AIPAC leader boasts of special ‘access’ to top Trump natsec officials in leaked audio
Thanks, John Smith.
The post AIPAC leader boasts of special ‘access’ to top Trump natsec officials in leaked audio appeared first on LewRockwell.
The fix is in for new Air Force F-47 — and so is the failure
Thanks, John Smith.
The post The fix is in for new Air Force F-47 — and so is the failure appeared first on LewRockwell.
Israeli network censors report exposing Oct 7 ‘hero’ as hoaxer
Thanks, John Smith.
The post Israeli network censors report exposing Oct 7 ‘hero’ as hoaxer appeared first on LewRockwell.
Trump the manipulator?
Writes Bill Anderson:
I’d love to know who was buying calls and puts this past week.
See here.
The post Trump the manipulator? appeared first on LewRockwell.
Timeline: Panama Canal Politics, Policy, and Tensions
Click Here:
The post Timeline: Panama Canal Politics, Policy, and Tensions appeared first on LewRockwell.
La BCE prepara il terreno per il lancio dell'euro digitale
Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9
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/la-bce-prepara-il-terreno-per-il)
La Banca centrale europea sta gettando le basi per il lancio della sua moneta digitale (CBDC) all'ingrosso e al dettaglio: l'euro digitale. Christine Lagarde, presidente della BCE, ha condiviso questo aggiornamento durante la sua ultima conferenza stampa. “La presidente Lagarde ha sottolineato che l'euro digitale è 'più rilevante che mai'”, ha twittato la BCE.
La Lagarde ha sottolineato che l'euro digitale, la soluzione CBDC dell'UE, è destinato al lancio nell'ottobre 2025, a condizione che superi la fase legislativa che coinvolge le principali parti interessate, tra cui la Commissione europea, il Parlamento e il Consiglio. Particolarmente assente da questo processo è la popolazione, nonostante l'impatto significativo che questa iniziativa avrà sulla vita quotidiana.
???????? CBDC in EU will launch in Oct. 2025.
Wholesale & retail.
???????? Israel is following EU’s footsteps - preparing for CBDC with a new 110 page design document. pic.twitter.com/fUr1CkBRmy
Perché il tema dell'euro digitale è più attuale che mai?
Potrebbe essere collegato al recente annuncio di Ursula von der Leyen, “ReArm Europe”, il quale propone la creazione di un esercito dell'UE? Questa iniziativa richiede circa €800 miliardi di finanziamenti, denaro che l'UE non ha. Le opzioni? Estrarlo dagli stati membri dell'UE e dai loro cittadini, o stampare nuovi fondi tramite la BCE. In entrambi i casi, è tempo di riscaldare la stampante monetaria della BCE!
We are living in dangerous times.
Europe‘s security is threatened in a very real way.
Today I present ReArm Europe.
A plan for a safer and more resilient Europe ↓ https://t.co/CYTytB5ZMk
Inoltre l'UE ha introdotto la “Savings and Investments Union”, con l'obiettivo di reindirizzare €10.000 miliardi in “risparmi inutilizzati” dai cittadini per finanziare la crescita militare e rafforzare l'industria della difesa europea. “Trasformeremo i risparmi privati in investimenti necessari”, ha twittato la von der Leyen. Se questo non vi ha già scioccato, cercherò di essere più chiaro: si tratta di una chiara violazione dei diritti della proprietà privata e una confisca implicita della ricchezza degli europei, mentre vengono usati senza mezzi termini i loro fondi come l'UE ritiene opportuno, incluso il finanziamento di un complesso militare-industriale senza nemmeno chiamare in causa gli elettori.
Se l'UE sta accelerando verso un collettivismo totalitario, come suggerisce questa affermazione, allora una CBDC sarebbe uno strumento potente, che consentirebbe un controllo più stretto sui soldi degli europei: un interruttore “on/off” e capacità di programmazione.
If most of your money is still in fiat the bank / stocks / mortgaged real estate etc. - they don’t need your permission.
They want you owning nothing, despaired & numb.
You may want to consider a permissionless, unconfiscatable, easily mobile & liquid digital asset such as… pic.twitter.com/K2xjTpcyS7
Christine Lagarde ha di recente fatto campagna al Parlamento europeo, sostenendo che l'euro digitale è necessario per ridurre la dipendenza dell'UE dalle soluzioni di pagamento estere. Le banche europee devono innovare i metodi di pagamento, ma la preoccupazione principale dell'UE non è solo la dipendenza da giganti della tecnologia, come Google Pay o Apple Pay, ma il potenziale per un'adozione diffusa di protocolli globali decentralizzati come Bitcoin.
La BCE sta osservando le tendenze geopolitiche, notando che gli Stati Uniti stanno abbracciando criptovalute, Bitcoin e stablecoin, tecnologie che rappresentano un rischio per il controllo centralizzato. Non sorprende che stiano scegliendo una strada diversa. Secondo la Reuters: “Le banche dell'Eurozona hanno bisogno di un euro digitale per rispondere alla spinta del presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump, a promuovere le stablecoin” come parte di una strategia più ampia. Il membro del consiglio della BCE, Piero Cipollone, ha rafforzato questa posizione, affermando: “Questa soluzione disintermedia ulteriormente le banche poiché perdono commissioni, perdono clienti [...]. Ecco perché abbiamo bisogno di un euro digitale”.
In conclusione, i recenti programmi della Lagarde e della Von der Leyen mirano a promuovere un controllo più centralizzato, rafforzando al contempo la gerarchia, la governance e la struttura degli incentivi dell'UE: questo è sempre stato il loro ruolo.
Nuovo sondaggio sull'euro digitale
The ECB continues campaigning for the digital Euro, a centralized European payment mechanism - to 'decrease dependency on external forces'. #CBDC pic.twitter.com/ovlkYX0bsQ
— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) March 15, 2025La BCE ha di recente pubblicato i risultati di un sondaggio sugli atteggiamenti dei consumatori nei confronti delle CBDC, condotto tra 19.000 europei in 11 Paesi dell'Eurozona. I principali risultati includono:
- Mancanza di interesse: la maggior parte degli europei non è interessata all'euro digitale poiché i metodi di pagamento esistenti soddisfano già le loro esigenze.
- Gli europei sono aperti alla propaganda: sebbene l'interesse pubblico sia basso, il sondaggio ha rilevato che gli europei sono ricettivi all'istruzione e alla formazione basate su video. Lo studio della BCE suggerisce che i video correlati alle CBDC potrebbero favorire un'adozione diffusa rimodellando le convinzioni dei consumatori. La relazione afferma: “I consumatori a cui viene mostrato un breve video che fornisce una comunicazione concisa e chiara sulle caratteristiche principali dell'euro digitale hanno sostanzialmente più probabilità di aggiornare le proprie convinzioni [...] il che aumenta la loro probabilità immediata di adottarlo”. Non c'è da stupirsi se la BCE abbia aumentato i suoi contenuti video sull'euro digitale dalla fine del 2024. Ad esempio:
- Preferenza per i metodi di pagamento esistenti: “Gli europei hanno una forte preferenza per i metodi di pagamento esistenti e non vedono alcun beneficio reale in un nuovo tipo di sistema di pagamento”. Sebbene questa scoperta suoni come una spinta positiva, può fungere da precursore per una tattica di integrazioni tecnologiche. Tattica “Se non puoi batterli, unisciti a loro” – simile alla CBDC cinese ovvero l'e-CNY al dettaglio.
Fonte: Banca centrale europea
Propaganda for European CBDC, the digital euro, has began. Be aware. pic.twitter.com/wStnfrZROZ
— Efrat Fenigson (@efenigson) November 14, 2024Un recente articolo su Euromoney ha evidenziato l'integrazione dell'e-CNY con le app più popolari della Cina (DiDi, Meituan, Ctrip, WeChat Pay e Alipay), una mossa che ha facilitato la sua adozione diffusa. Nonostante le difficoltà iniziali, l'e-CNY ora vanta 180 milioni di utenti e un valore di transazione cumulativo di $1.000 miliardi. Ho di recente esplorato questo argomento in modo approfondito con Roger Huang nel mio podcast.
Non solo al dettaglio, anche all'ingrosso
Sul fronte CBDC all'ingrosso l'UE sta sperimentando la tecnologia di registro distribuito (DLT) per interconnettere istituzioni finanziarie in tutta Europa e oltre. Ciò segue il lavoro esplorativo condotto dall'Eurosistema tra maggio e novembre 2024. Le loro sperimentazioni hanno coinvolto 64 partecipanti, tra cui banche centrali, operatori del mercato finanziario e operatori di piattaforme DLT che hanno condotto oltre 50 esperimenti.
La Lagarde insiste sul fatto che l'euro digitale è una forma di denaro contante, cosa che inganna gli europei disinformati sui rischi delle CBDC: esse sono basate sull'autorizzazione, sono soggette a micro livelli di controllo tramite date di scadenza, geofencing e programmabilità. Se gli europei non riconoscono questi pericoli, non resisteranno all'euro digitale. Inquadrandolo come “denaro digitale”, la BCE garantisce un'accettazione pubblica più fluida con poco o nessun clamore pubblico.
[2025] Europeans!
Are you ready for “YOUR Digital Euro”?
Christine Lagarde is prepping you to the next phase of EU’s CBDC, which is everything *but* a form of cash (nice try though). pic.twitter.com/t6mG5liw26
Per essere chiari, il denaro contante in sé è una moneta fiat, controllata centralmente, facilmente svalutabile e soggetta a inflazione. Ogni volta che l'emittente espande l'offerta di denaro, i cittadini soffrono di un potere d'acquisto in calo, venendo essenzialmente derubati dallo stato.
“Regole per te, ma non per me”
Mentre i cittadini sono vincolati dallo stato di diritto, le élite spesso ne evitano le conseguenze. Un esempio lampante è Christine Lagarde, che è stata dichiarata colpevole di negligenza per aver approvato un massiccio pagamento finanziato dai contribuenti al controverso imprenditore francese Bernard Tapie. Tuttavia ha evitato una condanna al carcere. Il Guardian ha riferito nel 2016: “Un tribunale francese ha condannato il capo del Fondo monetario internazionale ed ex-ministro del governo, la quale deve sborsare una multa da €15.000 e ha rischiato fino a un anno di prigione. Ma ha deciso che non doveva essere punita con la detenzione e che la condanna non avrebbe costituito un precedente penale. [...] L'FMI gli ha dato il suo pieno sostegno”.
