE “prendono di mira i dibattiti politici che non sono né dannosi né illegali, tentando di soffocarli su temi come l'immigrazione e l'ambiente”. La loro censura è “in gran parte unilaterale” nei confronti dei conservatori.
Queste affermazioni sono supportate dalle recenti dichiarazioni del fondatore di Telegram, Pavel Durov, secondo cui all'inizio di quest'anno i funzionari dell'intelligence francese lo avrebbero contattato con la richiesta di censurare contenuti filo-conservatori in vista delle elezioni rumene del maggio 2025, una richiesta che lui afferma di aver rifiutato. Come scrive Le Monde, Durov non ha fornito alcuna prova a sostegno di queste affermazioni. Tuttavia, visti gli sforzi compiuti dall'UE per intromettersi nelle elezioni rumene, non si tratta certo di ipotesi inverosimili.
È interessante notare che le controversie diplomatiche sulla formulazione del DSA sono solo una delle numerose questioni che ostacolano l'accordo commerciale tra UE e Stati Uniti. Secondo il Financial Times, l'UE sta cercando di impedire agli Stati Uniti di prendere di mira le norme digitali dell'Unione, mentre le due parti si scontrano sui dettagli finali di una dichiarazione posticipata:
I funzionari dell'UE hanno affermato che i disaccordi sul linguaggio relativo alle “barriere non tariffarie” – che gli Stati Uniti hanno precedentemente affermato includere le norme digitali – sono tra le ragioni del ritardo nella dichiarazione congiunta.
Inizialmente era previsto pochi giorni dopo l'annuncio di un accordo commerciale da parte della Presidente della Commissione europea, Ursula von der Leyen, e del Presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump, avvenuto il 27 luglio in Scozia. Due funzionari dell'UE hanno affermato che gli Stati Uniti volevano lasciare la porta aperta a possibili concessioni sul Digital Services Act dell'Unione, che obbliga le Big Tech a controllare le proprie piattaforme in modo più aggressivo. La Commissione ha affermato che allentare quelle regole rappresenta una linea rossa.
Chat Control
Nel frattempo Bruxelles sta spingendo con forza su un altro fronte: il cosiddetto Regolamento per la prevenzione e la lotta contro gli abusi sessuali sui minori. Denominata legge “Chat control”, la proposta mira a frenare la diffusione di materiale pedopornografico (CSAM) online. Sebbene si tratti di un obiettivo lodevole, il modo in cui l'UE lo sta perseguendo non solo minaccia i diritti fondamentali e le tutele di tutti, ma rischia anche di trasformare Internet in un ambiente ancora più centralizzato e sorvegliato.
Nella sua forma attuale la legge sul controllo delle chat impone di fatto la scansione delle comunicazioni private, comprese quelle attualmente protette dalla crittografia end-to-end. Se entrerà in vigore, le piattaforme di messaggistica, tra cui WhatsApp, Signal e Telegram, saranno tenute a scansionare ogni messaggio, foto e video inviato dagli utenti, anche se crittografati, a partire da ottobre.
Come scrive il Brussels Signal, il meccanismo al centro della proposta si chiama scansione lato client e la presidenza semestrale a rotazione della Danimarca nel Consiglio dell'UE è determinata a portarla avanti: infatti la ripresentazione della legislazione sul controllo delle chat, proposta per la prima volta nel 2022, è stato il primissimo passo formale della presidenza dopo la sua assunzione delle funzioni a luglio:
Attraverso la scansione lato client, il contenuto viene analizzato sul dispositivo dell'utente prima della crittografia. Per il lettore meno esperto di tecnologia, questo significa aprire una backdoor permanente che aggira le garanzie di privacy di una comunicazione sicura. Sarebbe come far leggere le lettere dallo stato prima di sigillare la busta, e sottoporrebbe i messaggi privati di ogni cittadino dell'UE a un controllo automatizzato. I lettori della Germania dell'Est potrebbero trovare familiari questi strumenti stasiani; la maggior parte non vorrebbe che tornassero di moda, né in Germania né altrove.
Purtroppo, invece di leggere le opinioni dei presenti e studiare versioni alternative e più blande della legislazione, (la prima ministra danese Mette) Frederiksen ha scelto di puntare ancora di più su questo grave errore politico e storico. Ben 19 Stati membri dell'UE ora sostengono la proposta. La Germania rimane per il momento non impegnata, ma probabilmente avrà un ruolo fondamentale. Infatti se Berlino si unisse al campo del “sì”, un voto a maggioranza qualificata – che richiede 15 Stati membri e che rappresentino il 65% della popolazione dell'UE – potrebbe portare all'approvazione della legge entro metà ottobre. La presidenza danese sta guidando questo processo attraverso i gruppi di lavoro del Consiglio, con l'obiettivo di definire le posizioni entro il 12 settembre 2025. L'unico passaggio che mancherebbe sarebbe il voto finale di ottobre.
