Aggregatore di feed

Just as happened with the opening of the dams in Valencia (Spain), which official authorities continue to attribute solely to weather conditions without offering a complete explanation, the same situation is now repeating itself in the face of the widespread blackout in Spain, Portugal, and southern France. New data is emerging, but, as usual, more doubts than certainties prevail.

We begin with the news that in 2021, the Austrian government warned of the possibility of a major blackout that could affect Europe in the next five years. Austrian Defense Minister Klaudia Tanner was the one who publicly warned about this threat, stressing the importance of taking preventive measures in the face of a potential energy crisis.

It was in October 2021 that the Austrian government issued a warning that, at the time, went unheeded by most in Europe (supposedly). However, today, in light of recent events, that warning seems like an eerie and chilling omen. Under the slogan “Blackout: What to do if everything shuts down?“, the Austrian Ministry of Defense distributed leaflets, organized national drills, and posted official videos on YouTube instructing the population on how to survive a massive energy collapse. Minister Claudia Tanner was clear: “Blackout is not a possibility, it is a certainty,” she stated, while General Robert Bridger warned of “an event that would paralyze cities and destroy the digital economy.“

Official video of the Austrian government

But what motivated Austria, a country with no obvious energy crisis at the time, to mobilize its army and civil society? Experts pointed to four critical factors: dependence on Russian gas, the increase in cyberattacks on infrastructure, the vulnerability of power grids due to reliance on intermittent renewable energy, and a lack of investment in maintenance. However, behind these technical reasons, many suspect a darker plan, and that what happened could only be a test or warning of what is to come.

On the other hand, there is a TikTok video published on April 15, 2025, in which he predicts a “partial global blackout” that would occur on April 28, 2025, stating that it would be “the beginning of a real blackout” with bank failures, social media outages, and urban chaos. The message, shared millions of times, included a reference to a forgotten episode of The Simpsons where Homer receives a message on his television: “Shutting down humanity.” We know this cartoon series is part of the system; it’s not just a coincidence, but functions as a tool that offers clues and snippets of what’s planned to happen, akin to Predictive Programming.

Finally, we have news of a strange text message that Catalan mayors (Spain) received warning of a power outage hours before the major blackout. On the night of Sunday, April 27, at 10:38 p.m., the mayor of Vilaplana, Josep Bigorra, received a message saying: “We are working to restore the power supply as soon as possible.” Minutes later, the mayor checked the E-Distribución website for “outage” symbols in places like Reus, the capital of Baix Camp. But nothing happened; the grid remained stable. “There wasn’t a single outage,” says Bigorra, who shared the text message on social media, puzzled. Was it a computer error? A false alarm? Or, as subsequent events suggest, a chilling warning of what was to come?

This message, however, was no exception. Other mayors in the region reported similar receipts, all at the same time and with the same contradiction: warnings of nonexistent outages.

Fourteen hours later, at 12:33 on Monday, April 28, Spain was completely blacked out, in an unprecedented event. A second text message arrived in Bigorra with a disturbing explanation: “Due to a national zero (sic), the power supply has been lost. We are awaiting instructions from Red Eléctrica Española (REE).“

The term “national zero” lacks a recognized technical definition. A typo? A cipher? While the Spanish government blames an “unprecedented incident,” official responses are brief. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced “open lines of investigation,” but no one explains why the alarm systems failed, or why it took some municipalities more than 24 hours to restore power. The coincidence between the premonitory text message and the massive blackout has generated a flurry of theories. Independent experts point out that the messages could be part of an internal emergency protocol at E-Distribución, designed to prepare authorities before a scheduled outage. But what does a “national zero” have to do with an unannounced blackout? Could the text message have been an unauthorized leak from a compromised system? The words “national zero” evoke scenarios from military drills, such as those described in declassified NATO documents.

Questions Officials Fail to Answer:

• Why did E-Distribución send false alerts hours before the collapse?
• What does the term “national zero” mean?
• Why did the Iberian electricity system, designed to withstand isolated failures, collapse completely?
• Are there internal records that prove a structural failure prior to the blackout?

While authorities persist in their attempt to clarify the facts, citizens remain in uncertainty facing an enigma that seems to have overtones of a cover-up. The text message, far from being a simple error, could represent the tip of the iceberg of secret plans.

Read the Whole Article

The post Latest News on the Blackout in Spain appeared first on LewRockwell.

Overall, the Zionist-dominated American media is silent, thus keeping the American people ignorant regarding the apocalyptic-type fires that are burning in Israel.

In the summertime, wildfires are common in the Western United States (and Western Canada), as those of us who live in the West can testify. Fires are typically started by either human negligence (campers not extinguishing their campfires, smokers discarding burning cigarettes in tinder environments, etc.) or by nature, most notably lightning strikes.

But the United States is an extremely large country, including millions of acres of natural habitat that is intrinsically highly flammable. On the other hand, Israel is a tiny country, about the size of the State of New Jersey—or even smaller. While wildfires in the Middle East are not uncommon, the endemic forests and wildernesses are not of the highly combustible varieties as are grown here in the U.S. and Canada.

Since the advent of the State of Israel in 1948, the Zionist state has planted hundreds of millions of non-native plants, trees and shrubbery that are highly combustible and have contributed to an increase of wildfire disasters not previously known in the region of Palestine—including Israel.

See this report in the Jerusalem Post.

But the current wildfires raging in Israel are unprecedented in their furor. This column will contain a couple of videos of the fires raging in Israel that I hope readers will take the time to watch. When you see them, I think you will agree with me that the fires are not only terrifying, but they possess an almost apocalyptic aura about them.

I’ll begin with a transcription of this video report:

Israel Now! Worst Wildfire in Jerusalem’s History Forces Thousands To Evacuate & Left Devastations

Jerusalem, Israel, April 30-May 1, 2025

On April 30, 2025, flames surged across Highway 1, the main artery between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, forcing terrified drivers to abandon their vehicles and flee on foot as smoke turned day into night.

This was not a scene from a disaster film. It was the grim reality when one of the most devastating wildfires in Israel’s history erupted just west of Jerusalem.

In a matter of hours, the fire advanced rapidly, threatening entire communities. Over 10,000 residents from at least 10 villages, including Beit Meir, Shoresh, Giv’at Ye’arim and Ramat Raziel, were forced to evacuate. The situation was chaotic as firefighters struggled to control the inferno, while entire families fled their homes with little more than the clothes on their backs.

The Eitanim Psychiatric Hospital was also evacuated, with two patients initially reported missing amid the disorder.

Thick black smoke blanketed the capital, causing severe air pollution and triggering health alerts across the region.

Meanwhile, crucial highways, like Route 1, the main Jerusalem-Tel Aviv route, were shut down, leading to heavy traffic and delays in evacuation efforts.

By the end of the day, the fire had consumed more than 17 square kilometers of land, devastating forests, agricultural land and natural reserves. The firestorm had reached near-catastrophic proportions, with wind speeds exceeding 50 kilometers per hour, pushing the flames rapidly through dry, overgrown vegetation. At least 20 homes were reported lost, and thousands more were left in danger. It became one of the largest wildfires in Israel’s history, underscoring the vulnerability of the region to such climate-related disasters.

Fire and Rescue Services Commissioner Dedi Simchi confirmed that the fire was man-made but stressed that investigations were ongoing. No formal arrests have been made as of yet, and the authorities are careful not to draw any conclusions before the investigation is complete. It is important to note that anyone arrested in connection with the fire is innocent until proven guilty, and further investigations will determine the exact cause.

In typical Netanyahu fashion, the Israeli prime minister was quick to blame the fires on Hamas. Israelis are experts at feigning perpetual victimhood status while hiding their own criminal aggression.

The region has experienced heightened temperatures and strong winds, both of which contributed to the rapid spread of the flames. Environmental Protection Minister Tamar Zandberg linked the fire to broader climate change patterns, warning that these types of fires are becoming more frequent and intense across the country, especially as the climate crisis continues to take hold.

As the blaze raged on, emergency services were stretched to their limits. Israel declared a state of national emergency in response to the escalating crisis. Over 120 firefighting teams were mobilized, including specialized search and rescue units from the military. Twelve firefighting aircraft were deployed to contain the blaze, with support from international firefighting crews. Italy and Croatia sent planes to help extinguish the flames, while other countries, including Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria, were also asked to send additional firefighting planes to help fight the fires. But reports say that Greece and Cyprus refused to help. [Emphasis added]

Despite their best efforts, the firefighting teams struggled to access the worst-hit areas, as roads were closed and visibility was severely reduced due to smoke and ash.

In addition to the firefighting teams, medical emergency units were deployed across the region to assist evacuees and those trapped in the fire zone. At least 20 people were injured, most suffering from smoke inhalation or burns. Medical teams reported that the conditions were particularly dire for elderly people and young children, who were at higher risk due to the hazardous air quality.

Ambulances and rapid-response motorcycle units were stationed along key roads, ready to assist the injured and transport them to hospitals. These units worked tirelessly to evacuate civilians from the most dangerous zones, but the chaos of the situation made rescue operations extremely difficult. Some residents were forced to shelter in place, waiting for emergency services to arrive.

The damage was severe. The fire destroyed homes and businesses and inflicted lasting harm on the natural environment. Vast areas of forest in the Jerusalem hills, home to rare plant species and wildlife, were reduced to ash. The Environmental Protection Ministry issued high-pollution alerts, urging residents, especially those with respiratory issues, to stay indoors. Large sections of natural reserves and national parks were devastated, with critical habitats lost and ecosystems left in ruin. Recovery of these areas will take years.

As the fires came under control, focus shifted to relief. The Israeli government approved $21 million in emergency aid for shelter, medical care and immediate needs. Thousands of displaced residents were placed in temporary housing, supported by local councils and volunteers providing food, water and essentials.

But experts warn the recovery will be long. Rebuilding homes and infrastructure will take months. And restoring the damaged land will require major environmental efforts.

Again, I urge readers to watch the 9-minute video from which this transcription was taken.

As I watched this video and others, including this one, the thought that immediately came to my mind was “Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Contrary to the unscriptural assertions of evangelicals, modern Israel is anything but a “holy land.” Israel is a cesspool of debauchery, corruption and criminality rivaling anything found in the seven condemned Canaanite nations during the days of Moses and Joshua.

Israel is the abortion capital of the world; it is the sodomite capital of the world; it is the pornographic capital of the world; and it is the genocidal capital of the world. If God spares Zionist Israel, He will need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

But God is Just. And Zionist Israel will not be spared His justice. Neither will Israel’s puppet-state: America.

The blood of millions of innocents shed by seventy-seven years of pillage, rape, mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing by Jewish Zionists and their Christian Zionist collaborators in America cries out of the ground for justice. God hears those cries, and He will answer.

I, again, urge readers to read the book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe. I mean it when I say, if you have not read this book, you are ignorant of the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including what’s happening in Gaza and the West Bank today.

I can say that because I thought I understood the Middle East, until I read Pappe’s blockbuster book. I then realized I knew almost nothing about Palestine—even after traveling there and seeing the land for myself. Albeit I did learn and can personally testify to the compassionate, kind and genuine Christ-like spirit of the tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians living in the land. They make America’s “Christians” look like heathens. And by virtue of the enthusiastic support of America’s “Christians” for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are proving that they are.

Pappe is one of Israel’s most renowned historians, and this book might be his pinnacle achievement.

Find Pappe’s book here.

In my third message in the Old Covenant Wars series last Sunday entitled Israel’s Laws of War Against The Seven Canaanite Nations, I showed the historical reality that indeed “God is no respecter of persons.”

The iniquities of the seven Canaanite nations that God used Israel to destroy were replicated in Israel itself. Accordingly, God used the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans to do to the Hebrew nations of Israel and Judah what God used Israel to do to the Canaanites.

Again, God is no respecter of persons—or nations.  And that includes Zionist Israel.

Since the U.S. government—controlled by the Israel lobby—and evangelical Christians have shown no interest in holding Israel accountable to the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the government of Heaven itself will doubtless be obliged to hold that iniquitous, murderous state to account.

