Aggregatore di feed

Here we are, back in the good old US of A, and nothing has changed, or so it seems at first. The war against Christianity continues; the destruction of the family is encouraged by subversives such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and the main networks; and the ripping-apart of national identity is ongoing, as is the violence and the tyrannical wokeism in our universities.

The reasons for these disasters are obvious: More than 90 percent of the media—legacy, network, social, and state—is left-wing. Ninety percent of the professoriate is left-wing and activist, which explains why American campuses believe they are above the rules and laws. The horrible irony is that everything the vast majority of Americans and their elected representatives do not want becomes the new culture of America.

“Charlie Kirk believed in civilized debate, but the left does not.”

And then there’s Trump. His answer to the above is messy and a drag-out ding-dong collision with the media, the latter going nuts because he’s doing what the majority of Americans want done. The absurdity, of course, being that by dragging the country back to the middle where it once was and where the Founders believed it should remain, the usual suspects are outraged. There are those who believe that what the majority of Americans wish to happen will happen, but I’m not so sure. I’m a pessimist by nature who believes the bad guys always win because they cheat. There are, of course, good signs. And then there are leftist-inspired murders of the good guys like Charlie Kirk, a saint in my and many others’ book.

What comes to mind following the horror of Charlie Kirk’s murder is the aftermath of the death of a career criminal who died from an overdose while legally pinned down by a policeman. George Floyd’s drug death had the Times, the networks, The New Yorker, and the usual suspects up in arms, cheering on the bloodthirsty mobs to burn the place down, which they did. Cops and innocents lost their lives and livelihoods during the riots, egged on by the left and celebrated by the media. I write this on the day after the foul murder of Charlie Kirk and am ready to bet my bottom dollar that nothing like that will take place. Why? That, for me, is the big question: Why aren’t we out there burning down the offices of MSNBC, beating up the owners of those subverting grub sheets, the Sulzbergers and Newhouses? One thing is certain: If the Sulzbergers and Newhouses were held responsible by a mob, their subversive sheets would certainly change their tune, and that’s a guarantee from Taki.

There is also something very wrong when a Christian, civilized, and gentle person like Charlie is gunned down, while a genocidal maniac like Netanyahu is given a standing ovation in Congress. Charlie’s foul murder is the latest manifestation of the hateful rhetoric aimed at The Donald and his MAGA movement. And it will continue unless something’s done about it. The left openly claims that assassination culture is on, with 48 percent of liberals saying that it is somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. Fifty-five percent say the same about Trump. Can we say the same about Sulzberger and Newhouse?

Cackling Kamala encouraged the Antifa-BLM riots back in 2020, and I’m wondering if she would still be cackling if someone burned her place down this coming weekend. But we don’t do this sort of thing, do we? Charlie Kirk believed in civilized debate, but the left does not. Any speech they don’t agree with is “hate speech.” And people who use “hate speech” have to be cut down. And, always according to the left, people who exercise their right to free speech are “literally killing people.”

This is what the lefty media and academy preach and teach nowadays. While the right tends to believe that the left is simply wrong, the left also thinks the right is wrong but is also evil. Reading a theater listing in the Times about a TV play on Mussolini, there’s an added remark that the Italian began a career that resembles that of Trump. Although the violence in this country mostly comes from the left, the media does not acknowledge it. Needless to say, the media is unwilling to take an ounce of responsibility for it.

And it gets worse: Everything one reads or hears about Trump and any conservative is accompanied by references to Hitler. Ironically, Stalin is never mentioned, but always the Führer. So people begin to believe it. It’s like an ad on TV that constantly repeats itself. After a while you automatically reach for it in a store. The president of the Oxford Union, a debating society replete with idiots, had this to say after the murder: “Kirk got shot. Let’s fucking go party.” His name is George Abaraonye, most likely born under a bluer sky than the Brit one. If someone shot that son of a bitch they’d get fifty years. It’s almost worth it.

The lies that the Democrats and the media told about George Floyd’s death in 2020 have gotten many people killed. Including that poor white girl from Ukraine, by a black scumbag on the train. The CEO of a health company by a rich left-wing crap-spouter, ditto. It’s time we of the right hit back.

This article was originally published on Taki’s Magazine.

The post Fire With Fire appeared first on LewRockwell.

Hardly anyone in the mainstream press addresses the mystery of how Trump went from what was supposedly a secret agent of the Russians to an ardent opponent of Russia in the Ukraine-Russia war. My hunch is that the commentators in the mainstream press are so excited that Trump has turned pro-Ukraine that they don’t care that they were, not so long ago, accusing him of being a secret agent of Russia.

After all, who can forget the daily refrain during Trump’s first term in office. “Robert Mueller is going to save us!” We had to be subjected to that refrain from both Democrats and the mainstream press for more than a year. The notion was that Trump was, as president of the United States, secretly serving the interests of Russia. Democrats and most of the mainstream press were convinced that Robert Mueller, a lawyer who had been appointed as special counsel to investigate the matter, was going to save us all by concluding that Trump was, in fact, serving as a secret agent of Russia, which would then result in Trump’s removal from office though impeachment.

As we all know, Robert Mueller ended up not saving us because there was nothing to save us from. The entire matter was one great big ridiculous conspiracy theory on the part of the mainstream press and Democrats. After a year of extensive investigation by a huge and very expensive staff of lawyers, Robert Mueller ended up concluding that the allegation was bogus.

Nonetheless, most everyone thought that Trump was going to do everything he could to establish friendly and peaceful relations with Russia. Such a policy, of course, wouldn’t make him a secret agent of Russia, any more than President Kennedy’s efforts in that direction made him a secret agent of Russia.

Yet in his first term in office, Trump ended up taking a fairly adversarial stand toward Russia. It was reasonable to conclude, however, that one reason he did that was an effort to bend over backwards to show that the secret-agent accusations were entirely bogus.

This time around as president, however, there was nothing that Trump had to prove. During his 2024 campaign, he made it clear that he intended to bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war as soon as he took office. Of course, the easiest and fastest way to have done that was to immediately cut off all U.S. foreign aid to Ukraine. For a while, it appeared that that was precisely what Trump was going to do. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky visited Trump and Vice President Vance in the White House, both of them berated, insulted, humiliated, and dressed down Zelensky in public. Zelensky ended up leaving that meeting with his tail between his legs. Trump even stated that it was Ukraine that had started the war. The message seemed clear — U.S. aid to Ukraine was going to terminate, which would, of course, have been the logical course of action given Trump’s conviction that it was Ukraine that started the war.

However, sometime afterward, Trump did an about-face and began berating Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin for not doing enough to end the war. He began threatening Putin with more economic sanctions. He made it clear that the U.S. government would continue supporting Ukraine, especially with weaponry. He has also taken an increasingly aggressive position toward Russia and Putin.

The mainstream press treats all this as perfectly normal. I myself find it extremely mysterious. How does a guy who is accused of being a Russian agent go all the way to becoming a Russian adversary? For me, that’s quite a switch.

The following is my opinion as to what has happened to bring about this very radical turnaround. As longtime readers of my blog know, I have long maintained that it is the national-security branch of the federal government — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — that is in charge of the federal government, especially in foreign affairs, and that the other three branches simply operate in support of the national-security branch.

It was the national-security branch that used NATO to successfully provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine. It did that by having NATO, an old relic from the Cold War racket, to move eastward toward Russia’s borders knowing full well that Russia would object and ultimately invade Ukraine, after which they could condemn Russia for its “aggression.” The objective was to use a war with Russia to “degrade” Russia, give Russia its own “Afghanistan,” and bring about regime change within Russia. The U.S would supply the weaponry and cash to Ukraine to accomplish this. It would only be Ukrainian soldiers, not American soldiers, who would be dying and so the American people wouldn’t care about what the national-security branch had done to bring about the war.

What the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA failed to confront was the distinct possibility that Russia would end up winning the war, which would necessarily mean a defeat of the United States. After the deadly 20-year U.S. fiasco war in Afghanistan and the installation of a pro-Iranian regime in the U.S. war of aggression against Iraq, the last thing the national-security branch wants is the humiliation of another military defeat, especially at the hands of Russia — its adversary in its old Cold War racket.

So, it’s my opinion that the national-security establishment has put the squeeze on Trump and made him see how important it is to “national security” that Russia not be permitted to win this war. It is my opinion that Trump has caved in to such pressure, just like Congress and the federal courts have long deferred to the national-security branch. That, to me, is a logical explanation for Trump’s about-face on Russia and also why he no longer heavily emphasizes the need to “drain the swamp” and bring an end to the “deep state.”

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post The Mystery of Trump, Ukraine, and Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee cut the target policy rate by 0.25 percent, bringing the target down to 4.25 percent. This cut is the first since the Fed implemented a cutting cycle last year that reduced the target rate from 5.5 percent to 4.5 percent. That series of cuts began with a 50 basis-point cut in September of last year, ending with a 25 basis-point cut in December.

This month’s meeting is among the most-watched meetings of recent years with the FOMC now being expected to “do something” in response to a clear slowdown in job growth in recent employment data. Since January, the Fed has faced immense public pressure from the White House, from Wall Street, and from many financial-sector pundits demanding that the Fed cut the target interest rate and adopt an even more dovish stance. A frequent criticism of the Fed through this period—made by those who believe more monetary inflation can somehow strengthen an economy—is that the Fed is “too late” in implementing additional rate cuts to stimulate the economy.

The pressure to cut rates gained additional strength in the wake of new jobs reports, released earlier this month, showing that job growth had substantially weakened during June, July, and August of this year. Moreover, the release of revised benchmark employment data for much of 2024 and early 2025 showed that job growth had not been nearly as strong as previously reported.

Those pushing for more easy money used this jobs data as an opportunity to demand more rate cuts from the Fed. So, not surprisingly, Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the FOMC this week voted to lower the target rate, and the Fed will accelerate its open market operations, using newly created money, to intervene in the marketplace to further reduce short-term interest rates.

In this, we also see what really concerns the Fed. The Fed’s concern is not reducing prices and improving the cost of living for ordinary people. What really concerns the Fed is ensuring rising asset prices for Wall Street while pushing cheap credit to finance federal deficits.

