Aggregatore di feed

Writes Dom Armentano:

Doug Horne has recently produced a fascinating documentary about multiple casket entries into the Bethesda morgue on the evening of November 22, 1963. It is well done and I urge everyone to watch it on YouTube.

Horne’s most controversial claim is that JFK’s corpse entered the morgue at 6:35 pm (well before the “official” arrival at 7:15 or so) in a gray shipping casket for so-called pre-autopsy surgery to remove evidence of shots from the front. In the video, Horne  asserts at one point that the evidence for both of these claims  is overwhelming.

I  emphatically disagree. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For an extended analysis of the Lifton/Horne  “early entry” hypothesis, see my 2023 article (based exclusively on ARRB testimony) on this website.

In brief, while there is some evidence that a gray shipping casket may have arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35, there is NO first-hand evidence that anyone saw JFK’s corpse in it; or taken  out of it. None. There is nothing in the R.E. Boyajian Report, for example, that confirms that President Kennedy’s body  was actually in that casket. And there is nothing in the telephone interview that Doug Horne conducted with Boyajian in 1996 that confirms that JFK’s body was in that casket. Indeed, Boyajian told Horne in 1996 that he now had “no memory” of the casket arrival at all! Yikes!

Doug Horne bases the bulk of his “JFK/early-entry” theory on the testimony of Navy corpsman Dennis David. David claimed, among other things, that Dr Boswell told him that night that JFK’s corpse arrived at 6:35 in a gray shipping casket. The implication, of course, is that Dr. Boswell had seen this personally and, importantly, that Dennis David is not confabulating.

The problem here is that when Dr. Boswell testified before the ARRB he stated that he was nowhere near the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 and, therefore, could not have observed any JFK casket entry. Strike one. David’s assertion about the Bosell conversations is further compromised by the fact that he also made highly dubious claims about handling bullet fragments that night and watching a video of the actual JFK autopsy! (He also underwent hypnosis in 1994 to “recover assassination memories”). Strike two.  Finally, when Dennis David was asked specifically whether he himself had seen JFK’s corpse in or out of the shipping casket, he emphatically said that he had NOT.  Strike three. In short, Dennis David provides NO credible first-hand evidence that JFK’s body arrived early for any pre-autopsy surgery.

In short, while Horne is to be applauded for producing a thoroughly engaging video (his cinematic skills are substantial)  his major proposition–that JFK’s corpse arrived in a shipping casket at 6:35–has NOT  (in my judgment) been substantiated  by any “best evidence.”

The post Doug Horne and the Early Casket Entry appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post MAGA Turns On Trump Over Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ginny Garner wrote:

Lew,

“War Pigs” is a powerful antiwar song performed by the band Black Sabbath led by Ozzy Osbourne who recently passed away.  It was written by Osbourne and the other members of his band: Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward. The lyrics 

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death’s construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to Mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds…
Oh Lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait ’till their judgment day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of Judgment, God is calling
On their knees the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings…
Oh Lord, yeah!

Ozzy’s widow Sharon explains to anyone in doubt “War Pigs” is an antiwar song.

Link to performance.

The post War Pigs: Ozzy Osbourne’s Antiwar Song appeared first on LewRockwell.

Non bisogna mai dimenticare fino a che punto lo Stato profondo e le principali personalità dei media generalisti si siano spinti per manipolare gli americani inducendoli a ignorare qualcosa che era ovvio a chiunque avesse occhi per vedere, perché ciò smaschera la vera natura della classe politica: uno stuolo di figuranti che si occupa delle relazioni pubbliche di coloro che prendono davvero le decisioni dietro le quinte. È raro, però, che le bugie siano così evidenti come affermare che Biden fosse vigile e che ogni video che pretendeva di dimostrare il contrario era stato fabbricato da video editor di estrema destra. È anche raro che le bugie dell'establishment si scaglino contro di loro così rapidamente come è successo durante l'ormai famoso dibattito presidenziale del giugno 2024. Una volta diventato ovvio che la bugia non avrebbe retto, l'intera scena politica anti-Trump si è ribaltata all'improvviso. Il Partito democratico sta ancora lottando per limitare i danni. La strategia più promettente è quella di provare a dare la colpa a una manciata di membri dello staff di Biden, sostenendo che hanno nascosto la verità ai media, i quali poi, involontariamente, hanno diffuso la menzogna al resto del mondo. Basta scavare un poco più a fondo per scoprire che quella di Biden era sostanzialmente il terzo mandato di Obama e con esso la cricca di Davos/City di Londra ha cercato di costruire le linee difensive per arginare la fazione dei grandi banchieri commerciali americani il cui piano era rimettere a posto i conti della nazione, staccarla dall'influenza estera e smettere di essere i “salvatori del mondo” (sia economicamente che militarmente), piano che avrebbero consolidato con la vittoria di Trump. Ora i nodi stanno venendo al pettine e ciò che non deve sorprendere per davvero non è la presidenza Biden scandita da burocrati senza volto, bensì il fatto che Obama sia un infiltrato i cui ordini arrivano nientemeno che da Londra. I politici sono solo dei figuranti, come dicevo, la cui agenda è dettata dalle fazioni dietro di essi e per decenni gli inglesi sono stati al comando del cosiddetto (e presunto) “Impero americano”.

______________________________________________________________________________________

di Jarrett Stepman

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/quella-di-biden-e-stata-la-prima)

La “presidenza” di Joe Biden è stata uno dei più grandi scandali della storia americana. I media generalisti solo ora stanno parlando dell'incapacità mentale di un presidente che a quanto pare ha lasciato l'intera nave dello stato in balia di una burocrazia irresponsabile.

Axios ha diffuso l'audio dell'intervista di Biden del 2023 con il procuratore speciale Robert Hur.

Exclusive: Axios obtained the audio of Robert Hur's 2023 interviews of Biden which show repeated mental lapses as he struggles to remember words & dates amid long, uncomfortable pauses.
Biden WH didn't release it last year. Listen below.
w/ @MarcACaputo https://t.co/VJr2c9m3bh pic.twitter.com/Xoa0rQMtG9

Se avete ascoltato la registrazione e non siete stati in coma negli ultimi quattro anni, allora non c'è nulla di veramente sorprendente. L'ex-presidente è affetto da demenza senile ed è evasivo quando risponde alle domande sulla sua gestione di documenti top secret.

Alcuni miei colleghi hanno esaminato tutti i nastri e hanno scoperto che Biden “ha dimenticato i nomi dell'ex-segretario alla Difesa del presidente Barack Obama e del comico Jay Leno; ha definito l'Africa un Paese e non un continente; e non sapeva di essere in possesso di un quaderno con consigli di guerra per Obama durante il suo colloquio con il procuratore speciale Robert Hur e gli investigatori nell'ottobre 2023”.

Biden non era il tipo di persona di cui ci si poteva fidare per prendere decisioni nazionali su larga scala, o anche decisioni personali su piccola scala.

Ciò non sorprende affatto, a meno che non siate giornalisti di sinistra dei media generalisti impegnati in politica.

Se è così, sono sicuro che le notizie che emergono sulla presidenza di Biden saranno per voi delle rivelazioni sbalorditive e sconvolgenti.

I media generalisti sono scioccati, scioccati nello scoprire che Biden potrebbe non essere stato idoneo a ricoprire la carica.

La pubblicazione di queste registrazioni è stata seguita dalla notizia che a Biden è stato diagnosticato un cancro alla prostata in stadio avanzato.

La diagnosi di cancro è certamente una cosa terribile, ma l'idea che questo debba porre fine alla storia degli ultimi quattro anni è una farsa. Non potrebbe essere più chiaro ora che, a causa di disturbi mentali e fisici, Biden era una persona incapace di intendere e volere fin dal momento in cui ha assunto la carica di presidente.

Nonostante alcuni dei giornalisti chiedano di porre un freno alle discussioni sulla presidenza di Biden a causa della sua salute, la realtà è che la diagnosi di cancro non fa che sollevare interrogativi ancora più inquietanti. Si tratta davvero di una diagnosi nuova? I medici di Biden hanno davvero trascurato in qualche modo i segnali di un cancro curabile?

.@davidaxelrod: Conversations about Biden’s mental acuity “should be more muted and set aside for now as he’s struggling through this.”https://t.co/ULDkqRS9O9

E questo rende la situazione del tutto senza precedenti.

Sì, il presidente Woodrow Wilson fu a un certo punto inabile durante il suo ultimo mandato, ma questo avvenne verso la fine della sua presidenza. Wilson subì una serie di ictus dopo la sua energica campagna per convincere gli americani ad aderire alla Società delle Nazioni. Sua moglie e persino i media cercarono di insabbiare l'accaduto, ma alla fine il Partito Democratico staccò la spina al suo brevissimo tentativo di candidarsi per un terzo mandato.

Non c'è stato alcun tentativo di ingannare il popolo americano e garantire un altro mandato a un presidente “quasi catatonico”, come ha detto un testimone alla raccolta fondi di George Clooney per Biden tenutasi a giugno dello scorso anno.

La situazione con Biden era ben peggiore, l'insabbiamento molto più esteso e le conseguenze decisamente più disastrose nell'era della comunicazione istantanea e delle armi capaci di distruggere rapidamente l'intera civiltà umana.

Cosa dovremmo pensare di quegli anni in cui si sono verificate molteplici crisi in tutto il mondo, gli americani sono stati privati in massa del lavoro a causa delle vaccinazioni obbligatorie, gli stati sono stati intimoriti nel consentire ai bambini di ricevere ormoni che cambiavano la vita e un candidato alla presidenza alla fine vittorioso è stato quasi incarcerato?

