Aggregatore di feed

Charlie Kirk was a popular radio host, and the founder of Turning Point USA. He was shot and killed on September 10, at Utah Valley University, during one of his “Prove me Wrong” appearances before often hostile college students. Immediately, his death became the biggest story in the country, and the response says a great deal about us.

Kirk was hardly the biggest name in the alt media, or the right-wing world. He wasn’t Alex Jones. He wasn’t a household name. He is now. Fox News treated his death like the JFK assassination, and devoted their entire evening schedule to over the top tributes. Kirk became an instant martyr to the Right. President Trump lowered the flags to half staff. Now that sounds outlandish, but remember that President Obama did the same thing for singer Whitney Houston, so the the bar had been set pretty low in recent years. Meanwhile, the Left figuratively danced on his grave, with countless online posters rejoicing over the shooting. He was posthumously smeared as a “racist,” “transphobe,” “hater,” etc. There were too many “I’m not celebrating his death, but….” posts. As Pee Wee Herman once said, everyone I know has a big “but.” Both sides demonstrated once again why America 2.0 is such a shithole, and why those of us who are awake are being forced to live under such corrupt tyranny.

Unlike any member of our “free press,” I’ve actually attempted to look into the logistics of the shooting. You know, the evidence. That’s what they should be doing, of course, but we know they aren’t allowed to investigate anything of substance, and someone has to do it. They tell us that only one shot was fired at Charlie, ironically right after he’d commented on transgender shooters. It struck him in the neck, apparently hitting the jugular vein there, and blood went pouring down the left side of his shirt. My friend Peter Hymans has analyzed the shooting, and has noted that the blood flow doesn’t seem to fit with the alleged position of the assassin. But those who “investigate” these crimes are experts at coming up with conclusions that don’t fit the ballistics evidence. See the JFK and RFK assassinations, for example. And unless I’ve missed it, they still haven’t found the slug that took Charlie’s life. Yet it is matter-of-factly reported that the authorities have identified the weapon.

Establishment sources say the angle of the shot from the rooftop was on a downward, right to left trajectory. Video footage of Kirk being struck, which I have watched far too many times, shows him falling over to the left from the impact. Much as there was in the JFK assassination, when Kennedy’s head can be seen going violently backwards (“back and to the left”), when Oswald was supposedly firing from above and behind, we have a physics problem here. Equal and opposite reaction? I guess we’re just not supposed to trust some “science.” Also, exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds. We only see the alleged entrance wound on Charlie’s neck. Where was the exit wound? What did it look like? Why no ambulance or EMTs? I won’t dwell on Charlie holding onto the microphone after he was hit. It would seem like the shot would cause him to drop it, but maybe that happens sometimes. At any rate, a shot from his left front should logically have knocked him back and to the right.

There are always early reports in these incidents, which subsequently turn out to be “misinformation,” once the authorities establish the consistently unbelievable official narrative. In the Kirk case, We were told that an elderly guy named George Zinn was initially arrested by police, and reacted by shouting, “Shoot me!” He was known, according to the New York Post, as “a political agitator with a string of bizarre arrests dating back to the 1980s.” The crowd seemed to think Zinn was the shooter, but one of the six police officers at the event astutely assured them, “He said he shot him, but I don’t know.” And oddly, the old man was hauled away with his pants down at his ankles. I just wrote about male humiliation rituals, but I have no idea what that was. At any rate, after apparently pulling his pants down, and listening to him plead for them to shoot him, law enforcement released him. It’s not like he was a J6 defendant.

Now, some on the internet, who have gone deeper down the rabbit hole and analyzed how Kirk reacted to the single shot, the blood spatter pattern, the curious actions of his security team, etc., have reported that Zinn was at other significant events. Internet sleuth Ryan Matta claimed that the odds are one in two billion that this same guy witnessed the planes striking the World Trade Center on 9/11, then played a “joke” on the authorities, by sending in a fake bomb threat during the 2013 Salt Lake City Marathon, which took place shortly after the Boston Bombing. To those who are running this collapsing country, Zinn is an obvious “wacko” who is of no significance. And deserved to have his pants pulled down for unknown reasons. To those of us who are capable of critical thinking, Zinn could be a veteran crisis actor, assigned a new and exciting role. Either way, you’ll hear no more of him. And, it must be pointed out that Zinn appears to be yet another non-Irish player in these productions.

The authorities eventually got their man. I say man because it is never men. Never plural. Always a lone nut. America is the only country on earth where political figures are never killed for political reasons. No one powerful ever conspires to knock others off. U.S. leaders might support, and even directly order the murder and rape of civilians in smaller lands that we nonsensically occupy, but they would never resort to putting out a hit on a rival, like common mobsters. The arrest of Tyler Robinson, a twenty two year old apparent incel, was breathlessly announced by our state controlled media. We were told that the authorities had been tracking him for a period of time, before he accessed a rooftop and fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. It has not been explained why they were monitoring his movements, which included perching on a rooftop, and yet did not attempt to stop him from firing his weapon.

The official claim here is that Robinson walked into the event with his German Mauser tucked inside his pants, after disassembling it. He then reassembled it on the roof, fired the shot heard all over crossover country, and then disassembled it again, before leaping from the roof, John Wilkes Booth-style, Amazingly, Robinson didn’t break his leg, unlike Booth. Even more amazingly, he took the time at some point to reassemble the Mauser yet again. And then deposited the assembled rifle in the woods, after placing it in a box and wrapping it in a towel, both of which he had handy. Researcher Peter Secosh found that a Mauser cannot be disassembled. When you’re a lone nut assassin, you do things like that. James Earl Ray left a handy package of evidence behind in the doorway of the motel where a fatal shot was fired at Martin Luther King, Jr. And then they took a mug shot of Robinson that really had a bit too much Lee Harvey Oswald to it. They must have used AI to achieve the desired effect.

Echoing what we’ve seen over the past few years, during other emotionally charged events involving guns, both the Left and Right are painting different portraits of the alleged assassin. I’ve seen many memes and social media posts about how awful it was that conservatives blamed transgenders or other liberal demons for the shooting, when “his whole family was MAGA.” This appears to be true, as demonstrated by the photo of his purported mother brandishing an Uzi or something (I’m no expert on guns), while looking pretty attractive in a Sarah Palin kind of way. Now, as is the “new normal” with search engines, I can’t find that photo. Maybe George Zinn has it, wherever he is. Robinson’s grandmother was surprised (and what self-respecting grandmother wouldn’t be surprised that her grandson was an assassin), explaining that he was a MAGA supporter. But she also said he’d never fired a weapon. That’s what happens when you rely on grandmothers to prop up your weak official stories.

Robinson apparently took the time to inscribe some messages on his shell casings. This has become a trend in recent years. All the best patsies are doing it. They reportedly read: “Hey, fascist! Catch!”; “If you read this, you are gay”; and “Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao,” apparently lyrics from an Italian anti-fascist folk song. Doesn’t really sound very MAGA to me. The “gay” reference might be connected to the most recent blockbuster disclosure that Robinson had a transgender roommate, and they were involved romantically. So I guess this contradicts all the sneering comments about the Right making up a transgender connection. I think if you’re in a relationship with a transgender, even though you may not technically be “transitioning” yourself, that qualifies as some kind of transgender association. But I don’t claim to know anything, having never “transitioned” even once in my lifetime.

However you look at it, this was not a random, lone nut shooting. Although Kirk had been known as a typical right-wing dedicated Zionist, there is abundant evidence that he had recently been reconsidering his support of Israel. A “longtime friend and Trump insider” told the Grayzone that Kirk had rejected an offer earlier this year, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who wanted to provide a huge amount of money to Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Kirk had come to despise Netanyahu, referring to him as a “bully.” Concerned about the influence Israel was wielding over the White House, Kirk had advised Trump not to bomb Iran, and the friend recalled how the president angrily “barked at him” in response. Kirk began to be intimidated by powerful Israeli supporters. Tucker Carlson noted, ”Since Charlie Kirk urged Trump not to strike Iran, many of his (Jewish) donors have waged war on him.”

In a recent interview with arch Zionist Meghan Kelly, Kirk reiterated how he supported Israel but that the behavior of “a lot” of Israeli supporters “are pushing people like you and me away, not like we’re going to be pro-Hamas, but honestly, the way you are treating me is so repulsive. I have text messages, Meghan, calling me an anti-Semite….I’m an American citizen…my moral character is now being put into question…You and I believe that we are Americans first…I have less ability to question the actions of Israel than actual Israelis do.” Kirk noted that the threats he’d received were from Jewish “leaders” and “stakeholders.” On August 13, Harrison Smith of Infowars tweeted that “I’m not gonna name names, but I was told by someone close to Charlie Kirk that Charlie thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against them.” If I were in law enforcement, I think I’d consider Israel to be the chief suspect in this case.

As always, because these events are never properly investigated, internet sleuths, and Thought Criminals like me, will ask uncomfortable questions. I do think it’s kind of astounding that both Charlie Kirk and George Floyd share the same October 14 birthday (albeit twenty years apart). I don’t know what that means, but I do know that if Biden had been in office when Floyd died, the flags would probably have been flown at half staff for him. There is the question of the rather unusual (to put it nicely) comments from Kirk’s widow Erika in the wake of his death. Then she topped that by being photographed leaning into Charlie’s casket and kissing his hands. Kirk’s body (but not his head) was filmed, and of course some of those pesky “conspiracy theorists” speculated about the way his hands looked. There was also a picture of his neck, which was wrapped in some kind of bandage with blood still visible. Assuming the photo was real, I think that is unlike any embalmed corpse in world history.

Read the Whole Article

The post Charlie Kirk: What Really Happened? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In relation to the attacks along the evacuation routes and within designated safe areas, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces had clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians, including children. Nevertheless, Israeli security forces shot at and killed civilians, including children who were holding makeshift white flags. Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers.

The above excerpt (IV. B. ii. f. 215.) is from this report.

From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (pdf)
by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel

I. 3.
In its previous reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including extermination, torture, rape, sexual violence and other inhumane acts, inhuman treatment, forcible transfer, persecution based on gender and starvation as a method of warfare. Furthermore, the Commission found that the Israeli authorities have (i) destroyed in part the reproductive capacity of the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, including by imposing measures intended to prevent births; and (ii) deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group, both of which are underlying acts of genocide in the Rome Statute and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”)

I. 4.
Having concluded that the Israeli security forces committed crimes against humanity, war crimes and the actus reus of two underlying acts of genocide in Gaza, the Commission now addresses the issue of genocide. …

There follows an analysis of the events. The legal definition of genocide requires intent. After having reviewed official statements by the government of Israel the Commission concludes:

C. 220.
On the basis of fully conclusive evidence, the Commission finds that statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. Additionally, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Commission finds that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn based on the pattern of conduct of the Israeli authorities. Thus, the Commission concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

But what can we do?

VI. B. 246.
The duty to prevent and punish genocide applies not only to the responsible State but to all States Parties to the Genocide Convention and indeed to all States under customary international law.

We can, and should of course, personally boycott the Zionist entity to the fullest extend. But it is also on us to press our governments to follow up on the report. There are obligations that must be fulfilled.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post The Obvious Is Now Official – Israel Commits Genocide appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his latest podcast, Peter goes through the just-released August consumer price data and uses the report as a springboard to explain why the markets are misreading the Fed and why ordinary Americans are likely to pay the price. He connects the dots between an understated CPI (Consumer Price Index), the rally in stocks tied to hopes for rate cuts, and why those cuts would be bearish for bonds, inflationary for the economy, and ultimately harsher on workers than many realize.

He opens by framing the CPI release as the last obstacle to the market’s expectation of imminent cuts and why the number mattered so much to traders and policymakers alike:

The reason that it’s been so highly anticipated is because everybody is now betting on rate cuts starting next week and a benign CPI report was the last obstacle. I mean, maybe if this thing came out way hotter than expected, somehow it may have rained on the rate cut parade. So everybody was anticipating eagerly this release just to make sure that the rate cut train wasn’t going to get derailed. And we got the number and it actually was slightly worse than expected, but not enough worse to rain on the parade.

