Aggregatore di feed

“No Kings” may be the first time I can recall clapping for a bunch of entitled, Starbuck’s drinking, middle-aged lefties and global communist money launderers.  Is our national conversation getting closer to real anti-authoritarianism, even anti-statism?

If we rely on the No Kings crowd as an indicator, the answer is no.  They demand more government, modern monetary theory at home and abroad, and the replacement of Trump with a President who won’t challenge the other two branches to do their jobs.  Most are content to ignore the Constitution, not exercise it. The selected color for this “revolution” is yellow for optimism; the “color of democracy.”  There’s a lot of black as well, begging the question of whether they are really just Proud Boys in ladysuits. The expert troll himself jumped in, with his bright yellow tie just a few days before the No Kings rally.

Any protest against authoritarianism and the state must be welcomed, in the mode of Thomas Paine.  Radical, brave, and with only his life to lose, he valued independence of self and mind, always chose reason over the stupid crowd, believed that blind faith in the state could be corrected by facts and logic. He boldly welcomed trouble in his time, so the next generation might have peace.

We all have a little Tom Paine in us, and no doubt we are blessed with a multitude of modern crises in which to nurture that bold seed of sheer contempt for the criminal state. Those of us who quell our Tom Paine urges and sensibilities will indeed lose badly.  Beyond remaining slaves and dying as slaves, we will condemn our children to both slavery and war.  On the other hand, what better time than now to exult and celebrate the man who understood that “…taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes.”

We might assume, from the Declaration of Independence, and from the fundamentals of the Philadelphia trick, that the supreme cause for which man forms a “government” is liberty, and from liberty, man garners peace and prosperity.  Paine wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

I suspect most Americans – far beyond the mostly urban and purely political “No Kings” celebrants – would agree with Tom Paine that it adds insult to injury that we are forced to pay in full, and obey unconditionally, the very criminal and obscene government that oppresses us and much of the world.

This unifying concern is gaining momentum, creating passion, and catching fire.  The humanitarians and justice seekers among us rage that our dollars go to murder unarmed people, individually and en masse, by our gleeful leaders in Congress and the White House.  American nationalists seek decentralization and redirection of federal tax receipts from overseas and the counties around DC into the small towns, roads, bridges, and domestic quality of life, and even – most radically – back into the people’s pockets.

“Small government conservatives” while largely extinct, sought a government so tiny and weak it could be drowned in a bathtub. This sentiment, credited to Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist, was perhaps articulated only decades before its time.  The No Kings movement is certainly ready to conduct a small suffocation or two in DC, and who would oppose it?

It is still too much for most Americans to look into the abyss of state evil.  Our lived fairy tales of state assassination of leaders, journalists, and Presidents, of spying and mass surveillance, of mass murder at home and abroad – frighten more than enrage.   The federal war on the very natural rights it was chartered to protect, so acutely observed today, is a cause for only a semblance of revolt, a shadow of discontent.  In too many ways, state actions and its agendas are working as intended – fueling latent fears, promoting a certain kind of self-censorship, encouraging a wide-eyed hunkering down rather than a steely-eyed standing up.

Thomas Paine differentiated between summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, and those who stand fast in a hard fight for liberty, against the odds.  Today, soldiers and patriots alike need to hear the advice of Whitney Webb, where she explains the active state engineering of desperation and the cause it serves.

Perhaps we can learn from the recent resignations of our so-called “warrior” class, like SOUTHCOM’s Admiral Holsey and SOCOM’s General Fenton, and Marine Colonel Doug Krugman who retired with a public letter explaining that the Constitution, the law, is his commander, not politicians.  I think Paine would appreciate the sentiment. Thus far, there is no sign that these retirements, or the many that will follow, are evidence of anything other than the summer soldier and sunshine patriot.  But we shall see.

There was a recent moment in social science where a mental disease was created, mainly for children and teenagers, called “opposition(al) defiant disorder.”  In true Brave New World fashion, it is cured pharmacologically, and its warning signs may be increasingly familiar to many of us long past childhood.

A mass American movement against the state is rising, but it is not yet clear if this rise will be coherent, or incoherent, inchoate or completed and perfected.  Uncertainty is a natural part of the crisis in which we find ourselves, with limited information, despite having the whole of human knowledge and history at our fingertips.  But nothing can stop us today from closely watching our enemy, the state, and noting that it is growing financially precarious, representationally and ethically unbalanced, and increasingly frantic and increasingly evil.

Thomas Paine would see great opportunities today for real liberty to be regained, and as he wrote in Common Sense, he would recognize both the inevitability of change and the danger of waiting by the sidelines.  His 1776 question, “Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period…?” must be answered by each of us, and increasingly, it is being answered by our actions more than our words.  What a time to be alive!

The post Will We See a New Era of Truly Popular Anti-Statism? appeared first on LewRockwell.

While American businesses and consumers are bearing the burden of higher costs from tariffs and inflation, the United States is providing a $20 billion bailout to Argentina’s Milei regime.  This bailout is separate from the $20 billion bailout given by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to Argentina earlier this year. Argentina is by far the largest debtor to the IMF.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US has reached a $20 billion currency swap agreement with Argentina’s central bank, allowing it to exchange Argentine pesos for the US dollar. CNN reported that the US also bought, “an undisclosed amount of Argentine pesos.”

The bailout would greatly benefit Rob Citrone, a billionaire hedge fund manager with substantial investments in Argentina. “Bessent’s personal and professional relationship with Citrone has spanned decades,” according to journalist Judd Legum.

“It’s unclear why the Trump administration is providing a de facto bailout of the Argentinian peso when there is no significant financial or economic relationship between the two economies,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the audit and consulting firm, RSM.

Furthermore, we should question whether the US bailout of Argentina is motivated by the Milei regime’s enthusiastic support of the US and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. We should acknowledge that President Trump is a puppet of political donor Miriam Adelson and Israeli Prime Minister (and de-facto US President) Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ordinary people suffer the consequences of the reckless economic policies of their politicians. The Argentinian people should demand the immediate removal of the incompetent Milei regime and the American people should demand the immediate removal of the treasonous Netanyahu-Trump regime.

 

 

 

 

 

The post Milei Bailout appeared first on LewRockwell.

We are all familiar with the wonderful descriptive term, “the welfare-warfare state.” Ron Paul frequently uses it, as does Lew Rockwell, the late Justin Raimondo, Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, and myself. Murray Rothbard coined it in his brilliant essay, “The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique,” in Marvin E. Gettleman & David Mermelstein, ed., The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism, 1967. This is one of three crucial articles by Rothbard which defines and outlines this important concept describing our society today and how it became that way. The other two articles are: “Origins of the Welfare State in America,” and “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals.” 

The concept has its origin with Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who united Germany under his doctrine of “Blood and Iron,” at the same time his American counterpart was waging his own war of coercive national unification. Bismarck, in creating the ideological justification for what became “the welfare-warfare state,” gave birth to the paradigm which continues to invigorate and mold the American political landscape of today.

Because of the tremendous number of key American intellectuals who studied in Germany during the time of Bismarck in preparation for their doctorate degrees (or in post-doctoral studies), and who returned emboldened and willing to use the state to transform society, the Progressive Movement was born. Although not household names today, these highly influential men included Richard Ely, Albion Woodbury Small, W. E. B. DuBois, Franz Boas, Walter Weyl, Nicholas Murray Butler, Edmund J. James, Walter Rauschenbusch, E. R. A. Seligman, Henry C. Adams, John W. Burgess, William James, George Santayana, Henry Farnam, George Herbert Mead, Frank Taussig, Simon Patten, John Bates Clark, Herbert Baxter Adams, Arthur T. Hadley. Each of them has had a long lasting impact on American society through their ideas and the subsequent generations these ideas shaped.

Ideas do not exist in a sterile vacuum but are often intertwined and serendipitously related to each other. Such is the case of various statist doctrines that came to fruition in the 19th century, and which still dramatically affect our world today. “Scientific racism,” “social Darwinism,” eugenics, Comtean positivism, imperialism, and “social imperialism,” were pseudoscientific rationales for the expansionary and invasive welfare-warfare state at home and abroad.

As Princeton’s Thomas C. Leonard noted in his seminal article, “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era:”

Progressive opposition to laissez faire was motivated by a set of deep intellectual commitments regarding the relationship between social science, social scientific expertise and right governance. The progressives were committed to 1) the explanatory power of scientific (especially statistical) social inquiry to get at the root causes of social and economic problems; 2) the legitimacy of social control, which derives from a holist conception of society as prior to and greater than the sum of its constituent individuals; 3) the efficacy of social control via expert management of public administration; where 4) expertise is both sufficient and necessary for the task of wise public administration.

The post Roots of the Welfare-Warfare State appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier this week my wife Dawn and I had the joyous opportunity to meet up with Drs Sam and Mark Bailey in Salt Lake City, Utah where they’d come to be the Keynote Speakers at the Weston A Price Foundation’s Wise Traditions Conference.

And now you can attend their Live-Stream Presentations, October 18, 19 & 20th, 2025 – along with many other amazing presenters.

Plus, you can get a CD or USB record of the entire conference, HERE.

Here’s the schedule:

Friday, October 18, 7.30-9.30pm (MDT)

Dr Samantha Bailey: SECRETS OF A STAGED PANDEMIC

Saturday, October 19

11.00am-12.15pm (MDT)

Dr Samantha Bailey: THE TRUTH ABOUT LYME DISEASE

6:30–9:30pm (MDT)

Dr Mark Bailey: AWARDS BANQUET AND KEYNOTE: VIROLOGY’S FINAL DAYS

Sunday, October 20

10.45am-12pm Dr Mark Bailey: A LOGICAL END TO VIROLOGY

1:30–2:45pm (MDT)

Drs Mark Bailey, Samantha Bailey, Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman “Virus Deniers Unite Panel”

Don’t miss this rare event!

IMPORTANT!

If you miss this event please go to their website where you can watch their MANY videos and read their Paradigm Changing papers, HERE.

Highly Recommended

The post Meet Drs Sam & Mark Bailey appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Yankee Problem in America, by Clyde Wilson

Fanatical Yankee Utopians, by Thomas DiLorenzo

Blame the Beechers and That Fanatic Finney, by Charles Burris

Just War, by Murray N. Rothbard

The Damn Yankees and Their War, by Charles Burris

Causes of the American Civil War, by Charles Burris

In the midst of the vicious and violent assault by willfully ignorant street mobs on American historical memory prior to Year Zero (formerly known as 2009 when Obama took office), here is vital authoritative, factual, historical information you need to know.

There are two seminal issues to consider when examining the War of 1861-1865: They are the defense of revolutionary Southern self-determination or secession, and abolitionism.

Why did the Southern states want to leave the Union?

Why did the Northern states refuse to let them go?

The War was both the culmination and repudiation of the American Revolution.

The War marked the decisive turning point in the inexorable growth of government and coercive authority, and most accurately should be described as the War for Coercive National Unification. The same situation was going on in Europe at the same time under Otto von Bismarck and his wars to unify and create the nation-state of Germany.

Slavery and secession are two separate issues.

Secession was a revolutionary right of free peoples to determine their destiny.

Slavery was a gross violation of inalienable human rights.

Even if slavery explains why the Southern states left the Union, it does not necessarily explain or justify the general government under Lincoln refusal to recognize their independence and launch an unconstitutional invasion of the South.

Slavery still fails to explain why the Northern states resorted to force or coercion; letting the lower South go in peace was a viable, antislavery option refused by Lincoln.

Most militant abolitionists believed there was no contradiction between condemning slavery and advocating secession (in particular, see the essays by the Boston abolitionist Lysander Spooner below).

The War was a tragic, needless conflict. It was all about power and control, the imposition upon or domination of one geographic section of people by another without their consent.

The Real History of Slavery, by Thomas Sowell

Why The War Was Not About Slavery, by Clyde Wilson

Lysander Spooner was a Boston abolitionist who wrote The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (a favorite, much cited book by Robert Barnes). He also authored the three powerful articles below in his No Treason series:

No Treason #1

No Treason #2: The Constitution

No Treason #6: The Constitution of No Authority

Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War

“Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln’s War” is a book, edited by D. Jonathan White, that challenges the common narrative that Northerners were united against secession from the start. The book argues that there was significant and enduring opposition to the war in the North, which is often overlooked in favor of the story of a unified, righteous effort to suppress the rebellion. Opposition groups, such as the Copperheads, favored immediate peace and resisted the draft, while other opponents argued the war was unnecessary and costly, prompting Lincoln to take measures like suspending habeas corpus.