Ho cercato di pensare ad alcuni paragoni storici appropriati.

Il presidente John Tyler era noto ad alcuni dei suoi critici più irascibili come “la vittima di sé stesso”, essendo stato il primo vicepresidente ad assumere la carica di presidente dopo la morte del comandante in capo. L'opinione generale era che nessuno lo avesse effettivamente eletto presidente, e agli albori della repubblica la Costituzione era un po' confusa sulla possibilità che potesse assumere la carica o se si dovessero indire nuove elezioni.

Nonostante il soprannome, Tyler divenne un comandante in capo aggressivo e attivo, cosa che causò non poco disappunto tra molti nel suo partito.

Ma Biden era in un certo senso l'esatto opposto. Nonostante sia stato eletto in un'elezione molto contestata, non si è mai veramente assunto le proprie responsabilità. La letargia di Biden era pari solo alla sua mancanza di trasparenza.

Per descriverlo sarebbe meglio dire “la vittima della sua stessa irrilevanza”.

Mentre i responsabili del 46° presidente, molto probabilmente su richiesta dell'ex-presidente Barack Obama, lo guidavano in una versione estesa del film “Weekend con il morto” nel mondo reale, l'apparato federale operava per conto proprio.

Si trattava di un governo di “esperti”, o meglio, di un governo della classe dirigente che aveva ricreato il vecchio spoils system, rendendolo però totalmente irresponsabile nei confronti del popolo americano.

Le decisioni venivano prese da agenzie governative interconnesse, su richiesta dei loro alleati nel Partito Democratico che servivano.

Questa è stata la prima presidenza completamente guidata da uno Stato profondo.

How is this not the most plausible answer to everything we have seen? https://t.co/7wyfPSFDMB

A Biden è stato conferito dal Partito Democratico il titolo nominale di presidente, che sancisce il limite massimo della sua carriera, ma le funzioni e perfino le decisioni richieste dal suo incarico sono state chiaramente distribuite tra i suoi subordinati e burocrati senza volto.

Il risultato è stato un completo disastro.

Gli americani hanno giustamente perso fiducia nei loro leader e nelle istituzioni d'élite legate a questo apparato corrotto. La politica estera statunitense era, nella migliore delle ipotesi, alla deriva. I nostri nemici in tutto il mondo si sono messi in marcia. La gente temeva lo stato più di quanto quest'ultimo temesse loro.

Il risultato di queste calamità è che ci è stato suonato un campanello d'allarme in un momento di crisi. È in atto una controrivoluzione politica che forse non si sarebbe mai verificata se la sua profondità non fosse stata rivelata, almeno in parte, dall'insabbiamento mediatico riguardo l'evidente infermità di Biden.

 Ma anche se i primi 100 e passa giorni del presidente Donald Trump non potrebbero essere più diversi dai quattro anni del suo predecessore, non possiamo dimenticare quanto siano peggiorate le cose, quanto i media generalisti abbiano insabbiato l'evidente incapacità di un presidente affetto da demenza senile e quanto la burocrazia rappresenti una seria minaccia per la libertà americana.

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

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

Fiat justitia, ne pereat mundus—Let justice be done, lest the world perish. With these evocative words, Ludwig von Mises sets justice at the heart of his treatise on free market capitalism, Human Action. Echoing the importance of justice, in Law, Legislation and Liberty Friedrich von Hayek described “rules of just conduct” as “the indispensable foundation and limitation of all law.” Hayek considered it important that, “Government certainly ought to be just in all it does.” But what role does the concept of justice play in their analysis?

Many economists consider questions of justice irrelevant to the study of value-free economics. After all, while exchange based on private property must be voluntary, it need not be “just.” Hayek saw it as “an abuse” of the word justice, to evaluate “the joint effects of the actions of many people, even where these were never foreseen or intended,” by reference to whether those effects are “just.” Thus, for example, a rise or fall in prices is neither “just” nor “unjust.” Hayek saw the attempt to evaluate market outcomes by reference to justice as “that anthropomorphism or personification by which naïve thinking tries to account for all self-ordering processes.” He argued that, “A bare fact, or a state of affairs which nobody can change, may be good or bad, but not just or unjust. To apply the term ‘just’ to circumstances other than human actions or the rules governing them is a category mistake.” This means that we may or may not happen to like particular market outcomes, but we cannot describe those outcomes as just or unjust.

Hayek drew a clear distinction between “rules of just conduct” and law or legislation: “We are not contending that all rules of just conduct which are in fact observed in a society are law, nor that all that is commonly called law consists of rules of just conduct.” In his view, the right rule is that which yields the desired goal, while the wrong rule is that which fails to do so: “All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at.” On that reasoning, his view was that the law does not reflect “justice” in an abstract sense, but reflects the rules chosen by society with a view to constructing the type of society they value.

On that basis, Hayek rejected the use of “social justice” arguments in political debate: “…the term ‘social justice’ is wholly devoid of meaning or content… it is a semantic fraud, a phrase used to give moral approval to what is in fact a demand for the distribution of benefits according to some arbitrary criterion.” They seek to justify redistributing wealth and power according to their preferences. Mises observes in his book Socialism, that redistributionists do not necessarily consider themselves to be socialists. Social justice warriors are often liberals who do not understand economic science, and have therefore failed to appreciate that the means they promote to resolve social problems are incapable of solving the problem. In the example given by Mises, they seek to solve the problem of hunger by fixing food prices, but instead of solving the problem their intervention only leads to food shortages. Mises explains:

They protest that they are sincere believers and opposed to tyranny and socialism. What they aim at is only the improvement of the conditions of the poor. They say that they are driven by considerations of social justice, and favour a fairer distribution of income precisely because they are intent upon preserving capitalism and its political corollary or superstructure, viz., democratic government.

Mises warns that,

What these people fail to realize is that the various measures they suggest are not capable of bringing about the beneficial results aimed at. On the contrary they produce a state of affairs which from the point of view of their advocates is worse than the previous state which they were designed to alter.

He saw the social justice warriors as often being “either not bright enough or not industrious enough” to achieve their goals, and thus attributing their own failure to unfairness or injustice:

They consoled themselves and tried to convince other people that the cause of their failure was not their own inferiority but the injustice of society’s economic organization. Under capitalism, they declared, self-realization is only possible for the few. “Liberty in a laissez-faire society is attainable only by those who have the wealth or opportunity to purchase it.” Hence, they concluded, the state must interfere in order to realize “social justice.”

What they really meant is, in order to give to the frustrated mediocrity “according to his needs.”

The social justice warriors often invoke the “natural law” or a “higher law” in an attempt to bypass the difficult paths to success. Invoking a “higher law” is the strategy of all revolutionaries and, on the face of it, their opposing invocations of justice seem to be entirely arbitrary. Without knowing more about them, they all seem equally spurious. Hence Mises says, “It is nonsensical to justify or to reject interventionism from the point of view of a fictitious and arbitrary idea of absolute justice. It is vain to ponder over the just delimitation of the tasks of government from any preconceived standard of perennial values.”

Both Mises and Hayek therefore rejected the invocation of “natural law” as a foundation for law or economics. Although the extent to which Hayek rejected natural law altogether is contested, Mises depicted the law of nature as the law of the jungle by which animals live, observing that “the characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals,” and so, “‘Thou shalt not kill’ is certainly not part of natural law.” What seems “just” to the hungry predator is “unjust” to the vulnerable prey. Mises, therefore, rejected natural law concepts of justice altogether, arguing that, “There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust.” He considered the “natural law” to be “fictitious and arbitrary.”

In the Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard adopted a different standpoint in relation to the role of justice, arguing that libertarian law must be founded upon natural law principles. He viewed “a rationally established natural law” as the foundation of justice. The reference to rationality is important in Rothbard’s philosophy; it signifies that natural law is not merely a reference to what animals do in a state of nature, but denotes principles derived from human reason. Rothbard considered it important not only to defend property rights for utilitarian reasons, but to defend “just property or legitimate property or perhaps ‘natural property.’” He did not see justice as merely incidental to a defense of liberty, but rather as a moral and ethical concept that lies at the very heart of liberty. He considered it necessary to invoke moral and ethical arguments to counter the demands of the ignorant, but nevertheless destructive, interventionists driven by their good intentions. The social justice warriors cannot be answered only with economic arguments. Rothbard argued that, “one must go beyond economics and utilitarianism to establish an objective ethics which affirms the overriding value of liberty, and morally condemns all forms of statism.” His view was that “while praxeological economic theory is extremely useful for providing data and knowledge for framing economic policy, it cannot be sufficient by itself to enable the economist to make any value pronouncements or to advocate any public policy whatsoever.” His point about public policy is important in understanding why he invokes principles of justice. As David Gordon puts it,

…a supporter of social justice might argue that the requirement to redress discriminatory treatment isn’t an empirical [economic] claim about the sources of current inequality but a moral demand. People who hold this view might think that even if you are now doing very well, you are still entitled to compensation if you have suffered from discrimination. (Once more, I do not favor this view, quite the contrary; but an adequate response to it must involve moral theory.)

There are many overlaps between utilitarian and natural law philosophies, as well as many important distinctions, that cannot be addressed in this brief article. But it can be seen that the different Austrian perspectives on the concept of justice are not so much definitional or methodological differences, but rather pertain to how different theorists understand the role of the economist in engaging with public policy debates and answering the “justice” claims of statists and interventionists. While Austrians maintain a very clear analytical separation between economic science, or praxeology, and political philosophy or public policy, they have different views on whether, when, and how economists ought to engage with the “social justice” debates.

