Aggregatore di feed

Legendary award-winning filmmaker and political activist turned freedom fighter, Aaron Russo, left us an explosive legacy before his passing. In a never-before-seen interview that challenges official narratives and lays bare the hidden threads of power, this award-winning filmmaker and freedom fighter offers a chilling glimpse into how the global system operates from the shadows. In this 2007 interview with Alex Jones, conducted shortly before his passing after a prolonged battle with cancer, Russo offers a deep and revealing analysis of the conversations he had with his friend Nick Rockefeller. Throughout the conversation, he unravels an intricate web of corruption, financial control, and government manipulation that has subjugated not only the United States, but also the rest of the world.

An Unexpected Journey Toward Truth

Aaron Russo’s story begins as a successful entrepreneur and creative visionary. He pioneered the women’s fashion industry, creating the first bikini bottoms for women in 1963, and later founded the Electric Theater in Chicago, a nightclub that became a haven for hippies during the turbulent 1968 Democratic Convention. But it was precisely there that Russo experienced what he calls “my awakening.”

Russo, a man who always championed individuality and freedom, tells us how his awakening was not a singular event, but a progression of realizing the growing inhibitions of the government. One key incident, the senseless raid on his Chicago nightclub, opened his eyes to systemic corruption, although he initially thought it was a local problem. The falsification of facts by authorities and the subsequent extortion by the police were a brutal education in the true nature of power. “That was my awakening,” Russo confesses. “I thought this was America. I thought we lived in a country where there was justice.”

This incident marked the beginning of a personal transformation that would lead Russo to question everything from tax policies to the very structure of the American government. “At first, I thought it was just Chicago,” he reflects. “But then I realized this wasn’t local; it was systemic.“

But Russo’s insight transcended local corruption. Through his research for the film “America: Freedom to Fascism,” he exposed the core of the system:

• The Federal Reserve is a private bank that controls the issuance of money, forcing the government to borrow and tax the labor of citizens to pay interest to these private bankers. In 1980, Ronald Reagan stated that not one cent of income tax would go to the nation, but directly to the Federal Reserve.
• The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is a symptom of this problem, and although Russo acknowledges that the Supreme Court has ruled it lacks the authority to tax labor and wages based on the 16th Amendment, he advises paying taxes for fear of retaliation, comparing it to paying the mob.
• We are led to believe that we live in a democracy, but this is an orchestrated lie. The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, envisioning us as a constitutional republic where individual rights are protected from the will of the majority. Democracy is the rule of the 51% over the 49%, while in a republic, the 99% cannot take away the rights of the 1%.

But Russo’s vision delves even deeper into the shadows, revealing a sinister agenda for the future, directly from an insider: Nick Rockefeller. According to Russo, the banking industry’s ultimate plan is the creation of a one-world government, controlled by them, through of stages such as the European Union and the attempt at the North American Union.

A Look Inside the Elite

According to Russo, Rockefeller contacted him after seeing one of his videos critical of the establishment. What followed was an unusual relationship: while they enjoyed dinners and philosophical conversations, Rockefeller attempted to recruit him as part of the global elite, offering him business deals and even membership in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The real intention was to silence his dissenting voice and make him part of his plan.

However, this closeness gave Russo access to chilling information. In one of the most explosive revelations, Rockefeller confessed to him eleven months before 9/11 that there would be a catastrophic event that would justify military invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the implementation of massive control measures under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

“He told me there would be an event, although he never specified what it would be,” Russo recounted. “From that event, we would invade Afghanistan to build pipelines from the Caspian Sea, invade Iraq to seize the oil fields, and establish bases in the Middle East.”

According to Russo, it was clear that the alleged terrorist act was a massive hoax without a tangible enemy, part of a carefully designed strategy to establish a regime of fear and control over both the American and global population. He maintains that 9/11 was carried out by individuals within the government and banking system to instill terror and subjugate citizens.

“The war on terror is a total fraud,” he stated emphatically. “There is no one to defeat. It’s endless because it’s designed to be. That way they can do whatever they want to the American people.”

Another disturbing aspect of the interview is Rockefeller’s portrayal of women’s liberation as a deliberate tool to break up families and increase tax revenue. According to Russo, Rockefeller admitted that the Rockefeller Foundation funded feminist movements not for noble ideals, but to achieve two main goals:

• Taxing the half of the population that previously didn’t work outside the home.
• Disintegrating the family structure by sending children to school at an early age, where they could be indoctrinated to view the state as their primary guardian.

This strategy, according to Russo, has had devastating effects on marginalized communities, especially among Black families in the United States, where illegitimacy rates have jumped from 10% decades ago to 90% today due to welfare policies that discourage men from being in the home.

