Aggregatore di feed

If you missed the Secretary of War’s speech, here it is:

Long overdue.

The Democrats’ DEI policy was designed to destroy the military.  Had Hegseth waited any longer, there would have been no institutional base left for a real military.

My concern is whether the assumption or pretense that we have enemies, such as China and Russia, that need “containing” is cover for the neoconservative policy of American Hegemony in the service of Israel. Are we building a capable war-fighting military for our defense or for our hegemony?

In other words, what Secretary of War Hegseth says is true, but is it being done for the right reason?

Neither Russia nor China expresses hostility toward us.  Russia has asked to join NATO.  Russia has been ignoring our provocations and seeking a mutual security agreement, not war.  China just wants to do business. Neither “adversary” is preaching or planning war against us.

Nuclear weapons are an extreme danger to all life, no matter how prepared the military is. A war ready military needs to be accompanied with a war averse foreign policy. 

Neither is Iran an adversary.  Iran is concerned with being painted as an adversary and in that way being set up for an American attack in the service of Greater Israel.  I would have found it reassuring if Hegseth had said something about the US reasserting control over its foreign and war policies.

Too much military strength and too much confidence in it can result in an aggressive foreign policy that leads to war, not to peace.  

Hegseth quoted the Romans, a formidable military power.  It would have been appropriate for him also to quote President Theodore Roosevelt:  “speak softly and carry a big stick.”  We need the soft speech as much as we need the big stick.

Western governments are full of insane people. Former British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is one of them. Yesterday he said that we have “to make Crimea unviable. We need to choke the life out of Crimea. If it is not habitable or not possible for it to function… I think, if we do that, Putin will suddenly realize he’s got something to lose.”  Does Wallace think that Putin’s response will be to surrender?

Wallace is a good example that a competent military in the hands of fools can be a death warrant.

The post Ending the War on Warriors appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Trumpanyahu administration is pushing a “peace plan” for Gaza which critics are saying would damn Palestinians to permanent subjugation under the thumb of Israel. The proposed plan would see Gaza supervised by Trump and by war criminal Tony Blair, and Netanyahu is already saying that the deal will allow the IDF to remain in the Palestinian territory indefinitely.

The last time the US brokered a “peace plan” between Israel and Hamas, the US and Israel torched it in a few weeks, laid siege to the enclave, and announced a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. So even without all the major problems with the offer, there’s not going to be a whole lot of enthusiasm about it.

I’m seeing a lot of purportedly pro-Palestine voices proclaiming that Hamas needs to accept the deal in order to end the genocide. I personally will never tell Palestinians what they should do to address their abuse at the hands of the empire or what deals they should accept. My job as a westerner is to oppose the western empire that is butchering them, not to finger-wag and moralize at the empire’s victims.

The onus is on the party committing genocide to stop committing genocide. The onus is not on the victims of the genocide to sign agreements in the hope of saving themselves from the genocide. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t a psychopath.

❖

The Israeli Foreign Ministry keeps trying to claim that the Global Sumud Flotilla bringing aid to Gaza is actually a Hamas operation. Their latest effort in this ridiculous campaign was a statement trying to connect the dots between Hamas and people associated with the flotilla which bizarrely featured a photo of British politician George Galloway whom the ministry falsely identified as a British Palestinian man named Zaher Birawi.

Not one single person in the entire world believes this narrative. Literally nobody believes the Gaza flotilla has any connection to Hamas. It’s just a framing they’re circulating to preemptively justify any cruelty they might inflict upon the flotilla activists.

Meanwhile the death count of people who have starved to death in Gaza has risen to around 453. Israel is trying to convince the world that the Global Sumud Flotilla are terrorists for trying to help stop this.

In addition to everything else this genocide has been, it has also been one nonstop insult to our intelligence.

❖

Two separate news reports have just come out about Israeli propaganda operations to manipulate western opinion.

In an article titled “Israel is paying influencers $7,000 per post,” Responsible Statecraft’s Nick Cleveland-Stout reports on documents showing that 14 to 18 individuals have been receiving significant compensation to generate pro-Israel content for platforms like TikTok and Instagram.

In a write-up titled “Trump’s Ex-Digital Guru Works to Combat Antisemitism,” O’Dwyer’s PR News reports that “The firm of Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale has a four-month $6M agreement for strategic communications and media services in support of Havas Media’s engagement by Israel to develop a nationwide campaign in the US to combat antisemitism.”

Journalist Jack Paulson notes that we know about Parscale’s six million-dollar psyop because he had to register as a foreign agent of the Israeli government, saying Parscale was paid “to map out Gen-Z influencers and distribute a narrative about antisemitism in the United States.”

This is what happens when a state doesn’t have facts, reason or morality on its side, but has unlimited funding.

❖

It’s silly how people call it “the Holy Land”. If the land was holy it would have turned Israelis into decent people.

❖

One of the many ugly things about the Trump era has been watching so many hippie woo woo spiritual types turn into crazed transphobic QAnoners, because those were my people. It’s kind of an embarrassing admission at this point, but they were.

I didn’t come to where I’m at ideologically from reading Lenin or talking to Marxists, I got here because I did a lot of inner work and had some transformative experiences and came out the other side with a deep love for this beautiful planet and for the strange naked ape mutants who people it, and with a yearning to help create a healthy world. I just kinda felt my way through the human experience as the barefoot hippie earth mama that I am, and it carried me to a clear intuitive understanding that the western empire must end and that capitalism cannot carry our species into the future.

And I’d just sorta assumed the people who looked and talked like me were on a similar journey this whole time. It looked like we were for a hot minute a decade ago when we were all getting excited about Bernie Sanders and the possibility of a real socialist movement in the western world, but then after that it got really weird and gross. I started watching so many of the leftwardly-inclined spiritual types I’d connected with in 2015 and 2016 start getting sucked into the Trumpian worldview and getting crazier and crazier with QAnon and all its related psyops until they were indistinguishable from garden variety American conservatives.