The fires in Israel today could be a precursor to the fire of God’s judgment upon satanic Israel—fire that may make the fire and brimstone of Sodom and Gomorrah look like child’s play.

If I were John Hagee, Robert Jeffress, John MacArthur and Greg Laurie, I would start preparing sermons explaining how the next destruction of Jerusalem fits into their propagandistic prophecy doctrines of Christian Zionism before the smoke starts rising, because by then no one will believe anything they have to say.

And the way things are going, that day might not be that far away.

P.S. Today I am announcing the release of my third message DVD in the Old Covenant Wars series that I delivered last Sunday entitled Israel’s Laws of War Against The Seven Canaanite Nations.

This one message, by itself, obliterates the prophecy doctrines of Christian Zionism. It shows the truth from the Old Testament of God’s divorce from Biblical Israel, how God cast Israel “out of [His] sight” and how God destroyed Israel in the same way and for the same reasons that He destroyed the Canaanite nations. Again, God is no respecter of persons—or nations.

I trust that after you watch this message, you will want to share it with as many people as you can.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post Israel’s Fires: a Precursor to Sodom and Gomorrah? appeared first on LewRockwell.

From the Tom Woods Letter:

Well, how about this:

There have been sharp cutbacks at the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), amidst word that the President would like to see them both abolished.

Word that the Department of Education would be abolished sent left-liberals into a frenzy: why, this will be a terrible blow for education! After all, the Department of Education has the word “Education” in its name!

You, dear reader, are thankfully more sophisticated than that.

You know perfectly well that the abolition of these unconstitutional federal departments will not mean we won’t have any arts or humanities.

The annual budget of the National Endowment for the Arts is in the neighborhood of $200 million. Private funding of the arts, on the other hand, is in the billions annually. So we would indeed survive without the NEA — as indeed we did for our entire existence before 1965.

I might add that modernism in art often carried with it a sense of entitlement: artists came to believe that if voluntary support for their work was not forthcoming, this was a failure of the public rather than of their art.

These were misunderstood geniuses, you see, trying to challenge the public rather than cater to it. How dare you expect them to be like everyone else and have to create things people like in exchange for compensation! Why, you’re crushing their precious artistic freedom!

State funding in the United States, which eventually came in the form of the NEA, partially solved this problem. Now art could receive support on the basis of who wrote the best grant applications, as opposed to who created art that people could actually stand.

(Of course, there’s never been anything stopping private benefactors from supporting whatever art they like.)

As for the NEH: in an age of crowdfunding, worthy projects that may have been funded by federal dollars in the past can still proceed. Projects the regime would rather (in effect) keep secret because they’re woke and ridiculous will have less success.

The American Historical Association cautions us that we need the NEH in order to support “the complex, nuanced view of our nation’s history and culture that come only from deep research.”

Attend one of the professional societies’ academic conferences. Tell me that you’re encountering a “complex, nuanced view of our nation’s history” there. That’s leftspeak for “you’re a bunch of dumb racists, and your official history should be a series of Bolshevik-style humiliations.”

Thirteen years ago, having long since given up on our professional historical associations, I took matters into my own hands and launched Liberty Classroom, my dashboard university whose courses you can consume at any time or day or night.

Here you’ll find — taught by me, and by people I trust — the history your teachers kept from you, or didn’t know themselves. Economics, too. Even logic — which I’d say we could use more of, wouldn’t you?

Dozens of courses designed to make you a formidable debater, and to cure the educational malpractice that was imposed on us all.

Our master (lifetime) membership even includes my courses for the Ron Paul Curriculum, which means among other things you’ll learn Western civ directly from me, from the ancient world to the present.

Your school may have screwed you, but it’s never too late to become the educated person you want to be — and to have any lingering p.c. b.s. physically removed from your brain.

Until tomorrow we’re having our anniversary sale, celebrating 13 years of truth-telling.

The link:

https://www.LibertyClassroom.com

The post Guess What Might Be Abolished Now appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Friday morning, President Trump proclaimed on his Truth Social: “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!” Trump is being hailed as a hero for demanding that the IRS bring Harvard University to its knees.

But Trump is following in the footsteps of President Richard Nixon, whose racketeering with the IRS helped pave the way to the collapse of his presidency. Trump is also forgetting the rallying cry of Republican opposition to the Obama regime. Political targeting of nonprofit entities is “the hallmark of authoritarian nations,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor declared in 2014.

Trump’s triumphal tax code decree was a follow-up to an April 15 message he posted on Truth Social: “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

And who has unlimited prerogative to define the “PUBLIC INTEREST”? Donald Trump, of course!

Trump’s Treasury Department formally requested last month that the IRS revoke Harvard University’s tax exempt status. Trump ally Newt Gingrich predicts that the Trump administration is “going to go after a whole bunch” of universities’ tax-exempt status.

This is not the first time that Trump sought to financially torpedo American colleges he disapproved. In July 2020, Trump tweeted:

Too many Universities and School Systems are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education. Therefore, I am telling the Treasury Department to re-examine their Tax-Exempt Status… and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated!

Trump’s approved education program doesn’t include standard rules on capitalization. Also, what in hell is an “Act Against Public Policy”?

To understand this controversy, it is important to distinguish between direct government aid and federal tax laws that enable deductions. If the Trump administration seeks to curtail federal funding of colleges across-the-board, that is not a violation of the rights of any specific college. As Connor O’Keeffe argued here on April 23, there are good reasons to end all federal subsidies to universities and colleges.

But permitting a president to seize veto power over the tax status of any individual or organization in the land is a recipe for tyranny. According to the New York Times, “Even an attempt at changing Harvard’s tax status would signify a drastic breach in the independence of the I.R.S. and its historical insulation from political pressure.” But the official storyline overlooks more than a half century of sporadic IRS vendettas against non-profits.

President John F. Kennedy used the IRS to attack the tax-exempt status of conservative organizations. The Ideological Organizations Audit Project targeted the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, the American Enterprise Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, and many other organizations. A 1976 Senate committee report noted, “By directing tax audits at individuals and groups solely because of their political beliefs, the Ideological Organizations Audit Project established a precedent for a far more elaborate program of targeting ‘dissidents.’”

Richard Nixon—who became president in 1969—never let perfidious precedents gather any dust. His administration speedily created a Special Services Staff to mastermind what a memo called “all IRS activities involving ideological, militant, subversive, radical, and similar type organizations.” More than 10,000 individuals and groups were targeted because of their political activism or slant between 1969 and 1973, including Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling (a left-wing critic of the Vietnam War) and the far-right John Birch Society. The IRS was also given Nixon’s enemies list to, as White House counsel John Dean said, “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” The University of North Carolina non-profit tax status was one of the targets on the IRS list.

Congress responded to Nixon’s abuses by enacting legislation to severely restrict political contacts between the White House and the IRS. That legislation tacitly conceded that the 1952 legislation enacted to prevent the same problem had utterly failed. But the post-Watergate IRS reform did not impede President Bill Clinton. In 1995, the Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee produced a 331-page report entitled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce” that attacked conservative magazines, think tanks, and other entities and individuals who had criticized President Clinton. More than 20 conservative organizations—including the Heritage Foundation and the American Spectator magazine—and almost a dozen individual high-profile Clinton accusers, such as Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, were audited.

During the Obama years, IRS officials blocked almost 300 conservative organizations from getting tax-exempt status, targeting groups with names such as “Tea Party” and those that “advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Conservative non-profits were also hit by far more audits. In 2016, a federal appeals court ruled the IRS had committed “unconstitutional acts against” right-wing nonprofits.

Trump’s command for the IRS to target Harvard violates a law prohibiting the IRS from targeting nonprofits “for regulatory scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs.” Many Americans understandably despise a pompous institution whose graduates and professors perennially pay far more homage to Leviathan than to the Constitution. As heroic whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg declared in 1970, the Pentagon Papers provided thousands of pages documenting “twenty years of crime under four presidents. And every one of those presidents had a Harvard professor at his side, telling him how to do it and how to get away with it.” Harvard has sent far more warmongers, torture-apologists, and authoritarian zealots to Washington since the end of the Vietnam War.

But the Trump administration’s demands to Harvard could set precedents for obliterating academic freedom far and wide. The Trump administration wants to ban Harvard from enrolling any foreign students who Trump appointees label “hostile to the American values.” If Biden was still in power and inflicted a twisted version of that standard on young Americans—anyone who had attended a (privately-funded) Mises Institute program or seminar—might be banned from colleges that received any federal funds or a tax exemption. The administration is also demanding that Harvard appoint a Trump-approved auditor to assess whether its programs and departments suffer from “ideological capture.” Trusting a Trump appointee to be a fair judge of ideology is like appointing Bill Clinton to be chaperone of a girls basketball team.

Perhaps Trump presumes he has nothing to fear thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last summer that expanded presidential immunity. But Trump and his lawyers would do well to study how waves of scandals destroyed President Nixon despite his far more triumphant re-election than Trump enjoyed. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee articles of impeachment charged Nixon with endeavoring “to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.” Nixon’s IRS machinations—along with that Watergate scandal and a bevy of other crimes and outrages—helped sway many people to view him as a scoundrel. Nixon resigned rather than face a Senate trial which he was sure to lose.

“Harvard has been hiring almost all woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’… teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds,” Trump raged on Truth Social.

Contrary to Trump’s assumptions, “woke” is not such a grave and imminent peril as to nullify all limits on presidential power. Americans can enjoy scoffing at the Ivy League without cheering a politician seeking to financially raze any institution that fails to curtsy to him.

The post Will Trump Follow Nixon’s IRS Road to Ruin? appeared first on LewRockwell.

A classic strategy in business is to replace something freely available with a patentable commodity everyone is then forced to purchase. Beyond this being highly exploitative, in many cases, the synthetic substitute is a poor imitation of what nature created and hence creates a myriad of problems for humanity.

This very much characterizes what happened to infant nutrition and allowed formula sales to become a 90.91 billion annual market. In turn, two major problems have followed the switch away from natural milk:

• Infant formula is full of unhealthy components that promote allergies and obesity (e.g., the first ingredient in formula is often corn syrup and then followed by seed oils—which remarkably federal law requires to be in infant formula due to a law based on flawed nutritional science from the 1960s that was never updated).

• Breast milk was designed to be one of most nutritious foods a developing infant could have and contains many vital components which will never be possible to synthetically replicate.

Note: in some cases, the milk a mother produces is not enough for her infant. In those cases, a supplemental natural infant formula can be highly beneficial to her infant, but only if it is composed of natural ingredients which adequately provide the critical nutrients infants need and if it uses raw rather than pasteurized milk (as this preserves the vital nutrients milk contains and prevents it from turning into a potent allergen).

In this article, we will explore the numerous benefits of breastmilk, not just for the infant, but for the mother as well. We’ll examine how the unique components of breastmilk contribute to a healthier immune system, stronger brain development, and even a reduced risk of chronic diseases later in life. Additionally, we’ll look at how maternal health and diet impact the quality of breastmilk, highlighting the importance of support systems for mothers to ensure successful breastfeeding. Ultimately, the evidence supports what many already know: breastmilk is truly irreplaceable.

Breastmilk: Nature’s Perfect Food

Breastmilk contains a variety of complex bioactive molecules which allow the mother to continually aid the growth and health of their child such as:

• Numerous vital growth factors (e.g., ones that facilitate the development of the gastrointestinal tract,1,2,3,4).

• MicroRNA (which are protected from digestion and hence able to absorb into the body), which guides the development of tissues throughout the body, regulate critical gene expression, prevents allergies (e.g., to foods), and produce many critical parts of the developing immune system.

• A unique set of antibodies and immunoglobulins are produced by the mother to both protect the infant against expected pathogens in the environment (e.g., what the mother has encountered) while the infant’s immune system is still developing, and guide the development of their immune system.