Rockefeller also openly discussed with Russo the elite’s ultimate agenda:

• The reduction of the world’s population. He expressed concern that there was an excess of people on the planet and advocated for a drastic decrease in population, suggesting it should be cut in half.
• The implantation of microchips to control society. This chip, he explained, would serve as a universal identification system that would allow bankers and rulers to monitor and regulate every aspect of our lives. “It’s part of their plan to establish a centralized world government.”
• The elimination of physical money. These chips would store all of an individual’s financial and personal information, allowing absolute control over the population. “If you protest or rebel, they simply turn off your chip,” he warns. “Without access to money or basic resources, you instantly become a pariah.”

It’s astonishing to see how his 2007 predictions are materializing today. Indeed, all of these points have been fulfilled since 2021. People continue to die by the thousands around the world as a result of vaccines; microchips were already implemented in 2021, with the introduction of graphene-based nanotechnology; and the elimination of cash and the introduction of a currency are gradually being implemented in all countries.

Continuing the interview, Rockefeller hinted that those who possess certain privileges within this new order would have immunity from common laws. For example, he mentioned that there are special cards (“KMA,” or “Kiss My Ass”) that guarantee legal protection for members of the elite, exempting them from fines, arrests, and other legal consequences.

Perhaps Russo’s most forceful criticism is directed at the Federal Reserve, the central bank he claims is responsible for the United States’ massive debt and loss of economic sovereignty. He denounced the government’s borrowing from private bankers when it could issue its own interest-free currency.

The Origin of the Modern Crisis

Russo begins by pointing to a pivotal point in American history: 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was founded. According to him, this event marked the beginning of an economic and moral collapse that has brought the country to the brink. Before the creation of the Fed, Russo asserts, the United States lived in an era of economic stability without significant inflation. A dollar had the same value for decades, allowing families to plan their lives with confidence. However, since 1913, everything has changed.

And make no mistake, this inflation is no accident. It’s a deliberate tool! By printing unbacked money, these bankers have devalued our currency, forcing the working class into deeper debt and becoming less competitive globally. This is a war on the middle class!

Russo doesn’t stop at criticizing only the Federal Reserve; he goes further, pointing out how this institution is interconnected with other global central banks. “The bankers own the United States Congress,” he declares, quoting Senator Dick Durbin, who publicly admitted that bank lobbyists have absolute control over Capitol Hill. But the dominance of these actors is not limited to the US. According to Russo, the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland acts as the “central bank of all central banks,” coordinating efforts to establish a world government under the control of a financial elite.

This elite, made up of families like the Rockefellers, uses its influence to control and manipulate both the economy and politics, creating false divisions between left and right so that we don’t see the true puppet masters who are above all else. “It doesn’t matter if a Republican or a Democrat wins; both parties are bought,” Russo asserts. His vision is clear: to create a world where institutions replace people as the dominant actors, eliminating any vestige of individual sovereignty.

Read the Whole Article

The post We Are Facing the Most Dangerous Totalitarian Movement in History appeared first on LewRockwell.

read the news today, oh boy. About a lucky man named Elon Musk. But he lost out on one thing: he didn’t get a top secret briefing on Pentagon war plans for China. And the news people breathed a sigh of relief.

With apologies to John Lennon and The Beatles, a day in the life is getting increasingly tough to take here in the land of the free. I’m meant to be reassured that Musk didn’t get to see America’s top-secret plans for — yes! — going to war with China, even as I’m meant to ignore the constant drumbeat of propaganda, the incessant military marches that form America’s background music, conveying the message that America must have war plans for China, that indeed war in or around China is possible, even probable, in the next decade. Maybe in 2027?

My fellow Americans, we should be far more alarmed by such secret U.S. war plans, along with those “pivots” to Asia and the Indo-Pacific, and the military base-building efforts in the Philippines, than reassured by the “good news” that Comrade Billionaire Musk was denied access to the war room, meaning (for Dr. Strangelove fans) he didn’t get to see “the big board.”

It’s war, war, everywhere in America. We do indeed have a strange love for it. I’ve been writing for TomDispatch for 18 years now — this is my 111th essay (the other 110 are in a new book of mine) — most of them focusing on militarism in this country, as well as our disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the ruinous weapons systems we continue to fund (including new apocalyptic nuclear weapons), and the war song that seems to remain ever the same.

A few recent examples of what I mean: President Trump has already bombed Yemen more than once. He’s already threatening Iran. He’s sending Israel all the explosives, all the weaponry it needs to annihilate the Palestinians in Gaza (so too, of course, did Joe Biden). He’s boasting of building new weapons systems like the Air Force’s much-hyped F-47 fighter jet, the “47” designation being an apparent homage by its builder, Boeing, to Trump himself, the 47th president. He and his “defense” secretary, Pete Hegseth, continually boast of “peace through strength,” an Orwellian construction that differs little from “war is peace.” And I could, of course, go on and on and on and on…

Occasionally, Trump sounds a different note. When Tulsi Gabbard became the director of national intelligence, he sang a dissonant note about a “warmongering military-industrial complex.” And however haphazardly, he does seem to be working for some form of peace with respect to the Russia-Ukraine War. He also talks about his fear of a cataclysmic nuclear war. Yet, if you judge him by deeds rather than words, he’s just another U.S. commander-in-chief enamored of the military and military force (whatever the cost, human or financial).

