Aggregatore di feed

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has captured the attention of the entire world, drawing concern, debate, and urgency from policymakers, analysts, and citizens alike. Despite widespread awareness and ongoing efforts to seek a peaceful resolution, the ultimate outcome of this war remains shrouded in uncertainty. As the fighting persists and the stakes continue to rise, it becomes crucial to carefully examine the possible trajectories that could lead to the war’s conclusion. In doing so, two stark and contrasting scenarios stand out as the most plausible, each representing a radically different path forward. These scenarios are not merely hypothetical; they carry profound implications not only for Ukraine and its immediate neighbors but also for the broader stability of Europe, the security of NATO countries, and the global geopolitical order. Understanding these divergent possibilities is essential for anticipating future developments and for shaping diplomatic and strategic responses aimed at preventing further escalation or catastrophe.

Scenario One: Acknowledgment of Defeat and Surrender by the West

The first possibility hinges on a sobering and potentially unsettling reality: the Western alliance of the United Kingdom, the European Union, NATO, and the United States should finally recognize the reality that they have tragically lost the fight against Russia in Ukraine. This recognition would not be made lightly; rather, it would be the result of a combination of factors such as prolonged conflict, mounting casualties, significant resource depletion, and diplomatic fatigue that have eroded Western resolve and capacity to sustain their current level of support. Ultimately, this scenario would necessitate a formal acknowledgment of defeat, leading to a strategic and possibly humiliating surrender, signaling an end to their worthless military and political efforts to oppose Russian advances.

Such an outcome implies that the West’s military interventions, economic sanctions, and diplomatic efforts have failed to change the fundamental dynamics on the ground. The prolonged conflict, with its heavy toll on both human lives and national resources, would have culminated in a consensus that further confrontation is futile or counterproductive. Recognizing defeat would most likely lead to negotiations, compromises, and concessions that could reshape the territorial and political landscape of the region. This could include the recognition of Russian-controlled territories as part of Russia, or a negotiated settlement that cedes significant influence to Moscow.

This scenario would also entail a vital shift in regional alliances and borders, marking the end of Ukraine’s aspirations for full integration into Western institutions. It would result in a realignment of security arrangements and a recalibration of Western policies towards Russia, which would finally acknowledge Russia’s renewed regional importance and influence. Ultimately, this outcome would bring an end to active hostilities and redefine the balance of power in Europe and beyond. The global order would see a shift towards a more multipolar world, where Russia’s enhanced position influences international diplomacy and security policies for years to come.

Scenario Two: A Devastating Russian Non-Nuclear Strike

The second more provocative and alarming possibility involves Russia resorting to the use of its advanced non-nuclear weapon systems, specifically the deployment of the non-nuclear version of the Oreshnik missile system, targeting Ukraine and one aggressive NATO member country such as Germany, France, Poland, or the UK, thereby achieving a decisive and devastating victory over western aggression. This aggressive attack would be designed to inflict maximum destruction and psychological shock.

This scenario assumes that barring the possibility of the West’s surrender, Russia’s only remaining option is to escalate the conflict by deploying such a formidable weapon to indiscriminately obliterate Ukrainian infrastructure and military targets. The use of a weapon like the Oreshnik which is indubitably recognized as a highly destructive missile capable of delivering a significant payload over long distances would mark a new and dangerous phase in the conflict, aimed at delivering a crushing blow to Ukraine’s military capacity and civilian infrastructure.

The implications of such an act are profoundly chilling. It would signal a willingness by Russia to cross the threshold into large-scale destruction, possibly as a show of strength or as a means to force Western powers into concessions.

Importantly, Russia’s use of such devastating weaponry is intended not only to break Ukraine’s resistance but also to test the resolve and limits of Western alliances. It will serve as a strategic warning, demonstrating that Russia is willing to unleash destruction on a scale that could also threaten member states or their interests, thereby challenging the post-Cold War security architecture of Europe.

Crucially, such a strike on a NATO country could absolutely trigger a wave of terror and paralysis across Europe. The severity and immediacy of the attack is aimed at inducing extreme fear among European nations, potentially leading to a strategic stalemate where retaliation becomes unthinkable, either due to the devastating consequences or the chaos that ensues.

This scenario hinges on the premise that Russia’s willingness to escalate to such an extent would effectively paralyze NATO and European responses, thereby ending the war through sheer overwhelming force and fear. Simply put, such an ultimate and decisive attack would cancel all the risks of hostility escalation and broader conflict thereby inaugurating and guaranteeing global peace and security once and for all.

Potential Outcomes of the Ukraine Conflict: Pathways Toward Peace or Catastrophe

Both scenarios underscore the deeply complex and perilous nature of the Ukraine conflict, illuminating the wide spectrum of potential outcomes and the profound risks involved. The first scenario suggests a geopolitical recognition of defeat by the West, i.e., the EU, the UK, the US, and NATO, that leads to negotiations, compromise, and a reconfiguration of regional and global power dynamics. Such an outcome will pave the way for a new geopolitical order based on diplomacy,

stability, and the respect of national sovereignty thereby ending the hostilities through a negotiated settlement that preserves some degree of stability and prevents further bloodshed. This scenario emphasizes the importance of diplomatic engagement, patience, and international cooperation in steering the conflict toward a peaceful resolution, even amid ongoing hostilities.

In stark contrast, the second scenario presents a terrifying and catastrophic possibility: that the conflict escalates into extreme destruction through heightened military measures, including the use of devastating conventional or non-nuclear weapons. This path would likely result in widespread demolition and massive civilian casualties. The prospect of such escalation underscores the dangerous brinkmanship and the extremely damaging potential inherent in modern warfare, where the line between conventional and catastrophic action can become dangerously blurred. It highlights the urgent need for restraint, diplomatic dialogue, and international mechanisms to prevent the conflict from spiraling into a devastating, uncontrolled escalation that could have global repercussions.

Conclusion

As the war continues to unfold, the international community must grapple with these stark and contrasting possibilities, each representing a different endgame with profound and far-reaching consequences. The first offers a hopeful vision rooted in diplomacy and the potential for a peaceful resolution, while the second serves as a grim reminder of how escalation can lead to catastrophic destruction. The challenge lies in guiding the conflict toward the most desirable outcome: one that minimizes human suffering and preserves regional and global stability.

Ultimately, the hope remains for a peaceful resolution, ideally achieved through the formal surrender of the obvious losers, i.e., the EU, the UK, the US, and NATO, thereby preventing the horrific outcome envisioned in the second scenario. Such a resolution would require steadfast diplomatic efforts, international cooperation, and a shared commitment to peace. It is essential that all parties prioritize negotiations and constructive engagement to avoid the devastating consequences of escalation, ensuring that the conflict ends not in destruction and chaos, but in a way that safeguards human lives, regional stability, and global security. Only through such concerted efforts can the international community hope to steer the course of this conflict away from catastrophe and toward a sustainable peace.

Sources

Baud, J. (2024). The Russian Art of War: How the West Led Ukraine to Defeat.

Max Milo Editions.

Chitadze, N. (2023). The Russia–Ukraine War and its consequences on the geopolitics of the world. IGI Global.

Cox, M. (Ed.). (2023). Ukraine: Russia’s war and the future of the global order. LSE Press.

Haslam, J. (2024). Hubris: The American origins of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Apollo.

Karaganov, S.A. (1994, 2018). Where is Russia Going?: Foreign and Defence Policies in a New Era. Frankfurt: Peace Research Institute.

Karaganov, S.A., et al. (2024). From Restraining to Deterring: Nuclear Weapons, Geopolitics, Coalition Strategy. Moscow: Institute of Military Economics and Strategy, National Research University-Higher School of Economics.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.

The original source of this article is Global Research.

The post The Endgame of the Ukraine War: Two Possible Scenarios appeared first on LewRockwell.

One hundred years ago, no one thought birth control was okay. In 1920, the Anglican Communion declared,

We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers—physical, moral and religious—thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. (Lambeth Conference 1920, Resolution 68)

By 1930, they had changed their tune to: “The Conference believes that the conditions of modern life call for a fresh statement from the Christian Church on the subject of sex” (Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 9). Ominous words. The conference proceeded to follow this logic on to alarming conclusions:

[I]n those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15)

This landmark declaration rendered the Anglicans the first major Protestant denomination to approve of artificial contraception. Since then, most others have followed suit.

Despite the Anglican Church’s outcry against “selfishness, luxury, [and] mere convenience,” these vices have come to dominate the sphere of sexual ethics and even legislation.

The FDA approved the first birth control pill in 1960, an oral contraceptive called Enovid.  In 1965, the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that criminalized birth control. The decision Griswold v. Connecticut legalized birth control for married couples under the “right to privacy.” In 1972, the right to contraception was extended to all individuals, married or unmarried, with Eisenstadt v. Baird.

In Fr. Sebastian Walshe’s natural law arguments against contraception, he astutely points out the similarity between the logic of birth control and the logic of gay marriage. No one need invoke the magisterium or the Bible to observe that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children. This has been a governing societal norm for ages, and its abandonment augurs ill. Once the primary purpose of marriage is forgotten, the floodgates open for hosts of unnatural vices. Griswold and Eisenstadt led seamlessly to Obergefell.

The Anglicans of 1920 understood what their successors forgot:

In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. (Lambeth Conference 1920, Resolution 68)

Not only did all churches condemn birth control as recently as 100 years ago, but even the government once prohibited the distribution of artificial contraceptives. The Comstock Act, a federal law which is still on the books, was written in 1873 to prohibit “mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter.” It goes on to define “crime-inciting” as “intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use,” but this is an amendment as recent as 1971.  The original Comstock Act also forbade anything intended for “preventing conception.”

The likelihood of criminalizing birth control at this point is slim. But Comstock gives a great to-do list for those who want to see the populace flourish: 1) criminalize abortion 2) ban contraception. How could we make abortion and birth control illegal again? Let’s look at the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment that loomed so large in the Obergefell decision in favor of gay marriage: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Section 1).

This sounds a lot more like a right to life enshrined in the Constitution than a penumbra of privacy justifying birth control and gay marriage. Give babies due process and equal protection. Don’t deprive them of life.

In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis observes that man’s “power over nature” is often just some men’s power over other men:

What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by. . .And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence.

President Trump wants to fix the birth crisis. What if, instead of subsidizing IVF, he promoted a natural means of procreation? Want to make America great again? Then make contraception illegal again.

This article was originally published on Crisis Magazine.

The post Make Birth Control Illegal Again appeared first on LewRockwell.

Yesterday on his program Dialogue Works Nima had two guests, Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA, and me.  I come in at about the one hour mark at the close of the program with Larry. I recommend that you take advantage of the double feature.  

Nima and I discuss the severe constraints on President Trump that handicap him in his effort to bring about not only a settlement in Ukraine but also impede a wider settlement with Russia that would put the world at peace.

Larry Johnson and I agree that the easiest way for Trump to conclude the conflict in Ukraine is to stop supplying, weapons, money, and diplomatic support.  But to do this requires Trump to jettison the US military/security complex along with its budget and power which are dependent on having Russia as an enemy.  Presidents such as John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan who had in mind winding down the Cold War ran into problems with the military/security complex. The military/security complex has military bases or armaments manufacturers in nearly every state.  The number of governors, House and Senate members, and businesses dependent on orders from military bases and weapon manufacturers is vast. The combination of taxes, employment, campaign contributions, and supply relationships is too large of a force for Trump to jettison.

