Aggregatore di feed

We have had Unmitigated Treason for more than 80 years. The American people have suffered a monumental loss of Lives, Freedom, and Prosperity because of Wars for Profit that have nothing to do with National Security. But they have everything to do with obscene profits for the Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC) and Congress.

The greed and corruption is so entrenched in Congress and the people are so brainwashed by the media that all attempts to stop this Treason have failed. It is understood by most that the PSRRC, the  Jewish Lobby and Media, control our government. My solution is to let members of the Military resign from the service if the government enters an armed conflict with a nation that can’t invade us, and there is no Declaration of War, or if it is War for Profit. Attacks on pirates or the rescue of American hostages would continue. These requirements are simple to understand, and are the only way I can see to stop these wars for the profit of the PSRRC and Congress at the expense of The People.

How can you find fault with this dramatic and scary proposal if it saves our young people and returns us to the American Dream and prosperity when nothing else has worked?

Following are the critical and sad facts that support any radical attempt to stop Wars for Profit, Unconstitutional Wars without a Declaration of War, and Wars against Adversaries who can’t invade us:

1. We have engaged in Wars for profit for 80 years, and lost every one of them.
2. We lost 105,000 members of our armed forces, killed millions, destroyed entire nations and incurred hatred of the entire world.
3. Every single war was for profit, not National Security, as we had no direct interest.
4. Effectively, Congress sold our military as Mercenaries to Big Money aka PSRRC.
5. Today, Congress is spending $428.4 Billion on Foreign Aid, Deployed Military and Bases Overseas, without any boots on the ground, yet this costs about 10% of its income.
6. Foreign Expenses of any kind are causing Inflation and lowering the living standards of Americans, pushing us closer to Economic Dystopia.
7. We need our military at home to confront and deport Illegal Invaders. The need is so great we may have to resort to the Draft. Our military numbers only 2.1 million, while Invaders are more than 20 Million. The numbers should be reversed for the Guerilla Warfare that many are predicting.
8. The United States can’t be invaded because of our oceans, making reciprocal defense treaties with NATO a sick joke on us. The proper defense posture for United States is non-involvement, for we can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction or from within.
9. There is absolutely no justifiable Constitutional or rational reason for foreign expenditures of any kind  Wars for profit, with or without a Declaration War, are Treason.
10. We have 177,209 Troops deployed in 80 countries. They are like canaries in a cold mine that serve no National Security Purpose. If they are attacked, we can’t save them.

The single most important reason for this unconstitutional government is the failure of the corrupt and complicit FBI to investigate, prosecute, and convict criminals in government.

President George Washington in his 1796 Farewell speech warned us against forming permanent alliances and engaging in foreign entanglements that could pull us into Europe’s conflicts. He further stated that we have NO DIRECT INTEREST in Europe’s wars. This advice would have kept us out of World War One and Two, and the last 80 years of Wars for Profit. Japan attacked us because of our actions against them.

If we had followed President Washington’s advise and the Constitution, we would now have prosperity beyond all comprehension.

The post We Must Stop Wars for Profit, Wars With No Declaration of War, or Wars Where Adversary Can’t Invade…Otherwise GIs Could Resign! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Ascending Crisis

America is rapidly changing; the post-war consensus of 1945 is beginning to break among young conservative Americans. Recently, with the assasination of Charlie Kirk, the rhetoric among the online right and even centrist Americans has boiled over into calls of action. Along with this, there is also a massive Christian element to this rhetoric, more than merely calls to prayer and fasting; Kirk is being seen as a martyr for the Christian faith, the interview where he states he wants to be remembered for his faith if he dies being particularly popular. High-ranking clergy like Bishop Barron also weighed in on the event and asked, “Who are we becoming?” Charlie Kirk’s rival, Nick Fuentes, had encouraged his followers to “pray for Charlie Kirk’s soul, his young family, and our country” and has made it clear to all his followers that “if you take up arms, I disavow you.” The empathy being displayed is noble, but as with most emotional events, facts get muddled, and actions are taken out of emotion rather than sense. It is true that the United States is in a period of political and economic instability; this explains the religiosity. In his 1900 essay, “The Rise and Fall of Elites,” Vilfredo Pareto outlines the rise of religiosity during times of ascending political crisis, stating:

“Even a most superficial study shows that among the civilized nations, the religious sentiment has grown in the last years and is still increasing. This has benefited not only all religious forms already in existence, which would be the various Christian denominations, but it has lent vigor mainly to a new order of religious sentiments which manifest themselves in socialism. Moreover, patriotism has risen to new heights and is assuming the form of religion-in Germany, where an authoritative review goes so far as to speak of the “German God.”

It is no secret that there has been a rise in traditional religious institutions among the younger generations of Americans and Europeans. A 2024 AP article talks about a sudden shift in the culture of some Catholic parishes, women in lace head coverings, demands for the return of the Traditional Latin Mass, and a heavier emphasis on confessions and penance, all of which steers away from the modernization of the Church following the Vatican II council. However, it would be foolish to take these reports at face value. If it is true that the early 20th century of Europe showed a similar increase in religiosity, then why did the political parties take on the role of clergy and godhood in the midcentury, such as the Nazis and Bolsheviks? Is the young traditional sect of Americans merely a trend? A revolutionary force? Or a passive movement? To answer this and the aforementioned Bishop’s question of “who are we becoming,” we must first understand the mindset of the American masses, why the religionists of the country will lose the political battle, the true nature of power, and a confrontation with the country itself.

The Animating Spirit

With so many American conservatives calling for change, struggle, and action to change the downwards course of the country, the animating spirit of the movement can be probed. All nations, whether just established or entering into a new phase in their existence, require an animating spirit that their citizens look towards for inspiration. For modern America, Henry R. Luce had coined the term “American century” in 1941; America would be the leading global superpower and this American exceptionalism was carried with great enthusiasm by American media and the general population during the post-war boom. The animating spirit that seems to be currently establishing itself on the American right is one not dissimilar to the Soviets. After the death of Lenin in 1924, members of the Politburo, such as Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, saw themselves as heirs to Lenin’s work towards the proletarian revolution, or at least used that excuse to legitimize their claim to power. Lenin’s body was placed in a mausoleum, his body continually embalmed to prevent decay, and he was raised to a deity status. Gorbachev admitted in Vitaly Mansky’s film, “Gorbachev. Heaven,” that he “still sees Lenin as our God.” Decisions that the General Secretary made were cross referenced with Lenin’s work.

The point of intersection between the body of Lenin and American conservatives is the martyr status of Charlie Kirk. Ben Shapiro made it clear that they’re “going to pick up the blood-stained microphone where Charlie left it.” Although many conservatives disagreed with Kirk on many issues, his commitment to free speech and discussion is now met with admiration, but how long will this image last? With still so many reiterating a civil war narrative, future fractures within this new movement can already be seen; this is exactly what happened between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky believed that his goal of world revolution was the true heir to Lenin’s mission, but Stalin, more pragmatic, rejected a world revolution as he saw communism struggling to take hold in the new Soviet state. The Moscow trials saw Trotskyists purged from the party and exiled from the country, with Trotsky himself being assassinated in Mexico City. This was required to stabilize the country and consolidate Stalin as supreme leader. The emotional event of Kirk’s assasination has united the American right to great fervor, but how long can this last, no movement seeking true power can develop a manifesto so dedicated to free speech. While no definite conclusion can be made on how it all ends, the Christian sect is doomed to fail in American politics.

It is doomed to fail because it is not a revolutionary force, while the Christian churches modernized and became contained by the western secular culture through events like Vatican II, Islam underwent an opposite transformation. During the street battles that emerged during the 1979 Iranian revolution, fighters would often chant slogans reminiscent of the Marxist revolutions, whilst mixed with Islamic proclamations; some include: “God’s help and victory is near; death to this deceitful monarchy; we do not live under the burden of oppression; we sacrifice our lives in the path of freedom; worker, peasant, oppressed, sufferer; armed struggle is the road to freedom.” This mix of ideas is attributed to the work of Iranian revolutionary Ali Shari’ati, and French Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre. Shari’ati had met Satre in Paris, and after returning to Iran, he would become known as the foundation layer of the Iranian revolution. Britannica explains:

“Shariʿati’s teachings may be said to have laid the foundation for the Iranian revolution because of their great influence on the Iranian youth. His teachings attacked the tyranny of the shah and his policy of Westernization and modernization that, Shariʿati believed, damaged Iranian religion and culture and left the people without their traditional social and religious moorings. Shariʿati called for a return to true, revolutionary Shiʿism. He believed that Shiʿite Islam itself was a force for social justice and progress but also that it had been corrupted in Iran by its institutionalization by political leaders.”

Shari’ati combined the Marxist ideas of armed struggle with Shia Islam, who up until then had been considered an apolitical group. However, Ayatollah Khomeini had taken this group and organized the multiple sects of Iranian society in overthrowing the Shah, and in the Ayatollah’s first sermon, he made this declaration:

“Yes, we are reactionaries, and you are enlightened intellectuals: You intellectuals do not want us to go back 1400 years. You, who want freedom, freedom for everything, the freedom of parties, you who want all the freedoms, you intellectuals: freedom that will corrupt our youth, freedom that will pave the way for the oppressor, freedom that will drag our nation to the bottom.”

