Aggregatore di feed

All human societies are led by a confined group of especially influential people. These are the elites, and like them or not, they are unavoidable because humans are hierarchical chimps and they build the same social structures over and over again wherever they flourish.

The elites are not necessarily always and everywhere the wealthiest people, or the most persuasive people or the strongest people – although being wealthy, persuasive and strong certainly helps. They simply enjoy some combination of attributes that grants them social prominence. Lesser people take direction from them, imitate their habits and value their attention.

Knitting circles, learned societies, hunter-gatherer tribes and religious communities all have their own elites. Nations do too, and in politics the uppermost tiers of the national elite invariably form oligarchies. In the premodern era, oligarchs bestowed upon themselves special costumes and elaborate titles and they took substantial steps to ensure that their children could inherit their share in power. In the liberal West the very word “oligarchy” makes us uncomfortable, but that does not mean we have done away with the oligarchs. They are still with us. They no longer bear fancy titles and they have ditched their fur-trimmed robes. They determine their successors via institutional processes rather than descent. All of this makes our oligarchs a little harder to see, but that does not mean they are not oligarchs.

Oligarchs command the loyalty of the violence professionals who enforce things on the ground. Some may command this loyalty directly, but others do so indirectly, through intermediaries. They are (some portion of) elected politicians and (some portion of) the judiciary, but they do not all have formal political roles or titles. Only a minority of them have ever stood for election. De facto oligarchs are also to be found in media organs, non-governmental organisations, various areas of academia and of course large swathes of the state bureaucracy. These oligarchs are embedded within a broader elite class, not all of whose members necessarily have a say in government, but all of whom share a similar outlook and regard themselves as being on the same side.

Because the oligarchy aims above all to stay in power, a great part of politics involves the struggle of the reigning oligarchy to maintain their position and fend off incursions from the outside. These struggles are often camouflaged as disagreements over specific policies or as moral outrage over ostensibly impermissible political views. The entire German elite establishment, for example, claims to hate Alternative für Deutschland because of their alleged fascism. In fact, their real quarrel with the AfD is that their very existence and the reforms they demand threaten the oligarchy’s hold on power. Once upon a time, in the earliest years of the Federal Republic, there really was substantial overlap between those whose views might have fairly been called fascist (in some sense of the term) and potential rivals to power. Now the rivals have totally different political views but they must be forced into the fascist mould anyway, because “fascism” for our oligarchy has come to mean “unwelcome upstart.”1

Mere wealth, by itself, does not an oligarch make. Especially in heavily bureaucratised Western nations, money does not magically give you sway over the all-important rough men with guns. It can, however, be used to fund opposition parties, to buy favourable (or unfavourable) media coverage and to win the friendship of influential people. Money is also extremely useful for that most threatening of all activities, namely political organisation. You might notice that many of the wealthiest personalities in the West mire themselves in goofy charitable activities and give flabby media interviews in which they mouth whatever banal political orthodoxies happen to be the flavour of the month. They do this by way of advertising to the oligarchs that they are not a threat. “I am on your side, please do not arrest me or have me shot.”

So, money is not everything, but it is something. And money is very often a product of economic productivity, which is another probably even more important something. A great part of Western politics, since economic growth returned in the eleventh century, can be explained by the tensions that arise between a settled, closed and defensive oligarchy on the one hand; and the New Men whom economic success brings to the fore on the other hand. These New Men, because they have achieved their status and resources independent of the oligarchy, threaten the settled way of things. They make the oligarchs nervous.

The rabble harbour all manner of impulses, feelings, delusions and desires. Elites are wont to cultivate some of these for political purposes. Perhaps no single popular impulse has proven more explosive, powerful and useful to political elites than resentment of the wealthy. Since the Industrial Revolution, two groups in particular have seen in this resentment a powerful weapon to be wielded against enemies. Communist counter-elites used this resentment to fuel revolutions; the wealthy to be resented were the old oligarchs, and when they were ousted the communists simply established themselves as a new elite. Settled oligarchies, too, can find it useful to direct this resentment against threatening New Men. Counter-elite would-be revolutionaries on the one hand and threatened oligarchs on the other hand are most of the reason why we have had to hear so much about how bad the wealthy are, even as industrialisation and mass society have made us all vastly more prosperous and collapsed the vastness that once divided the nobility from the serfs.

Sending the peasants to storm the villas of the industrialists is only one very narrow tactic for dealing with the perennial threat of the New Men. A look at modern history will illustrate some of the grand strategies at work in this area. The National Socialists muscled the economic elite with threats, while granting those industrialists willing to play ball special favours, licenses and contracts. In this way they built a patronage economy rife with benefits for the ideologically aligned who agreed to toe the line. The Communists eliminated the threat of the New Men entirely by nationalising everything, effectively replacing the “capitalist” elite with a permanent managerial class. This resulted in poor economic conditions, which is exactly what the managers wanted: If your economy is in the toilet there will be precious few New Men to worry about. The lesson is that settled oligarchies often fear economic growth as a destabilising factor.

Liberal democracy has experimented with two strategies. Through the Cold War and for about ten years afterwards, states like Germany cultivated a very open elite and accordingly tried to align policy with the interests of economic heavyweights, believing that prosperity could be a stabilising force in itself. The oligarchs let the New Men into the fold and in many cases tried to govern on their behalf, while the left complained (not always without justification) about lobbyists and malign corporate influence. This was a period in which West competed with alternate political and economic systems and tried to construct itself as the superior option. There was, in other words, external pressure on the oligarchs to behave, even if they did not always get the balance right.

That pressure has long since vanished. Since Merkel, our oligarchs have revived various doctrines from the political left to keep the New Men away from power. Increasingly, their goal is to squeeze the dreaded “capitalists” by undermining economic growth and thereby cutting off the supply of New Men at the source. Frequently they have overreached, targeting also farmers and small businessmen, as they come to fear everybody who is not an institutionally approved and promoted political actor. It is a light version of the Communist strategy from the Cold War. Our present oligarchs believe there are no viable political alternatives and they need no longer worry so much about comporting themselves well.

This is what I think climatism is for, fundamentally. It is one of the primary instruments used to sap the economy and forestall the rise of New Men. All of the apparent drawbacks of Net Zero policies are in fact features rather than bugs when seen from this perspective. Chasing industry overseas means that other people have to deal with the New Men; our oligarchs are free of them. In a fully developed climatist regime like that which prevails in the Federal Republic, many businesses cannot operate without special subventions, tax breaks or other subsidies, which allows the oligarchs and their institutional apparatus to control who rises and who falls. And naturally, reconstructing the entire energy sector via heavily subsidised Green initiatives allows the reigning oligarchs to choose ideologically aligned winners.

Socialism-lite turns out to be a very delicate balancing act. The oligarchs need to constrict the economy sufficiently to mute the rise and influence of rivals, but not so much that they cause economic collapse or specific catastrophes that would result in them being discredited and thrown out. They were managing this balance fairly well until the Ukraine war messed it up for them, and now their backs are against the wall. At the same time, they have turned their gaze towards the Atlantic with trepidation. They see in Trump’s election a vision of the dark future that awaits them if they let New Men like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and whoever else get out of hand. They’ve also noticed that key actors in the American tech sector played some role in Trump’s victory, and this is yet another reason for them to hate the whole world of technological innovation, from the internet in general to social media and large language models and everything in between. It is a very worrying source of New Men.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I don’t think our oligarchs sat down at a table somewhere and hashed out climatism to mess up the economy. The oligarchy is very large and diffuse, but like everybody else they are inclined to believe things that redound to their practical benefit. Climatism emerged via a confluence of interests, but the oligarchs’ enthusiasm was decisive. As an ideological system, however, it is beginning to break down. New Men, after all, are not the only problem an oligarchy may face, and the rising populist right has become a much more immediate threat not only in Germany, but across Europe. For this the oligarchs need new narratives, about the evil Putler abroad and his fifth-columnist sympathisers at home. They might even need a halfway functional economy, but I doubt any of them have yet thought that far ahead.

1 A similar phenomenon once attended ancient and medieval theological disputes, where it often became expedient to brand one’s intellectual opponents “Arians” or “Nestorians” or whatever, even though their actual theological views had zero to with anything actual historical Arians or Nestorians ever espoused.

