Aggregatore di feed

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

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

———-

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

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

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

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

3. The Organized Pro-Palestinian Movement Largely Supports Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Pakistan Consistently Seeks To Multilateralize Its Disputes With India

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

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

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

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

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

———-

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

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

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

Many Americans remain convinced that tyranny and oppression could never happen here in the United States. We are different from other countries, they say. We are more enlightened. We are exceptional. The United States will always be a free country, no matter what.

Of course, there is always a problem with the meaning of the word “freedom.” It means different things to different people.

For example, today’s Americans feel free because they live under a welfare state, a national-security state, a foreign military empire, a government-managed economy, a paper-money system directed by a central bank, an income tax, a drug war, and an immigration police state.

Yet, our American ancestors prior to 1910 rejected all those things and lived in a society that had none of them. Yet, they were convinced that they were free. I happen to believe that they were right and that today’s Americans have simply deluded themselves into thinking they are free.

But let’s take civil liberties. Many Americans would agree that people who live in a society in which civil liberties are absent cannot possibly be considered to be a free people. That is, many Americans favor the procedural protections found in the Bill of Rights.

Let’s assume that a duly elected president of a country has the full support of a big, permanent military-intelligence establishment that loyally obeys his orders. Due to an increase in violence in the government’s war on drugs, the president declares a “national emergency.” The president orders the military to begin rounding up people who are deemed to be threats to “national security.” Tens of thousands of people are quickly arrested, incarcerated in secret prisons, and brutally tortured to give up information on criminal activity. Some of them are executed. No trials are held.

The courts go into action and declare the president’s actions unconstitutional. The courts order the president to stop what he is doing. However, the president, citing his “national emergency,” simply ignores their rulings. When judges cite the president and his goons with contempt, the president and his military forces simply ignore them or, even worse, order their arrest and incarceration. The president also replaces recalcitrant judges with his own judicial lackeys.

A few members of the country’s legislature call for the president’s impeachment. But they are quickly shouted down by others who are loyal to the president or too scared to object to what he is doing. The president would ignore or shut down any impeachment proceedings anyway, citing his “national emergency.”

Again, I think most Americans would describe this as an unfree society. They would see that a system in which a ruler and his military-intelligence forces wield and exercise omnipotent power over the citizenry by being able to jail, torture, assassinate, and execute anyone without any interference whatsoever cannot possibly be considered a free society. I think many Americans would even think about Nazi Germany or George Orwell’s 1984 when hearing a description of that type of society.

Yet, the problem is that many American conservatives, as well as the U.S. national-security establishment (i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA), deeply admire and respect that kind of system in various foreign countries.

Consider the U.S. prison and torture center at Guantanamo Bay. The reason that the Pentagon and the CIA set it up in Cuba, with the full support of U.S. conservatives, was to enable them to avoid any interference by U.S. courts with how they treated people accused of terrorism. The Pentagon and the CIA wanted a total Constitution-free zone in which they would wield and exercise omnipotent powers over inmates, including being able to torture, indefinitely incarcerate, and even execute them.

Before that was right-wing Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who the U.S. national-security establishment helped take power in a coup in 1973 in Chile. He nullified the courts and the national congress. Employing Chile’s national-security establishment, he and his military-intelligence goons rounded up tens of thousands of suspected communists, incarcerated them in secret prisons, brutally tortured or raped them, and executed or disappeared thousands of them. No trials at all. Pinochet established “law and order” in Chile and restored a sense of “patriotism” to the land by purifying the nation of communists. Moreover, he brought “free enterprise” to Chile and even reformed Social Security to conform to conservative principles. American conservatives loved him and still do.

Look at the current dictator of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele. Declaring a “national emergency,” he assumed dictatorial powers that have enabled him and his military-intelligence goons to round up, incarcerate, and torture tens of thousands of people. No trials. No judicial interference. No congressional interference. Simply total, raw, dictatorial power. But Bukele has brought “law and order” and “patriotism” to El Salvador and, in the process, made El Salvador great again. Consequently, American conservatives have fallen in love with him. President Trump is even using Bukele’s “Terrorism Confinement Center” to imprison immigrants who have been accused of illegally entering the United States but who have never been tried or convicted in a trial in a court of law.

Why is the right-wing love of Gitmo, Pinochet, and Bukele a problem for Americans? Given that American conservatives love right-wing tyranny for foreigners, it is not beyond the realm of reasonable possibility that that, deep down, American right-wingers would love to impose the same system here at home — under the guise of establishing “law and order,” restoring “patriotism,” and, of course, “making America great again.”

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post It Could Never Happen Here appeared first on LewRockwell.

When liberals destroyed religion, they destroyed morality. With the demise of morality went integrity and a person’s word.  Today Western societies are overwhelmed by crime.  Sexual morality is long gone. Young women compete for attention according to which woman can copulate with the most men in a 24-hour time period. One contestant says her father is very proud of her.  See this. 

Journalists have no compulsion against lying to the public in behalf of an agenda or an advertiser.

Medical practitioners have no hesitation in supporting treatments, such as the Covid “vaccine” that killed and maimed millions of people for the sake of Big Pharma’s profits.  And they refuse to be held accountable.

The list is long of morality’s absence.  The worst is the immorality of the entire world, with the single exception of black South Africa, supporting, not opposing, Israel’s assassination of Palestine and Palestinians.  American governments have made the genocide possible by supplying the bombs, money, and diplomatic cover.  And we are faced with the prospect that Americans, who overthrew Iraq, Libya, and Syria for Israel, will be taken to war with Iran for Israel’s purposes.  Will Americans ever stop dying for Satan’s Chosen People?

The shame that the Biden and Trump regimes have brought on every American is extraordinary.  Two US presidential regimes have made Americans responsible for the support of genocide, and no one is ashamed. The Christian Zionists are well pleased.  We are doing God’s will protecting Israel, they say.  In fact, we are enabling Satan’s Chosen People whose extraordinary immorality resulted in God kicking the Israelis out of the Middle East and dispersing them among the world, stateless.

In the midst of Netanyahu’s extermination of Palestine, Netanyahu was invited to address a joint session of the US House and Senate and received 53 standing ovations.  The American Congress could not refrain from pouring its consent on genocide.

Some countries in past times, such as Spain, recognized the exploitative practices of Jews and  kicked them out. In Eastern European countries and in Russia the exploitative practices of Satan’s Chosen People against the indigenous populations resulted in pogroms against Jews, of which Jews only give one side, their propagandistic side.

Satan’s attack on Western morality has been led by Jews.  They gave us pornography.  They gave us the absence of Christian symbols in public spaces. They gave us the March Through the Institutions, which succeeded in destroying the self-belief of Western gentiles.  And now they are bringing us to World War III.

It is extraordinary how 10 million Israelis rule the world.

The post Without Religion There Is No Morality appeared first on LewRockwell.

No, this is not a photo of members of the College of Cardinals, the electors of the next Catholic Pope.

I don’t know when I first saw this photo of the key players and manager of the 1968 St. Louis Cardinals baseball team, nor for what particular reason it made an impression on me.

As a ten-year old boy these Cardinals were the chief rival of my hometown Chicago Cubs (The Madeleine for a Chicagoan – LRC Blog). They were rivals due to the proximity of Chicago and St. Louis and because the Cardinals were the team to beat that always got the better of the Cubs. In 1967 they won the World Series against the Boston Red Sox in seven games and in 1968 they lost the series in seven games to the Detroit Tigers. The nine players represent the starting lineup and the superstar starting pitcher (Bob Gibson, 3rd from the left). Four are members of the baseball hall of fame (Gibson, Brock; Cepeda, and Schoendienst). Three are St. Louis area natives who spent almost their whole careers (as players and afterwards) with the team (Shannon, Maxvill, and Schoendienst).