Does the Fed Care about Price Inflation? 

Generally, the mainstream narrative around Fed policy works like this: when inflation is “too high”—as defined by the Fed itself—then the Fed will allow interest rates to rise. This will slow monetary inflation and prices will stabilize. On the other hand, when employment is not sufficiently robust—again, as defined by the Fed itself—then the Fed will lower the target interest rate. That will lead to more monetary inflation which will “stimulate” job growth. This narrative, however, depends on the idea that when employment growth is weak, price inflation will also be weak, and vice versa.

If a weakening employment situation were the only thing going on right now, then it would be very easy for the Fed to claim right now—using the popularly accepted narrative—that it is necessary for the Fed to cut the target rate to stimulate employment. But, the Fed face a complicating factor right now in that price inflation has been rising in recent months, and shows no signs of returning to the Fed’s arbitrary two-percent inflation target.

Specifically, core CPI in August rose 3.1 percent, well in excess of the two-percent target. Moreover, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, personal consumption expenditures, rose by 2.9 percent in July. Powell recent stated that their estimate for PCE growth in August is also 2.9 percent. In other words, price inflation isn’t going away, and by lowering the target rate, the Fed is pushing more monetary inflation which will put further upward pressure on prices.

Moreove,r the FOMC’s members now don’t expect the Fed to hit its target price-inflation rate until 2027. At least, that’s what the members are saying according to the Fed’s summary of economic projections (SEP). The SEP, however, can always be counted on the portray the economy as stable and generally improving. It’s the best scenario that Fed voting members think they can get away with predicting. So, if the SEP is telling us that price inflation will not fall to 2 percent until 2027, we can expect that there is plenty of monetary inflation in the works.

The scenario projected by the SEP is this: that the Fed will wisely manage the economy back to a state of growing employment and moderating price inflation, as the Fed threads the needle of discovering just the right target interest rate to optimize economic conditions. That’s what they want the public to believe.

If price inflation does come in coming months and years, the more likely scenario is this: the economy will weaken, just as is now suggested by recessionary trends in the index of leading economic indicators, in new home construction, in stagnating job growth, and in delinquency rates. Prices will fall as demand collapses in the face of rising unemployment, falling real wages, and overindebtedness.

The downside of a recession, of course, is temporary unemployment. But the upside—in the absence of central-bank meddling—is that the many inflationary bubbles that have grown as a result of monetary inflation finally pop and prices fall. Zombie companies that only existed thanks to cheap credit go bankrupt and more efficient owners take over and build a more productive economy out of the rubble of the old Fed-created inflationary economy. This is all to the good in terms of the cost of living because the bubble economy has become unaffordable for ordinary people who are forced to deal with incessantly rising prices and unaffordable homes.

That’s what would happen if the Fed actually cared about reducing price inflation. Unfortunately, the Fed isn’t going to let that happen. Rather than allow prices to fall substantially, and allow for a new, less wasteful, less frothy and bubbly economy to arise, the Fed will instead continue to force down interest rates and push more monetary inflation as the economy slows. This will prevent a reset in prices, and it will help ensure that the same, wasteful bubble enterprises continue to dominate the economy.

The Fed will say, as it is already now saying, that it must “balance” its efforts to combat inflation against the need to stimulate employment.

In other words, as the economy slows, American policymakers have the opportunity to allow home prices to fall and to make homes available to millions of Americans who have been priced out thanks to decades of easy-money-fueled asset price growth. Americans policymakers have an opportunity to allow a flowering of new competition and new efficiency in the economy as the old incumbent firms that now subsist on debt and speculative manias actually make way for new entrepreneurs and new dynamic economy.

But, as we saw this week, the Fed will do everything it can to stop that from happening. Even as price inflation continues to grow, the Fed is telling us it has to print more money to ensure that “number go up” in terms of asset prices and GDP.

Sure, the Fed will frame all this as a service to ordinary people, and as a prudent means of ensuring a vibrant job market. In truth, the central bank is serving its most important clients: Wall Street and the US regime. On the one hand, the Fed is intervening to make sure that asset prices—i.e., stocks—continue to rise for the benefit of existing wealthy asset owns. On the other hand, the Fed is lowering interest rates to ensure the Treasury can borrow at low interest rates as the federal debt continues to climb to $40 trillion. 

In contrast to all this central planning from the central bank, what the Fed should be doing right now is nothing. The Fed could simply refrain from taking any action toward meddling in the private economy at all. The Fed could end its open market operations which employ monetary inflation to manipulate interest rates. The Fed could allow markets to function, and could allow the economy to heal. Unfortunately, the Fed was created to do anything but allow the private economy to function. It has always been an instrument of central planning, and we should not expect anything different from it now.

The post With Its Latest Rate Cut, the Fed Serves Wall Street and the Regime appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm. 

The European Conservative

The post Charlie Kirk, Viktor Orbán, and the Lies of Gender Ideology appeared first on LewRockwell.

Rick Rozoff wrote:

Part of a growing chorus of conservatives demanding she be canned.

My comments: “Bravo. She shifted discussion of the most egregious political assassination in the nation since 1968 and the extensive terrorist network responsible for it to banning alleged hate speech. And guess who will define that? The likes of the ADL and the so-called SPLC. Just as she did an abrupt about-face on the Epstein case. One would not be unjustified in asking who she’s taking orders from.”

The post Boot Bondi appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Rick Rozoff:

RT News

The post Charlie Kirk’s murder is the beginning of a liberal, globalist riot against all ordinary people: Russian philosopher appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

The documentary focuses on the moral ambiguity of the German scientists and the horrors of the slave factory that built the missiles. The narrator downplays the effects of the V-2 rocket campaign on British morale. Nine thousand dead civilians is a large number. Look at how America reacted to the deaths of three thousand civilians on 9/11.

By the end of WWII, Americans were no longer buying War Bonds. The Japanese were killing more American soldiers on Iwo Jima and Okinawa than the Japs were losing. The British, who had been at war longer than the Americans, were exhausted. A silent death from above was psychologically damaging. A V-2 would wipe out a city block or more.

The narrator says the material and manpower used for the V-2s could have built thousands of jet fighters for Germany. Yeah, but Germany was out of pilots. The U-boats were being sunk by the Allies. Hitler’s last hope was psychological warfare on the Allies…terrorism.

Psychological warfare is being used on us today.

The post V-s2 Rocket: Nazi Germany’s Deadliest Secret Weapon appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Great American Digest

The post A Hollywood Starlet’s New ad Just left Democrats’ Mouths Agape appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post What Everyone’s Missing On The Jimmy Kimmel Firing appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/perche-i-possessori-di-bitcoin-trarranno)

La recente approvazione del GENIUS Act al Senato e l'imminente “Crypto Week” della Camera segnano un cambiamento epocale nel mondo finanziario. Il disegno di legge, approvato con 68 voti favorevoli e 30 contrari, stabilisce un quadro normativo federale per le stablecoin, il quale include requisiti di riserva, informativa agli emittenti e tutela dei consumatori. Questa legge getta le basi affinché il sistema finanziario statunitense si liberi dal monopolio che le banche hanno a lungo detenuto sul denaro, creando spazio per l'innovazione e la concorrenza nei servizi finanziari.

Al centro di questa transizione c'è l'adozione delle stablecoin, crittovalute progettate per mantenere un valore stabile ancorato a un asset di riserva. Le stablecoin offrono un mezzo di scambio stabile e una riserva di valore, consentendo al contempo transazioni digitali più fluide e una più ampia adozione della tecnologia blockchain.

Ma perché i sostenitori di Bitcoin, che da tempo sostengono una forma di denaro decentralizzata, trarranno vantaggio dalla legge sulle stablecoin? Dopotutto sono emesse da società private e sono ancorate a una valuta fiat.

L'ascesa delle stablecoin non diminuisce il valore o l'importanza di Bitcoin, o di altre crittovalute.

In realtà le due cose si completano a vicenda.

La chiarezza normativa in questo ambito consente agli imprenditori nel settore delle crittovalute di valutare il rischio, minaccia il monopolio che le banche hanno sul denaro e crea una domanda aggiuntiva per i dollari.

Per molti imprenditori nel settore delle crittovalute, qualsiasi legge è meglio di nessuna legge. Il mondo delle crittovalute sta attualmente soffrendo di una sorta di paralisi causata dall'incertezza normativa.

Questo è stato uno dei temi centrali della Bitcoin Conference di maggio, il più grande incontro al mondo dedicato a Bitcoin, che ha visto gli interventi di J. D. Vance, Michael Saylor e Donald Trump Jr. Molti leader nel settore delle crittovalute hanno sostenuto l'approvazione di normative per gettare le basi per regole più formali nel loro settore.

La codifica delle normative sulle crittovalute, di cui il GENIUS Act e lo STABLE Act sono centrali, consente agli imprenditori di valutare con sicurezza il rischio nel settore. La legge può sempre essere modificata in futuro, ma disporre di una struttura normativa chiara incoraggia gli imprenditori a investire con fiducia in questo settore in rapida espansione.

Attualmente le banche decidono di fatto chi ha accesso al capitale e a quali condizioni, attraverso il loro controllo dominante su conti correnti, conti di risparmio e prestiti. L'ascesa delle stablecoin offre una via d'uscita da questo sistema centralizzato. Le stablecoin consentono a privati ​​e aziende di aggirare il sistema bancario tradizionale facilitando transazioni dirette peer-to-peer su reti blockchain decentralizzate, eliminando gli intermediari bancari.

Grazie alla stabilità dei prezzi legata a un asset, all'accessibilità globale (chiunque abbia una connessione Internet può accedervi) e all'integrazione con smart contract, le stablecoin rappresentano un'alternativa efficiente e conveniente ai sistemi finanziari tradizionali.

L'adozione delle stablecoin riduce la capacità esclusiva delle banche di controllare l'offerta di moneta. Con l'utilizzo delle stablecoin, persone e aziende non contribuiscono più ai profitti delle banche sotto forma di commissioni, prestiti o depositi. Le stablecoin possono sostituire strumenti finanziari come i conti correnti, che rappresentano la parte più redditizia del bilancio di una banca. Creando un modo più efficiente e trasparente per gestire le transazioni, le stablecoin riducono i costi complessivi dei servizi finanziari, minacciando di sovvertire la morsa che le banche hanno sul denaro.