I remember a Bernie guy I’d made friends with in 2016 shrieking at me in 2020 and accusing me of acting like an Iranian mullah when I criticized Trump’s assassination of Qassem Soleimani. My Facebook feed increasingly morphed from Bernie Sanders stuff to Jill Stein stuff to pro-Trump stuff, and then with Covid a lot of them went full-blown wingnut and started posting crazy right wing shit about trans people and Muslims and immigrants and China. I saw it happen to people I’d known in person my whole life, transforming from the barefoot peaceniks I’d always known into stuffy reactionaries in just a few years.

I’d tell them they’d turned into Republicans and they’d generally get all huffy and indignant and claim they were just like me, free-thinking leftist dissidents who opposed the fake two-party system. But there they were, fully buying into the entire worldview of one of those parties — and it was the one that’s further to the right.

And I just found the whole thing baffling. I mean, why were these people ever attracted to the left in the first place? Did they not have any values? If they did, what happened to them? How could they not see they were being duped into throwing their support behind the establishment they used to oppose? What happened to their spiritual insight? Their intuition? Their rebelliousness? Where was their connection to nature and to heart which had previously caused them to stand for peace and love?

And eventually I learned that it was just an act for most people. For most people spirituality is just an accessory for the ego, and being a hippie is just a feel-good fashion statement. They’re not engaging in the kind of rigorous interior excavation and ruthless self-honesty that would have protected them from imperial psyops to corral their political energy back into the mainstream herd. They just like how weed makes them feel and enjoy Alex Grey art. They wear spirituality, but they’ve never lived it.

This feels like kind of a confession because I’m admitting to having been naive about something many of you probably already knew for a long time, but it’s just the truth. I was naive. I stumbled into this commentary gig after years of focusing almost entirely on spirituality and inner work without paying much attention to what other people were doing. I have a journalism degree and I was a news junkie when I was younger, but then I fell down the rabbit hole of inner exploration and lost track of the outer world. It took me a while to get a read on things once I tuned back in.

It’s been a trip, man.

________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. 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. 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 The Trumpanyahu ‘Peace’ Plan appeared first on LewRockwell.

The ambush murder of Charlie Kirk, the Republican Party’s most charismatic youth influencer, has pushed our divided nation to the brink. In the tragedy’s wake, the picture of what really happened has grown murkier by the day, leaving only one thing clear. The American people cannot trust a compromised FBI to bring this case to justice. Congress must launch an independent investigation immediately.

The FBI’s boast that it captured the suspected assassin, Tyler Robinson, in just 33 hours fell flat with a skeptical public. Video showed the lone assassin jumping from a rooftop, but no rifle was visible. According to the official story, he concealed the weapon before jumping and fled into the woods. Soon, however, on social media, weapons experts stepped up to show and tell how it was impossible to hide the bulky rifle in a backpack or pant leg.

The story wobbled and spun. A furious debate erupted over why there appeared to be no exit wound. Kirk’s doctor failed to put that controversy to rest when he confirmed the bullet never did exit the body. For skeptics, the doctor’s explanation of the “miracle” strength of Kirk’s bone structure, said to have stopped the bullet, called up the widely ridiculed “magic bullet” theory in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Social media posts on TikTok and X before Kirk’s murder, uncovered by journalist Megyn Kelly, seemed to imply foreknowledge of the coming attack and a plot extending beyond Robinson. To the growing ranks of skeptical observers, the chaotic investigation was unfolding like a “psyop” by the FBI, designed to deceive the public by burying the truth.

History offers some credence to those doubts. In the 1960s, FBI investigations “solved” the assassinations of President Kennedy, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy as lone-wolf murders; however, hotly disputed evidence left all three cases in limbo in the court of public opinion.

In the JFK assassination, eyewitnesses, ballistics, and wound analysis by doctors pointed to multiple shooters in two locations. Suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald’s silencing by murder when low-level mobster Jack Ruby shot him in police custody was another telltale sign of a broader conspiracy.

The bullet that killed the Reverend King couldn’t be conclusively matched to the rifle of the suspected assassin, James Earl Ray, and eyewitnesses saw a second suspect in a different location.

In the RFK case, ballistics, acoustics, and other physical evidence indicated from one to five additional shots fired beyond the capacity of the gun of the suspected assassin, Sirhan Sirhan. Eyewitnesses saw activity suggesting one or more additional shooters. Ballistics and powder burns confirmed that RFK was killed by shots from behind and inches away, whereas Sirhan fired from in front and several feet away.

The controversial evidence didn’t change any of the outcomes. The FBI made lone-wolf cases against all three suspected assassins, though earning a reputation for manipulation and cover-ups in the process.

“This isn’t just history rhyming. This is history repeating itself,” Sen. Ron Johnson noted recently about the 1960s murders viewed alongside new evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing. That evidence, in modern history’s iconic lone-wolf terror case, reveals that the bombing wasn’t lone-wolf terror at all. It was manufactured terror made in Washington, DC, by the FBI: a failed rogue spy operation under the bureau’s PATCON program, targeting right-wing extremist violence.

The 30-year FBI cover-up that followed – denying justice to the bombing victims, allowing neo-Nazi terror suspects to walk free, and keeping the American public in the dark – was a real-world psyop like the one now widely suspected in the Kirk investigation.

The new evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing case reveals that Timothy McVeigh was under surveillance by the FBI months before committing his crime. Though not definitive, that fact gives some credence to the idea that McVeigh was following orders from others inside the federal government – a claim he made to multiple sources before and after the bombing.

So far, no surveillance connection to Tyler Robinson or the Kirk murder has surfaced. However, Sen. Charles Grassley’s revelation on September 16 about the FBI’s Arctic Frost program opened that door wide. At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s FBI oversight hearing, Grassley reported that the bureau under President Biden selectively used Arctic Frost to target 92 Republican-linked individuals and groups for investigation — including Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA.

Arctic Frost was a new name drawn from an old FBI surveillance playbook. As my book, Blowback: The Untold Story of the FBI and the Oklahoma City Bombing, reveals, PATCON in the 1990s targeted not just Washington, DC, political insiders, but the grassroots Patriot political movement in America’s Heartland, opposing gun control and federal government overreach.

