Aggregatore di feed

RPI’s Daniel McAdams and Chris Rossini separate the news from the propaganda in this discussion of the REAL news of the week.

The post Trump’s 2nd Admin, Cali Aid, Tik-Tok Ban, Journalist Assault – Friday Media Roundup appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

President elect Trump wants to create a new agency called the External Revenue Service to collect his new proposed tariffs. A new government agency! Does DOGE (Elton Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy) know about this? Currently the US Customs and Border Protection agency collects tariffs. Will Trump eliminate the IRS? The main source of revenues for the federal government was tariffs until the income tax (taxes on wages and earnings). Will Trump cut the income tax? Or is this all about more taxes and more government?

See here.

The post Trump To Create External Revenue Service appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/perche-il-progetto-america-first)

Se la politica estera incentrata sul cosiddetto “America First” di Donald Trump ha un significato, allora l'attuale bilancio per la sicurezza nazionale da $1.000 miliardi è il doppio di quanto effettivamente richieda uno scudo di difesa nazionale. Infatti non è esagerato dire che, nella ricerca incessante del proprio egoistico ingrandimento, il complesso militare/industriale ha gonfiato enormemente lo Stato militare americano quando ciò di cui c'è realmente bisogno nel mondo è qualcosa di più “piccolo”.

La base di questa sorprendente disconnessione risale alla storia della guerra fredda e alle sue conseguenze. La linea di politica sulla sicurezza collettiva del dopoguerra, le estese alleanze attraverso la NATO e i suoi cloni regionali, le capacità di proiezione di potenza militare a livello globale e una rete di 750 basi straniere sono state un errore storico epico. Hanno promosso l'opposto del cosiddetto “America First” e hanno definitivamente infranto la fiducia nella saggia ammonizione di Thomas Jefferson, il quale esortava a “[...] pace, commercio e onesta amicizia con tutte le nazioni, senza stringere alleanze con nessuna”.

Alla fine Washington è diventata la capitale mondiale della guerra e la sede di un regime politico improntato invece all'“Empire First”, abbracciato sia dai funzionari eletti che dalla numerosa nomenklatura del Deep State. Infatti il regime politico “Empire First” è diventato così profondamente radicato che persino 33 anni dopo che l'Unione Sovietica è scomparsa nel cestino della storia, si rifiuta di andare tranquillamente in pensione.

La ragione, ovviamente, è che l'elefantico stato militare americano non è mai stato fondato su una minaccia esterna oggettiva. Anche durante l'epoca sovietica, la circonferenza esagerata della macchina militare americana si basava su minacce provenienti da una burocrazia militare che cercava di assicurarsi i propri finanziamenti futuri e di espandere incessantemente le proprie missioni e competenze.

Che lo stato militare da mille miliardi di dollari di Washington sia radicato nell'autoperpetuazione interna piuttosto che in minacce esterne è evidente dal cane post-guerra fredda che non abbaiava. Vale a dire, gli archivi sovietici sono ora aperti, ma non c'è assolutamente nulla che convalidi l'assioma della guerra fredda secondo cui l'Unione Sovietica, insieme alla minaccia affiliata della Cina maoista, fosse determinata a dominare il mondo, a partire dall'Europa occidentale, dal Giappone e poi alle terre minori tutt'intorno.

Infatti gli archivi sovietici chiariscono che Mosca non ha mai avuto un piano, o anche solo una vaga aspirazione, a fortificare e scatenare offensivamente l'Armata Rossa verso Bonn, Parigi e Londra. La cosa più vicina a un piano per la mobilitazione militare verso ovest era il progetto “Sette giorni sul Reno”, ma quello era un piano di azione difensiva esplicitamente formulato per rispondere a un teorico primo attacco della NATO.

Secondo quel piano se la NATO avesse lanciato un attacco nucleare sulla Polonia, il Patto di Varsavia avrebbe risposto con un massiccio contrattacco mirato a sopraffare rapidamente le forze NATO nell'Europa occidentale. L'obiettivo era raggiungere il fiume Reno entro sette giorni, dividendo di fatto l'Europa e impedendo ai rinforzi NATO di raggiungere le linee del fronte nell'Europa orientale e potenzialmente imbarcarsi in una quarta invasione post-1800 della Madre Russia.

Infatti ciò che gli archivi sovietici mostrano in realtà non sono le deliberazioni di un minaccioso colosso, ma la cronaca di una lotta cronica per tenere insieme, con filo spinato e gomma da masticare, uno stato comunista ingombrante che non funzionava e non poteva durare.

Tuttavia fu la falsa paura di una marea rossa che scendeva sull'Europa, e in ultima analisi anche sull'emisfero occidentale, che consentì all'“Empire First” di superare la naturale e corretta tendenza dei politici di Washington a ritirarsi dietro i fossati oceanici sicuri dell'America dopo la seconda guerra mondiale. Infatti per un breve intermezzo si verificò una radicale smobilitazione militare, quando il picco di $83 miliardi del budget della difesa nel 1945 crollò a soli $9 miliardi nel 1948.

Ma quel tentativo sensato per la seconda volta nel XX secolo di smobilitazione postbellica e ritorno alla normalità in tempo di pace fu annullato nel 1949, quando l'Unione Sovietica ottenne la bomba atomica e Mao vinse la guerra civile in Cina. Da allora in poi la diffusione di basi, truppe, alleanze, interventi e guerre eterne procedette inesorabilmente sulla base del fatto che gli stati comunisti con sede a Mosca e Pechino rappresentavano una minaccia esistenziale per la sopravvivenza dell'America.

Non lo erano, nemmeno lontanamente. Come sostenne all'epoca il grande senatore Robert Taft, la modesta minaccia alla sicurezza nazionale rappresentata dal corpo devastato dalla guerra dell'Unione Sovietica e dal disastro collettivista imposto alla Cina da Mao avrebbe potuto essere facilmente gestita con:

• Una schiacciante capacità di ritorsione nucleare strategica che avrebbe scoraggiato qualsiasi possibilità di attacco o ricatto nucleare;

• Una difesa convenzionale delle coste continentali e dello spazio aereo che sarebbe stata estremamente facile da realizzare, dato che l'Unione Sovietica non aveva una Marina degna di nota e la Cina era sprofondata nell'anarchia industriale e agricola a causa dei catastrofici esperimenti di collettivizzazione di Mao.

Questo quadro taftiano non è mai cambiato fino alla fine della Guerra Fredda nel 1991, anche se la tecnologia della guerra nucleare e convenzionale si è evoluta rapidamente. Con una modesta spesa militare Washington avrebbe potuto mantenere il suo deterrente nucleare pienamente efficace e mantenere una formidabile difesa della patria, senza nessuno degli apparati dell'Impero e senza stivali americani su suolo straniero. E dopo il 1991, il requisito sarebbe stato ancora meno esigente.

Infatti la necessità di una vera politica “America First”, ovvero il ritorno allo status quo pre-1948 e a una corretta postura militare da “Fortress America”, si è notevolmente rafforzata negli ultimi tre decenni. Questo perché nel mondo odierno l'unica minaccia militare teorica alla sicurezza nazionale americana è la possibilità di un ricatto nucleare. Vale a dire, la minaccia di un avversario con una capacità di First Strike così schiacciante, letale ed efficace da poter gridare “scacco matto” e chiedere la resa di Washington.

Fortunatamente non c'è nazione sulla Terra che abbia qualcosa di simile e quindi evitare un annientamento per rappresaglia del proprio Paese se tentasse di colpire per primo. Dopo tutto, gli Stati Uniti hanno 3.700 testate nucleari attive, di cui circa 1.800 sono operative in qualsiasi momento. A loro volta queste sono sparse sotto i sette mari, in silos rinforzati e protette tra una flotta di bombardieri costituita da 66 B-2 e B-52, tutti fuori dal rilevamento o dalla portata di qualsiasi altra potenza nucleare.

Ad esempio, i sottomarini nucleari di classe Ohio hanno ciascuno 20 tubi missilistici, con ogni missile che trasporta una media di quattro o cinque testate: si tratta di 90 testate indipendenti per imbarcazione. In qualsiasi momento 12 dei 14 sottomarini nucleari di classe Ohio possono essere schierati e sparsi negli oceani del pianeta entro un raggio di tiro di 4.000 miglia.

Quindi, al momento di un eventuale attacco, si tratta di 1.080 testate nucleari in acque profonde che navigano lungo i fondali oceanici e che dovrebbero essere identificate, localizzate e neutralizzate prima ancora che un potenziale aggressore nucleare, o ricattatore, possa iniziare il suo spettacolo. Infatti la sola forza nucleare basata in mare è un potente garante della sicurezza nazionale americana. Nemmeno i tanto decantati missili ipersonici della Russia sono riusciti a trovare, o a eliminare di sorpresa, il deterrente statunitense in mare.