• Key cytokines such as TGF-β, IL-6 and IL-10 which also play a critical role in much of the previous (e.g., promoting oral tolerance, supporting immune system development, and enhancing intestinal epithelial proliferation and repair).1,2,3
Note: a major problem with many vaccines is that they tend to provoke a Th2 response (which eliminates certain extracellular pathogens but also creates autoimmunity) and suppress the Th1 response (which eliminates intracellular pathogens and cancers). Breastmilk inhibits immune cells shifting to a Th2 state and can change a Th2 response into a more balanced Th1-Th2 response.

• A variety of enzymes that both help the infant’s digestive tract break down the ingested milk and release key peptides from breastmilk components (that both develop the immune system and directly eliminate pathogenic organisms),1,2,3 along with many other enzymes and bioactive molecules that inhibit microbial growth (e.g., lactoferrin, lysozymes and mucin, interferon and fibronectin).

• A protein with potent anticancer activity (against over 40 types of cancers) that does not harm normal cells and has successfully treated cancer in humans. It also has powerful antimicrobial activity and enhances bacterial sensitivity to antibiotics.

• Breastmilk contains endogenous cannabinoids that are important for human development (e.g. by affecting appetite, mother-child bonding, immune function, brain development and motor function).1,2

Note: the most potent milk a mother releases is the colostrum (the first milk). In parallel, over the years, many have discovered that colostrum from healthy cows has healed a variety of challenging illnesses and significant injuries.

Furthermore, breastmilk also contains a variety of nutrients which are invaluable for the developing infant such as:

• Human Milk Oligosaccharides that support the growth of healthy gut bacteria (e.g., bifidobacteria and lactobacilli), reduce inflammation, and contribute to immune system development.

• Essential fatty acids, cholesterol (and many other unique lipids) which are critical for brain development, eye development, and cognitive function (e.g., academic success). These fats are not present in infant formula (or present in relatively low levels—except in animal milk substitutes, as it’s well recognized copious fats are necessary for their growth) and many experts in the field believe their absence from formula is one of the reasons why breastmilk is so much healthier for infants. Human breastmilk also contains bile salt-stimulated lipase, an enzyme absent in cow’s milk and most other commonly consumed milks (e.g., formula) which is specifically adapted to enhance the digestion and absorption of fats and cholesterol in human infants.
Note: cholesterol is also necessary to produce hormones (e.g., boys undergo a surge of testosterone in the first 1-3 months of life which is pivotal in masculinizing their bodies).

• Highly bioavailable nutrients (e.g., iron), which allows much lower concentrations of them needed in milk than formula (which then prevents those nutrients from competing with the absorption of other critical nutrients, such as iron added to infant formula interfering with the critical absorption of zinc).

Note: if breastmilk (or formula) is stored, it should never be microwaved to warm it (as this destroys many critical nutrients). Likewise, most sources of donated human breastmilk will pasteurize them (which destroys many of these vital components in milk).

In short, I would argue that the complexity of breastmilk makes it unlikely a synthetic substitute will ever be able to replace it (e.g., many of the bioactive molecules it contains cost thousands of dollars to synthesize).

The Benefits of Breastmilk

Beyond being less likely to be overweight or have a dysfunctional metabolism (e.g., breastfeeding halves the risk of diabetes), many other benefits have also been attributed to breastfeeding such as:

• Lower rates of infections (e.g., pneumonia, ear infections) and lower hospitalization rates (e.g., for infections).

• Lower rates of gastrointestinal issues (e.g., stomach problems, constipation, gas, diarrhea) and allergies (e.g., being half as likely to develop asthma).

• Being half as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (a condition decades of evidence shows is linked to vaccination).

• Being less likely to develop cancers (particularly leukemia).

• Improved brain development (particularly white matter growth).

• Improved cognition (e.g., verbal and spatial skills or mathematical ability and working memory). Likewise, breastfeeding for 12 months was associated with a three-point increase in IQ (along with a 0.8 point increase for each additional month), and higher educational and financial success in life.

• Being significantly less likely to develop autism or ADHD.

Note: many of the conditions breastmilk prevents often follow vaccination. Breastmilk’s ability to prevent those conditions is likely due to it reducing the Th2 response, improving the physiologic zeta potential, and reducing the total allergen burden seen with formula feeding (as consuming allergens exacerbates existing autoimmune processes). This is particularly consequential for premature infants, as for a variety of reasons they are both significantly less likely to be breastfed and significantly more vulnerable to vaccine injuries (e.g., this has extensively been shown with their risk for dying from vaccination).

Breastfeeding also offers significant benefits to the mother, both immediately after pregnancy and later in life. In the short term, it promotes better infant bonding, enhances maternal mood, aids in post-pregnancy weight loss, and reduces the likelihood of developing postpartum depression.1,2 Over the long term, in addition to each childbirth lowering the risk of breast cancer by 7%, breastfeeding over 12-months of breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer by 4.3%, ovarian cancer by 34% (and by up to 91% with extended breastfeeding), as well as decreasing the risks of endometrial cancer and high blood pressure.

Early Feeding

As I show here, many of these benefits attributed to breastfeeding are also seen in mothers who avoid the more invasive (and often unnecessary) hospital birth procedures. It hence should come as no surprise that mothers who undergo invasive birthing procedures are significantly less likely to breastfeed—which again illustrates the critical need for our society to reexamine how we handle bringing our children into this world and raising them.

For example, skin-to-skin contact (which is often is prevented at hospital births) provides many immense benefits to infants (including make them less likely to cry1,2,3,4) and to their mothers including stimulating the a critical maternal release of oxytocin (a hormone necessary for lactation), and in one study infants separated from their mothers during the first week of life were half as likely to breast feed (37% vs. 72%). Newborns infants are eager to latch in the first 30 minutes following birth and this early period is critical for both the infant (e.g., to set the rhythm of feeding and to obtain the mother’s colostrum which is only present for a few days after birth) and the mother (as the maternal oxytocin release from suckling helps to expel the placenta, contract the uterus, and hence minimize postpartum blood loss). For these reasons, it is critical to ensure this early feeding occurs over the first several days of the child’s life, and if possible not to introduce any artificial nipples (e.g., pacifiers or bottles) during that time.

Likewise, analgesia during childbirth or delaying the start of breastfeeding has been shown to impair the ability of the infant to breastfeed. Because of this, it’s important to be informed about the hospital birthing process before you arrive, have appropriate support while there, and if at all possible, to deliver at a “baby friendly” hospital.

Note: one popular practice is to wrap infants in blankets to soothe them, prevent them from moving and help them get to sleep. While this practice is viewed as safe if done correctly (which it often is not) I am not a fan of swaddling infants as I feel they should be moving, swaddling has repeatedly been linked to doubling the risk of sudden infant death, developmental hip dysplasia, overheating the baby, and not breast feeding—particularly if the infant is swaddled immediately after birth.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Hidden Secrets of Natural Milk appeared first on LewRockwell.

The funny part is that this swarm of Jacobin botflies from Norm Eisen to Sen. Thom Tillis thought (and acted) as if Ed Martin was the only MAGA lawyer capable of uncovering the steaming pile of seditious poo festering, lo these many years, in the DC federal district (i.e., the Swamp). Like, get rid of Ed and our troubles are over. Really? Don’t you suppose that there are dozens of other capable, patriotic, seasoned lawyers, seething over the corruption that is Swamp crime, who can effectively occupy the office of US Attorney for the District of Columbia.

The second funniest part is apparently the Jacobins thought that Ed Martin would just skulk off into the gloaming like a whipped dog and be gone — when, in fact, Mr. Trump folded him at once into three jobs in the Department of Justice that don’t require confirmation by the Senate, and will allow him to attend to exactly the same set of grave problems afflicting this republic from a position of power. Mr. Martin will now serve as Director of the DOJ’s Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney reviewing the legitimacy of “Joe Biden’s” auto-pen signing of important documents — meaning, he’ll have the power to bring cases on his own and make criminal referrals to the US Attorney for DC.

You must also imagine that in his 100-plus days as Interim US Attorney for DC, Mr. Martin assembled quite a portfolio of evidence around the manifold blob wrong-doings of the past decade, but especially the treachery of the J-6 / 2021 blob operation at the US Capitol, and the ensuing cover-up of all that, including the intel community’s role in it, the perfidy and perjuries of Chris Wray, Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi and others, and the gong show of lies and villainy that was the House J-6 committee chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), (with remedial support from Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Jamie Raskin, (and, backstage as always, lawfare ninjas Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Marc Elias, Ben Wittes, and Andrew Weissmann).

On the ostensible defeat of Ed Martin’s nomination, the president instantly turned around and installed Jeanine Pirro as Interim US Attorney for DC. Before retiring into a career as a TV talking head, Ms. Pirro was a Westchester County, New York, judge, and then elected District Attorney, so she knows how to work criminal cases. The interim appointment runs 120 days. In theory, Mr. Trump can appoint a new Interim US Attorney every 120 days, and keep rotating them until the cows come home — each successive one with the same support staff of assistant US attorneys underneath, the same cases ongoing, and the same trove of evidence catalogued.

All of which is to say, the blob officials and lawfare stormtroopers are mistaken to think that their ongoing circus of legalistic monkey business has somehow gained immunity from appraisal, investigation, and prosecution by de-railing Ed Martin. The cases themselves are bigger than any one particular US attorney and have a momentum of their own as the nation struggles to overcome the organized assault on the law itself that lawfare represents.

For instance, the case just opened against New York Attorney General Letitia James, who campaigned for office on the express promise to get Donald Trump on. . . something. . . anything! Which she did. . . bringing a bogus case against him in 2024 for allegedly mis-stating the value of his property collateral in a loan negotiation with Deutsche Bank. Of course, the bank did its own due diligence, which is standard practice, and the deal was concluded to the satisfaction of both parties, meaning no complaint of fraud was ever lodged by a plaintiff.

Instead, AG James cooked up a cockamamie narrative to launch the Deutsche Bank case. It was in every sense a malicious and false prosecution. Judge Arthur Engoron behaved maliciously and improperly throughout the trial, and leveled an absurd half-billion-dollar judgment on the guilty verdict. AG “Tish” James sat in the courtroom smirking at the proceedings for the benefit of the TV cameras. The spectacle was obscene and unjust. It may yet be overturned by a higher New York State court. The decision is expected imminently.

So, now, Letitia James herself is under formal investigation, prompted by a referral to the DOJ from the Federal Housing Authority. It alleges a series of mortgage frauds — oh, really? That? Among the allegations: she declared a home in Virginia as her principal residence, meaning she would have to vacate her post as New York AG. The other charges could send her to prison. The evidence is lodged in signed contracts and documents already made public. Doesn’t look good for Tish, despite the fact that unknown persons recently erected a statue of her in Times Square.

The Statue to Universal Strong Black Womanhood, Times Square, New York

For years now, the hustles and hoaxes have seemed never-ending. I know it is more than a little tiresome to point out that nobody has gone to jail, or even to court, over any of this since 2017. Looks like that lucky streak is coming to an end. Tish is just the beginning of a new trend. And the action will be moving from turbid backwater of New York State to the main Okefenokee-on-the-Potomac.

Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.

The post Going Around. . . Coming Back Around appeared first on LewRockwell.

Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Would modern-day Americans do that? Would they give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety?

There is no question about it. They already have. In fact, they have been doing it for their entire lives.

Consider the fact that we live under a government that has the omnipotent power to assassinate, torture, and indefinitely incarcerate without trial any American citizen. It goes without saying that anyone who lives under a regime that wields that type of total power cannot possibly be considered to be a free person, even if the power isn’t being exercised widely. The fact that the government just wields the power is enough to nullify freedom in that country.

It wasn’t always that way. For the first 150 years or so of America’s existence, the federal government lacked those totalitarian-like powers. That was made clear in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which expressly forbade the federal government from killing people, including American citizens, without due process of law, from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on people, such as torture, and from jailing people indefinitely without trial.

So, what happened? The American people in the 20th century became afraid, very afraid. They were afraid of the communists. They were convinced that Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, and other Red nations were coming to get them.