Gli svantaggi del Chat Control dell'UE sono evidenti, osserva l'articolo di Brussels Signal, e dovrebbero essere sufficienti a indurre le nazioni europee a respingerlo, cosa che ovviamente non accadrà:
Una volta implementato, il sistema potrebbe estendersi oltre i contenuti pedopornografici (CSAM), praticamente a qualsiasi altro contenuto, come il dissenso politico – una preoccupazione sicuramente ragionevole, visto che in Gran Bretagna Starmer si sta impegnando a fondo per vietare le VPN, che al principale candidato presidenziale francese è stato impedito di candidarsi alle prossime elezioni, o che in Germania quasi 10.000 persone vengono incriminate ogni anno per aver condiviso online meme e barzellette “politicamente scorrette”. Infatti, mentre gli eurocrati cercano di spiare le vostre conversazioni online, Bruxelles sta anche spingendo per una moderazione aggressiva dei contenuti ai sensi del Digital Services Act.
Gli svantaggi sono quindi evidenti e dovrebbero di per sé spiegare perché questa legislazione dovrebbe essere respinta con fermezza dalle nazioni europee. E i vantaggi? Sono molto meno chiari. Un anno fa l'Europol ha osservato in un rapporto che i criminali più sofisticati utilizzano spesso piattaforme segrete e non regolamentate, rendendo la scansione di massa inefficace contro gli obiettivi designati e gravando i cittadini comuni con tutto il peso di un Leviatano repressivo. Piattaforme incentrate sulla riservatezza come Signal hanno minacciato di uscire dal mercato dell'UE piuttosto che adeguarsi. Dovrebbero farlo, ma ciò danneggerebbe l'economia digitale europea e spingerebbe gli utenti verso alternative meno sicure.
The EU's "Chat Control" proposal is horrifying. There's no way to implement this safely. It will destroy private communications online entirely.
If you're in the EU, please fight this. pic.twitter.com/VVQtdC6p6e
L'esperienza del Regno Unito con le norme di verifica dell'età previste dall'Online Safety Act offre un assaggio di quanto caos possa essere generato dalle misure repressive governative sull'accesso e la libertà di parola online. Uno degli impatti più significativi finora è stata la proliferazione di soluzioni alternative, tra cui VPN e altri modi ingegnosi per aggirare i sistemi di verifica dell'età.
Come sta lentamente imparando il governo di Keir Starmer, cercare di limitare l'accesso delle persone a Internet è un gioco del tipo “colpisci la talpa” – e il governo inglese è destinato a perdere. Nel frattempo l'Online Safety Act ha scatenato una nuova ondata di disobbedienza civile di massa, in particolare tra i giovani utenti esperti di tecnologia.
This is what happens when Western authoritarians attempt to assert regulatory, centralised dominance with 'protect the children' ™
You cannot age verify & control the entire internet. https://t.co/63aIM29OjK
“Una lezione magistrale di conseguenze indesiderate”
Come sottolinea il Centre for European Policy Analysis, le conseguenze indesiderate stanno rapidamente aumentando:
Byrne & Storm, P.C. (@ByrneStorm) and Coleman Law, P.C. (@RonColeman) represent 4Chan.
We issue this statement on behalf of our client in response to press reports indicating that the U.K. Office of Communications, aka @Ofcom, intends to fine our client. pic.twitter.com/SVjmzlyuKK
Anche la BBC ha riferito che le piattaforme stanno intensificando la censura dei contenuti a seguito dell'Online Safety Act, in particolare su questioni delicate come la guerra in Medio Oriente e la guerra in Ucraina.
NEW: The BBC is now reporting that information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, UK rape gangs, and more is being censored online due to the government’s new Online “Safety” Act.
WELL DONE LADS ???? pic.twitter.com/DnSyAxd1wx
Newsweek ha descritto l'Online Safety Act come “un esempio lampante di conseguenze indesiderate e di regolamentazione simbolica”:
Quando il primo ministro britannico Keir Starmer ha di recente dichiarato al presidente Donald Trump: “Abbiamo avuto libertà di parola per molto tempo, quindi, ehm, ne siamo molto orgogliosi”, ci si è chiesti: di cosa è esattamente orgoglioso?
Si riferisce alle 30 persone al giorno che il suo governo arresta per aver pubblicato contenuti “offensivi” online? O forse è orgoglioso del fatto che il suo governo abbia minacciato gli americani di accuse penali per il mancato rispetto dell'Online Safety Act?
E mentre l'Online Safety Act è stato istituito con il pretesto di proteggere i minori online, il governo inglese è anche inspiegabilmente coinvolto in un effetto Streisand, avendo annunciato di aver avviato un'indagine su quattro aziende che gestiscono 34 siti web pornografici. In sostanza, denunciando l'accaduto, l'autorità di regolamentazione ha indicato ai minori dove possono accedere a contenuti pornografici senza dover utilizzare la verifica dell'età [...].
Gli inglesi stanno reagendo con una petizione per abrogare la legge, la quale ha già raccolto oltre 450.000 firme. I legislatori americani farebbero bene a prestare attenzione ed evitare di commettere gli stessi errori. Possiamo proteggere i nostri figli senza sacrificare i principi fondamentali di un Internet libero e aperto.
Cavallo di Troia
Dall'entrata in vigore delle norme di verifica dell'età dell'Online Safety Act, “tutti gli utenti Internet del Regno Unito hanno accesso solo a una versione del web a prova di bambino, a meno che non siano disposti a sottoporsi a procedure di verifica dell'età invasive”, afferma Rebecca Vincent del gruppo per i diritti digitali Big Brother Watch. Oppure a ricorrere a soluzioni alternative.