It is unlikely that Pope Leo, or Patriarch Bartholomew will call upon the faithful to take up arms against the secular western governments. This is the exact reason the growing religiosity of the early twentieth century gave way to the religion of a party apparatus, and with the Christians noble disdain of violence, they’re unlikely to commit to any true positions of power.

Rudderless Americans

Among the American masses, there is a paradox on violence that shows itself in full force after recent events in the world. The “Gen Z revolution” in Nepal was met with great enthusiasm in the American sphere. When videos of Nepal’s finance minister being stripped naked and chased into the river by an angry mob or when the Nepali parliament was burnt to the ground, Americans responded with Thomas Jefferson quotes on Twitter. Political violence is met with great enthusiasm by Americans when it is done in other countries but is met with shock and disbelief when it happens in their own country. Of course, the situation in Nepal does not matter to America; similarly, the assasination of Charlie Kirk means little to the average Nepali, but it begs the question of what Americans, especially the American conservatives, want. Reuters had recently reported on some of the online dialogue of the American right, with one X poster reportedly saying that the nation was “teetering between a political rupture and civil war; we’re past words.”

There will be no civil war; the American conservative movement has little to no basis of power within the United States except that of podcasters and independent media, with donors deciding on what is reported and how it is portrayed. The Confederates, for instance, had the backing of large Southern plantations, Democrat politicians, and military men who deserted the Union to fight for the South, such as Robert E. Lee; their secession was backed by legitimate power. Modern American conservatives would be foolish to organize any armed group. Insider had interviewed an undercover FBI agent named Scott Payne, who had managed to infiltrate biker gangs, the KKK, and neo-Nazi groups over the course of a twenty-year career; who’s to say any new movement won’t face similar moles? Finally, there are the conservatives who continually advocate for prayer and peaceful collective action, but this can only go so far. True change can only come within the confines of power; can these Christian Americans go that far? When the popular Catholic influencer Voice of Reason was revealed to have been texting an adult woman in a sexual nature, he was condemned by the Catholic online sphere. Positions of power often require making sinful decisions; if text messages can cause such a scandal, what would a truly Catholic president be faced with?

The current rebelliousness that conservatives are portraying since Kirk’s muder will also face the same problems that the hippies of the 1960s confronted. Their counterculture, far from tearing down the system at which it was aimed, had instead been absorbed and commercialized. Their anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism, and anti-authoritarianism became products of this cultural trend. The colorful dress, long hair, and rock and roll became staples in American culture in the decades following the rebellion. Woodstock is remembered with great fondness, with other concerts commemorating the original being held in 1994 and 1999. The conservatives, in particular the more traditionally minded Christian youth, have already undergone this process. The ideal of the traditional wife manifests itself in online personalities dressing as women from a bygone era; rosary beads become a commercial product with discounts if you use a code given to you by an influencer. The new counterculture, while opposed to the hippies, will also be absorbed by the system, and their rebellion will be sent back to them in the form of products.

Road to Terror

The American conservative lacks the fundamental qualities necessary to produce a leader that will lead to a true change in policy and power. If they were bold enough to attempt a civil war or a coup d’etat, their very own American nature of vanity would lead to its failure. The very foundation of this current movement is also entirely based on empathy for a man who made free speech his career and proposed to live a faithful life; these are qualities incompatible with leaders seeking true change in a country rife with violence. Curzio Malaparte, an Italian writer who accompanied Mussolini on his march to Rome, expertly examined the art of insurrection in his book “Coup D’etat.” He references discussions between Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin begins:

If we want to carry out the revolution as Marxists, that is to say as an art, we must also, and without a moment’s delay, organize the General Staff of the insurrectional troops, distribute our forces, launch our loyal regiments against the most salient positions, surround Alexandra theatre, occupy the Fortress of Peter and Paul, arrest the General Staff and the members of the members of the government, attack the cadets and cossacks with detachments ready to die to the last man. We must mobilize the armed workers, call them to the supreme encounter, take over the telephone and telegraph exchanges at the same time, quarter our insurrectional staff in the telephone exchange and connect it up by telephone with all the factories, regiments, and points at which the armed struggle is being waged.”

Trotsky, however, disagreed with this notion, he replies:

“That is all quite reasonable, but it is too complicated. The plan is too vast and it is a strategy which includes too much territory and too many people. It is not an insurrection any longer, it is a war. One must concentrate on small tactics, move in a small space with few men, strike hard and straight. Hit your adversary in the stomach and the blow will be noiseless. Insurrection is a piece of noiseless machinery. Your strategy demands too many favorable circumstances. Insurrection needs nothing. It is self-sufficient.

American conservatives may argue that they do not want to carry out a revolution like Marxists, that it is Marxist rhetoric, and hate that killed Charlie Kirk, but as Trotsky had explained to Lenin, “Insurrection is not an art; it is an engine. Technical experts are required to start it and they alone could stop it.”  The Christians will be too passive to begin such an undertaking; the podcasters and media talking heads are outside of the spheres of power; they cannot start an insurrection nor put an end to one.

No Country for Old Men

America is a brutal land; the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska, the assasination of Charlie Kirk, and the mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic school mass are devastating but not surprising. In Cormac McCarthy’s 2005 book “No Country for Old Men,” Sheriff Bell, a small-town lawman, is unable to deal with the violent wave of crime occurring in his county; he realizes that “this county is hard on people, you can’t stop what’s coming. It ain’t all waiting on you. That’s vanity.” The warnings in this fictional novel are prophetic; the crimes in the book are no different than the ones seen on local news. The sheriff’s understanding of his reality is key to turning this country around:

“Some of the old time sheriffs never even wore a gun. A lotta folks find that hard to believe. Jim Scarborough’d never carried one; that’s the younger Jim. Gaston Boykins wouldn’t wear one up in Comanche County. I always liked to hear about the oldtimers. Never missed a chance to do so. You can’t help but compare yourself against the oldtimers. Can’t help but wonder how they would have operated these times. There was this boy I sent to the ‘lectric chair at Huntsville Hill here a while back. My arrest and my testimony. He killt a fourteen-year-old girl. Papers said it was a crime of passion but he told me there wasn’t any passion to it. Told me that he’d been planning to kill somebody for about as long as he could remember. Said that if they turned him out he’d do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell. “Be there in about fifteen minutes”. I don’t know what to make of that. I sure don’t. The crime you see now, it’s hard to even take its measure. It’s not that I’m afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don’t want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don’t understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He’d have to say, “O.K., I’ll be part of this world.”

The pitiful revolution, which started in 2016, has undergone multiple phases. The death of Charlie Kirk is not necessarily a turning point, but it is merely a new phase in this revolution. Just as Germany had suffered through phases following the 1918 revolution in the form of the chaos of the Weimar Republic, or the Soviets after the failure of Perestroika, Russia entered the chaotic and pathetic rule of Yeltsin, only for stability to arrive after Putin’s rise to power. Indeed. America is entering into a chaotic phase, one that can only be described similarly to William Yeats’ poem, “The Second Coming,” written at the end of the First World War:

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer, things fall apart, the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. Everywhere the ceremony of innocents is lost, the best lack all conviction and the worst are full with passionate intensity. What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem, to be born.”

The turmoil facing America is not new; the great fear the Latins faced at the fall of Rome seemed like the end, but it wasn’t. Oswald Spengler once described civilizations in the form of seasons. America is in the winter, the final season after spring and summer pass. The conservatives and Christians who are today demanding action, perhaps organizing themselves, or plotting to be president one day must face this question. Do you have what it takes to run a country not meant for old men? The Indians used to scalp frontier settlers; mobsters were gunning each other down during the gangland wars of the 1920s and the Colombo Wars in the 1960s and 1990s; today, the cartels have massive control over Latin America and flood the country with drugs; violent street gangs run wild in many inner cities; and now, innocent people are getting stabbed and shot in the neck. True Power will lie in the hands of those ready to take the positions needed to fix these problems, someone with the cunning of a fox and the strength of a lion, a Machiavellian who silently says, “Ok, I’ll be part of this world.”

The post American Religiosity: Trend, Revolutionary, or a Passive Movement appeared first on LewRockwell.

I don’t spend any time on social media nor do I have any interest in the mainstream conservative movement, so I’d only been very slightly aware of Charlie Kirk prior to his sudden assassination on Wednesday, shot dead at the age of 31 by a sniper while speaking at the University of Utah Utah Valley University.

I’d vaguely known that Kirk was a young conservative activist who had dropped out of community college as a teenager about a dozen years earlier to found Turning Point USA, an activist organization intended to draw youthful Americans into his ideological camp, and heavily funded by mega-donors, it had grown large and successful over time. Those bare facts exhausted my total knowledge.

Given that I’d paid so little attention to him, I was initially shocked by the enormous outpouring of media coverage his killing generated, seemingly greater than might have been accorded many important American elected officials or even major world leaders under similar circumstances. All our top newspapers gave his story large, front-page headlines, and the discussion of Kirk’s assassination and its implications entirely blanketed much of the Internet.