Thus, to purchase a little temporary safety, Americans acceded to the conversion of the federal government, with its limited powers, to a national-security state, with its omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers of assassination, torture, and indefinite detention.

The same phenomenon has occurred with the war on drugs. At one time, Americans were free to ingest whatever they wanted, including drugs. They understood that the right to ingest whatever they wanted was necessarily part and parcel of a free society.

Later Americans, however, became afraid, very afraid. They were convinced that if drugs were readily available, everyone would become a drug addict. So, they purchased a little temporary safety by enacting drug prohibition, which not only punished people for ingesting unapproved substances but also subjected everyone to a massive destruction of civil liberties and privacy, especially financial privacy, at the hands of their own government. For modern-day Americans, the trade was worth it because it purchased a little temporary safety.

Consider Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, public housing, farm subsidies, education grants, corporate bailouts, and other welfare programs, along with the income tax that funds them and the IRS that enforces it. Americans lived without these things for more than 100 years because they understood that liberty entails the right to keep everything a person earns and decide for himself what to do with it.

Modern-day Americans, on the other hand, became afraid, very afraid. They became convinced that a free society would mean people dying in the streets from starvation, illness, or destitution. Thus they purchased a little temporary safety by converting America to a welfare state, one based on the concept of mandatory “charity.”

Another good example is immigration. Our American ancestors favored a system in which people were free to cross borders. They understood that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and liberty of contract were necessary aspects of a free society.

Later Americans, however, became afraid, very afraid. They convinced themselves that open borders would mean that murderers, robbers, rapists, invaders, and other scary entities would come and get them. Thus, today, Americans live under an expanding militarized immigration police state — especially those Americans who live on or near the U.S.-Mexico border. For modern-day Americans, the loss of liberty has been worth it because it enables them to purchase a little temporary safety from all those scary people.

Recall the 9/11 attacks. Americans became afraid, very afraid. They were convinced that the terrorists or the Muslims were coming to get them. So, they traded away liberty, like with the USA Patriot Act, in order to gain a little temporary safety.

One big problem, of course, is that the loss of liberty has become permanent because the American people have remained afraid, very afraid. Another big problem is that Americans have convinced themselves that they still live in a free country even though they have clearly traded away their liberty in the hope of gaining a little temporary safety. A third problem is that in trading away liberty, Americans failed to secure safety from the biggest threat of all — their very own government.

Franklin was right but we should modify his statement as follows: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and will inevitably end up with neither.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Would Americans Trade Liberty for Security? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Long ago, in an America far removed from its present facsimile, there used to be rock and roll. It was a great thing. It started my little seven year old feet tapping, when I first heard Ricky Nelson, Leslie Gore, Del Shannon, Motown, Gene Pitney, Bobby Vee, and all those Phil Spector girl groups. I loved the wall of sound.

And then I happened to be tuned in to Dick Clark’s American Bandstand, on the day the crowd rated a new single from a band from Liverpool, I Want to Hold Your Hand. I was in love. My seven year old legs and arms joined my feet, in wriggling about in an original amalgamation of the Twist, the Pony, the Swim, and other dance crazes of the day. Every new dance looked even better when pretty go-go girls were doing them. I’m pretty sure I was far younger than Dick Clark’s targeted teenage demographic, but I was simply smitten with rock and roll. Like millions of other young Americans, I became a Beatles fanatic, even getting a wig that I donned when I used wooden spoons to bang on some boxes in the basement. I won’t belabor the point I’ve made so many times before, about wanting a Ludwig drum set. Just like Ringo. I loved the early Beatles; Beatlemania. When John Lennon was clearly responsible for almost all of it.

As a grade school kid who was rapidly attaining obesity status, I loved the pop brand of rock and roll. The Beach Boys. Gary Lewis and the Playboys. Tommy James and the Shondells. Lou Christie. The Turtles. The Lovin’ Spoonful. Then, as a slimmed down teenager, my musical tastes grew more sophisticated. Or so they say. Were the Beatles’ later albums really better than She Loves You and Please Please Me? Was Pet Sounds- as remarkable as it was- really more memorable than I Get Around or California Girls? I know which kinds of music I more enthusiastically sing along to now. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The critics were usually right, but not always in my estimation. Personal taste is personal taste. If someone likes Wayne Newton better than Wilson Pickett, that’s their prerogative. Musical taste is like food preferences; there is no “right” or “wrong.” Don’t demonize me for wanting a well done steak. It’s all related to free speech.

In the 1970s, album rock became all the rage. Forget about hit singles. Nobody bought 45s any more. The singer-songwriter was born. Jim Croce. Jackson Browne. Joni Mitchell. And, of course, the greatest songwriter, and least polished singer of them all, Bob Dylan. I spent far too much time poring over, and analyzing Dylan’s lyrics. I too was beginning to look for “all the agents and the superhuman crew” that strapped “heart attack machines” to inferred Thought Criminals. His songs were full of genuine poetry, and outrageous imagery. So I started writing my own songs. It was impossible to approach his profundity, especially as a teenager, but I humbly suggest I probably sang a little better than him. It was wonderful absorbing his older work, from the early to mid-1960s, as well as that of his female counterpart, Joni Mitchell. Disco had taken over 1970s culture, and I’ve made it very clear how I felt about that.

I admired the artistry of The Band, and think they sound even better today. With the recent death of Garth Hudson, all of them are gone now. And yet most of the Rolling Stones live on, still touring in their 80s. The Byrds and Roger McGuinn, who kind of influenced my own faulty singing voice. There are some perks to having offbeat tastes; I was usually able to find the music of Don McLean, or Procol Harum, perhaps even Roxy Music, in the cheap cut/out bins. For some reason, I was attracted to the work of Buffy Sainte-Marie. Some people made fun of me for that. I always got bargains on her albums. Yes, it was disillusioning to find out that she had never actually been an American Indian. A mere Italian? Mama Mia! But she sure played the part well. She certainly wasn’t the first entertainer to be playing a part offscreen.

Then came 1979. One of my best years. The year I discovered all the great New Wave music. I remember listening to Bram Tchaikovsky’s Girl of my Dreams on WHFS, the “progressive” or “album rock” radio station in our area. I was stunned. When I heard Nick Lowe’s Cruel to be Kind, it was like being a seven year old again, hearing the Beatles for the first time. I became obsessed with Elvis Costello, and played the grooves off of his Armed Forces LP. Elvis was barely older than me, and his birthday was almost the same. I found out he’d worked as a computer operator, biding his time while writing those great songs. As a computer operator myself, this made him all the more relevant to me. I was biding my time, too, writing the novel that would become The Unreals. One of us sold millions of records. The other sold about 4,000 copies of his magnus opus. I knew we’d probably have hit it off, but I’ve never been a stalker.

I discovered Tom Petty through my wife, who I started dating in 1979. I thought to myself, that guy sounds even more like me than Roger McGuinn does. Despite him blatantly mimicking my style, I found his music irresistible. But I wasn’t going to go as far as Mick Jagger, who reacted so favorably to Petty’s Damn the Torpedoes that he said he’d be willing to give him a blow job. I think Mick was found in bed with David Bowie one time. It’s hard to imagine how he managed to sire an estimated billion kids by various groupies. Kind of the Elon Musk of the rock world. I loved Bruce Springsteen, too, although I cringe when one of his songs comes on the airways, now. I think his bosom buddy Barack Obama has taken over the saxophone for the late Clarence Clemons. The crowd probably just sees another Black guy backing up the “Boss.” I don’t know, you really lose your cred by jamming with Barack Obama.

Imagine a song like Randy Newman’s Short People today. That actually raised the ire of percolating LaKarinas (don’t want to defame the good name of Karen any longer). And how about John Lennon’s Woman is the N****r of the World? That was considered a feminist manifesto back in the day. Today it literally cannot be played anywhere. Except perhaps in your basement, with the curtains drawn, and the speakers turned off, listening through headphones. Elvis Costello’s classic Oliver’s Army has that same pesky word in it, so needless to say he will never be playing that at any concerts. Randy Newman filled his Huey Long tribute album Good Old Boys with the “N” word, and took swipes at Jews as well. But few stations were going to play anything off of that album even when it came out in 1974. I’m surprised they still let Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey play Won’t Get Fooled Again. People might get the “wrong” ideas.

Rock and roll remained vibrant through the 1980s and into the 1990s. But it might as well have been assassinated at this point. Or outlawed by “cancel culture.” Other than the old guys still hanging on, and touring to support themselves in their twilight years, who are the rock and rollers today? Actually, who are the White musical artists today, other than Taylor Swift, Pink, and Miley Cyrus? Not exactly the Traveling Wilburys. Sure, you have White country performers, but that kind of mainstream pablum is like NASCAR; the White branch of our ghettoized culture. It’s not like they’re promoting the Dillards, or Flatt and Scruggs. Although I have heard some good stuff from Rascal Flatts. The rest of popular music today has been ceded to a bunch of DEI Black performers who won’t remind anyone of Louis Armstrong or Marvin Gaye. I don’t think Whites are allowed to win Grammys now.

Read the Whole Article

The post Who Killed the Rockers and the Comedians? appeared first on LewRockwell.

I once asked my old mentor, Roger Scruton—a famous British political philosopher—why he’d never pursued a career in politics.

Because intellectuals are ill-suited for political decision making, which is about dealing with aggressive competing interests and finding compromises that are seldom entirely satisfying for any particular party.

This reminded me of a witty remark made by the 19th century Austrian statesman, Eduard Taaffe, who observed:

Politics is the business of keeping all interested parties in a state of equal dissatisfaction.

Yesterday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. gave an interview with Brett Baier on FOX in which he endorsed President Trump’s new pick for Surgeon General, Casey Means.

“She walked away from traditional medicine because she was not curing patients,” Kennedy said. He was referring to the fact that Means never finished her residency and does not have an active medical license.

She couldn’t get anybody within her profession to look at the nutrition contributions to illness. If we’re really going to heal people, if we’re healers, we can’t just be making our life about billing new procedures.

Judging from my reader comments, my defense of Secretary Kennedy’s decision to endorse Ms. Means has made many people unhappy.

I understand the concern about her lack of medical credentials. I would have preferred that President Trump have asked Dr. Joe Ladapo or Dr. Peter McCullough if either of them would be interested in holding the position.

I would also prefer that President Trump recognize that COVID-19 vaccines have done far more harm than good and to pull them off the market.

On the other hand, I believe that Secretary Kennedy made a good point in his interview with Brett Baier.

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that the U.S. medical profession has gone down a very dark cul-de-sac of orthodoxy and pharmaceutical industry capture.

I also recognize that President Trump and Secretary Kennedy are under pressure from an array of powerful interests and that neither man holds absolute executive authority. When we Americans grow weary of the messy business of politics, we should remember that the alternative is dictatorship or absolute monarchy.

In the final analysis, I believe the prudent thing to do in this situation is to defer to the judgement of Secretary Kennedy, who has carefully vetted Ms. Means. He is aware of the concerns that have been raised about her, and he is certainly taking them into consideration.

Now is a good time to remember that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been raising concerns about vaccine safety since 2005 and has taken more flak for it than everyone in the medical freedom movement combined.

Unlike most dissidents, he was a comfortably ensconced member of the upper echelon of American society when he began to vocalize his concerns and was made to suffer for it. How many other celebrities have dared to raise concerns about vaccines, much less made this concern a focus of their work in the public forum?

For her part, Ms. Means should consider that the tens of millions of people who supported Secretary Kennedy and President Trump are acutely aware of the mountains of evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines have inflicted grave harm on the health of humanity.

In light of this, she should speak more forthrightly about these concerns, which would go a long way to dispelling the suspicion that her interest in nutrition is a strategy for changing the subject away from vaccine harms.

COVID-19 vaccine harms and the shocking rise of profound autism are too glaring to ignore. If Ms. Means is confirmed as Surgeon General, she should focus as much (if not more) critical scrutiny on the evidence of vaccine harms as she is currently focusing on America’s abysmal food industry.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Postscript: Concerns About Casey Means appeared first on LewRockwell.