Questo è un punto chiave: come abbiamo avvertito fin da novembre dello scorso anno, la verifica dell'età online è il cavallo di Troia per l'adozione di massa dei sistemi di identità digitale, che sono diventati silenziosamente una realtà legale nel marzo 2024.
Con l'entrata in vigore dell'Online Safety Act, tutti dovranno sottoporsi a un controllo online dei documenti per accedere ai social media e ad altri importanti servizi inter-utente, che il disegno di legge definisce servizi di Categoria 1. Anche le tecnologie di riconoscimento facciale vengono utilizzate, nonostante i loro innumerevoli difetti. Una volta che ci iscriveremo a questi processi di verifica, il nostro accesso ai contenuti sarà sempre più controllato avverte il giornalista Tim Hinchliffe, citando la spiegazione dello stesso Online Safety Act fornita dal governo britannico:
Gli utenti adulti di tali servizi [di Categoria 1] potranno verificare la propria identità e accedere a strumenti che consentiranno loro di ridurre la probabilità di visualizzare contenuti di utenti non verificati e di impedire a questi ultimi di interagire con i propri contenuti. Ciò contribuirà a impedire ai troll anonimi di contattarli.La legislazione UE sul controllo delle chat presenta pericoli simili. Il sito web Fight Chat Control evidenzia sei potenziali rischi, intenzionali o meno:
• Sorveglianza di massa: “Ogni messaggio privato, foto e file viene scansionato automaticamente: non c'è bisogno di sospettare nulla, nessuna eccezione (a parte i politici dell'UE che pretendono la propria privacy), anche le comunicazioni criptate”.
• Violazione della crittografia: “Indebolire o violare la crittografia end-to-end espone le comunicazioni di tutti, compresi i dati sensibili finanziari, medici e privati, a hacker, criminali e attori ostili”.
• Diritti fondamentali: “Lede i diritti fondamentali alla privacy e alla protezione dei dati, garantiti dagli articoli 7 e 8 della Carta dei diritti dell’UE, diritti considerati fondamentali per i valori democratici europei”.
• Falsi positivi: “Gli scanner automatici identificano sistematicamente contenuti innocenti, come foto di vacanze o barzellette private, come illegali, esponendo le persone comuni al rischio di false accuse e indagini dannose”.
• Protezione inefficace dell'infanzia: “Gli esperti e le organizzazioni per la protezione dell'infanzia, tra cui le Nazioni Unite, avvertono che la sorveglianza di massa non riesce a prevenire gli abusi e, di fatto, rende i bambini meno sicuri, indebolendo la sicurezza di tutti e distogliendo risorse da misure di protezione comprovate”.
• Precedente globale: “Crea un pericoloso precedente globale che consente ai governi autoritari, citando le politiche dell'UE, di implementare una sorveglianza invasiva in patria, minando la privacy e la libertà di espressione in tutto il mondo”.
C'è poi un altro punto chiave, sollevato da Meredith Whitaker, amministratore delegato dell'app di messaggistica crittografata Signal, durante le discussioni sull'Online Safety Act del Regno Unito un paio di anni fa. La Whitaker aveva avvertito che l'implementazione dell'Online Safety Act da parte del Regno Unito sarebbe stata vista come un precedente dai regimi più repressivi, i quali avrebbero raddoppiato le proprie attività di sorveglianza e censura su Internet. Stando alle parole del Commissario per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, la tendenza è “senza precedenti” e “un cambiamento di paradigma”.
The Online Safety Act's age verification rules are just the tip of the iceberg. Far more alarming is clause 111, which mandates that platforms implement backdoors and spyware upon request, gutting end-to-end encryption and eviscerating privacy.@mer__edith, CEO at Signal,… https://t.co/SSY3vHsyPm pic.twitter.com/DNTx9Fd19d
— Henry Palmer (@HenryJPalmer) July 27, 2025Questo spiega anche perché l'attuale direzione di marcia è così pericolosa: si sta verificando a livello mondiale.
The online safety act didn’t happen in the UK in isolation. Remember it’s not a coincidence.
The head of Ofcom, Melanie Dawes, is a key member of WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety, also pushing governments to censor anything labelled “misinformation” or “harm.”
The UK,… pic.twitter.com/IM9GE2U1pa
Sebbene la protezione dei minori sia un comodo pretesto per rimodellare Internet, la vera motivazione alla base di normative come l'Online Safety Act e il Chat Control dell'UE è, beh, il controllo, non solo per i minori, ma per tutti. Come scrive Juliet Samuel sul Times di Londra, i funzionari del Regno Unito hanno persino ammesso in un recente caso presso l'Alta Corte “che [l'Online Safety Act] ‘non mira principalmente a [...] la protezione dei minori’, ma riguarda la regolamentazione di ‘servizi che hanno un'influenza significativa sul dibattito pubblico’, un'espressione che tradisce la filosofia politica alla base della legge stessa”.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/
Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.
No One Talks About Why the Israel lobby Is so Influential
There is significant infighting among the American right concerning the priorities of the Trump administration. Elected on an America First” platform, Trump’s conservative critics argue the administration is far too concerned with foreign policy in the Middle East and not concerned enough with domestic priorities. They attribute this to the outsized influence of Israel, achieved through the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Trump has responded in his usual manner. You bring a knife, I’ll bring an ICBM. He has called for Rep. Thomas Massie to be primaried and imbued Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene with the dreaded Trump nickname. “Marjorie Taylor Brown,” meaning the grass has turned rotten, as Trump helpfully explained.