La mia previsione per la CBDC dell'UE
Nonostante il disinteresse pubblico, la BCE (e altre banche centrali) andranno avanti con le loro CBDC. Per mantenere l'illusione del coinvolgimento pubblico, condurranno sondaggi e creeranno strumenti di coinvolgimento. Ma alla fine l'euro digitale sarà integrato nei metodi di pagamento esistenti e nelle app per i consumatori, proprio come ha fatto la Cina con l'e-CNY. Questa strategia guiderà l'adozione anche senza un entusiasmo pubblico diretto.
Dopotutto stiamo giocando al gioco della “democrazia”, giusto?
L'analista geopolitico, Alex Krainer, ha di recente twittato in merito: “Questa è un'ottima notizia; Christine Lagarde e Ursula von der Leyen non hanno mai affrontato qualcosa che non hanno completamente rovinato. Spero che continuino con la loro eccellente performance. Buona fortuna”.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/
Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una “mancia” in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.
Peace & debt
Aaron Davis wrote:
Pres T:
The US lost the rule of law in the war on drugs with both Iran Contra, and the division of minorities and heinous laws they were shackled under, created by the original prohibition movement. Peace and legalize and retail it all, every substance comes from earth any damned way!
The US lost the rule of law on any removal of gun rights from anybody when the President and DOJ pulled fast & furious.
We’re about to loose the rule of economic law. So debt bomb and revalue all publish fed notes at 1% like 1913! There’s a billion plus Asians billion plus Islamics and a billion plus Catholics. So blow it out your ass and let’s move on. Peace and prosperity !
The post Peace & debt appeared first on LewRockwell.
Courage 70 years ago, courage today
Bruce McLane wrote:
The post Courage 70 years ago, courage today appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Mainstream Media Was Scared To Investigate the JFK Assassination
It’s not difficult to understand why the mainstream media failed and refused to investigate the JFK assassination. To understand the reason, just think about how Columbia University and the big law firms Paul, Weiss and Skadden, Arps have capitulated after being subjected to pressure from President Trump. Why wouldn’t the mainstream media behave in the same manner after being subjected to pressure from President Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. national-security establishment?
Lyndon Johnson was one of the most vicious and ruthless politicians in U.S. history. Every mainstream media outlet knew that. He was also one of the most crooked and corrupt politicians. The mainstream media knew that as well.
Everyone also knew that while he was vice president, Johnson could not bend people to his will by threatening to use the massive power of the federal government to do bad things to them. Everyone also knew that when Johnson became president, that principle no longer held. Everyone now knew that as president, Johnson wielded the power to destroy them or even have them killed by either the military, the CIA, or some other part of the deep state.
If John Kennedy had not been assassinated, it is a virtual certainty that Johnson would have been criminally indicted and convicted for official corruption. He very likely would have been sentenced to serve time in a U.S. prison. He never would have become president. The assassination saved him from that fate.
Prior to the assassination, there were two newspapers in Texas who were investigating aspects of Johnson’s corruption. Immediately after Johnson was elevated to the presidency, he made telephone calls to the heads of those newspapers and pressured them into shutting down their investigations. Both of them capitulated and shut down their investigations.
LIFE magazine planned to run a story on Johnson’s corruption in its Friday, November 29, 1963, issue. Once the assassination took place on November 22, LIFE cancelled the story and replaced it with assassination coverage. That makes sense. What also makes sense is that LIFE never published the corruption article. That’s undoubtedly because Johnson was now president.
Did Johnson telephone major U.S. newspapers and order them not to investigate the JFK assassination? He didn’t need to. He simply needed to send them a message stating that they were never to go down that road. That message came in the form of the Warren Commission report on the assassination. Once Johnson heartily endorsed the official lone-nut narrative set forth by the former head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other mainstream officials who were serving on the Warren Commission, every newspaper in the land got the message: If you know what’s good for you, accept the official lone-nut narrative, no matter how ridiculous it might seem, and let’s just move on.
What is fascinating is how the mainstream media adhered to its non-investigative policy long after Johnson was gone. That may well be because of their fear of the deep state, which many people were gradually realizing had orchestrated and carried out the assassination.
Let’s review four examples of how the mainstream media failed and refused to investigate the JFK assassination, even decades later.
1. In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board reported that there had been two brain examinations as part of the Kennedy autopsy. The military pathologists had lied. They had claimed there was only one brain examination. The ARRB was able to discover the truth in two ways. First, the official autopsy photographer, John Stringer, stated that he had taken the photographs of the brain at the brain exam he attended. When he was asked to examine the brain photographs in the official record, he said that those were not the photographs he took. Second, one of the three military pathologists, Col. Pierre Finck, was not at the brain exam that Stringer attended. He was at the second one, where there was another photographer whose identity was kept secret. For reasons laid out in the ARRB report, the second brain exam almost certainly involved a brain that did not belong to Kennedy — i.e., a brain specimen that most likely came from the nearby medical school at Bethesda National Naval Medical Center.
The ARRB’s report on the two brain exams hit the mainstream media soon after it was published in the 1990s. Wouldn’t you think that some newspaper would want to get to the bottom of this? After all, there is perjury by military doctors and fraud in the autopsy. Aren’t those things worth investigating? One would think so. But as far as I know, not one mainstream media outlet assigned an investigative journalist to check it out. It would have been considered too dangerous. It would have been investigating the military and the role it played in the Kennedy assassination.
There is something else to consider here. The mainstream media had to know that the ARRB was prohibited from investigating the matter as well as any other matter relating to the JFK assassination. That’s because someone in Congress had slipped into the JFK Records Act a provision prohibiting the ARRB from investigating any aspect of the JFK assassination. Knowing this, wouldn’t you think at least one mainstream media outlet would investigate the matter? Nope.
2. After the House Select Committee in the 1970s released Navy personnel who had participated in the autopsy from the vows of secrecy they had been forced to take, enlisted men began reporting that they had secretly carried JFK’s body into the Bethesda military morgue in a shipping casket rather than the heavy ornate casket into which the body had been placed in Dallas.
Wouldn’t you think that some major mainstream newspaper would find that something worth investigating? Nope.
In the 1990s, the ARRB also discovered the existence of a former Marine Sgt. named Roger Boyajian, who had been in charge of security at the Bethesda morgue, where the military autopsy of JFK’s body was to be conducted. Boyajian produced a copy of an after-action report he delivered to his superiors soon after the autopsy. The report stated that the shipping casket had been brought into the morgue at 6:35 p.m. That was almost 1 1/2 hours before the 8:00 p.m. time when the body was officially brought into the morgue for the autopsy.
What was the purpose of sneaking JFK’s body into the morgue almost an hour and a half before the official entry time of the body into the morgue? Wouldn’t you think that that would be enough for some major newspaper to investigate? Nope.
3. After the assassination and autopsy, the social photographer for Kennedy and several other presidents, Robert Knudsen, stated publicly that he had been the photographer for the autopsy. He said that it was the hardest thing he had ever done. When he passed away, both the New York Times and the Washington Post published obituaries stating Knudsen had been the photographer for the JFK autopsy.
There was one big problem. Knudsen wasn’t the official photographer for the autopsy. That was John Stringer. It was undisputed that Knudsen wasn’t at the autopsy. But based on his good reputation as the official White House photographer both before and after Kennedy, it is a virtual certainly that Knudsen wasn’t lying. He obviously photographed something he was led to believe was the autopsy.
Wouldn’t you think that some mainstream newspaper would want to get to the bottom of the Knudsen mystery? Nope.
4. The ARRB discovered the existence of a woman named Saundra Spencer. On the weekend of the assassination, she was a Navy petty officer who worked in the Navy photography lab in Washington, D.C. She worked closely with the Kennedy White House. She told the ARRB that she had been asked to develop the autopsy photographs on the weekend of the assassination, on a top-secret basis. When the ARRB showed her the autopsy photographs in the official record, she stated that the photograph depicting the back of Kennedy’s head to be intact was not correct. She stated that the photograph she developed showed a 1-2 inch hole in the back of JFK’s head. Since the photograph she had viewed was done after the embalmers had done their best to patch up the back of JFK’s head, it is a virtual certainty that that hole was much actually much larger, which matched what the Dallas physicians had stated — that there was a massive exit-sized hole in the back of Kennedy’s head, which would imply a shot having been fired from the front, which contradicted the official lone-nut-firing-from-the-rear narrative.
Wouldn’t you think some mainstream newspaper would want to get to the bottom of this? Nope.
Why is all this important? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. Once evidence of fraud in the Kennedy autopsy surfaced, it was “case closed” on criminal culpability on the part of the U.S. national security establishment. Wouldn’t you think that would be something the mainstream media would want to investigate? Nope.
For more on the fraudulent autopsy conducted by the military, see my books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2.
Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.
The post The Mainstream Media Was Scared To Investigate the JFK Assassination appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Scandal of the Catholic Zionist
A tell-tale sign of having become the victim of propaganda is the eruption of particularly vehement and irrational anger, leading invariably to name-calling, calumny, scapegoating, and insinuation, when confronted with a fact, idea, or argument that might refute the propaganda, or at least make the victim aware of his having been propagandized. This anger eruption is itself a product of the propaganda, a built-in defense mechanism effectively precluding awareness of not only the spurious content of the propaganda but also the fact of its very existence in the victim’s mind.