Visually, it seems even more than contrived, more like photo shopped. If it first appeared today I would have thought it was generated by AI. The hats and uniforms stand out as colorized, almost suspended in air. I love the colors of the shirts and sweaters. Was the photo of manager Schoendienst added to the photo of the players? But now what is most striking to me is the appearance of the players as members of a team. There is a team look. Individuality is limited. Soon afterward this radically changed in sports and in American life in general. Look at the images below of the Cardinals of the early 70s. Long sideburns, facial hair and long hair quickly became the norm. Individuality took over, but they still looked alike!

Short summaries of the life and career of each player (from left to right) and their manager follow below.

Roger Maris – Wikipedia

Roger Eugene Maris (born Maras; September 10, 1934 – December 14, 1985) was an American professional baseball right fielder who played 12 seasons in Major League Baseball (MLB). He is best known for setting a new MLB single-season home run record with 61 home runs in 1961.

Maris played in the minor leagues from 1953 to 1956, and made his major league debut for the Cleveland Indians in 1957. He was traded to the Kansas City Athletics during the 1958 season, and to the New York Yankees after the 1959 season. Maris finished his playing career as a member of the St. Louis Cardinals in 1967 and 1968. Maris was an AL All-Star from 1959 through 1962,[a] the AL Most Valuable Player in 1960 and 1961, and an AL Gold Glove Award winner in 1960. Maris appeared in seven World Series; he played for Yankees teams that won the World Series in 1961 and 1962 and for a Cardinals team that won the World Series in 1967.

Maris’s home run record was controversial, as the previous single-season home run record (60, set by Babe Ruth in 1927) was set during a period when MLB teams played 154 games per season. Maris broke Ruth’s record in the year the AL baseball season was extended to 162 games, hitting his 61st home run in the last game of the season, which led to questions about the legitimacy of his record.[2] Maris’ major league record remained unbroken until Mark McGwire surpassed it in 1998; his AL record stood until 2022, when Aaron Judge hit 62 home runs for the New York Yankees.

Tim McCarver – Wikipedia

James Timothy McCarver (October 16, 1941 – February 16, 2023) was an American professional baseball catcher, television sports commentator, and singer.[1][2] He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) from 1959 to 1980 for four teams, spending almost all of his career with the St. Louis Cardinals and Philadelphia Phillies. A two-time All-Star, he helped the Cardinals to the 1964 World Series title, batting .478 in the Series, including a three-run home run in the tenth inning to win Game 5. In 1966, he became the first catcher since the 19th century to lead the National League (NL) in triples with 13. McCarver was runner-up for the 1967 NL Most Valuable Player Award, behind teammate Orlando Cepeda, after batting .295 and leading NL catchers in assists and fielding percentage.

Traded to the Phillies after the 1969 season, he was later re-joined by pitcher and St. Louis teammate Steve Carlton, becoming his regular catcher as the team won three division titles from 1976 to 1978. After increased use as a pinch hitter in his last several seasons, in September 1980, McCarver became the 18th major league player to play in four decades.

After his playing career, McCarver became a television color commentator, most notably for Fox Sports after previous stints with the other three broadcast networks. He eventually set a record by calling 23 World Series as well as 20 All-Star Games, earning three Emmy Awards in the process. In 2012, McCarver was named the Ford C. Frick Award recipient. He was inducted into the Sports Broadcasting Hall of Fame in 2016,[3][4] and the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame in 2017.

Bob Gibson – Wikipedia

Robert Gibson (November 9, 1935 – October 2, 2020), nicknamed “Gibby” and “Hoot”, was an American baseball pitcher in Major League Baseball who played his entire career for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1959 to 1975. Known for his fiercely competitive nature, Gibson tallied 251 wins, 3,117 strikeouts, and a 2.91 earned run average. A nine-time All-Star and two-time World Series Champion, he won two Cy Young Awards and the 1968 National League Most Valuable Player Award.

Born in Omaha, Nebraska, Gibson overcame childhood illness to excel in youth sports, particularly basketball and baseball. After briefly playing with the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team, he chose to pursue baseball and signed with the St. Louis Cardinals organization. He became a full-time starting pitcher in July 1961 and earned his first All-Star appearance in 1962. Gibson won 2 of 3 games he pitched in the 1964 World Series, then won 20 games in a season for the first time in 1965. Gibson also pitched three complete game victories in the 1967 World Series. He is one of four players and two pitchers to win multiple World Series MVPs.

The pinnacle of Gibson’s career was 1968, during the “Year of the Pitcher”, which is regarded as one of the greatest single pitching seasons of all-time; he posted a 1.12 ERA for the season and then recorded 17 strikeouts in Game 1 of the 1968 World Series. Gibson threw a no-hitter in 1971 but began experiencing swelling in his knee in subsequent seasons. At the time of his retirement in 1975, Gibson ranked second only to Walter Johnson among major-league pitchers in career strikeouts. When describing Gibson’s career, his former all-star teammate Tim McCarver jokingly remarked, “Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher in baseball. He always pitches when the other team doesn’t score any runs.”

He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1981, his first year of eligibility, and the Cardinals retired his uniform number 45 in September 1975, the year he retired. Gibson was later selected for the Major League Baseball All-Century Team in 1999. He died of pancreatic cancer on October 2, 2020.

In his day, St. Louis Cardinals great Bob Gibson was feared like no other pitcher – ESPN

“No pitcher I faced competed like Gibson,” Hank Aaron said. “He hated you when he pitched.” That was Bob Gibson, a fighter, a ferocious competitor, to the end.

Up close with Bob Gibson, a true baseball great – American Thinker

I expected Gibson to be a mean beast of a man as he appeared on the mound.  Rather, he was the nicest guy in camp — nicest by a wide margin amid a bakers’ dozen of nice guys that included renown nice guys Roy Campanella and Ernie Banks.  Gibson was cordial, humble, kind, considerate.  Disarmingly so. By most accounts, on the mound, Gibson was fearsome, if in normal life a complete gentleman (with emphasis on “gentle”).  How fearsome?  The internet tells us Gibson once hit Bill White with a pitch for crowding the plate — in an Old Timers’ game.

Mike Shannon – Wikipedia

Thomas Michael Shannon (July 15, 1939 – April 29, 2023) was an American professional baseball third baseman and right fielder. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1962 to 1970, and then worked as a Cardinals radio broadcaster from 1972 to 2021.

Shannon was raised in St. Louis, Missouri, and was an integral part of some of the Cards’ most successful seasons. He was a part of the 1964 World Series and 1967 World Series champions.

Shannon was the proprietor of Mike Shannon’s Steaks and Seafood restaurant in downtown St. Louis until it closed on January 30, 2016.[1] Shannon continued to operate two Mike Shannon’s Grill locations, in Edwardsville, Illinois, that closed in 2022, and at St. Louis Lambert International Airport, which is run by his grandson, Justin VanMatre.[2]

Mike Shannon – Society for American Baseball Research

Lou Brock – Wikipedia

He began his 19-year Major League Baseball (MLB) career with the 1961 Chicago Cubs but spent most of it as a left fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals. An All-Star for six seasons, Brock was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1985 in his first year of eligibility[1] and was inducted into the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame in 2014.

Best known for stealing bases,[2][3] Brock once held the major league records for most bases stolen in a single season and in a career. He led the National League (NL) in stolen bases in eight seasons. A member of the 3,000-hit club, he led the NL in doubles and triples in 1968, and in singles in 1972. In 1974, he was the runner-up for the NL Most Valuable Player Award. After retiring as a player, he served as a special instructor coach for the Cardinals.