This article was originally published on Eugyppius.

The post Climatism as an Oligarchic Strategy To Cement Power and Preempt Rivals appeared first on LewRockwell.

Earlier today, I had headlined “Trump Now Considers a U.S. Invasion of Russia”, and readers were incredulous; one commented “In what world do you imagine America having enough troops to invade Moscow without the logistical problems to make such happen?” to which I replied “Sending U.S. troops into Russia would be unnecessary in order to do this. You are thinking in old-technology terms like during WW2, but a WW3 would be entirely different and be over within an hour or two — none of it would entail invading troops.” Later in the day, Stephen Bryen, now retired but who has been the CEO of one of America’s biggest armaments-producers, and a top official at the Pentagon (which is that corporation’s main customer), headlined “Tomahawks for Kiev: A Dangerous Idea”, and he provided in greater depth of detail, from his own extensive expertise on weaponry, the historical background and technological details on why a U.S. President would need to be insane in order to even consider to allow Tomahawk missiles to become posted in Ukraine. So, I shall now quote from his excellent unquestionably expert account:

The US is poised to “sell” Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. US special envoy to Ukraine, retired general Keith Kellogg, says only the final decision has to be made. The US has already agreed, Kellogg said, for deep attacks on Russian territory, and only the release of the Tomahawks is pending, a decision left to US President Donald Trump. While it may be regarded as an open and shut case by Washington, that does not take away the decision as reckless and escalatory. It puts the US on a direct collision-course with Russia, one that could lead to a war in Europe.

The Tomahawk cruise missile was originally intended to give the US nuclear triad a system that could successfully deliver nuclear weapons against the USSR. The idea was to create a system that was nearly impossible for Soviet air defenses to counter, after it became clear that conventional bombers, especially the B-52, could not operate from high altitude over Soviet territory.

Tomahawk was designed to fly “nap of the earth: missions. That is, once it was over Soviet airspace, it was designed to drop down to near tree-top heights and follow the contours of the earth, making timely detection difficult if not impossible. …

Should the US deliver Tomahawks to Ukraine, the missiles would have to be operated either by US or UK technicians and would need to be supported by US overhead intelligence to select targets and program the missiles to hit them. Russia will regard the Tomahawks as a direct US intervention, and in fact there is no convenient way the US could deny it is operating the weapons. This means that if Trump authorizes the missiles, he also is directing the US military (or surrogate British) to use them against Russia. …

The Trump administration is operating on the assumption that Russia’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and the Tomahawks could help “seal the deal” and force the collapse of the Putin regime. …

One of the reasons why the US is seeking to try for a knock-out blow on Putin and Russia is Washington’s fear that Russia may launch a new, devastating offensive in Ukraine aimed at regime change there. …

How far Russia would go when provoked directly by the United States should be carefully assessed in Washington before it embarks on a venture that could backfire and lead to a wider war in Europe.

I would point out here that though Dr. Bryen is warning about “a wider war in Europe,” what is actually involved is a war between the U.S. and Russia, because the U.S. would be a direct participant in the usage of these missiles — as Bryen himself noted, “the missiles would have to be operated either by US or UK technicians and would need to be supported by US overhead intelligence to select targets and program the missiles to hit them. Russia will regard the Tomahawks as a direct US intervention, and in fact there is no convenient way the US could deny it is operating the weapons. This means that if Trump authorizes the missiles, he also is directing the US military (or surrogate British) to use them against Russia.”

Yes, America’s participating allies (such as UK) would also be involved in this invasion of Russia — and Ukraine itself, naturally would be — but no such war would encompass ONLY “a wider war in Europe”: it would instead be the world-annihilating WW3 that until recent decades was considered to be unacceptable even by the American Government (which has now gone entirely batty in its neoconservatism — its conviction that the U.S. Government must rule the entire world).

Dr. Bryen also points out that Trump’s objective, if he okays this proposal, would be regime-change in Russia, and that this goal by the White House is based on “Washington’s fear that Russia may launch a new, devastating offensive in Ukraine aimed at regime change there.”

In short: the U.S. Government is considering to do this because it opposes regime-change in Ukraine. Think about that for a moment: It is saying that the U.S. Government is considering to force a regime-change in Russia so as to prevent a regime-change in Ukraine. It is ignoring that the result, if Washington decides to do this, will be no mere “regime-change” in one country but the destruction of the entire world (something that Dr. Bryen provides no hint that he recognizes to be involved here).

Consequently, Dr. Bryen’s headline “Tomahawks for Kiev: A Dangerous Idea” vastly understates what this would be: the destruction of our entire planet. And the purpose of this venture, if Trump decides to authorize it? If Dr. Bryen is correct here, the purpose of it would be to prevent regime-change in Ukraine.

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post Trump’s Considering To Invade Russia Is Insane appeared first on LewRockwell.

These are the 2020 Lublin Triangle (Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania), the 2022 de facto alliance between Ukraine, Poland, and the UK, and early August’s Odessa Triangle with Romania and Moldova.

Russia has in recent years consistently accused the West of turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia” for containment purposes, in response to which Putin authorized the ongoing special operation. A year and a half before it began, Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine formed the “Lublin Triangle”, which involves military cooperation and continues to lurch along five years after its creation. Exactly one week before the special operation started, the UK, Poland, and Ukraine then formed a de facto alliance.

These two triangles facilitated the UK’s efforts to sabotage spring 2022’s peace talks, for which Poland deserves equal blame as explained here, thus perpetuating the conflict till now. Right after the news broke that Putin and Trump would hold their first in-person meeting since the latter’s return to office, which later took place in Anchorage, Ukraine announced the formation of another triangle with Romania and Moldova. Their “Odessa Triangle” is thus the third one centered on Ukraine for containing Russia.

These three interlocking triangles are expected to play significant roles in the post-conflict future. The first one, the Lublin Triangle, includes Lithuania, which now hosts Germany’s first permanent base abroad. As for the second, it importantly involves the UK, which has always worked to divide-and-rule Europe. And lastly, France has a base in Romania and a security pact with Moldova, which could lead to Paris exploiting them as launchpads for strengthening its newly reported secret presence in Odessa.

Ukraine’s seven associated partners (five of which are formal while the other two – Germany and France – are informal) could therefore either continue funneling arms into the country for prolonging the conflict or continuing Ukraine’s militarization afterwards and/or prepare to deploy there one day. Poland, the UK, France, and Germany also clinched security pacts with Ukraine all across last year, which this analysis here argues already amount to a form of Article 5-like guarantees.

As was written, “[Article 5] obligates members to assist those of their allies that come under attack, albeit as each of them ‘deems necessary’. Although the use of armed force is mentioned, it’s ultimately left to individual members to decide whether to employ this option. Ukraine has arguably enjoyed the benefits of this principle for the past three years despite not being a NATO member since it’s received everything other than troops from the alliance”.

It’s therefore moot whether Ukraine ever formally joins NATO since that wouldn’t guarantee that its allies would dispatch troops in its support should another conflict erupt. More realistically, they’d likely only resume and then ramp up the aid that they’re already providing in order to avoid a potentially apocalyptic conflict with Russia. The EU’s rapid militarization coupled with progress on the “military Schengen” for facilitating related logistics could create enduring post-conflict threats to Russia’s security.

From Poland and Romania, Ukraine’s other five partners could therefore station a large number of troops, store lots of military equipment, and possibly continue funneling arms and ammo across the border for either prolonging the conflict or continuing Ukraine’s militarization afterwards. Russia will certainly take these credible threats into consideration when deciding upon the best way to end the conflict in accordance with its national interests as they’ve evolved 3,5 years into the special operation.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter

The post Ukraine Is at the Center of Three Interlocking Triangles for Containing Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Despite decades of public pressure and the passage of the JFK Records Act, the U.S. government continues to hide thousands of assassination records from the American people.

In this explosive episode of America’s Untold Stories, Mark Groubert and Eric Hunley sit down with Canadian attorney Andrew Iler, co-author of The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, to discuss a powerful letter sent to Congress demanding full compliance with the law.

What happened to the Final Determination Notifications (FDNs)—the legal orders to release records?

Why has the Archivist of the United States ignored mandatory duties for nearly 30 years?

How have agencies quietly avoided oversight and transparency? Can Congress be forced to act—and is a lawsuit next?