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

The post Austrian Perspectives on Social Justice appeared first on LewRockwell.

In 1929, Ford sold 1,507,132 cars. Chevrolet sold 1,328,605. Then came the stock market crash. Sales dropped dramatically each year until 1932, when sales bottomed at 210,824 for Ford and 313,404 for Chevrolet.

But, during that time, a small new market came on stream for the two foremost budget brands—the rich.

Although literally millions of people were hit very hard by the crash, those who had invested wisely retained their wealth. Those who steered clear of the stock market bubble and/or invested in assets that would survive the crash, such as precious metals, were able to continue to live well.

However, they did find that when they drove down the street in their luxury cars, they stood out and became the objects of anger and scorn.

This is an important trait in human nature to recognize—that those who have been reckless with their money and have ended up losing it tend to hate those who were not reckless and have retained their wealth. Perhaps, observing someone who behaved responsibly is a regular reminder that they behaved stupidly.

Whatever the psychology involved, in 1930, those who had fared well soon learned that it was unwise to be conspicuous in their continued wealth. At that point, an interesting but little-remembered development occurred. Such people put their mink coats in the closet, put their jewellery in a safe place and, most importantly, found barns in the countryside into which they could park their Duesenbergs, Cords, and Auburns.

It’s likely that they intended to retrieve the luxury cars once the economy recovered. However, a collectivist government under President Franklin Roosevelt protracted the depression by implementing extensive legislation and policies to “help the common man.” Unfortunately, those actions crippled the business community, turning what might have been a normal two-year depression into one that lasted sixteen years.

During that time, those who had mothballed their luxury cars bought inexpensive cars such as Fords and Chevrolets in order to be less conspicuous. Along the way, chauffeurs became a thing of the past. They were more affordable than ever, but far too conspicuous to even consider employing.

In the end, most of the Deusies remained in the barns until after the war, when the prosperity of the 1950s made them once again popular—this time as collector cars. Today, a restored Duesenberg can be sold at auction for millions, but there was a 25-year drought during which no one would be seen driving them. They became a dead loss for their original owners.

But what we’re discussing here is a mere symptom of those times. Of what value is that to us today? Well, many readers of this publication will be aware that the world is once again facing a financial crisis—one that will far exceed the Great Depression in its magnitude. It will be more devastating and will last longer than the previous debacle, and it will once again be unwise to be seen driving a Deusie.

And so, we prepare ourselves by moving a significant amount of our holdings into precious metals. If we’ve been paying attention, we’ve figured out that the banks are likely to confiscate our deposits and empty our safe deposit boxes. We will have stored the bulk in a storage facility that is not a financial institution, plus we will now have some sort of safe at home where we keep an emergency supply—perhaps of silver rounds—that we may use after a crash. We’ve reasoned correctly that, if and when the currency collapses, we’ll still be able to buy groceries and fuel for the car each week by handing over a silver Ajax or two.

So, we’ve prepared ourselves… Well, not quite. Trouble is, we’ll be observed making our purchases. If the crisis period were to last a few weeks, we’d have no problem. However, after only a few months of a period in which people have little or no real currency (as is always the case after a currency collapse), our neighbours will take note that the one guy in the community who is regularly seen walking to his car with bags of groceries, or parked in the otherwise empty filling station having his tank topped up, is us. Even if we’re driving a Toyota instead of a Mercedes, eyebrows will be raised, and, after the word gets out that we’ve somehow survived intact, resentment will build against us.

It will be at that time that we’ll wish we’d gotten rid of all our luxury associated assets, then gotten the proceeds out of the country—away from those who will resent our ownership of some form of currency. We may have stored wealth, but it will become a liability rather than a safety net. We may get on just fine with our neighbours right now, but when their families are eating dog food for dinner due to their greatly diminished buying power, we’ll most assuredly be hated by them.

At this point, it’s likely to become clear that being the last guy with currency in a neighbourhood that has lost its currency is not an enviable position to be in.

If we then try to make a run for it, we’ll find that the rules of the world that existed just a short while ago have been rewritten. First, we’ll find that currency controls are now in place and our home country, having crashed, disallows the flight of wealth from its shores. We can only remove our wealth by becoming criminals.

In addition, we’ll find that, although the numbers leaving our home country were small prior to the crisis, those numbers have now swelled dramatically and target countries, where the economies are faring better, are closing their doors to economic refugees.

At this point, we’ll become pariahs in our home community and be trapped there. We may own precious metals, but it’ll be risky to use them to survive. We’ll be aware that we can’t keep a lid on the fact that we own precious metals. At best, we might be waylaid when leaving the supermarket with our bags of food. At worst, our house will be ransacked, either by angry neighbours or by a government SWAT team, when they find that we’ve violated the Emergency Currency Act. (No, it doesn’t exist yet, but it most likely will.)

It’s a basic socio-economic principle that, during hard times, those who have not been responsible will come after those who have. Therefore, it’s not enough to merely retain wealth; it’s also essential to have both that wealth and ourselves in a jurisdiction that has been minimally impacted by the crisis.

We are now about to see the first of the major economic dominoes topple. At that point, conditions will get ugly. When that point arrives, it will be essential to have already expatriated the great majority of our wealth (no matter how small or large it may be) to a safer jurisdiction—one where we might openly pay for groceries with an Ajax or two—and to have made arrangements for a residence there, to which we can travel on short notice.

Of this we can be certain: When the major dominoes begin to fall, there will be little or no warning, and there will not be sufficient time to begin formulating an exit strategy.

In actual fact, if the reader is the possessor of the equivalent of a Duesenberg, now would be the time to sell it off quickly and lease a temporary car. It would also be the time to take all equity out of the house and other assets and get the proceeds expatriated. Retain nothing that you can’t walk away from quickly. Begin now to prepare for the next phase of your life and be ready to move.

If, by some magic, all of the present indicators of a coming crisis reverse themselves and your home country becomes both solvent and prosperous once again, you will have done nothing but create a position of freedom for yourself—one out of which you could reverse. However, if a crisis is as inevitable as all the indicators suggest, survival will depend upon the preparation that you create now.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Duesenberg in a Barn appeared first on LewRockwell.

In the summer of 2016, months before the public was hit with a barrage of headlines about Donald Trump’s supposed electoral collusion with the Russians, American intelligence agencies had already learned of a plan by Hillary Clinton to plant that erroneous narrative into the mainstream. Nevertheless, top-ranking intelligence chiefs did nothing to unravel Clinton’s plan. Worse, according to the current director of the CIA, they magnified that false claim.

The Russia Collusion hoax was not only a “Hillary Clinton campaign scheme,” but one that the FBI further inflamed, according to recent comments by CIA Director John Ratcliffe. It was an all-hands-on-deck intel operation against Donald Trump and the American people.

Ratcliffe announced during a guest appearance on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo that he has referred several major players involved in that conspiracy to the Justice Department for criminal charges. They include former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Trump’s presidential opponent in 2016. These referrals follow Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s referral of former U.S. President Barack Obama for criminal charges.

Obama’s “Treasonous Conspiracy”

Gabbard released on July 18 a report she said indicated a a “treasonous conspiracy” by Obama and his national security team to undermine the first Trump presidency by falsely claiming that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. She published a 114-page report of previously classified documents to support the claim. You can read out report on that development here.

The Obama camp has since responded, calling it a “a weak attempt at distraction.” Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush also repeated the prevailing defensive narrative that, even if Russia did not successfully affect the election results, that does not mean that Obama’s administration was lying. “Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,” Rodenbush said.

Some have suggested that, whatever Obama’s role was, he likely won’t face prosecution due to presidential immunity protections.

New Revelations

On Sunday, Ratcliffe told Bartiromo that additional information will soon be made public. It will show that, while the Clinton campaign was the source of the Russia Collusion hoax, the FBI had its own agenda to magnify and perpetuate the claims in the Steele Dossier, named after Democratic opposition researcher and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Ratcliffe emphasized that, long before Gabbard’s office released receipts over a week ago, before the Robert Mueller investigation cleared Trump, and even before the Deep State tried to set up Trump as a “Putin puppet” through Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the U.S. intel community knew Trump was not working with the Russians. American intel intercepted in August 2016 Russian intel “talking about a Hillary Clinton plan … to falsely accuse Donald Trump of Russia collusion, to vilify him and smear him.…”  Brennan, then the director of the CIA, briefed Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, and Comey about this plan. Months later, those same people would take part in a pivotal meeting that resulted in a propaganda campaign projecting those claims as true.

Ratcliffe said that four years later, in 2020, he found Brennan’s handwritten notes that acknowledged Clinton’s plan (the notes were shown on the screen during the Bartiromo segment). By that time, though, those same people were busy concocting their next propaganda operation, the Hunter Biden Laptop hoax. And it’s only now, Ratcliffe added, after Americans reelected Trump, that “all of this evidence that’s been hidden and buried from the American people is finally coming to light.”

No Statute of Limitations

Ratcliffe said that the statute of limitations does not apply and should not shield the people he referred for criminal prosecution. He pointed out that Brennan testified to John Durham in 2020 and the House Oversight Committee in 2022, Clinton testified to Durham in 2022, and Comey testified before the Senate Committee in September 2020 with these same false claims. He also added that Clinton’s role has been verified in multiple ways, including by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, who testified in the Michael Sussmann trial that the former presidential candidate personally approved a plan to convince the public that the Trump team colluded with the Russians.