In this explosive Free-form Friday episode of America’s Untold Stories, Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley dive into the newly released 60,000 RFK assassination files. What do these documents reveal—and what might still be hidden?

But that’s just the beginning.

From a MAGA revolt over Trump’s surgeon general pick to Pam Bondi being secretly recorded in a James O’Keefe-style sting, this episode is packed with intrigue. FBI Director Kash Patel confirms they’re “working through” Epstein’s files, while dramatic arrests at Columbia and Brooklyn College show campus unrest at a boiling point.

Plus:
• Pope Leo XIV’s surprising political history
• Jill Biden’s $30M tell-all diary deal
• A terrifying on-air faint by a former Trump official
• Shocking Target self-checkout changes
• Hilaria Baldwin’s latest explanation for her fluctuating accent
• A former MNPD lieutenant indicted over leaked shooting docs

From political chaos to cultural oddities, we cover the full scope of what mainstream media won’t.

The post America’s Untold Stories – Biden’s Book Deal Bombshell & RFK Assassination Docs appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

American Thinker

The post Romney’s Links to Burisma appeared first on LewRockwell.

The government is not shrinking, but expanding with greater spending and debt. The most exciting part of the second Trump Administration – DOGE – is fading away. REAL ID surveillance has been shackled onto us. And President Trump is arbitrarily setting tariff rates, in the same way that Jerome Powell arbitrarily sets interest rates. We need a turnaround, because the status quo is tightening its grip on America.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/come-gli-inglesi-hanno-inventato-3ec)

“Ciò che si sta svolgendo davanti ai nostri occhi è un tipo molto specifico di colpo di stato, chiamato Rivoluzione colorata”.

Lo affermò l'ex-collaboratore di Trump, Darren Beattie, durante un intervento al programma di Tucker Carlson il 15 settembre 2020.

La maggior parte delle persone aveva la sensazione che ci fosse qualcosa di sospetto nelle elezioni successive, ma era difficile dire cosa.

Beattie diede un nome al problema: lo chiamò “Rivoluzione colorata”.

La definì come “un modello di cambio di governo favorito da molti nel nostro apparato di sicurezza nazionale. Utilizza uno scenario elettorale contestato e progettato” per interrompere e scavalcare le elezioni legittime, spiegò Beattie.

L'America aveva utilizzato questa tecnica per decenni in modo da rovesciare i governi all'estero.

Ora, accusò Beattie, si stava pianificando un'operazione simile contro Trump.

Il suo avvertimento si rivelò profetico.

Gli americani potrebbero non essere d'accordo sul fatto che si sia trattato di un “colpo di stato” o di una “insurrezione” di Trump, ma la maggior parte concorderebbe sul fatto che gli eventi dal 3 novembre 2020 al 6 gennaio 2021 non si potevano considerare delle normali “elezioni”.

Beattie accusò gli “atlantisti”

Quando Beattie mise in guardia contro una “Rivoluzione colorata”, infranse un tabù temibile.

L'ultima persona che cercò di denunciare le rivoluzioni colorate in TV fu Glenn Beck nel 2010. La Fox News cancellò il suo programma poco dopo.

Ora Beattie aveva raccolto la torcia, ma andò oltre.

Mentre Beck incolpava George Soros per aver finanziato le Rivoluzioni colorate, Beattie accusava lo stesso governo degli Stati Uniti, in particolare il nostro “apparato di sicurezza nazionale”.

Beattie sottolineò, in particolare, una cricca di agenti di politica estera noti come “atlantisti”.

Atlantista è un termine diplomatico che indica una persona che antepone gli interessi britannici a quelli americani.

Gruppi del fronte britannico

Nel mio ultimo articolo, “In che modo gli inglesi hanno venduto il globalismo all’America”, ho spiegato come le reti di influenza britanniche esercitino un “soft power” su Washington, operando attraverso gruppi di facciata come il Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

La missione principale di questi fronti britannici è quella di promuovere l'atlantismo, ovvero l'idea che l'America debba sempre intervenire in soccorso della Gran Bretagna quando questa è coinvolta in una guerra.

Prima di partecipare al programma di Tucker Carlson, Beattie aveva scritto una serie di articoli sul sito Revolver News, di cui è curatore.

La serie di Beattie aveva smascherato una rete di ONG statunitensi fondate e finanziate dal governo degli Stati Uniti, la cui missione è quella di sovvertire le elezioni e rovesciare i governi di tutto il mondo, con il pretesto di “promuovere la democrazia”.

La loro arma preferita è la Rivoluzione colorata.

Beattie si riferiva a questi gruppi come “ONG atlantiste”.

Il mostro di Frankenstein

Secondo Beattie, queste “reti atlantiste” includono gruppi come il Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, il German Marshall Fund, il National Endowment for Democracy (NED) e i suoi due gruppi affiliati, l'International Republican Institute (IRI) e il National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Beattie rivelò che gli stessi “professionisti della Rivoluzione colorata” che gestiscono queste ONG “allineate agli atlantisti” hanno anche svolto ruoli di primo piano nella “resistenza” anti-Trump.

Infatti Beattie sosteneva che l'America aveva creato il suo mostro di Frankenstein.

Le stesse armi che avevamo impiegato per sovvertire le elezioni in altri Paesi ora venivano rivolte contro di noi, per indebolire le nostre elezioni.

Chi c'era dietro tutto questo? Chi aveva il potere di prendere il controllo delle ONG americane per la “promozione della democrazia” e di rivoltarle contro il loro stesso padrone, il governo degli Stati Uniti?

Chi erano questi “atlantisti” accusati da Beattie?

Il Grande gioco

L'Oxford English Dictionary definisce “atlantismo” come “una linea di politica o un principio di stretta cooperazione militare, economica e politica tra Europa e Nord America, o tra un Paese europeo e uno nordamericano; in particolare sostegno o difesa della NATO”.

Questa definizione può essere vera, ma è anche fuorviante. Non coglie il punto: il vero scopo dell'atlantismo è consolidare l'alleanza militare tra Stati Uniti e Regno Unito.

La Carta Atlantica del 1941, che stabilisce i principi guida dell'atlantismo, è un accordo tra due Paesi, la Gran Bretagna e gli Stati Uniti.

Tutti gli altri Paesi sono semplicemente pedine nel cosiddetto Grande gioco.

La NATO (talvolta chiamata “Alleanza Atlantica”) è il meccanismo di attuazione dell’ordine atlantista.

Il primo segretario generale della NATO, Lord Hastings Ismay, spiegò che lo scopo della NATO è “tenere i russi fuori, gli americani dentro e i tedeschi sotto”.

Nel 1944, quando Charles de Gaulle si oppose all'ingerenza degli Stati Uniti negli affari francesi, Winston Churchill lo rimproverò con queste parole: “Se la Gran Bretagna deve scegliere tra l'Europa e il mare aperto, dovrà sempre scegliere il mare aperto. Ogni volta che dovrò decidere tra te e Roosevelt, sceglierò sempre Roosevelt”.

Con queste parole, Churchill ricordò a de Gaulle che il posto della Francia nella cosiddetta “Comunità atlantica” era, nella migliore delle ipotesi, di scarsa importanza.

Propaganda britannica

L'espressione “Comunità Atlantica” fu coniata dal giornalista americano Walter Lippmann nel 1917. Come tanti giornalisti americani dell'epoca, Lippmann lavorava all'ombra di intermediari britannici, in particolare di un certo Norman Angell, un fabiano britannico che in qualche modo era diventato un “membro non ufficiale” del comitato editoriale della rivista di Lippmann, The New Republic.

Angell era arrivato nel 1915 grazie a una borsa di studio del Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Fondato nel 1910 dal magnate dell'acciaio scozzese, Andrew Carnegie, l'Endowment promuoveva un programma anglofilo. Carnegie era un aperto sostenitore dell'“unione anglo-americana”, ovvero la fusione di Stati Uniti e Regno Unito in un unico superstato. Il suo Endowment chiedeva la fine dell'“isolamento” degli Stati Uniti e promuoveva l'intervento americano nella Prima guerra mondiale.

In linea con gli obiettivi del Carnegie Endowment, Angell fece passare The New Republic da una posizione neutrale a una di aperto sostegno alla Gran Bretagna nella guerra.

Un “nucleo di autorità” di lingua inglese

Lippmann è ampiamente riconosciuto come l'inventore dell'atlantismo.

Il 17 febbraio 1917 scrisse un articolo per The New Republic intitolato “In difesa del mondo atlantico”. Era un aperto appello alla guerra.

Lippmann sosteneva che l'America dovesse schierarsi al fianco del “mondo occidentale” contro le orde barbariche dell'Oriente. Scrisse: “La guerra [della Germania] contro Gran Bretagna, Francia e Belgio è una guerra contro la civiltà di cui facciamo parte. [...] Perché sulle due sponde dell'Oceano Atlantico si è sviluppata una profonda rete di interessi che unisce il mondo occidentale. [...] Non possiamo tradire la comunità atlantica [...]”.

Si ritiene che l'articolo di Lippmann abbia dato il via al movimento atlantista.

In realtà Lippmann non faceva altro che ripetere le vecchie e logore frasi della propaganda britannica, che da tempo dipingeva l'Impero britannico come l'ultimo baluardo dell'Occidente contro la barbarie orientale.

Sir Norman Angell chiarì in seguito il vero significato dell'atlantismo quando scrisse che qualsiasi governo mondiale doveva essere guidato da un “nucleo di autorità” — in particolare dall'“Occidente” — che a sua volta doveva essere guidato dal “mondo anglofono”.

L'agenda della Tavola Rotonda

Come spiegato nei miei precedenti articoli, “Come gli inglesi hanno inventato il globalismo” e “In che modo gli inglesi hanno venduto il globalismo all'America”, i leader britannici all'inizio del XX secolo riconobbero che l'Inghilterra non poteva più permettersi di controllare il suo impero globale.

Elaborarono un piano per trasferire il costo dell'impero agli Stati Uniti. Il piano prevedeva che gli americani controllassero il mondo a proprie spese, mentre la Gran Bretagna avrebbe preso le decisioni, mantenendo il controllo della politica imperiale.

Ecco in sintesi cosa significa atlantismo.

Per mettere in atto questo piano, venne formato un gruppo segreto chiamato Tavola Rotonda, in parte grazie ai fondi del Rhodes Trust.

Dal 1909 al 1945 circa, la Tavola Rotonda trascinò gradualmente gli Stati Uniti in una rete di interdipendenza con la Gran Bretagna. Ciò avvenne, in primo luogo, con l'istituzione del Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) nel 1921, per esercitare un controllo segreto sulla politica estera statunitense. In secondo luogo, furono istituite entità transnazionali, come l'ONU, la NATO e l'alleanza d'intelligence Five Eyes, che legarono ulteriormente gli Stati Uniti al destino della Gran Bretagna.

In questo modo gli inglesi si assicuravano il sostegno degli Stati Uniti per qualsiasi futura operazione militare avessero voluto intraprendere.

Dopo aver ottenuto la cooperazione degli Stati Uniti, il passo successivo fu la decolonizzazione, ovvero la concessione dell'autogoverno alle colonie britanniche, in modo che l'Inghilterra non dovesse più sostenere autonomamente l'onere di sorvegliarle e difenderle.

Il passaggio all’“Impero informale”

Uno dei grandi miti del nostro tempo è la presunta “caduta” o disintegrazione dell'Impero britannico. Una cosa del genere non è mai accaduta.

La decolonizzazione era già pianificata ben prima della Prima guerra mondiale.

L'unica cosa che ostacolava il piano era la necessità di neutralizzare la Germania come concorrente imperiale e di garantire il supporto militare permanente degli Stati Uniti al nuovo ordine globale. Questi obiettivi furono raggiunti nel 1945, con la spartizione della Germania e l'ingresso degli Stati Uniti nell'ONU.

Tra il 1946 e il 1980 la Gran Bretagna concesse l'autogoverno alla maggior parte delle sue colonie, ma solo lentamente, una alla volta e a determinate condizioni.