Why did Judge John Tunheim say records were never even seen by the original review board?

This is the deep-state cover-up you thought ended years ago—but it’s alive and well in 2025.

Get the book (affiliate link) The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Inescapably Prove There Was a Conspiracy https://amzn.to/42TdUu3 On Locals with a private chat and after party https://unstructured.locals.com/post/… *****************************************

Join us November 21st–23rd, 2025 in Dallas at JFK Lancer Conference (or Virtually) Tickets now available at https://assassinationconference.com/

Virtual tickets start at $75.99 In-person tickets start at $149.99 Discount Code: Use UNTOLD10 at checkout for 10% off *****************************************

The post America’s Untold Stories: 27,000 Government Secrets and the JFK Records Act appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm. 

The Federalist

The post Britain Is Turning Its Back On Western Civilization appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes, Brian Dunaway:

Within the last month, NATO military has claimed Russia has violated NATO airspace (specifically Baltic, Scandinavian, Balkan). (For hilarious characterization of these events by AP, read here.) Russia denies these violations.

Regardless of how these encounters are characterized, it is clear that Russia is sending a message. When these “violations” were first reported, in light of current events, it felt like something didn’t add up. The most reasonable hypothesis seemed to be that Russia has intelligence that NATO plans to invade Russia. (Of course, who needs intelligence? NATO’s belligerence from practically the day the Berlin Wall fell is hardly a secret.) Then, Trump, et al., blustered that these jets should be shot down.

Now, news of US considering direct participation in a Russia invasion makes that hypothesis seem a little more solid.

The post NATO’s Last Threat to Russia’s Survival? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Eric’s Substack

The post The Insanity of The West’s Pro-WW3 Leaders Forcing Russia to Start It appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

John Leake

The post America’s Bloated Flag Officer Class appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Drewberquist.com

The post Liberal Group PUSHING Government Shutdown appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Trump’s ‘Deal’ For Gaza Drops As US Support For Israel Craters appeared first on LewRockwell.

______________________________________________________________________________________

di Niall McCrae

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/cronocidio-come-la-tecnocrazia-sta)

Il passato è un altro Paese, secondo la frase iniziale di L. P. Hartley in The Go-Between. Oggi potremmo dire lo stesso del presente, con il ritmo accelerato del cambiamento tecnologico e demografico.

Per quanto riguarda il futuro, quale fiducia e certezza possiamo avere per i nostri figli e nipoti?

I Paesi potrebbero non esistere più in alcuna forma riconoscibile mentre un nuovo ordine mondiale si consolida, ma non sono solo i confini a essere smantellati. Quando Francis Fukuyama dichiarò la “fine della storia” con la caduta del comunismo, forse stava inavvertitamente preparando il terreno per l'impatto più drammatico dei globalisti sull'umanità: la cancellazione del tempo. Come ammonisce David Fleming, la cui filosofia del continuismo offre una logica unificante per preservare l'umanità dall'assalto tecnocratico, il “cronocidio” è una strategia.

In quanto animali sociali, gli esseri umani creano la società. Nel corso delle generazioni ogni comunità stabilisce e mantiene i propri costumi, credenze, ruoli e relazioni. Mentre gli umanisti ideologicamente progressisti sottolineano che abbiamo più cose in comune delle nostre differenze di razza, religione o regione, una persona di una cultura non può trasferirsi in un luogo di cultura diversa e aspettarsi che la vita continui normalmente.

La componente cruciale della società è il tempo, misurato in vite vissute. Infatti esseri umani + tempo = cultura.

In questa equazione fattori importanti possono essere inclusi in qualità di natura o cultura nel complesso umano-temporale, come il territorio, le risorse, il clima, il commercio, i conflitti e la tecnologia. Ogni società scrive e cura la propria storia.

Nei classici romanzi distopici 1984 e Il mondo nuovo, il passato viene cancellato intenzionalmente. Il compito di Winston è quello di rivedere la documentazione degli eventi per adattarla alla narrazione attuale, in continua evoluzione. Nel futurismo di Aldous Huxley, i bambini nascono grazie a una macchina e l'idea di una donna che partorisce è inquietante.

Come i marxisti della Scuola di Francoforte compresero negli anni '20, e come sa ogni consulente aziendale, nulla cambia veramente se non cambia la cultura (e questo anche Gramsci lo sapeva, ndT). I legami sociali e le tradizioni sono baluardi contro i piani radicali imposti dall'alto. Linee di politica frammentarie e incrementali sono inclini a retrocedere di fronte alle norme, ma ristrutturazioni radicali o altri shock al sistema rompono i legami sociali e infrangono la stabilità. Quanto più drammatico e improvviso è il cambiamento, tanto più facilmente si supera la resistenza.

Il cosiddetto Anno Zero cancella completamente la storia della nostra umanità. Per dittatori intransigenti come Pol Pot in Cambogia, questo era un mezzo necessario per spostare il popolo da un'esistenza agraria a un ordine comunista. Chiunque custodisse reliquie o atteggiamenti del passato veniva sterminato; mentre agli scolari viene insegnato (acriticamente) l'Olocausto, non sono informati sul trauma della collettivizzazione estrema.

Il cronocidio è il deliberato taglio e incendio di ogni cosa nella nostra cultura: sia il fusto e i rami visibili sopra il terreno, sia le radici sottostanti. Siamo privati della nostra continuità come famiglie e fratellanza, perché tali legami umani sono un ostacolo alla missione tecnocratica. Una società atomizzata sta letteralmente prendendo forma nei seguenti modi:

1. È in corso una guerra orwelliana all'informazione contro la gente comune. I fatti derivati dall'esperienza, dal buon senso o dal pensiero critico diventano “disinformazione” o “odio”. La conoscenza tramandata di generazione in generazione viene denigrata come un mito antiscientifico o un pregiudizio proveniente da un passato intollerante. I giovani, i più colpiti dalla propaganda, sono incoraggiati a rifiutare verità consolidate.


2. Le operazioni di psicologia comportamentale condotte dallo stato (“psy-ops”) confondono e spaventano le persone, allontanandole da conoscenze e comprensioni consolidate. Collocare la popolazione in un territorio inesplorato, come nella pseudo-pandemia di Covid-19, la pone alla mercé dei poteri forti. Un contagio mortale a livello mondiale non potrebbe essere ricordato da nessuna persona vivente, come lo fu l'epidemia di influenza spagnola oltre cento anni fa. In caso di emergenza, le autorità prendono il controllo e la vita non è più la stessa.


3. Il “safety-critical” soffoca la cultura, sostituendo le festività intrise di tradizione con eventi organizzati. Le notti dei falò vengono annullate in caso di vento, le feste di Paese vengono interrotte se c'è il rischio che qualcuno abbia una reazione allergica alla marmellata fatta in casa e giochi per bambini energici come il “British Bulldog” vengono banditi dai cortili delle scuole. Il settore assicurativo, attraverso gli elevati costi di copertura, contribuisce a limitare le attività che scontentano le autorità.


4. L'architettura disumanizzante prolifera lungo lo skyline. Su una scala molto più grande rispetto all'ingegneria sociale degli anni '60, quando ampie fasce di case a schiera furono sostituite da blocchi di cemento e le comunità si trasferirono in massa in nuove città, l'edilizia è in continua crescita. Il paesaggio fisico può conservare i resti del passato, ma chiese, banche e pub hanno chiuso e le vie principali sono in una desolazione strisciante. Le lezioni del recente passato sui problemi della vita nei grattacieli sono state dimenticate. Si stanno sviluppando città intelligenti, con foreste di condomini in acciaio e vetro.


5. L'espropriazione delle proprietà e dei beni delle persone sta trasferendo tutta la ricchezza all'élite. Il World Economic Forum ci dice che “non possederete nulla e sarete felici”, ma qualcuno deve possedere il capitale. L'eredità generazionale finirà, come dimostra l'esorbitante tassa sulle aziende agricole rimaste di proprietà familiare per secoli, costringendo i proprietari terrieri a vendere.