The amount, intensity, and sophistication of the propaganda surrounding, distorting, and cloaking the Israeli genocide of Gazans is unprecedented. Nevertheless, some things one can’t hide. It is now indisputable that Israel has committed genocide. The Vatican has now condemned Israel’s actions, and so have the vast majority of the countries of the world. What is also indisputable is that the primary cause of the violence in Gaza, as well as the violence in the Middle East for the past seventy years, is not the primitive, home-made “rockets” that kill less Israelis in seven years than the state-of-the-art, American-produced “smart bombs” kill in seven days, nor “Islamic terrorists who hate democracy and freedom,” but the unconscionable treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel since its very inception, what can be accurately called ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Indeed, Cardinal Martino called Gaza a “concentration camp,” a quite deliberate description, implying that Israel has treated the Palestinians in Gaza in a manner not unlike the Germans’ treatment of prisoners in Warsaw during World War II. As many reputable commentators have insisted, if Israel were only willing to observe the pre-1967 borders, a lasting peace with the Palestinian Arabs could be arranged quite quickly. However, Israel, due to its Zionist/Talmudic ideology of racial superiority and political hegemony, is fanatical about its “right” to the entire area of land, that is, its right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.
Any person with even the slightest sense of justice would condemn any regime for targeting civilians—this has nothing to do with the fact that it is Israel. What those of us who criticize Israel are doing is objecting to policies that are immoral and illegal under international law, for Israel has voluntarily agreed to abide by the UN Charter, which forbids offensive wars of aggression and interruptions of the peace. America has broken this charter in Iraq, and this fact is also indisputable. Yet, Catholics who make their objections known are automatically accused of anti-Semitism by fellow Catholics for merely affirming these facts, facts that, as I have said, cannot be objectively disputed.
Now, I can certainly understand a fanatical Israeli Zionist defending this kind of behavior, for being both bereft of the light of Christ and possessed by a powerful, pernicious ideology that permits acts that no Catholic can ever condone, it would make logical sense. But the phenomenon of practicing, otherwise charitable, and otherwise orthodox Catholics, defending the indefensible, and of demonizing fellow Catholics for not doing so, demands an explanation.
It is reasonable to conclude that their lack of any criticism whatsoever of the Israeli regime in its recent attacks on Gaza, even when the Pope himself has condemned Israel’s violence, and even when the targeting of homes and hospitals is now there for all to see—thank God for the Internet!—is that these misguided Catholics believe that certain human beings or nations are exempt from moral criticism, from the moral law. Now, for an Israeli to defend its nation’s actions “right or wrong” can be chalked up to simple fanatical nationalism, but why would Americans do so, and American Roman Catholics for that matter! I think that behind this disturbing phenomenon is a form of idolatry, an idolatry that can be described as reverse racism.
Racism is evinced when one automatically condemns a person’s or groups’ actions merely because of the racial identity of the person or group while completely prescinding from any evaluation of the moral quality of the actions themselves. However, is not racism revealed also in an a priori and infallible defense of a person’s or group’s actions? For it is to exempt a particular group of humans from the strictures of the universal moral law, which is to say, to render them divine.
Based upon their relentless defense of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, indeed, of all of Israeli’s acts of terror and violence beginning with the “Nakba,” the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the pre-Israeli army prior to the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948. The Nakba marked the beginning of the theft of Palestinian land that continues to this day, with the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the inhumane blockade, and the genocide in Gaza. Based upon their assigning all blame for any violence in the Middle East to Muslims alone, to Hamas, Hezbollah, to anti-Semitism, that is, to any other group or ideology rather than Israel and Zionism; it is reasonable to conclude that these Catholics are thinking as racists. To wit, anti-Semite racists immorally condemn the actions of Jewish people regardless of the moral quality of their actions; Catholic racists immorally celebrate, or at least refuse to condemn, their actions, as if they were impeccable. Both are instances of the sin of racism, though the latter includes the sin of idolatry as well.
For these racist and idolatrous Catholics, as long as they are actions conducted in defense or the name of the special race, nation, ideology, or religion, they are never to be criticized, even if they are morally objectionable actions according to Catholic standards. Instead of recognizing this racism in themselves, however, they automatically assign these vices to those who manifestly do not think as racists and idolaters. Such rejecters of racism and idolatry, that is, those relatively few practicing, orthodox Catholics who have remained immune from the brainwashing campaign of the Israeli and American Zionist propaganda machine, those not cowed by threats of being labeled as racists and anti-Semites, are thus branded as anti-Semites and racists—and all discussion and argument ceases.
There can be no other explanation than racist idolatry as far as I can see for this radical moral blindness to what is obvious to any decent person on the planet. It must be said that having even the slightest inclination to this kind of racial thinking is supremely dangerous to one’s soul. As Rene Girard’s pioneering work on the origin and nature of violence has taught us, being an authentic Christian means, almost more than anything else, being on the side of the victim in instances of sacrificial violence. Jesus, being the sacrificial victim par excellence, is the Divine Defender of Victims. Satan, on the other hand, is the demonic defender of the victimizers.
Though Hamas is no innocent victim, for it certainly shares some of the blame in the death of innocent Palestinians by providing the pretext—though not the justification—for Israel’s grossly disproportionate use of force against them, those siding solely with Israel in the Gaza war, and those who refuse in principle to utter one word of condemnation, due to its racial and/or religious identity, of the Israeli regime, or any regime, institution, group, or person, for what are objectively immoral, violent acts, are in principle expressing their perennial loyalty to the victimizers. This is pledging eternal allegiance to anti-Christ.
This originally appeared on Children Beware of Idols.
The post The Scandal of the Catholic Zionist appeared first on LewRockwell.
Not Very Bright
As “Deep Throat,” the whistleblower who was FBI associate director Mark Felt, tells Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in the film “All the President’s Men” as Woodward unravels the Watergate scandal: “about the White House—the truth is, these are not very bright guys.”
Fifty years later, that is again the truth.
How much of Donald Trump’s directive on U.S. tariffs imposed on nations all over the world—that in recent days has caused a stock market loss of trillions of dollars—is a result of his not being very bright?
The Trump tariffs “are reckless, careless, just plain dumb,” declared U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut after the move last week.
Trump through the years has insisted that he is a “stable genius.”
Through the years, the opposite has been charged.
In 2017, in the first year of the first Trump term as president, Max Boot wrote an article in Foreign Policy magazine headed “Donald Trump Is Proving Too Stupid to Be President.” It began: “The evidence continues to mount that he is far from smart—so far, in fact, that he may not be capable of carrying out his duties as president.”
Boot said “he doesn’t seem to have acquired even the most basic information that a high school student should possess.” Among many examples, “Recall that Trump said that Frederick Douglass, who died in 1895, was “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job,” and “also claimed that Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War, ‘was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard in regard to the Civil War.’”
“Why does he know so little?” asked Boot. “Because he doesn’t read books or even long articles. ‘I never have,” he proudly told a reporter last year….As president, Trump’s intelligence briefings have been dumbed down, denuded of nuance, and larded with maps and pictures because he can’t be bothered to read a lot of words….The surest indication of how not smart Trump is [is] that he thinks his inability or lack of interest in acquiring knowledge doesn’t matter.”
Trump’s first “administration has been one disaster after another. And those fiascos can be ascribed directly to the president’s lack of intellectual horsepower.”
“The Power of Dumb” was the headline of an In These Times article in November 2024 by Hamilton Nolan. It’s subhead: “In the Second Trump Era, don’t expect reality to be realistic.”
Nolan wrote: “Grappling with the dawn of the second Trump Era will require an acceptance of the disquieting truth that Dumb Things and Important Things are about to merge into a single excruciating category.”
He continued: “Donald Trump is an ignorant, overconfident, narcissistic, grievance-ridden man—a dumb man, who over time has attracted around him an asteroid field of dumb allies who are but lesser versions of himself. His invariable instinct to act without knowledge is dumb; his unwavering instinct to make consequential decisions based upon minor personal whim is dumb; his unshakeable belief in his own laughable reasoning is dumb. No sober analysis would grant him any benefit of the doubt. He possesses the poisoning combination of great power and the utter absence of concern for responsibility. He knows little and does much.”
Trump, he went on, “is an aggressively ignorant man who doesn’t care about anything that doesn’t affect him personally. He doesn’t know about issues of consequence and is picking his cabinet based upon who has done the best job of flattering him and who he has seen on television….It is going to happen much faster than any complex theories can be usefully employed. What is worth thinking deeply about…is how we got there. The fact of the Dumb Tidal Wave is already upon us.”
“You can’t fix stupid” is a phrase coined by comedian Ron White years ago.
It is highly relevant today.
As to Trump’s history in business, Jessica Dean on CNN last week, as the stock market plummeted following Trump’s tariff directive, noted to her guest, Ross Gerber, co-founder of Gerber Kawaski Wealth Management, that “the White House is saying trust Trump.” Gerber responded: “Wall Street knows Trump’s track record of trusting Trump with business which is bankruptcy after bankruptcy after bankruptcy….His track record speaks for itself of being drowned in doubt and making horrible business decisions.”
There is a long record of this including the Trump casinos and Trump University.
As Steve Benen reported on MSNBC.com last week, based on an interview of Nobel laureate Paul Krugman on The Rachel Maddow Show, that “if Trump is going to set the global economy—and your retirements savings on fire, it’s hardly unreasonable to think he should present his vision in a way that had a tangential relationship with reality. He did not.”
Many Trump claims are cited including how the “United States subsidizes Canada with $200 billion a year” and the U.S. “’took in hundreds of billions of dollars’” from China thanks to tariffs he imposed during his first term” and “Canada ‘imposes a 250-300% tariff on many of our dairy products” and “the Great Depression happened because U.S. officials moved away from tariffs” and the list goes on. And with each claim, Benen writes how it “wasn’t true” and provides elaboration.
“The larger point of course, isn’t just that Trump has a truth allergy,” Benen continued. “Much of the public knew this long before his [tariff announcement] event in the Rose Garden began. Rather, the broader significance is rooted in the fact that the president—reading from prepared text—apparently felt as if he had to lie.”
Joe Conason in a piece on Alternet headlined “The thing that ensures economic catastrophe,” wrote: “Everyone should have known what was about to happen when Donald Trump announced huge global tariffs under the slogan ‘Make America Wealthy Again.’ Like ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ which accompanied the return of deadly measles, the cheery tagline for Trump’s trade war foretold ruin—which has arrived at warp speed.”
“Within hours, the global markets wiped out trillions of dollars in wealth from the balance sheets of retirement accounts and pension plans as well as banks and corporations. What looms ahead is not the ‘boom’ that Trump has predicted but rather a shrinking economy with both stagnating employment and rising prices. Which is precisely the opposite of what he promised voters last year,” he continued.