Prima di concedere l'indipendenza a qualsiasi colonia, gli inglesi insediavano governanti locali disposti a onorare i precedenti accordi commerciali. Chi collaborava veniva ricompensato; chi creava problemi veniva rimosso.

La Gran Bretagna passò così dal governo “diretto” a quello “indiretto”, dall’impero “formale” a quello “informale”.

Per dirla in termini marxisti, la Gran Bretagna passò da un impero coloniale a uno “neocoloniale”.

“Resistenza passiva”

Per mantenere il nuovo sistema, la Gran Bretagna aveva bisogno di metodi più discreti per rimuovere i vassalli ribelli. Uno di questi metodi si rivelò essere la rivoluzione colorata.

Gli studi britannici sulla “resistenza passiva” e sulla “non obbedienza” iniziarono già durante la Prima guerra mondiale, quando il filosofo Bertrand Russell propose che gli eserciti invasori potessero essere sconfitti senza sparare un colpo, se i civili si fossero rifiutati di obbedire alle forze di occupazione nemiche.

Le idee di Russell influenzarono i pianificatori militari britannici come Basil Liddell Hart e Stephen King-Hall, i quali incorporarono la resistenza non violenta nel crescente arsenale di armi psicologiche della Gran Bretagna.

Decolonizzare l'Africa

Il 3 febbraio 1960 il Primo Ministro britannico Harold Macmillan parlò davanti al Parlamento sudafricano: “Il vento del cambiamento sta soffiando”, affermò, e la Gran Bretagna deve seguirlo, liberando le sue colonie africane.

Gli inglesi insistevano affinché le altre potenze europee seguissero il loro esempio. La Gran Bretagna non voleva che le sue colonie appena liberate venissero inghiottite dai rivali europei.

Il Portogallo si rifiutò di collaborare. I portoghesi dichiararono che avrebbero combattuto fino alla morte per mantenere l'Angola, il Mozambico e gli altri possedimenti africani.

La Rivoluzione dei garofani

Il dittatore portoghese Antonio Salazar morì nel 1970, ma il suo regime dell'Estado Novo sopravvisse, proseguendo le sue lunghe guerre coloniali contro gli insorti africani.

Il 25 aprile 1974 il primo ministro portoghese Marcelo Caetano fu improvvisamente rovesciato da un colpo di stato militare “soft”. La rivolta divenne nota come “Rivoluzione dei garofani”, perché i manifestanti infilarono garofani nelle canne dei fucili dei soldati.

La Rivoluzione dei garofani è il primo esempio di cui sono a conoscenza di una vera e propria “rivoluzione colorata”.

La Gran Bretagna nega di aver preso parte al colpo di stato, ma i segnali della guerra psicologica britannica sono evidenti.

Prima del colpo di stato, pochi giorni prima della prevista visita di Caetano a Londra, il Times riportò la notizia di un massacro di 400 persone da parte delle forze speciali portoghesi in Mozambico. Il Primo ministro britannico, Harold Wilson, chiese a Caetano di annullare la sua visita, accusandolo di “genocidio” e chiedendo l'espulsione del Portogallo dalla NATO.

In questo modo la Gran Bretagna minò il sostegno a Caetano, in un momento in cui i futuri golpisti stavano già lanciando minacce e avanzando richieste.

Dopo il colpo di stato, la Gran Bretagna riconobbe rapidamente la nuova giunta di sinistra e offrì indicazioni su come smantellare l'impero africano del Portogallo.

Gene Sharp, agente della guerra psicologica

Gli attivisti di oggi venerano Gene Sharp, un pacifista americano, come il padre della “nonviolenza strategica”. Sharp scrisse il “manuale” per la Rivoluzione colorata: The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973).

Ciò che gli attivisti non sanno è che Sharp era un agente della guerra psicologica, con forti legami sia con i servizi segreti americani che con quelli britannici.

Sharp trascorse 30 anni al Center for International Affairs, soprannominato la “CIA di Harvard”.

Ancora più importante, Sharp trascorse 10 anni in Inghilterra (dal 1955 al 1965), collaborando con il movimento pacifista britannico e conseguendo un dottorato di ricerca a Oxford. L'opera iconica di Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, era la sua tesi di dottorato a Oxford.

“Proteste degli adolescenti”

Nel 1967 lo psicologo australiano, Fred Emery, allora direttore del Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR) di Londra, predisse che, entro gli anni novanta, presto le “proteste degli adolescenti” sarebbero state sfruttate come arma politica in grado di rovesciare i governi.

Aveva ragione.

Nel 1989 un'ondata di rivolte non violente travolse il blocco sovietico, rovesciando i regimi comunisti. La rivolta ceca fu soprannominata “Rivoluzione di velluto”, termine che finì per essere usato in modo intercambiabile con “Rivoluzione colorata”.

Le “Rivoluzioni di velluto” del 1989 furono in gran parte orchestrate dai governi occidentali che operavano attraverso gruppi di facciata.

“Promozione della democrazia”

I gruppi del fronte occidentale che hanno contribuito a far crollare l’Impero sovietico sono, in molti casi, le stesse “ONG atlantiste” accusate da Darren Beattie.

Nel mondo delle ONG sono conosciuti come gruppi “pro-democrazia”, “costruzione della democrazia” o “promozione della democrazia”.

Promuovere la “democrazia” è stato uno dei principali obiettivi degli atlantisti fin da quando Woodrow Wilson dichiarò che l’America doveva lottare per “rendere il mondo sicuro per la democrazia”.

Ovviamente ci sono momenti in cui lottare per la “democrazia” è encomiabile.

La caduta dell'Unione Sovietica aiutò senza dubbio le nazioni conquistate dell'Europa orientale.

Eppure, troppo spesso, le grida di “democrazia” e “libertà” sono state utilizzate per coinvolgere giovani ingenui in iniziative poco raccomandabili, come la destabilizzazione della presidenza di Donald Trump.

Il modello Freedom House

La maggior parte degli storici concorda sul fatto che la prima ONG per la “promozione della democrazia” sia stata Freedom House, fondata il 31 ottobre 1941 a Washington DC.

Fin dalla sua fondazione, Freedom House è stata un'agenzia di copertura dell'intelligence britannica.

Il suo scopo originario era quello di combattere l'“isolazionismo” americano e spingere l'entrata degli USA nella Seconda guerra mondiale.

Nell'aprile del 1940 Winston Churchill creò una speciale unità di intelligence chiamata British Security Coordination (BSC), per condurre operazioni segrete contro il movimento pacifista statunitense.

Con la piena collaborazione del presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt e del direttore dell'FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, la BSC aprì degli uffici al Rockefeller Center, sotto il comando dell'agente dei servizi segreti canadesi William Stephenson, nome in codice Intrepid.

Freedom House è nata dalla fusione di due organizzazioni pro-guerra: Fight for Freedom (FFF) e The Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies (CDAAA).

Secondo Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-1944 di Thomas E. Mahl, entrambi erano fronti britannici gestiti dalla BSC di Churchill.

Il National Endowment for Democracy

Il 17 novembre 1983 il Congresso degli Stati Uniti autorizzò il finanziamento di una nuova entità denominata National Endowment for Democracy (NED), un ente pubblico-privato che avrebbe ricevuto finanziamenti dal governo degli Stati Uniti.

Lo scopo del NED era quello di fungere da gruppo ombrello per una rete di ONG per la promozione della democrazia, tra cui due gruppi affiliati che sarebbero poi diventati noti come National Democratic Institute (NDI) e International Republican Institute (IRI).

Nello stesso anno Gene Sharp, l'agente segreto addestrato in Gran Bretagna che aveva inventato le Rivoluzioni colorate, fondò un suo gruppo, l'Albert Einstein Institution a Boston.

Tutti i gruppi sopra menzionati avevano due cose in comune: innanzitutto tutti hanno seguito il “manuale” di Gene Sharp per la Rivoluzione colorata; in secondo luogo tutti hanno aiutato il governo degli Stati Uniti a finanziare e organizzare Rivoluzioni colorate in altri Paesi, con l'apparente scopo di promuovere la democrazia.

Secondo Darren Beattie tutti questi gruppi hanno preso parte alla destabilizzazione della prima presidenza Trump.

Cui Bono?

Resta da vedere se le accuse di Beattie resisteranno alla prova del tempo.

Una cosa è certa, però: il governo britannico è stato estremamente soddisfatto dell'estromissione di Trump.

E non vogliono che ritorni.

Il 4 febbraio 2020, mentre era in corso il secondo processo di impeachment di Trump, il Royal Institute of International Affairs, noto anche come Chatham House, dichiarò sul suo sito web che “il processo a Trump non è sufficiente a riparare la democrazia”.

Mettendo in guardia dal fatto che la “disinformazione” elettorale diffusa dai sostenitori di Trump rappresentava una minaccia per la democrazia, Chatham House chiese una commissione in stile “11 settembre” per indagare ulteriormente sull’“insurrezione” del 6 gennaio.

Londra chiama

Chatham House non è un semplice think tank.

Opera in base alla Royal Charter e sotto il patrocinio della corona inglese.

Inoltre è l'organizzazione gemella del Council on Foreign Relations. Insieme i due gruppi formulano e coordinano la politica estera degli Stati Uniti e del Regno Unito.

Dopo tutti questi anni, sta iniziando a diventare chiaro cosa intendesse Norman Angell quando parlava di un “nucleo di autorità” al centro della comunità atlantica.

E quel nucleo è a Londra.

Questo è il mondo creato dagli atlantisti.

Benvenuti nella comunità atlantica.

[*] 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, Joseph T. Salerno.

Vatican News

The post Archbishop Prevost: ‘The bishop is a pastor, not a manager’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appell.

See here.

The post Ukrainian Nazis on Parade appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Chris Sullivan.

The post Israeli Cops BEAT UP Hasidic Jews Protesting War In Gaza! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The only parts of American, German, British, French, and Italian industry that are booming right now, are their armaments manufacturers — the companies that sell far more to governments than to consumers, and that therefore boom while the economy busts. These are the companies that need to control the Government in order to control their biggest market (which IS the Government), and so their controlling owners, the billionaires who control their boards, need to control the influencers of the public, in order to get their candidates elected into Government so as to increase Government spending on their products and services, and to either increase the national debt or else cut the Government’s expenditures for the health, education, and welfare, of the voters. Those “influencers of the public” are news-media, and are also the prestigious universities, and think tanks, whose professors and experts they hire as opinion-writers etc. to validate what these billionaires want to be validated so that the public will then vote for the politicians who support this idea of increasing the public debt and decreasing public spending for the benefit of the public, in order to increase military spending. And the way to do this is the type of scare-mongering that European Governments are doing right now to the effect that Russia is planning to conquer their countries, and that America’s Government is doing right now in order to scare-monger Americans to the effect that China is planning to conquer America — and that the U.S. Government had used also in 2002 and 2003 in order to scare-monger Americans into thinking that Iraq was preparing to attack America. This is the basic marketing plan for those billionaires, and it has always been extremely profitable for them.

For example, on May 2nd the U.S. White House — which has made clear that it’s beating the drums for war against China — headlined “Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget” and reported that “The Budget, which reduces non-defense discretionary by $163 billion or 23 percent from the 2025 enacted level, guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security. … Defense spending would increase by 13 percent, and appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security would increase by nearly 65 percent, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources they need to complete the mission.” All of those increases would go towards the suppliers to the enormously militarized police-state at the same time that health, education, and welfare, of the voters, will be reduced by $165 billion or 23% from the current level. And notice that Trump’s propaganda-operation is alleging that they are “gutting a weaponized deep state” by cutting Governmental services to the poor. If that sounds stupid, it is no stupider than the electorate is, but the electorate were given a choice between the nominees of two Parties, each of which is controlled by its billionaires; and in an election such at that, it is like having a choice between different ways to commit suicide; and, so, it is the billionaires who are to be blamed, not the voters (in both Parties) who have been deceived by them into voting for their candidates. But anyway: Trump revealed there his contempt for his voters, because even he knows that the Deep State does NOT consist of the poor, but instead it consists of the billionaires.