6. La migrazione di massa ha portato molte persone del Paese ospitante a sentirsi emarginate e alienate. Nonostante i luoghi comuni sul multiculturalismo, la coesione sociale è diminuita poiché l'identità e la lealtà dei nuovi arrivati sono legate ai loro parenti e amici, con scarso senso di appartenenza comune. Questo è ciò che vogliono i nostri governanti. I cosmopoliti senza radici (gli “Ovunque” descritti da David Goodhart) preferiscono sempre le cose straniere o esotiche al prevedibile e familiare, ma ora la gente della contea e la classe operaia indigena (i “Qualchedove”) si trovano in un “Niente” senza tempo.


7. Il rapido sviluppo tecnologico sta spostando le persone dalla realtà fisica a quella virtuale. Mentre il presente sta cambiando in modo più visibile nella trasformazione demografica, il futuro prossimo rappresenta una minaccia esistenziale per l'umanità, facendo sembrare le tensioni interculturali come un picnic al parco. Il futuro, se i tecnocrati avranno la meglio, è il transumanesimo.

La Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite per la prevenzione e la repressione del crimine di genocidio (1948) lo definisce come l'uccisione di un gruppo nazionale, etnico, razziale, o religioso. Ma esiste anche il concetto di genocidio culturale, elaborato da Raphael Lemkin, che implica la “distruzione sistematica e organizzata del patrimonio culturale”.

Una cultura può essere spazzata via senza sparare un colpo. I tecnocrati hanno giocato una partita a lungo termine, preparandosi per un futuro post-culturale e post-temporale. Il cronocidio è un crimine contro l'umanità.

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

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

Click Here:

Eric’s Substack

The post Trump Now Considers a U.S. Invasion of Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click here:

Michel Chossudovsky

The post Are Al Qaeda “Freedom Fighters” “Good Guys” or “Bad Guys”? appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

There’s a simple solution to this problem.  Never hold the Ryder Cup competition anywhere near New York City.  Farmingdale, where the Bethpage Black course is located, is in the heart of Long Island.  Give it a permanent location, preferably in the South like the famous East Lake course in Atlanta, one of the Pinehurst courses in North Carolina, or the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club course near me in Northern Virginia, which has hosted several President’s Cup events, and fan deportment will never be a problem.

See here.

The post U.S. Golf Fans’ Misbehavior appeared first on LewRockwell.

Everyone knows that the Evil Ones operate a Criminal Enterprise within the Federal Government by bribing government officials and bureaucrats. The Evil Ones consist of the Jewish Lobby, Media, and Deep State, aka Parasitic Super-Rich Ruling Class Wealthy Families. They are the ones responsible for Waste, Fraud, Abuse, Bribes, Kickbacks, Deaths of our military, Deaths of Millions, Destruction of entire countries, Wars for profit, Inflation, Wars without a Declaration of War, all manner of Crimes and Treason, et al.

The Evil Ones really took control of our country with the Coup of 1913. I have written 17 articles on this complex subject from many angles during July, August, and September of 2025.

Politicians, including President Trump and Congress, are petrified of the Evil Ones, and are willing to accept bribes to allow them to continue to impoverish the American people and the World. This could no longer be true, for I saw the Greatest of all American Revivals at the Charlie Kirk Tribute on Sunday.

This was no ordinary tribute or revival. It lasted for six hours, with hundreds of thousands of participants who were visibly moved and deadly serious as they PUT ON THE WHOLE ARMOR OF GOD. It was clear to everyone that this was a dedication to Faith, Family, and Country in pursuit of Justice and the American Dream.

It was clear that the criminal activities of Politicians and the Evil Ones would no longer be tolerated as the People were going to rely on their faith for guidance rather than the lies of government and media. Let’s hope that our Churches and our government can meet the need and repudiate the Genocide in Gaza and other crimes. Many Evangelical churches wrongly support the Anti-Christian Zionist actions in Gaza. I don’t think you can find any support for Genocide in the words of Jesus Christ.

A majority of Americans are ignorant and apathetic, but I think that has changed in a major way for those who believe in God. This is important because their loyalty to a Political Party is replaced by a greater loyalty to Faith, Family, and Country. Many people consider the Government to be their enemy and that must change…or the government will be changed. Read the Declaration of Independence Preamble of many similar grievances.

There is no need for our military to be overseas at great cost. None. Nor is there any need for Foreign Aid. These two expenses total $428.4 Billion and are about 10% of government’s budget.

As an Economist, I can tell you that if we mind our own business, our prosperity and freedom would be unlimited, and fulfilling the American Dream would require only one income.

Inflation is impoverishing the American people, and can be eliminated by ending the Federal Reserve Bank and returning to gold and silver money.

Do these four things and you can return to Justice and the American Dream on single income.

By eliminating Foreign Aid, you do the Christian thing and end the wrongful support of Genocide in Gaza. Both sides in the conflict hate one another for cause. But it is none of our damn business!  I just witnessed a ground swell of support for Faith, Family, and Country, which is a major shift towards religion and away from criminal government at the expense of the people.

It is not disputed that Charlie Kirk, President Trump, Congress, and most people with power are petrified of the Zionist Jewish Lobby. They all received significant funding from the Jews, and are also blackmailed to do their wishes. We know that Charlie Kirk took exception to the Gaza Genocide, and consider what happened to him. The American people are furious with our support of Gaza Genocide, and if President Trump does not change he will lose his base and key to greatness. If you want additional convincing evidence listen to Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens.

I think government and the Evil Ones ignore this clear message from the People at their peril.

Dedication to God, Family, and Country can’t be defeated by any enemy, much less the Communists and politicians. When the left is losing, they resort to violence…but they can do nothing to defeat a man’s belief in God. If the left continues its violence, the people will return it in kind. That is Biblical.

The post Fidelity to Faith, Family, and Country Is Surging From a Great Revival That Can’t Be Defeated. appeared first on LewRockwell.

In my first column after the events of Jan. 6th, 2021, I criticized those who called the protest a “coup,” pointing out that, “Some of the same politicians and bureaucrats denouncing the ridiculous farce at the Capitol as if it were the equivalent of 9/11 have been involved for decades in planning and executing real coups overseas. In their real coups, many thousands of civilians have died.”

The media at the time played up the violence committed by a relative few at the protest to stoke a national outcry and demands for “justice.” More than 1,500 Americans were charged over the incident and nearly 500 were imprisoned, including outrageous prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like entering the Capitol building through doors opened by the police, and filming the event.

While most Democrats and Republicans in Congress harshly denounced the January 6th “insurrectionists,” a few Members displayed the appropriate skepticism over accepted government narratives. Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, was relentless in his search for answers to a simple but critically important question: How many of the “insurrectionists” were actually undercover FBI agents and other law enforcement officers and what role might they have played in inciting the violence.

Massie grilled then-Attorney General Merrick Garland several times, but Garland would not budge. He refused to say whether there had been any undercover federal agents in the crowd, though of course he must have known.

Last week we learned a little more of the truth. With the release of the FBI’s long lost “after action” report, we now know that more than 250 undercover agents were in the crowd. According to the report, they were given roles including crowd control that they were not suited for. Some agents cited in the report complained of political biases in the Bureau against conservatives. What other tasks might have been given to a “politicized” FBI undercover team?

In addition to the undercover agents, there were more than two dozen paid informants in the Jan. 6th crowd. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who chairs the subcommittee investigating the matter, asks an important question: “With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?”

Were they paid to inform, or to instigate? That is a good question. We do know that the event was used by the incoming Biden Administration to demonize and persecute the political opposition. There is no telling how many Americans would have liked to use their First Amendment guarantee of free speech to criticize the Biden Administration but were silenced by fear of persecution, or worse. It’s easy to conclude, seeing so many arrested and handed long sentences for non-violent “crimes,” that it’s better to keep quiet. At the time, the US was still in the grip of Covid tyranny, where speaking out against “the Science” could get you “cancelled” or worse. This was another way to silence people who were not “going along with the program.”

In the end, January 6th, 2021, was a coup of sorts. It was a coup against the First Amendment. The lesson for all of us is that if we do not regularly but peacefully exercise our First Amendment guarantees we will definitely lose them, regardless of who is in power.

The post The Real Jan. 6th Coup appeared first on LewRockwell.

You will likely ask: Why is your headline about Venezuela but you begin your article by discussing the new leader in Syria? A fair question, and here is the simple answer: Given the massive buildup of US forces off the coast, is the supposed threat posed by Tren de Aragua genuine, or is it an intelligence operation designed to create a justification to carry out a regime change in Venezuela?