Consider here the much-hyped Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by that lucky man Elon Musk. Even as it dismantles various government agencies like the Department of Education and USAID, it has — no surprise here! — barely touched the Pentagon and its vast, nearly trillion-dollar budget. In fact, if a Republican-controlled Congress has any say in the matter, the Pentagon budget will likely be boosted significantly for Fiscal Year 2026 and thereafter. As inefficient as the Pentagon may be (and we really don’t know just how inefficient it is, since the bean counters there keep failing audit after audit, seven years running), targeted DOGE Pentagon cuts have been tiny. That means there’s little incentive for the generals to change, streamline their operations, or even rethink in any significant fashion. It’s just spend, spend, spend until the money runs out, which I suppose it will eventually, as the national debt soars toward $37 trillion and climbing.

Even grimmer than that, possibly, is America’s state of mind, our collective zeitgeist, the spirit of this country. That spirit is one in which a constant state of war (and preparations for more of the same) is accepted as normal. War, to put it bluntly, is our default state. It’s been that way since 9/11, if not before then. As a military historian, I’m well aware that the United States is, in a sense, a country made by war. It’s just that today we seem even more accepting of that reality, or resigned to it, than we’ve ever been. What gives?

Remember when, in 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace said, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever”? Fortunately, after much struggle and bloodshed, he was proven wrong. So, can we change the essential American refrain of war now, war tomorrow, and war forever? Can we render that obsolete? Or is that too much to hope for or ask of America’s “exceptional” democracy?

Taking on the MICIMATT(SH)

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern did America a great service when he came up with the acronym MICIMATT, or the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex, an extension of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex, or MIC (from his farewell speech in 1961). Along with the military and industry (weapons makers like Boeing and Lockheed Martin), the MICIMATT adds Congress (which Eisenhower had in his original draft speech but deleted in the interest of comity), the intelligence “community” (18 different agencies), the media (generally highly supportive of wars and weapons spending), academia (which profits greatly from federal contracts, especially research and development efforts for yet more destructive weaponry), and think tanks (which happily lap up Pentagon dollars to tell us the “smart” position is always to prepare for yet more war).

You’ll note, however, that I’ve added a parenthetical SH to McGovern’s telling acronym. The S is for America’s sporting world, which eternally gushes about how it supports and honors America’s military, and Hollywood, which happily sells war as entertainment (perhaps the best known and most recent film being Tom Cruise’s Top Gun: Maverick, in which an unnamed country that everyone knows is Iran gets its nuclear ambitions spanked by a plucky team of U.S. Naval pilots). A macho catchphrase from the original Top Gun was “I feel the need — the need for speed!” It may as well have been: I feel the need — the need for pro-war propaganda!

Yes, MICIMATT(SH) is an awkward acronym, yet it has the virtue of capturing some of the still-growing power, reach, and cultural penetration of Ike’s old MIC. It should remind us that it’s not just the military and the weapons-makers who are deeply invested in war and — yes! — militarism. It’s Congress; the CIA; related intel “community” members; the mainstream media (which often relies on retired generals and admirals for “unbiased” pro-war commentary); academia (consider how quickly institutions like Columbia University have bent the knee to Trump); and think tanks — in fact, all those “best and brightest” who advocate for war with China, the never-ending war on terror, war everywhere.

But perhaps the “soft power” of the sporting world and Hollywood is even more effective at selling war than the hard power of bombs and bullets. National Football League coaches patrol the sidelines wearing camouflage, allegedly to salute the troops. Military flyovers at games celebrate America’s latest death-dealing machinery. Hollywood movies are made with U.S. military cooperation and that military often has veto power over scripts. To cite only one example, the war movie 12 Strong (2018) turned the disastrous Afghan War that lasted two horrendous decades into a stunningly quick American victory, all too literally won by U.S. troops riding horses. (If only the famed cowboy actor John Wayne had still been alive to star in it!)

The MICIMATT(SH), employing millions of Americans, consuming trillions of dollars, and churning through tens of thousands of body bags for U.S. troops over the years, while killing millions of people abroad, is an almost irresistible force. And right now, it seems like there’s no unmovable object to blunt it.

Believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve written dozens of “Tomgrams” suggesting steps America could take to reverse militarism and warmongering. As I look over those essays, I see what still seem to me sensible ideas, but they die quick deaths in the face of, if not withering fire from the MICIMATT(SH), then being completely ignored by those who matter.

And while this country has a department of war (disguised as a department of defense), it has no department of peace. There’s no budget anywhere for making peace, either. We do have a colossal Pentagon that houses 30,000 workers, feverishly making war plans they won’t let Elon Musk (or any of us) see.  It’s for their eyes only, not yours, though they may well ask you or your kids to serve in the military, because the best-laid plans of those war-men do need lots of warm bodies, even if those very plans almost invariably (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) go astray.

