Aggregatore di feed

This is part of the hopeful message President Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday:

“CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE… I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, ‘THE 12 DAY WAR.’ This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will!”

Fox News quickly followed up: “Trump announces ceasefire now underway after deadly missile strike on Israel in the 11th hour,” read its headline.

The newly forming narrative is clear: Let’s celebrate. President Trump’s daring brilliance averted war, and peace will prevail.

Those in the America First camp who opposed Trump’s bombing of Iran are now being asked to repent and apologize for questioning the President’s strategic genius as he conducts his grand, four-dimensional geopolitical chess.

Sadly, despite our collective desire for peace in the Middle East, the ceasefire is unlikely to hold.

This is because the strikes on Iran were never about nuclear weapons. In fact, there was every indication that Iran did not have an active nuclear program.

Mere three months ago, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, testified that, according to a U.S. intelligence community assessment, Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program, which it suspended in 2003.

During her opening statement at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 25, 2025, Gabbard said:

“The IC [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2020. We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.”

The true reason for the unprovoked attack on Iran—a brazen act of military aggression in violation of international law—was not about nonexistent nuclear weapons but about regime change in that country.

This ill-advised action was driven by two main forces: Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of Israeli hardliners, in conjunction with American neoconservatives. These groups worked hand in hand to manipulate Donald Trump into taking this illegal and misguided action.

Netanyahu seeks regime change in Iran because Iran has long been Israel’s regional adversary, and he aims to topple the Ayatollah, hoping to replace him with a compliant Western puppet.

American neoconservatives have two primary motivations. First, many see guiding the U.S. government to serve Israel’s interests as their primary mission. Second, as Iran is an ally of Russia, they aim to dismantle Iran’s regime as part of their broader goal of toppling Vladimir Putin. A regime change in Iran would weaken Russia by depriving it of a key ally and could allow the U.S. to use Iran as a base for further subversion against Russia’s from its exposed underbelly.

As an aside, the neoconservatives’ desire to overthrow Putin has nothing to do with his alleged ambition to conquer Europe—a claim unsupported by evidence. For example, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine was launched with a limited force of fewer than 200,000 troops, hardly indicative of imperial designs. Instead, their animosity toward Putin stems from his refusal to open Russia’s vast natural resources to transnational globalists seeking wealth and profit.

Since the goal of regime change in Iran remains unaccomplished, the ceasefire in the Middle East is unlikely to hold.

We can be almost certain that soon another pretext will emerge to justify renewed agression against Iran.

We should be especially vigilant for false flag operations, such as explosions or terrorist acts, which could be quickly attributed to Iran’s government.

Donald Trump has at times shown a tendency to believe in his own near-omnipotent influence, assuming that his declarations alone have the power to shape reality.

Just because Trump has proclaimed a ceasefire and the end of the “Twelve-Day War” does not mean real world events will conform to his noble intentions.

The Israelis and neoconservatives have different objectives, and they are likely to prevail. Peace may be Trump’s stated aim and initial instinct, but—regrettably—he is being skillfully played by Netanyahu and his allies.

Though people of goodwill desire peace, powerful and ruthless forces are driving us toward war.

May Donald Trump and the sane individuals among his advisors yet find the wisdom and strength to resist these influences. If they do not, we can expect further conflict and disaster in the Middle East and beyond.

We are on a profoundly dangerous path indeed.

The post Why Iran Ceasefire Will Not Last appeared first on LewRockwell.

From the Tom Woods Letter:

This is a lot to keep up with!

If the ceasefire holds, then we have reason to be pleased that the world averted something potentially much worse. On Twitter right now we have people lecturing us that we shouldn’t have been so worried, we should have trusted the president, it was just a quick strike, etc.

No one should fall for that, because over the past 72 hours, those very same people were all over the map: it’s not about regime change; then it’s not about regime change but it would be fine if it were; then it would be easy to install the son of the shah of Iran; then it darn well should be about regime change, and regime change is easier than you stupid isolationists think, etc.

So the very people now lecturing us that this was a limited intervention were themselves ready at the drop of a hat to support, and to excommunicate others for opposing, all-out regime change.

The President, meanwhile, expressed his frustration to the press today about violations of the ceasefire:

They violated it, but Israel violated it, too…. As soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs the likes of which I’ve never seen before. The biggest load that we’ve seen. I’m not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran, either, but I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because of one rocket that didn’t land that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn’t land. I’m not happy about that. You know what we have? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing. Do you understand that?

Steve Bannon, meanwhile, who opposed the intervention and appeared with Tucker Carlson to say so, just delivered a message to Trump about the likes of Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin, both of whom are unsatisfied and want full-blown regime change:

President Trump, I just hope you understand the great unmasking…. You’re sitting there trying to negotiate a deal…see what he’s doing. See what that little jackal’s doing. Just like you’re trying to get something done in Ukraine, and he’s stirring it up. He’s stirring it up.

And look at Levin calling you out on Twitter. Well…they knew you were working on something. They knew that you were trying to get the guns laid down, just like in World War I, the 11th day of the 11th month, the 11th hour. Remember that these hyenas, they’re jackals. They’re jackals. They feed off death and destruction.

Never pay for a book again: TomsFreeBooks.com

The post Bannon Warns Trump: Jackals Around You appeared first on LewRockwell.

