Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, Jay Stephenson. 

Doug Murray presented himself as if he’s a superior member of society during this debate and was extremely condescending to both Joe Rogan and Dave Smith. And every time he got cornered, he resorted to the William F. Buckley debate tactic of using big words and overemphasizing his English accent. Rogan has mostly avoided the Israel issue on his show, but I predict that will change after this debate.

The post Neocon flops during debate on Rogan appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com 

The post Another Failed 20-Year War: America vs. Somalia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Huff Post

The post White House Confirms Trump Is Exploring Ways To ‘Deport’ U.S. Citizens appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

The Vigilant Fox

The post Yale Study Quietly Confirms COVID Vaccine Nightmare appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, W. T. White.

The post Deep State Customer Service appeared first on LewRockwell.

Said Donald Trump, happy as a child with his new favorite Christmas toy, celebrating the bloating of the federal bureaucracy with even more money taken from the pockets of American consumers through tariff taxation.  No wonder Elon Musk thinks Peter Navarro, Trump’s mercantilist tariff advisor, is “an idiot.”

The post “We’re Taking in $2 Billion a Day!” 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/come-gli-inglesi-hanno-inventato)

La maggior parte dei patrioti concorda sul fatto che stiamo combattendo qualcosa chiamato “globalismo”.

Ma di cosa si tratta?

Innanzitutto è un'invenzione britannica.

Il globalismo moderno nacque nell'Inghilterra vittoriana e fu in seguito promosso dai socialisti fabiani britannici.

È ormai il sistema di credenze dominante nel mondo odierno.

George Orwell lo chiamò Socing.

Nel suo romanzo, 1984, Orwell predisse un futuro in cui l'Impero britannico si sarebbe fuso con gli Stati Uniti per formare l'Oceania, un superstato guidato da un'ideologia malvagia chiamata Ingsoc (abbreviazione di Socialismo inglese).

La distopia di Orwell si basava sulla sua conoscenza dei reali piani globalisti.

“Federazione del Mondo”

Con l'espansione del potere britannico nel XIX secolo, il dominio globale sembrava inevitabile.

Gli amministratori imperiali elaborarono progetti per un mondo unito sotto il dominio britannico.

La chiave per far funzionare tutto questo era unire le forze con gli Stati Uniti, proprio come descritto da Orwell nel suo romanzo.

Molti anglofili negli Stati Uniti erano più che entusiasti di aderire a questo piano.

“Siamo una parte, una grande parte, della Grande Gran Bretagna la quale è destinata a dominare questo pianeta [...]” affermava con entusiasmo il New York Times nel 1897, durante i festeggiamenti per il Giubileo di Diamante della Regina Vittoria.

Nel 1842 Alfred Tennyson, che presto sarebbe diventato il poeta ufficiale della regina Vittoria, scrisse la poesia “Locksley Hall”. Immaginava un'età dell'oro, fatta di pace, sotto una “legge universale”, un “Parlamento dell'uomo” e una “Federazione del mondo”.

Le parole di Tennyson prefiguravano la Società delle Nazioni e l'ONU. Ma egli non inventò questi concetti, si limitò a celebrare i piani già in corso tra le élite britanniche.

Generazioni di globalisti britannici hanno amato la poesia di Tennyson come se fossero le Sacre Scritture. Winston Churchill la elogiò nel 1931 come “la più meravigliosa di tutte le profezie moderne”. Definì la Società delle Nazioni un compimento della visione di Tennyson.

Imperialismo liberale

Un altro leader britannico influenzato dalla poesia di Tennyson fu il filosofo John Ruskin.

Nella sua prima lezione a Oxford nel 1870, Ruskin elettrizzò gli studenti dichiarando che il destino della Gran Bretagna era “regnare o morire”, ovvero governare il mondo o essere governata da altri.

Con queste parole, Ruskin diede vita a una dottrina che presto sarebbe stata conosciuta come “imperialismo liberale” — l’idea che i Paesi “liberali” dovessero conquistare quelli barbari per diffondere i valori “liberali”.

Un aggettivo migliore sarebbe “imperialismo socialista”, poiché la maggior parte delle persone che hanno promosso questo concetto erano in realtà socialisti.

Ruskin si definì “comunista” prima che Marx terminasse di scrivere Il Capitale.

Secondo Ruskin, l'Impero britannico era il veicolo perfetto per diffondere il socialismo.

Il socialismo di Ruskin era stranamente mescolato all'elitarismo. Esaltava la superiorità delle razze “settentrionali”, intendendo con ciò i Normanni, i Celti e gli Anglosassoni che avevano costruito l'Inghilterra. Vedeva l'aristocrazia, non la gente comune, come l'incarnazione della virtù britannica.

Ruskin era anche un occultista e (secondo alcuni biografi) un pedofilo. In questo senso, le sue eccentricità assomigliavano a quelle ancora di moda in certi circoli globalisti odierni.

Il Trust di Rhodes

Gli insegnamenti di Ruskin ispirarono una generazione di statisti britannici.

Uno dei più devoti seguaci di Ruskin fu Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902). Da studente universitario, Rhodes ascoltò la lezione inaugurale di Ruskin e ne scrisse una copia, che conservò per il resto della sua vita.

In veste di statista, Rhodes promosse aggressivamente l'espansione britannica. “Più del mondo abitiamo, meglio è per la razza umana”, disse.

Nel suo testamento Rhodes lasciò una fortuna per promuovere “il dominio britannico in tutto il mondo”; il consolidamento di tutti i Paesi di lingua inglese in un'unica federazione; e — nelle stesse parole di Rhodes — “il recupero definitivo degli Stati Uniti d'America come parte integrante dell'Impero britannico”.

Tutto ciò avrebbe dovuto portare alla “fondazione di un potere così grande da rendere in futuro impossibili le guerre e promuovere i migliori interessi dell’umanità”, concluse Rhodes nel suo testamento.

Pertanto la pace mondiale sarebbe stata raggiunta attraverso l'egemonia britannica.

Negli anni Novanta dell'Ottocento la maggior parte dei leader britannici era d'accordo con Rhodes.

La tavola rotonda

Dopo la morte di Rhodes nel 1902, Alfred Milner prese il controllo del suo movimento, fondando gruppi segreti chiamati “Tavola Rotonda” per fare propaganda a favore di una federazione mondiale di Paesi di lingua inglese.

In ogni Paese bersaglio, compresi gli Stati Uniti, i membri della Tavola Rotonda reclutavano leader locali affinché fungessero da “caproni di Giuda”. Un caprone di Giuda è un animale addestrato per condurre gli altri al macello.

Infatti la Tavola Rotonda stava conducendo le persone a un vero e proprio massacro. Ci si aspettava una guerra contro la Germania. La Tavola Rotonda cercò impegni da ogni colonia di lingua inglese per inviare truppe quando sarebbe giunto il momento. Australia, Canada, Nuova Zelanda e Sudafrica acconsentirono.

La prima guerra mondiale spinse il mondo verso la globalizzazione, dando vita alla Società delle Nazioni.

Tutto questo fu voluto; un progetto britannico.

Generazioni di scolari hanno imparato che Woodrow Wilson era il padre del globalismo, ma gli “ideali” di Wilson gli sono stati propinati da agenti britannici.

Una guerra per porre fine alle guerre

Il 14 agosto 1914, solo 10 giorni dopo che l'Inghilterra aveva dichiarato guerra, lo scrittore H. G. Wells scrisse un articolo intitolato “La guerra che porrà fine alla guerra”. “[Q]uesta è ora una guerra per la pace [...]”, scrisse, “mira a un accordo che ponga fine a questo genere di cose per sempre”.

Wells ne pubblicò una versione in formato libro nell’ottobre del 1914 e aggiunse: “Se i liberali di tutto il mondo [...] insisteranno per una conferenza mondiale alla fine di questo conflitto [...] potrebbero [...] istituire una Lega per la pace che controllerà il globo”.

Wells non inventò l'idea di una “Lega della Pace”, stava semplicemente promuovendo la politica ufficiale britannica. Wells era un agente segreto del War Propaganda Bureau britannico (noto come Wellington House).

Agenti britannici alla Casa Bianca

I leader britannici capirono che la loro Lega per la pace non avrebbe mai funzionato senza il supporto degli Stati Uniti. Per questo motivo l'intelligence britannica fece sforzi particolari per penetrare nella Casa Bianca di Wilson, il che si rivelò sorprendentemente facile.

