Aggregatore di feed

I was raised Catholic—the kind of Catholic who knew the smell of incense before the sound of morning cartoons. My father was (and still is) a farmer, my mother a care nurse tending to the elderly in their final days. We weren’t poor, but we were acquainted with struggle. So when Pope Leo recently declared that “love for the poor—whatever the form their poverty may take—is the evangelical hallmark of a Church faithful to the heart of God,” I felt something between irritation and déjà vu. It’s not that I disagree with loving the poor. It’s that many Catholics seem to have mistaken poverty for holiness itself.

It’s an old Catholic habit, this romanticizing of suffering. Somewhere between St. Francis stripping naked in the square and the endless talk of “blessed are the meek,” the Church began confusing destitution with decency, as if the less you own, the more your soul shines. It’s a comforting fantasy, especially for those sitting in marble halls. But equating poverty with purity is as false as equating wealth with wickedness. The poor can be cruel, the rich can be kind, and goodness cannot be measured by one’s bank balance or battered boots.

The truth is, the Bible never glorifies poverty; it simply refuses to lie about it. Scripture speaks of the poor often, not as paragons of virtue but as people to be helped, fed, and treated with respect. Christ dined with fishermen and tax collectors alike—not to canonize deprivation but to shatter the hierarchy that measured worth by wealth. The command was clear: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and lift the fallen—not idolize their condition. Poverty was never meant to be a stage for holiness, but rather, a challenge for justice.

What Pope Leo calls an “evangelical hallmark” has become a badge of humility for those who rarely live it. The modern Church doesn’t love the poor as much as she loves being seen loving them. Somewhere between the sermon and the snapshot, poverty becomes a prop.

It’s a dangerous delusion because it infantilizes the very people it claims to uplift. Treating the poor as sacred objects rather than self-determining people robs them of agency. It’s pity masquerading as faith. My father used to say, “Work is the prayer God answers fastest,” and he was right. Real compassion isn’t tossing coins into the collection plate and calling it charity; it’s creating conditions where people don’t need your coins at all.

But the Church doesn’t like that kind of talk. She prefers symbols to systems. She prefers the image of a barefoot priest over the idea of an educated laborer. When the pope praises “love for the poor,” what he rarely mentions is the love for competence, for responsibility, for the dignity of work.

There’s a reason Catholic art is filled with weeping Madonnas and bleeding saints. The Church has long treated suffering as currency, as if pain itself buys salvation. This is a mistake. Misery isn’t a sacrament but a condition—often man-made, sometimes preventable, and always undeserving of worship. The Gospels tell us to feed the hungry, not to glorify hunger.

To his credit, Pope Leo speaks often about “different forms” of poverty—not just material but emotional, spiritual, and social. Yet this only dilutes the meaning further. By broadening the word to include everyone, he drains it of weight. If everyone is poor in some way, then no one is. It’s linguistic inflation. It’s compassion without clarity.

And yet, I write this not as a cynic but as a Catholic who still believes in redemption, both personal and institutional. My mother, after 10-hour shifts lifting bodies and spirits, embodied Christ far more than any sermon I’ve heard from Rome. Her faith was, and still is, simple and without show. She never confused poverty with purity because she saw both up close, sometimes in the same person.

The poor aren’t moral mascots. They’re people navigating life with whatever scraps of self-respect they can find. Some succeed. Some fail, just like the rest of us. To elevate poverty to sainthood is to patronize the very souls Christ treated as equals.

Still, I remain proud of my Faith. Catholicism gave me a vocabulary of discipline, sacrifice, and genuine awe. But awe without awareness becomes sentimentality, and that’s where the Church too often lives today. If love for the poor is to mean anything, it must involve helping them stop being poor—not through pity, not through pageantry, but through opportunity, through the structure of education and the restoration of self-reliance.

Pope Leo may believe poverty is a mirror reflecting the heart of God. I think it’s a mirror reflecting our own failures—political, human, and moral. The world doesn’t need more saints of sorrow; she needs fewer spectators to it.

That’s not heresy but honesty. And if there’s one thing Catholicism should have learned after two millennia, it’s that truth, however uncomfortable, is still the closest thing we have to grace.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Poverty Isn’t a Path to Heaven appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post It’s Trump’s War Now – President Flip-Flops (Again); Sanctions Russian Oil appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Steve Watson

 

The post Trump On Course To “Shatter” Deportation Record: Report appeared first on LewRockwell.

Regarding his boat bombings, Trump said: “Every boat that we knock out we save 25,000 American lives so every time you see a boat and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough’…It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people.”

The post Trump’s Lies Get Bigger appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Kane McGukin

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/bitcoin-affronta-il-suo-1913)

La battaglia tra Bitcoin Core e Bitcoin Knots è un attacco alla sua rete, una lotta non diversa da quella per l'istituzione della Federal Reserve nel 1913.

Il Novecento, come accade anche oggi, iniziò con i banchieri in guerra per le regole che governavano il denaro. Due fazioni in competizione, il Piano Aldrich e il Piano Glass-Owen, lanciarono un attacco alla moneta sana/onesta perché alcune persone cercavano più potere e le nazioni chiedevano più controllo.

L'oro, come Bitcoin, è denaro per via delle sue origini fondamentali. Eppure, l'idea sbagliata, allora come oggi, è che la sopravvivenza richieda maggiore complessità.

La storia dimostra quanto possano essere fragili le convinzioni. Un'offerta di un posto al tavolo delle trattative è sufficiente a trasformare coloro che un tempo erano ferventi difensori del denaro sano/onesto in sostenitori del credito e del debito illimitato. I primi sostenitori dell'oro come Keynes negli anni '20 e Greenspan negli anni '80 si sono dimostrati incapaci di ignorare l'attrazione emotiva della notorietà, della valuta fiat e del controllo. Ogni volta si reintroducono tattiche inflazionistiche che corrodono i principi e il valore del denaro.

Spesso progetti furbi e piani corrotti si sono rivelati troppo grandi affinché il singolo essere umano potesse emanciparsene.

Mai un momento di noia

Non c'è mai un momento di noia in Bitcoin o nel mondo della finanza.

L'ultima divisione all'interno della comunità Bitcoin potrebbe sembrare l'ennesima diatriba su tecnicismi, ma indica qualcosa di più profondo? Sebbene sembri esserci un bisogno infinito di avere qualcosa di tecnico su cui discutere, sotto i commit di GitHub e i dibattiti nelle mailing list si nasconde un fantasma del passato: la lotta ideologica che ha dato vita alla Federal Reserve.

La creazione della FED è stata inquadrata nei termini della decentralizzazione e della rappresentanza regionale.

Ciononostante le sue fondamenta si basavano su due forze: filtri e controllo (qui e qui). Dietro le quinte i veri motori del 1913 erano gli stessi di oggi: desiderio di potere, profitto e capacità di produrre moneta partendo da una base con un sottostante reale. Un Bitcoin sintetico, se vogliamo.

Fonte: The Princes of Yen di Richard Werner

Chiedete a qualsiasi massimalista di Bitcoin cosa disprezza di più e le risposte più probabili saranno: la Federal Reserve, o l'innegabile svalutazione del dollaro.

Ecco cosa rende l'attuale scontro tra Bitcoin Core & Knots così affascinante: non si tratta solo di una guerra civile tra nerd all'interno dello sviluppo di Bitcoin. Osservato attraverso la lente della storia monetaria, i parallelismi emergono con chiarezza. Un promemoria del fatto che solo poco più di 100 anni fa si tracciarono i confini e si decise da che parte schierarsi tra due visioni contrastanti per un nuovo sistema finanziario: il Piano Aldrich (centralizzazione delle grandi banche e delle aziende) e il Piano Glass-Owen (ideologia populista e individualista). Col senno di poi, entrambi promuovevano la decentralizzazione solo di facciata.

Entrambi sostenevano di voler difendere il denaro sano/onesto, entrambi i piani avrebbero portato inevitabilmente alla centralizzazione dell'oro, il “denaro sano/onesto” originale.

Espandendo la dimensione di OP_RETURN (inflazione del protocollo), non stiamo forse reintroducendo la degradazione sradicata da Satoshi?

Offrendo un client Bitcoin più centralizzato, non stiamo forse centralizzando la fiducia?

Entrambe le opzioni non stanno forse seguendo un percorso simile, ovvero quello della “Federal Reserve”?

Indipendentemente da quale sia la vostra posizione, la domanda che dovremmo porci è: anche Bitcoin nasconderà la centralizzazione nel linguaggio della decentralizzazione?

Bitcoin è un asset che si fonda sui principi

Come ricordato sopra, nel 1913 una simile situazione di stallo nel settore bancario portò all'approvazione del Federal Reserve Act alla vigilia delle vacanze di Natale. Andare avanti a tutti i costi non era la risposta giusta. La storia ci ricorda che solo perché si può, non significa che si dovrebbe.

I dibattiti accesi tendono a consolidarsi in una mentalità “noi contro loro”, in cui l'emotività prevale sui principi. Il più delle volte la soluzione definitiva non ha risolto le controversie, ma ha aperto la strada al controllo politico e centralizzato del denaro.

«Le mucche intelligenti mostrano alle altre mucche come aggirare gli ostacoli. Sapete, come se aprissero un cancello. Quindi, sapete, è sempre stato così. Si potrebbero sempre aggirare queste cose, ma non credo saremmo d'accordo che se aggirassimo la commissione sul dust relay inizieremmo a vedere un'enorme quantità di dust intasare la rete.»

~ Samson Mow

Nel mondo bancario poliziotti e ladri sono sempre esistiti. Cumuli di asset e valore monetario hanno sempre allettato l'idea di una rapina in banca. Bitcoin e il denaro digitale non fanno eccezione. La fonte di archiviazione è cambiata, ma la mentalità rimane la stessa. È un promemoria di come si integra un piano della Banca Centrale Europea all'interno di un sistema finanziario americano. Dividi et impera.