Education and superstition coexisted in unsettling ways, often with perverse consequences. At my elite engineering college, many students began flocking to temples as examinations approached—sometimes even traveling long distances. Others sought comfort in the growing number of cults that had mushroomed across the country, each tailored to soothe a particular anxiety or offer an escape from pressure.

Yet they were not seeking peace, harmony, or spiritual insight—none of which Indian religions, focused on idolatry and ritual worship rather than virtues or commandments, are structured to provide. Instead, they gave monetary donations or undertook rituals of self-denial to appease their chosen deity. The choice of god was entirely pragmatic: whichever one was reputed to deliver the desired outcome—most often passing exams or securing a US visa.

What united all these acts was their intensely transactional nature. It was a marketplace—not of ideas, but of divine favors—where gods and gurus were “bought” with offerings, rituals, or suffering—ironically and hypocritically—in exchange for worldly rewards. The appeal lay not in introspection, personal growth, or moral elevation—none of which found any place in the collective consciousness—but in outsourcing accountability to a higher power. This ethos of divine negotiation—rooted not in faith but in fear and convenience—mirrored the larger moral and institutional disorder surrounding us.

These students could easily solve complex differential equations, yet they irrationally believed that bribing gods could boost their grades. Their scientific education had failed to instill objectivity or critical self-reflection. Despite years of rigorous training, their “mental operating systems” remained irrational, unscientific, and superstitious. This wasn’t an individual failing—it was institutional. Professors tolerated it, families encouraged it, and elite graduates carried it abroad, repackaging superstition as “tradition” or “cultural identity.”

They proudly displayed talismans and charms collected from temples, mistaking external tokens for inner strength. But this confidence—rooted in external authority rather than self-knowledge—was fragile. It led to severe mood swings and, all too often, culminated in existential crises.

The same superstitious approach to religion—in which the follower depends on divine whims—permeated daily life, professional ethics, and social interactions. Personal responsibility was easily abdicated; blame was assigned to fate, astrological misalignment, or divine displeasure when outcomes fell short. This mindset shaped how they led teams, voted, and raised children—placing faith in luck and hierarchy over foresight, integrity, or reason. Whether in governance or personal ambition, long-term planning gave way to short-term maneuvering, quick fixes, and ritualistic appeasements.

This deep-rooted aversion to responsibility and reason did not remain confined to religion—it shaped the very fabric of Indian institutions, from governance to education. A materialistic approach to religion precludes the possibility of spirituality. A psyche incapable of introspection or transcendence becomes grounded in unrestrained materialism and base, animalistic impulses. In such an environment, truth and integrity lose all value; expediency and convenience prevail. Appeals to authority figures—whether gods, bureaucrats, or foreign powers—abound, revealing a deep-seated dependency.

This fostered a subservient mindset, always looking outward for rescue or validation. The result is a population that remains sheepish, beset by identity crises, and psychologically reduced to a posture of mental beggary—an outlook fundamentally incompatible with true spirituality.

India serves as a tragic laboratory: a place where the mental and moral devastation wrought by paganism, idolatry, and polytheism can be observed even among the otherwise intellectually capable. With so many gods to choose from, students frequently switched allegiances—engaging in a vernacular version of Pascal’s Wager, hedging their bets across multiple deities. To an outsider, this behavior might appear tolerant or even secular. However, this so-called tolerance did not stem from respect for difference or a commitment to pluralism; it emerged from a fundamental indifference to objectivity, values, morality, and rationality.

This left Indian modernity hollow—mimicking forms without inheriting the spirit. Nowhere was this hollowness more evident than in its elite institutions, where knowledge was acquired without wisdom and credentials carried no trace of conscience.

Tolerance without virtue is not enlightenment. It is a moral wasteland: a space where anything goes, where sin and base desire roam unchecked. Such permissiveness, rather than fostering harmony, anchors society in stagnation. It leads inevitably toward savagery and barbarism. From this chaos, hatred, sadism, unrestrained violence—and ironically, intolerance—erupt not by design but by random eruption.

Meanwhile, the well-meaning outsider, unaware of the exploitative systems embedded in daily life, might mistake entropy for pluralism and moral decay for cultural richness. This misreading only deepens the dysfunction, as global narratives validate—and even romanticize—local disorder as “diverse” or “authentic.” The result is a nation misrepresented both within and without—praised for its chaos, defended for its dysfunction, and shielded from scrutiny by the very ideals it fails to uphold.

Decades later, I would realize that the superficial coating of engineering—or even general education—failed to disrupt magical thinking in otherwise high-IQ individuals. Worse, it inoculated them against self-examination and shielded the foundational flaws in their mental operating systems from scrutiny.

Many of these individuals from India’s elite would go on to earn, by Indian standards, extravagant salaries in the United States, yet paradoxically grew more nationalistic, tribal, and dogmatic in their Indian identity and ritualistic beliefs. Their material success abroad did not reflect the triumph of Indian thought but rather its insulation—preserved within a foreign system that harnessed their technical competence like shiny, compliant cogs. They were not contributing to Western values; they were merely operating within them, untouched by their spirit.

Contrary to conventional wisdom—including that of the World Bank and other global institutions—every good thing the West offered to India was eventually perverted, corrupted, or degraded. These institutions and values did not emerge from Indian cultural soil; they were externally grafted, never truly rooted. As a result, they were adopted superficially, without the moral, philosophical, or institutional foundations necessary to sustain them. What appeared on paper as democracy or modernity was, in practice, something else entirely—hollow forms animated by pre-modern instincts.