Orlando Cepeda – Wikipedia

Orlando Manuel Cepeda Pennes (Spanish pronunciation: [oɾˈlando seˈpeða]; September 17, 1937 – June 28, 2024), nicknamed “the Baby Bull” and “Peruchin”, was a Puerto Rican first baseman in Major League Baseball who played for six teams from 1958 to 1974, primarily the San Francisco Giants. An 11-time All-Star, Cepeda was one of the most consistent power hitters in the National League (NL) through the 1960s and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1999.

Orlando Cepeda – Society for American Baseball Research

Curt Flood – Society for American Baseball Research

Flood’s legacy continues to benefit players more than ever, even if his name has been lost to history. Brad Snyder summarized Flood’s place in most contemporary players’ lives: “Today’s athletes have some control over where they play in part because in 1969 Flood refused to continue being treated like hired help. But while [Jackie] Robinson’s jersey has been retired in every major league park, few current players today know the name Curt Flood, and even fewer know about the sacrifices he made for them.”

Julián Javier – Wikipedia

is a Dominican former professional baseball second baseman. He played in Major League Baseball (MLB) from 1960 to 1972, most prominently as a member of the St. Louis Cardinals where he became a two-time All-Star player, and was a member of two World Series winning teams (1964, 1967).

Dal Maxvill – Wikipedia

Maxvill’s best season with the bat was 1968 with the Cardinals. He set career highs in batting average (.253), on-base percentage (.329), and slugging percentage (.298). He also received his only Most Valuable Player award votes (finishing in twentieth place) and won his only Gold Glove.[2] In the World Series that year (the last of the pre-LCS era), he went 0-for-22, the worst performance in a World Series. It was also the worst hitless streak to start a postseason until 2022.

Red Schoendienst – Wikipedia

He played for 19 years with the Cardinals (1945–1956, 1961–1963), New York Giants (1956–1957) and Milwaukee Braves (1957–1960), and was named to 10 All Star teams. He then managed the Cardinals from 1965 through 1976 – the second-longest managerial tenure in the team’s history (behind Tony La Russa). Under his direction, St. Louis won the 1967 and 1968 National League pennants and the 1967 World Series, and he was named National League Manager of the Year in 1967 and 1968. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1989. At the time of his death, he had worn a Major League uniform for 74 consecutive years as a player, coach, or manager,[1][2][3] and had served 67 of his 76 years in baseball with the Cardinals.

The post A Photo of Cardinals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Studying the history of international relations is in some respects a study of forgetfulness. One generation is swept into the maelstrom of a great struggle against an evil adversary. After that generation dies, the next generation retains only a dim memory of what the old men of the previous generation were carrying on about. New resentments and antipathies form. The evil adversary of the past turns out to be not so bad after all, and former allies are subsequently regarded with contempt.

A couple of days ago, Germany’s weird new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, announced that Germany would invest hundreds of billions of Euros to rearm Germany. To my (semi) surprise, it seems that other EU countries think this is a swell idea. How quickly we forget the concerns of the recent past.

Observing this irony is especially strange for me, because I have long been of the unorthodox opinion that Roosevelt and Churchill made a huge mistake when they announced the policy of “unconditional surrender” at the Casablanca Conference of 1943.

They did this because they understood that the Russians were doing pretty much all of the fighting against Germany, which resulted in the Russian army and civilian population taking enormous losses—the kind of losses that Americans cannot even begin to fathom.

Stalin was worried the Anglo-Saxons might be tempted to negotiate a separate peace with German officers who didn’t like Hitler, and could be tempted to get rid of him if they were given assurances of being able to surrender on relatively favorable terms.

By announcing their “unconditional surrender” demand, Roosevelt and Churchill were trying to assuage Stalin’s fears. I have long perceived this to be a terrible mistake because it enabled the most fanatical elements of Nazi Germany to insist that there was no choice but to fight bis zur letzten Patrone—until the last cartridge.

It seems to me that the Americans and British should have supported and encouraged the German officers who attempted the July 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler. After all, the war’s most destructive period—and the worst phase of the Jewish Holocaust—occurred between July 1944 and May 8, 1945.

Claus von Stauffenberg was a reasonable man. I knew his first cousin and childhood friend, Alexander von Uexküll, during the last years of his life in Vienna. He was a perfect gentleman, as moderate and sensible as they come.

Likewise, I always thought it strange that—after going to war with Germany because of its invasion of Poland in September 1939, the English (and later the Americans) turned a blind eye to the fact that the Russians also invaded Poland a week later.

Moreover, at the war’s conclusion—precipitated by the Red Army taking Berlin— Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to leave Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe more or less under Russian control.

In 1997, six years after the Russians threw in the towel, I thought it extremely strange that the Americans decided to revive the Cold War by expanding NATO to the east. I completely shared George Kennan’s sentiment that this was “A Fateful Error,” as he put it in the New York Times.

Now—on the eve of VE day—it seems to me that the Europeans have swung to the opposite extreme and completely forgotten that the Russians did most of the fighting against Nazi Germany and suffered tremendously for their effort.

On our side of the Atlantic, we Americans have no idea what it is like to be invaded like Russia was invaded by the German military in June 1941. Though estimates vary, it’s fairly well accepted that 27 million Russians were killed in the fighting that followed.

Most Americans and Englishmen today are unaware of the fact that Hitler had no interest in fighting France and England. He mistakenly believed they would not perceive their interests to be threatened by his military ambitions against Russia, and that they would prefer to make peace with Germany instead of fighting over Poland.

Hitler seems to have mistakenly believed that the English and French shared his passionate hatred of what he called “Bolshevism.” As he put it in Mein Kampf:

Never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common blood-stained criminals; that they are the scum of humanity which, favoured by circumstances, overran a great state in a tragic hour, slaughtered out thousands of her leading intelligentsia in wild bloodlust, and now for almost ten years have been carrying on the most cruel and tyrannical regime of all time.

Furthermore, do not forget that these rulers belong to a race which combines, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying, and which today more than ever is conscious of a mission to impose its bloody oppression on the whole world.

I suspect that with with only minor modifications of the above language to make it a little less brutal, it would be perfectly acceptable to express this sentiment in polite liberal American society today—naturally without revealing the author.

This shows how much popular sentiment can change in thirty years. When I was studying political philosophy in the 1990s, I read all of the literature on Bolshevik atrocities, including Stalin’s intentional starving of Ukraine in 1932-1933. I was often surprised to discover that most American liberals were apparently unaware of this history. Back then, they were too obsessed with Hitler’s crimes to learn anything about Stalin’s.

When Alger Hiss died in 1996, I was surprised by the mildness of the New York Times obituary of Stalin’s spy at Yalta, which included paragraphs such as the following:

Others had come to suspect that Mr. Hiss had lied, but were inclined to excuse him on the grounds that the times had changed, that steps taken to help the Soviet Union during the rise of Hitler in the 1930’s might have been condoned at that time, but looked quite different in the late 1940’s after the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe, the start of the Cold War and widespread disclosure of Stalin’s crimes.

This struck me as totally disingenuous. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knew about Stalin’s crimes in the 1930s, despite the efforts of Walter Duranty—the New York Times Bureau Chief in Moscow—to conceal them.

Now the same New York Times-reading set who “were inclined to excuse” Hiss have become rabidly anti-Russian and wouldn’t even consider moderate proposals like Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine.