The post The Damn Yankees and Their War appeared first on LewRockwell.

LewRockwell.com readers are supporting LRC and shopping at the same time. It’s easy and does not cost you a penny more than it would if you didn’t go through the LRC link. Just click on the Amazon link on LewRockwell.com’s homepage and add your items to your cart. It’s that easy!

If you can’t live without your daily dose of LewRockwell.com in 2025, please remember to DONATE TODAY!

1. Rational Fasting: Official Ehret Society Edition 
2. Forbidden Facts: Government Deceit & Suppression About Brain Damage from Childhood Vaccines
3. Peak Human: What We Can Learn From History’s Greatest Civilizations
4. Understanding Terrain Theory: Rethinking Disease, Uncovering Its True Causes, and Reclaiming Health Naturally 
   
5. A History of Fascism, 1914–1945
6. The Covenantal Structure of Christian Economics: A Primer on Economics from a Biblical Worldview
7. The Self-Care Toolkit (4 books in 1): Self-Therapy, Freedom From Anxiety, Transform Your Self-Talk, Control Your Thoughts, & Stop Overthinking
8. The COVID-19 VACCINES & Beyond …: What the Medical Industrial Complex is NOT Telling Us
9. David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants
10. Anti-Inflammatory Eating Made Easy: 75 Recipes with Meal Plans for Beginners
    
11. Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician
12. Is the Newtonian Astronomy True?
13. The Gnostic Gospels
14. Over the Counter Natural Cures, Expanded Edition: Take Charge of Your Health in 30 Days with 10 Lifesaving Supplements for under $10
    
15. Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel
16. Future Shock
17. The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma (The Wilson Files)
18. The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America
19. Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 
20. The Time of the Signs: A Chronology of Earth’s Final Events

The post Top 20 Books That LRC Fans Are Reading This Week appeared first on LewRockwell.

It all started on March 5, 2014: a US sponsored fascist coalition government under the disguise of democracy was installed in Ukraine.

With historical foresight pertaining to the dangers of a Third World War, this article by Felicity Arbuthnot was first published more than eleven years ago on March 15, 2014 in the immediate wake of the US sponsored EuroMaidan Coup d’état. 

***

On March 5, Ukraine’s Putsch “Prime Minister” Arseniy Yatsenyuk, arbitrarily sacked three senior Defence Ministry politicians, Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Oleynik, with Deputy Defense Ministers Vladimir Mozharovskiy and Arturo Francisco Babenko.

According to Itar-Tass (6th March 2014) they had drawn Yatsenyuk’s ire by expressing:

“sharp criticism over giving the Right Sector militants the status of regular military units.”

A contact of the publication stated that one of the three had also:

“told Yatsenyuk that actions of today’s Kiev authorities in overtures with radical nationalist organizations would destroy national unity” and that it was simply: “harmful to involve the state military agency in such dangerous games.”

Their stand resulted in “management reshuffles” – in the country in which Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has stated that the US has invested $5 Billion: “in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good

So far US multi-billion democracy-building via the man of whom Nuland opined to the US Ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt: “I think Yats is the guy …”(2) has all the hallmarks of becoming a mirror of the historic tragedies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and being plotted via further humanitarian horrors committed by their proxies in Syria.

Additionally the Nobel Peace Laureate American President appears to have reignited the Cold War, laid to rest with such joy across the world as the Berlin Wall fell just over twenty four years ago, on the 9th November 1989.

However, if the US Administration’s choice as a democratic Prime Minister is scarily woeful, the man who would be President, Dmitry Yarosh, is nothing short of astonishing. As Julie Levesque has written in a meticulous, jaw dropping article: “Dmitry Yarosh, leader of the Maidan Brown Shirts (is) on an international wanted list and charged with inciting terrorism.

“Under the new government, Yarosh is leader of the Neo-Nazi Right Sector delegation to the Ukraine Parliament. His close friend and political partner Andriy Parubiy co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda) was appointed by the new government to the position of Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence. Right Sektor leaders Yarosh was appointed to the number two position at RNBOU.”

Levesque asks: “Have the Neo-Nazis cornered Ukraine’s National Security agenda?”.

The answer would appear to be a rapidly accelerating affirmative, with Robert Parry stating that Neo-Nazis are now in charge of four Ministries and:

“some ten ‘oligarchs’ mostly run the show in shifting alliances, buying up media outlets and politicians, while the vast majority of the population faces a bleak future, which now includes more European-demanded ‘austerity’ …”(4)

Meanwhile the stand-off over the Crimea continues. Train tickets between Kiev and Crimea have been suspended by the latest government shoehorned in to the latest “new democracy.”

In neighbouring Russia, as the Sochi Paralympics opened with a spectacular ceremony, President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, Chancellor Angela Merkel and their parties hurled their collective toys from their prams and failed to attend. Another chance to make peace not war in what should be the Olympic spirit, also willfully thrown away.

The opening theme was “Breaking The Ice,” and “the importance of breaking down barriers and stereotypes …” a popular 1990’s Russian song called “Good-bye America” played as the Russian team closed the parade.

However for all the US posturing, Gallop shows President Putin’s popularity rating at a consistent 67.8% an endorsement of which his American counterpart could only dream, fluctuating between 38% to 42%.

As this ends news comes through that the US is to send fighter jets and personnel to Poland and Lithuania by Thursday, the US Navy destroyer, the USS Truxton, one of the largest destroyers ever built for the US Navy, has crossed in to the Black Sea for “exercises” with the Bulgarian and Romanian navies (5) there are mass protests in the south and east of Ukraine about the “self proclaimed” government in Kiev and America has unleashed a possible World War Three.

Somebody in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, please demand the return of that ill awarded Peace Prize.

Notes

1. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37599.htm

2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957

3.http://www.globalresearch.ca/democratization-and-anti-semitism-in-ukraine-neo-nazi-symbols-become-the-new-normal/5371919

4. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/09/crimeas-case-for-leaving-ukraine/

5. http://rt.com/news/us-fighter-jets-poland-830/

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post Ukraine: US Launches a Neo-Nazi Government, and World War Three? appeared first on LewRockwell.

What is going around now is another cover up, another denial of what a lot of people on both sides call “the second Nakba,” the sin atop the original sin.

Headline in the Sunday editions of The New York Times: “A New Test for Israel: Can It Repair Its Ties to Americans?”

What a question. Let us set aside our indignation and think about this.

The piece below this head is by David Halbfinger, whose trade over the years has been to appear balanced when covering the Zionist state while glossing its past, which is wall-to-wall condemnable, and faithfully apologizing for its present, which — need this be said — is also wall-to-wall condemnable.

David Halbfinger, who has just begun his second tour as the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief, in action:

“The war in Gaza may finally be ending, after two years of bloodshed and destruction. But among the damage that has been done is a series of devastating blows to Israel’s relationship with the citizens of its most important and most stalwart ally, the United States.

Israel’s reputation in the United States is in tatters, and not only on college campuses or among progressives….

The question is whether those younger Americans will be lost to Israel long- term — and what Israel’s advocates will do to try to reverse that.”

Halbfinger proceeds to quote none of “those younger Americans,” or anyone else of any age who stands forthrightly against “the Jewish state” in response to the campaign of terror, murder and starvation it has conducted against the civilian population of Gaza these past two years.

No, his sources are professors, think-tank inhabitants and, of course, Israeli Zionists, American Zionists and in two cases Israeli–American Zionists — the good old divided-loyalties crowd.

Halbfinger quotes Shibley Telhami, an Arab–Israeli scholar with safe harbors at The Brookings Institution and the University of Maryland, to this effect:

“We now have a paradigmatic Gaza generation like we had a Vietnam generation and a Pearl Harbor generation. There’s this growing sense among people that what they’re witnessing is genocide in real time, amplified by new media, which we didn’t have in Vietnam. It’s a new generation where Israel is seen as a villain. And I don’t think that’s likely to go away.”

This is an astute bit of historical context, I find — worthy of further exploration. And I am with Telhami: There is no persuading Americans — a majority, to go by recent polls — that the atrocities of the past two years are to be forgiven and forgotten. The thought is ridiculous.

But Halbfinger takes Telhami’s interesting observation no further. It stands only as what we can call “the problem.” He, Halbfinger, devotes the rest of his report to the thoughts of those trying to figure out how to make the Zionist regime look good again — or rid it of “a bad odor,” as one of these people puts it.

One of Halbfinger’s sources — Halie Soifer, chief exec at the Jewish Democratic Council of America, which supports Democratic political candidates “who share our core values” — is looking for “a bit of a reset in the way Israel is viewed.” Dahlia Scheindlin, an Israeli–American scholar, thinks “there is room for a bounce-back.”

Professor Scheindlin elaborates:

“People tend to overestimate how bad the damage has been. Just stopping the slaughter will allow some people to go back to their comfort zone of being supportive.”

Jeez, if I may invoke one of history’s most famous Jews. Bouncing back to the comfort zone, is it?

You see what is going on here, I trust.

I have anticipated for many months — no great insight in this — that when something like the end of Israel’s terror in Gaza comes there will be no thought among its allies in the West, and certainly none among its Zionist supporters, of any kind of reckoning in the name of justice.

No, a “war” will be over, not a racist campaign of annihilation, and certainly not a genocide. The highly honorable Cost of War Project at Brown University put out a paper on Oct. 7 reckoning total casualties in Gaza (killed and injured) at 236,505, “more than 10% of the pre-war population.” These are responsibly researched facts.

We know these facts. “It doesn’t take rocket science to grasp the picture,” Norman Finkelstein said in a lecture delivered at the University of Massachusetts five days before the Netanyahu–Trump “peace plan” was announced.

He said: “Everyone at this point knows the picture — unless you have a material stake in lying to yourself and lying to others.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Let Us Now Bury the Truth (Again) appeared first on LewRockwell.

When I first got my driver’s license years ago, they asked if I wanted to be an organ donor. Having learned to be skeptical of institutions and having heard some concerning stories, I said no. But I felt conflicted about it—I believe in treating others as you’d want to be treated, and if I needed a transplant someday, I’d desperately want someone willing to help save my life.

Since then, I’ve discovered much more disturbing information about organ transplantation that completely shifted my perspective. Recently, RFK Jr. did something I never expected—he formally announced that there were widespread failures in our organ donation system’s ethical safeguards. This opened the floodgates for others to start discussing the grim reality that organs were being taken from people who were still alive.

The Value of Organs

Over time, medicine transformed our cultural relationship with death—from an accepted, intimate companion to a feared, medicalized enemy to be defeated (e.g., one author traces this shift through six historical stages, arguing that medicalization stripped individuals of autonomy and commodified death itself).

Medicine fueled this transformation by performing modern “miracles,” such as reviving the dead through cardiac resuscitation and transplanting organs—crossing what was once an absolute boundary between life and death. In doing so, it gained immense public trust and the ability to justify exorbitant costs.

This cultivated the myth that medicine can conquer death. Over time, it became seen not just as a means of survival, but as something to be continuously consumed in the name of “health”—transforming it into a highly profitable industry that now accounts for over 17.6% of all U.S. spending.

Because viable donor organs (a central crux of medicine’s dominion over death) are so limited, transplants quickly became incredibly valuable—costs range from $446,800 to $1,918,700 depending on the organ. Given how desperate people are for organs and how much money is involved, it hence seemed reasonable to assume some illegal harvesting would occur.

Over the years, as demand for organs continues to increase, I’ve continually found disturbing evidence that this was happening. This includes:

•Individuals being tricked into selling a kidney (e.g., in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4—approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden, and in 2023, a wealthy Nigerian politician being convicted for trying to trick someone into donating a kidney for a transplant at an English hospital).

•A 2009 and 2014 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments and the possibility of surviving with one kidney (though this greatly reduces your vitality). Approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China, and Africa) receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care. To quote the 2009 article:

Diflo became an outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that, rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis patients had their transplants done in China. There, they could purchase the kidneys of executed prisoners. In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell organs to foreign buyers to contribute to the family’s income, or to provide for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable data are almost impossible to come by.

Note: these reports also highlighted that these surgeries operate on the periphery of the medical system and involve complicit medical professionals who typically claim ignorance of its illegality (e.g., a good case was made that a few US hospitals, like Cedars Sinai were complicit in the trade).