«Se guardate agli ordinal, quello è un esempio. Sono un po' come una ICO, ma con le immagini. Sapete, vendono questi PFP, o qualsiasi altra immagine di maghi e gatti, e poi scatenano guerra, ma non gli importa. Possono semplicemente stampare più roba.»

~ Samson Mow

Che si tratti di stampare denaro tramite la FED, le ICO, i DAT, o le Bitcoin Treasury Companies, la mano invisibile è la riserva frazionaria.

Inoltre ciò che Samson descrive con ordinal e compressione delle commissioni fa rima con la storia. Modificare il costo di elaborazione di una transazione a $0,01 sat/vbytes comporterà conseguenze indesiderate a un certo punto. Proprio come il “trading a basso costo” ha alimentato speculazioni sconsiderate ad alta frequenza sui titoli azionari intorno al 2008. Blockspace a basso costo e incentivi a zero commissioni rischiano di ripetere lo stesso ciclo e diluire il valore della rete Bitcoin.

Ridurre gli attriti può sembrare un'innovazione, ma la storia dimostra che di solito finisce con la centralizzazione e la fragilità sistemica.

Le commissioni basse, in sostanza, eliminano la sicurezza di un fossato finanziario.

La tentazione e il richiamo dell'avidità

Al culmine della crisi del 1914, a John Maynard Keynes fu chiesto di informare il Cancelliere dello Scacchiere sull'opportunità di mantenere la sterlina legata all'oro. Keynes sostenne con enfasi che doveva farlo:

«[...] lui (Keynes) si era schierato con fermezza a favore del mantenimento del legame: “La posizione di Londra come centro monetario dipende dalla completa fiducia nella sua incrollabile disponibilità” a soddisfare i propri obblighi in oro e sarebbe stata gravemente danneggiata se “al primo segno di emergenza tale impegno fosse stato sospeso”.

[...] Ma mentre prima della guerra aveva pensato che il modo migliore per raggiungere questo obiettivo fosse garantire che valute come la sterlina fossero completamente convertibili in oro a un valore fisso, ora era giunto a credere che non ci fosse motivo per cui collegare l'offerta di moneta e il credito all'oro dovesse necessariamente comportare prezzi stabili.»

~ Lords of Finance

Se gli esempi di John Maynard Keynes e Alan Greenspan, insieme al parallelo tra il 1913 e l'attuale divario in Bitcoin, rivelano che le pressioni inflazionistiche, sebbene spesso nascoste, sono sempre presenti. La storia della moneta è una lunga serie di individui che alla fine si sono piegati all'erosione dei sistemi di valori.

Le loro parole difendevano i mercati e la moneta sana/onesta, ma le loro azioni si basavano sul controllo centralizzato.

Lo scontro tra Bitcoin Core & Knots sembra lo stesso che guidò Keynes e Greenspan e che definì i piani di Aldrich e Glass-Owen. È la stessa tentazione che si ripresenta oggi con Bitcoin.

Fonte: The Princes of Yen di Richard Werner

Ciò che è chiaro è questo: è facile elogiare la moneta sana/onesta in teoria, ma è molto più difficile difenderla una volta che la “gente in vista” vi offre un posto al tavolo delle decisioni.

Fonte: The Princes of Yen di Richard Werner

Il fascino dell'accettazione e la ricerca del rendimento sono droghe potenti. Entrambe hanno il potere di trasformare un appassionato d'oro in un drogato di credito senza lasciare traccia.

La lezione è semplice: è difficile vivere

I principi fondamentali non sono negoziabili. Sono come i colori primari nell'arte: toglietene uno e le fondamenta strutturali di ogni innovazione futura crollano. Offuscate la tavolozza con troppi colori e il valore fondamentale viene soffocato da un eccesso di abbondanza. Troppe funzionalità e ci si ritrova con i problemi che ha Ethereum. Infinite svolte a sinistra mascherate da innovazione, quando la missione potrebbe essere raggiunta con poche e semplici svolte a destra.

L'importante ruolo dell'oro come moneta sana/onesta è stato messo da parte, non perché abbia fallito, ma perché gli esseri umani non sono riusciti a resistere. Bitcoin si trova oggi ad affrontare la stessa prova.

Se Bitcoin Core & Bitcoin Knots, ordinal, o giochi sulle commissioni erodono i principi di Bitcoin, allora il fantasma del 1913 vincerà di nuovo, solo che questa volta in forma digitale. In un mondo futuro, il credito in Bitcoin sarà di gran moda.

[*] 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, Jesse Trentadue.

The post The first in a series of podcasts by Eric Hunley that focus on the Oklahoma City Bombing and the murder of Kenneth Michael Trentadue. appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Vicki Marzullo.

RT News

 

The post Does this sound like America first? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

JonFleetwood.com

 

The post NIAID Director Holds Patent for Bird Flu Pandemic Vaccine—as His Agency Creates Frankenstein Bird Flu Viruses in the Lab appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Martin:

Who could stand to be anywhere near such a monstrosity as that?  It might as well be a giant middle-finger directed at white people, grievance culture encapsulated.  Another alternative statue might be that of a shoulder with a big chip on it.  All the while immigrants from Africa are doing everything they can to get into such an oppressive place.

 

The post Stigmatization Invitation appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes David Martin:

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry reading this, but I did get a chuckle out of the notion of Putin and Xi playing good cop-bad cop with Trump.

 

The post Renewed Trump Dementia Concerns appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his article “Is the Constitution Broken beyond Repair?” David Gordon draws attention to a phenomenon that is often overlooked, namely, the great rejoicing among some constitutional lawyers over the fact that “to establish the new Constitution, Lincoln overthrew the first one… he replaced the old, immoral Constitution with a new one based on equality.” This is indeed one reason why some of Lincoln’s admirers still celebrate the burning of the South by the Union Army—the devastation and destruction of the South symbolizes for them the brave new world of equality and social justice forged by a righteous army through fire and steel.

Most people, if they understood what was really being celebrated here, would be bewildered. Although Abraham Lincoln and the Union Generals Ulysses Grant and William Sherman are generally admired for saving the Union by those who do not consider the consent of states to be necessary, they may not necessarily think the war was commendable in itself or worthy of celebration; they merely consider that war was necessary for Lincoln to advance his righteous cause. They would view the claim that Lincoln rejected the constraints set by the Constitution as some sort of critique, at the very least—while we can and do debate matters of constitutional interpretation, surely we all accept the premise that a president should not actually overthrow the Constitution? Shouldn’t any president at least try to pretend to uphold the Constitution, even as he brazenly drives a coach and horses through it? Even if he is an unashamed hypocrite who believes double standards always apply to his conduct, he should at least make a show of believing that he sees his actions as constitutional, and should by no means concede to complaints that he is subverting the law.

But, rather surprisingly, some Lincolnite constitutionalists do not see matters that way. They believe that deliberately subverting the Constitution is actually very good if it is done with good intentions—namely, intentions of which progressives approve. As they see it, the new Constitution created by Lincoln’s war is more egalitarian and just than the old one written by slave owners. They believe the overthrow of the old Constitution ought to be welcomed by everyone who upholds “the idea of America”—the “idea” being, of course, progressivism. Nor is this desire to destroy the Constitution new. In the 19th century, the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison described the Constitution as an “agreement with hell”:

Garrison then produced a copy of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law and put a match to it. Amid cries of “Amen” the hated document burned to a cinder… As Martin Luther had burned copies of canon law and the papal bull excommunicating him from the Catholic Church for heresy, Garrison consigned each to the flames. Holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he branded it as “the source and parent of all the other atrocities–‘a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.’” As the nation’s founding document burned to ashes, he cried out: “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

The abolition of slavery in 1865 only fanned the flames of this revolutionary fever. The new rallying cry was that steps must be taken to ensure that slavery “by a different name” would never return, and Reconstruction amendments were accordingly forced through. Tennessee, which was the only state in the South to “willingly” ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, only did so after threats of force.

In Tennessee, opponents of the Amendment absented themselves from the House in order to prevent a quorum. This did not stop the supporters of the Amendment, who forcibly seized two absent members and held them in a committee room. The House ignored a court order to release the two and overruled the Speaker, who ruled there was no quorum present.

To many people this might seem, at the very least, mildly embarrassing but nevertheless understandable in the tumultuous aftermath of war. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and the use of force is not part of that process, so at the very least these irregularities ought to be condemned. But for progressives, overthrowing the old Constitution by any means necessary is praiseworthy, because the Fourteenth Amendment brought equality and justice! Let justice be done by any means necessary! In his foreword to Raoul Berger’s Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Forrest McDonald observes that activist courts enthusiastically endorsed the Reconstruction amendments without any qualms. He explains that “advocates of judicial activism began to assert that neither the words of the Constitution nor the intentions of the framers are any longer relevant.” After all, the framers were “racist” so nobody should care what their original intentions were.

After 1865, the progressive amendment of the Constitution continued inexorably under the civil rights regime. When Christopher Caldwell wrote his critique of the Civil Rights Act usurping the Constitution, one reviewer summarized Caldwell’s analysis under the title “The Law that Ate the Constitution.” Now, many readers would assume that “the law that ate the Constitution” is a provocative title denoting an unwelcome development, and that the whole point of Caldwell’s analysis would surely have been to warn us that the Constitution was under threat. Even those committed to “the idea” of civil rights, who may never be persuaded that civil rights pose a threat to the constitution—the judges just need to be a bit more careful to avoid subverting the Constitution, right?—might nevertheless appreciate Caldwell’s attempt to warn us of a potential threat to which we may wish to be alert. But, astonishingly, some law professors view it not as a threat but as cause for celebration—if Caldwell is right that the civil rights law is now the de facto Constitution and has displaced the racist de jure Constitution, they would take that not as a warning but as a wonderful outcome that merits celebration.