The White House’s May 2nd “Major Discretionary Funding Changes” says that:

For Defense spending [ONLY the Defense Department, NOT including the approximately $700 billion yearly of annual U.S. military spending that is being paid out from OTHER federal Departments], the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border. Under the proposal, a portion of these increases — at least $325 billion assumed in the budget resolution recently agreed to by the Congress — would be provided through reconciliation, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources needed to complete the mission. This mandatory supplement to discretionary spending would enable the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others, to clean up the mess President Trump inherited from the prior administration and harden the border and other defenses to protect America from foreign invasion.

Therefore, approximately $1.7T of total military spending is being sought by Trump, while he is proposing to cut all other discretionary spending (which had previously constituted the other 47% of all U.S. Government annually appropriated federal spending (and was previously around $800B per year) down by $165B to around $635B total, or about 37% of all annually appropriated federal spending.

Looking further at WHAT is being cut the most, the document shows that the only part of the Department of Education that will be increased — by $60 million — is “Charter Schools,” the part that privatizes public-school education, which is the part that billionaires want to increase. Meanwhile, Title 1 and K-12 federal spending will be reduced by $4.535 billion; the program to incentivize colleges to “to engage with low-income students and increase access” will be cut by $1.579 B.

The Department of Health and Human Services will cut $4.035 from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), $1.970B from the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, $1.732B from AIDS and financial-assistance health programs, $3.588B from CDC and Prevention programs, $17.965B from NIH, $1.065B from programs working with addicts to help them reduce their addictions.

The Environmental Protection Agency will be cut $2.460B for Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds, and under a billion dollars each for such programs as the Hazardos Substance Superfund.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be cut by $26.718B for programs for the poor.

The Treasury Department will be cut by $2.488B for the IRS.

The National Science Foundation will be cut by $3.479B and by an additional $1.130B for “Broadening Participation.”

Most of the other cuts will be below a billion dollars.

On February 26th, I reported that:

On February 14th, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling”, and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.

An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).

Trump is increasing the military and border security, and decreasing education, assistance to the poor, Medicaid, federal law enforcement, and even Social Security and Medicare (the latter two by laying off many of the people who staff those bureaucracies).

But Western Governments call this a “democracy.”

In Europe, the war they’re beating the drums for is instead against Russia. On April 30th, the Carnegie endowment for international war, which goes by the name Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and which was founded by Andrew Carnegie, who like Cecil Rhodes in the later part of the 1800s, co-invented neoconservatism (the plan for the UK to take over the U.S. again and use it to spread universally the British Empire but which achieved that goal much later, on 25 July 1945, when Truman was suckered into it by the Rhodesist Winston Churchill and by General Eisenhower, to start the Cold War to ultimately conquer Russia), headlined “Europe Tried to Trump-Proof Itself. Now It’s Crafting a Plan B: The continent’s response to security and economic challenges could be transformative both at home and for post-American international relations.”, and argued that

The building blocks of a response strategy are coming into focus in three key areas. First, Ukraine is Europe’s first line of defense. London and Paris have been convening a “coalition of the willing” to plot the next stages of European military and diplomatic support, with the goal of making Ukraine a “steel porcupine.” … Second, the need for European states to increase their defense spending was long overdue, and the open discussion about assuming responsibility for territorial defense and deterrence is unprecedented. Governments are taking drastic measures to increase defense spending, with Germany’s U-turn on public debt as the most remarkable evidence that taboos can be broken. …

Politically, to ensure public support for rearming Europe and to offset the inevitable costs, defense efforts ought to be part of a broader strategy of economic and technological innovation. … The economic and social costs of the security and economic transition at home will lead to political challenges in a volatile context in which few governments enjoy wide popular support, though the EU is enjoying positive public opinion polling at the moment — likely a silver lining of the Trump effect. The EU’s security turn will come at the expense of its soft power, with reputational costs at home and abroad. Making its economy fit for geopolitical disruption entails daunting obstacles and difficult choices.

The “Naked Capitalism” blog recently published some terrific articles documenting that European Governments are just as much oligarchies (or “aristocracies”) as is America’s Government:

“Coffee Break – Across the Pond: Lights Out Edition”

“Coffee Break: Across the Pond, Tyrants Edition”

“The EU Zombie Uses Trump as Cover to Further Feed on Citizens”

Despite the cutesy, pretentious, vague, pompous, headlines at that site, some of the articles there (such as those three) are superb. Because of the lousy headlines there, it’s tedious to find which ones, if any, there might be worth reading.

While America’s billionaires are intent upon increasing their armaments-profits from a war-buildup against China, Europe’s billionaires are intent upon increasing their armaments-profits from a war-buildup against China. And on both sides of the Atlantic, the poor will suffer the most, and only the billionaires will profit the most, from the neoliberal-neoconservative (or libertarian and imperialistic) policies of these ‘democracies’ that actually aren’t. They are so corrupt, they are aristocracies. All electoral democracies ultimately degenerate into such dictatorships. And now it is accelerating.

Reprinted with permission from Eric’s Substack.

The post Why Western Governments Are Beating the Drums for Wars appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: In your view, what role does the Treasury market play in global finance, and how significant is it to the current financial system?

Doug Casey: It’s only important because it exists—but it shouldn’t exist. People think that the Treasury market is part of the cosmic firmament, but there once was a time when the US government had little or no debt outstanding, and the world got by fine without it.

It’s not a question of how significant it is so much as when the time bomb that it represents will go off. That’s because it’s not supported by any underlying assets. Nor is the dollar that it’s denominated in.

Let me use a simple analogy. It’s much as if a king is taxing a farmer. But one year, the king is in a war and needs extra taxes. So he tells the farmer, “Look, I need your seed corn this year to fight the war, but I’ll give you a bond which guarantees that you’ll get it back next year, when you need it. Plus interest.”

The patriotic farmer says, “Okay.” The farmer gets the bond, and the king gets the seed corn. Both are happy until the next year, when the farmer wants to cash in the bond to retrieve his seed corn. Where did it go? It’s been consumed. Now there’s no seed corn, there’s no harvest, and they both starve to death.

That’s the eventual fate of the US debt market.

The financial markets would be much more stable without the government bond market. Government debt doesn’t finance new production, it finances consumption. Either by consuming past production, or mortgaging future production. We’d be much more prosperous, and safer, if it didn’t exist.

Around $2.7 trillion of US debt is held by Social Security. At some point, the people hoping to collect Social Security will come to recognize that it’s not a piggy bank or lockbox, as they used to say. The asset they’re counting on for retirement is the debt of a bankrupt Ponzi scheme. Very much like the bond guaranteeing the farmer’s seed corn.

International Man: In your opinion, what does the 10-year US Treasury yield tell us, and why is it considered one of the most important financial indicators?

Doug Casey: Perhaps it’s because around 20% to 25% of the Treasury market is denominated in 10-year notes. Or perhaps it’s because most mortgages are paid off in 10 years, not 30 years, as people trade houses. If the US chose to it could probably sell a 100-year bond. But it won’t, because that would be an extremely volatile piece of paper, which could shake the public’s faith in the system.

Don’t forget that it was only a few years ago that the Austrian government poked the markets in the eye with around 8 billion euros of 100-year bonds bearing coupons of 2.1% and 0.85%.

I thought it was laughable, and only an idiot would’ve bought those. Even though that was when euro interest rates were actually negative. Since then, their market values have fallen to around 44 and 34 euros per 100 euro face value, respectively. Some institutions are sitting on giant losses.

Even more laughable was in 2017, when the Argentine government somehow peddled $2.75 billion worth of 7.125% 100-year bonds which, of course, they defaulted on. Although they were later redeemed with short-term bonds to kick the can further down the road. Those will probably also be defaulted on. Or should be. Any fund manager buying the debt of a South American government should be punished with a jail term, not just losses in the market.

That said, with multi-trillion dollar deficits running far into the future, US government debt is no longer a AAA risk.

International Man: Where do you see Treasury yields headed?

Doug Casey: I wouldn’t own any bonds at this stage in the market—except as a short-term speculation on the direction of interest rates. But even that’s a bad idea. Let me refer you to my favorite financial joke to illustrate why.

Einstein dies and goes to heaven.

St. Peter welcomes him and says, “Unfortunately, we have a temporary housing shortage here in heaven because, for obvious reasons, we’re a centrally planned economy.”

But Einstein is fine with that, and they take him to his room, where he meets his three roommates.

The first guy says: “Mr. Einstein, I have an IQ of 130, and I want to get to know you.” Einstein says, “Great. After lunch, let’s bounce around some concepts of astrophysics that have been on my mind.”

The second guy comes up and says, “I’m not as smart as that first guy. I only have an IQ of 100.” So Einstein says, “Great. Let me put away my grip, and we’ll play a game of chess.”

The third guy comes up and says, “Mr. Einstein, I’m not as smart as those other two guys. I’ve only got an IQ of 70, but I still want to get to know you.” Einstein says, “So where do you think interest rates are going?”

That said, I wouldn’t own bonds at this point. They’re at least a triple threat to your money.

The first risk is interest rates. I think, for a number of reasons, interest rates are headed back up to the levels of the early 1980s, when the US government was paying almost 20% for its money. They trended down to near zero over 40 years, and the long-term trend has reversed.

Second is the rate of inflation. The government will continue running giant deficits, regardless of DOGE’s best efforts. Those deficits will necessarily be monetized. Monetary inflation is headed up, and the dollar is headed down.

Third is the default risk. There’s no guarantee that all that debt out there, even from the US government, will be paid off. In fact, I’m confident it won’t be. It can’t be, unless the dollar is destroyed—which is the worst alternative.

I wouldn’t touch long-term bonds with a barge pole. They’re toxic.

International Man: The Trump administration has explicitly expressed a desire to keep the 10-year Treasury yield under control, and some speculate that policy shifts—such as a reversal on tariffs—were responses to yield spikes.

Why is the 10-year yield such a pressure point for the US government, and to what extent can a president actually influence it?

Doug Casey: The bond market is mainly based on confidence, and confidence can blow away like a pile of feathers in a hurricane.

You shouldn’t have confidence in the US government or its debt at this point, notwithstanding the best efforts of DOGE—which are wonderful, but I believe will fail catastrophically.

Can a president influence interest rates? Not really. If Trump wants lower rates, the US government has to radically cut its spending, its size, its currency debasement, and its taxes. None of that is going to happen, however, so there’s no reason to have confidence in the dollar.

And frankly, nobody should believe anything that Trump says. I’m not kidding. Trump says things that are patently false and unbelievable. Get a load of his recent Tweet about the 80th anniversary of World War II’s end:

“Many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result in World War II and November 11 as Victory Day in World War I. We won both wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance…”

He’s probably unaware that although the US suffered about 180,000 combat deaths against the Germans, the Soviets lost about 10 million—plus about 17 million civilians. The Western allies inflicted about 250,000 KIA on the Wehrmacht, but the Soviets inflicted about 20 times as many. WW2 was really a battle to the death of the Germans against the Soviets. Trump’s comment was stupidly ignorant and insulting. But he does that kind of thing constantly.

So, any thoughtful person should have zero confidence in what the president says about interest rates—or anything else. That’s a pity, but it’s true.

International Man: If US Treasuries were to lose their role as the foundation of the international monetary system, could gold or Bitcoin take their place?

What would the investment implications be if such a shift were to occur?

Doug Casey: Treasuries are already losing their foundational role in the international monetary system. Why? Because dollars, not Boeings or soybeans, have been the major US export for the last 40 years.

There’s a huge overhang of many trillions in the hands of foreigners who, unlike US citizens, don’t have to hold US dollars or US bonds. And at some point—when confidence collapses, and there are lots of reasons it will—they’ll start unloading those Treasuries. Those dollars will come home to roost, taking prices to unbelievable levels and transferring physical assets in the US into the hands of foreigners and out of the hands of Americans.

