Aggregatore di feed

Thanks, John Smith. 

Palestine Chronicle

The post German Police Halt Pro-Palestine Rally, Cite Arabic Language Ban appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Saleh Abdullah. 

The USAID Scam EXPOSED: Over $1 BILLION for Holocaust Studies and Israeli Universities 

https://x.com/davincentjames/status/1888272914039885899

https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/israeli-tel-aviv-university-receives-millions-in-us-funding-report-3698191

The post The USAID Scam Exposed appeared first on LewRockwell.

Elon Musk wants it to happen.  Musk has also said that appointing Ron as the next Fed chairman is “a great idea.”

The post Will Ron Paul be Put in Charge of Auditing the Fed? appeared first on LewRockwell.

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/perche-leuropa-teme-la-liberta-di)

Conosciamo tutti la vecchia barzelletta che recita: quando un referendum europeo dà il risultato “sbagliato”, il Paese vota ancora finché non si ottiene il risultato “giusto”.

L'UE pensava che questo dovesse essere tristemente vero dopo la Brexit e infatti finora nessuno ha riso.

Anzi, la situazione è peggiorata.

Prendete la Romania, che di recente ha annullato le elezioni presidenziali quando Călin Georgescu, leader di una coalizione nazionalista di destra, ha vinto il primo turno. Thierry Breton, ex-commissario europeo francese, ha reso manifesta la mentalità dell'UE durante una recente intervista televisiva: “L'abbiamo fatto in Romania e ovviamente lo faremo in Germania se necessario”.

In altre parole, se non si può sconfiggere l'estrema destra, allora bisogna bandirla dal dibattito pubblico.

Non sono mai stato d'accordo con quello che Breton ha sempre detto, ma gli sono grato per aver esposto il suo caso con tale chiarezza. Durante il suo periodo come commissario per l'industria a Bruxelles, dal 2019 fino all'estate scorsa, quando Emmanuel Macron lo ha sostituito con una figura più compiacente, è stato la forza trainante dietro una serie di leggi progettate per mantenere l'Europa nell'età oscura digitale. La più estrema di suddette è stata il Digital Services Act (DSA) che obbliga “le grandi piattaforme online”, come X e Meta, a verificare i fatti e filtrare le fake news.

Ma, grazie a Breton, la verità è saltata fuori: l'obiettivo finale dell'Europa non è salvare il dibattito pubblico, ma soffocare i partiti di estrema destra privandoli dell'ossigeno dell'informazione. Il DSA non è nemmeno l'ultima parola nella jihad anti-digitale dell'UE. Una delle grandi idee di Ursula von der Leyen dell'anno scorso durante le elezioni europee è stata il cosiddetto “scudo democratico”, ovvero approvare ancora più leggi per impedire interferenze esterne negli affari dell'UE. Questa cosa evoca immagini di combattimenti con spade laser e sotto certi aspetti non è lontana dalla realtà: un blocco spaventato ha bisogno di uno scudo per proteggersi dal nemico incombente.

Mark Zuckerberg è sicuramente andato all'attacco. La scorsa settimana ha annunciato che abbandonerà il fact-checking sulle sue piattaforme, sfidando di fatto il DSA. E sta scommettendo su Donald Trump per proteggersi dalle conseguenze legali. Dato che Vance, il vicepresidente eletto, ha già minacciato di porre fine al sostegno degli Stati Uniti alla NATO se l'Europa provasse a censurare X di Elon Musk, sicuramente lo stesso varrà per Facebook. E l'UE è fin troppo dipendente dagli Stati Uniti per essere in grado di organizzare una campagna efficace contro una qualsiasi delle piattaforme social americane. Il DSA, elaborato frettolosamente durante la pandemia, non solo giudica male la natura dei social media, ma anche il potere politico. Espone la debolezza dell'Europa agli occhi dell'America.