“To anyone who has observed Trump closely over the course of his career, this catastrophe was predictable as soon as he gained the unchecked sway he now wields in Washington,” he went on. “He is not a ‘stable genius’ with superior genetic endowment, but a spoiled scion of middling intelligence at best. He is not a brilliant negotiator who can conclude the Ukraine war in a single day or bring the Chinese government to heel, but a failed businessman who wrecked his father’s real estate company with bad deals and excessive debt.”
“Having escaped any accountability for the national destruction incurred during his first presidential term—from the mismanaged pandemic that cost a million lives to the violent coup attempt of Jan. 6, 2021—he has returned to the White House with even greater arrogance, courtesy of the Supreme Court. Secure in power, he is delivering an extremely painful lesson in the consequences of ignorance and incompetence run amok.”
“Those dismal qualities were instantly on display in every aspect of the tariff rollout, as neither the president nor his phalanx of flunkies could offer any plausible rationale of his actions beyond sloganeering,” wrote Conason.
“Why is the United States seeking to punish its traditional allies in Europe? Why are we penalizing our best trading partners in Canada and Mexico? Why are we imposing trade barriers on tiny countries like Lesotho and remote islands uninhabited by human beings? (We may yet see how brilliantly Trump negotiates with penguins.) And how did Trump formulate the cardboard list of nations and tariffs he brandished as a prop at his “Liberation Day” announcement?” he asked. “The White House could offer no coherent response to these puzzling questions, which drew contradictory answers from everyone around Trump, as well as the president himself, or no answers at all.”
These, indeed, “are not very bright guys.”
And you can’t fix stupid.
We desperately need alternatives as soon as possible.
The post Not Very Bright appeared first on LewRockwell.
Perhaps the Greatest Gift
My apartment in Meudon is about 7 km away as the crow flies from the Eiffel Tower. On the fourth floor of my building the tower is easy to see. Yet for centuries Meudon was in the countryside, not a suburb of Paris like it is today (the suburban train to the tower takes 15 min). There were several large estates around the village. Almost all of them have now been carved up into individual lots for houses or converted into apartment complexes like mine. While Meudon has many vestiges of its past one could argue that the relics that most invigorate the town are its trees. The French have a thing for trees.The great 19th century French writer Stendhal published notes about his Travels in the South of France in 1838. He mentions the trees he finds on almost every other page. Here is one example.
At Cuers, I ate cherries for the first time this year. This little town would be rather ugly if it were not for the plane trees. The gorgeous plane tree planted in front of the town hall is definitely an armament. Magnificent sound of the bell. I went into the church, nothing could be duller, Gothic feathered arch, nave shaped like a tennis court. The square is not bad because of the great trees.
My apartment complex is named after a tree, Residence du Sequoia. The beautiful specimen was obviously there for decades before the construction of the apartments in 1960.
In the morning I sit on my couch with a cup of coffee and look at one of those marvelous French plane trees (related to a sycamore). But what makes the morning view more interesting is a pair of pigeons that I call the love birds. I don’t know very much about bird biology but these two are obviously French due to their public displays of affection.
Out of our bedroom window is a much more domestic scene. I often see a very busy magpie tending her (or maybe it is his) nest while I begin to doze into my luxurious afternoon siesta.
The stars of this avian spectacle are the parakeets. Presumably escaped from captivity, these darlings of the tree tops have brilliant plumage and are exceptional flyers.
The trees and birds, everyday sights, bring me regular delight yet most people do not have the time nor inclination to pay attention to them. What a pity. It is at some level a question of attention (see my previous Believing Is Seeing – LewRockwell). For example, recently I was in Burgundy with my wife. We had an excellent, yet simple, meal at the bistro affiliated to a Michelin starred restaurant in the wine village Fuissé (L’O des Vignes · Restaurant étoilé Saône-et-Loire, Fuissé). The next day on the road back to Meudon we stopped in Semur-en-Auxious for lunch. We ate outside on the terrace on a beautiful late winter day in this lovely Medieval town. Nonetheless my wife was paying attention to the meal; I agreed it was not nearly as good as the meal from the previous evening. I even agreed with her that it was poor. Eventually I was able to convince her that we cannot have the excellent everyday and to instead enjoy the exceptional setting. I try to live by a simple maxim, appreciate what is excellent, but do not demand it.
This orientation toward the beautiful and the good holds for people as well. The following quote by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is important and often cited:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart – and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years.”
But the next line of the quote I also find critical to keep in mind. “And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.” Attention to the good in individuals helps to control the line between good and evil within. Resentment for any reason is poison. I am blessed that resentments rarely come to mind. However, if I ever think about insurance companies, like the crooked Mass Mutual Life Insurance company, a sense of bitter resentment can sour my mood for an instant.
The substance of this discussion is common wisdom. And it should not be mistaken for a Don’t Worry, Be Happy attitude. Not in this world can anxiety and difficulties be avoided by me, nor can I imagine anyone else. I do not intend to suggest any kind of moral or psychological superiority on my part to have this orientation to life. Furthermore, I do not want to suggest that this is a gift only through my religious belief. That is, maybe it is more likely dumb luck, like picking a long shot to win at the track because you like its name. I have done nothing, have no practice, read no book, taken no course, . . . nada. Can it be found through the Christian God, Zen woo, Hindu karma, new age mysticism, or psychological therapy, (e.g., A Debt of Gratitude – Taki’s Magazine)? I won’t speculate. I take it purely as a gift, perhaps the greatest gift one could receive, to see the beauty in spite of the ugly; to see the good in spite of the bad.
The post Perhaps the Greatest Gift appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Federal Government Did Not Create the States
One of the statues that was taken down in the 2020 purge of the Southern statues was that of the great American statesman from South Carolina, John. C. Calhoun. The then mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, John Tecklenburg, said that “while we acknowledge Calhoun’s efforts as a statesman, we can’t ignore his positions on slavery and discrimination.” The reason why, in his opinion, “slavery and discrimination” could not be ignored, was that Black Lives Matter were at the height of their political power, mounting protests in the streets of Charleston in the wake of the George Floyd riots.
In his commitment to “not ignoring slavery and discrimination” he was prepared to overlook everything else said or done by a man whom he admitted to be an influential statesman. Such destruction of historic statues illustrates how political expediency causes politicians to pursue a destructive course of action that will have deleterious longer-term implications. The mayor of Charleston allowed the temporary political furor surrounding BLM, which has now faded away from public discourse almost as quickly as it began, to override the importance of Calhoun’s legacy.
In his book, Calhoun: A Statesman for the 21st Century, the great historian Clyde Wilson emphasizes that Calhoun was “South Carolina’s greatest son” and also “an internationally recognized statesman and philosopher.” He was not merely a politician representing the partisan perspectives of the South, but also a statesman, meaning “something of a prophet—one who has an historical perspective and says what he believes to be true and in the best long-range interest of the people, whether it is popular or not.” By contrast, a mere politician is someone who “says and does whatever he thinks will get or keep him in power.” In highlighting the value of Calhoun’s legacy for contemporary political discourse, Wilson observes that, “Statesmen were rare in Calhoun’s time. Today they have disappeared entirely. We know that Calhoun was a statesman because his words about government are as true and relevant today as they were in his time.”
One of the most important areas of contemporary debate where it is important to distinguish the statesmen from the politicians is the question of constitutional interpretation. Unlike many politicians today, for whom the Constitution means whatever they would like it to mean, Calhoun approached constitutional questions from a philosophical perspective. He understood the Constitution to represent specific principles, rather than being simply a document that could mean almost anything, a mere starting point for whatever political argument one might wish to make. Thus, Calhoun’s legacy is relevant not only in understanding the debates that raged in his own time, but also in resolving contemporary political challenges. For example, in his article “Can John C. Calhoun Save America?” Tom DiLorenzo analyzes how Calhoun’s views on government and society help to understand “how the American political system could evolve into tyranny, and how to stop that from happening.”
Calhoun’s warning about the tyranny that follows when the Constitution fails to limit government power resonates strongly today as debates rage concerning the balance of power between state and federal authority. In For A New Liberty, Rothbard highlights Calhoun’s views on the growing power of the federal government: “One of America’s most brilliant political theorists, John C. Calhoun, wrote prophetically of the inherent tendency of a State to break through the limits of its written constitution.” Rothbard is referring to Calhoun’s argument that a powerful government will always construe its constitutional powers as widely as it possibly can, while the party threatened by government power will construe the limitations on that power as strictly as possible, leading to “subversion of the constitution”:
It would then be construction against construction—the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers of the government to the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be, against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction? In a contest so unequal, the result would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. . . . The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution . . . the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.
Similarly, Tom DiLorenzo draws attention to Calhoun’s critique of the “implied powers” theory of constitutional interpretation, a theory which allows a government to adopt any powers it deems expedient. DiLorenzo explains:
It was Hamilton who invented the “implied powers” (aka, not listed in the document) theory of constitutional interpretation; the perversion of the Contract and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution; and other subterfuges designed to turn the document into a de facto rubber stamp on anything the government wanted to do – as long as it was “properly” interpreted by people like himself. That is why Jefferson and his political heirs, such as Calhoun, considered the brilliant and Machiavellian Hamilton to be a dangerous threat to American freedom.
Calhoun also emphasized the principle that the states were sovereign and independent and not merely the creation of the federal government, and that therefore, as Wilson puts it, “The Constitution should be the instrument of society’s control of government, not vice versa.”
These insights have great relevance to disputes over the correct interpretation of the constitution, as many commentators swing wildly from one argument to the very opposite when the party in power changes. For example, the principle of states’ rights, and the related principle that there should be as wide a scope for state sovereignty as possible, are defended by political analysts when their goals are backed by their state. Yet the same analysts often swing to a robust defense of federal power to crush the states when they happen to approve of federal policies. While some of this may be explained by the hypocrisy that is endemic in political life, there is another factor at play—and that is plain short-sightedness or a tendency to think only of the immediate implications of the specific policy in question. Wilson’s observation on this point is apt, that in Calhoun’s time “most people most of the time, preferred to live in the short-run, ignore distant threats, and hope for the best.” Calhoun’s importance as a statesman is recognized in large part because he was able to take a principled view even when it lost him popular support. Wilson observes that while some historians considered Calhoun to be too theoretical or philosophical to be of much help in resolving political disputes, it is this very ability to rise above the political fray that marks Calhoun as a principled statesman:
And the most common criticism of his writings, by pragmatic-minded politicians and journalists, was that they were too philosophical for the commonsense American world. It is just these two qualities of simplicity and higher generalization that make his words all the more durable – still alive in another age when those of his critics are dead on the page.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.The post The Federal Government Did Not Create the States appeared first on LewRockwell.