E poi ci sono le circa 300 testate nucleari a bordo dei 66 bombardieri strategici, che non sono nemmeno seduti su un singolo aeroporto (in stile Pearl Harbor) in attesa di essere annientati, ma girano costantemente in aria e sono in movimento. Allo stesso modo i 400 missili Minutemen III sono distribuiti in silos estremamente rinforzati nel sottosuolo, in una vasta fascia del Midwest superiore. Ogni missile trasporta attualmente una testata nucleare in conformità con il Trattato Start, ma potrebbe essere MIRV in risposta a una grave minaccia, aggravando e complicando ulteriormente il calcolo del First Strike di un avversario.

Inutile dire che non c'è modo, forma o aspetto in cui il deterrente nucleare americano possa essere neutralizzato da un ricattatore. E questo ci porta al cuore della nostra tesi: secondo le più recenti stime del CBO, la triade nucleare americana costerà solo circa $75 miliardi all'anno per il suo mantenimento nel prossimo decennio, comprese le quote per gli aggiornamenti periodici delle armi.

Proprio così. La componente fondamentale della sicurezza militare americana richiede solo il 7% dell'enorme budget militare odierno, come dettagliato nella tabella qui sotto. Nel 2023 la triade nucleare americana stessa è costata solo $28 miliardi, più altri $24 miliardi per le scorte correlate e l'infrastruttura di comando, controllo e allerta.

Inoltre si stima che la componente chiave di questo deterrente nucleare, la forza missilistica balistica basata sul mare, costerà solo $188 miliardi nell'intero prossimo decennio. Ciò rappresenta solo l'1,9% della base calcolata dal CBO ($10.000 miliardi) per suddetto periodo.

Dopo aver accantonato i $75 miliardi per la triade nucleare strategica, quanto dei restanti $900 miliardi sarebbero effettivamente necessari per una difesa convenzionale delle coste continentali e dello spazio aereo?

Nell'attuale ordine mondiale non ci sono potenze industriali tecnologicamente avanzate che abbiano la capacità o l'intenzione di attaccare la patria americana con forze convenzionali. Per farlo avrebbero bisogno di un'enorme armata militare che includa una Marina e un'Aeronautica molte volte più grandi delle attuali forze armate statunitensi, enormi risorse di trasporto aereo e marittimo, e gigantesche linee di rifornimento e capacità logistiche che nessun'altra nazione sul pianeta s'è mai lontanamente sognata.

Avrebbe anche bisogno di un PIL iniziale di $50.000 miliardi per sostenere quella che sarebbe la più colossale mobilitazione di armamenti e materiali nella storia dell'umanità. E questo per non parlare della necessità di essere governati da leader talmente desiderosi di suicidarsi da essere disposti a rischiare la distruzione nucleare dei loro stessi Paesi, alleati e commercio economico per realizzare... cosa?

L'idea stessa che ci sia una minaccia esistenziale post-guerra fredda per la sicurezza americana è semplicemente folle. Per prima cosa, nessuno ha il PIL o il peso militare necessari. Il PIL della Russia è di appena $2.000 miliardi, non i $50.000 miliardi che sarebbero necessari per mettere le forze di invasione sulle coste del New Jersey. E il suo bilancio della difesa è di $75 miliardi, che ammontano a circa quattro settimane del mostro da $900 miliardi di Washington.

Quanto alla Cina, non ha il peso del PIL per pensare di sbarcare sulle coste della California, nonostante l'infinita sottomissione di Wall Street al boom cinese. Il fatto è che la Cina ha accumulato più di $50.000 miliardi di debito in appena due decenni!

Pertanto non è cresciuta organicamente secondo il modello capitalista storico; ha stampato, preso in prestito, speso e costruito come se non ci fosse un domani. Il simulacro di prosperità risultante non durerebbe un anno se il suo mercato dell'export da $3.600 miliardi, la fonte che mantiene in piedi il suo schema Ponzi, dovesse crollare ed è esattamente ciò che accadrebbe se cercasse di invadere l'America.

Di sicuro i leader totalitari della Cina sono immensamente malvagi nei confronti della loro popolazione oppressa, ma non sono stupidi. Restano al potere mantenendo la gente relativamente grassa e felice e non rischierebbero mai di far crollare quello che equivale a un castello di carte economico.

Infatti quando si tratta della minaccia di un'invasione militare convenzionale, i vasti fossati dell'Atlantico e del Pacifico sono le barriere definitive all'assalto militare straniero nel XXI secolo, molto più di quanto abbiano già dimostrato di essere nel XIX secolo. Questo perché l'attuale tecnologia di sorveglianza avanzata e i missili antinave farebbero fare compagnia allo scrigno di Davy Jones a una qualsiasi armata navale nemica non appena uscisse dalle proprie acque territoriali.

Il fatto è che, in un'epoca in cui il cielo è pieno di risorse di sorveglianza ad alta tecnologia, una massiccia armata di forze convenzionali non potrebbe essere segretamente costruita, testata e radunata per un attacco a sorpresa senza essere subito notata da Washington. Non può esserci una ripetizione della forza d'attacco giapponese (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku e Zuikaku) che attraversa il Pacifico verso Pearl Harbor senza essere avvistata con largo anticipo.

Infatti i presunti “nemici” americani in realtà non hanno alcuna capacità offensiva o di invasione. La Russia ha solo una portaerei, una reliquia degli anni '80 e che è in bacino di carenaggio per riparazioni dal 2017; non è equipaggiata né con una falange di navi di scorta, né con una serie di aerei da attacco e da combattimento, e al momento nemmeno con un equipaggio attivo.

Allo stesso modo la Cina ha solo tre portaerei, due delle quali sono vecchie navi arrugginite e ricondizionate, acquistate tra i resti della vecchia Unione Sovietica, e non hanno nemmeno catapulte moderne per lanciare i loro aerei d'attacco.

In breve, né la Cina né la Russia spingeranno i loro minuscoli gruppi di battaglia di 3 e 1 portaerei verso le coste della California o del New Jersey. Una forza d'invasione che avesse una minima possibilità di sopravvivere a una difesa statunitense fatta di missili da crociera, droni, caccia a reazione, sottomarini d'attacco e guerra elettronica dovrebbe essere 100 volte più grande.

Ancora una volta, non esiste alcun PIL al mondo ($2.000 miliardi per la Russia o $18.000 miliardi per la Cina) che si avvicini anche lontanamente ai $50.000 miliardi, o persino ai $100.000 miliardi, necessari per sostenere una forza d'invasione senza far crollare l'economia nazionale.

Eppure Washington mantiene ancora una capacità di guerra convenzionale che abbraccia tutto il mondo, di cui non ha mai avuto realmente bisogno nemmeno durante la guerra fredda. Ma ora, a un terzo di secolo dal crollo dell'impero sovietico e dalla scelta della Cina di seguire la strada di una profonda integrazione economica globale, si riduce a una forza muscolare del tutto non necessaria.

Ci riferiamo, ovviamente, ai 173.000 soldati americani in 159 Paesi e alla rete di 750 basi in 80 Paesi. Washington equipaggia, addestra e schiera una forza armata di 2,86 milioni non per scopi di difesa della patria, ma per missioni di offesa, invasione e occupazione all'estero in tutto il pianeta.

Come illustrato nel grafico qui sotto, questa obsoleta postura militare dell'“Empire First” include, tra le altre cose:

• 119 basi e circa 34.000 soldati in Germania;

• 44 basi e 12.250 soldati in Italia;

• 25 basi e 9.275 soldati nel Regno Unito;

• 120 basi e 53.700 soldati in Giappone;

• 73 basi e 26.400 soldati in Corea del Sud.

Tutta questa inutile forza militare si erge come costoso monumento alla vecchia teoria della sicurezza collettiva, la quale portò alla fondazione della NATO nel 1949 e dei suoi cloni regionali successivi. E sì, c'erano considerevoli partiti comunisti locali in Italia e Francia alla fine degli anni '40, e il partito laburista in Inghilterra aveva una sfumatura rossastra. Ma, ancora una volta, gli archivi ora aperti della vecchia Unione Sovietica dimostrano in modo conclusivo che Stalin non aveva né i mezzi né l'intenzione di invadere l'Europa occidentale.

La capacità militare che l'Unione Sovietica resuscitò dopo il massacro con gli eserciti di Hitler era di natura fortemente difensiva, quindi la minaccia comunista in Europa avrebbe potuto essere sgominata da queste nazioni alle urne, non sul campo di battaglia. Non avevano bisogno della NATO per fermare un'imminente invasione sovietica.