Con l'adozione delle stablecoin da parte di un numero sempre maggiore di persone a livello globale, la domanda di dollari e titoli del Tesoro statunitensi aumenterà. L'entità di questo aumento della domanda è sconosciuta, tuttavia essa riduce i rendimenti obbligazionari e facilita l'aumento del debito statunitense. Se la convinzione dei bitcoiner che lo stato abbia scarso autocontrollo sulla politica fiscale si rivelerà vera, trarranno vantaggio dall'ascesa delle stablecoin. Maggiore è la domanda di dollari, più lo stato sarà incoraggiato a stampare e indebitarsi per soddisfare tale domanda. Ciò potrebbe portare a pressioni inflazionistiche, che a loro volta aumenterebbero il valore delle crittovalute, in particolare di Bitcoin, come copertura contro l'inflazione.

L'ampia accettazione delle stablecoin apre la strada a una maggiore chiarezza normativa nel settore delle crittovalute. Con regole chiare per l'emissione e l'utilizzo delle stablecoin, aziende e consumatori avranno maggiore fiducia nell'utilizzarle per le transazioni quotidiane. Per i bitcoiner la chiarezza normativa sulle stablecoin contribuirà a garantire che l'intero ecosistema delle crittovalute abbia leali possibilità di competere con la finanza tradizionale.

Il futuro delle crittovalute è in continua evoluzione e le stablecoin rappresentano una parte importante di questa evoluzione.

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

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

Saleh Abdullah wrote:

Tucker Carlson said that Charlie Kirk told him at a TPUSA Student Action Summit last July to highlight Epstein’s connections to Mossad.

Distinguishing between Netanyahu and the State of Israel, Carlson claimed that Kirk hated Netanyahu and his war against Gaza despite loving.

https://x.com/AFpost/status/1968145408523485271

https://nypost.com/2025/09/16/us-news/george-zinn-old-man-who-falsely-claimed-he-shot-charlie-kirk-arrested-on-child-porn-charges/

https://x.com/grok/status/1966908298852266159

The post Tucker Carlson said that Charlie Kirk… appeared first on LewRockwell.

My fellow Americans, my critical voice has finally been heard inside the Oval Office. No, not my voice against the $1.7 trillion this country is planning to spend on new nuclear weapons. No, not my call to cut the Pentagon budget in half. No, not my imprecations against militarism in America. It was a quip of mine that the Department of Defense (DoD) should return to its roots as the War Department, since the U.S. hasn’t known a moment’s peace since before the 9/11 attacks, locked as it’s been into a permanent state of global war, whether against “terror” or for its imperial agendas (or both).

A rebranded Department of War, President Trump recently suggested, simply sounds tougher (and more Trumpian) than “defense.” As is his wont, he blurted out a hard truth as he stated that America must have an offensive military. There was, however, no mention of war bonds or war taxes to pay for such a military. And no mention of a wartime draft or any other meaningful sacrifice by most Americans.

Rebranding the DoD as the Department of War is, Trump suggested, a critical step in returning to a time when America was always winning. I suspect he was referring to World War II. Give him credit, though. He was certainly on target about one thing: since World War II, the United States has had a distinctly victoryless military. Quick: Name one clear triumph in a meaningful war for the United States since 1945. Korea? At best, a stalemate. Vietnam? An utter disaster, a total defeat. Iraq and Afghanistan? Quagmires, debacles that were waged dishonestly and lost for that very reason.

Even the Cold War that this country ostensibly won in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t lead to the victory Americans thought was coming their way. After much hype about a “new world order” where the U.S. would cash in its peace dividends, the military-industrial-congressional complex found new wars to wage, new threats to meet, even as the events of 9/11 enabled a surge — actually, a gusher — of spending that fed militarism within American culture. The upshot of all that warmongering was a soaring national debt driven by profligate spending. After all, the Iraq and Afghan Wars alone are estimated to have cost us some $8 trillion.

Those disasters (and many more) happened, of course, under the Department of Defense. Imagine that! America was “defending” itself in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and elsewhere, even as those wars killed and wounded significant numbers of our troops while doing far more damage to those on the receiving end of massive American firepower. All this will, I assume, go away with a “new” Department of War. Time to win again! Except, as one Vietnam veteran reminded me, you can’t do a wrong thing the right way. You can’t win wars by fighting for unjust causes, especially in situations where military force simply can’t offer a decisive solution.

It’s going to take more than a rebranded Department of War to fix wanton immorality and strategic stupidity.

We Need a Return of the Vietnam Syndrome

Hey, I’m okay with the Pentagon’s rebranding. War, after all, is what America does. This is a country made by war, a country of macho men hitching up their big boy pants on the world stage, led by the latest (greatest?) secretary of war, “Pomade Pete” Hegseth, whose signature move has been to do pushups with the troops while extolling a “warrior ethos.” Such an ethos, of course, is more consistent with a War Department than a Defense Department, so kudos to him. Too bad it’s inconsistent with a citizen-soldier military that’s supposed to be obedient to and protective of the Constitution. But that’s just a minor detail, right?

Here’s the rub. As Trump and Hegseth have now tacitly admitted, the national security state has never been about “security” for Americans. Rather, it’s existed and continues to exist as a war state in a state of constant war (or preparations for the same), now stuffed to the popping point with more than a trillion dollars yearly in taxpayer funds. And the leaders of that war state — an enormous blood-sucking parasite on society — are never going to admit that it’s in any way too large or overfed, let alone so incompetent as to have been victoryless for the last 80 years of regular war-making.

And count on one grim reality: that war state will always find new enemies to attack, new rivals to deter, new weapons to buy, and a new spectrum of warfare to try to dominate. Venezuela appears to be the latest enemy, China the latest peer rival, hypersonic missiles and drone swarms the new weaponry, and artificial intelligence the new spectrum. For America’s parasitic war state, there will always be more to feed on and to attempt (never very successfully) to dominate.

Mind you, this is exactly what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against in his 1961 Farewell Address. Sixty-plus years ago, Ike could already see that what he was the first to call the military-industrial complex was already too powerful (as the Vietnam War loomed). And of course, it has only grown more powerful since he left office. As Ike also wisely said, only Americans can truly hurt America — notably, I’d add, those Americans who embrace war and the supposed benefits of a warrior ethos instead of democracy and the rule of law.

Again, I’m okay with a War Department. But if we’re reviving older concepts in the name of honesty, what truly needs a new lease on life is the Vietnam Syndrome that, according to President George H.W. Bush, America allegedly got rid of once and for all with a rousing victory against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (that would prove to be anything but).

That Vietnam Syndrome, you may recall, was an allegedly paralyzing American reluctance to use military force in the aftermath of disastrous interventions in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia in the 1960s and early 1970s. According to that narrative, the U.S. government had become too slow, too reluctant, too scarred (or do I mean scared?) to march speedily to war. As President Richard Nixon once said, America must never resemble a “pitiful, helpless giant.” To do so, he insisted, would threaten not just our country but the entire free world (as it was known then). America had to show that, when the chips were down, our leaders were up for going all-in, no matter how bad our cards were vis-à-vis those of our opponents.

If nothing else, no country had more chips than we did when it came to sheer military firepower and a willingness to use it (or so, at least, it seemed to Nixon and crew). A skilled poker player, Nixon was blinded by the belief that the U.S. couldn’t afford to suffer a humiliating loss on the world stage (especially when he was its leader). But the tumult that resulted from the fall of Saigon to communist forces in 1975 taught Americans something, if only temporarily: that one should hasten very slowly to war, a lesson Sparta, the quintessential warrior city-state of Ancient Greece, knew to be the sign of mature wisdom.

Spartan wannabes like Pete Hegseth, with his ostentatious displays of “manliness,” however, fail to understand the warrior ethos they purport to exhibit. Wise warrior-leaders don’t wage war for war’s sake. Considering the horrific costs of war and its inherent unpredictability, sage leaders weigh their options carefully, knowing that wars are always far easier to get into than out of and that they often mutate in dangerously unpredictable ways, leaving those who have survived them to wonder what it was ever all about — why there was so much killing and dying for so little that was faintly meaningful.

What Will Trump’s “Winning” War Department Look Like?

Perhaps Americans got an initial look at Trump’s new “winning” War Department off the coast of Venezuela with what could be the start of a new “drug war” against that country. A boat carrying 11 people, allegedly with fentanyl supplies on board, was obliterated by a U.S. missile in this country’s first “drug war” strike. It was a case where President Trump decided that he was the only judge and jury around and the U.S. military was his executioner. We may never know who was actually on board that boat or what they were doing, questions that undoubtedly matter not a whit to Trump or Hegseth. What mattered to them was sending an ultimate message of toughness, regardless of its naked illegality or its patent stupidity.

Similarly, Trump has put the National Guard on the streets of Washington, D.C., deployed Marines and the National Guard to Los Angeles, and warned of yet more troop deployments to come in Chicago, New Orleans, and elsewhere. Supposedly looking to enforce “law and order,” the president is instead endangering it, while disregarding the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits a president from deploying active-duty troops as domestic law enforcers.

If America isn’t a nation of laws, what is it? If the president is a lawbreaker instead of an upholder of those laws, what is he?

Recall that every American servicemember takes a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Warriors are driven by something different. Historically, they often just obeyed their chieftain or warlord, killing without thought or mercy. If they were bound by law, it was most often that of the jungle.

Knowingly or unknowingly, that’s exactly the kind of military Pete Hegseth and the new Department of War (and nothing but war) are clearly seeking to create. A force where might makes right (although in our recent history, it’s almost invariably made wrong).

I must admit that, from the recent attack on that boat in the Caribbean to the sending of troops into Washington, I find I’m not faintly surprised by this developing crisis (that’s almost guaranteed to grow ever worse). Remember, after all, that Donald Trump, a distinctly lawless man, boasted during the Republican debate in the 2016 election campaign that the military would follow his orders irrespective of their legality. I wrote then that, with such a response, he had disqualified himself as a candidate for the presidency:

“Trump’s performance last night [3/3/16] reminded me of Richard Nixon’s infamous answer to David Frost about Watergate: ‘When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.’ No, no, a thousand times no. The president has to obey the law of the land, just as everyone else has to. No person is above the law, an American ideal that Trump seems neither to understand nor to embrace. And that disqualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief.”