Il consigliere più vicino a Wilson era il “colonnello” Edward House, un texano con forti legami familiari con l'Inghilterra.

Durante la guerra civile il padre di House, nato in Gran Bretagna, fece fortuna come forza di blocco, barattando cotone con munizioni britanniche per armare le truppe ribelli.

Il giovane Edward House e i suoi fratelli frequentarono college inglesi.

Mentre consigliava il presidente Wilson, il colonnello House lavorò a stretto contatto con le spie britanniche, in particolare con Sir William Wiseman, il capo della stazione statunitense per il Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) britannico. House, Wiseman e Wilson divennero amici intimi, trascorrendo persino le vacanze insieme.

L'idea di una “Lega delle Nazioni” venne da Sir Edward Grey, ministro degli Esteri britannico. In una lettera del 22 settembre 1915, Grey chiese al colonnello House se il presidente potesse essere convinto a proporre una Lega delle Nazioni, poiché l'idea sarebbe stata meglio accolta se proveniva da un presidente degli Stati Uniti.

Quando Wilson partecipò alla Conferenza di pace di Parigi nel 1919, Wiseman e House erano lì accanto e guidavano ogni sua mossa, insieme a una schiera di altri funzionari britannici e statunitensi, tutti impegnati nel programma globalista e molti dei quali direttamente legati alla Tavola Rotonda.

La “relazione speciale”

L'ex-ufficiale del SIS, John Bruce Lockhart, in seguito definì Wiseman “l'agente di influenza di maggior successo che gli inglesi abbiano mai avuto”. Lo storico britannico, A. J. P. Taylor, scrisse che “lui [Wiseman] e House resero realtà la 'relazione speciale'”.

Molti storici sostengono che la “relazione speciale” tra USA e Regno Unito iniziò solo dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale, con la creazione della NATO e dell’ONU. Tuttavia Taylor sottolineò che i semi della “relazione speciale” furono piantati prima, alla Conferenza di pace di Parigi nel 1919.

A Parigi i funzionari degli Stati Uniti e del Regno Unito concordarono segretamente di coordinare la politica, in modo che entrambi i Paesi agissero come un'unica cosa. Per facilitare questo piano furono creati due think tank, Chatham House (Regno Unito) e il Council on Foreign Relations (Stati Uniti).

Con grande dispiacere dei globalisti britannici, il Senato degli Stati Uniti si rifiutò di unirsi alla Società delle Nazioni. Ci volle un'altra guerra mondiale, e il talento persuasivo di Winston Churchill, per trascinare infine gli Stati Uniti nel governo globale, tramite la NATO e l'ONU.

Winston Churchill, padre del globalismo moderno

La visione di Churchill del governo globale era stranamente simile a quella di Cecil Rhodes e della Tavola Rotonda. Churchill invocava un'“organizzazione mondiale” sostenuta da una “relazione speciale” tra i Paesi di lingua inglese.

Il 16 febbraio 1944 Churchill avvertì che, “a meno che la Gran Bretagna e gli Stati Uniti non si uniscano in una relazione speciale [...] nell’ambito di un’organizzazione mondiale, ci sarà un’altra guerra distruttiva”. Di conseguenza l’ONU fu fondata il 24 ottobre 1945.

Tuttavia l'ONU non era sufficiente. Cecil Rhodes e la Tavola Rotonda avevano sempre sostenuto che il vero potere dietro qualsiasi governo globale dovesse essere un'unione di popoli di lingua inglese. Churchill ripeté questo piano nel suo discorso sulla “cortina di ferro” del 5 marzo 1946.

Churchill avvertì che l'ONU non aveva “forza armata internazionale”, o bombe atomiche. Gli USA dovevano quindi unirsi alla Gran Bretagna e ad altri Paesi di lingua inglese in un'alleanza militare, sostenne Churchill. Nessun'altra forza avrebbe potuto fermare i sovietici.

“Associazione fraterna dei popoli di lingua inglese”

Churchill affermò che “l’organizzazione mondiale” era inutile senza “l’associazione fraterna dei popoli di lingua inglese. Ciò significa una relazione speciale tra il Commonwealth e l’Impero britannico e gli Stati Uniti”.

Le parole di Churchill portarono al Trattato NATO del 1949 e all'accordo “Five Eyes” che unì gli sforzi di intelligence di USA, Regno Unito, Canada, Australia e Nuova Zelanda. Passo dopo passo, Churchill ci avvicinò sempre di più al superstato globale che Orwell chiamava Oceania.

Autodefinitosi “anarchico Tory”, Orwell odiava il comunismo sovietico. Se avesse voluto, avrebbe potuto scrivere 1984 come una specie di Alba Rossa britannica, con l'Inghilterra che gemeva sotto l'occupazione sovietica. Ma non era questo il suo messaggio.

Orwell mise in guardia da un pericolo più vicino a casa: i globalisti britannici e il loro piano per un'unione di Paesi di lingua inglese guidata dall'ideologia Ingsoc.

Per molti aspetti, il mondo in cui viviamo oggi è il mondo previsto da Orwell.

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

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

International Man: President Trump recently imposed sweeping tariffs on much of the world, dubbing it Liberation Day.

Trump declared: “It will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed, and the day we began to make America wealthy again.”

What’s your take?

Doug Casey: The left constantly calls Trump a liar. And frankly, things like this are why. It’s not that he lies more than a typical politician, or even lies intentionally. It’s that his use of words is so hyperbolic, so estranged from reality, that it makes him seem like a liar. It’s intellectually dishonest—dishonest, period—to falsely label something. It’s bizarre that Trump thinks his potentially catastrophic tariffs should be called Liberation Day.

The fact is that tariffs are taxes paid by the importer of goods. The money mostly goes out of the pockets of the buyers and, perhaps, to some limited degree, the sellers. It’s 100% certain that tariffs are a tax, and the money goes 100% into the pocket of the State.

Supply chains between countries have become so complex that there are very few items that are—or even could be—manufactured completely within any one country. Production of everything will drop worldwide.

Trump’s tariffs will both increase prices and cause shortages. They don’t, however, cause inflation. Inflation is caused strictly by an increase in the money supply. Tariffs don’t increase the money supply, but they do cause higher prices and a lower standard of living for both the buyer and the seller. Just as bad, as a tax, tariffs result in more dollars in the hands of the State.

The US imports something on the order of $3 trillion annually. Perhaps Trump thinks that a 10% tax will result in $300 billion of revenue for the government, and a 20% tariff will yield $600 billion. But this is incorrect because the higher costs will reduce the amount of trade proportionately. Not only can’t tariffs solve the government’s deficit problem, they’ll make it worse.

He says that the main object of the tariffs is to force investment in the US. And, of course, that may happen to some degree. He’s forgotten that when the US was prosperous before 1971, it never needed foreign investment. But it’s as if we trade Cadillacs to Guatemala in exchange for their bananas. Since they sell more bananas to us than we sell Cadillacs to them, it causes a huge deficit in their favor.

So let’s put a 100% duty on bananas. Problem solved. Guatemalans sell many fewer bananas, but now they can’t afford to buy any Cadillacs at all. Everybody gets hurt—banana producers, Cadillac producers, and most particularly, the people who use those products.

Trumpers will counter: “Well, the tariffs that we threatened to put on Colombian coffee forced their government to accept some refugees.” True, that worked. You can push around a small country, but you can’t push the world around. You can’t even push China around because China is the producer, and the US is the consumer. In the real world, those who produce things are in the driver’s seat, not a country that prints up fiat currency to enable its consumption.

I can’t be sure what Trump is really trying to do. He says things one week, then contradicts himself the next. And he does it constantly. Perhaps he wants to see the whole world go to zero tariffs, but I doubt it. He’s essentially a mercantilist; he seems to believe he can force the whole world to run a trade deficit with the US. He thinks trade is a “win-lose” proposition, and the whole world is “ripping off” the US. He must feel the Guatemalans are ripping off the US on bananas, for sure.

If his object is to get the world to zero tariffs, that would be great. But that’s not his object. And it won’t solve the huge and growing trade deficits that the US has had since about 1980. He might ask himself why the US had huge trade surpluses in the decades before 1980 when, coincidentally, the dollar was very strong. But he won’t. He’s not an introspective guy.