Education, prosperity, and even female empowerment yielded paradoxically regressive outcomes. This was not because these forces were inherently flawed but because they operated atop a mental substratum that remained irrational and amoral. “Education” acquired through rote memorization merely added weight, not insight; it burdened the mind rather than illuminating it.

Without the cultivation of reason or moral inquiry, the cultural mechanisms that enable evolution and refinement broke down. Success—enabled by Western technology and institutions—required no internal transformation. The illusion that irrationality and amorality could drive progress only solidified, turning dysfunction into a self-reinforcing system.

One might have expected globalization and economic liberalization to erode superstition and erratic behavior. Instead, they emboldened them. Exposure to global markets and modern technologies did not inspire introspection; it merely cloaked magical thinking in the sleek vocabulary of modernity—words like “manifestation,” “energy,” or “alignment” replacing older religious terms. This unresolved tension—between technological sophistication and pre-modern mental habits—came to define the Indian middle class.

Cults proliferated, often led by self-declared godmen—some barely out of adolescence. These babas exploited a mass psychological insecurity and the moral vacuum that accompanied newfound material success. With no genuine philosophical or ethical foundation, they filled the void with spectacle and submission.

Their appeal did not lie in truth, discipline, or self-transcendence. Instead, they offered comfort without responsibility—rituals in place of reason and blind obedience in place of thought. In surrendering their minds to theatrics, individuals outsourced their anxieties and, more fatally, their agency.

The internet and television did not foster dialogue—they amplified dogma. Smartphones brought unprecedented access to information, but the minds receiving it remained untouched by reason or introspection. WhatsApp forwards circulated endlessly—peddling myths of ancient grandeur, exaggerated tales of colonial villainy, and fantasies of modern progress, from moral exceptionalism to space-age triumphs. The self-deluding Indian mind absorbed these uncritically. Economic growth only extended the reach of tribalism rather than dissolving it. The result was a society armed with modern tools yet governed by medieval instincts.

This fusion of modern technology with pre-modern thinking produced a uniquely unstable society that mimicked the forms of democracy, science, and secularism without ever grasping their underlying ethos. Institutions existed but were hollowed out; laws were written but corruptly enforced; elections were held, but voters acted out of caste, fear, or fanaticism—not conscience. The modern Indian citizen, armed with a degree and a smartphone, still knelt before babas, caste lords, or political strongmen—seeking protection rather than justice. In such a setting, truth had no presence, reason was easily overruled by sentiment, and the language of progress was routinely used to sanctify regression. What emerged was not a modern republic but a deeply superstitious technocracy—shiny, at least to some eyes, on the surface, but rotten at the core.

India’s rising profile on the global stage—bolstered by its sheer population, falsely perceived market potential, and a diaspora eager to elevate India’s image out of tribal insecurity—has created the illusion of national ascent. But this image is profoundly misleading. The world sees surface-level metrics: GDP growth, routinely manipulated; software exports, the result of a one-off historical quirk that made India the secretarial back office of the West; and a space mission cobbled together with borrowed concepts, imported hardware, and repackaged foreign software—not in the spirit of progress, but as a tool for domestic demagoguery and spectacle, squandering taxpayer money for political gain.

Foreign admirers, eager to celebrate multiculturalism or “diversity,” mistake noise for vibrancy and vulgarity for authenticity. But a society cannot thrive on spectacle, slogans, or demographics alone. Without truth, order, and moral ambition, what appears as rising is merely swelling; what looks like progress is often just inertia in motion. India is not the exception—it is the warning. It shows what happens when a society adopts modern instruments without internalizing the values that gave rise to them.

Whatever faint virtues the British once instilled—order, civility, restraint—have long since dissipated. When I was growing up, people aspired to refinement. Table manners, composure, and class were admired. Today, such traits are ridiculed, even despised. In a society where virtue is mocked and vulgarity rewarded, decay is not an accident but the norm.

Meritocracy has been upended—eroded by regression to pre-colonial mentalities and by the perverse incentives enabled by Western technology. When success no longer hinges on virtue, reason, or merit—but merely on access to borrowed tools—a Darwinian disincentive for moral and intellectual development takes hold.

What remains is a society that reaps the benefits of modernity while steadily reverting to ancestral patterns. Perhaps calling these “dysfunctions” means imposing a Western framework. From another perspective, India is not decaying—it is simply returning to what is natural. This cultural mismatch—between imported modernity and indigenous instincts—reveals a national tragedy and a profound philosophical rift between societies built on reason and those sustained by ritual.

Easy prosperity has discouraged any impulse toward self-improvement. Wealth is amassed not as a means to a higher purpose but out of inertia—mindless accumulation with no moral architecture to guide it. In the absence of reason and ethical striving, wealth ceases to uplift. It becomes a prop in social theater—a signal of status, a stage for spectacle. In such a setting, prosperity reflects not progress but cultural emptiness.

What India—and, indeed, any Third World society—needed was not merely education or economic growth but a profound immersion in Western logic and reason, a moral awakening, a hunger for truth, a sense of justice, and the cultivation of personal honor.

In retrospect, this was precisely what many Christian missionaries and other Western reformers had attempted for centuries—sometimes even by removing children from their cultural environments, hoping to shield them from early indoctrination into magical thinking and tribal anchoring. And yet, despite generations of effort, they barely made a dent. The failure was not in the message but in the recipient’s incapacity—or unwillingness—to receive it.