Progressives favor the centralization of constitutional authority in the federal courts, and therefore, as they see it, if the courts indeed willfully distorted constitutional history to achieve that goal, so be it. After all, judges are distorting the Constitution for a good cause—in the service of equality, fairness, and justice. Raoul Berger, writing about the role of the Fourteenth Amendment as a platform for the “continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation,” notes how the progressive Warren Supreme Court was hailed as “keeper of the national conscience.” Therefore, when conservatives like Thomas Sowell warned about “the quiet repeal of the American Revolution,” progressives saw that not as cause for alarm but as evidence that they are winning. As they see it, activist courts are to be commended for deliberately replacing the American Revolution with a racially-enlightened social revolution. Far from denying that they have subverted the Constitution, they are supremely proud of themselves for having done so. They have convinced themselves that the new de facto Constitution better reflects “American values.”

The point here is not simply that there are different schools of statutory interpretation, by reference to which some constitutionalists uphold a “purposive” or “living tree” approach which tries to give meaning to what they see as the underlying goals and values of the Constitution. Most progressives who champion purposive interpretation do not claim that the old de jure Constitution should be altogether destroyed and replaced with a de facto new Constitution that is morally superior—most would at least attempt to offer some sort of argument that their inventions are a matter of reinterpretation and redefinition of the words actually written in the original Constitution.

The progressives who praise themselves for displacing the Constitution altogether make a very different argument. They do not claim to be engaged in creative reinterpretation, but to be abolishing the de jure Constitution altogether in order to replace it with a more worthy compact rooted in their civil rights revolution.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post How Progressives Broke the Constitution and Praised Themselves for It appeared first on LewRockwell.

Starmer wanted punk band Bob Vylan prosecuted for chanting ‘Death to the IDF!’ Four months on, he’s bullying the police to let Israeli football thugs into the UK to chant ‘Death to the Arabs!’

June 2025: Keir Starmer’s government urge police to investigate the punk band Bob Vylan for inciting racial hatred and public order offences after chanting “Death, death to the IDF!” at the Glastonbury music festival.

At that time, the IDF, Israel’s military, is known to be responsible for killing and maiming more than 200,000 Palestinians in Gaza, with many thousands more dead under Gaza’s rubble. The United Nations; every major human rights organisation, including Israeli ones; and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have all agreed that Israel and its military are committing genocide in Gaza.

Lisa Nandy, Britain’s sports and culture secretary, calls the chant against the IDF – and the BBC’s inadvertent broadcasting of it – “appalling and unacceptable”. Keir Starmer terms the chant “appalling hate speech”. They agree that Bob Vylan and another band, Kneecap, should have never been given “a platform” by either Glastonbury or the BBC. There is widespread agreement in the media and Westminster that the chant is evidence of antisemitism.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, revokes a visa for Bob Vylan to perform in the United States – a move that the Starmer government does nothing to protest.

October 2025: West Midlands police announce that they are barring Tel Aviv Maccabi fans from attending a match in Birmingham against Aston Villa next month because of fears of violence. Tel Aviv’s supporters are notorious for their racist and violent behaviour, both inside Israel and abroad.

Nearly a year ago, there were ugly riots in Amsterdam’s streets provoked by the Tel Aviv fans – many of whom have served or are serving in the IDF – after their team lost against local side Ajax. Inside the stadium and later on the streets, the Tel Aviv fans could be heard chanting ”Death to the Arabs” and “There are no more schools in Gaza because we killed all the kids!”.

Despite the Tel Aviv fans instigating the Amsterdam violence, much of it caught on video, Dutch and British politicians and media initially went out of their way to portray the Tel Aviv fans as the victims – until, confronted with the evidence, that narrative collapsed. For example, David Lammy, then Britain’s foreign secretary, lost no time writing on X: “I utterly condemn these abhorrent acts of violence and stand with Israeli and Jewish people across the world.”

It was precisely these “violent clashes and hate crime offences” in Amsterdam that lead West Midlands police to decide its officers will not be able to safely police the Europa League match in Birmingham, scheduled for November 6. They term it “high risk”.

But once again, Starmer and his ministers seek to revive the early, confected Amsterdam narrative, this time suggesting that it is the the Tel Aviv football hooligans that are in danger from Aston Villa fans, that any resentment from Aston Villa fans towards Tel Aviv fans is driven solely by antisemitism rather than by the Tel Aviv fans’ long record of genocidal chants and racist violence, and that the police decision to bar the Tel Aviv hooligans is capitulation to “antisemitism”.

Starmer himself wants the police decision overruled. Ed Miliband, his energy secretary, says: “We cannot have a situation where any area is a no-go area for people of a particular religion or from a particular country.”

But as happened with the official Amsterdam narrative, Starmer’s utterly implausible narrative regarding the Aston Villa game collapses almost immediately. On Sunday, Israeli football authorities are forced to call off a derby between Maccabi and another Tel Aviv team after both sets of fans riot.

Conclusions:

1. British police should not be dealing with the matter of the Aston Villa game. It should never have been thrown into their lap. Tel Aviv Maccabi would not be playing in the UK, or anywhere else in Europe, if Israeli sports team were banned from all international competitions, as they should have been long ago. Russia has been banned. So why are Israel teams still competing? Israel’s genocide in Gaza is far more egregious than anything done by Moscow in Ukraine. The Tel Aviv fans wouldn’t be coming to the UK if their team wasn’t playing.

2. If Starmer and his ministers were so sure that a British punk band needed prosecuting for chanting “Death to the IDF!”, why are they so keen to overturn a police decision and invite foreign fans to the UK when it is widely understood both that those fans will bring their brand of genocidal rhetoric to British streets (“Death to the Arabs!”) and that they are certain to intimidate and use violence against Muslim and Arab communities in Birmingham? Why does the Starmer government think it so important to give special privileges to foreigners to platform their racial hatred, while seeking to remove any platform from British citizens, such as Bob Vylan, they accuse of spreading hate.

Remember this too. Bob Vylan used violent rhetoric against a racist and violent foreign army – a rhetoric neither the band nor its fans were in any kind of position to act on. The IDF is one of the strongest armies in the world; Bob Vylan’s fans pose no threat to it. The chant is better understood as chiefly symbolic: a punkish variation of “Down, down with the IDF!”

The Tel Aviv fans, however, are not just invoking violent, symbolic rhetoric. They are in a position to actually implement that violence in very practical ways – and not just in one setting, but two.

Some of these fans, either currently serving in the Israeli military or as reserve soldiers, have actually helped destroy almost every school in Gaza, and have been actively butchering Palestinian children – at least 20,000 children, the number that have been identified so far before the rubble is cleared.

But it goes further. These fans can, in fact, act out their violent chants and impulses in Birmingham by attacking anyone who looks Muslim or Arab. They can carry out their threats on Britain’s streets. It was obviously this assessment that led the West Midlands police to conclude that the fans should not allowed to attend the match. Why would Starmer wish to overturn a decision to avert a real danger of violence from foreign fans directed at British citizens? Why is the supposed right of foreign fans to attend a football match being placed above the safety of the British public? Why are the supposed sensitivities of a group of hooligans more important than good race relations in Britain?

3. Once again, Starmer’s government is misrepresenting events – in this case, a decision by the police – as “antisemitic”. In the British political and media establishment’s view, is there anyone left in British society – apart, that is, from the political and media establishment – that isn’t “antisemitic”?

The government’s logic on antisemtism is clearly back to front. Violent, racist Israeli football fans do not represent Jews. They don’t even represent all Israelis. Conversely, an aversion to hosting violent, racist football fans is not antisemitism. It is a public order matter. Meanwhile, imagining that violent foreign football fans who chant “Death to the Arabs!” need protecting because they also happen to be Jewish, as Starmer is doing, is antisemitic and Islamophobic in equal measure.

In fact, it is racism of the ugliest kind – racism that clothes itself in the guise of anti-racism. By weaponising antisemitism in this utterly cynical way, Starmer discredits the real anti-racists and breathes life into the racist’s claim that Jews have special, alchemical powers that can invert the world, making “up” look like “down”, “black” look like “white”. It feeds the very worldview that led to pogroms against Jews across much of Europe and culminated in the Holocaust. Starmer knows this.

4. Politicians have long put pressure on football authorities to “stamp out racism” in the game. Yet, here is the Starmer government trying to normalise genocidally racist rhetoric in Britain by inviting it into a Birmingham stadium. If Tel Aviv fans are given a privileged platform to vent their “Death to the Arabs!” chants in the UK, why not accord the same privilege to racist fans from British clubs?

And if the police are forced to climb down on a decision against Tel Aviv Maccabi, what sort of precedent – practical and rhetorical, if not immediately legal – will this set for other violent actors?

5. Starmer is weaponising antisemitism in this way for purely political reasons, entirely unrelated to the safety of British Jews. This is not new from him, nor is he alone. The British establishment has been using “antisemitism” as a tool to wield against every and any threat to its continuing entrenchment of power.

Over the past five years, Starmer has used weaponised antisemitism against his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, an exceptionally rare case of a democratic socialist getting within scent of power, to oust him from the Labour party.

Once Corbyn was gone, Starmer used weaponised antisemitism against the left of the party to purge its members – one of the reasons his party has plumbed new lows in polling.

Starmer has used weaponised antisemitism against student movements that tried to highlight and end their universities’ culpability in financing and arming Israel’s genocide.

Starmer used weaponised antisemitism to outlaw Palestine Action, which targets factories in Britain sending weapons to Israel for use in the Gaza genocide and was piling additional pressure on his government to end arms sales to Israel.

Starmer is using weaponised antisemitism against ordinary, peaceful citizens who have held a placard supporting Palestine Action’s work.

And now, driven into a logical and ethical cul-de-sac through his relentless campaign of mischaracterising anti-racism as antisemitism, Starmer is implicitly accusing the police of antisemitism. Why? Because they are trying to protect British communities from the overspill of genocidal violence issuing from Israel.

This article was originally published on JonathanCook.net.

The post A Tale of Two Chants: Why Starmer Now Casts Even the British Police as Antisemitic appeared first on LewRockwell.

Is this scenario guaranteed? No, of course not. But that doesn’t mean it’s excluded from the realm of possibility.

