Aggregatore di feed

One hot, early August, 1973 Sunday afternoon, I was walking alongside my big brother outside the third-base side of Shea Stadium before a major league baseball game. That since-demolished stadium had open sides, with vertical cables that supported a scattered array of ornamental sheet-metal blue and orange squares, displaying the home team’s colors. From the concourse’s upper decks, one could behold a vast, open-air panorama, including Flushing Bay and LaGuardia Airport.

One could also throw things from these heights onto unsuspecting pedestrians far below. On that day, one did.

I was looking toward my brother to my left as we strolled toward the stadium’s entrance when I saw, from the corner of my eye, an object dropping out of the upper reaches of the stadium, perhaps on-target to hit him. I called, “Look out!” and reflexively pushed him to a spot that seemed safer. A split second later, a large plastic cup nearly full of cola burst on the walkway and stickily splattered my shorts-wearing brother’s legs. It was a better outcome than if he’d been struck on the head, but still unfavorable. My angry, wet brother looked skyward. A hundred-plus feet above us, three late teens were laughing at their stunt and its victim.

My brother glared up at the three and shouted a specific physical threat. The presumptive tosser in the middle laughed and called out, “Ha! You’ll never catch me!”

This was undeniably true. Given the angle and height, we couldn’t see their faces clearly. And there were 40,000 attendees. We had no chance of finding the drink droppers. Besides, if my brother found and roughed up the guy, we’d have been ejected from the stadium.

We soon forgot about the aerial assault. We wanted to enjoy our day off.

Then the Mets got thumped. We shoulda just gone swimming.

—

Life presents countless situations, more serious than the one described above, where evildoers aren’t, and from a practical standpoint can’t be, held accountable for what they’ve done to others.

For every crime committed, hundreds go undetected, uninvestigated and/or unsolved. If they’re not killed, crime victims must come to terms with what was done to them and carry on. It’s how life is.

Nor does civil litigation deliver commensurate compensation when harm is done. Those who amass unserviceable debt declare bankruptcy and pay their creditors pennies on the dollar, if they pay anything at all. And in personal injury matters, some of the amounts awarded or paid in settlement are excessive in relation to the injury claimed, as in fender-bender cases. But some awards are too low because money simply can’t make up for the loss of health, time or a loved one. How, for example, could the federal government or Pharma compensate women who may have been rendered infertile by mRNA shots? As a threshold matter, federal law immunizes the vaxx pushers. From lawsuits, I mean.

Similarly, while many business pledges, money-back-guarantees and purportedly lifetime commitments are breached, for either legal or practical reasons, the party that’s been lied to lacks recourse. Life is full of examples.

—

Rather than yielding punishment for transgressions, written laws and the judicial system exist principally to create a fear of consequences and thus, to deter widespread misbehavior.

Religious commandments and beliefs may also disincentivize misconduct. Even those who don’t fear secular authorities may decline to commit a crime because they feel that a supreme being is watching and keeping score.

Still other potential miscreants forgo misconduct because they believe in karma, either in a theological or a sociological/practical sense. Feeling that that others will reciprocate their bad acts somewhere down the line promotes restraint and respect.

—

But the street-smart and the well-connected and wealthy know they’re unlikely to get caught or face serious consequences if they disobey laws. Thus, they do what they want with impunity.

The sociopathic Scamdemicians didn’t worry about facing punishment for their extreme overreach. Freed of concern for the consequences that prevent much misconduct, the Covid conspirators caused massive damage and are walking away, scot-free, from their evil deeds. This cynical team flexed power without regard to morality.

Many Americans advocate Nuremberg 2.0 trials for the Covid Scam’s orchestrators. These would make for great TV. Seeing those charged—many of whom aren’t household names—face simple, yet challenging questions for the first time, most Americans would belatedly be exposed to how extensive and phony the whole lockdown/school closure/mask/test and shot charade and Congressional subsidies/giveaways were. But the bureaucrats and other operatives knew they were too powerful, well-connected and/or old to face prosecution, much less imprisonment.

No politician has been held accountable for their role in orchestrating the Scamdemic. All who pushed the Covid clampdown and shots were reelected. And the Public Health, DoD, Biosecurity, Pharma, NGO, media, college and school administrators, teacher’s union heads and other operatives who concocted and drove the Scam continue to lurk, well-paid, within their institutions. Others have retired.

—

Even if they were identified as co-conspirators, instead of saying they were “following orders,” as during Nuremberg, they’ll maintain that they were “following The Science.” Much of the public still accepts this lame alibi. Despite the obvious illogic of the Covid response and the shots’ failure, tens of millions of the well-propagandized still believe the lockdowns, closures, masks, tests and shots were clever and saved lives. Even those who now realize how destructive it was tell themselves that well-intentioned people did the best they could and “couldn’t have known” in March 2020 that the worst respiratory virus in human history couldn’t simply, magically emerge. They take no responsibility for their gullibility or passivity.

Many have intentionally forgotten about the lockdowns and shots because admitting that they supported such lunacy and tyranny reflects poorly on their intellect or integrity. Most have been distracted by life and various forms of addictions and entertainment as things slowly returned to normal.

Thus, in either the court of public opinion or in the criminal courts, it seems impossible to convince a jury that lockdown, mask, test and shot-pushing individuals have perpetrated a massive fraud.

The Scamdemic’s perpetrators and promoters have gone silent and changed the subject. As during the recent Epstein non-disclosures, the government wants you to move on. But the lack of accountability for the Covid response and the mRNA injection injuries and deaths has, among many, deepened mistrust of government. Public anger about the DOJ’s refusal to release Epstein documents manifests that many Americans know their government lied extensively during the Scamdemic and won’t accept being told that nothing untoward happened in either situation. This group won’t quietly “let it go.”

—

In 1979, Nicaraguan rebels ousted their President, Anastasio Somoza-Debayle. Somoza is said to have further impoverished his already poor and earthquake-devastated citizens by embezzling nearly all of the national treasury, including millions of earthquake relief funds and by bombing civilians and ordering his political enemies to be pushed out of helicopters from heights much greater than baseball stadia.

Some Nicaraguans were unwilling to let bygones be bygones. A year after Somoza went into hiding, rebels tracked him down in Paraguay, blew up his car and him with rocket-propelled grenades and strafed him with a hail of close-range bullets from automatic rifles. Curbside justice in response to heinous crimes fulfills the human desire for reciprocity. It also deters future oppression. The public has exacted similar, direct, terminal revenge against Ceausescu, Mussolini and many others. Thomas Jefferson expressly endorsed lethal violence against tyrants.

In this vein, despite its stated commitments to democracy, due process and non-violent conflict resolution, the US government has carried out and/or facilitated plenty of assassinations, both here and abroad. More recently, many Americans cheered Luigi Mangione for allegedly killing a medical insurance executive whose company denied too many claims. The Covid conspirators hurt way more people than any insurance exec ever did.

Six of seven of Somoza’s assassins escaped. But surveillance has advanced exponentially since 1980, especially in the US. How many Americans are willing to be killed or spend the rest of their lives in jail for seeking Covid retribution? I’m not. I like my family, friends and sunlight. Plus, they say jail food is bad and the neighbors are unfriendly.

—

During the Scamdemic, most Americans went along because they naively believed that government officials were smart and honorable and that the legal system would ultimately punish any who weren’t. Earlier in their lives, the gullible heard and believed too many grandiose political speeches and had seen too many detective shows where the criminal gets caught in the end and too many courtroom dramas where the murderer is shown to be lying and breaks down on the stand. Moreover, most Americans have a satisfactory level of wealth and comfort. They’re unwilling to give these up to become vigilantes whom the government would kill or incarcerate.

Thus, the Scam orchestrators won’t be punished. And the Scamdemic damage won’t be and can’t be undone. The time stolen is irreplaceable. And the many who made millions from the Scam bought stocks, real estate and other stuff that they’re never giving back.

Those who wish to retroactively impose punishment should instead have perceived the Scam from the beginning and refused to cooperate. Civil disobedience is the only practical and effective response to governmental oppression. But such resistance requires knowledge, insight and widespread, durable commitment. In 2020-21, Americans showed that they sorely they lacked these qualities.

After accepting and embracing 2020’s lockdowns and giveaways and buying into Vaxxmania, it became too late to turn the tide against these scams. As at the stadium, the Scamdemic perpetrators sneakily threw shit on people from above and disappeared into obscure, safe havens. They knew the masses were too naive, fearful, unassertive, distracted and circumstantially boxed-in to resist or seek vengeance.

Reprinted with permission from Dispatches from a Scamdemic.

The post Why the Covid Conspirators Won’t Be Held Accountable appeared first on LewRockwell.

If you don’t think Washington is in the maws of a Fiscal Doomsday Machine, think again.

And the place to start is with the 30-year CBO projections—expressed as the dollar increase from the current $29 trillion level of publicly held US Treasury debt.

To wit, if Washington does nothing except leave current tax, spending and structural deficit policies in place (i.e. baseline policy), the publicly-held debt will grow by $102 trillion over the next three decades, reaching a staggering 154% of what would be $85 trillion of GDP by 2054.

Moreover, that outcome assumes that Rosy Scenario does not loose her footing for even a moment through the middle of the century. Stated differently, the underlying CBO projections presume that there will be no recession during the 34 year span from 2020 to 2054, and that, in fact, there will be perpetual full-employment at about 4% from here on out.

Of course, during the last 30 years there have been three recessions (shaded area) and no such full-employment perfection was even remotely achieved. The short spells of 4% unemployment or under, in fact, were few and far between—in stark contrast to the CBO baseline which presumes 4% unemployment year after year until 2054.

The CBO projections also assumes that inflation stays strictly in its Fed-prescribed lane at around 2.0% for the next 30 years, as well. That hasn’t remotely happened during the last 30 years, when the inflation rate has exceeded the 2.0% mark during 17 years, and frequently by substantial amounts.

Y/Y Change In CPI 1994 to 2024

Likewise, it assumes that the bond pits will have no problem funding more than $100 trillion of new Treasury debt at yields which average just 3.6% over the next 30 years. Of course, the actual weighted average yield in the Treasury market today stands at 4.2% and the fulcrum 10-year note has been cycling around 4.4%, albeit at this point the prospective debt inundation is just getting started.

Again, judging by the last 30 years of history, the odds that interest rates will be pushed down into the mid-3% range and remain there for 30 years running would not seem very compelling, either.

Indeed, during the past 30-year period shown in the graph below the bond pits had the Fed’s big wind at their back as the latter monetized upwards of $8.5 trillion of US Treasury and GSE paper by the 2022 peak. Even then, yields were well above the CBO 3.6% assumption half the time, and were pushed lower only by the massive money-printing spree between 2008 and 2022—a feat not likely to be repeatable again without fueling even more inflation and speculation than we already have.

10-Year UST Yield, 1994 to 2024

Needless to say, with a baseline projection of $102 trillion of new debt ridding on the back of a veritable Rosy Scenario, you would think that Washington might be forming a fiscal bucket brigade to beginning bailing out the sinking budgetary ship. And most especially that it would be lead by the GOP—the once and former party of balance budgets and fiscal rectitude.

Not the Trumpified GOP, however. The Donald’s OBBBA—even with the egregious budget gimmick of terminating new tax cuts and bennies in the 2028 election year to make the cost look lower on the standard 10-year window—will add massively to the public debt.

The head-in-the-sand GOP leadership and White House economic policy pimps say not to sweat the extra debt because it is only $3 trillion on paper over 10-years, and, besides, much of that can be purportedly absorbed through enhanced “growth.”

Actually, what drives revenue growth is nominal GDP and the CBO baseline assumes an average of +3.7% growth per annum for the entire 30 year period through 2054. Given that nominal GDP growth averaged exactly 3.9% during the 20 years ending in Q1 2020—a period in which the Fed’s printing presses were running red hot—we doubt there would be much additional nominal GDP growth tonic from essentially extending existing tax law (i.e. the expiring 2017 Trump tax cuts) through the next three decades of massive rising debt burdens.

In any event, on a 30 years basis, the OBBBA will add $117 trillion to the public debt, which figure would rise to an additional +$133 trillion when you price-out OBBBA without the accounting gimmicks. Now, how anyone thinks that quintupling the public debt from $29 trillion to $162 trillion over the next three decades is a plausible route to the Golden Age of Prosperity actually extends well beyond our powers of imagination.

Even then, the truth is surely far worse. Just remove one brick from the edifice of Rosy Scenario—perpetually low interest rates—and the fiscal dragons truly come surging from the budgetary vasty deep. That is, if you assume the weighted average UST yields will clock in at 4.25% rather than 3.5% over the next three decades, the added debt from the permanent extension of the OBBBA would amount to $156 trillion.

That’s right. Face with a veritable Fiscal Doomsday Machine as embodied in the current CBO baseline, the Trumpified GOP has essentially embraced a budgetary path to a $185 trillion public debt by mid-century, representing a crushing 218% of GDP. In a word, the GOP has surrendered to fiscal calamity lock, stock and barrel.

But that’s not the entirety of the matter. As it happens, given the GOPs allergy to taxes, cowardice on entitlements and thirst for Forever Wars and a massive Warfare State, there is no way the nation’s runaway debts will be tackled from the Republican side of the aisle. To remind, when you set aside defense, which will cost $9.7 trillion over the next decade, Veterans at $4.1 trillion, Medicare and Social Security at $15.3 trillion and $20.6 trillion, respectively, and interest at $13.9 trillion, these GOP Sacred Cows add up to $63.4 trillion over the next decade.

That’s 71% of total baseline outlays of $89 trillion and when you add in $7 trillion of Federal Medicaid—from which the GOP has not yet agreed to cut only a small bite–there is only $18 trillion left. And that’s for the entirety of the Federal government from the NIH to highways, the national parks, farm programs, school lunches, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BLM, the Federal judiciary, the Coast Guard and the Washington Monument, too, among countless others.

That is to say, the $89 trillion of spending built into the budgetary baseline is virtually immune to the budgetary knife because after decades of Dem demagoguery on these items the GOP has thrown in the towel, too.

Baseline Federal Spending For The GOP’s Sacred Cows, FY 2026 to FY 2035

At the same time, the UniParty has come to a frozen stand-off on the revenue side of the ledger. When it comes to the possibility of a new revenue source such as a national sales tax or VAT, the Dems are dead set opposed because these taxes are allegedly too regressive, while the GOP is opposed in principle because they are a tax.

At the same time, the income tax is essentially tapped out from an economic perspective. At the present time fully 58.7% of Federal income taxes are paid for by the top 5% of households and 86% by the top 20%. In a word, the preponderance majority of the nation’s 160 million income tax filers pay no tax at all (about 45 million returns owe no taxes) or after the vastly enlarged standard deduction and increased child credits owe a single digit percentage of their income in Federal taxes.

Indeed, as shown below, in 2022 the bottom 80% of taxpayers paid only $292 billion in income taxes, amounting to just 13.7% of total collections. Against AGI, the effective tax rate was just 5.6%.