This forces a difficult question: Should we reconsider our entire approach to civilizing pre-modern societies? Or must we concede that some cultures may be impervious to reform—they are what they are and cannot be fundamentally changed? Worse still, external interventions meant to uplift them may not lead to elevation but to a degeneration—a deeper, more insidious form of collapse disguised as development.

Perhaps the highest wisdom lies not in intervention but in recognizing the tragic boundaries of what can—and cannot—be transformed. The West took several millennia to root its psyche in reason and moral values. No top-down reform could shortcut that long, organic process in India.

True creativity is spiritual, with truth-seeking at its core. Unless the psyche understands that universal principles are objective—and that gods are neither arbitrary nor capricious—even the most advanced applied science remains shallow. Among my peers, academic interest was largely superficial: a utilitarian means to pass exams and secure a ticket to the United States. Without moral depth and conceptual clarity, knowledge becomes a hollow tool—practical but never truly transformative.

Except for one individual, every classmate of mine emigrated. In India, there are even temples dedicated solely to securing US visas. Even as students pursued American dreams, they remained tethered to rituals rooted in a feudal past. Technology enabled them to stay in their virtual ghettos, never fully assimilating and ironically becoming intellectually inbred—caught between a foot in the US and another in their Third World homeland, forever confused about their identity. Their children, often unaware of the harsh realities that drove their parents to leave, tended to romanticize those Third World origins—contradicting the myth of assimilation in the next generation.

The post India: Superstition in the Age of Silicon appeared first on LewRockwell.

On June 22, 2025, the United States launched Operation “Midnight Hammer”, a joint attack by the USAF and US Navy, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, namely Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. At least 14 GBU-57A/B MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) bombs were dropped, supposedly “destroying” all three of them. These weapons can only be carried by Northrop Grumman B-2 “Spirit” stealth strategic bombers. For its part, the US Navy launched at least 30 “Tomahawk” cruise missiles. Although the exact vessel that fired them is yet to be revealed, the USS “Georgia”, an Ohio-class SSGN (nuclear-powered guided missile submarine) has been deployed in the Indian Ocean since last September. Obviously, more (or other) vessels could’ve been involved, as nuclear-powered submarines can spend months without surfacing.

According to various sources, as well as the details presented by the Pentagon itself, seven B-2 bombers of the 509th Bomb Wing flew directly from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Six of those dropped 12 MOPs on the Fordow facility, while the seventh dropped two on Natanz. The aforementioned 30 “Tomahawk” cruise missiles hit Natanz and Isfahan. Both Natanz and Fordow were reportedly hit at approximately 2:30 AM Iran Standard Time. This was officially the first time that the MOP “bunker buster” bombs were used in combat. These weapons weigh around 14 metric tons, meaning they can only be carried by B-2 bombers, which flew continuously for roughly 37 hours between their takeoff and the attack. The B-2s also had to be refueled multiple times, which is why a fleet of aerial tankers was also involved.

The US claims that the bombers were preceded by unnamed “fourth and fifth generation American fighter aircraft to preempt any surface-to-air defensive fire”. The Pentagon insists that Iranian air defenses did not engage USAF jets, supposedly “due to damage caused by previous Israeli attacks”. The B-2s reportedly flew east, over the Atlantic Ocean, attacking Iran from the west, while an unspecified number of other B-2s flew west, across the Pacific, as a diversion from the main strike force. In total, at least 125 aircraft were involved in the operation, including logistics and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets. The sheer complexity of an operation of this magnitude would require months (if not years) of planning, meaning that “peace talks” with Iran were just another ruse.

Another important aspect is the costs, certainly measured in billions. Namely, the B-2 strategic bombers (each costing up to $4 billion) are extremely complex and logistically demanding aircraft that cost upwards of $150,000 per flight hour and require at least 120-150 hours of maintenance. The USAF was rarely (if ever) able to deploy more than half a dozen simultaneously. Thus, the claim that seven of them flew to attack Iran, with an unspecified number used as a distraction (meaning at least two to three), would mean that up to ten flew at once. Considering that the USAF operates only 19 B-2s, this would indicate that over half of its entire fleet was involved in the operation, a highly unlikely prospect given just how labor-intensive it would be to keep them all fully operational and in the air (simultaneously, as previously mentioned).

What’s more, flying with nearly 30 tons of payload for over 18 hours is a considerable stress for an aircraft that’s already overstretched due to the small size of the B-2 fleet. In addition, just the cost of flying them to Iran and back would be over $5,500,000 each, meaning that up to ten bombers would cost $55 million. In terms of weapon expenses, things only get worse, with various sources reporting that a single GBU-57 bomb costs upwards of $20 million. The figure becomes all the more staggering when taking into account that 14 were dropped, or in other words, $280 million. If we count the 30 “Tomahawk” cruise missiles (each costing approximately $2 million), that’s $340 million in munitions alone. As previously mentioned, considering the involvement of 125 aircraft, we’re talking about billions (if not tens) in operational costs.

Obviously, given the sheer size of the US military budget, people might dismiss these figures as a mere footnote. However, while America can easily keep printing money into oblivion, one cannot just “print” or magically create battle readiness and the amount of work needed for such an operation. Plus, there’s also the matter of the physical impossibility of achieving all this simultaneously, as the resources required to do so depend on far more than just money. Not to mention the fact that few (if any) serious militaries would go into such great detail as to how the operation was conducted. Thus, a lot of the coverage by the mainstream propaganda machine and the information presented by the Trump administration demonstrates a large degree of war propaganda and rather distasteful jingoism (even by President Trump’s standards).