But despite Trump’s efforts to isolate a few legislators, there is evidence of a significant divide among his base. “MIGA,” standing for Make Israel Great Again and such mockery of Trump’s key slogans have trended on social media.
It is true that AIPAC is highly influential, although it is not among the top ten lobbyists representing foreign governments. Firms representing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt outspend them. Still, when campaigning, American politicians don’t make it a point to express their devotion to the welfare of those countries as they do to the State of Israel. More importantly, the U.S. government hasn’t gone to war on behalf of any of those countries who spend more lobbying as it has for Israel.
Critics point to AIPAC and simply say “follow the money.” Not only do these politicians depend upon AIPAC’s support to get elected; they fear AIPAC’s wrath should their support for the foreign government waver.
But that alone does not explain AIPAC’s outsized influence. Politicians depend on contributions from all sorts of special interests. Why is this one so effective? Why does the Republican Party in particular seem almost fully controlled by this lobby?
For a tiny minority on the right, the answer is “the Jews,” in the same sense Hitler said, “the Jews.” They view people of Jewish descent as a global conspiracy to rule the world surreptitiously through control of financial institutions and behind the scenes political machinations. This fringe element made enough noise for AIPAC to label anyone who opposes pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy as antisemitic.
But as for the other 99.99% of critics of U.S. foreign policy, including prominent politicians and media like Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Megyn Kelly, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, antisemitism is not the explanation. In fact, some of those named have had to overcome a predisposition for U.S. government support for Israel to arrive at their current positions. Regardless, they make legitimate arguments for why Washington should not be involved in any foreign conflicts nor provide any foreign aid with over $38 trillion in debt and trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future.
But still, none of these critics seem to acknowledge the reason AIPAC holds such sway with American politicians. They either feign or express genuine confusion as to why U.S. elected officials would prioritize a foreign country over their own. But there is no mystery here.
The reason AIPAC is so influential is not “the Jews,” but “the Christians,” meaning American Christians. Tens of millions of Christian U.S. citizens who turn out to vote at very high rates in U.S. Elections. It is the votes of these Christians and its ability to affect them that makes AIPAC powerful.
We’re not talking about all Christians, or even most, but rather a significant minority who believe not only that the “end times” as they call them are imminent, but that U.S. foreign policy will literally influence how those end times turn out. Based upon a novel and relatively recent understanding of the New Testament, this group of Christian Zionists believe, in short, that the U.S. government must support the modern state of Israel for the prophecies in the Book of Revelations to come true.
To most Christians, that seems crazy. I was raised Catholic in Western New York in a family that was deeply religious. I was an altar boy, and when older, a lector for my parish. Both my parents served on the parish council at different times. My mother was a Eucharistic minister and personally catered the pastor’s Christmas party after midnight mass each year, in addition to all sorts of other services she provided the parish. In addition to being both a lector and Eucharistic minister, my father also ran the religious instruction department for the parish.
I grew up immersed in Christianity. But the idea Israeli politics had anything to do with it was completely unknown to me or any Christian, Catholic or Protestant, that I knew. When our priests or ministers quoted the Bible, they quoted Jesus himself from the gospels, not the arcane prophecies of Revelations. We prayed for peace in the Holy Land the same way we prayed for peace in Ireland or Central America: because war is bad and Jesus said love your enemies. End of story.
Nobody ever told us the restoration of Israel in 1948 was step 47 on a 72-step Rapture checklist. Nobody I grew up with ever heard of the Scofield Bible. We were never taught Armageddon was a foreign-policy goal.
But walk into certain megachurches in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and many other “red states,” and you’ll see a different Christianity—one where the end-times clock started ticking the day David Ben-Gurion declared statehood. For these folks, every rocket fired at Tel Aviv is a fulfillment of prophecy. Every settlement bulldozer is another brick in the Third Temple. Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran can burn as long as the stage is properly set for the Jesus of Revelations, a war leader if the book is taken literally, to return.
That’s not hyperbole. That’s dispensational premillennialism, the theological fuel that powers CUFI, Christians United for Israel—ten million members strong, bigger than the NRA. John Hagee, their founder, has bragged that he can get 50,000 pastors on the phone in an afternoon. When he says jump, congressional staffers ask how high.
Now do the math. In 2024, six battleground states were decided by less than one percentage point. Christian Zionists turn out at 80-85%. They’re clustered in exactly the places Republicans call “safe” states: Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri – what used to be known as “the Bible Belt.” As much as 60%-70% of Republican voters in these states and many other red states qualify as Christian Zionists.
Republicans could not even win a Congressional seat in many of these states and certainly could not win a national election without the support of these Christians. If targeted by AIPAC for failure to support Israel, their political careers would be over and the U.S. could realistically become a one-party state.
The Democrats feel it too, just not as acutely. They can win without the Hagee crowd, but they can’t win while actively antagonizing them. That’s why the Biden administration defaulted to virtually unconditional support for Israel’s war in Gaza, despite widespread protests by the far left within its ranks.
