Aggregatore di feed

The post The Coming Collapse of the American System? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Joseph Morabito.

See here.

The post Jimmy Carter On Israel & AIPAC appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The Epstein Files scandal could, and probably should, destroy Trump’s second term in office. The federal government in Washington, D.C., is even more corrupt than most Americans think. The lies from D.C. are becoming too absurd for even Trumpers to believe.

What happens when Americans believe that Washington, D.C., tells lies constantly and doesn’t give a damn about Americans? The Feds will have to rely strictly on force to force Americans to pay taxes and follow government edicts.

Nothing to See: JD Breen

The post Nothing to See: JD Breen appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm. 

Humanize

The post Academia Embraces the Unscientific Earth Religion of “Nature Rights” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mike Rejsa wrote:

Hi Lew,

I’m seeing near-universal opinion that the Trump administration has joined the Deep State on the Epstein issue.

There is an alternative possibility… not sure I’m Pollyanna enough to believe it but what the heck.

Perhaps the impending release of Epstein data was a threat to powerful people <check>, who have now caved and given in on some other significant issue? (Most likely Israel-related) Leaving Trump et al to publicly do a somewhat amateurish job of back-pedaling.

It’s at least possible, tho Bongino’s behavior would seem to contradict. Time will tell.

The post Epstein appeared first on LewRockwell.

An old friend wrote:

Lew:

In the second WAPO photo, the individual on the right of Joannides is Admiral Bobby Ray Inman whom I had encounter with many years ago. 

Bobby Ray Inman is an interesting character in his own right.

The Washington Post

The post The CIA reveals more of its connections to Lee Harvey Oswald appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mark Seiler wrote:

Hi Lew,

These Baptists are barking up the wrong tree.

These private companies that advertise sports betting, as well as casinos, are not the real problem. The government lotteries are. 

Just look at the advertising.

Casino and sports book operators advertise the fun surrounding the thrill of placing a bet. They tout the fun you’ll have at the casino in their entertainment offerings such as watching some over-the-hill rock star or their great dining options. Sports books  show the fun you’ll have with friends while watching some sporting event with your friends, while consuming beer and chips, plus the camaraderie.

GovCo ads for their numbers rackets, aka Education Lotteries,, show the fabulous riches that will be yours if you buy that $5, $10 or $20 scratch-off ticket. Look at you! You’re wearing a gold sport coat and hobnobbing with other winners talking about your yachts. But, if you read the small print on the back of the ticket you’ll find out that for every $100 spent you will get $50 in return. It’s downright criminal. 

The biggest mistake these Baptists make is thinking that using government is the  way to make a moral society. If that’s the best route to root out sin, why do we need churches? And they wonder why the pews are empty.

The post Southern Baptists Get Sports Betting Wrong appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Humanize Today

The post The Lancet Article: Study the (Obvious) Health Impacts of Nuclear War appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/luscita-di-scena-di-klaus-schwab)

Il pensionamento di Klaus Schwab e la sua successiva caduta in disgrazia simboleggiano i cambiamenti tettonici in atto nell'attuale ordine mondiale. L'obiettivo di tutta la vita di Schwab è stato costruire un ordine mondiale globalista governato dalle élite internazionali e dalle Nazioni Unite. Ha fondato e diretto il World Economic Forum (WEF) per decenni e ha promosso questa visione di governance globale per il bene dei popoli del mondo.

Schwab e i suoi compatrioti nutrivano grandi ambizioni: rimodellare l'ordine globale con un “Grande Reset”. La conferenza annuale del WEF a Davos è stata probabilmente l'incontro tra élite globali più prestigioso degli anni 2010. Da questo incontro sono scaturite decisioni politiche, priorità globali, cooperazione internazionale e numerose iniziative. L'incontro di Davos ha promosso i criteri ambientali, sociali e di governance (ESG) in tutto il mondo, nell'ambito della visione di Schwab di promuovere il “capitalismo degli stakeholder”.

Durante la pandemia, il mondo ha visto per quello che era l'impulso totalitario dietro l'agenda globalista di Schwab. La reazione pubblica post-COVID è stata dura. Nel 2022 la conferenza di Davos ha iniziato a perdere slancio; nel 2023 e nel 2024 hanno iniziato a mostrarsi le prime crepe; nel 2025 era diventata in gran parte una barzelletta. Le persone in tutto il mondo hanno respinto il loro elitarismo globale verticistico.

Schwab ha visto il suo sogno di un capitalismo degli stakeholder quasi realizzato... quasi, perché poi l'ha visto crollare. Ma con lui fuori dai giochi e l'ordine globale da lui sostenuto in rovina, cosa succederà adesso? Il successo di Trump, emblematico di molti movimenti populisti di destra in tutto il mondo, è stato in parte guidato da rinnovate preoccupazioni per la sicurezza e l'innovazione.

Le élite globali sono praticamente addormentate al volante, o peggio, complici della stagnazione dell'Europa e dell'aggressiva espansione della Cina. Di fatto il movimento ESG, e più in generale il movimento ambientalista, hanno intrappolato i Paesi occidentali in costose formalità burocratiche, lasciando in gran parte indenne la Cina. La linea di politica “la propria nazione al primo posto” dà priorità allo sviluppo economico interno e alla rapida innovazione, ed entrambe queste cose migliorano la posizione strategica di un Paese a livello internazionale, aumentando al contempo gli standard di vita dei cittadini.

Molti nazionalisti populisti non vogliono alcun “ordine” internazionale, ma il principio “la propria nazione al primo posto” può davvero funzionare senza riferimento al resto del mondo? I populisti a volte sminuiscono il cosiddetto “ordine internazionale basato sulle regole” degli anni '90, definendolo una copertura per le élite affinché manipolino tutti gli altri. Questa caratterizzazione, sebbene in gran parte ingiusta, ha portato a richieste di “disaccoppiamento” dagli altri Paesi a favore di agende nazionaliste.

La strategia “prima la propria nazione” può essere valida, ma deve comprendere le regole del gioco. In politica estera un approccio più moderato e isolazionista può essere la scelta migliore, soprattutto quando si tratta di interessi nazionali a somma zero; ciononostante presumere che tutte le relazioni e le interazioni internazionali debbano essere a somma zero è un grave errore.

La maggior parte delle nostre interazioni con le persone, sia nel nostro Paese che a livello internazionale, si svolge nel contesto di uno scambio reciprocamente vantaggioso. Entrambe le parti traggono beneficio dalla possibilità di stipulare accordi volontari e commerciare tra loro. Ciò crea un ordine spontaneo e complesso, sia all'interno dei Paesi che tra i Paesi stessi. Mentre un rinnovato interesse per l'identità nazionale e per la prosperità rappresenta un gradito antidoto al cosmopolitismo omogeneizzante del dominio delle élite mondiali, dovremmo riflettere su come potrebbe presentarsi il panorama internazionale.

Un ordine globale può essere sia spontaneo che organico. Può essere al servizio degli individui attraverso accordi e associazioni volontari. Sebbene questo tipo di ordine non richieda pianificazione o direzione da parte dello stato, richiede ai governi di esercitare moderazione e limitare il loro interventismo. Burocrazia, tasse elevate, sussidi e ogni sorta di obblighi legali possono impedire la formazione di un sano ordine spontaneo.

Un importante esempio negativo di mancanza di moderazione è la gravosa regolamentazione delle catene di approvvigionamento e delle normative ambientali dell'Unione Europea. Queste norme distorcono, e in alcuni casi distruggono, l'ordine spontaneo. Sostituiscono processi decisionali e piani decentralizzati con i piani coercitivi delle élite globali; il risultato ha spaziato dalla stagnazione economica alle proteste, fino a una produzione energetica costosa e inaffidabile.

Nazionalisti e populisti dovrebbero impegnarsi a fondo per smantellare questi strumenti di controllo legali e normativi. E lo stanno facendo, ma non dovrebbero creare nuove barriere all'ordine spontaneo.

Quest'ultimo emerge dal basso verso l'alto, non dall'alto verso il basso. Si sviluppa attraverso lo scambio e l'associazione volontari piuttosto che attraverso la coercizione. Non è soggetto ai capricci, agli interessi, o all'ideologia di poche persone influenti come Klaus Schwab. L'azione volontaria dal basso verso l'alto significa che un ordine spontaneo sarà decentralizzato, adattabile, creativo e innovativo.