Questa non è solo una battaglia geopolitica, però, è anche una battaglia europea. Il tentativo di repressione rivela che c'è qualcosa che il blocco teme più della libertà di parola: il populismo. Gli eurodeputati hanno trovato abbastanza difficile digerire le brutali esplosioni di Nigel Farage quando era membro del Parlamento europeo. Ora hanno Musk che gli alita sul collo, sostenendo i candidati dell'AfD, un partito che siede all'estrema destra nei banchi del Parlamento europeo e che sostiene l'uscita della Germania dall'UE.

I media tedeschi hanno avuto un crollo collettivo quando Musk ha twittato il suo sostegno ad AfD, ha intervistato su X Alice Weidel, co-leader del partito, e poi l'ha sostenuta in un articolo sul Die Welt. Il direttore editoriale del quotidiano tedesco si è dimesso per protesta. E un articolo su un altro giornale ha descritto istericamente l'intervento di Musk come incostituzionale. Che i giornalisti sostengano la censura sembra scioccante, finché non si comprende il ruolo del giornalismo nella società dell'Europa continentale: opera saldamente all'interno di uno stretto consenso politico centrista, che abbraccia tutti i partiti dal centro-sinistra al centro-destra. Naturalmente AfD non ottiene molto spazio sui media tedeschi.

Ma mentre è marginalizzato dai media generalisti, AfD prospera su TikTok, dove ha un vasto seguito. Quindi ciò che irrita i media tedeschi e i politici di altri partiti è che il cartello della censura non funziona più bene come una volta. Negli Stati Uniti e nel Regno Unito i media generalisti, un tempo potenti, hanno già perso il loro potere. Hillary Clinton ha espresso tale frustrazione quando ha detto che i social media devono verificare i fatti, altrimenti “perdiamo il controllo”. Ma l'Europa vive ancora in una zona crepuscolare in cui i media generalisti si crogiolano nel tramonto del potere, cercando di ignorare i social media che sorgono all'altro orizzonte. Come tutte le moderne battaglie politiche in Europa, si tratta di proteggere interessi stabiliti.

Il caso rumeno dimostra come queste restrizioni alla libertà di parola siano le prime salve di una guerra di repressione più ampia. Le elezioni presidenziali sono state annullate perché un TikTok infestato dai russi aveva disinformato gli elettori. Sono sicuro che i russi fossero attivi, ma è scioccante pensare che un'elezione sia stata annullata perché qualcuno potrebbe aver mentito su TikTok.

Sia chiaro, nessuno ha parlato di brogli elettorali. Georgescu ha vinto il primo turno delle elezioni in modo leale e onesto, ma come con la ridicola pantomima a Bruxelles dopo il voto sulla Brexit, la presunzione di voler spingere per l'annullamento del risultato si basava sul fatto che gli elettori sono troppo stupidi per farsi un'idea propria. La ripetizione si terrà il 4 maggio, seguita da un ballottaggio tra il candidato di maggior successo due settimane dopo. Georgescu è ancora il candidato con più probabilità di vincere secondo i sondaggi di opinione, ma l'establishment politico rumeno è ancora determinato a trovare modi per radiarlo, il più promettente dei quali è la speranza che possa aver ricevuto fondi non dichiarati.

Esistono modelli simili anche altrove.

Marine Le Pen rischia la potenziale squalifica dalle elezioni presidenziali del 2027 a seguito di accuse di irregolarità riguardanti i suoi assistenti al Parlamento europeo. Più di recente Bruxelles è stata spaventata dalla vittoria in Austria del Partito della Libertà, il quale è riuscito a ottenere il 28,8% dei voti alle elezioni generali di settembre. Ha superato una soglia oltre la quale è diventato politicamente impossibile per gli altri partiti formare coalizioni. Herbert Kickl, il leader dell'FPÖ, ora diventerà il prossimo cancelliere dell'Austria. Nel frattempo, in Germania, un gruppo di 113 parlamentari si è unito per bandire AfD. La loro storia è che l'estrema destra vuole distruggere la democrazia. Mentre il partito non ha ancora sondaggi abbastanza alti da innervosire l'ennesima coalizione centrista a Berlino dopo le elezioni di questo mese, la Germania potrebbe essere a pochi punti percentuali di distanza da un'impasse in stile austriaco.