Another constraint on Trump is the American doctrine of hegemony which is at odds with peace-making. The US foreign policy doctrine requires that the US take an aggressive approach to countries that could constrain US unilateralism.  In other words, the pursuit of hegemony makes a country a poor peace-maker. Trump has not repudiated the hegemony doctrine.  Instead he exercises it with his numerous threats to other governments.

As I have consistently reported, the conflict in Ukraine is a symptom and not a cause of what Putin refers to as the root cause of the conflict.  The root cause is the absence of a mutual security agreement between Russia and the West.  NATO with missile bases on Russia’s border creates insecurity for Russia.  This insecurity is the root cause. Both the material interest of the US military/security complex and the hegemony doctrine are obstacles to removing the insecurity.

As the Russian position remains the same and Zelensky remains uncooperative, perhaps Trump sees Putin getting off his butt and quickly winning the war as the escape route from the box in which Trump finds himself.  Perhaps Trump signaled to Putin, as he did to Netanyahu, to get it over with as its continuation is too embarrassing to Trump. Putin’s side of the bargain would be to let Trump grandstand in presiding over the peace agreement that ends the war.

The wider and serious problem is Russia’s sense of insecurity with NATO/US missile bases on her border. To remove the real problem of nuclear conflict, the US needs to move away from Russia’s borders and honor the agreement the George H. W. Bush administration made with Gorbachev that NATO would stay distant from Russia’s border.

The post Can Trump Find a Way Out of the Box He Is in? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Our country is on the verge of self-destruction because the American Dream no longer existsm for twenty-year-olds. It only exists for highly-paid couples at the end of child-bearing years. Everyone else is to live in Stack-and-Pack vertical housing, without private transportation except for bicycles. They will pay excessive rents and therefore accumulate no equity, and will live in fear. Most importantly they will have fewer children (and those later in life) at a rate  below the replacement level.

There are countless very negative results because of the Death of the American Dream. But I will only list a few because I know that only our returning to Constitutional Government is required…otherwise the American Dream is impossible.

Economic implications are widespread and ominous. To see the results, look at the inner cities of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, which are now Communist Hell-Holes without safety, religion, or good schools…and Communists have no plans to improve them. We must return to a Free Enterprise System AKA a Market Economy/Supply and Demand. There must be private ownership of property and the means of production. If someone can’t work, there should be a safety net, but if they are able-bodied and don’t work, they starve. It is that way in most of the world except for Socialist countries.  It is reality.

You may think the solution is complex, but it is really simple: we need only return to what we had before the Coup of 1913. I did not say the solution would be easy, just simple.

The first thing we have to do is terminate the Income Tax and finance the Federal Government with Tariffs and Excise Taxes, as we did prior to  States can contribute to the federal government if it needs more money. But the Federal Government should not need more money if all unconstitutional activities are terminated. Let that sink in.

The federal Government has unlawfully usurped many functions of the states in violation of the Enumerated Powers explicitly set forth in our Constitution.

These usurped functions number in the thousands, and cost billions. Two unconstitutional functions that cost billions are our military stationed in other countries, and Foreign Aid. If other countries could invade us, it might be different…but they can’t. We can only be defeated by weapons of mass destruction, or from within by the 21 million Democrat/Communist army of illegals. I will repeat, we have no business being involved in the affairs of any country in the world, and that includes Israel and Ukraine. When Congress votes to fund unlawful offshore projects that spend taxpayer money, it is taking the food out of the mouths of Americans, and I think it is treason. I might add that I think any money spent off shore is unlawful.

With the income tax terminated, all federal funds to the states for any reason must be terminated. This means all welfare, FEMA, Agriculture and Education grants as examples, but the key is termination of all federal funds to the states. We are in this near-terminal state because we failed to control the greed of Congress and bureaucrats of the Administrative State who succumbed to the bribes of the Parasitic Super- Rich Ruling Class and countless others. In the final analysis, the last nail in the coffin was the failure of the corrupt and complicit FBI to investigate, charge and convict all parties to corruption in government. This is what happens when you ignore the Constitution that specifies that the Militia of the Several States should enforce the laws of the union. They got the Militia out of the way with the unconstitutional Dick Act.

President Trump’s election stopped our descent into civil war, and his programs will buy us time to return to a Constitutional government. If he continues to refuse to return to a Constitutional Government, the result will be Dystopian, Total Failure, Depression, and Civil War. There is no other possibility..

In conclusion, it is simple to return us to a market economy, prosperity, and the American Dream for 20-year-olds. We need only follow the Constitution, knowing that the miscreants will not stop at assassination to prevail, as they did with President Trump and President Kennedy.

The post How To Return the American Dream to Twenty-Year-Olds With Only a Single Income appeared first on LewRockwell.

David Lifton’s “Best Evidence” (1981),  as well as several other more recent publications, have made  the extraordinary claim that JFK’s body was removed secretly from Air Force One at Andrews, put aboard a helicopter,  flown to Bethesda, placed in a so-called shipping casket and delivered to the morgue “early” for pre-autopsy surgery to remove evidence of shots from the front. Of all of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination, this may well be the boldest (some would say the most outlandish) one of them all.

But is any of it true?

In previous articles on this site, I’ve argued that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that there is no first-hand evidence for any of  Lifton’s most important claims. For example, no one testified before the  ARRB that they saw JFK’s body IN any shipping casket or taken OUT of any  shipping casket at the Bethesda morgue that night. On the other hand, there is a confirmed FBI/ARRB timeline that starts  with the removal of the Dallas ornamental casket from Air Force One at Andrews; that proceeds with the Navy ambulance ride uninterrupted from Andrews to Bethesda; that extends to the entry of the Dallas casket into the Bethesda morgue (with the Honor Guard) and concludes with the removal of JFK’s body (his head still wrapped as it was at Parkland) from that casket at around 7:15. The preliminary autopsy procedures (examination of the body, X-Rays, photographs, etc.) began shortly afterward. That timeline would seem to refute entirely the Lifton “body snatching” theory once and for all.

But even aside from any corroborated timeline, there is still another way to refute the Lifton theory.  The first-hand testimony of  Geofrey T. McHugh.

Brigadier General Geofrey T. McHugh was the Air Force Aide and primary briefing officer  to President John F. Kennedy. After JFK was pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital , General McHugh was a part of the “Irish Mafia” brigade (Dave Powers, Larry O’Brien, Kenny O’Donnell)  that rather forcefully removed the Dallas casket from the hospital. He also helped load that ridiculously heavy Dallas  casket onto Air Force One for the flight back to Andrews. He was also the so-called “supervisor” of Air Force One, and helped organize the removal of several seats in the rear of  the plane to  accommodate the large, ornamental casket.  (The alternative was to put the casket  in the cargo hold which was totally unacceptable.)  And most importantly, according to a fascinating “Oral History Interview”  that General McHugh  gave in 1978, he “stood guard”  with that casket in the rear of the plane and never left his post.

McHugh also was  part of the motorcade from Andrews to Bethesda and part of the team (along with the Honor Guard) that transported the Dallas casket into the morgue.  Finally, General McHugh was present at the formal autopsy of JFK.  As he said at one point: “I never left the body” that day.

Thus General McHugh was certainly a key witness to several important assassination events; yet he was never called to testify before the Warren Commission. Curious.

What’s important for this discussion, however,  is that General McHugh repeatedly confirmed that he “stayed with the casket” from the moment it was loaded onto Air Force One in Dallas to the moment it was transported into the Bethesda morgue. There was never a time he abandoned  his “guard post” with respect to the Dallas casket and there was never a time, therefore, for any “body snatching”. The body-snatching thesis, a  hoary conspiracy theory of the first magnitude, is a complete and utter fairy tale.

When Lyndon Johnson “commandeered” Air Force One (JFK’s plane) and got himself sworn in as President before the take-off from Love Field, a long smoldering political resentment re-surfaced between the Johnson and Kennedy factions aboard.  Several of the key Kennedy people (General McHugh, the Irish Mafia and Mrs. Kennedy)  then migrated to the very rear of the plane (away from the Johnson contingent) where there were some seats, a small  table, substantial amounts of alcohol and (of course)  the Dallas casket… that Mrs. Kennedy could reach out and touch. At one point, when Jackie Kennedy briefly (and reluctantly) left that small group  to attend LBJ’s swearing in ceremony , she reportedly turned to General McHugh and said: “At least you don’t leave him. Don’t leave him. Stay with him.”McHugh recollects: “So I’m the only one on board that airplane that stayed with the casket. Never left it.”

At another point McHugh says this: “I stood with the casket. I felt I was his (JFK’s)  military honor guard, that I should stay with him.” And  later  at Bethesda, it was suggested that since the Dallas casket had been damaged,  McHugh ought to be involved in helping to find another.  (Another casket was located and delivered to the morgue). But  McHugh refused: “I said I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to leave the body…” Apparently he never did.

Given General McHugh’s recollections, his important position within the Kennedy chain of command, and the uncontradicted confirmations of the Irish Mafia, it is flat-out impossible to believe that JFK’s corpse was somehow spirited out of the Dallas casket for any early entry into the Bethesda morgue. We have first-hand testimony from General McHugh that the casket was never left unattended. Ever. We have NO contradictory first-hand testimony that anyone snatched that body or saw the body snatched; no one has ever come forward in the decades since to confess any involvement in such a nefarious plot. Logic and the facts dictate, therefore, that it just never happened. And since the alleged “body snatching” is the lynchpin of the entire pre-autopsy/wound-alteration scenario, it stands to reason that none of that could have happened, either.

Most conspiracy theorists (like the late David Lifton) are well-intentioned and are simply trying to make sense of an inexplicable event: How could a lone nut ex-Marine with a cheap Italian-made rifle change history?  There just has to be more to the story. So I understand their frustration with the Warren Commission’s explanation of the assassination and their own search for deeper, more profound answers. Nonetheless, our primary duty as researchers is to get things straight for truth and for history and  the “body-snatching/ pre-autopsy surgery” theory of the JFK assassination can NEVER be one of those profound answers.

The post Was JFK ‘Body Snatched’ From Air Force One? appeared first on LewRockwell.

On August 16, my wife, Vickie, and I attended a conference at the Dulles Airport Hilton just outside Washington, D.C. It was titled “A Blueprint For Peace” and was hosted by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

This institute was started by Rep. Paul at the end of his last year in Congress in 2012. I participated in the founding press conference, and I am still on the advisory board.

This year’s conference had several outstanding speakers, such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Col. Doug MacGregor, and others. The first day was a scholars program for college students headlined by Kelley Vlahos, former editor of the American Conservative Magazine.

Professor Sachs is from Columbia University and has been used by the United Nations to advise countries all over the world. He is considered to be one of the greatest foreign policy experts in this country.

In his speech, he said we need to dust off the Monroe Doctrine and stop intervening in so many wars and conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. He said the war in Ukraine and the slaughter in Gaza could be ended quickly if we made it clear we were no longer providing so much money and weaponry.

The Monroe Doctrine was a declaration made in 1823 by President James Monroe that basically said we would not allow political and military interference in our sphere of influence, the Americas, and in return, we would not try to run Europe.

This is not isolationism. We should have trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges with all nations, and we should help out during terrible humanitarian crises.