I’d always regarded Kirk as a rather bland mainstream Trump conservative, hardly the sort of figure most likely to inspire lethal hatred. I wondered whether my impression had been mistaken so I sought to assess his views and positions, and get a better sense of why he had been targeted in that deadly attack.

Given his brutal slaying at such a young age, I was hardly surprised that a large fraction of the commentary amounted to hagiography, with even most of his erstwhile ideological foes mourning his death as a tragedy and casting aside any past criticism. Indeed, when Matthew Dowd, a prominent former Bush-Cheney Republican political consultant made some disparaging remarks about Kirk, he was immediately fired from his longstanding position at MSNBC, demonstrating the risks of straying from that widespread position.

Fortunately, I found some important exceptions to this pattern of unremitting praise.

I’d occasionally read pieces by Michael Tracey, a prominent moderate or liberal-leaning Internet writer and the day after Kirk’s death he published a harsh 1,400 word column providing a very different perspective on Kirk.

Many of Kirk’s supporters had described him as a political truth-teller, with President Donald Trump declaring that he had been “a martyr for truth.” But Tracey was scathing in his criticism, portraying him as essentially a political propagandist, someone who regularly shifted his positions to conform to those of Trump, his leading patron:

He was a government functionary. A mouthpiece. He trafficked in ludicrous propaganda on behalf of the Administration he loyally served. And was doing this basically 24/7, in the extremely recent past.

Perhaps most notoriously, after taking a personal phone call from Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk hopped on his podcast the next day and proclaimed, “Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration. I’m gonna trust my friends in the government.” He then bizarrely tried to deny that he said this, or insist it had somehow been taken out of context — which it hadn’t. The context was that Trump got annoyed that a bunch of people had criticized him over Epstein at Kirk’s “Turning Point USA” conference, and then Trump called up Kirk, and then shortly thereafter, Kirk announced he was going to do the government’s bidding. That’s just what Kirk was, and the role he played in US political affairs — notwithstanding how people might now want to exalt him as a paragon of truth-telling virtue because of his untimely death.

Charlie Kirk: “Honestly, I’m done talking about Epstein for the time being. I’m gonna trust my friends in the administration. I’m gonna trust my friends in the government.” pic.twitter.com/OaHHpvc3RT

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 14, 2025

His conduct was even more egregious in the run-up to Trump bombing Iran in June. During that episode, he pretty much served as a blatant government disinformation agent. Harsh as that might sound after he was brutally gunned down yesterday, it’s simply true. His mission was to demand uncritical faith in the US government, during a time of war — which is totally inexcusable for anyone who would consider themselves anything even remotely approximating a “journalist.” But that’s clearly not what Charlie Kirk considered himself. He instead considered himself a government media mouthpiece. On April 3, he said “A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.” Then by June 17, as drumbeats for the joint US-Israeli war against Iran were intensifying to full volume, Charlie changed his tune to mollify Trump, whom his whole identity was built around sycophantically serving. “It is possible to be an extreme isolationist,” Charlie Kirk warned his massive audience. “President Donald Trump is a man made for this moment, and we should trust him.” This was just pathetic. Turn off your critical thinking skills and place unquestioning “trust” in the US government to wage a war on false pretenses! What awesome, noble “truth-telling”!

Kirk then called for Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, for the peace-bringing act of launching a new war in the Middle East. As I wrote at the time, “The shamelessness of these people has no bottom — it’s gotten to the point where you just have to marvel at the spectacle.” That was Charlie Kirk. He openly deceived his viewers and listeners, falsely insisting that Trump had been courageously pursuing “peace,” when in reality Trump was mobilizing for war in conjunction with Israel. At the time, I labeled Kirk a “depraved minion” for doing what he did, and I’m not about to retract that accusation just because he got killed yesterday. That would be absurd.

“We must trust Trump,” declared Charlie Kirk, the martyred truth-teller:

I stand by this completely, and there is zero reason to revise my assessment in light of Kirk’s death:

Charlie Kirk had been a cog in the propaganda machine of the Republican Party, declaring totally baselessly that a vote for Trump in the 2024 election was a vote to “bring peace to the Middle East.” And when the exact opposite happened, Charlie was imploring his followers to simply “pray” and uncritically trust the President. He was detestable.

And he wasn’t just some random commentator or podcaster. He was a full-time, extremely influential Republican Party apparatchik. His mega-donor funded outfit “Turning Point USA” ran “Get Out The Vote” operations for the Trump Campaign in the 2024 election. I’m not saying Charlie Kirk wasn’t entitled to engage in these political activities in a free society with lots of billionaire largesse available for ambitious operatives willing to serve as Republican Party Youth Galvanizer. I’m just saying I’m not obliged to fawningly express reverence for him now, simply by virtue of his sudden and hideous death.

Furthermore, I am very much entitled to challenge the hagiography and mythology that is so quickly congealing around him, such that he’s now being expeditiously put into the pantheon of martyred American saints — which is completely ridiculous. However, I’m fully aware that my limited efforts in this regard will have virtually zero effect. The absurd reverence-fest will continue unimpeded.

• Yes, the killing of Charlie Kirk was heinous. No, he was not a martyred truth-teller
  Michael Tracey • Substack • September 11, 2025 • 1,400 Words

Even more hostile was the reaction of right-wing Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin, who maintained his angry, contrarian reputation by quickly publishing a series of posts ferociously denouncing the slain conservative activist. The lengthiest of these drew more than 500 comments on our website, with Anglin’s deeply emotional reaction probably explaining the obviously missing word in his title.

Sharply attacking Kirk from the right, Anglin eagerly dredged up quotes that demonstrated the victim’s notably liberal views on various hot-button issues. This hardly surprised me since it merely reflected the leftward shift of our conservative movement, whose right-wing MAGA partisans these days espouse many positions on social issues that would have marked them as extreme progressives as recently as the 1990s.

For example, Anglin noted that one of Kirk’s Tweets praised Trump’s strong support for global gay rights and condemned the media for failing to give the president sufficient credit on that score:

Anglin also highlighted another Kirk clip in which the conservative activist ridiculed the academic dogma that there are 47 different genders while strongly affirming his own support for ordinary transgenderism, saying that men had the right to declare themselves women and vice-versa.

“Conservative” Charlie Kirk:

“Okay, there’s two genders. Now can someone who might be born as a man choose to be a woman? Yes. There’s two genders, pick one.”

wut pic.twitter.com/NYsxjecDq2

— The Columbia Bugle (@ColumbiaBugle) November 2, 2019

This last example seems to perfectly exemplify the nature of our modern conservative movement. The promotion of totally insane ideas by the mainstream media and the academic community has provided self-proclaimed conservatives with considerable necessary cover, allowing them to win popular support by proudly advocating ideas that are only somewhat less insane in comparison.

As an example of Kirk’s personal support for transgenderism, Anglin noted that his organization heavily promoted an activist of that ilk called “Lady MAGA,” going much farther in that regard than most other pro-Trump conservatives. This certainly seemed to contradict early media reports suggesting that Kirk had been killed for his hostility to transgenderism.

According to Anglin, Kirk had also been a leading proponent of the notion that “America is an idea,” with our ideology and our constitutional principles defining what it means to be an American. Anglin located a 2019 clip in which Kirk took exactly this position, while simultaneously proclaiming that Israel should rightly remain “a blood and soil nation,” falling into a different category because of the holy connection to its land:

Video Link

As with many conservatives, Kirk apparently had some strong libertarian roots, and during Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign he had emphasized that wide open America could easily accommodate almost unlimited numbers of hard-working, productive legal immigrants. Anglin actually claimed that Kirk had invented the meme of “stapling green cards to diplomas” and indeed in this clip the latter proposed that any foreigner who graduated from an American university should be issued a green card allowing permanent legal residency. Kirk even suggested that our country could reasonably absorb an astonishing fifty million new legal immigrants over the next ten years.

Video Link

Anglin was obviously mining Kirk’s record to find those public statements most likely to infuriate the many right-wingers now mourning Kirk’s martyrdom, and I’m sure that clips could also be found in which Kirk sometimes took the opposite side of these same issues. For example, by 2023 he had apparently proposed halting all immigration.

But that’s the crucial point. Like so many other conservative activists, Kirk’s views on most ideological issues were hardly set in stone, and instead might easily change over time as Trump and other national leaders of his movement chose to move in different directions. This hardly indicated that Kirk was the sort of fanatic ideologue most likely to attract a deadly assassin.

All of this suggested that Tracey’s more cynical criticism of Kirk was probably much closer to the mark.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Assassination of Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Transgenderism has rapidly become one of the most contentious political issues in our country and due to its rapid rise, a variety of theories have been put forward to explain where it emerged from. Remarkably, I almost never see what I believe to be one of the most important facets of the topic discussed—the immense dangers of hormonal blockers routinely used in this field or the appalling history of these drugs and how again and again, they’ve been thrust into new markets they had no place ever being used in because of how profitable they are.

As such, when laws are periodically passed banning their use in children (which has now happened in many Red States), I rarely see the actual dangers of these drugs discussed, and when I’ve spoken to left-wing colleagues (including pediatricians) opposing these laws about the topic, most are genuinely unaware the drugs have negative side effects. Because of this, I believe it is vital to expose the actual truth behind these drugs.