Russia–Iran–China: All for One, and One for All?
Russia and Iran are at the forefront of the multi-layered Eurasia integration process – the most crucial geopolitical development of the young 21st century.
Both are top members of BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Both are seriously implicated as Global Majority leaders to build a multi-nodal, multipolar world. And both have signed, in late January in Moscow, a detailed, comprehensive strategic partnership.
The second administration of US President Donald Trump, starting with the “maximum pressure” antics employed by the bombastic Circus Ringmaster himself, seems to ignore these imperatives.
It was up to the Russian Foreign Ministry to re-introduce rationality in what was fast becoming an out of control shouting match: essentially Moscow, alongside its partner Tehran, simply will not accept outside threats of bombing Iran’s nuclear and energy infrastructure, while insisting on the search for viable negotiated solutions for the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
And then, just like lightning, the Washington narrative changed. US Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs, Steven Witkoff – not exactly a Metternich, and previously a “maximum pressure” hardliner – started talking about the need for “confidence-building” and even “resolving disagreements,” implying Washington began “seriously considering,” according to the proverbial “officials,” indirect nuclear talks.
These implications turned to reality on Monday afternoon when Trump allegedly blindsided the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the announcement of a “very big meeting” with Iranian officials in the next few days. Tehran later confirmed the news, with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying he would engage in indirect nuclear negotiations with Witkoff in Oman on Saturday.
It’s as if Trump had at least listened to the arguments exposed by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But then again, he can change his mind in a Trump New York minute.
The finer points of the Russia–Iran–China axis
Essential background to decipher the “Will Russia help Iran” conundrum can be found in these all-too-diplomatic exchanges at the Valdai Club in Moscow.
The key points were made by Alexander Maryasov, Russia’s ambassador to Iran from 2001 to 2005. Maryasov argues that the Russia–Iran treaty is not only a symbolic milestone, but “serves as a roadmap for advancing our cooperation across virtually all domains.” It is more of “a bilateral relations document” – not a defense treaty.
The treaty was extensively discussed – then approved – as a counter-point to “the intensified military-political and economic pressure exerted by western nations on both Russia and Iran.”
The main rationale was how to fight against the sanctions tsunami.
Yet even if it does not constitute a military alliance, the treaty details mutually agreed moves if there is an attack or threats to either nation’s national security – as in Trump’s careless bombing threats against Iran. The treaty also defines the vast scope of military-technical and defense cooperation, including, crucially, regular intel talk.
Maryasov identified the key security points as the Caspian, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and last but not least, West Asia, including the breadth and reach of the Axis of Resistance.
The official Moscow position on the Axis of Resistance is an extremely delicate affair. For instance, let’s look at Yemen. Moscow does not officially recognize the Yemeni resistance government embodied by Ansarallah and with its HQ in the capital Sanaa; rather, it recognizes, just like Washington, a puppet government in Aden, which is in fact housed in a five-star hotel in Riyadh, sponsored by Saudi Arabia.
Last summer two different Yemeni delegations were visiting Moscow. As I witnessed it, the Sanaa delegation faced tremendous bureaucratic problems to clinch official meetings.
There is, of course, sympathy for Ansarallah across Moscow intel and military circles. But as confirmed in Sanaa with a member of the High Political Council, these contacts occur via “privileged channels,” and not institutionally.
The same applies to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which was a key Russian ally in routing ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups during the Syrian war. When it comes to Syria, the only thing that really matters for official Moscow, after the Al-Qaeda-linked extremists took power in Damascus last December, is to preserve the Russian bases in Tartous and Hmeimim.
There’s no question that the Syrian debacle was an extremely serious setback for both Moscow and Tehran, further aggravated by Trump’s non-stop escalation over Iran’s nuclear program and his “maximum pressure” obsession.
The nature of the Russia–Iran treaty differs substantially from that of Russia–China. For Beijing, the partnership with Moscow is so solid, it develops so dynamically, that they don’t even need a treaty: they have a “comprehensive strategic partnership.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, in his recent visit to Russia, after coining a pearl – “those who live in the 21st century but think in Cold War blocs and zero-sum games cannot keep up with the times” – neatly summarized Sino–Russian relations in three vectors: The two Asian giants are “forever friends and never enemies;” Equality and mutually beneficial cooperation; Non-alignment with blocs; Non-confrontation, and non-targeting of third parties. So even as we have a Russia–Iran treaty, between China and Russia, and China and Iran, we have essentially close partnerships.
Witness, for instance, the fifth annual joint Russia–Iran–China naval exercises that took place in the Gulf of Oman in March. This trilateral synergy is not new; it has been under development for years.
But it’s lazy to characterize this improved RIC Primakov triangle (Russia–Iran–China instead of Russia–India–China) as an alliance. The only “alliance” that exists today on the geopolitical chessboard is NATO – a warmongering outfit composed of intimidated vassals corralled together by the Empire of Chaos.
Cue to yet another hard-to-resist Wang Yi jade pearl: “The US is sick but forces others to take the medicine.” Takeaways: Russia is not switching sides; China won’t be encircled; and Iran will be defended.
When the new Primakov triangle meets in Beijing
At the Valdai discussion, Daniyal Meshkin Ranjbar, assistant professor in the Department of Theory and History of International Relations at the Moscow-based RUDN University, made a crucial point: “For the first time in history, the diplomatic outlooks of Russia and Iran converge.” He’s referring to the obvious parallels between official policies: Russia’s “pivot to the east” and Iran’s “look east” policies.
All those interconnections plainly escape the new administration in Washington, as well as bombastic Trump–Netanyahu rhetoric that has zero basis in reality – even the US National Security Council admitted that Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb.
And that brings us to the Big Picture.
The Circus Ringmaster – at least until he changes his mind again – is essentially working on a triangulation deal, allegedly offering Russia a transportation framework, access to grain exports in the Black Sea, and Russian banks off the sanction list of SWIFT so he may execute his “pivot” to then attack Iran (deadline to Tehran included).
And if Russia defends Iran, no deal.
That’s as mendacious as Mafia-style “offer you can’t refuse” maximum pressure can get. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov – an exceptionally able diplomat – destroyed the whole rationale: “Russia cannot accept US proposals to end the war in Ukraine in their current form because they do not solve the problems Moscow considers the cause of the conflict.” Even as Moscow “takes the models and solutions proposed by the Americans very seriously.”
As the Russian angle of Trump’s triangulation falters, Tehran is not merely watching the river flow. How Iran adapted for decades to a sanctions tsunami is now firm knowledge deeply shared with Moscow, part of their deepening cooperation enshrined in the treaty.
For all of Trump’s volatility, non-Zionist-contaminated voices across the Beltway are slowly but surely imprinting the rational view that a war on Iran is absolutely suicidal for the Empire itself. So the odds resurface that Trump 2.0 verbal barrages may be paving the way for a temporary deal that will be spun to death – after all, this is always a battle of narratives – as a diplomatic victory.
Bets can be made that the only leader on the planet capable of making Trump understand reality is Russian President Vladimir Putin, in their next phone call. After all, it is the Circus Ringmaster himself who created the revamped “nuclear Iran” drama. RIC – or the revamped Primakov triangle – duly addressed it, together, in a crucial, discreet, not-publicized recent meeting in Beijing, as confirmed by diplomatic sources.
Essentially, the RIC has developed a “nuclear Iran” road map. These are the highlights:
- Dialogue. No escalation. No “maximum pressure”. Step-by-step moves. Build mutual confidence.
- As Iran re-emphasizes its veto on developing nuclear weapons, the much-debated “international community”, actually the UN Security Council, recognizes, again, Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT.
- Back to the JCPOA – and reboot it. To get Trump back on board, the reboot will be an extremely hard sell.
This roadmap was ratified during a second round of RIC trilateral talks in Moscow on Tuesday, where senior officials from the allied nations discussed collaborative efforts to address the challenges faced by Iran.
That summit in Moscow
As it stands, the road map is just that: a map. The breathless Zionist axis from Washington to Tel Aviv will continue to insist that Iran, if attacked, will not be supported by Russia, and extra, non-stop “maximum pressure” will force Tehran to eventually fold and abandon its support to the Axis of Resistance.
All that, once again, eschews reality. For Moscow, Iran is an absolutely key geopolitical priority; beyond Iran, to the east, is Central Asia. The Zionist obsessive fantasy of regime change in Tehran masks NATO’s then penetrating into Central Asia, building military bases, and at the same time blocking several strategically crucial Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. Iran is as essential to China’s long-term foreign policy as it is to Russia’s.
It’s not by accident that Russia and China will meet at the presidential level – Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping – at a summit in Moscow around 9 May, Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War. They will be analyzing in detail the next stage of “changes that we have not seen in 100 years,” as formulated by Xi to Putin in their groundbreaking 2023 summer in Moscow.
They, of course, will be discussing how the Circus Ringmaster dreams of closing down one Forever War just to start another: the specter of a US–Israel attack on their strategic partner Iran – complete with the counterpunch of blocking the Strait of Hormuz (transit for 24 million barrels of oil a day); a barrel of oil skyrocketing to $200 and even more; and the collapse of the humongous $730 trillion pile of derivatives in the global economy.
No, President Circus Ringmaster: You don’t have the cards.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
The post Russia–Iran–China: All for One, and One for All? appeared first on LewRockwell.
April 15 Provides a Wonderful Lesson on How Government Conditioned Americans to Tyranny
Americans have become so accustomed to living under tyranny that they are probably incapable of recognizing tyranny. Once upon a time, April 15 was the annual day of infamy. It was the day you had to pay your income taxes.