So, to repeat myself, how do you take on the MICIMATT(SH)? The short answer: It’s not easy, but I know of a few people who had some inspirational ideas.

On Listening to Ike, JFK, MLK, and, Yes, Madison, Too

Militarism isn’t exactly a new problem in America. Consider Randolph Bourne’s 1918 critique of war as “the health of the state,” or General Smedley Butler’s confession in the 1930s that “war is a racket” run by the “gangsters of capitalism.” In fact, many Americans have, over the years, spoken out eloquently against war and militarism. Many beautiful and moving songs have asked us to smile on your brother and “love one another right now.” War, as Edwin Starr sang so powerfully once upon a time, is good for “absolutely nothin’,” though obviously a lot of people disagree and indeed are making a living by killing and preparing for yet more of it.

And that is indeed the problem. Too many people are making too much money off of war. As Smedley Butler wrote so long ago: “Capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people — those who do the suffering and still pay the price — make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.” Pretty simple, right? Until you realize that those whom we elect are largely obedient to the moneyed class because the highest court in our land has declared that money is speech. Again, I didn’t say it was going to be easy. Nor did Butler.

As a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, I want to end my 111th piece at TomDispatch by focusing on the words of Ike, John F. Kennedy (JFK), Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), and James Madison. And I want to redefine what words like duty, honor, country, and patriotism should mean. Those powerful words and sentiments should be centered on peace, on the preservation and enrichment of life, on tapping “the better angels of our nature,” as Abraham Lincoln wrote so long ago in his First Inaugural Address.

Why do we serve? What does our oath of office really mean? For it’s not just military members who take that oath but also members of Congress and indeed the president himself. We raise our right hands and swear to support and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

There’s nothing in that oath about warriors and warfighters, but there is a compelling call for all of us, as citizens, to be supporters and defenders of representative democracy, while promoting the general welfare (not warfare), and all the noble sentiments contained in that Constitution. If we’re not seeking a better and more peaceful future, one in which freedom may expand and thrive, we’re betraying our oath.

If so, we have met the enemy — and he is us.

Ike told us in 1953 that constant warfare is no way of life at all, that it is (as he put it), humanity crucifying itself on a cross of iron. In 1961, he told us democracy was threatened by an emerging military-industrial complex and that we, as citizens, had to be both alert and knowledgeable enough to bring it to heel. Two years later, JFK told us that peace — even at the height of the Cold War — was possible, not just peace in our time, but peace for all time. However, it would, he assured us, require sacrifice, wisdom, and commitment.

How, in fact, can I improve on these words that JFK uttered in 1963, just a few months before he was assassinated?

“What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living…

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age… when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn… surely the acquisition of such idle [nuclear] stockpiles — which can only destroy and never create — is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war — and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Are we ready to be urgently rational, America? Are we ready to be blessed as peacemakers? Or are we going to continue to suffer from what MLK described in 1967 as our very own “spiritual death” due to the embrace of militarism, war, empire, and racism?

Of course, MLK wasn’t perfect, nor for that matter was JFK, who was far too enamored of the Green Berets and too wedded to a new strategy of “flexible response” to make a clean break in Vietnam before he was killed. Yet those men bravely and outspokenly promoted peace, something uncommonly rare in their time — and even more so in ours.

More than 200 years ago, James Madison warned us that continual warfare is the single most corrosive force to the integrity of representative democracy. No other practice, no other societal force is more favorable to the rise of authoritarianism and the rule of tyrants than pernicious war. Wage war long and it’s likely you can kiss your democracy, your rights, and just maybe your ass goodbye.

America, from visionaries and prophets like MLK, we have our marching orders. They are not to invest yet more in preparations for war, whether with China or any other country. Rather, they are to gather in the streets and otherwise raise our voices against the scourge of war. If we are ever to beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks and make war no more, something must be done.

Let’s put an end to militarism in America. Let’s be urgently rational. To cite John Lennon yet again: You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Together, let’s imagine and create a better world.

The post Ending Militarism in America appeared first on LewRockwell.

There is a pretty constant discussion on social media in general and the Catholic blogosphere in particular about the flight from marriage among young people. A subset of that discussion came up in a recent tweet, where discussants debated whether a woman who has reached 30 and not found her “ideal” will have to “settle” for an “average” guy.

I know that such “discussions” are tilted clickbait, intended to elicit barbed comments. I, rather, want to go back to a different problem. The National Marriage Project, whose research on marriage trends is far more valuable than much of the babble either the never-ending Synod groups or Pontifical Academy for Life assembles, hit this nail on the head over 20 years ago in a report: “Who Wants to Marry a Soul Mate?” It warned that, especially among but not limited to young women, there was a growing phenomenon of imagining there is somebody out there who would fulfill one’s every wish and dream, provide total emotional succor, and bring utter contentment to one’s life.