If only.

In retrospect, I guess Trump had it right. After all, he’s won the presidency twice, no matter that his kind of “rightness” threatens the very foundations of this country.

So, color me more than worried. In this new (yet surprisingly old) age of a War Department, I see even more possibilities for lawlessness, wanton violence, and summary executions — and, in the end, the defeat of everything that matters, all justified by that eternal cry: “We’re at war.” At which point, I return to war’s miseries and how quickly we humans forget its lessons, no matter how harsh or painful they may be.

Someday, America’s soon-to-be War Department, led by wannabe warrior chieftains Trump and Hegseth, will perhaps seem like the ultimate blowback from this country’s disastrous wars overseas since its name changed to the Defense Department in the wake of World War II. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, this country allegedly waged war in the name of spreading democracy and freedom. That cause failed and America’s own grip on democracy and freedom only continues to loosen — perhaps fatally so.

In harkening back to a War Department, perhaps Trump is also channeling a nostalgia for the Old West, or at least the myth of it, where justice was served through personal bounties and murderous violence enforced by steely-eyed men wielding steel-blue pistols. Trump’s idea of “justice” does seem to be that of a hanging judge on a “wild” frontier facing hostile “Injuns” of various sorts. For men like Trump, those were the glory days of imperial expansion, never mind all the bodies left in the wake of America’s manifest destiny. If nothing else, that old imperial Department of War certainly knew what it was about.

Whatever else one might expect from America’s “new” Department of War, you can bet your life (or death) on a whole lot of future body bags. Warriors are, of course, okay with this as long as there are more boats to blow up, more people to bomb, and more foreign resources to steal in the pursuit of a “victory” that never actually arrives. So hitch up those big boy pants, grab a rifle or a Hellfire missile, and start killing. After all, in what might be thought of as a distinctly victoryless culture, it seems as if America is destined to be at war forever and a day.

Reprinted with permission from TomDispatch.com.

The post The Department of War Is Back! appeared first on LewRockwell.

“If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down.”

– President George W Bush

Three disasters have defined this century. Each was precipitated, perpetuated, and exacerbated by people who used the crisis to accrue more power.

One calamity occurred as the millennium opened. The next as its first decade ended. And the third as this one started.

Our last installment discussed the initial catastrophe. Today, seventeen years after the Lehman Brothers collapse, we examine some causes and consequences of the second.

Predictable Pile-Up

The multi-decade fight against “terror” has cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives. Congress never declared these wars, which were funded by fake money counterfeited by the Fed.

This financial finagling precipitated a predictable pile-up on this century’s road to perdition. As with any economic event afflicting billions of people, the 2008 financial crisis had many causes. But the main impetus was the Federal Reserve.

Under sound money, business cycles always occur within specific companies or industries. But they’re relatively contained.

For a given product or particular market, desire ebbs and favor flows. Supply and demand wax and wane with resource constraints, competitive pressure, customer preference, and price extremes that cure themselves.

But for the entire globe to crest and crash on the same wave means an exogenous force caused a raucous wake. Widespread booms and busts… including the Great Depression and the stagflationary Seventies… have been more extensive and severe since the founding of the Fed.

But the two decade “Great Moderation” after the early ‘80s “Volcker shock” seemed to tame the business cycle. With his Black Monday bailout in 1987, Alan Greenspan created his eponymous “put” that made him the “maestro”.

The Fed has repeatedly reprised his tune throughout this century. That makes sense. Counterfeiting is the only song they know. Like day drinking, speaking two languages, and tax avoidance, ripping people off is cool if you’re rich but can cause problems if you’re poor.

As David Stockton notes, the Fed balance sheet (the amount of money it’s conjured) increased 35-fold since the advent of the “Greenspan put”. Nominal GDP merely quintupled, with real GDP up only half that much.

After the tech bubble burst, the Fed did what it always does: created a new one. Greenspan again rode to the “rescue”.

Primary Accomplices

Like a beach ball under water, the Fed forced interest rates below the level at which they’d have naturally floated. When markets made them let go, everyone got soaked.

In a startling move at the time (tho’ in retrospect it seems like quaint restraint), Greenspan held rates at one percent for over a year. The result was the only recession on record in which house prices didn’t fall. From that “lesson”, politicians and bureaucrats encouraged borrowers to believe they never would.

During the first seven years of this century, more dollars were created than in the previous two centuries combined. In subsequent years, that ignominious record would be repeatedly eclipsed.

Much of this money flowed into mortgages, precipitating an unnatural rise in real estate prices (which was the idea). Easy credit attracted marginal speculators who had no business being in the market.

Not that the Fed didn’t have help. Among its primary accomplices were a couple privileged, state-sanctioned ambiguities known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These “Government Sponsored Entities” (GSE) purchase mortgages on the secondary market. With an implicit taxpayer backstop, they buy loans from originators, which provides those lenders additional funds to extend new loans.

This process prompts more mortgages than would otherwise exist, making it easier for people to “buy” homes they can’t afford. Government laid the bait that lulled buyers into this trap.

The tax and regulatory benefits GSEs enjoy, plus an essentially unlimited line-of-credit from the U.S. Treasury, diverted resources and distorted markets by allowing these entities to raise money and buy mortgages more easily than private competitors could.

Under political pressure to increase home “ownership” among “disadvantaged” groups, GSEs also enabled lower lending standards by easing requirements on mortgages they bought. This encouraged more reckless loans, as originators knew they could offload them from their books.

Much as student loans and lower admission standards enticed millions into college who had no business being there, the Fed, GSEs, and crony legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Equal Opportunity Credit Act attracted borrowers into mortgages they would never be able to afford.

“Generally Sound”

As Tom Woods noted in Meltdown, his definitive overview of the financial crisis, even the New York Times conceded these warped interventions “changed homeownership from something that secured a place in the middle class to something that ejected people from it.”

Loose money and low standards (a natural consequence of loose money) affected prime loans too. In many cases it infected them first, and more quickly… which undermines the notion that lenders “preyed” on subprime borrowers.

Adjustable rate mortgages enticed creditworthy speculators and “flippers” to borrow more than they otherwise would. This allowed them to bid up prices, enjoy appreciation, and sell the property before teaser rates rose… all of which attracted more speculation.

This is what the government wanted. For two decades, both political parties, including President George W Bush, urged down payment requirements be subsidized, reduced, or ditched.

As these wishes were increasingly accommodated, Greenspan’s successor, Ben Bernanke, assured us “lending standards are generally sound.” The year George Bush asked lenders to dispense with down payments, the Fed dismissed the idea there was a housing bubble.

Former Chairman Greenspan encouraged borrowers to take advantage of adjustable rate mortgages (without warning that the adjusted rates would eventually take advantage of them).

And why not? For two decades the Fed had implicitly enticed (and explicitly backstopped) reckless behavior its counterfeiting encouraged. As the housing bubble inflated, the people pumping air lamented a lack of affordable homes.

When the burst bubble finally offered the remedy, lower prices became the one tonic that wasn’t allowed. The people who caused the problem promptly pumped more of the debt and bailouts that produced the binge.

To the extent these “saviors” were criticized, it was for being too slow and stingy pouring the booze. As the hangover intensified, the bartenders decided to open the taps.

Read the Whole Article

The post A Brief History of the 21st Century: Part II appeared first on LewRockwell.

Contrary to the assertions of Scofield-duped Christian Zionist evangelicals, God gave NO everlasting unconditional promise of national perpetuity to the Old Covenant nation of Israel. God’s promises of blessings to Old Covenant Israel were conditional to Israel’s obedience to God.

An unconditional everlasting promise was given to the man Abraham. And this promise was fulfilled in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Galatians 3:16, 28, 29) But to the nation of Old Covenant Israel was no such promise given.

In my third Prophecy Message from Romans 11, I provided much Scripture that delineated the differences between the unconditional everlasting seed promise given to Abraham (fulfilled in Christ) and the conditional land promise given to the Old Covenant nation of Israel—a covenant that Israel broke—and God then cursed Israel and took the land away from them forever.

Prophecy Message Three is entitled God’s Chosen People, and we have that message in both a DVD and PDF format.

Moses, the man through whom God gave Israel its conditional covenant, made it crystal clear to the nation just how conditional God’s covenant was to them.

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.

Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people.

And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.

Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.

Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:

And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.

Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;

Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

(See Deuteronomy 28:15 – 68)

In these and many other passages of Scripture, God promised to remove the children of Israel from the promised land (Canaan) forever, because of their disobedience. In this chapter in Deuteronomy, Moses predicted the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians, the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians and the destruction of the Judahite remnant by the Romans.

In short, Old Covenant Israel violated its covenant with God, and God did what Moses declared He would do: He expelled them from the promised land and destroyed their nation forever. The Israelis in Palestine today are NOT Biblical Israelites; they are NOT the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and they are NOT God’s chosen people.

The Israelis are the children of Japheth, not Shem, as are the rest of the Eastern Europeans from which they descended. They have ZERO God-given land covenant in Palestine. They have ZERO promise of national perpetuity from God; there is ZERO promise from God for anyone who attempts to bless, assist, aid or support the Zionist state.

In truth, from its very inception in 1948, the State of Israel has proven itself to be a devilish, murderous, barbaric people—a plague of racism, hatred, ethnic cleansing, war and genocide upon the world. And the more the United States has entangled itself economically, militarily, morally and spiritually with Israel, the more America has invoked the curse of God upon it to the point that today America is little more than a vassal state of the most vile, wicked and bloodthirsty country on the planet.

And after two years of supporting Israel’s maniacal genocide in Gaza, the people of the entire world hold both Israel and the United States in utter contempt. And for good reason. America’s financial and military support for Israel’s crimes against humanity in Palestine are contemptible.