The new Trump DOJ, Ratcliffe  said, provides an opportunity to “look at how these people really did conspire to run a hoax, fraud, on the American people and against Donald Trump’s presidency.” The CIA chief said accountability is part of the reason they’re bringing all of this to light, but so is prevention. Something like this should never happen again.

FULL SEGMENT
Due to the ongoing “CONSPIRACY”, it looks like BRENNAN, COMEY, CLAPPER and HILLARY are in a spot of trouble

CIA Director, John Ratcliffe @CIADirector breaks it all down with @MariaBartiromo pic.twitter.com/LHOnWJX15G

— MAGA Kitty (@SaveUSAKitty) July 27, 2025

Substantial Documentation

As we pointed out in a recent edition of The New American’s Insider Report, the alleged illegal activity of the intel community “was far more extensive and more serious than previously known.” Gabbard’s document is among many others in this vein to have been recently released.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced on July 21 the release of the “Clinton Annex” to the 2018 DOJ Office of Inspector General’s findings that the FBI, under Comey, did not fully investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information when she was the secretary of state. Grassley had been asking for this classified document for seven years. Attorney General Pam Bondi finally declassified it.

Two days later, on July 23, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) announced the release of a 46-page report on the fabricated assessment by Obama and his intel heads — Clapper, Brennan, Comey — that Trump colluded with Russia. This report had been classified since 2017.

Read the Whole Article

The post CIA Director Refers Comey, Brennan, and Hillary Clinton for Criminal Prosecution appeared first on LewRockwell.

Some my old friends and family members have asked me if I believe that President Trump was justified in accusing former President Barack Obama of committing treason.

Underlying their question is the thought, Surely Obama wouldn’t have dared to commit such a brazen act against the Constitution, the electoral system, and the American people.

Ordinary citizens have always struggled to recognize that the ruling class has always been in the business of sustaining and augmenting its power and wealth, and has always regarded ordinary citizens as naive and easy to manipulate.

Such is the theme of Machiavelli’s political handbook, The Prince. Since it was published in 1532, many have interpreted the book to mean that Machiavelli advocated ruthlessness and deception as a matter of preference.

This is a misunderstanding. Machiavelli believed that, because most people are ignorant, selfish, foolish, avid for gain, and lacking the ability to feel lasting gratitude for their blessings, it is impossible for the Prince to govern them with complete honesty and transparency. The Prince must therefore never speak to the ordinary people in the same way he speaks to members of his ruling class about the exercise of power.

It was with a fine Machiavellian flourish that Hillary Clinton told a private assembly of Goldman Sachs bankers in 2013:

But if everybody is watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.

Hillary made these remarks in a series of three speeches to Goldman Sachs for which she was paid $675,000. At the time she gave the talks, she had just left her position as Obama’s Secretary of State and was—as the Goldman bankers knew—preparing to run for president in 2016.

As Bernie Sanders pointed out, the bankers didn’t give her 675 grand because she’s a great speaker. They were obviously buying influence in the woman they believed would soon be President of the United States.

Any citizen of ordinary prudence who isn’t brainwashed would immediately find this arrangement to be repugnant, especially given that Hillary gave her speeches less than five years after Goldman bankers played an instrumental role in producing the Financial Crisis of 2008. As Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein humorously said in a Congressional hearing about the financial crisis when a Congressman read a compromising e-mail written by one of his rambunctious and ruthless traders, “I think that’s a very unfortunate thing to write in an e-mail.”

Thus, in 2016, when Wikileaks released the transcripts of her Goldman speeches in 2013—along with many other outrageous e-mails—the Democrat Party machine understood that it had to change the subject from the content of the DNC/Podesta/Clinton emails by fabricating a story of immensely dramatic and manipulative power.

And so, the American people were told ad nauseam that the real threat to the integrity of the American Republic was not Hillary Clinton and her Goldman Sachs cronies, but the perfidious Russians who (the DNC claimed) hacked their server.

James Madison would have said that invoking the threat of foreigners is the oldest dirty trick in the political playbook. As he stated in a debate at the Constitutional Convention:

The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.

Madison read The Prince and he understood that Machiavelli was probably right about many things. Nevertheless, Madison decided to take a shot at framing a Constitution that would give ordinary citizens the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, he thought, it was possible for men and women to attain the education and maturity to live in a free country in which the power of the rulers is constrained.

However, as he pointed out, this would only be possible and sustainable if the citizenry was dedicated to educating itself. As he put it:

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.

With the enormous prosperity of the post-war period, the American people grew complacent and too trusting in the integrity of federal institutions and the U.S. media. This enabled the power of the Deep State, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the bankers who finance the apparatus to grow.

President Eisenhower warned the American people about the rise of this unconstrained power in his 1961 Farewell Address. President John F. Kennedy tried to oppose this power during his brief time in office. He starkly contrasted with Lyndon Johnson, who had always relished unconstrained power. It is therefore not surprising that Johnson was the most conspicuous beneficiary of Kennedy’s assassination.

The Deep State got away with assassinating Kennedy, and it has been getting away with spectacular criminal acts ever since. As a true crime author, I have spent years studying criminal psychology. Almost invariably, a criminal who gets away with a lot of things becomes increasingly brazen. When he is eventually caught, people marvel at his brazenness, unaware of all the times he’d committed brazen crimes and gotten away with it.

Viewed rationally, the U.S. military should be regarded as the instrument of the vast racketeering organization that the U.S. government has become. This state of affairs was already taking shape before World War II. Towards the end of his life, Major General Smedley Darlington Butler—the most decorated Marine in U.S. history—concluded that War is a Racket, as he memorably characterized it with a speech he frequently gave in the early 1930s and in a 1935 book. As he stated in his speech,

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

Major General Butler told the truth, as did President Eisenhower in 1961. They knew what they were talking about. For decades the Deep State has been doing whatever the hell it wants with impunity.

And so, to conclude—Yes, I believe President Trump is fully justified in accusing President Obama of treason, though Obama was undoubtedly under the influence of Deep State ghouls such as his CIA director John Brennan, who assured him that the intrigue against Trump was justified.

RussiaGate was an obvious intrigue and hoax that did incalculable damage to the American Republic.

The treasonous hoax also made it impossible for Trump to have good relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin—to be both friendly and also firm with the Russians in a relationship of mutual respect. Had it not been for RussiaGate, I doubt the immensely destructive and dangerous war in Ukraine would have happened.

Watching this farce unfold in 2017, it occurred to me that if the U.S. mainstream media was ruthless enough to peddle such a hoax—and over half of the American people were silly enough to believe it—we were, as a country, in very deep trouble.

What, I wondered, would be the next “great threat to the security of the American people”? I was therefore prepared to recognize, in March 2020, that U.S. federal health agencies and the mainstream media could not be trusted to tell the truth about COVID-19—the truth about its origin, its virulence, how to respond to it, and how to immunize against it. And indeed, it’s a singular fact that virtually everything we were told about the pandemic and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines—developed at “Warp Speed”—was a lie.

Author’s Note: If you found this report interesting and informative, please consider being a paid subscriber to the Focal Points. For just $5 per month, you can support us in our efforts to investigate and report the reality of what is going on in our world. During these languid days of summer we have lost many of our paid subscribers who have—understandably—grown fatigued with many of the themes we’ve been reporting since we started our newsletter in October 2022. However, the U.S. Deep State and its mainstream media lackeys have not been vanquished. RussiaGate and COVID-19 were not the last of their machinations. I hope our readers will understand the importance of supporting independent investigative scholars like us.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post RussiaGate, COVID-19, and Criminal Psychology appeared first on LewRockwell.

The European Union and U.S. agreed on a trade deal which cements the vassalization of the EU:

After make-or-break negotiations between President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland, the pair agreed a US tariff on all EU goods of 15%.

That is half the 30% import tax rate Trump had threatened to implement starting on Friday. He said the 27-member bloc would open its markets to US exporters with zero per cent tariffs on certain products.

Von der Leyen also hailed the deal, saying it would bring stability for both allies, who together account for almost a third of global trade.
…
Trump said the EU would boost its investment in the US by $600bn (£446bn), including American military equipment, and spend $750bn on energy.

That investment over the next three years in American liquified natural gas, oil and nuclear fuels would, von der Leyen said, help reduce European reliance on Russian power sources.

Some goods will not attract any tariffs, including aircraft and plane parts, certain chemicals and some agricultural products. A separate deal on semiconductors may be announced soon.
…
[A] 50% US tariff Trump has implemented on steel and aluminium globally would stay in place, he said.

The is a very, very bad deal for Europe. It again demonstrates the incompetence of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

As I have pointed out previously there was and is no imbalance in trade between the U.S. and Europe. There was no need for tariffs or for agreeing to a deal. As the Washington Post concedes (archived):

For the E.U., a 15 percent blanket tariff is far worse than what European officials had previously hoped for. They’d offered “zero-for-zero” tariffs with the U.S. on industrial goods at the start of Trump’s trade blitz. But the bloc has sought to avoid an all-out trade war with its traditionally closest commercial and military ally.
…
Trump frequently complains about the yawning gap in U.S.-E.U. merchandise trade. Last year, the U.S. imported almost $606 billion worth of European products while selling goods totaling about $370 billion to European buyers. The resulting $236 billion trade deficit is evidence of European unfairness, Trump insists.

But the U.S. runs a sizable surplus of its own in trade in services like financial advice, tourism and education, bringing the total trade relationship much closer to balance. Considering the total $1.8 trillion in goods and services that flow between the U.S. and E.U., the U.S. trade deficit is less than $100 billion, which most economists say is inconsequential.