Peter then argues that the official inflation measures are deliberately low and that real inflation is being hidden from the public — a point he makes to explain why markets can’t trust the headline CPI to guide policy:

The CPI has been rigged. It has been engineered to come out with a smaller number than the actual increase in prices which again doesn’t even measure inflation which is the expansion of money and credit. It measures the effect of inflation which is an increase in prices but it deliberately understates the degree to which prices are going up by design. So you really kind of have to double whatever the official number is to get something close to the actual rate. So if inflation is right now annualizing at 5% then it’s probably 10% which makes a lot more sense to me than 5%.

He puts the market’s recent rally into context: it’s a relief bounce driven by a single narrative — rate cuts — rather than improving fundamentals. That mismatch, he says, explains why stocks are pricing in a soft landing that may not exist:

As a result of a horrific week, and the week’s not over yet because this is just Thursday, but as a result of a horrific 80% of a week for jobs, we’ve had this big rally in stocks. The rationale is the Fed’s going to cut, so that’s great for stocks. People also think that the rate cuts are going to help the economy. They’re going to help the housing market. They’re going to stimulate because they look back at prior episodes where the Fed has started a rate cutting cycle, whether it’s 2001, 2002, after the bursting of the dot com bubble, whether it’s 2008, 2009 with the financial crisis or 2020 with COVID, right?

Peter pushes back on the popular view among economists and strategists that the Fed is in “restrictive” territory and can ease a bit while still being contractionary. He says that claim ignores the fact that nominal rates have never exceeded true inflation:

A lot of people are saying, ‘Look the Fed is in restrictive territory and they have room to ease and still be restrictive.’ That is BS. They are not restrictive. They’ve been accommodative the whole time they’ve claimed to be restrictive. I pointed that out because they never got interest rates above the real rate of inflation. And right now they’re not even above the actual rate; if the CPI is now running at 5% a year and you got Fed funds around four, how are you supposed to cut?

Finally, Peter draws a bleak historical comparison: if the Fed gives in to political pressure to prioritize employment over price stability, the social cost will be steep and widespread, potentially worse than the 1970s for many households:

So I think that the implications of the policy that we’re going to get is going to be much bigger. So the average Americans are going to suffer more than they did in the 70s. And it was a lot of suffering. I mean, people had the real value of their wages go down. You know, the reason that so many women entered the workforce in the 80s, it was not because they felt liberated and they went and got jobs. … What happened was their husband’s paycheck lost so much purchasing power during the inflation of the 70s that he could no longer afford to support the family.

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post Rate Cuts Will Make Inflation Worse appeared first on LewRockwell.

A UN inquiry has found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and that Israeli authorities have “intended to kill as many Palestinians as possible” in the enclave.

Israel has responded to the UN report by calling it Hamas and antisemitic, because that’s all they’ve got. The Israeli Foreign Ministry released a statement claiming the report was authored by “individuals serving as Hamas proxies, notorious for their openly antisemitic positions.”

Blah, blah, blah. The report is Hamas and antisemitic. All human rights organizations are Hamas and antisemitic. There’s a giant global antisemitic Hamas conspiracy dedicated to making it appear as though Israel is committing genocide, just to make Jewish people feel sad.

I can’t stop thinking about 1 sentence in today’s UN report regarding Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“Israeli security forces shot at & killed civilians, including children who were holding makeshift white flags. Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers.”

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) September 16, 2025

At this point the only people who still deny that Israel is committing genocide are those who want to make sure nobody does anything to stop Israel from committing genocide.

The list of humanitarian institutions who accuse Israel of genocide now includes:

1. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory

2. The International Association of Genocide Scholars

3. B’Tselem (an Israeli organization)

4. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (another Israeli organization)

5. Amnesty International

6. Doctors Without Borders

7. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

8. Human Rights Watch

9. The International Federation for Human Rights

10. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention

The list of humanitarian institutions who say Israel is NOT committing genocide in Gaza includes:

1. Nobody

2. No one

3. Zero

4. Nothing

5. Nada

6. Zilch

7. Sweet damn all

8. A complete absence

9. Diddly squat

10. Bupkis

It is not okay to treat the fact that Israel is committing genocide like it’s a matter of opinion. Every relevant human rights institution on earth says it’s a genocide. Zero equivalent institutions say it’s not. This is a settled matter.

People who deny that it’s a genocide deserve to be taken exactly as seriously as flat earthers. They’re just an extremely evil and destructive version of the thing flat earthers are.

You don’t see news articles about NASA with journalists adding “an agency which many believe is a government hoax designed to trick us into accepting ball earth theory” to their reporting. If a guest mentions Antarctica on the BBC, the news anchor doesn’t interrupt them to say “and we should say here that flat earth theorists deny the existence of that continent, maintaining that it is actually a wall of ice holding the oceans in place.”

You also don’t see reporting which treats accepted science about space and our planet like it’s an opinion held by some. You never see “which many scientists claim exists” when a report discusses outer space, or mentions of the horizon mitigated with words like “which some hold is due to the curvature of the earth rather than laws of perspective and light refraction”. They’re just treated as established facts, and those who disagree with the established facts are not taken seriously.

The genocide in Gaza should be no different. As the old adage goes, if one side says it’s raining and the other says it isn’t, your job isn’t to quote both sides, your job is to look out the window.

The window’s right there, western media. And it’s pouring genocide.

________________

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 Israel Is Committing Genocide. This Is a Fact, Not an Opinion. appeared first on LewRockwell.

I have been saving up evidences that the former U.S. President Barack Obama should go to prison or be executed for having perpetrated the Russiagate hoax, which has poisoned the minds of the American people to create a public acceptance not only of the American war in Ukraine against Russia that Obama had started by his February 2014 bloody Ukrainian coup which was being pumped in the media as a ‘democratic revolution’, but also for Obama’s Russiagate hoax to portray as being a Russian agent the Republican Party’s 2016 Presidential nominee Donald Trump, and so to encourage the future President Trump to continue the war in Ukraine against Russia that the gutless Trump then did continue on the basis of the Obama Administration’s lies against Russia — lies none of which Trump challenged by presenting the facts. (Instead of Trump disowning and publicly exposing that lie-based Obama war against Russia, Trump even intensified the war by the U.S. against Russia in the battlefields of Ukraine. Under Obama, America had grabbed Ukraine for this purpose — to defeat Russia — and Trump continued with that same purpose.)

As regards Obama’s having perpetrated the Russiagate hoax against Trump and against Russia, the conservative Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist, headlines in the September 2025 Imprimis, “The Significance of the Recently Released Russia Hoax Documents”, and delivers (and I say this though I am not a conservative) the best summary that I have yet seen of the by-now-voluminous evidences that the Obama Administration DID create that hoax (which the Democratic Party still denies was a hoax); and, to this extent, she has written almost all of the article that I had been collecting evidence to write. I shall therefore present it here (and leaving it without documentation, because I know its documentation and can therefore vouch for all of it myself). The only thing that hers ignores is the possible legal culpability of Obama HIMSELF for the Russiagate hoax. So, I shall say something about that here.

Not to hold a former sitting U.S. President legally liable for his having, by a lie-based fraud, poisoned the minds of the American people to suspect that his successor from the opposite political Party, is a traitor to his country, is itself traitorous, because then it almost forces that successor to continue this war that Obama had himself created. It’s not a total coercion that Obama did, because Trump alone bears the full responsibility for his having caved to Obama’s anti-Russia campaign, and for having continued it. But Trump’s cowardice doesn’t, at all, relieve Obama of his treachery in this matter, which expanded the American inter-Party competition, into the international level, by hamstringing that coward’s (Trump’s) foreign policies; and, so, in this case, thereby weakening, if not crippling, this country, by reducing his successor-President’s freedom-of-action in the international sphere. Obama effectively weakened his successor’s Presidency, and Trump played along with that, because he lacked the courage to refuse to do so. Cowardice (such as Trump’s) is not treason, but for a President (Obama) to (entirely on the basis of lies) intentionally weaken his successor in that office, is to be at war against the United States of America, and is therefore treasonous — and should be prosecuted as such.

So, here is what Hemingway DID include (which is almost all of the rest):

In early January 2017, the Clinton campaign’s “Steele dossier” — a secretly funded collection of made-up stories and gossip alleging that Russia had dirt on Trump and that Trump was colluding with Russia against the United States — was published. Washington would be consumed by the Russia collusion hoax for the next two-and-a-half years. The investigations it spurred would bankrupt Trump associates, destroy lives, and hamstring Trump’s ability to govern. It led to draconian censorship campaigns against conservatives. It hurt Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 general election. But no evidence was found that a single American, much less Trump himself, conspired with Russia.

Fast forward to today. Six months into Trump’s second term, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have declassified and released long-suppressed documents detailing how President Obama and his spy chiefs laundered the Steele dossier and other falsehoods in an attempt to destroy Trump’s first presidency. The response from Democrats, the media, and many establishment Republicans has been to say that these suppressed documents contain nothing new or significant. Not true.

The Russia collusion hoax was anchored to two central claims: first, that Trump was a compromised agent of Russia, and second, that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump. The first claim was completely debunked after years of investigation. It is on the second and far more plausible claim — which was just as key to the hoax — that the newly released documents shed new light. And the revelations are shocking.

The documents show that in early December 2016, the intelligence community planned to publish a top secret presidential daily brief holding that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” Once published, this brief would have been read by Obama and his top officials, as well as President-Elect Trump and his designated National Security Advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn. But the day before publication, the FBI—which had co-authored the brief — announced that it was pulling its support for the brief and would be drafting a dissent. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced that the brief would be held for the following week.

In the end, the brief was never published. Instead, Obama ordered his top spy chiefs to put together an Intelligence Community Assessment — known as an ICA — on “Russia election meddling.” The chiefs were directed to look at how Moscow sought to influence the 2016 election — including with hacking, leaks, cyber activity against voting systems, and “fake news” — and to answer the questions, “Why did Moscow direct these activities?” and “What have the Russians hoped to accomplish?”

Prior to this order from Obama, the spy agencies had assessed that Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election were consistent with Russia’s previous and long-standing election-year meddling and cyber-hacking efforts. They found that Russia’s goal was to mess with and decrease confidence in U.S. elections, rather than help elect particular candidates. But on the evening of December 9, 2016, The Washington Post published a story sourced to unnamed senior Obama officials claiming that the CIA had “concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.” That was a lie. The process by which such assessments are made by the CIA hadn’t taken place, much less concluded anything. The same false information was leaked to The New York Times: “American intelligence agencies,” it reported, “have concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Russia acted covertly … to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.” Both papers were awarded Pulitzers the next year for their willingness to participate, without a bit of skepticism, in this disinformation operation.

A few days later, Obama poured gasoline on the fire by publicly expressing concern that “potential hacking … could hamper vote counting and affect the actual election process itself.” Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey were working furiously to throw together the ICA Obama had ordered. Typically, such an assessment would take a minimum of several months and include a wide variety of perspectives. This ICA was prepared in two weeks using only five CIA staffers to draft it. Comey, Brennan, and Clapper overruled strenuous objections from senior intelligence officials who were aghast at the inclusion of unsubstantiated claims and unverified gossip. Some who complained had their promotions threatened. Others were told they were not privy to secret intelligence reviewed only by top leadership.

The finished ICA was reported on to Obama on January 5, 2017, and to Trump the next day. In addition to findings that were credible and substantiated, the report said Putin had developed “a clear preference” for Trump and “aspired to help his chances of victory.” It also included, contrary to the public testimony of Obama’s spy chiefs, a two-page summary of the Clinton campaign’s Steele dossier in the most classified version of the report. Comey met privately with Trump at the end of his briefing to tell him about unverified allegations that Russia held proof of salacious sexual and financial impropriety on the part of Trump. Four days later, CNN reported extensively on the meeting and what Trump was told. At this point, the Russia hoax was fully operational and would do severe damage to our country for years to come.