Naturalmente ciò che la NATO ha realizzato è stato ridurre drasticamente il peso della spesa per la difesa nell'Europa occidentale, anche se la maggior parte di queste nazioni ha optato per uno stato sociale espansivo e costoso. Vale a dire, lo stato militare di cui l'America non aveva bisogno dal 1950 al 1990 ha alla fine reso possibili gli stati sociali che l'Europa non poteva permettersi, né allora né adesso.

Inutile dire che, una volta fondato l'Impero di basi, alleanze, sicurezza collettiva e incessante ingerenza della CIA negli affari interni dei Paesi stranieri, con sede a Washington, esso vi è rimasto attaccato come la colla, anche se i fatti della vita internazionale hanno dimostrato più e più volte che l'Impero non era necessario.

Vale a dire che le presunte “lezioni” del periodo tra le due guerre mondiali sono state manipolate. L'ascesa aberrante di Hitler e Stalin non è avvenuta perché la brava gente di Inghilterra, Francia e America ha dormito durante gli anni '20 e '30.

Invece sono sorti dalle ceneri dell'intervento di Woodrow Wilson in una disputa del vecchio mondo che non era affare dell'America. Infatti l'arrivo di due milioni di americani e massicci flussi di armamenti e prestiti da Washington hanno permesso una pace vendicativa dei vincitori a Versailles piuttosto che la fine di una guerra mondiale inutile che avrebbe lasciato tutte le parti esauste, in bancarotta e demoralizzate, e i rispettivi partiti di guerra interna soggetti a un massiccio ripudio alle urne.

L'intervento di Wilson sui campi di battaglia in stallo del fronte occidentale diede vita a Lenin e Stalin, e le sue macchinazioni con i vincitori a Versailles favorirono l'ascesa di Hitler.

Fortunatamente i primi portarono alla fine del secondo a Stalingrado. Ma quella avrebbe dovuto essere la fine della questione nel 1945 e, infatti, il mondo c'era quasi arrivato. Dopo le parate della vittoria, la smobilitazione e la normalizzazione della vita civile procedettero a passo spedito in tutto il mondo.

Ahimè, l'incipiente Partito della Guerra di Washington, composto da appaltatori militari, agenti e burocrati giramondo, cresciuto nel calore della seconda guerra mondiale, non era intenzionato a dare la buonanotte e andarsene. Invece la guerra fredda fu partorita sulle rive del Potomac quando il presidente Truman cadde sotto l'incantesimo dei falchi di guerra come il segretario James Byrnes, Dean Acheson, James Forrestal e i fratelli Dulles, tutti restii a tornare alle loro vite banali di banchieri civili, politici o diplomatici in tempo di pace.

Quindi nel periodo postbellico il comunismo mondiale non era realmente in marcia e le nazioni del mondo non erano implicate nella caduta di tessere del domino o nella gestazione di nuovi Hitler e Stalin. Ma i nuovi sostenitori dell'Impero insistevano che erano esattamente la stessa cosa e che la sicurezza nazionale richiedeva un impero esteso che è ancora con noi oggi.

Quindi non c'è mistero perché si tratti di Guerre Infinite, o perché in un momento in cui lo Zio Sam sta perdendo inchiostro rosso come mai prima, una larga maggioranza bipartisan ritiene opportuno autorizzare $1.100 miliardi all'anno per una forza militare enormemente eccessiva e sprechi in aiuti esteri che non fanno assolutamente nulla per la sicurezza interna dell'America.

Infatti Washington si è trasformata in un fenomeno della storia mondiale, una capitale di guerra planetaria dominata da un complesso panoptico di mercanti d'armi, paladini dell'intervento estero e nomenklatura bellica. Mai prima d'ora si era radunata e concentrata sotto un'unica autorità statale una forza egemonica che possedeva così tante risorse fiscali e mezzi militari.

Non sorprende che la Capitale della Guerra sul Potomac sia orwelliana fino al midollo. La guerra è sempre e ovunque descritta come la promozione della pace. Il suo stivale egemonico globale è abbellito nella forma apparentemente benefica di alleanze e trattati, progettati apparentemente per promuovere un “ordine basato su regole” e sicurezza collettiva a beneficio dell'umanità.

Come abbiamo visto, però, il fondamento intellettuale di questa impresa è falso. Il pianeta non è pieno di potenziali aggressori e costruttori di imperi onnipotenti che devono essere fermati di colpo ai loro confini per timore che divorino la libertà di tutti i loro vicini.

Né il DNA delle nazioni è perennemente infettato da macellai e tiranni incipienti come Hitler e Stalin. Sono stati incidenti irripetibili della storia e completamente distinguibili dalla serie standard di piccole cose quotidiane che in realtà nascono periodicamente. Ma queste ultime disturbano principalmente l'equilibrio dei loro immediati vicini, non la pace del pianeta.

Quindi la sicurezza nazionale americana non dipende da una vasta gamma di alleanze, trattati, basi militari e operazioni di influenza straniera. Nel mondo odierno non ci sono Hitler, reali o latenti, da fermare. L'intero quadro della Pax Americana e la promozione/applicazione di un ordine internazionale “basato su regole” con sede a Washington sono un errore epico.

A questo proposito, i padri fondatori ci hanno visto giusto più di 200 anni fa, durante l'infanzia della Repubblica. Come sosteneva John Quincy Adams: “[L'America] si è astenuta dall'interferire nelle questioni degli altri, anche quando il conflitto è stato per principi a cui si aggrappa [...]. È la benefattrice della libertà e dell'indipendenza di tutti. È la paladina e la vendicatrice solo della sua stessa libertà”.

Inutile dire che il commercio pacifico è invariabilmente molto più vantaggioso per le nazioni grandi e piccole rispetto all'ingerenza, all'interventismo e all'impegno militare. Nel mondo odierno sarebbe il gioco predefinito sulla scacchiera internazionale, fatta eccezione per il Grande Egemone sulle rive del Potomac. Vale a dire, il principale disturbo della pace oggi è invariabilmente promosso dal pacificatore autoproclamato, che, ironicamente, è la nazione meno minacciata dell'intero pianeta.

Il punto di partenza per una postura militare “America First”, quindi, è il drastico ridimensionamento dell'esercito statunitense, composto da quasi un milione di uomini. Quest'ultimo non avrebbe alcuna utilità all'estero perché non ci sarebbe motivo per guerre di invasione e occupazione straniere, mentre le probabilità che battaglioni e divisioni straniere raggiungano l'America sono praticamente inesistenti. Con una guarnigione costiera adeguata di missili, sottomarini d'attacco e caccia a reazione, qualsiasi esercito invasore diventerebbe un'esca per squali molto prima di vedere le coste della California o del New Jersey.

Eppure i 462.000 soldati in servizio attivo dell'esercito a $112.000 ciascuno hanno un costo di bilancio annuale di $55 miliardi, mentre le 506.000 forze di riserva dell'esercito a $32.000 ciascuna costano più di $16 miliardi. E in cima a questa struttura di forza, ovviamente, ci sono i $77 miliardi per operazioni e manutenzione, $27 miliardi per approvvigionamento, $22 miliardi per RDT&E e $4 miliardi per tutto il resto (in base alla richiesta di bilancio per l'anno fiscale 2025).

In totale, l'attuale bilancio dell'esercito ammonta a quasi $200 miliardi e praticamente tutta questa enorme spesa, quasi 3 volte il bilancio totale della difesa della Russia, è impiegata al servizio dell'Impero, non della difesa della patria. Potrebbe essere facilmente tagliata del 70% o di $140 miliardi, il che significa che la componente dell'esercito degli Stati Uniti assorbirebbe solo $60 miliardi all'anno in base a un quadro di bilancio esclusivamente improntato alla difesa.

Allo stesso modo la Marina e il Corpo dei Marine degli Stati Uniti spendono $55 miliardi all'anno per 515.000 militari in servizio attivo e altri $3,7 miliardi per 88.000 riservisti. Tuttavia, se si considerano i requisiti fondamentali di una postura di difesa, anche queste forze e spese sono decisamente esagerate.

Per missioni principali si faceva riferimento alla componente della Marina della triade nucleare strategica e alla grande forza di sottomarini d'attacco e missili da crociera della Marina. Ecco, di seguito, gli attuali requisiti di manodopera per queste forze chiave:

• 14 sottomarini nucleari strategici classe Ohio: ogni imbarcazione è composta da due equipaggi da 155 ufficiali e soldati semplici, per un fabbisogno di forza diretta di 4.400 unità e un totale complessivo di 10.000 militari, includendo (o meno) ammiragli, personale di bordo e personale vigile.

• 50 sottomarini con missili da crociera: ci sono due equipaggi di 132 ufficiali e soldati semplici per ogni imbarcazione, per un fabbisogno diretto di 13.000 persone e un totale complessivo di 20.000 persone, inclusi ammiragli e personale di bordo.