PATCON’s stated goal was to shut down extremist right-wing violence by busting terror plots. It did the opposite, putting illegal weapons and cash into the hands of criminals. At the same time, PATCON functioned as a powerful narrative tool, amplifying the public’s perception of the threat of right-wing terror.

By 2020, the narrative was embedded. Merrick Garland, the star federal prosecutor who managed the bombing case, rose to the top of the US Justice Department. Upon becoming attorney general, he declared white supremacy to be the gravest threat facing America. Inside that frame of reality, it made perfect sense to cast Donald Trump as Hitler, misfit Michigan militia members as a hit squad on its governor, and, eventually, Charlie Kirk as the fascist target of an assassin’s bullet.

Manufactured terror demonizes and kills people, corrupts justice, and destabilizes the republic. Left to metastasize since the Oklahoma City bombing, rogue surveillance has compromised the FBI. Charlie Kirk’s murder must become the turning point to restore integrity with the whole truth.

The Justice Department cannot investigate itself. The Senate Judiciary Committee must act now—or America risks losing what remains of its justice system.

The post The FBI’s Kirk Investigation Exposes America’s Justice System on the Brink appeared first on LewRockwell.

Nick Fuentes has said things no Catholic should defend. Lines the Church has long drawn, he has crossed. This cannot be excused, and it shouldn’t be erased. But once that is admitted, a harder truth remains: his rise poses questions the faithful can’t shrug away.

At 27, he commands a vast audience. His attachment to Catholic doctrine appears genuine. He defends marriage with conviction, champions family without apology, and pushes back on the cultural war against Christian belief with a bluntness many bishops avoid.

There’s the dilemma. On one side, he is an articulate advocate for truths Catholics hold dear. On the other, he is a man with baggage that contradicts those same truths.

The media opts for caricature over clarity. In their telling, Fuentes is painted as a pure villain, a mix of Hitler and Richard Spencer. His listeners are treated as nothing more than bigots, and any Catholic who engages is branded complicit. But the Church has never lived in simple sketches. The challenge has always been knowing what to do with them. Why, then, are young Catholic men drawn to him?

Because he confronts what others dodge. He slams immigration policies that break working families. He denounces foreign wars that enrich contractors and bury children. He defends masculinity in a culture that mocks it. He calls out elites who preach inclusion while excluding Catholics. These are real grievances. He voices them loudly and unapologetically.

Young men like myself feel targeted by the culture. They hear “toxic” attached to masculinity and “oppressive” glued to tradition. They see crime facts dismissed when they cut against the script. They watch their demographic blamed for everything while others are shielded.

Fuentes meets their frustration with data and defiance, magnetic even when he wanders where Catholics cannot follow. He can be bold in truth yet brutal in tone. He critiques feminism with flashes of cruelty. He calls out crime with words that can veer into prejudice. He marries clarity with corrosion, forcing Catholics to sift the wheat from the weeds.

That is the task. Progressives dismiss him outright, pretending nothing he says holds truth. Many conservatives wave him off as a “weird” guy in a basement. Both are wrong. We live in an age of absolutes, yet the Church cannot afford to abandon nuance.

A Catholic approach demands more charity and more clarity. We do not judge a soul only by its worst sentence; we judge the whole arc—repentance, amendment, the fruits that follow. I am not calling for a wholehearted embrace. But folded arms and moral tutting won’t work either. Fuentes isn’t fading. Quite the opposite, in fact. He is growing more influential by the day.

And amid the noise, there is a note of grace. Though he and Charlie Kirk were vocal opponents, when Kirk was killed, Fuentes offered only condolences to Erika and the children—and prayers. Some say, “So what? That’s the least he could do.” True. But if he were only chasing clicks, he could have taken a cheaper, crueler road. He didn’t. In an era when social media amplifies the foolishness of youth and rewards immorality, that restraint matters. He now speaks a little slower, a little more carefully—not perfect, but human, someone capable of change.

So the questions for Catholics are practical. Can we critique feminism without sinking into outright misogyny? Can we oppose unjust wars without chasing crazy conspiracies? Can we face demographic change without losing charity? Can we defend borders while still seeing neighbors? I believe we can. These are the questions Fuentes forces onto the table, and they are questions we should all wrestle with.

Catholic teaching is clear. Good ends never justify evil means. Human dignity is not a bargaining chip. National pride must never eclipse the brotherhood we share in Christ.

This tension won’t vanish. The Fuentes moment forces a choice: Can we take what is factual without baptizing what is fictional? Can we accept what is useful without excusing what is harmful? The Church has faced this before. Sinners became saints. Great minds still had blind spots. The faithful are sorted carefully, with patience and prayer.

This requires spiritual maturity, not partisan zeal. It requires critical thinking. It means separating the message from the messenger and sense from insult. Politics demands loyalty to a tribe. Faith asks for something more complex: to reject hatred without shutting out what is right and to correct error without killing hope.

Should Catholics engage with Fuentes? Yes—carefully. Engagement is not endorsement. We need to exercise prudence, not fangirling; fraternal correction, not fawning applause.

In the end, the Fuentes question is less about him than about us. How do we remain faithful when leaders fail? How do we resist a hostile culture without losing Christian compassion? How do we defend a civilization worth saving without sawing at its Christian foundations?

We have all sinned; Fuentes has sinned, perhaps more than most. He has said what should not be said. Yet he is young, and youth can learn. If he is serious about the Faith, repentance can take root and bear fruit.

The Church should neither canonize nor cancel. Instead, we must watch, test, correct, and pray. Refuse the lie; keep what is good. And judge, as the Church always has, by conversion, by actions, and by the evidence of a changed life—step by step.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Nick Fuentes Dilemma for Catholics appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Safe and effective.” That was the phrase often repeated by people trying to maximize the injections of coronavirus “vaccine” shots during the coronavirus scare. This claim about the shots was wrong. The shots turned out instead to be dangerous and ineffective.

Unfortunately, many people went along with the powerful propaganda push, taking the shots. Yet, with time there was increasing recognition of the misrepresentation about these shots, and that helped open many people’s eyes to the possibility that assertions regarding benefits of other pharmaceuticals, and vaccines in particular, may also be dangerously misleading.