Interestingly, the charge made by hardcore America First voices, that American politicians are representing a foreign country against the interests of their own, is not so cut and dried. These politicians are representing the wishes of their American constituents, in some states a majority of them, that firmly believe not supporting Israel may change what happens at the end of the world.
Until that theology changes, nothing else will. As long as tens of millions of American voters believe Genesis 15 is a binding real-estate contract signed by God Himself, the Israel lobby will have Washington on a leash.
Lest anyone point to all of this and start thinking there might be something to the arguments made by the antisemites, especially the dishonest smearing of people like Carlson and Massie for having opposing views, it is important to remember context. The U.S. government is the largest, most powerful government in the history of the world. Every nation on earth would like to get more financial aid from it and have the U.S. military fight its battles.
Every one of them would exploit the same religious beliefs and use the same ruthless tactics in achieving their goals as Israel does if they could. There is nothing distinctly Jewish about that. Politics is dirty, ruthless business. Most normal people would be appalled after spending a week with the political operatives of any party in any country.
So, what is the answer? Obviously, Christian Zionists have as much right to believe the things they do as anyone else. There are all sorts of beliefs held by Americans, religious and otherwise, that lead them to make terrible political decisions. The safeguard used to be the constitutional limits on federal government power that prevented nutty ideas from turning into something as serious as war.
The U.S. at one time did not go to war unless Congress declared it. And it wasn’t sufficient that Congress gave a vague “authorization to use military force” (AUMF). A declaration of war was always seen as the response to an act of war already committed by the enemy state.
Under that standard, WWII would have been the last war the United States fought. And as for foreign aid, it occurred from time to time before the 20th century, but Grover Cleveland vetoed as unconstitutional even emergency aid to Texas. Americans of the time would never have tolerated the kind of money spent abroad by Washington today, on Israel or any other foreign state.
Americans who want to end “wars for Israel” should seek to end the imperial presidency and worldwide standing army, and reimpose the limits on Congress spelled out in black and white in Article I Section 8 of their own Constitution. While that seems unlikely given our experience of the past century and a half, it is far more attainable than changing firmly held religious beliefs, whether mistaken or not.
This article was originally published on Tom Mullen Talks Freedom.
The post No One Talks About Why the Israel lobby Is so Influential appeared first on LewRockwell.
Enumerated Powers Forbids and Workers Object To Paying Taxes To Fund Communist Cities
Financial Separation is the only answer short of Civil War.
Communist Cities and individuals are being funded by Federal Taxes collected from those who work, contrary to the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution. This is a standard but intolerable situation for those who work, especially MAGA. When the economy really tanks, or sooner, the productive workers will show their displeasure, likely with “extreme prejudice”, with using their tax money to fund those who won’t and don’t work.
Believe it or not, this problem is only possible because the income tax reversed the role (Economic Power) of the states and federal government. So the Income Tax is the root cause of the problem. Communism only exists until it runs out of other people’s money.
There are only two ways to solve the problem:
1. Terminate the income tax and transfer usurped functions back to states, or 2. Cancel federal payments to states and give states a major portion of the taxes collected in that state. This would allow the states to fund their Communist Cities, or not. Either plan would transfer Political responsibility and control of Communist cities and welfare to the state where the city is located. The Federal Government is too far removed from the problem. The only other option is to remove the Communist cities and/or states from the Union with a Civil War. If nothing is done, a Civil War will be the ultimate result anyway.
Under the present circumstances, it is impossible to operate under our Constitutional Republic. The Coup of 1913 was the start of our demise as a Constitutional Republic when the Income Tax, the Private Federal Reserve Bank, Senators appointed by big money, and Tax-Free Foundations went into effect.
Every Writer has the moral and ethical responsibility to tell people the truth about Zionist Israel and our shame for supporting their evil since their inception in 1948. The American people are finally learning the truth, but our politicians are owned by the Zionists and petrified of them. Until recently the Zionists, with certainty, could deny election, or punish anyone who opposed them. Israel is not an ally, it is an Evil Parasite. It has nothing to offer us for our military who died for them, or for our treasure that denied our people the American Dream. I don’t detest ordinary Jewish Citizens who add so much to our society and are not part of the Jewish lobby or Deep State. The Zionist Genocide will result in the death of Israel.
If you want to know my recommendations in detail for a return of our Republic, read my November 11 article with the following title: Trump’s MAGA Programs Are Great, but His Policy of ‘Israel First and America Last’ Is Destroying the United States.
Most students of the Constitution know that a majority of the Federal Government does not follow the Constitution, and is by definition a Criminal Enterprise. I am a student of the Constitution, but I am no expert. When I need expert help, I turn to Publius Hulda, a most knowledgeable expert on the Constitution. The following is a direct quote from her. If you really want the details, follow her link below:
“That Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1, US Constitution, grants to Congress the authority to spend money on whatever THEY think is a good idea is a false interpretation which has been used to evade the constitutional limits on the fed gov’s power. The only lawful powers Congress has over the Country at large are the enumerated powers. James Madison explained this clause in Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras. You can take that to the Bank!”(end of quotation)
If you want a widely-accepted macro view of how government should operate for the maximum benefit of the people, you should read statements by Ron Paul.