How Hormonal Blockers Work

There are a variety of ways you can block the production of hormones in the body. Since the signal to produce sex hormones (e.g., estrogen and testosterone) begins in the brain, cutting that signal off mostly eliminates the body’s production of hormones. The most powerful hormonal blockers, the GnRH agonists, work by overstimulating the brain’s GnRH receptors so that they becomes “burned out” and no longer respond to the natural release of GnRH in the body, thereby short-circuiting the body’s production of sex hormones (which in many cases is a permanent short circuit).

A variety of different GnRH over-activators are sold, such as Decapeptyl (Triptorelin), Lupron (Leuprorelin), Suprefact (Buserelin), Synarel (Nafarelin), Zoladex (Goserelin). Since Lupron is the most commonly used one, henceforth, I will only discuss it, but much of what I will say about Lupron also applies to the others as well.

Note: there are also numerous similar drugs which instead temporarily shut down hormone production by directly blocking the GnRH receptor (e.g., Orilissa). Additionally, there are other GnRH over-activators which are only used in animals and have similar side effects to those observed in humans.

Since testosterone fuels the growth of prostate cancer, there was a lot of research on cutting of the body’s testosterone to treat it. Initially the most promising approach was to counteract testosterone with an estrogen analog (DES) which was eventually pulled from the market because it caused a wide variety of issues (e.g., heart attacks, female cancers, and a variety of severe problems in the children of mothers who took DES—which has led many to argue the COVID-19 vaccines may become “the new DES”).

Since Lupron, by burning out GnRH receptors, chemically castrates males (and thereby eliminates their testosterone), a 1984 study was conducted comparing the use of DES to Lupron for patients with prostate cancer which had metastasized to the bones and was hence likely to be fatal. It found Lupron slightly increased their survival rate (although half still were dead within two years of starting the therapy) and it had a slightly different mix of severe symptoms when compared to DES, which in turn was used to argue it was a viable alternative to DES.

When the FDA reviewed this study, the reviewers noted the study had a variety of serious issues so it was difficult to draw any firm conclusions from it. As a result (despite the FDA knowing Lupron had real longterm risks that had not been investigated and other critical aspects of the drug like how the body metabolizes it remaining unknown to this day), Lupron was approved in 1985 as a “palliative treatment of advanced prostate cancer,” a situation which is frequently so debilitating and painful for cancer patients, anything which could potentially somewhat improve it is viewed as justified.
Note: six months ago, Scott Adams, who had advanced prostate cancer, shocked the online community by saying the torture of it had made him decide upon committing suicide in a few months after an important life event had passed—providing a clear example of how dire “advanced prostate cancer” can be.

Since that time, Lupron’s approval was never updated. For those interested, a detailed explanation of why that approval was overtly fraudulent and unwarranted can be found here.

Note: in addition to Lupron offering a very small survival benefit, a strong case can be made that since it is frequently observed to causes a variety of severe complications (e.g., a large increase in fatal heart attacks or diabetes), its reduction in the prostate cancer death rate is actually an artifact of it killing the patients in another manner before a slow growing prostate cancer would. This perspective for example was shared by the Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society.

Once Lupron was approved, it use transitioned from only the most severe prostate cancers to all of them (even though, as shown by a 2009 study of 19,271 men, using Lupron actually increased the death rate). At the same time, a variety of other copycat drugs entered the market. The FDA in turn approved them (or Lupron) for advanced prostate cancer, advanced breast cancer, endometriois (along with its pretreatment prior to surgery), the pretreatment of fibroids before surgery, and preventing precocious (early) puberty.
Note: while I believe the risks of these treatments greatly exceed their benefits, it is also true that a subset of patients exist with those conditions who benefit from Lupron and suffered minimal side effects from the drug.

Additionally, a variety of other off-label uses were concocted, such as:

• “Treating” every imaginable gynecological problem (e.g., large fibroids, difficult menstrual cycles, ovarian cysts).

• In-vitro-fertilization and egg donation protocols.
Note: many young women are paid thousands of dollars to donate their eggs. Unfortunately, a portion of those donors suffer significant complications they are not warned about beforehand and then are left on their own to address. This is likely in part due to the fact Lupron is frequently part of the protocol. Likewise, significant birth defects (which Lupron has been shown to cause in the majority of pregnancies) are frequently reported following IVF—which may explain why despite Lupron being originally patented as a fertility medicine, it could never be formally approved for that use.

• Chemical castration for sex offenders (e.g., pedophiles).

• Helping children become taller (by delaying puberty so their growth plates take longer to close).

• Preventing puberty in a transgendered youth
.
Note: a more detailed list of the off-label uses can be found here. It is truly remarkable how many different tactics were used to seed these additional uses (e.g., bribing countless doctors and medical charities to promote these drugs) and likewise how many other uses (e.g., for Alzheimer’s disease and Autism) came very close to becoming off-label uses as well.

In turn, there are three important things to take away from all of this.

1. While these drugs were initially developed for men (i.e., prostate cancer), they are frequently given off-label to women. This for example is why Lupron’s FDA insert states its only indication is for the palliative treatment of advanced prostate cancer but it simultaneously warns against pregnant women taking it (even though it’s also used for egg harvesting)

2. Despite having been on the market for decades, there is very little evidence to show these drugs actually benefit those who take them.

3. Given this, along with how incredibly toxic they are (especially to women), it raises a fairly simple question—why on earth are these drugs so popular?

Selling Lupron

Lupron’s manufacturer was stuck with a rather large challenge—how could they got doctors to begin prescribing an incredibly dangerous and ineffective drug? This in turn was accomplished through one of the most overt acts of physician bribery I’ve seen in American medicine.

Since Lupron initially did not sell well, Lupron’s manufacturer took advantage of the existing “standard” which allows chemotherapy drugs to be sold for a very high price and be “forgiven” for their extreme toxicity. This was done by reformulating Lupron into a long acting monthly shot urologists could directly administer to their (prostate cancer) patients and hence directly profit from marking up when they resold it (e.g., Medicare paid 1200 dollars per shot—or roughly 2400 in today’s dollars, and in many cases urologists charged far more, all of which allowed many urologists to make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year administering the shots).
Note: TAP frequently advertised to urologists they could make over $100,000 annually selling Lupron and later cited similar figures to OBGYNs.

To further sweeten the deal, Lupron’s manufacturer frequently bribed urologists and gave them free Lupron samples they “resold.” This was illegal—and eventually resulted in a 875 million dollar fine…but no pharmaceutical executives going to prison.

Because Lupron was immensely profitable, more and more urologists jumped on it, and by the late 1990s Lupron treatments were costing almost a billion dollars per year and accounted for 40 percent of all Medicare payments to many urology practices in the late 1990s. To address this, in 2001, Medicare clamped down on urologists reselling discounted Lupron and in 2003 Medicare lowered the reimbursement for Lupron. In turn from 2003-2005, the rate of inappropriate use of hormonal treatment for prostate cancer dropped from 38.7% to 25.7% and many urologists at the time reported their income had been halved.

Note: one survey found 53% of the urologists who did not believe prescribing Lupron benefitted certain prostate cancer patients still prescribed the drug to them.

This Medicare crackdown on excessive Lupron prescribing for prostate cancer created a major problem for the industry. “Fortunately,” since Lupron was so profitable, many others specialities appeared eager to jump on the Lupron bandwagon, particularly OBGYNs (despite the existing data on using Lupron for gynecological conditions being very poor and in many cases overtly fraudulent). This in turn led to a rapid proliferation of new off-label “uses” for the drug, such as the ones listed above. Remarkably, despite the fact Lupron has been on the market for decades, it is still extremely expensive.

Lupron hence is a very lucrative drug. However it is unclear to me exactly what the current reimbursement is for it (e.g., when I’ve looked online, many patients said they were billed over 10,000 dollars for a single injection).

A recent article exploring the subject found that puberty blockers can cost tens of thousand dollars per year. While insurance typically covers these drugs around 72% of the time, without insurance, according to once source, they cost $4,000–$25,000 per year and according to another source a 3 month Lupron injection is $9500 while a competing 3 month option (histrelin) is $39,000.

Similarly, a 2022 NPR article detailing a man’s prostate cancer experience (where he was given unwarranted Lupron shots) reports he was charged $35,414 for the first shot and $38,398 for the second by a Chicago “non-profit” hospital, and after two years of haggling, was forced to pay the $7,000 not covered by his health insurance.

Let’s compare that to how much Lupron costs (this table designates the average wholesale price pharmacies pay for drugs):

Note: these costs are unusual as they are much higher than what pharmacies typically pay for a drug (especially an older one). The above table is from 2023, and just a year later in 2024, the cost of Lupron went up almost 10%.

Since all of this demonstrates that Lupron is marked up by 5-10 times its original cost when it is resold to patients, I would argue those who provide these medications may have an ulterior motive in giving them to patients which frequently causes the drugs to be inappropriately prescribed.

Note: one of the most common stories I hear reported from Lupron victims is a tendency for doctors to gaslight them and insist their myriad of health problems could not have come from Lupron, hence making one of their greatest challenges be finding a doctor who can actually help them (or say qualify them for disability since they’ve lost the ability to work). I believe this is partly due to the unusual nature of their injuries and because many doctors have a direct personal investment in believing Lupron is safe and effective (as they aggressively pushed it on their patients—for instance many reported the doctor saying “are you brave enough to try Lupron?”).