• A 2004 court case where a South African hospital pleaded guilty to illegally transplanting kidneys from poorer recipients (who received $6,000–$20,000) to wealthy recipients (who paid up to $120,000).1 2

• Many reports of organ harvesting by the Chinese government against specific political prisoners.1,2,3,4,5 This evidence is quite compelling, particularly since until 2006, China admitted organs were sourced from death row prisoners (with data suggesting the practice has not stopped).
Note: harvesting organs from death row prisoners represents one of the most reliable ways to get healthy organs immediately at the time of death (which is one of the greatest challenges in transplant medicine).

• I’ve read reports of organ harvesting occurring in Middle East conflict zones, by ISIS and in the Kosovo conflict, and with drug cartels.

Note: many other disturbing cases of illicit organ harvesting are discussed in more detail here. Likewise, many other valuable tissues (e.g., tendons and corneas) can be harvested from dead bodies. Significant controversy also exists with the ethics of how these are collected (e.g., this investigation highlights that the industry is highly profit focused and gives minimal respect to the bodies).

When Consciousness Gets Trapped

Different parts of the brain control various aspects of our being, so people who are still conscious can sometimes completely lose control of their bodies or their ability to communicate—known as Locked-in syndrome.

The most famous case involves Martin, a 12-year-old who fell ill with meningitis and entered a vegetative state. He was sent home to die, but stayed alive. At 16, he began regaining consciousness, became fully aware by 19, and at 26, a caregiver finally realized he was conscious and got him a communication computer. He eventually married.

Jahi McMath, a thirteen-year-old declared brain dead after tonsillectomy complications, was kept on life support by her family despite court orders. Nine months later, she had regained brainwaves and blood flow to the brain, and moved in response to verbal commands.

Similar cases include Lewis Roberts (began breathing hours before organ harvesting), Ryan Marlow (diagnosis reversed after wife’s insistence), Colleen Burns (awoke on the operating table and was later found by HHS to have been repeatedly misdiagnosed), and Trenton McKinley (13-year-old who recovered before scheduled donation). There were also cases like Steven Thorpe (declared brain dead by four doctors, parents refused organ donation, and he awoke two weeks later), and Gloria Cruz (husband refused to allow withdrawal of care, and she recovered).

Note: A recent study found that over 30% of brain-injured patients deemed unrecoverable would have partially or fully recovered had life support not been withdrawn.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Hidden Crisis in Organ Transplantation appeared first on LewRockwell.

GDP is like collecting data on passenger satisfaction with the dessert cart on the Titanic and declaring everyone is delighted as the great “unsinkable” ship settles into the icy waters of the Atlantic.

That Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an outdated and misleading metric of the economy is widely accepted. The problem isn’t an abstraction, as we manage what we measure and so policymakers and citizens alike make decisions on what’s being measured. If what’s being measured is misleading, then we’re flying blind.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz has long advocated for an overhaul for what we measure economically, focusing on well-being rather than adding up transactions. A new book The Measure of Progress: Counting What Really Matters, explains the difficulty of the overhaul. A recent article on the topic addressed the urgency of the task (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2025, paywalled):

“For Americans, these are tumultuous times. Inequality in income and wealth is at historically high levels. Artificial intelligence is reshaping society at an unprecedented pace, prompting layoffs and putting entire professions at risk. According to an estimate by the Brookings Institution, up to 85 percent of current workers in the U.S. labor force could see their jobs affected by today’s generative AI technology. In the future, that percentage could climb even higher.

At moments of danger and uncertainty, it is usually the task of governments to protect people and help them navigate change–to step in when markets cannot. Yet Americans seem to have little belief in Washington’s capabilities. Over the past two decades, public trust in the U.S. government has plummeted by 40 percent. Some Americans believe the federal government has been absent. Others believe it has failed to meet pressing challenges, including the rising cost of living, and the potential disruptions of AI. Either way, Washington has its work cut out for it as the government tries to regain Americans’ trust.

So where can it start? The Measure of Progress, meanwhile, takes aim at the economic data that states use. According to Coyle, analysts evaluate the economy using outdated, limited metrics, causing policymakers to misunderstand the challenges citizens face.

Coyle’s book is focused on understanding the economy as it exists today. But her argument–that analysts and governments have failed to properly measure peoples’ well-being–is equally essential. The metrics that economists use, Coyle insists, are inherently flawed and do not sufficiently represent the reality of economic activity and value. That poses an immense problem for policymakers and analysts, distorting their view of the world and potentially leading them to faulty conclusions and ineffective policies.”

The problem is multi-faceted. GDP and other metrics were institutionalized in the industrial age, where agriculture and factory production were easy to measure. As these sectors’ share of the economy has slipped, the “hard-to-measure” parts of the economy are now dominant–81.5% by one estimate.

There are many other critical wrinkles in measuring the economy as it is. The book raises the issue of unpaid work, such as families caring for elderly parents and the unpaid “shadow work” that we’re required to do now to keep all of our technology functioning. All this activity occurs outside the traditional market.

Since our metrics don’t put a price tag on clean air and functional ecosystems, these are left out of the calculations, as if they don’t exist. Not only do they exist, they’re critical to our well-being. The book discusses natural capital accounting as an alternative, but alternative measures like this are inherently more challenging than toting up transactions.

What if we decided to measure the economy by the quality of life of the citizenry? While there are endless possibilities of what goes into quality of life, we can start with these basics:

1. Our physical and mental health.

2. The health of our social order–our social contract, social trust, communities and trust in our key institutions

3. The security and stability of our livelihoods and financial future.

Defining health isn’t that difficult. A healthy person doesn’t need any medications because, well, they’re healthy, so there’s no need for any interventions. A healthy person has an HDL / triglyceride ratio (calculated by dividing your triglyceride level by your HDL cholesterol level) well under 2, can walk a mile without even noticing, can stand on each foot for an extended time, and so on.

As for mental health, numerous studies have found that social connections are critical to our overall health, along with what we might call sufficiency–enough financial resources to secure the basics of life, and enough opportunities to fulfill one’s potential.

Read the Whole Article

The post If We Measured the Economy by Quality-of-Life Instead of GDP, We’d Be in a Depression appeared first on LewRockwell.

In October 2024 a Lebanese writer named Lina Mounzer wrote, “ask any Arab what the most painful realization of the last year has been and it is this: that we have discovered the extent of our dehumanization to such a degree that it’s impossible to function in the world in the same way.”

I’ve thought about that line a lot over the last year.

I thought about it as Israel hammered Lebanon with at least 20 airstrikes during a supposed “ceasefire”.

I thought about it during the Gaza ceasefire negotiations when the western political/media class kept calling the Israelis held by Hamas “hostages” while calling the innocent Palestinians held captive by Israel “prisoners”.

I think about it as the IDF continues to murder Palestinian civilians every day during the Gaza “ceasefire” when they are deemed to be traveling into forbidden areas, because Palestinians are so dehumanized that Israel sees bullets as a perfectly legitimate means of directing civilian foot traffic.

I think about it as these daily ceasefire violations and acts of military slaughter barely make a blip in the western news media, while any time anything happens that makes western Jews feel anxious or upset it dominates headlines for days.

I thought about it while the western political/media class solemnly commemorated the second anniversary of the October 7 attack, even as the daily death toll from the Gaza holocaust ticked along with its victims unnamed and unacknowledged by those same institutions.

I thought about it when all of western politics and media stopped dead in its tracks and stood transfixed for days on the assassination of Charlie Kirk while ignoring the genocide he had spent the last two years of his life actively manufacturing consent for.

Day after day after day we see glaring, inexcusable discrepancies between the amount of attention that is given to the violent death of an Arab and the attention that is given to the violent death of an Israeli, a western Jew, or any westerner.

These last two years have been a time of unprecedented unmasking in all sorts of ways, but I think that’s the one that’s going to stick with me the most. The way western civilization came right out into the cold harsh light to admit, day after day after day, that they don’t truly view Arabs as human beings.

Ours is a profoundly sick society.

One of the main arguments you’ll hear from rightists about why the west needs to support Israel is that Israel is helping to defend the west from the savage Muslim hoards — a sentiment that Israeli pundits and politicians have been all too happy to feed into of late. It’s revealing because it’s just coming right out and saying that slaughtering Muslims is a virtue in and of itself, so anyone who kills Muslims is an ally of the west.

But any time I come across this argument all I can think is, why would anyone want to defend the west if this is what the west has become?

Even if we pretend these delusions that Arabs and Islam pose some kind of threat to western civilization are valid, why would it even matter? This civilization does not deserve to be saved. Not if we’re going to be living like this.

If we’ve become so detached from our own humanity that we can’t even see innocent children as fully human just because they live somewhere else and have a different religion, then we are the monsters. We are the villains. We are everything the craziest Zionist pretends the Arabs are.

These last two years have shown us that western civilization doesn’t need protection, it needs redemption. It needs to save its soul.

__________________

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

The post The West’s Dehumanization of Arabs Is Completely Unforgivable appeared first on LewRockwell.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to be back on good terms — at least for now.

Trump announced Thursday afternoon that he had a very “productive” call with the Russian head of state, who congratulated him for the “great accomplishment” of “peace in the Middle East.” The Russian leader also passed on niceties to the First Lady for her involvement with children.

The two leaders discussed potential business between the United States and Russia after “the War with Ukraine is over,” according to Trump’s version of the call.  The Russians confirmed the call, which they announced as it was happening.

Before hanging up, they agreed to a meeting of high-level advisors next week, to be followed up by an in-person meeting in Budapest, Hungary, where they’ll discuss ending the “inglorious” war between Russia and Ukraine.

The president ended his Truth Social announcement on a high note. “I believe great progress was made with today’s telephone conversation,” he said.

Good News

The news was undoubtedly welcomed by sensible Americans who realize there is nothing to gain and too much at risk by egging on a war between two very corrupt nations on the other side of the planet, neither of which pose a serious threat to the U.S. homeland so long as we stay out of their business. Former Trump National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn was among them. “This is what we voted for,” he announced on social media. Flynn previously alleged that a group of warmongers were exerting undue influence on the president.

Those who’ve been keeping up with the TMZ-style drama between these two strongheaded world leaders and are cheering for de-escalation are, like Flynn, happy to hear this news — but there is also some trepidation. This is about the fifth rerun of this episode. The script goes something like this: The two talk, Putin flatters and reassures, and Trump emerges smitten, only to become disillusioned just weeks later. Nevertheless, this is better than how the saga had been tracking as of late.

Escalatory Rhetoric

Just Wednesday, U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth implied he would wage war against Russia if it did not wind down its war against Ukraine. “If there is no path to peace in the short term then the United States, along with our allies, will take steps necessary to impose costs on Russia for its continued aggression,” Hegseth said Wednesday. “If we must take this step, the U.S. War Department stands ready to do our part in ways that only the United States can do.”

Hegseth said this during a meeting focused on Ukraine at the NATO headquarters. He apparently did not elaborate on whether he meant to say what it sounded like he said.

Before that, Trump was publicly mulling over the idea of sending the Ukrainians Tomahawks, long-range missiles with the capability to strike any major Russian city. The big idea was that doing this would cripple the Kremlin’s major source of revenue, its energy sector. On Sunday, Trump told reporters he was thinking of speaking to Russia to ask them if “they want to have Tomahawks going in their direction?” Maybe he did.

Russia had previously responded to the threat with its own warning, pointing out that sending that kind of power would directly implicate the United States. Somewhere in that melee of threats and bluster, Trump even called Russia a “paper tiger.”

Just Bluffing?

All of that talk, however, may have been nothing more than bluffing designed to keep the Russians off balance and convince them to get serious about winding down the war. And maybe it worked.

Or maybe Hegseth’s rhetoric was the result of Trump waking up in an especially crabby mood on account of being edged out of the Nobel Peace Prize and ordering his War Sec to throw caution to the wind since they won’t award him with the accolade he badly wants, anyway. It’s hard to tell. As we’ve said before, there’s a good chance that when it comes to dealing with the mess in Eastern Europe, Trump’s so good at keeping everyone guessing that even he doesn’t know what he’ll do.

That’s probably why some European leaders, as much as they want Trump to get and stay tough with Putin, were reluctant to celebrate Hegseth’s comments. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters, “I would read into that a kind of change of perspective and approach, but not more for the moment. I can’t interpret, really, what he did mean.”

Unleash the Tomahawks

It’s telling that the folks at the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) were ecstatic about the possibility that the United States would give the Ukrainians Tomahawks. “As with Hamas and the fighting in Gaza, bringing the Ukraine war to an end requires speaking the only language that Moscow understands: force,” wrote Seth G. Jones and Tom Karako in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. More from Jones and Karako:

Without Tomahawks or a system with a similar payload and range, Ukraine can’t put real pressure on Russian supply lines, military production or long-range launchers into Ukrainian territory. Ukraine can use Tomahawks to target rear support areas sustaining Russian front-line operations, including weapons and fuel depots, tank-production facilities, and air bases used by Russian fighters and bombers.