During the coronavirus scare, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. played a prominent role in challenging the favorable claims about the coronavirus shots. Now, as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), he is leading the government department to take a close look at the claimed benefits of the many shots on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) childhood vaccine schedule that schools and daycares across America require children to be subjected to as a condition for attendance.

A video presentation Kennedy released this week that takes a significant step in revealing the nature of the vaccines review at HHS. In particular, Kennedy in the video challenged the widely disseminated conclusion that the mass use of the various vaccines on the childhood vaccine schedule caused the elimination or major reduction of deaths from the diseases the respective vaccines target — a measure that the vaccines were particularly effective in accomplishing their stated objectives.

While displaying graphs of the deaths over time caused by various diseases targeted by vaccines, Kenndey demonstrated in the video presentation that the mass use of each of several vaccines came after the targeted disease’s deaths had already had a huge decline. Kennedy provided measles, pertussis (whooping cough), and influenza shots as examples. Further, noted Kennedy, there were similar huge declines in deaths from tuberculosis, scurvy, and scarlet fever over a similar timeline event though there was no mass vaccination for these diseases in America.

Factors independent of vaccines or other medical interventions, Kennedy explained, were the main causes of the decrease in deaths from infectious diseases. Vaccines were trumpeted as the solution, but the health improvement heroes were in reality other factors including the development of food refrigeration, quickened transportation of food, and improved sanitation, concluded Kennedy.

The logical childhood vaccine schedule changes to be taken in response to the observations put forward by Kennedy in his video presentation are significant. If some of the shots on the schedule have no efficacy, they should be removed from the schedule. The reason that has been made for giving them has been a fraud or mistake. If other shots have much less efficacy than has been asserted but still do some good against the targeted diseases, a reevaluation should be made comparing those shots’ benefits and risks — comparing the shots’ efficacy and danger. With a much lower efficacy, the shots should be judged as acceptable to give only if they have an even lower harm risk.

The end result of this analysis can be expected to be a substantial shrinking of the childhood vaccine schedule in which the variety and number of shots has expanded several-fold over the last few decades. Indeed, the ultimate conclusion could even be that the schedule should be rescinded.

The new analysis Kennedy discussed in his video presentation should also provide additional momentum for abolishing government efforts to either mandate that people take or put any pressure on people to take pharmaceuticals. Government has proven itself a cavalier and dangerous bearer of such authority. Let’s end the authoritarian practice for good.

This article was originally published on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post HHS Secretary Kennedy Challenges the Efficacy of Childhood Vaccine Schedule Shots appeared first on LewRockwell.

Editor’s note: under the new pontificate of Pope Leo, we will now publish this monthly reminder of the proven, time-tested method to end heresy and the responsibility of every bishop for this, the “greatest act of charity.”

Back in 2023, all orthodox Catholics of good will heard the news of His Excellency, Bishop Paprocki’s condemnation of heresy in one of the most prominent American journals, First Things. This was ostensibly a condemnation of Cardinal McElroy’s brazen challenge to Catholic moral theology in two pieces (here and here) at America—a connection underlined by Bishop Paprocki’s quoting verbatim from the cardinal’s first article. Nevertheless, His Excellency did say shortly thereafter (on Raymond Arroyo) that he did not want to name names, but had European cardinals also in mind.

Masculine Courage

Faithful Catholics compare today’s bishops with the saintly bishops of old and they find the former woefully lacking in manly courage. They do not seem to act like men of God should – with zeal, filled with faith and charity.

I am willing to hazard that there are many orthodox bishops out there. But it seems to me that most of those orthodox bishops are cowardly. They think of themselves as “vicars of the Roman Pontiff” (a concept that Vatican II condemned in Lumen Gentium 27), and they are afraid to excommunicate and issue the anathema, as did the saintly bishops of old.

Thanks be to God, this crisis has had one silver lining – it is separating the men from the boys in the episcopate. We thank God for Bishop Paprocki, as well as for Archbishop Cordileone who excommunicated the aiders and abetters of child murder and who was supported by over sixteen other bishops, and for Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who has been continually willing to act like a man of God – with courage and conviction – despite being unceremoniously sacked by Pope Francis.

Less Words, More Action

But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from the Vatican II crisis it’s this: more talking, statements, and documents do almost nothing to stop the heretic wolves from scattering the flock.

Therefore, I respectfully propose to all bishops the same proposal that the Trad movement has been asking for since 1965: the charitable anathema.

At OnePeterFive we aim to resource and promote the work of our Trad godfathers in the Faith. It was Cardinal Ottaviani who asked all bishops to condemn heresy in 1966, heartily cheered by Archbishop Lefebvre. When Dietrich von Hildebrand met with Paul VI in the summer of 1965 – even before the Council ended – he begged Paul VI for the same thing – the charitable anathema. But the Pontiff thought it “was a bit harsh” and decided against it.[1]

The Case of Notre Dame

One of the worst cases of this fear of taking appropriate action concerned the bishop of South Bend, Indiana, after Notre Dame went into revolt against the Magisterium in the 1960s. The bishop wanted to place the whole university under interdict, but hesitated, waiting for Rome to back him up.

Rome never did, and thousands of American Catholics (and worldwide) were led into heresy by joining in the revolt against Humanae Vitae (and other dogmas of the Faith), led by the heretic wolves at Notre Dame and other so-called “Catholic” institutions.

Indeed, at the judgment day, the bishops of these generations will be judged by Christ, the Good Shepherd, about whether they laid down their life for their sheep, or if they let the heretic wolves destroy the faith of little children, as we have seen happen. For these heretic wolves have torn out altars, held Catholic universities hostage to heresy, and have done nothing less than scourged Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament by their liturgical abuse.

As our contributing editor, Dr. Michael Sirilla shows, St. Thomas himself strongly defended the bishop’s responsibility of excommunicating heretics.[2] This was understood as obligation of charity for the flock.

The sheep cry out, How long, O Lord, wilt thou forget me forever? and the Prophet cries out, Woe to you, Shepherds!