But almost all our wars over the last 60 or 75 years have been about money or power, or both. We have spent trillions and have lost many thousands of American lives to make a tiny few rich and powerful.

Most of this interventionism has been egged on by so-called Neocons, who are not conservative at all. In fact, columnist George Will wrote that Neocons were “magnificently misnamed,” and that they were “really the most radical people in this City” (meaning Washington, D.C.).

Russia and Ukraine began peace negotiations four days after their war started in February of 2022, and basically had a peace agreement worked out by April 15, 2022, until Boris Johnson, the prime minister of Great Britain, and Neocons in our own State Department, principally Victoria Nuland, urged Ukraine not to sign. Their demands have led to the spending of about $350 billion by the U.S., according to President Trump.

Even worse, it has led to hundreds of thousands, possibly as many as one million, deaths, counting all civilians and soldiers on both sides.

Victoria Nuland has led our policy toward Ukraine. She worked as chief of staff for Bill Clinton’s close friend, Strobe Talbott, in the State Department. Then she worked for Dick Cheney when he was vice president. From 2005 to 2008, George W. Bush appointed her as ambassador to NATO. Later, she was Under Secretary of State from 2021 to 2024, when she urged Ukraine not to sign the peace agreement with Russia. Now she teaches foreign policy with Hillary Clinton at Columbia.

Nuland is married to Robert Kagan. Kagan is and has been one of the leading Neocons for years. AI says he “is known for his strong advocacy of liberal internationalism” and “has been a vocal proponent of U.S. interventionism.” He was associated with the Project for the New American Century, the architects of our disastrous war in Iraq.

James Baker, then our secretary of state, gave Russia what he called an “ironclad promise” in 2012 not to move NATO further east – i.e., Ukraine – in return for Russia not contesting the reunification of Germany.

President Trump had six conversations with Putin during his (Trump’s) first term, during one or more of which Trump said he would not advocate NATO membership for Ukraine. This is why President Trump says this war would not have happened if he had been re-elected in 2020.

Samuel Charap, distinguished chair in Russia and Eurasia Policy and senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, co-authored a Foreign Affairs Magazine article entitled “The Talks That Could Have Ended The War In Ukraine.”

He wrote, “Russia agreed to have a process to diplomatically address the dispute over Crimea,” a Russian speaking area that Russia annexed in 2014.

Charap added that the concession by Ukraine “of renouncing its ambitions to join NATO was potentially enough to engender some relatively significant concessions from Russia,” possibly even “some sort of compensation” to Ukraine for the Crimean Peninsula.

President George W. Bush promised repeatedly when he campaigned in 2000 that he was going to have a more “humble” foreign policy and put an end to “nation building” (of other nations). However, he allowed himself to be horribly misled and controlled by power-mad neocons.

This article was originally published on Knoxville Focus.

The post Neocons Responsible for Russian-Ukraine War appeared first on LewRockwell.

Mythic Narcissus, depending on his mood while facing his reflection in the pool, may at any moment authorize Kiev hits on Moscow and St. Petersburg with long-range missiles.

Alastair Crooke’s remarkable analysis of Trump in the context of myth as geopolitics has left us with much to ponder. There’s no escape from Trump’s “extraordinary ability to dominate the discourse”, globally, as well as his capacity for “bending people to his will” – and thus wreak havoc on the geopolitical chessboard.

Alastair stresses how Trump is skillfully “using mythic imagery” – actually crude archetypes – to always impress his (italics mine) narrative. The only narrative.

Yet Trump may not be straight-up Dionysian, compared to Apollonian Putin; he’s more like a Narcissus Drowned (in a pool of his own making). And when it comes to pop iconography, he’s certainly not The Godfather of Soul James Brown; more like the Village People – which were themselves a parody.

The most disturbing aspect of Trump the Self-Made Myth is what grip that death cult in West Asia holds over his imagination. Trump’s absolute normalization of genocide has made the whole – Wild – West civilization complicit. Alastair once again reminds us that “the bloodlust in Gaza”, awakened by the Torah, is driving “messianic, extreme Zionism” all the way “to barbarism”. That’s where we are now – with a License to Kill provided by a vicious, intolerant God: Yahweh.

Way below the mythical spheres where Trump does not fear to tread, rascals posing as the European political “elite” have created another myth: Putin as a “cannibal needing to eat” (copyright Le Petit Roi). He’s “The Beast at the Door”, with Russia framed as anti-Europe and anti-West, an existential threat: Putin and Russia morphed as The Anti-Christ.

Well, these intellectual midgets are obviously unaware that it was the Byzantine empire that survived the Roman Empire in the West for no less than a thousand years. Byzantium resisted everything: Goths, Avars, Arabs, Bulgars – until they could not resist the Ottomans. Still, they managed to evangelize the Bulgars and Kievan Russia, and even provided a state model to the Ottomans.

If we draw a line from Danzig to Trieste, going through Vienna, we can check out how Western Europe in medieval times was in fact “protected” from periodic nomadic onslaughts (the exception is the Hungarian plains, the final stop for nomadic waves from Asia).

And that explains why Europe knows next to nothing about Russia, Central Asia, Eurasia, the Heartland for that matter. Europe never had to face Mongol or Ottoman rule. They might have learned a thing or two – from Pax Mongolica and Ottoman inclusiveness. And that may also have tamed their superiority – civilizational – complex, borne out of splendid isolation.

I love a man in uniform

A ghastly Ariadne’s thread connects the current, appallingly mediocre European political elites – aspiring mini-Minotaurs lost in their own labyrinth. The BlackRock Chancellor in Germany comes from the British occupation zone of Germany, the grandson of a Nazi. The Nazis were successfully built up by Britain to position Germany as its proxy in a perpetual war against Russia.

The appalling Toxic Medusa in Brussels also comes from the British occupation zone of Germany: a noble family with Nazi background. Her “noble” husband is even worse, descending from war criminals.

Le Petit Roi in France, universally despised, is a lowly messenger of Banque Rothschild, financier of British kings and queens since the 18th century.

The Intermarium – Poland, the Baltic dwarves, Ukraine – always had governments staffed and controlled by Britain.

As for the opposition to the war on Russia in Romania, it was couped away.

The bottom line is that the Brits are on Totalen Krieg against Russia, on steroids, so they can snatch the Big Prize, unemcumbered: total control of Europe, or dismissively, “the continentals”. Their 18th century mindset imperial/feudal planners are looking way beyond rump Ukraine, towards a Forever War to weaken and tighten their total control over a discombobulated Europe.

The only counterpower comes from the former Austro-Hungarian empire states, plus Serbia: they refuse this Forever War, which will inevitably destroy Europe for the third (italics mine) time in a little over a century. Their pressing need is to get their act together and form a coalition against a new Balkan War.

The current absurdity peddled by the Forever War front is that European troops need to be sent to Ukraine before a much hyped ceasefire, and not after, so Anti-Christ Putin is kept “under pressure” to, well, capitulate while he’s winning.

Translation: the Europeans do not want a peacekeeping force. They want a deterrence force capable of advancing whenever they see fit – as in a false flag proving the evil Russians broke the truce.

This stupidity is mirrored by European “thinking” – as, for instance, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) publishing a new strategic handbook with proposals for the “disempowerment” of Russia.

EUISS poses as analytical experts on Russia’s “hybrid warfare”: that’s pathetic, as Hybrid War is an American concept. Still, the EUISS goes for broke on establishing hegemony on five strategically important latitudes: China, Asia–Pacific, the southern Mediterranean, southeast Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. In sum: the same old shtick, NATO as Global Robocop on crack.

Apollo vs. Dionysus, remixed

Alastair sustains that Putin, in the Anchorage summit, “understood the psychology of Trump”. Trump “seems to recognize Putin as a fellow in the pantheon of putative mythic leaders”. Once again, the distance between Apollonian Putin and not-so-Dionysiac Trump should be the equivalent between Timur and a nondescript MMA fighter.

It’s open to vast speculation whether Trump in Alaska might have agreed with Putin to invert the planned Russian foreign asset theft by the EU – and instead force the funds to be invested in the US. Now that would be prime “offer you can’t refuse” territory.

So far, what we do know for sure is that Steve Witkoff – that real estate Bismarck – did not understand anything of what he heard directly from Putin, setting the stage for Alaska.

Witkoff hit the US networks full tilt, blabbering that Putin on August 15th had reversed his ultimate red line, No NATO for Ukraine. And it looks like Trump followed the real estate Bismarck’s massive fake news – as Witkoff himself spun the Russians made concessions “almost immediately” in Alaska.

Well, Witkoff must have been smoking something. Or not. Because his “lost in translation” gimmick in fact conditioned the whole subsequent tawdry spectacle on “the peacekeepers”.

So now Mythic Narcissus is saying that the Empire of Chaos won’t send any troops to Ukraine, but will support a “security guarantee”, allegedly with spy planes (well, they are already operating them anyway) and “back up” as in ISR, air defense and air cover. In practice, there will be no imperial “security guarantees” to the Ukrainian black void. But the myth of tens of thousands of EU/NATO troops stepping into Ukraine will persist.

Next week, the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok carries the enticing possibility of US-Russia deals being discussed. As in ExxonMobil maybe returning to the Sakhalin-1 mega gas project (already there have been secret talks with Rosneft); selling American equipment for LNG projects to Russia, including the Arctic LNG-2; and the purchase of Russian nuclear icebreakers by the US. Now that will be something to watch.

Meanwhile, no illusions in Moscow – as required. Mythic Narcissus, depending on his mood while facing his reflection in the pool, may at any moment authorize Kiev hits on Moscow and St. Petersburg with long-range missiles. Why not? “I have the right to do ANYTHING I want to do – I’m the President of the United States.”

Narcissus actually believes he’s Theseus – slaying every Minotaur in sight, and yet always incapable of leaving the Labyrinth. No wonder Moscow needs to be ready, 24/7, for some sort, any sort of irrational slaying.

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

The post Mythic Trump: the Incendiary Narcissus appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Donald Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, and his efforts toward peace in Ukraine, if successful, could possibly help him earn one—but only if he also ends US complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Under Trump, as under former President Joe Biden, the US has served as Israel’s partner in mass murder, annexation, starvation, and the escalating torment of millions of Palestinians. The genocide can, and will, stop if Trump wills it. So far he has not.

Israel is committing genocide—everyone knows it, even its staunchest defenders. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has recently made a poignant acknowledgment of “Our Genocide.” In Foreign Affairs, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew recently admitted that extremist parties in Netanyahu’s government openly aim to starve Palestinians in Gaza. Lew frames his piece as praise for the former Biden administration (and for himself) for their supposedly valiant efforts to prevent mass starvation by pressuring Israel to allow minimal food entry, while blaming Trump for easing that pressure.

The US aids and protects Israel every day in these horrific crimes against the Palestinian people.

Yet the actual importance of the piece is that an ardent Zionist insider certifies the genocidal agenda sustaining Netanyahu’s rule. Lew recounts that in the aftermath of October 7, Israelis frequently pledged that “not a drop of water, not a drop of milk, and not a drop of fuel will go from Israel to Gaza,” a stance that still shapes Israel’s cabinet policy. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can use Lew’s article as confirmation of Israel’s genocidal intent.