The “soul mate” ideal of marriage was going strong a few years ago, and, honestly, it probably still continues to coast along in people’s—especially young women’s—minds. It would be interesting, however, to see updated social science data as to whether despair about finding that “soul mate” has fueled the flight from marriage.

Consider, after all, Disney’s reboot of Snow White. I haven’t seen it, but the “re-visioning” of what Rachel Zegler called its “dated” tale centers on a heroine convinced of her own powers, without needing that guy.

No human being is, of course, going to be that total and comprehensive “perfect” match. To expect that is to set you and the other up for failure. Even the best of couples will disagree. Also implicit in the “soul mate” vision is the expectation not that I should be the “soul mate” of another but that what determines the propriety of the match is whether the other fulfills me. Not getting out of that egocentric focus will poison any relationship.

Consider the very terms of the discussion: Will I “settle?” Neo-Protagorean women seem to think they are “the measure of all things,” another misleading perception likely to leave them—contrary to their real desires—unfulfilled. Pace Zegler’s “update,” one finds one’s self by losing, not tightly clinging to, one’s self.

These are basic truths of Catholic marriage theology that the world desperately needs to hear and ponder if it is to get out of the suicidal, egocentrically focused mindset that is destroying the formation of marriages and young families. This is where the communion, participation, and mission focus of the Church belongs, not self-referential talk.

There are hooks to be found in our American culture. I recommended Marty as a Valentine’s Day film. It’s about an average-looking Italian Catholic working-class guy who’s entered his 30s, wants to get married, but hasn’t found the girl—until he meets an “average” Irish Catholic woman equally looking for love.

Thirteen years ago, I also asked: “Do you want to marry George Bailey or Prince Charming?” Because “soul-mate” marriage is looking for Prince Charming, a creature so rare Snow Zegler White replaces him with Girl Boss (and, in a few years, likely a litter of cats). Though it’s thought of as a “Christmas movie,” It’s a Wonderful Life has a broader perspective and, in many ways, is amazingly modern.

George Bailey is also an “average” guy. Initially, it might seem he is without ambition: He still lives at Ma Bailey’s. He hasn’t gotten a college degree. Mary, whom he’ll marry, has. Should she “settle” for him? Or Sam Wainwright? George couldn’t afford a McMansion. He gave Mary a fixer-upper that—given the staircase railing finial that keeps detaching—is more fixer than upper.

Is the question—for the Baileys and for moderns—one of “settling”? Or, rather, how one defines “Prince Charming”?

This originally appeared on Crisis Magazine.

The post The Prince Charming Problem appeared first on LewRockwell.

Once upon a time political establishments would focus on defeating their opponent/challenger in elections.  Now they imprison them or stop them from running, as the Democrats tried to do to trump with four criminal indictments.  In Brazil Jair Bolsonaro faces alleged coup charges. In Romania, a host country for a US missile base on Russia’s border, Calin Georgecu has been falsely charged with “incitement to actions against the institutional order,” which in translation means running for president against Washington’s puppet government, which he is now barred from doing.  In France Marine Le Pen has been sentenced to two years in a jail cell and a five year ban on running for president of France.

Le Pen’s party holds the largest number of seats in the French legislature or National Assembly. Recent polls show her with a 10 point lead over the establishment candidate, so the establishment protected itself by putting her in prison.  Understand what this means, the French people are being denied by the French government the political representation that they want.

In Ukraine the “democracy” the West is so concerned to protect has been ruled for some time by a dictator whose term of office has expired.  I am beginning to have some concern that Trump himself could become part of the dissolution of Western democracy.  Why has Trump jumped all over Russian President Putin, who has kept Trump’s agreement, while protecting Zelensky, who has not kept the agreement, from Putin’s criticism?  Is it because Trump is studying Zelensky’s ability to rule beyond his term in office?  Other developments indicate weakening American democracy.  Trump’s kowtowing to Israel has destroyed the First Amendment, which is the foundation of American democracy, and Democrat judges are destroying confidence in judicial rulings by their interference with President Trump’s powers.  These are not healthy developments.  A judiciary that has discredited itself cannot rein in an ambitious leader.

I have written a lot about the collapse of the belief system in the West, such as yesterday’s article.  This is an immensely serious problem, and I have been unable to get any attention given to it.  

Throughout the Western World the main focus of the educational system is to undermine the belief system that maintains accountable government, which means a government accountable to the people and not to an establishment of vested interests.  The erosion of the belief system is far advanced.  President Trump is certainly not helping when he sacrifices the Constitution of the United States to protecting Israel from criticism.  

Ideas have consequences, and the consequence of the destruction of our ideas that uphold liberty is tyranny, which has raised its ugly head in France, Romania, and Brazil, and perhaps in America.

The post The Western World Has Abandoned Democracy appeared first on LewRockwell.

US ARMY Colonel (Retired) and diplomat Ann Wright calls them all out!