Donald Trump has proven himself to be as much or more of a lackey for Israel as Joe Biden. He is the one man in the world that has the capability to put an end to Israel’s slaughter of innocents in Gaza and the West Bank, but he refuses to do it. As with almost the entire Congress in Washington, D.C., Trump is nothing more than a pimp for Israel. They are all bought and paid for by the Israel lobby. They are the worst kind of prostitutes. They make street walkers look like Sunday School teachers by comparison.

But, ladies and gentlemen, Israel is doing more than murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents; it is expediting its own destruction. Israel has passed the point of no return. Its collapse is certain—and probably imminent.

As it always does, the Western media ignored it, but Yemen’s Houthis delivered a devastating missile attack against Israel, after Israel assassinated Yemen’s civilian prime minister and 12 of his cabinet members.

Here is a YouTube technical analysis from Conflict Skies & Steel of the attack:

Today we are witnessing a historic escalation in the Middle East that is shaking the foundations of regional security. Yemen’s Houthis have launched a daring strike against Israel, targeting the heart of Tel Aviv with a combination of long-range missiles and advanced drones.

This is not just a headline, it is a demonstration of reach, precision and the growing boldness of non-state actors in the modern battlefield. The world is now watching closely as the Houthis challenge one of the most technologically advanced nations in the region, sending a clear and shocking message to Israel and its allies.

Tel Aviv, a city known for its bustling economy and dense population, is now under fire with emergency sirens blaring and streets evacuated in panic. Smoke rises from multiple districts, while Israel’s air defense systems scramble to intercept incoming threats.

The scale of this attack is unlike anything seen in recent years, highlighting a new phase in asymmetric warfare, where precision and surprise trump sheer size and firepower. Citizens report sudden explosions, shaking windows and streets filled with confusion, a stark reminder that modern conflict can reach civilian centers with devastating speed.

The Iron Dome has successfully neutralized a large portion of the attack, but gaps in coverage were exposed, demonstrating that even the most sophisticated defense networks are not infallible.

Streets once crowded with civilians now appear deserted, as emergency sirens and warnings drive people into shelters. This attack is remarkable for its precision, with missiles targeting strategic locations rather than random destruction, showcasing the Houthis’ intelligence and tactical planning.

For Israel, this is a psychological blow as much as a physical one. The population’s sense of security is shaken, and the government must quickly reassess its defensive posture.

Conflict Skies and Steel [YouTube Channel] has been closely analyzing the data, and what stands out is the speed, coordination and audacity of this operation, reflecting a level of sophistication that goes far beyond what many had expected from Houthi capabilities.

The interior of this operation, though brief in visible details, tells a story of meticulous planning and technological evolution. The Houthi appear to have synchronized multiple missile launches with drone operations to overwhelm Israel’s defenses. Open-source satellite imagery suggests that launch sites were strategically positioned and camouflaged deep inside Yemeni territory. Real-time intelligence likely guided the drones to ensure maximum accuracy. The operation reflects a calculated approach, balancing the need for impact with operational security to avoid exposing critical assets.

Even with limited resources compared to a conventional army, the Houthis demonstrated that precision, timing and adaptability are force multipliers capable of challenging the world’s strongest defenses.

Performance of the strike has been extraordinary. Missiles reportedly traveled over 100 to 200 kilometers, demonstrating a significant extension of Houthi range capabilities. The simultaneous use of drones adds an unpredictable element, complicating interception strategies.

The attack successfully stressed Israel’s air defense systems, creating gaps that allowed some missiles to reach their targets. Analysts are evaluating the types of missiles used, with indications of modified scud variants and precision-guided munitions.

Drones provided real-time reconnaissance, potentially allowing operators to adjust trajectories mid-flight. This combination of missiles and UOV highlights the Houthis’ ingenuity, blending traditional long-range attacks with modern drone technology to create a complex battlefield problem.

The unique selling points of this Houthi operation are clear and remarkable.

First, the ability to strike Tel Aviv from Yemen demonstrates a significant leap in operational reach and capability.

Second, the synchronized use of multiple weapons systems, including missiles and drones, showcases an integrated approach rarely seen from non-state actors.

Third, the psychological impact on both Israel and the international community is immense, sending a signal that the Houthis can operate far beyond their traditional theater of conflict.

In conclusion, Yemen’s Houthi strike on Tel Aviv is both shocking and strategically significant. It exposes vulnerabilities in advanced air defense systems, demonstrates the evolution of non-state actors into formidable military threats and emphasizes the psychological and political dimensions of modern warfare.

Civilians are facing unprecedented threats, militaries are forced to reconsider their strategies and analysts are left re-evaluating the assumptions of regional power dynamics.

Israel is hemorrhaging economically, militarily, culturally, politically, psychologically, emotionally and internationally.

The Zionist experiment is over.

Almost every country in the world sees Israel for the satanic monster that it is, and they are enraged. The only major government in the world that remains unconditionally supportive of Israel is the United States—and among the population of the U.S., opposition to Israel is two to one. And Donald Trump’s favorability rating is now worse than was Joe Biden’s—mainly due to his sycophantic support for Israel.

Geopolitical, academic, military and intelligence experts such as Col. Douglas Macgregor, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Major Scott Ritter, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Professor John Mearsheimer, intelligence officers Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern and Phil Giraldi are unanimous in the opinion that Israel’s collapse will come sooner than later.

Netanyahu and his fellow fascists in Israel are possessed with the intention of slaughtering or removing all 2 million Palestinians in Gaza. They really do intend to turn Gaza into Trump’s Riviera of the Middle East. Then, they fully intend to ethnically cleanse the West Bank. Then, they intend to conquer Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Then, they intend to liquidate the Palestinians and Arabs in Jordan and Eastern Egypt (including Cairo) and seize those land areas, including a large segment of Saudi Arabia.

But their devilish designs for a Greater Israel are falling apart. The little country of Yemen is showing the world that Israel—even with the military support of the United States—is ripe for destruction. After decades of missile attacks from Saudi Arabia and the United States (under both Biden and Trump) the Houthis are still standing toe-to-toe against Israel with much mental acumen and military aptitude.

If Israel is stunned and frightened by Yemen, wait until they attack Iran again and see what happens. Plus, the money-worshipping Arab states in the Persian Gulf that have sat back like scared little pussycats and done NOTHING to help their Arab brethren in Palestine know that history is going to forever shine the light of truth on the Arab monarchies for the moneygrubbing cowards they are, while the Houthis will go down in history as the brave little David who stood courageously against the Zionist Goliath—and won.

Israelis by the thousands are fleeing the country. They know the nation is on its last legs. Netanyahu knows his only hope for staying out of prison (or maybe even staying alive) is to keep Israel at war. He doesn’t care one whit how many innocent people he kills, as long as it keeps him in power. He is a demon-possessed madman. And he is trying his best to drag the United States into all-out war along with him.

And given Trump’s slavish devotion to the Jewish billionaires that have been his financial benefactors throughout his entire life, he is proving to be in no mood to put America first, all of his campaign rhetoric notwithstanding. After all, Trump started seven businesses, and all seven went bankrupt. And all seven times the Zionist billionaires bailed him out. It is a fantasy to think that Trump would put the interests of the United States above those of Israel. Trump is Zionist-owned lock, stock and barrel.

But the question might be: Who will die first, Donald Trump or Israel? Because both are on life support.

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post The Zionist Experiment Is Over appeared first on LewRockwell.

History’s wheel is turning. China builds, India rises, BRICS surpasses the G7—while America punishes allies and empowers its Enemies.

In the West, the year 1492 is remembered for two episodes: Columbus’s arrival in the Americas and the fall of Granada, last stronghold of Moorish Spain. But its larger consequence was geopolitical: the compass needle swung westward, ushering in a centuries long reversal in global fortunes.

Wealth that once streamed toward Asia turned into rivers feeding Europe’s ascent.

Silver, gold, sugar, and spices from the Americas acted like jet fuel. They powered science, industry, and empire. Spain, France, Britain, and the Netherlands—naval and commercial predators—rose on the tide, hollowing out the Ottoman world and diverting trade from India and China to the New World.

Today another hinge of history is swinging. Washington’s unspoken fear of a 21st century turn is no less dramatic: economic gravity shifts eastward, led by China and—critically—India.

Beijing’s gamble in the 1990s—to let capitalism breathe, to draw in foreign capital, and to pour trillions into domestic infrastructure—proved as consequential as a century of US industrial growth.

The Belt and Road Initiative, worth more than $1 trillion, is less an infrastructure plan than a circulatory system of steel and concrete veins, designed to redirect the lifeblood of trade back across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

In contrast, Washington failed to invest in fast sealift or high speed rail, leaning too heavily on military power.

For the last 25 years, America exhausted itself in deserts and mountains, fighting costly wars that drained trillions, cost thousands of U.S. lives—yet delivered little of enduring strategic value.

Worse still, the technology of war is no longer America’s private domain. Precision strikes, robotics, artificial intelligence, persistent surveillance from seabed to space—once rare advantages—are now widely available, even to mid range powers.

The oceans that once carried American commerce and projected US power have become potential minefields. To move lumbering, World War II style forces across the Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian Oceans today is not just dangerous. It borders on suicidal behavior.

History’s cruel truth remains: the last major war seldom looks like the next.

The battle-space of the future is uncharted, yet America’s Armed Forces and its National Military Strategy remain deeply mired in the past.

The erosion of U.S. military advantage cannot be viewed in isolation; it reflects the widening gap between Washington’s appetite for global hegemony and America’s declining economic strength.

Partly because of Washington’s exhaustion, India has been forced to pick up the slack as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean.

At the same time, India has borne the brunt of fighting Pakistan backed insurgents, incurring heavy casualties just as America did.

India is a member of the Quad alliance with the US, Japan, and Australia, and the United States conducts more military exercises with India than with any other country.

Yet Washington recently imposed duties of 50% on Indian goods—more than double the 15% rate applied to Taliban run Afghanistan and far higher than the 19% levied on Pakistan.

This, even though both regimes sheltered and enabled militant networks that killed American soldiers for twenty years. The paradox is beyond belief: the firefighter is fined more heavily than the arsonist.

At the same time, India carries an outstanding $35 billion order book for Boeing passenger jets supporting 150,000 American manufacturing jobs in Charleston, South Carolina, and Everett, Washington. Yet India is penalized at America’s border.