Americans have been subjected to a tax on their working lives for less than half of their existence as a free people, or, to correct myself, as a former free people. With the gradual long-term demise of American education, helped along by the US Department of Education, the content of what Americans know has dramatically changed. Once they knew who they are and the principles on which their liberty rested. Today they know how to play video games, write software for programs that regulate their lives from instructions their cars give them to how the NSA and businesses spy on them. They know movie trivia, the affairs of celebrities, the standings of their college football teams, their golf scores, and the expense of their wives’ remodeling of kitchens and baths.
But they don’t know much else, except the Democrats know that Trump is evil. And America and white people are racist and evil. And there are many genders. And illegal immigrant-invaders have the same, or greater, rights as American citizens. Just ask any Democrat federal district judge. And still Americans vote for Democrats. In other words, the question is: Are the American people capable of self-government?
The historical definition of a free person was a person who owned his own labor. Historically most people were not free. They were either slaves of serfs.
A slave did not own his own labor. His owner did. His owner purchased the slave’s labor when he purchased the slave. He purchased the slave in order to acquire his labor which was needed as there was no available labor force to hire. Instead, producers had to acquire a work force by making a capital investment, not by paying a wage. In place of a wage, producers had to purchase labor by purchasing slaves, often warriors who were captured in the black King of Dahomey’s slave wars. Many black Africans who became slaves in the New World, were the defeated black warriors in Dahomey’s slave wars. Those who themselves were fighting for slaves became, in defeat, slaves.
The fact that a black warrior class, which constituted a percentage the slaves on 19th Southern cotton and tobacco plantations, never revolted, not even when provoked by Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” when no while male adult presence was on the plantations, is proof that the Northern propaganda against the South had hatred of Southerners as its purpose. It is amazing but a fact that the world view of every person on planet Earth is contaminated by propaganda accepted as fact. Almost every narrative people believe is false.
A Medieval serf owned the largest part of his labor. The lord of the manor on which the serf lived had use rights to no more than one-third of the serf’s labor, and serfs had use rights to a portion of the land.
We can look at the lords use rights in the serf’s labor as a form of taxation. A system of use rights predates and is different from a system of alienable rights, rights that can be bought and sold. But if we ignore the exchange, which involved the serfs rights to use the land in exchange for the rights of the lords to use the serfs’ labor, we have the fact that serfs did not own the full portion of their labor. This is the identical position of all peoples who today labor under an income tax.
In other words, the medieval era was brought back to Americans with the income tax in the second decade of the 20th Century.
From their inception until 1913–really until 1918–Americans were still a free people. The income tax introduced in 1913, along with the Federal Reserve–two disastrous events in American history–turned free Americans into the serfs of the government. Your labor, and the income from it, no longer belongs to you. Your feudal lord, your “constitutional democratic” government, has the same claim to your labor as a feudal lord had on a serf’s labor in the medieval era.
The handful of conspirators who snuck a medieval fiscal policy into free America were far more clever than the American population and legislative leaders. They brought the income tax in at such a high threshold and such a low tax rate that no threat was perceived.
Some decades ago I wrote the story. When the constitutional amendment to pass what was an unconstitutional income tax was presented to states for ratification, few states had citizens with sufficient incomes to be subject to income tax. I remember that the Georgia legislature said it had no objection to the income tax, because there was no one in the state with an income large enough to be subject to the tax.
What the state legislatures overlooked is that once an income tax is in place, all that is needed is a “crisis” and down go the thresholds and up go the tax rates. This happened to Americans with the First World War.
Instead of seeing April 15 as the day Americans turn over to a master a share of their year’s working time, Americans experience a bonanza. They get a “tax refund,” a gift from the government in time for their summer vacation. For them, income tax withholding is a form of forced saving. They are overwithheld and denied the use of their money all year and then receive it as a “refund.”
Imagine their view toward the income tax if they had to pay the full amount annually on April 15. If you hadn’t been withheld, you would be faced with an income tax payment the size of a mortgage payment, car payment, and credit card payment combined. Your view toward the government would not be the same as the view that results from being handed a refund.
From the government’s standpoint, this is the advantage of the withholding tax. You never see the money in the first place. Your salary is the take-home amount. The employer pays the tax for you. You file a tax form, and money from the government appears.
Government regards it as wonderful how stupid Americans are, and stupid Americans regard it as wonderful that the government sends them money every year for their summer vacations.
How exactly do you make a government this corrupt and a people this stupid great again?
Prior to the income tax the work force received weekly pay envelops with cash. What workers earned was not recorded in order that it could be taxed by withholding. No one needed a bank. The income tax turned your work time into a criminal offense should you misstate it on your income tax return. Thus, for the first time among a free people a workers work and how he reported it became a possible criminal offense leading to the imprisonment of the “free” worker. If truth be known American taxpayers have been subject to worst punishment than slaves on 19th century cotton plantations.
Yet, after 100 years there are no protests. Serfdom is so institutionalized that it is not recognized.
Taxation has many inequities. I will point out one of them–the narrative of a capital gain. Let’s take the example of a home. Over time house and land prices rise with inflation. For example, when I was in high school the price of an upper middle class house in the city in which I lived was $20,000 – 25,000. After decades of life in the house its value would be much higher. If the property is sold, the government will say you have a capital gain in the price rise. But the price you receive is the replacement cost of the house. You have no gain. Indeed, after closing costs and real estate commission, you cannot replace the property with your net receipts. So where is the gain? The same holds for financial instruments. There is no such thing as a long-term capital gain.
For investment properties you can avoid the capital gains tax by reinvesting the sale proceeds into another investment property, but this avenue is not open to homes used for residence.
There are short-term capital gains from, for example, financial market participants conducting arbitrage or front-running stock trades and making a penny or fraction of a penny per share in large volumes. In reality this is ordinary income from a day’s work.
Americans are accustomed to thinking of inequities in the tax laws in terms of loopholes for the rich, but the worst inequities go beyond the special pleading and lobbying successes of organized interests.
For most of our history the US government was financed by tariffs. If we could return to tariffs as the basis for government revenue, we could regain our freedom.
The post April 15 Provides a Wonderful Lesson on How Government Conditioned Americans to Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.
A Financial Coup: How the Deep State Is Using Manufactured Crises to Seize Power
“This is economic sabotage. Whether through malice or incompetence or, more likely, both Trump is isolating the United States on the world stage, tanking the markets, worsening inflation, and burdening working families with the cost of his 18th-century cosplay. These aren’t policies. They’re performance art. And the rest of us are footing the bill.”—Oregon’s Bay Area (blog post)
What we’re witnessing is the calculated use of emergency powers to concentrate power in the hands of the president, enrich the Deep State, and dismantle what remains of economic and constitutional safeguards.
Nearly 250 years after our nation’s founders rebelled over abused property rights, Americans are once again being subjected to taxation without any real representation, all the while the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little concern for the plight of its citizens.
Nothing has changed for the better with Donald Trump. Indeed, it’s getting worse by the day.
Having inherited one of the strongest economies in the world, President Trump—whose credentials as a businessman include multiple failed business ventures, bankruptcies, and a mountain of debt and unpaid bills—has managed to singlehandedly torch the economy with his misguided tariffs and self-serving schemes, which are being carried out without any oversight or checks from Congress.
Yet it is Congress, not the president, that holds the authority to control government spending.
This is spelled out in the Appropriations Clause, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which establishes a rule of law about how the monies paid to the government by the taxpayers are to be governed, and in the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. In a nutshell, Congress is in charge of accounting for those funds and authorizing how those funds are spent (or not spent).
The founders intended this regulatory power, referred to as the “power of the purse” (to determine what funds can be spent and what funds can be withheld) to serve as a potent check on any government agency that exceeds its authority, especially the executive branch.
As law professor Zachary Price observes, “Given how strong this check is, it may not be surprising that presidents have sought ways to get around it.”
Woven throughout the history of the United States are examples of this constant power struggle.
For instance, Congress used the power of the purse to end the Vietnam War and pull the U.S. military from Lebanon.
Yet while past presidents have sought to expand their authority under the guise of national emergency declarations, Trump simply taken this executive overreach to unprecedented extremes.
Price explains how various presidents from Obama to Biden to Trump have attempted to subvert that same congressional power to press their own agendas, whether by funding the Affordable Care Act, advancing student debt, or as in Trump’s case, by dismantling and defunding agencies funded by Congress.
Executive orders and national emergencies have become a favored tool by which presidents attempt to govern unilaterally. As the Brennan Center reports, presidents have access to 150 such emergency powers, which essentially allow them to become limited dictators with greatly enhanced powers upon declaration of an emergency.
Because the National Emergencies Act does not actually define what constitutes an emergency, presidents have an incredible amount of room to wreak constitutional mischief on the citizenry.
While presidents on both sides of the aisle have abused these powers, Trump is attempting to test the limits of these emergency powers by declaring a national emergency anytime he wants to sidestep Congress and quickly impose his will on the nation.
Trump’s liberal use of emergency powers to sidestep the rule of law underscores the danger they pose to our constitutional system of checks and balances.
Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has used his presidential emergency powers in a multitude of ways in order to mount brazen power grabs thinly disguised as concerns for national security, thereby allowing him to justify tapping into the nation’s natural resources, rounding up and deporting vast numbers of migrants (both documented and undocumented), and imposing duties and tariffs against longtime allies and trade partners.
Thus far, the Republican-controlled Congress, which has the power to terminate an emergency with a two-thirds vote, has done nothing to rein in Trump’s dictatorial tendencies.
These unchecked powers aren’t just a threat to the balance of government—they have immediate, devastating consequences for the economy and working Americans.
Economists fear the ramifications of Trump’s latest national emergency, which he claims will usher in “the golden age of America” through the imposition of heavy tariffs on foreign nations, could push the U.S. and the rest of the world into a major recession by inciting a global trade-war, isolating America economically from the rest of the world, and flat-lining businesses that had expected to boom.
Fears of a recession are growing stronger by the hour.
In addition to sabotaging the economy, laying off tens of thousands of federal employees and dismantling those parts of government which serve the interests of working-class Americans, as well as its aging, disabled and homeless populations, Trump and his cabal of billionaire buddies are dismantling the few remaining checks on public and private corruption—fueling corporate greed at every turn.