In breve, le missioni principali della Marina in base a un quadro prettametne difensivo coinvolgerebbero circa 30.000 ufficiali e soldati semplici, ovvero meno del 6% dell'attuale forza in servizio attivo della Marina/Corpo dei Marine. D'altro canto i gruppi di battaglia delle portaerei totalmente inutili, che operano esclusivamente al servizio dell'Impero, hanno equipaggi di 8.000 uomini ciascuno, se si contano le navi di scorta e le suite di aerei.

Quindi gli 11 gruppi di battaglia delle portaerei e la loro infrastruttura richiedono 88.000 militari diretti e 140.000 in totale se si includono il solito supporto e le spese generali. Allo stesso modo, la forza in servizio attivo del Corpo dei Marine è di 175.000 unità, e questo è interamente uno strumento di invasione e occupazione. È totalmente inutile per una difesa della patria.

In breve, ben 315.000 unità o il 60%  dell'attuale forza in servizio attivo della Marina/Corpo dei Marine funziona al servizio dell'Impero. Quindi, se si ridefiniscono le missioni della Marina per concentrarsi sulla deterrenza nucleare strategica e sulla difesa costiera, è evidente che più della metà della sua struttura di forza non è necessaria per la sicurezza della patria. Invece funziona al servizio della proiezione di potere a livello mondiale, funziona come controllo delle rotte marittime dal Mar Rosso al Mar Cinese Orientale e funziona come piattaforma per guerre di invasione e occupazione.

Nel complesso, l'attuale bilancio della Marina/Corpo dei Marine ammonta a circa $236 miliardi, se si includono $59 miliardi per il personale militare, $81 miliardi per O&M, $67 miliardi per gli appalti, $26 miliardi per RDT&E e $4 miliardi per tutte le altre voci. Un taglio di $96 miliardi o del 40%, quindi, lascerebbe comunque $140 miliardi per le missioni principali... di difesa.

Tra i servizi, i $246 miliardi contenuti nel bilancio dell'Aeronautica sono considerevolmente più orientati a una postura di sicurezza nazionale rispetto a quanto avviene con l'Esercito e la Marina. Sia la branca terrestre Minuteman della triade strategica che le forze dei bombardieri B-52 e B-2 sono finanziate in questa sezione del bilancio della difesa.

E mentre una parte significativa del bilancio per l'equipaggio, le operazioni e l'approvvigionamento di aerei convenzionali e di forze missilistiche è attualmente destinata a missioni all'estero, solo la componente di trasporto aereo e di basi estere di tali spese è al servizio dell'Impero.

Seguendo una linea d'approccio prettamente difensiva, quindi, una parte sostanziale della potenza aerea convenzionale, che comprende più di 4.000 velivoli ad ala fissa e rotativi, verrebbe riconvertita in missioni di difesa della patria. Di conseguenza più del 75%, o $180 miliardi, dell'attuale bilancio dell'aeronautica rimarrebbe in vigore, limitando i risparmi a soli $65 miliardi.

Infine un coltello particolarmente affilato dovrebbe essere fatto calare sulla componente da $181 miliardi del bilancio della difesa destinato alle operazioni generali del Pentagono e del Dipartimento della Difesa. Ben $110 miliardi, ovvero il 61% della somma sopraccitata (più di 2 volte il bilancio militare totale della Russia), sono in realtà destinati alla schiera di dipendenti civili nel Dipartimento della Difesa e ai contractor con sede a DC/Virginia che si nutrono dello stato militare.

In termini di sicurezza nazionale, molte di queste spese non sono solo inutili e controproducenti, ma costituiscono la forza di lobby e di traffico di influenze finanziata dai contribuenti che mantiene l'Impero in vita. Anche in questo caso un'indennità del 38%, o $70 miliardi, per le funzioni del Dipartimento della Difesa soddisferebbero ampiamente le vere esigenze di una struttura burocratica dedicata alla difesa della nazione.

Nel complesso, quindi, ridimensionare la forza del Dipartimento della Difesa genererebbe $410 miliardi di risparmi per l'anno fiscale 2025. Altri $50 miliardi di risparmi potrebbero essere ottenuti eliminando la maggior parte dei finanziamenti per l'ONU, altre agenzie internazionali, assistenza alla sicurezza e aiuti economici. Aggiustato all'inflazione fino al 2029, il risparmio totale ammonterebbe a $500 miliardi.

Risparmi sul budget in base a una strategia prettamente difensiva:

• Esercito: $140 miliardi

• Marina/Corpo dei Marine: $96 miliardi

• Aeronautica militare: $65 miliardi

• Dipartimento della Difesa: $111 miliardi

• Contributi delle Nazioni Unite e aiuti economici/umanitari esteri: $35 miliardi

• Assistenza alla sicurezza internazionale: $15 miliardi

• Risparmio totale, base anno fiscale 2025: $462 miliardi

• Aggiustamento all'inflazione, 8% all'anno fino al 2029: +$38 miliardi

• Risparmi totali sul bilancio per l'anno fiscale 2029: $500 miliardi

Le indennità risultanti (per l'anno fiscale 2025) di $60 miliardi per l'esercito, $140 miliardi per la marina, $180 miliardi per l'aeronautica e $70 miliardi per le operazioni del Dipartimento della Difesa ridurrebbero la componente dello stato militare a $450 miliardi all'anno. In potere d'acquisto attuale questo è esattamente ciò che Eisenhower riteneva più che adeguato per la sicurezza nazionale, quando mise in guardia gli americani dal complesso militare-industriale durante il suo discorso di addio 63 anni fa.

In fin dei conti, il momento di riportare a casa l'Impero è arrivato da tempo. Il costo annuale di $1.300 miliardi dello stato militare (incluse le operazioni internazionali e i veterani) non è più sostenibile, ed è stato inutile per la sicurezza della patria per tutto il tempo che è rimasto in vigore.

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

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

Writes  Gail Appel:

It isn’t a “ theory”. It’s a six plus decades plan in the making.

During a 1958 interview, Aldous  Huxley laid out the entire sequence of events we’ve since experienced to Mike Wallace. Wallace “ humored” Huxley as one often does when dealing with an eccentric child. Huxley was so lost in his train of thought, he ignored Wallace’s hectoring. The most chilling line in the interview was Huxley’s . “ It’s happening much faster than I could have imagined”.

More disturbing still was Huxley’s 1961 BBC interview after “ Brave New World Revisited” was published. “ I think “ Brave New World”  has been used as a playbook”.

The unintended consequences of a brilliant, fantastical mind.

The post Bone-Chilling “Conspiracy Theory” Emerges as California Burns appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

This must be addressed by Trump from his bully pulpit during a press conference while surrounded by those who witnessed the horrific murder of Rosanne Boyland.

An American. A human being. There must be justice!

The post Shocking New Video Shows J6 Protester Shot in Face by Police, Beaten with a Stick as She Died on US Capitol Steps appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner.:

Lew,

No, you’re not dreaming. President elect Trump, whose cabinet choices are arguably 100% Zionist, has shared a video on social media saying Netanyahu conned the US into war with Iraq and is pushing the US into a war with Iran. The video features an impassioned Jeffrey Sachs who is fed up with Israel controlling American foreign policy. What’s going on here?

Link.

The post Trump Shares Video Saying Netanyahu Conned US into War With Iraq and is Pushing for War in Iran appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

There is no end to the Democrat delivery of destruction. No matter that the spiteful decisions jeopardize the safety and security of those who voted against them, but those who voted for them and essentially, their own demise.

The Democrats are the jilted spouse that murders their entire family to spite the ex-wife/husband.

See here.

The post Judicial Watch Sues California Coastal Commission for Records on Controversial Decision against Elon Musk’s SpaceX appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Mel Gibson defended the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, bringing the Shroud into the public eye once again. He’s not the only one defending Christ’s burial cloth.

Dr. John Campbell, a prominent YouTube commentator on medical topics—especially on malpractice inherent in the Covid vaccination regime—recently changed course to present a compelling analysis of the evidence for Christ embedded in the Shroud of Turin. The Lord’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection are all documented in that linen cloth whose fabric embeds countless forensic clues detailing Christ’s Passion and whose ghostly image contains a wealth of 3D data encoded long before the birth of computer imaging.

An Italian lawyer and amateur photographer named Secondo Pia was the first to photograph the Shroud. King Umberto I, who owned the holy relic, had granted permission to display it in Turin Cathedral’s 1898 Arte Sacra exhibition, and Pia was commissioned to photograph it.

Working during the lunch break, when the doors were closed to the public, Pia brought a portable generator into the cathedral, set up two electric bulbs, and—after an earlier, unsuccessful session—finally managed to get the right lighting on his second try, on May 28, 1898. Around midnight, Pia developed his photo, and, as he wrote some years later,

Closed in my darkroom, completely intent on my work, I felt a very profound emotion when, during the development, I saw appearing on the plate, first the Holy Face, with such clarity that I was astonished and at the same time happy, since from that moment I could have the certainty that my work would have a good outcome. 