***

One document Ratcliffe released is a “tradecraft review” of the January 2017 ICA. Conducted by career officials at the CIA, the review found that the dishonest leaks by the Obama administration in December 2016 created an “anchoring bias” that polluted the entire document. The review also expressed concern about the ICA’s frantic production timeline; the refusal to allow analysts reviewing the document to see the intelligence its conclusions were based on; and the over-involvement of Comey, Brennan, and Clapper. It found that the assessment gave a “higher confidence level than was justified” to the claim that Russia preferred Trump and that it was tainted by a “potential political motive.”

Gabbard released an even more explosive report. Authored in 2017 and 2018 by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes, it had been hidden in a top secret vault for seven years. It conclusively debunked the ICA’s “key judgement” about Putin’s preference for Trump, excoriated the ICA for using the preposterous Steele dossier as a basis for its claims, and detailed how the views of career intelligence officials were overruled and dismissed.

Brennan had long publicly claimed that he had secret knowledge — separate and apart from the Steele dossier — to support his view that Russia interfered to help Trump. In August and September 2016, he had individually briefed the “Gang of Eight,” the top Senate and House officials who oversee the CIA, and it turned out that Brennan’s so-called secret knowledge was laughable. It was based mostly on three reports that “contained flawed information” and “became foundational sources” for the claim that Putin aspired to help Trump. Veteran CIA officers had said the reports “contained substandard information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, implausible,” and “odd.”

Brennan hadn’t allowed some of the information to go through normal vetting procedures when it was collected. And he “personally directed that two of the most important reports not be formally disseminated when he first learned of them,” supposedly because they were so sensitive — a questionable explanation given that the CIA has a special reporting channel for sensitive reports that are restricted to the president and other named individuals.

The only classified information cited in the ICA for the claim that Putin “aspired to help Trump’s chances of victory” was a fragment of a sentence that came from someone who did not personally know Putin. The fragment, consisting of the words, “whose victory Putin was counting on,” had been collected prior to the July 2016 Republican National Convention. So who could even know to which victory it referred? Furthermore, it is not known whether the fragment reflected the sub-source’s opinion of Putin’s thinking, Putin’s actual statements to his sub-source, or the views of someone else reflecting on Putin’s thinking to the sub-source. Its meaning was so unclear that “five people read it five ways,” according to the report.

For these reasons, experienced CIA officers initially omitted the fragment from the ICA. But Brennan ordered that it be included. One senior CIA officer, alarmed that it was the only evidence offered for the ICA’s main conclusion, noted the lack of “direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.” The ICA also failed to address the strong anti-Trump bias on the part of the source of the fragment.

The ICA claimed that “a Russian political expert possessed a plan that recommended engagement with [Trump’s] team because of the prospects for improved US-Russian relations.” This claim was viewed as “lacking authoritativeness” and the CIA decided not to publish the intelligence even internally when they received it in February 2016. That’s probably because the so-called “plan” was in fact only an anonymous email with “no date, no identified sender, no clear recipient, and no classification” — not to mention that it was passed along by a foreign country with a noted anti-Trump bias.

The ICA then claimed that Putin’s inner circle “strongly preferred Republican over Democratic candidates because they judged that Republicans had historically been less focused on democracy and human rights.” The phrase “strongly preferred Republican” never appeared in the raw intelligence report and the ultimate source for the claim is unknown. What’s more, the claim that Republicans cared less about democracy and human rights in Russia was implausible. The Select Committee report noted that President Reagan was famous for his “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech, but a myriad of other examples could be cited.

The ICA claimed that the “clear preference” report was corroborated by liaison, diplomatic, and press reporting, when in fact none of that was true. The liaison reporting was from 2014 and “didn’t mention Trump at all.” The diplomatic report was a post-election overview from the U.S. ambassador noting that a Russian pundit said Trump and Putin should “work together like businessmen,” hardly corroboration for the claim that Putin’s inner circle preferred Republicans. Indeed, that same ambassador’s note quoted a Russian foreign minister saying that “we do not feel any euphoria” about Trump’s win.

The ICA also omitted intelligence that Putin was telling people he “did not care who won the election,” that he had “outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates,” and that Russia was “strategically placed to outmaneuver either [candidate].” If anything, Russia was preparing for Clinton’s victory and felt she was more predictable. The Kremlin worried that Trump officials would “likely adhere to conservative anti-Russian positions.” Putin “took exception” to a “favorable view” of Trump and said there was “no basis for enthusiasm” for Trump.

The original New York Times report on the CIA’s assessment said that although Russia had allegedly hacked both Republicans and Democrats, it had only released Democrats’ embarrassing emails. In fact, the CIA had no evidence that Russia held embarrassing emails or information on Republicans. It did have evidence that Russia had embarrassing information on Clinton that was never released. This included the fact that Obama and other party leaders thought Clinton’s health to be “extraordinarily alarming,” that Clinton was suffering from “intensified psycho-emotional problems, including uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness,” and perhaps that she had been placed on “heavy tranquilizers.” If Putin favored Trump, it would be odd not to have released this information in the closing days of the campaign.

The use of weak, disputed, and contradicted intelligence to make the claim about Russia preferring Trump wasn’t the only problem with the ICA. Its use of the Steele dossier was another. Brennan lied publicly when he testified to Congress on May 23, 2017, that the dossier “was not in any way used as a basis for the [ICA] that was done.” Not only was it cited as the fourth bullet point of “evidence” that “Putin aspired to help Trump,” it was falsely described as “Russian plans and intentions” and having come from “an FBI source.” The dossier was presented in a two-page summary that implied some of its findings had been corroborated, misrepresenting “both the significance and credibility” of the dossier, according to the Select Committee report. Further, by hiding the dossier summary in the highest classified version, the Obama spy chiefs were “better able to shield the assessment from scrutiny.”

The documents released by Ratcliffe and Gabbard show that career officers were pleading with their bosses not to assert, falsely, that Russia preferred Trump and not to include the Steele dossier in any way, shape, or form. One wrote: “Based solely on what we DO know now, my bottom line is this — unless FBI is prepared to provide much better sourcing — I believe this should NOT be included in the paper.” Noting that the document had not been formally issued as an FBI product, this same official characterized it as suffering from “POOR SOURCE TRADECRAFT,” as having “extremely sketchy” sourcing, and as failing to “meet normal [intelligence community] standards.”

Career senior intelligence officials worried about the dossier’s author being funded by an anti-Trump entity, even though they didn’t yet know that the funding came from the Clinton campaign. They also worried about the lack of transparency regarding the dossier’s sub-sources — a concern validated weeks later when the FBI finally got around to interviewing primary sub-source Igor Danchenko, a Russian national the FBI had suspected of being a spy, and determined that the salacious allegations in the dossier lacked any credibility. Despite this, the FBI defended the use of the dossier for years and hid Danchenko’s identity from Congress by hiring him as a confidential informant — a ruse allowing them to claim that revealing his identity would endanger ongoing investigations.

When Comey insisted that the information in the document was good, one intelligence official wondered why, if so, it hadn’t been used against Trump during the campaign. Including the Steele dossier in the ICA, this official added, would be like taking supermarket tabloids seriously. Pointing to a December 12, 2016, National Enquirer story headlined, “Muslim Spies in Obama’s CIA,” he asked rhetorically if that report should be included in an ICA as well.

Confronted by a reviewer who wrote that there was “no intelligence to directly support” the claim that Russia aspired to help Trump, and that making the claim would “open the [intelligence community] to a line of very politicized inquiry that is sure to come up when this paper is shared with the Hill,” Brennan called him and another dissenting official into his office and told them he knew better. Confronted with demands from senior officials that the Steele dossier not be included, Brennan insisted it stay in. “[D]oesn’t it ring true?” he asked.

***

In the wake of these recent document releases, the Department of Justice announced in July that it had formed a strike force — a means of allowing federal investigators across multiple agencies to pursue criminals engaged in conspiracies. An unnamed federal prosecutor began securing additional documents from the spy agencies. After collecting the necessary documents, the federal prosecutor will begin speaking with whistleblowers and others with knowledge about how the Russia hoax operation was run. Once his team has a clear picture, they will bring in some of the targets of the investigation for interviews. With the statute of limitations at five years for most of these potential crimes, the Department of Justice may have to show that the conspiracy against Trump is ongoing, a task made easier by the fact that some of Obama’s spy chiefs continue to defend their actions.

Back in January 2017, three days before he was briefed on the Steele dossier, Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer warned President-Elect Trump against criticizing the FBI and the CIA. “Let me tell you,” he said, “you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

Thanks to Trump’s victory last November, it may be Obama’s spy chiefs who will regret taking on Trump.

Hemingway’s account misses, however, one important person, the Russiagate Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s role in this.

He wasn’t able to obtain any convictions against Donald Trump as having in any way collaborated with Russia’s Government to win the 2016 Presidential election, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that Mueller was serving the public instead of serving some billionaires, known or unknown, here and/or abroad. (Those are the people who control the U.S. Government.) Ever since the start of the “Russiagate” probes, the case against Russia was based upon low quality, unreliable, ‘evidence,’ much if not all of which should have been thrown out, unacceptable to present to any jury — and far less suitable for winning from a jury an actual conviction. And the U.S. ‘news’-media never apologized to the public for having colluded with the Democratic Party, the DNC and its operatives, in order to smear both Trump and the Russian Government. Robert Muller publicly said that he would not recommend any prosecution of Trump about the matter, but he lied to allege that Russia’s Government had significantly affected the U.S. Presidential election in Trump’s favor. (Unlike the accusation against Trump, which was favored by only the Democratic Party’s billionaires, the accusation against Russia was favored by both Parties’ billionaires; and, so, Mueller did endorse that, though that accusation, TOO, was false.)

For example, even according to the pro-Democratic-Party expert number-cruncher on election-polling, Nate Silver, writing 17 December 2018, “If you wrote out a list of the most important factors in the 2016 election, I’m not sure that Russian social media memes would be among the top 100. The scale was quite small and there’s not much evidence that they were effective.”

Soon thereafter, Aaron Maté headlined in the Democratic Party’s The Nation magazine on December 28th of 2018, “New Studies Show Pundits Are Wrong About Russian Social-Media Involvement in US Politics: Far from being a sophisticated propaganda campaign, it was small, amateurish, and mostly unrelated to the 2016 election.” Maté presented lots of evidence to back that up, and this evidence cast severe doubt upon the Russiagate charges that were pursued and the indictments that were obtained.

Even those of the Democratic Party’s media that drew a line against spreading outright falsehoods recognized that the Democratic Party’s officials in the U.S. Government were presenting a shamefully corrupt and deceptive case to indict the sitting Republican President and to smear Russia and its Government in the minds of the U.S. public.

The Special Counsel Robert Mueller was publicly tasked, as the “Special Prosecutor,” to prove these charges and to achieve convictions on them (at least by the U.S. Senate) so that President Trump could be forced out of office for colluding with Russia. If there had been collusion, then, of course, Trump had committed treason and would be doomed. Instead, Mueller displayed dirt on some of Trump’s subordinates. Mueller was hired by Democrats to get a Republican President impeached by the House and then removed from office by the Senate, and then replaced by Vice President Mike Pence (who was acceptable to far more of America’s billionaires than Trump was). Had Mueller been selected on account of his record of honesty, his public trustworthiness, his skill in presenting cases and achieving convictions that don’t get thrown out by appeals courts or otherwise discredited? No. Not at all. But it made no difference anyway, because the entire Russiagate storyline that he had been hired to prove was a complex string of speculations and outright lies, and Mueller wasn’t able to prove even enough of them to make a presentable (though still speculative and unproven) case. No matter: just as Republicans won’t acknowledge that George W Bush had lied through his teeth in order to fool Americans into invading and destroying Iraq, Democrats won’t acknowledge that they were deceived by their own political Party about Russia, Ukraine, and even about Trump. The American public (both Parties of it) are (their voters, if not also their megadonors, are) apparently perfectly satisfied to be serial fools; they do it time and again (for examples: Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, and Yemen 2015-, did no harm to U.S. President Obama’s stature) — they require only that their own Party be the ones making suckers of themselves. This is the worst type of polarized public, the type that’s the biggest threat to the survival of a democracy. Mueller had, for decades, been a cog in this corrupt bipartisan American political lying machine.