The EU commission was given the tools to prevent the current outcome. That is why yesterday Martin Sandbu of the FT argued (archived) that there was no need to concede:

There will be no final agreement.
…
So it is a mistake to treat this as a negotiation with an ultimate resolution. There will be no resolution. There will continue to be instrumentalised chaos, promised policy steps will suddenly be thrown out, and linkages with all kinds of demands unrelated to trade will keep being made, mafia-style (just ask Brazil). The EU’s task is not, therefore, to negotiate a trade deal, but to find ways to insure its economies, companies and workers as much as possible from the cost of being exposed to a completely unreliable US.

The US is more vulnerable than it thinks.
…
[T]he EU’s net imports of US services and its net royalty payments for intellectual property balance out its net exports of goods to America. [..]
…
The EU is more powerful than it looks. So far, the EU does not seem too willing to go beyond tariffs as a retaliatory weapon. But it, obviously, has others. The most relevant rule here is the “anti-coercion instrument” (ACI) that gives the European Commission vast powers to choose economic measures it sees fit — well beyond the realm of tariffs or even trade more generally — in order to respond to an attempt by a foreign power to coerce its policy decision.
…
To sum up: there is no settlement that will end Trump’s unreasonable demands and stabilise trade policy; the balance of bargaining power favours Europe more than conventional wisdom believes; and the EU may not need, in terms of its long-term economic interests, to divert Trump from his protectionist course. So why should the EU offer the US anything? To be blunt, it doesn’t need to negotiate. That is what von der Leyen should tell Trump today. Pulling out of talks is, if anything, more likely to get Trump to back down.

There was no reason for the EU to accept any deal.

That it did so is a result of the miserable negotiation tactics (archived) van der Leyen has pursued. She has become a cause and symbol of Europe’s decay.

The only positive feature of the deal is that it is not clear yet (archived) what it entails:

Like many preliminary agreements Mr. Trump has announced, this one had few details. For some of the “deals” that Mr. Trump reached, other governments have seemed to lack clarity on what exactly they agreed to, and it remains unclear which tariff rates will apply to which products as of Aug. 1.
…
“There’s a lot of issues that I think are still very unclear,” said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group. “If there aren’t further exemptions to be negotiated to that 15 percent, I think it’s a far more suboptimal deal than the member states were hoping to achieve.”

On hopes that the EU member states will finally be furious enough to kick van der Leyen out of her office. The Prime Minister of France seems to be ready to do that.

François Bayrou @bayrou – 8:29 UTC · Jul 28, 2025
(Translated by Grok)

Von der Leyen-Trump Agreement: it is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission.

Indeed this is a capitulation to the U.S. of A.

As a German I wince when I read Chancellor Merz’ commenting (archived) against the interests of his own country:

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz saluted the agreement as “avoiding an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations”.

He said a trade war “would have hit Germany’s export-oriented economy hard”, highlighting how the German automotive industry would now see US tariffs cut from 27.5 per cent to 15 per cent.

However, Wolfgang Niedermark, board member of the Federation of German Industries trade body, called the agreement “an inadequate compromise”, with the EU “accepting painful tariffs”.

A 15 per cent US tariff rate “will have a huge negative impact on Germany’s export-oriented industry”, he said.

Warwick Powell, in stark contrast to other opinions, sees the deal as an attempt by the EU to further entangle the U.S. in Europe:

[L]ook beneath the bombast, and a different picture emerges. The picture is paradoxically not of European weakness per se (or vassalage as self-loathing Europeans would be tempted to say), but of European entrapment strategy from a position of relative weakness. If anything, this “deal” locks the United States deeper into Europe’s security and economic architecture, not the other way around. And it does so by using the one thing Trump cannot resist: the illusion of winning.

Warwick argues that most parts of the deal will never be done anyway. The U.S. can not export, and the EU not import, the amount of gas that would be needed to spend $750bn on energy. The investment side of the deal would have happened anyway and the tariffs will hurt the U.S. more than the EU.

But how is the EU winning with that? It sounds like 4-dimensional chess to me when von der Leyen is clearly incapable of winning a round of checkers.

The best summary of the situation comes, as so often these days, from the Russian side:

Medvedev: Trump “steamrolled” Europe with a one-sided deal that serves only American interests.

Commenting on the newly struck trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev argues that the agreement:

• • Strips Europe of its economic defenses, removing tariffs for U.S. goods while leaving EU markets vulnerable;
  • Imposes heavy costs on European industry and agriculture, forcing them to rely on overpriced American energy;
  • Diverts investment from Europe into the United States.

For Trump, it’s just business, Medvedev notes. For Europe, however, it’s blind ideological zealotry — with Ursula von der Leyen and the Eurocratic elite sacrificing the welfare of their own citizens.

Th EU commission could have easily prevented this.

A 100% tariff on Hollywood movies and a digital service tax to be payed by Microsoft, Google and others would have hit Trump and the U.S. where it hurts. The means were all there for the EU commission but it did not even give them a try. The result is a terrible outcome.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama,

The post ‘Blind Ideological Zealotry’ Let EU Agree to This Trump Deal appeared first on LewRockwell.

For many years, whether new lives would begin was determined by complex constraints, and then how long lives would last was limited by poverty, disease, and injury. More recently all of these constraints have been eased.

Vaccines started getting developed.

Genes were discovered, then got characterized, then started getting read.

People’s constitutional right to sue vaccine producers for harms was treated as nonexistent by most congressmen and a president, and by all subsequent majorities of congressmen, presidents, and judges.

Genes started getting edited and getting rapidly evolved.

An old religion’s radicals got powered by energy-rich donors and formed mobile governments. One of these governments used modern communications and transportation to strike people a continent away, threatening 50,000 people in a single morning and ending nearly 3,000 lives.

Government people knew that gene-manipulation technology could be developed in small facilities, weaponized, and used to strike many people. Many people wanted to increase safety, and do it quickly. Some decisionmakers sought out the people who looked the best-prepared to help quickly and tasked them with developing countermeasures.

People’s constitutional right to sue countermeasure producers for harms was treated as nonexistent by most congressmen and a president, and by all subsequent majorities of congressmen, presidents, and judges.

Years passed. The religious radicals didn’t end up developing bioweapons, but the government work continued. What politicians seemed to have thought were needed were countermeasures, but what researchers worked on were weapons.

Researchers from major enemy powers collaborated.

The weapons research got halted by one president, then got resumed by another president.

Researchers optimized a virus to infect and harm humans.

A virus outbreak was simulated. The responses of government people were simulated and evaluated.

The president who resumed the research was popular. Before he might have gotten reelected, the optimized virus spread worldwide.

The virus was orders of magnitude more deadly or debilitating to people who were already weakened by various conditions, although not to people who were very young. The virus mostly harmed people by causing clots or by causing harmful immune responses.

Government people and cronies responded with novel lockdowns, novel tests, novel suppression of the use of promising existing drugs and vitamins and supplements, novel ventilator protocols that reduced healthcare workers’ virus exposures but that led to most ventilated patients dying, novel mRNA treatments, and novel universal mail-in balloting.

Clinical trials of the novel mRNA treatments were designed to generate favorable-sounding partial data. Trials were intentionally run slowly, an insider reportedly said, so that favorable-sounding partial data couldn’t affect the election.

A presidential candidate who basically didn’t campaign was certified by state government people and then by national government people as having won.

Favorable-sounding partial data on the novel mRNA treatments were released.

Mandates to be injected with the novel mRNA treatments were put into force by government people, cronies, and unconstitutional-rule following employers.

Many people were injected with an initial shot and one booster shot. Uptake of these initial two shots and of subsequent boosters varied strongly with political affiliation. Political affiliation in turn varied strongly with type and strength of religious faith, and with mental health.

It became increasingly-widely understood that the novel mRNA treatments distribute throughout the body, make the body produce a damaging spike protein like the virus’s spike protein for as many as 709 days or more, and cause clots or cause harmful immune responses. It became increasingly-widely understood that the novel mRNA treatments were significantly increasing premature deaths and severely reducing fertility.

Treatments that cause deaths or infertility might expect to be advocated by very few people. But the result would be a smaller population, and this result has been advocated by alarmingly-many people.

The virus evolved and became more transmissible and less lethal.

The president who had not been certified as reelected ran again. An independent candidate emerged who had widespread name recognition, had spent decades criticizing vaccines, and had rapidly written three books about various aspects of the novel virus and response. The independent candidate joined the former president’s campaign. The former president was elected to a second term.

Under this president the novel mRNA treatments remained recommended except in pregnancy. For people who were already weakened by various conditions, the recommendations were more forceful or even called for higher doses.

The effect of injecting such treatments in such weakened people would be the same effect that would be produced by deliberate, calculated eugenics.

Or maybe the effect would be like a biblical tribulation: global, devastating, and most-heavily affecting people who are further from God.

You are here.

Technologies will keep getting developed. Chances to harm others will keep emerging.

People didn’t learn all they could from the socialist Nazi Germany government people and cronies, from the Communist Soviet Union party people and cronies, or from the Chinese Communist party people and cronies up through now. The mostly crony-socialist USA government people, cronies, and people still have legal freedom of speech and a longstanding culture of forgiveness, and can do better.

By following along with the narrative above, we can begin to appreciate that huge numbers of people and huge number of actions contributed to causing deaths and disabilities from covid disease, from covid disease responses, and from the covid mRNA treatments in particular.

We must stop any more people from being harmed these same ways now.

We would do well to help as many people as possible who contributed to harming others to come clean about what they knew when, and about how and why they came to make the choices they made.