Creare questo ordine richiede regole chiare che si applichino equamente a tutti i livelli. Queste regole dovrebbero essere relativamente semplici e stabili. Non abbiamo bisogno di orde di burocrati o autorità di regolamentazione per “gestire” questo nuovo ordine mondiale. L'associazione volontaria significa anche libertà. L'ordine spontaneo che emergerà dal coordinamento decentralizzato sarà un sistema aperto, piuttosto che chiuso, in cui i nuovi entranti saranno i benvenuti.

In un ordine spontaneo, gli operatori storici hanno una capacità limitata di proteggersi dai nuovi concorrenti. I nuovi entranti, più piccoli e agili, imporranno ai player consolidati innovazione e miglioramento continui. Anziché avere fossati legali e normativi a protezione di gruppi di interesse consolidati, in un ordine spontaneo ognuno può perseguire le proprie iniziative nell'arena internazionale. Questa competizione libera e aperta libererà molta più creatività, innovazione e soluzioni organiche di quanto la precedente élite globale, Klaus Schwab e il WEF avrebbero mai potuto immaginare. 

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

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

President Trump’s recent statements about Epstein are an outrage to say the least. It was an out of touch deflection at best. When a reporter asks about Epstein being a possible foreign agent, it should warrant a serious response. Instead, there was feigned outrage that the issue was even being touched upon. Trump’s response:

“Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years. You’re asking — we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable,”

AG Pam Bondi’s 180 degree turn from there are thousands of hours of videos and the client list is sitting on my desk, to there is nothing to see here, is a bit disturbing as well. This comes after failing to reveal the truth about the JFK assassination, 911 false flag attacks, and other promises made by Trump. This includes the implied promise to stop the mRNA bioweapon injections when RFK Jr. joined his campaign. It also includes breaking his promise to be the peace President, joining Netanyahu and starting a war against Iran, which after it started going badly, ended up with America bombing an empty facility in Iran, and Iran giving a token response leading to a cease fire.

It also comes after Trump’s big government deficit spending bill was passed. The fact that Trump attacked America First Congressman Thomas Massie and endorsed Lindsay Graham and Byron Donalds speaks volumes. Trump is pushing Palantir’s Orwellian digital database on every American along with the Real ID…

Given the massive deception that is coming from the Trump administration and the prior Biden administration, and well every administration before that, critical thinking requires that we examine everything we see with a healthy skepticism. We’ll let me rephrase that. We should assume we are being lied to and misdirected and then seek to determine if that is the case or not.

Trump’s prior friendship with Jeffrey Epstein should not be ignored. There needs to be a serious look at why the Trump administration is covering up on the Epstein client list and Epstein’s murder?

It is a fair question to ask if Trump is being blackmailed? Or if he is covering for friends? Covering up for a foreign nation?

Epstein is thought to have been a Mossad agent and Ghislaine Maxwell’s father was a known Mossad agent and double agent. The concern over a foreign nation like Israel or any other country blackmailing American politicians from both political parties, media members, and business people, is a serious concern.

Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, Pam Bondi, and now Trump are all saying there is nothing to see here. The problem is that nobody believes them, especially Trump’s base of supporters. There are already those pushing the 3-D chess nonsense that Trump is covering it up to save the economy, prevent a war, and so on. This is wishful thinking and deliberate misdirection.

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino were clamoring for the Epstein list. Now while in power they claim Epstein died by suicide. This is a seriously hard sell, and it does not appear that anyone is buying.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz, a friend of President Trump and former attorney for Epstein claims that he knows the names on the Epstein client list but is bind by attorney client privilege or confidentiality to not disclose those names. However, there are exceptions to this privilege. According to Cornell Law’s website:

“some courts limit the attorney-client privilege if there exists an overriding public policy interest, such as protecting a child. See Matter of Jacqueline F, 47 N.Y.2d 215, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. 1979).”

This would likely require an imminent threat not a speculative one. If there is a belief that these powerful pedophile predators are still engaging in child rape (which is highly likely given the disease) Dershowitz may be able to break privilege and a court could potentially order him to do so. This is not likely however, as the DOJ has stated that the case is closed and how Dershowitz obtained the information may also be relevant.

The fact that Dershowitz has publicly stated that he knows the names on the list establishes that the list exists. Dershowitz essentially has revealed that the Trump administration is covering up the Epstein client list to protect powerful people in politics, media, academia, and business.

There is such hysteria and political polarization that the truth is difficult to discern on many of the claims that get leveled back and forth in contemporary politics. Revealing the pedophile child rapists on Epstein’s list may take many powerful people down and disrupt society. So be it. It may actually be a good thing for Americans to realize that the people on both sides of the aisle are creeps.

Trump’s FDA just approved another deadly mRNA bioweapon injection for at risk children. This is an outright mocking of supporters and another crime against humanity. It is clear that the Trump administration like the Biden administration is against the American people. The Trump administration is covering for pedophiles while at the same time continuing to target children with biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

There are no reasonable or rational explanations for this other than an allegiance to evil. This is akin to child sacrifice.

The Trump administration really does have an Epstein problem.

The Trump administration needs to reveal all the data on Jeffrey Epstein and the full client list. Otherwise, this is the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. Activists will need to look outside the Trump administration for a candidate to win the Republican nomination in 2028.

Some might claim that Trump is all of and listening to the wrong advisors and so on. The problem with that scenario is that billionaires are not naïve. The client list needs to be revealed or trust in the Trump administration in all areas will erode like quicksand.

This article was originally published on Mind Matters and Everything Else.

The post Trump’s Epstein Problem appeared first on LewRockwell.

I estimate that half of the Federal Government’s Programs, Functions and Departments are Unconstitutional, making them Null and Void and a Criminal Enterprise. This is so because they are not authorized by the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution, and are rife with theft and corruption. Those activities having no legal foundation for existence, even if fraudulently enacted into law, can be eliminated with a stroke of President Trump’s pen. But we must still consider the following assumptions:

Assumption # 1. Trump’s power to terminate unlawful activities, even those established by unconstitutional laws, cannot be questioned.

Assumption #2. Elected Officials and Bureaucrats of the Administrative State take orders and bribes from the Parasitic Super- Rich Ruling Class (PSRRC) and their Jewish Lobby. What the people want is of no  consequence to them.

Assumption #3. Democrat Elected Officials, by their actions, are Communists. Republican officials profess to be “America First” but privately, many of them hate Trump, America, and its people. Most elected officials in both parties are corrupted.

Assumption #4. Most Media, in all its forms, is owned or controlled by the Communists AKA Democrats .

Assumption #5. All major cities are Communist and can only survive, but barely, with financial support from the Federal Establishment. This support, and all Federal  financial support of the states is unconstitutional. If this support is continued, it will lead to civil war. Patriots will not work and sacrifice to support Communists who don’t work, especially when things get really tight.

Assumption #6. The Federal Establishment has unlawfully usurped and  now controls countless state functions with money from income taxes.  This reverses the Constitutional roles of Federal Establishment and the Sovereign States. As long as this exists, there can be no Constitutional Republic nor prosperity for the people.

Assumption #7. The United States can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction or from within by the communist army of illegal invaders. Therefore it is impossible to have a “national security” justification for our troops on foreign soil, or for giving any  form of foreign aid. Officials who vote for or authorize deployment or foreign aid should be prosecuted. In fact, it is unconstitutional without a mandatory Declaration of War.

Assumption #8. Illegal Invaders must be deported as fast as possible, or they will destroy America as they did Europe. There can be no support of any kind given to invaders. The Constitution stipulates that this is treason, subject to the death penalty. Employers of illegals should be prosecuted. It is impossible to have America First and allow illegals to remain or give them any support.

Assumption #9. The FBI and CIA must be reformed or disbanded. Frankly, I think reform is impossible.

Assumption #10. Politicians must get their share of the big money contributions or they can’t be elected. President Trump is no exception.

In spite of these assumptions, President Trump must terminate the unlawful actions, functions, and departments of the Federal Establishment because they are null and void ab initio. He can do this with executive orders.

The Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class AKA The Deep State, Swamp, or Establishment will do anything to stop Trump’s terminations of their unlawful but highly profitable activities such as foreign aid and wars for profit. The military is needed at home to combat the Communist 20-million- strong army of illegals. The need is so dire that we might have to use the draft.

It is estimated that there are more than 30 million illegals in the country. If they are still  here when the census takes place in 2030,  we will become a one-party Communist country. This is so because the census determines the number and location of members of Congress.