More likely, as the world’s economy declines, burdened by government debt, currency debasement, regulations, and taxes, Trump’s gigantic tariffs will make things much worse. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1929 made things much worse, causing unemployment both here and abroad. Trump’s tariffs are much higher, and trade is vastly more important than it was in the 1930s. They’re very, very bad news.

International Man: The Trump administration views the dollar as dangerously overvalued, blaming it for America’s deepening economic imbalances.

Is weakening the US dollar a path to prosperity?

Doug Casey: This is further proof of Trump’s economic ignorance. Although I hasten to add that whatever he does, it’s almost certainly not as bad as what would’ve happened if Kamala had been elected.

Since 1971, the German mark, which basically was transformed into the Euro, has risen from 25 cents to 1.25 to the dollar and Germany’s trade surplus increased even as their currency quintupled in value. The same thing happened with the Yen, which increased in value from 360 to about 100 to the dollar. So much for “currency manipulation.”

The immediate and direct effect of devaluing your currency is that it reduces prices to foreigners so they can buy more. The profit of manufacturers, therefore, seems to go up. But it’s an illusion since profits only go up in terms of devalued currency.

Every country should want a strong currency. A strong currency allows it to buy foreign technology and raw materials, which it can’t do with a weak currency. A strong currency encourages saving, and the building of capital. A strong currency makes for a stable country, which makes for the confidence you need to invest domestically. It also allows foreign investment on advantageous terms.

A weak currency is not worth saving. It hurts domestic savers, makes capital accumulation difficult, makes the import of foreign tech unaffordable, leads to social instability, and discourages business and investment. A weak currency encourages debt and speculation. Keynesian and Marxist economists have these things completely backward.

Trump says he wants a weak dollar. One reason why is that the US is buried under many trillions of debt, and a weak dollar might appear to help the situation. But it won’t. Trying to inflate it away subtly amounts to theft. If a weak currency led to prosperity, then Zimbabwe and Argentina would be the most prosperous countries in the world.

International Man: What lessons can the US draw from Argentina’s experience with tariffs, protectionism, and a weakened currency?

Doug Casey: It’s well known that Argentina went from being one of the most prosperous and wealthiest countries in the world a hundred years ago, to turning into a total economic disaster with Peronist policies—which prominently included a weak currency and high tariffs.

The Argentine government put on tariffs to protect domestic industries. The result was that domestic industries were able to get away with crappy and overpriced products that were uncompetitive in the world market. Argentines suffered a much lower standard of living for many years as a result of the tariffs put on by their government. They put themselves under embargo with high tariffs, and that’s what Trump is promising to do with the US.

Furthermore, investors tend to stay away from countries where the rules can change arbitrarily, which was a major reason why Argentina got little investment. The same could happen to the US. The US has historically been better than most countries, but Trump’s protectionist and weak dollar policies could change that. Worse, if the economy goes sideways, the Democrats could be re-elected. That’s a scary but real prospect. Hopefully, Trump’s efforts at domestic deregulation will succeed as a counterbalance.

International Man: If Trump truly wanted to revive American industry and boost the economy, what could he actually do?

Doug Casey: Trump would radically and permanently reduce the size of the State. DOGE is great, but you don’t want to just make government more efficient. DOGE needs to pull most of it out by the roots and sow Agent Orange where it grew.

He would radically cut taxes, but that can only be done if he radically cuts spending—which seems unlikely. He would radically cut government borrowing because when the government borrows in the market, it only drives interest rates higher or sells its debt to the Fed, which debases the currency. But since spending is unlikely to be cut—especially as the Greater Depression unfolds—neither will borrowing.

A gold currency would kill inflation—but that’s impossible unless gold reprices to $30,000 or more.

He should stop threatening foreigners. Trump has this strange idea that foreigners are ripping off America. Saying and believing things like that only creates antagonism. He’d do well to follow Thomas Jefferson’s dictum—be a friend to all but an ally of none. It doesn’t matter if Israel wants the US to bomb the Houthis and Iran; it’s not in our interest.

Trump has said, “We are going to charge countries for doing business in our country, taking our jobs, wealth, and a lot of things that they have been taking over the years.”

It’s just factually untrue and goes a long way toward turning the world into an antagonist or even an enemy.

International Man: The stock market has tanked since Trump introduced his tariffs. What are the investment implications of what comes next?

Doug Casey: Small countries selling to the US can be intimidated and will do as they’re told. But large countries like China will put on counter tariffs. He can expect that the shelves of Walmart and other retailers in the US will be emptied as Chinese goods no longer enter the US.

The funny thing about this is that at the same time as Trump is creating more distortions by putting on tariffs, which always make things worse, DOGE is getting rid of distortions. While DOGE is excellent, it will necessarily hurt businesses that were profiting from those distortions.  So businesses can expect bad news coming and going, as it were.

I can’t help but be very pessimistic about the stock market as the Trump regime creates chaos. Some of that chaos is wonderful and intentional, like destroying DEI, ESG, Wokism, and the WEF-approved world order. Other things will be collateral damage. What things? Those are what Donald Rumsfeld—if anyone remembers him—called unknown unknowns.

And two things that markets don’t like are chaos and lots of unknown unknowns, which is why I continue holding gold.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Trump’s Tariffs and the Coming Economic Fallout appeared first on LewRockwell.

These headwinds will persist for the next decade or two.

The stock market is rallying hard after a brutal sell-off–not an uncommon occurrence. As we savor our winnings in the ship’s first-class casino, it’s not a bad idea to step out onto the deck and gauge the weather.

There are headwinds. Not zephyrs, not gusts, just steady, strong headwinds.

1. Presidents Trump and Xi view each other an as existential challenge to the future prosperity of the nation they lead. Neither can afford to lose face by caving in, and each has a global strategy with no middle ground.

2. Global trade / capital flows are all over the map. Uncertainty is the word of the moment, but perhaps the more prescient description is unpredictability: if enterprises have no visibility on the future costs of trade, commodities, labor and capital, they have little choice but to avoid big bets until visibility is restored.

3. The American consumer is tapped out. Credit card charge-offs are rising, auto loan defaults are rising, air travel is faltering–there are many sources of evidence that consumers–especially the top 20% households whose spending has propped up the economy–have reached financial and perhaps psychological limits.

4. The Reverse Wealth Effect is kicking in as stocks and other assets roll over into volatility and potential trend changes into declines rather than advances. The top 10% who own the majority of income-producing assets and risk assets are seeing $10 trillion of losses followed by recoveries of $5 trillion. Swings of such magnitude do not support confidence in the stability of current valuations or offer visibility on the odds of future capital gains.

Just as enterprises must respond to poor visibility by reducing risk, households respond to increasing volatility and unpredictability by reducing borrowing and spending. Stable gains in asset valuations fuel the Wealth Effect, encouraging consumers to borrow and spend more because their wealth has increased. The Reverse Wealth Effect triggered by losses, volatility and low visibility encourages reducing risk, borrowing and spending.

5. There will be no “save” by the Federal Reserve or massive new Federal fiscal largesse. Tariffs and reshoring manufacturing are inflationary, so the Fed no longer has the freedom to create a few trillion dollars out of thin air to juice risk assets. The federal government’s borrowing-and-spending spree threatens the integrity of the nation’s currency and economy, so the the unlimited checkbook has been put in the drawer.

6. The two decades of deflation generated by China has ended. Central banks could play in the Zero-Interest Rate Policy sandbox because inflationary forces were all offset by the sustained deflationary forces of China’s export machine and credit expansion. Now every economy, including China’s, faces inflationary tides from a number of sources.

7. The sums required to rebuild America’s industrial base will pinch speculative borrowing and consumer spending. Now that both the Fed and the federal government are restrained from borrowing and blowing additional trillions, private capital will have to be enticed into long-term investments in Treasury bonds and reshoring. The ways to incentivize long-term investing rather than consumption and speculation are recession and deflating asset bubbles. Both re-set expectations, risk appetites and incentives.

Everyone with direct experience of manufacturing and supply chain networks is telling us that reshoring will be a costly, long-term project, requiring the rebuilding of the entire ecosystem that’s been lost to hyper-globalization’s offshoring and hyper-financialization’s predation.

Read the Whole Article

The post A Decade of Headwinds appeared first on LewRockwell.

To bar Marine Le Pen from running for the French presidency, a lower court convicted her of “misappropriation of public funds,” not the other way around. It wasn’t the offense she is accused of that led to her being stripped of her right to ineligibility, but it was invented to justify the sentence.
Strangely, no one in the political class saw fit to point out that the presidency of the European Parliament has changed its understanding of the role of MEPs and now considers those who persist in practicing their original role as MEPs to be criminals.