Of course, all of these public officials bear a lot of guilt for their involvement in Russiagate, and in Obama’s war against Russia in Ukraine. But, above all, Obama does, because he was the principal behind all of it. (Similarly, George W. Bush remains a respected former U.S. President, though he — like Obama, Biden, and Trump — was among the worst Presidents in all of U.S. history.) There is a stark lack of accountability for U.S. Presidents and former Presidents. And the almost universally deceived American public are a crucial part of that.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, Are Now in Severe Legal Jeopardy Over the Russiagate Hoax. Is Obama? appeared first on LewRockwell.

There was no need for the AWOL, Missing-In-Action Piers Morgan Media, which was never in Gaza, never stood up for Gaza, and never broke down barriers to reach and report about Palestinians sequestered in genocide. Thanks not to the MIA Media, but to Palestinian journalists, the living and the martyred, The Truth about genocide in Gaza continues to be conveyed faithfully and meticulously. ~ilana

With the Genocide of Gaza accomplished; a convoluted coverup has begun. The Johnny-Come-Lately culprits, the professional liars in media, politics, in advocacy and in the tech industry—also the custodians of The Narrative—have commenced their dull recital of excuse-making.

A dull mediocrity which was fully behind Israel—or, alternatively, had confined itself to occasional quips about mass murder in Gaza being antithetical to the American “national interest”—is suddenly simulating belated passion for the truth. Or, versions thereof. All to sanitize their sins.

Having carved out “a place of massive impunity” for Netanyahu and his complicit countrymen, these sinecured, “credentialed” Western elites have duly begun to hijack storylines—even chronology—to absolve themselves of the genocide of Gaza. The same “perpetrator block,” wading in the blood of Palestinians, intends, for now, to remain mum about the territorial asphyxiation of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. There, strategic adaptations of the Twenty-First Century Gaza Holocaust are rapidly and energetically underway. Pursuant to popular demand in Israel proper, Jewish-Israeli settlers are purloining Palestinian land and lives in the West Bank.

I had imagined that the media organ’s formulaic production had reached a nadir in Iraq, when my own passion burned as hot as a Babylonian kiln against that war. The “Truth” about Iraq, I had then observed incredulously, arrived officially only once the Empire’s agents declared it so, and released it in massaged, flattering form. And only as exigencies of power allowed. The sizeable dissident community did not rate a mention.

The current crop of Israel apostles who’ve connived and colluded to suppress truth include, broadly speaking, the Western news, commentary, advocacy and policy-making classes; the overarching tentacular corporate media and its clientele—the military-media-congressional-industrial complex, if you will. In a word, the international Imperial Comitatus: the foot soldiers who share in the loot or aspire to do so (like “Washington’s Arab puppets, whose sound and fury signify nothing”).

The international Imperial Comitatus make themselves known by affinity and affiliation, but mainly by what they do: They “ravage, slaughter, usurp … and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” Originally by Tacitus, the words were popularized by economist Jeffrey Sachs in an epic essay about these influencers, Israel’s co-belligerents.

Israel’s helpers had covered up the Crime of The Century, and now it could out. And although they’ve made excellent time—Palestinian erasure is near complete—these special interests wish, nevertheless, to salvage their standing in the world. They’re doing PR (public relations).

“Gaza panics the pro-Israel media,” said Owen Jones, a dogged British media critic. The genocide-era journalists are “creating a record that’ll allow them to say one day, ‘Here is proof that we denounced and tried to stop the genocide,’” remarked Laith Marouf, a Lebanese geopolitical reporter and commentator. They waited until now, because the genocide comported, broadly, with their worldview. “Media has manufactured consent for the genocide with atrocity propaganda,” seconds Hamza Yusuf, a British-Palestinian writer and journalist. “They did this.” “Western media is Israel’s Iron Dome,” averred Bassem Youssef, commentator, comic and former surgeon.

Although Israel’s abominations have been watched by humanity for the best part of two years; and despite Israel’s industrious, industrial-scale mass murder playing interminably, on a loop—the truth watered-down will only be permitted to come into being, officially, on the say-so of gatekeeping interests and personalities.

Such as Piers Morgan and the Missing-In-Action Morgan Media (shall we call it?).

And so, with pomp and Piers, forever slow on the uptake, those in control of The Storyline prepare to “excavate” a modified version of “the truth” about the Gaza Holocaust.

In attempting to clear his name, Morgan, a spirited evangelist for Israel’s right to practice state terrorism—he calls it “self-defense”—sounded the worst false note: the Iraq Defense: “nobody knew,” nobody could have known. (See “Iraq Liars And Deniers: We Knew Then What We Know Now,” May 22, 2015.)

The reason “nobody knew, or could have known” about a televised genocide, proclaimed the lemon-faced Piers with trademark verbose vacuity, is that there have been no “credible, international journalists” in Gaza!

Did you hear that? Palestinian journalists don’t count! In an instant, the MIA Morgan Media set about canceling the work done by the greatest journalists to have lived and died on the job. As you can see, society’s gate-keepers are also wretched human beings. To further their scheme and vanity, these power-brokers imply that absent their AWOL, MIA Media, we cannot and could not have known what was underway in Gaza.

The Missing-In-Action Media was never in Gaza, never stood up for Gaza, and never broke down barriers to reach and report about Palestinians sequestered in genocide. Now, the same Media asserts that we cannot know—could not have known—what was underway in the tiny Gaza Strip without them. Only Morgan and his ilk could have given us the goods on Gaza.

The Palestinian truth-tellers who’ve been documenting their own demise so as to bring us The Truth, nothing but the manifestly obvious Truth, are being disappeared by their moral and professional inferiors, who had never defended or doffed a hat to the work of these Palestinian journalists—professional or citizen journalists.

Wearily I repeat what has been obvious early on to anyone with some cerebral agility:

There is no neatness and dispatch in the way Israel has destroyed Gaza. It’s not like we’ve got nothing to go on. There are no empirical loose ends to tie up in Gaza; no cobwebs to clear. From the air, from space, from the ground—for all to see—on display in Gaza is, was, has been, the utter annihilation of a civilization.

There is no “fog of war”; there is no fog (only ash). There is no war. There never was anything but a genocidal impetus and the attendant declared intent to commit genocide, followed, in quick succession, by an enacted genocide in which Palestinian humanity was crushed, dismembered and burned alive; dispossessed of home and history on live tv. By Israel.

From terra firma, Palestinian journalists have transmitted unimpeachable evidence of this annihilation. From space, pioneering scientists divined proof of genocide ongoing. Thanks not to the MIA Morgan Media, but to Palestinian journalists, the living and the martyred, The Truth continues to be conveyed faithfully and meticulously.

For the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza is as clear as day—has been since 2023’s end, which is when, for instance, scientists such as Corey Scher and Jamon Van Den Hoek (featured in my early Gaza essays) had used Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) to monitor the damage to buildings in Gaza. Their aim was to impart a picture of what saturation bombardment had done to Gaza’s habitat and humanity.

Some will experience a Homeric “D’oh!” moment at the next proposition: Beneath this well-documented damage—under the collapsed structures—lie the remains of human beings in their tens-of-thousands, murdered. By Israel.

At this late hour, we do not need the Morgan Media to tell us what is deductively true. “Reality is truth,” as I had put it. Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Believe your lying eyes was satirist Richard Pryor’s wry phrase for he who has been caught in flagrante delicto. “There is no question any more. There is no need of investigation,” said Martin Griffiths (belatedly, sadly), a former UN diplomat. “We can with confidence and we should with conscience tell it like it is” (08:49 minutes into “Is it a genocide?”).

Whether you speak the language of the law (res ipsa loquitur), the language of facts and apodictic logic (“reality is truth”); gazing upon Gaza, listening to its people and to the humanitarians who rushed to their aid and remained on the crime scene—this was sufficient to know what’s what. By January of 2024, Gaza was ashen and barren. Dresden-level destruction was there for all to see—from the air, from space, and on the ground. Genocide.

The Gaza Holocaust, moreover, has played to a packed house, the world. It has been both a democratic genocide as well as an international genocide, remarked perhaps the only scintillating “genocide scholar,” with a moral compass to match his intellectual heft.

Dr. Martin Shaw pierces the carapace of lies now under construction:

‘The genocide that is being committed now is being committed not just by the Israeli State and the Israeli army. There is a larger perpetrator block. It isn’t just these most obvious core-actors. This is what we could call a democratic genocide, carried out with the active contributions of the Israeli-Jewish population in arms, Israeli right-wing activists who have stood at the gates of Gaza and have tried to block even the little bit of aid that the Israeli government has been willing to let in. And it’s a genocide supported ideologically and practically by a very large segment of the Israeli society: by the political opposition, by most of the media, and by vast majority of public opinion. In this sense, it is a democratic genocide.  The other thing about it is that it’s an international genocide. It is being carried out by the essential support of the United States, which is now in direct partnership, trump with Netanyahu, to complete the project with the forcible removal of the complete population from the territory.’  (9:02 minutes until 10:40 minutes)

The obliteration of Gaza had been achieved well before Piers Morgan’s May, 2025 self-serving pivot, which arose out of “moral panic.” And well before an American whistleblower did the rounds on US media, in June of 2025, bearing witness to the death squads of the misnamed US-Israel Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

Picture this: A starving, emaciated, wee Palestinian boy kisses the hand that controls his fate, and cradles a face that looks upon him with some kindness. The American mercenary—a hired security subcontractor for the Isra-American GHF Gulag operation—he may wish to believe that the child does so out of abiding “respect” for our American soldiers.

Palestinian mothers know better.

As an insightful American (novelist John O’Hara) had long-ago remarked: “You don’t keep friends by having them obligated to you,” much less when their very existence depends on your cruel whim. The achingly sad image of Amir, who kissed the hand of whistleblower Anthony Agilar, is that of a hungry, helpless, forsaken Palestinian boy, bowing-and-scraping like a beggar before his only “benefactor.” For these overlords might kill him or feed him as the fancy takes them.

Surrounded by the SS IDF, Palestinian boys like Amir kiss a hand, smile beguilingly, and hope for a miracle: That a kind stranger might rescue them, rather than make them run through daily cycles of “hunger games.” One day it’s the groin that the thrill-seeking gamers of the Israel Occupying Forces (IOF) have been reported to target; the next it’s center-mass they aim for. As recounted by humanity’s finest (the very many medics volunteering in Gaza), the GHF food-procurement massacres are rounded-off with headshot clusters, courtesy of the same gamers: the delirious marksmen of the IDF.

Nevertheless, a Homeric “D’oh!” was duly disgorged by a recent flyover reporter, who pretended to have just discovered genocide two years hence. Gone is “the soul of the place along with the souls who lived here,” intoned this particular ITV News editor, on August 4, 2025.

Our flyover visitor had popped in over Gaza, early in August, as party to an Israel-controlled, airborne contingent that was throwing “paltry, lethal parcels of food aid” on small sections of the Strip, “instead of forcing Israel to open the crossings to over 22,000 aid trucks that remain blocked from entering.”

Missions of mercy these air drops are not. By design, Israel shells the anthills from above. The imperious, complicit “Western and regional states” and their stooges throw parcels of food at the people whom they’ve bombed into oblivion—and into begging. Israel is loving it. Its vampiric i24 News network entertained one Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, friend of i24’s Laura Cellier show, who waxed fat about “flying ‘missions’ over Gaza.”

Throwing a few nutrient-free parcels of dry goods at starving Palestinians from the air; or herding them, for the ostensible purpose of feeding them, into “agricultural cattle pens, like animals in a human abattoir,” to be, then, sprayed with bullets, or targeted by the marksmen of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation: These slow extermination-liquidation operations are, have been, part of Israel’s Final Solution to its Palestinian problem, for the best part of two years. Openly pursued, openly discussed in the Hebrew (with which I am fluent).