The Only Way Forward: the Charitable Anathema

But let me return to my point: more talking and documents will do nothing. Only action – the action of a man of God – will have any effect.

And that action, we assert – with the whole history of the Church – is the charitable anathema.

As Hildebrand said acutely, pointing to the root of the problem decades ago:

The valuing of unity over truth plays a central role in the crisis of the Church; for the Church of Christ—the Holy, Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Church—is based on this fundamental principle: the absolute primacy of divine truth, which is the very primacy of God.[3]

This proven solution has always been the answer in times of heretical depravity. Critics of this solution ultimately value unity above truth. They are scared of schism more than they are of error and falsehood. Hildebrand refutes the critics of the anathema with these words, proclaiming that the anathema is itself an act of charity:

… The anathema excludes the one who professes heresies from the communion of the Church, if he does not retract his errors. But for precisely this reason, it is an act of the greatest charity toward all the faithful, comparable to preventing a dangerous disease from infecting innumerable people. By isolating the bearer of infection, we protect the bodily health of others; by the anathema, we protect their spiritual health[.] …

And more: a rupture of communion with the heretic in no way implies that our obligation of charity toward him ceases. No, the Church prays also for heretics [as we see in the traditional orations of Good Friday]; the true Catholic who knows a heretic personally prays ardently for him and would never cease to impart all kinds of help to him. But he should not have any communion with him. Thus St. John, the great apostle of charity, said: “If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar” (I Jn. 4:20). But he also said: “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house[.]” (2 Jn. 1:10).[4]

Therefore we exhort every cleric, theologian, and diocesan official of any kind: examine yourself, and consider speaking to your bishop about this solution. The words that have been spoken by Bishop Paprocki are obviously good, but we ask for less talking and more action.

Read the Whole Article

The post Bishops against Bishops: the Proven Solution appeared first on LewRockwell.

“The true measure of a nation’s power isn’t found in its politics or economy, but in the most overlooked factor of all: its geography. We reveal how the United States won the geographic lottery and compare its advantages to the immense physical challenges facing Russia, China, and Africa. By the end, you’ll understand how the land itself predetermines which countries rise and fall, and why a nation’s fate is ultimately written on the map.”

The post Outstanding Brief Documentary: America Will Be the Last Superpower, Here’s Why appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post ‘Hot Spots’ – Where Will Trump Strike Next? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

For those who couldn’t attend the Peace and Freedom Rally held in Kingston NY on September 27, 2025, the video can be watched on YouTube. Speakers were Scott Ritter, Dennis Kucinich, Judge Napolitano, Ray McGovern, event organizer Gerald Celente, Garland Nixon, Joe Laurie and Diane Sare.

The post Peace and Freedom Rally Kingston NY September 27, 2025 appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

Which country is leading the charge against the Gaza genocide?

See here.

 

The post South African Ambassador Dies from Hotel Plunge appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

HI Lew,

Thanks for publishing my stories and articles, links, and comments. You are very kind. Your cause is good at Mises and LRC. I hope you can continue the fight. I find myself losing interest in DC antics, media lies, and especially Trump’s insanity. It makes me almost miss Biden’s senility. The circus, the barkers, the clowns, the athletes, and the freaks are all starting to bore me and drive me kinda crazy. Will someone please turn off that Circus Calliope? It is giving me a headache.

The post Circus Calliope? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Tim McGraw.

Timmy Tae’s Thoughts

 

The post Fleet Week, Seattle, 1980s appeared first on LewRockwell.

Joy Reid warns Americans of MAGA plans: “No income tax, no regulations, earn as much as you want, and leave it to your children with no taxes, that’s the world they want.” That actually sounds like a free society. Unfortunately, it is not a MAGA society, which also includes high tariffs, increased military action at home and abroad, and a doubling down of the drug war.

The post Too Bad This Is Not What MAGA Republicans Really Want appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Bill Madden

See this and this.

 

The post Bill Extraordinarily Bullish for Gold & Silver -Craig Hemke appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Lance Roberts

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-morte-del-dollaro-e-notevolmente)

La narrazione sulla “morte del dollaro” come valuta di riserva mondiale è praticamente sulla bocca di tutti. Questo accade ogni volta che si deprezza rispetto ad altre valute. Abbiamo già scritto in precedenza delle false affermazioni sulla “morte del dollaro” nel 2023 (si veda qui, qui e qui). Il suo recente calo rispetto ad altre valute rientra ampiamente nella norma storica. In particolare, i cali precedenti erano stati molto più ampi senza l'“allarmismo” degli “esperti di sventura”.

La “morte del dollaro” ricorre spesso nei dibattiti finanziari. Naturalmente questo accade quando aumentano le tensioni geopolitiche, le perturbazioni economiche, o le fluttuazioni del mercato. Certo, ci sono valide preoccupazioni circa il predominio a lungo termine del dollaro, tuttavia l'idea che la sua morte sia imminente, portando a un catastrofico crollo economico, è ampiamente sopravvalutata. Il dollaro rimane la pietra angolare della finanza globale a causa di fattori strutturali, economici e geopolitici che difficilmente cambieranno bruscamente. Di seguito delineo cinque motivi per cui la narrazione sulla morte del dollaro è esagerata.

Cinque motivi per cui la narrazione della morte del dollaro è sopravvalutata 

1. Mancanza di una valuta alternativa valida – Lo status di riserva del dollaro persiste perché non esiste un rivale credibile. L'euro, che detiene il 20% delle riserve globali rispetto al 58% circa del dollaro (FMI, secondo trimestre 2024), è vincolato dalla frammentazione dei mercati obbligazionari e dalla volatilità politica dell'Eurozona. Nonostante il crescente utilizzo (2-3% delle riserve), il renminbi cinese è limitato dai controlli sui capitali e dalla convertibilità limitata, il che lo rende inadatto allo status di riserva globale. Altre valute, come lo yen giapponese (6%) o quelle più piccole come il dollaro canadese o australiano, non hanno la portata economica o la liquidità necessarie per competere con il dollaro. Senza una valuta all'altezza della profondità e della liquidità dei mercati del dollaro e della fiducia globale, la sua scomparsa rimane improbabile nel breve termine.