Marine Le Pen was sentenced on March 31, 2025, for “misappropriation of public funds” to four years’ imprisonment, two of which were suspended, a €200,000 fine, and a five-year ban on election with provisional execution, i.e., before any possible appeal. Twenty-four other National Rally officials and the party itself were convicted.

The French political class was immediately divided between those who welcomed the presidential favorite being ousted from the race and those who deplored it. Naturally, no one dared to speak out directly, but all either insisted that they supported the “rule of law” or denounced the “tyranny of judges.”

Behind this reaction to a historic decision by three judges independent of political power, but who clearly understood the prosecution’s demands (i.e., the government’s point of view), no one dares to address the underlying issue of the dispute between France and the presidency of the European Parliament. The facts being prosecuted all predate 2015. However, it is impossible to understand why the elected members of the National Rally were convicted, when they were convinced they had not violated the law, without knowing about this dispute.

Here is the explanation:

Following the Second World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill developed a plan to pacify European differences by creating common institutions between states. There was no talk yet of a European Union, but rather of a body allowing European governments to meet and negotiate on a permanent basis, or of an organization bringing together parliamentarians from European states to debate together. Ultimately, ten states merged the two projects and created the Council of Europe. Today, there are 46 of them. The headquarters of this political institution was established in Strasbourg.

In practice, the Council of Europe was conceived as the civilian arm of NATO. Strasbourg was chosen as its headquarters because it is, culturally, a Franco-German city.

Independently of the Council of Europe, another project, this time an economic one, was born with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which became the European Economic Community and today, the European Union. Naturally, the seat of the European Parliament was also located in Strasbourg, which housed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However, given the rivalries between the member states, various institutions of this economic union were located in Brussels and Luxembourg (the Parliament’s General Secretariat in the Robert Schumann building). MEPs came to Strasbourg for one week a month and then returned to their countries. Since they were elected not in their own name, but in the name of their party, in a single national constituency (except between 2003 and 2018, when there were eight regional constituencies), they devoted the rest of their time to their political training.

In 1993, the European Parliament acquired a chamber in Brussels, the Paul-Henri Spaak building. Six years later, it opened its own chamber in Strasbourg, the Louise Weiss building. At that time, parliamentary sessions were split between the two cities. A gigantic caravan of trucks moved all the parliamentarians’ offices twice a month. Now with a private office in Brussels, the European parliamentarians were invited to reside there and only travel to Strasbourg for sessions held there. They returned to their countries only to meet their constituents and for party meetings.

The administration of the European Economic Community, which is based primarily in Brussels, intended both to distance itself from the Council of Europe and to move closer to the European Parliament, and will therefore do everything to ensure that the latter stops its back-and-forth operations and sits permanently in Brussels. This is also the will of NATO, whose main offices are also in Brussels (or more precisely, in Mons). NATO sets the standards that the Commission proposes to Parliament, which it approves. However, over time, Parliament plays an increasingly independent role, and NATO needs to constantly monitor it to ensure that none of its standards are rejected.

This is when the dispute began: the French refused to leave Strasbourg so as not to fall too visibly under the influence of the Anglo-Saxons. The presidency of the Parliament therefore demanded that, from now on, the elected representatives devote themselves exclusively to their activities in Brussels and no longer concern themselves with their parties in their countries.

Since then, all French political parties committed to their country’s independence—not just the National Rally—have been at odds with the presidency of the European Parliament. The court that convicted Marine Le Pen therefore chose the EP presidency’s theory, while the National Rally insisted that it had not misappropriated a single cent of public money and had acted like many other political parties.

The post What Was Marine Le Pen Found ‘Guilty’ Of? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday’s piece had warned about the curious drop in Treasurys and rise of interest rates. It was a dire sign that the global economy and markets far beyond Wall Street were going bad.

The Trump administration recognized the danger and, just fifteen minutes after I had published my post, pulled back (archived):

The economic turmoil, particularly a rapid rise in government bond yields, caused Mr. Trump to blink on Wednesday afternoon and pause his “reciprocal” tariffs for most countries for the next 90 days, according to four people with direct knowledge of the president’s decision.

Asked to explain the decision, Mr. Trump told reporters: “Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know, they were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid.”

Behind the scenes, senior members of Mr. Trump’s team had feared a financial panic that could spiral out of control and potentially devastate the economy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others on the president’s team, including Vice President JD Vance, had been pushing for a more structured approach to the trade conflict that would focus on isolating China as the worst actor while still sending a broader message that Mr. Trump was serious.

This does not mean that the trouble has ended.

Who is going to invest, into what, while any day, at any moment, the most basic economic conditions may change in completely unpredictable directions:

Asked on Wednesday how he would decide on any further exemptions, Mr. Trump said: “Instinctively, more than anything else. I mean, you almost can’t take a pencil to paper. It’s really more of an instinct, I think, than anything else.”

By admitting that Trump acknowledges that he is the real problem.

How can I decide to invest in a new car when by delivery date the tariffs and interests involved might have changed in unforeseeable directions? On what basis can I trust Trump’s instincts? I can’t and won’t. The same will hold for much bigger investment decisions.

For once the Washington Post editorial is getting it right (archived):

The bond markets forced Trump’s hand. By moving their money out of dollars and selling U.S. Treasury bonds, investors told Trump what his closest advisers would not about the perils of starting trade wars with all other countries at once. Trillions in value were wiped out in equity markets, and the financial system blinked red with indicators of contagion.

Finally, bond yields began to forecast calamity — especially the alarming sell-off of 10-year Treasurys. In times of panic, these bonds usually attract investors. Their failure to do so this time reflected declining confidence that the U.S. government would repay its debts.
…
After Trump finally announced the tariff pause, the S&P 500 closed up 9.5 percent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq gained 12 percent. The news is indeed worth rejoicing. But keep in mind that the 90-day pause will last only until July 8, and in the meantime the trade war with China might continue to escalate. In other words, investors, business and consumers will still be living with uncertainty. For the long term, Trump and his team are well advised to come up with a less volatile economic strategy.

Until Trump settles on a predictable course the global carnage will continue.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Trump’s Market Whiplash Continues appeared first on LewRockwell.

A new Pew survey has found that a majority of Americans now have a negative view of Israel, with 53 percent of respondents now holding an unfavorable view of the Zionist state — up from 42 percent just three years ago.

This comes as Benjamin Netanyahu announces after his latest meeting with Donald Trump that negotiations with Iran will necessarily have to include a “Libyan-style” dismantling of the nation’s civilian nuclear infrastructure in order to avoid the war that the US is openly preparing to wage. This, naturally, is a complete non-starter condition for Iran.

It also comes as Trump’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services announces that it’s going to be screening the social media posts of immigrants for “antisemitic” speech, which of course in practice means criticism of Israel and its atrocities. This is just the latest in the Trump administration’s relentless efforts to prevent Americans from seeing or hearing any political speech which goes against Washington’s official position on Israel.

If you’re wondering why the empire is working so frantically to stomp out all speech that is critical of Israel, here’s why. https://t.co/2RPUEqm39j

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) April 9, 2025

Developments like these can be expected to assist the rise of the far right in the west. US public opinion is turning hard against Israel as both parties bend over backward to send it expensive weapons and silence its critics — and US public opinion is seldom good at making subtle distinctions.

“Antisemitism” is fast becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. As westerners tire of having their speech rights taken away by their government to protect the interests of a state that’s committing genocide under a Star of David banner, a lot of them are going to blame Jews for this. As western governments bend over backwards to help murder Israel’s enemies in the middle east, a lot of westerners are going to blame Jews. As the drums for war with Iran beat louder and louder and parents fear their children will be sent off to die for Israel, many will blame this on the Jews.

I am not saying this is a good thing. It’s a very bad thing. But it’s also reality.

As more and more westerners grow disgusted with Israel and their government’s support for its depravity, the far left is going to talk to the public about the difference between Zionism and Judaism, about the western empire and its interests in the middle east — and meanwhile the far right is going to blame it all on Jews.

Which of these sounds like the easier argument to make? Which is simpler? Which is more digestible? Which is less challenging to the cognitive biases of a population that’s already been propagandized to view their nation as inherently virtuous: a perspective which highlights the west’s culpability for the atrocities we’re backing in the middle east, or a cartoonish perspective which blames it all on the subversive manipulations of a sinister religious minority?