The genocide in Gaza, coupled with the annexation in the West Bank, aims to fulfill the Likud vision of a Greater Israel that exercises territorial control between the Sea and Jordan. This will destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state, and any possibility of peace. Indeed, Bezalel Smotrich, the extremist minister of finance and minister in the ministry of defense, recently vowed to “permanently bury the idea of a Palestinian state” while the Knesset has recently called for annexation of the occupied West Bank.

The US aids and protects Israel every day in these horrific crimes against the Palestinian people. The US provides billions of dollars in military support, goes to war alongside Israel, and offers diplomatic cover for Israel’s crimes against humanity. The vacuous mantra that “Israel has the right to defend itself” is the US pat excuse for Israel’s mass murder and starvation of innocent civilians.

Generations of historians, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, and inquiring minds will ask how the descendants and co‑religionists of the Jews murdered by Hitler’s genocidal regime came to become genocidaires. Two factors, deeply intertwined, come to the fore.

First, the Nazi Holocaust lent credence among Jews to the Zionist claim that only a state with overwhelming military power and ready to use it can protect the Jewish people. For these militarists, every Arab country opposed to Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine became a dire foe to be crushed by war. This is Netanyahu’s doctrine of violence, which was first unveiled in the Clean Break strategy, and which has produced nonstop Israeli mobilization and war, and a society now gripped by implacable hatred even of innocent women and children in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. Netanyahu has dragged the US into countless devastating and futile wars out of Netanyahu’s blindness to the reality that only diplomacy, not war, can achieve Israel’s security.

Second, this non-stop resort to violence reignited a dormant strain of Biblical Judaism, notably based on the Book of Joshua, which presents God’s covenant with Abraham as justification for genocides committed in conquering the Promised Land. Ancient zealotry of this kind, and the belief that God would redeem his chosen people through violence, fueled suicidal revolts against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 AD. Whether the genocides in the Book of Joshua ever occurred (probably not ) is beside the point. For today’s zealots, the license to commit genocide is vivid, immediate, and biblically ordained.

Netanyahu has dragged the US into countless devastating and futile wars out of Netanyahu’s blindness to the reality that only diplomacy, not war, can achieve Israel’s security.

Aware of the danger of self-destructive zealotry, the rabbis who shaped the Babylonian Talmud proscribed Jews from attempting to return en masse to the promised land (Ketubot 111a). They taught that Jews should live in their own communities and fulfill God’s commandments where they are, rather than seeking to recapture a land from which they had been exiled following decades of suicidal revolt.

Whatever the fundamental reasons for Israel’s murderous turn, Israel’s survival among nations is at risk today as it has become a pariah state. For the first time in history, Israel’s Western allies have repudiated Israel’s violent ways. France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have each pledged to formally recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September. These countries will finally join the will of the overwhelming global majority in recognizing that the two-state solution, enshrined in international law, is the true guarantor of peace.

The majority of the American people, are rightly revulsed by Israel’s brutality and are also turning their support massively to the Palestinian cause. In a new Reuters poll released today, 58% of Americans now believe that the UN should recognize the State of Palestine, against just 32% who oppose that. American politicians will surely note the change, at Israel’s peril, unless the two-state solution is rapidly implemented. (Logical arguments can also be given for a peaceful one-state, bi-national solution, but this alternative has essentially no backing among UN member states and no basis in the international law regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict that has developed over more than seven decades.)

This Israeli government will not change course on its own. Only the Trump administration can end the genocide through a comprehensive settlement agreed by the world’s nations at the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly. The solution is to stop the genocide, make peace, and salvage Israel’s standing in the world by creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the June 4, 1967 borders.

Trump must force Israel to see reality: that Israel cannot continue to rule over the Palestinian people, murder them, starve them, and ethnically cleanse them.

For decades, the entire Arab and Islamic world has supported the two-state solution, and advocated to normalize relations with Israel and guarantee security for the entire region. This solution is in full accordance with international law, and was again espoused clearly by the UN General Assembly in the NY Declaration last month at the conclusion of the United Nations High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution (July 29, 2025).

Trump has come to understand that to save Ukraine, he must force it to see reality: that NATO cannot expand to Ukraine as that would directly threaten Russia’s own security. In the same way, Trump must force Israel to see reality: that Israel cannot continue to rule over the Palestinian people, murder them, starve them, and ethnically cleanse them. The two-state solution thereby saves both Palestine and Israel.

An immediate UN Security Council vote to grant Palestine permanent membership in the UN next month would put an end to Israel’s zealous delusions of permanent control over Palestine, as well as its reckless territorial ambitions in Lebanon and Syria. The focus of the crisis would then shift to immediate and practical issues: how to disarm non-state actors within the framework of the new state and regional peace, how to enable mutual security for Israel and Palestine, how to empower the Palestinians to govern effectively, how to finance the reconstruction, and how to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to a starving population.

Trump can make this happen at the UN in September. The US, and only the US, has vetoed the permanent membership of Palestine in the UN. The other members of the UN Security Council have already signaled their support.

Peace in the Middle East is possible now—and there is no time to lose.

This article was originally published on Common Dreams.

The post The US Can End the Gaza Genocide Now appeared first on LewRockwell.

You’ve probably read that it is now common for people to sign up for seven years of payments – because this is the only way many people can afford to drive a new vehicle. More payments being more manageable than fewer – but higher – payments. This works – for awhile.

But it can’t work for too much longer, because depreciation catches up – and passes – you right around the seven year mark. By this time, you are likely to find that you owe more (the remaining loan balance) than the car is worth by then and that makes it not worth making those payments any longer. People walk away. The “under water” vehicle gets repossessed. Lenders know that car loans can’t be extended much beyond seven years and that will limit the number of loans written that are for longer than seven years. This, in turn, is going to limit new vehicle sales (or at least, limit the financing of them, which amounts to the same thing).

What then?

The vehicle manufacturers could try to reduce the cost of new vehicles so that people could afford to pay them off in five years or less, but that will be difficult because they have bought into the costs of compliance. It is no longer legally possible to manufacture for sale a vehicle not equipped with multiple airs bags, which entails the cost of designing the car’s structure and dashboard around the air bags – in addition to the cost of the air bags themselves. Many new vehicles have air bags built into the seats as well as the door panels and dash and steering wheel. This alone has added thousands in compliance costs to the window sticker of every new car.

Additional compliance costs include the mandatory back-up cameras and screens that display the images as well hidden/added drivetrain compliance costs such as direct injection and automatic transmissions with eight, nine and ten speeds when four or five are plenty (in terms of any meaningful benefit to the vehicle’s owner).

There are also the transferred compliance costs of EVs the manufacturers are effectively forced to make that can’t be sold for what they actually cost to make, plus a profit. The manufacturers “sell” EVs for less than it costs them to manufacture the things and make the money back by upping the cost of the vehicles that do sell because they’re not EVs.

All of these costs are invisible to the buyer because they are not line-item’d on the window sticker. That would have been the smart move for the manufacturers in that it would have made it clear why the cost of a new vehicle has gone up so much over just the past ten years, let alone the past 50 . It was about 50 years ago that the federal government got seriously into the business of imposing compliance costs on vehicle manufacturers, who passed them on to buyers who didn’t know what they were being made to pay for them and were encouraged to blame it all on “inflation.”

How many know  – to cite just one example – that convertibles all-but-disappeared from the market (which was no longer that because of government interfering with it) by the mid-1970s because of a federal diktat that a car’s roof had to be capable of supporting the car’s entire weight if it rolled over? Instead of convertibles – available, mind you, for those who wanted to buy one – everyone got a government-mandated hard-top with thick “A,” “B” and especially “C” pillars that kept the roof from crushing if the vehicle rolled but also made a wreck more likely because of the blind spots created by those thick, visibility impairing (and government-mandated) structural pillars.

The manufacturers could have simply told car buyers why the cost of vehicles was going up so dramatically by line-iteming each compliance cost. Just a statement of fact, which can serve as a very powerful argument. For example:

5 MPH bumpers – as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ( FMVSS) 215, “Exterior Protection”: $500

Air bags – as required per FMVSS 208 (Supplemental Restraint System): $3,500.

Back-up camera system (per FMVSS 111): $500.

These are just a few of the readily identifiable specific compliance costs. There are also costs that aren’t specific in the each-new-vehicle-must have (insert here) but which they are effectively required to have, such as fragile plastic and very thin metal exterior panels, which help a manufacturer comply with federal fuel economy and “emissions” diktats via lowering the vehicle’s weight (which is perversely increased by other diktats pertaining to “safety”). Also in this category are the already-mentioned direct injection and automatic transmissions with eight, nine and ten speeds. The only reason for the proliferation of these things is compliance; they eke out slight gains in gas mileage and slight reductions in gaseous (C02) “emissions.”

They confer no meaningful benefit to the buyer who gets to pay for them. And nothing meaningful otherwise, either – except for the costs.

Read the Whole Article

The post Hitting The Wall appeared first on LewRockwell.

The Aussies just trashed their relations with Iran based on nothing but obscure say-so.

Australia throws out Iran ambassador over alleged antisemitic attacks

Canberra expelled Tehran’s ambassador after accusing Iran of masterminding at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the country’s intelligence services had linked Iran’s military to arson attacks in Sydney and Melbourne, throwing out an ambassador for the first time since World War II, a move The Sydney Morning Herald’s national affairs editor dubbed “the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option.”

Iran rejected the charge.

I have searched and read several news pieces on this issue and have found no mention of any fact that would connect two months ago arson incidents in Australia with Iran.

The whole thing came out of nowhere based solely on the say-so from the Australian spy service ASIO:

What Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called ASIO’s “deeply disturbing conclusion” is that the Iranian government was involved in these “extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil”, identified as the activities of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

There is no mentioning on what, if anything, ASIO’s alleged conclusions are based on. There are guesses:

No doubt “protecting sources” will mean that the detail of these “links” will never see the light of day [despite curiosity as to why Iranian security would have even the slightest interest in attacks on Jewish businesses in Australia] but recent history tells us that Mossad and the CIA are almost certainly responsible. These are the same agencies, after all, that fed us a steady stream of fake war propaganda including the supposed WMDs in Iraq, claims of Hamas bases under Gaza hospitals and fake stories about Iran being on the verge of producing nuclear weapons.

Canberra’s diplomatic attack on Iran comes as the Israelis prepare for a second round of aggression against Iran and while the Australian public, through huge rallies, has been expressing its outrage at the Albanese government’s collaboration with the Gaza genocide and demanding punishment of the Israelis.

How is Iran supposed to profit from arranging criminal arson attempts against some random synagogues in Australia?

One might assume that the whole thing is coming up now to calm Zionist anger at Australia which has become more aggressive after ten-thousands of Australians had expressed outraged over Israels ongoing genocide of Palestinians:

Albanese was just last week labeled “weak” by his Israeli counterpart after he said Australia would recognize a Palestinian state: The two countries have seen relations nosedive, with Canberra barring an Israeli far-right politician from entering Australia and Israel revoking the visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority.

There may also be a larger context to this:

chinahand @chinahand – 8:01 UTC · Aug 26, 2025Seems as tell that another attack on Iran spearheaded by Israel and backed by g7 is forthcoming

That another round of Israeli aggression against Iran is coming has been predicted for some time:

[W]ith its June attacks, Israel achieved a partial victory at best. Its preferred outcome was for Trump to fully engage, targeting both Iran’s conventional forces and economic infrastructure. But while Trump favors swift, decisive military action, he fears full-scale war. His strategy in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities was thus designed to limit escalation rather than expand it. In the short term, Trump succeeded—much to Israel’s chagrin—but in the long run, he has allowed Israel to trap him in an escalatory cycle.