Again I find myself scratching my head. For years, I’ve gotten the persistent impression that Russia sought a mutually beneficial relationship with the West, and especially with Germany. The Nord Stream pipeline was emblematic of this aspiration.

For years, it seemed to me that the U.S. government was doing everything in its power in Ukraine to provoke an aggressive Russian response. Recently, a Ukrainian friend told me that she’d had the same perception for many years, and marveled at Putin’s restraint.

Tomorrow, May 8, 2025—the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day—I will (as always) think about my grandfather, John Sears, who was wounded multiple times fighting the Germans in Italy, and my great uncle, Bobby Weichsel, who was killed in action in Italy.

I will also solemnly contemplate the 5.7 million Russian soldiers who died fighting Nazi Germany.

If Europe’s leaders had a shred of common sense, they would use the anniversary as an occasion for talking with the Russians about ending the war in Ukraine.

Doing so will require regarding Russia as a country worthy of respect, with legitimate security concerns and legitimate economic interests, such as supplying German industry with natural gas without being terrorized by the United States government representing American liquified natural gas interests.

Doing so will also require recognizing that Vladimir Putin does not resemble Adolf Hitler, who fantasized for years about destroying Russia, leveling Moscow, and covering the ancient city with an artificial lake.

Finally, doing so will require Europe’s leaders to grow up and cease acting like petulant 13-year-olds.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post VE Day: When America Cheered Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

In 1989, a courageous young woman exposed the satanic Jewish forebears of the Illuminati cult that now dominates the world. They are Sabbatean Frankists who hate assimilated Jews as much as goyim.

On May 1, 1989, a “nice Jewish girl”, age 29, Vicki Polin appeared on the Oprah Show and said her family was part of a satanic cult that dates back to the 1700s.

Although they appear to be upstanding citizens — lawyers, doctors, police officers etc. — they engage in Satanic ritual human sacrifice, incest and cannibalism, often in synagogues. They drink blood and eat babies.

She is describing the Illuminati which originated in the Frankist Movement in the Eighteenth Century. Jacob Frank, born Jacob Leibowitz (1726-1791) led a major Satanic heresy that shook the Jewish world. They believed that the Messiah would return if the world went over to evil completely. Thus they encouraged all sexual license and satanic evil as the ultimate good.

Financed by the Frankist Rothschild banking syndicate, they subverted other Jews and the goyim by assuming every religious and political hue. They took over Freemasonry and are now in the final stage of establishing their world government, a.k.a “globalization.”

The incest abuse Polin suffered is a textbook example of how Illuminati families –Jews and non-Jews– treat their children. George W. Bush and Barack Obama may have suffered similar trauma and, (like Polin) have multiple personality disorder. Vicki is from Chicago and there is no telling how many Chicagoans surrounding Barack Obama are part of this satanic cult. Think Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett.

THE OPRAH INTERVIEW

Polin told Oprah that she witnessed babies sacrificed and consumed for the “power” this gave. These babies are bred within the extended family for this purpose.  She said she was raped several times, and elsewhere says she had five abortions due to intercourse with her father.

Polin said her family was “extremely involved” in these practices. Her mother is “on the human relations commission of the town that she lives in, and she’s an upstanding citizen. Nobody would suspect her. Nobody would suspect anybody involved in it. There are police officers involved in it. There’s, you know, doctors, lawyers…”

“I mean, to the outside world, everything we did was proper and right, and then there were the nights that things changed, that things just got turned around. What was wrong was right, and what was right was wrong. That’s what helps to create some of them to develop MPD.”

Polin’s therapist, Tina Grossman was on the show but not on YouTube. She told Oprah she had treated over 40 survivors from many states and Canada. They have never met each other yet say the “identical same things.”

Ms GROSSMAN: They are describing identical rituals, just the same as, since I’m Jewish, you could go to New York or California and describe a seder in one state or another and, as a Jew, you would recognize it. This is the belief system in evil and the power that evil gives you, and so it has these certain rituals, so they are very similar with all of the survivors.

OPRAH: See, but I am very surprised because the Jewish faith is the Jewish faith and worshipping the devil is not a part of the Jewish faith. I mean, Jewish people do not worship the devil.

Ms GROSSMAN: But before there was Christ and before there was a system of one God, there was Paganism- and it still exists in the world, and in many cultures, you still find the belief that there are strength and power in the actual consumption of human flesh or animal flesh.

The surprising origins of the idea that billionaire Bill Gates wants to feed you insects.

If you are someone like me — interested in issues like climate change, food systems and alternatives proteins — and you engage with these topics online, you may find yourself inundated with comments and replies about billionaire Bill Gates. I’m told, often, that Gates has a particular agenda when it comes to food.

“Bill Gates wants to get rid of the cattle industry, and have people eat his FAKE MEAT,” writes one commenter, adding, “Bill Gates wants us to eat bugs as well.” It’s a conspiracy theory that has picked up substantial steam in certain corners of the internet. But where did the Bill Gates bug-eating conspiracy come from, and how has the media been used to perpetuate it? In this explainer, we go back to the origins of the story that one of the world’s most famous billionaires wants to feed you insects.

History of Bug-Eating

The culinary tradition of eating insects is not new. Humans have eaten bugs for millennia, tracing back to prehistoric times when insects were a common part of diets worldwide.

Early humans foraged for bugs, and some Indigenous cultures consumed them as a protein source. Ancient Greeks and Romans savored locusts, while in Asia, edible insects became delicacies, where they remain so today. Colonization and industrialization led to a decline in bug consumption in some societies, branding it taboo and culturally “gross.”

While some early colonizers did partake in insect-eating, there was a push to move towards more European ways of eating — farming and slaughtering animals for meat. Colonizers, notes Atlas Obscura, “weaponized unfamiliar practices — including insect eating — as a sign of Native Americans’ inferiority.”

Insects as a Sustainable Food Source

In North America and Europe today, insects remain mostly off the menu, but the idea of bugs as a “future food” has been bandied about since the 2010s, when researchers and startups began looking into sustainable alternatives to meat.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations published a report in 2009 entitled How to Feed the World in 2050, stating that food production would need to increase by 70 percent in the next forty plus years to feed a larger and more prosperous global population. Annual meat production, states the report “will need to rise by over 200 million tonnes to reach 470 million tonnes”  — enough to fill the plates of 9.7 billion people, by UN estimates.

In 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled The Six-Legged Meat of the Future, positioning insects as a sustainable protein alternatives — high in protein but with a much lower environmental footprint. Then in 2012, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation granted $100,000 to All Things Bugs, LLC to “develop a method for the efficient production of nutritionally dense food using insect species.”

The next year in 2013, the FAO released a subsequent report titled “Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security,” which advocated for the nutritional and environmental benefits of consuming insects.

That same year, the first cultured meat burger was developed and showcased to the world in 2013. And by 2016, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were launching their first meat-like plant-based burgers.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Global Elite’s End Goal is to Force-feed Humanity Food Sources Like Bugs, Feces, and — as Some Are Now Alleging — Human Remains. appeared first on LewRockwell.

A long time ago when I was a kid, our local hospital was one of the rocks of our community. While it was not usually a destination of choice, you had confidence that the hospital was there solely for the purpose of taking care of you or your family when something went wrong. The hospital was a distinct entity, separate from the various businesses in town whose primary and necessary objective was to turn a profit.

I would hazard to guess that if some speculator came in who wanted to buy the hospital, leverage it up to the hilt, squeeze every last nickel out of it by skimping on supplies, cancel vital services and risk running it into the ground, well, that speculator would have been run out of town on a rail.

Those days are gone.