At the end of the day, the GOP and Dems have competed their way into a de facto income tax holiday for 80% of households. And we don’t see how you raise their taxes in that competitive environment, while recognizing the the GOP has every reason to staunchly oppose shifting even more income tax burden on the top of the economic ladder.

Distribution of 2022 Federal Income Tax Payments By Income Level

There is always the possibility of higher payroll taxes or returning the corporate income tax to the 35% level of pre-2017. But there is not a snowball’s chance in the hot place that organized labor would allow the former or that the vast phalanx of business lobbies would permit the latter.

In short, raising taxes is usually a bad idea—especially when the $7 trillion Federal budget is freighted-down with Warfare State and Welfare State spending that should be drastically curtailed. But there is no visible combination of political factions within the UniParty arrangement that makes this even remotely feasible—even as the second best solution of revenue increases is even more beyond the range of political possibility.

That is to say, there is real no escape from the Fiscal Doomsday Machine that has now tightly engulfed the nation’s very governing process.

Reprinted with permission from David Stockman’s Contra Corner.

The post No Escape From Washington’s Fiscal Doomsday Machine appeared first on LewRockwell.

Is there something about liberal elite networks, you should understand?

Half the country is up in arms about President Donald Trump’s inexplicable decision to mock his base, because many are appalled that Attorney General Pam Bondi seems to be orchestrating a coverup of a serial rapist of children. Bondi’s Justice Department released a memo last week: “The two-page document said the department found no evidence of an Epstein client list and that no additional files from the investigation would be made public.”

President Trump’s response to all this has been startling: He stated that “[O]nly really bad people […] want to keep something like this going.” According to NBC, he also called MAGA supporters of his who are upset at AG Bondi, “weaklings” who “bought into this bull—-t” —.

President Trump’s supporters, including Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and even Alex Jones, are furious, and calling for full release of the “Epstein files.” Polls show harm to his support: numbers that could threaten Republicans in the midterms.

Democrats are racing to capitalize on the fissures opening among Republicans, as Politico reports. President Trump’s appeal to his base is that he is “one of us”, and that he promises transparency. A situation that casts him as a rich guy with muddy motivations protecting another late rich guy’s friends — the dead man, the worst of the worst — could lose him the base, and cause MAHA voters – millions of them moms and dads of girls like the ones that Epstein abused — to flee.

Conservatives are baffled. My husband, a truly objective man (as well as an ardent President Trump supporter who also worked for numerous intelligence agencies for almost three decades), is puzzled, to the point of wondering if the President is acting uncharacteristically in response to some serious unnamed threat (or threats), perceived or actual.

Because I spent decades in the same elite liberal circles that sheltered Epstein, I am not puzzled. I think I understand the matrix of this situation.

It has, in my view, to do with “the network.”

I think that it is likely that multiple people who are critical to this administration’s success — my guess is, that these are mostly guys from the Silicon Valley community, who have been the ones to put the fuel of their billions and their technical and media support into President Trump’s campaign and administration’s engines — whether they are innocent or guilty, are in the Epstein files. (Remember why Mrs Gates broke up with Mr Gates?) And I think this nation’s most important scientists, innocent or guilty, are in the files. And my guess is that the funders have confronted President Trump.

Why do I think this? There are several clues.

One is the interview of the late Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, with Chris Cuomo. Remember, Dershowitz used to represent President Trump as well. Dershowitz confirmed that there is a redacted list of people accused of improper conduct, stressed that no one who is a public figure who is in office currently (you get it) is on the list, and called on AG Pam Bondi to ask the New York Courts, who have custody of this list, to release it.

If you read the hieroglyphics here correctly, what you should see (this is why it is useful to have been a political consultant; you can read the code, which often involves triangulation or “deniability”) that A/ President Trump is not on this list. B/ President Trump does not wish the horrific baggage of being the one to infuriate all the powerful people who are on this list, by releasing it himself via his AG. C/ They — the Trump administration — want it released by others, ie, the New York courts, so that they themselves don’t receive the appalling blowback.

I also believe that there are make-or-break tech bro Trump supporters on the list, because of a moving interview given by Eric Weinstein on July 14, 2025— interestingly, in the midst of the Bondi furor — to Steven Bartlett, on the “Diary of a CEO” podcast.

Weinstein was til 2022 managing director for the American venture capital firm Thiel Capital. Weinstein is a compelling intellectual, in addition having served at the very top of one of Silicon Valley’s key organizations. He created a physics-based “theory of everything” that he brought to a fellowship at the Mathematical Institute at Oxford, and he was trained in mathematics at Harvard University.

On the podcast, he stated that “[s]ex offender Jeffrey Epstein was a “product of one or more elements of the intelligence community.” Weinstein, who said he had met Epstein, described him as “certainly was not a financier in any standard sense. That was a cover story.”‘

“British entrepreneur Bartlett asks about Weinstein having met Epstein, and he says, “He wasn’t a financier the day I met him.” Weinstein goes on to describe Epstein as a “weird guy,” who “didn’t seem to know a lot about currency trading.”

Weinstein also describes Epstein as a “construct”‘.

This interview has been seen by 2.4 million people. It is riveting. I felt a deep sense of recognition when Weinstein was speaking. My sense is that Weinstein was speaking extremely carefully; that his goal, among others, was to establish that one could be enmeshed in documentation around the Epstein community and “lists”, without being a pedophile — indeed, one could be enmeshed in those documents simply for being a cutting-edge scientist; and that one intention of his was to put this situation on the record.

I know that Weinstein is correct; “the list/s” will have pedophiles on them, and they will have innocent men (and women) who are snapshotted forever in the vicinity of Epstein – even at his New Mexico ranch and yes, even on his island — simply because they had the misfortune to be some of the most important scientists and mathematicians — and technologists — of our time.

Weinstein argues that the Epstein “construct” was what the military calls “dual use” –that is, that Epstein had multiple missions running concurrently.

One mission, of course, was that of running a grotesque sexual honeypot, exploiting minors, for purposes of blackmail.

But another, Weinstein argues, is the management and direction of Western science itself. Weinstein notes that Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, the late publishing magnate/reputed intelligence asset Robert Maxwell, founded the scientific imprint Pergamon Press, the Oxford-based imprint that published medical books and journals, which was bought by Elsevier, which is the main scientific publishing imprint (and the advance guard scientifically for the COVID/vaccine narrative; indeed, Elsevier created a “resource hub” about COVID for “librarians, campuses and health professionals”, an oddly activist offering from what is supposed to be a neutral scientific platform).

Weinstein notes that Epstein funded a number of important scientists, and that he had an office at Harvard. Weinstein says in the podcast, with what looks like suppressed rage, that he wants to know why Epstein was aware of his, Weinstein’s, work, and why Epstein was embedded in the Harvard mathematics department.

Indeed, Harvard was an avid matchmaker for Epstein among the scientific and mathematics community. Harvard accepted about $9 million from Jeffery Epstein, and gave him an office in the institute that he helped to fund. Epstein visited Harvard more than 40 times.

Key Harvard academics were brought to him by connectors in the university, and encouraged to socialize with him. “Some [Harvard] professors beyond [mathematics professor Martin Nowak] appear to have enjoyed close ties with Epstein, the [Harvard] review found. The report says “a number” of faculty members visited Epstein at his homes in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the Virgin Islands. [Italics mine]. Some said they visited him in jail or took trips on his planes. The visits were done in a personal capacity, the report said, and do not appear to violate Harvard rules.”

So: systematically, consistently, major intellectuals, especially in the fields of computation, genetics, evolutionary biology, and consciousness, were being herded by gatekeepers into proximity to Epstein, who had been planted physically in their midst; and these academics were urged to accept his funding money and to meet with him and by implication, to befriend him or to accept his friendship, and even his invitations. I think this is the “Why?” that Weinstein is asking. We will return to the implications of this systematic engagement structure, later.

Eric Weinstein is correct. Jeffrey Epstein did fund cutting-edge scientists and mathematicians, especially in the fields of genetics and and evolutionary biology. He even convened them via another entity, into a community under his funding structure.

Weinstein’s larger claim — that the Maxwell/Epstein nexus or “construct” served not just to fund but to direct and manage and gate-keep and put a frame around and essentially set the direction of science — is a claim that makes sense, from what I know.

I know that Weinstein is right because I was unknowingly part of a network that overlapped with a part of this network. My agent for almost all of my career, since I was “discovered” by him and since he helped me to publish my first book, The Beauty Myth, a bestseller, at the age of 26, was the legendary literary agent John Brockman. Brockman became as famous as his famous stable of intellectuals, especially during the 2000s and 2010s, for promoting something he called “The Third Culture,” an intersection between the humanities, technology and the sciences.

Brockman’s roster of writers had no mass market novelists, no thriller writers, no cookbook writers, no popular historians. It was, in retrospect, a remarkably curated list. I was honored to join it. Brockman Inc primarily represented the very pinnacle of science and science-adjacent writers: evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, cognitive scientist Daniel Dennet, psychologist Daniel Kahneman. “Nimble Deal-Maker for the Stars of Science” reads a gushing New York Times profile of John Brockman.

Jeffrey Epstein funded the Edge Foundation, Brockman’s digital and irl salon. No one knew this. Or, at least, no one I knew, knew this.

This entity held gatherings of these intellectuals, and published a website and books in which they were asked critical questions (the website is still up). Edge.org’s website hosts commentary by the best of the best — the minds that are directing our culture and our science: theoretical physicist Murray Gell-Mann, cultural anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson, Gnostic Gospel scholar Elaine Pagels, theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, Google co-founder Larry Page.

Its motto is: “To arrive at the edge of the world’s knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.”

Edge.org hosted “millionaire’s dinners”, which later became “billionaires’ dinners”; these brought the elite of the world of science together with the elites of Silicon Valley. Edge.org also published commentary by some of the most influential intellectuals in the world — men (mostly men) from both of those worlds, in dialogue. (Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein and Eric Weinstein both contributed to Edge.org, and in 2018 Eric Weinstein thanked Brockman in a tweet, for the opportunity to speak “as me”.)

I will just lift out the sections from Wikipedia that explain the basics of the Epstein link with Brockman Inc, as I do not wish to locate myself in the cross-hairs of any new reporting for this dangerous story:

“In an interview with Prince Andrew dated November 17, 2019, BBC reporter Emily Maitlis mentioned that both Andrew and John Brockman attended an intimate dinner at child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion to celebrate Epstein’s release from prison for charges which stemmed from at least one decade of child sex trafficking.[7]

Andrew’s presence at Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan mansion was corroborated by Brockman himself, in emails published in an October 2019 New Republic report. The story suggested that Brockman was the “intellectual enabler” of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who died in August 2019 while again awaiting trial on charges related to sex trafficking.[8]

Brockman’s famous literary dinners—held during the TED Conference—were, for a number of years after Epstein’s conviction, almost entirely funded by Epstein as documented in his annual tax filings.” This allowed Epstein to mingle with scientists, startup icons and tech billionaires [Italics mine].”

Read the Whole Article

The post ‘The Network’ in the Worlds of the Elites appeared first on LewRockwell.

A Russian loss would be catastrophic for China’s security, while a Russian victory could end the discounted energy bonanza that’s helping it maintain its economic growth amidst the slowdown, not to mention accelerate the US’ “Pivot (back) to (East) Asia” for more muscularly containing it.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) cited unnamed sources to report that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his EU counterpart that China doesn’t want Russia to lose in Ukraine because the US’ whole focus might then shift to China. His alleged remarks were spun by the Mainstream Media as an admission that China isn’t as neutral as it claims, just as they and their Alt-Media rivals suspected. Both now believe that China will help Russia win, as in obtain its maximum goals, but that’s likely not the case.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Wang did indeed say what was attributed to him, it would align with the assessment around the conflict’s one-year anniversary in February 2023 that “China Doesn’t Want Anyone To Win In Ukraine”. The SCMP channeled the gist of the preceding analysis by writing that “One interpretation of Wang’s statement in Brussels is that while China did not ask for the war, its prolongation may suit Beijing’s strategic needs, so long as the US remains engaged in Ukraine.”

To explain, not only would the US be unable to “Pivot (back) to (East) Asia” for more muscularly containing China at the scale that Trump envisages if the Ukrainian Conflict drags on, but the continued pressure placed upon the Russian economy by Western sanctions would benefit the Chinese economy. China already imports a staggering amount of discounted Russian oil, which helps maintain its economic growth amidst the slowdown that it’s experiencing, but this could end if sanctions were curtailed.

Additionally, the greater that China’s role becomes in serving as a valve for Russia from Western sanctions pressure (both in terms of energy imports for helping to finance the Russian budget but also exports that replace lost Western products), the more dependent Russia will become on China. The increasingly lopsided nature of their economic relations could then be leveraged to clinch the most preferential long-term energy deals possible as regards the Power of Siberia II and other pipelines.

These outcomes could restore China’s superpower trajectory that was derailed during the first six months of the special operation as explained here at the time, thus strengthening its overall resilience to US pressure and therefore making it less likely that the US can coerce a series of lopsided deals from it. It’s for this reason that Trump’s Special Envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff is reportedly pushing for the US to lift its energy sanctions on Russia in order to deprive China of these financial and strategic benefits.

The nascent Russian–US “New Détente” could restore the Kremlin’s energy clientele as a first step via phased sanctions relief, thus expanding its range of partners to preemptively avert the aforementioned Russian dependence on China, especially in the event of joint energy cooperation in the Arctic. The purpose, as explained here in early January, would be to deprive China of decades-long access to ultra-cheap resources for fueling its superpower rise at the US’ expense.

All in all, a Russian victory (whether in full or in part via compromises) could end the discounted energy bonanza that’s helping China maintain its economic growth amidst the slowdown, ergo why Beijing won’t send military aid or troops to facilitate this (apart from also fearing serious Western sanctions). Likewise, the scenario of the West inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia would be catastrophic for China’s security, ergo another reason for the aforesaid imports in order to help Russia maintain its war economy.

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

The post China Might Not Want Russia To Lose, But It Might Not Want Russia To Win Either appeared first on LewRockwell.

I was recently made aware of an 8-year-old with an addiction to pornography. I will repeat that: an 8-year-old with an addiction to pornography. In fact, I will repeat it again because I worry that we have become so desensitized that this statement will not elicit the shock and horror that it should. Recently, I was told of an 8-year-old, a small child who hasn’t even hit puberty, who is addicted to watching hardcore pornography—you know, the really vile kind that cries out to heaven.

I heard the news and I was sick. I almost cried. In fact, writing about it makes it hard for my eyes to stay dry. That poor child. His poor soul. The trials that he will face as he ages will be remarkable. He is 8, and he is already an addict. He is already spending so much time on a phone—yes, his parents have given him a smartphone at age 8—that he has developed an addiction.

When I was growing up and heard of people having addictions, I would think of the poor souls I might see downtown who had become dependent on drugs. Or, I might think of a character I had seen in a movie or a TV show who couldn’t stop wasting money at the blackjack table or the slots. In any event, addicts, in my mind, were supposed to be adults because people who became addicted to things became addicted to sinful things that children would never be in a position to do.