His refusal to escalate beyond a limited bombing campaign was a key reason that Israel agreed to a cease-fire.
…
Regardless of whether Iran resumes uranium enrichment, Israel is determined to deny it time to replenish its missile arsenal, restore air defenses, or deploy improved systems. That logic is central to Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy: strike preventively and repeatedly to prohibit adversaries from developing capabilities that could challenge Israeli military dominance.

This means that, with Iran already rebuilding its military resources, Israel has an incentive to strike sooner rather than later. What’s more, the political calculus around another attack becomes much more complicated once the United States enters its midterm election season. As a result, a strike could very well take place within the coming months.

This, of course, is the outcome that Iranian leaders want to deter. To dispel any illusion that Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy works, Iran is likely to strike hard and fast at the outset of the next war.

If Israel decides to again attack Iran the question is when, and to what extend, the Trump administration will again jump in.

Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.

The post Australia Breaks With Iran – Sign of a New War Coming? appeared first on LewRockwell.

For many Catholics, the Covid era was regarded as an illumination of sorts. Churches were shuttered, government slipped on an iron glove, and separations began to ensue. These could be seen as contractions, if you will, prior to the more serious birth pangs foretold in Matthew 24: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom…Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me” (Matthew 24:7, 9).

We also saw, in relation to the issue of Covid vaccination, a kind of secular division among friends, coworkers, and family. Some took the government and health authorities at their word. Others were more skeptical. “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Luke 12:53).

Although it may make me an outlier in my orthodox/traditionalist Catholic circles, I am not arguing that the refusal to “take the jab” during this particular time period merits a particular virtue in and of itself. (My own views are more in line with that of philosopher Edward Feser on a Catholic “middle ground,” lest anyone accuse me of not putting my cards on the table. Like Feser, I did not regard Covid vaccination specifically as “a hill to die on.”) To this I would draw a contemporary parallel to St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. (1 Corinthians 8:4, 7-8)

A similar parallel may be found in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, chapter 2, over the issue of circumcision.

And yet, though I would not consider myself an “anti-vaxxer” (and I do not use that as a pejorative, but simply for the sake of argument) or a vaccine skeptic, there are certain traits that I have found in many of my friends who refused the Covid vaccine that I find enviable because I do not possess them myself.

Stubbornness

During Covid, most of my friends unwilling to vaccinate were what I would charitably call “stubborn.” I used to think of stubbornness, or “hard-headedness” as a character flaw, something “reasonable” people would find incorrigible. But when I read many of the lives of the saints and martyrs, I find that this trait actually aids them in the realm of perseverance—which is necessary for salvation.

One inspiring saint in this regard is St. Eulalia, who was born in the third century in Spain. At 12 years old, stubborn and bull-headed, she would sneak out of her parents’ house in the middle of the night in search of pagans to defy. She would spit at their idols and defy their threats of torture in order to gain the red crown. There was also St. Crispina, who refused to sacrifice to idols, was called stubborn and insolent by the proconsul, and was martyred.

When St. Felicitas was brought before the prefect of Rome for being a Christian and refusing to worship foreign gods, she admonished him. “Do not think to frighten me by threats, or to win me by fair speeches. The spirit of God within me will not suffer me to be overcome by Satan, and will make me victorious over all your assaults.” He urged her to think of her seven sons, who were being lined up to be tortured, but still she refused. “You are insolent indeed,” he said in exacerbation.

Read the Whole Article

The post Why ‘Anti-Vaxxers’ May Have the Best Shot at Heaven appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his speech on the occasion of the so-called “Independence Day” on August 24, the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky made numerous promises. He started out by praising the infamous Maidan coup that brought NATO’s Nazi puppets to power in former Ukraine. His following line was the “unwavering determination to restore 1991 borders”, where he mentioned “our Donetsk, our Lugansk, our Crimea” and “reminded everyone that all of this is Ukraine”. Zelensky stated that he believes “Ukraine can achieve this — achieve peace, peace across all its land”. The Kiev regime frontman praised his forces, bragging about “truly stopping the second army of the world” and supposedly “destroying the myth of the invincible Russian army”.

These ludicrous claims come at a time when leaked data shows that the actual ratio of losses for the Neo-Nazi junta forces is now worse than 13:1 and that they’ve lost close to two million men, most of whom are forcibly conscripted. Worse yet, they’re now even being killed by the most radical Nazi units whose sole raison d’être is to prevent their retreat “by any means necessary” in unwinnable firefights with the advancing Russian military. Mind you, the personnel in these so-called “barrier detachments” aren’t even fighting the “evil Russians”, but are only waiting to see who’s trying to retreat among forcibly conscripted Ukrainians and then proceed to shoot them, as evidenced by verified combat footage. Is this really a “struggle for freedom”?

Well, Zelensky claims it is. Interestingly, he also mentioned the failed Kursk oblast (region) incursion as if it were something positive. Even more interestingly, Zelensky stated that “no one can forbid us [long-range] strikes [deep within Russia], “because they deliver justice”. He also mentioned the so-called “Operation Spider Web”, which was a series of sabotage attacks on Russian strategic aviation. The Trump administration just decided to send ERAMs (Extended Range Attack Munitions) that should be delivered in the next six weeks. The United States insists that they’ve “put limitations in place” on how these weapons would be used, supposedly “to prevent uncontrollable escalation”. Well, how does one reconcile that with the promises Zelensky made in his speech?

In fact, he also stated that “this is Ukraine now” and that “this Ukraine will never again in history be forced into the shame that the ‘Russians’ call a ‘compromise'”. In other words, the talks between President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump were all “for nothing”, according to Zelensky. This comes after Vice President JD Vance stated that Moscow supposedly “made significant concessions” during these talks. Obviously, both of these things cannot be true at once. If Zelensky’s idea of a “just peace” is to “completely defeat” Russia, this isn’t a concession, but a demand that the Kremlin capitulates. What reason would the latter have to accept such terms? Is the Russian military losing 13:1 and with nearly two million casualties?

However, while he keeps talking about the so-called “just peace”, Zelensky is only promising more war (obviously, not for himself, but for hundreds of thousands of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians). He also insisted that “our future will be up to us alone” and that “the world knows it and respects it, respects Ukraine, and accepts Ukraine as an equal”. Zelensky is a comedian and this would certainly be a laughing matter if millions of lives weren’t at stake (possibly billions if we consider the fact that the chances of uncontrollable escalation are still there, precisely thanks to extremist regimes such as the Neo-Nazi junta). And yet, he continued with nonsensical statements about the supposed “respect for Ukraine” and its alleged “rightful place at the table”.

“Ukraine can truly gather and unite the world’s leaders in a single day. Ukraine, with which America and the whole world want to jointly produce drones. Ukraine, which restored unity between Europe and the US and is now the foundation of this alliance. Ukraine, which stands firm and can defend itself. Therefore, Ukraine is heard, Ukraine is counted, Ukraine is listened to. Its place is at the table; it is not told, ‘Wait outside.’ It is told, ‘The decision is yours alone,'” Zelensky said with a straight face.

He also claimed that “both the US and Europe agree: Ukraine has not yet won, but it certainly will not lose” and that “Ukraine is recognized — not as a poor relative, but as a strong ally”. Zelensky is insistent that “this is what the ‘coalition of the willing’ is about” and that “Ukraine will achieve lasting peace because it will receive security guarantees so strong that no one in the world will ever again even think of attacking Ukraine”. He never revealed who would (or could) give such guarantees, but given his previous statements about nuclear weapons, this should certainly be taken as a potentially serious threat. The main takeaway of this year’s “Independence Day” speech is that Zelensky just raised the stakes and effectively declared total war on Russia.

It should be noted that these statements aren’t mere rhetoric. On August 25, only a day after his speech, the Neo-Nazi junta unveiled a new, longer-range, land-attack version of the R-360 “Neptune” cruise missile, itself a copy of the Soviet-era turbojet-powered Kh-35. Colloquially known as the “Long Neptune”, the upgraded missile reportedly has a range of around 1,000 km, with no information on other specifications. Just like the Kh-35, the original R-360 “Neptune” is a subsonic anti-ship cruise missile with a range of approximately 200 km. In 2023, the Kiev regime revealed it fired a land-attack version of the missile, dubbed the “Neptune-MD” by some analysts. Its range was also reportedly 1,000 km (it’s possible this is the same missile).

This comes approximately a week after the Neo-Nazi junta revealed the FP-5 “Flamingo”, another land-based cruise missile which is effectively a crossover between the Nazi German V-1 flying bomb (essentially an early cruise missile concept) and the Soviet-era Tu-141/143 turbojet-powered drone. It allegedly has a range of 3,000 km and a massive warhead weighing around 1,150 kg. Albeit a very rudimentary design that could easily be picked up by Russian air defenses, it could give the Kiev regime means of mass terror strikes on Russian cities (after all, this was Nazi Germany’s concept of total war Zelensky is now threatening to unleash). The Russian military already destroyed most of the “Sapsan” program precisely for this reason.

Source Infobrics.org

The post Kiev Regime Has Officially Declared War on Russia appeared first on LewRockwell.

Trans shooter Robert Westman, 23, who goes by the name of Robin Westman, murdered two children and injured at least 17 others at a Catholic school in Minneapolis today, the same school he once attended.

The post Another Trans Shooter appeared first on LewRockwell.

The post Can Tulsi Defeat The Deep State? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Bill Madden:

This book, is difficult reading but it reinforces the point that the USA has been a plutocracy since the beginning.  Plundering by our wealthiest families is on display during the 1800s with the construction of the railroads.  Huge areas of land on either side of the proposed rights of way were given to the early Robber Barons to use, lease or sell as they wished.  It is almost certain that some of the revenue derived from this excess land found its way back to the politicians and bureaucrats making it all happen.

The Civil War destroyed states rights as the central government became increasingly more powerful in relation to the states which, according to the Constitution, were supposed to retain all power except for the Enumerated Powers granted the federal government by the Constitution.  It has become understood by many that: “States rights died at Appomattox”.

The implementation of the income tax in 1913 gave the central government the financial clout to oppress the people and dispense tax revenue as bribes to control the states.  During that same year, the Federal Reserve was created to loot the masses by charging interest (currently, one trillion dollars a year) on money that the Constitution directs Congress to coin for free.  Tax free foundations were also created to insulate the wealth of the super-rich from the planned ravages of the income tax.

My feeling is that the super-rich have always had the power in our country and that the noose around the necks of the American people has, over the years, only grown tighter.

—

From: Bob Avery

Speak the truth about the military rule of the United States

Speak out about what really happened now

The United States has been under military rule since January 2001. That is when the Bush administration used the military and intelligence to shut down all discussion of the rigged election that brought them to power and they took over the federal government by force.

We have continued to be under military rule under Obama, under Trump, under Biden and now, even more so, under Trump again. He has not aged well and this dictatorship has not aged well either.

We are ruled by a totalitarian military government that is dressed up in democratic clothing.

It is fascism in participatory drag. A brutal and parasitic wolf in empathetic sheep’s clothing.