We must repeal the emergency powers and other Constitution-defying statutes that these people used to work their harms.

Giving others time to reflect and change before they face ultimate judgment could also optimally help both us and all who follow.

Don’t doom others to stumble down any remotely-similar paths.

Learn from history. Then teach.

The post What’s Wrong With USA Officials and Cronies? What Can People Do? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Epstein cloud is metastasizing and becoming a rallying point for deep-seated popular alienation.

The Epstein cloud is metastasizing and becoming a rallying point for deep-seated popular alienation from certain ruling strata. The public begrudgingly has become resigned to accept that their ‘rulers’ routinely lie and steal, but nonetheless they (particularly within the MAGA faction) have dimly come to understand that there may be vice within the body public which they regard as too detestable to imagine. People have caught on that Trump was in one way or another (even as a by-stander) linked to that whole degraded culture.

This is not likely to pass easily – or perhaps pass at all. Trump was elected to drain all such tangled webs of interlinked oligarchy, power structures and of intelligence services acting to unseen interests. That’s what he promised: America First.

Distraction from Epstein likely won’t work. The exploitation, abuse and destruction of the lives of untold numbers of children in the pursuit of power, wealth and diabolical debauchery cuts to the deepest quick of moral being. It cannot be distracted away by pointing to other élite vile monetary and power-plays. The abuse (and worse) inflicted on children stands apart in its own hellish category.

Trump may say that he’s done nothing legally wrong. But the point is that he’s now tainted – very seriously. He may consequently be entering Presidential lame-duck territory, barring some deus ex machina occurrence sufficient to deflect public attention.

Just to be clear, it is in Trump’s character to mightily resist becoming a ‘lame-duck’ President. And here lies the geo-political danger. Trump needs headline distractions and he needs ‘wins’.

However, he is at a weakened point now where the Security State and its Congressional allies are seizing more control. Equally, many in the nexus that links politicians and officials in the U.S., UK and Israel to deep business and intelligence ties will be extremely adverse to their exposure. Individuals, including the imprisoned Ghislaine Maxwell may prove dangerous, like a drowning man, who in his panic seizes on the nearest person only to drown the both of them.

Trump’s narrow-minded foreign policy team has taken the President’s foreign policy initiatives into a cage, whose bars have names such as ‘arrogance and hubris’.

On Ukraine, Trump has given Moscow what is effectively 50 days to capitulate to the Kellogg ceasefire ultimatum, or to face consequences.

Whilst third-party 100% sanctions – affecting mostly China and India’s energy imports from Russia – have been utterly dismissed by China (and likely will be by India too), Trump will be under pressure from his hawks in Congress to do something to inflict pain on Russia.

The problem is that the war-chest is empty. Neither the U.S. nor Europe hold a weapons inventory of any consequence to the war. Even were they to pay and order missiles or other weaponry now, it would be months until delivered.

Trump however needs quick wins/diversions.

Absent any meaningful inventory, Trump can only effectively escalate by using long-range missiles targeting Moscow or St Petersburg. Tomahawk 2,000 km range missiles are in the U.S. inventory (and were discussed byTeam Trump, David Ignatius has reported.

And what if these elderly Tomahawk missiles are easily shot down by Russian forces? Well, then there is a void. A serious void. Because there is nothing between the provision of token items of weaponry (a handful of Patriot missiles) to the U.S. pre-positioned tactical nukes that could be launched from fighter jets stationed in Britain.

At this point Trump would be hurtling toward a Big War with Russia.

Is there a plan ‘B’? Well … yes. It is to bomb Iran again, as an alternative to escalating against Russia.

Iranians think that another strike on Iran is likely, and Trump has said that he might do just that. So Iran is all-out preparing for such an eventuality.

It is quite possible that Trump has been briefed that the consequence to major strikes on Iran would be the effective missile-imposed de-militarisation of Israel – causing profound consequences in the U.S. polity, as well as the region.

It is also quite possible that Trump disregards such briefing, preferring to see Israel as “so good” (the exclamation he made as the Israeli sneak attack on 13 June was underway).

And in the Middle East right now? It looks as if Netanyahu is pulling the strings for Trump. Gaza is already a scandal – a war crimes scandal, with every prospect of getting worse.

Max Blumenthal reports that “when Tucker Calson alleged that Epstein had ties to Israeli Intelligence [and that this fact explained] why Trump is covering up [the Epstein Affair], the Israelis seemingly took fright. Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli Prime Minister, was summoned to declare that he had dealt, every day, with the Mossad and that Jeffrey Epstein did not work for the Mossad and was not an Israeli agent. He then threatened Carson, saying: ‘We won’t stand for this’. The Israeli Minister for Diaspora Affairs also denounced Tucker Carson. It is like the relationship between the U.S. Conservative movement and Israel is cracking up over Epstein”, Blumenthal suggests.

Netanyahu perhaps senses trouble ahead for Israel in the U.S., as young Americans and MAGA followers turn on Trump for having betrayed ‘America First’; for ‘co-owning’ the Gaza massacre; the Israeli-U.S. led Syria sectarian civil war; the bombing of Iran; and the despoilation of Lebanon.

Eighty-one percent of Americans, polls suggest, want all documents related to Epstein released. Two-thirds — including 84% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans — think the government is covering up evidence regarding his ‘client list’ and death. Trump’s disapproval rating stands at 53% currently.

Netanyahu is (perhaps consequentially) on a hurried rampage to impose ‘Greater Israel’. ‘Impose’, because the original Abraham Accords were ostensibly an agreement to normalise with Israel. Today, under military threat, Arab states are being compelled to accept Israeli terms – and subjugation to Israel.

It represents a travesty of the former Israeli notion of an alliance of minorities. Today, the ‘minorities’ (sometimes fractured majorities) are deliberately being set one against the other. The U.S. and Israel haveagain introduced ISIS 2.0 into the Middle East. The executions of Alawites, Christians and Shia in Syria are the direct consequence.

The prospect is of a devastated Middle East, with only the Gulf monarchies serving as obedient islands amid the wider landscape of internecine war, ethnic killing and Balkanised polities.

The new Middle East …?

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

The post Is the Trump ‘Mystique’ Broken? Does MAGA Sense Betrayal? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many news-media throughout the world have reported on a “Rabbis’ letter,” which by now has over a thousand signers, and which opposes Israel’s starving to death whatever Gazans haven’t already been killed by Israel’s troops using the bullets and bombs supplied 69% from the U.S. and 30% from Germany. I haven’t seen in any of those news-reports a link to the document itself, but I finally found the letter in Polish, and autotranslated it by Google; and here it is, titled “The Jewish People face a grave moral crisis: A Letter from Rabbis Worldwide”.

The “letter” (or whatever it is) says:

We abhor the violence of such nihilistic terrorist organizations as Hezbollah and Hamas. We call on them immediately to release all the hostages, held for so long captive in tunnels in horrendous conditions with no access to medical aid. We unequivocally support the legitimacy of Israel’s battle against these evil forces of destruction. We understand the Israeli army’s prioritization of protecting the lives of its soldiers in this ongoing battle, and we mourn the loss of every soldier’s life.

But we cannot condone the mass killings of civilians, including a great many women, children and elderly, or the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Repeated statements of intention and actions by ministers in the Israeli government, by some officers in the Israeli army, and the behaviour of criminally violent settler groups in the West Bank, often with police and military support, have been major factors in bringing us to this crisis. The killing of huge numbers of Palestinians in Gaza, including those desperately seeking food, has been widely reported across respectable media and cannot reasonably be denied. The severe limitation placed on humanitarian relief in Gaza, and the policy of withholding of food, water, and medical supplies from a needy civilian population contradict essential values of Judaism as we understand it.

They pretend — as does Israel’s Government — that this genocide against what had previously been 2.1 million Gazans, is a response to the 7 October 2023 event, in which, as Wikipedia reports, “In total, 1,195 people were killed:[35][e].” That would be a ratio of nearly two thousand to one. During Hitler’s regime, such high ratios, and such wantonness, in revenge, were viewed as being acceptable, but anyone who nowadays supports it is considered to be downright evil. When the thousand-plus signing rabbis opened by basically doing that (assuming that the Octobeer 7th event is what drives this genocide), they implicitly gave credit to some of the most vicious lies by the Israeli Government and its supporters. At the very outset, they thereby greatly weakened their case against that Government. But, in fact, this genocide of Gazans capstones the 1948 Nakba till today. It is part of that, which Israel has been doing ever since its birth on 14 May 1948 (the Nakba started the following day).

Furthermore, their alleging that “The severe limitation placed on humanitarian relief in Gaza, and the policy of withholding of food, water, and medical supplies from a needy civilian population contradict essential values of Judaism as we understand it” is bizarre, since Judaism is the Torah, which says:

Genesis 15:18-21

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt [the Nile] to the great river, the Euphrates, including the lands of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amoriotes, the Caananites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.’”

Deuteronomy 7:1-2

“You must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance: the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Caananites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. You must put them all to death.”

Deuteronomy 7:16

“Destroy every nation that the Lord your God places in your power, and do not show them any mercy.”

Deuteronomy 20:16-18

“When you capture cities in the land he Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone. Completely destroy all the people: the Hittites, the Amorites, the Caananites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord has ordered you to do. Kill them so that they will not make you sin against the Lord by teaching you to do all the disgusting things they do in the worship of their gods.”