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he posted on his Truth Social account.

Obviously, Trump’s rather limited knowledge and understanding of advanced military technologies would lead him to believe that only the US could conduct an operation like this. However, a country like Russia, for instance, wouldn’t need a fleet of 125 aircraft to be able to drop a dozen bombs on a single target after flying 37 hours non-stop. On the contrary, President Putin would simply need to give an order and a single “Oreshnik” armed with 36 advanced kinetic penetrators would obliterate any point in a radius of well over 5,000 km. Thus, Russia would not only be able to conduct an operation like this, but it would do so at a minuscule fraction of the cost and in mere minutes. It would also be far more effective, as the sheer speed of Russian hypersonic weapons enables far greater penetration than any free-fall bomb can.

And speaking of effectiveness, it’s not only that America is simply incapable of making anything remotely similar (due to the rapidly dwindling potential of its missile technologies), but there’s also strong evidence to suggest that the attack on Iran didn’t really come close to accomplishing the goal Trump keeps bragging about. Namely, while he insists that Iranian nuclear facilities have been “completely and totally obliterated” in a “spectacular military success”, satellite imagery of the Fordow released by several sources tells a different story. In addition, although Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine stated that Iranian nuclear facilities suffered “severe damage”, he also pointed out that “the damage assessment would take time”. Several other prominent US media outlets openly say that “the Fordow plant had been severely damaged, but not destroyed”.

Trump’s obsession with demonstrating “shock and awe” pushed him into similar operations during his first term. For instance, the joint US-UK-French attack on Syria back in 2018 was also pompously announced and touted as a “spectacular victory”. A year earlier, Trump ordered a somewhat similar attack on (supposed ISIS) targets in Afghanistan, using the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB, alternatively nicknamed as “mother of all bombs”), another “exotic” bomb in the US arsenal known for being the second most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the world (second only to the Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power – ATBIP, aptly nicknamed “father of all bombs” – FOAB, around four times more destructive than the MOAB). None of these operations turned out to be as groundbreaking as touted by Trump and mostly served as war propaganda.

Source infobrics.org.

The post Did America Really Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Rick Rozoff wrote:

Listen to this revelation about the Murdochs, owners of Fox News. Starts at about 1:13:00

The post Listen to this revelation about the Murdoch appeared first on LewRockwell.

Andy Thomas wrote:

James Perloff talks about the Scofield Reference Bible and its profoundly damaging impact on Christianity.

See here.

The post James Perloff on the Scofield Bible appeared first on LewRockwell.

Suzan Mazur wrote:

“Israel is the big loser, and its ability to serve as America’s proxy has been crippled. The devastation from Iranian rockets has left a reported one-third of Tel Aviv and much of Haifa in ruins. Israel has lost not only its key military and national security structures, but will lose much of its skilled population as it emigrates, taking its industry with it.

And by intervening on Israel’s side by supporting its genocide, the United States has turned most of the UN’s Global Majority against itself. Its ill-thought backing of the reckless Netanyahu has catalyzed the drive by other countries to speed their way out of the U.S. diplomatic, economic and military orbit.”

See here.

The post Michael Hudson appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Tim McGraw.

The post Sheriff Matt Kendall, Mendocino County, CA; Cartels, Weed, & Water Wars: Video Interview appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, David Krall.

The post Operation Honest War Trumpet appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Ben Bartee

The post Beijing and Moscow Double Down on Propping Up Tehran, Threaten to Give It Nukes appeared first on LewRockwell.

Brian Murdock wrote:

Hi Lew,

She is making a very important point, if true, about Trump’s motives in regards to  British global elites.

Great articles on Rothbard!!!!!  Thanks.

Brian Murdock

https://x.com/EricaRN4USA/status/1936503371764314511

The post Trump and global elite appeared first on LewRockwell.

Seemingly before either side agreed, President Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. In several social media posts it appears the President is convinced the ceasefire will hold and that the two countries will never shoot at each other again. Is he correct?

The post Will The Ceasefire Hold? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Brian Dunaway:

Alternate headline: “Vance Seeks Approval from Zionist Oligarchy on Final Plan for Bombing Iran Nuclear Sites”

AP News

The post Vance made a brief trip to Montana to speak to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

It’s good to see that the younger generations like Templeton Thompson, are still sing the old Suzy Bogguss song.

The post “Someday Soon” cover appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Martin wrote:

I think like some of the rest of us, MTG might be able to recognize the moral low ground when she sees it.

See here.

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene Rips Trump for Iran Bombing appeared first on LewRockwell.

Do bears do it in the woods? See this.

The post Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Is the US Subordinated to Israel? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, W. White.

The post Mostly peaceful… appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/soffrite-di-disforia-finanziaria)

Cinque anni fa avevamo tutti un'idea più consolidata della nostra situazione finanziaria. Che fossimo ricchi, poveri o in una posizione intermedia, i segnali erano relativamente chiari, così come la nostra posizione nell'ordine gerarchico socioculturale. Che stessimo avanzando, rimanendo fermi o rimanendo indietro, lo sapevamo.

La crudele inflazione degli ultimi quattro anni, unitamente a drammatici sconvolgimenti della vita sociale, ha ribaltato tutto questo in modi che solo ora stiamo comprendendo. Si dice da tempo che l'inflazione è una tassa invisibile. È corretto nel senso che riconosciamo che qualcosa sta accadendo, ma non siamo del tutto certi di cosa.