President Trump must understand that this is the only way for his great vision to succeed. Failure to terminate these unconstitutional programs makes it financially impossible to return the country to prosperity and the Constitutional Republic. Economic Realities are absolute proof that this country cannot survive with Trump’s plans alone.

I am aware that our traitors in and out of government will continue to do everything to stop President Trump, including additional assassination attempts. It is alleged that they killed the Kennedy Brothers for much less.

But if Trump, in the face of death, does save the Republic, he will go down in history as our greatest President.

Trump needs no reason or legislation to terminate programs with a stroke of his pen because they are unconstitutional and void on their face. The complicit Judges can pound sand. Those who object can only blame the Founders.

The post We are Doomed if Trump Refuses to Terminate Criminal Enterprise in Government! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week the Department of Justice announced that Jeffrey Epstein did not maintain a “client list” of prominent individuals who may have broken the law at Epstein’s private island. These individuals could be blackmailed by Epstein and whatever intelligence agencies were working with him.

In February, in response to a question about when Epstein’s client list would be made public, Attorney General Pam Bondi said she had it on her desk and would soon release it. She now says she meant she had a file related to Epstein, not the Epstein client list.

The Justice Department also claimed it did a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death and can definitively say that Epstein committed suicide even though an autopsy paid for by Epstein’s brother concluded that Epstein was likely murdered.

The Justice Department’s announcement last week was met with outrage, much of it coming from some of President’s Trump’s most prominent allies, such as popular media figures Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Benny Johnson.

The willingness of so many Trump allies to openly criticize the Epstein announcement and other actions like the bombing of Iran is a positive development. Advancing liberty requires that more people refuse to automatically trust government officials, whether concerning Epstein, wars, the economy, or other important matters.

Widespread questioning of government presents an opportunity for the liberty movement. Those who understand the philosophy, history, and economics of liberty can explain that it is not just that some government officials lie. Instead, all governments lie, and the more important the issue the bigger the lie. In fact, the modern state is built on a series of lies, including:

• that the moral prohibitions against murder and theft do not apply to the government,
• that government regulations protect consumers, workers, and small businesses from greedy corporations,
• that the best way to help the poor is through government bureaucracies, not private charities,
• that government bureaucrats know a child’s educational needs better than do the child’s parents,
• that the US government is justified in intervening in countries around the world because the US is an exceptional force for justice and liberty and its crusade for global democracy is worth the ending of many innocent lives,
• that the government has the moral authority to override personal health and lifestyle choices — such as whether to drink raw milk — for our own good,
• that foreign aid takes money from wealthy Americans to give to poor people in other countries,
• that a government-created central bank can print the way to prosperity while enabling a welfare-warfare state without causing a boom-bust business cycle and continuously reducing the average American’s standard of living through eroding the dollar’s purchasing power,
• that gun control, mass surveillance, and airport harassment keep us safe, and
• that government is the source of our rights so government can restrict or “modify” our rights at will.

Exposing such lies is key for restoring liberty. The good news is that the more mistrust of government grows the easier it will be to find people receptive to our message.

The post Mistrusting Government About Epstein and More appeared first on LewRockwell.

The domestic situation in America continues to spiral out of control, Robert Bridge writes.

In recent days, global attention has been focused on the explosive events in the Middle East and Ukraine, and that helps people to forget about the domestic situation in America that continues to spiral out of control.

Evidence that the American people are slowly starting to awaken from a deep stupor known as ‘the American Dream’ began in earnest on June 12 as Democratic Senator for California Alex Padilla stormed a speaking event by the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and was quickly arrested by federal agents.

Padilla cut off Noem as she was delivering a statement in the Los Angeles FBI headquarters regarding the Trump administration’s response to the protests in that city against the DHS and its immigration-enforcement campaign.

Padilla was abruptly ejected from the room, forced to the ground by police officers and placed in handcuffs during the rapidly unfolding situation.

The incident came amid a particularly hostile atmosphere in Los Angeles, which had been hammered with protests against President Donald Trump’s highly divisive federal immigration ICE raids. While the senator was not arrested, his ejection from the hall by security guards follows the arrests of other public officials, who the administration has accused of interfering with its enforcement of immigration laws.

“I was there peacefully,” Padilla said in his first public comments shortly following the incident. “At one point I had a question, and so I began to ask a question. I was almost immediately forcibly removed from the room. I was forced to the ground, and I was handcuffed.”

He continued: “If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine, what they’re doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.”

Noem said the U.S. Secret Service “thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.”

The shocking display of brute force against the Democrat provoked California Governor Gavin Newsom to call the Trump Administration “tyrannical” and this remark came after the Governor shared an image of the “California Republic” state flag, a move many interpreted as a thinly veiled warning for Washington to back off.

It gets better. On the same day as Padilla’s ejection from the conference, the United States witnessed a series of late-night legal actions, when a federal judge first ruled that President Trump had unlawfully federalized the California National Guard. He was ordered its return back to state control, saying he had violated the U.S. Constitution. Just hours later, the ruling was overturned by another federal judge in defense of Trump’s actions.

Newsom had said he planned to return the 4,000-members of the Guard to their regular duties protecting the border, working on wildfire prevention or getting back to their day jobs. Instead, they continued to perform their duties under the command of the U.S. commander-in-chief, squaring off against protesters in downtown Los Angeles.

On the basis of the order, Trump then signaled a willingness to expand the use of federalization orders to additional National Guards, as well as the possible deployment of U.S. Marines to other beleaguered urban areas. This announcement was greeted with unsurprising anger by numerous Democratic Governors.

This unsettling set of circumstances was followed by the U.S. Marines being deployed to Los Angeles where they temporarily detained a civilian. It was the first known detention by active-duty troops deployed there by Trump. The Democrats continued to voice their heated objections against the use of active-duty U.S. military forces being used in a policing role.

Finally, on June 14th in Minnesota the majority leader of the State House was assassinated along with her husband by a former appointee of the governor. Earlier that morning, Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were shot in their home in nearby Champlin and hospitalized without life-threatening injuries. Police responding to the attack on the Hoffmans checked on the Hortmans’ home, where 57-year-old Vance Luther Boelter opened fired at them. The shooter managed to escape the crime scene on foot, thus sparking the most extensive manhunt in Minnesota history.

In the suspect’s car was found a crudely drafted political manifesto, as well as an assortment of material pertaining to the “No Kings” protests that swept hundreds of cities across the nation, suggesting a political connection between the murders and the movement. Governor Tim Walz called the shooting “an act of targeted political violence”. Inside Boelter’s vehicle was a hit list of nearly 70 people, including abortion rights advocates, Democratic politicians, and abortion providers. Incidentally, the assassinated legislator had recently been the deciding vote in abolishing state funding for healthcare for illegal immigrants; this is notable given the anti-ICE element of the current protests.

However one may wish to interpret these events – as random, unfortunate scenarios that are par for course in any vibrant democracy, or something far more disturbing and dangerous – it is clear that the United States of America appears to be more on the political knife edge than at any time in its recent history. Whether the tensions will explode like a tinderbox with the least bit of disturbance remains to be seen. Until then, the Democrats and Republicans need to call a political time out and resolve their well-known differences in a calm and methodical manner before the street decides to take matters into its own dirty hands. It goes without saying that the last thing that any country needs – and perhaps least of all the United States, which has more firearms per capita than any other country in the world – is a full-blown civil war to sort out deeply entrenched problems.

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

The post Is America Sliding Inexorably Towards Its Breakup? appeared first on LewRockwell.

You want war? Bring it on.

This is it. The ruling classes of the Empire of Chaos, plus the current, clownish Circus Ringmaster have finally realized that BRICS is a serious strategic threat – and existential challenge – to their unilateral domination of the current system of international relations.

They didn’t come to this conclusion by carefully scrutinizing the BRICS annual summit in Rio – or last year’s ground-breaking summit in Kazan for that matter: they are lousy at doing basic homework.

It’s more like they were awakened from their torpor by feeling in their skins which way the – global – wind is blowing, in terms of all sorts of models being tested to bypass the U.S. dollar and the iron-clad control of the Bretton Woods institutions.

The conclusion was inescapable: BRICS have crossed the ultimate red line. No more Mr. Nice Guy talk shop. The 130-plus point Rio declaration, released at the first day of the summit, spells it out, politely but decisively: this is what we are, a systemic alternative; and we’re going to write the rules of the new system our way.

Building the Geopolitics of Sovereignty

BRICS 2025 in Rio was a stunning surprise. Expectations initially were low – when comparing the meek Brazilian presidency with the extraordinary amount of work put out by Russia in 2024 leading to Kazan.