We know from publicly available evidence that the CIA has a history of providing support to radical Islamic groups in contravention of publicly stated US policy to oppose such groups. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which is headed by the newly installed president of Syria, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, is the latest example.

Al-Sharaa was born in 1982 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to a Syrian Sunni Muslim family from the Golan Heights, and he grew up in Damascus, Syria. He joined al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) shortly before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and fought in the Iraqi insurgency for three years. He was captured by American forces in 2006 and imprisoned until 2011.

After his release, coinciding with the start of the Syrian Revolution, he founded the al-Nusra Front in 2012, an al-Qaeda affiliate aiming to topple Bashar al-Assad’s regime during the Syrian civil war, which happened to coincide with US policy… Just a coincidence?

By 2016, al-Sharaa cut ties with al-Qaeda, rebranded his group, and merged with other factions to form Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which controlled much of Idlib Governorate. HTS operated a technocratic administration known as the Syrian Salvation Government, providing some public services but also suppressing dissent. I believe that this separation from al-Qaeda coincided with him becoming affiliated with Western intelligence organizations.

Although he was brought to power with the assistance of Western intelligence organizations, multiple reports and investigations from multiple sources confirm that forces aligned with Ahmed al-Sharaa and his government in Syria have continued to carry out widespread sectarian violence, persecution, and massacres targeting religious minorities including Christians, Alawites, Druze, and Shia Muslims. Key points include:

• From March 2025, a series of mass killings targeting Alawite communities occurred, involving door-to-door interrogations and executions based solely on sectarian identity. These massacres resulted in over a thousand deaths and involved Syrian government forces and allied militias. Al-Sharaa denied direct responsibility and blamed remnants of the Assad regime, but human rights groups have implicated forces loyal to him in the violence. Videos have surfaced showing Ministry of Defense personnel engaging in sectarian killing operations.

• The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported ongoing religious persecutions by forces loyal to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which al-Sharaa once commanded. Persecutions against Alawites, Druze, Shia Muslims, and Christians have included mass killings, kidnappings, intimidation, and looting by Islamist militias affiliated with the new Syrian government.

• Despite pledges from al-Sharaa’s government to protect religious minorities, evidence indicates continued violence and discrimination. Christian and Druze populations report fear and suffering under the new regime, which retains militant elements associated with terrorist designations.

• Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have called for full investigations into the civilian killings and human rights abuses under al-Sharaa’s government.

This evidence shows that the situation for religious minorities under Ahmed al-Sharaa’s rule is precarious, with significant reports of sectarian violence and persecution alongside official denials or counterclaims from the government. And yet, the US government aligned itself with this head-chopper.

Based on this precedent, it is not a wild leap to ask the question: Is the CIA involved with creating the Tren de Aragua threat in order to justify a regime change in Venezuela? Circumstantial evidence says, yes!

First Mention in News Media

The earliest documented mention of Tren de Aragua in US news media appears in a June 9, 2024, CNN article titled Tren de Aragua: The Venezuelan gang infiltrating the US. This report detailed the gang’s origins in a Venezuelan prison, its expansion into South America, and emerging activities in the US, including over 70 linked cases in law enforcement documents. Prior mentions in international media (e.g., in Peru in 2018) exist, but this marks the first significant US-focused coverage, coinciding with federal investigations into its US operations. Pay attention to the 2018 date… More about that in a bit.

First Mention in a US Government Publication

The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) first officially mentioned Tren de Aragua on July 10, 2024, in a press release sanctioning it as a transnational criminal organization. The release highlighted its involvement in human smuggling, trafficking, gender-based violence, money laundering, and drug trafficking across the Western Hemisphere, including the US. This predates subsequent actions, such as DHS references to arrests starting in May 2023 (retrospectively noted in 2025 reports) and later designations in 2025.

No publicly declassified or confirmed CIA operation specifically named for the purpose of overthrowing Nicolás Maduro’s government exists in available records. The US government has consistently denied direct involvement in coup attempts or assassinations, labeling such Venezuelan claims as categorically false. However, reporting reveals a secret Trump-era CIA-assisted covert initiative aimed at regime change through nonviolent disruption, such as a 2019 hack of Venezuela’s military payroll system to sow discontent among troops. This unnamed program involved internal CIA debates over resources and alignment with broader US policy, but it did not achieve Maduro’s ouster and remains partially classified.

These reflect a pattern of US maximum pressure tactics (sanctions, indictments, cyber ops) since 2018, but no single, named CIA overthrow operation has been acknowledged or declassified. Maduro frequently accuses the CIA of plots to justify repression, though evidence is often lacking. Did you catch the date in the preceding sentence? The maximum pressure to oust Maduro started in 2018, which just happens to coincide with the first mention of Tren de Aragua in the Peruvian press in 2018. Hmmmm… Just a coincidence? I know based on my previous experience that it is highly likely that CIA assets were used to plant stories in the media, including social media, to build a narrative that Tren de Aragua is a threat to the US that justifies the use of military force.

Is it possible that Donald Trump signed a classified finding in 2018 that authorized a CIA covert action program to remove Nicholas Maduro from power, and is it likely that program is still in operation? I think so… What do you think?

This article was originally published on Sonar21.

The post Is Tren De Aragua a CIA Operation in Order to Justify an Attack on Venezuela? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Last week, President Trump was scheduled to give remarks on the potential causes of autism. Shortly beforehand, the press became aware Trump would focus on the link between Tylenol and autism (which some theorized was due to NIH scientists leaking that information), resulting in the national media collectively ridiculing that link immediately before the press conference. Possibly in response to this, the President then gave a very different press conference, which was arguably what the autism community has been waiting decades for.

In that press conference, Trump stated:

• He had felt very strongly about bringing attention to vaccines and autism for 20 years and that solving this was more important to him than the economy (which is typically Trump’s number one focus).

• He felt that we were giving too many shots too quickly and they needed to be spaced out (which is true, as severe vaccine injuries become increasingly likely the more closely and earlier vaccines are taken—but the medical field has refused to acknowledge this and reduce vaccine injuries as doing so would be akin to an admission vaccines are not “100% safe”).

• He believed there was no reason to give the hepatitis B vaccine prior to children being 12 (which, as I showed here, is true).

• That Tylenol increases the risk of autism, so if possible, it should be avoided during pregnancy and you should not give it to infants.

Note: in addition to his public statements repeatedly linking vaccines to autism despite facing widespread criticism for them (e.g., consider his response at a 2016 presidential debate), multiple associates of Trump’s family have explained to me why Trump is personally invested in ending vaccine induced autism.

After which Secretary Kennedy stated:

Some 40 to 70% of mothers who have children with autism believe that their child was injured by a vaccine. President Trump believes that we should be listening to these mothers instead of gaslighting and marginalize them like prior administrations.

Some of our friends like to say that we should believe all women. Some of these same people have been silencing and demonizing these mothers for three decades because research on the potential link between autism and vaccines has been actively suppressed in the past. It will take time for an honest look at this topic by scientists.

As I heard this announcement, like many, I felt this was remarkable progress on a previously unsolvable issue. I was also grateful Trump drew mainstream attention to the concept it was not necessarily a good idea to “treat” an uncomfortable fever, and noted that his repeated statement that pregnant mothers should do their best to “tough it out” rather than take Tylenol was very similar to conversations I’d had throughout COVID with non-pregnant patients.

However, after I thought about it a bit more, I realized it might not have been a good decision on Trump’s part to implore people to avoid taking something that was actually toxic.

The next day, to show they believed in Science, numerous pregnant mothers began posting videos of themselves taking large amounts of Tylenol (which I compiled on X here). These include a pregnant gynecologist training in fertility medicine showing off taking Tylenol, along with a nurse (I’ve previously corresponded with) sharing the tragic story of a 23-25 week pregnant mother who’d done this and destroyed her liver.

These events, in short, highlight why there are serious but largely unaddressed issues with Tylenol.

Over the Counter Pain Management

Because of how uncomfortable pain is, pain treatments have long been a core market in medicine. Remarkably however, most of the standard pain therapies have serious issues and often progress patients to needing more and more severe interventions. Steroids, for example, have a myriad of often severe side effects, and when injected into joints, weaken the ligaments, hence providing temporary relief at the expense of the joint, which in turn causes the patient to eventually require a joint or spine surgery (which often creates a host of permanent issues).