Era ancora più strano perché nei 40 anni precedenti avevamo avuto un'idea precisa di quanto costassero le cose, di cosa fosse un buon affare o un cattivo affare, e se qualcosa fosse costoso o meno. Controllavamo i nostri conti in banca e sapevamo intuitivamente se stavamo andando bene o se ci stavamo avvicinando a un punto critico.

Un esempio veloce: il mio burro preferito costava $4, ma ora ne costa $7, il che mi sembrava esagerato finché non ho cercato online e ho trovato prodotti simili da $30 a $50, venduti come articoli di lusso. Immediatamente la mia irritazione si è trasformata in gratitudine e ho fatto scorta. Questo vale per tantissime cose oggi. La nostra capacità di distinguere il valore è quasi completamente rotta.

Quando l'inflazione è iniziata, ci è stato detto che era transitoria, cosa che abbiamo accolto con piacere. Molti presumevano che saremmo presto tornati ai prezzi del 2019 che conoscevamo così bene. Era il periodo di aggiustamento. Non ha aiutato il fatto che per quasi quattro anni la maggior parte delle notizie finanziarie riportasse che l'inflazione si stava “raffreddando” e che comunque migliorava di mese in mese.

Alla fine, però, il tenore di vita è peggiorato in modo terribile. Tutto è diventato molto più costoso, il che significa che il potere pratico dei nostri guadagni di acquistare la vita che desideriamo è enormemente diminuito. Cerchiamo di quantificarlo. Potrebbe essere del 25%, potrebbe essere molto più alto. Tutti possiamo pensare a beni che abbiamo acquistato in passato e che sono aumentati del 100 o del 200%.

Probabilmente state pensando dal punto di vista delle finanze personali. Alcuni la chiamano disforia finanziaria, perché alterniamo la convinzione che andrà tutto bene al risveglio nel cuore della notte con la paura di fallire. Detto in modo semplice non sapete con certezza cosa vi aspetta.

Ciò che state provando come individui o famiglie è esattamente ciò che le aziende di tutte le dimensioni devono affrontare oggi. Guardano ai loro bilanci e devono strizzare gli occhi per credere a ciò che vedono. Tutti i costi sono in aumento e non solo per manodopera e materiali: anche assicurazioni, affitti, tasse, assistenza sanitaria e utenze sono drasticamente aumentati. Anche se i ricavi sembrano buoni, non è del tutto chiaro che lo siano.

Finalmente, dopo quattro anni di confusione, le persone stanno iniziando a vedere la realtà. La disforia sta gradualmente diventando una nuova frugalità, o meglio, una sorta di riorganizzazione delle priorità di spesa dettata dal panico. Ridurre le spese, mangiare a casa, fare da sé e abituarsi a vivere spendendo meno. Nessuno di noi è sicuro che sarà sufficiente per arrivare a fine mese, ma finalmente ci si sta rendendo conto che i tempi sono cambiati radicalmente.

Il Wall Street Journal ha fatto centro con un articolo su come le giovani donne stiano rinunciando a manicure e pedicure, oltre a spese esorbitanti per le tinte dei capelli. Avendo solo prove aneddotiche, il giornalista ha analizzato attentamente le ricerche su Google su come fare tutte queste cose a casa e ha cercato prove di traffico di tutorial su siti di video. Le ha trovate sicuramente.

Questa tesi coincide molto con ciò che vedo anch'io.

Il punto sul cucinare a casa è importante. Mangiare fuori è pericoloso per le finanze personali, soprattutto di questi tempi. Per molto tempo, molte persone si sono abituate a frequentare i bar del quartiere e a ordinare quello che volevano. Il modo in cui paghiamo oggigiorno alimenta l'illusione che tutto vada bene più a lungo del dovuto.

Ordiniamo, mangiamo, beviamo, ci coccoliamo e ci divertiamo. Poi arriva il conto e buttiamo giù un pezzo di plastica. Siamo un po' allarmati dal costo, ma deglutiamo a fatica e andiamo avanti a pagare. Dopotutto, il danno è già fatto. Non si può smettere di mangiare e bere, quindi paghiamo. L'abitudine continua finché non ci guardiamo indietro e vediamo la percentuale del nostro reddito disponibile destinata a questa singola attività.

Ci sono voluti anni, ma gli americani hanno finalmente riconosciuto che questa pratica deve cessare o essere ridimensionata. Ecco perché così tanti ristoranti sono in difficoltà oggi. Come per miracolo, sono sopravvissuti alle chiusure e alle restrizioni del periodo 2020-2023. Appena usciti da quel caos, hanno riaperto pronti a ripartire. I clienti sono tornati.

Poi l'inflazione ha iniziato a colpire non solo i consumatori, ma anche le aziende. Abbiamo vissuto tempi folli, alternando il pensiero di essere ricchi, poveri, ricchi, a metà strada, e ormai nessuno lo sa più con certezza.

La contabilità è un padrone crudele.

È un muro duro e impenetrabile che blocca i sogni più alti e la determinazione più ispirata a superare ogni ostacolo. Alla fine, i ricavi devono superare le spese di ogni tipo, altrimenti l'azienda muore.