Remember if we do everything right, but fail to deport illegal Invaders, our country is doomed. You can’t have 25-30 million illegals in your country who can’t speak English, have no education, bring in diseases, have no skills, and commit crimes. Trump is working on it, but it will take the Military using deadly force to counteract deadly force being used by illegals in insurrections.
The title to this paper is quite powerful and seminal, which is why I explained my assertions in some detail.
The post Enumerated Powers Forbids and Workers Object To Paying Taxes To Fund Communist Cities appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Difference between Formal and Substantive Equality
Most people agree that fairness is an important normative ideal. It is not always clear what is meant by fairness, but many would argue that fairness demands equal treatment, at least when it comes to deriving the rules and laws by which society is governed. Although some anarchists believe there is no need for rules governing society, other than the defense of private property rights, many people support the classical liberal ideal of equality under the law. It may therefore be helpful to clarify what is meant by equality in this context.
The principle of equality is generally reflected in two main ideas. Formal equality is a standard by which everyone has the same rights. It is founded on the principle of due process and procedural justice in which like cases must be treated alike, and cases that are different must not be treated as if they were alike. Substantive equality is the converse principle. It means that cases that are otherwise alike must not be treated alike if the people concerned differ in their personal identity characteristics such as their race, sex, or religion. It also means that cases that are different must be treated as if they were alike, in order to equalize different people.
The principle of substantive equality, therefore, departs from the classical liberal ideal by shifting its focus from the objective elements of the case to the personal identity of the actors involved. For example, it holds that if two candidates achieve the same score, but one is white and the other is black, they should not be treated the same because black and white are fundamentally not the same. This notion that people of different races should not be treated the same, because they experience life differently, was the premise of the slogan “black lives matter.” Special treatment for blacks was said to be necessary to equalize them with whites. By the same token, if a white candidate achieves a higher score than a black candidate, substantive equality holds that they should be treated as if they had the same score.
The difference between formal and substantive equality is sometimes expressed as a difference between “opportunity” and “outcome.” But this is not quite accurate, because the concept of equal opportunity may itself be viewed as either formal or substantive. To due process advocates, equal opportunity is only compatible with formal equality if it is taken simply to mean that nobody is barred from participation in any activity. Anyone is free to show up to the starting point of a race, and may the fastest runner win. When they say that the opportunity to participate in a race should be “equal,” all they mean is that nobody should be barred from participation. This notion of “equal opportunity” overlaps with that of liberty, as it expresses the ideal that everyone must be at liberty to participate, should they wish. However, to supporters of substantive equality, equal opportunity requires that the opportunity to win a race must really and actually be equal. This does not merely express liberty to participate, but rather requires the equalization of starting points, or equalization of chances in life, among those who are differently situated. Proponents of substantive equal opportunities argue that if one runner has enjoyed the benefit of expensive training which others have been unable to afford, then all runners do not in fact have an equal opportunity to win the race—as they see it, the race is unfair from the outset even though everyone is at liberty to participate. They argue that everyone’s opportunities are not really equal due to the pre-existing disadvantage suffered by some. For example, Catherine Barnard and Bob Hepple, in their article “Substantive Equality,” view “social disadvantage” as a factor that may prevent opportunities from being equal. Those who inhabit the underworld do not have an “equal opportunity” to find a job as those who are well connected. Those who have an attractive appearance do not have an equal opportunity with those of unfortunate appearance. Barnard and Hepple explain:
The procedural view of equal opportunities involves the removal of obstacles or barriers, such as word-of-mouth recruitment or non-job-related selection criteria. This opens up more opportunities but does “not guarantee that more women or minorities will in fact be in a position to take advantage of those opportunities” because their capacities have been limited by the effects of social disadvantage. A more substantive approach to equality of opportunity would require a range of other special measures, usually referred to as “positive action”, to compensate for disadvantages.
Many rationales have been given for substantive equality, one of which is that it reflects modern democratic values. In the age of identity politics, it is said that people’s identity matters, and that, therefore, the democratically-ordained priority is to identify everyone’s race, sex, or religion, in order to determine if they have been fairly and equally treated. The blind justice of the classical liberal ideal, in which justice does not take identity into account, is said to be outmoded, in that it fails sufficiently to recognize “the dignity, autonomy and worth of every individual” as Barnard and Hepple put it. Supporters of this view insist that it is essential to everyone’s self-worth that they should “feel seen,” and if others enjoy more visibility or recognition than they do, or if some feel excluded or ignored, they view this as a failure to ensure substantive equality.
A second rationale is linked to raising the standards of substantive good treatment. The argument is that even if everyone is treated equally, that does not guarantee that they are being treated well. Treating men and women equally badly may satisfy the demands of formal equality as they have been treated the same, but substantive equality would require identifying those in society who are well-treated and equalizing everyone upwards to meet that higher standard. In this way it is supposed that the substantive well-being of all will be meaningfully enhanced. As Barnard and Hepple explain,
So there is no violation of the [formal equality] principle if an employer treats white and black equally badly, or sexually harasses both men and women to the same extent. A claim to equal treatment can be satisfied by depriving both the persons compared of a particular benefit (levelling down) as well as by conferring the benefit on them both (levelling up) [footnotes excluded].