Private equity firms are doing just that – and their tentacles in health care are growing. Last year, they owned 460 hospitals, according to the Private Equity Stakeholder Project’s hospital tracker. Now, they own 488 hospitals. That represents:

• 8.5% of all private hospitals
• 22.6% of all for-profit hospitals
• At least 27.7% of private equity-owned hospitals serve rural populations, which generally have a higher percentage of financially vulnerable patients and fewer healthcare options

The growth in PE-owned hospitals raises a myriad of ethical questions. While the bottom line is important to all hospitals, whether non-profit or for-profit, PE-owned hospitals are on a different level in emphasizing profits, and the consequences can be devastating as we are about to find out.

Cerberus and Steward Health Care

Steward Health Care, the nation’s largest for-profit hospital group, filed for bankruptcy in May 2024. The story of Steward is a tragic tale and is seen by many as indisputable proof that when a private equity fund, such as the one managed by PE giant Cerberus Capital Management, purchases hospitals and treats them strictly as financial assets, terrible things can and do happen.

According to Cerberus, they were Mother Teresa, investing to save a struggling healthcare provider, while making a profit for their investors and leaving Steward in fine shape when they exited in 2020.

Shortly before the 2024 bankruptcy, Cerberus slobbered:

Cerberus’ initial investment in Steward in 2010 not only rescued but restored six struggling Massachusetts hospitals on the verge of closing that were critical to their communities. During our nearly 11-year ownership of Steward, we supported the revitalization of failing community hospitals into a leading healthcare system. Cerberus’ long-term investment made it possible for Steward to continue to serve its communities, employ tens of thousands of professionals, and positively impact millions of patients’ lives.

Cerberus also felt the need to mention that an investment from a Cerberus fund was essentially an investment made possible by “millions of teachers, firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and municipal workers as well as other pension funds, universities, and endowments.”

Salt of the earth helps salt of the earth.

However, Cerberus danced around the important fact that they and their investors were not charities.

The teachers and first responders (their pension funds), as well as Cerberus expected a significant return on their investment, and they expected it within five to 10 years. Therefore, it’s reasonable to ask what kind of return the Cerberus fund and its limited partners (the teachers and first responders) could expect from an investment in 37 struggling, indebted hospitals in Massachusetts, and later Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Struggling hospitals don’t jump out as a good private equity investment. They required significant time, money and a lot of risk. So, if you’re wondering why PE firms would buy so many hospitals, think of McDonald’s.

In the 2016 film “The Founder,” Ray Kroc is struggling to turn a profit on the 13 McDonald’s franchises he has granted. A young man named Harry Sonneborn immediately diagnoses Kroc’s problem and reveals the magic formula that makes him a billionaire:

“You’re not in the burger business. You’re in the real estate business.”

The same is true for Cerberus. Hospitals are an annoyance to get what they really want, which is to use the hospital’s real estate to suck out their investment and profits.

Many of the hospitals purchased by private equity have owned both the buildings and land with low levels of debt, some with none at all. Getting at that unencumbered real estate is where private equity hits pay-dirt using an age-old real estate strategy called “Sale and Leaseback.”

Working hand in hand with private equity firms are real estate investment trusts (REITs), which have $185 billion in healthcare holdings. Private equity managers like Cerberus sell a hospital group’s land and buildings to the REITs and turn a huge profit.

Meanwhile, the REIT portfolios the property, earning a steady stream of lease income from the target hospital and because they are a REIT, the income is tax free. The hospitals no longer own their real estate and are now on the hook for millions of dollars in lease payments to the REIT for years to come.

This is exactly what Cerberus did.

Read the Whole Article

The post Private Equity and Hospitals: Have They Finally Gone Too Far? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The last dozen years have been tragic; now we have work ahead of us.

It is so much easier to destroy than to build. It takes barely a second and hardly any effort to tear something down; it requires no imagination, dedication, or moral perseverance.

Watch a young child carefully build a crenellated castle out of blocks, an all-day labor of love, then proudly display his work to his parents. Watch another child eye the enjoyment and casually kick the castle down in an instant. The ratio of time and energy is 100 to 1.

A man can start his own business with a product he invented, building up something useful to the community—and a destroyer can come along with no expertise at all and burn the business down, physically or through commercial dirty tricks.

A parent pours all of his or her heart and life into raising a child, but a malefactor can come along and damage or destroy that child in a single moment. The ratio is incalculable.

It’s so easy to destroy.

It requires character, vision, and energy to build something, but absolutely anyone can destroy. The ratio is so overwhelming in favor of destruction that it’s a wonder we build anything at all. It’s all so fragile.

Pope Francis destroyed. I don’t speak to his intention, only his actions.

The destruction is not irrevocable, but there are a lot of gaping bomb craters and tumbled walls in the structure that took thousands of years to build. And it will require people with intelligence, virtue, and especially unshakable faith to rebuild what we have just witnessed being so cruelly and systematically destroyed.

When the surviving remnant of Judah came back to Jerusalem from Babylon, around 540 B.C., the Holy City was in tumbled ruins, a blackened, rotting, boneyard of shattered memories. It wasn’t just brick and mortar that had to be relaid; it was the moral capacity of the people to be willing to invest themselves all over again. How could they sink themselves into the work of rebuilding when the memory of what was once glorious was still a stinging sorrow in their souls?

It required constant encouragement from the leaders to put steel into the backbone of the returned exiles. They’d made the journey, they had permission, the materials lay ready, but the people were easily frightened into abandoning the work. It could be destroyed all over again, after all.

Will we have the heart and courage to rebuild the Church after the devastation of the recent past?

Perhaps the most grievous and insidious destruction, besides the people, communities, dioceses, and institutes, is a great intangible: the honor of Christ’s Church. After the twelve-year pontificate of Pope Francis, the Church is not taken seriously any more.

Christ’s own Church. Not taken seriously. That is damage of cosmic proportions.

Does the Church still teach that homosexual acts are a grave evil? Most of the world no longer knows. Can women be priests? The Synod on Synodality managed to convey a hopeful uncertainty. Does the Church even believe that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant? The rot has eaten away to the very foundations.

The Church was once perceived to have definitive teachings about certain things, flowing from the deposit of faith left by Jesus through the apostles. Those teachings may not have been universally popular, but they were clear. Now all we have is a shrug and a weaselly, “Who am I to say?” about critical, life-altering, eternal questions.

I remember leading a group of young adults to World Youth Day 2011 in Madrid. They were twitterpated, as any youth would be, at the prospect of an overseas trip to see one of the most recognized and significant men in the world. I was slightly concerned about how they would react to Pope Benedict’s soft-spoken, scholarly demeanor. Pope John Paul II had a rockstar persona that shone brilliantly at World Youth Days, but Benedict? I was afraid he’d bomb.

As pope, Benedict would never take the chance of accidentally misstating some article of faith or morals by speaking off the cuff, so he read his remarks. And the kids hung on his words like puppies begging for a Snausage. It didn’t matter that reading gave him a somewhat monotonous delivery; they wanted to hear every word he dropped, like baby birds in the nest. They jostled (mostly politely) to get closer to him. That is the power of the deposit of faith. It calls to the heart and mind, no matter how it is delivered.

Pope Benedict’s serious delivery was received in a serious manner. A person speaking casually is received in a casual manner.

Abusers (abusers, for goodness’ sake) have enjoyed papal protection and promotion under Pope Francis. Agreements that concern millions of Catholics have been negotiated by scurrilous, defiled men. We saw a convicted embezzler requesting to be allowed to vote in the conclave, when the ungodly tangle of Vatican finances has not even begun to be unsnarled. Could the image of our beautiful Church be any more sullied? (A risky thing to say, since Satan takes it as a challenge.)