Israel’s Government takes such passages as ‘justifying’ what they do to Palestinians. And the vast majority of Israelis agree with that viewpoint. They have the Torah on their side. I wish that the Old Testament’s genocidal hatred of Palestinians weren’t there, just as I wish that the New Testament’s genocidal hatred of Jews (John 8:44, Matthew 23:31-38, Luke 19:27, and from Paul, 1 Thes. 2:14-16) weren’t there, but pretending it’s not there, and even claiming Israel’s actions after 7 October 2023 “contradict essential values of Judaism as we understand it” is simply bizarre coming from teachers of Judaism. You can’t just make up a religion — it goes straight back to its ‘holy’ scripture. If that isn’t what you (rabbis and other clerics) teach, then what are you? And if it IS what you teach, then why DO you? (Because look at the genocides it has caused.)

This article was originally published on Eric’s Substack.

The post The Hypocricy of the ‘Rabbis’ Letter’ Against Exterminating Gazans appeared first on LewRockwell.

While most everyone is talking about the Epstein Thing, fewer are talking about the Palantir Thing or the Genius Thing, which may be one of the reasons for the Epstein Thing. As in, it’s another distraction from the important things.

Certainly it is important to know whether there is a high-level blackmail regime that leverages complicity in sex crimes the way the mafia leverages crimes such as murder. In order to become a made man the applicant must first do a piece of work; i.e., kill someone. That way, the mafia knows he can be trusted  . . . not to squeal on the other mobsters.

Almost everyone knows who Epstein was. How many know what Palantir is? Do you know what the word means? It is taken from Lord of the Rings. It refers to an all-seeing stone used by wizards to know what everyone’s doing. That’s what Trump – or the people controlling Trump – are doing, right now. Palantir is a real-life sorcerer’s stone that is going to be used to see what all of us are doing, so that nothing we do is unknown to the government-corporate thing that long-ago replaced the somewhat-limited government that briefly existed until circa April 1865. That was when the last check on government-corporate power was boot-stomped into the ground at Appomattox. Lincoln was no more free than the country he enslaved, by the way. The man was owned by the railroads and by a kind of precursor to Palantir, the Pinkerton thing. It’s all very depressing but not less true for being so.

Congruent with the greasy slouching toward Bethlehem (or rather, Washington) Palantir thing is the Genius Thing, which is the effort to replace fiat dollars with fiat digits; i.e., electronic money. Both of these things being necessary to each other in the same way that masks were the necessary predicate of the effort to coerce people into getting “vaccinated.” When your money is electronic and your life is, too, the government can control your life by controlling your electronic money. The “coin” you have on the screen of your phone is only as good as the government-corporate thing decides to allow. It will not be like it was when you had real (if fiat) dollars in your actual wallet (here it is interesting to note the use of such terms, associated in the mind of the average person with real/tangible things, with virtual things).

When you have a $100 bill, you can buy things with it that only you and the seller are aware have been bought and sold. But what’s the worry, as regards digital money and digital transactions? Well, what happens when the thing you wish to buy is something the government-corporate thing says you are no longer allowed to buy? Or buy more of? You have used up your allotted meat allowance for the month, citizen. Though you have “coin” enough in your now-digital “wallet” to buy some hamburger, you can’t – because the government-corporate thing has limited your ability to buy more. How about a “high-capacity” magazine – or even the gun, itself? When they have been declared illegal and your only means of buying is digital “coin,” you will no longer be able to buy either off the books, as you can when you have actual coin.

There are those, of course, who do not believe that Trump would ever be the one to push such things and yet that is exactly what he is doing. Just as he pushed REAL ID and didn’t end the endless war in Keeeeeeeeeeeeev, either. If he had run on those things – favor of REAL ID, more aid for Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeev and a surveillance regime enforced via digital money – it is likely Harris would have been the one selected. But that was not the plan and so she wasn’t. She served her purpose as the unpalatable alternative that prompted people to vote for Trump. Trump had to be selected to quiet opposition to what was coming – Palantir, REAL ID and the Genius of government-corporate controlled “coin.” It has worked splendidly.

So has the Epstein Thing.

While most of us are target-fixated on who among the Special People was having fun with Jeff (a thing we’ll never be allowed to know because then we’d know it’s most if not all of them, which is why Trump’s line about the Democrats not exposing him when they were in charge is as silly as wondering why one mobbed-up guy doesn’t expose the other mobbed-up guys) the agenda moves forward. Note that it always moves forward. Maybe a little less, for the moment. But it is never rolled back.

That trend is one we all see yet we all (well, most of us) like to pretend not to see it. Probably because admitting we do see it would bring up the awful truth that we’re going along with it, however much we like to pretend to ourselves we’re not.

This article was originally published on Eric Peters Autos.

The post The Epstein Thing and Other Things appeared first on LewRockwell.

A pro-abortion activist judge recently revised her own ruling and ordered the federal government to continue sending Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that kill innocent preborn babies.

Massachusetts District Judge Indira Talwani issued a revised injunction on Monday against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

A week prior, she had issued a partial block on the law, only allowing Planned Parenthood facilities and other entities that did not commit abortions to continue to receive Medicaid dollars. A revised order yesterday now requires HHS to fund all Planned Parenthood vendors.

The injunction stops a budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Trump at the beginning of July, which generally prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from going to organizations that kill preborn babies in the womb for one year. While it has been described as a defunding of Planned Parenthood, it affects other alleged “healthcare” organizations that commit abortions (yet curiously this latest ruling relies on the assertion the bill illegally targets Planned Parenthood).

Much like her last ruling, Talwani’s decision reads like a Planned Parenthood news release, repeating the debunked claim that only four percent of what the organization does is kill babies.

“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, wrote yesterday. “In particular, restricting Members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”

However, most of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from abortions, many forms of contraception act as abortifacients and cause serious harm to women, and the only ethical and truly effective way to prevent an STI is chastity. Planned Parenthood actually increases the risk of sexual diseases due to its heavy promotion and normalization of promiscuity, including to children.

An HHS spokesman told the Associated Press the ruling “undermines state flexibility and disregards longstanding concerns about accountability.”

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,” Andrew Nixon said.

The ruling drew criticism from pro-life leaders and commentators who suggested Talwani was undermining the rule of law and the separation of powers.

“This is how the Left usurps the will of the American People time and time again,” Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins wrote on X. “Judicial impeachments must begin.”

RedState commentator Bonchie said the decision is “the most baseless, insane ruling I’ve ever seen.”

“Understand that by Judge Talwani’s logic regarding her Planned Parenthood ruling, Democrats could pass a bill giving taxpayer funding to the DNC, and if Republicans retake power and defund it, it’d be a violation of the First Amendment,” the commentator also wrote. “Just insane.”

Legal commentators had previously raised concerns about Talwani’s judicial decision-making in this case, which includes a quick temporary restraining order and, more recently, the claim that Planned Parenthood’s First Amendment rights were being threatened.

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, concluded Talwani’s various legal analyses are weak and fail to present coherent arguments. “Judge Talwani’s ever-lengthening attempts to defend her judgment are a clear example of judicial overreach—complete with legal theories untethered from precedent and constitutional analysis that reads more like wishful thinking than rigorous jurisprudence,” Severino wrote last week for National Review.

“Her handling of the Planned Parenthood funding case is a textbook case of judicial overreach,” Severino, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, also wrote.

South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman previously questioned the speed at which Judge Talwani issued the temporary restraining order. “Lower court judges are misbehaving,” Blackman, a legal expert, wrote in his commentary.

He said Talwani “rushed” to file her restraining order and did not include a proper analysis required to issue such injunctions.

Blackman also highlighted a previous quote from Talwani in 2023 where she said she could not process filings in a day.

Political commentator Jarret Stepman also criticized the ruling. “It appears that left-wing judges are just going to dispense with the formalities and make grand declarations for the country based on their ideology and nothing else,” the Daily Signal writer stated.

He noted Talwani has a loose grasp of the law – she previously said a 12-year-old student could not wear a “There are only two genders” shirt to school “because it interfered with the rights of other students,” according to Stepman.

Stepman predicted HHS would eventually win the lawsuit.

“Obviously, Talwani’s decision can’t stand and will likely soon be overturned,” he wrote.

“This does, however, demonstrate how left-wing activist judges have completely abandoned the notion that they are upholding the law. Instead, they’ve decided that they are the law.”

This article was originally published on Lifesite News.

The post Obama Judge Completely Blocks Planned Parenthood Defunding appeared first on LewRockwell.

Israel’s top human rights group B’Tselem has finally declared that Israel is committing genocide, as has the Israel-based Physicians for Human Rights. The Israeli organizations join Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN human rights experts, and the overwhelming majority of leading authorities on the subject of genocide in their conclusion.

The debate is over. The Israel apologists lost. And we are seeing this reflected in mainstream discourse.

Pop megastar Ariana Grande has started speaking out in support of Gaza, telling her social media followers that “starving people to death is a red line.” This is a new threshold. Opposing Israel’s genocide is now the most mainstream as it has ever been.

MSNBC just ran a piece explicitly titled “Israel is starving Gaza. And the U.S. is complicit.”, featuring a segment with the virulently pro-Israel Morning Joe slamming the mass atrocity. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, himself a former AIPAC employee, has done a 180 and is now raking Israel over the coals on the air for its deliberately engineered starvation campaign. The New York Times finally overcame its phobia of the g-word with an op-ed titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”

We’re now seeing notoriously Zionist swamp monsters in the Democratic Party like Barack Obama, Hakeem Jeffries, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar changing their tune and attacking Netanyahu and Trump for their joint genocide project in Gaza, with increasingly forceful pushback from some on the right like Marjorie Taylor Greene as well.