 

The post Speak the truth about the military rule of the United States 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 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 la storia di un coyote, che quando non riesce a sfamarsi all'esterno ricorre all'autofagocitazione. Lo stesso accaduto ai membri del G7, dove i sei membri restanti hanno iniziato a fagocitare il settimo: gli Stati Uniti.

____________________________________________________________________________________

di Guy Milliére

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/tirannia-sotto-mentite-spoglie-la)

14 febbraio 2025. Il vicepresidente degli Stati Uniti, J. D. Vance, tiene un discorso in Germania alla Conferenza sulla sicurezza di Monaco.

Il pubblico si aspetta che parli di politica estera, geopolitica e minacce che gravano sul mondo.

Afferma invece che la minaccia più preoccupante oggi è “la minaccia interna, il ritiro dell'Europa da alcuni dei suoi valori più fondamentali”.

Aggiunge che i Paesi e le istituzioni europee stanno minando la democrazia e la libertà di parola, e ne fornisce degli esempi.

“Un ex-commissario europeo”, afferma Vance, “è apparso di recente in televisione e si è detto entusiasta del fatto che il governo rumeno avesse appena annullato un'intera elezione”.

Infatti Thierry Breton, ex-commissario europeo per il mercato interno, ha ammesso in un'intervista per un'emittente televisiva francese che la Corte costituzionale rumena si è piegata alle pressioni dell'UE e ha annullato le elezioni presidenziali del Paese perché il candidato di destra, Călin Georgescu, aveva buone probabilità di vincere. “Lo abbiamo fatto in Romania”, ha detto Breton, “e ovviamente dovremo farlo, se necessario, anche in Germania”.

Il 26 febbraio, quando Georgescu si è presentato per registrarsi come candidato per la ripetizione delle elezioni presidenziali, organizzata pochi mesi dopo le elezioni annullate, è stato arrestato dalla polizia e accusato di “tentativo di sovvertire l'ordine costituzionale”. Ad oggi le autorità rumene non hanno fornito  alcuna prova a sostegno di tale accusa.

“La stessa cosa potrebbe accadere anche in Germania”, ha affermato Vance nel suo discorso di Monaco.

Il partito di destra Alternativa per la Germania (AfD), che ha partecipato alle elezioni parlamentari tedesche del 23 febbraio, è arrivato secondo con il 20,8% dei voti. L'Unione Cristiano-Democratica (CDU), di centro-destra, che ha ottenuto la maggioranza dei voti (28,5%), ha invece scelto di boicottare AfD e di formare un governo con il Partito Socialdemocratico (SPD), di centro-sinistra, che aveva formato il precedente governo e che i tedeschi avevano appena respinto, ottenendo solo il 16,4% dei voti.

Il nuovo cancelliere tedesco, il leader della CDU Friedrich Merz, aveva dichiarato durante la campagna elettorale: “Non collaboreremo con il partito che si definisce Alternativa per la Germania, né prima [delle elezioni], né dopo, mai”.

Merz ha mantenuto la parola data. Subito dopo le elezioni l'intelligence interna tedesca ha definito AfD “organizzazione estremista” e “minaccia per la democrazia”. La motivazione addotta è stata che AfD è “anti-immigrazione e anti-musulmana”. Potrebbe addirittura essere messa al bando dal governo.

Vance ha continuato:

Guardo a Bruxelles, dove i commissari dell'UE avvertono i cittadini che intendono chiudere i social media in periodi di disordini civili, nel momento in cui individuano ciò che ritengono essere un “contenuto d'odio”.

Infatti, nel 2022, l'Unione Europea ha adottato il Digital Services Act (DSA) che dovrebbe “proteggere i diritti degli utenti dei social media” e “fornire un ambiente online più sicuro” “limitando la diffusione di  contenuti illegali e dannosi”. Non è stato definito cosa costituisca “contenuto illegale e dannoso” e potrebbe essere qualsiasi cosa la Commissione Europea definisca come tale, insieme al diritto di imporre multe e chiudere i siti web.

Sebbene le affermazioni di Vance fossero inconfutabili, i funzionari presenti hanno immediatamente espresso il loro sgomento.

L'ex-cancelliere tedesco, Olaf Scholz, ha affermato che le osservazioni di Vance “non erano appropriate”,  aggiungendo:

Mai più fascismo, mai più razzismo, mai più guerra d'aggressione [...]. Le democrazie odierne in Germania e in Europa si fondano sulla consapevolezza storica che le democrazie possono essere distrutte da antidemocratici radicali [...] abbiamo creato istituzioni che garantiscono che le nostre democrazie possano difendersi dai loro nemici e regole che non restringono o limitano la nostra libertà, ma la proteggono.

Il Ministro degli esteri francese, Jean-Noël Barrot, ha dichiarato che “la libertà di parola è garantita in Europa”.

Il primo ministro britannico, Keir Starmer, ha osservato:

Nel Regno Unito abbiamo avuto libertà di parola per moltissimo tempo e durerà per moltissimo tempo [...] per quanto riguarda la libertà di parola nel Regno Unito ne sono davvero orgoglioso.

Christoph Heusgen, presidente della Conferenza sulla sicurezza di Monaco, al termine della stessa  ha affermato che le osservazioni di Vance avevano raffigurato l'Europa come “un incubo a occhi aperti [...]. Dobbiamo temere che la nostra base comune di valori non sia più comune”. Poi è scoppiato a piangere.

È possibile che la “base comune di valori” che un tempo legava Europa e Stati Uniti non sia più comune. Se ciò è vero, è per le ragioni elencate da Vance: i leader e i governi europei si sono allontanati da ciò che un tempo legava Europa e Stati Uniti, come la libertà di parola e le elezioni libere ed eque, i cui risultati vengono effettivamente sanciti ad hoc.

L'argomentazione di Scholz sul fascismo, il razzismo e la minaccia alla democrazia è infondata, se non addirittura un'inversione dei fatti. Georgescu non ha rilasciato dichiarazioni fasciste o razziste e non ha mai minacciato la democrazia. Al contrario, ha affermato la sua volontà di difendere la sovranità nazionale e la civiltà occidentale, e si è dichiarato vicino alle posizioni dell'amministrazione Trump che non sono né fasciste né razziste.

Nel 2018 il politico dell'AfD, Alexander Gauland, affermò che “Hitler e i nazisti sono solo un granello di polvere in più di 1.000 anni di storia tedesca”.

Nel 2017 Björn Höcke, leader dell'AfD nel Land tedesco della Turingia, definì il Memoriale dell'Olocausto di Berlino un “memoriale della vergogna”.

Ma le parole di Gauland e Höcke non rappresentano la linea del partito AfD. Gauland chiarì le sue osservazioni solo pochi giorni dopo, affermando:

Molti hanno visto l'espressione come una banalizzazione inappropriata [...] niente potrebbe essere più lontano dalla realtà e mi rammarico si sia creata una simile impressione [...]. Mi rammarico dell'impressione che ne è derivata. Non è mai stata mia intenzione banalizzare o deridere le vittime di quel sistema criminale.

La motivazione fornita dall'intelligence interna tedesca per definire l'AfD come “organizzazione estremista” non è né fascismo né razzismo. Infatti nessun leader dell'AfD sostiene posizioni fasciste o razziste e, ciò che in realtà potrebbe risultare discutibile per molti europei, è che l'AfD è “il partito più filo-israeliano e filo-semita” in Germania.

“Questa non è democrazia”, ha affermato il Segretario di Stato Marco Rubio a proposito della decisione dell'agenzia di intelligence interna tedesca, “è tirannia mascherata”.

Ironia della sorte negli Stati Uniti il Comitato Nazionale Democratico (DNC) ha annullato l'elezione di David Hogg e Malcolm Kenyatta come vicepresidenti del DNC, apparentemente per “motivi procedurali”. Dopo la sua elezione Hogg ha dichiarato di voler raccogliere fondi per sostenere gli sfidanti alle primarie dei democratici in carica. A giugno il DNC prenderà  in considerazione una ripetizione delle elezioni, presumibilmente nella speranza di ottenere un risultato predeterminato. Nel frattempo molti democratici criticano senza sosta il Partito Repubblicano per “aver distrutto la democrazia”.

Contrariamente a quanto affermato dal ministro degli Esteri francese, la libertà di parola è in declino in Europa, in particolare in Francia. L'ex-giornalista e candidato alla presidenza, Éric Zemmour, è stato  condannato innumerevoli volte e multato pesantemente per aver criticato l'Islam e l'immigrazione musulmana. La sua condanna più recente è stata emessa il 26 marzo 2025. Dopo l'omicidio di un giovane francese da parte di una banda di musulmani, Zemmour ha parlato della presenza in Francia di criminali che sono “feccia arabo-musulmana”. È stato riconosciuto colpevole di aver pronunciato un “insulto razzista”.

Nel 2014 lo scrittore Renaud Camus è stato condannato per incitamento all'odio per aver affermato che la Francia era stata “invasa” da immigrati musulmani.

Il canale televisivo francese C8 è stato chiuso dall'Autorità di regolamentazione dell'audiovisivo e della comunicazione digitale (Arcom) per “mancanza di diversità e pluralismo”. CNews, un altro canale televisivo francese, è stato multato pesantemente dall'Arcom per lo stesso “reato” e continua a rischiare la chiusura. Qualsiasi canale televisivo simile all'americana Fox News non sarebbe autorizzato a esistere in Francia.

La libertà di parola nel Regno Unito, contrariamente a quanto affermato da Starmer, è seriamente in pericolo. Negli ultimi mesi cittadini britannici sono stati condannati al carcere per aver pubblicato  messaggi critici nei confronti dell'Islam sui social media e persino per aver pregato vicino a una clinica per l'aborto.

Questa deriva antidemocratica ha preso piede in diversi Paesi europei. Politici e partiti che non condividono la visione del mondo dei funzionari al potere vengono sempre più esclusi da ogni possibilità di candidarsi a una carica ufficiale.

In Germania, come detto, Merz ha scelto di escludere l'AfD.

In Francia Marine Le Pen, che secondo i sondaggi è in testa alle elezioni presidenziali del 2027, è stata  condannata a cinque anni di ineleggibilità e quattro anni di carcere per presunta appropriazione indebita di fondi pubblici. La sentenza avrebbe dovuto entrare in vigore immediatamente, senza una sospensione temporanea della condanna in attesa dell'appello. Dopo che la decisione ha suscitato scandalo, la Corte d'Appello di Parigi ha dichiarato che avrebbe esaminato il caso e avrebbe emesso una sentenza definitiva nell'estate del 2026.

La Le Pen non si è appropriata indebitamente di fondi pubblici. Il giudice ha definito reato il fatto che gli assistenti dei deputati europei di Rassemblement National che lavoravano a Strasburgo lavorassero anche a Parigi per il partito. Il Movimento Democratico, un partito centrista guidato dal Primo Ministro francese François Bayrou, ha fatto esattamente la stessa cosa con gli assistenti dei suoi deputati europei, ma Bayrou è stato assolto.

Nei Paesi Bassi, quando il Partito per la Libertà (PVV) ha vinto con la maggioranza dei voti alle elezioni parlamentari del novembre 2023 e il suo leader, Geert Wilders, ha tentato di formare un governo, tutti gli altri partiti politici hanno unito le forze per impedirglielo, finché non è stato costretto a ritirarsi.