Read the Whole Article

The post The Dark History of Hormone and Puberty Blockers appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you’re like me and have been watching the news feeds and social media for developments on the Charlie Kirk assassination, you have probably also come across a disturbing army of leftists online cheering for the conservative speaker’s death. Some posts, featuring people laughing and celebrating, have tens-of-thousands of upvotes. It’s not just the comments, it’s the mob of crazies supporting the comments.

What I see in this mountain of degenerate psychopathy is confirmation. I and many other analysts have been warning for years that the fight for what remains of the western world will happen on two fronts: The globalists at the top, and the leftist hordes on the bottom. While it’s true that globalists often fund woke groups through NGOs and corporations, they are simply giving aid to people that already have the will and the intent to destroy the US.

If you have any doubts about the nature of the progressive cult just watch how they revel in the blood and maybe then you will understand. These people are not human beings, they are monsters, and now they feel very emboldened because they think they can get away with political killings.

A prime example is in the numerous arguments they present to justify Kirk’s assassination. Social media is rife with them, thousands of posts supported by hundreds of thousands of people. What I would like to do is break some of the most common arguments down and identify if the ideas are retarded, or evil (or both). Let’s get started…

Leftist Claim: “Charlie Kirk’s words were offensive and caused harm, therefore he deserved to die.”

Diagnosis: Retarded And Evil

The political left has long treated words as being equal to violence. For them there is no distinction. This is the foundation of the “wrong think” ideology. Charlie Kirk never harmed a living soul and under the law he had every right to express his views regardless of whether or not people get offended. He never led a mob to burn down a city block. He never organized a terror cell. He never advocated for violence. He never even punched a commie. The most he did was advocate for the right to self defense.

If opinions are violence, then anyone can be killed for their opinions. Thinking you are immune because you have the “right opinions” is perhaps the most ignorant assumption a person can make, but leftists are generally low IQ individuals.

On the other hand, there is also the underlying agenda among elitist groups to make “hate speech” a subject of government enforcement. We have seen this in full swing in the UK the past year and it’s getting ugly. ANYTHING can be designated hate speech, from posting jokes online to flying your national flag.

Strangely, only conservatives seem to get arrested for speech violations. It’s almost as if only conservative ideas are being outlawed.

Hate speech laws are the doorway to mass censorship, and if progressives and their globalist partners can’t put those laws in place, then they have decided to enforce color of law through political violence so that conservatives are afraid to speak.

Leftist Claim: “It’s Ironic That Charlie Kirk Was Pro-Gun And Then He Was Killed By A Gun…”

Diagnosis: Retarded

It’s actually not ironic at all. Kirk often pointed out that the majority of gun violence is committed by leftists – In leftist controlled cities and in minority neighborhoods which vote predominantly Democrat. If leftists were removed from the equation, gun crimes (and crime overall) in the US would plummet.

Charlie was most likely murdered by a leftist (the evidence released so far indicates this). We’ll find out soon enough. If so, then the assassination only supports his argument that the political left is the danger. Not gun rights.

Leftist Claim: “Where Was The Good Guy With A Gun To Protect Charlie…?”

Diagnosis: Retarded

Good guys with guns stop at least 1.8 million crimes per year according to surveys on DGU (Defensive Gun Use) data. But Kirk never argued that the presence of good guys with guns makes him bulletproof. Good guys with guns die all the time, especially if they are targeted for political assassination. The gun is to give someone a fighting chance if they see the threat coming. It doesn’t make them invincible.

Leftist Claim: “If only Charlie hadn’t defended gun rights, maybe he would be alive today…”

Diagnosis: Evil

When leftists make this argument what they are really saying is: “If you don’t give up your gun rights, we have the right to shoot you.”

Leftist Claim:  “Kirk would have been saved by the increased gun control he opposed…”

Diagnosis:  Retarded

The murder weapon was a basic .30 Cal hunting rifle, probably holding a maximum of four rounds.  It’s not the type of firearm on any ban wish list that the Democrats have put forward.

If leftists are going to make this argument then they will have to admit that their true intention is to ban ALL guns, not just scary “black rifles”.

Leftist Claim: “Charlie Kirk Lived By The Sword And Died By The Sword…”

Diagnosis: Retarded

As noted earlier, Kirk never attacked anyone, never harmed anyone, and only fought for the right to speak his views without being censored or threatened. If debate is a threat to the political left then their ideas must not hold up to public scrutiny. In other words, they killed Charlie Kirk because he exposed their ideas as faulty.

That’s not “living by the sword”, that’s being nice. Leftists don’t want to see us truly take up the sword, which is why the media is currently scrambling to call for peace.

Leftist Claim: “Kirk Was A Radical And Now Is A Time To Abandon Radicalism And Make Peace…”

Diagnosis: Evil

Lets be clear, the vast majority of the violence is only coming from one side, and that’s the progressive Marxist/globalist side.  It’s rather convenient that progressives suddenly want peace after years of violent rhetoric and actions. Why are they doing this? Because they know that retribution on a large scale is so near. When an opponent has waged aggressive war for years and then suddenly wants a ceasefire, it’s usually because he’s about to get hurt and he wants to regroup.

Woke activists have been begging for an ass kicking for at least the past decade and now they are starting to realize they just might get it.  They desperately want our anger over Kirk’s death to fizzle out over time.

Kirk was not a radical in the slightest. He only spoke the facts to the best of his ability. Facts cannot be radical. The truth is never extreme. However, now that he has been killed, I suspect leftists are going to see a lot of actual “radicals” in the near future.

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.us.

The post Leftist Arguments Justifying the Murder of Charlie Kirk appeared first on LewRockwell.

Recently I was enjoying a draft beer with a friend.   Charlie Kirk’s assassination became a topic of discussion.   We wondered if Kirk’s assassination would have an awakening effect.

My friend thought that the Yellowstone episodes showed an awakening and that Kirk’s assassination would broaden it.  Yellowstone was a long series and highly popular. I have not seen the episodes as I do not have time for entertainment platforms.  For me life is all work. My friend’s descriptions of the characters Beth Dutton, her father, and the ranch foreman and their popularity among viewers suggests  Yellowstone was very awakening.

After some thought I decided that Beth and her father, the owner of the large Yellowstone ranch, are the right kind of people–decisive, without illusions, able to recognize a life and death situation, like the cartoonist Scott Adams.  They realized that they faced the same fate the Roman settlers in Britain faced when the Roman legions were withdrawn.

Like the Romans leaving Britain, protection for white ethnicities has been withdrawn from the British as Britain’s Muslim female Home Secretary just made clear when she sicced the British police on the ethnic British public, not on the immigrant-invaders. The situation is the same in every white ethnic country in the Western world.

In the Yellowstone series father and daughter were not disheartened by the odds.  Fighting in defense of one’s mores, values, family, and traditions is a duty.  It is done regardless of its chance of success.  I remember an ancient Anglo-Saxon poem, “The Battle of Malvern Bridge,” I think it was.  The English Earl tells his troops in combat with Viking invaders that “as our numbers diminish our will must grow stronger.”

White ethnicities of all nationalities, whether  English, French, German, Polish, Hungarian, Russian are under the same threat that the English were  under at Malvern Bridge.  

But will they fight for their values and lives?  Or will they be submerged and  exterminated in multiculturalism?

It took Alfred the Great to secure England for the English.  Who is there to secure the future for white ethnicities?

In The Camp of the Saints Jean Raspail concluded that white ethnicities had been too indoctrinated against themselves to be able to defend themselves.  Will Charlie Kirk’s assassination serve to intimidate Americans or to wake them up?

Assassin fired fatal shot from a distance of 137 yards.  White dot above

is location of assassin. Lower white dot is Charlie Kirk’s location.

The post Do White Ethnicities Understand That They and Their Values Are Under Attack? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier this month a British academic named Michael Rainsborough wrote an insightful essay on the United Kingdom’s descent towards civil war.  Once the head of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, Rainsborough was dismissed from his post for committing a series of “thought crimes.”  His final offense came in the form of a co-authored essay entitled, “The British Road to Dirty War,” in which he and former colleague David Betz diagramed “the hollowing out of British democratic institutions” and the dangerous rule of a permanent governing class filled with authoritarian elites.

Now working in Australia, Rainsborough returns to the subject with additional wisdom that only time and distance can provide.  His verdict is as incisive as it is sobering: Britain’s institutions are irreparably damaged.  The country is headed for long-term Balkanization.  A “dirty war” similar to those that gripped Latin America fifty years ago may usher in an era of assassinations, hostage-taking, disappearances, industrial sabotage, censorship, and general repression.  Although he acknowledges that the question of how bad things will become in Britain is still very much an open one, he doesn’t envision any set of circumstances that can entirely avert the misery to come.

Rainsborough describes a series of intentional acts engineered by governing elites to diminish democratic accountability and maintain permanent control.  Rather than recognizing the democratic will of the people following the Brexit referendum in 2016, the ruling class responded with a “deranged mixture of denial and contempt for the electorate.”  Even before the Brexit vote, however, leftist-globalists were engaging in a great “demographic transformation” intended “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”  Today the whole British government “operates from a post-nationalist outlook, one that treats the very idea of nationhood as negotiable, even alien, to the political class.”