Full famine in Gaza has galvanized the West—not to feed Palestinians, but to feign action by convening forums of inaction.

To meager food drops, the West has added fuss and feathers—white noise—about the two-state diplomacy, and has given speeches about recognizing the State of Palestine. This is just what a people being starved and butchered need: speeches. Besides, upwards of 140 states had long-since recognized Palestinian statehood. Had that stopped Israel’s genocide? The fake, defunct two-state “solution” notwithstanding, rhetoric is not what’s needed in the face of a reality, whereby a many-times dislocated population made homeless is being starved and slaughtered out of existence.

If Israel has been exposed, so has the West, with America in the lead.

Israel’s extermination campaign has been sacralized at the highest of political and journalistic altitudes. It is these cagey characters—vicariously involved in genocide or on active duty—who now want to salvage their reputations by sullying the reputation of Palestinian, Gaza-based reporters.

Long months sequestered in genocide, notwithstanding, Palestinian journalists have nevertheless been crisscrossing Gaza, on the scene of every Israeli mass murder; every tent encampment incinerated by the heavy payload-weapons of the Israel Occupation Forces; interviewing and filming by-standers, healthcare workers, assisting the faithful civil-administration functionaries and rescuers (reduced to digging for survivors with homemade trowels); living alongside their families in nylon domes, and standing vigil over dead kin and colleagues in prayer. And now, the chroniclers of Palestine starve with their people.

In truth, it is the Morgan Media, ex officio town criers, that don’t count. Best to express their nullity was the fierce Francesca Albanese, a woman not desperate to feature on Piers Morgan’s low-intelligence, large podcast, alongside his other suck-up guests. Albanese had refused to get drawn into Piers’ broadsheet-sensationalism! The UN’s rapporteur for Palestine (an unpaid, punishing position) told the desk-bound “journalist,” “What you say, Piers, is worth zero.” Your opinion counts for zero.

The epitome of grace in a life-and-death struggle, Palestinian journalists, on the other hand, have been exceedingly polite to the Julius Streicher Media, given that the latter have colluded with the Israelis in the murder of 266 of their colleagues (and climbing). This is more than “the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan combined, according to a new report from Brown University’s Costs of War project.” (Via ForeignPolicy.com)

As is the case with the genocide of Palestinians, the news chyrons on your televisions are out-of-date as they scroll by. The Associated Press counted, but failed to name, Israel’s August 25 prey among Palestinian journalists. Four. It fell to readers to name the fallen. Newly martyred for Truth were:

Reuters’ Hossam al-Masri
Al Jazeera’s Mohammad Salama

Freelancer Maryam Abu Daqqa
NBC’s Muath Abu Taha

Forgive me. I should have known that the news scroll across our screens is also reliably wrong. The AP failed to accurately count the fallen. Five.  The AP omitted Ahmed Abu Aziz, a local journalist murdered. The “betrayal of Palestinian journalists in Gaza” peaked with the presstitutes of the International Women’s Media Foundation. Playing procurer and pimp for Israel; the IWMF withdrew a “Courage in Journalism Award” from Gaza-based Maha Husseini. (The reason? Likely “Antisemitism” or housing Hamas: You choose. I won’t dignify another Zionist blood libel.)

Martyred for truth before the five aforementioned were Anas Al-Sharif and his team (here is the live footage via real journalists). The veteran young reporter was the kind of human being whom members of the pampered Morgan Media can only dream of equaling. Like so many of these magnificent Palestinians, Anas Al-Sharif wrote his epitaph, final will and testament, in anticipation of his death because, as night turns to day, the world knows what Israel will do next:

Murder! All the more so if you are a Palestinian reporter chronicling a genocide of your people.

Piers Morgan, who announced in May of 2025 that he “was wrong,” was joined in public expiation by other genocidal British public figures, including politicians such as Tory MP Mark Pritchard. At the eleventh hour, Germany, Israel’s second largest supplier of baby-busting munitions, worried the optics, too. Nineteen months into the genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza, Chancellor Friedrich Merzagain whimpered that Israel’s operations “no longer appear to [him] as strictly necessary for defending Israel’s right to exist and for combating Hamas terrorism.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stalled until August 27, which was when she condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as “beyond the principles of proportionality.” Editorialists in leading western publications joined this coalition of evil.

You know just what a confidence trick and a fraud the Piers-type Israel pivot represents—when a she-devil like podcaster Megyn Kelly feels called upon to add her shenanigans to the production. For glib viciousness, Kelly—whose métier is feel-good militarism and assorted “girly gutter journalism”—is unbeatable. Fifteen minutes and 22 seconds into a July 28, 2025 “visit” with the perfidious Briton, Kelly said this:

“I am reluctant to put too much stock in the images coming out of Gaza, because they are manipulated and they are masters of propaganda. They are fine having their own children starve, just so long as they can put them on camera and show them off to the world. That’s Hamas, and frankly, that’s a lot of Palestinians. So, I’m very skeptical at [sic] taking those images at face value, and saying that it’s Israel’s fault.”

Come August 19, 2025, in an attempt to both stay current and outshine her guest Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kelly was practically climbing over those “phantom” starving Palestinian children, to cast herself as an edgy resister and critic of AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, and its “multiple reachouts” to Me, Myself and I, Megyn Kelly.

Now please lead me to the Vomitorium.

Meloni and Merzagain, whose administrations, like all western nations, have not divested materially or diplomatically from the genocidal entity, share the moral pedigree of a Megyn Kelly and a Piers Morgan. They all resolved to stop framing genocide as self-defense long after the genocide in Gaza was completed.

It was in May-June of 2025 that Morgan morphed Israel’s status from the legitimate exerciser of self-defense to no longer exercising legitimate self-defense. For nearly two years, Morgan had watched Palestinians being “denied the right to life on an industrial scale.” He had tried and succeeded quite well in framing Israel’s mass murder ongoing as self-defense. Until one day when it was not. Piers’ posture is obviously forced, insincere and strategic. Why and where precisely was the pivot-point?

There is no reason in logic. Piers Morgan’s flabby reasoning is reliably circular and self-serving. The point of demarcation—where Israel went from legitimate self-defense to state terrorism—is measured in Piers Morgan Units: in the time it took Morgan to go from avid Israel supporter, to reluctant critic of the genocidal entity (14:41 minutes in).

Circular reasoning, indeed. What reasoning other than circular would one expect from the journalistic circle jerk?

What really motivated “august” members of the Media Circle Jerk, such as Piers Morgan or Megyn Kelly, to rap Israelis on the knuckles, suddenly, for that is all this is?

Joseph Massad, a Palestinian scholar, homes in on what’s afoot among these scullions. While the structure of genocide has been the same throughout, the “suddenly developed moral compunction” is about “the more recent phase of the genocide, where the continued outright bombing and incineration of Gaza in a holocaust is now compounded by the deliberate mass starvation of the Palestinian survivors,” remarks Massad. In essence, the sight of jutting baby bones and distended bellies   is not a good look.

If Piers Morgan and his clones were men of conscience, as they undoubtedly are not, they would come clean; lie low, listen, flagellate, be ashamed, stay ashamed. Piers should be begging Palestinian pardon—perhaps admit to being a mouthpiece of power, and endeavor to listen to his betters.

This staged reckoning comes against the backdrop of Israel’s ongoing, imposed famine-starvation in Gaza. Awash with evil, when Israel is not assassinating negotiators (Qatar) as well as entire governments, heads of civilian portfolios, and journalists across the Middle East (Yemen), the exterminatory Jewish Israel is willy-nilly murdering over 100 Palestinians each day and wounding many hundreds more, consigning the injured to slow death by sepsis and starvation, without hope for recovery.

The Gaza Strip Israel has demolished. Just in case, the genocidal entity has set about demolishing “around 300 residential units a day in Gaza City, aided by the Israeli army’s explosive-laden robots.” Soldiers the IDF are not. Here’s a “news” story from the crypt of an archaic, old-fashioned keeper of records: By November 15, 2023, ancient Gaza City, “the largest, oldest Palestinian city,” was near complete destruction. Given the state of the collective memory, it behooves me to remind readers:

The SS IDF has already crisscrossed the Gaza Strip in one way or another. When Israel announced its plan  to “conquer” Gaza City, you ought to have asked: As opposed to what? Destroy it? Done. Kill tens-of-thousands of its residents? Done. Concentrate the starving population for the purpose of killing more of it? Finalizing what has been a Final Solution? Done and done. Mere semantics. The place, Gaza—city and strip—is ashen and barren.

I deal in words. Stale, worn words. I have none left.

The “Dispossessed of the Earth” are being starved to death by evil-on-earth: Israel and its willing accomplices.

The people of the world are with the “Dispossessed of the Earth,” the Palestinians. The governments of the world and their mouthpieces, North and South, are either nowhere to be seen or, alternatively, with evil-on-earth, Israel.

And that includes the complicit, MIA, Piers Morgan-Megyn Kelly Media.

One of many selfless healers and humanitarians currently operating with great difficulty in Gaza is Dr. Tarek Loubani. By this point, day 711 of the genocide, what Dr. Loubani said on day 236 of Gaza’s Al-Aqsa Flood is amplified many times over. If you have been silent so far—or, enveloped by the warm smell of the herd, are conveniently piping up two years into the sacking of Gaza—you must not be forgiven.

Follow: https://rumble.com/v6toq73-the-real-israel-vs.-hasbara-history.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_f

Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedE2MSEgRE

*Image via screen picture https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/01/gaza-war-worst-ever-for-reporters-costs-of-war-project/

The post Gaza Genocide: The Coverup Begins. Johnny-Come-Lately Journos & Politicos Start Covering Keister appeared first on LewRockwell.

Chase Hughes is a former military Chief who specializes in behavior profiling, interrogation, and Human Intelligence operations. He now develops tactics for government agencies and businesses in ‘Enhanced Persuasion’ and people-reading skills.

Chase is also the bestselling author of ‘The Behavior Ops Manual’, and ‘Phrase Seven’.

Chase now teaches advanced behavior skills to law firms, businesses, and the general public. The courses range from violence-prediction and interrogation to extreme influence and people-reading.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination will dominate the headlines—but before the truth is even clear, the disinformation machine is already spinning. This video exposes how suppression, radicalization, and division are weaponized—not by ideology, but by systems designed to keep you outraged, divided, and distracted.

We’ll reveal: • Why suppression is the biggest red flag in history—and why it always signals weakness, not strength. • How highly suggestible people are radicalized—not by one side or the other, but through media outrage loops, algorithmic echo chambers, and deliberate manipulation. • The illusion of “left vs. right”—a distraction designed to pit neighbors against each other while corruption, corporate power, and elites escape untouched. • The common ground we all share: freedom, safety, stability, fairness—and what none of us want: corruption, endless wars for profit, elites with different rules, surveillance states, and justice systems that bend for the powerful but break for the rest of us.

This is not a partisan message. Suppression is weakness. Radicalization is manipulation. Disinformation is the bait. And if you don’t understand how this machinery works, you’ll keep falling for it. Stay until the end—because once you see how these systems operate, you’ll never look at a headline the same way again.

The post A Non-Partisan, Objective Expert Behavioral Analysis of the Charlie Kirk Shooting appeared first on LewRockwell.

Andrew Napolitano – What Ever Happened To The Constitution?

Today is Constitution Day, September 17, 2025. All Social Studies teachers in every high school are required by federal law to celebrate the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States.

When I was still teaching, this brief video is what I would show my students.

The post Today is Constitution Day, September 17, 2025. All Social Studies Teachers in every High School are Required by Federal Law to Celebrate the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah.

https://x.com/Rothbard1776/status/1968064033484890565

The post Post from Murray appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mike Benz is one of the wisest, most informed, articulate, and knowledgeable persons online.

Mike Benz, former government official and digital liberties advocate

• Executive Director, Foundation for Freedom Online: He currently leads this nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting digital liberties and restoring a free and open internet.
• Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State: During the Trump administration, Benz was responsible for the cyber portfolio in the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
• Former White House Speechwriter: Before his State Department role, he served as a speechwriter for President Trump and advised on technology policy.
• Advocacy: He is a prominent, highly respected voice in discussions about online censorship, including guest appearances on podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience, Tucker Carlson where he has discussed alleged government overreach in regulating online speech.
• Early Career: Before entering public service, he worked as a business law attorney in New York, representing tech and financial firms. 