Actually, what fuels antisemitism is murdering children by the thousands under the banner of the Star of David while adamantly insisting that your actions are inseparable from all Jews and the totality of Judaism.

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) December 26, 2023

Those of us who oppose the criminality of Israel and its western allies from the left will do all we can to keep the far right’s arguments from gaining traction, but it won’t be our fault when we fail. It will be the fault of the western governments who’ve spent all this time stomping out the civil liberties of their citizenry in the name of fighting “antisemitism” while raining military explosives on the middle east and backing the slaughter of tens of thousands of children under a Star of David flag.

We can expect to see some nasty hate crimes against Jews in the future, which the Zionists will be all too happy about because then they can point to those incidents and say “This is why we need Israel! This is why we need a Jewish state to protect us!”

But of course this won’t just affect Jews. Immigrants, racial minorities, LGBTQ people and other marginalized communities will all be harmed by the rise of white nationalist factions whose popularity benefits from an increase of anti-Jewish sentiment in our society. The mainstream “MAGA” movement, as ugly as that’s been, is still far less dangerous to these groups than the overtly Hitlerite factions will be if they come into significant power in the future.

This does seem to be where things could be headed, especially if the economic situation gets as dire as it looks like it might get, and even more so if there’s a war with Iran. It can all be easily avoided by simply ceasing to stomp out free speech to protect Israel, ceasing western warmongering in places like Iran and Yemen, and ceasing to back Israel’s genocidal atrocities against Palestinians.

But it looks like our rulers are bound and determined to drag us into a very dark direction instead.

____________

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to find video versions of my articles. If you’d prefer to listen to audio of these articles, you can subscribe to them on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud or YouTube. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post The Backlash Against Israel’s Western-Backed Crimes Will Fuel the Far Right appeared first on LewRockwell.

Since Israel broke the ceasefire agreement and resumed its genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza almost a month ago, the IDF is deliberately and wantonly slaughtering over 100 precious, innocent little children every day. And there is barely a peep of protest by so-called Christians.

And why should we expect anything different? Evangelical “Christians” have cheered for Israel’s mass murderous genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from the beginning—going all the way back to 1947.

This is due to the pervasive acceptance amongst evangelicals of the heretical and blasphemous doctrines of Prophetic Dispensationalism, aka Scofield Futurism or Christian Zionism.

All over America, evangelicals—in public and private—justify this murderous carnage in Palestine on the outlandish and cultic belief that the Zionist State of Israel is a revived Old Testament Israel and, therefore, has divine justification to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinians on the basis of God’s command to the prophet Samuel to use Israel as an instrument of divine judgment upon the Amalekites in I Samuel 15.

But these “Christian” Zionists conveniently overlook the fact that God also used the Assyrians as an instrument of divine judgment against Israel in 722 BC and the Babylonians as an instrument of divine judgment against Judah in 587 BC and the Romans as an instrument of divine judgment against the Jewish remnant in 70 AD.

God is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; I Peter 1:17) He destroyed wicked Israel and wicked Judah as thoroughly as He destroyed the wicked Amalekites and the seven wicked nations of Canaan. But, again, evangelicals completely ignore all of that. More than that, they refuse to even listen to anything related to God’s annihilation of Old Covenant Israel.

I urge readers to watch the two messages I have delivered thus far regarding the destruction of the Amalekites and Israel’s laws of war in the Old Covenant. These messages show that today’s “Christian” Zionists don’t even understand the laws of Israel’s conduct of war in the Old Testament—much less the fact that the Old Covenant is abolished, and we now live under the “law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12) in the New Covenant.

Here is message number 1 on YouTube.

Here is message number 2 on YouTube.

“Christian” Zionists are living in the Old Covenant. They know almost nothing about Christ’s New Covenant. They talk and live as though the death and resurrection of Christ, and the advent of the New Covenant, never happened. They understand nothing about the meaning and significance of Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD (which means they cannot even understand Handel’s Messiah). They interpret the New Testament by the Old Testament, when the New Covenant demands that we must interpret the Old Testament by the New Testament.

What mockery of New Testament revelation and Christ’s work on the Cross!

Those of us who can remember the Vietnam War well remember the iconic photograph in the New York Times of a little Vietnamese girl—dubbed the Napalm Girl by the press—walking naked, burnt, bloodied and bruised away from her village that had just been bombed by the U.S. military. That photograph became the image of the Vietnam War and helped the American people come to terms with the horrors of that unconstitutional and immoral war.

By the way, that little girl, named Phan Thi Kim Phúc, is now 61-years-old and lives in Canada. She attended college, studied pharmacy and is the founder of a foundation designed to raise awareness of the injustice and atrocities of war and to raise funds for the medical care of children who are injured during war. In 1982, she found a New Testament and, after reading it, became a Christian.

We need a photograph on the front page of the New York Times showing the horrors of Israel and America’s immoral, evil war in Gaza. It won’t happen, of course, because our mainstream media are all controlled by the Israel lobby. But in the name of humanity, we desperately need such an image to be seen by every citizen in the United States.

My good friend and survivor of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, Phil Tourney, posted such an image contained in a short 30-second video on the Quds News Network X page. Thanks for sharing this image, Phil. I wept when I saw it. I weep just thinking about it.

America needs to start weeping for the atrocities, crimes against humanity and murderous genocide that the people of this country have been forced to support by allowing our tax dollars to be used as instruments of such massive death and destruction.

Please look at that image—and share it with everyone. Make people look at the horrifying realities that our government is forcing us to be a party to in Gaza.

Unlike during the Vietnam war, the U.S. media is deliberately hiding the horrific realities of what the U.S. and Israeli governments are inflicting upon innocent men, women, children and babies in Gaza and the West Bank—and Lebanon and Syria.

It’s time America opened its eyes!

It’s also time for “Christian” Zionists to put their money where their mouth is!

Three weeks ago, I released a brief 4-minute video clip addressing this very subject.

Here is the 4-minute YouTube video clip.

And here is the transcript of what I said in that short video clip:

Using Israel’s wars in the Old Covenant as justification for violating God’s Natural and moral laws is not only unbiblical by Old Testament standards, it is also an abomination to the laws of the Gospel as taught by Christ and His apostles in the New Covenant.

Here’s what I’m waiting to see: I’m waiting to see Christian Zionist pastors and church members who so enthusiastically support Israel’s genocidal wars against innocent men, women and children—many of them our brothers and sisters in Christ—and who shout that the Israelis are God’s chosen people, and that their slaughter of innocents is justified, to put their money where their mouth is.

I’m waiting to see them—all of them who are of fighting age—get on a jet and fly to Tel Aviv and join the Israeli army. I’m waiting to see them carry an Uzi submachine gun; I’m waiting to see them carry a M89SR sniper rifle; I’m waiting to see them carry a KA-Bar Fighting Knife.

If they are too old to fight, I’m waiting to see them send their sons and daughters to Israel and join the IDF. After all, one of their Christian Zionist heroes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said he’s raising his sons to fight for Israel. So, I’m waiting to see these Christian Zionist pastors and church members follow suit.

I’m waiting to see them look through the scope of their M89SR sniper rifle, put the crosshairs on the stomach of a helpless 8-month pregnant Palestinian mother and pull the trigger.

I’m waiting to see them take their Uzi submachine gun and put the sights on the forehead of a little innocent 8-year-old Palestinian girl or a 9-year-old Palestinian boy and pull the trigger. I’m waiting to see them take their KA-Bar knife and slit the throat of an 80-year-old Palestinian grandfather or grandmother.

I’m waiting to see them take a hand grenade and throw it into the dining room of a Palestinian family as they eat supper. I’m waiting to see them operate a military drone and find a group of displaced helpless Palestinians sheltering in makeshift tents and launch missiles on them.

Come on! All of you Christian Zionists who support Israel’s genocide, all of you Christian Zionists who say the Israelis are justified in killing innocent women and children, if it’s justifiably permissible for the Israelis to kill innocent women and children, it’s permissible for you to do it.

If it’s justifiably permissible for Israelis to rape Gentile women as the IDF’s top rabbi told the Israeli troops, it’s justifiably permissible for you to do it.

So, why aren’t you doing it?

If the Palestinian people are Amalekites and must be annihilated to bring about the “Rapture” and the return of Christ, why aren’t you over there helping to make it happen?