Yet in the end Rio coalesced what Kazan had annonced: the new, rising system will be all about sovereignty, equality, and fairness – with emphasis on continental-wide economic integration; trade in national currencies; an expanded role for new global financial institutions such as the NDB (the BRICS bank); and myriad platforms for sustainable development.

A Geopolitics of Sovereignty has to be structurally constructed: the iron and cement for the new system will come from a new interconnection of trade in national currencies, independent payment/settlement systems, and new investment platforms.

Geo-economically, BRICS is already on a roll. A quick glance of a map of Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia, will suffice to convey the existing and emerging interconnection of connectivity, logistics and supply chain corridors. Across BRICS lands, those tie up energy sources, rare earth deposits, and a wealth of agricultural commodities.

To quote the Godfather of Soul James Bown, Papa’s got a brand new (BRICS) bag.

Hence it’s no wonder that a tawdry incarnation of the White Man’s Burden, the Circus Ringmaster, has unleashed Full War on BRICS and its partners – from threats to tariffs, complete with a previous death certificate (at the time he was even more clueless on what BRICS is all about).

The serial Trump Tariff Temper Tantrum (TTT) is of course another manifestation of Divide and Rule, trying to blow up BRICS from the inside. And now we’re up several notches, with a trademark childish letter threatening 50% tariffs on all Made in Brazil products exported to the U.S. – plus extra “sectoral” tariffs.

And yet this has nothing to do with trade. Over the past 15 years, the U.S. trade surplus with Brazil is over a hefty $400 billion. Some Trump 2.0 underling should have whispered that number into his boss’s ear.

But even if they did, that’s irrelevant. Because the latest gimmick actually constitutes a crass foreign interference in another nation’s domestic politics and upcomig presidential race, illegal and predictably once again making a mockery of international law.

The Circus Ringmaster started by hollering in his posts that the Lula government – and the independent Brazilian judicial system – had been involved in a witch hunt against his buddy, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is being legally prosecuted under charges of staging a coup to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential election and prevent Lula from taking power.

It was up to not so smooth operator Steve Bannon to give the whole tawdry game away: if you ditch the prosecution of Bolsonaro, we ditch the 50% tariffs.

President Lula’s response has been measured, but firm: “Brazil’s trade with the U.S. makes up just 1.7% of our GDP. You can’t call these figures vital (…) We will look for other partners“.

Of course it will be very tough. A 50% tariff is like a deadly hurricane. Example: Brazil is the largest global exporter of orange juice. 95% of indigenous production is exported, nearly half to the U.S. It will take some time and lot of hard work to find “other partners”. The solution may lie across BRICS lands. In time, there should be plenty of candidates for top Brazilian exports such as oil, steel, iron, planes and parts, coffee, timber, meat and soy.

Unionizing every exporter in the world against U.S. importers

In parallel, the top two BRICS actors, China and Russia – both already under zillions of sanctions (Russia) and trade tariffs (China) – see the Trump TTT as a spectacular opportuniy ahead for undermining even faster the unilateral U.S. grip on trade and currency systems.

The war on BRICS has gone up to the next level, now that Russia, China, Iran and Brazil are all confirmed – illegitimate – targets. It’s up to this Sri Lanka viewpoint to delightfully summarize the stakes:

“Trump has effectively unionized every exporter in the world against American importers.” It comes down to a quite simple equation: “If you tariff one person, more power to you. But it you tariff everyone, more power to us.”

“More power to us” translates into BRICS and the wider Global South perfectly aware there’s no way out except full steam ahead for the BRICS project, culminating in full de-dollarization. From Kazan to Rio and beyond, it’s now also clear that out of control TTT will target any nation or partner that aligns with “anti-American” BRICS.

You want war? Bring it on.

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

The post Trump Terrified by BRICS Strategic Threat appeared first on LewRockwell.

The moral rot of unlimited debt looks “free” but it’s unaffordable in the end.

We like to think we’re special and this moment in history is special, but alas, we’re still running Wetware 1.0 which was coded between 300,000 and 60,000 years ago, when the last “out of Africa” migration finally got traction. Since then, the code has been tweaked a bit here and there (adults can now digest dairy products, etc.), but we’re running the old code, and so we make the same mistakes and follow the same emotional pathways as individuals and as groups.

Which leads us to our current predicament, which is not unique: we’re living on debt, “money” borrowed from the future, a future we’re assuming will be so over-supplied with energy and other goodies that we’ll be able to pay all the interest we’re piling up with ease.

All the charts below are shouting “parabolic,” as in crazy-unsustainable increases. There’s the federal debt, $36 trillion, up 4X from the 2008 spot of bother, there’s TCMDO, total public and private debt (McMansions, university degrees and SUVs all paid for with debt), student loans from zero to $1.5 trillion, Medicare and Medicaid, now 1/3 of the federal budget, and so on.

How did we get here? Let’s start with what’s not taught in Econ 101: primary surplus. Every economy–from households to empires, meaning this is scale-invariant–generates a surplus from its production of goods and services, or it runs a deficit, meaning it has to get more money from somewhere to support its consumption.

The question then becomes, how is the primary surplus being spent? (Or put another way, how is it being distributed across the economy and society?) There are only three options: 1) consume it, 2) invest it and 3) save it / hoard it.

Without making a conscious choice, the US has chosen to “invest” most of its primary surplus in moral rot, unproductive frauds, skims, scams, monopolies, cartels, regulatory capture, grift and graft.

This is the problem with giving an irresponsible teenager a no-limit Platinum credit card with an easily ignored admonishment to “stick to a tight budget, pay the balance off every month.” Uh, right.

Since the US can borrow unlimited trillions on its credit card, we can “afford” to burn our surplus on grift, graft, inefficiency, cronyism, profiteering, etc. Since our surplus was squandered on moral rot, we have to borrow trillions to pay for what the citizenry wants and what politicians must promise to get re-elected.

Wetware 1.0: we like windfalls and free stuff, and so every program becomes a “third rail” politically: touch it and you don’t get re-elected. But if you borrow a few “free” trillions a year, you get re-elected.

We love windfalls and free stuff and hate hard choices, but that’s all we have now. We have three choices in how we deal with our dependence on parabolic debt to sustain our profligate lifestyle:

1. Run the debt up to the point that nobody is dumb enough to lend us more, and then default on the debt / go bankrupt. All our creditors are wiped out.

The problem here is all debt is an asset to the wealthy entity that owns it as an income stream. Since the wealthy run the status quo in a manner that serves their interests, they’re unlikely to be thrilled with debt jubilees that zero out their assets and income or messy defaults that end up doing the same thing.

So nix that option. The wealthy want to keep their wealth and income streams, and since they own US Treasuries, they’re not going to approve defaulting on that debt.

2. Inflate the debt away with sustained high inflation. So we borrowed $1 when $1 bought a lot of stuff, and now we’ve inflated everything so it takes $10 to buy what $1 bought back then. Now we can pay back the $1 with a fraction of the earnings it took back when we borrowed it.

We’ve already taken that step–what once cost $1 now costs $10. So the next step is to do another 10X reduction in the debt via inflation.

In previous eras, authorities reduced the silver content of coinage to near-zero, effectively devaluing the money, i.e. inflating away the debt. What cost one mostly-silver denarius in the good old days soon cost 100 devalued denarius.

This looks like some pretty easy hocus-pocus to pull off, but there’s a catch: Catch-19, which is devaluing the money devalues trust in the leadership, social contract and the future, all of which leaves the economy and society a hollowed-out shell awaiting a stiff breeze to push the whole system off the cliff.

The problem here is inflation is distributed asymmetrically, along with the primary surplus. The wealthy, powerful elites skim off the surplus, and they’re equally adept at distributing the “inflation tax” to the middle and working classes, which soon meld into a single class, the impoverished.

A funny thing about Wetware 1.0 is we’re hard-wired to take note of rampant unfairness and eventually we respond in a destabilizing fashion, for example, uprisings, revolts, revolutions, etc.

3. The third option is to root out all the moral rot that’s consuming the economy’s surplus and our future, scrap all the programs designed in the bygone eras of 50+ years ago (defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, higher education, etc.) and start from scratch with new programs whose expenses are limited to what the economy generates as surplus.

In other words, go Cold Turkey on our addiction to living on debt.

Read the Whole Article

The post Three Choices, None Good appeared first on LewRockwell.