Read the Whole Article

The post Make Straight the Way appeared first on LewRockwell.

The issue of sovereignty had been a hotly debated topic among the Revolutionary-era colonists.    In The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution historian Bernard Bailyn says that in “The last analysis it was over this issue that the Revolution was fought.”  Thomas Hobbes, writing in the mid-seventeenth century, Bailyn continues, argued that the only requirement of a sovereign was the capacity to compel obedience, which didn’t necessarily mean the king.

Final, unqualified, indivisible power was . . . only one part of the notion of sovereignty as it was understood by Englishmen on the eve of the American Revolution. The other concerns its location. Who, or what body, was to hold such powers?

Im John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government he said man’s natural liberty was to be free from any power other than the laws of nature, but when people associate with one another, this changes slightly: “The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent.”

When Thomas Jefferson reluctantly undertook the task of writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, in addition to a list of indictments against the King, his rough draft included thoughts acknowledging what was required for people to get along peacefully:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Notwithstanding the issue of slavery, Lockean natural rights dominated intellectual discourse in the colonies, and Jefferson stayed the course in his draft and revisions.

In his absorbing work Patriots, A. J. Langguth tells us, “The ideas [Jefferson] would be including had been in the air for many years, and he knew the arguments so well that he didn’t need books or pamphlets in front of him as he wrote. . . ”  Jefferson had a list of essential books that in addition to those by Locke included Thomas Reid’s Inquiry into the Human Mind, in which he argued that moral truths could be reached through reason or presented as self-evident “to every man of understanding and morality.”  Thus, in revising his draft, Jefferson

struck out “sacred and undeniable” and wrote in “self evident.” He continued through his draft, paring words away to make his language bolder.

Government was to be established “by consent” of the governed.  “By consent” — did this answer the question of sovereignty?  Did Americans secede from England to establish sovereignty in a domestic body formed by the consent of the governed that would guarantee Jeffersonian liberty to those who granted consent?  And was this consent to be unanimous?  If not, what then?  Did their ideas on consent need refining?

In 1760, an impetuous but erudite lawyer, James Otis, had argued a writs of assistance case in Boston against his tutor in law, Jeremiah Gridley.  A young John Adams was in attendance, taking notes furiously. In defending the principle of a search warrant, Gridley argued, per Langguth,

How could a state protect itself against foreign enemies or subversives at home? Which was more important, protecting the liberty of an individual or collecting the taxes efficiently? Gathering public money must take precedence.

After Gridley finished, “in wig and black gown, James Otis stood up to speak, and something profound changed in America.”  To Adams, “Otis rose in the hall like a flame of fire. He seemed to overflow with dates, events, legal precedents, classical allusions.”

What did Otis say that shook the foundations of political theory?

Every man was his own sovereign, subject to laws engraved on his heart and revealed to him by his Maker. No other creature on earth could legitimately challenge a man’s right to his life, his liberty and his property. That principle, that unalterable law, took precedence—here Otis was answering Gridley directly—even over the survival of the state. [Emphasis mine]

In January 1776, six months before Jefferson authored his draft, Thomas Paine published Common Sense that denied the sovereignty of the king, claiming he originated as “the principal ruffian of some restless gang.”  Over time, the idea of hereditary rights developed and were crammed “down the throats of the vulgar” to add a false sense of dignity to the monarch.  “What at first was submitted to as a convenience,” Paine concludes, “was afterwards claimed as a right.”  To Paine, having a sovereign had been a convenience until it wasn’t.

Years later, in Paine’s Rights of Man, Part II, he clarified his position on government:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.

Do you get the impression Paine is describing the power of the free market?  If sovereignty implies ultimate power in a social setting, we should abandon the idea of consent to what turned out to be a robber state and allow the market to prevail.

In America it’s apparent the sovereign is not even the occupant of the Oval Office, but the Deep State (see THE DEEP STATE ENCYCLOPEDIA : Exposing the Cabal’s Playbook).  Étienne de La Boétie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, written as a teenager in 16th century France, argues that people are in charge of their own subjugation.  The solution?  Stop cooperating.  Allow your latent love of liberty to prevail over obedience to a false sovereign.

I have suggested ways of accomplishing this here.

The post Reclaiming Sovereignty appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

DropSite News

The post Israeli Airstrikes Decimate the Last Restaurant in Gaza City in Nightmarish Bloodbath appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

Yahoo News

The post Support by Americans for Israel Has Declined appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mark Kaplan wrote:

The post Role model Murray Rothbard, not Jimmy Fallon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Lifesite News

The post Globalists who proclaim ‘existential threats’ to justify tyranny are the real threats we face appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

Lifesite News

The post Thousands protest proposed Australian state law to force Catholic hospitals to commit abortions appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Andreatta G.:

Lew,

What do Palantir, NATO, assorted tech companies, defense contractors, the Israelis, and, last but not least, the U.S. government have in common? Answer: Conspiring to create a souped-up version of Project Maven meant to control, predict, and suppress populations, leading to “militarized technofascism on a planetary scale.”

The post Project Maven militarized technofascism appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Did Congress Kill DOGE? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Responsible Statecraft

The post ADL takes on shareholders questioning Israel arms sales appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Al Jazeera

The post From Gaza to Vietnam, what is the value of a photo? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Al Jazeera

The post Meet the Jewish students speaking to US lawmakers about Columbia’s protests 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/io-bitcoin)

I lettori del mio blog sanno che ho iniziato a interessarmi di Bitcoin alla fine del 2022.

Infatti è stato l'asset con le migliori performance tra tutti i titoli che ho menzionato e che stavo tenendo d'occhio per il 2023. Allo stesso modo, e per non rovinare la suspense, ho aggiunto di nuovo l'esposizione a Bitcoin alla mia lista di 24 titoli che stavo tenendo d'occhio nel 2024.

Forse non è stata una grande sorpresa quando ieri i miei iscritti mi hanno visto su X proclamare che i miei giorni di disprezzo per Bitcoin erano finiti. Tuttavia, dato che ho circa 210.000 follower su Twitter in più rispetto agli iscritti su Substack, si può dire che ci sono state comunque molte persone colte di sorpresa dal mio mea culpa e, cosa un po' allarmante, ancora più persone disposte a tessere immediatamente le mie lodi e a darmi il benvenuto nella community.

Per quanto riguarda il benvenuto, tutto ciò che posso dire è che lo apprezzo sinceramente. Mentirei se dicessi che un folto gruppo di persone che la considerava una decisione intelligente non mi avesse reso un po' nervoso. Tuttavia, come ho detto ieri nel mio post su X, so di essere circondato anche da persone molto più intelligenti di me.

In particolare coloro nella comunità del denaro sano/onesto, i quali tessono le lodi della loro esperienza con Bitcoin. Per me questa è stata la cosa più difficile da ignorare, e mi riferivo a persone come Lawrence Lepard, Luke Gromen e Lyn Alden per le loro incredibili intuizioni sul sistema monetario corrotto. Mi sono chiesto: perché non provare almeno a prenderli sul serio quando si trattava del loro punto di vista su Bitcoin? Sapevo, nel profondo, che avevano fatto un lavoro e raggiunto una comprensione che io non avevo, pur comprendendone alcuni principi fondamentali.

Ho iniziato ad avere un assaggio di questa comprensione ascoltando il mio amico Lawrence Lepard descrivere Bitcoin come un'invenzione a sé stante nel seguente podcast del dicembre 2022, paragonandolo a un parallelo di Internet, anziché a una semplice applicazione software.