Come on! Put your money where your mouth is!

Shame on any Christian who would use the Holy Scriptures—in either Testament—to condone and justify mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide being committed by Israel or by anyone!

These remarks were the conclusion of my second message entitled By What Authority Does Zionist Israel Commit Mass Murder Against Women And Children? A Clinical Study Of The Destruction Of The Amalekites And The Old Covenant Laws Of War.

Find that message here.

I am ashamed of our evangelical “Christian” people who are so woefully ignorant of the Biblical truth of Christ’s New Covenant and who are using the name of Christ to justify counterfeit Israel’s mass murders, genocide and crimes against humanity.

I am more than ashamed; I am disgusted!

Evangelical support for Zionist Israel is nauseating. They might as well have supported the Bolsheviks in Russia or the communists in China. The Zionists in Israel are no less evil.

As I said above, it’s time for “Christian” Zionists to put their money where their mouth is!

Better yet, it’s time they study their Bibles and find out what it means to be a Christian under Christ’s New Covenant “law of liberty.”

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post It’s Time For Christian Zionists To Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is appeared first on LewRockwell.

The boys and girls on Wall Street heaved a big sign of relief yesterday, with the stock market making historic gains, a welcome respite for the losses of the preceding days, when Donald Trump announced a 90-day pause in the severe tariffs, opting only to impose a 10% tariff across the board. Well, not for everyone. Trump boosted tariff’s on China and China responded in kind.

Last night, at a Republican fundraiser in New York City, Trump made the vulgar, crass, impolitic comment about the 70 countries that have contacted his administration pleading for a tariff deal. Trump said:

‘I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass,’ Trump told the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner late Tuesday — just hours before the tariffs went into effect.

‘They are. They are dying to make a deal. ‘Please, please, Sir, make a deal. I’ll do anything. I’ll do anything, sir!’ he said mockingly.

Even if true, this is a damn stupid thing to say. I don’t think there are many countries, who contacted the Trump administration, that are feeling warm and fuzzy towards Mr. Trump. Humiliating trading partners is, at best, counterproductive. While Trump, as well as many of his ardent supporters, are celebrating this as a sign of American dominance, I suspect many of those countries seeking tariff relief are reconsidering whether they want to continue to be harnessed to the US dollar. Whether he acknowledges it or not, Trump made a great case for why nations should align themselves with BRICS rather than be economic hostages of fickle hegemon.

Trump’s real objective in levying these unprecedented tariffs is to punish China. Trump is preceding from the assumption that China’s economy is weak and that the United States holds the upper hand. According to the Chinese government, approximately 14.7% of China’s total exports went to the United States in 2024. That is a decline compared to 2018, when the U.S. accounted for approximately 16% of China’s exports, with total exports to the U.S. valued at $547 billion.

Chinese exports to the United States in 2024 accounted for 13.4% of all US imports. The main categories of goods imported from China to the U.S. include:

Consumer Electronics:

• Smartphones, computers, and tablets dominate this category, with China accounting for 78% of U.S. smartphone imports and 79% of laptops in 2023.
• Other electronics include televisions, home entertainment systems, and lithium-ion batteries, which make up a significant share of imports

Machinery and Industrial Equipment:

• Includes auto parts, robotics, automation equipment, and construction machinery. This category accounted for $110 billion in imports in 2023.

Furniture and Household Goods:

• Wood and upholstered furniture, small home appliances (e.g., microwaves, air purifiers), and lighting fixtures are key products. Furniture alone accounted for $14 billion in imports.

Toys, Textiles, and Apparel:

• Toys represent over 70% of U.S. toy imports, while textiles and clothing made up $21 billion in imports in 2023.

Medical Supplies and Pharmaceuticals:

• Includes raw pharmaceutical ingredients and medical devices, accounting for about 30% of U.S. imports in this category.

Unless Trump does a carve out on Pharmaceuticals and Electronics, US consumers are going to be paying exorbitant prices for I-Phones, computers and critical prescription drugs. There is almost nothing that the US exports to China that is exclusive to the United States. Soybeans, for example, are a major US export to China. China will now probably turn to Brazil and purchase their crop [note — China and Brazil already have a trade deal in place that bypasses the US dollar].

Trump claims to be great friends with Xi Jingping. In light of Trump’s insults and crude behavior, I doubt that President Xi would count Donald as a good buddy. Trump and his team apparently believe they have the leverage in this battle and that the Chinese will blink and seek a negotiated solution. I think Trump and his advisors are dead wrong. China is not going to be bullied and will pivot from treating US as a valued trading partner. Trump’s actions have removed any lingering doubts within the Chinese leadership that a viable trading relationship with the United States can be maintained.

China has one advantage over Trump. Any suffering imposed on the Chinese people will easily be blamed on the United States, not Xi. Trump, in turn, will face the wrath of consumers if the prices of electronic and pharmaceutical goods rapidly inflate. He did that, not the Chinese.

Trump and his advisors also appear to be betting that this move will help convince Russia that China is not a reliable economic partner, and that Russia will abandon China. I think Trump’s tariff tirade will have the opposite effect — i.e., it will cement Russian and Chinese relations on all fronts and spur them to move quicker on making BRICS a solid alternative to a financial order based on the US dollar.

This originally appeared on Sonar21.

The post Donald Trump is Making the Case for BRICS appeared first on LewRockwell.

As the 2024 campaign neared its send, candidate Donald Trump began promising that, if elected, he would support the elimination of income taxes. Shortly after he was sworn in, Trump then began saying he planned to abolish the Internal Revenue Service. The Trump team claimed in each case that it could raise enough tax revenue from tariffs to replace tax revenue from income taxes.

By March, however, Trump began backtracking, and his administration announced that the new goal was to eliminate income taxes for people making under $150,000 per year.

That last development on its own tells us that the IRS isn’t going away. If people making more than $150,000 are still going to pay income tax, then there will still be an IRS to which we’ll need to send tax returns to prove we’re not making more than $150,000.

But even if we ignore that problem, there are at least two other reasons why we can be sure the IRS isn’t going anywhere. The first way we know this is from the fact that the Trump administration is only talking about “abolishing” the progressive individual income tax. Administration mouthpieces have said nothing at all about getting rid of the income taxes known as “payroll taxes” that every wage earner pays.

The second way we know that the IRS isn’t going away is that taxes on imports—i.e., tariffs—simply aren’t going to bring in enough revenue to keep funding all the popular spending programs that Trump clearly has no interest in cutting.

Payroll Tax: The Income Taxes All Workers Pay

When politicians talk about “the income tax” they virtually always mean the progressive individual income tax. This tax is paid mostly by the top 50 percent of earners. The bottom fifty percent of earners pay an average income tax rate of 3.3 percent.

But there is another income tax paid by all wage earners, regardless of income level, and that is the payroll tax. There is a reason why politicians never mention this income tax: it is connected to the very popular welfare programs known as Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security tax in 2025 is 12.4 percent. The Medicare tax is an additional 2.9 percent. Half of this is paid by the employee and half is paid by the employer. Of course, the employee really pays for both halves because employers effectively reduce wages to pay the payroll tax.

The money collected from these taxes goes into the general fund, and not into any sort of “trust fund.” That means it’s simply an income tax that’s used to beef up federal revenues. It is true enough, though, that without this tax, it would be much harder for the federal government to collect enough revenue to keep Social Security and Medicare funded at its present levels. The feds need today’s workers to keep slaving away and paying the payroll tax so it can be handed over to today’s pensioners.

This is why politicians never talk about getting rid of the payroll tax. It would be political poison to suggest that one of the biggest sources of revenue for old-age welfare programs is going away. If politicians did this, ARRP-type activists would go nuts.

So, politicians aren’t likely to get rid of the payroll tax, and that means there needs to be a government agency to keep track of everyone’s wages and make sure that the tax gets collected. Which agency is that? Well, since 1937, it has been the Internal Revenue Service. As the IRS’s history page reads:

Payroll Withholding On August 14, 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Employees originally paid one percent of the first $3,000 of their salaries to finance the benefits. The law required a new system of tax withholding, which the Bureau of Internal Revenue had to collect… [emphasis added.]

By the way, my readers will probably not be shocked to learn that the payroll tax has increased over time. Like so many taxes, it started out “small” and then got a lot larger. In 1937, when it was introduced, the payroll tax was 2 percent:

Source: The Tax Policy Center. 