Making matters worse, the British Establishment has gone all-in on globalism by “outsourcing” its “sovereignty to supranational bodies” that “dilute and often override domestic consent.”  Consequently, institutional elites are driving Britain towards “self-destruction” by “clinging to an incontinent immigration system and an almost devotional attachment to international and human rights laws that disadvantage its own citizens.”

Rainsborough accuses British authorities of repurposing old tools for imperial governance into “divide and rule” instruments for manipulating domestic society.  “The aim” is “to rule by division: to fracture society into communities, reward loyal in-groups and discriminate against the majority through a two-tier system of justice, policing and social policy.”  He calls the agents of this purposeful division the “new imperialists.”

The “new imperialists” have self-important titles — “diversity coordinators, anti-racism activists, curriculum decolonisers, climate campaigners” — but their mission is identical to the agents that once helped Britain’s East India Company conquer much of the globe: to “manage society by division.”  After categorizing everyone by race, caste, and creed, today’s “woke” imperialists “elevate” favored minorities and “relegate” the majority to “second-class status.”  Just as their predecessors felt morally superior to the natives when conquering India, today’s leftist-globalists are “buoyed by moral certainty and a conviction of their right to rule.”

The natural result of this manufactured division is today’s national flag protests across the United Kingdom.  While government authorities enthusiastically support the waving of Ukrainian, Islamic, and “gay pride” flags, they are extremely angry with British citizens who proudly fly England’s Cross of St. George.  “The majority population, already disregarded on questions such as immigration, is told that its own symbols of belonging must be hidden, while the emblems of others are to be privileged and extolled.”  In effect, Britain’s elite ruling class has denied the British “people’s right to recognise themselves.”

What is particularly remarkable about Rainsborough’s analysis is its applicability to other nations throughout the West.  An American, Canadian, Australian, German, or Dutch citizen reading his point-by-point rationale for why the United Kingdom is heading for civil war would logically conclude that civil war is also coming closer to home.  Is there any public policy that the British Establishment has implemented to “divide and rule” over citizens that the Establishments of other Western nations haven’t also implemented?  Support for mass illegal immigration, the demonization of patriotism as “fascism,” the criminalization of so-called “hate speech,” widespread censorship, and the systematic persecution of individuals and groups expressing dissent to the government’s official “narratives” — these hallmarks of encroaching totalitarianism flourish across the West.

Parts of France are in flames right now.  After Emmanuel Macron’s government collapsed last week, riots erupted nationwide.  Fed up with the direction of their country under Macron’s rule, French citizens across the political spectrum have temporarily coalesced into a “Block Everything” movement that has shut down major highways and turned the night sky into a medieval mixture of glowing embers and smoke.  It has been reported that the ineffective French president is so desperate to quell the growing revolt that he is considering shutting down social media platforms.

Macron might resist the despotic urge to suspend public communication after witnessing events unfold in Nepal.  The South Asian republic is also in flames right now after more than a week of total chaos.  After large public protests over government corruption could not be controlled, the Nepalese Establishment made the fateful decision to block all social media platforms.  Angry citizens promptly responded by burning down parliament, dragging politicians out of their homes, and beating officials to death.  The government attempted to reverse course and permit social media access, but protesters continue to target anyone who might be considered an “elite.”

French President Macron is acutely aware that the carnage in Nepal could soon find its way to France if he chooses to shut down social media sites.  Leftist-globalists already crossed a similar line in Canada when the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau seized the bank accounts of “Freedom Convoy” protesters fighting back against COVID edicts and “vaccine” mandates.  Trudeau’s actions demonstrated how willing Western governments are to punish dissent by seizing private property.  Should Macron follow Canada and Nepal’s reckless examples by confiscating bank accounts and stifling public communication, French citizens will no doubt respond with even more intensity.

Perhaps that is why one of the U.K.’s top law enforcement officers, Sir Andy Cooke, is desperately trying to end the criminalization of “offensive” social media speech.  Arguing that British authorities need to “allow people to speak openly without the fear their opinion will put them on the wrong side of the law,” Cooke wants cops to stop acting as free speech “monitors.”  After years of throwing British citizens in jail for expressing opinions, this kind of public policy U-turn suggests that government authorities now regret energizing a free speech movement sweeping across the U.K.

In reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the United States, Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrote, “We must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear — there can be no justification for political violence.”  After years of imprisoning people for their speech and regularly censoring social media accounts, Starmer’s hypocrisy set off a chain reaction of national anger in the U.K.  On Saturday, over a million citizens took to the streets of London in support of free speech.  One Brit declared, “They just made a million Charlie Kirks.”

Could France, Britain, or the United States suffer Nepal’s fate?  Maybe.  The “new imperialists” are dangerously arrogant.  As Rainsborough writes, “They imagine themselves clever enough — and the public credulous enough — that such policies can be pursued without provoking resistance.  But arrogance is no substitute for foresight.  Once matters tip into open conflict, escalation takes on its own momentum.  Anger is already stirring — and anger, once roused, is the fuse of history.”

If you look around the West, it is impossible to deny that the “fuse of history” is already lit.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post The Fuse of History Is Lit appeared first on LewRockwell.

“Hacks” costar Hannah Einbinder said “Free Palestine” during her acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actress at the Emmys on Sunday. Questioned by the press afterward, Einbinder said she has friends in Gaza, adding, “I feel like it is my obligation as a Jewish person to distinguish Jews from the state of Israel, because our religion and our culture is such an important and longstanding institution that is really separate to this sort of ethnonationalist state.”

I’ve followed Einbinder on Instagram for a long time because she’s been one of the few people in Hollywood consistently using their influential voice to oppose this genocide, and it is very good that she said these things. Hopefully we see much more of this.

But right now I can’t help thinking about how unforgivable it is that all the other Hollywood celebrities haven’t been using their platforms at these events to call for an end to the Gaza holocaust this entire time. For two years this nightmare has been normalized in the eyes of the public with the assistance of the vast conspiracy of silence between all the people with the largest and most influential voices in our society.

❖

❖

I’ve been seeing a lot of people talking about how hypocritical it is of Trumpers to be going around trying to get people ostracized or fired for speaking ill of Charlie Kirk after his assassination.

One of the most boring political observations you can make about Republicans or Democrats is that they are “hypocrites” who say one thing and do another. That stops being interesting when you realize their words are never actually saying anything about their real principles and values; they’re always just making empty noises to advance whatever agendas they’re trying to push in a given instance.

Of course Republicans pretend to care about free speech and then support the suppression of the speech of their political enemies; their lip service to “free speech” was just something they said to attack the Democrats. Of course Democrats pretended to care about racism and injustice and then threw their support behind a live-streamed genocide; their lip service to justice and equality was only ever empty noise they were making to attack Republicans.

The interesting thing about these contradictions isn’t that they show “hypocrisy”, it’s that these people don’t actually stand for anything. It’s that they’re just a bunch of babbling human livestock mindlessly regurgitating whatever noises they’re conditioned to regurgitate in order for their team to win.

This unthinking lateral feuding benefits nobody but the powerful. The empire managers are always happy to see a white hot culture war sucking all the oxygen away from the kind of dissident thinking that could give rise to a revolutionary class war. The more Americans are fixated on empty partisan feuding with no real content, the less inclined they will be to do anything real. The more their gaze is fixed horizontally, the less likely they are to look up at those who are pulling their strings.

❖

When rightists talk about people who “celebrated” Charlie Kirk’s death they’re talking about literally anyone who didn’t give him the respect and reverence they feel he was due. For days they’ve been falsely claiming I celebrated and cheered his assassination because I didn’t act like Jesus Himself had been shot.

Go ahead and search through my articles. Search my tweets. You’ll find me saying he was a genocide apologist, you’ll see me saying his life wasn’t worth more than the lives of the people being murdered in Gaza as we speak, you’ll see me calling him a GOP swamp creature, you’ll see me calling rightists a bunch of mindless NPCs for uncritically swallowing every narrative they’ve been fed about this thing, but you won’t find me celebrating, expressing joy at his death, mocking or making jokes about his death, justifying his death, or saying he deserved to die.

They’re just lying and claiming people celebrated his death whose only real offense was declining to participate in the efforts to posthumously beatify this asshole and pretend he was a wonderful, saintly person.

❖

“Don’t criticize the behavior of a dead political operative” is not a legitimate position to have. Grow the fuck up.

______________

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 Celebrities Should Have Been Calling Out the Gaza Holocaust This Entire Time appeared first on LewRockwell.

Iago, in Shakespeare’s Othello, is one of the most fascinating and peculiar villains in all of literature. Though he is constantly deceiving and manipulating Othello and everyone else, in asides he lets the audience know his true, malevolent intentions. One of his most complex verbal formulations is the following:

Heaven is my judge, not I for love and duty,
But seeming so for my peculiar end.
For when my outward action doth demonstrate
The native act and figure of my heart
In compliment extern, ’tis not long after
But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve
For daws to peck at. I am not what I am.