We all know the end-game when currencies are inflated as an expedient measure to stave off insolvency: devaluation eventually has consequences as the debauched currency is eventually replaced, a process that wipes out everyone holding or using the devalued currency.

It’s natural to assume this is a linear process and therefore predictable, as that’s what it looks like when looking back at the broad sweep of history. But the process isn’t inherently linear; it’s non-linear as the dynamics around “money” and “risk” are emergent, meaning that the sum of the parts have qualities of their own that are not predictable.

Which brings us to the question: could the much-maligned, guaranteed-it’s-going-to-zero US dollar USD) stage a rip-your-face-off rally that wipes out those shorting the USD by generating a mad rush for scarce–yes, scarce–USD?

The Federal Reserve measures the supply of US dollars via M2: basically cash in various accounts. As you can see on the chart below, M2 Money Supply is about $22 trillion after a $6 trillion rocket-boost in the Covid stimulus phase.

That may sound like a lot, but consider the global bucket of financial assets is worth $480 trillion. Global Asset Monitor: Public (sovereign bonds, etc.) $232.4 trillion, Private (stocks, RE) $246.8 trillion: $479.2 trillion total.

So M2 Money Supply is 4.6% of global financial assets. US dollars in circulation, i.e. Federal Reserve notes/Greenbacks, is around $2.4 trillion.

The US dollars held in time deposit accounts in banks outside the US are called Eurodollars. I am not an expert on the eurodollar market, but it appears to have experienced a decline in volume since 2016. As this article from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains, changes in banking regulations led to selected deposits on the books of US banks replacing the majority of eurodollars volume.

Who Is Borrowing and Lending in the Eurodollar and Selected Deposit Markets?
“Selected deposits are unsecured U.S. dollar deposits that also tend to have an overnight maturity, similar to Eurodollars. However, unlike Eurodollars, but like fed funds, selected deposits are booked at bank offices in the U.S.”

The conventional view is that eurodollars are advantageous because they are not regulated by US agencies or the Federal Reserve and so much of the activity is opaque, qualifying as “shadow banking.” Eurodollar Secrets: The Hidden Engine of Global Finance (tradingview.com)

“The Eurodollar system is one of the greatest financial innovations–and enigmas–of modern capitalism. Born from geopolitical necessity, it evolved into a vast offshore network that creates and circulates U.S. dollars beyond U.S. borders.

Its power lies in its invisibility: it influences global liquidity, shapes monetary policy, and fuels international trade, all without direct oversight.

However, with great power comes great risk. The Eurodollar market’s opacity and lack of regulation mean it can amplify crises when liquidity dries up.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Could a Rip-Your-Face-Off Rally in the Dollar Trigger a Global Financial Crisis? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Have you ever noticed how whenever you see someone promoting hatred toward Muslims, nine times out of ten it will be someone who supports Israel? There’s a reason for that.

Zionists promote Islamophobia because convincing westerners to hate Muslims is easier than convincing them to love Israel.

Support for Israel is a hard sell. On paper it’s just a shitty, evil country full of shitty, evil people, and has no redeeming qualities as a state. Nobody can explain how it’s an important ally in a way that makes sense; all the problems they claim it helps solve are problems Israel itself creates with the help of western backing. Unless you’re a devout Jewish Zionist or Christian Zionist there’s nothing about the modern state of Israel you’d naturally be inclined to support.

That’s why you’ll see high-profile Israeli social media accounts fearmongering about the growing Muslim populations in Europe, for example. You wouldn’t think it would be any of Israel’s concern if there are a lot of Muslims in Belgium or whatever, but it is in Israel’s political interests to keep westerners fearful and disdainful toward members of the Islamic faith.

We’re seeing more and more of this as Israel increasingly alienates western centrists and progressives, relying more and more heavily on support from the western right. As the narrative that a poor persecuted religious minority needs to have its own homeland loses traction with its intended audience, we’re seeing it increasingly replaced with the narrative that them there Muslims need killin’, yeehaw.

Israel makes everything gross. It makes the world more violent, more sociopathic, and more hateful. The entire state is sustained by nonstop violence and hatred. It’s a malignant tumor on the flesh of our species.

__________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post Zionists Push Islamophobia Because It’s Easier Than Getting People To Like Israel appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Trump administration has slashed federal spending for democracy promotion efforts around the globe. That rollback of U.S. meddling is perhaps the most positive foreign-policy reform of the Trump presidency.

Since 1946, the U.S. government has intervened in more than a hundred foreign elections to assist its preferred candidate or party. Democracy is so important that the U.S. government refuses to stand idly by when foreign voters go astray. Rather than delivering political salvation, U.S. interventions abroad more often produce “no-fault carnage” (no one in Washington is ever held liable).

In 1983, Congress created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). In 1984, Congressman Hank Brown (R-CO) provided a single sentence that should have nullified NED’s right to exist: “It is a contradiction to try to promote free elections by interfering in them.” In a 1985 piece for the Oakland Tribune, I hailed NED as “one of the newest, most prestigious boondoggles on the Potomac.” But there were plenty of scoffers early on: “NED has been called many things — an International Political Action Committee, the Taxpayer Funding of Foreign Elections Program, and a slush fund for political hacks who like to travel to warm climates in cold weather. In less than two years, NED has lived up to all these epithets.” My op-ed concluded, “The sooner NED is abolished, the cleaner our foreign policy will be.”

But that is a paltry argument compared to “jobs for the boys” —or perpetual government subsidies for Washington hustlers.

Guatemala 

U.S. democracy promotion efforts in Latin America have resembled a fairy tale or a bad LSD trip. In the 1980s, the Agency for International Development bankrolled a program “to motivate the people of Guatemala to participate in the electoral process.” The written materials for the program assured everyone that “All Guatemalans are Equal and Free.” The program distributed a pamphlet entitled, “How the State and Government Is Organized to Protect Our Lives and Work for the Development and the Good of All.” The Carnegie Institute’s Thomas Carothers noted that the titles the program used were “seemingly drawn from a Chinese reeducation campaign of the 1960s.” Uplifting fare on democracy was a hard sell because the Guatemalan government had just completed a genocidal crackdown that killed hundreds of thousands of Mayan Indians and suspected leftists.

Haiti 

No nation has received more prodemocracy interventions from the U.S. government during the past century than Haiti. In the early 1990s, Haiti’s elected ruler, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, became increasingly despotic, encouraging his supporters to kill opponents and critics by hanging burning automobile tires around their necks. The C.I.A. provided money and encouragement to a clique of Haitian generals who toppled Aristide in August 1991. Regardless of the C.I.A.’s role, the United States and the United Nations responded to the coup by slapping embargoes on Haiti, worsening the island’s economic misery and spurring thousands of Haitians to flee to Florida in leaky boats. In September 1994, President Clinton invaded Haiti, sending 20,000 troops in Operation Uphold Democracy to restore Aristide to power. Clinton hailed the efforts of American soldiers: “The work you’re doing is helping the Haitian people win their fight for freedom and democracy…. It’s proving to the world that the United States will stand up for democracy in our hemisphere.” Aristide became increasingly brutal and intolerant, though he managed to win reelection. In February 2004, an array of U.S. government-subsidized democracy promotion organizations helped spur another coup that left 100 people dead and toppled Aristide. Prior to the coup, Brian Dean Curran, the U.S. ambassador to Haiti, warned Washington that the federally subsidized International Republican Institute’s actions “risked us being accused of attempting to destabilize the government.”

Ukraine 

In 2004, the United States pulled out all the stops to help its favored candidate win a “free and fair” election in the Ukraine. In the two years prior to the election, the United States spent over $65 million “to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite exit polls indicating he won a disputed runoff election,” according to the Associated Press. Rep. Ron Paul complained that “much of that money was targeted to assist” Viktor Yushchenko. Yet with boundless hypocrisy, President George W. Bush had proclaimed that “any [Ukrainian] election … ought to be free from any foreign influence.” The United States intervened again to rig Ukrainian politics in 2014. The U.S. meddling helped sow the seeds of the Russia-Ukraine war that commenced in 2022.

Afghanistan

In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush proclaimed that the United States would “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” While Bush’s invocation thrilled Washington, the rest of the world paid more attention to his support for any tyrant who joined his war on terror.

In 2009, President Barack Obama traveled to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he announced plans to send more troops to Afghanistan to save Afghan democracy. Shortly after Obama’s West Point speech, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, sent in troops to bring democracy to a village named Marja in southern Afghanistan.

Shortly before the assault began, McChrystal announced: “We’ve got a government in a box, ready to roll in.” In the same way that the U.S. government plopped Hamid Karzai into Afghanistan in 2002 as its “democratic” leader, the U.S. military brought in Afghan emigre Abdul Zahir to serve as Marja’s new governor. The Washington Post noted that Zahir was touted as “a respected elder from the Alozai tribe, a landowner who lived in Marja in his youth…. U.S. Marines and civilian advisers in Marja have given him money and protection in an attempt to persuade a wary population to follow him.” Zahir’s accession hit a bump after it leaked out that he had spent four years in prison for attempting to murder his stepson while living in Germany. The Washington Post noted: “U.S. officials in Afghanistan said Zahir’s criminal conviction did not undermine their confidence in his ability to govern.” Zahir never received popular support and was murdered at a local meeting the following year.

Libya 

President Obama was supposed to redeem the honor of U.S. foreign policy. In 2011, Obama portrayed the U.S. bombing of Libya as a triumph of democratic values. After Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi was killed, Obama speedily announced that Libyans “now have the opportunity to determine their own destiny in a new and democratic Libya.” But violence spiraled out of control and claimed thousands of victims (including four Americans killed in Benghazi in 2012). Similarly, Obama administration officials invoked democracy to justify arming quasi-terrorist groups in Syria’s civil war, worsening a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands and created millions of refuges.

Egypt

But the Obama team, like prior administrations, did not permit its democratic pretensions to impede business as usual. After Egyptian protestors toppled dictator Hosni Mubarak, Obama pledged to assist that nation “pursue a credible transition to a democracy.” But the U.S. government disapproved of that nation’s first elected leader, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi. After the Egyptian military deposed Morsi in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry bizarrely praised Egypt’s generals for “restoring democracy.” Similarly, many Ethiopians were horrified when Obama visited their country in 2015 and praised its regime as “democratically elected” — despite a sham election and its brutal suppression of journalists, bloggers, and other critics.