The post Mike Benz – Will There Be More Assassinations? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post High Crimes On The High Seas appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

The post Heart Tumors Loaded with Spike Protein appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Breitbart

The post That’s what we want to hear – RFK turns tables on Demon rats! appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/e-possibile-sconfiggere-la-tirannia)

La scusa che un certo governo è migliore di quanto non fosse, o che avrebbe potuto essere, ha una durata limitata.

Ogni governo di transizione della storia ha utilizzato questo tropo. Si pensi ai Girondini in Francia, a Kerenskij in Russia, a Weimar in Germania, alla Seconda Repubblica spagnola, a Chiang Kai-shek in Cina e così via. Nell'ordine sono stati sostituiti da Robespierre, poi Napoleone, Lenin, poi Stalin, Hitler, Franco e Mao.

In ognuno di questi casi il governo di transizione è stato alla fine annientato dalle pressioni di entrambe le parti: da un lato i sostenitori industriali e intellettuali del vecchio sistema che detenevano il controllo ereditato, e dall'altro il radicalismo dei movimenti populisti che avevano portato al potere nuove persone.

Di questi tempi la storia insegna una lezione più di ogni altra: il nuovo governo deve essere brutalmente onesto sulla criminalità del vecchio sistema e lavorare con determinazione per smantellarlo il più rapidamente possibile. Qualsiasi cosa che non sia questa porta al suo stesso discredito e alla sua eventuale sostituzione.

In ogni ambito il governo odierno, con l'amministrazione Trump, sta entrando nella sua seconda fase e assistiamo all'opera di queste forze storiche. Il movimento popolare che ha superato ogni pronostico per portare al potere i nuovi arrivati ​​nutriva aspettative elevate, persino rivoluzionarie, dopo i cinque anni più orribili della nostra vita.

Alcune di queste speranze vengono parzialmente soddisfatte, ma bloccate in troppi altri modi. Questa dinamica si riflette sul bilancio, sulla richiesta di trasparenza e sulla sanità pubblica.

Di conseguenza l'ottimismo sfrenato che aveva accolto l'insediamento di Trump si è trasformato in qualcosa di diverso, un misto di incredulità della base elettorale e di indignazione e disgusto da parte dei media generalisti e dell'establishment che hanno combattuto questa rivoluzione in ogni modo.

Ciò solleva ulteriormente la prospettiva su cui abbiamo ripetutamente messo in guardia: l'amministrazione Trump potrebbe passare alla storia come un governo di transizione come ne abbiamo visti tante altre volte, un esperimento quadriennale di moderazione intervallato da diverse forme di totalitarismo da entrambe le parti.

Questa è una questione seria, non un gioco da salotto. Né si tratta di una tipica battaglia politica. Quello che è successo negli ultimi cinque anni è stato un evento epocale. L'economia mondiale è stata travolta da una fuga biologica in un laboratorio parzialmente finanziato dal governo statunitense. Il piano di riserva non annunciato, promosso in nome della scienza, prevedeva la distribuzione di un nuovo vaccino con una nuova tecnologia di alterazione genetica.

Il vaccino non ha funzionato. Non è stato efficace, non era sicuro, né sono stati adeguatamente controllati, perché imposti da un editto militare con la scusa di un'emergenza. Altre terapie sono state denigrate e vietate. I critici in ogni ambito sono stati censurati e messi a tacere; chi ha rifiutato l'iniezione è stato licenziato e la salute pubblica è crollata in nome della sua salvaguardia.

Questi danni non hanno trovato giustizia... non ancora almeno.

Nel frattempo, per finanziare questa calamità, la spesa pubblica è aumentata di $8-10 miliardi, caricando il bilancio del governo federale con $2 miliardi in più rispetto a quanto sarebbe accaduto altrimenti. I vaccini sono ancora sul mercato, nonostante i danni innegabili e ampiamente noti.

Niente di tutto questo è un segreto, come forse lo era in passato. Grazie alle tecnologie informatiche, le persone sono perfettamente a conoscenza di ogni dettaglio. Il cosiddetto “movimento populista” è diventato una vasta comunità di esperti, perfettamente in grado di gestire in modo efficace persone e istituzioni consolidate.

I nuovi leader – eletti per cambiare rotta su tutto quanto sopra e altro ancora, compresi i conseguenti problemi di criminalità e di immigrazione – hanno iniziato con grande spavalderia e con editti radicali che sembravano promettenti. Quattro mesi dopo, chiedono pazienza mentre affrontano ostacoli preesistenti da ogni parte, dalle molestie mediatiche ai blocchi giudiziari.

Il problema è che la fiducia della popolazione è completamente svanita. L'intero Paese, traumatizzato da anni di bugie, è diventato il Missouri: mostrate le prove.

Per quanto riguarda la trasparenza, sono stati fatti passi avanti, ma non sufficienti a mantenere le promesse. I fascicoli su JFK sono confusi e incompleti; non sappiamo più di quanto già noto sui due attentatori che hanno tentato di uccidere Trump; ci sono ancora molti interrogativi sul 9 settembre, sul disastro del Covid e su molto altro. Questa non è l'apertura che la gente sperava.

Poi c'è l'area politica della sanità pubblica dove abbiamo visto i maggiori progressi. Abbiamo un nuovo ed eccellente decreto esecutivo sulla scienza: i test Covid finanziati con fondi pubblici sono terminati; un contratto da $750 milioni per un vaccino contro l'influenza aviaria è stato annullato; ci sono nuovi limiti alla ricerca sul guadagno di funzione e gli esperimenti su beagle e altri animali sono terminati; molti pessimi contratti con l'NIH sono stati annullati, mentre parti del CDC sono state smantellate.

Per quanto riguarda le iniezioni a mRNA, il mercato è stato ristretto a solo le popolazioni vulnerabili, tralasciando il noto problema che anch'esse non dovrebbero rischiare.

Esistono nuovi standard per gli studi clinici randomizzati con placebo, ma non vi è alcuna garanzia che queste aziende li attueranno tempestivamente. Gli RCT per un prodotto di cinque anni con effetti immunomodulatori significativi non potranno mai essere una valida selezione di campioni, né la continuazione di tali esperimenti in alcuna forma è moralmente giustificata.

Con due straordinarie vittorie, i vaccini sono stati rimossi dal programma di vaccinazione pediatrica di routine, la prima volta che ciò accade per un prodotto mirato a una specifica malattia, a parte l'eradicazione o la sostituzione. Infatti il CDC/FDA stanno dicendo: è meglio contrarre il Covid che rischiare con questi prodotti. Un messaggio del genere porterà le inoculazioni a nuovi minimi, che alla fine si avvicineranno allo zero.

Inoltre il consiglio scandaloso del CDC che raccomandava alle donne incinte di assumerli è finalmente scomparso. Il promotore di quella linea di politica è fuggito.

Questi sono tutti cambiamenti positivi in ​​linee di politica che non avrebbero mai dovuto esistere fin dall'inizio. Ciononostante nessuno parla dell'elefante nella stanza: anche se queste vaccinazioni fossero state sicure ed efficaci, cosa che non sono, non sono mai state necessarie per la stragrande maggioranza delle persone. Il che solleva la profonda domanda su come e perché tutto questo sia avvenuto.

Ci sono anche altre iniziative riguardanti ad esempio la nutrizione alimentare, la salute mentale e altre questioni nella relazione della Commissione MAHA, tutti cambiamenti estremamente graditi rispetto al passato.

Chi detiene il potere in queste agenzie implora pazienza. Non è irragionevole. Ricordate che questi pochi incaricati si trovano ad affrontare una bestia più grande, più radicata e meglio finanziata di qualsiasi egemone nella storia dell'umanità. Il complesso farmaceutico/media/tecnologico/ONG/accademico è più grande e più potente della tratta degli schiavi, della Compagnia delle Indie Orientali, della Standard Oil, o persino dell'industria bellica che diede inizio alla Grande Guerra.

È certo che un simile Leviatano non può essere fermato in tre mesi, nemmeno con le persone migliori al comando. Tutto ciò di cui la base elettorale ha realmente bisogno è vedere prove di progressi e una spiegazione trasparente per i ritardi. Se le vaccinazioni non possono essere sospese ora, la gente deve sapere perché. Se i poteri di emergenza Covid non possono essere revocati, bisogna spiegare il perché. Se il nuovo vaccino Moderna era già in fase di sviluppo e non poteva essere fermato, la gente deve conoscerne le ragioni.

Chiunque abbia assistito a tutto questo è indeciso, a prescindere dalle fazioni in continua mutazione all'interno dei movimenti dissidenti che hanno visto la propria leadership salire al potere. I membri dei movimenti MAGA/MAHA/DOGE sono entusiasti dei progressi compiuti finora, tanto quanto i media generalisti e l'establishment sono furiosi per tutti questi cambiamenti.

Da parte mia, avendo seguito gli affari pubblici per decenni, questa è la prima volta che assisto a qualche progresso in almeno un ambito delle attività statali. È un risultato degno di essere celebrato. Non ho nemmeno bisogno di soffermarmi sui tanti modi in cui il miglioramento rispetto ai periodi più bui delle nostre vite è palese.

Ciò di cui abbiamo veramente bisogno è la cruda verità sugli ultimi cinque anni. Dobbiamo sapere che le persone in carica, elette o nominate, condividono ancora la profonda indignazione che ha alimentato il movimento che le ha portate al potere. Abbiamo bisogno di sentire un discorso franco sui danni, gli obblighi, le sofferenze, gli inganni, le tangenti, la corruzione, gli abusi, l'illegale violazione della libertà, della scienza e dei diritti umani.

Non basta proclamare una nuova Età dell'Oro e basta. Questo riguarda ogni aspetto della vita pubblica. Le conferenze stampa dei nuovi incaricati, con sorrisi e promesse di un comportamento migliore in futuro, non bastano, vista la massiccia perdita di fiducia, il cinismo dilagante e la furia popolare. È necessario parlare più apertamente, agire in modo più deciso, andando al nocciolo della questione e garantendo un certo grado di responsabilità.

Sentiamo voci quotidiane che tutto questo stia per accadere. Ottimo. In tal caso i nuovi leader devono chiarirlo. Le persone non sono intrinsecamente irragionevoli, ma sono coloro con cui la leadership deve ragionare – non “mandarle messaggi”, non imbonirle con sciocchezze, non intrattenerle con spettacoli digitali e non liquidarle con sufficienza come estremisti ignoranti e complottisti.

Ogni nuova leadership che eredita un disastro come quello degli ultimi cinque anni si troverà necessariamente schiacciata tra il sistema ereditato – comprese le sue vaste burocrazie e i suoi interessi industriali – e i movimenti populisti che lo hanno portato al potere. In questi casi lo status quo si rivela solitamente irresistibile, ma con conseguenze disastrose in seguito.

Ora è il momento di fermare questo disastro, che non può che aggravare gli errori del passato.

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

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

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

The Grayzone

The post Billionaire Ackman Convened Stormy Intervention with Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

The word of the day for Catholics is “unity.” For the sake of it, entire congregations are ghettoized (TLM), bishops exiled (Strickland), faculties gutted (Sacred Heart), and dioceses fractured (Charlotte). Strange to think that the peculiar synodality project is more or less based on giving every wayward lifestyle and viewpoint a podium but the faithful who have dedicated their lives and relationships to Christ are pressed into passive, conforming ranks.

One of the many things the heavy hands on the tiller of the Church don’t realize is that unity cannot be forced. In the short term, they may be able to line people up like identical service robots, but it only fuels an equal and opposite reaction farther down the road. It’s Newtonian psychology.