His camera had unveiled a detailed portrait of the Savior—the very face of Jesus plain to see on that glass plate—hidden in the Shroud since the moment of His Resurrection. Not a vague, ghostly image that required a medieval leap of faith to see the truth therein but a startling proof waiting two millennia to be revealed. Proof fit for a skeptical age, fit to close out a century that had followed hot on the French Revolution and had given birth to Marx and Engels. The ethereal stain on that linen had finally come alive as a striking portrait of the God-man once wrapped within it.

The face of God Incarnate, stark and real, His eyes closed in death. A spiritual weapon suddenly unveiled at the start of an apocalyptic age that would see the First World War; the Rape of Nanking; a Second World War stamped dead by two atomic infernos; the genocidal reigns of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot; and now, here in the erstwhile Land of the Free, the mutilative “gender reassignment” of innocent children and the rampant slaughter of millions more in their mothers’ wombs in the name of “reproductive rights.”

Meanwhile, as Western European countries find themselves swamped with invaders bent on demolishing the Christian civilizations they were built upon, here in America swarms of drones and seeming UFOs infest the skies in what looks like a futuristic PSYOP war—or even the start of Armageddon. How direly we need that spiritual weapon today.

In 1976, scientists at Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico put a 1931 photo of the Shroud into a VP-8 Image Analyzer. The VP-8 is an analog device originally intended for enhancing differences of grayscale in images such as x-rays and aerial photos of terrain, thus rendering their evaluation easier. 

“When applied to normal photographs,” Shroud researcher Barrie Schwortz writes, “the result was a distorted and inaccurate image. However, when it was applied to the Shroud, the result was an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of a human form.”   

Read the Whole Article

The post A Spiritual Weapon for Our Time appeared first on LewRockwell.

The term “openness” is one of those flexible notions which, like those of “public order,” “good faith,” or “proportionality,” evade the exercise of definition.

We know the important function of “standards” in legal technique. Legislators and judges deliberately use these words taken from ordinary language, the meaning of which varies according to the context and dominant ideas. They serve to establish rules of law and to identify jurisprudential solutions that escape the requirements of logical reasoning using legal concepts. They authorize them to establish and interpret the law according to a certain common sense, with a margin of flexibility that allows them to resolve the tension that a lawyer, for example, necessarily encounters when confronted with the complexity and mobility of social life.

In the spirit of openness, the Italian Bishops’ Conference recently approved, with the apparent blessing of the Roman authorities, new guidelines that stipulate that an applicant for the seminary cannot be rejected simply because he identifies as a homosexual.

The document “La formazione dei presbiteri nelle chiese in Italia. Orientamenti e norme per i seminari” (“The formation of priests in churches in Italy. Guidelines and norms for seminaries”), states that seminary directors should consider sexual orientation as only one aspect of a candidate’s personality. While this does not change the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching that “homosexual tendencies” are “intrinsically disordered,” it nevertheless departs from its constant position that such men should not become priests:

…persons with homosexual tendencies who seek admission to Seminary, or discover such a situation in the course of formation, consistent with her own Magisterium, “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’ Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.”

The new norm says that so long as a candidate remains chaste, his sexual orientation should not disqualify him from seeking the priesthood. The dilemma in this is that, as taught by the Church, only heterosexual men can become priests since only they are objectively capable of sacrificing a family, that is to say, marrying a woman and having children for the service of God’s Church. Those with homosexual tendencies, while they can equally achieve holiness, are objectively incapable of making the same sacrificial act. In other words, the vocation to Holy Orders is a call, not an open invitation to anyone and everyone who desires to become a priest.

In an effort to do damage control, the president of the Italian bishops’ Episcopal Commission for the Clergy and Consecrated Life stated:

[It is] an accompaniment to self-knowledge that is often lacking in the younger generations and that does not exclude even the boys who arrive in the Seminaries…when reference is made to homosexual tendencies, it is also appropriate not to reduce discernment only to this aspect, but, as for every candidate, to grasp its meaning in the global framework of the young person’s personality, so that, knowing himself and integrating the objectives proper to the human and priestly vocation, he reaches a general harmony.

What this means, I do not know. But it is certainly an ambiguous statement, to say the least, when in today’s age, we need clear-cut clarity. This is equally on par with what, just prior to the Vatican document, Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, stated in support of same-sex couples adopting children:

“Many of our LGBTQ Catholic sisters and brothers value community life,” said Cupich.

Many LGBTQ people also learn and know what sacrificial love is, as they take on the role of parenting children who otherwise would not have a home. This also happens when LGBTQ people put the social Gospel into practice by volunteering for good causes and by dealing compassionately with others, as so many of them already know what it means to feel excluded. 

The cardinal argues that LGBTQ+ individuals cannot be treated as third-class citizens. Yet the campaign for same-sex couples to adopt children not just undermines the traditional family made up of a father, mother, and children, it degrades the natural reality that we were created in the image and likeness of God: “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

Read the Whole Article

The post The Scandal of ‘Openness’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a recent appearance on the Joe Rogan show, Mel Gibson astounded the host by delving deep into the ancient significance of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Gibson’s discussion centered around his forthcoming movie, “The Resurrection of the Christ,” where he elucidated the rich tapestry of traditional narratives and their implications.

- Mel Gibson connects the story of Christ to the ancient Adam motif, emphasizing its relevance throughout key events in Christian theology.

– The historical understanding of resurrection is vitally linked to the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, explaining the fervor surrounding Christ’s resurrection.

– Recent studies on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium Christi reinforce the authenticity of Christ’s resurrection, making a compelling case for its historical validity.

Gibson highlighted the ancient Adam motif, presenting it as a critical link connecting major moments in Christ’s narrative. From his birth in a setting reminiscent of Eden, surrounded by animals and angels, to the arrival of the Magi bearing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, there are deep-rooted connections to Jewish texts such as the “Life of Adam.” This narrative speaks of Adam receiving three gifts after his expulsion from Eden—a theme resonant with the gifts offered to the Christ child.

MEL GIBSON & JOE ROGAN TALKING ABOUT THE RESURRECTION

—Nobody dies for a lie

Mel Gibson completely believes in the Resurrection. He says Buddha did not rise from the dead

CAN YOU BELIEVE HOW MUCH OF THE GOSPEL JOE ROGAN IS HEARING THESE DAYS pic.twitter.com/PuF5OW7kAV

— Dr. Malachi – (Dr. Run) (@malachiobrien) January 10, 2025

This motif continues with Christ’s baptism during the Eastern Orthodox feast of Theophany, which echoes Adam’s penance standing in the Jordan River. When discussing the Crucifixion, the ancient traditions champion the imagery of Christ’s blood falling upon Adam’s skull, symbolizing the restoration of life through the ‘new Adam’ redeeming the old. Thus, Adam becomes a profound narrative thread in the transformative story of Christ.

The historical context surrounding the Jewish conception of the Messiah in the first century offers a backdrop for understanding the resurrection’s significance. First-century Jews anticipated a Messiah who would conquer death and liberate them from Roman oppression, resulting in a new creation. This belief system underscores the absurdity of the message that a dead man could be proclaimed the Messiah unless he had indeed risen.

Mel Gibson explaining the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin to Joe Rogan is fascinating.

Video: Joe Rogan pic.twitter.com/c5dO6gktDa

— Sachin Jose (@Sachinettiyil) January 10, 2025

Questions arise regarding the bold declarations made by a group of first-century Jews who insisted that a crucified man was the Christ. This insistence dovetails with the robust Jewish theology that upheld resurrection in a very real, earthly sense. The only plausible explanation for their unwavering faith, despite ridicule and repercussions, stems from the belief in Christ’s real resurrection, encapsulated in the proclamation, “Christos anesti,” affirming His triumph over death.

Recent studies corroborate this understanding of resurrection with scientific inquiry into the Shroud of Turin. Researchers have utilized advanced x-ray techniques that reveal the shroud was crafted around 2,000 years ago, coinciding with the time of Christ’s crucifixion, bolstering historical claims of the event. Additional research indicated that the blood stains on the shroud belong to a torturous victim, aligning with the gospel narratives of Christ’s suffering.

Moreover, the Sudarium Christi, identified as the cloth that covered Christ’s face, has blood chemistry matching that of the Shroud, indicating they belong to the same individual. Pollen samples from the shroud reinforce its link to Jerusalem during Passover, further solidifying the case for the historicity of the resurrection.

As anticipation builds for Gibson’s film, it’s expected to resonate with and uplift countless viewers while affirming the world-altering truth of Christ’s resurrection, a promise that all things are made new through Him.