Typically, the first line treatment for pain is to get an over-the-counter pain medication, of which a few exist in the USA: acetaminophen (Tylenol), ibuprofen (e.g., Advil or Motrin), naproxen (e.g., Aleve or Naprosyn), aspirin or topical diclofenac (Voltaren gel). Unfortunately, these medications (with the possible exception of topical diclonfenac) all have a dose-dependent toxicity, and typically only elicit a partial improvement in pain. As such, patients frequently take additional doses to further reduce their pain which is often quite dangerous (or alternately, they overdose to commit suicide).

Many, in turn, consider NSAIDs (e.g., ibuprofen and naproxen along with stronger prescription NSAIDs) among the most hazardous drugs in the U.S. because:

• They are the leading cause of drug-related hospital admissions—often due to heart attacks, strokes, bleeding, and kidney failure (e.g., at least 107,000 Americans are admitted to hospitals each year for NSAID GI bleeds).
• Kidney damage is a significant risk. One study found a 20% increased risk of kidney disease from NSAIDs; others found up to 212%. Amongst kidney failure patients, 65.7% were found to be chronic NSAID users.
• NSAIDs raise cardiovascular risks. NSAIDS also increase the risk of heart attacks and death (e.g., extensive studies have found between a 24-326% increase1,2,3). Two of the worst ones, Vioxx (Merck) and Celebrex (Pfizer), were designed to reduce stomach bleeding but instead caused heart attacks and strokes. Merck hid data on Vioxx’s risks; eventually it was withdrawn after an estimated 120,000 deaths. Celebrex, still on the market, has been linked to 75,000 deaths. Merck’s handling of Vioxx later informed how pharma pushed the HPV vaccine and mRNA vaccines.
• Gastrointestinal bleeding is common and often fatal. In 1999, over 16,000 Americans died from it. NSAIDs also cause small bowel damage in over 50% of chronic users—often undetected—leading to “small bowel enteropathy” and possibly chronic illness through gut permeability.
• They impair healing, especially of ligaments, creating long-term re-injury risk.

Trials alleging the benefit of NSAIDs are frequently intentionally deceptive and frequently create the illusion of a benefit where none exists. What this means is that many patients ruin their lives with drugs that did almost nothing for them in the first place.—Peter Gøtzsche

Unfortunately, NSAIDs remain amongst the most commonly prescribed drugs, and are frequently given for musculoskeletal injuries.

Note: the dangers of NSAIDs are discussed further here.

The poor efficacy of the OTC pain medications, along with their significant toxicity, in turn was one of the primary reasons I spent the last year of my life trying to bring attention to DMSO. This is because DMSO is dramatically more effective than any other over the counter option (e.g., I compiled a large volume of literature demonstrating that here, and I have now received well over a thousand reports from readers saying it produced miraculous improvements in pain)—essentially making it a crime a safe and affordable pain solution is not available to the public.

Lastly, since the current topic at hand is maternal safety during childbirth (where NSAIDs are strongly advised against due to a variety of issues they create for the fetus), many questions have been raised over if DMSO can be used instead. In turn, I have seen a lot of data suggesting DMSO is safe for the fetus (compiled here), seen numerous studies where pregnant mothers who received it had healthy children, and know the German DMSO community has not observed any issues from taking it while pregnant or while breastfeeding (whereas in contrast it has greatly helped developmentally delayed children). Likewise, we frequently use DMSO to treat mastitis while breastfeeding, and have not observed any issues from it.

Conversely, numerous reports show that if DMSO is injected directly into developing fetuses it causes birth defects (which is vastly different from the minute concentrations which will reach the fetus from topical applications), one study found that injecting pure DMSO into the abdomens of developing mice impaired neuronal development while a third found higher concentrations than achieved through topical applications impaired early neuronal development.

Given all of this, I think topical DMSO, when needed is most likely safe during pregnancy (or at least safer than the alternatives), but it has never been formally studied, as due to the politics surrounding thalidomide when DMSO was discovered, the DMSO field made a decision to simply never use it in pregnant women. That said, within the scientific literature, as far as I know, no cases of any toxicity to the offspring of animals from topical skin applications of DMSO to the pregnant mother have ever been reported.

Tylenol Toxicity

Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol) is one of the few over-the-counter alternatives to NSAIDs and is generally considered safer than NSAIDs (making it frequently be a common alternative to them), though, it too, is often ineffective for severe pain. Still, while less toxic than NSAIDs, it carries a major risk—when metabolized, it has three different ways the liver can break it down, two of which are relatively harmless and one of which that produces the metabolite NAPQI (N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine) which is highly toxic to liver cells because it irreversibly binds to essential cellular proteins.

Typically, relatively little NAPQI is produced and quickly neutralized by liver glutathione. However when too much Tylenol is taken, the other detoxification pathways get saturated, shunting Tylenol metabolism to the NAPQI pathway, at which point the limited glutathione stores of the liver can get used up, and rapid liver death from unneutralized NAPQI ensues.

As a result, Tylenol overuse leads to 56,000 ER visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths annually in America.

Note: certain conditions lower Tylenol’s toxicity threshold and hence increase the likelihood of an overdose (e.g., chronic alcohol use, malnutrition, fasting, eating disorders, chronic liver disease, certain medications, older age, and genetic variability in liver metabolism).

Additionally, Tylenol also has a few other major issues:

• NAPQI is also toxic to the kidneys, and in 1-2% of overdose cases (with some sources saying 2-10%) the kidneys are also damaged. Within FAERS (which misses most reports), one study identified 1,288 reports of APAP-associated kidney injury, which disproportionately affected younger patients (and according to the study’s methods, were 2.4 times more likely than ibuprofen to cause kidney injuries).

• Many studies associate gastrointestinal side effects with Tylenol use. In one review, their ranges were as follows: abdominal pain (3.9-5.4%), diarrhea (2.2-5.9%), dyspepsia (0.9-6.3%), nausea (1.5-5.4%), vomiting (1.6-1.6%). overall GI AEs (7.9-9.0%), medically significant GI AEs (5.3-5.3%), serious GI events requiring hospitalization (0.2-0.3%).

• In one review, Tylenol was found to increase the risk of the following conditions: bleeding or perforated peptic ulcers (+6–121%), uncomplicated peptic ulcers (+4–115%), lower GI bleed (+15–145%), heart failure (+9–98%), myocardial infarction (+0–73%), hypertension (+7–62%), chronic renal failure (+19–129%).

• A systematic review identified data suggesting chronic Tylenol use increased blood pressure (a 4mmHg rise in hypertensive patients), increased asthma (a possible 15% increase), caused a 3.6-3.7 increase in gastric bleeding (which increased further with concurrent NSAID use), and had a possible association with end stage kidney disease (being responsible for 10% of cases).

• Tylenol has been associated with an increased risk of blood cancers, +16% from low use and +84% from high use (with the increase being roughly double in women). Additionally, the following increases were seen with high use: myeloid neoplasms (+126%) plasma cell disorders (+142%), other mature B-Cell neoplasms (+81%)—with smaller increases being seen from lower doses.

• Tylenol has been associated with rashes and hypersensitivity reactions, has a required warning label for causing Steven-Johnson syndrome (a severe hypersensitive reaction where skin peels off), and in one review, was found to cause hypersensitivity reactions in 10.1% of children undergoing oral challenges.

• In children of mothers chronically using Tylenol, a review found the following increases: hyperkinetic disorder (+37%), ADHD medication use (+29%), autism spectrum disorder with hyperkinetic symptoms (+51%), asthma in offspring from frequent use in late pregnancy (+110%), asthma in offspring from any use during pregnancy (+15–17%), undescended testicles (with the greatest increased risk being seen if used for over 2 weeks in the second trimester).
Note: since vaccines cause fevers, many have pointed out it’s possible some of the increase in neurodevelopmental disorders from Tylenol is actually due to maternal vaccinations taken during pregnancy.