2. Forza dell'economia statunitense – L'economia statunitense, che rappresenta il 26% del PIL mondiale, consolida il predominio del dollaro. La sua ampia e dinamica economia, sostenuta dallo Stato di diritto e da solidi mercati dei capitali, posiziona il dollaro come un rifugio sicuro, in particolare durante periodi di instabilità mondiale. Mentre i critici sottolineano l'aumento del debito statunitense ($35.000 miliardi, circa il 120% del PIL), lo status di riserva del dollaro consente di indebitarsi a tassi più bassi, sostenendo i deficit senza crisi immediate. Rispetto ad altre economie – la lenta crescita del Giappone, i mercati ristretti della Cina, o la frammentazione dell'Europa – gli Stati Uniti offrono stabilità, rendendo improbabile la scomparsa del dollaro nel futuro prossimo.


3. Effetti di rete e inerzia finanziaria mondiale – Gli effetti di rete perpetuano il predominio del dollaro: il suo utilizzo diffuso ne accresce il valore. Costituisce circa l'88% delle transazioni valutarie globali (dati SWIFT) e circa il 60% della fatturazione internazionale del debito e del commercio. La transizione a un'altra valuta richiederebbe un ampio coordinamento tra banche centrali, stati e mercati, con conseguenti costi e rischi significativi. Le transizioni monetarie storiche, come quella dalla sterlina al dollaro, hanno attraversato decenni e hanno richiesto importanti cambiamenti geopolitici, oggi assenti. Questa inerzia rende la scomparsa del dollaro una prospettiva remota.


4. Portata limitata degli sforzi di de-dollarizzazione – Sebbene Paesi come Cina, Russia e i BRICS sostengano il commercio in valute locali (ad esempio, il renminbi cinese rappresenta il 56% del suo commercio bilaterale), questi sforzi hanno un impatto mondiale limitato. La quota di riserve in dollari è diminuita gradualmente (dal 67% al 58% in due decenni), tuttavia ciò riflette la diversificazione, non la scomparsa del dollaro, spesso in valute alleate come il dollaro canadese o australiano. La Cina detiene circa $2.000 miliardi in asset denominati in dollari, a dimostrazione della sua dipendenza. Le mosse geopolitiche, come il passaggio della Russia all'oro o al renminbi, sono limitate dalla piccola scala dei sistemi non basati sul dollaro (ad esempio, il CIPS cinese rispetto allo SWIFT). Questi sforzi frammentati non riescono a innescare la scomparsa del dollaro.


5. Resilienza a fronte di sfide politiche – I critici sostengono che le politiche statunitensi, come dazi, sanzioni, o azioni della Federal Reserve, indeboliscono la fiducia nel dollaro. Ad esempio, i dazi di Trump nel 2025 hanno causato un calo del dollaro di circa il 9%, alimentando i timori di una sua possibile morte. Tuttavia tali fluttuazioni sono cicliche, non strutturali, con il dollaro ancora robusto rispetto al suo picco del 2011-2022 (in rialzo di circa il 40% rispetto a un paniere di valute). Le sanzioni, come quelle alla Russia nel 2022, non hanno ridotto significativamente le riserve mondiali in dollari, poiché la maggior parte di esse è detenuta da alleati degli Stati Uniti che hanno aderito alle sanzioni. Le linee di swap e il supporto di liquidità della Federal Reserve rafforzano ulteriormente il ruolo del dollaro durante le crisi.

Come si può notare, il dollaro domina la composizione delle transazioni monetarie mondiali.

Tuttavia c'è un motivo per cui il recente calo del dollaro potrebbe essere prossimo alla fine.

Perché il dollaro potrebbe riprendersi con forza

Non è la prima volta che la “morte del dollaro” fa notizia. Nel 2022 le narrazioni sulla “de-dollarizzazione” hanno gonfiato le tesi ribassiste, con tutti che affermavano che la morte del dollaro fosse imminente. Ciononostante quella “frenesia di sventura” ha segnato il minimo del dollaro prima di un robusto rally. Potremmo prepararci per un altro simile per due motivi.

In primo luogo, dal punto di vista tecnico, la vendita del dollaro è diventata piuttosto estrema. Utilizzando i dati settimanali, esso è ora ipervenduto su base del momentum, come lo era all'inizio del 2021 e alla fine del 2018. Queste precedenti condizioni di ipervenduto lo prepararono a un forte rally in controtendenza.

Inoltre tutti, dal “lustrascarpe” al venditore ambulante, stanno vendendo allo scoperto il dollaro. Secondo il sondaggio dei gestori di fondi di BofA, la posizione short contro il dollaro è al livello più alto degli ultimi 20 anni. Pertanto qualsiasi inversione di tendenza del dollaro potrebbe essere sostanziale se questi “short” fossero costretti a invertire le loro posizioni.

La domanda è: cosa deve cambiare per un'inversione di tendenza del dollaro? Questo ci porta alla seconda ragione per cui potrebbe riprendersi: i tagli dei tassi della BCE.

In quanto valuta di riserva, le nazioni straniere detengono riserve in dollari per facilitare gli scambi commerciali. Se è troppo debole, o troppo forte, rispetto a un'altra valuta, può avere un impatto negativo sull'economia di quella nazione. Pertanto quando il dollaro si allontana troppo da un'altra valuta, quel Paese può intervenire per stabilizzare la propria di valuta. Tale intervento si ottiene aumentando, o diminuendo, le riserve in dollari. Può farlo acquistando, o vendendo, titoli del Tesoro statunitensi, oro, o altri asset denominati in dollari. Nella maggior parte dei casi si tratta di titoli del Tesoro statunitensi, o di oro.

La BCE ha tagliato i tassi in modo aggressivo, otto volte nell'ultimo ciclo, mentre la Federal Reserve statunitense ha mantenuto la sua politica monetaria pressoché invariata. Il risultato è una divergenza che si sta sviluppando tra i rendimenti dei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi e, ad esempio, quelli tedeschi.

Ci sono tre motivi principali per cui è fondamentale che gli investitori comprendano questo aspetto.