The deeper problem for the United States is structural. Military dominance can no longer disguise economic erosion. According to the IMF, BRICS now outweighs the G7 in global GDP.

Measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), China’s economy is worth $40.7 trillion, India’s $20.5 trillion, while the U.S. stands at just $29 trillion.

China and India together: $61.2 trillion — more than double the U.S. total. This is not a forecast. It is today’s reality.

The turning point came in 2022, when Washington responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine with sweeping sanctions.

The effect of weaponizing the Dollar was profound. The dollar looked less like a safe harbor and more like a trapdoor.

From Riyadh to Delhi, from Brasília to Beijing, capitals saw the risk of conducting commerce in a currency that could be switched off at will. De-dollarization, once a theoretical debate, became urgent strategy.

No surprise, then, that nations across Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America line up to join BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

They are dissatisfied with a Western order they view as inequitable and extractive. India straddles both worlds—deepening its bond with Washington through the Quad while cultivating ties with Moscow and Beijing in BRICS and the SCO.

Prime Minister Modi’s presence at the recent SCO summit in Beijing alongside President Xi and President Putin reminded Washington that India’s compass will not lock on one direction.

History’s lesson is clear. Trade routes form habits: habits build markets; and markets endure longer than armies. Empire is not lost in a single battle but in the slow corrosion of those habits.

The Ottomans discovered this too late. Nations that consume more than they produce, that intimidate rather than innovate, ultimately sow the seeds of their own decline.

The dollar’s dominance is already eroding. Trade settlements in yuan, rupees, and other currencies increase by the month. The shift is not only monetary: it is strategic.

But the world should remember what American innovation can achieve. From the heartland came inventions and technologies that transformed global life in the last century—from aviation to semiconductors, from biotechnology to the digital revolution.

These capacities still command respect, and if revitalized, they can once again help anchor U.S. prosperity in a multipolar age.

History’s wheel is turning again. Some nations will rise with it. Others risk being crushed beneath its weight.

If Washington seizes the opportunity to adapt—if it makes its business inside the new global order one of commerce and trade rather than unrelenting military intervention—Americans may yet avoid the fate of the Ottomans. But the course correction cannot come soon enough.

Reprinted with author’s permission from X.

The post Global Wealth and Power Are Pivoting to the East appeared first on LewRockwell.

“That was when they suspended the Constitution… There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

What we are witnessing is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; it is a government over the people.

Call it what it is: political gaslighting—the regime says one thing while doing the opposite, and insists on the citizenry’s trust while dismantling the very checks and balances that make trust possible.

So when the powers-that-be claim to be protecting the Constitution, they’re dismantling it at every turn. In this way, the mechanisms of constitutional government—separation of powers, federalism, due process, and the Bill of Rights—are being hollowed out in plain sight.

Although this dismantling did not start with President Trump, it has accelerated beyond imagining.

What was once a slow bleed is now a hemorrhage—and it is not random. The damage is unfolding on two parallel tracks: a steady, methodical, bureaucratic erosion (rule changes, executive orders, new databases) paired with shock-and-awe surges (National Guard deployments, mass round-ups, headline-grabbing prosecutions).

The words may say “freedom” and “order,” but the deeds smack of tyranny.

Attorney General Pam Bondi vows to punish “hateful” speech even as the administration normalizes hateful rhetoric and violent imagery. Vice President JD Vance promises to “go after” those with a “leftist” ideology while preaching free-speech absolutism for allies.

The Trump administration denounces “hate speech” even as it excuses and downplays the Jan. 6 riots; pledges fiscal restraint while shoveling billions into surveillance, prisons, and domestic deployments; wraps itself in law-and-order while tolerating lawlessness by cronies; sermonizes about faith and morality while normalizing cruelty as governance; and peddles outrage over waste while spending lavishly on the trappings of office.

Rights are framed as absolute for friends and privileges for critics. That is the opposite of constitutional government, which holds everyone—especially those in power—to the same rule of law, applied evenly.

If the government can police ideas, deploy troops at home, run dragnets by algorithm, disappear people into distant prisons, build spectacle cages, and amass power in one office, then no American is safe—including those who cheer these efforts today.

If you believe in limited government, equal justice, and due process—whatever your party—these double standards should alarm you most, because the precedents being cheered today will be wielded against you tomorrow.

What follows is a running ledger of the gaslighting playbook and its constitutional costs.

The Gaslight: “We’re Restoring the Constitution.”
Reality: The “temporary” powers created after 9/11 have hardened into a permanent police-state architecture—Patriot Act surveillance, secret FISA processes and National Security Letters, DHS fusion centers, a diluted Fourth Amendment “border zone,” civil-asset forfeiture, Pentagon 1033 militarization, Real ID, facial-recognition and geofence warrants—now run at full throttle across administrations.
The Cost: A police state.

The Gaslight: “We Value Law and Order.”
Reality: The administration deployed Marines and the National Guard into American streets to police protests protected by the First Amendment. On September 2, 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s deployment of thousands of Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles—ostensibly for immigration protests—violated the Posse Comitatus Act, describing a “top-down, systemic effort” to militarize civil law enforcement. The Constitution’s framers feared standing armies and military occupations of American communities.
The Cost: The death of Posse Comitatus.

The Gaslight: “We Defend Free Speech.”
Reality: Dissent is criminalized, expressive conduct is relitigated, and disfavored groups face terror labels and IRS pressure. Protest is a right, not a privilege, yet the government increasingly recasts organized dissent as conspiracy. After the Charlie Kirk shooting, the White House floated designating “antifa” and other liberal groups as domestic terrorists, bringing racketeering cases against funders, and targeting nonprofits critical of the administration—all while downplaying right-wing violence. Fold in Bondi’s vow to target “hateful” speech and Vance’s pledge to eradicate “leftist ideology,” and power slides from punishing unlawful acts to policing ideas.
The Cost: A weaponized First Amendment.

The Gaslight: “We’re Protecting You from Extremists.”
Reality: Watchlists without due process, elastic “material support” theories, politicized “extremism” labels, and donor targeting that treat journalists, whistleblowers, activists—even parents at school boards—as suspects first and citizens second. Speaking truth to power is reframed as a security risk. In free societies, the state fears the citizen; in unfree ones, the citizen fears the state.
The Cost: Dissent rebranded as extremism.

The Gaslight: “We’re Ending Federal Censorship.”
Reality: On Day One, the President signed an order to “end federal censorship.” Read closely, it asserts sweeping control over how agencies interact with media platforms and broadcasters, rebranding ordinary outreach and fact-checking as First Amendment violations, while positioning the Executive as referee of the private square. By centralizing power over the flow of information in the Executive Branch, it threatens the independence of the very private forums where Americans speak. The test of free speech is whether the government stays out of the marketplace of ideas—not whether it curates it to the President’s liking.
The Cost: The state as speech referee.

The Gaslight: “We Use Smart Tech, Not Dragnet Surveillance.”
Reality: The administration is fusing government databases and outsourcing “intelligence” to private vendors in such a way that data becomes the warrant. ICE’s new $30 million deal with Palantir to build “ImmigrationOS” promises to identify, track, and deport people using AI-driven analytics and cross-agency data sharing. Add in geofence warrants, face-scan dragnets, and fusion-center “suspicious activity” pipelines, and you get a domestic intelligence system that presumes guilt by data trail.
The Cost: Probable cause replaced by algorithms.

The Gaslight: “We’re Tough on Crime.”
Reality: This year, U.S. agencies financed the transfer of migrants to El Salvador’s mega-prison (CECOT), where families and lawyers lost contact with detainees for months. Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” detention site whetted the government’s appetite for scaled-up incarceration, converting state prisons into immigration jails nationwide. These attempts by the Trump administration constitute an end run around longstanding constitutional protections for anyone accused of a crime. The common denominator is spectacle over justice, expansion over restraint.
The Cost: The death of due process.

The Gaslight: “We’re Compassionate, Not Cruel.”
Reality: The push to clear homeless encampments combines criminalization with expanded involuntary commitments. A July 24, 2025 executive order encourages states to funnel people into institutions and mental-health courts, tying funding to “maximum” use of commitments—an end-run around the presumption of liberty that undergirds due process.
The Cost: Bureaucratic coercion over compassion.

The Gaslight: “We’re Streamlining Government.”
Reality: The separation of powers was intended to serve as a check against any one government agency becoming too powerful. Yet the administration has pressed an aggressive unitary-executive theory to encroach on independent agencies, such as the Federal Reserve. Scholars warn this could erase the independence of agencies designed to check the White House.
The Cost: Checks and balances gutted.

The Gaslight: “We’re Keeping America Safe Overseas.”
Reality: Killing by assassination, not authorization. Twice in recent months, U.S. forces have launched unannounced attacks on Venezuelan boats, killing crews without warning or due process, on the mere assertion that they were drug traffickers.
The Cost: War powers and judicial oversight bypassed.

The Gaslight: “We’re Fixing Wasteful Spending.”
Reality: Having poured billions into surveillance, prisons, and domestic deployments, the “police-state budget” unravels the economy while eroding liberty.
The Cost: A debt-funded police state.

Many who cherish ordered liberty, limited government, fiscal restraint, and constitutional morality would normally recoil at these tactics under any other administration, so why not now?

Principles should not change because the party in power has changed, and yet that’s exactly what continues to drive the double standard.

If there’s a constitutional scorecard, “we the people” are on the losing team right now.

The First Amendment is buckling as protest is chilled, expressive conduct is targeted, opponents are threatened with terror labels, and the Executive Branch expands control over the speech ecosystem.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been weakened by AI surveillance and cross-agency fusion that normalize suspicionless tracking, while offshore detention and coerced commitments compromise due process.

The Eighth Amendment is mocked by harsh, theatrical detention regimes.

Federalism and the Tenth Amendment give way when federal troops step into local policing.

Separation of powers erodes as an inflated unitary-executive theory encroaches on independent agencies.

War powers are skirted by extrajudicial killings abroad. And fiscal responsibility is inverted as surveillance and prison appropriations swell while liberty contracts.

What must happen now?