The political concept of “equity” is another form of substantive equality, one that has been carried the furthest in the endless drive to achieve the equality of humanity. Equity seeks the procrustean uniformity of communism, by focusing not only on personal identity but also on ensuring equal outcomes among all members of society—by resort to violence if necessary. Yet the equality it seeks to achieve is a sham, as Thomas Sowell argues in his book Intellectuals and Race:
Many people who advocate what they think of as equality promote what is in fact make-believe “equality.” In economic terms, taking what others have produced and giving it to those who have not produced as much (or at all, in some cases) is make-believe equality.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.The post The Difference between Formal and Substantive Equality appeared first on LewRockwell.
Understanding the Federal Reserve
Looking at the above title, the reader may conclude that he has begun to read an article that he might better save until he has a holiday weekend in which to read it. And there can be no doubt that volumes could be written describing the Fed and its inner-workings. For readers who do seek a comprehensive description of the Fed, I can recommend no source more highly than The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.
However, the purpose of this article is to describe as simply as possible what the function of the Fed is. As Mr. Griffin himself points out, the central function of the Fed is remarkably simple. Whilst the Fed is cloaked in mystery, its central purpose is not complex. However, even when boiled down to the simplest of descriptions, it is still confusing.
Why should this be? The answer is that it is intended to be confusing. The Fed was created, over one hundred years ago, in secrecy, and slipped into being under questionable circumstances. If its function were to be clear to the public, it would rightly be regarded as no more than what it is – the scam of the century.
The principle purpose of the Federal Reserve is to create debt and, at the same time, to monetise that debt. As simplistic as this statement is, it would not be surprising for any capitalistic businessperson, when reading it, to reply, “Say, what?” This would be understandable, as the statement does not resemble conventional monetary or business thinking.
Here is as brief a description of how the Fed’s function is implemented as I can put into words:
- The government issues bonds which are for sale to the public. Some may not be bought by the public. Then the Fed steps in.
- The Fed purchases all the government bonds that have not been purchased by the public. It pays the government with a cheque (not with precious metals, or even paper currency notes). This cheque in not backed by anything.
- The Fed then categorises the government bonds as “reserves.” (Remember, there are no actual dollars held in reserve, only bonds. Are you confused yet? If so, you’re in good company.)
And that’s it. Essentially, the government sells the Fed bonds and, in return, receives payment that is backed by nothing. The benefit to the Government is that it has an opportunity to gain unlimited funding, allowing it to take on unlimited expenses. The benefit to the Fed is that it may loan unlimited sums of money, backed by nothing, at interest, to banking institutions.
Of course, if you were to conduct an activity of this sort, you would be imprisoned as a scam artist and rightly so.
In considering the above description, it is easy to see why the financiers who came up with the concept of the Federal Reserve chose to cloud its purpose. It is also easy to see why they chose to call the institution the “Federal Reserve,” even though it is neither a federal agency, nor is it a reserve. Their goal was to imply a level of credibility that was undeserved.
What’s in it for the Fed
But, why on earth would anyone create such a charade? Well, from the point of view of the financiers who created it, it is a banker’s dream. Imagine, beginning with no money of any kind, writing a cheque backed by nothing and receiving bonds that may be regarded as reserves. Add to this the ability to lend out fiat currency to banks at interest. In a very short time, you would not only potentially control the financial industry, you would also control decisions made by the government, as it could not function to extreme excess without you.
What’s in it for the Government
Governments, historically, rely on taxation to provide them with money to operate. They do their damnedest to increase taxation over time, but, no matter how much tax they burden their people with, it is never enough to fulfil the desires of any government. They invariably want more money to spend. The creation of debt and the monetisation of that debt allows them to spend unlimited amounts of money. The fly in the ointment is that the increase in money is inflation, and, since the creation of the Fed in 1913, the dollar has lost over 97% of its purchasing power.
If the creation of fiat currency is gradual, the system can generally sustain the increase. However, the more dramatic the increase, the more likely the system will collapse under its own weight. The US government, along with many other governments in the world, have, increasingly, made ever-greater promises for entitlements and benefits to voters, and the money to pay for these entitlements and benefits must come from somewhere. For a time, the government may borrow against the future (for example, using Social Security receipts for other purposes), but sooner or later, the odiferous effluvia hits the fan.
That time is very soon, and, unfortunately, the people of the US (and other affected countries) are the fan.
What’s in it for the Citizenry
Before we get too cynical here (or have we already?), as long as the process of monetisation is gradual and controlled, there are benefits for some of the public. After all, the entitlements and benefits that have been received by the populations of many countries could never have been paid for through taxation alone. There are quite a few people out there who could never have received their flat-screen TV, had it not been for government largesse.
There are, therefore, some very real benefits, and it must be said that many of them can even be long-term. In fact, a large number of people were born since 1913 and died of old age, who have escaped the economic calamity that looms in the very near future. However, the benefits that they may have received really represent a “redistribution of wealth.”
If we were speaking instead of free-market capitalism, we would have to state that, over the long haul, the effect of the Fed has been to provide extreme wealth and power to a few clever fellows and some goodies for those who did not work for them, but also, ultimately, to degrade the free-market system to the point of near-collapse.
What remains to be seen is, if there is a collapse in the American monetary system, whether those who are behind the Fed can manage its continuance. If they can maintain the present confusion as to its real purpose, they just may succeed.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The post Understanding the Federal Reserve appeared first on LewRockwell.