La contabilità è la verifica finale dei sogni dei despoti. È la realtà che nessuno può negare. Anche negandola, fa sì che le istituzioni la rispettino comunque. La contabilità è il motivo per cui il socialismo non ha mai funzionato. Collettivizzare la proprietà del capitale, ha impedito alle risorse più produttive della società di segnalare prezzi realistici e quindi determinare profitti e perdite.

Il risultato è un enorme spreco e un'irrazionalità economica. Il risultato dei sistemi socialisti è sempre il collasso.

Ignorare la contabilità è un rischio, eppure questo è sempre stato il sogno degli stati ed è per questo che hanno creato le banche centrali. Queste consentono ai governi e ai sistemi finanziari di stampare moneta senza dover affrontare il severo controllo della contabilità. Il costo di questa strada si manifesta in altri modi, tra cui inflazione, distorsioni industriali e conti esteri instabili.

Per chiunque abbia studiato economia, gli eventi odierni non sono una sorpresa; ciononostante non sono meno tragici. A parte i super-ricchi, la maggior parte delle persone negli Stati Uniti oggi sta affrontando un periodo economico estremamente difficile rispetto a soli cinque anni fa. Quel duro colpo al potere d'acquisto è stato più devastante del previsto.

La salvezza dell'attuale contesto economico è che l'inflazione si è attenuata. Gli ultimi dati mostrano qualcosa di notevole: un calo effettivo dei prezzi in alcuni settori e un tasso annuo complessivo e reale dell'1,4%, ancora troppo alto ma un sollievo molto gradito.

Purtroppo questo avviene contemporaneamente alla consapevolezza che probabilmente siamo già in recessione. Le guerre commerciali sono le principali responsabili, ma la verità è che le condizioni di recessione sono antecedenti. Il Brownstone Institute ha commissionato uno studio empirico lo scorso anno che documentava una recessione sin dal 2022. Nessuno ha mai contestato le conclusioni, eppure la stampa finanziaria ha continuato a comportarsi come se tutto andasse bene.

Non tutto va bene, e questo è diventato più che evidente ora. Le tasse sono aumentate a causa dell'inflazione e scrivo proprio mentre milioni di privati ​​e aziende faticano a completare i propri progetti prima della scadenza. Un problema urgente per molti in questo momento è chiedersi esattamente cosa stiamo ottenendo in cambio di ciò che stiamo pagando.

Sono tre mesi che sentiamo parlare di sprechi, frodi e abusi incalcolabili nel bilancio federale. A questo si aggiungono i gravi problemi di un debito insostenibile, della spesa obbligatoria per i sussidi e di un sistema sanitario che non piace a nessuno. L'intero sistema reclama a gran voce una riforma.

Eppure, in attesa di questa riforma, ci si aspetta ancora che sborsiamo, anche se la realtà finanziaria sta rendendo tutti nuovamente consapevoli di quanto la nostra situazione sia peggiore oggi rispetto al passato. Nonostante tutti i gadget e i servizi digitali che possiamo utilizzare, abbiamo un reddito disponibile reale inferiore rispetto a cinque anni fa.

Questa è la ragione della disforia finanziaria dei nostri tempi. Nonostante tutta l'euforia per i cambiamenti politici a Washington e il gran parlare di un'Età dell'oro, non c'è molto tempo per attuare una riforma radicale in un modo che sia all'altezza delle aspettative. La contabilità è e sarà sempre il padrone nascosto di tutti noi, un padrone che non può essere spazzato via dalla retorica politica o dagli attivisti.

[*] 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:

Matt Taibbi

The post Divided America is Vulnerable in War appeared first on LewRockwell.

When a just war of defense turns into a war of revenge, it ceases to be a just war and becomes an unjust war of aggression. That explains why Robert E. Lee—who followed the conventions of civilized warfare agreed upon in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—saw his role as defense of the South, and not as aggression against the North. In 1863, he said:

It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain.

In “The War Against the South and Its Consequences” Murray Rothbard points out that Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, by contrast with Lee, abandoned all such conventions and launched a total war against civilians. Rothbard explains:

Let us trace the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is, first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There is the complete setting aside of the civilized “rules of war” that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries: instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression was, of course, Sherman’s march through Georgia and the rest of the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism).

Veale attributes the blame for Sherman’s war strategy, particularly the attacks on civilians, to Lincoln:

Sherman only executed the most dramatic and devastating example of the strategy which was laid down by President Lincoln himself and followed faithfully by General Ulysses S. Grant as commander-in-chief of the Northern armies.

It was the deliberate policy of the Union army to view Southern civilians as no different from combatants. As reported in “War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies” published in 1880–1901, Sherman stated, “We will remove and destroy every obstacle—if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper.” Sherman’s apologists do not deny his total war tactics; on the contrary, they argue that these tactics were justified for various reasons including the claim that his war crimes were necessary in order to win the war.

In his book War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, Walter Brian Cisco examines the evidence in the Official Records concerning the Union war strategy. Cisco recounts civilian homes in Athens, Alabama being invaded, looted, and burned to “retaliate” against Confederates who were attacking Federal troops, and to discourage the civilian population from supporting the “rebels.” Federal troops also broke into businesses and looted the premises. Significantly, none of these actions were condemned by Union officers—they were seen as just punishment against the South. Cisco gives many examples of this:

“Everything of value was carried out of dry goods stores, jewelry stores and drug stores,” remembered Indiana sergeant George H. Puntenney. “The sacking of Athens has often been condemned,” he concluded, but “was about what those Athenian rebels deserved.”