The post They’re all going to hell for the genocide in Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

MM Comment:

One of the most persistent objections when presenting the overwhelming evidence that viruses do not exist or cause a particular disease is for someone to immediately ask the following question, expecting to shut the conversation down completely:

Well then, What Causes (It)?

Please watch at least the first 9 minutes this video, HERE.

You will love the examples Dr Tom Cowan gives to clearly answer this question.

Highly Recommended 

For a deeper dive into the scholarship please also read these resources, HERE and HERE.

Thanks to MT for alerting us to this video segment.

The post Well, If Viruses Don’t Exist Then What Causes (Measles, Chickenpox, Etc Etc Etc)? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Frahm.

The European Conservative

The post Is The West About To Implode? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Alon Mizrahi on the Israel bubble

The post Notable and Quotable… in the Classical Liberal tradition appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

Tim Dillon On The Snow White Flop

The post Tim Dillon on The Snow White Flop appeared first on LewRockwell.

Johnny Kramer wrote:

BYD Announces Home Solar-Powered Humanoid Robot for $10,000! – CleanTechnica

The Chinese EV and battery giant has just introduced a general-purpose robot powered with advanced AI that can reportedly do difficult and nuanced tasks for you, like do the laundry, fold your clothes, vacuum, rake leaves, and even scrub the bathtub and toilets.

Whereas Tesla has a long-term goal of one day producing 1 million Optimus robots a year, bringing the cost down to $30,000 each, BYD is introducing this new humanoid robot at $10,000, with deliveries beginning in December 2025. That’s still a healthy chunk of cash, but it’s much more accessible to large portions of the population — the upper middle class or possibly even middle class, given the utility of the robot.

Going one step further, this BYD robot, named “BoYoboD,” is solar powered! It comes with a solar power charging kit that you place outside. When the robot gets low on battery — you can set that to be 10%, 20%, or whatever you prefer — it goes and plugs itself into a portable solar panel plus battery system that charges it up. So, yeah, BYD is going one step forward yet again and really building our dreams.

Naturally, the robot can also plug in your electric car for you. However, BYD has clarified that the robot can’t drive (yet).

The post BYD Announces Home Solar-Powered Humanoid Robot for $10,000 appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer. 

REVEALED: How Barack Obama Secretly Worked Behind the Scenes to Sabotage Kamala Harris | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The post How Obama Secretly Worked To Sabotage Harris appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Jason Whitlock: How Black ‘Diss Culture’ Killed Austin Metcalf appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

Sam Neill is right. America is not a happy place.

The post Sam Neill’s (NZ Actor) Opinion of Living and Working in Hollywood and America appeared first on LewRockwell.

Kevin Duffy wrote:

Hi Lew,

How are these “reciprocal tariffs” being calculated?  

By country: “Tariffs Charged to U.S.A.” = trade deficit / imports.

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, “This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing.” 

What if they’re not?  What if other factors might be involved: 

– Low savings 

– High government borrowing 

– Direct foreign investment 

– Indirect foreign investment (stocks) 

– Willingness of foreign central banks to hold U.S. dollars as reserve currency 

The economic illiteracy, hubris and recklessness of the people behind these decisions (Trump, Vance, Lutnick, Bessent and Miran) is truly staggering.

The post Reciprocal tariff calculations appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Maureen McKerracher. 

See here.

The post Mind-Blowing Reason Mozart Composed This Song! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith. 

Antiwar.com 

The post ‘Every Atrocity Imaginable’: Litany of Israeli War Crimes Continues appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Double Whammy: Trade Wars And Real Wars! appeared first on LewRockwell.

My cover story article in the current issue of The New American.  The issue includes a promotion of the Mises Institute’s new documentary on the Fed, “Playing With Fire: Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve” which has 716,000 views on YouTube as of today, less than six months from its release.

The post The Federal Reserve Protection Racket appeared first on LewRockwell.

With Robert Breedlove.  

The post My Interview on “The Money Show” appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/lo-stato-puo-vietare-bitcoin-quattro)

Di recente abbiamo sentito banchieri e politici esprimere il loro desiderio di vietare Bitcoin.

L'idea che un qualsiasi stato possa vietare Bitcoin è popolare per una buona ragione: minaccia una fonte significativa del suo potere, ovvero quello di creare denaro dal nulla e costringere tutti a usarlo.

Questo perché Bitcoin può dare sovranità monetaria all'individuo e rendere obsolete le banche centrali, insieme ai loro coriandoli.

Non è un risultato da poco.

È uno sviluppo storico che altera profondamente lo status quo tra governanti e governati. È simile all'invenzione della polvere da sparo, della macchina da stampa e di Internet.

Non c'è dubbio che lo stato vorrebbe proteggere il proprio racket da un concorrente monetario invadente nello stesso modo in cui fa la mafia quando un rivale invade il proprio territorio.

La domanda è se ci riuscirà...