Nevertheless, we now live in a time wherein children, maybe even younger than 8, are addicted to the most vile images and videos, and the addiction comes through the phone.

Understanding Addiction Related to Media

Now, I don’t know how long it takes to develop an addiction in the clinical sense, but I imagine it doesn’t happen overnight. Ultimately, an addiction is like a compulsive bad habit that is formed over time after repeated participation in an activity that elicits a pleasurable response. Now, pleasure in itself is good, hence the word pleasure, which is derived from “to please.” Being pleased is a good thing because it means something like being satisfied or content. After a good meal, we might be pleased because we are satisfied; or after a hard day’s work, we might be very pleased with the satisfactory work we have done.

However, there are pleasures that, we might say, cheat. What I mean by that is that we get the feeling of satisfaction or the pleasurable feeling but in a way that is unnatural or at least intemperate or imbalanced. Also, given our fallen nature, we often take pleasure in things that are immoral. Any parent knows this because children as young as 18 months old will take great pleasure in smacking a sibling who has annoyed them. It isn’t the smacking per se that is the pleasure but the sense of accomplishing retaliation.

Little children do not have self-control—nor do many adults, for that matter—so they cannot calibrate their response to what is perceived as an injustice, and they retaliate inappropriately. Nevertheless, the impulse to achieve justice is a good thing because justice is good, but the child simply doesn’t seek justice the right way, so he does something he shouldn’t do.

Now, what would facilitate an addiction in a small child to something so wicked as pornography?

Well, in the first place, before he has developed said addiction, he will already have associated the use of a device with the satisfaction of an impulse. And, over time, the satisfaction of that impulse will become compulsive; he will have gone from the spontaneous or infrequent titillation of a desire or longing to a state of dependency, which creates in him a compulsion.

And, what is it about phones and tablets that is so titillating for children—and adults for that matter? Well, our screen devices are objectively pleasing to behold and to use. They have gorgeous coloring in the displays, and they combine a number of senses that are primed for pleasure. They are tactile, visual, and auditory. Also, they are portals to a promise of endless entertainment, which means endless pleasure. This is how they are so different from traditional or older forms of media.

Books, for example, offer a portal into a world of pleasure, whether it be fiction or nonfiction, but they are analog and limited; a book only has what the book has, and it cannot link to other books, or videos, or music. When we read a book, we have to use our imagination and “work hard” to create our own mental picture, or to imagine the sounds being described. The use of a book is tactile in a secondary sense because we hold the book, but not much happens because of how we touch the book. We turn the page to continue reading, but we don’t move things around or cause the words to change into pictures that move.

Radio is another technology that has afforded us great pleasure, but it is limited as well. The limitations on radio, as with books, require a certain style of program to be made that focuses on the auditory sense, and, like with books, the imagination is required to make the magic happen.

Television/film was perhaps the greatest technological leap when it comes to storytelling and the sharing of information, as it engages multiple senses. However, it is the auditory and visual faculties that are engaged, and there is nothing active or tactile about the experience. So, there is still a limitation on the participation of all the senses.

Now, with screen-based activities, it is not all the senses that are engaged, but the senses of touch, sight, and hearing are all fully engaged in a way that is not possible with other types of media entertainment. And, without being crude, the use of screens for pornography consumption is also associated with illicit activities of the body, which invoke a host of other sensations that become intrinsically linked to the pleasures a device may offer.

Ultimately, there is something perhaps too pleasurable, or, we might say, pleasurable in an artificial and imbalanced way, about tactile screen devices. In addition, since no work is required like with books or the radio, the pleasure is easier to access and promises a higher and more engaged reward.

Yes, with films and TV we do not engage the imagination like we do with radio and books, but we also don’t actively participate in the activity with the sense of touch like we do with screen devices that allow us to manipulate the pictures effortlessly, so the experience of passively watching something like TV or films doesn’t offer the full engagement of watching things or playing with things on devices that engage more of our senses. That being said, of the older media technologies, TV can often be the most problematic, even if it is not as bad as the newer ones.

We have to be honest with ourselves; we are fallen, and because of this, we often seek the path of least resistance if there is a promised carrot at the end. Is there any easier path to sensory pleasure than what is offered from a smartphone or tablet? We don’t have to get up, but we can still be involved physically; we don’t have to use our imaginations, but stories with pictures still play out in front of us; we don’t have to do anything difficult, but, with video games on these devices, we can pseudo-accomplish great feats of heroism or daring; we don’t have to interact with another living human being, but the images and activities of those human beings can be used as inspiration for autoerotic pleasure, and there are seemingly no consequences.

To put it bluntly, the immediate access to engaging, sensory pleasure is simply dangerous and wildly tempting when it comes to screen devices.

We haven’t even considered the effects on the brain that take place with repeated dopamine hits, and how, in order to accomplish a continual satisfaction for dopamine compulsion, the participation of individuals seeking pleasure in this way must become more extreme and intense in order to go beyond mere satisfaction of compulsion to the titillation of higher and more sensible pleasure.

Most grown adults cannot handle this temptation, which is why so many adults are addicted to screen pleasures. So, we cannot expect children to ever stand a chance.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Screens Are Killing Your Children appeared first on LewRockwell.

Sometimes I think it’s astonishing how aggressively Israel’s supporters work to stomp out criticism of Israel. Then I remember that these people also support mass murdering children; trying to take away my speech rights is one of their less evil goals. It shouldn’t shock me.

I saw someone talking online about how crazy it is that music groups who speak out against Israel’s atrocities are starting to form alliances with each other in an effort to counteract the campaign to silence them and destroy their careers, saying it shouldn’t be necessary to form an alliance in order to oppose an ongoing genocide. And that’s true, it shouldn’t be necessary. But it also shouldn’t surprise us that people who think bombing hospitals is fine would try to cancel musicians for criticizing Israel.

One mistake westerners keep making is thinking of Israel’s supporters as normal people with normal moral standards just because we happen to know them and interact with them in our communities. They look like us, speak like us, dress like us and act like us, so we assume they must think and feel a lot like us as well.

But they don’t. If you’re still supporting Israel in the year 2025, there’s something seriously wrong with you as a person. You do not have a normal, healthy sense of empathy and morality.

It’s 2025. Israeli soldiers are telling the Israeli press that they’re being ordered to massacre starving civilians trying to obtain food from aid centers. Countless doctors have been telling the world that Israeli snipers are routinely, deliberately shooting children in the head and chest throughout the Gaza Strip. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and all the leading genocide experts and human rights authorities are saying that a genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza. The New York fucking Times just published an op-ed by a Zionist genocide scholar who’s finally admitting that it’s a genocide.

There’s no way to deny what this is anymore. If you still support Israel in the year 2025, it’s not because you don’t believe Israel is committing horrific atrocities. It’s because you believe those horrific atrocities are good, and you want to see more of them.

Most Israel supporters will deny that this is the case, because they lie. They lie constantly. They have no moral problem with lying. They have no moral problem with burning children alive, so of course they have no problem with lying.

That’s where people go wrong. They assume Israel supporters can’t possibly be lying about their concerns about “antisemitism” in order to promote the information interests of Israel, because nobody could be that evil. But Israel supporters think it’s fine to intentionally starve babies by blockading baby formula from entering Gaza. Of course they are that evil.

People assume Israel’s supporters wouldn’t deliberately stage fake antisemitic incidents or artificially inflate antisemitism figures in their own countries so that their governments will implement authoritarian measures to stomp out criticism of Israel in the name of fighting antisemitism, because they assume nobody could be that depraved. But these people think it’s fine for the IDF to systematically assassinate Palestinian journalists to stop them from telling the truth. Of course they are that depraved.

Of course they’d try to silence our speech. Of course they’d try to send our kids off to war with Iran. Of course they’d work to manipulate our government. Of course they’d pollute the information ecosystem with mountains of lies. They support a live-streamed genocide. They’re bad people.

Supporting Israel and its actions is not some political opinion like your position on property taxes or marijuana legalization. It’s not just some people having a point of view we need to respect and treat as equal to our own view on the matter. They’re working to make it possible to conduct an extermination campaign of unfathomable horror. That’s as political as a gang rape, and just as worthy of respect.

There’s not really anything you can put past Israel’s supporters at this point. They will lie. They will manipulate. They will pretend to believe things they do not believe. They will pretend to feel things they do not feel. And they will do these things to facilitate some of the worst atrocities you can possibly imagine.

This is who Israel’s supporters are. They’re showing you who they are every single day.

______________

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 mailing list, 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 Are You Still Supporting Israel in 2025? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The media, and Donald Trump, have found the great summer diversion of 2025.

The Wall Street Journal reports (archived):

It was Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday, and Ghislaine Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion. She turned to Epstein’s family and friends. One of them was Donald Trump.

Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
…
The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

In an interview with the Journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he said.

“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

He told the Journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if it published an article. “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,” he said.

And suing he will:

Trump said he had personally warned the Journal’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its editor in chief, Emma Tucker, that the letter was “fake” before the report was published, calling the story “false, malicious, and defamatory.”

“President Trump has already beaten George Stephanopoulos/ABC, 60 Minutes/CBS, and others, and looks forward to suing and holding accountable the once great Wall Street Journal,” Trump wrote on social media hours after the Journal published its report.

In the immediate wake of the report’s publication, the White House rushed to decry it as false. Vice President JD Vance said on X it was “complete and utter bullshit” — echoing the expletive Trump used this week to describe the Epstein news cycle. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt — whom Trump said had also told Tucker the story was “fake” — called it a “hatchet job article” and claimed the outlet “refused to show us the letter and conceded they don’t even have it in their possession when we asked them to verify the alleged document.”

Trump’s denials are so strong that I believe the letter is his.

Not that it matters.

I doubt that there is a large file about whatever Epstein has done. If there ever was such it has by now been destroyed by the powers and services involved in it.

Ghislaine Maxwell is currently sitting in jail for trafficking teenage girls under the legal age to have sex with Epstein. There is no hard evidence (but their well payed-off assertions) that these girls were pushed to have sex with other people. There is no hard evidence that Epstein was blackmailing those people.

It seem likely though that both has been the case.

However neither has anything to do with a letter Trump wrote (or maybe didn’t write?) in 2003.

It is just entertaining fun to divert the people from all the other bad stuff the U.S., under Trump, is currently – domestically and internationally – actually doing.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post A ‘Bawdy’ Diversion appeared first on LewRockwell.

Even after Lexington, Concord, and Bunker’s Hill, and the closing of the port of Boston — even after the creation of a Continental Army and the appointment of Washington as its commander — most colonists in late 1775 still hoped for reconciliation with England.  Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Thomas Paine’s pamphlet hit the streets.  Published anonymously on January 10, 1776 for the bargain price of two shillings, Common Sense set the country ablaze with talk about independence.  It “was read by cobblers in their shops, bakers by their ovens, teachers in their schools, and by officers in the army to their standing ranks.”

Common Sense became the best-selling pamphlet ever written in the English language. Though several publishers profited handsomely from its sale, Paine re-directed his earnings to the American cause, to purchase mittens for soldiers in Quebec.  Three years after its publication, Paine reflected that “the importance of [Common Sense] was such that if it had not appeared, and at the exact time it did, the Congress would not now be sitting where they are [representing independent states].”

Common Sense had many detractors, including John Adams, the leading champion for independence in Congress.  Though Adams liked the part favoring independence, he referred to Paine as a “Star of Disaster” for his Old Testament arguments against monarchy and his recommendation for a unicameral legislature.

The distinguished Harvard lawyer Adams had little in common with Paine, who had scant formal education and led an obscure existence in England before arriving in Philadelphia in late 1774 at age 37.  Though Adams was a prolific writer, his literary style was too bookish for mass consumption.  Paine wrote so that people could understand him.

If Common Sense was needed to radicalize Americans to the cause of independence, what might have happened if Paine had devoted his time to his bridge-building passion, say, instead of writing the pamphlet?

Desperate for popular support, would the independence faction in Congress try to recruit a writer to sell their message to the people?

Perhaps.  And perhaps Paine might have sent his résumé to them.  And what could Congress infer from Paine’s résumé about his potential as a revolutionary pamphleteer?  Nothing.  But they would try.  Here’s what might have happened:

(Fictional) Proceedings of the Second Continental Congress, 1775.

Charles Thomson, Sec.

Sunday October 15, 1775.

After brief debate between Mr. John Dickinson and Mr. John Adams, Congress agreed to hire a pamphleteer who would argue the cause for independence.

Mr. Dickinson wanted a comparable publication presenting the case for reconciliation, but Mr. Adams pointed out that many American newspapers carried commentaries outlining the British side.

Therefore it was Resolved, that a committee be appointed to hire, for compensation of five pounds, an author of known merit to write a pamphlet presenting the case for separation from England.  The pamphlet shall be written with such clarity and force that persons from all stations in life will comprehend its message.

Résumés should be couriered with all possible dispatch to John Adams, Committee for Independence, Continental Congress, State House, Philadelphia.

Mr. Adams said the ideal candidate will possess most, if not all, of the following qualifications:

1. He will belong to a family of distinction, whose surname will be synonymous with leadership and will strike confidence and respect in every soul.

2. His life will have been a trail of triumph in matters of import, well-known to all.

3. He will have been schooled at a leading American or European university.

4. He will possess ample experience in affairs of the state, with a tendency toward dissenting views.

5. He will possess extensive literary credits in history and political philosophy. Latin will be one of several languages as natural to him as English.

6. He will be a man of considerable means, if not independent wealth.

7. He will be American-born, because of the divisive nature of the conflict.

Congress adjourned till to Morrow 9 o’Clock.

Sunday October 22, 1775

Mr. Adams reports on the Committee for Independence.

Mr. Adams:

The committee has received three résumés.

Mr. Thomas Jefferson, delegate from Virginia and author of the recent “Necessity for Taking Up Arms,” offered to write the pamphlet.  To our great misfortune, Mr. Jefferson will soon depart again for Virginia where his many duties will preclude his taking the assignment.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, delegate from Pennsylvania, who has written bravely against the injustice of slavery, has recently withdrawn his résumé.  Due to the impact of his abolitionist remarks on his medical practice, Dr. Rush decided he cannot afford to lose more clients.

I will now discuss the third résumé, not for possible consideration, but in an effort to identify the treasonous parties who encouraged him to submit it.

It begins, gentlemen, with an insolent fiction.  His name is one Thomas Paine, whose true family name is spelled without the ending “e.”  In an obvious attempt to associate himself with one of our distinguished delegates, Mr. Robert Treat Paine, he has shown utter contempt for this body.

He lists his place of birth as Thetford, England.  Perhaps I hold the résumé of a spy.

He managed to stay in school only to the age of 12.  Need I bother adding he knows no Latin whatsoever?

It is apparent this person is neither a banker, merchant, lawyer, planter, nor statesman.  I  would venture he has scarcely heard of these professions.   He worked as a stay-maker, teacher, tax collector, and manager of a tobacco-goods store.  In each endeavor he failed miserably.