In another example, Major James Austin Connolly said,

We’ll burn every house, barn, church, and everything else we come to; we’ll leave their families houseless and without food; their towns will all be destroyed, and nothing but the most complete desolation will be found in our track.

In Tennessee, Sherman destroyed an entire town, Randolph, to retaliate against an attack by Confederate guerillas on a steamboat docked in the town. Sherman wrote, “Immediately I sent a regiment up with orders to destroy the place. The regiment has returned and Randolph is gone.” His approach to Atlanta was the same, as he declared, “Let us destroy Atlanta and make it a desolation. One thing is certain, whether we get inside Atlanta or not, it will be a used up community by the time we are done with it.” Cisco recounts that, “As many as five thousand rounds of shot and shell fell on Atlanta that one day… It went on day and night for another three weeks.” It was obvious that civilian casualties would be a direct result of this shelling, and such casualties were not merely “collateral damage.” Deliberately destroying civilian homes to avenge Confederate attacks was not unusual. Major General Hunter, when he heard that Confederates had attacked one of his supply trains in the Shenandoah Valley, “was furious, ordering the torching of houses in the neighborhood where his loss had occurred.”

Many people suppose that the burning of the South may have been some sort of accident. They presume that a fire somehow started, the winds picked up, and the rest is history. The truth is that Sherman considered burning civilian property to be a justified form of retaliation against Confederate soldiers. He said “everything is right which prevents anything. If bridges are burned [by the Confederate armies], I have a right to burn all houses near it.” Explosive charges were buried throughout Atlanta before the fires were lit. Sherman wrote, “commence the destruction [of Atlanta] at once, but don’t use fire until the last moment.” Ohio captain George W. Pepper commented, as the city lay in smoking ruins, “This is the penalty of rebellion.” There is plenty of evidence that the fires were deliberately lit. For example,

The Medical College was spared when Dr. Peter D’Alvigny confronted soldiers igniting straw and broken furniture they had piled in the entrance hall. The doctor shouted that sick and wounded soldiers were still inside, throwing open the door to prove it.

Nor was there any attempt to ensure that only property belonging to slave owners was burned which, although also illegal, may have been regarded by some people as morally justified. However, the burning was indiscriminate. No attempt was made to ascertain who owned the burned homes, nor to ensure that slaves would not also be punished along with slave owners. Cisco recounts many examples of plantation homes that were deliberately burned by Union troops:

Troops fired the gin house, granary, and a large quantity of cloth. “The Negroes went out and begged for the cloth,” wrote Mrs Canning, “saying that it was to make their winter clothes. The cruel destroyers refused to let the Negroes have a single piece.” “Well, madam,” sneered one of the soldiers, “how do you like the looks of our little fire. We have seen a great many such, within the last few weeks.”

Rage and fury in the heat of battle, undisciplined soldiers behaving badly, and the urge to retaliate for losses, are often shrugged off as understandable human reactions in the chaos of wartime. However, Robert E. Lee insisted that his army should not fight for vengeance, following a well-established convention that armies should not retaliate against soldiers by attacking civilians or burning their property. Throughout the first and second world wars—when the allies were accused of indiscriminately bombing German towns, killing civilians, and destroying their property—their response was to (emphatically, albeit dishonestly) deny it. The point here is not to endorse dishonesty in brazenly denying war crimes—the point is that, by bothering to deny war crimes, the combatants at least exhibit awareness that war crimes are abhorrent and nothing of which to be proud. Unlike Sherman’s apologists, they did not attempt to argue that bombing civilians is justified, nor are there annual celebrations of the bombing of Dresden the way some American academics annually celebrate the burning of Georgia and South Carolina.

The convention in Europe, as noted by Veale, was that “hostilities between civilized peoples must be limited to the armed forces actually engaged.” As Veale notes, any European state that broke this convention did not attempt to claim that there are circumstances where breaking the convention is justified: “for two hundred years it was acknowledged by all the European States. In the main it was complied with and, when infringed, was paid the tribute of indignant denials.” As David Gordon observes in “The Historical Origins of Modern American War Crimes,” the conventions described by Veale have now wrongly been abandoned, in favor of the horrendous view that “shock and awe” attacks on civilians are acceptable in the name of bringing a “quick end” to the war:

In the American context, a great deal of horrendous conduct stems from the Civil War, and one thing Moyn brings out is the role of the “Lieber code”, a guide to conduct for the American armed forces written by the German immigrant Francis Lieber, in this matter. Moyn says, “Lieber refused to pity victims of war. Lieber’s code went in a different direction, legalizing shock and awe, with humanity a fringe benefit rather than a true goal…. Erected as one of its founding fathers later, Lieber was not really part of the tradition of making war humane. He condoned horrendous acts such as punishing civilians and denying quarter—which meant that, when enemies surrendered in hopes of avoiding death, you could kill them anyway.” (pp. 19–20)

As Samuel Moyn points out, “For Lieber, anything necessary in war, more or less, ought to be legal; if there was such a thing as excess violence and suffering, it was because it was necessary to achieve victory, which hastened peace.” Those who rightly desire peace have wrongly adopted Lieber’s opinion that the end justifies the means, and that to hasten a peaceful future any and all war crimes are justified. After the war is won, the atrocities are memory holed. As Veale puts it, “As the war had been won, it did not seem to matter very much how it had been won.” Thus, further steps are taken in the “advance to barbarism.”

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

The post Total War Against Civilians Is Never Justified appeared first on LewRockwell.