It’s true that Putin might interpret America’s friendly negotiation approach as weak and naïve. But it’s also true that the CSIS is a profoundly hawkish outfit funded by defense contractors and staffed by people with strong ties to defense and intelligence agencies. They’re the hand guiding the only tool the know of, the hammer, to the nail. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing are among the CISIS’s financial backers. But that’s three of many more. As the Quincy Institute noted in 2023, when CSIS was complaining that the Pentagon wasn’t spending enough, 20 different defense contractors were funding the CISIS. Moreover, Jones, the president of CSIS, is a former Department of Defense senior official and has worked with the CIA in advisory roles.

Uncertain Outcome

Trump has been trying to mediate peace between these two sibling nations before he even moved back in the Oval Office. And despite what some think, it’s hard to interpret his behavior, words, and efforts as a façade covering a hidden motive to start World War III. A more likely explanation is that Trump’s erratic personality and allergy to details is what’s prompting the vacillating, chaotic foreign policy of the U.S. government.

Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky have more in common than they may care to admit. Both are accused of being dictators. Both lead governments believed to have persecuted, even killed, dissident journalists. And both have an alleged track record of silencing government critics.

On Friday, Zelensky will be back in the White House, hat in hand. He’ll likely have a bigger hat than the one he passes out in Europe because he’ll be asking for Tomahawks. He’ll likely try to convince Trump that, just like all the previous times, Putin’s reassurances will come to naught and that the right thing to do is give Ukraine more firepower.

The question is, what will Trump do?

This article was originally published on The New American.

The post Trump and Putin Patch Things Up, Plan Budapest Meeting appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday I saw in report in the Telegraph headlined Britain and France are at the end stage of ‘centrist dad’ collapse and found the following paragraph about Starmer and Macron especially memorable.

Wrong on almost everything, hated by voters, incapable of truth-telling, driven by a messianic belief in environmentalism and global technocracy, unable to confront reality, gripped by suicidal empathy and addicted to virtue-signalling, Starmer and Macron have ended up as unlikely brothers in arms, despite their seemingly incompatible styles.

The report resonated with me, as I had, just the day before, had a long telephone conversation with former British MP, Andrew Bridgen, about the current state of affairs in England. He perceives them to be very grim.

In the summer of 2014, on the 100th anniversary of the First World War, I found myself visiting Leipzig, Germany, where I wandered into a book store near the St. Thomas Church, where J.S. Bach had served as the music director from 1723 to 1750. The store was stocked with books by authors all trying to answer the question: Why did the great nations of Europe essentially commit suicide in 1914-18?

The answer, it seems to me, is the marked tendency of any society’s political class to be captured by interests and ideologies that have little to do with the interests of the people they govern. Apart from bankers and arms manufacturers, the Great War of 1914-18 served no one who lived in the warring countries. On the contrary, it sent millions of their young men—including their most educated young men—to be machine gunned and gassed in the trenches.

While some elements of the state are necessary for providing basic security, maintaining critical infrastructure, and adjudicating conflict, the state invariably becomes way too big and parasitic, and ultimately cancerous.

I fear that Britain, France, and Germany are currently suffering from Stage 4 Cancer that originated in the bosom of their bizarre governments run by total weirdos who in no way represent the interests of the people they govern.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post The End of Britain, France, and Germany appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gilbert Doctorow and I share the belief that unless Putin responds more firmly than he has been inclined to do to the West’s provocations, war is inevitable.

Hungary, led by the only intelligent leader in Europe, has arranged a meeting in Budapest between Trump and Putin.  I suspect that this is the last chance to avoid war.  Its success turns on whether Trump can abandon his bully role, understand that the solution requires a NATO pullback from Russia’s borders and a mutual security agreement between Russia and the West, and declare in a press conference that Washington’s support (incitement really) of Ukraine is at an end.

For Putin, I suspect the meeting in Hungary is Putin’s last test of Trump.  If Trump fails the test, chances are high that delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine will result in a Russian declaration of war against Ukraine and quick destruction by conventional means of Ukraine’s ability to continue the conflict.  Putin will have reversed his strategy of non-response to provocations and put the West on notice, something he should have done years ago.  The likelihood is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s effort to dismiss the Tomahawk threat as terrorism rather than an act of war will fail.

Unless Trump comes to his senses, a brutal demonstration of Russian force is all that can stop the momentum toward a real war.  See this and this.

The post The Trump-Putin Meeting in Hungary Is the Last Chance for Peace appeared first on LewRockwell.

There are a number of indicators which lets one predict that the Trump administration, during the next election, will use government forces to severely attack and disrupt all opposition to it.

Trump has send the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents into the cities to harass and arrest alleged illegal immigrants. Due cause is disregarded and the methods used by the agents are brutal.

Trump has also sent National Guard troops into cities where, he claimed, riots were taking place. There were no riots or ‘terrorist incidents’ but the presence of troops is used to create a militarized atmosphere.

A new National Security Presidential Memorandum, NSPM-7 issued by Trump has defined new classes of internal enemies:

With the mainstream media distracted by the made-for-TV drama of James Comey’s indictment, Trump has signed a little-noticed national security directive identifying “anti-Christian” and “anti-American” views as indicators of radical left violence.
…
In NSPM-7, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” President Trump directs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies and departments to fight his version of political violence in America, retooling a network of Joint Terrorism Task Forces to focus on “leftist” political violence in America. This vast counterterrorism army, made up of federal, state, and local agents would, as Trump aide Stephen Miller said, form “the central hub of that effort.”
…
The Trump administration isn’t only targeting organizations or groups but even individuals and “entities” whom NSPM-7 says can be identified by any of the following “indicia” (indicators) of violence:
anti-Americanism,

• • anti-capitalism,
  • anti-Christianity,
  • support for the overthrow of the United States Government,
  • extremism on migration,
  • extremism on race,
  • extremism on gender,
  • hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family,
  • hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and
  • hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality.

“The United States requires a national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts,” the directive states (emphasis mine).

That all may sound laughable but these are unfortunately serious policies .  The target list includes organizations which do not exist:

The FBI and the homeland security department are actively investigating “Antifa” individuals and organizations that the Trump administration has branded domestic terrorists. Actions so far include collecting intelligence on Antifa “affinity” groups, canvassing the FBI’s vast informant network for tips about Antifa, and scrutinizing financial records, two sources involved in the investigations tell me.

There are no ‘antifa’ organizations. ‘Antifa’ is the idea of fighting indications of fascism. From time to time local interest groups may claim to do so for this or that reason. This category ‘antifa’ was likely chosen because it can be applied to any group that opposes government policies.

Today Yves Smith reports of another enforcement agency that Trump will use to destroy opposition to him:

The war against Trump’s perceived political enemies keeps escalating. The Wall Street Journal provides new detail on how the Trump Administration intends to use an IRS criminal unit, whose members bear arms, as part of his campaign against “left-leaning” organizations. This fallows a Reuters account describing how the Trump Administration intends to use the Department of Justice and DHS to pursue “left wing” groups that allegedly fomented violence.
…
Now to the press accounts. Key sections from the Journal’s report:

The Trump administration is preparing sweeping changes at the Internal Revenue Service that would allow the agency to pursue criminal inquiries of left-leaning groups more easily, according to people familiar with the matter.

A senior IRS official involved in the effort has drawn up a list of potential targets that includes major Democratic donors, some of the people said.

The undertaking aims to install allies of President Trump at the IRS criminal-investigative division, or IRS-CI, to exert firmer control over the unit and weaken the involvement of IRS lawyers in criminal investigations, officials said. The proposed changes could open the door to politically motivated probes…

Among those on the list are the billionaire Democratic donor George Soros and his affiliated groups…

Many on the left will not mind any attack on George Soros as his organization is well know for financing foreign color revolutions against legitimate leftist rulers. We can however be assured that Trump wont stop with them:

The list includes Soros’ Open Society Foundations; ActBlue, the funding arm of the Democratic Party; Indivisible, a grassroots coalition opposed to Trump policies and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, a Los Angeles-based group.
…
Other groups on the list include two Jewish nonprofits that oppose Israel’s war in Gaza – IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace.

There is unfortunately little institutional or political opposition that can restrain Trump:

The push against domestic groups and their donors comes amid Trump’s attacks on law firms, universities and the media, and his deployment of National Guard troops to some Democratic-run cities.
…
Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian and former director of the Richard Nixon presidential library, said Trump and Nixon were similar in their desire to punish political enemies and silence critics, but a pliant Republican-controlled Congress and a cabinet packed with loyalists are enabling Trump to go further.

“That’s why this particular moment is more dangerous for the rule of law in the United States than the 1970s were,” Naftali said.

All these are ominous signs that Trumps war on the political opposition will escalate further. Seymour Hersh’s sources are warning of this:

What’s happening now may be a trial run for the use of those forces to interfere on the behalf of the president and the Republican Party in states where the Democratic Party has a chance to win crucial seats in next fall’s Congressional elections. I’ve been told by someone with inside knowledge that planning for such action is now under way in the White House.

The ‘coerced dominance’ that has marked Trump’s brutal approach to foreign policy will now being applied to domestic issues and legitimate opposition.

Russell Vought, Trumps’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, are the men behind this.

The scary thing is that there is, so far, little or any opposition to these plans and only few warnings about their consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump’s War Against ‘Left-leaning’ Groups Extends Further appeared first on LewRockwell.

Whether he has done so wittingly or unwittingly, President Trump has backed himself into a corner with respect to Venezuela. After amassing a formidable armada of military forces in the Caribbean off Venezuelan shores and having killed some 24 suspected U.S. drug-law violators on the high seas, Trump has now effectively committed himself to initiating a regime-change war against Venezuela. Everyone should now brace himself for what is coming — another in a long line of foreign regime-change undeclared wars of aggression in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the principles set forth at Nuremberg.

After all, Trump knows that if he backs down now and orders a withdrawal of that armada of warships, war planes (including B-52s), and tens of thousands of troops, Venezuela’s socialist president Nicolás Maduro will crow about how he forced the all-powerful ruler of the United States to back down and return his military forces to the United States. There is no way that Trump can now permit himself to go down that road. From his own personal perspective, he cannot be seen as being “weak.” He has placed himself in a position where he has to show courage and fortitude by initiating a war against Venezuela, one that leaves Maduro dead or captured.

No doubt that Trump is hoping that this massive military buildup will pressure Maduro into abdicating and fleeing the country, in which case Trump knows that he (Trump) will be hailed as a hero for saving the country from an unelected socialist dictator. Will Maduro do so? It’s possible, and he’d be smart to do so. But if he doesn’t, Trump has placed himself in a position of having to launch an illegal regime-change war against Venezuela, one that will leave at least some innocent people dead.

But consider the benefits of such a war from the standpoint of Trump. First and foremost, a war against Venezuela will put to rest the Jeffrey Epstein rebellion within Trump’s MAGA movement. With the massive military buildup in the Caribbean and the killing of unarmed suspected drug-law violators at the hands of the military, the Epstein rebellion has already dissipated. It will fizzle out with the first bombs or missiles fired into Venezuelan territory.

I pointed out this phenomenon back on July 22, before Trump had begun to send warships to Venezuela. My article was entitled, “Get Ready for a Big Foreign Crisis.” No, I don’t profess to be Nostradamus. My reasoning was simply based on the insightful words of James Madison: “The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.”

There was a boiling revolt among Trump’s MAGA supporters over Trump’s failure to order the release of the Epstein files. What better way to suppress that revolt than to excite a war against Venezuela? When the bombing of Venezuela begins, I will guarantee you that the Trump’s MAGA supporters will completely forget Jeffrey Epstein and will hop to, click their heels, recite the Pledge of Allegiance (which was written by a socialist), sing the Start Spangled Banner, thank the troops for their “service” in defending our “freedom,” and bask in their vicarious courage. The Epstein rebellion will be all but dead.

Moreover, Trump knows that many Venezuelan citizens will hail him as the greatest liberator since Simón Bolívar for having saved the country from a socialist dictator who clearly lost the last presidential election.