You might wonder if he has distinguished himself in the military.  Gentlemen, he lists his religious affiliation as Quaker, a sect that abhors war.  This alone disqualifies him.

I trust you are as indignant as I am.  This Thomas Paine claims to have written a petition on behalf of his fellow excise tax collectors and presented it to Parliament.  He thought the tax men deserved a raise.  The ministers refused to give him a hearing.  I had a colleague read his petition and was told it suffered from “decorous overstatement.”  That was the kindest thing he could say about it.  Fortunately for Mr. Paine the ministers didn’t read it — in England, they hang bad writers, along with all the other rabble.

Now we get to the real strength of his résumé — his political experience.  From 1768 to 1774 he served as a member of the town council of Lewes.  One can only imagine who the other members were.  In the evening they would meet at the White Hart Tavern, argue and toast the memory of Guy Fawkes.  Mr. Paine was frequently awarded the most headstrong debater.

Oh, you remember Guy Fawkes, right?  In 1605 he conspired to blow up King James and both houses of Parliament and was later executed.  Mr. Paine states on his résumé he has never read John Locke, the father of political freedom, but he worships anarchists with bombs.

The man likes to write songs, even fancies himself a singer, and has twice failed at marriage, though his first wife had to die in order to leave him.

Dr. Franklin, I see you smiling.  What could possibly be funny about this?

[The floor recognizes Dr. Benjamin Franklin.]

Dr. Franklin: I asked Mr. Paine to write a history of our conflict with England, based on some materials I loaned him.  He apparently has taken it upon himself to go further, in applying to write this pamphlet.

Mr. Adams: Are you serious?

Dr. Franklin:  I met him in England and gave him a letter of introduction to come here.  I thought there was something special about him — if not genius, at least ingenious.  I see that I am not yet wrong.  Mr. Adams, you look ill.  Are you okay?  Someone get Mr. Adams some water.

[Mr. Adams thumps his hickory cane.]

Mr. Adams: I forbid it!

Dr. Franklin: Then allow me to read you something, to give you a taste of Mr. Paine’s style and thinking.  “Degeneracy is here almost a useless word. Those who are conversant with Europe would be tempted to believe that even the air of the Atlantic disagrees with the constitution of foreign vices; if they survive the voyage, they either expire on their arrival, or linger away in an incurable consumption. There is a happy something in the climate of America, which disarms them of all their power both of infection and attraction.”

There is a happy something in the climate of America.  The man who wrote those words claimed he could quote them or any others he’s written without reliance on the written copy.

I agree with you, Mr. Adams, we should reject Mr. Paine’s résumé.  Reject it and recommend he write the pamphlet on his own.  If we are to preserve that “happy something,” it will come from individual passion, not an act of Congress.

Mr. Adams: God save us.

Congress adjourned till to Morrow 9 o’Clock.

The post Thomas Paine Slaps Congress With His Résumé appeared first on LewRockwell.

I don’t get it. The Constitution clearly established a monetary system based on gold coins and silver coins. That was the American monetary system for more than 125 years. There has never been a constitutional amendment to convert that system to a paper-money system. Given such, why do we have a paper-money system?

The Constitution called the federal government into existence. Unlike European regimes, the federal government was not vested with inherent powers. If the Constitution had done that, there is no doubt that the American people would have rejected it and would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.

Instead, the Constitution called into existence a government of limited powers. Its powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution itself. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be exercised, at least not legally.

The Constitution handled the states differently. The states retained the traditional police powers that had characterized European regimes. Thus, unless the Constitution expressly restricted the states from exercising some particular power, the states were empowered to legislate in the interests of “health, safety, morals, and welfare” of their citizens.

The Constitution did not vest the federal government with the power to issue paper money. Instead, it vested the federal government with the power to coin money. Article One, Section 8, states: “The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.” At the risk of belaboring the obvious, one does not make coins out of paper. It makes coins out of metals, such as gold and silver.

What about the states? Since they retain the traditional police powers of government, don’t they have the power to issue paper money? Actually not. The reason is that the Constitution expressly forbade the states from issuing “bills of credit,” which was the term used at that time for paper money. Article One, Section 10, expressly states: “No State shall coin money; emit Bills of Credit: make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Thus, when one considers the power given to the federal government to “coin money” and the restrictions on the states from issuing paper money and from making anything but gold and silver coins “legal tender,” there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Constitution called into existence a monetary system based on the use of gold coins and silver coins and not on money. Thus, it is no surprise that the American people lived under a gold-coin/silver-coin monetary system for more than a century.

So, why is it that America now has a paper-money system? It is undeniable that the Constitution has never been amended to abolish the gold coin/silver coin system and replace it with a paper-money system. Yet, it is also undeniable that despite the fact that the Constitution doesn’t vest the federal government with the power to issue paper money, it has been doing precisely that for almost 100 years. Moreover, it is also undeniable that although the Constitution prohibits the states from making anything but gold coins and silver coins legal tender, the states have been making paper money legal tender for that same length of time.

The answer lies in the presidential regime of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Although the Depression had been brought about by the Federal Reserve, which had been established in 1913, Roosevelt blamed the Depression on America’s gold-coin/silver coin system that had been functioning for more than a century. Therefore, Roosevelt decided to convert America’s monetary system to a paper-money system. He ordered every American to deliver his gold coins to the federal government, on pain of a felony conviction for failing to do so. In exchange for their gold, Americans received government-issued paper money.

Amazingly, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of what was obviously a flagrantly unconstitutional action. The Court’s rationale was that the national emergency of the Great Depression vested the president with extraordinary powers to save the country.

But there was one big problem with the Court’s legal rationale: The Constitution did not provide for an emergency exception. In fact, the Framers expressly excluded an emergency exception from the Constitution because they knew that emergencies have always been the time-honored way that tyrants have assumed dictatorial powers.

But even if we were to accept the Court’s emergency rationale for upholding FDR’s extraordinary action, there is no question but that the “emergency” ended a long time ago. In fact, I think everyone would agree that at least by the year 1950, the “emergency” of the Great Depression had ended.

Therefore, where is the constitutional justification for continuing the paper-money system that FDR foisted onto the American people in the 1930s? Why didn’t Americans get back their gold-coin/silver-coin system that they had established with the Constitution when the temporary “emergency” ended? Indeed, under the express terms of the Constitution, why aren’t Americans entitled to have their gold-coin/silver-coin system back right now? How is a permanent change in the Constitution justified when the “emergency” is only temporary and where there has been no constitutional amendment changing the original gold-coin/silver-coin system?

The answer to all these questions is simple: We all live under a lawless regime, one to which the Supreme Court dutifully defers. And it’s not just the destructive paper-money system under which they plunder and loot us and bring us an endless series of economic booms and busts.  There are also the unconstitutional wars that presidents wage without the congressional declaration of war that the Constitution requires — wars to which the Supreme Court, again, dutifully defers. There is also the military draft, which is not among the powers that the Constitution vests in the federal government. Indeed, where are the powers to establish a welfare state and a national-security state? Where are the powers to engage in state-sponsored assassinations, torture, coups, and wars of aggression? Where are the powers to establish a socialist (i.e., central planning) system of immigration controls and the militarized immigration police state, including mass violent deportations, that comes with it?

The dark reality is the federal government forces us to obey its laws, such as with its evil and immoral war on drugs, while, at the same time, ignores the higher law of the Constitution that we the American people have placed on federal officials. Let us never forget that as Thomas Jefferson pointed out in the Declaration of Independence, when any government becomes destructive of the rights and liberties of the people, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and institute new government that protects, not destroys, our rights, freedom, and well-being.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

The post Why Do We Have a Paper-Money System? appeared first on LewRockwell.

I was asked by Children’s Health Defense and the parents to review the medical records of twins found dead in their bed eight days after multiple vaccinations. Related? Yes, says the hidden science.

Tyson and Dallas Shaw were found dead in their crib at 18 months of age

As my regular readers are aware, last month, Children’s Health Defense asked me to review the hospital records of two young Mennonite girls in Texas who died from what the hospital and our Pharma-controlled media claimed was the measles.

In that post, I provided the evidence from the medical records that, contrary to the fear-mongering Pharma-media hype, their deaths were not from measles but stemmed from a staggering, near criminal cascade of medical incompetence, repeatedly botching the treatment of routine bacterial pneumonias—one of the most basic conditions hospitals face daily.

Instead, those so-called “measles deaths” fueled a colossal media disinformation blitz, falsely branding measles as a deadly scourge to terrorize parents into vaccinating their children. As a physician who has devoted five years of my life and career (at significant personal and professional costs) to combating scientific Disinformation campaigns (ivermectin, Covid vaccines, chlorine dioxide, IV vitamin C, among others), attacking the immense, decades-long Disinformation campaign supporting childhood vaccines is my latest endeavor.

The immense anger that this one triggers in me sets itself apart from the others, mainly because the children are defenseless, have no voice or agency, and innumerable of their lives are either ended like the Shaw twins or destroyed with life-long chronic illnesses, the saddest of which is severe autism (known by the CDC), relegating them to lives of dependence upon their parents for care without the ability to have hobbies, careers, marriages, friends etc.

So, moving from the lie that measles is dangerous or deadly (it is not), let’s now examine the lie that childhood vaccines do not cause SIDS. What you will learn about the lethality of vaccines to infants (those under one year old) will shock you, as it shocked me.

The tragic cases of the Idaho twins rip apart the insidious myth that vaccines are “safe and effective.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s utterly maddening that countless parents remain oblivious to the damning evidence, blindly marching their precious infants to pediatricians for so-called “well-baby visits”—a ritual that, for some, is tantamount to delivering them to an executioner. Too extreme? Read the rest of this post, and then you can make an informed judgment as to the soundness of that statement.

Here, I first present my review of the medical records of the Shaw twins in Idaho. I will then follow with a literature review proving that the epidemic of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), which began in the 1960s, is almost entirely caused by vaccination. I think you will be as troubled, horrified, and angered by what you learn as I was when I started to delve into the data.

REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF DALLAS AND TYSON SHAW

Below, as I review the records, I have interspersed excerpts of the history of illness provided by the parents during their interview with Polly Tommey of CHD:

MEDICAL HISTORY

Let’s start with the end of the record and then go back to the beginning. Dallas and Tyson Shaw died on the night of the 7th day following their 18th-month well-baby visit, where they received five vaccinations during that visit – DTaP, Influenza, and Hep A.

Back to the beginning: Dallas and Tyson were fraternal twins who were born prematurely at 29 weeks (“moderately pre-term”) after Mom went into labor about a week before. Tyson was in breech position, thus emergency c/section was performed.

The kids went straight to the NICU as per protocol for such pre-term babies. Dallas had a Grade I intraventricular hemorrhage without sequelae, and both had respiratory insufficiency (apneas and desaturations) needing CPAP support and caffeine administration ( a respiratory stimulant) for several weeks (Dallas needed support longer, but both were transitioned to room air eventually).

Also, they had some typical problems of prematurity – anemia, retinopathy (grade 0), hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, borderline hypertension, all managed well without incident, and were eventually taken off IV fluids and tube feeding. Dallas had a small umbilical hernia without complications, and a heart murmur was also noted. Both got Hepatitis B vaccination at one month old, far sooner than normal gestational age, just before leaving the NICU (you know, in case they decided to hit the streets to shoot drugs and have sex with prostitutes). Too soon? Sorry, not sorry.

So, they left the NICU after just over a month there, then they spent 6 weeks at Nampa Inpatient Neonatology for feeding support. Their discharge date would have corresponded to being one day older than the original gestational due date.

Notably, after getting home with their parents, there were no real problems except concerns about delay with both. Still, only Tyson had documented delay issues, mostly with motor skills and some speech concerns, but overall mild. I want to give credit here to the overall excellent neonatal medical care and a remarkable medical accomplishment, which resulted in returning moderately premature babies to their homes in truly exceptional condition.

Per Mom: “They ate fine. They learned to roll around and crawl just fine. Of course, later than normal four or five-month-olds, but they were OK.”

Fast forward to their 18-month wellness visit – they were generally healthy, typically developed children for their corrected age, with no issues with hearing or vision. They had also received all the ACIP-recommended vaccines up to that point, although at the time of the visit, they were “behind on DTaP for 3 months,” until they both received them on the fateful day of 4/23/25.

Per Mom re: getting the vaccines that day:

“Yes, my mother-in-law was with me, and we both had a concern, specifically about the flu shot, because their father’s side of the family, they all have bad reactions or are allergic to the flu shot, and they always get a nasal infection. And she said that they would be okay. She also mentioned that, prior to receiving the vaccines that day, “they were just normal, perfect, happy little babies.”

After the visit and the vaccines:

“They were okay. I think they took a nap when we got home because they seemed tired. But for the rest of the evening, it was business as usual. We ate dinner, they played with us and their dad, and it was okay that day.”

Mom then described them the next day when they woke up:

“That’s the day that they woke up, and when they walked out of their room because they were walking, Tyson walked just about to the beginning of my… Right into the entrance of my living room, and just lay down and wouldn’t get up. Dallas, the best she could, ran to me because I was sitting on the living room floor getting ready to change their diapers. And Dallas ran to me and she lay on me and she felt heavy and she didn’t want to leave me, but she seemed tired. I changed her diaper, and I noticed that the typical toddler pot belly was gone. She was skinny. She looked tired. She was almost falling asleep while I was changing her. And when I had moved her out of the way so I could then change her brother, she just lay on the carpet in the living room and wouldn’t move or get up. And her eyes kept rolling back like she was trying to go back to sleep.”

“.. there was a green diarrhea in her diaper, as well as Tyson’s. Tyson, I had to go and pick him up from where he had lain down at the entrance of my living room and change him. And he was also skinny. He looked a little worse. His eyes were sunken back, with dark circles. They both had a blue tinge to their mouths. And when I would try to pull their lip down to look at it, it was as if their lip was trying to glue itself closed, if that makes sense.

So after I changed their diapers, I watched them for maybe a minute to see if they perked up, maybe. And then I immediately called my mother-in-law because she lives just down the street. And I told her, We need to send these kids to the ER. This is not okay. And she got off the phone with me. I tried to get in touch with him at work to let him know what we were doing. And then I video-called my mom because I felt like I was going crazy a little bit, because they didn’t look right. I thought, ‘This isn’t okay, right?’ I video-called my mom, and she was like, “Yeah, you’re taking those kids to the ER. They look like they are dying.”

The children were immediately taken to the ER on that day, 4/24/25, with documented complaints of “warmth” and “decreased activity.” The ER doc documented that it was “likely a reaction to immunization,” but the chart also included a viral URI in the differential diagnosis. Sent home AFTER GETTING TYLENOL ( a risk factor for death, which I will not explore in this post for the sake of brevity).

Mom:

He said that he’d give them both Tylenol and that he’d give them both Popsicles, and have them sit and eat the Popsicles to see if they’d throw up. And then if they hadn’t, we would go home.

They did not throw up, and we were sent home.