1. Rendimenti più elevati attraggono afflussi di capitali – Storicamente l'aumento dei rendimenti dei titoli del Tesoro statunitensi ha attratto investimenti esteri grazie ai rendimenti più elevati rispetto alle obbligazioni di altre principali economie. Ad esempio, i rendimenti dei decennali americani sono saliti dal 3,65% a settembre 2024 al 4,8% all'inizio del 2025; i rendimenti obbligazionari europei (ad esempio, i decennali tedeschi) sono rimasti bassi a causa dell'allentamento monetario della BCE. Questo differenziale di rendimento incentiva gli investitori esteri, comprese le banche centrali e gli investitori istituzionali, ad acquistare titoli del Tesoro americani. Tale acquisto aumenta la domanda di dollari e ne sostiene l'apprezzamento.


2. I titoli del Tesoro come riserva privilegiata rispetto alle riserve monetarie – Come accennato in precedenza, i titoli del Tesoro statunitensi costituiscono la spina dorsale delle riserve monetarie mondiali. Rendimenti più elevati offrono ai gestori delle riserve rendimenti migliori senza sacrificare la sicurezza, a differenza di asset più rischiosi come azioni o obbligazioni dei mercati emergenti. Ad esempio, la domanda estera di titoli del Tesoro americani è rimasta stabile nonostante i tagli dei tassi della BCE. Questa domanda sostiene il dollaro, poiché le banche centrali devono acquistarlo per acquistare poi titoli del Tesoro americani, rafforzandone lo status di valuta di riserva.


3. Apprezzamento del dollaro guidato dai differenziali di rendimento – La divergenza nella politica monetaria, la posizione più accomodante della BCE rispetto a quella della FED, ha ampliato il divario dei tassi di interesse, favorendo il dollaro. I rendimenti statunitensi più elevati, in particolare sui decennali (4,4-4,8% all'inizio del 2025), contrastano con i rendimenti europei più bassi, che potrebbero stimolare flussi di capitali verso gli Stati Uniti. La domanda per i rendimenti è in linea con i modelli storici in cui i tassi statunitensi più elevati sostengono il DXY, come si è visto durante il periodo post-elettorale del 2016, quando l'ottimismo fiscale ha spinto i rendimenti e il dollaro al rialzo. Nonostante la volatilità legata ai dazi, il recente apprezzamento del dollaro suggerisce che i differenziali di rendimento siano un supporto chiave.

Il punto cruciale è che questa sarebbe una situazione interessante per stati, fondi comuni di investimento e investitori esteri. Poiché gli afflussi esteri vengono inizialmente utilizzati per catturare rendimenti obbligazionari più elevati, gli investitori beneficiano anche di un duplice vantaggio: guadagni monetari e prezzi obbligazionari più elevati (rendimenti più bassi).

Tuttavia la narrazione della morte del dollaro persiste a causa delle recenti tendenze di disaccoppiamento. I rendimenti sono aumentati con l'indebolimento del dollaro all'inizio del 2025, trainato dalle preoccupazioni fiscali e dall'incertezza sui dazi. Queste recenti preoccupazioni passeranno, ma il ruolo del dollaro come valuta di riserva per il commercio mondiale no.

Affrontare la narrativa della morte del dollaro e le implicazioni economiche

La narrazione della fine del dollaro nasce spesso da preoccupazioni sul debito statunitense, l'inflazione, i dazi, o l'uso geopolitico del dollaro come arma (ad esempio, sanzioni). Questi rischi esistono, ma l'impatto a breve termine viene sopravvalutato. La perdita dello status di riserva potrebbe aumentare i costi di indebitamento degli Stati Uniti, alimentare l'inflazione attraverso importazioni più costose e ridurre l'influenza geopolitica. Tuttavia la portata dell'economia statunitense, la sua forza militare e la sua stabilità istituzionale rendono improbabile la fine del dollaro senza un evento sismico mondiale (ad esempio, la perdita di una guerra importante come quella della Repubblica di Weimar). Nonostante un graduale declino, il dollaro probabilmente rimarrebbe una valuta leader insieme ad altre e non scomparirebbe del tutto.

Questa narrazione viene spesso amplificata su piattaforme e organi di stampa che fanno affidamento su “tesi ribassiste” per ottenere clic e visualizzazioni. Sebbene alcuni post esagerino la “morte del dollaro” per promuovere alternative come l'oro o le crittovalute, queste tesi sono spesso fuorvianti. Economisti come Barry Eichengreen e James Lord di Morgan Stanley sostengono che la morte del dollaro sia “notevolmente esagerata”, citando il suo ruolo radicato e l'assenza di alternative valide, come discusso in precedenza. Certo, l'economia statunitense potrebbe affrontare le sfide di un dollaro più debole, ma un crollo devastante è improbabile grazie alla sua adattabilità e all'integrazione finanziaria globale.

In particolare, come discusso nell'articolo Le narrazioni cambiano, i mercati no, è essenziale guardare oltre le narrazioni per evitare i pregiudizi emotivi che influenzano i risultati dei nostri investimenti. Vale a dire:

Il bisogno di una narrazione è profondamente radicato nella nostra psicologia. Come creature che cercano schemi, bramiamo coerenza e prevedibilità. Il caos scatena l'ansia. Ci sembra pericoloso, incontrollabile e inquietante. Negli investimenti questa ansia è amplificata dall'impatto diretto sulla nostra ricchezza e sulla nostra sicurezza finanziaria. Ritroviamo una parvenza di controllo aggrappandoci alle narrazioni, per quanto tenue. Esse ci dicono perché le cose stanno accadendo e cosa potrebbe succedere dopo, il che placa la nostra naturale paura dell'incertezza.

Gli esseri umani sono programmati per dare priorità alle informazioni negative rispetto a quelle ottimistiche. Da una prospettiva evolutiva, questo pregiudizio è stato essenziale. I nostri antenati hanno imparato a riconoscere le minacce (come i predatori) per sopravvivere.