What would the investment implications be of such a shift?

Well, it’s regrettable, but almost inevitable that it will happen. The investment implications are catastrophic for Americans and anybody who owns US dollars or US debt.

I therefore continue to own gold and Bitcoin. As far as other investments are concerned, almost everything today is a speculation. You can forget about the word “investment.”

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Debt Spiral, Treasury Market Stress, and a New Financial Order appeared first on LewRockwell.

Will we soon witness the world’s first nuclear war?  Following nuclear-armed India’s attack on nuclear-armed Pakistan, media outlets all over the globe quickly published stories about the possibility of nuclear war.  In fact, this morning the main headline on the Drudge Report was “WORLD HOLDS BREATH” in all capital letters.  Yes, it is entirely possible that a nuclear war could erupt between India and Pakistan.  But will someone else use nuclear weapons first?

In the Middle East, a showdown is looming between Israel and Iran.  We know that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, and there are some experts that are convinced that the Iranians have also acquired nukes.  If an all-out war erupts between Israel and Iran, I have a feeling that both sides will be forced to show what cards they are holding.

If the Iranians do have nukes, they may have gotten them from the North Koreans.  If a major war erupts on the Korean peninsula, and that is a very real possibility, the North Koreans would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

In Europe, the conflict in Ukraine definitely has the potential to go nuclear.  The Ukrainians have targeted Moscow with drone attacks for three days in a row, and they are threatening to attack Russia’s Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9th.  If that happens, we are being warned that Kyiv could be wiped “off the face of the Earth”.  Let us hope that the Russians will continue to resist the temptation to use tactical nukes against Ukraine, because if that line is crossed any hope of peace with Russia will be completely gone.

Once one nation breaks the taboo on using nuclear weapons, it will be much easier for other nations to follow suit.

At the moment, the eyes of the world are on India and Pakistan.  The government of India says that the goal of their airstrikes was to destroy “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan…

India said it launched missiles targeting “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the divided Himalayan territory that India also controls a section of.

Pakistan’s military said it shot down five Indian aircraft during the attack – a claim unconfirmed by India.

Pakistan said India’s attack killed at least 26 civilians and wounded 46 more. India’s army said at least 10 civilians were killed and 35 injured in cross-border shelling by Pakistani troops in Kashmir.

Following the airstrikes, India’s Defense Ministry released a statement that emphasized that no military facilities in Pakistan were targeted…

“Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistan military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.”

I think that India was hoping to avoid any additional escalation, but the Pakistanis are furious because a number of mosques were targeted…

In response to Pakistan’s complaint that some of India’s bombs struck mosques, India confirmed that it targeted mosques and madrassas (Islamic religious schools) that were headquarters for “training and indoctrination” by the terrorist groups. The Indian government pointed out that one of the madrassas used as a training camp by LT was funded by Osama bin Laden, the late founder of al-Qaeda and mastermind of the 9/11 attack on America.

Some of India’s targets seemed chosen to make the point that JM, HM, LT, and other terrorist groups are operating openly in Pakistan, with either the indulgence or active support of the government. A few of the targeted facilities were remote terrorist camps hidden in inaccessible terrain, but others were obvious and located near major roads. All of them were large, capable of training hundreds of militants at a time.

If Pakistan strikes back, India will almost certainly respond.

Unfortunately, it appears that is exactly what Pakistan is planning to do…

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has ordered his armed forces to prepare a plan for “self-defense” with “corresponding actions” in order “avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives”. The order was issued after an emergency National Security Commitee (NSC) meeting on Wednesday.

“Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty,” the NSC readout said. “The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard.”

Pakistan’s Government Security Committee has charged that India has “ignited an inferno in the region”. These do indeed seem to be fighting words.

One of the sides is going to have to back down at some point or else this thing is going to spiral out of control very rapidly.

If a full-blown war erupts, India has a far larger military than Pakistan does…

India outpaces Pakistan in active military personnel: 1.24 million in the army, 149,000 in the air force, and 75,500 in the navy. Pakistan has about 560,000 army troops, 70,000 in the air force, and 30,000 in its navy. India also operates a 13,350-strong coast guard.

A conventional war between India and Pakistan would be truly horrifying, and we are being warned that it could cause a global recession…

A potential war between India and Pakistan could “push the world in to a global recession” in a matter of months, an expert has warned. On Tuesday, India fired a series of missile strikes on Kashmir, with Pakistan vowing to “respond”, triggering fears of an all-out war between the huge nations.

Space race capable India currently hovers around number 5 in the list of the biggest economies in the world, just one place above the UK.

But a conventional war between these two nations is not the real danger.

If India’s military started pouring into Pakistani territory, officials in Pakistan may feel forced to use nuclear weapons.

Most people living in the western world do not realize this, but both India and Pakistan have enough nuclear warheads to virtually wipe the other side out…

India has about 172 nuclear warheads, while Pakistan possesses roughly 170, according to the Arms Control Association. Despite their similar numbers, the countries diverge in nuclear doctrine. India publicly maintains an NFU doctrine, pledging to use nuclear weapons only in retaliation. However, recent rhetoric from Indian leadership has hinted at revisiting that stance. Pakistan has never adopted a similar policy and reserves the option of preemptive use.

Don’t think that this can’t happen.

In fact, the head of Pakistan’s military just told the world that he believes “at any time a nuclear war can break out”…

NUCLEAR war could break out “at any time” if India continues strikes, Pakistan’s defence chief has warned as his country teeters on the brink of a conflict with India.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif gave the stark warning in an interview with Pakistani TV channel Geo News as tensions between the two nuclear powers continue to reach boiling point.

The minister said: “If they [India] impose an all-out war on the region and if such dangers arise in which there is a standoff, then at any time a nuclear war can break out.”

A full-blown nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would not be anything like a full-blown nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia.

But it would still create at least a limited version of a “nuclear winter”.

All of a sudden, it would become exceedingly difficult to grow crops all over the northern hemisphere, and we are already facing a global food crisis of epic proportions.

Reprinted with permission from The Economic Collapse.

The post Who Is Going To Use Nuclear Weapons First? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Everyone has the right to make up their own minds about these tensions and the Kashmir Conflict that lies at their core, but they should also know that there’s more to all this than what they might be led to be believe by the organized pro-Palestinian movement and the Alt-Media Community.

India carried out several surgical strikes against Pakistan on Wednesday morning as part of “Operation Sindoor”, which is its response to last month’s Pahalgam terrorist attack that saw the allegedly Pakistani-affiliated culprits slaughter over two dozen Hindu tourists, who were targeted on the basis of their faith. Casual observers might be overwhelmed by the deluge of information being spread by both sides’ online advocates amidst the resultantly escalating tensions so here are ten points for them to keep in mind:

———-

1. The British Role In Indo-Pak Tensions Is A Relic Of The Past

It’s true that the Indian Subcontinent’s imperfect division between Hindus and Muslims was authorized by the departing British, but the roots of this policy rest in some Muslim independence activists splitting from their Hindu comrades decades earlier to pursue their community’s own interests in this campaign. While the Brits exploited this for post-colonial divide-and-rule purposes, they no longer exert anywhere near the same degree of influence over Pakistan, which has much more independent agency nowadays.

2. Strategic, Religious, & Political Factors Are Behind Pakistan’s Claims

Pakistan’s claims to all of Kashmir are driven by the region’s hydrological importance, its majority-Muslim population, and the military’s interest in rallying the nation behind it on these grounds. These interests are typically ignored by activists in favor of drawing attention to the democratic and humanitarian dimensions of the conflict from the Pakistani perspective. This narrative diversion is meant to make their claims appeal to the widest possible array of people across the world for putting more pressure on India.

3. The Organized Pro-Palestinian Movement Largely Supports Pakistan

In connection with the above, the organized pro-Palestinian movement largely supports Pakistan due to their similar democratic-humanitarian messaging but also out of religious solidarity, though this is only rarely acknowledged due to concerns that it could discredit these movements’ incipient convergence. The reason this is relevant is because casual observers can therefore expect more pro-Pakistani content from pro-Palestinian activists-influencers, including that which disparages India as a “Zionist puppet”.

4. Israel Is Irrelevant To This Conflict No Matter What Alt-Media Claims

The Alt-Media Community (AMC) is mostly favorable to the organized pro-Palestinian movement so its leading voices might amplify the aforesaid allegation even though it’s bereft of truth. Many among their audience want to imagine that every major development across the world is somehow tied to a “Zionist plot”, but that’s not the case with this one. India’s closeness with Israel doesn’t mean that Israel controls it, just like Israel doesn’t control Russia, which is closer to Israel than India is and has been so for longer.

5. The Same Goes For Claims That This Is All About Sabotaging BRICS

Many in the AMC are also as obsessed with BRICS as they are with Israel so casual observers should prepare for a flood of claims about how these tensions are supposedly meant to sabotage BRICS. The reality though is that BRICS isn’t a bloc, in fact, it’s just a talking club that discusses how to accelerate financial multipolarity processes and issues purely perfunctory joint statements every year. It’s therefore just as irrelevant to this conflict, which is driven by side’s conception of national interests, as Israel is.

6. India & Pakistan Accuse Each Other Of Terrorism But Respond Differently

Casual observers might soon hear about how Pakistan accused India of being behind March’s Jaffar Express terrorist attack, which builds upon years-long claims that they might also learn about, yet Pakistan didn’t kinetically retaliate against India like India just kinetically retaliated against Pakistan. This can be interpreted either as Pakistan having made up that claim (and earlier ones) for reasons of domestic political convenience or lacking the military confidence to initiate surgical strikes against India.

7. It’s Worth Recalling January 2024’s Tit-For-Tat Iranian-Pakistani Strikes

Iran and Pakistan carried out tit-for-tat strikes in January 2024 against alleged terrorists before patching up their problems. Even though terrorist attacks have since surged in Pakistan’s Balochistan region, Islamabad no longer blames Iran, let alone bombs what it claims to be terrorists there. This is worth recalling since it suggests that Pakistan either lied about Iran’s ties to terrorists or started ignoring them, with either explanation equivalent to politicizing terrorism, thus casting doubts on its claims about India.

8. Pakistan Consistently Seeks To Multilateralize Its Disputes With India

In contravention of the 1972 Simla Accord, which it recently suspended, Pakistan consistently seeks to multilateralize its disputes with India as a means of rebalancing their power asymmetries. The trade-off though is that some of Pakistan’s partners try to use it against India on this pretext, the partial client state role of which its leadership willingly accepts in exchange for support. This insight directly leads into the last two points for casual observers to keep in mind amidst escalating Indo-Pak tensions.

9. There Are Double-Standards Towards Pakistan’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling

The world united to express disapproval to varying extents of what was popularly portrayed as Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling throughout the course of the Ukrainian Conflict yet few have condemned Pakistan much more explicitly doing the same via its Ambassador to Russia and Defense Minister. These indisputable double standards lend credence to former Indian Ambassador to Russia Kanwal Sibal’s assessment that “Pak is given a pass as if the West and others want India to hear Pak’s message.”

10. Some Forces Might Be Trying To Knock India Out Of The Great Power Game

India’s rapid rise scares the US “deep state’s” liberal-globalist policymaking faction, their European subordinates, China, and some in the Ummah like Turkiye’s Erdogan, the Qatari Emir, and ultra-hardline members of Iran’s IRGC. Just like the West tried to use Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia for knocking it out of the Great Power game, so too might the aforesaid six actors be using Pakistan for the same goal against India or to at least contain it to their strategic benefit due to their shared interests.

———-

These points should help casual observers better understand the dynamics behind the escalating Indo-Pak tensions and the Kashmir Conflict that lies at their core. Everyone has the right to make up their own minds, but they should also know that there’s more to all this than what they might be led to be believe by the organized pro-Palestinian movement and the AMC. India’s future as a Great Power and all that entails for the global systemic transition will depend on how it manages Pakistani-emanating threats.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post Ten Points To Keep in Mind Amidst Escalating Indo-Pak Tensions appeared first on LewRockwell.