Ukraine Is Buying Fighter Jets With Money It Does Not Have?
Over the next two years Ukraine plans to spend some €140 billion ($162b) it does not have to continue its war with Russia. There is serious doubt that the European Union, which has already shuffled €180 billion ($216b) to Ukraine, will be able to pay even a fraction of that.
Despite Ukraine’s lack of money it acting president Vladimir Zelenski is announcing deals to procure expensive military aircraft at an unprecedented scale.
In late October he went to Sweden to buy JAS 39 Gripen-E multi-role fighter jets build by Saab:
Ukraine could get 150 advanced Swedish fighter jets under just-signed deal – CNN, Oct 23 2025
New NATO member Sweden has said it is willing to sell Ukraine up to 150 of its most advanced fighter jets, the first offer from a member of the alliance to supply significant numbers of jets to Kyiv, which is seeking to upgrade its small and ageing air force.
The deal signed on Wednesday by Volodymyr Zelensky and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is a letter of understanding, meaning exact terms, costs and delivery dates for 100 to 150 Saab Gripen-E jets are yet to be determined.
But both leaders said it has the potential to be a game changer, not only for Ukraine – which desperately needs more air combat capabilities in its fight against Russia – but for NATO and European security overall.
The planes ain’t cheap:
[T]he most recent known deal was Thailand’s late-August 2025 contract for four additional Gripens (three single-seat Gripen E and one twin-seat Gripen F). The announced fixed price was about 5.3 billion Swedish kronor — approximately $553 million, or $138.25 million per aircraft.
However, Thailand is already an existing Gripen operator and therefore did not need to purchase additional ground equipment, spare parts, or other infrastructure. For comparison, Peru, which has also expressed interest in the Swedish fighter, estimates the cost at around $145.8 million per aircraft.
It should also be noted that these figures do not include weapons, which must be purchased separately.
The total price tag for the fighter jets is more than $20+ billion. The price is likely to increase because it will take many years to build the planes:
Even for Sweden’s own Air Force, Saab plans to complete its 60-aircraft order only by 2030.
Currently, Saab’s production facilities in Linköping can manufacture about 12 aircraft per year. However, the company aims to significantly increase this rate through localization in other countries.
Not even a month later Zelenski visits France to buy the even more expensive Rafale jets:
Ukraine to buy ‘up to 100’ French fighter jets, Elysee Palace announces – CNN, Nov 17 2025
Ukraine will purchase “up to 100” French-made Rafale fighter jets as well as anti-air defenses and drones from France, the Elysee Palace confirmed, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Paris on Monday.
…
The Elysee Palace said that the purchases covered by the letter of intent would span the next 10 years.
The real price for Rafale jets is not known but it has two engines while the Gripen-E is a one engine plane. Rafale is said to be the second most expensive jet fighter flying in western air forces.
When those just ordered planes would arrive is also not known. The capacity to build them is already sold out for the next five years:
The French aviation firm behind the Rafale, Dassault, is looking to boost its production output to four fighter jets per month and the company said it has 233 jets still on order, as of October 7.
The agreement signed Monday is merely a letter of intent, still a way off a concrete purchase, spurring questions as to how Ukraine will pay for the French jets when Ukraine signed a letter of understanding for 100-150 Swedish-made Gripen jets in October.
I wonder about the strategy behind announcing deals that involve such large sums of money Ukraine does not have for planes that will not even be build during the next five years.
What impression does this give to citizens in Europe who get asked to take on more debt for financing the war in Ukraine:
EU leaders agreed last month to meet Ukraine’s “pressing financial needs” for the next two years but stopped short of endorsing a plan to use frozen Russian assets to fund a giant loan to Kyiv, due to concerns raised by Belgium.
Leaders from all EU countries except Hungary asked the Commission to come up with options for financially supporting Ukraine.
“We have identified three main options, i.e. support to be financed by Member States via grants, a limited recourse loan funded by the Union borrowing on the financial markets, or a limited recourse loan linked to the cash balances of immobilised assets,” von der Leyen said in the letter, seen by Reuters.
There are of course more options than continuing to finance the war. But v.d. Leyen rejects to even identify those.
The mentioning of ‘limited recourse‘ by vdL a word game hiding the fact that Ukraine will never repay any loans:
Limited recourse debt is a type of debt that gives the creditor a claim on some but not all of a borrower’s assets if they default on a loan. It sits between full recourse debt and non-recourse debt in terms of the creditor’s ability to seize any of the borrower’s assets beyond the collateral backing the loan.
It is obvious that Ukraine will never be able to pay back such large sums of money. What assets is Ukraine offering as collateral to back up a limited recourse loan? I haven’t heard anyone else mentioning those.
I am very interested to hear v.d. Leyen’s response to that question.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
The post Ukraine Is Buying Fighter Jets With Money It Does Not Have? appeared first on LewRockwell.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/exr24_eu_en_2.gif)
Commenti recenti
3 settimane 2 giorni fa
5 settimane 59 sec fa
6 settimane 3 giorni fa
6 settimane 4 giorni fa
15 settimane 3 giorni fa
20 settimane 1 giorno fa
23 settimane 1 giorno fa
32 settimane 5 giorni fa
34 settimane 2 giorni fa
35 settimane 1 giorno fa