American zealotry for spreading democracy fails to recognize how democracy in many places has become simply another form of oppression.

Philippines 

In some nations, election victories legitimize destroying voters en masse. This is exemplified by the Philippines, where the government killed 7,000 suspected drug users and dealers, including several mayors. After President Rodrigo Duterte publicly declared in 2017 that he would be “happy to slaughter” three million drug users, Trump phoned him and, according to a leaked transcript, said, “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you’re doing] on the drug problem.”

Many so-called democracies nowadays are simply elective despotisms. Elections abroad are often herd counts to determine who gets to fleece the herd. Many democracies have become kleptocracies where governing is indistinguishable from looting.

Democracy versus freedom

Selecting leaders by ballots instead of bullets does little to prevent oppression. Economist Friedrich Hayek observed in 1960, “Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” The lessons of the domino-like collapse of democracies in the 1920s and 1930s were largely forgotten by the 1990s. Even the current round of democratic demolitions has failed to awaken people to the folly of trusting elections to safeguard their rights and freedom.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the great difficulty in framing a government is to “first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Democracy has been wildly oversold in the past century as the cure for Madison’s second dilemma. Politicians are far easier to elect than to control. Fostering the illusion of consent makes it easier for rulers to shackle their victims. As Sen. John Taylor warned in 1821, “Self-government is flattered to destroy self-government.”

In many nations, sham rights complement sham elections. Constitutions are “mere scraps of paper” that rulers shred at their convenience. Who determines whether citizens enjoy the rights they are promised? The same politicians who profit from violating them. The Rwanda constitution, for instance, declares, “Freedom of the press and freedom of information are recognized and guaranteed by the State.” And government agents were still free to kill anyone who criticizes President Paul Kagamea, who has ruled Rwanda with an iron fist since 2000.

Nations are increasingly descending into “rights-free democracy” — which is simply despotism with a facade of popular approval. A bogus election is worse than no election at all, as far as leashing politicians. The state gains legitimacy while reformers lose hope.

At this point, ballots are bolstering more tyrants than they are toppling. In much of the world, elections have become sops that rulers throw to their victims. What is the point of referendums that merely provide a one-day faux intermission on oppression? While Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt epitomize the bastardization of balloting, many nations with venerable democracies also serve up election charades to citizens.

Around the world, people are recognizing that rotating political scoundrels in high offices achieves little or nothing. Unfortunately, falling support for democracy does not necessarily signal a decline in political gullibility. While many citizens have become wary of campaign promises, they remain easy prey for other demagoguery.

Once the U.S. government began trumpeting the spread of democracy, it was inevitable that “democracy” would be defined down to gin up more applause lines for presidential speeches. Unfortunately, because most Americans are ill-informed on foreign affairs, presidents can pirouette as saviors even for brazen foreign hoaxes. Invoking democracy provides a Teflon coating for almost any intervention abroad by the U.S. government.

It remains to be seen whether President Trump will fulfill his promises to end U.S. democracy promotion shams. But bribery and bombing are poor ways to export freedom. U.S. endorsements of spurious foreign elections should make Americans think twice about trusting official verdicts on our own elections. What if our politicians decide to give the American people “government in a box,” Marja-style? Or have they done that already?

This article was originally published in the October 2025 issue of Future of Freedom.

The post Will Trump End Sham Democracy Promotions? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Great Depression of 1929 stands as one of the most significant economic crises in modern history, casting a long shadow over the global financial landscape. Sparked by a catastrophic stock market crash in October, this era of intense economic turmoil led to widespread unemployment, poverty, and social unrest. In the United States, millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings, forcing families to confront an uncertain and often dire future. This article delves into the factors that precipitated the Great Depression, its profound impact on American society, the government responses that shaped economic policy, and the global ramifications of this devastating crisis. By understanding these aspects, we can glean valuable lessons that inform current economic practices and prepare us for future economic challenges.

The Causes of the Great Depression

The Great Depression did not arise in a vacuum; it was the result of a confluence of several factors that had been brewing throughout the 1920s. To fully understand the causes of the Great Depression, it is essential to look at the economic environment of the 1920s, commonly referred to as the “Roaring Twenties.” This period was marked by significant economic growth, technological advances, and an unprecedented rise in consumer culture. However, this prosperity was built on shaky foundations, and cracks were starting to appear.

One of the primary catalysts for the Great Depression was the rampant speculation in the stock market. During the late 1920s, an increasing number of Americans began investing in stocks, often borrowing money to purchase shares in hopes of quick profit. This speculative bubble was characterized by inflated stock prices that did not reflect the actual value of the companies. The euphoria surrounding stock investments created an unsustainable market driven by the belief that prices would continue to rise indefinitely. Unfortunately, this led to an inevitable collapse when the bubble burst in October 1929, resulting in a dramatic stock market crash that sent shockwaves throughout the economy.

Bank failures also played a crucial role in deepening the economic crisis. With the collapse of the stock market, many banks faced immense financial pressure as their clients rushed to withdraw their savings, fearing for their financial security. The banking system, which had become over-leveraged during the boom years, was unable to withstand the sudden surge of withdrawals. By 1933, approximately 9,000 banks had failed, wiping out billions in savings and further destabilizing the economy. The loss of confidence in the banking system exacerbated the financial crisis, leaving consumers with little access to credit and diminishing their ability to spend, which in turn led to decreased production and even more layoffs.

International trade issues also contributed to the economic downturn. In an attempt to protect American industries, the U.S. government enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, which raised tariffs on hundreds of imported goods. Although the intention was to bolster the domestic economy, the result was a significant decrease in international trade. Other nations retaliated by imposing tariffs on American goods, leading to a cascading effect of reduced trade volumes and increased economic isolationism. The combination of these protective measures further deepened the global economic crisis, proving counterproductive to the very goals they sought to achieve.

Additionally, economic disparities and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few created an unstable economic environment. While the upper echelons of society reaped the benefits of the booming economy, a significant portion of the population struggled to make ends meet. This disparity in wealth led to reduced consumer spending, which is a vital component for economic growth. Without a robust consumer base, businesses struggled to maintain production levels, leading to layoffs and further economic contraction.

In summary, the causes of the Great Depression were multifaceted and interconnected. The speculative practices of the stock market, bank failures, international trade barriers, and growing economic inequality all played significant roles in leading the world into one of its darkest economic periods. By examining these causes, we can draw lessons not only about financial prudence but also about the importance of a balanced economic system that supports all citizens, rather than a select few.

The Impact of the Great Depression on Society

The ramifications of the Great Depression extended far beyond economic collapse; they reshaped the social fabric of the United States. As unemployment soared, many families faced dire financial straits. By 1933, unemployment rates had skyrocketed to approximately 25%, leaving millions of Americans without jobs and many more struggling to survive on meager means. This widespread financial despair led to significant social challenges, including increased rates of homelessness, malnutrition, and mental health issues.

The plight of the unemployed was visible in cities and towns across the nation. Shantytowns, often referred to as “Hoovervilles” after President Herbert Hoover, sprang up as displaced families sought shelter in makeshift huts. These communities became symbols of the suffering and hardship endured during this era. Families often found themselves living in extreme poverty, with many children going hungry or forced to drop out of school to support their families. The loss of a stable home environment had long-lasting effects on the health and education of these children, many of whom would experience generational poverty as a result.

Furthermore, the Great Depression had a profound effect on the American psyche. The sense of insecurity and hopelessness permeated society, as people grappled with the loss of their dreams and aspirations. The stress of financial instability contributed to a rise in mental health issues, including anxiety and depression. Families were torn apart by financial difficulties, with some individuals resorting to desperate measures, including theft or begging. The collective trauma experienced during this period would leave scars that echoed throughout psychological studies and societal dynamics in subsequent decades.

Social movements also began to emerge in response to the crises created by the Great Depression. Workers organized strikes and protests, demanding fair wages and better working conditions. Labor unions became more prominent as workers sought to protect their rights in an increasingly volatile job market. For many, invoking the power of collective bargaining became a means of survival. This surge in labor activism ultimately contributed to significant changes in labor laws and workers’ rights in the years that followed.

The Great Depression also prompted shifts in public attitudes toward government intervention in the economy. Prior to this period, many believed in a laissez-faire approach, where the government primarily took a hands-off stance regarding economic affairs. However, the scale of the crisis led many to advocate for a more active role for the government in providing support for those in need. This shift in public opinion laid the groundwork for future social safety nets and government programs that aimed to assist those facing economic hardship.

In conclusion, the impact of the Great Depression on society was profound and multifaceted. The economic collapse not only led to widespread unemployment and poverty but also altered the way individuals viewed work, government, and their place within society. The lessons learned during this tumultuous time continue to resonate today, emphasizing the importance of social safety nets, economic equality, and the resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity.

The Government response to Great Depression and how policies changed

In the wake of the Great Depression, the U.S. government faced intense pressure to respond to the profound economic crisis that had gripped the nation. Under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took office in March 1933, the government implemented a series of sweeping reforms and policies collectively known as the New Deal. These initiatives aimed to provide immediate relief to the unemployed, to stimulate economic recovery, and to implement lasting reforms to prevent future economic collapses.

One of the cornerstone programs of the New Deal was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), established in 1933. This program aimed to provide jobs for young men while simultaneously addressing environmental conservation efforts. Participants in the CCC worked on projects ranging from reforestation to building parks and trails, enabling them to support their families while also contributing to national recovery efforts. By the time the program came to an end, millions of young men had benefited from the CCC, gaining work experience and developing skills that would serve them for a lifetime.

Another critical aspect of the New Deal was the creation of the Public Works Administration (PWA), which aimed to stimulate the economy by investing in large-scale public works projects. The PWA funded the construction of infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, and bridges, creating jobs for thousands and laying the groundwork for future economic growth. These projects not only provided immediate employment but also contributed to long-term improvements in public services and infrastructure.