At the recent annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in Dallas, the attendees failed to pass a motion to prohibit member churches from having women pastors. The motion, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, received 3,421 votes in favor and 2,191 votes against. However, other resolutions did pass that go beyond an intra-denominational issue.

A collective resolution passed that urged Christians to “celebrate and embrace marriage and childbearing”; called for the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country; and called for “the complete and permanent defunding of Planned Parenthood,” a leading provider of abortion.

Other resolutions passed that called on the United States Congress and state legislatures to “pass laws banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of chemical abortion drugs, to enforce the Comstock Act prohibiting the mailing of abortion pills, and to hold accountable pharmaceutical companies and medical providers complicit in these harms” and to “enact comprehensive laws that ban the creation, publication, hosting, and distribution of pornographic content in all media and to provide rigorous enforcement mechanisms—including age-verification and civil liability—in the ultimate effort to eradicate pornography nationwide.”

Still another resolution passed “On the Harmful and Predatory Nature of Sports Betting.” In addition to condemning “sports betting in all its forms,” the resolution calls upon “corporations involved in this industry to cease their exploitative practices” and urges “our leaders at all levels of government to curtail sports betting and to address its disastrous effects through policy and legislation.”

Writing for the Daily Signal, Jacob Ogan, a student at Boyce College and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, titles his commentary “Southern Baptists Get Sports Betting Right.”

Ogan believes that the SBC gambling resolution “is timely—and necessary” because sports betting “preys disproportionately on young men,” “poses threats not only to churches but to society at large,” “breaks up marriages and families, harming churches, and communities,” and “helps to fuel a dangerous addiction, leading to riskier bets and even greater losses over time.”

I don’t necessarily disagree with these points raised by Mr. Ogan. However, when he says that “it is the government’s role to step in and put an end to this predatory market,” I vehemently disagree, and believe that Southern Baptists get sports betting wrong. (For the record, I am an Independent Baptist.)

As a theological and cultural conservative who rejects the hypocrisy and nanny statism of political conservatism, I would agree with those who say that gambling on sports or at a casino table is an immoral, sinful, wasteful vice with terrible odds that can be addictive and financially ruinous. “The house always wins,” says Ogan, and I certainly agree with him. However, I think that most gamblers realize this and gamble for the thrill and entertainment of it, not because they think that they are going to strike it rich.

The real issue here is not gambling, but whose job it is to warn people about the dangers of gambling and discourage them from gambling.

The Southern Baptist Convention and Ogan believe that it is the role of government to do these things. I believe that it is family, friends, co-workers, mental health professionals, acquaintances, social workers, anti-gambling organizations, religious groups, churches, ministers, and organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention to warn people about the dangers of gambling and discourage them from gambling.

From a libertarian perspective, the issue of sports betting is a simple one. Although sports betting — whether online, at a casino, or in an office pool — may be addictive, financially ruinous, a waste of money, a bad habit, or a vice, it is not the job of government at any level to discourage anyone from betting, prevent anyone from betting, or punish anyone from betting.

In a free society, people have the freedom to do what they will with their own money, even if that means waste it, squander it, or gamble it away.

From a Christian perspective, the issue of sports betting is also a simple one. Although sports betting may be bad, immoral, sinful, evil, wicked, or wasteful, there is no warrant in the Bible for religious people to use the force of government to hinder, restrict, or prohibit people from betting.

Those with moral objections to sports betting or any other form of gambling have the right to try to persuade others not to bet or gamble. What they do not have the right to do is use the force of government to stop people from engaging in activities that they don’t like that do not involve aggressing against the personal or property rights of others.

The post Southern Baptists Get Sports Betting Wrong appeared first on LewRockwell.

Over the past week, the Western media has frantically pushed the narrative that Russia is suffering massive losses. Marco Rubio’s remarks in Kuala Lumpur a couple of days ago is a typical example:

One hundred thousand since January? But it is not just Rubio… The Economist provides a more modest estimate, but the key word is estimate:

As of July 9th our tracker suggests there have been between 900,000 and 1.3m Russian casualties since the war began, including some 190,000–350,000 deaths. That updates assessments from other sources, which put total casualties above 1m at the end of June. Our numbers suggest roughly 31,000 Russians may have been killed in the summer offensive so far, which began in earnest on May 1st.

There is too little data to generate a comparable live estimate for Ukraine. However, a catalogue of the known dead and missing from UALosses, a website, implies that between 73,000 and 140,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died since the invasion began.

Talk about lazy reporters. There is plenty of data out there if you simply do basic analysis. For example, start with social media. In the age of ubiquitous smartphones and social media platforms, it is impossible to hide death notices — aka obituaries — and pictures of funerals and graveyards. There are hundreds of images of Ukrainian funerals and of graveyards with a literal sea of Ukrainian flags fluttering over a vast expanse of freshly dug graves. Not so in Russia. There are a few, but nothing to match the quantity displayed on Ukrainian channels. Here is one example from the cemetery in Khmelnitsky.

Again, there are a few videos of some cemeteries in Russia, but nothing to match the scale of what we can see in Ukraine.

Western intelligence analysts have access to satellite imagery and the capability to look at cemeteries in both Russia and Ukraine and compare where the most new graves are being dug. I swear I wrote an article on this with those images, but I can’t find it. But I did make an interesting discovery while searching for it… Western satellites and media companies are doing nothing to make that comparison.

The following graph helps explain why. [Note: This bears an erroneous title.] This graph shows the number of Russian bodies exchanges for Ukrainian bodies since the start of the Special Military Operation:

In my previous article, I discussed the reason for the disparity in combat deaths… It is the fact that Russia enjoys an overwhelming advantage in firepower. Let’s look at just two weapons systems:

Artillery shells: Russia enjoys a lopsided advantage thanks to ramped-up domestic production (3-4.5 million shells annually) and massive imports (e.g., 9+ million from North Korea since 2023), while Ukraine is dependent entirely on Western aid (1.3-2 million annually). NATO’s Secretary General has conceded in public that Russia produces more artillery shells in three months than the US and the rest of NATO can produce in a year. Production numbers are relevant because Russia’s firing rate (10,000-15,000 shells/day) outpaces Ukraine’s (2,000-7,000/day), leading to a 5-10:1 disparity in some sectors in 2024. In 2025, that disparity has grown to a 23:1 disadvantage for Ukraine. In other words, Ukrainians hit by Russian artillery shells will have more casualties than Russians hit by Ukrainian shells, simply because the Russians are firing more shells.

Drones: Russia holds several key advantages in the use of drones for combat in the ongoing conflict with Ukraine, primarily stemming from its larger industrial base, foreign partnerships (e.g., with Iran for Shahed-type drones and China for components), and focus on mass production and deployment.

Superior Production Volume and Stockpiles: Russia aims to produce 2-4 million drones in 2025 (including 2 million FPV models and 30,000 long-range/decoy types), outpacing Ukraine’s targets in certain categories despite Ukraine’s overall goal of 4.5 million. This includes ramping up to 300-500 long-range drones per day, bolstered by Chinese components, giving Russia a 3:1 edge in daily output for some types. Ukraine produced 2.2 million in 2024 (a 900% surge), but Russia’s cumulative stockpiles (estimated 1.5-2.5 million active) enable sustained operations.

Massive Barrage Capabilities: Russia routinely launches large-scale drone assaults (e.g., record 728 drones in one night in July 2025, up from 2,264 in H1 2024 to 22,495 in H1 2025), overwhelming Ukrainian air defenses and destroying key facilities.

Technological Adaptations for Resilience: Russia has gained an edge with fiber-optic cable-guided drones (e.g., Lancet variants), which are resistant to electronic jamming—a key Ukrainian countermeasure. These “low-tech” innovations have been called game-changers, allowing Russia to bypass EW systems where Ukraine previously dominated. Additionally, Russia’s integration of AI and machine vision in drones enhances targeting, though Ukraine leads in autonomous swarms.

Foreign Supply Chains and Sustainability: Partnerships with Iran (thousands of Shahed imports annually) and China (components for 70% of drones) provide Russia with a reliable influx, evading sanctions and sustaining high usage rates. This contrasts with Ukraine’s reliance on Western aid and domestic firms (200+ companies), which face funding volatility despite a 22-fold increase in long-range drone output from 2023 to 2024.

Battlefield Integration and Attrition Edge: Russia uses its drone superiority to support infantry advances, forcing Ukraine into defensive adaptations like motorcycle evasions. Russia’s drones enable a 10:1 attack ratio in some sectors, compounding its manpower advantage, and increasing the number of Ukrainian casualties.