In questa intervista l'ha definito “l'invenzione della scarsità digitale”. Onestamente, non avevo idea di cosa significasse, e l'idea di “scarsità digitale” non mi sembrava poi così nuova. Ho semplicemente scrollato le spalle e ho pensato: “Se Bitcoin può farlo, anche le altre criptovalute possono farlo”. Mi sono chiesto: “Come può qualcosa essere scarso quando non esisteva in modo tangibile e sicuramente non esisteva 15 anni fa?”

Naturalmente, come una chiave usa più denti contemporaneamente per aprire una serratura fisica, Bitcoin ha iniziato ad avere senso per me solo dopo averlo compreso nel contesto del funzionamento della rete: tutti i denti della chiave (l'ideologia, la rete, l'invenzione crittografica) si allineano, contribuendo a sbloccarne la comprensione. Innanzitutto ho dovuto capire come funziona la crittografia di Bitcoin e perché è inattaccabile e, per il momento, il massimo della sicurezza. Ci sono riuscito guardando questo video:

In seguito ho dovuto comprendere il sistema di controlli e contrappesi che la rete crea per garantire la propria integrità. Certo, avevo capito l'idea di un registro decentralizzato che tutti potevano controllare: era relativamente semplice. Quello che non capivo veramente era come la maggior parte dei nodi sulla rete, che eseguivano lo stesso codice, mantenesse Bitcoin sacrosanto finché le persone avessero deciso di volerlo. Avevo sentito parlare di fork nella rete, ma solo dopo li ho capiti. Sono momenti in cui le persone pensavano di saperne di più e di dover riscrivere il codice di Bitcoin. La maggior parte dei nodi ha respinto queste idee, proteggendo così la sacralità del codice Bitcoin originale.

Una volta compresi la crittografia e la sicurezza della rete, è diventato ovvio che più la rete si espande e aumenta la sua adozione, più diventa sicura e indistruttibile. L'idea che la gente “la vieti” o, come ha detto un mio amico, che “Satoshi torni per cambiare l'offerta di monete quando vuole” non ha molto senso una volta capito come funziona. Se la gente vuole la rete Bitcoin e ha energia elettrica e una connessione Internet, la otterrà. La rete è come un pesce scivoloso che qualcuno cerca di afferrare: più lo tieni stretto e più cerchi di controllarlo, più velocemente ti sfugge di mano. Se il Canada la vieta, andrà in Messico. Se il Messico la vieta, i nodi andranno alle Mauritius. Se le Mauritius la vietano, i nodi andranno in Russia. Ci sarà sempre un posto nel mondo – almeno nel breve e medio termine – che accoglierà Bitcoin.

Per me è stato solo dopo aver capito come funzionava la crittografia e come la rete interagiva, in tandem, che ho iniziato ad attribuire a Bitcoin l'importantissimo “valore intrinseco”. Ero, e in un certo senso sono ancora, nel gruppo che vede l'oro come hard asset predefinito, grazie alla sua offerta come materia prima e alla sua storia di gran lunga superiore come riserva di valore. Ecco perché, nonostante abbia accettato l'idea su Bitcoin, la mia posizione sull'oro resta maggiore rispetto alla mia posizione su Bitcoin.

Ma i sostenitori di Bitcoin portano argomenti convincenti quando sottolineano che esso è più facile da trasportare e da verificare rispetto all'oro. Mi sono sempre trovato in difficoltà quando qualcuno mi chiedeva come avrei potuto portare oltre confine oro per un valore di $1 miliardo. Non si può fare. Con Bitcoin, però, si può. Anche se gli exchange sono soggetti a normative AML e KYC, Bitcoin stesso rimane una via d'uscita dalla centralizzazione del proprio patrimonio. L'idea, unita alla trasmissibilità e alla possibilità di verificarlo ovunque nel mondo in qualsiasi momento con una semplice connessione Internet e la corrente elettrica, lo rendono diverso da qualsiasi cosa sia mai esistita prima.

Per quanto mi riguarda non riuscivo sempre a capire esattamente cosa stavo comprando quando ho comprato Bitcoin. Ho dovuto convincermi a capirlo, descrivendolo a me stesso come l'acquisto di un posto su un registro decentralizzato con la più alta adozione a livello mondiale, che potenzialmente – non definitivamente – servirà da fondamento per un nuovo modo di pensare al denaro. In altre parole, si tratta di riservarsi un posto sul registro piuttosto che investire nell'invenzione di Bitcoin stesso. È un'idea davvero grandiosa – e il mio cervello è davvero piccolo – ed è per questo che ci ho messo così tanto a capirla. Ma, come si dice, “una volta che la vedi, non puoi più non vederla”.

E, come ogni altro investimento che faccio in qualcosa di nuovo che non è stato ancora pienamente adottato, accetto il fatto che ci siano rischi significativi e che il valore di Bitcoin potrebbe scendere notevolmente, o addirittura azzerarsi. Secondo me non accadrà, o almeno non nel breve termine. Anche nello scenario peggiore in cui Bitcoin non arrivi a 100 anni da oggi, penso che la sua adozione nei prossimi 5-10 anni sia già stata scontata.

In particolare, ascoltare Michael Saylor mi ha aiutato ad aprire gli occhi sul fatto che stavo acquistando proprietà digitali. Quest'intervista è tanto lunga quanto completa, e mi è piaciuta molto. Che Saylor si riveli il vero sostenitore di Bitcoin o la persona più fuorviata della storia, è difficile negare che non sia eccezionalmente intelligente e dotato di un'ottima parlantina:

Questa è un'altra lunga e complessa intervista che ho ascoltato per intero e in modo approfondito, e che mi ha aiutato a comprendere la rete e tutti i componenti che interagiscono e che costituiscono l'ecosistema Bitcoin:

E quindi, quando Saylor pone una domanda del tipo, “quanto tempo pensi che passerà prima che tutti i cellulari e i computer siano dotati di wallet Bitcoin?”, la risposta mi sembra ovvia: non passerà molto. Quindi, dal punto di vista dell'adozione, che si tratti o meno di 100 anni, al momento, è per lo più irrilevante. È come il potenziale impatto dell'informatica quantistica: ho ascoltato entrambe le parti in causa e ho praticamente accettato la posizione secondo cui si tratta di un ponte che dovremo attraversare quando ci arriveremo. Ehi, se questo ragionamento è abbastanza valido per Janet Yellen che guarda il nostro debito/PIL esplodere verso un punto di non ritorno, è abbastanza valido anche per me.

Ma il fatto che le agenzie di regolamentazione abbiano benedetto Bitcoin consentendo gli ETF, e che io possa andare su Twitter e vedere spot pubblicitari di gestori patrimoniali super seri come Franklin Templeton e Fidelity, che parlano di Bitcoin come una solida copertura monetaria e un modo per uscire dal sistema monetario globale gestito dalle banche centrali, è sbalorditivo.

È buffo come, una volta che ci sono delle commissioni in gioco, la gente sia felice di sostenere quella che ho sempre ritenuto la ragione moralmente giusta per inveire contro le banche centrali – la ragione che aspetto da tempo affinché la gente sostenga pubblicamente l'oro. In ogni caso, non mi interessa molto la vostra motivazione quando fate delle ottime osservazioni.

Proprio la settimana scorsa ho sentito qualcuno dire che tutti gli acquirenti di Bitcoin sono speculatori, non persone che cercano seriamente di uscire dal sistema monetario così com'è oggi, a lungo termine – e semplicemente non credo che sia la verità. Credo che ci siano molte persone là fuori, come me, che cercano solo di diversificare per uscire da un sistema fiat ormai in rovina, e Bitcoin è solo uno dei tanti modi per farlo.