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) was also established to provide financial assistance to states for direct relief programs. This initiative allowed states to distribute funds to those most in need, ensuring that the most vulnerable populations received support in a timely manner. FERA marked a significant shift in government policy toward direct intervention in alleviating poverty and provided a model for future entitlement programs.

In addition to these relief programs, the New Deal included regulatory reforms aimed at stabilizing the financial system. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated commercial banking from investment banking, creating a barrier to limit risky financial practices that had contributed to the economic collapse. The establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought to regulate the stock market and protect investors from fraudulent practices, restoring public confidence in the financial system.

Furthermore, the New Deal brought about reforms in labor rights with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) in 1935. This legislation guaranteed the rights of workers to organize, join unions, and engage in collective bargaining. This marked a significant shift in labor relations, as it provided a legal framework for workers to negotiate better wages and working conditions. The act resulted in a surge of union membership and empowered workers in their fight for labor rights.

The New Deal also included social welfare programs, such as the Social Security Act of 1935, which established a social safety net for the elderly, unemployed, and disabled. By providing financial support to vulnerable populations, the Social Security Act marked a significant transformation in the government’s role in economic security, providing a foundation for the modern welfare state.

While the New Deal faced criticism from various quarters, including conservative politicians and those who argued it expanded government power too far, the overall response to the Great Depression reflected a paradigm shift in how the government perceived its role in the economy. The efforts initiated under the New Deal laid the foundation for a more interventionist government and contributed to the eventual recovery from the Great Depression.

In conclusion, the government’s response to the Great Depression through the New Deal was multifaceted and transformative. Through a series of innovative programs and policies, the government sought to address the immediate needs of a struggling population while implementing reforms to safeguard against future economic crises. The legacy of the New Deal continues to shape discussions around economic policy and the role of government intervention, highlighting the importance of adaptable responses in times of crisis.

Raed the Whole Article

The post Lessons from the Economic Catastrophe of 1929 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Forget about barbarian propaganda. What really matters, historically, is that the Ancient Silk Roads as well as Xinjiang may well be the ultimate crossroads of civilizations. Along Central Asia, they are the (beating) heart of the Heartland.

ON THE SOUTHERN SILK ROAD – Silk is the stuff of legend. Literally. At first manufactured only in China, silk historically was not only a luxury product but a monetary unit: a key element of trade and export revenues.

In 105 B.C., a first-ever Chinese diplomatic mission landed in Persia, then dominated by the Parthians, who also occupied Bactria, Assyria, Babylon and parts of India. Under the four-century long Arsacid dynasty – contemporary of the Han in China – the Parthians at the time were the essential middlemen of transcontinental trade. Chinese and Parthians sat down to discuss – what else – business.

The Roman Empire faced some serious trouble with the Parthians – between the massive defeat of Crassus in Carrhae in 53 B.C. and the victory of Septimus Severus in the year 202. In between, silk hit Rome. Big time.

The first time Roman soldiers saw silk was in the battle of Carrhae. Legend rules that the silk banners deployed by the Parthian army, their scintillating appeal making serious noise under the fierce winds, frightened the Roman cavalry: talk about the first instance of silk contributing to accelerate the decline of the Roman Empire.

Well, what matters is that silk perpetrated nothing less than an economic revolution. The Roman Republic and then Empire had to export gold like there’s no tomorrow to get their silken ways.

Parthian rule was followed by Sassanid Persia. They reigned until the mid 7th century – their empire stretching from Central Asia to Mesopotamia. For quite a while the Sassanids incarnated the role of great power between China and Europe – up to the conquests of Islam.

Silk Road, the ancient Chinese way: from Xian to Alexandria, not Rome. Photo: P.E.

So imagine, at the start of the Christian era, bolts of silk moving overland all along across the Silk Road spectrum. What’s fascinating is that Rome and China never (italics mine) entered in direct contact – for all the vast cast of characters (merchants, adventurers, fake “ambassadors”) that tried.

In parallel, a Maritime Road was also in play – already in effect during the times of Alexander The Great; it later became the Spice Route. That was how Chinese, Persians and Arabs reached India.

Since the Han dynasty, the Chinese reached not only India but also Vietnam, Malaysia and Sumatra. Sumatra soon developed as a key maritime entrepot, with Arab vessels arriving non-stop. In a more long-distance vein, it was the discovery of the rules of the monsoon – in the first century B.C. – that allowed the Romans to also reach the western shores of India.

So silk arrived in Rome by land and sea, via loads of different middlemen. And yet Rome never knew anything about the origin of silk, nor went further than the Greeks in their wobbly knowledge of the distant, mysterious land of Seres.

I went down to the (Pamir) crossroads

After the mid-1st century, the Kushan empire, actually Indo-Scythian, gets a protagonist role in southern Central Asia, in what was known then as Eastern Turkestan. The Kushan, rivals of the Parthians in the role of messengers of international trade, not only facilitated the spread of Buddhism but also Gandhara – Greco-Buddhist – art (some originals are still to be found today, at exorbitant prices, in art galleries in Hong Kong and Bangkok).

And yet, further on down the road, the rules of the game never substantially changed: two great Silk Road poles – Sassanid Persia and Byzantium – involved in a real, cutthroat industrial war with silk right in the middle. The secret of silk manufacturing had already been leaked to South Asia.

This trade war got even more complicated with the onslaught of Turk tribes across Central Asia, and the emergence of a trade kingdom in Sogdiana (with Samarkand at the center).

By the mid-7th century, the Tang dynasty recovered control over parts of the Silk Road ruled by Tarim basin kingdoms. That was an absolute must for business to go on – because caravan routes traversing these kingdoms encircled, and bypassed, by north and south, the fear-inducing Taklamakan desert, as they still do today.

Tang China wanted absolute control all the way at least up to the Pamir mountains where, in the legendary stone tower relentlessly described by adventurers but never really located with 100% certainty, Scythian, Parthian and Persian caravans met Chinese caravans to trade that precious silk plus several other commodities.

The stone tower: Tashkurgan Fort, the landmark between China and the rest of Eurasia. Photo: P.E.

The stone tower mentioned by top geographers such as Ptolemy is actually Tashkurgan Fort in the Pamir mountains: ultra-  strategic, straddling the Silk Road, and nowadays a top tourist attraction very close to the Karakoram highway.

The stone tower is the symbolic landmark between the Chinese world and the rest of Eurasia: to the west is the Indo-Iranian world.

I traveled the Pamir Highway in Tajikistan back-to-back before Covid interrupted everything. This time our mini-caravan crossed Pamir lands along and around the Karakoram highway on the way to the China-Pakistan border: that is now prime China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) territory, a key plank of BRI.

On the road in the Karakoram – the Pamir way. Photo: P.E.

It’s the Pamirs that in Ancient Silk Road times allowed reaching the oasis of Kashgar. The Pamirs tie a gigantic mountainous knot between the western limits of the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush and the southern slopes of the Tian Shan.

The twists and turns of the Panlong Ancient Road, in Pamir lands. Photo: P.E.

This has always been the key crossroads between the triangular trade uniting northern India, eastern Central Asia – with China nearby – and western Central Asia, with the steppes not so far away.

China meets Islam: a great, historical “what if?”

Silk, bearing serious value as a unit of capitalization and trade, had a much larger role than its usage. In Byzantium, silk was the object of an imperial monopoly. Everything was strictly regulated: professions, state ateliers where women worked, and customs. The state protected its monopoly via a fierce bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, the Maritime Road was booming. A Buddhist and maritime power, Srivijaya, controlled the ever-crucial Malacca strait out of the island of Sumatra. It’s under this configuration that Islam enters the Big Picture.

As much as History ruled that Rome and China would never meet directly along the Silk Road, it also ruled a stark separation between Islam and China. Or try to imagine if China, in the mid 8th century, had become a land of Islam.

The battle of Talas, in 751 – in what is today’s Kyrgyzstan – pitted China against the Arabs. And its result ended for good any Chinese whim of conquering Central Asia. Today, with the New Silk Roads/BRI, is another story – about Chinese trade/investment power projection all across the Heartland, and beyond.

Culture interpenetration: Bukhara meets Kashgar. Photo: P.E.

Back in the early 8th century, the key player was Umayyad dynasty General Qutayba ibn Muslim. He first conquered Bukhara and Samarkand; crossed the Ferghana valley; the Tian Shan mountains; and nearly reached Kashgar. The Chinese governor at the time, sensing that Qutayba might be about to take over Chinese lands, sent him a bag full of earth’s soil, a few coins and four princes as hostages. He calculated that’s how the Arab conqueror might not lose face, and leave the Middle Kingdom alone.

As incredible as it might seem, this arrangement lasted for half a century. Until the battle of Talas. Now compare it with Poitiers in 732 – one century after the death of Prophet Muhammad. We can certainly interpret Talas and Poitiers, together, as the two key landmarks of how Islam was on the verge of extending itself all cross Eurasia (including its European peninsula), creating a political-military empire from Rome to Chang’an (today’s Xian).

Well, it did not happen. Still, that’s one of the most extraordinary “what ifs” in History.

The importance of the battle of Talas – virtually ignored in the West, except in rarefied scholarly circles – is really larger than life.   Among other issues, it imposed a new circulation of techniques. The Arabs took away with them artisans, sericulture experts but also paper makers. Ateliers at first were set up in Samarkand. Later on, in Baghdad and all across the Caliphate.

So alongside the Silk Road, we saw the birth of a very busy Paper Road.

Deserts, mountains, oases – and no “slave labor”

Rolling down the highways across Xinjiang shooting a documentary after retracing the initial Ancient Silk Road from Xian to the Gansu corridor is an incomparable, historical time travel – as we may retrace in detail centuries of Central Asian turmoil all the way to the decline of some local pre-Islamic cultures by the 9th century. It’s a thrill to reconnect with the main actors: Uyghurs, Han Chinese, Sogdians, Indians, nomads, Arabs, Tibetans, Tajiks, Kyrgyz – and Mongolians.