Di sicuro, però, l'approccio sensato all'ascesa dell'AfD, dell'FPÖ e di altri partiti di destra non è quello di censurarli, ma di affrontare il problema di fondo che li ha resi così forti: persistente incertezza economica, perdita di potere d'acquisto e politiche disfunzionali sull'immigrazione. In mancanza di ciò, perché non cooptare i partiti di estrema destra come partner di coalizione junior come hanno fatto in Svezia e Finlandia? Se la Weidel venisse improvvisamente spinta a ricoprire il ruolo di ministro dell'economia, potremmo saggiare se sarà in grado di difendere il suo curriculum al governo. Ma i partiti centristi in Germania e Francia non faranno né l'una, né l'altra cosa. Hanno eretto barriere politiche contro l'estrema destra e stanno raddoppiando la dose con le stesse vecchie linee di politica.

È un approccio che inevitabilmente si ritorcerà contro di loro. Una Le Pen bandita sarebbe molto più pericolosa per l'establishment centrista, e forse anche più estrema quando alla fine arriverà al potere. Allo stesso modo AfD verrebbe sicuramente radicalizzata dopo un'espulsione coatta.

Fino ad allora, le armi spuntate preferite dall'UE (divieti normativi, barriere politiche e censura) infliggeranno più autolesionismo che benefici. Nella gerarchia dei diritti democratici, la libertà di parola ha una priorità relativamente bassa in Europa. Come le creature nel libro La Fattoria degli animali di George Orwell, faccio fatica a individuare la differenza tra gli estremisti di destra e coloro che cercano di combatterli.

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

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

The post The Next Step — appeared first on LewRockwell.

The people of India suffered through a difficult December, caused by a sudden action of their government.

On 8 November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that as of midnight the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes would no longer be valid. As their replacement, the new 500 and 2,000 rupee note didn’t hit circulation until weeks later, it left people in a bind.

There’s a lesson to be learned here; and that is that our money isn’t safe.

The move was made in an effort to curb corruption, forcing both wealthy people who were keeping their assets in cash and criminals who avoid banks to either deposit their money or lose its value.

It’s germane to note that the government stands to make a tidy profit on this move, as people who have been avoiding paying their taxes will be easily caught when they make those deposits.

But in the mean time, it’s left people in a bind. While India is a much poorer country than the United States, with many people dealing only in cash, they are still an industrialized nation, with modern banking, including ATM machines. Just like the rest of the world, electronic money is replacing the paper kind in many places, so people were lined up at ATM machines, with the obvious result, as they tried to get what cash they could.

ATM machines can hold a lot of money; much more than they typically do. Even so, with the massive number of people who were trying to get their hands on cash, even a full ATM machine will run out of bills quickly.

And that’s exactly what happened in India, as ATM machine after ATM machine ran out of money and went out of service, leaving a line of people who had waited to withdraw money that was temporarily unavailable.

Even with all the consternation that the people of India were going through, trying to get their hands on funds to use in their daily lives, it was nothing more than a temporary inconvenience.

It was nothing like the problems faced by the citizens of Cyprus, when the government froze citizens’ assets and stole a percentage of them. Then, they limited how much people could withdraw, so that there wouldn’t be a run on the banks.

How Safe Is Our Money?

I’m saying it again: our money isn’t safe.

Money in the bank can be seized by the government. Money we keep at home can be made worthless at a moment’s notice by the government, canceling denominations, just like they did in India. Our accounts can be locked up and our access to our own money can be denied.