In Austria, nel settembre 2024, il Partito della Libertà d'Austria (FPÖ) ha vinto con la maggioranza dei voti alle elezioni parlamentari e al suo leader, Herbert Kickl, è stato impedito di formare un governo.

In Italia, invece, quando Fratelli d'Italia (FdI) – un partito con politiche simili a quelle di Rassemblement National, del PVV olandese e dell'FPÖ austriaco – ha vinto alle elezioni parlamentari italiane del 2022, la sua leader, Giorgia Meloni, è riuscita a formare un governo ed è ora Primo ministro. Il motivo? FdI faceva parte di un'alleanza con altri partiti di centro-destra. Ora la Meloni è l'unico politico etichettato in modo sprezzante dai media generalisti europei come “estrema destra” e in grado di godere del risultato della sua elezione.

La maggior parte dei leader europei oggi si riferisce ai partiti e ai politici che desidera escludere come “estrema destra”. Il termine è usato per riferirsi a partiti razzisti, xenofobi e autoritari. Nessuno di quelli sopra menzionati mostra la minima tendenza al razzismo, alla xenofobia e all'autoritarismo, nemmeno la metà di quanto facciano i loro avversari. I partiti estromessi, secondo lo storico e scrittore Daniel Pipes, non sono “nazionalisti”, ma patriottici, “difensivi, non aggressivi”. Pipes li descrive come “civilizzazionisti”:

Hanno a cuore la cultura tradizionale dell'Europa e dell'Occidente, e vogliono difenderla dagli attacchi degli immigrati aiutati dalla sinistra [...]. I partiti civilizzatori sono populisti, anti-immigrazione e anti-islamizzazione. Populista significa nutrire rancori contro il sistema e nutrire sospetti nei confronti di un'élite che ignora o denigra tali preoccupazioni.

Gli attacchi alla libertà di parola prendono di mira dichiarazioni che avvertono che un'immigrazione di massa e non controllata potrebbe portare a una “grande sostituzione” demografica degli europei nativi, i cui valori sono giudaico-cristiani, con migranti provenienti dal Medio Oriente, i cui valori sono fondamentalmente islamici. La generale apprensione circa la possibilità che i valori islamici finiscano per sopraffare quelli europei è un'opinione condannata dalla maggior parte dei politici, dei media e della magistratura in Europa, nonostante il tasso di natalità musulmano sia di gran lunga superiore a quello europeo. Questa apprensione deriva anche dal fatto che la maggior parte dei musulmani che vive in Europa non si integra né sembra desiderarlo, e che la percentuale di musulmani tra i criminali in Europa oggi è di gran lunga superiore alla loro quota nella popolazione generale.

Molti leader europei oggi sembrano ciechi di fronte alle conseguenze dell'immigrazione in continua crescita e della crescente presenza musulmana in Europa. Minimizzano la continua migrazione di massa dei musulmani, l'entusiastico tasso di natalità e rimangono ostinatamente sordi di fronte alle preoccupazioni espresse a gran voce dai loro cittadini non musulmani.

Questi leader sembrano rifiutarsi di vedere che è in atto un profondo cambiamento demografico, sebbene sia ampiamente visibile. Sembrano anche rifiutarsi di vedere che questo cambiamento demografico sta rapidamente erodendo le culture tradizionali europee.

L'immigrazione incontrollata dal mondo musulmano continua anno dopo anno in tutta l'Europa occidentale, mentre il tasso di natalità in Germania è di 1,35 per donna. Il dato per l'Austria è di 1,58; per  l'Italia è di 1,31; per la Spagna è di 1,41. Il dato per la Francia è di 1,85. Tutti questi valori sono significativamente lontani dal livello di sostituzione, che è di 2,1 per donna.

In tutti i Paesi dell'Europa occidentale il tasso di natalità dei musulmani è significativamente più alto rispetto a quello della popolazione generale.

Anche se molti europei non sono a conoscenza dei dati statistici, possono vedere con i loro occhi che è in atto un cambiamento demografico, insieme alla distruzione dei loro valori e delle loro tradizioni. Votare per i partiti “civilizzazionisti”, ha detto Zemmour, è la “reazione di persone che non vogliono morire”.

La domanda chiave per il futuro dell'Europa è: i partiti “civilizzazionisti” rimarranno esclusi da qualsiasi accesso al potere, o riusciranno a superare gli ostacoli che si frappongono sul loro cammino?

In Romania George Simion, candidato alla presidenza le cui idee sono vicine a quelle di Georgescu, ha ottenuto oltre il 40% dei voti al primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali e aveva ottime possibilità di essere eletto il 18 maggio. Inaspettatamente ha perso. Il vincitore, che godeva del pieno sostegno dell'Unione Europea, è passato dal 21% al primo turno al 53,6% al secondo turno, una performance straordinaria che probabilmente merita di essere analizzata.

In Germania AfD è ormai diventato il partito più popolare del Paese. L'agenzia di intelligence tedesca ha misteriosamente deciso di ritirare l'etichetta di estremista attribuita ad AfD. In Francia i sondaggi mostrano che se Marine Le Pen non potrà candidarsi, Jordan Bardella, il presidente di Rassemblement National, ha buone probabilità di essere eletto nel 2027 nonostante abbia solo 29 anni. Nel Regno Unito il partito Reform UK di Nigel Farage ha di recente ottenuto ampi consensi alle elezioni locali inglesi. Se le elezioni generali britanniche si tenessero presto, probabilmente vincerebbe.

La domanda al centro di queste questioni è: è possibile fermare la deriva antidemocratica che ha attanagliato diversi grandi Paesi europei?

“Le élite europee”, ha scritto il giornalista americano Michael Barone, “sembrano essersi convinte di dover distruggere la democrazia per salvarla”.

Sarà possibile salvare la democrazia in Europa?

In un recente articolo Heather Mac Donald, membro del Manhattan Institute, ha scritto:

In tutto l'Occidente i cittadini si stanno ribellando al ricambio demografico. È in corso una battaglia tra la loro volontà e quella delle élite. Se i leader tedeschi continuano a dire a un quarto della popolazione tedesca – individui perbene e rispettosi della legge – che sono, nella migliore delle ipotesi, sostenitori di Hitler e, nella peggiore, adoratori di Hitler, perché vogliono preservare l'identità culturale tedesca, se questi leader continuano a reprimere voci e voti, o ci sarà un enorme sconvolgimento nei palazzi del potere e il popolo verrà liberato, oppure i meccanismi di repressione diventeranno più radicali.

Gli americani dovrebbero sperare nella prima soluzione.

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

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

 Murray Sabrin writes:

Lew:

Trump should change his name to Fidel Trump.  He is making FDR look like a free market conservative.

CNBC News

 

The post Trump’s socialist agenda appeared first on LewRockwell.

The bold new Cracker Barrel logo is everything modern branding should be: ditch the past, erase tradition, and marginalise farmers. After all, every time that’s been tried around the world, it’s been a roaring success, right?

So hop aboard this AI Parody celebration of yet another rebrand that proudly tosses heritage straight into the trash. Kill the past, if you have to.

The post The New Cracker Barrel Logo is Great! – AI Parody appeared first on LewRockwell.

It seems that Putin has indeed succeeded in finding an exit out from the imposed western cordon sanitaire.

Trump’s ascent to a portion of the ‘Mythic’ has become only too evident. As John Greer has observed:

“It’s becoming difficult even for the most dyed-in-the-wool rationalist to go on believing that Trump’s political career can be understood in the prosaic terms of ‘politics as usual’”.

Trump the man, of course, is in no way mythic. He’s an elderly, slightly infirm, American real estate oligarch, with lowbrow tastes and an unusually robust ego.

“The ancient Greek word muthos originally meant ‘story’. As the philosopher Sallust wrote, myths are things that never happen but always are”.

Later, myth came to mean stories hinting at a kernel of inner meaning. This doesn’t imply a requirement to be factual; yet it is this latter dimension that gives Trump “his extraordinary grip on the collective imagination of our time”, Greer suggests. He comes back literally from everything thrown to destroy him.

He becomes what Carl Jung called ‘the Shadow’. As Greer writes:

“Rationalists in Hitler’s day were consistently confounded by the way the latter brushed aside obstacles and followed his trajectory to the bitter end. Jung pointed out in his prescient 1936 essay Wotan, that much of Hitler’s power over the collective mind of Europe came boiling up out of the realms of myth and archetype”

Wotan in myth is a restless wanderer who creates unrest and stirs up strife – now here, now there – and works magic. Jung thought it piquant to a degree that an ancient God of storm and frenzy – the long quiescent Wotan – should come to life in the German Youth Movement.

What has this to do with the Alaska summit with President Putin?

Well, Putin seemingly paid due attention to the psychology underlying Trump’s sudden request to meet. The Russians treated Trump in a very respectful, courteous and friendly fashion. They implicitly acknowledged Trump’s sense of an inner mythic quality – which Steve Witkoff, his longstanding friend, has described as Trump’s deep conviction that his ‘commanding presence’ alone can bend people to his will (and to America’s interests). Witkoff added that he agreed with this assessment.

As just one example, the White House meeting with Zelensky and his European fans produced some of the most remarkable political optics perhaps in history. As Simplicius notes,

“Has there ever been anything like this? The entire pantheon of the European ruling class reduced to snivelling children in their school principal’s office. No one can deny that Trump has succeeded in veritably ‘breaking Europe over his knee’. There is no coming back from this turning point moment, the optics simply cannot be redeemed. The EU’s claim to being a geopolitical power is exposed as sham”.

Less noticed perhaps – but psychologically crucial – is that Trump seems to recognise in Putin a ‘mythic peer’. Despite the two being poles apart in character, nonetheless, Trump seemed to recognise a fellow from the pantheon of putative ‘mythic beings’. Watch again the scenes from Anchorage: Trump treats Putin with huge deference and respect. How unlike Trump’s disdainful treatment of the Euros.

In Anchorage however, it was Putin who displayed the calm, composed, dominating presence.

Yet what is plain is that Trump’s respectful conduct towards Putin has exploded the West’s radical demonisation of Russia and the cordon sanitaire erected versus all things Russian. There is no coming back from this other turning point moment – “the optics simply cannot be redeemed”. Russia was treated as a peer global power.

What was it all about? A pivot: Kellogg’s frozen conflict paradigm is out; the Putin long-term peace plan is in; and tariffs are nowhere mentioned.

What is clear is that Trump has decided – after some reluctance – that he has to do “do Ukraine”.

The cold reality is that Trump faces huge pressures: The Epstein Affair stubbornly refuses to fade away. It is set to rear up again after Labor Day in the U.S.

The western Security State narrative of “we are winning”, or at least, “they are losing”, has been so powerful – and so universally accepted for so long – that it, of itself, creates a huge dynamic, pressing for Trump to persist with the Ukraine war. Facts regularly are twisted to fit this narrative. This dynamic has not yet been broken.

And Trump is trapped too, into supporting the Israeli slaughter – with the images of massacred and starved women and children turning the stomach of the younger, under 35, electoral demographic in the U.S.

These dynamics – and the economic blowback from the ‘Shock and Awe’ tariff attack to fracture BRICS – together threaten Trump’s MAGA base more directly. It is becoming existential. Epstein; the Gaza massacre; the threat of ‘more war’, and job worries is roiling not just the MAGA faction, but American young voters more generally. They ask, is Trump still one of ‘us’, or was he always with ‘them’.