Congress must codify guardrails against domestic military use—tighten Posse Comitatus, narrow Insurrection Act exceptions, and mandate transparency for any domestic mission. Courts and prosecutors should reaffirm expressive rights, rejecting end-runs around Texas v. Johnson and refusing cases that criminalize symbolism.

Lawmakers must impose bright-line limits on data fusion, bar cross-agency pooling for generalized surveillance, and require algorithmic transparency and adversarial testing before any tool touches liberty. The U.S. must prohibit outsourcing detention to abusive regimes, close loopholes, and apply human-rights scrutiny to every foreign arrangement.

The independence of watchdogs and the Fed needs protection through clear “for cause” standards. States and cities should decriminalize homelessness and fund housing-first approaches instead of coercive commitments.

Congress must reassert war powers, requiring explicit authorization before any attack abroad. And fiscal sanity must be restored: sunset emergency outlays for surveillance and prison build-outs, mandate GAO audits of domestic deployments and fusion contracts, and attach civil-liberties impact statements to major security spending.

Our job as citizens is not to trust the government but to bind it down with the Constitution. “In questions of power,” Thomas Jefferson warned, we must “bind [government] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Whatever you do, don’t trust the government with your privacy. Don’t trust it with your property: no-knock raids and forfeiture turn “private” property into whatever authorities permit you to keep.

Don’t trust it with your finances: Washington spends money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford. Don’t trust it with your life: force without accountability is not protection.

Above all, don’t trust it with your freedoms: on paper, rights endure; in practice, they are rationed by policy memos, watchlists, and shifting lines in the sand.

This should never be a right-vs-left debate; it’s the State vs. your liberty.

If you wouldn’t trust your worst political enemy with these weaponized tools, you shouldn’t trust your favorite politician with them either.

So think nationally, act locally.

Rebuild the habits of self-government where you live: know your neighbors and officials; know your rights and your city charter; ask who runs the jail and demand transparency; vet the people you entrust with power; and hold officials to account—show up, file requests, appeal, document, organize.

This is the work in front of us—not knee-jerk outrage, but persistent, consistent work to fortify the “chains of the Constitution.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if we let emergency rule become ordinary rule—military troops as beat cops, protest as crime, data as warrant, assassination as policy, money as politics—there won’t be a Constitution left to defend.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Political Gaslighting: The Government’s Latest Playbook for Dismantling the Constitution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Debt has moral implications, and in denying this, we’re choosing a rendezvous with Nemesis

Let’s start with a household analogy. A married couple have four fine children, and since expenses are higher than income, they borrow money in their children’s names to fund their lifestyle and investments. Once the offspring reach 18 years of age, the debt their parents borrowed is theirs to service.

The offspring didn’t get a say in how much money was borrowed or how it was spent, but the debt is now theirs to service (i.e. pay the interest) for their entire lifetimes, as the debt is simply too large to pay off with conventional wages.

The economy changed, and since wages don’t go as far and costs keep rising, the four offspring borrow in their own children’s names to afford the basics of a middle-class life.

The parents are now comfortably retired, drawing on their investments bought with borrowed money. The two generations behind them are now debt-serfs who funded their own lifestyles by borrowing even more money. Since the kind of house their parents bought for 3-times-income is now 6-times-income, the debt required to own a house and fund what is considered the minimum middle-class entitlements is multiples of their parents’ borrowing.

Is anyone willing to call this offloading of ever-expanding debt onto future generations wrong, as in morally wrong, or have we lost the vocabulary and ability to declare the offloading of debt as morally disgraceful, a line that should never have been crossed?

Debt that cannot be extinguished and that is offloaded onto future generations is a manifestation of moral decay, a decay of the moral foundations of the economy and society that is terminal.

So here we are, cheering on a big reduction in the Fed Funds Rate to encourage an expansion of debt, as more debt means more spending and that means more taxes and corporate profits. The manipulation of interest rates and the financial machinery to encourage more debt is viewed as bloodless, absolutely devoid of moral judgment: when it comes to “growth” of asset prices, spending, taxes and profits, there is no wrong, as “growth” is the only good anyone cares about.

This is the perfection of moral decay. Offloading debt onto future generations–money borrowed to prop up a self-serving status quo that focused on expediencies, not future consequences–and then telling the debt-enslaved generations, “we’ll inflate away the debt, and your wages will buy less and less, but no worries, we’ll just borrow more to pay the interest due”–how is this not morally repulsive?

Here is Federal debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a better measure of consequences, for it illustrates the Federal government’s ability to counter a deep recession by borrowing and spending trillions of dollars is now limited by extreme debt levels.

Those who track the history of government debt generally draw the red-line at 100% of GDP, so 120% is already deep in the danger zone. History is rather decisive: any attempt to add trillions in additional debt at these levels has zero chance of working as intended, i.e. a pain-free way to boost “growth.”

Note the debt-to-GDP ratio actually declined during both the stagflationary 1970s and the 1990s Internet boom. In both eras, the economy was still largely organic, i.e. unmanipulated enough that natural forces (supply, demand, risk aversion, writedowns of bad debt, etc.) could work through excesses of speculation and debt and restore not just balance sheets but legitimacy.

The Federal Reserve no longer trusted the system’s self-correcting capacity and leaped into full-blown manipulation of financial and mortgage markets in 2008-09. The debt-to-FDP ratio soared from 60% to 100% in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) “save” of the Federal Reserve, which inflated the money supply and pushed ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE (quantitative easing) to boost borrowing.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Moral Decay of Debt appeared first on LewRockwell.

Charlie Kirk was a popular radio host, and the founder of Turning Point USA. He was shot and killed on September 10, at Utah Valley University, during one of his “Prove me Wrong” appearances before often hostile college students. Immediately, his death became the biggest story in the country, and the response says a great deal about us.

Kirk was hardly the biggest name in the alt media, or the right-wing world. He wasn’t Alex Jones. He wasn’t a household name. He is now. Fox News treated his death like the JFK assassination, and devoted their entire evening schedule to over the top tributes. Kirk became an instant martyr to the Right. President Trump lowered the flags to half staff. Now that sounds outlandish, but remember that President Obama did the same thing for singer Whitney Houston, so the the bar had been set pretty low in recent years. Meanwhile, the Left figuratively danced on his grave, with countless online posters rejoicing over the shooting. He was posthumously smeared as a “racist,” “transphobe,” “hater,” etc. There were too many “I’m not celebrating his death, but….” posts. As Pee Wee Herman once said, everyone I know has a big “but.” Both sides demonstrated once again why America 2.0 is such a shithole, and why those of us who are awake are being forced to live under such corrupt tyranny.

Unlike any member of our “free press,” I’ve actually attempted to look into the logistics of the shooting. You know, the evidence. That’s what they should be doing, of course, but we know they aren’t allowed to investigate anything of substance, and someone has to do it. They tell us that only one shot was fired at Charlie, ironically right after he’d commented on transgender shooters. It struck him in the neck, apparently hitting the jugular vein there, and blood went pouring down the left side of his shirt. My friend Peter Hymans has analyzed the shooting, and has noted that the blood flow doesn’t seem to fit with the alleged position of the assassin. But those who “investigate” these crimes are experts at coming up with conclusions that don’t fit the ballistics evidence. See the JFK and RFK assassinations, for example. And unless I’ve missed it, they still haven’t found the slug that took Charlie’s life. Yet it is matter-of-factly reported that the authorities have identified the weapon.

Establishment sources say the angle of the shot from the rooftop was on a downward, right to left trajectory. Video footage of Kirk being struck, which I have watched far too many times, shows him falling over to the left from the impact. Much as there was in the JFK assassination, when Kennedy’s head can be seen going violently backwards (“back and to the left”), when Oswald was supposedly firing from above and behind, we have a physics problem here. Equal and opposite reaction? I guess we’re just not supposed to trust some “science.” Also, exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds. We only see the alleged entrance wound on Charlie’s neck. Where was the exit wound? What did it look like? Why no ambulance or EMTs? I won’t dwell on Charlie holding onto the microphone after he was hit. It would seem like the shot would cause him to drop it, but maybe that happens sometimes. At any rate, a shot from his left front should logically have knocked him back and to the right.

There are always early reports in these incidents, which subsequently turn out to be “misinformation,” once the authorities establish the consistently unbelievable official narrative. In the Kirk case, We were told that an elderly guy named George Zinn was initially arrested by police, and reacted by shouting, “Shoot me!” He was known, according to the New York Post, as “a political agitator with a string of bizarre arrests dating back to the 1980s.” The crowd seemed to think Zinn was the shooter, but one of the six police officers at the event astutely assured them, “He said he shot him, but I don’t know.” And oddly, the old man was hauled away with his pants down at his ankles. I just wrote about male humiliation rituals, but I have no idea what that was. At any rate, after apparently pulling his pants down, and listening to him plead for them to shoot him, law enforcement released him. It’s not like he was a J6 defendant.

Now, some on the internet, who have gone deeper down the rabbit hole and analyzed how Kirk reacted to the single shot, the blood spatter pattern, the curious actions of his security team, etc., have reported that Zinn was at other significant events. Internet sleuth Ryan Matta claimed that the odds are one in two billion that this same guy witnessed the planes striking the World Trade Center on 9/11, then played a “joke” on the authorities, by sending in a fake bomb threat during the 2013 Salt Lake City Marathon, which took place shortly after the Boston Bombing. To those who are running this collapsing country, Zinn is an obvious “wacko” who is of no significance. And deserved to have his pants pulled down for unknown reasons. To those of us who are capable of critical thinking, Zinn could be a veteran crisis actor, assigned a new and exciting role. Either way, you’ll hear no more of him. And, it must be pointed out that Zinn appears to be yet another non-Irish player in these productions.

The authorities eventually got their man. I say man because it is never men. Never plural. Always a lone nut. America is the only country on earth where political figures are never killed for political reasons. No one powerful ever conspires to knock others off. U.S. leaders might support, and even directly order the murder and rape of civilians in smaller lands that we nonsensically occupy, but they would never resort to putting out a hit on a rival, like common mobsters. The arrest of Tyler Robinson, a twenty two year old apparent incel, was breathlessly announced by our state controlled media. We were told that the authorities had been tracking him for a period of time, before he accessed a rooftop and fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk. It has not been explained why they were monitoring his movements, which included perching on a rooftop, and yet did not attempt to stop him from firing his weapon.