Conformity in an evil age asks us to deny common sense, which is our use of reason. For unity’s sake, we’re told to believe that the Mass attended by almost every saint we’ve ever loved is now something pernicious. The “needle in every arm” campaign asked us to ignore the fact that a novel technology had no long-term safety testing. 1984’s Winston Smith had to swallow the non-sense that freedom is slavery and ignorance strength.

As long as society and the Gospel are in harmony about standards of moral behavior, it’s safe to be a conformist. The vast majority of humans are; rebels have always been anomalous. But when a society is Godless, pornographic, and corrupt, conformity can kill body and soul.

Genuine unity is spontaneous, based on shared belief and experience. It springs from joy and the “click” of recognition when we hear the truth. St. John Paul wrote: “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety.” So, if unity is really the goal, the road to get there is the whole deposit of faith and not a conniption of administrative flaps.

And yet, many bishops want to take the shortcut of uniformity, executed through cancellations, firings, and fiddly rules about our devotional gestures at Mass. Uniformity is like a knockoff Patek Philippe wristwatch; it looks swanky, but it stops telling time shortly after the street vendor packs up his case and makes a run for it.

All these firings and restrictions will never get us to true unity. The greatest pools of genuine unity are forming around those who are unjustly sidelined—not among the artificially uniform ranks of the compliant. Real unity draws people in; conformity just keeps them quiet.

When Bishop Joseph Strickland was dismissed from his diocese, there was mention of “lack of fraternity” with brother bishops. No one was supposed to say anything about the flaccid response to homosexuality in the Church, or the contradictory remarks of Pope Francis, or the failure to address the McCarrick crisis. As long as no one mentioned the elephant, the bishops were safe in their ballroom, shielded from the laity’s demands. The Strickland Problem was solved by booting him off the line to restore uniformity, a cheap and shortsighted solution.

Bishop Strickland noted recently in an interview for The Catholic Herald that “authentic unity in the Church is never built on silence in the face of error.” Far from losing his voice, the ostracized American bishop has just launched a new website to continue preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified.

When one person speaks up, it’s a reproach to the cowardly and furtive. And if they try to silence the upstart, the opposite inevitably occurs: truth is amplified. And truth will prevail; we are in the prefatory period, just before it does. We can hasten or slacken it by our willingness to do the hard work of discernment and speaking up ourselves.

This is not the time for mindless conformity. It’s not the time to be silent, or to assume that someone else will take care of things. It’s not a time to allow corrupt men, even among the clergy, to drive us into uniform lines of spongy followers. After everything we’ve been through, it’s not the time to abdicate our responsibility to study and discern what’s being told to us by “experts,” including theological ones.

This is a hard call for Catholics because we live within a hierarchy. We’re accustomed to following leaders we assume to be led, in turn, by Christ. But what if they’re not? What of the ones who carry on secret lives, cover up for predators, use the monies we’ve put in the basket to fund support for abortion and other abominations, betray doctrine—and even those not guilty of such egregious violations, who stand silently by, which is a sin in itself for those entrusted with souls?

We have to take the counsel of our Lord, to obey the law of God, which they are charged with preaching (whether or not they do), but we must avoid following them into perdition. This now demands careful deliberation. It’s not the good ol’ days; we have to know our faith very well in order to assess what we’re told. That means study of the Catechism in particular because it is such a direct and concise explanation of the Faith. When bishops and clergy exhibit an ignorance—or a deliberate rejection—of the deposit of faith, we have to be informed enough to know what’s right and what’s not.

When bishops act and speak from their lawful authority on matters of faith and morals, we obey. But we don’t have to do it silently. In fact, canon law defends the dignity of the laity when they respectfully speak up:

Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they (the Christian faithful) have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Regina Magazine has just released a film, Bread Not Stones, which is a teaching response to Bishop Michael Martin’s attempt to impose uniformity of worship upon his diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina. It’s an excellent example of speaking up reverently to their pastor whom they believe may be acting against the good of the people and the Church.

Those who speak up for truth in this age, who will not conform themselves to falsehood or treachery, stand between us and ruin. Let’s expand their ranks. Within the limits of careful discernment, we must stand up and speak out. Conformity in an evil age is a mortal risk.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Do Not Be Conformed to the World…or to Church Leaders appeared first on LewRockwell.

Predicting the collapse of a country is like reading between the lines of history, economics, and politics. Some nations, however, are walking on thin ice, where even a small additional burden could lead to their downfall. In this article, we’ll explore 11 countries facing severe risks that could put them on the brink of collapse by 2027. Some of these might surprise you.

1. Lebanon: A country where nothing works anymore
Once hailed as the “Switzerland of the Middle East,” Lebanon is now in absolute economic chaos. Hyperinflation, currency collapse, and political corruption have brought the state to its knees. Ordinary citizens struggle to secure basic needs like food and fuel. Can Lebanon still be saved, or will it follow the fate of nations that fragmented into smaller entities?

2. Afghanistan: Taliban isolation and hunger
Since the Taliban regained power, Afghanistan has plunged into international isolation. Its economy is collapsing, people are starving, and humanitarian organizations cannot meet the overwhelming needs. If the situation doesn’t improve, the state risks fragmentation into territories controlled by armed factions.

3. Haiti: From freedom to a nation ruled by gangs
Haiti has been grappling with a crisis for years. With no functioning government, armed gangs dominate cities. Add to that natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes, and you have a recipe for complete collapse. Can Haiti ever rise again?

4. Sudan: A nation in perpetual conflict
Sudan’s civil war between the army and militias is spiraling into catastrophe. Thousands are dead, millions are displaced, and famine looms large. If the conflict continues, Sudan could disintegrate into smaller regions controlled by local warlords.

5. Venezuela: From riches to rags
Home to some of the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela has been in freefall for years. Hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass emigration have devastated the nation. Could Nicolás Maduro’s regime fall, or will Venezuela remain stuck in this “frozen collapse” for decades?

6. Myanmar: A coup that crushed hope
The 2021 military coup plunged Myanmar into chaos. Protests, uprisings, and ethnic conflicts have become the norm. If the military junta doesn’t relinquish power, the country risks breaking into warring regions.

7. Yemen: A nation where survival is a battle
Yemen is the epitome of disaster. Its civil war between Houthi rebels and the internationally recognized government has raged for years. Millions suffer from hunger and disease. If the conflict isn’t resolved, Yemen could vanish as a functioning state altogether.

8. North Korea: Behind the curtain of isolation
Kim Jong Un’s regime appears solid, but what if it isn’t? Economic sanctions, famine, and a possible power struggle after his death could lead to an unexpected collapse. If that happens, the chaos could be unimaginable.

9. Pakistan: Battling economic and political storms
Pakistan is grappling with an economic crisis deepened by debts and political instability. Extremism, corruption, and worsening relations with neighbors could weaken the country to the point of losing control over its regions.

The country is beset by enemies and is in a constant state of unrest. Frequent power outages and riots exacerbate the situation. The fact that Pakistan maintains the second-largest army does not help, given its current state.

I also feel that their military power is overrated. It’s hard to believe they rank as the seventh strongest considering the ongoing protests.

10. Somalia: A collapse that never ended
Somalia has been a failed state for decades. The terrorist group Al-Shabaab still controls large swathes of territory, while the central government remains weak. Without minimal international support, total disintegration seems inevitable.

11. Georgia

Georgia is a country in the Caucasus region. Located at the crossroads between Eastern Europe and Western Asia, it is bounded to the west by the Black Sea, to the north by the Russian Federation, to the south by Turkey and Armenia, and to the southeast by Azerbaijan. The country’s capital and largest… read more

Georgia is underrated. They are very similar to Ukraine, but it isn’t a full-scale war like in Ukraine. They face the threat from Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Also, the threat from a joint invasion from Russia and Armenia is possible. So, it is likely.

Why Do Countries Most Of Time Collapse?
Normally, the collapse of a state is always the result of a combination of factors:

• Economic instability: Hyperinflation, overwhelming debts, or resource shortages.
• Political corruption: Weak governments unable to address crises.
• Civil conflicts: Wars, ethnic tensions, or regional uprisings.
• Climate change: Worsening conditions, natural disasters, and resource depletion.
• International isolation: Sanctions or loss of foreign support.

Can Any of These Countries Be Saved?
History shows us that even nations on the brink of collapse can change course with the right leadership, international assistance, or societal unity. While rescue is possible, these cases will require far more than just hope.

Which other countries do you think are at risk? Let’s discuss.

Beyond the most vulnerable states, there are also numerous other countries that could face significant challenges if their situations do not improve.

Read the Whole Article

The post Countries Most Likely To Collapse in the Upcoming Future appeared first on LewRockwell.

I’ve always loved the timeless nature of folk wisdom. “Birds of a feather flock together” is one of my favorites; its predictive value rarely fails, which is especially frightening in our current moment. Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom has certainly gathered some feathers, and on one side, it’s quite a sight: Race idolators, militant transgender warriors, the “Squad” contingency, and—huddled sheepishly at the edges— Christians.

It’s not most Christians, though. It’s only a stale subset of believers who are inexplicably unable to extend any kind words toward Charlie Kirk. Sure, when civility requires it, they will mumble some obligatory phrases about “political violence” or blame “polarization.” Nobody wants to look like a monster, and those are risk-free things that even our irreligious buddies say. Beyond that, though, these believers must distance themselves from any kind of public conservatism; it doesn’t vibe with their favorite “empathetic” and “winsome” evangelical leaders.

As a result, the bullet that came out of nowhere did more than just create a martyr; it also caught these same believers off guard. People loved and respected Charlie Kirk? My kids watched his videos? I didn’t, but some reporters and a cool pastor told me he was divisive, so I believe it. Now what will I say? As it turns out, they won’t say much.

Who’s in this tepid yet holier-than-thou flock? In many cases, it’s believers who share the essentials of the faith but disdain political discourse. They are the evangelical Never Trumpers. They might’ve cast a “principled” and public vote for Clinton or Biden because “politics don’t belong in the church” or “Trump is divisive.” In the face of Charlie Kirk’s murder, they went quiet or—if necessary—tossed word salads and performed impressive gymnastics in order to avoid specifically referring to Charlie Kirk.

For these feathered friends, conservative thought is off-limits, unflattering, and not “winsome”. You can be a public school teacher, or you can be an artist, or you can work for a nonprofit that receives federal funding. You can advocate for green spaces and free scooters and after-school tutoring and nice things like that. You can compete and model Christian excellence in nearly any earthly venture. Whatever you do, though, don’t let faith inform your political life.

Charlie Kirk’s murder surely brought Christians together in mourning; but it also highlighted these lingering effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the church. This week, I read an email from a popular pastor whose response seemed only a lengthy effort to please a TDS constituency. While one could applaud his effort to address a difficult week of nationwide tragedy, his refusal to offer meaningful words for a murdered brother in Christ was rather jarring.

While Gospel Coalition regulars spent years pushing “Side B Christianity” and infusing sermons with nerdish Charles Taylor commentary, Charlie Kirk was teaching America’s students how to reason biblically, act like a man, and rebuild a nation. He spoke truth clearly, graciously, and even humorously. Now that he has been publicly and gruesomely murdered for his beliefs, those compassionate and “winsome” believers seem outright cold.

To be clear, there is no Biblical mandate to make a social media or public remark just because everyone else does. I don’t virtue signal, even for virtuous things. I rarely participate in the well-meaning “pray for Texas” or “Anytown Strong” kinds of posts. I refuse to participate in “awareness” campaigns. I don’t necessarily make public remarks when a famous believer dies of natural causes. Further, Christians aren’t required to be news junkies, protesters or political commentators.

Charlie Kirk’s murder, however, was something very different. A faithful American believer who applied faith to policy, who invited peaceful debate and shared the gospel in the process—and who remained calm when angry opponents insulted him—this bold man paid the ultimate price. His neck spewed blood in front of an entire nation. He left a young wife and two children who can now view that horrific footage for years.

Even nonbelievers and political progressives found this a shockingly sad day for free speech, with many even admiring his moral courage or gracious demeanor; yet professing Christians danced around the topic or remained uncharacteristically mute, unwilling to honor Charlie Kirk for his outspoken faith. They remained silent in big evangelical pulpits, afraid of offending their feminized brethren in today’s PCA and Southern Baptist Convention.