There is also a huge benefit for the national-security branch of the federal government. Consider its 20-year deadly and destructive military fiasco in Afghanistan, one in which American soldiers were sacrificed for nothing, just like they were in Vietnam. The American people never even had time to reflect on the Afghanistan disaster because the Pentagon, using its old Cold War dinosaur NATO, quickly maneuvered America into another war — this one against Russia by using Ukraine as its proxy. As everyone knows, that war isn’t going so well either.

And don’t forget Iraq, where U.S. officials used their bogus WMD scare to justify an undeclared regime-change war of aggression, one that left thousands of Iraqis and Americans dead, destroyed the entire country, and installed a regime that was aligned with Iran, which is considered to be an official enemy of the United States.

Of course, Iran is the country whose democratic system was destroyed by the CIA in yet another instance of U.S. foreign interventionism, which led to the U.S.-supported tyranny of the Shah, which led to the Iranian revolution, which led to Iran being declared a permanent official enemy of the United States.

One year after the 1953 Iranian escapade came the CIA’s regime-change operation in Guatemala, which led to a decade-long civil war that killed more than a million people. Oh well, at least they weren’t Americans.

Clearly, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA could use a lift. A war with Venezuela will easily give them such a lift. Despite Madura’s bluster, there is no way that the Venezuelan military can oppose the most powerful military in the world. After all, look at how quickly U.S. forces have dispatched and destroyed those suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. They have been able to easily win those battles and, as the Pentagon points out, without any loss of American life.

Moreover, Venezuela has been the victim of socialism and U.S. sanctions for decades. Its military is so weak it couldn’t defeat Grenada. Upon the first sight of U.S. Marines, Venezuelan forces and Maduro’s civilian “militia” will quickly surrender. They are not about to sacrifice their lives for Maduro, who will be assassinated, executed, or captured and brought back to the United States in chains.

Trump and his MAGA supporters as well as the national-security establishment will be exultant over this gigantic difficult military victory. They will sing about how proud they are to be Americans because their difficult undeclared, unconstitutional, illegal war against Venezuela will have brought “freedom” to Venezuela and protected America from the dangers of socialism, the Tren de Aragua gang, illegal-immigrant invaders, and “narco-terrorism.”

Never mind that the destruction of freedom in America through militarized and para-militarized omnipotent government will continue apace, with many shell-shocked American citizens passively letting it happen or even supporting what James Madison called “the instruments of tyranny at home.” At the same time, the irrational mass killings, the soaring suicide rates among young people and veterans, the hopeless dependency on government largess, and the out-of-control federal spending and debt that threaten national bankruptcy will continue to afflict America’s statist society — all coincidentally of course.

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Another Regime-Change War Is Coming appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi Te limits its discussion of “migrants” to three paragraphs: 73–75. Paragraph 73 claims that “The experience of migration accompanies the history of the People of God,” citing Abraham, Moses, and the Flight into Egypt. Paragraph 74 focuses on two 19th-century Church figures involved in the care of migrants in the Americas: St. Frances Xavier Cabrini and Bishop Giovanni Battista Scalabrini. Paragraph 75 cites contemporary examples of work with “migrants,” quoting Pope Francis’ line that “our response to the challenges posed by contemporary migration can be summed up in four verbs: welcome, protect, promote, and integrate.” It further reminds us that every person is a child of God, made in the divine image and likeness, and insists that “proclamation of the Gospel is credible only when it is translated into gestures of closeness and welcome,” concluding that “in every rejected migrant, it is Christ himself who knocks at the door of the community.”

Before these claims even reach the level of theology, standard logic would challenge them. The first question arises from what Dilexi Te does not ask: the legal status of a “migrant.” The Exhortation simply ignores the issue. There are only “migrants.”

What are we to conclude from that omission? That the legal status of a migrant is irrelevant? That would surprise nearly every state in the world, each of which not only distinguishes between legal and illegal immigrants but among legal categories themselves: temporary workers on nonimmigrant visas, refugees, asylum seekers, parolees, or permanent residents. The legal status of a migrant determines that person’s rights, obligations, and future in the host country. Would the Holy See tell  states to abandon such distinctions? If not, why does Dilexi Te fail even to acknowledge them?

Or is the Exhortation suggesting that Catholics should disregard the legality question altogether? If so, that would represent a radical shift in Catholic teaching about the obligations of citizens toward the state. If this is now doctrine, when and where was it promulgated? If it is not, then what is the nature of Dilexi Te’s statements on migration? Are they opinion, advice, or fervorino? Catholics have a right to know what binds conscience and what does not. A clear line has always separated authoritative teaching from pastoral commentary, the latter not enjoying magisterial weight.

These distinctions matter. What should a Catholic who works for ICE in field enforcement think? Or a CBP officer at a border checkpoint? Or a USCIS employee adjudicating claims for status change? Does a Catholic immigration officer act in bad faith by enforcing his country’s immigration laws?

Dilexi Te also plays loosely with history. Migration patterns in the ancient world differed radically from the modern era. Israel lay along the Fertile Crescent, between Egypt’s Nile and Babylon’s Tigris and Euphrates. Movement along that route was normal—but not unregulated. Those who use Exodus 23:9 (“you were aliens in the land of Egypt”) as a proof text for open borders forget that even St. Thomas Aquinas noted that Old Testament norms for foreigners were nuanced and conditional.

Moreover, to use ancient migration as a model for modern policy ignores the Westphalian system of sovereign states that emerged after 1648. Modern theology praises “historical development,” yet Dilexi Te seems blind to the historical development of political order itself. If doctrine may “develop,” why can’t history? Does anyone in Rome seriously believe the Westphalian state can—or should—be erased?

The discussion of Cabrini and Scalabrini likewise sidesteps the legality issue. When Mother Cabrini tended an orphan, she did not ask his legal status, but she lived in an era of lawful, regulated migration. The late 19th century was marked by large-scale, legally sanctioned immigration to the United States and Canada. Her ministry, and that of Bishop Scalabrini, did not conflict with the legal order of the countries they served. Indeed, the Catholic bishops of the United States then worked hard to reinforce the idea that “good Catholic” meant “good American.” It is difficult to imagine John Ireland or “Dagger John” Hughes endorsing or abetting large-scale illegal entry into the United States.

Invoking historical precedents from a different time and legal order to justify contemporary mass illegal immigration stretches analogy beyond reason. Only by ignoring both history and law can one claim—on Francis’ word—that the verbs governing migration can only be “welcome, protect, promote, and integrate.”

Does “welcoming” mean disregarding national immigration law? Nothing in Catholic teaching defines immigration restrictions as intrinsically unjust. On what basis does the Church think it may ignore—de jure or de facto—legitimate state law in this area?  Under the banner of “protecting” migrants? When violations of those laws occur on a massive scale, does the Church’s practical disregard for them amount to material cooperation with lawbreaking? Or does it evade that charge by saying it merely “promotes” the cause of migrants, regardless of legal status?

If immigration controls are a legitimate act of sovereignty, then when the Church “integrates” migrants sociologically without corresponding legal integration, it risks trespassing on rights that belong to Caesar. By fostering sociological integration absent legal status, the Church effectively pressures the state to create legal pathways, even though determining such status is a civil competence. Caesar has rights in justice too—including not to have his hand forced by faits accomplis.

These are not just questions of “standing with the poor.” They concern the relationship between Church and state and the Church’s role in telling states how to adjudicate legal presence, residence, and citizenship. Their implications reach far beyond charity. To omit the core issue—legal status—is to discuss migration as if the modern political order did not exist.

When Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Rome, He did not merely dodge a trap; He recognized that while God’s primacy is absolute, Caesar has real, subordinate rights. Vatican II called this the “autonomy of created things.” Those “created things,” after 1648, include the sovereign state. No honest discussion of migration can ignore that fact.

In the end, Dilexi Te’s treatment of migration leaves Catholics with serious unanswered questions. The Church may and must remind believers of the moral dignity of every person. But she cannot call Catholics to actions that imply contempt for lawful authority, nor can she treat the existence of sovereign states as a regrettable accident of history. If Rome wishes to speak credibly about migration, it must do so in full awareness that the world of Abraham and Moses is not the world of passports, borders, and visas—and that Catholics, while bound by charity, are also citizens. Between God and Caesar, the Exhortation seems to have forgotten that both still have legitimate claims upon us.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post When ‘Welcome’ Collides With Caesar: Dilexi Te and the Missing Question appeared first on LewRockwell.

One day we’re in a “trade war with China,” and the next day we’re not. One day, there are threats of “100% tariffs,” on Chinese goods and the next day there aren’t. World leaders need to do nothing but sit back and watch. Meanwhile, the American people are taken on an emotional roller-coaster of threats that (ironically) would harm the American people more than anyone else. What’s going on here?

The post Trump “Trade War” Chaos with China — Who Benefits? appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Joshua Stylman

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/spazio-simboli-e-sospetti)

Di recente mi sono imbattuto nella stimolante serie di articoli di Fadi Lama intitolata, Mass Psychology in Geopolitics, in particolare nella sua analisi sull'allunaggio del 1969 e del suo legame con i cambiamenti geopolitici. L'introduzione di Meryl Nass al lavoro di Lama ha evidenziato diverse questioni chiave sull'allunaggio che hanno trovato riscontro nella mia ricerca. Mi ero reso conto che Fadi aveva già commentato il mio Substack in precedenza, sempre con domande e idee provocatorie. Questo mi ha ispirato a rivisitare una storia che avevo condiviso su Instagram circa un anno fa e a raccogliere i dati in un'analisi più completa della NASA e delle sue attività.

Il seguente saggio trae spunto da quegli appunti, ora ampliati con ulteriore contesto tratto dal lavoro di Lama. Sebbene il saggio di quest'ultimo sia in linea con gran parte di ciò che ho ricercato in modo indipendente, le mie osservazioni sono nate da una discussione online in cui mi sono imbattuto sulla regressione nei sistemi complessi. Qualcuno si è chiesto: “La NASA potrebbe far atterrare di nuovo gli astronauti sulla Luna in sicurezza?” L'ipotesi era che forse evitasse di provarci perché un potenziale fallimento potrebbe rivelare quanto la scienza e le agenzie governative siano regredite in cinque decenni.

Questa prospettiva, pur stimolante, scalfisce solo la superficie. Quando iniziamo a esaminare le origini e le peculiarità che circondano la NASA, emerge un quadro diverso, che suggerisce che la nostra comprensione dell'esplorazione spaziale potrebbe essere costruita su una narrazione attentamente costruita.

Le origini nazi-Disney

Pochi immaginerebbero che il celebre programma spaziale americano sia stato fondato da quello che sembra l'improbabile cast di un thriller storico: un ex-ingegnere missilistico delle SS naziste, un occultista che si definiva l'Anticristo e l'amato creatore di Topolino. Eppure sono proprio queste le figure intrecciate alle fondamenta della NASA. Werner von Braun, uno scienziato nazista giunto negli Stati Uniti tramite l'Operazione Paperclip subito dopo il processo di Norimberga, ebbe un ruolo determinante nella fondazione della NASA. Ancora più curioso, von Braun lavorò a stretto contatto con Walt Disney per contribuire a ottenere il sostegno pubblico per la neonata agenzia spaziale, come dimostrano le loro documentate collaborazioni e apparizioni televisive.

La NASA non fu solo fondata da von Braun, ma fu guidata da altri ufficiali nazisti delle SS, come Kurt Debus, che supervisionò i lanci di razzi dal Kennedy Space Center dopo aver sfruttato il lavoro forzato nella Germania nazista. Questa concentrazione di ex-scienziati nazisti e funzionari ai massimi livelli del programma spaziale americano solleva seri interrogativi sui suoi veri obiettivi e sulla sua lealtà.

Un'altra figura chiave in questa storia è Jack Parsons, un influente scienziato missilistico che ebbe un forte impatto sul lavoro di von Braun. Parsons, che contribuì a fondare il Jet Propulsion Laboratory, era anche noto per essere un devoto occultista e discepolo di Aleister Crowley. Molti credono che il personaggio della Marvel, Tony Stark, tragga ispirazione dal genio eccentrico di Parsons. Come Crowley, egli si concentrò sull'introduzione dell'“Eone di Horus” o dell'“Era dell'Acquario” – concetti occulti che sembrano fuori luogo nel contesto di un programma spaziale governativo.