There is not a single weapon system where Ukraine can claim to have the advantage. Russia is employing two additional weapons systems that Ukraine does not have… hypersonic missiles and combat aircraft. Before you holler, “Wait a minute… Ukraine has combat aircraft,” Russia enjoys air supremacy, while Ukrainian aircraft are shot down with regularity. Oh yeah, almost forgot… Russia’s fleet of bombers and submarines regularly launch missiles that Ukraine is incapable of destroying.

Whatever casualties Ukraine is inflicting on Russian forces, it pales in comparison to what Ukraine is losing because of the overwhelming advantage in fires that Russia has. I guess Marco Rubio did not get that briefing.

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post By the Numbers — Western Propaganda on Russian Losses appeared first on LewRockwell.

First published on Global Research on December 22, 2022

Introductory Note 

The doctrine of peaceful coexistence was first formulated by Moscow in the wake of the 1918-1920 war against Soviet Russia.

It was presented to the Genoa Conference in April 1922.

The “unspoken” 1918-20 war against Russia (barely acknowledged by historians) was launched two months after the November 7, 1917 Revolution on January 12 1918.

It was an outright “NATO style” invasion consisting of  the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. 15,000 from France.  Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I  dispatched 70,000 troops. 

The article below entitled Genoa Revisted: Russia and Coexistence was written by my late father Evgeny Chossudovsky in April 1972 (in commemoration of the Genoa 1922 Conference). It was published by Foreign Affairs.

“Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa.Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.” (See text below)

At the height of the Cold War, the Foreign Affairs article was the object of a “constructive debate” in the corridors of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  According to the NYT:

“Mr. [Evgeny] Chossudovsky wants a United Nations Decade of Peaceful Coexistence, a new Treaty Organization for European Security and Cooperation which would embrace all Europe, and comprehensive bilateral and multilateral cooperation in everything from production and trade to protection of health and environment and “strengthening of common cultural values.” …

Skeptics, of course, can point out that Mr. Chossudovsky’s argument; has lots of holes in it, not least in his strained efforts to prove that peaceful coexistence has always been Soviet policy. Nevertheless, he has made such a refreshing and needed contribution to the East‐West dialogue that it would be neither gracious nor appropriate to answer him with traditional types of debating ploys.

Unquestionably, East‐West cooperation in all the fields he mentions is very desirable, and so is East‐West cooperation in other fields he doesn’t mention such as space. And he is pushing an open door when he laments the colossal burdens of the arms race. (Harry Schwarz, The Chossudovsky Plan,  New York Times, March 20, 1972, emphasis added)

Flash Forward to 2025

The world is at a dangerous crossroads. In the post Cold War Era, East-West Dialogue has been scrapped. Starting with the Obama adminstration, a one trillion dollar budget has been allocated to the development of nuclear weapons. (This massive allocation of tax revenues is slated to increase to two trillion in 2030).  

Is “Peaceful Coexistence” and Diplomacy between Russia and the U.S. an Option? 

Constructive Debate and Dialogue is crucial.

Can East-West Dialogue be Restored as a Means to Avoiding a Third World War?

There is a sense of urgency. Military escalation could potentially lead humanity into nuclear war.

The first priority is to restore dialogue and diplomatic channels. 

We call upon the U.S., the member states of the European Union and the Russian Federation to jointly endorse a policy of “Peaceful Coexistence”, with a view to reaching meaningful peace negotiations in regards to the war in Ukraine. 

My father’s family left Russia in 1921 for Berlin. He was seven years old. In 1934, he departed for Scotland, where he started his studies in economics at the University of Edinburgh, the alma mater of Adam Smith.

In 1947 he joined the United Nations secretariat in Geneva. In 1972 at the time of writing of his article he was a senior official at the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and Secretary of the Trade and Development Board. 

The following article on “Peaceful Coexistence” is part of the legacy of my late father, Dr. Evgeny Chossudovsky

It is my sincere hope and commitment that the concept of “Peaceful Coexistence” between nations will ultimately prevail with a view to avoiding a Third World War.  

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 29, 2024, July 12, 2025

***

Genoa Revisited: Russia and Coexistence

by Evgeny Chossudovsky

Foreign  Affairs, April 1972

Half a century ago, on April 10, 1922, Luigi Facta, Prime Minister of Italy, solemnly opened the International Economic Conference at Genoa. Lloyd George, the prime mover of the Conference, was among the first speakers. He called it “the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled,” aimed at seeking in common “the best methods of restoring the shattered prosperity of this continent.”

Though this rather remote event has by now been forgotten by many, the evocation of it is justified. For a study of Soviet attitudes at that Conference throws light on the origins and evolution of the notion of the peaceful coexistence between countries having different economic and social systems, a major concept of Soviet foreign policy which no serious student of international affairs can nowadays afford to ignore.

Therefore, to look at Genoa afresh from this particular angle may perhaps add to the understanding of Soviet foreign policy and economic diplomacy, including their more recent manifestations.[1]

The author was also anxious to assess the relevance of this first multilateral encounter between Soviet Russia and the Western world to current efforts, a half-century after Genoa, aimed at promoting cooperation across the dividing line. To undertake the task in these pages is not unfitting: the first issue of Foreign Affairs, published only a few months after the Conference, carried a then anonymous article by “K” entitled “Russian After Genoa and The Hague,” written in masterly fashion by the review’s first Editor, Professor Archibald Cary Coolidge. I am grateful for having the privilege, on the eve of the golden jubilee of Foreign Affairs, to revert to this early theme, even if from a different standpoint and at a more comfortable historic distance.[2] 

The Genoa Conference was convened as a result of a set of resolutions passed by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers meeting at Cannes in January 1922. The principal among these was Mr. Lloyd George’s Resolution. 

In the form in which the draft was adopted on January 6, it provided for the summoning of an Economic and Financial Conference “as an urgent and essential step towards the economic reconstruction of Central and Eastern Europe.” All European states, including the former Central Powers, were asked to attend.

Special decisions were adopted to invite Russia and the United States. Russia replied in the affirmative. Indeed, the young Soviet Republic accepted this call with eagerness and alacrity for reasons which will become apparent as we proceed. On the other hand, we are told that Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes informed the Italian Ambassador in Washington on March 8 that, since the Conference appeared to be mainly political rather than economic in character, the United States government would not be represented.[3] However, the U.S. Ambassador in Rome, R. W. Child, was appointed observer.

American oil and other business interests were represented by F. A. Vanderlip. In the opinion of Soviet historians, the U.S. refusal to take part was motivated mainly by hostility toward Soviet Russia and fear that Genoa might strengthen that country’s international position. The United States at the time was adhering firmly to the policy of economic blockade and nonrecognition of the new Bolshevik regime. On May 7, 1922, Ambassador Child wrote to the State Department that he considered his main function as observer at Genoa would be to “keep in closest possible touch with delegations so as to prevent Soviet Russia from entering any agreements by which our rights would be impaired.” 

Russia was to have been represented by Lenin himself in his capacity as Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars. Lenin had closely supervised all the preparations and undoubtedly intended to go to Genoa. He stated publicly that he expected to discuss personally with Lloyd George the need for equitable trade relations between Russia and the capitalist countries.

But in naming Lenin as its chief delegate, the Soviet government entered a proviso that “should circumstances exclude the possibility of Comrade Lenin himself attending the Conference,” Georgy Vassilievich Chicherin, People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, the deputy head of the delegation, would be vested with all requisite powers.

In the end, public concern over Lenin’s personal safety, pressing affairs of state requiring his attention, and the deterioration of his health, made it undesirable for him to leave Moscow. However, he retained the chairmanship of the Russian delegation and directed its activity through almost daily contact. (The New York Times entitled its leader on the opening of the Conference “Lenin in Genoa!”) Chicherin serving as acting head of the delegation was aided by such outstanding Soviet diplomats and statesmen as Krassin, Litvinov, Yoffe, Vorovsky and Rudzutak, who together formed the “Bureau” of the delegation.

All eyes turned with curiosity on the People’s Commissar when he took the floor, after star performers such as Lloyd George and Barthou had made their inaugural speeches. In keeping with the diplomatic etiquette of those days, he wore tails. Issue of the Russian nobility and for some years archivist in the Tsarist Foreign Ministry, Chicherin as a young man had broken with his past and espoused the cause of revolution, ultimately siding with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Un homme genial and a diplomat of consummate professional skill, he combined wide knowledge of world affairs, sophisticated erudition and artistic sensitivity with burning faith in communism and a single-minded dedication to the defense of the interests of the Soviet state. Having spoken in excellent French for some twenty minutes, he proceeded, to the surprise and spontaneous applause of the meeting, to interpret his speech into English.