“They were mostly the same, except they just wanted to sleep. They slept with me on the couch. They lay on me and slept on the couch. They didn’t eat. They wouldn’t drink out of their sippy cups. And they still had diarrhea. Tyson threw up a couple more times after the ER visit that day.

Per Father: “I was in disbelief that just so quickly, within a matter of 24 hours, the kids went from perfectly happy, go-lucky active babies to looking like they were dying.”

Then, 7 days after the vaccines, on April 30th, they were still having diarrhea. Mom tried to get them in to see the pediatrician, but there were no walk-in appointments available.

Per Mom: “So I had on, I believe it was Wednesday morning. I tried to call the pediatrics to see if I could get them in. They said they had no time for walk-ins, and so I asked to speak to their pediatrician’s nurse. And she said that… Mainly because, by that point, the only symptom that was left was severe diarrhea. And she said that with the diarrhea, they need to make a few changes to their diet. And as long as they didn’t seem lethargic anymore or dehydrated, none of those symptoms meant they’d be OK. She said no greasy foods, basically just to put them on the BRAT diet.

Mom describes the rest of that day:

“They were great. That was the only day since their shots that they were active. They were eating fine. They were drinking out of their sippy cups, fine. They were talking normally, finally. And they didn’t want to sleep all day.

They went to sleep without incident, and then the Mom describes finding them on Thursday morning, May 1, eight days after the wellness visit and vaccines:

“So I had woken up, and they weren’t the ones that woke me up. They weren’t crying, ready to leave their room, or talking, ready to leave their room. And I had peeped in their room, and I wish I had checked on them more, but I peeped in their room, and I assumed they were maybe sleeping in because they looked asleep the way they were lying in their room, because they were belly sleepers. Of course, they were old enough at the time to roll over. I went and cleaned up the living room and was getting ready to have them awake. I was waiting for them to wake up. When I went in there to wake them up is when I found them the way they were.

She then describes the way she found them – cold and “they It looked as if they had gone in their sleep. They were in their sleeping positions. I think it’s called rigor mortis. Their faces were sleeping faces.” I flipped over Tyson because I tried to shake him awake, and he didn’t. I flipped him over and I saw him and immediately ran to the living room to grab my phone and call 911. And I went back into the room and sat on their bed, and then that’s when I flipped Dallas over and saw her the same way.

The rest of the interview focused on the truly disturbing and traumatic treatment they received from the police, something that ALL parents of SIDS are forced to endure. Endless questioning by detectives trying to find evidence that the mother or father may have had the capacity or desire to murder their infants. Imagine drowning in grief over the sudden deaths of your beloved babies while having to endure aggressive and accusatory questioning by detectives? Welcome to the even darker side of the childhood vaccine program, folks.

Now, before I give my impression as to the pathophysiology underlying their deaths (spoiler alert: it was caused by their recent vaccinations), I thought it would be instructive to review the history of simultaneous “twin deaths” in relation to vaccination.

Deaths Of Twins Post Vaccination

From this review of infant deaths post-vaccination:

As early as 1933, Madsen [32] documented the sudden deaths of two infants soon after receiving their whole-cell pertussis vaccinations. The first child developed cyanosis and convulsions 30 minutes after vaccination and died a few minutes later. The second child developed cyanosis two hours after vaccination and died.

In 1946, Werne and Garrow [33] documented the sudden deaths of identical twin boys 24 h after diphtheria and pertussis vaccination. The babies had symptoms of shock throughout the night before their fatal reactions. Although the simultaneous sudden deaths of twin infants—simultaneous SIDS—is rare, Werne and Garrow were not the only scientists to document this phenomenon and cite vaccines as a possible precipitating influence.

Other cases have been reported in the medical literature, which may suggest an environmental cause rather than a natural one.

For example, Roberts [34] reported on twin boys who “simultaneously succumbed to sudden unexpected deaths” 3 h after DPT vaccination. The author concluded that “coincidences do occur and should be seen in perspective.” Ed: Clearly, that is a statement he had to include to get his report published, or he was brainwashed (dead three hours after the vaccine and it is a “coincidence?”)

Balci et al. [35] reported on identical twin girls, 15 weeks old, who both died suddenly 2 days after receiving oral polio, hepatitis B, and DPT vaccines. They were found by their mother, “both in supine position” (as recommended by the AAP). The twins were healthy before the incident. Their deaths were recorded as SIDS.

According to Bass [36], “the likelihood of twin infants dying suddenly and simultaneously of SIDS, a natural disorder, defies credibility.”Ed: There ya go! Finally, someone makes %$@! sense.

Mitchell et al. [37] published a case report describing 12-week-old identical twins who died “lying on their backs.” Although their deaths were labeled SIDS, 5 days before death they each received multiple vaccines concurrently, including DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis), oral polio, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib).

Huang et al. [38] published a case report describing the sudden deaths of 10-week-old twin male infants. Their mother found them lying on their backs, lifeless. Ten days earlier, they had received their first doses of DPT and oral polio vaccines.

Read the Whole Article

The post Medical Record Review of the Twins Who Died After Vaccination appeared first on LewRockwell.

Three COVID-19 vaccine injury victims are asking to join a Dutch lawsuit against Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and 15 other defendants, alleging they misled the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The lawsuit was filed last year by seven COVID-19 vaccine injury victims, one of whom has since died.

According to a filing by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Peter Stassen, the three new victims “were healthy people” who began experiencing health problems after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“The applicants are of the opinion that the serious side effects that occurred after having the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections are the direct result of the content / composition of these Covid-19 (mRNA) injections,” the filing states.

Doctors have repeatedly refused to diagnose a link between vaccination and their injuries, Stassen said.

During a hearing today at the District Court of North Netherlands in Leeuwarden, Stassen also asked the court to approve five expert witnesses who will testify about the risks and dangers of the COVID-19 shots:

• Catherine Austin Fitts, founder and publisher of the Solari Report and former U.S. assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
• Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical research and development executive.
• Joseph Sansone, Ph.D., a psychotherapist who is litigating to prohibit mRNA vaccines in Florida.
• Katherine Watt, a researcher and paralegal.
• Mike Yeadon, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and former vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research unit.

Another proposed witness, Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., who agreed in January to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, has since died. Boyle was a professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.

According to Dutch newspaper De Andere Krant, eight attorneys attended today’s hearing on behalf of the defendants, who also include the Dutch state, former Dutch prime minister and current NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and several members of the Dutch government’s pandemic-era Outbreak Management Team.

Gates is a prominent investor in mRNA vaccine technology who invested in BioNTech, a German pharmaceutical company that partnered with Pfizer to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Gates later sold his BioNTech shares at a significant profit.

The defendants’ lawyers argued that the court should not allow the proposed witnesses to testify. The lawyers questioned the expertise and impartiality of the proposed witnesses and argued that the “general scientific consensus” is that the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective.”

“Scientific consensus? What is that, anyway?” Stassen asked the court, accusing the defense of using “false ad hominem arguments to undermine the expertise of his witnesses.”

Dutch journalist Ido Dijkstra, who attended the hearing, said the defendant’s arguments “ignored the obvious damage the vaccines made” — doing so in the presence of several of the vaccine injury victims who filed the lawsuit and were at the hearing.

Dijkstra said none of the plaintiffs spoke during the hearing.

Last year, attorneys for Gates sought dismissal of the lawsuit, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction.

However, in its Oct. 16, 2024, ruling, the court said it has jurisdiction over Gates, finding “sufficient evidence” that the claims against Gates and the other defendants are “connected” and based on the same “complex of facts.”

Mass COVID vaccination program ‘an unprecedented crime,’ plaintiffs argue

During the hearing, Stassen called the COVID-19 mass vaccination program “the greatest genocide of humanity ever” and “an unprecedented crime accompanied by coercion, deception, and even murder,” De Andere Krant reported.

Stassen said that if the court refused to allow the proposed expert witnesses to testify, it would mean “this court doesn’t want to know the truth.”

Stassen said:

“If you, as a judge, reject our request to hear these witnesses, which I doubt you will, then the blood already on the defendants’ hands will soon be on yours as well. This case must become a public debate that can only be resolved in court. Politics has already proven that it cannot do that.”

According to Dutch journalist Erica Krikke, who attended the hearing, attorneys for the defense did not speak much and largely refrained from commenting on Stassen’s statements.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst, who also attended the hearing, said Stassen “did quite well” in countering the defendants’ arguments. Terhorst noted that the defense attorneys included some of the Netherlands’ most prominent legal figures.

She also said she believes the court will allow the expert witnesses to testify.

“The law provides that the hearing of experts needs to be accepted, unless abuse of this legal right can be proven. In my view, because the argument of abuse was not made and also not proven, the court will have to allow the hearing to take place,” Terhorst said.

Read the Whole Article

The post 3 New Plaintiffs Ask to Join COVID Vaccine Injury Lawsuit Against Bill Gates appeared first on LewRockwell.

Peppered within this week’s headlines was President Trump’s on-again, off-again firing of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. The key variable that is never mentioned, however, is that neither Trump, nor Powell have any idea what interest rates should be. Powell’s job shouldn’t exist in the first place. Markets determine prices; not the president, and not something called a “Federal Reserve Chairman.”

Get tickets to the Ron Paul Institute’s August 16th DC Conference!

More info here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/blueprint-for-peace-tickets-1397170888739

 

The post Neither Trump, Nor Powell, Know What Interest Rates Should Be — End the Fed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

John Leake

 

The post “Voices of the Vaccine Injured” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Tim McGraw wrote:

It might be one of the most expensive eminent domain purchases ($500 million) in US history. Airports don’t belong in the middle of cities.

The post Ghost Streets of Los Angeles, Surfridge & LAX appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Brian Dunaway. 

Wow. Just, wow.

Has there ever been anyone more predictable? But (if “everyone” is correct) it took Israelophilia, rather Israelomania, for him to be sucked into the event horizon.

He’s even willing to relegate his favorite word, “hoax,” to the infamous status of “conspiracy theory.”

In his Manichean cosmology, you are either on his side in ALL things, or you are weak and stupid and evil (all the same thing in his mind). The argument is often made in his defense that he only attacks if first attacked. Not in this stunning spectacle — he attacks his own base, who always gives him the benefit of the doubt — even now, not attacking, rather stunned and alarmed and confused. (Can we call this the first stage of grief: denial?)

Perhaps he’s so defensive not because he is being attacked, but because his client, Israel, is being attacked.

But he should be glad. If he thought about it for one moment, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Israel — the only reason he pretends to care about Israel is because he cares about what a large segment of his voters care about. If at long last the truth about Israel is too much even for the American voter to take, just maybe he won’t have to spend so much time kissing their ass and supporting a self-fulfilling prophecy that might be called Armageddon.

Zero Hedge

 

The post Ghislaine ‘Ready’ To Testify As Trump Triples Down, Slams ‘Weakling PAST Supporters Who Believe Epstein Hoax’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Argentina’s “Libertarian” Revolution.

The post “Brought to You by Chabad” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Ricordo a tutti i lettori che su Amazon potete acquistare il mio nuovo libro, “Il Grande Default”: https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0DJK1J4K9 

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Brent Johnson

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/la-matrix-originale-cosa-non-vi-insegnano)

«Prendi la pillola blu e la storia finisce, ti svegli nel tuo letto e credi a quello che vuoi credere. Prendi la pillola rossa e resti nel Paese delle Meraviglie e ti mostrerò quanto è profonda la tana del Bianconiglio.»

~ Morpheus, Matrix

Cos'è il denaro?

Alcune cose nella vita sono così profondamente radicate nella nostra esistenza quotidiana che raramente ci fermiamo a metterle in discussione.

Sono semplicemente lì, operanti in background, così fondamentali per la nostra esistenza da sembrare naturali come l'aria che respiriamo.

Le usiamo, ci affidiamo a loro e ci muoviamo nel mondo dando per scontato che siano esattamente come dovrebbero essere.

Ad esempio, tutti conoscono la frase “Il denaro fa girare il mondo”.

Raramente viene messa in discussione ed è piuttosto accettata come ovvietà.

Ogni giorno vi svegliate, pagate le bollette, andate al lavoro e controllate il vostro conto in banca, credendo di comprendere il sistema in cui operate.

Ma vi siete mai chiesti: cos'è veramente il denaro?

Non la definizione sui libri di testo.

Non la teoria economica che avete imparato a scuola.

Ma la verità.

Il denaro è ovunque. Determina chi mangia e chi muore di fame, chi si eleva e chi crolla. Costruisce imperi e distrugge civiltà.

Ha alimentato rivoluzioni, finanziato guerre e controllato il destino di intere nazioni.

È probabilmente la forza più potente sulla Terra, eppure la maggior parte delle persone non si ferma mai a interrogarsi sulle sue origini, sul suo scopo, o sulla sua vera natura.

Usiamo il denaro ogni singolo giorno. Lo guadagniamo, lo spendiamo, lo risparmiamo. Ci scambiamo tempo ed energie. Determina dove viviamo, cosa possediamo e le opportunità che abbiamo a disposizione.

È così profondamente radicato nella nostra vita che metterlo in discussione sembra assurdo, come mettere in discussione la gravità, o l'aria che respiriamo.

Ma vi siete mai chiesti chi decide cos'è il denaro? Chi, o cosa, gli dà valore? O chi lo controlla?

E, cosa ancora più importante, cosa succederebbe se giocassimo a un gioco le cui regole erano state truccate prima ancora che nascessimo?

Per chi è disposto a guardare oltre la superficie, le risposte potrebbero essere sorprendenti.

Ma attenzione: una volta che si iniziano a porre le domande giuste, non si torna più indietro.

Definizioni tradizionali di denaro

Il denaro è uno degli aspetti della civiltà umana più universalmente riconosciuti, ma meno esaminati.

Influenza ogni aspetto della nostra vita, dettando le nostre opportunità economiche, plasmando il commercio globale e agendo come una forza centrale in modi che pochi considerano.

Eppure, nonostante la sua onnipresenza, il denaro rimane un concetto profondamente frainteso.

Sebbene tutti lo usiamo, pochi di noi si soffermano a valutare veramente cos'è, come funziona e se davvero funziona come immaginiamo.

L'obiettivo qui non è convincere nessuno di una prospettiva specifica, ma riflettere in modo critico sul denaro: cosa rappresenta realmente e se la realtà corrisponde a ciò che ci è stato insegnato.

Se fermassi qualcuno per strada e gli chiedessi se sa cos'è il denaro, quasi certamente risponderebbe con un sicuro sì.

Tuttavia, se lo incalzassi ulteriormente e gli chiedessi di darne una definizione appropriata, la risposta potrebbe non arrivare altrettanto rapidamente. La certezza iniziale probabilmente lascerebbe il posto all'esitazione nella ricerca di una risposta.

Se si insistesse un po' di più, o si rivolgesse la domanda a qualcuno esperto di finanza o teoria economica, le risposte diventerebbero probabilmente più strutturate.

A questo livello le persone potrebbero iniziare a descrivere le caratteristiche associate a una forma forte di moneta – qualità che la rendono efficace come mezzo di scambio, riserva di valore e unità di conto.