Parsons non era solo interessato all'occulto: ne era profondamente immerso. Diresse la Loggia Agape, la branca californiana dell'Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) di Crowley, e quest'ultimo lo nominò personalmente a capo di essa. Nel 1946 Parsons e L. Ron Hubbard (che in seguito fondò Scientology) condussero una serie di rituali noti come “Operazione Babalon”, i quali incorporavano la magia sessuale nel tentativo di manifestare un “Figlio della Luna”, un'incarnazione della dea thelemica Babalon. Parsons si dichiarò persino l'Anticristo nei suoi scritti: “Io, Anticristo Belarion, nell'anno 1949 del dominio della Fratellanza Nera chiamata Cristianesimo, dichiaro la mia fedeltà all'Amato Padre Lucifero”. L'FBI indagò su Parsons per queste attività, contribuendo infine alla sua perdita dell'autorizzazione di sicurezza, il tutto mentre stava sviluppando una tecnologia che sarebbe diventata fondamentale per il programma spaziale della NASA.

Queste insolite intersezioni tra scienziati nazisti, l'impero dell'intrattenimento Disney e pratiche occulte alla nascita del nostro programma spaziale sollevano interrogativi sulla vera natura e sullo scopo della NASA.

La questione del firmamento

È interessante notare che la lapide di Werner von Braun reca l'iscrizione del Salmo 19:1: “I cieli narrano la gloria di Dio e il firmamento annuncia l'opera delle sue mani”.

Il concetto di firmamento – una barriera cosmica che separa le acque celesti dalla Terra – compare in numerose culture antiche.

Mentre la scienza moderna rifiuta ufficialmente questa nozione, alcuni organi di informazione generalisti come Fox News hanno riportato la scoperta di uno “scudo invisibile terrestre in stile Star Trek” e pubblicazioni scientifiche hanno fatto riferimento a “barriere protettive invisibili che circondano la Terra”, facendo paragoni con i campi di forza della fantascienza.

La Reuters e altri fact-checker hanno negato categoricamente l'esistenza di una cupola o di un firmamento che copra la Terra. Ho sviluppato un'utile euristica negli ultimi anni: quando i fact-checker diventano particolarmente insistenti su qualcosa, di solito è un segnale che è necessario approfondire. Sebbene nulla sia conclusivo, queste operazioni tendono a essere messe in atto dalle stesse strutture di potere che affermano di voler esaminare i fatti, rendendo le loro presunte confutazioni ancora più interessanti.

Il concetto di Terra come sfera ha origini antiche, risalenti ai filosofi greci del VI-III secolo a.C. Pitagora e i suoi seguaci, che formarono una confraternita filosofica segreta con insegnamenti mistici, furono tra i primi sostenitori di una Terra sferica. Sebbene Pitagora non fosse un massone (poiché la Massoneria emerse millenni dopo), le moderne tradizioni massoniche onorano esplicitamente lui e altri antichi filosofi greci. I massoni sono stati storicamente determinanti nella diffusione della conoscenza scientifica, compresi i concetti astronomici. Questa relazione tra antiche società segrete e la Massoneria moderna ha portato alcuni ricercatori a individuare conoscenze riservate sulle verità cosmologiche.

Il rapporto tra la NASA e la Disney si estendeva oltre la mera pubblicità. Il “Club 33” di Walt Disney a Disneyland – l'unico luogo del parco in cui si servono alcolici – avrebbe ospitato von Braun e altri funzionari della NASA come ospiti abituali. Questo club esclusivo, con i suoi presunti legami massonici, offriva un luogo discreto in cui queste figure si incontravano, mentre Tomorrowland della Disney veniva progettato in collaborazione con la NASA, forse come una forma di programmazione predittiva per i concetti di viaggio spaziale.

In una coincidenza particolarmente strana, von Braun scrisse Project Mars: A Technical Tale, un libro del 1949 sulla colonizzazione di Marte da parte di un leader chiamato “Elon”.

Questo è un dettaglio singolare considerando che l'attuale imprenditore dello spazio condivide questo nome e sembra favorire approcci tecnocratici, allineandosi con suo nonno, una figura chiave del partito della Tecnocrazia in Canada quasi un secolo fa. La sua difesa delle tasse sull'anidride carbonica e l'idea di una “Tecnocrazia di Marte” alludono a un filo conduttore ideologico persistente, sollevando interrogativi sull'influenza della filosofia tecnocratica sugli sforzi di colonizzazione spaziale.

In alcune culture Marte era chiamato “Horus dell'Orizzonte” o “Horus il Rosso”, collegandolo alla divinità egizia associata al cielo e alla guerra, aggiungendo un ulteriore strato di significato mitologico alla nostra narrativa sull'esplorazione spaziale.

La coincidenza della CGI

Anche la tempistica della fondazione della NASA desta perplessità. L'agenzia fu fondata nel 1958, lo stesso anno in cui le immagini generate al computer (CGI) apparvero per la prima volta sullo schermo in La donna che visse due volte di Hitchcock, quando Alfred Hitchcock assunse il pioniere dell'animazione al computer John Whitney per creare la sequenza iniziale. Questo parallelismo tecnologico continua ancora oggi, con la NASA che riconosce apertamente che molte immagini che vediamo dallo spazio sono create o migliorate utilizzando strumenti digitali.

Robert Simmon, noto come “Mr. Blue Marble” alla NASA, ha spiegato pubblicamente sul sito web ufficiale della NASA cosa comporta il suo ruolo: “Trasformo i dati in immagini. Cerco nuovi e interessanti eventi che i satelliti della NASA hanno visto o che sono nascosti nei dati più recenti”. Questa ammissione non è solo suggestiva: è un riconoscimento esplicito che ciò che percepiamo come fotografie dallo spazio sono in realtà visualizzazioni di dati. La NASA ha persino affermato di affidarsi a “ingegneri e scienziati per produrre i dati”, sollevando seri dubbi sull'autenticità di ciò che stiamo vedendo. Perché avrebbero bisogno di “trasformare i dati in immagini” se hanno delle fotografie vere e proprie?

In un altro curioso sviluppo, l'anno scorso la NASA ha firmato un accordo con Nikon per sviluppare la fotocamera Lunar Artemis. Stranamente il giorno successivo all'annuncio di questa partnership, Nikon ha ritirato dal mercato la sua unica fotocamera con mega-zoom, portando alcuni a mettere in discussione i tempi e lo scopo di questo accordo.

Le domande sul Challenger

Forse l'aspetto più sconcertante della storia della NASA riguarda il disastro del Challenger e quella che è una straordinaria anomalia statistica. Non la presento come una conclusione, ma come un vero e proprio enigma che merita seria considerazione. Ciò che segue è una prova che mi ha lasciato sinceramente confuso e alla ricerca di spiegazioni che possano conciliare queste osservazioni con la comprensione convenzionale.

I ricercatori hanno documentato uno schema straordinario: sette astronauti che sarebbero morti sul Challenger avevano dei sosia di età simile con lo stesso nome, un'improbabilità statistica che sfida ogni spiegazione. Il comandante Francis Richard Scobee era identico all'amministratore delegato Richard Scobee di Cows in Trees, Ltd.; la specialista di missione Judith Resnik aveva una sorprendente somiglianza con la professoressa Judith Resnik della Yale Law School; la somiglianza di Sharon Christa McAuliffe con la professoressa di giurisprudenza di Syracuse Sharon A. McAuliffe era meno pronunciata rispetto alle altre (è interessante notare che era l'insegnante che la maggior parte degli americani ricorda dalla missione); lo specialista di missione Ronald McNair sembrava un gemello di Carl McNair (identificato come “fratello di Ronald McNair”); persino lo specialista del carico utile Ellison Onizuka aveva una controparte quasi identica in Claude Onizuka (anch'esso dichiarato fratello); lo specialista di missione Michael J. Smith aveva un sosia con lo stesso nome che lavorava come professore.

Sebbene queste affermazioni rimangano indimostrate, le straordinarie somiglianze facciali e di nome tra gli astronauti del Challenger e i loro presunti sosia mettono in discussione ogni probabilità di base. Anche se liquidiamo le somiglianze facciali come soggettive, dobbiamo comunque affrontare una straordinaria questione statistica: quali sono le probabilità che più astronauti del Challenger avessero dei sosia con gli stessi identici nomi, in posizioni di influenza, ancora in vita decenni dopo? Se si trattasse semplicemente di persone che per caso assomigliavano agli astronauti del Challenger, le probabilità che condividessero anche nomi identici sarebbero infinitesimali.

Non presento queste prove per dimostrare una teoria specifica, piuttosto le offro come una sincera sfida intellettuale: quale spiegazione rende meglio conto di queste notevoli somiglianze, pur rimanendo coerente con la nostra comprensione della probabilità e del comportamento umano? L'improbabilità statistica sembra richiedere una qualche forma di spiegazione che vada oltre la mera coincidenza.

Coloro che sono inclini a mettere in discussione i resoconti ufficiali – i critici potrebbero chiamarli “complottisti”, anche se io preferisco “ricercatori della verità” – potrebbero chiedersi: il disastro del Challenger potrebbe aver contribuito a far apparire i viaggi spaziali pericolosi agli occhi della popolazione? Un simile spettacolo potrebbe spiegare perché la NASA non abbia potuto continuare le missioni lunari o consentire l'osservazione civile dello spazio, chiudendo di fatto la porta al controllo pubblico delle proprie attività.

Avendo assistito personalmente all'esplosione del Challenger da bambino in televisione, ho riflettuto su come questo evento abbia creato un trauma collettivo per un'intera generazione di studenti. Se considerato insieme ad altri eventi traumatici nazionali come l'assassinio di JFK, l'11 settembre e la pandemia di COVID-19, emerge un modello di impatti psicologici a livello sociale che rimodella la coscienza e le priorità pubbliche. In ogni caso il trauma collettivo apre a importanti cambiamenti nelle politiche, nelle strutture di potere e nell'accettazione pubblica di cambiamenti precedentemente impensabili, il tutto verso un maggiore controllo e una minore trasparenza.

Queste sorprendenti somiglianze sono state presentate in una convincente testimonianza pubblica presso il tribunale della contea di Brevard (sede di Cape Canaveral) da Justin Harvey, che ha esposto metodicamente le prove con notevole chiarezza e coraggio. La sua presentazione è stata così approfondita e ben documentata che la reazione della corte è stata significativa: l'hanno subito interrotta, sostenendo di non avere giurisdizione sulla questione. Consiglio vivamente di guardare l'intera testimonianza di sei minuti, poiché presenta le prove in modo molto più convincente di quanto possa riassumere qui.

Il frettoloso silenziamento di questa linea di indagine la dice lunga: se gli ultimi anni mi hanno insegnato qualcosa, è di prestare molta attenzione alle persone censurate. Per chi fosse interessato ad approfondire questa ricerca, Harvey ha elaborato in dettaglio le sue scoperte durante un'apparizione al podcast di Sam Tripoli, dove presenta ulteriori prove e collega queste osservazioni a modelli più ampi.

Quando le è stata contestata la sua somiglianza e il suo identico nome con l'astronauta del Challenger alla Yale University, Judith Resnik è andata nel panico ed è scappata via dalle telecamere (guardate il segmento che inizia da questo minutaggio). Questa reazione è molto più rivelatrice di una semplice negazione, sollevando ulteriori interrogativi su cosa ci fosse esattamente da nascondere.

A peggiorare i sospetti, Robert F. Overmyer, il capo investigatore dell'esplosione del Challenger, morì in un incidente aereo il 22 marzo 1996, una data associata alla misteriosa società Skull and Bones. Che sia una coincidenza o meno, questi schemi di silenzio e morti inaspettate hanno alimentato ulteriori speculazioni su cosa sia realmente accaduto al Challenger e al suo equipaggio.

Le peculiarità dell'allunaggio

L'allunaggio, il massimo successo della NASA, porta con sé una serie di curiosità. Buzz Aldrin, il secondo uomo sulla Luna, ha un background insolito: il cognome da nubile di sua madre era Marion Moon, la quale si tolse tragicamente la vita un anno prima che Buzz camminasse sulla superficie lunare. Suo padre era un dirigente della Standard Oil e, sorprendentemente, vendette tutte le sue azioni appena due mesi prima del crollo di Wall Street del 1929.