An extraordinary Silk Road exhibition currently at the Gansu museum in Lanzhou. Photo: P.E.

The nomad groups thar proclaimed themselves heirs to the fierce Xiongnu came from the northwest of Mongolia and the Altai mountains. They incorporated several ancient nomads of western Central Asia during the 4th century, sharply remodeling the political and ethnic landscape.

The Xiongnu, on and off, pillaged parts of northern China – and were occasionally enticed into serious trade, offered tribute, or simply bribed to stay away. Actually the Xiongnu had a branch established in China and separated for at least two centuries from the previous ones:  they ended up taking Samarkand in the year 350. Later on, it’s the Turks that once again came from Mongolia (don’t tell Erdogan about it; he wouldn’t know), unifying the steppe in the 6th century, way before the arrival of Islam.

Arguably the key Silk Road imperative is the desert and oasis contrast/dichotomy.

The stark beauty of the fierce Taklamakan. Photo: P.E.

Deserts such as the Taklamakan and the Gobi, and several others, as well as arid steppes and mountains are among the most forbidding on the planet: these are the essential features of what amounts to roughly 6 million km2.

What is very rare in Central Asia is cultivated land (yet we can see a succession of cotton fields) or good pasture (we can see it in the Gansu corridor, and even in Pamir lands near the mighty Muztagh Ata). Still, deserts and mountains are at the heart of everything.

Good pasture in Pamir lands. Photo: P.E.

Some oases are of course more equal than others. Khotan is the most important oasis of the Southern Silk Road – not far from the immense, deserted Tibetan plateau. That’s fabulous for agriculture but most of all, courtesy of an alluvial cone, for precious stones, especially jade, supplied for over 2,000 years to every Chinese dynasty. Khotan spoke an Iranian language – close to those of ancient nomads Saka and Scythian, masters of the steppes.

The Chinese character for “silk” inscribed in jade in front of a factory in Khotan. Photo: P.E.

The kingdom of Khotan was a fierce rival of the oases further west, Yarkand and Kashgar. It was only intermittently under Chinese control. And may have been conquered by the Kushans in the 2nd century. Indian influence is omnipresent – as we still see in dress patterns and food in the Night Market. In the 3rd century Buddhism was already a major influence – featuring the most ancient testimonials in the Tarim basin.

The Silk Road, actually Roads, is of course The Buddhist Road. In Dunhuang, in the Gansu corridor, Buddhism was also popular  since the 3rd century: a famous local monk, Dharmaraksa, was the pupil of an Indian master. The Dunhuang Buddhist crowds were a mix of Chinese, Indian and Central Asian – once more testifying to the non-stop interpenetration of cultures.

The camel caravan in the era of booming domestic tourism, outside Dunhuang. Photo: P.E.

The Shakespearean “all the world is a stage” metaphor totally applies to the history of the Silk Road: all those actors from all corners of the Heartland historically were playing several roles, sometimes all in one go – an apotheosis of the favourite Xi Jinping-coined “people to people’s exchanges”. That’s the spirit of the Ancient and the New Silk Roads.

Playing the Uyghur blues. Photo: P.E.

We were fortunate enough to be on the road smack in the middle of the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

Among so many accomplishments by socialism with Chinese characteristics in Xinjiang in terms of sustainable development, the taming of the Taklamakan – or “sea of death” – is in a world class of its own.

We crossed the Taklamakan from the Northern Silk Road in Aksu to the Southern, near Keriya: and we experienced everthing from the impeccable highway bordered by the reeds composing the “China magic cube” – to keep the sands away – to some of the 3,046 km-long sand-blocking green belt, featuring plants such as the desert poplar and the red willow.

The Taklamakan has always been Sandstorm Central – a major threat to the succession of oases. The terrain all around the oases is hardcore: deserts, barren mountains, Gobi wasteland, poor soil, sparse vegetation, low rainfall, high evaporation, dry air.

Well, what we see today started even before the Go West campaign launched in 1999: since 1997, an array of central and state agencies, central state-owned enterprises, and 14 Chinese provinces and municipalities have sent a massive amount of funds and personnel to properly develop Xinjiang.

Now compare all that with original research shared at an academic conference on Xinjiang recently organized by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Hong Kong University – my neighbors when I lived in the Fragrant Harbor. The research showed how British MI6 since the 1990s was instrumentalizing a minority of Uyghurs side by side with a massive global P.R. campaign with the explicit target of breaking China into three parts.

That evolved into the CIA-concocted “genocide” accusations of the past few years and of course “forced labor” masses barely surviving in concentration/re-education camps. In our extensive travels, guided by Uyghurs, we were dead set on finding slave labor in cotton fields along the Northern Silk Road or in the middle of the Taklamakan. Well, sorry: they don’t exist.

The propaganda though was essential to regiment loads of Uyghurs into ISIS, including their sizable contingent in Idlibistan now roaming free between Syria and the Turkish border. They wouldn’t dare coming back to Xinjiang and face Chinese intel.

Forget about barbarian propaganda. What really matters, historically, is that the Ancient Silk Roads as well as Xinjiang may well be the ultimate crossroads of civilizations. Along Central Asia, they are the (beating) heart of the Heartland. And now, once again, they are back as protagonists in the heart of History.

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

The post All the World Is a Stage Across the Ancient Silk Road appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Democrat Party needs to change its name as it certainly isn’t democratic.  The Democrats have shut down the government in order to prevent democracy from working.  By freezing the government, they are trying to prevent the MAGA agenda that the people voted for.  The Democrat’s method of operation is:  When you can’t steal the election, shutdown the government.

By making democracy dysfunctional, the Democrats are bolstering the power of the executive branch.  It is not possible to have a government as large as the one the Democrats have created and prevent it from operating.  The result is to move power to the executive.  

In order to function, democracy requires considerable unity.  If differences are too great, there cannot be compromise.  All of the Western “democracies” have reached that point.  European politics is fragmented.  No party can produce a majority government.  Consequently a coalition of parties has to be assembled whose purpose is to block the “wrong” coalition from governing or, more correctly, attempting to govern.  

In the US, still a two party system, it becomes impossible when one of the parties becomes ideological, as the Democrats have done.  The agenda of the Democrats is to transform the US into a Sodom & Gomorrah Tower of Babel in which all sexual preferences are normal and white racists are replaced by peoples of color.  DEI is how the Democrats symbolize this agenda. They have institutionalized it everywhere, even in science where research funding is provided on a DEI basis and not on the basis of the merit of the proposal.

A revolutionary party becomes insurrectionist, as we are witnessing today with Democrat mayors, city councils, governors, and federal judges resisting the deportation of the immigrant-invaders that the Democrats not only allowed in with their open borders policy but actually organized and financed the invasion with taxpayers’ money. See this.

The Democrats’ DEI ideology is anti-merit, which means that Democrats support legal privileges based on race, declared gender, and sexual preference.  It is the death of equality under the law and the resurrection of aristocratic privilege, only the privileges go to sexual perverts and darker-skinned peoples from outside the American tradition and mores.  In means the destruction of the country.

Senate Democrats Block Bill to End Government Shutdown for 11th Time.

The post The Destruction of America Is What the Democrats Stand For appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”—Thomas Jefferson

For a man supposedly intent on winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump spends an extraordinary amount of time waging war, threatening to wage war, and fantasizing about waging war.

Notwithstanding his dubious claims about having ended “seven un-endable wars,” Trump has continued to squander the American people’s resources and moral standing by feeding the military-industrial complex’s insatiable appetite for war—preemptively bombing nuclear facilities in Iran, blowing up fishing boats in the Caribbean, and flexing military muscle at every opportunity.

Even the Trump administration’s version of “peace through strength” is filtered through a prism of violence, intimidation and strongman tactics.

It is the gospel of power, not peace—a perversion of both Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the U.S. Constitution.

Thus we find ourselves at this peculiar crossroads: a president hailed by his followers as an “imperfect vessel” chosen by God to save the church and restore Christianity—while they turn a blind eye to his record of adultery, deceit, greed, cruelty, and an almost religious devotion to vengeance and violence.

If anything captures Trump’s worldview, it is the AI-generated video he shared on social media: a grotesque fantasy of himself wearing a golden crown, flying a military fighter jet, and bombing a crowd of protesters with brown liquid feces.

This is the man who claims to be “saving God”?

Dismissed by his devoted base as harmless humor—a cheeky response to the millions nationwide who took part in the “No Kings” protests on Oct. 18—Trump’s crude fantasy of assaulting critics with fecal bombs nevertheless begs the question: Who would Jesus bomb?

That question, of course, is meant less literally than morally.

To answer it, we must first understand who Jesus Christ was—the revered preacher, teacher, radical, prophet and son of God—born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of America’s own police state.

When he came of age, Jesus had powerful, profound things to say, about justice, power and how we are to relate to one another. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” “Love your enemies.”

A revolutionary in both spirit and action, Jesus not only died challenging the police state of his day—the Roman Empire—but left behind a blueprint for resisting tyranny that has guided countless reformers and freedom fighters ever since.

Far from the sanitized, domesticated figure presented in modern churches, Jesus was a radical nonconformist who challenged authority at every turn. He spoke truth to power, defied political and religious hierarchies, and exposed the hypocrisy of empire.

Jesus rejected politics as a means to salvation. For Him, faith was not about seizing power but serving others—helping the poor, showing mercy even to enemies, and embodying peace, not war. He did not seek political favor or influence; He actively undermined it.

That is not to say He was passive. Jesus knew righteous anger. He turned over the tables of the money changers in the Temple because they had turned faith into profit and worship into spectacle.

Yet even in anger, He refused to wield violence as a tool of redemption. When His own arrest approached, He rebuked His followers: “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

The Beatitudes summarize His message: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” And when asked to name the greatest commandment, He answered simply: to love God with all one’s being and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.

In other words, we love God by loving our fellow human beings.

Jesus—the “Prince of Peace”—came not to destroy life but to restore it.