Friedrich Hayek, il grande economista Austriaco, una volta disse: “Non credo che avremo mai più una buona moneta prima di togliere la cosa dalle mani dello stato, cioè, non possiamo toglierla violentemente dalle sue mani, tutto ciò che possiamo fare è introdurre qualcosa con qualche subdolo stratagemma che non possa fermare”.

Hayek aveva ragione.

Per sua stessa natura lo stato non rinuncia mai pacificamente al potere. E se toglierglielo con la forza è fuori questione, allora l'unico modo per farlo è attraverso “qualche subdolo stratagemma per introdurre qualcosa che non possa fermare”.

Bitcoin è la soluzione?

Molte persone pensano che la risposta sia “no” perché lo stato ha la facoltà di spegnerlo.

Qualcuno può spegnere Bitcoin?

Bitcoin non ha un'autorità centrale e nessun singolo punto di errore.

Invece funziona su una rete mondiale decentralizzata, volontaria e in crescita di oltre 17.300 computer in quasi 100 Paesi.

Qualsiasi computer desktop, laptop, Raspberry Pi e persino alcuni cellulari hanno il potenziale per eseguire il software Bitcoin. Inoltre, con l'avanzare della tecnologia, l'esecuzione di Bitcoin diventerà ancora più diffusa.

Molti di questi computer sono abilmente nascosti con Tor, che sta per “The Onion Router”. Esso cripta il vostro traffico Internet e poi lo nasconde rimbalzando attraverso una serie di computer in tutto il mondo per offuscare il vostro indirizzo IP e la vostra posizione fisica.

In ogni caso, con Bitcoin, non c'è una posizione centrale in cui una squadra SWAT possa fare irruzione. Non c'è un amministratore delegato da arrestare. Il meglio che gli stati possano fare è giocare a un gioco infinito di “colpisci la talpa” mondiale.

Anche se gli Stati Uniti e la Russia si impegnassero in una guerra nucleare totale, distruggendo gran parte dell'emisfero settentrionale, Bitcoin non perderebbe un colpo nell'emisfero meridionale.

Per avere anche solo una possibilità di fermare Bitcoin, ogni stato del mondo dovrebbe coordinarsi simultaneamente per chiudere tutto Internet ovunque e poi tenerlo spento per sempre.

Anche in questo scenario improbabile, la rete Bitcoin può essere tenuta in piedi tramite segnali radio e reti mesh. Allo stesso tempo, piccoli pannelli solari portatili possono alimentare i computer che gestiscono la rete se la rete normale non è disponibile.

Inoltre una rete di satelliti trasmette costantemente la rete Bitcoin sulla Terra.

In breve, tutti gli aspetti di Bitcoin sono genuinamente decentralizzati e robusti.

Salvo un inevitabile ritorno globale all'età della pietra, Bitcoin è inarrestabile.

Il genio è fuori dalla lampada. Bitcoin è più grande di qualsiasi stato.

Se non possono spegnerlo, allora lo proibiranno?

Molti Paesi hanno già provato a vietare Bitcoin: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ecuador, Egitto, India, Iran, Kirghizistan, Marocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Arabia Saudita, Thailandia, Turchia e molti altri. Tuttavia hanno tutti fallito miseramente, poiché l'adozione in questi Paesi ha continuato a crescere.

Anche il governo cinese ha vietato Bitcoin numerose volte, con pochi o nessun effetto a lungo termine. Bitcoin non solo è sopravvissuto a un attacco da parte di una superpotenza globale, ma è emerso più forte e più resiliente che mai.

Nonostante tutto questo, un qualsiasi stato potrebbe ancora provare a mettere fuori legge Bitcoin?

È certamente possibile che un presidente possa emettere un ordine esecutivo che metta al bando Bitcoin. Ricordate, l'ordine esecutivo 6102 mise al bando il possesso di oro per i cittadini americani dal 1933 fino alla sua abrogazione nel 1974.

Tuttavia, tale risultato è improbabile per quattro motivi.

Motivo n°1: il codice informatico è comunicazione protetta

Bitcoin è codice informatico open source disponibile per chiunque.

Nel caso giudiziario, Bernstein contro il Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti, le corti federali degli Stati Uniti hanno stabilito che il codice informatico è equivalente alla libertà di parola ed è protetta dal 1° emendamento della Costituzione degli Stati Uniti.

D'altra parte la Costituzione non è un protettore affidabile dei diritti, come hanno dimostrato l'isteria del Covid, la guerra al terrorismo e la guerra alla droga. Quindi non farei affidamento esclusivamente su di essa per proteggere Bitcoin.

Tuttavia i precedenti che hanno stabilito che il codice informatico equivale alla libertà di parola complicano qualsiasi tentativo di vietarlo.

Motivo n°2: la chiarezza normativa esiste già

Date le sue dichiarazioni, è chiaro che la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considera quasi tutte le criptovalute come titoli non registrati, rendendole vulnerabili ad azioni esecutive.