This originally appeared on TurleyTalks.com.

The post Mel Gibson Uncovers Hidden Truths About Christ’s Resurrection! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Donald Trump has made it clear that he likes the idea of Greenland seceding from Denmark. “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

Of course, the road to a US annexation of Greenland could go at least two different ways. One way is outright unilateral annexation in which the US declares the island to be US territory. That’s essentially what the US did in places like the Philippines in the wake of the Spanish-American War.

The obvious problem with this method is that the United States likes to claim that it is the great moral nation that adheres to a “rules based order.” To simply annex Greenland without an internationally recognized referendum, voted on by Greenlanders, would look a lot like, say, the Russian occupation of South Ossetia.

On the other hand, US annexation would be a lot easier to justify if Greenland voters formally secede from the so-called “Danish Realm,” the loose-knit polity that includes Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands.  If secession wins a majority vote, this would be a crucial first step in paving the way for either de jure or de facto annexation.

If Greenland does vote to secede from Denmark, it won’t be the first time that a Danish overseas territory has voted to do so. This time around, though, it is likely the US will be at the center of the pro-secession effort.

Icelandic Secession 

In 1944, Iceland voted to secede from Denmark, and the new Icelandic state declared itself a republic, fully independent from the Danish crown. This was not a major change for Iceland in terms of self-governance, however. The 1944 vote was the culmination of more than a century of gradual independence that had begun in 1845 with the revival of the Icelandic parliament, the Alþingi, as an advisory body in Reykjavik in 1845. Iceland received its first constitution from the Danish King in 1874, and this was followed by home rule in 1904. In 1918, Iceland declared full internal sovereignty leaving Iceland united to Denmark through only a personal union under the Danish monarch as head of state. In 1943, however, the treaty tying Iceland and Denmark together expired. Denmark was locked in a violent struggle with Nazi Germany, and Iceland once again voted to distance itself from the Danish metropole.

In May 1944, Icelandic voters faced two questions on the ballot:

1. Do you support breaking the union with Denmark?
2. Are you in favor of adopting a new republican constitution?

The turnout was 98.6%. 97.35% of voters were in favor of breaking the union with Denmark, and 95.04% were in favor of a new, republican constitution.

Soon thereafter, the Icelandic state declared itself to be an independent republic. Can Greenland do the same thing as Iceland?

How Greenland Can Secede

Compared to the process the led to Icelandic independence, the situation is a bit more difficult for Greenland. Although Nazi occupation in Denmark made it even easier for Iceland to secede in 1944, Iceland was nonetheless legally entitled to secede according to Iceland’s treaty with Denmark. As historian Robert Young notes, ”Iceland invoked a clause in the Act of Union that allowed for unilateral termination of the Act, and the decision was confirmed, as required, by a national plebiscite.”1

In other words, Icelandic secession was unusually easy and legal, as far as secessions go. In the long history of secession movements, however, few are “legal” in any formal sense. In practice, secession movements commonly use political pressure and alliances to gain independence even when no legal provisions exist allowing it. The success of a secession movement depends on the political realities of the present, and not on political conventions of times long past. 

That is, Greenland’s independence does not hinge on whether or not there is an established legal method for Greenland to unilaterally secede. What matters is whether or not Greenland can find the necessary political support—both domestic and international—to make it happen. For example, if Greenland were to vote for independence, and if Washington were sufficiently motivated to want Greenland’s independence, the US would intervene and apply pressure to the Danish state. The US would claim that Greenlanders must be allowed self-determination as a matter of human rights.

These will just be the stated reasons for the US support of the secession, of course. That will just be the cover story. The real reason for supporting the secession will be because the regime believes Greenland’s independence will somehow make the US state more powerful. This should be obvious since the US never supports self-determination for its own citizens, and absolutely refuses to entertain the idea of secession for any portion of the US.

When Washington Discovers It Likes Secession

Domestically, the problem with US support for Greenlandic secession is that Washington may have to manufacture some reason explaining why Greenland’s secession is acceptable, but secession is not allowed for any group of Americans.

In this case, the usual claims wouldn’t work especially well. Historically, the US has supported secession for foreigners—but denied it to Americans—by claiming secession is only allowed as a means of spreading democracy via decolonization. The idea here is that a country like Nigeria (for example) ought to be independent from the British Empire because that country, when it was part of the Empire, did not receive representation in the British parliament.

Yet, this reasoning cannot be applied to Greenland which is already a democracy according to the commonly-used criteria. For example, Greenland enjoys home rule, has its own parliament, and even has representation in the Danish parliament.  Indeed, with two members in parliament, Greenland’s population is represented on a par with ordinary Danish voters, when adjusted for population size. There are approximately 33,000 Danes per member of parliament on the Danish “mainland.” With a population of fewer than 57,000 citizens, Greenland is actually slightly overrepresented in Copenhagen with two members. Proportionally, Greenlanders receive far more legal representation in the Danish parliament than do residents of Montana or Wyoming in the US House of Representatives. Moreover, if Greenland were to become a non-state territory of the US, it would receive no votes in the US Congress at all.

Thus, the US can’t claim that Greenland is a special case because it is presently denied a democratic political system. On the other hand, the US could claim that Greenland ought to get its independence because many of its residents are members of an indigenous ethnic group. That, however, would raise the sticky issue of allowing indigenous populations in the US to vote on independence. That’s not a conversation Washington wants to have.

Fortunately for Washington, however, it can probably get away with just remaining very vague on the issue while piling on the usual propaganda about American exceptionalism. We’ll be told Greenland’s secession is good simply because Denmark isn’t America. That will likely be enough to silence Trump’s core supporters who blindly support—or at least tolerate—everything the regime does so long as Trump is president. For those who demand more of an explanation, Washington can retreat to the old tried and true method: enflame fears about foreign bogeymen. Trump’s Greenland annexation is already being pushed largely as a preemptive strike against the Chinese “threat.” The solution, we are told, is to make the US regime larger, more powerful, and more of a global hegemon. Thus, we will be told that to allow any Americans to secede from America would be to weaken the American state—and we can’t have that.

—

1 Robert A. Young, “How Do Peaceful Secessions Happen?”, Canadian Journal of Political Science 27, no. 4, (Dec., 1994): 778.

The post The US Regime Might Finally Support Secession—But Only for Greenland appeared first on LewRockwell.

U.S. imperialist power occupies the White House seamlessly and the world will continue to deal with the consequences of criminal American warmongering.

Donald Trump takes over from Joe Biden at the White House in less than a week in what is, for all intents and purposes, a theatrical change of the executive figurehead.

One manikin is wheeled out, another wheeled in. Cue the brass band and gun salutes.

There’s a big difference in personal style and rhetoric about policies. But the world will continue to endure its experience of U.S. power – one of imperialistic militarism, conflict, and violence.

Outgoing Democrat President Joe Biden let the cat out of the bag – as he is prone to do – when he delivered what was billed as his last foreign policy speech this week. He outlined a world of U.S. domination by military force and proxy machinations. It was a dystopian view of international relations – yet Biden exulted in the belief that “America is winning” and that this something noble to report to the American people.

During his 30-minute rant at the State Department, Biden declared: “The United States is winning the worldwide competition compared to four years ago. America is stronger. Our alliances are stronger, our adversaries and competitors are weaker.”

It was hard to listen to Biden as he slurred from one fragmented sentence to the next without punctuation. It was harder still to listen to the delusional lies about America leading the world under the aegis of his administration.

He went on to boast that adversaries Russia, China and Iran were all weakened by his policies to create a new Cold War. That’s right, Biden actually claimed it a virtue when he stammered, “the post-Cold War is over, a new era has begun” of fierce competition and crises.”

The proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, where as many as one million military deaths have been incurred in three years, has been recklessly fueled by the Biden administration. The Biden White House and former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson deliberately sabotaged an early peace settlement in March 2022.

Biden has thus brought the world to the brink of nuclear war between the United States and Russia. World security has not been this dire since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 – and yet Biden is crowing about this appalling situation as an “achievement” he can report to the American people.

During his foreign policy speech, the Israeli genocide in Gaza fueled by U.S. weapons, which has killed over 46,000 Palestinians – mainly women, children and elderly – was sickeningly rationalized by Biden as a price for weakening Iran.

Biden also bragged about the militarization of the Asia-Pacific with U.S. forces and allies under his watch, purportedly to contain China but which is escalating provocations with another nuclear power.

The cynicism of Biden is grotesque. At one point, he proclaimed, “We have not gone to war to make these things happen.”

It was reminiscent of U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham boasting how the proxy war in Ukraine was the best investment ever made by Washington since Russian soldiers were being killed without the deployment of American troops.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova got it right when she commented: “Today’s statement by Biden is an admission of a deliberately executed provocation. The Biden administration knew it was pushing the world toward the brink and still chose to escalate the conflict.”