Any payroll tax of any kind is going to require an agency to collect it and monitor earnings. That’s the IRS. It’s entirely possible that Trump might rename the IRS to something like “The Department of Making America Great Again” but whatever we might call it, it will just be some form of the IRS. So, until Trump and his spokespeople start talking explicitly about abolishing all taxes on income—and not just the progressive income tax—then we know he isn’t serious about getting rid of the IRS.

Tariff Revenue Won’t Match Income Tax Revenue

The second reason why the Trump administration is not really getting rid of all income taxes or the IRS is this: tariffs won’t bring in enough revenue to keep up with the federal government’s big spending plans.

As of 2024, “customs duties”—i.e., tariffs—made up two percent of all federal revenues. That includes the new tariffs put in place by Trump, and kept in place by Biden, in recent years. The total revenue is only $80 billion. While that’s two percent of all revenue, it’s only 1.2 percent of all federal spending. Remember that federal spending is far larger than federal revenues, and the federal government will likely run a deficit of at least two trillion this year.

In other words, the $80 billion in revenue produced by tariffs is a drop in the bucket.

Source: fiscaldata.treasury.gov.

In contrast, the progressive individual income tax brings in about 49 percent of all federal revenue. In addition, the payroll tax brings in 35 percent.

If Trump thinks he’ll replace all income taxes with tariff revenues, then he’ll need to increase tariff revenue from $80 billion to about $4.1 trillion. That is, Trump will have to find a way to increase tariff revenues by fifty-one fold.

That would just cover current revenue. If we want tariffs to actually eliminate the deficit, too—which is roughly two trillion more than tax revenue—tariff revenue will have to go up even more.

People who think this seems plausible might say things like “well Trump will get rid of the deficit and cut federal spending using DOGE.” People who say things like this are basically saying “I am bad at arithmetic.”

Currently, the best-case scenario offered by DOGE is that it wants to cut a mere $1 trillion in federal spending. This is almost certainly complete fantasy, but for the sake of argument let’s assume DOGE will be able to do that. This wouldn’t even eliminate the deficit, and the remaining deficit would still be more than a trillion dollars. That would mean that next year’s total for federal spending will still be about $5.7 trillion. To close the gap between revenue and spending, tariff revenue will need to increase by at least another trillion. That means federal tax collectors will have to increase its current tariff revenue sixty times over.

So, can Trump just increase tariff rates by sixty fold? Some protectionists might love that, but it would also mean that people would stop buying imported goods. That means they’ll stop paying tariffs, and tax revenue will plummet, but so would the standard of living. Even as revenues fell, though, most Americans would continue to demand all the usual spending. Politicians wouldn’t dare cut military spending or Social Security spending, and Federal deficits would skyrocket. The Federal Reserve would have to start buying up Treasurys to keep interest rates from running sky-high. This would mean more money printing and high levels of inflation.

America’s federal politicians aren’t willing to risk any of that. They won’t even talk about getting rid of the payroll tax because that brings up the issue of cuts to Social Security. Politicians want to keep spending at current levels, and politicians know that price inflation is very unpopular with the voters.

All this adds up to a virtual guarantee that Trump and his allies have no plans to get rid of the IRS or even all income taxes. Until the voters start demanding big federal spending cuts, and stop saying things like “hands off Medicare,” the politicians have every incentive to keep the federal spending machine humming at levels far above what tariff revenue is likely to fund.

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

The post The IRS Isn’t Going Away, and This Is How We Know appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a special video released yesterday, Peter discusses the ongoing fallout from President Trump’s tariff policy and the broader implications for the American economy. He outlines how the tariffs are not only ineffective but also counterproductive, worsening the trade deficit and the nation’s competitiveness. Additionally, Peter highlights the growing demand for gold amidst economic trouble and suggests strategic opportunities for investors looking for sound money alternatives.

Peter opens the video by summarizing market movements before and after yesterday’s tariff pause. These tariffs, he believes, demonstrate a policy blunder masked as victory:

Today the price of gold rose by better than $100 an ounce. This was the biggest one-day dollar increase in the price of gold in the history of gold. And in fact, gold was up better than $100 even before President Trump announced that he was pausing the global trade war that he launched last week. Now once that news came out, there was a big rally in the stock market. Gold initially surrendered some of those gains, but it quickly recovered and closed back near the highs just under $3,100 an ounce. …  I think the President and his advisors tried to find a way to surrender but make it appear as if they were declaring victory.

Peter then emphasizes the root cause behind America’s persistent trade deficits, highlighting the nation’s lack of savings and investment. He contends that excessive spending and underinvestment at home leaves the country overly dependent on foreign producers:

The reason we have these horrific trade deficits is because as a nation we spend too much and save too little. And so because we don’t save enough, we don’t make the capital investments to build up the factories and the supply chains and the infrastructure. And so because of that we have to rely on all those factories abroad for the goods that we can’t produce. And because we spend more than we produce, we need to get those goods. And we run these massive deficits that we can’t finance. And so we depend on the world to finance them.

Though he appreciates President Trump’s stated goal of reducing deficits, Peter predicts the tariffs will have the opposite effect. Rather than solving America’s economic weaknesses, tariffs place an extra burden on American consumers and businesses, tipping the economy further into stagflation:

So while I admire Trump’s goal, he is not going to come close to achieving it. In fact, the tariffs that he’s already imposed are going to backfire and they’re going to make the American economy even less competitive than it was before the tariffs. And the tariffs are paid by Americans. They’re not going to be paid by our trading partners. There is no external revenue. It’s all internal. And this tax hike on average Americans is going to weigh down an already weak economy. And so we’re going to have a bigger dose of stagflation.

Shifting his focus to the gold market, Peter notes that worsening economic conditions and stagflation have created an attractive environment for gold investments. He underscores gold mining companies as potentially well-positioned to benefit, given the strong gold price and reduced oil costs:

And that is going to be great for Q2 earnings for the gold mining companies. They’re already going to have great earnings in Q1, but I think they’re going to blow the doors off in Q2 because I think gold is going to hang out near 3,100 or higher and oil is going to be slow to recover. So in the meantime, the profits are going to be huge for these gold mining companies. And I’ve been advocating for a long time that people buy physical gold, and since I started recommending physical gold, it was under $300 an ounce. It’s now over 3,000. So you’ve got a 10X.

Peter warns about America’s financial vulnerability, stressing the country’s dependence on foreign money to sustain unsustainable living standards. He predicts this dependence will end painfully, as a weakening dollar forces America to lower its consumption and accept a lower standard of living:

It’s America that’s been taking advantage of the world because we rely on the world to live beyond our means. But the world can only finance that by living beneath its means. Well, that’s going to change. It’s going to change because the dollar is going to go way down. And so we’re going to consume less and the rest of the world is going to consume more. And that’s how our trade deficits go away as our standard of living declines. But in the meantime, the world is getting rid of dollars in advance of a major depreciation.

This originally appeared on SchiffGold.com.

The post Gold Breaks a New Record appeared first on LewRockwell.

Comments open on YouTube

The post Alex Jones: Trump, Israel, Secret WW3 Plans, Dire Wolf Resurrection, Infowars Reporter Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.

[This article titled Evolution of NATO Aggression Against the World – From Serbia to Russia by Drago Bosnic was first published by Global Research. You may read it here.]

March 24 this year marked 26 years since NATO launched a direct attack on the remnants of former Yugoslavia (namely Serbia and Montenegro). The bombing was the final act of kinetic warfare that started in 1991 when the political West ensured that Yugoslavia falls apart in a sea of blood. By 1999, they had already carved up most of the country, while also helping their WWII-era allies (namely Croatians and Bosnian Muslims) to finish the genocide against Serbs in what today is Croatia and Bosnia.

In the case of the former, they were successful, eliminating the Republic of Serbian Krajina which was annexed by Croatia, but in the case of the latter this proved to be far more difficult, although the territory of Republika Srpska was reduced from close to 70% of what today is Bosnia to around 49%.

However, NATO was far from done. There was still Serbia, then part of the rump Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (along with Montenegro). Its southern province of Kosovo and Metohia had a large Albanian population which became the majority after centuries of Ottoman occupation, forced Islamization (similar to what happened in Bosnia and elsewhere in former Yugoslavia) and expulsion of native Serb Christians.