Ciò ha portato molti a credere erroneamente che la SEC si scaglierà contro Bitcoin.

La realtà è che Bitcoin è l'unica criptovaluta che NON è inequivocabilmente un titolo.

Il governo degli Stati Uniti è stato chiaro nel considerare Bitcoin una merce, una designazione molto più favorevole, sotto la competenza della Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) e del Commodity Exchange Act.

Bitcoin è una merce perché non c'è nessuno che lo emette.

Allo stesso modo oro, argento, rame, grano, mais e altre materie prime hanno produttori ma non hanno chi li emette.

Ogni altra criptovaluta diversa da Bitcoin ha qualcuno che la crea. Hanno anche fondatori identificabili, fondazioni centrali, team di marketing e addetti ai lavori che possono esercitare un controllo indebito.

Bitcoin non ha nessuna di queste cose, proprio come il rame o il nichel non hanno un reparto marketing o un fondatore.

La SEC non potrebbe perseguire Bitcoin anche se volesse, perché non c'è nessuno a cui indirizzarsi. Non c'è una sede centrale di Bitcoin, non ha un amministratore delegato, un reparto marketing e nessun dipendente.

Ma presumendo che la SEC possa perseguire Bitcoin, non lo farà perché anche loro ammettono che non è un titolo e quindi non rientra nella loro competenza.

Ecco la conclusione: l'IRS, la SEC, la CFTC e altre agenzie federali hanno già fornito a Bitcoin chiari quadri normativi e fiscali.

Ciò ha aiutato molte aziende statunitensi, tra cui grandi istituzioni finanziarie, a entrare in Bitcoin. Invertire queste linee guida, che sono state stabilite per molti anni, e vietare Bitcoin genererebbe una forte resistenza oltre a essere ormai diventata una sfida ardua.

Motivo n°3: vietare Bitcoin è poco pratico

I divieti a livello statale possono limitare qualcosa approvando una legge, ma non possono far sparire qualcosa di prezioso e desiderato da molte persone.

Pensate ai governi di Venezuela e numerosi altri del Sud America con leggi che limitano l'accesso dei cittadini ai dollari statunitensi.

Queste leggi hanno scarso effetto sul desiderio e sulla capacità dei cittadini di utilizzarli; creano invece un fiorente mercato nero o, più precisamente, un libero mercato.

Allo stesso modo, pensate a quanto successo hanno avuto gli stati nel proibire la cannabis nel corso dei decenni. Nonostante i loro sforzi è sempre stata disponibile nella maggior parte delle grandi città.

Cercare di imporre un divieto su qualcosa di digitale e senza confini come Bitcoin è assolutamente poco pratico. Sarebbe molto più difficile per gli stati vietare Bitcoin piuttosto che i dollari statunitensi o una pianta.

Inoltre molti wallet Bitcoin utilizzano una frase di 12 parole come un modo per recuperare i vostri fondi. Se riuscite a memorizzarle, potete immagazzinare miliardi di dollari di valore equivalenti nella vostra testa e basta.

Provate a vietarlo... è come cercare di vietare la matematica.

Anche se fosse pratico farlo, è già troppo tardi.

C'è una massa critica di sostenitori di Bitcoin tra grandi aziende, politici e persone normali.

Pensate a tutti gli avvocati, lobbisti e contatti politici che verrebbero sguinzagliati. È un sacco di potenza di fuoco politica e i loro numeri non fanno che crescere.

Secondo un sondaggio di NYDIG, 46 milioni di americani possiedono Bitcoin. Ciò equivale a circa il 22% di tutti gli adulti negli Stati Uniti.

Sostenere un divieto di Bitcoin significa andare contro di essi, molti dei quali sono ricchi, potenti e ben collegati.

In breve, mettere fuori legge Bitcoin non aiuterà nessuno a vincere le elezioni.

Bitcoin ha già raggiunto la velocità di fuga. In altre parole, è troppo popolare dal punto di vista politico per essere messo fuori legge e ogni giorno diventa più forte man mano che ne aumenta l'adozione.

Motivo n°4: vietare Bitcoin avvantaggerà i propri rivali

Se un qualsiasi stato fosse tanto sciocco da vietare Bitcoin nonostante tutto questo, darebbe a Russia, Cina e altri rivali un'opportunità d'oro per essere in prima linea in una nuova industria redditizia e nel futuro del denaro.

Vietare Bitcoin sarebbe un errore finanziario e geopolitico di primissimo ordine.

Conclusione

Quando si mettono insieme tutti questi elementi, si ottiene una forma di denaro superiore e inarrestabile che sta conquistando il mondo.

Non è difficile vedere dove andrà a parare questa tendenza. È una rivoluzione monetaria.

Ciononostante molte persone credono ancora che un qualsiasi stato possa spegnere Bitcoin o proibirlo in altro modo.

Questo divario di percezione è una benedizione che ci consente di capitalizzare questa asimmetria informativa con investimenti che la sfruttano.

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

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