Se poi la conversazione dovesse andare ancora oltre, chi riflette in modo critico sulla questione potrebbe andare oltre le caratteristiche della moneta e concentrarsi invece su cosa fa effettivamente.

Potrebbero iniziare a discutere del suo ruolo nel facilitare il commercio, della sua funzione nel saldare i debiti, o della sua importanza nelle transazioni economiche.

Tuttavia anche se tutti questi punti fossero accettati come veri, il nocciolo della questione rimane: cos'è?

Al suo livello più fondamentale, un mezzo di scambio deve essere una “cosa”. E di cosa sono fatte le cose tangibili?

Merci.

Secondo questo ragionamento, la moneta – ridotta alla sua forma più elementare – è una merce.

E le merci sono composte da elementi presenti nella Tavola Periodica. Tuttavia non qualsiasi merce (o qualsiasi elemento) può fungere da moneta.

Se una particolare merce è ampiamente richiesta e possiede alcune (o tutte) le caratteristiche che definiscono una moneta forte, allora cessa di essere solo una merce e invece trascende, diventando essa stessa denaro.

A questo punto diventa spesso chiaro che il denaro è la merce più commerciabile, un bene che funge da estintore definitivo del debito e che è stato selezionato dalle forze del libero mercato nel corso del tempo.

Questa definizione trova riscontro in molti di coloro che hanno studiato la storia della moneta e come le sue diverse forme si siano evolute nel tempo.

Spingendo questo concetto un passo avanti, e riconoscendo che il denaro è una merce e che le merci sono composte da elementi della Tavola Periodica, si potrebbero persino valutare i vari elementi per vedere quale di essi abbia il maggior numero di caratteristiche che gli consentirebbero di “ascendere” a diventare denaro.

Facendo così ci si renderebbe conto che esiste una merce che è stata a lungo considerata una delle forme più forti di moneta. Grazie al suo insieme unico di attributi che la rendono altamente efficace come mezzo di scambio e riserva di valore.

Una delle sue qualità più distintive è la durevolezza: a differenza della cartamoneta, o di altri beni deperibili, non si corrode, non si ossida né si degrada nel tempo, garantendo il mantenimento del suo valore nel corso delle generazioni.

Questa durevolezza gli consente di fungere da forma di conservazione della ricchezza affidabile, poiché non soccombe all'azione del tempo o alle condizioni ambientali.

Un'altra caratteristica fondamentale di questa merce è la sua divisibilità.

A differenza di altre merci può essere fusa e divisa in unità più piccole senza perdere il suo valore intrinseco, consentendo transazioni di varie dimensioni.

Questo la rende più pratica come mezzo di scambio rispetto a beni che non possono essere facilmente scomposti.

Inoltre è fungibile, il che significa che ogni unità è identica a un'altra unità dello stesso peso e purezza. Questa intercambiabilità garantisce che possa essere scambiata senza discrepanze di valore, rendendola un mezzo di scambio altamente efficiente.

È apprezzata anche per la sua portabilità.

Pur essendo un bene fisico, possiede un elevato rapporto valore/peso, consentendo a privati ​​e istituzioni di trasportare ingenti quantità di ricchezza in un formato compatto e pratico.

Questa portabilità, unita alla sua riconoscibilità, ne rafforza lo status di forma di denaro ampiamente accettata e affidabile.

In tutte le culture e nel corso della storia è stata universalmente riconosciuta come riserva di valore e il suo aspetto distintivo, e le sue proprietà uniche, la rendono difficile da contraffare.

Oltre a queste qualità, possiede anche la scarsità, una caratteristica fondamentale che ne ha preservato il valore nel tempo.

La sua offerta è naturalmente limitata dai vincoli fisici di estrazione e produzione.

Questa intrinseca scarsità impedisce l'inflazione artificiale e garantisce il mantenimento del suo potere d'acquisto per lunghi periodi.

Infine la sua malleabilità ne aumenta l'utilità, poiché può essere modellata in monete, lingotti, o gioielli senza perdere le sue proprietà essenziali.

Questa adattabilità la rende estremamente versatile, consolidando ulteriormente il suo ruolo di una delle forme di denaro più efficaci e durature.

Stiamo ovviamente parlando dell'oro.

E in effetti, nel corso della storia, l'oro ha incarnato tutte le qualità della moneta forte: è scarso, durevole, divisibile, trasferibile e ampiamente riconosciuto.

Il suo ruolo di lunga data nei sistemi economici ha portato molti ad affermare che rimanga la forma di denaro per eccellenza.

A questo punto, un'alzata di mano potrebbe rivelare un ampio consenso su questa prospettiva.

Ma prima di giungere a una conclusione definitiva, vale la pena fermarsi e chiedersi: la storia ha sempre funzionato tramite un sistema di libero mercato?

Ancora più importante, la moneta è sempre stata determinata dal libero mercato o è intervenuta un'altra forza?

Il denaro come costrutto controllato dallo stato

Un presupposto comune che deve essere accettato quando si utilizza la definizione di denaro sopra riportata è che i mercati operino liberamente, guidati dallo scambio volontario e dalla concorrenza.

Ma questo corrisponde alla realtà storica?

La storia è sempre stata caratterizzata da un libero mercato? O, cosa ancora più importante, il mondo è mai stato veramente governato dai principi del libero mercato?

Queste domande sono essenziali, ma ci impongono di guardare il mondo così com'è, non come vorremmo che fosse. Il che porta a una discussione più ampia sulla natura stessa del denaro.

Se ipotizziamo che il denaro sia semplicemente una merce scelta dalle forze del libero mercato, allora dobbiamo conciliare questo presupposto con le prove storiche.

E il fatto è che esiste un'altra prospettiva, che sfida la definizione tradizionale di denaro e ci costringe a riconsiderare se il denaro sia mai stato un fenomeno puramente guidato dal mercato.

Se la storia ci insegna qualcosa, è che lo stato ha svolto un ruolo significativo nel plasmare la storia nel suo complesso. Lo stato ha anche svolto un ruolo significativo nello sviluppo dei sistemi monetari.

Quindi, se ci occupiamo del mondo così com'è, piuttosto che come vorremmo che fosse, questo semplice fatto non può essere ignorato.

Nel corso della storia gli stati hanno emesso varie forme di moneta fiat, non in risposta alla domanda del libero mercato, ma come meccanismo per facilitare il commercio, affermare il controllo e sostenere i sistemi economici.

Gli antichi imperi spesso coniavano monete fatte di metalli vili, imprimendole con le immagini dei sovrani o dei simboli dello stato, garantendo che il loro valore fosse determinato da un decreto piuttosto che da un valore intrinseco.

Questi primi sistemi monetari stabilirono un precedente in cui lo stato, piuttosto che le forze del mercato, dettava cosa funzionasse come denaro.

Durante il Rinascimento e oltre, le banconote cartacee emersero come uno strumento monetario diffuso. Inizialmente queste banconote erano coperte da metalli preziosi, rafforzandone la legittimità e la fiducia.

Tuttavia, nel tempo, si sono gradualmente evolute in pura moneta fiat, completamente svincolata da qualsiasi bene fisico.

Questa trasformazione ha permesso agli stati e alle banche centrali di esercitare un grande potere decisionale sui sistemi monetari, non essendo più vincolati da riserve finite di oro o argento.

Anche i governi coloniali hanno svolto un ruolo significativo nella storia monetaria, emettendo cambiali come mezzo per gestire il commercio e l'attività economica.

Queste cambiali hanno funzionato come prime forme di valuta coperta dallo stato, rappresentando un obbligo piuttosto che una riserva di valore tangibile.

Con il passare del tempo le valute fiat sono diventate la forma di denaro dominante, con gli stati moderni che hanno adottato valute nazionali come il dollaro, l'euro e lo yen.

Oggi la moneta fiat esiste sia in forma fisica che digitale, a testimonianza della continua evoluzione dei sistemi monetari statali.

Se accettiamo questa realtà storica, allora dobbiamo chiederci: il denaro è davvero un prodotto del libero mercato o è sempre stato plasmato e definito da chi detiene il potere?

O, in altre parole: il denaro è davvero la merce più commerciabile scelta dagli individui, liberi pensatori, o è uno strumento potente imposto dal Re?

Per rispondere a queste domande, è innanzitutto necessario sviluppare le competenze necessarie per comprendere al meglio il proprio ambiente.

Consapevolezza situazionale

La consapevolezza situazionale è un'abilità fondamentale che consente agli individui di percepire, comprendere e anticipare gli eventi che li circondano, consentendo loro di prendere decisioni consapevoli e agire efficacemente.

Si compone di tre componenti essenziali: in primo luogo, la capacità di percepire elementi critici nell'ambiente, come persone, oggetti ed eventi in corso; in secondo luogo, la capacità di comprenderne il significato e il potenziale impatto; e in terzo luogo, la capacità di prevedere gli sviluppi futuri sulla base delle informazioni disponibili.

Questa abilità è indispensabile in ambienti ad alto rischio come l'aviazione, le operazioni militari, la sanità e il mondo degli affari, dove la capacità di riconoscere segnali sottili e reagire di conseguenza può fare la differenza tra successo e fallimento.

Lo stesso principio si applica all'allocazione del portafoglio, dove i mercati finanziari sono in costante evoluzione e una mancanza di consapevolezza può portare a perdite devastanti.

Al di là degli ambiti professionali, la consapevolezza situazionale svolge un ruolo fondamentale nella vita quotidiana, migliorando la sicurezza personale, il processo decisionale e consentendo agli individui di orientarsi efficacemente in un mondo in continua evoluzione.

Senza questa competenza, le persone rischiano di essere colte di sorpresa, di fare scelte sbagliate e di subire conseguenze evitabili.

Che si applichi alla sicurezza personale, alle decisioni finanziarie, o al pensiero strategico, la consapevolezza situazionale è uno strumento vitale per ottimizzare i risultati in un mondo pieno di incertezza.

Un esempio di applicazione della consapevolezza situazionale al nostro attuale argomento è rappresentato dallo scenario seguente.

L'economia carceraria

Come accennato in precedenza, per ottimizzare le proprie circostanze, è necessario comprendere appieno l'ambiente in cui si opera.

Questo principio è chiaramente illustrato nell'ecosistema chiuso delle economie carcerarie, dove non esistono sistemi monetari tradizionali.

In tali ambienti i detenuti si affidano a forme di valuta alternative, scegliendo beni durevoli, ampiamente accettati e facilmente scambiabili.

Ad esempio, le sigarette hanno storicamente funzionato come una valuta efficace dietro le sbarre.

Sono molto richieste, facilmente divisibili per piccole transazioni e ampiamente riconosciute come unità di scambio.

Le sigarette possono essere scambiate con cibo, servizi o altri beni di prima necessità, creando un'economia di baratto che rispecchia i sistemi finanziari tradizionali.

Analogamente le scatolette di sardine si sono affermate come merce di valore in alcuni contesti carcerari.

La loro natura non deperibile, unita al loro valore nutrizionale, le rende una riserva di ricchezza affidabile che mantiene la sua utilità nel tempo.

In assenza di una moneta ufficialmente riconosciuta, questi beni assumono le caratteristiche di mezzo di scambio, riserva di valore e unità di conto: gli stessi principi che definiscono il denaro stesso.

Questa economia informale all'interno delle carceri funge da microcosmo per sistemi monetari più ampi, dimostrando che il denaro non è definito solo da un decreto statale, ma da ciò che le persone riconoscono collettivamente come avente valore.

Gli insegnamenti che si possono trarre da questi ambienti controllati sottolineano l'importanza dell'adattabilità, dell'intraprendenza e della comprensione delle forze economiche, indipendentemente da dove si operi.

È anche importante capire che, sebbene sia le sigarette che le sardine siano diventate forme di denaro popolari in ambienti controllati, non lo sono diventate solo grazie alla commerciabilità delle loro qualità intrinseche.

Si consideri uno scenario all'interno di un'economia carceraria dove le sardine sono ampiamente accettate come moneta. In questo sistema fungono da mezzo di scambio, riserva di valore e unità di conto, svolgendo tutte le funzioni necessarie del denaro.

Tuttavia, cosa succede quando un detenuto viene trasferito in una struttura diversa, dove le dinamiche di potere sono diverse?

In questa nuova prigione, la figura dominante – quella che detiene la maggiore influenza – odia le sardine ma ama le sigarette.

Ha dichiarato, per decreto, che le sigarette sono ora la forma di pagamento richiesta.

In un simile contesto, non importa più che le sardine un tempo avessero un valore monetario. Le regole sono cambiate e la nuova figura autoritaria ha imposto un nuovo sistema.

In questa situazione, avrebbe senso insistere sul fatto che le sardine siano ancora denaro?

Oppure il prigioniero sarebbe costretto ad adattarsi al nuovo standard, riconoscendo che il denaro non è determinato solo da qualità intrinseche, ma piuttosto dalle strutture di potere che ne impongono l'uso?

Vi prendereste la responsabilità di cercare di convincere la figura dominante che è sbagliato pretendere sigarette e che dovrebbe affidarsi ai principi del libero mercato piuttosto che ai propri bisogni e desideri?

Questo esempio solleva una domanda cruciale: se potessimo scegliere, preferiremmo una forma di denaro basata sul mercato, determinata organicamente dal libero scambio, o un sistema in cui il denaro è dettato da un'autorità centrale che detiene il potere sui partecipanti?

La maggior parte delle persone propenderebbe istintivamente per la prima opzione, credendo che il libero mercato debba determinare la migliore forma di denaro.

E poiché credono che il libero mercato sarebbe migliore, allora credono che sia così che i mercati si sono sviluppati nel corso della storia.

Tuttavia questa prospettiva presenta un problema, raramente riconosciuto.

Nonostante la sua ampia accettazione nei manuali di economia e nei modelli teorici, ci sono poche prove storiche che il baratto su larga scala e il libero scambio abbiano mai costituito il fondamento dei sistemi monetari.

L'ipotesi che i mercati producano denaro naturalmente senza alcuna forma di struttura imposta non è in linea con gran parte della documentazione storica.

Questo mette in discussione l'idea che il denaro si sia evoluto come prodotto del libero mercato e ci costringe a riconsiderare se le sue origini siano più strettamente legate al potere, all'autorità e alle regole imposte piuttosto che allo scambio volontario.

La maggior parte delle persone presume che il denaro sia sempre stato determinato dalle forze del libero mercato, ma la storia racconta una storia diversa, in cui potere, controllo e coercizione hanno plasmato i sistemi finanziari in modi che pochi si soffermano a considerare.

Quindi, se il denaro non è ciò che pensiamo che sia, cosa significa per tutto il resto?

Debito, potere ed evoluzione dei sistemi monetari

La narrazione convenzionale sulle origini del denaro suggerisce che si sia evoluto naturalmente dai sistemi di baratto, in cui gli individui si scambiavano direttamente beni e servizi.