Escalation is what Biden is doing as he packs his bags at the White House. This week saw more air attacks deep inside Russia with U.S.-supplied and operated long-range ATACMS missiles. Biden gave the go-ahead for such strikes at the end of last year despite Moscow’s warning that it was inciting a global war and nuclear armageddon.

Next week, the senile Biden heads off to a retirement home. But there is little reason to expect that the incoming Trump administration will change U.S. policy from its course of seeking global domination and confrontation to achieve that. Biden claimed he was leaving the next administration “a very strong hand to play.”

The course of conflict is historically determined by an imperialist power seeking to maintain its global power. Trump is not going to challenge the fundamental dynamic of U.S. imperialism.

During the presidential campaign, Trump often derided Biden for making the U.S. a “laughing stock of the world.” No doubt, Trump would disparage Biden’s egotistical claims of making America stronger.

Trump’s campaign tapped anti-war sentiment among U.S. citizens. He repeatedly vowed to end the war in Ukraine “on day one” of his presidency. The Republican said his focus would be “America First” and ending overseas wars and conflicts.

Even before his inauguration on January 20, Trump has gone full-bore imperialist, declaring that he is going to annex Greenland and Panama by military force if needed on the grounds of “national security.”

Trump is also more inclined to pander to Israeli aggression in the Middle East. He is on record in his endorsement of launching air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

His hostile views toward China are also well-documented and unhinged, as are those of his cabinet picks.

The latest reports on Trump’s much-vaunted peace intentions in Ukraine are not promising. His aides are now saying a resolution to the conflict may be months away – not “on day one.”

Trump and his aides, including his mouthpiece billionaire Elon Musk, are abjectly unqualified and ill-informed to have any ability to work through negotiations with Russia, Iran, China, or anyone else.

The difference between Biden and Trump amounts to nothing – despite all the trumpeting by Trump’s MAGA supporters and Biden’s Democrat followers who abhor Trump.

A Republican big mouth takes over from a Democrat degenerate. So what? U.S. imperialist power occupies the White House seamlessly and the world will continue to deal with the consequences of criminal American warmongering.

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

The post Forget Presidential Fanfare, U.S. Imperialism Occupies the White House appeared first on LewRockwell.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearings for the Trump administration are currently delayed.

However, at least Gabbard, nominated for the director of national intelligence, appears to have a good chance of being confirmed.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said Gabbard must still turn in her “paperwork” but that he wants to see the Democrat-turned-Republican confirmed.

CBS News reported that Barrasso “is not concerned about having enough support for Gabbard’s confirmation.”

“She continues to have promotions in the military. She’s a lieutenant colonel. She now has top level security clearances,” Barrasso told CBS News’ “Face the Nation.”

“She’s the right person to keep America secure and safe,” Sen. Barrasso said.

Gabbard previously served in Congress as a Democrat and supported socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 run for president, before running in the 2020 Democratic Party primaries. During the race, she supported minimal limits on abortion, but that made her the least pro-abortion candidate in the race, as many, if not all the other candidates, supported abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

However, she has since declared herself a Republican, campaigned for Trump, and won support from some conservatives for her criticism of pediatric surgical and chemical gender mutilation. Gabbard is also less hawkish and opposes endless foreign wars.

She won the support of one skeptical Republican, Sen. James Lankford, after she said she supports the U.S. government being able to spy on non-U.S. citizens abroad.

“Section 702, unlike other FISA authorities, is crucial for gathering foreign intelligence on non-U.S. persons abroad,” she said in a recent statement, as reported by the New York Post. “This unique capability cannot be replicated and must be safeguarded to protect our nation while ensuring the civil liberties of Americans.”

Lankford of Oklahoma previously had questioned Gabbard’s view on this program but said he is now satisfied with her response.

pic.twitter.com/5rLueolhNi

— Matt Lamb (@MattLamb22) January 15, 2025

“Yeah, I am,” the senator told “Meet the Press” on Sunday, when asked if he was a yes vote for Gabbard.

“Obviously she voted against 702 authority. And just to clarify that, that authority is for actually trying to be able to track terrorists overseas,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “That has nothing to do with American citizens or anything that’s happening in the United States.”

Sen. Mike Rounds said he thinks she will be confirmed, according to The Hill. The Senate Intelligence Committee member made the comments even prior to Lankford’s endorsement.

“I think she’s a very quick study. I think she’s very bright, and I think the challenge for her will be in … an open discussion, will be showing the expertise that she needs. And I think she’s well on her way, so I’m optimistic that she’ll be successful,” he previously told The Hill.

Read the Whole Article

The post RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard Confirmation Hearings Delayed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Soon Donald Trump will deliver his second inaugural address. Although the imagined address below is likely a bit different from what he will deliver, it captures the spirit of Trump, mixed with some hopes some have. Wishful thinking? Perhaps? Or perhaps not?

My fellow Americans,

It is with great honor I take on this city of lies that lies before us, this Mordor on the Potomac. This city is based on lies.

We saw Kamala in her closing remarks, referring to King George III as a petty tyrant. Fact was that it was Parliament that was the problem. Before the revolution, taxes were much lower in the American colonies than in Britain, and they started rising here in America shortly after the revolt.

The revolution gave us higher taxes, not freedom. This city is based on lies. American government based on the lie that the government is us is more far-reaching and extensive than King George ever could have dreamt of. King George was not a tyrant. The tyrant is the building behind us.

As I said, this city is built on lies.

The American President known as the Great Emancipator, known for freeing slaves, inherited slaves from his father-in-law. He could have freed them, but he chose to sell them into further slavery. This city is built on lies. That same American President went to a battlefield and declared government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

That same man made war on his own people, a war that crushed federalism as a check on the central government. He created this swamp. This city is based on lies.

Woodrow Wilson, a professor, can’t trust them, campaigned on staying out of the war. He took the great America into war. Lies, lies, lies. This city is based on lies. He, Wilson, said liberty does not come from government. Then he created more government than ever. More lies.

He created the income tax from this city of lies. He created the Fed. Then, after the war, the economy crashed. They blamed it on our wonderful capitalism, those liars. It was because of war and the Fed. Bad things!

I’ll say it again. This city is based on lies. Keynesian economics rose. Really bad thing. Based on lies.

Wilson created Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. Bad people. Now, the swamp says we must make war to make the world safe from bad people. While this city created bad people. This city is based on lies.

We spend ourselves into debt to protect the world from bad people, bad people this city, this swamp created. It’s all lies.

They lie that we can afford this. It’s time to put America first, not the lies about the world.

They say it doesn’t matter what we spend because we can just print all the money we want. This is a pack of lies. Government is not magic. It is a heavy burden on the backs of the American people, and the people are fed up with being burdened. They are burdened by what has been.

Let us now be unburdened by the lies of this Mordor on the Potomac. Let the world be unburdened by the lies that have been. The liars in this city tell us that big government is to the benefit of the common man, of poor people. It’s all lies.

This city is built on lies, based on lies.

Lobbyists come to this town and live it up. They come to get a hold of the hard-earned cash of good Americans, good Patriots out in the vast land that made America great.

This city is not great. This is a city of lies. Mordor on the Potomac. They tell us this city must have more power, but it is only for the good of the lobbyists who can multiply and live it up even more – on the backs of American taxpayers. Lies to benefit themselves.

They say the Deep State is a nutty conspiracy theory. It’s all lies to protect themselves. This city is based on lies, in particular the lie that there is no Deep State. And then there is the lie that the government in Washington must grow and grow. With Vivek and Elon – such great Patriots – we will show you that this is a lie.

They say the truth is the first casualty of war. So true. There are so many lies going around when this country goes to war. When this city of lies goes to war. We saw it in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Big mushroom bombs. It was all lies. Lies from this city. It was all lies to have a phony reason to go to war. Totally fake.

This city is fake. Lies, waste, and bad people.

We are here to clean out those lies, that waste, and bad people. The Department of Government Efficiency, under the good leadership of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, will expose the lies. They are very good people.

This Mordor on the Potomac persecutes the good people that expose the lies. They make criminals out of the very good people who show us the lies. Edward Snowden is one such example. Very good man.

He should come home as a free man and help make America great again. I will pardon him as one of my first acts as President. We need such great whistleblowers. Very good people. We need them to expose the lies of this city of lies. The city that is based on lies. Built on lies.

We need to stop all this lying. It is very bad. It must end.

It is true that this nation was built by immigrants, but we must stop the lie that all immigrants bring the same to our culture.

We must dismantle the Deep State. We must dismantle this army of lobbyists. Send them home.

We must end the lie that fiat currency managed by the Fed is necessary. We must make sound money great again.

We must end the lie that all climate change is man-made.

And we must end the lie that this big government in Washington is to the benefit of the people.