This is how the man who promised to drain the swamp continues to mire us in the swamp.
Meanwhile, taxpayers—whose retirement savings have taken a nosedive—are expected to foot the bill to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for Trump’s frequent golf trips to his own golf courses (he’s also charging exorbitant rates to Secret Service to stay at his properties while protecting him), his multimillion-dollar photo ops at the Super Bowl and the Daytona 500, his desire to redo the White House gardens and build a $100 million ballroom, and his latest demand for a costly military parade in honor of his 79th birthday.
While President Trump may talk a good game about his plans for making America richer, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the only person he’s making richer—at taxpayer expense—is himself.
This fiscal insanity, coupled with Trump’s imperialistic and tyrannical ambitions, echoes the very abuses that drove America’s founders to rebel against King George III.
In other words, the government is still robbing us blind.
Trump hasn’t reined in the government’s greed—he’s just been using a different playbook to get the same result: beg, borrow or steal, the government wants more of our hard-earned dollars any way it can get it.
This is what comes of those multi-trillion dollar spending bills: someone’s got to foot the bill for the government’s fiscal insanity, and that “someone” is always the U.S. taxpayer.
The government’s schemes to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars have run the gamut from wasteful pork barrel legislation, cronyism and graft to asset forfeiture, costly stimulus packages, and a national security complex that continues to undermine our freedoms while failing to making us any safer.
Americans have also been made to pay through the nose for the government’s endless wars, subsidization of foreign nations, military empire, welfare state, roads to nowhere, bloated workforce, secret agencies, fusion centers, private prisons, biometric databases, invasive technologies, arsenal of weapons, and every other budgetary line item that is contributing to the fast-growing wealth of the corporate elite at the expense of those who are barely making ends meet—that is, we the taxpayers.
Trump, a master at saying one thing and doing another, has made a great show of touting his claims to cutting back on government spending through crippling cuts that will impact almost every sector of the American landscape. However, what Trump fails to mention are all the costly big-budget items he’s tacking on that will not only consume his modest claims to saving money by axing essential programs but further mire the country in debt.
Indeed, Trump, the self-proclaimed “debt king,” has presided over one of the most reckless expansions of government spending in modern history while posturing as a fiscal conservative.
Consider that during Trump’s first term, the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion.
According to ProPublica, “That’s nearly twice as much as what Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and every other type of debt other than mortgages, combined… It amounts to about $23,500 in new federal debt for every person in the country. The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration… And unlike George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, who oversaw the larger relative increases in deficits, Trump did not launch two foreign conflicts or have to pay for a civil war.”
If Trump’s first term was a preview, his second is a full-blown financial coup—waged against the American people with borrowed money.
Let’s talk numbers, shall we?
The national debt (the amount the federal government has borrowed over the years and must pay back) is more than $36 trillion and will grow another $19 trillion by 2033.
The bulk of that debt has been amassed over the past two decades, thanks in large part to the fiscal shenanigans of four presidents, 10 sessions of Congress and two wars.
It’s estimated that the amount this country owes is now 130% greater than its gross domestic product (all the products and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens).
In other words, the government is spending more than it brings in and, in the process, drowning us in an empire of debt.
Interest payments on the national debt are more than $582 billion, which is significantly more than the government spends on veterans’ benefits and services, and according to Pew Research Center, more than it will spend on elementary and secondary education, disaster relief, agriculture, science and space programs, foreign aid, and natural resources and environmental protection combined.
According to the Committee for a Reasonable Federal Budget, the interest we’ve paid on this borrowed money is “nearly twice what the federal government will spend on transportation infrastructure, over four times as much as it will spend on K-12 education, almost four times what it will spend on housing, and over eight times what it will spend on science, space, and technology.”
In ten years, those interest payments will exceed our entire military budget.
This isn’t governance. It’s looting—by legislation, debt, and design.
We’ve been sold a bill of goods by politicians who promise to pay down the debt, rebuild the economy, and protect our freedoms—but deliver only more debt and more control.
Indeed, the national deficit (the difference between what the government spends and the revenue it takes in) remains at more than $1.5 trillion.
According to the number crunchers with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in order to spend money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford, the government is borrowing roughly $6 billion a day.
Basically, the U.S. government is funding its existence with a credit card.
If Americans managed their personal finances the way the government mismanages the nation’s finances, we’d all be in debtors’ prison by now.
Despite the government propaganda being peddled by the politicians and news media, however, the government isn’t spending our tax dollars to make our lives better.
We’re being robbed blind so the governmental elite can get richer.
This is financial tyranny.
In the eyes of the government, “we the people, the voters, the consumers, and the taxpayers” are little more than pocketbooks waiting to be picked.
“We the people” have become the new, permanent underclass in America.
We have no real say in how the government runs, or in how our tax dollars are spent, but we’re being forced to pay through the nose, anyhow.
We have no real say, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn and forcing us to pay for endless wars that do more to fund the military industrial complex than protect us, pork barrel projects that produce little to nothing, and a police state that serves only to imprison us within its walls.
While we’re struggling to get by, and making tough decisions about how to spend what little money actually makes it into our pockets after the federal, state and local governments take their share (this doesn’t include the stealth taxes imposed through tolls, fines and other fiscal penalties), the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little thought for the plight of its citizens.
And now Trump, eager to do away with goods and services for the poor and needy while imposing a greater tax burden on the working-class citizenry (a burden not shared by the nation’s financial elite), wants $1 trillion for the military so it can be even more lethal and prepared to unleash violence around the globe.
That’s in addition to the nearly $1 billion the Pentagon has already spent on Trump’s largely futile bombing campaign in Yemen.
Incredibly, all of these wars the U.S. is so eager to fight abroad are being waged with borrowed funds. As The Atlantic reports, “U.S. leaders are essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”
Of course, we the taxpayers are the ones who have to repay that borrowed debt.
As Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in a 1953 speech, this is how the military industrial complex continues to get richer, while the American taxpayer is forced to pay for programs that do little to protect our rights or improve our lives.
This is no way of life.
Once again, we have a despotic regime with an imperial ruler doing as they please.
Once again, we have a judicial system that insists we have no rights in the face of a government that demands total compliance.
And once again, we’ve got to decide whether we’ll keep footing the bill for tyranny.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if you have no choice, no voice, and no real say over how your money is used, you’re not free. You’re being ruled.
This is no longer the American dream. It’s a financial nightmare.
As political analyst Robert Reich warns, “Make no mistake about what’s really going on here. While the United States has plenty of real problems to deal with, Trump is ignoring them to manufacture the fake emergencies he needs to further enlarge and centralize his power. America’s real national emergency is Donald J. Trump.”
Until we push back, this nightmare will only deepen.
This originally appeared on The Rutherford Institute.
The post A Financial Coup: How the Deep State Is Using Manufactured Crises to Seize Power appeared first on LewRockwell.
An Economic Advisor’s Weird Theory
Steve Miran is the Chairman of President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors.
CEA Chairman Steve Miran Hudson Institute Event Remarks – The White House, Apr 7 2025
Today I’d like to discuss the United States’ provision of what economists call “global public goods,” for the entire world. First, the United States provides a security umbrella which has created the greatest era of peace mankind has ever known. Second, the U.S. provides the dollar and Treasury securities, reserve assets which make possible the global trading and financial system which has supported the greatest era of prosperity mankind has ever known.
…
Let me clarify that by “reserve currency,” I mean all the international functions of the dollar—private savings and trade included. I’ve often used the example that when private agents in two separate foreign countries trade with each other, it’s typically denominated in dollars because of America’s status as the reserve provider. That trade entails savings housed in dollar securities, often Treasurys. As a result of all this, Americans have been paying for peace and prosperity not just for themselves, but for non-Americans too.
…
I’m an economist and not a military strategist, so I’ll dwell more on trade than on defense, but the two are deeply connected. To see how it works, imagine two foreign nations, say China and Brazil, trading with each other. Neither country has a currency that is trusted, liquid, and convertible, which makes trading with each other challenging. However, because they can transact in U.S. dollars backed by U.S. Treasuries, they are able to trade freely with each other and prosper. Such trade can only occur because of U.S. military might ensuring our financial stability and the credibility of our borrowing. Our military and financial dominance cannot be taken for granted; and the Trump Administration is determined to preserve them.
From an economic standpoint the theory Miran describes is bonkers. “Savings housed in dollar securities, often Treasurys” are not U.S. savings as he implies. They are money the U.S. has borrowed, i.e. the savings of foreigners.
His example of the U.S. dollar enabling trade between Brazil and China is just as wrong as his treasuries theory:
Brazil, China ditch US dollar for trade payments, favour yuan – News.au, Mar 31 2023
Brazil has just cut a deal with China to ditch the US dollar when paying each other for trade goods. It’s the latest victory in Beijing’s long-term drive to stomp on the greenback and establish the yuan as the dominant international currency.
The deal, announced Thursday, has revived concerns about the US dollar’s future.
Brazil and China will directly exchange payments without first converting their currencies to a trusted third-party economy.
That’s the traditional role of the greenback.
These ain’t just small numbers:
According to Chinese customs statistics, the bilateral trade volume between China and Brazil in 2023 was US$181.53 billion, a year-on-year increase of 6.1 percent. Of this, China’s exports to Brazil amounted to US$59.11 billion, a year-on-year decrease of 4.3 percent, while imports from Brazil totaled US$122.42 billion, a year-on-year increase of 11.9 percent.
Brazil is not alone in doing this. Several other big countries, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc., have dropped U.S. Dollar intermediation in trade with China.
The Trump administration is aware of the problem:
Elon Musk @elonmusk – 22:51 UTC · Mar 29, 2023
Serious issue. US policy has been too heavy-handed, making countries want to ditch the dollar.
Combined with excess government spending, which forces other countries to absorb a significant part of our inflation
Steve Miran says the U.S. military ensures the “financial stability and the credibility” of U.S. borrowing. It does so only in that it destroys small countries which are trying to turn away from trading in dollars. Iraq and Libya are prime examples of this.
Brazil and China are too big to extort them. The consequences of Trump’s tariff mania will show that again.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
The post An Economic Advisor’s Weird Theory appeared first on LewRockwell.