Questo istinto, noto come “bias della negatività”, influenza il modo in cui elaboriamo le informazioni, comprese le notizie finanziarie e le narrazioni di mercato. Ecco perché  podcast e articoli con un orientamento “ribassista” generano il maggior numero di clic e visualizzazioni.

• La paura è un fattore motivante più forte dell'avidità: mentre la speranza di fare soldi spinge gli investitori, la paura di perderli è più potente.

• Le previsioni ribassiste sembrano più “razionali”: il pessimismo spesso trasmette maggiore sicurezza e prudenza. In periodi di volatilità dei mercati, una previsione ribassista può sembrare più analitica e responsabile.

• I media amplificano i titoli negativi: le testate giornalistiche sanno che la paura vende. Titoli sensazionalistici come “MERCATI IN TURBOLENZA” o “CRASH IN ARRIVO?” generano clic e coinvolgimento.

• Comportamento di gregge e camere di risonanza: gli investitori si affidano a opinioni ribassiste per ottenere conferme quando i mercati sono instabili. Se altri sono cauti o timorosi, questo  rafforza l'idea che una recessione sia imminente. Questo vale anche se i fondamentali sottostanti rimangono solidi. I social media e le notizie finanziarie creano camere di risonanza che amplificano questi timori.

La cosa più importante per gli investitori è che il mercato assorbe tutte le narrazioni negative dei media nel lungo termine. La recente raffica di narrazioni su debiti, deficit, dazi e “morte del dollaro” alimenta il vostro pregiudizio negativo. Tuttavia allargando lo sguardo, gli investitori che si sono tenuti lontani dai mercati finanziari per “evitare la perdita” di potenziali esiti negativi hanno pagato un caro prezzo in termini di riduzione della ricchezza finanziaria.

In altre parole, c'è sempre una “ragione” per non investire. Tuttavia la narrativa attuale cambierà, ma il mercato no.

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

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

David Martin wrote:

Got nothing against eye candy, but it is a bit inconsistent with the TPUSA Erika, I should say. She could be illustrating “I Like My Women a Little on the Trashy Side.”  

But as they say, “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” except that it’s on a YouTube video.

 

The post The REAL Erika Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

BREAKING: Tyler Robinson CONFIRMED To Be In A CIA Advanced Program For College Students- The Center For Anticipatory Intelligence- As His Defense Considers Waiving The Preliminary Hearing

“If His Lawyers Waive The Preliminary Hearing, Then I Would Say That Tyler Robinson Is In A… pic.twitter.com/Hfzsku6Uf9

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) September 29, 2025

The post Tyler Robinson was CIA appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Infowars

 

The post Alex Jones now showing video of brown shirted assassin appeared first on LewRockwell.

Chun Pan wrote:

I have been following the progress of the “Global Sumud Flotilla” with intensity. 

The Global Sumud Flotilla is a flotilla of 47 ships sailing to Gaza with humanitarian supplies.  It is within 3-4 days of reaching Gaza.

The confrontation with the Israeli military is imminent.  However, the flotilla is currently protected by warships from Spain and Italy.  Hopefully, these two naval warships will increase the likelihood of success of this mission.

I am truly amazed by the courage of the over 600 humanitarians on these vessels.

To follow the progress of this mission, please go to their website at:

https://globalsumudflotilla.org/

 

The post The Global Sumud Flotilla is a flotilla of 47 ships sailing to Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

The news has been filled with reports of assassinations, attempted assassinations, and shootings targeted against law enforcement. The spate of political violence has seriously eroded America’s legitimacy as a moral and decent state. How did we get here?

U.S. state violence on the world stage may help explain the rise of political violence here at home.

The idea of political assassination gained traction with the U.S. intelligence services during World War II, which was viewed (somewhat understandably) as an existential struggle that justified any act, however illegal, that was necessary for the cause.

During the Cold War, that mindset continued, but the illegal killing was hidden because it was inconsistent with the shining-city-on-the-hill propaganda. Certain intelligence agencies secretly supported a number of high-profile political assassinations, such as the 1961 killing of Prime Minister Patrice Lamumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the 1963 killing of President Diem of South Vietnam, not to mention a number of attempts to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba. These killings were presented as organic local forces rising up against “corrupt” leaders. Then and now, any leader who was disobedient to the U.S. regime was by definition “corrupt.”

Because of embarrassing press reports of the CIA and FBI’s illegal operations in and out of the United States, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed in 1975 to investigate the abuses of power and direct harm to U.S. citizens. It was conveniently called the Church Committee after the chairman, Frank Church of Idaho.

The nation was shocked by what was revealed, including operations such as MKULTRA, a mind control experiment on unwitting U.S. citizens who were subjected to destabilizing drug exposure and other abuse. It is believed that much of the really appalling MKULTRA information was hidden and destroyed. Americans also learned about COINTELPRO (acronym for Counter Intelligence Program), a series of  FBI operations aimed to disrupt and harm American anti-war and civil rights groups. The committee also uncovered operations performing illegal assassinations.

For two years, the Church Committee uncovered many disgusting abuses and recommended oversight and controls to end them. But it was not long before the oversight and controls faded.

In 1986, the Iran–Contra scandal exploded and exposed the Reagan administration, which had funneled arms through Israel to our “enemy” Iran to provide funds for anti-communist guerrilla  operations in Central America. It was a huge scandal, and there were indications that it was also a money laundering operation to support other illegal behavior by intel agencies. These embarrassing revelations caused the agencies to be more careful.

The first Gulf War led to the U.S. stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a long term goal of the ZioCons and a provocation to many Muslims in the region.

Then came the big enchilada: The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington birthed the Global War on Terror.

The previous existential threat of the Cold War had fizzled out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. This new existential threat provided the excuse to invade and wreck a number of nations the ZioCons had had in their sights for decades. Who could argue against fighting terrorists?

Since the GWOT was deemed existential, the George W. Bush administration saw fit to torture and kill suspected terrorists without any due process. Not wanting to be accused of sympathy for terrorists, many politicians and media figures held their tongues or even actively supported the White House. As a result, the U.S. regime’s policy morphed from secretly murdering people to bragging about the number of suspected terrorists killed.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Normalization of Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.