Ancora più significativo, il padre di Buzz Aldrin, Edwin Eugene “Gene” Aldrin Sr., fondò la scuola di ingegneria a McCook Field, Ohio, che in seguito divenne l'Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) presso la base aeronautica di Wright-Patterson. Ciò crea un legame familiare diretto con una delle installazioni militari più segrete d'America: la base aerea di Wright-Patterson fu il sito principale degli scienziati dell'Operazione Paperclip, del Progetto Bluebird (precursore degli esperimenti di controllo mentale MK Ultra) e di un'ampia ricerca sugli UFO (che le valse il soprannome di “vera Area 51” tra i ricercatori). La base ospitò anche Winfried Otto Schumann, il fisico che scoprì la risonanza di Schumann, la frequenza elettromagnetica terrestre spesso associata agli studi sulla coscienza e alle tecnologie avanzate. In uno strano colpo di scena che esemplifica le bizzarre direzioni di ricerca della base, il Laboratorio Wright (precursore del centro di ricerca di Wright-Patterson) propose persino un'arma chimica, la “bomba gay”, nel 1994, che avrebbe suscitato l'attrazione sessuale tra le truppe nemiche. Questo legame diretto tra la famiglia di Buzz Aldrin e il fulcro dell'integrazione scientifica nazista e della ricerca non convenzionale aggiunge un'ulteriore dimensione alla storia della NASA.

Aldrin è un massone del 33° Rito Scozzese e uno Shriner. Portò una bandiera massonica sulla Luna e la Gran Loggia del Texas gli consegnò un diploma ufficiale che lo dichiarava “il primo Massone sulla Luna” e rivendicava la giurisdizione territoriale massonica sulla Luna.

Questa affiliazione massonica non era esclusiva di Aldrin: un numero sproporzionato di primi astronauti della NASA, in particolare quelli coinvolti nei programmi Mercury, Gemini e Apollo, erano Massoni di alto rango. John Glenn, Gordon Cooper, James Irwin, Thomas Stafford e molti altri erano tutti Massoni confermati, spesso provenienti da logge importanti.

Molti astronauti sono stati fotografati mentre facevano distintivi segni massonici con le mani e diversi altri hanno celebrato rituali massonici durante le missioni spaziali. L'astronauta e Massone di 33° grado, Leroy Gordon Cooper, portò persino una bandiera massonica nello spazio durante la missione Gemini 5, percorrendo una distanza stimata di 3.300.000 miglia – il numero 33 appare ripetutamente nella numerologia della NASA.

Perché così tanti astronauti che presumibilmente sono stati “nello spazio” erano massoni? Perché hanno piantato una bandiera massonica sulla Luna? E perché Buzz Aldrin ha un diploma massonico che lo dichiara “il primo massone sulla Luna”? Queste non sono solo strane coincidenze: suggeriscono un modello che collega l'esplorazione spaziale a questa società segreta.

Se l'allunaggio è stato un risultato puramente scientifico per tutta l'umanità, come ha affermato la NASA, perché è stato commemorato con rituali e simboli massonici invece che con onorificenze puramente scientifiche, nazionali, o umanitarie? L'importanza del simbolismo massonico suggerisce che la missione sulla Luna aveva un significato diverso per gli iniziati rispetto al grande pubblico. Questo solleva una domanda scomoda: il programma Apollo serviva contemporaneamente a due narrazioni diverse: una scientifica rivolta al pubblico e una esoterica compresa solo da chi apparteneva a certi ambienti?

Buzz ha rilasciato diverse dichiarazioni sconcertanti sullo sbarco sulla Luna che sollevano seri interrogativi. In un'intervista con una bambina che gli chiedeva perché non fossimo tornati sulla Luna, ha risposto: “Non ci siamo andati [...]. È successo e non è successo”.

In un'altra intervista, quando gli è stato chiesto del momento più spaventoso del suo viaggio sulla Luna, Buzz ha stranamente risposto: “Non è successo. Avrebbe potuto essere spaventoso”. Questo schema di strane risposte sulla missione lunare appare costantemente in tutte le sue apparizioni pubbliche.

Forse l'ammissione più sorprendente proviene da un ingegnere della NASA che ha dichiarato in un'intervista: “Avevamo la tecnologia per andare sulla Luna, ma l'abbiamo distrutta, ed è un processo complesso ricostruirla”.

Quando mai l'umanità ha “dimenticato” una tecnologia di questa portata? Sappiamo ancora come costruire acquedotti romani, cattedrali gotiche e macchine a vapore. Persino tecnologie antiche come il fuoco greco, o l'acciaio di Damasco, sebbene difficili da replicare perfettamente, hanno lasciato tracce sufficienti per comprenderne i principi di base. Immaginate se gli ingegneri di oggi affermassero di aver “perso” la tecnologia per costruire grattacieli, o aerei di linea, e di dover ricominciare da zero. L'idea che la NASA abbia in qualche modo perso i mezzi per ricreare il suo più grande trionfo è più improbabile che mettere in discussione aspetti dell'allunaggio stesso. Nessun'altra civiltà ha mai raggiunto un apice tecnologico solo per poi perdere completamente quella conoscenza, tranne, a quanto pare, in questa occasione.

Quando è apparso nel programma di Conan O'Brien, Buzz ha fatto un altro commento interessante sulle persone che guardavano “ l'animazione” dell'allunaggio piuttosto che il filmato vero e proprio. Per usare le sue parole: “Avete guardato l'animazione [...] avete associato ciò che avete visto a [...]”.

Quando ho condiviso la clip non modificata sui social media l'anno scorso, è stata rapidamente segnalata e rimossa come “disinformazione”, nonostante non contenesse alcun mio commento, solo le parole inalterate di Buzz. A quanto pare far sentire alla gente ciò che un astronauta ha effettivamente detto senza un'interpretazione ufficiale in sovraimpressione costituisce “disinformazione”. Pensate alle implicazioni: le dichiarazioni di un astronauta sull'allunaggio sono ora considerate troppo pericolose per essere lette dal pubblico. Se non c'è nulla da nascondere, perché è necessario un controllo così aggressivo? Questo non è fact-checking, è controllo del pensiero.

Quando un giornalista gli chiese di giurare sulla Bibbia di aver camminato sulla Luna, Buzz reagì in modo decisamente difensivo. In un'altra occasione, quando un altro giornalista insistette con domande simili, Buzz gli diede un pugno in faccia: una reazione estrema per qualcuno che si supponeva sicuro dei suoi successi storici.

Neil Armstrong, il primo uomo sulla Luna, mostrò un disagio simile quando gli venne posta la stessa domanda. In una rara intervista, quando gli fu chiesto della sopraccitata esperienza, Armstrong apparve visibilmente a disagio, evitando il contatto visivo e dando risposte vaghe e incerte, stranamente disconnesse da quello che avrebbe dovuto essere il coronamento della sua vita. Il suo linguaggio del corpo durante le apparizioni pubbliche dopo l'allunaggio contrastava nettamente con il pilota sicuro e composto che era noto per essere prima della missione Apollo.

La dimensione cinematografica

Il rapporto tra la NASA e Hollywood merita un'analisi approfondita. Fin dalla sua nascita la NASA ha collaborato a stretto contatto con l'industria dell'intrattenimento, radicandosi nell'immaginario collettivo attraverso film, televisione e parchi a tema. Questo va ben oltre le tipiche relazioni pubbliche: rappresenta un'integrazione sistematica dei concetti spaziali nei media di intrattenimento. Gli astronauti dell'Apollo 11 hanno una stella sulla Hollywood Walk of Fame, un onore insolito per gli esploratori scientifici piuttosto che per gli artisti. Questo ci spinge a porre una domanda chiave: la NASA ha plasmato le nostre convinzioni sullo spazio attraverso la narrazione e le immagini tanto quanto attraverso la scienza? Questo spiegherebbe i continui e stretti rapporti della NASA con i registi e perché l'intrattenimento a tema spaziale rafforza costantemente narrazioni specifiche sulle nostre capacità e limitazioni cosmiche.

Una delle prove più strane proviene dalla conferenza stampa post-allunaggio. Al loro ritorno sulla Terra gli astronauti dell'Apollo 11 – Armstrong, Aldrin e Collins – parteciparono a quella che avrebbe dovuto essere una celebrazione trionfale del più grande successo esplorativo dell'umanità. Eppure il loro comportamento racconta una storia diversa. Gli astronauti appaiono stranamente cupi, quasi abbattuti, senza mostrare la naturale euforia che ci si aspetterebbe da uomini che hanno appena compiuto l'impossibile. Siedono rigidi, rispondendo alle domande con parole esitanti e attentamente misurate, spesso evitando il contatto visivo.

Questo comportamento diventa ancora più sorprendente se confrontato con quello di altri esploratori storici. Si pensi a Sir Edmund Hillary e Tenzing Norgay dopo la loro storica scalata dell'Everest. Nonostante la stanchezza fisica, i loro volti irradiano autentico orgoglio e gioia. Gli astronauti dell'Apollo, al contrario, si comportano come se fossero a un funerale piuttosto che a una celebrazione, sollevando interrogativi su quale peso psicologico potessero portare.

Alcuni ipotizzano che Stanley Kubrick abbia diretto le riprese dell'allunaggio. Il suo film, Shining, contiene numerosi e presunti riferimenti al programma Apollo, tra cui il ragazzino che indossa un maglione dell'Apollo 11, motivi dei tappeti che richiamano la disposizione della rampa di lancio dell'Apollo e le gemelle che rappresentano il programma spaziale Gemini.

Questa teoria sul coinvolgimento di Kubrick non è solo una speculazione su internet. In quella che pare proprio la testimonianza di un informatore, una fonte interna spiega con notevole nonchalance: “Stanley e gli altri hanno creato un filmato di backup dello sbarco sulla Luna, nel caso in cui avessimo fallito; così avremmo potuto dimostrare di esserci arrivati e di esserci riusciti”. La fonte prosegue riconoscendo che “molte delle immagini del nostro atterraggio sono state realizzate in studio” e che “abbiamo molte immagini false”. Forse la cosa più significativa è il riferimento al documentario Room 237, il quale analizza il film di Kubrick, Shining, come la sua confessione in codice sulle riprese dell'allunaggio, osservando che “le prove sono pressoché innegabili sul coinvolgimento di Kubrick”.

Il rapporto tra Kubrick e le immagini spaziali è più profondo di una semplice speculazione. Il suo capolavoro del 1968, 2001: Odissea nello spazio, ampiamente considerato la rappresentazione più realistica dei viaggi spaziali dell'epoca, è stato sviluppato con un ampio contributo di esperti aerospaziali e affiliati alla NASA. Solo un anno dopo, nel 1969, il mondo assistette all'allunaggio dell'Apollo 11, con immagini che alcuni osservatori hanno ritenuto sorprendentemente simili alle tecniche cinematografiche di Kubrick. Questa tempistica è particolarmente interessante se si considera che l'ultimo film di Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut – un'opera che smaschera le società segrete d'élite – uscì il 16 luglio 1999, esattamente 30 anni dopo il lancio dell'Apollo 11. Kubrick morì improvvisamente prima dell'uscita del film, il che ha alimentato speculazioni sul fatto che la sua morte potesse essere collegata all'eccessiva rivelazione di interessi potenti attraverso la sua narrazione simbolica.

In particolare, il 16 luglio 1999 fu anche il giorno della morte di JFK Jr. – un'altra strana coincidenza che collega l'esplorazione spaziale, l'eredità presidenziale e le morti inaspettate.

Altri film hanno fatto esplicito riferimento alle cospirazioni sugli allunaggi, come il film di James Bond, Una cascata di diamanti, dove c'è una scena in cui Bond corre attraverso quello che sembra essere un set di allunaggio.

Più di recente Hollywood ha prodotto film sulla creazione di falsi allunaggi, suggerendo una forma di “soft disclosure” su ciò che è realmente accaduto. Il film del 2023, Fly Me to the Moon, con Scarlett Johansson e Channing Tatum, mostra la NASA che assume un direttore di marketing per inscenare un finto allunaggio come piano di riserva. La cosa notevole è che questa premessa fittizia si allinea perfettamente con le reali testimonianze di informatori provenienti dalla NASA, i quali hanno affermato di aver ricevuto istruzioni di creare filmati di riserva “nel caso in cui avessimo fallito” o “non fossimo mai andati sulla Luna”. Ancora una volta, Hollywood confeziona la verità come intrattenimento, permettendo al pubblico di digerire vere cospirazioni sotto la confortante etichetta di finzione.

Persino il personaggio per bambini, Buzz Lightyear, nel film Toy Story, sembra contenere un messaggio segreto. La battuta ricorrente secondo cui Buzz non è un vero space ranger, non sa volare e non è mai stato nello spazio assume un nuovo significato se vista attraverso la lente della cosiddetta “rivelazione del metodo”, un concetto che suggerisce che le verità nascoste vengono rivelate attraverso l'intrattenimento. L'immagine di Buzz Aldrin in persona con in mano un giocattolo di Buzz Lightyear aggiunge un ulteriore livello a questa rivelazione simbolica.