• A recent systematic review of 46 studies which had been conducted on the risk of Tylenol during pregnancy causing neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) in offspring found the majority of studies detected an increased risk, that those of higher quality were much more likely to detect the association, and that the increase was dose dependent. The increased NDDs included autism, ADHD, and other NDDs affecting learning, social/motor skills, attention, cognition, emotions, and behavior.
Note: this study is arguably the most definitive proof Tylenol is not safe during pregnancy and was the one Trump and RFK’s team highlighted at their recent vaccine announcement.

All of this led to a rather peculiar media phenomenon many online pointed out:

Note: numerous internal documents and public statements have shown that by 2017, Tylenol’s manufacturer was well aware of the drug’s link to autism. Additionally, while not highlighted by Trump, SSRI antidepressants have been observed to cause a variety of issues for the fetus (e.g., one review found an 82% increased risk of autism).

Read the Whole Article

The post Why Does Tylenol Cause Chronic Illnesses Like Autism? appeared first on LewRockwell.

I don’t know how long this Charlie Kirk thing will last. It’s already been two weeks, which is a very long time in the short attention span of America 2.0. The event itself has been ignored by professional “journalists.” Maybe the Right will succeed in getting a school named after him. But the many anomalies will never be explained.

As always, the official narrative of the incident doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Any scrutiny at all. This is why there is so little focus on the actual shooting. These government produced narratives are so nonsensical that it couldn’t be due to mere random incompetence, or bad storytelling. Let’s start with the autopsy. Was there even an autopsy performed? Who knows? The few sources that mention it either say that there wasn’t one, or that it hasn’t been released. An autopsy is required for homicides in Utah (and I believe all states). So, there must have been one. Why don’t we know for certain? As the late JFK researcher David Lifton used to say, it’s only the “best evidence” in a murder case. Even in the JFK assassination, when they were in the midst of launching the coverup of all coverups, an autopsy was publicly acknowledged. A shameful, shoddy one, to be sure, but an autopsy nonetheless. So we ought to be able to get an answer to a basic question like this. And yet we can’t.

As I touched on in my previous Substack piece about the Charlie Kirk incident, the ballistics simply don’t add up here. You can’t have a shooting without ballistics evidence. But the evidence presented is preposterous. A shot from the victim’s left will cause the victim to move in the opposite direction, according to the laws of physics. Did an apple fall on Sir Isaac Newton’s head or what? That didn’t happen in this case. When those pesky thought criminals on the internet kept asking where the bullet was, because there had been no reports regarding when and where it was found, they were at first ignored. However, the surgeon who operated on Charlie Kirk- and when did that happen- belatedly announced that the bullet had been found. Inside his neck. It was referred to as Charlie’s “last miracle,” as if he had performed others. “His bone was so healthy and the density was so impressive that he’s like the man of steel.” The surgeon declared, crediting Charlie’s rock hard neck with saving lives.

Now, I don’t want to be disrespectful, but does that sound even remotely believable? I’m no doctor, but what dense bone is there in a human neck? Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet reported that this curiously unnamed surgeon told him that the bullet “absolutely should have gone through, which is very very normal for a high powered, high velocity round. I’ve seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc.” Oh, okay. So it was another “magic” bullet. This ridiculous explanation takes care of both the missing bullet and the missing exit wound. Arlen Specter, father of the JFK assassination single-bullet theory, would be proud. Why isn’t the surgeon identified? We know the names of those who fouled up the medical evidence in JFK’s murder. And what kind of surgery was performed? Weren’t we told that Charlie was dead before he hit the ground? The remaining critical thinkers want to know.

There are several videos out there, which postulate that the shot was fired from Charlie’s right, so that the wound on his neck which we see was actually where the bullet exited. Well, that makes more sense than the official version of events. Tyler Robinson, who oddly isn’t your typical three name assassin, has been presumed guilty by everyone, on all sides. No one says “alleged” or “accused” before his name. While no one has a chance at a fair trial in our monstrous injustice system, this guy really doesn’t. The New York Post, which is kind of a slightly higher class National Inquirer, published some interesting photos of young Tyler at gun shows with his parents. How ironic to see him posed that way. Well, that’s what happens when you let your kids handle guns. Tyler’s parents really did quite a job, as he also fell in love with a transgender male. But at least his father turned him in to the authorities. It’s important to always turn your gun crazed, transgender kids in to the authorities.

There has been lots of speculation about Charlie’s widow Erika. I know- everyone grieves differently. Snuggling uncomfortably close to our supposedly dying old President Trump at the memorial, which featured fireworks, was perfectly normal. Someone sent me a 2012 video, of the song She’s my Kind of Crazy by Emerson Drive. The future Erika Kirk is the star. She shows off her tramp stamp, which is of course a butterfly. MKULTRA, anyone? At one point, she’s ziplining through the street, and a “9/10” shows up in the background. You know, as in September 10. Shades of The Simpsons’ predictive programming. Afterwards, Erika posted on social media, “What a blast Tyler and I had shooting this video.” Tyler? I looked up the band Emerson Drive. None of them are named Tyler. So who was she referring to? Maybe Tyler is a really common name now. Even then, as Miss Arizona, Erika was wearing just an incredible amount of eye makeup. It’s hard to deny the Tammy Faye Bakker vibe.

There are some of the usual connections here. Charlie’s father Robert worked as an architect on Trump Tower. Sure, Charlie grew up wealthy, as pretty much all people who wind up in the spotlight do, but still founding a national organization like Turning Point USA is pretty uncommon for an eighteen year old. Kirk, like so many others, was “helped” by the right people. He was “installed,” to use Jason Whitlock’s term. One of his largest donors was arch-Zionist tech mogul Robert Shillman. According to rogue Jew Max Blumenthal, ”However, as Kirk drifted from the official, Netanyahu-enforced line on Israel in the past year, expressing frustration with onerous demands from Zionist donors and hosting the leading conservative critics of Israel at his TPUSA events, Shillman apparently grew resentful.” This is a common theme we’re hearing, as evidenced by those videos where Kirk himself can be seen questioning his long time commitment to Israel. A very unwelcome common theme.

But, Netanyahu says he didn’t do it. So does everyone else in the state controlled media. There was no conspiracy! If there was a collective tomb for those who are well paid to parrot the party line, that would be its four word epitaph. I’ve even seen some in the alt media entertain the notion that this MAGA loving/MAGA hating split personality did it. All alone. Assembled and disassembled the weapon like a billion times. Carried a large box to place it in, the better for the authorities to find it, without that box being evident anywhere in the videos taken of him. Was filmed at a Dairy Queen, with his clothing questioned by the likes of Candace Owens, appearing extremely calm for a fleeing assassin. But lone nuts are like that. Lee Harvey Oswald, while traveling in opposite directions after the JFK shooting, is said to have offered his taxi to another woman. Never let it be said that lone assassins can’t be chivalrous.

It’s ironic that while Charlie Kirk’s last college appearance featured little security, just six police officers, and no ambulance or EMT personnel, his over the top memorial service (I guess they call them “celebrations of life” now), was granted the highest U.S. security designation, with a bulletproof glass-encased podium, TSA-style metal detectors (that might have come in handy in Utah), and counter-sniper teams. What were they expecting? Don’t they have the lone guilty party in custody, pining away for the transgender lover he’ll never translove again? Exactly who were they protecting the speakers from? Does Tyler Robinson have “sleeper cells” out there? It’s like keeping files classified from the JFK assassination. Or 9/11. There’s probably still some documents withheld from World War II, if not World War I. I predict information will be withheld in this case as well. The autopsy, for instance. If there was one. Why? There was no conspiracy! Remember? So, what’s to hide?

Kash Patel, the once conspiracy-friendly FBI director, announced, “We are examining every facet of this assassination. We are meticulously investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the shot was taken, the possibility of accomplices, the text message confession and related conversations, Discord chats, the angle of the shot and bullet impact, how the weapon was transported, hand gestures observed as potential ‘signals’ near Charlie at the time of his assassination, and visitors to the alleged shooter’s residence in the hours and days leading up to September 10, 2025.” So he knows about at least some of the anomalies. Patel has mentioned that the FBI was pursuing more than twenty people in an online chat room. I guess because of some kind of connection to Tyler Robinson, whom it must never be forgotten acted alone. So, what is Kash telling us? There are more than twenty lone nuts? Twenty=one. It’s a Common Core thing, you wouldn’t understand.