In other words, the feelings of love and duty he expresses are not true, but a false appearance of these for his “peculiar end.” His “peculiar end” is the destruction of Othello and Desdemona.

And then comes the disturbing image that only an imagination as fertile as Shakespeare’s could imagine.

But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve

For daws to peck at. I am not what I am.

By this he means he will outwardly show his (false) feelings (“wear my heart upon my sleeve”) while at the same time representing his heart as a rotten thing to be eaten by carrion birds (jackdaws, a species of crow).

In recent days, Charlie Kirk’s critics have cited some of his controversial statements in a grotesque gambit to explain and even justify the coldblooded murder of the young man. One of Kirk’s (purported) statements that has been singled out for special derision is the following.

I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage.

I suspect that this statement has been taken out of context, but even if if it hasn’t, I believe it’s clear what he meant by it, and that he had a valid point.

In our current culture that champions victimhood, expressions of empathy for favored victims have become a variation of virtue signaling—that is, a means for phony people to promote and morally aggrandize themselves.

Those who offer such expressions of empathy for favored “victims” confer a perverse form of praise and success on the “victims,” thereby encouraging them to remain victims instead of doing the hard work necessary to forge a path forward to well-being and success. In this false and corrupt game, the “empath” gets to feel morally superior and the “victim” gets attention and status for being a victim.

Iago had the self-awareness to know and confess that he was a treacherous “knave” who faked love and loyalty for his “peculiar end.” He doesn’t explicate his motive, but hints that it’s a combination of sexual jealousy, envy, and resentment.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Wearing Empathy on One’s Sleeve appeared first on LewRockwell.

A young man anxious about his immortal soul approaches his pastor to complain about so many mediocre souls he’s forced to keep company with at Mass. “There must be a parish somewhere,” he asks, “where people are actually saints? Would you please direct me to it?” Suppressing a smile, the kind pastor tells him that, of course, there is such a parish. “Only you must remember,” he advises the young man, “that from the first moment you join such a parish, its perfection will have been diminished by your membership in it.”

Yes, the story is apocryphal, but that’s not the point of it. In fact, as Chesterton would say, “it’s as plain as a potato.” Which is that for certain rarefied souls, the perfect Church would be one so pure that no human being could possibly be a part of it. Only angels need apply.

Not exactly the sort of Church Jean Daniélou had in mind in writing his little book. An arrangement of that sort, he would argue, would never be acceptable to Christ’s Mystical Body, whose thirst for souls remains as wide as creation itself, and no less generous than God’s offer of salvation, which is extended to all, sinners included. Indeed, to disdain a Church along those lines, a Church so promiscuous as to desire the company of the impure, would amount to an act of abdication, of surrendering the entire sacramental mission of the Church herself, wiping out whole redemptive possibilities envisioned by Christ. Who has precisely come, explains Daniélou,

to save all that has been made. Redemption is concerned with all creation, civilization is part of the order of creation…is sick and needs to be healed like all things that pertain to man in his wounded state…Christianity must take up and consecrate all that has to do with man.

Such a strategy, no more sweeping that which can be imagined, will necessarily include especially the least morally prepossessing of people, which is to say, ourselves. Didn’t Christ come primarily for people like us? For whom, as the poet Eliot expresses it,

Our only health is the disease
If we obey the dying nurse [i.e., the Church]
Whose constant care is not to please
But remind of our and Adam’s curse,
And that, to be restored, our sickness must grow worse.
The whole earth is our hospital 
Endowed by the ruined millionaire
Wherein, if we do well, we shall die   
Die of the absolute paternal care
That will not leave us, but prevents us everywhere…

The problem with the first solution, therefore, to which only those as pure as the driven snow feel themselves drawn, is that it would effectively abandon not only the poor, who are especially in need of grace, but civilization as well, of which grace can make use in order to assist the poor in coming home to God. Meanwhile, by their very rejection of a Church covered with the blood and the dust of so many suspect members—a Church “mud-splashed from history,” as Daniélou would say, describing the Church he loves best—they betray a sheer Catharist fixation upon a Church no more at home in this world than they are themselves. Like their medieval forbears—or, to stretch far back into the first centuries of the Christian era, a philosopher like Plotinus, a man so ashamed to be in the body that he refused to give out his address—they really are too, too fastidious for the flesh.

And by the poor, incidentally, Daniélou does not mean material poverty, people with little money and fewer prospects. He means, rather, those who are spiritually disadvantaged, people wanting in the stuff of heroism, their souls steeped in mediocrity and sloth. Alas, their numbers are legion. He tells us,

The Church has been given by God himself the task of leading men to this heavenly city, and has therefore the right to ask of the earthly city that it put no obstacle in the way…a Christian people cannot exist without a milieu to sustain it.

A milieu, Daniélou insists, the maintenance of which will require “creating an order in which personal fulfillment is possible,” especially that highest fulfillment found in prayer. “If it cannot create the conditions in which man can completely fulfill himself,” he says, “it becomes an impediment to that fulfillment.”

Even the most spiritually destitute among us, people whose energies and lives are consumed by material and sensual pursuits, even they have been called to prayer, however tepid or episodic the exercise. And here Daniélou identifies three levels of human life, each of ascending importance, the last of which culminating in prayer. And pursuant to whatever level of fulfillment may be appropriate at the moment, Daniélou will argue the role and relevance of politics in helping ensure its place in the public life. In other words, it is the business of any humane social order to help optimize human fulfillment.

There is, to begin with, mastery of the material world, or technology; this is man in relation to things. A city that does not allow for gainful and honest employment is an inhuman city. This is followed by the whole order of interpersonal relations rooted in justice and love; this is man in relation to other men. If the city took no interest in the social life of its citizens, making it impossible for people to interact, it would be an inhuman city.

And, finally, there is the order of adoration, of man in relation to God. And, once again, were the city not to make any provision at all for its citizens to pray, to talk to God, it would be an inhuman city. At the end of the day, therefore, no decent or sane city can remain hostile or indifferent to those things which aim at the perfection of the human personality, which necessarily includes access to God and the salvation He has promised.

“It is unreal and dangerous,” concludes Daniélou, “to accept separation…to consider that the Church and the civil society ought to move in two separate worlds…it leaves that society to shape itself in an incomplete and inhuman manner.” To countenance such separation, he warns, is really to indulge “that most detestable form of idealism which separates spiritual existence from its material and sociological substratum.” And separates, as well, the poor from salvation.

Read the Whole Article

The post Optimizing Human Fulfillment appeared first on LewRockwell.

A “false flag” is a complex military-intelligence undertaking which consists in triggering events which enable you to blame your enemy for starting the war.

It’s an instrument of deception which in recent history has enabled US-NATO to justify launching numerous “humanitarian wars” or so-called “Just Wars”. (Resposibility to Protect, R2P)

***

This tactic has been used throughout history.

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which triggered World War I (1914), Pearl Harbor (1941), Gulf of Tonkin, (Vietnam War, 1964) 9/11, Gaza (2023), and many more.

Today we are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in World history. False Flags have become increasingly sophisticated and dangerous.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post False Flags, Playing With Fire appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Now why would that be? See admission at 19:45.

The post Ben Shapiro’s Security Team was in Touch With Charlie Kirk’s Security Team on Day Kirk was Assassinated appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

He told Patrick Bet David, a big supporter of Israel, Netanyahu was ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

Want to see the EXACT SENTENCE Charlie said that ended his life?

No hyperbole intended. pic.twitter.com/JNUjGJXKdk

— Brandon Taylor Moore (@LetsGoBrando45) September 15, 2025

The post Is This What Ended Charlie Kirk’s Life? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

At the prayer vigil for Charlie Kirk at the Kennedy Center, RFK Jr. credited Kirk with being the primary architect of his unification with Trump during the 2024 presidential election. This proves Kirk was extremely effective at driving political change. That statement is at 2:05 in this video. “More than any other figure in our country, he led the effort to restore free speech.” Kirk was also called one of the greatest political minds and activists in history along with JFK, RFK, and MLK. 

https://t.co/53NPBsbclq

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 14, 2025

The post RFK Jr. Says Charlie Kirk Convinced Him to Endorse Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Rick Rozoff.

The post Gen Z Women Are Obsessed With Mental Illness, 72% Make It Their Whole Personality appeared first on LewRockwell.

The ‘Golden Age’ is not looking very golden, unless you happen to own actual gold. Government debts and deficits are increasing, Americans are paying 86% of the tariffs (according to Goldman Sachs), and The Fed is expected to crank up the printing presses by lowering interest rates, which will further increase the prices that American consumers pay for goods and services.

The post Trump Predicts “Biggest Boom” In History — We Say “Biggest Bubble” In History appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Gateway Pundit

The post Three Million March in London Against the Invasion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Eric’s Substack

The post Trump Now Pushes Europeans to Intensify War Against Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Suzan Mazur.

Gulf Cooperation Council’s Peninsula Shield Force?

The post Oscillations—Gulf Cooperation Council’s Peninsula Shield Force: WHERE IS IT??? appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/come-la-banca-centrale-europea-ha)

La crisi del debito francese ci ricorda che il gradualismo non funziona mai, che lo statalismo finisce sempre in rovina e che i Paesi che puntano su più stato e tasse più alte finiscono sempre nella stagnazione, nel rischio di default e nei disordini sociali.