Without the base behind him, Trump likely will lose the Midterm Congressional elections. Ultra rich donors pay, but cannot substitute.

What emerged from Anchorage therefore is a meagre intellectual framework. Trump minimally decided to no longer stand in the way of a Russian-imposed solution for Ukraine, which is, in any case, really the only solution there can be.

This framework is not a road map to any ultimate solution. It is delusional therefore, as Aurelien outlines, to expect that Trump and Putin were going to ‘negotiate’ an end to the war in Ukraine, “as though Mr Putin were to pull out a text from his pocket and the two of the them were then to work through it”. Trump anyway is not strong on details, and is wont to meander discursively and inconclusively.

“As we get closer to the endgame, the important action is elsewhere, and much of it will be hidden from public view. The broad outlines of the end of the military part of the Ukraine crisis have been visible for a while, even if the details could still change. By contrast, the extremely complex political endgame has only just started, the players are not really sure of the rules, nobody is really sure how many players there are anyway, and the outcome is at the moment as clear as mud”, Aurelien opines.

Then why did Trump suddenly ‘pivot’? Well it was not because he has had some ‘Damascene conversion’. Trump remains a committed Israeli Firster; and secondly, he can’t resile from his pursuit of dollar hegemony because that aim, too, is becoming problematic – as the American ‘bubble economy’ begins to unravel, and the under-30s fidget, living in their parents’ basement.

It is to Trump’s advantage (for now) to let Russia to ‘bring’ the EU and Zelensky to some negotiated ‘peace’ – through force. The U.S. ‘China hawks’ are increasingly agitating that China is close to an exponential lift-off – both economically and in tech – after which, the U.S. will lose its ability to contain China from global pre-eminence. (It is however probably already too late to stop this).

Putin too, is taking a big risk in offering Trump an off-ramp, through accepting to work towards a stable long-term relationship with the U.S. It is not Finland of 1944, where the Soviet army did force an Armistice.

In Europe, the élite believe that Trump’s peace outreach to Putin will fail. Their plan is to ensure it fails by playing along, whilst ensuring through their conditionalities, that no such agreement materialises. Thus proving to Trump that ‘Putin is not serious about ending the war’. Thus impelling American escalation.

Trump’s part of the bargain with Putin clearly is that he will shoulder managing the European ruling strata (mainly by flooding the info-sphere with contradictory noise), and through containing the American hawks (by pretending he is wooing Russia away from China). Really? Yes, really.

Putin too, faces internal pressures: From Russians convinced that ultimately he will be forced to enter into some form of interim Minsk 3-type outcome (a series of limited ceasefires that would only exacerbate the conflict) rather than achieve ‘victory’. Some Russians fear that the blood that has been spent so far may prove to be but a down-payment on more blood to be expended in a few years ahead, as the West rearms Ukraine.

And Putin faces too, the hurdle of Trump viewing his relationship with him through narrow New York real estate ‘lense’. He still does not seem to understand that the key question is not so much Ukrainian territories as it is about geo-strategic security. His enthusiasm for a trilateral summit seems to rest on the image of two real estate tycoons playing the board at Monopoly and swapping properties. But it is not like that.

It seems however, that Putin has indeed succeeded in finding an exit out from the imposed western cordon sanitaire. Russia is acknowledged as a great power again, and Ukraine will be settled on the battlefield. The two great nuclear weapons powers are talking to each other. That is important, in itself. Will Trump be able to secure his base? Will ‘game over’ in Ukraine (if it happens) be enough for MAGA? Will Netanyahu’s next genocidal rampage in Gaza explode the Trump ‘cope’ vis-à-vis MAGA? Very possibly, yes.

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

The post Trump as ‘Myth’ Is Understood in Moscow. They Reciprocate appeared first on LewRockwell.

History does not always conform to what the dominant scholarly theories of court historians may lead us to expect. In his essay “The Task of the Modern Historian,” Thomas Babington Macaulay observes that historians may formulate valid theories of what they would logically expect to have happened in a particular era, but unfortunately their theories soon displace any interest in the truth about what did in fact happen. They have been “seduced from truth, not by their imagination, but by their reason.”

In today’s context, the dominant narratives explain history by reference to theories of race relations. Historical explanations which do not fit comfortably within these theories are treated with skepticism or dismissed as false. For example, in light of the moral consensus that slavery is wrong, we would not logically expect black men to stand with slaveowners, and so we presume that no black men in fact did so. Any reports of black men having done precisely that must then surely be fanciful, commonly dismissed as part of a “lost cause myth” that romanticizes the Old South. By reasoning that the facts should conform to what we would logically expect to have occurred, we are “distorting narrative into a conformity with theory.” The theory matters most, and that in turn dictates the narrative arc into which we insert those facts that we deem to be relevant. The reasoning is circular. We regard as “fact” only that which fits the narrative and adjudge that fact to be “true” because it fits the narrative. Macaulay observes:

…unhappily, [historians] have fallen into the error of distorting facts to suit general principles. They arrive at the theory from looking at some of the phenomena, and the remaining phenomena they strain or curtail to suit the theory.

One indicator of historians being less interested in truth than in their pet theories is their dismissal of any author who is not a “historian.” Whether the author’s claims are true or not is almost irrelevant—what matters most is whether his credentials qualify him to write about history. Commenting on The Tragic Era, a book by Claude G. Bowers on the Reconstruction Era, one reviewer wrote: “The book is written by an historically untrained politician with a cause to advance or an ax to grind.” He dismissed the book as “downright propaganda.” Bowers had set out to cover an aspect of history that had been overlooked, namely, the views of “the able leaders of the minority in Congress” and the “brilliant and colourful leaders and spokesmen of the South.” For following a path that departed from the established history profession who were almost united in praising the winners of the war, his book was deemed to be unprofessional. The reviewer added that,

From the point of view of the historian the book is without any particular value…the book contains no facts which have local or national significance; and most of the facts presented are intentionally distorted… Internationally this work can serve only to discredit the nation.

Are historians not interested in learning what the minority in Congress thought of the events in question? The reviewer who derides Bowers for being partisan argues that Bowers was supporting the wrong side because “in 1866 the Negroes were reduced to a state as deplorable as slavery itself,” and therefore needed “the protection of the ballot by which their re-enslavement was prevented.” Given that free black people could not vote in the North in 1866, and neither could women, it could be said that this reviewer, too, is promoting “downright propaganda” by supporting the Radical Republican claim that lack of voting rights was just as deplorable as the slavery which had just been abolished. The reviewer’s comment that Bowers’s book might “discredit the nation” could equally well be treated, using his own approach, as evidence that his concern was more with Bowers discrediting the “righteous cause myth” of the war than with the historical veracity of Bowers’s arguments. In other words, the reviewer himself could be accused of that which he accuses Bowers. The reviewer adds:

While Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens made mistakes which require exposure they should at the same time be lauded for assisting in the preservation of the Union, for the defense of that flag at which most of the author’s ideal Americans shot at for four years.

Are we to assume that Bowers’s partisan defense of the South is “downright propaganda” while the reviewer’s partisan defense of the Union is not propaganda? Another review, titled “history as present politics” argues that The Tragic Era was “perhaps the single most widely read history of Reconstruction and therefore a work of considerable influence,” which he sees as very unfortunate because he views Claude Bowers as motivated by politics. Bowers wrote, “The Constitution was treated as a doormat on which politicians and army officers wiped their feet after wading in the muck.” While that is indeed an overtly political comment, one would hope a historian would at least be interested to ascertain whether it was true. Is it true that the Radical Republicans treated the Constitution with contempt? What does “truth” mean in the context of politically-contested history?

It is important to note that in these debates, it is not the facts themselves that are disputed, but the interpretation of those facts. As Macauly notes, the debates concern questions of “comparison and degree,” with disputes over the emphasis that ought to be accorded to various facts:

For this purpose it is not necessary that [historians] should assert what is absolutely false, for all questions in morals and politics are questions of comparison and degree. Any proposition which does not involve a contradiction in terms may, by possibility, be true; and if all the circumstances which raise a probability in its favor be stated and enforced, and those which lead to an opposite conclusion be omitted or lightly passed over, it may appear to be demonstrated. In every human character and transaction there is a mixture of good and evil; — a little exaggeration, a little suppression, a judicious use of epithets, a watchful and searching skepticism with respect to the evidence on one side, a convenient credulity with respect to every report or tradition on the other, may easily make a saint of Laud, or a tyrant of Henry the Fourth. (emphasis added)

In the example of the “myth of black Confederates,” the establishment view is that black Confederates are mythical because, while they did exist, they were so few that any reference to their existence should be dismissed as an attempt to minimize the moral repugnance of slavery. Similarly, the establishment view is that while the South indeed had grievances about states’ rights, the Constitution, or unjust tariffs that punished the South while favoring the North, these grievances pale into such insignificance when compared to the institution of slavery that they should be dismissed as an attempt to “whitewash slavery.”

As Macaulay says, when disputes concern questions of comparison and degree, or when the only subject of debate concerns the motives of the historian or value judgments about his ideological beliefs, readers may acquire a false view of history even though neither side has technically asserted any false facts. Without “lying” about the facts, the conclusions they draw may nevertheless be false: “A history in which every particular incident may be true, may on the whole be false.” False conclusions are easily derived when historians fall into the error pointed out by Macaulay, namely, “distorting facts to suit general principles.”

Without positively asserting much more than he can prove, he gives prominence to all the circumstances which support his case; he glides lightly over those which are unfavorable to it; his own witnesses are applauded and encouraged; the statements which seem to throw discredit on them are controverted; the contradictions into which they fall are explained away; a clear and connected abstract of their evidence is given. Every thing that is offered on the other side is scrutinized with the utmost severity; every suspicious circumstance is a ground for comment and invective; what cannot be denied is extenuated, or passed by without notice; concessions even are sometimes made; but this insidious candor only increases the effect of the vast mass of sophistry.

The historians of slavery are now caught in a hopeless debate over whether it was brutal or benign, as each side “gives prominence” to favorable examples and asserts them with “unhesitating confidence.” They cannot accept that the actual facts may support one or the other side in specific cases, because the debate is not about the facts but about whose narrative should be dominant. The establishment historians get to dismiss any opposing narrative as a “myth.” Cancel culture steps in, and the search for truth is forgotten. Facts that undermine the dominant narrative are then easily “glided lightly” over, “sifted with the utmost care” and treated “with the utmost bitterness of language.” Hypocrisies and double standards are explained away as merely incidental to the overarching narrative.

If it cannot be denied, some palliating supposition is suggested, or we are at least reminded that some circumstance now unknown may have justified what at present appears unjustifiable. Two events are reported by the same author in the same sentence; their truth rests on the same testimony; but the one supports the darling hypothesis, and the other seems inconsistent with it. The one is taken and the other is left.

Macaulay is right to observe that when both sides of a debate are prone to such distortion, the impartial observer or the reader who consults opposing interpretations is likely to gain some insight into the truth. This is why cancel culture is such a destructive trend. Those who cancel their scholarly opponents for supporting the “wrong” ideology are themselves guilty of supporting ideologies that their opponents would regard as “wrong.” The difference is that when those who happen to control the reins of power shut down all opposing views, impartial observers are less likely to have the opportunity to ascertain the truth about history.

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

The post How Scholarly Theories Impede the Search for Historical Truth appeared first on LewRockwell.