Though Chicherin had hardly looked at his notes during delivery, his statement had been most carefully prepared. Lenin himself had approved the text, had weighed each word, formulation and nuance. Chicherin’s declaration was the first made by a Soviet representative at a major international conference on the agenda of which the “Russian question” loomed large and to which the Soviet Republic had been invited. It was truly a historic moment.

Chicherin told the Conference that “whilst themselves preserving the point of view of Communist principles, the Russian delegation recognizes that in the actual period of history which permits of the parallel existence of the ancient social order and of the new order now being born, economic collaboration between the States representing the two systems of property is imperatively necessary for the general economic reconstruction.” He added that

“the Russian delegation has come here … in order to engage in practical relations with Governments and commercial and industrial circles of all countries on the basis of reciprocity, equality of rights and full recognition. The problem of world-wide economic reconstruction is, under present conditions, so immense and colossal that it can only be solved if all countries, both European and non-European, have the sincere desire to coordinate their efforts… The economic reconstruction of Russia appears as an indispensable condition of world-wide economic reconstruction.” (emphasis added)

A number of concrete offers (combined with proposals for a general limitation of armaments) accompanied this enunciation of policy, such as the readiness of the Russian government “to open its frontier consciously and voluntarily” for the creation of international traffic routes; to release for cultivation millions of acres of the most fertile land in the world; and to grant forest and mining concessions, particularly in Siberia.

Chicherin urged that collaboration should be established between the industry of the West on the one hand and the agriculture and industry of Siberia on the other, so as to enlarge the raw materials, grain and fuel base of European industry. He declared, moreover, his government’s willingness to adopt as a point of departure the old agreements with the Powers which regulated international relations, subject to some necessary modifications. Chicherin also suggested that the world economic crises could be combated by the redistribution of the existing gold reserves among all the countries in the same proportions as before the war, by means of long-term loans. Such a redistribution “should be combined with a rational redistribution of the products of industry and commercial activity, and with a distribution of fuel (naphtha, coal, etc.) according to a settled plan.” 

Such was, in essence, the first considered presentation by Soviet Russia of what came to be termed the policy of peaceful coexistence between the capitalist and socialist systems, linked with a specific program of practical action, made in an intergovernmental forum. But the genesis of the concept goes back much further.

As long ago as 1915, Lenin, in the midst of the First World War, which to him was above all a clash of rival imperialist powers, in a celebrated article entitled “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe,” had foreseen the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country. In so doing he proceeded from an “absolute law” of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, especially during its imperialist phase.

Lenin came to the related conclusion that the “imperialist chain” might first snap at its weakest link, e.g. in a relatively backward country like Tsarist Russia with a small but concentrated and rapidly expanding capitalist sector, a desperately poor peasantry and a compact and politically conscious working class pitted against a decaying ruling elite. Though the break in the chain would set in motion a process of revolution, that might take time, possibly decades to unfold, depending on the specific conditions obtaining in each country. The socialist state, meanwhile, would have to exist in a capitalist environment, to “cohabit” with it for a more or less prolonged period, peacefully or nonpeacefully. In another article dealing with the “Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution,” published in the autumn of 1916, Lenin developed this theme further by concluding that socialism could not achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It would most probably first be established in one country, or in a few countries, “whilst the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois.”

The weakest link did break, as Lenin had foreseen, in Russia, though the tide of revolution was also mounting in other parts of Europe, impelled by the desperate desire of the peoples to end the war. Indeed, at one time it looked as if a socialist upheaval was about to triumph in Germany. It is hardly surprising that Lenin, the revolutionary leader, openly hailed this prospect, though he was resolutely opposed to the manipulating and artificial pushing or “driving forward” of any revolution from the outside, since for him this was essentially an inexorable social phenomenon ultimately shaped by internal forces. As E. H. Carr has observed, “it was the action of the western Powers toward the end of the year 1918 which contributed quite as much as of the Soviet government which had forced the international situation into a revolutionary setting.”[4]

Yet, being a realist, Lenin did not omit to stress from November 1917 onwards that it would be wrong and irresponsible for the young Soviet Republic to count on revolutions in other countries. They might or might not occur at the time one wished them to happen. There was no question either, as he said again and again, of trying to “export” the Russian Revolution.

While maintaining its belief in the ultimate victory of socialism in other countries, the young Soviet Republic had, meantime, to be prepared to stand on its own feet and to defend its own interests as a state. Not only had the forces of the White Guards and the interventionists to be defeated, but steps had to be taken to conclude peace with the capitalist countries and to prepare, under certain conditions and safeguards, for cooperation with them. Exploratory moves for the resumption of trade and economic relations with the Allied and Central Powers, as well as with neutral countries, had begun immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. As early as May 1918, for instance, the Soviet government made, through the good offices of Colonel Raymond Robins (the representative of the American Red Cross in Petrograd) detailed and far-reaching offers to the United States of long-term economic relations, including the granting of concessions to private businessmen for the exploitation, subject to state control, of Russia’s vast and untapped raw material resources. These offers were reiterated a year later through William Bullitt. There was no response.

Military intrusion and economic harassment from the outside (the latter going to such lengths as “the gold blockade,” i.e. the refusal to accept gold for desperately needed imports) continued, forcing the Soviet government, as Lenin put it, to “go to greater lengths in our urgent Communist measures than would otherwise have been the case.” But the option of “peaceful cohabitation” with the capitalist world, based on normal economic, trade and diplomatic relations, was kept open nonetheless throughout this entire phase.

This emerges clearly from the writings and utterances of Lenin and the documents on Soviet foreign policy during the pre-NEP period. Indeed, one of the most incisive and farsighted definitions of the concept of peaceful coexistence dates back to the early summer of 1920 when, in a report on the foreign political situation of the Soviet Republic, the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs proclaimed that

“Our slogan was and remains the same: peaceful coexistence (mirnoye sosushchestvovaniye) with other Governments whoever they might be. Reality itself has led … to the need for establishing durable relations between the Government of the peasants and workers and capitalist Governments. . . . Economic reality calls for an exchange of goods, the entering into continuing and regulated relations with the whole world, and the same economic reality demands the same of the other Governments also.”[5]

Thus, the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence has deep roots in the early history of the Russian Revolution and was most assuredly not something concocted on the spur of the moment for tactical use at Genoa.

[Our thanks to Foreign Affairs]

Click here to read the full article.

The original source of this article is Foreign Affairs

The post Russia’s Doctrine of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’. A Solution to Avoiding WWIII? appeared first on LewRockwell.

We are six months into Donald Trump’s presidency, really his first presidency as his previous four years he was staffed by the ruling establishment with his opponents.

Washington taught Trump a lesson, and this time he is staffed with  people who share the values he expressed in his campaign.  

Nevertheless, the Trump administration is now at odds within itself and with a significant percentage of its MAGA supporters, if news reports can be believed.  The issue splitting the Trump forces is the Epstein dossier.  I wrote yesterday about the Epstein Saga.  Clearly there are problems.

But the nature of the problem is being misrepresented.  Attorney General Bondi did not decide on her own that the Epstein file was empty.  She was not protecting Trump. The decision was imposed on the Trump administration by the American Establishment, the Ruling Elite, the Deep State, the Globalists–whatever you want to call those whose money and economic interests rule the governments in the Western World.

The issue our rulers put to President Trump was:  Are you prepared to discredit in the eyes of the American People the ruling establishment and the government of the United States?  If the people lose confidence in their government, how can you accomplish anything?  

Netanyahu was there with Trump to back them up. If you release the Epstein Files it will be revealed that he was a Mossad agent blackmailing your leaders. We, Israel, will release the names, and your country will be ruined.

But it is not only Bondi having difficulties.  It is also Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human services, and Trump himself.

Robert Kennedy has found that despite being a cabinet secretary in the US government, he cannot decide based on hard evidence that the Covid “vaccine” is harmful to everyone.  All RFK could do was to cease the government’s recommendation of the deadly Covid vax for healthy children and pregnant women.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services is powerless to stop the vaccination of the vast majority of the American population with a “vaccine” that kills and destroys the immune system.  Big Pharma is more powerful than the US Secretary for Health.