Il rapporto debito pubblico/PIL della Francia supera il 114%. Tuttavia le passività pensionistiche future e non finanziate raggiungono il 400% del PIL, secondo Eurostat. Il deficit fiscale annunciato per quest'anno è del 5,4%, ma il consenso di mercato mantiene un'aspettativa del 5,8%. Il rischio di default creditizio a cinque anni è aumentato del 20% in dodici mesi. Il rendimento del debito francese a due anni supera quello di Spagna, Italia e Grecia, e il suo premio di rischio rispetto alla Germania ha raggiunto gli 80 punti base, 20 in più rispetto a quello della Spagna.

Il problema nell'area Euro è che tutti applaudono quando uno stato gonfia il PIL con ingenti spese pubbliche e posti di lavoro nel settore pubblico, oltre all'immigrazione, mascherando persistenti squilibri fiscali e un calo della crescita della produttività. Inoltre gli analisti keynesiani ignorano l'effetto crowding out sul settore privato e l'impatto dannoso di imposte elevate sulla sostenibilità dei conti pubblici a lungo termine.

Sono abbastanza vecchio da ricordare quando i media generalisti celebravano la Grecia come motore della crescita dell'Eurozona, quando stava gonfiando il PIL con ingenti spese pubbliche e posti di lavoro nel settore pubblico. La Grecia fu salutata come “foriera di un'elevata crescita economica” e “avanscoperta della ripresa dell'Eurozona” in base alle pubblicazioni dell'FMI e della Commissione Europea nel 2005 e nel 2006. Titoli e resoconti politici riconoscevano i risultati economici della Grecia come esempio di forte leadership all'interno dell'Eurozona. Sappiamo tutti cosa accadde poi nel 2008.

Non possiamo dimenticare che la Banca Centrale Europea ha avuto un ruolo determinante nel creare incentivi perversi per i politici, spingendoli a mantenere e aumentare gli elevati livelli di spesa pubblica e gli squilibri fiscali.

Nell'ultimo decennio la Banca Centrale Europea ha implementato un insieme di misure di portata senza precedenti, tra cui ripetuti tagli dei tassi, tassi nominali negativi, il controverso strumento anti-frammentazione e la monetizzazione del debito pubblico, tutti strumenti concepiti per salvaguardare la stabilità dell'Eurozona. Nonostante tutta la retorica di stabilità e indipendenza, queste misure hanno creato potenti incentivi all'incoscienza fiscale, erodendo le fondamenta stesse della credibilità monetaria europea e gettando le basi delle attuali crisi del debito sovrano, tra cui la debacle del debito francese.

I tassi d'interesse di riferimento della BCE, un tempo ancorati a disciplinare sia l'indebitamento sovrano che quello privato, sono crollati da oltre il 4% nel 2008 a livelli negativi, rimanendo in tale territorio per anni. Inoltre i programmi di acquisto di asset della BCE, ampliati con iniziative come il Programma di acquisto di emergenza pandemica (PEPP) e le Transazioni monetarie definitive (OMT), hanno saturato i mercati obbligazionari con liquidità e generato un enorme effetto crowding out che penalizza il credito a famiglie e imprese e maschera i problemi di solvibilità di chi emette debito pubblico.

Lo strumento anti-frammentazione, concepito per contenere lo “spread” tra i titoli di stato dei Paesi continentali e quelli periferici, spinge la questione oltre: promettendo un intervento illimitato, la BCE rassicura i mercati che sosterrà il debito sovrano praticamente a qualsiasi prezzo, diluendo la disciplina che i premi al rischio un tempo imponevano ai governi prodighi. Di fatto, potrebbe essere considerato uno strumento pro-sperpero, poiché avvantaggia i Paesi con scarso rispetto delle norme di bilancio e penalizza quelli che tengono sotto controllo debito e deficit.

Sebbene questi interventi calmino i mercati nel breve termine, alimentano una mentalità di indifferenza per le finanze pubbliche, inducendo gli stati ad aumentare costantemente la spesa pubblica. Pertanto molti governi, come quello spagnolo, si vantano dei bassi tassi d'interesse e della diffusione del debito nonostante i crescenti squilibri e il peggioramento dei conti pubblici. Lo strumento anti-frammentazione e i tassi nominali negativi distruggono il meccanismo di mercato che dovrebbe fungere da monito contro una politica fiscale sconsiderata. Gli stati membri, certi di finanziamenti a basso costo e del sostegno infinito della BCE, hanno scarsi incentivi a riformare bilanci gonfiati o a contenere i deficit, soprattutto quando ciò risulta costoso a livello elettorale. La persistente minaccia, sventolata dai politici tedeschi, che le azioni della BCE stavano sovvenzionando il “parassitismo fiscale” negli stati membri con un indebitamento elevato, sta diventando realtà.

Il caso più drammatico è la Francia. Il debito pubblico francese ha superato il 114% del PIL nel 2025, in parte a causa di persistenti e ingenti deficit coperti dalla BCE. I tentativi di consolidamento fiscale sono sempre stati timidi e quindi non sono riusciti a raggiungere una disciplina duratura, con il supporto della BCE sempre sullo sfondo come misura di sicurezza. Il risultato è un crescente premio per il rischio sovrano: i titoli di stato francesi, per la prima volta nella storia moderna dell'euro, ora rendono più dei titoli spagnoli, greci e italiani con rating comparabile, a dimostrazione del disagio del mercato nei confronti della traiettoria del debito francese, anche nell'era dei sostegni della BCE. Il fatto che questo aumento degli spread avvenga nel bel mezzo di un ampio piano di stimolo (Next Generation EU) e di tagli dei tassi è ancora più allarmante.

Il cosiddetto strumento anti-frammentazione, concepito come strumento di contenimento della crisi, è intrinsecamente un meccanismo di “responsabilità solidale senza controllo congiunto”. Vincola i membri prudenti dell'euro alle scelte fiscali dei partner meno disciplinati, socializzando il rischio ma nazionalizzando i benefici. Con questa facilitazione, i mercati non possono più discriminare il grano dalla pula in modo efficiente; l'ansia sulla sostenibilità del debito, che un tempo stimolava le riforme necessarie, viene soppressa anziché risolta. Inoltre è come una mutualizzazione del debito senza obblighi reali.

La filosofia del “costi quel che costi”, tanto elogiata dai leader della BCE, è ormai un’arma a doppio taglio: ha sostituito la responsabilità con la dipendenza e ha incoraggiato il lassismo fiscale.

Gli acquisti da parte delle banche centrali e la riduzione dei rendimenti in territorio nominale negativo rappresentano, per definizione, il caso peggiore di monetizzazione del debito. La BCE è un'entità in perdita perché acquista obbligazioni anche quando sono eccessivamente costose. Le perdite accumulate dalla BCE sui suoi programmi di acquisto di asset sono stimate a €800 miliardi, ampiamente superiori al suo capitale, secondo l'IERF.

Queste linee di politica mascherano problemi di solvibilità ed eliminano il deterrente definitivo alla spesa pubblica: il costo del denaro stesso. Il risultato a lungo termine è un contesto in cui i governi dell'area Euro, consapevoli che i finanziamenti pubblici sono garantiti a costi bassi anche in periodi difficili, accumulano debiti sempre più ingenti, rendendo l'area vulnerabile anche a lievi shock di fiducia, inflazione, o governance. Questa situazione potrebbe danneggiare l'euro in futuro se la Germania cadesse nella stessa trappola della Francia, uno scenario che sembra probabile alla luce degli ultimi annunci di politica monetaria.

Leggendo i giornali francesi, questo incentivo perverso è molto evidente. Invece di parlare di un percorso di spesa insostenibile, molti chiedono maggiori acquisti e stimoli da parte delle banche centrali. Inoltre altri chiedono l'accelerazione dell'euro digitale per attuare misure monetarie ancora più aggressive.

L'attuale crisi del debito francese è una conseguenza diretta di queste linee di politica. La spesa pubblica francese ha costantemente superato la crescita economica, eppure la promessa di un sostegno perenne da parte della BCE ha ritardato qualsiasi resa dei conti. Ora, con l'aumento dei premi al rischio e i mercati che mettono alla prova la determinazione della BCE, l'Eurozona si trova ad affrontare le amare conseguenze di un'era politica caratterizzata da azzardo morale e da una disciplina fiscale assente.

Sebbene l'attivismo della BCE possa garantire una stabilità temporanea, il suo costo a lungo termine è chiaro: aumento del debito, indebolimento del settore privato, svalutazione della valuta ed erosione degli incentivi per una responsabilità fiscale. A meno che l'Europa non riconsideri la sua dipendenza dagli stimoli eterni delle banche centrali e non ripristini i meccanismi di disciplina di mercato, l'attuale crisi francese potrebbe essere solo una delle tante tempeste fiscali future. Il successo dell'euro come valuta di riserva si basava sul pilastro della prudenza e della responsabilità fiscale. La mancanza di disciplina fiscale comporta sempre un rischio per la valuta.

Le banche centrali non possono stampare solvibilità e la mancanza di riforme strutturali e le eccessive politiche di allentamento monetario finiranno per distruggere l'euro.

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

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