Tuttavia David Graeber, nel suo libro Debt: The First 5.000 Years, contesta questa ipotesi, sostenendo che ci sono poche prove storiche a sostegno dell'idea che il baratto sia mai stato il fondamento primario dei sistemi economici.

I libri di testo di economia spesso descrivono le società primitive come impegnate nel baratto prima dell'introduzione del denaro, ma la ricerca di Graeber suggerisce il contrario.

Sostiene invece che il debito, non il baratto, fosse il fondamento dello scambio economico.

Nelle società antiche il commercio si basava spesso su sistemi di credito, in cui gli individui scambiavano beni e servizi sulla base di fiducia e obblighi reciproci piuttosto che su un pagamento fisico immediato.

Questi sistemi non richiedevano denaro in senso tradizionale, ma si basavano su contratti sociali e accordi informali.

Nel corso del tempo questi sistemi di credito si sono formalizzati in debito strutturato, portando infine all'emergere del denaro come mezzo istituzionalizzato per saldare i propri oneri.

Graeber ripercorre l'evoluzione del debito nel corso della storia, illustrando come si sia profondamente radicato nei sistemi economici e politici, spesso fungendo da mezzo di controllo piuttosto che da mera facilitazione degli scambi.

Critica i modi in cui il debito è stato utilizzato per imporre gerarchie sociali, plasmare dinamiche di potere e limitare l'autonomia individuale.

Riformulando la storia del denaro attorno al debito, Graeber fa luce sui meccanismi sociali sottostanti che governano i sistemi economici, meccanismi a lungo trascurati o fraintesi.

Ad esempio, è noto che nel corso della storia i governanti hanno esercitato un controllo diretto sull'attività economica, utilizzando coercizione, tassazione e debito strutturato per plasmare i sistemi monetari.

In alcuni casi il potere veniva imposto attraverso la coscrizione vera e propria, in cui il re arruolava i cittadini nel suo esercito, esigeva il loro lavoro per progetti infrastrutturali o li costringeva alla servitù per gli sforzi di costruzione dello stato.

C'era poco spazio per il rifiuto: chi si opponeva spesso rischiava la morte o la prigione.

In altri casi intere economie funzionavano secondo sistemi feudali, dove i contadini erano costretti a lavorare la terra, generando ricchezza che alla fine andava a beneficio della classe dominante.

In tali sistemi i contadini erano tenuti a pagare le tasse “in natura”, il che significa che cedevano una parte dei loro raccolti, del bestiame, o di altri beni direttamente alla monarchia.

Al netto della tassazione rimaneva loro solo ciò che serviva alla propria sopravvivenza.

Tuttavia mantenere il controllo con la forza diretta ha i suoi limiti. Richiede risorse, sforzi e una minaccia costante di violenza.

Un sistema più efficiente sarebbe stato quello in cui il controllo fosse mantenuto senza una costante imposizione, un sistema in cui gli individui si sottomettessero volontariamente, credendo di avere il controllo delle proprie decisioni economiche.

Considerando questo, cosa accadrebbe se il re ideasse un sistema in cui, invece di esigere beni materiali, o lavoro diretto, emettesse una valuta, una moneta usata per rifornire il suo regno?

E se, alla fine della stagione, o dell'anno, chiedesse ai suoi cittadini di restituire una parte di quella valuta sotto forma di tasse?

In questo modello gli individui continuerebbero a lavorare per sostenere il sistema, ma invece di subire una coercizione diretta sarebbero costretti a partecipare all'economia per guadagnare la valuta emessa.

La necessità di ottenere monete per pagare le tasse creerebbe domanda per la valuta stessa, attribuendole valore non per il suo valore intrinseco, ma perché è l'unico modo per soddisfare gli obblighi verso lo stato.

Infatti tutto questo sarebbe l'equivalente del lavoro forzato, o della tassazione diretta, ma in un modo più sottile, efficiente e facile da gestire. Il sistema di controllo esisterebbe ancora, ma ora apparirebbe volontario.

Prima di scartare questa idea come inverosimile, vale la pena riflettere sulle parole di Johann Wolfgang von Goethe che una volta disse: “Nessuno è più irrimediabilmente schiavo di coloro che credono falsamente di essere liberi”.

Debito, controllo e la natura del potere

Il concetto di debito come meccanismo di controllo è efficacemente illustrato nel film L'Internazionale, dove Umberto Calvini, un importante produttore di armi a livello mondiale, spiega agli investigatori del riciclaggio di denaro perché una grande banca europea stia intermediando armi leggere cinesi per i conflitti del Terzo Mondo.

Gli investigatori presumono che la banca stia semplicemente traendo profitto dalla guerra, ma Calvini chiarisce che il vero obiettivo non è controllare il conflitto in sé, ma controllare il debito che la guerra crea.

«La IBBC è una banca. Il suo obiettivo non è controllare il conflitto, ma controllare il debito che il conflitto produce.

Vede, il vero valore di un conflitto – il vero valore – sta nel debito che crea.

Controllando il debito, controlli tutto. Lo trova sconvolgente, vero? Ma questa è l'essenza stessa del settore bancario: renderci tutti, nazioni o individui, schiavi del debito.»

Le parole di Calvini sottolineano una realtà agghiacciante: la guerra (e il debito) non riguardano solo la terra, le risorse, o l'ideologia... sono uno strumento finanziario.

Assicurandosi che stati e individui rimangano indebitati, le istituzioni finanziarie e coloro che le controllano possono esercitare un'influenza a lungo termine su intere nazioni.

Questo sposta l'attenzione dal controllo diretto attraverso la forza fisica alla sottomissione economica attraverso cicli di debito perpetui.

L'idea che il controllo si estenda oltre la guerra e la finanza viene ulteriormente esplorata nel film Matrix, dove Morpheus rivela a Neo l'inquietante verità sul mondo in cui vive.

Neo, come tutti gli altri, crede di vivere in una realtà in cui fa le proprie scelte.

Ma Morpheus smaschera questa illusione creata appositamente per tenere le persone in schiavitù senza che se ne accorgano.

Quando Neo chiede cos'è Matrix, Morpheus spiega:

«Matrix è un mondo onirico generato al computer, costruito per tenere le persone sotto controllo al fine di trasformare un essere umano in... questo.»

In quel momento Morpheus solleva una batteria, rivelando l'orribile verità: l'umanità stessa è stata ridotta a una fonte di energia per un sistema invisibile.

Nel contesto dei sistemi finanziari, questa analogia è sorprendente.

Proprio come le macchine di Matrix estraggono energia dagli esseri umani, le strutture economiche moderne estraggono ricchezza, lavoro e produttività dagli individui, spesso senza che ne siano consapevoli.

La maggior parte delle persone non mette mai in discussione il sistema in cui è nata, proprio come Neo non ha mai messo in discussione il suo mondo finché non è stato costretto a confrontarsi con una scomoda verità.

Tracciando queste connessioni, diventa chiaro che debito, controllo economico e influenza sistemica funzionano in modi che vanno ben oltre ciò che la maggior parte delle persone percepisce.

La domanda allora diventa: se il mondo in cui viviamo opera secondo un sistema a cui non abbiamo mai acconsentito, e che la maggior parte delle persone non comprende nemmeno, quanta della nostra realtà è veramente nostra?

La Matrix monetaria

Dopo aver esplorato diverse prospettive, torniamo alla domanda fondamentale: cos'è il denaro?

Ma prima di tentare di rispondere, considerate questo: siete pronti a prendere la Pillola Rossa?

E se, riecheggiando le parole di Umberto Calvini ne L'Internazionale e di Morpheus in Matrix, il denaro non fosse semplicemente uno strumento di scambio, né semplicemente un prodotto dell'evoluzione del libero mercato?

E se il denaro non fosse mai stato neutrale, ma piuttosto fosse sempre stato un meccanismo di controllo?

Se così fosse, allora il denaro non è solo uno strumento economico, è la Matrix originale.

Esiste da quando esistono le strutture di potere, plasmando le civiltà, garantendo il rispetto delle regole e mantenendo le gerarchie migliaia di anni prima che i moderni sistemi finanziari fossero concepiti.

Non è emerso organicamente dai liberi mercati, ma è stato implementato e imposto da chi deteneva il potere.

Se quest'idea sembra radicale, considerate l'analogia: il denaro è un costrutto creato dallo stato, costruito per tenere le persone sotto controllo, proprio come Matrix ha schiavizzato l'umanità, trasformandola in batterie per un sistema invisibile.

Le parole di Morpheus sulla trasformazione degli umani in una batteria illustrano perfettamente questo concetto.

Ma quando Neo si confronta con questa realtà, la sua prima reazione è di orrore e rifiuto.

Rifugge l'idea, rifiutandola categoricamente:

«Non ci credo. Non è possibile.»

E forse, proprio ora state avendo la stessa reazione.

Forse questa idea sembra troppo inverosimile, troppo estrema per essere reale.

Ciononostante... potete essere completamente certi che sia sbagliata?

La sfida non è accettare o rifiutare questa idea a priori; la sfida è guardare il mondo così com'è, non come vorremmo che fosse.

Se ci riuscite, allora dovete essere come minimo disposti a chiedervi: e se tutto ciò che pensavate di sapere sul denaro fosse un'illusione?

Ma prima di giungere a una conclusione, diamo un'occhiata più da vicino ad alcune prove; prove che tutti noi abbiamo sperimentato direttamente.

Le prove

Fin dal momento in cui nasciamo, entriamo in un ambiente controllato, in cui la registrazione è obbligatoria e a ogni individuo viene assegnato un numero identificativo.

Questo sistema non viene definito prigione, ma piuttosto stato o Paese.

Eppure, nonostante la terminologia diversa, la struttura ha una somiglianza inquietante con un'istituzione progettata per gestire e contenere i suoi abitanti.

Ma a differenza delle prigioni tradizionali, questo sistema è molto più sofisticato. Qui non si viene semplicemente rinchiusi, ma viene fatto credere di essere liberi.

Non si vive in questo sistema gratuitamente. C'è un costo, un obbligo ricorrente che deve essere soddisfatto. Non chiamano questi pagamenti “spese di detenzione”, ma “tasse”.

Anche se si è tenuti a pagare, si ha poco o nessun controllo su come il denaro viene speso.

E a peggiorare le cose, per ottenere il denaro necessario a pagare queste tasse, bisogna prima lavorare all'interno del sistema stesso.

L'economia è strutturata in modo tale che si debba guadagnare la valuta statale, che può poi essere utilizzata per pagare le tasse.

Non c'è alternativa. Almeno non uno che non implichi la minaccia di prigionia o violenza.

Ma non finisce qui.

Il sistema non si limita a esigere il vostro lavoro, ma vi incoraggia anche a indebitarvi.

Vi presenta nuovi prodotti scintillanti, nuovi lussi, nuove promesse, invogliandovi a indebitarvi ulteriormente, assicurandosi che rimaniate legati al sistema, dipendenti dalla sua valuta e intrappolati in un ciclo da cui è quasi impossibile uscire.

A differenza di una prigione fisica, dove i confini sono visibili, i muri di questo sistema sono invisibili, ed è questo che li rende così efficaci.

Potreste credere di essere liberi di muovervi, ma provate ad andarvene senza la documentazione richiesta: un passaporto, un visto, o un'autorizzazione.

I vostri movimenti sono tracciati, monitorati e limitati.

In alcuni casi determinate “strutture” – che siano imposte dalla nazione, dalla normativa, o da vincoli economici – non vi permettono affatto di andarvene.

Ciononostante la forma di controllo più efficace non è la forza, ma la distrazione.

Lo stato fornisce notizie, intrattenimento e un coinvolgimento infinito, assicurandosi che la maggior parte delle persone non si accorga nemmeno dell'esistenza dei muri.

Infatti sono così abili in questo che la stragrande maggioranza degli individui non farà mai un passo indietro, non si fermerà mai abbastanza a lungo per riconoscere la struttura per quello che è veramente.

La dissonanza cognitiva in tutto ciò

Ora, alcuni di voi potrebbero pensare: questo non è davvero il denaro, è solo gergo della MMT. E altri potrebbero credere che se fosse vero, il sistema sarebbe già crollato.

Ma ricordate, inevitabile non significa imminente. I sistemi non crollano da un giorno all'altro. Resistono per decenni, secoli, persino millenni prima che i loro difetti intrinseci li conducano al loro inevitabile collasso.

Quindi, dopo aver esaminato le prove – dopo aver considerato la natura del sistema in cui viviamo – avete cambiato idea?

Riuscite a vedere lo schema, o detestate solamente ciò che implica?

Liberarsi

Comprendere il denaro come meccanismo di controllo non significa rifiutare categoricamente l'idea del libero mercato o di denaro basato sul mercato.

Richiede invece consapevolezza situazionale: la capacità di riconoscere e gestire le strutture che plasmano i sistemi finanziari, anziché accettarle ciecamente come verità immutabili.

Il libero mercato e la moneta basata sulle merci possono effettivamente essere ideali, ma la realtà racconta una storia diversa: una storia in cui i sistemi monetari sono in gran parte centralizzati, manipolati e progettati per mantenere le strutture di potere.

Riconoscere questa realtà non significa ammettere la sconfitta; significa comprendere il gioco a cui si sta giocando in modo da potervi partecipare alle proprie condizioni, anziché essere un partecipante passivo in un sistema che non è mai stato costruito per il proprio beneficio.

La natura del denaro è intrinsecamente dualistica.

A volte è una merce scelta dal mercato, che emerge organicamente dal libero scambio di beni e servizi; altre volte è un token imposto dallo stato, richiesto dai poteri sovrani come mezzo esclusivo per saldare obblighi come le tasse.

E, in molti casi, è entrambe le cose allo stesso tempo: un ibrido di controllo statale e valore guidato dal mercato che esiste all'interno di un quadro che pochi si soffermano a mettere in discussione.

Niente di tutto ciò intende screditare il libero mercato o il ruolo duraturo dell'oro.

Al contrario, la storia ha dimostrato ripetutamente che l'oro e i principi di una moneta solida forniscono una base più stabile e affidabile per il commercio e la conservazione della ricchezza.

Se fosse data la possibilità di scegliere, la maggior parte delle persone preferirebbe un sistema in cui i mercati, piuttosto che gli stati, determinano cosa funziona come moneta.

Ma questo non è il mondo in cui viviamo oggi.

Ignorare questo fatto significa rimanere ciechi di fronte alle forze che plasmano la finanza globale, rendendosi vulnerabili alle mutevoli maree della politica monetaria, dell'intervento economico e del controllo centralizzato.

Ora più che mai, le convinzioni dogmatiche su cosa dovrebbe essere il denaro non devono offuscare la nostra comprensione di cosa sia realmente il denaro.

Negli anni a venire la capacità di pensare in modo critico, di adattarsi e di rimanere consapevoli dell'evoluzione delle realtà finanziarie non sarà solo preziosa, ma sarà probabilmente essenziale per la sopravvivenza finanziaria.

Piuttosto che aggrapparci a un quadro ideologico che non è più in linea con la realtà, dobbiamo coltivare una mentalità che ci permetta di vedere il mondo così com'è, non come vorremmo che fosse.