We will drain the swamp, the swamp of liars in this city of lies. We will drain it because this nation cannot be great with this swamp of lies and liars. And we will make America great again. And America will be great again when we drain this swamp of lies and liars.

My fellow Americans, I am honored to be your President. This city, this nation, and the world will be unburdened by the lies that have been.

We will make America great again!

God bless the United States of America.

The post The City of Lies appeared first on LewRockwell.

On December 28, 2024, Fr. Tom Pringle observed on , “I’ve been at my parish for about 3 years. What I’ve seen in that time is a resurgence in Catholics going to confession.” I am the pastor of a parish with about 900 families, and I echo what Fr. Pringle said.

This past Advent, I heard confessions for hours. I would arrive at the confessional 20-30 minutes early and hear confessions until the vigil Mass on a Saturday. I did not have a free moment to crack a book during my Tuesday confessions either. And I also added a time that had me hearing confessions beyond the scheduled time. It was apparent: confession is back, and people are seeking out God’s mercy. Additionally, our parish distributed Dave Durand’s book on confession, The Fountain of Youth, at Christmas; and, in the few weeks that have since passed, several people have commented on the impact the book has had—and it has, in fact, brought them to the confessional.

I think about confession every First Saturday too. The message that Mary spoke in Fatima, where she encouraged monthly confession as part of the five First Saturdays, proposes a spirituality for the faithful. What it means is that Our Lady wants us to go to confession monthly. When I celebrate Mass for a handful of the faithful on First Saturday, and hear confessions afterward, I think about this question: “What if every Catholic observed the message of Our Lady of Fatima?” As the pastor of a parish and a school, with the duties I have now, how many hours could I hear confession to meet the need for confession, if all the faithful went once a month.

If the demand for confession was to rise, priests of today would have to become like St. John Vianney or St. Pio of Pietrelcina who heard confessions for hours a day. As a priest, I would rejoice at this reality, and I already do rejoice at the increased requests for confessions that I have seen. But it makes me wonder if the Church is ready for this revival.

The Catholic Church in the United States embarked upon a multiyear Eucharistic revival. I believe there has been good fruit from the revival. I am grateful for what it has done to reinvigorate Eucharistic faith and devotion. This revival could be sparking the renewal of celebrating the sacrament of Penance because if one wants to worthily receive the Holy Eucharist, then a good confession should be a part of the process.

We all desire for a renewal of the Catholic Faith and a steadfast practice of it by people in our communities, cities, country, and world. But are we ready for a renewal or revival? Does the Church today have the infrastructure to support a revival?

Unfortunately, as I see it, we do not. The shortage of priests in dioceses throughout the country is felt. Parishes are clustered together, sharing a priest. Communities once served by two or three priests are served by one priest who is split in many directions. Confessions, which would have been heard more regularly in each individual parish, are scheduled less frequently because of the split time.

When a diocese confers another responsibility upon the pastor, it means his time to his people is diminished, or he overworks, leading to health problems and burnout. If a Eucharistic revival takes place, and churches are filled every Sunday, will there be a need for the addition of more Masses? Can a priest, already celebrating four Masses on a weekend, possibly add another Mass to his schedule? I hope I am not the only person asking these questions and that chanceries are anticipating revival and what it will mean for the practice of the clergy.

While some bishops, like my own, have an optimistic mindset regarding revival and its potential needs, there are other (arch)dioceses that seem content with decline and have no interest in renewal or revival. Closing churches and reducing the availability of the sacraments and the presence of Christ in the tabernacle is seen as more convenient than converting hearts and filling pews with people who desire the sacraments. In an ideal world, there should be a need to establish more churches because of the demand; but alas, the availability of clergy to serve those parishes is not yet there.

Read the Whole Article

The post Is the Church Really Ready for Revival? appeared first on LewRockwell.

I am as tired of challenging and distressing news as you. Today there is a treat instead. The treat is “the Tall Texan,” the American pianist Van Cliburn playing Tchaikovsky’s First Piano Concerto at the first Soviet international competition in Moscow in 1958, which Van Cliburn won.  Khrushchev, the General Secretary of the Communist Party,  was present as was Mikoyan. You will see them applauding. See this.

After the performances, the judges approached Khrushchev, the ruling General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and asked if they might give the prize to Van Cliburn.  Khrushchev asked the judges, “Was he the best?”  The judges said, “yes.”  “Then give him the prize.”  The Soviet conductor could easily have ruined Van Cliburn’s performance, but he did not and the two went on together to make recordings. Today the sanctions would prevent both Van Cliburn’s performance and the subsequent recordings.

The cold war could have ended then, but Washington lacked the vision. The Soviet Audience poured flowers all over Van Cliburn. There were endless demands for encores.  Van Cliburn, playing better than Russians the music of Russian composers, won their hearts. 

The opportunity was lost. Washington thinking it had a monopoly on nuclear warhead delivery  and conservatives fearful of the life of a dystopian novel being imposed on us by communism missed the opportunity. This was an extraordinary failure as it was Khrushchev who denounced Stalin for his crimes. A few years later it is Khrushchev who is working with President John F. Kennedy to peacefully resolve what is known as “The Cuban Missile Crisis” but just as well could be called the Turkish Missile Crisis. The Soviets moved missiles to Cuba because Washington had placed nuclear missiles in Turkey on the Soviet border.  

The deal that resolved the crisis was that Khrushchev would remove the missiles from Cuba and six months later Kennedy would quietly remove them from Turkey. President Kennedy, it seems, understood that it was a life and death matter for him personally to make peace with an enemy that the military/security complex, which President Eisenhower had warned Americans about, needed for its power and profits. President Kennedy was insulted to his face by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for refusing the recommendation for a thermo-nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

President Kennedy was assassinated for his peace efforts, and Khrushchev was removed from power by a Politburo suspicious of dealing with the enemy. This problem remains today. President Trump was investigated  as a “Russian agent and conspirator” because he wanted to “normalize relations with Russia.”  “National Security” stupidity will persist until it destroys the world.

Years later President Reagan wanting to end the Cold War, a project in which I was a participant, convinced Van Cliburn to come out of retirement and to play for Gorbachev in the White House. The symbolism was perfect. Gorbachev remembered the lost opportunity in 1958 and again with the resolution of the Cuban or Turkish Missile Crisis and grabbed at the chance so that it did not pass again. 

Gorbachev should have made the deal quietly as Khrushchev and Kennedy did in the early 1960s. Jubilant over hope Gorbachev was too transparent in his dealings, and the Politburo concluded that Gorbachev was making too many concessions without adequate guarantees and placed the Russian President under house arrest. This is what led to the collapse of the Soviet government and the rise of Yeltsin, a Washington puppet, and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union by Washington.

President Reagan’s efforts and those of his predecessors to reduce tensions and to end the Cold War have been disavowed by US governments beginning with the Clinton regime. On false pretenses Washington has abandoned all the treaties and agreements that were the work of previous administrations.

Today Americans, especially conservative ones, have been propagandized to think that, after Putin conquers Ukraine, he will move on to the rest of Europe. “If we don’t stop him in Ukraine, we will have to stop him in Germany or France.”

This is the kind of ignorant nonsense that Brzezinski and Kissinger, for all their faults, would never have tolerated.

Brzezinski and Kissinger wanted to protect American power and influence, not create a world war and misunderstandings leading to difficult to resolve situations. They were not Zionist neoconservatives willing to sacrifice America for Greater Israel and domestic American needs for the war profits of the military/security complex, as American governments in the 21st century  have been willing to do.

What we see in the world today is the absence of leaders. Perhaps Trump and Putin will rise to the challenge. But I have not an abundance of confidence.

What is missing in analysis of foreign affairs is the recognition of institutionalized interests whose power allows them to serve themselves. These powerful interests will constrain both Trump and Putin. It will be easier for things to go wrong than right.

Now having violated my promise of a treat by dumping distressing information on you, enjoy Van Cliburn playing Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1, which won the Moscow International Competition in 1958.

The post A Treat appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

“Talk to any firefighter. In any religious building what usually survives is the cross and certain specific items that are highly religious, unless they’ve been specifically set on fire.” – LA Fire Captain Bryan Nassour

See here.

The post LA Fire Captain Recovers Tabernacle From Ruins of Corpus Christi Church appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Gail Appel.

Humanity United Now – Ana Maria Mihalcea, MD, PhD

The post Technocratic Smart Cities Are Here appeared first on LewRockwell.

Bwritens Tim McGraw:

Lake Oroville, 2nd Largest Reservoir in California, is full: Video

The post Lake Oroville, 2nd Largest Reservoir in California, is full appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

…while drastically cut funding for firefighting…

The post LA Has Has Been Investing in Becoming a Globally Recognized Smart City… appeared first on LewRockwell.