Non c'è dubbio che ci saranno innumerevoli speculatori e trader. Non c'è dubbio che ci saranno truffatori e un'infinità di altcoin di bassa qualità. Non c'è dubbio che ci saranno frodi e riciclaggio di denaro, proprio come con il dollaro e i titoli registrati. Ma dire che questo sia tutto ciò che c'è in Bitcoin è un errore, a mio parere.

Basta che ci sia solo un piccolo gruppo di persone che continui ad acquistarlo e detenerlo in futuro per poi consumare e ridurre lo spazio sul registro. Se l'hashrate o l'adozione collettiva della rete fossero in calo, sarebbe un problema. Ma per ora non lo è. Non potete dirmi che un Paese come El Salvador che adotta Bitcoin come moneta a corso legale sia “speculazione”. Per me questa è “adozione”. C'è una grande differenza tra un paio di ragazzini in una chat room che cercano di fare daytrading di shitcoin e alcuni dei più grandi gestori patrimoniali del mondo, e persino alcuni stati che sostengono di voler piazzare la loro proprietà digitale nel registro, mentre milioni di persone in tutto il mondo acquistano Bitcoin solo per possederli. L'idea che tutti i coinvolti siano truffatori o stiano cercando di arricchirsi è, a mio parere, fuorviante. Per me c'è un'enorme differenza tra “cercare di arricchirsi rapidamente” e “cercare di preservare la ricchezza a lungo termine”. Indipendentemente da ciò che Bitcoin fa, la mia motivazione sarà sempre la seconda.

Il prezzo continuerà a essere volatile, ma è anche abbastanza facile giustificare il suo aumento. Se domani pago $200.000 per una casa e non faccio nulla, e non c'è un aumento della domanda, ma il potere d'acquisto del dollaro scende del 99% nei prossimi 50 anni, il prezzo in dollari continuerà a salire. Con Bitcoin c'è il vento in poppa dell'adozione globale, il vantaggio di un'offerta limitata e un crescente risveglio ideologico che ne sostiene l'esistenza morale ed etica.

È stato divertente ascoltare podcast su Bitcoin negli ultimi mesi, perché tutti iniziano la loro spiegazione esponendo gli orrori del sistema monetario fiat. Sono stato fortunato, nel senso che capisco già come funziona, come le maree, che si alzano e scendono, erodendo il potere d'acquisto delle persone e trasferendolo allo stato. Questa è stata una delle mie argomentazioni di lunga data a favore del possesso di oro. Man mano che Bitcoin continua ad essere adottato, diventa anche un'ottima ragione per possederlo, a mio parere. Una cosa che ho sempre detto su Bitcoin è che apprezzo quanto abbia aperto gli occhi a persone che normalmente non avrebbero compreso gli orrori della MMT e della politica monetaria globale.

Ciò che sarà ancora più interessante da vedere, a mio parere, è la FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) quando, e se, il prezzo supererà di nuovo i massimi storici. Se il prezzo di Bitcoin continua ad andare bene, i gestori patrimoniali che ora non hanno scuse per non acquistare Bitcoin (dato che ci sono ETF che operano all'interno del sistema in cui sono autorizzati a operare) saranno sommersi dalle chiamate dei loro clienti che si chiedono perché non abbiano alcuna esposizione a tale asset, anche se non lo capiscono.

E qui non stiamo parlando di GameStop, il che significa che una volta iniziata la FOMO sul prezzo, non ci sarà alcuna offerta azionaria at-the-money che arriverà e si diluirà a prezzi più alti. Se la corsa all'“accaparramento di tutto quello che puoi mangiare” sul libro mastro inizierà sul serio, non ci sarà nessuna nuova offerta che arriverà magicamente dal nulla per soddisfarla. Con la capitalizzazione di mercato totale di Bitcoin, mi sembra logico che i Paesi mediorientali super-ricchi saranno probabilmente i prossimi ad adottarlo e a inserirlo nei loro bilanci.

Molti podcast che ho ascoltato parlano di stati che minano Bitcoin ma non ne parlano. A un certo punto, è probabile che le luci si accendano a livello globale e tutti vedranno cosa detengono gli altri. Immagino che alcuni Paesi mediorientali ricchi di petrolio, anche se lo considerano un'opzione call con il potenziale di andare a zero, si diletteranno a inserire Bitcoin nei loro bilanci sovrani per cercare di diversificare e scommettere sul futuro del denaro. Queste persone guidano Bugatti per andare al lavoro e tengono tigri come animali domestici. Dire che non hanno abbastanza soldi per “speculare” sul potenziale futuro del denaro è ridicolo.

E poi, ancora una volta, torniamo a Bitcoin e la rete, e a come si integrano e lavorano in tandem. Più viene adottato, più diventa sicuro, più persone vogliono investirci, più diventa praticabile e diffuso. Bitcoin, per me, è l'equivalente del codice open source di una profezia che si autoavvera. Il modo in cui funziona lo rende un virus della libertà-denaro. È stato scatenato ed è diventato così grande che è quasi impossibile fermarlo nel breve o addirittura nel medio termine. Ho trovato azzeccate le analogie di Michael Saylor, secondo cui la rete è essenzialmente uno sciame di vespe. Come si ferma uno sciame? Si possono uccidere una o due vespe, ma alla fine dei conti si è in inferiorità numerica. E con Bitcoin, l'ideologia, più la rete, più la ridondanza, più il fatto che chiunque possa adottarlo, garantiscono che supererà i suoi critici sia in termini di nodi che di potenza di calcolo.

Non vedo l'ora di fare ulteriori ricerche sui potenziali utilizzi della rete e sui percorsi per l'adozione di Bitcoin in futuro. Non fraintendetemi, continuo a considerarlo un asset rischioso, nel senso che se l'adozione rallenta o regredisce, la rete si indebolisce. Ma la traiettoria su cui ci troviamo ora non suggerisce che ciò accadrà a breve. Ci sono rischi se gli sviluppatori principali decidessero di apportare modifiche drastiche, o se l'informatica quantistica rendesse la crittografia più facile da decifrare. C'è anche il rischio che i principali Paesi occidentali cerchino di vietare, regolamentare o tassare Bitcoin a morte, e ci sono moltissimi rischi sconosciuti che derivano dall'adozione ideologica di uno standard completamente nuovo.

Il mio peso in Bitcoin è a un livello tale che non mi dispiacerebbe perdere tutto. Prevedo che il prezzo scenderà del 90% più di una volta in futuro. Come hanno detto diverse persone, se vi preoccupate così tanto, il vostro peso è troppo alto. Gestisco il rischio di possedere Bitcoin come gestisco opzioni call o entro in un casinò. Non sarò sorpreso o devastato se e quando perderò tutto.

Ma per me, ideologicamente, ciò che Bitcoin si propone di risolvere ha senso. Guardo le cose attraverso una lente Austriaca e credo fermamente che il sistema e l'economia globale siano in crisi. Sarò sempre un sostenitore dell'oro e dell'argento, ma dire che sostengo un sistema monetario diverso e che non c'è spazio per l'opzione call ideologica di Bitcoin, ora che ho capito meglio, non ha più senso per me.

Una cosa che prima ridicolizzavo, ma che ora non ridicolizzo più, è l'idea che Bitcoin rappresenti la libertà digitale. Il bello della decentralizzazione e del peer-to-peer è che, sebbene possa apparire e scomparire gradualmente in alcune giurisdizioni, Bitcoin funziona se le persone lo vogliono. E, filosoficamente, non riesco a pensare a molte cose su cui preferirei scommettere come quella di dare potere al popolo.

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

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