Which brings us to Donald Trump, the latest political “savior” anointed by Christian nationalists for whom the pursuit of a Christian theocracy now appears to outweigh allegiance to our constitutional democracy.

Seduced by political power to such an extent that the true message of Jesus has been taken hostage by partisan agendas, much of today’s evangelical movement has become indistinguishable from right-wing politics—defined by anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual rhetoric, material excess, sprawling megachurches, and a spirit of judgment rather than mercy.

Meanwhile, the wall of separation—between church and state, between moral authority and political coercion—is being torn down from both sides.

The result is a marriage of convenience that corrupts them both.

This is what happens when you wrap your faith in the national flag.

What is worse—far worse—than the Christian right selling its spiritual birthright for a political seat at Trump’s table is the blasphemy that has followed: the Gospel of Jesus replaced by the Gospel of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Within the White House, faith leaders gather to lay hands on Trump as he sits at the Resolute Desk, praising him for defending “religious freedom” for Christians—seemingly unconcerned that from that same desk he has signed death warrants for nearly every other freedom.

In the Pentagon, Trump’s Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, presides over prayer services where the name of Christ is invoked almost in the same breath as he boasts of preemptive strikes, righteous killings, and “peace through strength.”

Kristi Noem, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, prays in front of the cameras all the while boosting spending on military weapons for ICE by 700%, with significant purchases of chemical weapons and “guided missile warheads and explosive components.”

This is not Jesus’ Christianity—it is Christian nationalism: Christianity draped in the flag and wielding the weapons of war.

When leaders presume to act in God’s name, every drone strike becomes a crusade, every critic a heretic, every raid a holy war.

This is how war becomes a form of worship in the American empire.

What was once the Gospel of Peace has been replaced by a national creed that equates killing with courage, dominance with divine favor, and obedience with faith.

It is a blasphemous marriage of church and state—one that desecrates both Christ’s command to love one’s enemies and the Constitution’s mandate to keep religion free from the corruption of power.

Under Trump’s rule, this weaponized faith has found expression not only in rhetoric but in action.

It is there in the bombing of Venezuelan fishing boats—no declaration of war, no congressional authorization, no due process—men in small vessels labeled “enemy combatants” by fiat. It is there in the militarized ICE raids that tear families apart under cover of darkness. It is there in the persecution of journalists and dissidents accused of being anti-American. It is there in every detail of how, as one state senator warned, “the President is building an army to attack his own country.”

Each act is justified as righteous violence, sanctioned by a president who sees himself as both protector of the faithful and punisher of the wicked.

Yet beneath the veneer of divine mission lies the same old tyranny the Framers warned against: a ruler who mistakes executive power for divine right and turns the machinery of government into an instrument of holy war.

Both Jesus and the framers of the Constitution understood the same truth: faith and freedom cannot be imposed by force.

That is why the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing religion. The moment religion aligns itself with political power, it ceases to be faith and becomes ideology. The moment a president claims divine sanction for war, the republic ceases to be a democracy and becomes a theocracy of fear.

Driven by those concerns, the framers built a system designed to restrain ambition, limit vengeance, and guard against tyranny.

That constitutional system is being bulldozed before our eyes—just as surely as Trump is bulldozing his way through the White House, leaving wreckage in his wake.

And so we return to the question that started it all: Who would Jesus bomb?

The answer, of course, is no one.

Jesus would not rain destruction from the skies or bless the machinery of death. He would not mistake vengeance for virtue or domination for deliverance.

Jesus would heal the sick, welcome the stranger, and lift up the poor. He would drive the money changers from the temple, not sanctify the merchants of war.

Yet here we are.

Under Trump’s broadened definitions of “rebellion” and “domestic terrorism,” Jesus would be labeled a subversive, his name placed on a watchlist, his followers rounded up for “reeducation.” He preached compassion for enemies, defied authority, and stirred the crowds without a permit.

Were Jesus——a Palestinian refugee, a radical, and a revolutionary—to show his face in Trump’s American police state, he would fare no better than any of the undocumented immigrants being snatched up in the dead of night, stripped of any real due process, made to disappear into inhumane detention centers, and left to be tortured or die.

This is what happens when nations lose their moral compass: due process becomes a slogan, justice a privilege, and compassion a crime.

When even mercy is outlawed and truth branded subversion, the darkness is no longer metaphorical—it is moral.

It is midnight in America, a phrase evocative of Martin Luther King Jr.’s warning of a “midnight in the moral order.”

This is the time, King cautioned, when absolute standards pass away, replaced by a “dangerous ethical relativism.” Morality becomes a mere “Gallup poll of the majority opinion.” Right and wrong are reduced to the philosophy of “getting by,” and the highest law becomes the “eleventh commandment: thou shall not get caught.”

In this deep darkness, King said, there is a “knock of the world on the door of the church.”

That knock is a reminder, he warned, that the church “is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”

That knock still sounds today—steady, insistent, and largely unanswered.

It reverberates through religious institutions that mistake nationalism for faith and pulpits that confuse politics with piety. It calls us to rediscover the moral courage that resists tyranny rather than blesses it—to be, once more, the conscience of the state before the darkness becomes complete.

Whether we heed that call will determine what kind of nation we remain.

The time for silence has passed; the hour demands conscience.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “we the people” must step up, speak up and speak out.

The tragedy of our age is not merely that presidents claim godlike power or that the citizenry themselves go along with it—it is that people of faith who should know better consent to it.

When Christians cheer the strongman who wraps himself in Scripture while shredding the Constitution—when they bow to the idol of safety, mistaking fear for faith—and when religious institutions fail to speak truth to power—we lose more than our freedoms.

We lose our moral and spiritual birthright.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Who Would Jesus Bomb? The Gospel According to the Military-Industrial Complex appeared first on LewRockwell.

A few years ago, a heated debate erupted over the publication of Mattias Desmet’s The Psychology of Totalitarianism in which he presented his theory of mass formation to describe how a large mass of people becomes susceptible to a hypnotic-like state of delusion. I found the book fascinating and persuasive, and it seemed to offer at least a partial explanation of why so much of mankind behaved in such an obviously irrational way during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, Dr. Peter Breggin countered with the argument that the vast majority of people were not deluded—that is, they had not suffered a psychotic dissociation from reality. As Dr. Breggin saw it, the irrational behavior we observed in so many was a normal response to being terrorized, isolated, propagandized, and manipulated by government agencies and their accomplices in the mainstream media.

At the time this debate took place, it seemed to me that both Breggin and Desmet made valid points. The depraved governments of the world and their media partners were indeed waging a campaign of terror and propaganda on their peoples, and also singling out for destruction the dissidents who were trying to restore reason and prudence to public discourse.

However, it seemed to me that propaganda and PSYOPs alone were not sufficient to explain why some people were highly susceptible to these manipulations, while others were immune. Pondering this prompted me to rewatch Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shining, about a frustrated, recovering alcoholic writer who is demonically possessed by the evil spirits that inhabit the Overlook Hotel in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.

I’d not watched the film in over twenty years, and was stunned by how effectively Kubrick captured the spiritual terror of the story. Virtually every shot captures two basic elements:

1). The susceptibility to evil in the frustrated writer, Jack Torrance.

2). The extreme evil that resides in the Overlook Hotel.

The trouble with Jack Torrance is that he doesn’t know himself. He is filled with desires and ambitions, but due to his inability, lack of discipline, and history of alcoholism, he cannot achieve the success he craves. His relationship with his wife and child is cold, and the audience senses he regards them as a burden and hindrance. Kubrick adds a subtle and perverse twist to his psychology in the film by having him look at a Playgirl magazine while standing in the lobby, waiting for his interview to be the hotel caretaker. You have to be paying very close attention to notice this, which gives it a subliminal quality.

Already in Jack’s interview, the hotel goes to work on him, as the interviewing managers go out of their way to emphasize that he will be tested by five months of extreme isolation after winter sets in. Revealing his essential lack of self-knowledge, Jack insists that isolation is precisely what he wants (so that he can write his novel).

As Jack and his family tour the hotel, multiple allusions are made to the extermination of the American Indians. There is also an extremely creepy scene in which the hotel cook, Richard Halloran, (played by Scatman Crothers) shows Mrs. Torrance and the boy Danny the hotel’s vast meat locker, the shelves of which resemble the wooden barracks in photographs of Nazi concentration camps. Again, you have to be watching very closely to notice these details, but they are definitely there.

In other words, the Overlook Hotel is a portal to hell, and in it resides all of humanity’s most terrible emotions—seething resentment, homicidal rage, the desire to dominate, control, and annihilate others.

And yet, only Jack is susceptible to the hotel’s evil. While his son Danny is able to see it, he isn’t seduced by it. Likewise, Jack’s wife—a simple, kind, and loving woman—is completely immune.

What are the qualities that make some immune to indoctrination while others remain highly susceptible to it? One could write an entire book about all the factors, but as food for thought, I suggest it has something to do with how much or how little we are given to the seven Cardinal Sins.

In Jack’s case, he suffers from Pride and the Wrath that arises when he cannot achieve his proud ambitions. In his mind, he is too good to be a mere schoolteacher, and he feels humiliated by the necessity of doing ordinary jobs to earn a living. Especially toxic is his impulse to blame others for his problems and to rationalize his rage.

When you closely examine the awful people who run our world today, you will notice that they are animated with pride and are quick to express wrath at those who oppose them. Lust, Greed, and Envy are also ubiquitous among this set.

Finally, we have our epidemic of extreme intellectual Sloth. In an 1822 letter, James Madison remarked:

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

If the U.S. is to remain a Constitutional Republic with limited government, “We the People” are going to need to do a much better job of arming ourselves with knowledge. An ignorant people is extremely easy to frighten and manipulate, which is why tyrants have always shown a keen interest in censorship and distracting the people they rule with garish entertainment that conveys no knowledge or moral ideas.

Reprinted with permission from Courageous Discourse.

The post Indoctrination: Susceptibility v. Immunity appeared first on LewRockwell.