The Selective Morality of the Christian Social Justice Left and Right
I’ve spent decades—starting long before I founded the Vulnerable People Project—working for apostolates that had me talking to anyone who would listen about the vulnerable and their need for the support of Americans like you and me. We who find ourselves in positions of relative privilege and power owe it to our vulnerable brothers and sisters to defend their dignity when they find themselves powerless and under threat.
But after all these years, I’ve come to a sad conclusion: the bleeding-heart Christian social justice Left and the bold, assertive Christian Right are both willing to vigorously defend the vulnerable only when it doesn’t threaten their first-world privileges. Each side champions the vulnerable, but their fervor comes in waves, and it always stops short when the demands of justice come close to the feet of their most cherished idols.
I have been fighting for legal protection for the child in the womb for over 30 years. I have also been a vocal advocate for noncombatants in war zones, criticizing not only the United States—my article “Flying Into the Abyss on John Brennan’s Drone” being a prime example—but also Russia, and, most recently, Israel for their indiscriminate violence and ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
As a conservative, I once again find myself in strange company, as I did some 20 years ago when I opposed the invasion of Iraq.
I am embarrassed to point out the inconsistencies of Christians, Left and Right. I know these people, many are my friends, and it’s obvious they’re truly better Christians than I am. Ask my lawyer, who is right now in the middle of getting me out of trouble for a bar fight. It’s baffling that fine, upstanding Christians who live holy lives can cling to opposite but equally violent ideologies while a personally volatile and hypocritical Christian like me is not tempted to either error.
It is striking when I am in a church basement listening to a mainline Protestant pastor speak eloquently on protecting the vulnerable. “Every life matters,” she says. I agree with every word. But I find it mind-numbing and incomprehensible when I have to remind myself that this same speaker supports abortion for all nine months. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
In the same way, when I find myself in a megachurch for a pro-life event, and I listen to the pastor speak beautifully on human dignity, how every life is worthy of protection, and how we must stand with the vulnerable. I have to blink and scratch my head, knowing this same man makes genocidal comments like, “Flatten Gaza!” and declares that “Palestinians have the spirit of Amalek.” The inconsistencies are insane.
The Christian social justice Left is willing to sacrifice economic interests and protest foreign wars, often with genuine passion for justice. They march against the brutalities of imperialism, the exploitation of the poor, and the ravaging of the environment. They seek to hold the powerful accountable when it comes to policies that oppress marginalized communities and violate human dignity.
But their compassion has a blind spot. While they claim to stand with the weak, they refuse to relinquish sexual libertinism for the common good. For all their fiery rhetoric against oppression, they often vigorously advocate for abortion-on-demand, without exceptions. The defenseless child in the womb is the most vulnerable among us, yet their lives are discarded in the name of autonomy and convenience.
The post The Selective Morality of the Christian Social Justice Left and Right appeared first on LewRockwell.
U.S. Economic Model Wasn’t Sustainable
As I am writing this from London, I will temporarily adopt the useful British expression “chattering class” to describe the people who are currently freaking out in the media about President Trump’s tariff policy causing the S&P 500 to sell off to where it was in February 2024.
Because the stock market has only gone up since 2009 (when it was 768), the chattering class has grown accustomed to it only going up and it perceives the loss of a year’s gains to be the end of the world.
This reaction is itself an expression of how detached from reality the chattering class has become since 2009, when the Treasury and Federal Reserve bailed out the very Wall Street bankers who caused the Financial Crisis of 2008.
Ever since then, all U.S. government and Federal Reserve policies have been for the benefit of the asset-owning class. The American working class simply hasn’t counted, while the middle class (who live mostly from their salaries) has been under constant pressure with the rising cost of housing, healthcare, and college education.
To see what I mean, take a look at the following graph expressing non-existent real wage growth for the last forty years.
It’s true that the working and middle classes have been able to save money by purchasing cheap consumer goods from China. In recent years I have frequently marveled at the low price of textiles and sneakers sold at Costco. As I write, I am wearing a Jim-Dandy pair of navy IZOD sneakers made in China that I purchased at Costco for $15. How it is possible for IZOD and Costco to make any money on this transaction—never mind the Chinese factory owner and the poor Chinese laborers—is beyond me.
Though I don’t pretend to understand “the dismal science” of economics, my common sense tells me that it is unsustainable for the majority of Americans to produce nothing and go ever deeper into debt while consoling themselves that the price of consumer goods manufactured in China remains cheap.
That said, I also doubt that this mess can be unwound quickly. While an economic system is not precisely the same as a natural system, it bears a strong resemblance. Nothing in nature can be radically altered in a short period of time without producing all manner of consequences, many unforeseen.
I suspect that Trump and his advisors have been wargaming their current game of chicken with the Chinese, the financial markets, and the inveterate weenies who infest the mainstream media. An optimistic interpretation is that his tariffs are the opening gambit for negotiations.
Sort of like Saint George, Trump is apparently determined to enter a jousting tournament with the great Chinese Dragon, and it will be interesting to see if he prevails. Who will flinch—the Trump administration or the Chinese Communist Party?
On a strictly personal note, I cannot help but admire the sheer nerve of President Trump. He reminds me of the Spanish bullfighter Juan “Pirata” Padilla, who frequently kneels before a charging bull—sometimes even with his back turned to the animal.
To understand how much nerve this requires, consider that the mere sight of an enraged Toro Bravo would dissuade most people from even stepping into the arena.
I know, I know, being President of the United States isn’t the same as being a Spanish bullfighter. However, going back to my original thesis that the U.S. economic model of the last forty years hasn’t been sustainable: Many reasonable people have been pointing this out for years, but no one in Washington has had the guts to do anything about it until now.
America’s asset-owning class has not had to endure any discomfort since 2009, but some discomfort is an inevitable part of living in the real world. Long before the summer of 1789, many reasonable observers in France understood that the privileges of the ancien régime were unsustainable. However, no one from the ancien régime had the guts to tell his social class that it would need to accept some loss of comfort in order to survive.
This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.
The post U.S. Economic Model Wasn’t Sustainable appeared first on LewRockwell.
Is Foreign Imprisonment for US Citizens on the Horizon?
The video below, with Judge Andrew Napolitano and his guest Aaron Maté, discusses some extremely disconcerting developments treating to President Trump’s deportation and foreign imprisonment policies, and their naked threats to civil liberties of citizens and non-citizens alike. Trump is not only deporting to foreign prisons hundreds (soon to be thousands) of illegal aliens for real crimes committed on US soil (which, by and of itself, has some precedent, though this tranche of criminals is being deprived of all due process in their summary removal). He is also having legal resident green card holders deported for very specious offenses which basically are the exercising of first amendment rights which umpteen court cases have determined to be constitutionally applicable to ALL legal residents, citizens or not. And all of the people listed above are being shanghaied out of the country without an initial hearing as a prelude to any deportation, which was confirmed this week by all nine Supreme Court justices as a violation of basic due process.
All of this is extremely dangerous and establishes very bad precedent, but it only sets the stage for much worse abuses of American citizens in the near future. At about the 13 minute mark, President Trump is actually shown saying – openly, and without even the slightest hint of a thought that this is not a good thing! – that American *citizens* committing grave crimes can be similarly deported to El Salvador and other hell-holes that the non-citizens are being sent to, in order to serve their sentences! Whoa!
Look, this is earth-shatteringly vile, and beyond dangerous. It is a massive violation of constitutional law, international precedents, and a direct abuse of presidential authority. Furthermore, as Judge Napolitano points out immediately after Trump’s words, everything he mentions as examples would involve state, not federal, courts for adjudication, so the overall scenario Trump paints is stretching even thinner the distinction between federal and state jurisdictions.
No matter how horrible or shocking a crime might be, there is absolutely ZERO precedent or legal justification for remanding *American citizens* to foreign prisons for crimes committed within the United States. Upon conviction, such criminals are to be punished within the state (or federal, when actually applicable) prison systems. Period.
MAGA had better pay attention to what’s going on here. Pandering to the law-and-order crowd, which is a major part of the MAGA movement, should be condemned by all of us in this instance. What Trump proposes is morally and legally repellent, and is an obvious scenario ripe for boomeranging against any of us, under arbitrary circumstances. If vile criminals who are American citizens can be treated this way, the door is open to water down the criteria for what constitutes a heinous crime in the first place. Indeed, if legal residents with a green card are already being deported without a hearing for merely speaking their minds about controversial political subjects, how long will it be before American citizens are dealt with similarly? Does summary deportation and/or foreign imprisonment for American citizens cause concern for you? Well, how about this: will contrived thought-crimes loom in the future for American citizens who run afoul of ever-increasing, arbitrary standards for what constitutes acceptable public discourse, with similar deportation “solutions”?
And (this is the part MAGA better wake up and “get” real quick!), people can say this is no big deal because they support Trump, and thus have nothing to fear, but political winds change frequently in the US, and inevitably there will be a Democrat administration installed who can use the by-then established legal precedents Trump established, and start arresting and deporting to foreign prison hell-holes oh…say… pro-life activists, or people who object to DEI, or transgenderism, or a host of other things that could be cited as liable to this “jurisprudential remedy”! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that!
This must be opposed, by all of us. It is a non-starter on moral and constitutional grounds, and on a purely pragmatic level, leaves all Americans potentially subject to this sort of treatment as political majorities shift back and forth. A greater sign of the end of constitutional government could hardly be imagined; and no greater gateway to overt tyranny could trump (no pun intended) what’s left of our civil liberties.
Please, for heaven’s sake, watch the video below, and ruminate long and hard on the implications surrounding this issue, for both citizens and non-citizens alike.
The post Is Foreign Imprisonment for US Citizens on the Horizon? appeared first on LewRockwell.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_euoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/exr24_eu_en_2.gif)
Commenti recenti
5 settimane 2 giorni fa
6 settimane 6 giorni fa
7 settimane 4 giorni fa
11 settimane 5 giorni fa
14 settimane 5 giorni fa
16 settimane 5 giorni fa
18 settimane 3 giorni fa
23 settimane 5 giorni fa
24 settimane 2 giorni fa
28 settimane 16 ore fa