The official claim here is that Robinson walked into the event with his German Mauser tucked inside his pants, after disassembling it. He then reassembled it on the roof, fired the shot heard all over crossover country, and then disassembled it again, before leaping from the roof, John Wilkes Booth-style, Amazingly, Robinson didn’t break his leg, unlike Booth. Even more amazingly, he took the time at some point to reassemble the Mauser yet again. And then deposited the assembled rifle in the woods, after placing it in a box and wrapping it in a towel, both of which he had handy. Researcher Peter Secosh found that a Mauser cannot be disassembled. When you’re a lone nut assassin, you do things like that. James Earl Ray left a handy package of evidence behind in the doorway of the motel where a fatal shot was fired at Martin Luther King, Jr. And then they took a mug shot of Robinson that really had a bit too much Lee Harvey Oswald to it. They must have used AI to achieve the desired effect.

Echoing what we’ve seen over the past few years, during other emotionally charged events involving guns, both the Left and Right are painting different portraits of the alleged assassin. I’ve seen many memes and social media posts about how awful it was that conservatives blamed transgenders or other liberal demons for the shooting, when “his whole family was MAGA.” This appears to be true, as demonstrated by the photo of his purported mother brandishing an Uzi or something (I’m no expert on guns), while looking pretty attractive in a Sarah Palin kind of way. Now, as is the “new normal” with search engines, I can’t find that photo. Maybe George Zinn has it, wherever he is. Robinson’s grandmother was surprised (and what self-respecting grandmother wouldn’t be surprised that her grandson was an assassin), explaining that he was a MAGA supporter. But she also said he’d never fired a weapon. That’s what happens when you rely on grandmothers to prop up your weak official stories.

Robinson apparently took the time to inscribe some messages on his shell casings. This has become a trend in recent years. All the best patsies are doing it. They reportedly read: “Hey, fascist! Catch!”; “If you read this, you are gay”; and “Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao,” apparently lyrics from an Italian anti-fascist folk song. Doesn’t really sound very MAGA to me. The “gay” reference might be connected to the most recent blockbuster disclosure that Robinson had a transgender roommate, and they were involved romantically. So I guess this contradicts all the sneering comments about the Right making up a transgender connection. I think if you’re in a relationship with a transgender, even though you may not technically be “transitioning” yourself, that qualifies as some kind of transgender association. But I don’t claim to know anything, having never “transitioned” even once in my lifetime.

However you look at it, this was not a random, lone nut shooting. Although Kirk had been known as a typical right-wing dedicated Zionist, there is abundant evidence that he had recently been reconsidering his support of Israel. A “longtime friend and Trump insider” told the Grayzone that Kirk had rejected an offer earlier this year, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who wanted to provide a huge amount of money to Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Kirk had come to despise Netanyahu, referring to him as a “bully.” Concerned about the influence Israel was wielding over the White House, Kirk had advised Trump not to bomb Iran, and the friend recalled how the president angrily “barked at him” in response. Kirk began to be intimidated by powerful Israeli supporters. Tucker Carlson noted, ”Since Charlie Kirk urged Trump not to strike Iran, many of his (Jewish) donors have waged war on him.”

In a recent interview with arch Zionist Meghan Kelly, Kirk reiterated how he supported Israel but that the behavior of “a lot” of Israeli supporters “are pushing people like you and me away, not like we’re going to be pro-Hamas, but honestly, the way you are treating me is so repulsive. I have text messages, Meghan, calling me an anti-Semite….I’m an American citizen…my moral character is now being put into question…You and I believe that we are Americans first…I have less ability to question the actions of Israel than actual Israelis do.” Kirk noted that the threats he’d received were from Jewish “leaders” and “stakeholders.” On August 13, Harrison Smith of Infowars tweeted that “I’m not gonna name names, but I was told by someone close to Charlie Kirk that Charlie thinks Israel will kill him if he turns against them.” If I were in law enforcement, I think I’d consider Israel to be the chief suspect in this case.

As always, because these events are never properly investigated, internet sleuths, and Thought Criminals like me, will ask uncomfortable questions. I do think it’s kind of astounding that both Charlie Kirk and George Floyd share the same October 14 birthday (albeit twenty years apart). I don’t know what that means, but I do know that if Biden had been in office when Floyd died, the flags would probably have been flown at half staff for him. There is the question of the rather unusual (to put it nicely) comments from Kirk’s widow Erika in the wake of his death. Then she topped that by being photographed leaning into Charlie’s casket and kissing his hands. Kirk’s body (but not his head) was filmed, and of course some of those pesky “conspiracy theorists” speculated about the way his hands looked. There was also a picture of his neck, which was wrapped in some kind of bandage with blood still visible. Assuming the photo was real, I think that is unlike any embalmed corpse in world history.

Read the Whole Article

The post Charlie Kirk: What Really Happened? appeared first on LewRockwell.

In relation to the attacks along the evacuation routes and within designated safe areas, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces had clear knowledge of the presence of Palestinian civilians, including children. Nevertheless, Israeli security forces shot at and killed civilians, including children who were holding makeshift white flags. Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers.

The above excerpt (IV. B. ii. f. 215.) is from this report.

From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (pdf)
by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel

I. 3.
In its previous reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the Commission found that the Israeli security forces have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including extermination, torture, rape, sexual violence and other inhumane acts, inhuman treatment, forcible transfer, persecution based on gender and starvation as a method of warfare. Furthermore, the Commission found that the Israeli authorities have (i) destroyed in part the reproductive capacity of the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, including by imposing measures intended to prevent births; and (ii) deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group, both of which are underlying acts of genocide in the Rome Statute and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“Genocide Convention”)

I. 4.
Having concluded that the Israeli security forces committed crimes against humanity, war crimes and the actus reus of two underlying acts of genocide in Gaza, the Commission now addresses the issue of genocide. …

There follows an analysis of the events. The legal definition of genocide requires intent. After having reviewed official statements by the government of Israel the Commission concludes:

C. 220.
On the basis of fully conclusive evidence, the Commission finds that statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent. Additionally, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Commission finds that genocidal intent was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn based on the pattern of conduct of the Israeli authorities. Thus, the Commission concludes that the Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces have the genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

But what can we do?

VI. B. 246.
The duty to prevent and punish genocide applies not only to the responsible State but to all States Parties to the Genocide Convention and indeed to all States under customary international law.

We can, and should of course, personally boycott the Zionist entity to the fullest extend. But it is also on us to press our governments to follow up on the report. There are obligations that must be fulfilled.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post The Obvious Is Now Official – Israel Commits Genocide appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his latest podcast, Peter goes through the just-released August consumer price data and uses the report as a springboard to explain why the markets are misreading the Fed and why ordinary Americans are likely to pay the price. He connects the dots between an understated CPI (Consumer Price Index), the rally in stocks tied to hopes for rate cuts, and why those cuts would be bearish for bonds, inflationary for the economy, and ultimately harsher on workers than many realize.

He opens by framing the CPI release as the last obstacle to the market’s expectation of imminent cuts and why the number mattered so much to traders and policymakers alike:

The reason that it’s been so highly anticipated is because everybody is now betting on rate cuts starting next week and a benign CPI report was the last obstacle. I mean, maybe if this thing came out way hotter than expected, somehow it may have rained on the rate cut parade. So everybody was anticipating eagerly this release just to make sure that the rate cut train wasn’t going to get derailed. And we got the number and it actually was slightly worse than expected, but not enough worse to rain on the parade.

Peter then argues that the official inflation measures are deliberately low and that real inflation is being hidden from the public — a point he makes to explain why markets can’t trust the headline CPI to guide policy:

The CPI has been rigged. It has been engineered to come out with a smaller number than the actual increase in prices which again doesn’t even measure inflation which is the expansion of money and credit. It measures the effect of inflation which is an increase in prices but it deliberately understates the degree to which prices are going up by design. So you really kind of have to double whatever the official number is to get something close to the actual rate. So if inflation is right now annualizing at 5% then it’s probably 10% which makes a lot more sense to me than 5%.

He puts the market’s recent rally into context: it’s a relief bounce driven by a single narrative — rate cuts — rather than improving fundamentals. That mismatch, he says, explains why stocks are pricing in a soft landing that may not exist:

As a result of a horrific week, and the week’s not over yet because this is just Thursday, but as a result of a horrific 80% of a week for jobs, we’ve had this big rally in stocks. The rationale is the Fed’s going to cut, so that’s great for stocks. People also think that the rate cuts are going to help the economy. They’re going to help the housing market. They’re going to stimulate because they look back at prior episodes where the Fed has started a rate cutting cycle, whether it’s 2001, 2002, after the bursting of the dot com bubble, whether it’s 2008, 2009 with the financial crisis or 2020 with COVID, right?

Peter pushes back on the popular view among economists and strategists that the Fed is in “restrictive” territory and can ease a bit while still being contractionary. He says that claim ignores the fact that nominal rates have never exceeded true inflation:

A lot of people are saying, ‘Look the Fed is in restrictive territory and they have room to ease and still be restrictive.’ That is BS. They are not restrictive. They’ve been accommodative the whole time they’ve claimed to be restrictive. I pointed that out because they never got interest rates above the real rate of inflation. And right now they’re not even above the actual rate; if the CPI is now running at 5% a year and you got Fed funds around four, how are you supposed to cut?

Finally, Peter draws a bleak historical comparison: if the Fed gives in to political pressure to prioritize employment over price stability, the social cost will be steep and widespread, potentially worse than the 1970s for many households:

So I think that the implications of the policy that we’re going to get is going to be much bigger. So the average Americans are going to suffer more than they did in the 70s. And it was a lot of suffering. I mean, people had the real value of their wages go down. You know, the reason that so many women entered the workforce in the 80s, it was not because they felt liberated and they went and got jobs. … What happened was their husband’s paycheck lost so much purchasing power during the inflation of the 70s that he could no longer afford to support the family.

This article was originally published on SchiffGold.com.

The post Rate Cuts Will Make Inflation Worse appeared first on LewRockwell.