They weren’t always this quiet. They were proud to mention George Floyd when his death transfixed a nation; but to mention Charlie Kirk’s public murder was simply a bridge too far. General references to evil or “political violence” or “brokenness” would have to do. It was time to be winsome! It was also time to bow to the frowning idol of TDS.

I could go on, but my writing won’t approach the beautiful summary written by Stephanie Smith, president of the Alabama Policy Institute. I encourage everyone to read her op-ed, a pointed description of this wasting spiritual disease. She writes,

No one killed Charlie Kirk because of his position on immigration, tax policy, or limited government principles. He was murdered because he was knee deep in the bunker – fighting a spiritual war that pastors have shied away from due to the false gods of unity and winsomeness. Kirk was a public Christian apologist who spoke biblical truth without regard to temporal consequences. Charlie Kirk knew his opinion wasn’t popular, but he also knew that it was rooted in God’s word, and he regularly shared the Gospel publicly. His death was not a political assassination, but an anti-religious act.

Christian rejection of fellow believers who use their shared worldview to help form public policy are as sickening as atheists who deny Christ altogether. Those who display conjured moral superiority over fellow believers who enter the mission field of politics and pastors seeking tithes and false peace over truth would all be well served to re-read what Jesus said about the lukewarm.

Those believers who cannot honor Charlie Kirk’s death with even the smallest gesture present a puzzling picture, indeed. When you find your feathers matching those of some of the most God-hating and murderous characters out there, you might stop to ask yourself why.

This article was originally published on Restoring Truth.

The post Too Good for Charlie Kirk? appeared first on LewRockwell.

A month before Charlie Kirk’s killing, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman arranged an intervention in the Hamptons during which sources say he and others “hammered” Kirk for the conservative leader’s growing criticism of Israeli influence in Washington. Kirk came away fretting about Israeli “blackmail,” sources say, as he contemplated a Catholic conversion.

On September 11, one day after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman took to Twitter/X to trumpet his relationship with the late conservative operative. “I feel incredibly privileged to have spent a day and shared a meal with @charliekirk11 this summer. He was a giant of a man.”

The Grayzone has spoken to five people with intimate knowledge of Kirk’s meeting with Ackman, which was held in early August. According to one source, Kirk was left upset after the gathering turned into an “intervention” where he was “hammered” for his increasingly skeptical views on the US special relationship with Israel, and for platforming prominent conservative critics of Israel at his TPUSA events.

Since publishing this report, The Grayzone has learned from one attendee of the Hamptons event that Ackman convened the influencers under the auspices of a discussion about Zohran Mamdani and the supposed threat he posed to the West if elected mayor of New York. But the meeting went off the rails when Ackman personally confronted Kirk about his views on Israel. An unknown British woman joined in the argument, and began “screaming” at Kirk, according to the attendee.

When his hosts presented him with a detailed list of every offense he supposedly committed against Israel, Kirk was “horrified,” said one person. Ackman also allegedly demanded Kirk rescind his invitation for Tucker Carlson to speak at his upcoming America Fest 2025 in December.

“The whole thing was a disaster,” said an attendee.

The Grayzone reported on September 12, citing a longtime associate of Kirk, that Netanyahu had offered to organize a massive infusion of pro-Israel money into TPUSA, and that Kirk refused. Another longtime friend of Kirk has told The Grayzone that the conservative activist also rejected an offer Netanyahu delivered two weeks before his death to meet with him in Jerusalem.

Kirk, according to one person with inside knowledge of the meeting with Ackman, said he left feeling as though he’d been subjected to “blackmail.”

In a series of text messages with The Grayzone, Ackman described these account of his meeting with Kirk as “totally false.” He pledged to release a public statement providing his own account of the event, but refused The Grayzone’s request for clarification or further details. He would not accept phone calls from this reporter.

“I think I can easily put this to bed,” Ackman promised, “I have receipts as they say.” He did not abide when asked to provide the so-called “receipts.”

In an apparent bid to reinforce the pro-Israel tone at the Hamptons meeting, Ackman hosted a coterie of pro-Israel operatives and conservative influencers at the off-the-record engagement. One was Instagram influencer Xaviaer DuRousseau of Prager U.

Reached by phone by The Grayzone, DuRousseau sounded flustered when asked about his presence at the meeting. He repeatedly demanded to know how this reporter obtained his number, and eventually hung up, refusing to answer questions about the event.

Several Instagram posts by DuRousseau show him and his friend, conservative influencer Emily Wilson, in the Hamptons on August 8 outside Topping Rose House, a posh hotel and restaurant in Bridgehampton, New York.

Two weeks after the meeting, DeRousseau was reportedly junketed on an all-expenses-paid trip by the Israeli government to visit a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation “aid” hub guarded by the IDF on the Gaza frontier. There, he recorded an Instagram video denying that the population of the besieged Gaza Strip was experiencing a famine.

The Grayzone received a similarly agitated response from Wilson, known online as Emily Saves America. Following a phone call and exchange of text messages in which this reporter asked her numerous times about her attendance of the meeting in the Hamptons, Wilson refused to comment. Instagram photos place her in the Hamptons at the same time as DuRousseau.

CJ Pearson, a leading youth coordinator for the Republican National Committee, immediately referred The Grayzone to his communications director when asked if he attended the Hamptons gathering.

The strong-arm tactics of the pro-Israel billionaires who helped fuel the growth of TPUSA were said to have contributed to Kirk’s alienation with evangelical Christianity, which emphasizes uncritical support for Israel as a bedrock principle. Several sources with access to Kirk said he had begun attending Catholic mass with his wife, Erika, and was considering a conversion before his death.

Bree Solsdadt, a Catholic Twitter/X influencer, has publicly corroborated this account of Kirk’s religious realignment. Kirk’s friend, the podcaster and former TPUSA personality Candace Owens, also alluded to the shift when she reflected that he was undergoing a “spiritual transformation” before his death.

Read the Whole Article

The post Billionaire Bill Ackman Convened Stormy Israel ‘Intervention’ With Charlie Kirk, Sources Say appeared first on LewRockwell.

Years ago, Doug Casey stated, “When empires die, they do so with surprising speed.”

At the time, that comment raised eyebrows, yet he was quite correct in his observation.

Ernest Hemingway made a similar comment when a character in his novel The Sun Also Rises was asked how he went bankrupt. The answer was, “Gradually, then suddenly.”

Again, this sounds cryptic, yet it’s accurate.

Any empire, at its peak, is all-powerful, but the fragility of an empire that’s in decline is hard to grasp, as the visuals tend not to reveal what’s soon to come.

Great countries are built upon traditional values – industriousness, self-reliance, honour, etc. But empires are distinctly different. Although it may seem to be a moot point, an empire is a great country whose traditional values have led it to become unusually prosperous. There are many countries, both large and small, that are “great” in their formative values, but only a few become empires.

Yes, the prosperity is brought about through traditional values, but a great country becomes an empire only when its prosperity is sufficient to allow it to branch out – to invade other lands – to plunder their assets and subjugate their peoples.

We tend to grasp, through hindsight, that this is what made the Roman Empire possible. And we accept that the Spanish Empire was created through its invasion of the Americas and the plundering of pre-Columbian gold.

And we understand that the tiny island of Britain achieved its empire by covering the world with colonies that it had taken by force.

In every case, the pattern was the same – expand, conquer, plunder, dominate.

As a British subject, my childhood understanding was that previous empires had come about through nefarious pursuits, but I was encouraged to believe that the British empire was somehow different – that my forefathers sailed the seven seas to liberate distant populations. That, of course, was nonsense.

The British empire is now long over, and the current empire is the United States. Around 1900, the then-great country of the US sought to achieve empire and, at that time, its president, Teddy Roosevelt, was insatiable in his desire to conquer foreign lands, both near (Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Puerto Rico, Cuba) and far (Hawaii, Philippines, Japan).

The results of his efforts were mostly successful, and although the countries taken were not called colonies, they were certainly intended to be vassal states. And there can be no question the US government’s methods were no kinder than that of the Huns. Some locations, like Hawaii, went fairly peacefully, whilst others, like the Philippines, required brutal slaughter on a grand scale.

And such tactics change the nature of a “great” country. Yes, it does allow it to become even greater, in terms of domination, but it ceases to be great in terms of its values.

In most cases, this plants the seeds of empirical collapse. The empire, even as it’s growing, is rotting from within, with deteriorating principles and morality – the very traits that created it.

This, in turn, causes the empire to develop a habit of subjugation – even over its friends and allies abroad – those countries that got on board to take part in the prosperity. While, to some extent, these loyalties by other nations are genuine, they are treated as lesser nations, eventually causing resentment of the empire.

As such, in the latter days of the empire, ally nations become toadies. Their hatred for the empire is palpable, but they maintain their obeisance, grudgingly.

Empires are built upon monetary prosperity. We can understand that an empire, in its heyday, attracts all and sundry to its shores. It builds up the ability to dictate to others since the whole world hopes to gain favour. But, towards the end of the empirical period, it’s resented by all those who were once genuine allies.

In its latter days, an empire becomes hollowed out. It’s burdened with a costly and top-heavy government. The middle class is expected to provide largess to the masses through bread & circuses, providing fealty for the political class. Traditional values are largely gone, and “everyone seeks to live off everyone else.”

At this point, the empire is a mere superstructure – one that’s becoming increasingly unsound. Importantly, the prosperity that made empire possible is replaced by the illusion of prosperity – debt.

Concurrently, the political class becomes increasingly tyrannical in order to hold the collapsing edifice together. In the final stages, tyrannical efforts increase in both frequency and magnitude in order to maintain the subjugation of the masses for as long as possible.

It may be beneficial for the reader to read this last line again, as this development is the most recognizable symptom of the final stage prior to the collapse of empire.

This final period is not only difficult to cope with, it’s highly confusing for those living within a dying empire.

The edifice still stands. With each election, the electorate hopes that somehow, a champion will spring forth and “put everything back the way it was.”

But it’s important to note that, historically, this never occurs. Whilst the average citizen hopes in vain for his political leaders to “wake up” and stop all the nonsense, he fails to grasp that, to the political leader, the most important pursuit is power. He cares not a whit for the well-being of the populace.

The political class has no intention of relinquishing even a small amount of power for the good of the people he was elected to represent.

Historically, in every instance, every empire has collapsed from within. Once the apple is truly rotten, it cannot be un-rotted.

And so, if we’ve been observant in the recent years and decades, we’ll acknowledge that the present empire has already passed its sell-by date. Its political structure is wholly corrupted on both sides of the aisle; the economy is doomed due to unpayable debt; the population has become unproductive, and it’s now in the process of alienating its former friends through increasingly desperate measures.

And here, we return to our opening paragraphs.

In its final stage prior to collapse, the empire sells out its toadies and is therefore no longer of any benefit to them. Suddenly, the empire becomes a liability. And, at this point, those who have had to tolerate the indignity of being toadies look forward to a fall, even a partial one, by the empire.

At present, the US empire maintains an illusion of dominance, but it cannot withstand a test. A defeat in warfare, a collapse in finance, the loss of the dollar’s reserve currency status, or any one of a host of triggers that are now looming would be sufficient to drop the US to one knee overnight. All that’s needed is for one of the triggers to be pulled.

It matters little what the event will be; it’s sufficient to understand that we are now drawing quite near and that the event is unavoidable. 

Historically, when an empire dies, all the notes suddenly come due. 

The political class of any empire arrogantly depends upon allies to do as they’re told, yet, when a decisive blow is dealt to the empire, those who had once been loyal allies are now as ready to abandon the empire as rats would abandon a sinking ship.

When this happens, the crutches that the empire has been counting on to hold it up pull away quickly. The collapse will have occurred “gradually, then suddenly.”

Once this is understood, the question for the reader becomes where he wishes to be when the edifice falls; whether he has prepared an alternative situation that will increase the likelihood that he will survive the debacle with his skin on.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post When Empires Die appeared first on LewRockwell.