Kennedy despite his promise was also unable to ban the deadly glyphosate weed killer that has poisoned food, soil, and water. Kennedy announced that this toxic substance was too important to agri-business to be denied them.  Agri-business is more powerful than Secretary Kennedy, and its profits are more important than Americans’ health.

President Trump cannot even impose tariffs or deport immigrant-invaders.  Globalism makes countries dependent on imports.  Manufacturers are harmed by tariffs, and agri-business is harmed by deportations of illegals. These  powerful economic interests are opposed to tariffs and deportations.

Trump’s tariffs are used to lower foreign tariffs against the US or to force concessions from foreign governments.  But as it turned  out the tariffs raise the cost of the remaining American manufacturers and hurt their profits..  They confronted  Trump and were granted exemptions from tariffs for their input needs.  Essentially, the tariff list was naked.  Nothing on it that wasn’t exempted.

The same for deportations. According to news reports, there are to be no deportations of restaurant workers, farm workers, and workers in the chicken slaughter houses. The deportations seem mainly to be limited to criminal gangs.

It has only taken the Ruling Establishment six months to cancel the domestic agenda of the Trump administration.  The Reagan administration lasted longer before it was neutralized.

Trump’s peace agenda has also gone by the wayside.  He has bombed Iran for Netanyahu and continues to support Israeli aggression and Israel’s genocide of Palestine.  Trump is yet to meet with Putin, instead handing the “peace negotiations” over to Zelensky and Putin.  As the war is really between the US and Russia, Zelensky cannot settle it.  The military/security complex needs war or the threat of war for its profits and power. Peace does not serve their interests.

Americans have a false belief in the power of a president. As long as private money determines politics, money, not the people, rules.

The post Interest Groups Are Stronger Than President Trump appeared first on LewRockwell.

No one wants to think about a nuclear crisis – and hopefully it will never happen – but we all must accept the fact nuclear tensions are rising globally with Russia and China (and others are seeking nukes) so we should prepare ourselves and our loved ones in the event the unthinkable strikes our soil.

For decades, movies and some in the media have portrayed a nuclear attack as a “doomsday” event implying most people would be killed on impact … and survivors would want to die once they come out of their shelters.

In reality, unless you are actually at ground zero or within a several mile radius of the blast zone (depending on the size of the nuke, of course), there is a very high probability you’ll survive as long as you…

• limit your exposure to radiation and fallout,
• take shelter with proper shielding,
• wait for the most dangerous radioactive materials to decay.

In other words, you CAN survive a nuke attack … but you MUST make an effort to learn what to do! By learning about potential threats, we are all better prepared to know how to react if something happens.

Please realize this is being written with small nuke devices in mind (like a 1-kiloton to 1-megaton device). A larger device, ICBM or a nuclear war would cause more wide-spread damage but some of this data could still be helpful. These are some very basic tips on sheltering for any type of nuclear (or radiological) incident.

What happens when a nuke explodes?

A nuclear blast produces a blinding light, intense heat (called thermal radiation), initial nuclear radiation, 2 explosive shock waves (blasts), mass fires, and radioactive fallout (residual nuclear radiation).

The below graphic shows the destruction of a test home by an atomic blast on March 17, 1953 at the Nevada Proving Ground. The structure was located 3,500 feet from ground zero, and the time from the first to last picture was 2.3 seconds.  It shows the force of the blast wave then the radiating energy set it on fire.

Also, if a nuke is launched over our continent and explodes miles above the earth, it could create an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP is a split-second silent energy burst (like a stroke of lightning) that can fry electronics connected to wires or antennas like cell phones, cars, computers, TVs, etc. Unless electronics are grounded or hardened, an area or nation could experience anything from minor interference to crippled power, transportation, banking and communications systems.

An EMP from a high-altitude nuke (where a nation or group succeeds in detonating a nuclear device carried miles into the atmosphere) could affect electronics within 1,000 miles or more as shown below. (Evidence suggests some countries and groups are working on enhanced and non-nuclear EMP weapons or e-bombs.)

What is the most dangerous part of a nuclear attack?

Both the initial nuclear radiation and residual nuclear radiation (also called radioactive fallout) are extremely dangerous.

Initial nuclear radiation is penetrating invisible rays that can be lethal in high levels.

Radioactive fallout (residual nuclear radiation) is created when the fireball vaporizes everything inside it (including dirt and water). Vaporized materials mix with radioactive materials in the updraft of air forming a mushroom cloud.

Fallout can be carried by winds for hundreds of miles and begin falling to the ground within minutes of the blast or take hours, days, weeks or even months to fall. The heaviest fallout would hit ground zero and areas downwind of that, and 80% of fallout would occur within 24 hours. Most fallout looks like grey sand or gritty ash and the radiation given off cannotbe seen, smelled, tasted or felt which is why it is so dangerous. But as the materials decay or spread out radiation levels will drop.

More about radiation

Types of radiation – Nuclear radiation has 3 main types of radiation…

• alpha – can be shielded by a sheet of paper or by human skin. If alpha particles are inhaled, ingested, or enter body through a cut, they can cause damage to tissues and cells.

• beta – can be stopped by skin or a thicker shield (like wood). Beta particles can cause serious damage to internal organs if ingested or inhaled, and could cause eye damage or possible skin burns.
• gamma – most dangerous since gamma rays can penetrate the entire body and cause cell damage throughout your organs, blood and bones. Since radiation does not stimulate nerve cells you may not feel anything while your body absorbs it. Exposure to high levels of gamma rays can lead to radiation sickness or death, which is why it is critical to seek shelter from fallout in a facility with thick shielding!

Radiation detection devices – You cannot see, smell, taste or feel radiation, but special instruments can detect even the smallest levels of radiation. Since it may take days or weeks before First Responders could get to you, consider having these devices handy during a crisis or attack since they could save your life.

Measuring radiation – Radiation was measured in units called roentgens (pronounced “rent-gens” and abbreviated as “R”) … or “rads” or “rem”. An EPA document called “Planning Guidance for Response to A Nuclear Detonation 2nd Edition June 2010” explains … 1 R (exposure in air) ≅ 1 rad (absorbed dose) ≅ 1 rem (whole-body dose). Although many measuring devices and older documentation use R and rem, officials and the media now use sievert (Sv) which is the System International or SI unit of measurement of radiation. The formula to convert sieverts to rems is quite simple … 1 Sv = 100 R (rem).

How many rads are bad? – High doses of radiation in a short span of time can cause radiation sickness or even death, but if that high dose is spread out over a long period of time, it’s not as bad.

According to FEMA, an adult could tolerate and recover from an exposure to 150R (1.5 Sv) over a week or 300R (3 Sv) over a 4-month period. But 300R (3 Sv) over a week could cause sickness or possibly death. Exposure to 30R (0.3 Sv) to 70R (0.7 Sv) over a week may cause minor sickness, but a full recovery would be expected. But radioactive fallout decays rapidly so staying in a shelter with proper shielding is critical!

The “seven-ten” rule – For every sevenfold increase in time after the initial blast, there is a tenfold decrease in the radiation rate. For example, a 500 rad level can drop to 50R in just 7 hours and down to 5R after 2 days (49 hours). In other words, if you have shelter with good shielding and stay put for even just 7 hours … you’ve really increased your chances of survival. Your detection devices, emergency radio or cell phone [if the last 2 are working, that is] can assist you in knowing when it’s safe to come out.

Coping with reality is the best way to beat it. Prepare. Most of us are. We are just waiting for the S to HTF, so to speak. Once it does, and it will again, we will be comfortable and unafraid while others won’t be able to function without submitting to their own enslavement in exchange for a can of corn.

So how do I protect myself and my family?

Basic shelter requirements – Whether you build a shelter in advance or throw together an expedient last-minute shelter during a crisis, the area should protect you from radiation and support you for at least 2 weeks. Some basic requirements for a fallout shelter include …

• shielding
• ventilation
• water and food
• sanitation and first aid products
• radiation monitoring devices, KI (potassium iodide), radio, weapons, tools, etc

Reduce exposure – Protect yourself from radioactive fallout with …

• distance – the more distance between you and fallout particles, the better
• shielding – heavy, dense materials (like thick walls, earth, concrete, bricks, water and books) between you and fallout is best. Stay indoors or below ground. (Taking shelter in a basement or a facility below ground reduces exposure by 90%. Less than 4 inches of soil or earth can reduce the penetration of dangerous gamma rays by half.)
• time – most fallout loses its strength quickly. The more time that passes after the attack, the lower the danger.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Effects of Nuclear War According to FEMA appeared first on LewRockwell.