We should have full confidence in the FBI. It’s not like they’ve lied, covered up, destroyed evidence, and conducted tyrannical raids on citizens for the past century. The honorable Mr. Patel now tells us that not only did Epstein have no list, he never trafficked anyone. Donald Trump completely trusts him. You know Trump has no interest in getting to the bottom of the Kirk case. He literally doesn’t want the Butler, Pennsylvania alleged assassination attempt on him investigated. That one had a magic bullet, too. If God hadn’t caused Trump to turn his head miraculously, we might never have seen the fastest healing ear in medical history. Charlie Kirk had his neck of steel. Trump apparently has an ear of steel. Butler featured another rooftop shooter, who was seen by multiple witnesses casually strolling along, rifle in hand, and then climbing the side of a building. Nothing to see here. Tyler Robinson, meanwhile, was tracked by the boastful authorities. They just forgot to stop him from shooting.

How can they expect us to believe such stupid stories? To accept such “evidence?” Well, perhaps it’s the fact that the majority of Americans always believe them, no matter what? They accepted Oswald being shot while being “protected” by more than seventy police officers. They bought the women and children at Waco “killing themselves” when the authorities broke down their “compound” with armored tanks that spewed a gas that was banned by the Geneva Convention. They bought Building 7 collapsing when no plane hit it. They accepted Epstein “killing himself” even though no one but the government believed it. And on and on. As was said long ago, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. We’re a stupid lot, so it’s no wonder we accept stupid stories. They didn’t preserve the crime scene here, just as the Secret Service washed out the limo-which was the crime scene in the JFK assassination. In fact, they actually paved over the Kirk crime scene.

Read the Whole Article

The post Charlie Kirk: Curiouser and Curiouser appeared first on LewRockwell.

How does America survive when its citizens belong to two divided camps that believe fundamentally incompatible things?

Over the last century, there has been a trend to establish “truth and reconciliation commissions” in countries emerging from periods of political terrorism, totalitarianism, or civil war.  The idea is to acknowledge the crimes and atrocities that past governments officially sanctioned and to recognize the harms inflicted upon their victims.  As is often the case when governments “disappear” citizens or throw them in gulags for their politically incorrect thoughts, it is the not knowing that haunts society.  Survivors bereft of answers are left with inconsolable anguish.  The commissions are often used as a first step toward healing grave national trauma.

It is no surprise that these commissions generally reflect the worldviews of the prevailing government that forms them.  Communist governments are quick to label past “right-wing” officials as “murderers” while memorializing their own murderers as “patriots,” “civil rights heroes,” or “noble revolutionaries.”  Politically correct governments in the West today often describe their countries’ founders and explorers as “racists,” “white supremacists,” “imperialists,” and perpetrators of “genocide.”  No doubt the people alive during these consequential periods of history would take exception to the way they are remembered, but descendants — particularly descendants in possession of political power — maintain at least a temporary monopoly over the historical record.

Although Democrat politicians and Antifa terrorists hysterically insist that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are “disappearing” foreign nationals present in the United States illegally, that is not the case.  But that lie — reinforced on Wikipedia, news blogs, and on cable news — is one example of an expanding collection of diametrically held beliefs deeply dividing the American people.

American citizens who are opposed to open borders and endless illegal immigration see ICE agents as performing critical tasks.  Those agents put their lives on the line every day in order to arrest illegal aliens — many of whom have been convicted or accused of serious crimes — and protect American citizens.  Democrat politicians, however, call ICE agents “slave catchers” and “Gestapo thugs.”  Antifa-affiliated groups dox officers, physically harass them, and even shoot at them.  Anarcho-communists explicitly call for “war against ICE.”  Deranged leftists stalk and assault Trump administration officials every day.  Half of America sees ICE officers and administration officials as selfless patriots who should be honored for their sacrifices.  The other half wishes them death.

Right now, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and MSNBC are all very upset that former FBI director Jim Comey has been indicted for false statements and obstruction of a federal proceeding.  Well known political pundits are all repeating some version of this statement: We have never had a situation in which a sitting president has so brazenly used the criminal justice system to go after his political adversaries.  This is the consensus opinion of those with institutional power, prestige, credentials, and fame.  Yet to ordinary Americans without such accolades, elite talking heads sound delusional, amnesiac, and maliciously deceptive.

How could people at the height of their professions possibly describe the indictment of Jim Comey as “unprecedented”?  Americans for the last ten years have witnessed abject weaponization of the Justice Department and Intelligence Community against Donald Trump, his associates, and his supporters.  Hillary Clinton’s inner circle and Barack Obama’s trusted lieutenants co-opted  the FBI and CIA in an effort to frame Donald Trump as a Russian spy, remove him from office, and perhaps even convict him for treason.  Jim Comey was instrumental in this nefarious plot.  As journalist Matt Taibbi said the other day, “think of the national security implications of implying that your own president is a spy for a foreign country. … You can’t have an FBI director doing … these sorts of manipulations and lying to Congress about it and getting away with it.”

Yet the Russia Collusion Hoax was only one part of a decade-long effort to destroy Trump and his MAGA movement.  Democrat saboteurs working for the U.S. military and CIA turned a normal conversation with the president of Ukraine into Trump’s first impeachment.  Then the FBI and DOJ labeled the January 6, 2021 protest against election fraud an “insurrection” — laying the grounds for Congress to pursue a truly unprecedented post-presidential impeachment.  For years, FBI director Chris Wray lied to Congress and the American people about the presence of federal law enforcement officers near the Capitol that day.  Only in 2025 have we now learned that nearly three hundred plainclothes FBI agents were on the ground during the protest, along with dozens of informants and an unknown number of other federal and local agents, all possibly stirring up mayhem.

Millions of American have long suspected that agitators created a “false flag” event on January 6 to help justify a subsequent prosecution of Trump and preclude his running for president once again in 2024, but those voices were censored on social media accounts for years.  Treating Trump and his supporters as “terrorists” became the order of the day for both Silicon Valley and the federal government.

FBI SWAT teams busted into the homes of ordinary families in predawn raids to make it clear to MAGA Americans that — unlike Antifa and Black Lives Matter members — conservatives enjoy no “privilege” to protest official authorities in the United States.  The Biden administration — arguably illegitimate since it secured election “victory” through blatant mail-in-ballot fraud — chose not to cool things down for the sake of the country.  Instead, Obama holdovers running Biden’s presidency prosecuted high-profile members of Trump’s team for spurious “crimes”; harassed conservative parents opposed to leftist teachers’ racial and sexual indoctrination of their children; and intimidated pro-life activists, Christians, and just about any group too closely aligned with Trump’s MAGA agenda.

Joe Biden called Trump a “criminal” and the “greatest threat to democracy” and labeled MAGA voters “violent extremists” and “domestic terrorists.”  His administration conspired with social media companies to censor Trump and conservatives, generally.  The Biden White House created several iterations of a “disinformation” board in order to justify Democrats’ continued ban on political dissent and conservative speech.  Lawfare specialists successfully disbarred Trump’s lawyers for simply defending their client’s interests.  Then Democrat lawyers orchestrated civil and criminal lawsuits against President Trump in half a dozen jurisdictions while working to remove him from the 2024 ballot in crucial battleground states.  And after years of Democrats calling President Trump a “Russian agent,” a “dictator,” a “Nazi,” a “fascist,” and every other kind of vile pejorative that might convince a delusional listener to believe that Trump had no right to live, at least two separate assassins tried to murder him last year — killing one civilian and wounding several others in the process.

At no time in American history has such a large-scale effort gone into utterly destroying a political candidate, his aides, and his voters.  Yet when the current DOJ decides enough is enough and that at least one of those anti-Trump conspirators should be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, the mainstream media lose their collective mind.

We may not be emerging from the aftermath of a terrible civil war, but America is nonetheless desperately in need of a “truth and reconciliation commission.”  The problem is that we can’t agree about anything.  One side believes in God; the other side largely does not.  One side believes men can become women and that a “climate apocalypse” is about to kill us all; the other side refuses to play along with such fantastic delusions.  One side believes that government agents provide citizens with certain privileges; the other side knows that rights exist regardless of bureaucratic decree.

It may be impossible to reconcile a nation so divided about basic truths.  We must try.  Otherwise, the real trouble is just beginning.

This article was originally published on American Thinker.

The post Can This Nation Be Saved? appeared first on LewRockwell.