In order to justify yet another attack on Serbs, NATO needed a “humanitarian” excuse. By 1998, Western intelligence agencies organized a terrorist group called the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) which started to attack the Serbian police and Yugoslav Army (VJ), while also kidnapping civilians of Serb and other ethnicities (including loyalist Albanians who refused to take part in this terrorist insurgency).

Both the members of security forces and civilians were subjected to brutal torture (including organ harvesting) and executions. NATO knew perfectly well that this would cause a strong reaction from the police and the military. After the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist KLA was pushed back in most of Kosovo and Metohia, the mainstream propaganda machine started running stories about up to 600,000 Albanians “unaccounted for”, obviously implying that Serbs supposedly “killed them all”.

There were also totally fabricated stories about “concentration camps” in which “evil Serbs kept hundreds of thousands of Albanians”, including one at a stadium in the city of Pristina. Obviously, all this was later debunked as nothing more than a bunch of blatant lies after this NATO-orchestrated war was over in June.

However, it didn’t matter whether it was true or not, as long as it galvanized the public in the United States and Europe to support a direct attack on Serbia. On March 24, 1999, NATO sent approximately 1,100 aircraft and 30 naval vessels (including submarines) to attack the country. Its actions were closely coordinated with those of the Albanian KLA on the ground. Thus, Serb/Yugoslav police and the military (VJ) had to fight a terrorist insurgency supported by NATO air power (sounds familiar, doesn’t it). The aggressor forces were commanded by US General Wesley Clark who at some point claimed that “NATO destroyed 60% of [Yugoslav President Slobodan] Milosevic’s war machine”. In reality, independent sources confirmed that only 14 tanks, 18 armored vehicles and 20 artillery pieces were destroyed.

It should also be noted that Serb forces were known for their masterful use of “maskirovka” (literally masking or disguise). Namely, soldiers often made 1:1 scale models of tanks, armored vehicles, air defense systems, fighter jets and other weapon systems to fool NATO ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets.

Commanding officers not only supported this, but also advised that microwave ovens and similar gadgets (particularly transmitters of radio waves and sources of heat) be placed in these models to mimic the heat of engines. This proved to be incredibly effective, as NATO would regularly mistake such targets for real weapons. Its war planners realized things weren’t adding up after the Serb/Yugoslav forces kept fighting despite being “decimated” on paper.

Air defense systems were particularly effective, especially considering the fact that they were mostly “outdated” according to NATO standards, as most Serb SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems were made in the 1950s and 1960s. However, despite these claims, the “outdated” Russian-made air defenses performed better than anyone could’ve imagined.

Only three days after NATO launched its aggression, on March 27, 1999, the Serb/Yugoslav S-125M “Neva-M” SAM system shot down a USAF F-117A stealth bomber/attack jet (serial number 82-0806, callsign “Vega 31”). The 3rd Battalion of the Yugoslav Army’s 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade, commanded by Colonel Zoltan Dani, achieved a feat that was considered (and touted as) “impossible” by the US military.

For years, the mainstream propaganda machine tried to conceal this embarrassment by claiming that the shootdown was supposedly an “accident” and that “the evil Serbs got lucky”. However, this attempt to negate the heroism and professionalism of Serb/Yugoslav soldiers and officers ended up being an even greater embarrassment for NATO.

Namely, for years, these officers have been claiming that several F-117s were hit over Yugoslavia, providing ample details on when and how this happened. Expectedly, this was vehemently rejected by the political West, as it would dispel the narrative that “Serbs got lucky”. However, over two decades after NATO aggression, American officers who took part in the bombing admitted that at least one more F-117 was hit, but managed to get back to base.

Namely, back in November 2020, retired USAF Lieutenant Colonel Charlie “Tuna” Hainline, a former F-117 pilot, admitted that his wingman was hit by a Serb/Yugoslav air defense system (most likely on April 30, 1999). At the time, Hainline was assigned to the 9th Fighter Squadron, the “Flying Knights,” and deployed to Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany.

According to his account, the second F-117 was also hit by a missile fired from the S-125M “Neva-M” SAM system, this time commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Bosko Dotlic. A highly detailed account of this shootdown was presented by Colonel Slavisa Golubovic, one of the commanding officers of the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade. He also revealed that at least one more F-117 was hit, although NATO is yet to admit this.

However, kinetic warfare was far from the only embarrassment for the world’s most vile racketeering cartel, as evidenced by the revelations of around a dozen retired top-ranking Serbian diplomats, politicians and officers I had the honor of meeting during the 26th commemorative address on March 21.

Read the Whole Article

The post Evolution of NATO Aggression Against the World – From Serbia to Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

The news flow on days like today vividly illustrates that the business of bio-security has become a vast, international racket in which an array of private and public institutions and commercial enterprises are participating. The Epoch Times—which I call “the only newspaper worth its salt”—just reported the following stories.

1). Leaked China CDC Document Confirms New H5N1 Strain More Contagious in Humans: The document describes a new mutation in the hemagglutinin protein gene but lacks details, drawing concern from experts.

2). Largest US Egg Producer Cal-Maine Under DOJ Price Investigation: The company earned $508 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2025, a 245 percent jump from the year prior.

Regarding the first story, the reader should bear in mind that the document was leaked within the context of the ferocious trade war that just commenced. As the Epoch Times reporter points out, the alleged “new mutation in the hemagglutinin protein gene” is not specified in the leaked report.

The internal notice shows that China’s problem of avian influenza has become very serious, although ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials are still concealing it, Sean Lin, assistant professor in the Biomedical Science Department at Feitian College in New York and former U.S. army microbiologist, told The Epoch Times on April 5.

“A mutant strain has appeared, but the officials did not say exactly what the mutation is,” he said. “The name of the so-called A/H5N1-2025E virus strain does not correspond to the specific mutated amino acid position. The total amino acid length of the H5N1 HA hemagglutinin protein is around 524 amino acids, so what does this 2025E correspond to?” he asked about the mutation.

“This internal notice from the China CDC is still covering up the truth,” he said, especially if they are recommending increased attention for this variant over an increased transmissibility.

We wonder if this threat of an emerging influenza is some form of monkeyshines perpetrated by the CCP to complicate and constrain the Trump administration’s ability to extract trading concessions from China.

The Cal-Maine story contains elements of the same racketeering theme. The company is being investigated because it reported record pricing and sales volume, thereby raising the suspicion of monkeyshines within the context of an alleged egg shortage due to the (completely senseless) Biden administration directive of slaughtering tens of millions of egg-laying hens. The purported grounds for this wanton destruction was to prevent the spread of a new clade of H5N1 bird flu—a policy that continued long after it became evident that such containment measures weren’t working.

To quote the Epoch Times piece:

Company officials said the strong third-quarter performance was primarily driven by an 80.7 percent increase in net average selling price per dozen eggs and a 10.2 percent increase in volume.

For the quarter, Cal-Maine’s net average selling price per dozen was $4.06 compared with $2.247 a year ago. The company sold a record 331.4 million dozen shell eggs, representing a 10.2 percent increase, including the contribution from acquisitions, compared with 300.8 million dozen for the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Sales of conventional eggs totaled 213.2 million dozen, compared with 192.2 million dozen for the prior-year period, an increase of 11.0 percent.

These are just two examples today of how the business of bio-security has become an international racket, using the same methods that have long been applied to the business of warfare. Instead of waging war against armed men, our bio-defense establishment must (it claims) constantly wage war against emerging infectious diseases.

Towards the end of his life, Major General Smedley Darlington Butler—the most decorated Marine in U.S. history—concluded that War is a Racket, as he memorably characterized it with the title of his 1935 book. In the introduction he wrote:

The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

James Madison described the dubious business of war in a 1793 debate with Alexander Hamilton. Madison specifically characterized the danger of granting war-making power to the Executive, but his reasoning applies to the war-making power granted to our high priesthood of virologists and molecular biologists.

In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

Reprinted with permission from Courageous Discourse.

The post Rackets, Rackets Everywhere appeared first on LewRockwell.

The two seminal articles which predicted and defined the Trump Phenomena are:

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution, by Angelo M. Codevilla, and

The Return of the Middle American Radical: An intellectual history of Trump supporters, by John Judis

Also —

How an obscure adviser to Pat Buchanan predicted the wild Trump campaign in 1996.
This should be the Rosetta Stone for Trumpism

The post The Two Seminal Articles Which Predicted and Defined the Trump Phenomena appeared first on LewRockwell.