Anche le domande tecniche persistono: chi ha filmato i primi passi degli astronauti sulla Luna dall'esterno del modulo lunare? Come ha fatto una foglia d'acero ad apparire così vicina alla Luna?

Come ha potuto Richard Nixon chiamare gli astronauti da un telefono fisso nel 1969, quando ancora oggi perdiamo il segnale cellulare nelle aree remote?

Curiosità linguistiche

A volte il linguaggio offre spunti inaspettati. Cercando etimologia e significati in diverse lingue, ho scoperto che la parola ebraica “nasa” (נָשָׂא - Strong's Hebrew 5377) significa “ingannare” o “sviare”. La definizione completa tratta dal Lessico Ebraico di Strong recita: “Una radice primitiva; sviare, cioè ingannare (mentalmente), o sedurre (moralmente): ingannare, sedurre”. Si potrebbe liquidare questa affermazione come una coincidenza, ma il parallelismo linguistico è sorprendente.

Allo stesso modo il mio amico che cerca schemi nelle parole ha sottolineato che “NASA” contiene le stesse lettere di “Satan” meno la “T”, il che è reso ancora più intrigante dal fatto che la NASA abbia coniato il termine “T-meno” per i conti alla rovescia. Come prevedibile, i fact-checker si sono affrettati a smentire questa osservazione, insistendo sul fatto che non ci sia alcuna relazione – una risposta che, date le mie precedenti osservazioni sull'affidabilità dei fact-checker, non fa che stuzzicare ulteriormente la mia curiosità. Sebbene non affermi che questo gioco di parole dimostri qualcosa di definitivo, date le associazioni occulte già stabilite con i personaggi fondatori della NASA, questi parallelismi linguistici assumono un significato potenziale che va oltre la mera coincidenza.

Al di là di parole e simboli, dovremmo esaminare le prove visive effettive che la NASA ha presentato nel corso della sua storia. Si consideri, ad esempio, il filmato presumibilmente proveniente dallo “spazio” trasmesso al telegiornale della sera nel 1966. Per gli standard odierni, è comicamente poco convincente – sembra più qualcosa che uno studente di cinema potrebbe creare per un film di serie B con un budget di $50. Se la NASA presentasse lo stesso filmato oggi, la maggior parte degli spettatori lo deriderebbe ed etichetterebbe come un falso palese. La qualità primitiva e l'aspetto chiaramente inscenato sollevano una domanda che fa riflettere: se oggi possiamo facilmente riconoscere che tutto ciò è discutibile, cosa suggerisce questo riguardo al filmato che accettavamo senza riserve allora? E cosa potremmo accettare acriticamente oggi che le generazioni future troveranno altrettanto assurdo?

Sebbene le prove visive sollevino interrogativi su ciò che stessimo vedendo, la tempistica di quelle conquiste spaziali suggerisce che dovremmo anche considerare il motivo per cui le stavamo vedendo e a quali obiettivi più ampi potevano servire.

La correlazione con il denaro fiat

La tempistica dell'allunaggio assume un nuovo significato se vista attraverso la lente della politica monetaria. Solo due anni dopo la missione Apollo 11, nel 1971, gli Stati Uniti abbandonarono completamente il gold standard, inaugurando l'era della moneta fiat. Come sottolinea ICE-9 (a cui Lama attribuisce il merito del suo lavoro), questa transizione richiese un'operazione psicologica senza precedenti: “Se l'America può fare l'impossibile, allora tutti possono accettare denaro garantito dalla ‘piena fiducia e credito’ nell'America”.

Esaminando più da vicino questa cronologia, emerge una sequenza strategica di eventi:

• 1958: la NASA viene fondata, lo stesso anno in cui la CGI appare per la prima volta nei film;

• 1961: il Presidente Kennedy annuncia l'obiettivo di raggiungere la Luna;

• 1968: l'Apollo 8 testa con successo il razzo Saturn V (che Lama nota essere essenzialmente un sistema di lancio di un carico nucleare intercontinentale);

• Luglio 1969: l'allunaggio dell'Apollo 11 crea un impatto psicologico mondiale;

• Agosto 1971: il Presidente Nixon pone fine alla convertibilità del dollaro in oro.

Questa sequenza suggerisce una transizione attentamente orchestrata. Come osserva ICE-9 in una ricerca a cui Lama fa riferimento: “Mai nella storia umana il denaro è stato privo di valore intrinseco o non convertibile in denaro di valore intrinseco: un'impresa che fino a quel momento era considerata impossibile nella storia umana”. L'allunaggio ha fornito quella base psicologica, rendendo la popolazione ricettiva a un sistema economico che altrimenti sarebbe sembrato inverosimile.

Le conseguenze di questo cambiamento sarebbero state profonde: globalizzazione, finanziarizzazione dell'economia, inflazione e quello che Lama descrive come “impoverimento delle masse e guerre senza fine”. La possibilità di stampare moneta senza il vincolo della copertura in oro permise una spesa pubblica senza precedenti, in particolare per le operazioni militari, dando origine al moderno panorama geopolitico.

L'impatto psicologico dell'allunaggio potrebbe essere stato deliberatamente calcolato per affermare la supremazia tecnologica americana e, per estensione, giustificare la fiducia nel suo sistema finanziario, proprio mentre quel sistema subiva una trasformazione radicale che sarebbe stata altrimenti difficile da accettare per la popolazione.

Meryl Nass pone domande pertinenti: come hanno potuto i funzionari della NASA affermare di aver perso i piani per raggiungere la Luna? Perché gli astronauti erano così visibilmente a disagio durante la conferenza stampa? Perché non si vedevano stelle nelle fotografie? Queste domande evidenziano potenziali incongruenze che meritano una seria considerazione.

Conclusione

Come scrisse Shakespeare: “Tutto il mondo è un palcoscenico, e tutti gli uomini e le donne sono solo attori”. Se si considerino queste osservazioni come prove convincenti, o semplici coincidenze, dipende in gran parte dalla propria disponibilità a mettere in discussione le narrazioni consolidate.

I Beatles (con il direttore d'orchestra immaginario Billy Shears della Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, che ammicca scherzosamente al Bardo stesso) forse lo hanno espresso meglio: “Vivere è facile ad occhi chiusi, fraintendendo tutto ciò che si vede”. Nell'esplorare queste domande, non pretendo di fornire risposte definitive, ma invito gli altri a esaminare le prove disponibili e a trarre le proprie conclusioni.

Per coloro che sono inclini a respingere queste osservazioni in toto, chiedo solo questo: cosa potremmo imparare se fossimo aperti a mettere in discussione anche le nostre convinzioni più care su scienza, spazio e conquiste umane? Come suggerisce la ricerca di Lama, le implicazioni si estendono ben oltre l'esplorazione spaziale, influenzando il nostro sistema economico, le strutture di potere globali e la realtà collettiva.

Se queste affermazioni vi sembrano eccessive, vi incoraggio a esaminare personalmente le immagini e i filmati. Ho raccolto le prove in un unico luogo non per convincervi di una particolare prospettiva, ma per invitarvi a mettere in discussione quella che vi è stata fornita. La vera domanda non è se la NASA occasionalmente inganni la popolazione, ma se la nostra intera concezione dell'esplorazione spaziale sia stata costruita su un fondamento di deliberato inganno.

Siamo stati addestrati a classificare determinati argomenti come “scienza consolidata” e “storia consolidata”, escludendoli dall'ambito della legittima indagine. Ma se la NASA, una delle nostre istituzioni più affidabili, è stata fondata da nazisti, occultisti e Walt Disney, ha falsificato il suo massimo successo e continua a fabbricare ad hoc immagini dello spazio, allora quali altre questioni “risolte” meritano un nuovo esame?

Questo schema di costruzione della realtà, in cui le narrazioni sostituiscono le verità osservabili, si estende ben oltre la NASA. Come ho documentato nella serie, Ingegnerizzare la realtà, gli stessi meccanismi che possono inventare un allunaggio possono manipolare le nostre percezioni in scienza, medicina, economia e storia.

Forse è ora di riaprire libri che pensavamo chiusi, riesaminare verità che credevamo consolidate e riconsiderare possibilità che ci erano state dette impossibili. Dopotutto, come ci ricorda la lapide di Werner von Braun, “i cieli” potrebbero essere più di quanto ci è stato fatto credere.

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

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

The colorful fabric of the United States is beginning to tear apart as Democrats and Republicans attempt to address the immigration crisis in their own separate and very different ways.

Los Angeles has declared an emergency in response to federal immigration raids, a move traditionally reserved for natural disasters or other circumstances beyond the control of local authorities.

The legislation stated that the tactics used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other entities have “created a climate of fear, leading to widespread disruption in daily life and adverse impacts to our regional economy.”

Meanwhile, the White House is of the opinion that the raids are lawful and designed to remove immigrants in the United States illegally from the country after the Biden administration opened America’s southern border with Mexico.

Due to its proximity to the Mexican border, Los Angeles has been at the epicenter of Trump’s efforts to deport illegals. In June, he sent the National Guard and Marines into the metropolis to guard federal buildings and protect ICE agents as they carried out raids. These actions prompted widespread protests across the city and nation at large.

“We will not stand by while fear and chaos spread throughout our neighborhoods,” said Republican LA lawmaker Lindsey Horvath. “When our neighbors are targeted, our country feels it in the workplaces, in our schools and in our homes.”

“Let’s give the ICE agents… the support they deserve.”

County officials revealed that the immigration raids would contribute to the loss of $275 million in gross domestic product in the state of California, pointing to a study by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute in partnership with the University of California, Merced, MSN reported.

Meanwhile, residents in the town of El Paso, Texas are in uproar after reports emerged that an agent with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) participated in a “use of force incident” where a family dog was unjustifiably shot and killed.

KFOX14 spoke with a distressed family who claimed to have been the victims of this incident said agents forcibly entered the home where they shot and killed their rottweiler.

On the other side of the country, in Chicago, residents have begun to organize volunteer watch groups to monitor their neighborhoods for federal immigration agents. Some blow whistles or honk their car horns when agents are spotted in the vicinity.

This week, ICE agents, together with military units, deployed tear gas on Chicago residents, the largest clash in the nation’s third-largest city as the White House has carried out its controversial immigration crackdown.

“This incident is not isolated and reflects a growing and dangerous trend of illegal aliens violently resisting arrest and agitators and criminals ramming cars into our law enforcement officer, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement. The statement went on to say that federal agents resorted to “crowd control measures” after a crowd had gathered and turned violent.

It was just one of multiple hostile episodes to erupt on the streets of Chicago in recent days. ICE agent and the BCP have roamed the vast metropolis and suburbs conducting arrests, often stopping people on the streets and asking for identification. Many times, people are seen running away when approached by marked vehicles.

“The actions being taken by these Trump agents are a clear violation of our democratic rights,” said one female passerby who gave the name Maria. “My family and I traveled hundreds of miles to reach the U.S. border only to be treated as criminals.”
When asked if she was in the United States legally, the woman said the situation in her native country of Ecuador had become too dangerous so her only option was to flee as soon as possible.

“I hope to acquire amnesty,” she said.

Trump mobilized thousands of National Guard troops to L.A. amid anti-Immigrations and Customs Enforcements (ICE) protests in Los Angeles without the request or consent of city and state officials. California Governor Gavin Newsom has remained harshly critical of the American president, reprimanding Trump for inciting chaos, using valuable resources, and militarizing urban areas.

This month, National Guard troops and federal officers on horseback descended on MacArthur Park, where children at a summer day camp were reportedly present.

“They’re sitting there on horses with American flags, running through soccer fields, scaring kids in the middle of the day at a summer camp. For what? Just toughness,” Newsom said on The Shawn Ryan Show. “It’s a weakness masquerading as strength.”

Trump criticized Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for their apparent mishandling of violent riots in response to the ICE raids that rounded up over 100 illegal immigrants — including gang bangers and drug traffickers — this past week.

“We have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual (just look at how they handled the fires, and now their VERY SLOW PERMITTING disaster. Federal permitting is complete!), unable to handle the task,” Trump wrote on TruthSocial Sunday morning.

One thing is becoming increasingly certain: the colorful fabric of the United States is beginning to tear apart as Democrats and Republicans attempt to address the immigration crisis in their own separate and very different ways. Whether this great struggle destroys the United States from within remains to be seen.

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

The post America Is at War Against Itself Over Illegal Immigration appeared first on LewRockwell.