E la consapevolezza situazionale è il superpotere definitivo nei mercati volatili: un potere che, se padroneggiato, può non solo aiutare a sopravvivere, ma anche a prosperare negli anni a venire.

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

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

We have been pretty critical for some of the more bonehead moves coming from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in these early days of the Trump Administration. She has staged some embarrassing cosplay “takedowns” of illegals and she inexplicitly spent her first Memorial Day as a Senior US Official – a day to honor fallen American soldiers – wailing at Israel’s “Wailing Wall” for some reason.

Nevertheless – and some may rightly criticize the slow pace of “progress” – the “easily excited” Homeland Security Secretary announced earlier this month that US travelers are no longer required to remove their shoes in order to board an airplane.

The shoe removal requirement in the first place was based on a dubious story that a foreigner tried to light his shoe on fire on an airplane flight in the heady “you’re with us or you are with the terrorists” days after the 9/11 “attacks.”

So thenceforth every grandmother in a wheelchair was suspected of being a secret al-Qaeda operative poised to light up her orthopedics – or perhaps colostomy bag – in the name of global jihad.

(The history of TSA is a history of total failure to “keep us safe,” but like all government programs the more you fail the more money you get.)

But yesterday we got a bit of cherished good news in that DHS Secretary Noem is considering lifting the equally absurd limits on the volume of liquids that travelers are allowed to carry on flights. To this point, travelers have been limited to 3.4 ounces per container to carry on the plane.

Anything more was obviously al-Qaeda.

How many 4.0 ounce contact lens solution bottles ended up in the trash to “protect” America from al-Qaeda’s planned takeover one can never know.

I happen to know, by the way. Dammit.

What would actual Americans who value our Constitution like to see? The end of TSA altogether. The government has no business even knowing who is boarding a private car or plane or locomotive. Either we are a free people or we are subject to governmental permission to travel within our country as was required by the Soviet “internal passport.”

Lots of Americans love to attack the “Chicoms,” but these same Americans seem to have no problem with the actual policies that such authoritarian governments embrace.

I would cheer for the end of a TSA that put its hands all over my then-13 year old daughter and then in retaliation for my objection to a Miss Trunchbull violation of my little girl seven years ago proceeded to attempt a live gender re-assignment maneuver on me which even the supervising Washington Metro Police Authority found to be outrageous.

Thankfully the heroic Rutherford Institute came to our rescue and unleashed their civil liberties lawyer team on TSA over the sick attack on my family. And TSA apologized!

So yeah, thanks Kristi. We are happy for that little trickle of freedom our government is so graciously returning to us. Now have a look at the Constitution and completely disengage from the business of Central Government regulation of travel.

Reprinted with permission from The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Two Cheers for DHS’ Kristi Noem appeared first on LewRockwell.

International Man: Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” involves massive government spending—how do you see that impacting the already unsustainable US national debt, and is there any real distinction between that and the kind of spending we saw under Biden?

Doug Casey: It’s ironic that the “Big Beautiful Bill” has the same initials—BBB—as Biden’s “Build Back Better.”

I haven’t read all 887 pages of the bill. And I suspect very few Congress critters have either; it’s something only a lawyer or a lobbyist might do. But I have read analyses and summaries. It’s clear that it’s just a hodgepodge, a conglomeration of notions and pork. Nothing new, just like almost every other bill that’s come out of Washington, DC, for many decades.

There’s very little to recommend it if you’re concerned about freedom and prosperity. It’s essentially 887 pages of additional things you must do, and must not do, with penalties for non-compliance, and new taxes to fund it all.

Trump’s utter lack of a philosophical core is increasingly evident. I’ve come to the conclusion that, other than his entertainment value, troll-like sense of humor, and not being Kamala Harris, the only consistently good thing about Trump is his anti-woke stance. And he’s not anti-woke based on philosophical principle, but just because of his gut feelings.

The bill doesn’t just raise spending and taxes, it creates chaos, adding complexity through new mandates and cutouts. Typical of narcissists, much of what Trump does will wind up making enemies everywhere, for no good reason. But he doesn’t realize that. He’s what’s known as a bullshit artist. He thinks his glib words actually pull the wool over people’s eyes, when all they do is expose him as a shallow conman.

International Man: What should have the bill done?

Doug Casey: There’s no attempt to implement the findings of the DOGE, which uncovered immense amounts of fraud, waste, and corruption within the US government. DOGE could have changed the course of the US. But it turned out to be nothing but a shameless PR stunt. No wonder Musk quit in disgust.

Instead of adding to the deficits and total debt, which is what this bill does, I would have liked to see an outright default on the national debt. I realize that sounds like an outrageous, even ridiculous suggestion, because it would lead to the wholesale failure of the current financial system. So let’s explore a few particulars of the mad concept.

The Fed should be abolished. Gold should be reinstated as the national currency. About 90% of Federal agencies should be abolished. The “defense” budget should be decreased by 75%, instead of being increased to a trillion dollars per year. All US troops should withdraw from all foreign bases. The government should resign its membership in the UN, NATO, and scores of other clubs and treaties. All aid and subsidies of domestic corporations and foreign governments should cease… There’s a lot more, but that’s a good start.

Regarding the national debt, it effectively transfers wealth from the average taxpayer—who is already being devastated by currency inflation—to the wealthy individuals and institutions who own it. The debt will be defaulted on eventually, probably indirectly, through inflation. I simply believe it should be defaulted on directly. Insofar as a default can ever be honest, that’s the only honest way to do it.

Compare it to a 100-story building on the verge of collapse. It’s better to conduct a controlled demolition, with a warning, than wait for it to fall on everyone unexpectedly.

There are other reasons for a default, however. First, it would free future generations of Americans from being turned into serfs just to pay it off. Second, it would punish the people who have enabled the State by lending it money to fund all the terrible things it does, like fighting wars, enriching its lackeys, and expanding the welfare state.

But none of that is going to happen. I only mention these things for your intellectual amusement. Maybe John Hunt and I will do a novel about the way a default would sort out. But we’re behind schedule on “Terrorist,” the 4th in the current series. So, one thing at a time as we watch the ongoing collapse of Western Civ…

Another bad thing about the big buffoonish bill is that it’s a distraction from the corruption exposed in the Epstein matter. Trump has said he doesn’t want to hear any more about Epstein. I expect he will, however. It should be the biggest scandal since the Dreyfuss affair in France at the turn of the 20th century.

International Man: Trump’s bill includes a $1 trillion allocation for defense spending and provisions that appear to expand the President’s authority.

Does that signal a trend toward militarization and centralized power under the guise of economic or national security?

Doug Casey: Absolutely. I’m surprised that there’s not wholesale outrage at the fact that it increases annual defense spending to a trillion dollars a year, when, in fact, military spending could and should be cut back radically. This is further proof of how supine and degraded the average American has become.

For one thing, it funds the so-called “Golden Dome,” which we analyzed in some detail last week (link).

In addition, it designates about $170 billion to ICE and border enforcement. While sending illegal migrants back where they came from is a good thing, as with all government agencies and actions, the extra agents that are hired will never be fired. The 100,000 new detention beds contemplated by the act will remain long after Trump is gone. They will just be repurposed by the Democrats. The government will continue growing like a cancerous self-licking ice cream cone.

The bottom line is that the bill directs a lot more power and dollars toward the State, and in no way cuts back the State. Americans may not like the migrants, but I suspect they’re going to like thousands of new ICE agents checking to see if their “papers are in order” even less.

International Man: When comparing Trump’s spending to Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, do you see any meaningful differences in their impact on the economy, or is it simply two sides of the same inflationary coin?

Doug Casey: The main difference between them is who gets the pork and the rhetoric that surrounds it. For instance, there’s a section in the bill reinforcing farm subsidies, which—depending on various conditions—slop from $30 to $60 billion per year to farmers, as if they were hogs. Nothing new, these egregious subsidies have been around for many decades. They’re welfare payments. In addition to corrupting farmers, they necessitate the Department of Agriculture (DOA), which employs 100,000 bureaucrats.

Anything the DOA does that’s useful would be done by entrepreneurs. This bill just further cements industrial agriculture in place and makes the survival of family farms even more difficult.

You might also consider the $1,000 “Trump accounts” for kids. Trump loves anything with his name attached to it. But it’s a bad idea. It gives the public the idea that Trump is giving them something for nothing, and gets them in the habit of receiving stolen goods. Needless to say, a new agency will have to be set up to monitor the accounts. Maybe the amount should be raised to $10,000 or $100,000. Then Trump could claim he was creating a whole generation of multimillionaires.

International Man: Do you believe the spending surge under Trump, including this bill, will help normalize trillion-dollar deficits, and what does that mean for the US dollar going forward?

Doug Casey: Forget about trillion-dollar deficits. That’s far in the rear-view window. We’re looking at three, four, and five trillion-dollar deficits. That’s after the multi-trillion-dollar tax increase through tariffs.

Also, the BBB has almost no reference to deregulation. It’s just another tax, spend, and borrow bill. The additional chaos it causes might immanentize the financial eschaton that we’re facing. I’m not talking about ten years or even five years from now. I think it’ll happen within Trump’s term.

And the Republicans, worthless as they are, will be blamed. I couldn’t care less about them, but because they’re somehow associated with free market values, those values will also be blamed. In 2028, therefore, the chances are excellent that the lefties will be elected. Even assuming that Trump serves out the remainder of his term, which I think is in doubt. Things could get seriously out of control.

I’m afraid that Trump is acting much like Roosevelt did in 1932. Few people know that when Roosevelt ran for office, he ran on what amounted to a radical free market platform. His proposed policies were almost libertarian in nature, as a reaction to the horrible statist and dirigiste policies of the benighted Herbert Hoover, who’s always falsely painted as a free market guy. After Roosevelt was in office, he instituted something close to socialism in the US.

I think Trump—who’s always been an egomaniac—is turning into a megalomaniac. The man never, ever, admits he’s wrong. That’s very dangerous. It’s scary.

For a while, because Kamala was defeated, it looked like Morning in America. But unfortunately, morning only lasts six hours.

Reprinted with permission from International Man.

The post Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’: Defense Dollars, Debt, and the Real Cost of Spending Sprees appeared first on LewRockwell.

Gates is financially backing the development of sun-dimming technology that is aimed at reflecting sunlight out of Earth’s atmosphere, triggering a global cooling effect.

Before a total tally on the body count from last week’s deadly flood in Texas has been completed, many Americans are raging against the machine, claiming a government conspiracy to manipulate weather patterns.

Just days after America faced the Independence Day flood, prominent political voices were quick to proclaim that the weather event was the result of scientific tampering. In other words, over 100 Americans were “murdered” as opposed to killed during the storm.

MAGA congressional candidate Kandiss Taylor is facing backlash after spreading ‘conspiracy theories’ about the deadly flash floods along the Guadalupe River in Texas. Taylor, who is running to represent Georgia in the House of Representatives, posted on X: “Fake weather. Fake hurricanes. Fake flooding. Fake. Fake. Fake.”

“This isn’t just ‘climate change.’ It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation,“ she added. “If fake weather causes real tragedy, that’s murder. Pray. Prepare. Question the narrative.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who once blamed the 2018 California wildfires on “Jewish Space Lasers,” says she plans to introduce a bill that would make weather modification a felony in U.S. “I am introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity,” she posted on X. “It will be a felony offence.”

Greene said she had been researching weather modification “for months” and that her bill bans individuals from practicing geoengineering or cloud seeding, and imposes a $100,000 fine and five-year prison sentence.

The Critical Thinking Dispatch echoed Greene’s grim, conspiratorial views when it wrote, “The deadly Independence Day floods weren’t natural – they were engineered. During this catastrophic event, the Guadalupe River rose nearly 30 feet in under an hour. At the same time, some locations endured approximately four months’ worth of rain in just four hours. How could this happen? The answer lies in a sinister truth: weather warfare has been deployed against American citizens.”

Much of the current controversy on geoengineering technologies focuses on the political lightning rod known as ‘climate change,’ where Democrats are much more susceptible to the belief that human activities are responsible for burning down the planet than are the Republicans. Thus, whenever a major weather catastrophe occurs, like the one in Texas, Democrats will scream in one voice that human beings must trade in their carbon monoxide spewing vehicles for electric cars, while Republicans scoff at such apocalyptic conclusions.

Although the field of geoengineering may seem like a very modern development, it has actually been going on for almost 150 years. For example, the first patent describing a method of producing rainfall was issued to Louis Gettmann back in 1891. In 1920, Paul Weiss patented a process and device for creating intense artificial clouds and fogs, and in 1924 Charles Miller created a mist dispersing compound. More than 200 patents were issued for weather modification and geoengineering technologies between 1890 and 2014. Since 2014, information on issued patents in this category has not been disclosed.

Thus far, the application of these and many other geoengineering technologies have been reserved for rather benign things, such as ensuring clear weather during national celebrations. For example, in China, before the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in 2008, it rained on the outskirts of Beijing, and during the ceremony itself, but there were no clouds over the capital. In addition, fog dissipation is carried out in aviation to improve the safety of aircraft landing, in agriculture to increase precipitation and increase yields.

According to an academic study entitled “Impact of Weather Change technologies on global Security,” Olena Shevchenko and Kira Horiecheva revealed that “the only confirmed military use of climate change technology to date is Operation Popeye by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. As a result, a threefold increase in precipitation and the duration of the rainy season were recorded.

The authors concluded that “this operation showed the danger of using technologies for influencing the weather.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association says it does not modify the weather, nor does it fund, participate in or oversee cloud seeding or any other weather modification activities. NOAA’s objective is to “better understand and predict Earth’s systems, from the bottom of the seafloor to the surface of the sun.” NOAA is required by law to track weather modification activities by others, including cloud seeding, but has no authority to regulate those activities.

But given the extreme skepticism that the American people hold for their government institutions, such denials will only serve to reinforce the ‘conspiracy theories’.

At the same time, there is already a large body of evidence that government institutions, in cooperation with academia and the world of business are actively developing and experimenting with geoengineering technologies. In fact, just google Microsoft founder Bill Gates’ name into the search field and it becomes clear that somebody is twisting the truth.

Gates is financially backing the development of sun-dimming technology that is aimed at reflecting sunlight out of Earth’s atmosphere, triggering a global cooling effect. The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment, launched by Harvard University scientists, aims to examine this solution by spraying non-toxic calcium carbonate (CaCO3) dust into the atmosphere — a sun-reflecting aerosol that may offset the effects of global warming.

Incredibly, none of the scientists involved in this experiment can say with any certainty what the results will be, a bit like when nuclear bombs were first tested. But some have voiced their worries with the tinkering of Earth’s atmosphere.

“There is no merit in this test except to enable the next step. You can’t test the trigger of a bomb and say ‘This can’t possibly do any harm’,” said Nicklas Hällström, director of the Swedish green think-tank WhatNext?

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

The post ‘That’s Murder!’ Has Weather Warfare Been Unleashed on Americans? appeared first on LewRockwell.