As western pundits, politicians and celebrities suddenly pivot to denouncing Israel’s genocidal atrocities after two years of silence, it’s hard to believe that just a few weeks ago we were being told that saying “death to the IDF” is a hate crime.

People who’ve been staring at this genocide from the beginning have been asking the entire time, what is it going to take? What will it take for our society to stop sleepwalking through inane trivialities and vapid distractions and start opposing the holocaust of our day?

Raining military explosives on a giant concentration camp packed full of children wasn’t enough.

Burning children alive wasn’t enough.

Systematically destroying Gaza’s entire healthcare infrastructure — up to and including entering hospitals they’ve attacked and destroying individual pieces of medical equipment one by one — wasn’t enough.

Killing more journalists than were killed in both World Wars plus the US Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav Wars, the War in Afghanistan, and the ongoing war in Ukraine wasn’t enough.

The systemic rape and torture of prisoners wasn’t enough.

IDF soldiers routinely sharing photos and videos of themselves mockingly dressing in the clothes of dead and displaced Palestinian women and playing with the toys of dead and displaced Palestinian children wasn’t enough.

Israeli officials openly expressing genocidal intent for the people of Gaza wasn’t enough.

The US president and Israeli prime minister openly declaring their goal of the complete ethnic cleansing of a Palestinian territory wasn’t enough.

Field testing new weapons of war on Palestinians like they’re guinea pigs in a laboratory wasn’t enough.

Leaving countless civilians to slowly suffocate or die of dehydration trapped under the rubble of bombed buildings wasn’t enough.

Creating an AI system to ensure that suspected Hamas fighters are bombed when they’re at home with their children and naming it “Where’s Daddy?” wasn’t enough.

Using Palestinians as human shields wasn’t enough.

Burying injured civilians alive with bulldozers wasn’t enough.

The IDF admitting to running a popular Telegram channel called “72 Virgins” which posted extremely gory and sadistic snuff films of people in Gaza being butchered by Israeli forces wasn’t enough.

IDF snipers routinely shooting children in the head and chest throughout the Gaza Strip wasn’t enough.

The IDF flying drones which play the sounds of crying babies at night in order to lure out hiding civilians to murder them wasn’t enough.

IDF troops telling the Israeli press that they’re being ordered to massacre starving civilians seeking food from aid sites wasn’t enough.

Israeli snipers targeting different body parts of starving civilians on designated days — leg day, head day, genitals day, etc — wasn’t enough.

Far right Israeli citizens setting up blockades to stop aid trucks from entering Gaza while they enjoyed parties and barbecues at the blockade sites wasn’t enough.

Using lies and propaganda to dismantle the aid system for bringing essential food and life-supporting supplies into Gaza, to replace it with a US/Israeli op where aid seekers are massacred every single day, wasn’t enough.

Using siege warfare to deliberately starve Gaza for the previous 22 months wasn’t enough.

But now that starvation has hit a critical point and deaths from malnutrition are skyrocketing, now that images of dead skeletal children are filling our screens, now that the damage to organs and brains from starvation will be irreversible in many cases — now it’s enough.

That was the line, apparently. That’s what mainstream western consciousness has decided is too much. Everything up until that line was fine, but now it’s not fine anymore.

And the killing is still going on. The sudden awakening of conscience hasn’t translated into any material actions or changes at all yet. If it had come in October or November 2023 like it should have we might be seeing that opposition translate into actually saving Gaza by now, but the light has only just been switched on. It’s not even guaranteed that those who are speaking up will continue to do so.

Hello I am a North American journalist and op Ed writer. For the last 18 months my dang computer has been auto correcting all of my writing and posts to say that what’s happening in Gaza is complicated but necessary. What I actually meant is that it’s bad. Thank you

— Boeckner (@d_boeckner) July 26, 2025

I’m glad people are waking up to the cruel reality of this nightmare. I’m grateful to each and every influential voice who uses their platform to speak out, even at this late date. I truly am.

But I also think we need to take a very hard, very uncomfortable look at ourselves as a society right now. If all those monstrous abuses were tolerable for us over these last two years, there’s something deeply and profoundly sick about our civilization.

We are not living right. We are not thinking right. We are not feeling right. We are warped and twisted. The information we consume and the norms we’ve been conditioned to accept have corrupted our souls.

We have been made into something bad. Something ugly. Something shameful. Something we need to do everything in our power to change.

We need to rescue ourselves from what we have become. We need to transform, deeply and radically, into something that could never again allow something like this to occur.

The way things are clearly isn’t working. The mainstream worldview is clearly a lie. Everything we’ve been taught to believe about our society, our nation, our government and our world was clearly false.

We need to fight our way through the cognitive dissonance of recognizing that our entire way of looking at things as a collective has failed, and we need to find a new way of being.

Otherwise we’re going to keep being smashed in the face with increasingly horrifying reminders of what we have allowed ourselves to become.

The lessons will repeat until they are learned.

We had better start learning them.

___________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

The post It Shouldn’t Have Taken This Much For Mainstream Voices To Start Speaking Up About Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , on Monday announced on X that he intends to reform the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The program was established as part of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The Act, and subsequent court decisions, acknowledged that vaccines, like all other medicines, can cause injuries and even death.

In his X post, Kennedy noted that vaccines are described in law as “unavoidably unsafe.” Congress established VICP, which obliged HHS to compensate injured children.

Kennedy noted that his uncle, Senator Edward Kennedy, stated, “when … children are the victims of an appropriate and rational national policy, a compassionate government will assist them in their hour of need.”

But the VICP has not lived up to the promise of the 1986 Act.

As Kennedy put it, “The VICP is broken, and I intend to fix it. I will not allow the VICP to continue to ignore its mandate and fail its mission of quickly and fairly compensating vaccine-injured individuals.”

The respondent to a vaccine injury claim is the Department of Health and Human Services. The major pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna and Merck which profit enormously from vaccines do not have to defend their products in the “Vaccine Court.”

Big Pharma does not pay for vaccine injuries – taxpayers do – through a 75-cent surcharge collected per vaccine administered in the U.S.

Kennedy noted that VICP appears to worry more about the balance sheet of the trust fund than the need to fairly compensate the vaccine injured. In his book, The Vaccine Court, author Wayne Rohde details the labyrinth of problems blocking parents of injured children from receiving compensation to get the care they need for their injured child.

Referring to the bureaucracy within the Civil Torts Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Kennedy writes, “Claimants are therefore facing the monumental power and bottomless pockets of the U.S. government.”

At Vaccine Injury Court, judges do not preside over cases; Special Masters do. As Kennedy points out, “they come from government, legal, or political posts, and typically display an extreme bias that favors the government side. There is no discovery, and the rules of evidence do not apply.”

Kennedy further noted that the Vaccine Court does not “allow children’s attorneys access to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a taxpayer-funded CDC surveillance system that houses the best data on vaccine injuries.”

This creates an uneven playing field, Kennedy said, one in which petitioner attorneys only get paid if and when Special Masters and DOJ attorneys decide.

The program was intended to resolve cases fairly and quickly, but as Kennedy notes in his X post, cases often drag on for years.

In a book titled Vaccine Injuries, co-written by Louis Conte and MAHA Action president Tony Lyons, we documented the truth about the long grueling process that the vaccine injured and their families go through when they bring cases into the program.

“The VICP routinely dismisses meritorious cases outright or drags them out for years,” Kennedy writes. “Instead of ‘quickly and fairly’ awarding compensation, Special Masters, hired by a Judge to make their jobs easier, dismiss over half of the cases. Most of those that proceed typically take 5+ years to resolve, with many languishing for more than 10 years as parents struggle to care for children suffering with often extreme disabilities.”

Kennedy points to the unfair treatment of petitioners’ expert witnesses, who often, as he writes, “suffer intimidation and even threats that they will lose professional status or NIH funding if they testify for injured children.”

Continues Kennedy, “The government pays its own medical expert witnesses promptly while simultaneously slow-walking payments for petitioners’ experts—sometimes for years.”

The Vaccine Court, and the VICP, both desperately need an overhaul. They are America’s ultimate secret court, where every decision is carefully word-smithed while vaccine injuries are concealed and the public is kept in the dark.

The VICP has not served children, but it has allowed Big Pharma to shift the cost of vaccine injury to you – the taxpayer.

Read the Whole Article

The post Kennedy Vows To Reform Vaccine Injury Compensation Program appeared first on LewRockwell.

You think a “COVID-19 Style” Mugging of your Freedoms can’t happen one more time? 

Think again!

There’s a new plan – backed by $10.8 Billion of newly minted Government Money – for the Next Fake Plandemic, err, excuse me, Mugging!

Dr Sam Bailey presents the latest details:

Recently an exercise called ‘Tranquil Passport’ took place in the United States in order to prepare for a…“true international health crisis”.

It appears that the public are being robbed once again through the diversion of their money into “The Healthcare System Hoax“.

Should we be Surprised?

No!

Should we be Outraged?

Of course!

Most important, we should be PREPARED!

Please watch Dr Sam’s latest 18 min video and please review the excellent resource links she provides, HERE.

And please share with everyone you care about.

Thank you!

The post Wake Up! Your Health Freedom is Being Robbed – AGAIN!!! appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Chris Sullivan.

The post AI Analyzes the Shroud of Turin – And What It Revealed Stunned Everyone! appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post The Bizarre ‘Post-Truth’ US/EU Trade Deal appeared first on LewRockwell.

Economist Richard Werner explains to Tucker Carlson.

The post The Banking Industry’s Grand Ponzi Scheme appeared first on LewRockwell.