Then there’s the risk of the whole system collapsing. Most money today is electronic, rather than paper or coin. All it takes to make it disappear is erasing a number.

While there are many failsafes in place to protect our money, there are some things which are bigger than those failsafes. Whether they would impede our access to our money temporarily or permanently, any of them would make life more difficult.

Many people put their confidence in the money they have as their security. They figure that no matter what happens, they’ll always be able to buy what they need.

While that might work in normal times, what would those people do, if they couldn’t access their money? A financial crash, the ATM system going down, an EMP attack or a terrorist attack taking out the power grid could all make that happen. Those people would literally go from financially comfortable to financially broke in a moment’s time.

As a society, we have become largely dependent upon our modern conveniences. Unlike emerging countries, where the infrastructure is unreliable, we’ve learned that ours is… at least, most of the time. Since we expect it to be reliable, we live our lives as if it is, putting ourselves at risk.

This is the antithesis of being a prepper, as prepping is all about becoming self-sufficient. Yet I’ve even met preppers who have large bank accounts, filled with money to use on that proverbial rainy day. Yes, they stockpile supplies as well, but they also stockpile money; after all, the dollar is accepted around the world.

But what would happen if that rainy day shut down our financial system? What will those people do then?

What Is More Valuable Than Money?

The truth is, we can’t depend on any money that’s not in our hands, and we can’t even depend on that. As the Indian people just learned, the government that prints that money can declare it worthless at any time. So, what we need isn’t money, it’s something of universally understood value. That limits us considerably.

For most, that means investing in precious metals. Those are much more secure than any nation’s currency. Gold and silver transcend time, with a long history of being accepted as valuable currency in trade, going back even before written history.

But precious metals aren’t the only thing of value. I’ve said for quite some time that my favorite investment for the average person is non-perishable food. Not only doesn’t it lose value, but inflation is hitting food harder than many other things. Then, of course, you can eat it to keep alive in an emergency. In that sense, food is the ultimate investment.

I seriously doubt that if an EMP struck, you could buy much with good old greenbacks, even if you had them. Nobody would be accepting them, simply because they wouldn’t be sure that they could buy anything with them themselves.

Oh, you might be able to use those dollars for a few days, but all it would take is one person refusing to accept cash as a medium of exchange and the whole system would come crashing down.

Our financial system, like that around the world, is based upon the belief that money has value. As long as everyone believes that it has value, it does. But the moment people stop believing, the value of that money will plummet. For this reason, preppers tend to put their money into something of lasting value, like the gold, silver and food I just mentioned.

Do you Remember the Argentinian Crisis?

When cash loses its value, people turn to other means of exchange. Rather than accepting money in trade for goods, they want something that will be of value to them. So, they quickly go back to the barter system.

That’s what happened in the Argentinean economic collapse of 1998 to 2002. Groups of people even set up barter co-ops, so that they could trade things they had, for things they needed.

It wasn’t until the country had recovered from the financial collapse, four long years later, that people started trusting their nation’s money again. In the mean time, they did what they had to do, in order to stay alive. In many cases, that meant avoiding the government and the government’s money.

Read the Whole Article

The post The Day When the ATMs Dried Up – What Would This Crisis Do to America? appeared first on LewRockwell.

President Trump said a couple of weeks ago that he would impose punitive tariffs on Mexican and Canadian exports to the United States. The main reason for this was that these countries did not do enough to stop illegal immigrants from entering our country. But this problem can be handled by better border control. There is no need for tariffs, which hurt American consumers, as we will explain below. Fortunately, he has suspended putting these tariffs into effect for one month, but who knows what he will do after that? He has also imposed steep tariffs on Chinese exports, and these have not been suspended

President Trump is a strong believer in protective tariffs. He sees tariffs as a way to build up American industry. When Donald Trump imposed tariffs on foreign goods, promising to “bring back American jobs,” the political world buzzed with anticipation. Yet, as the economic consequences of these policies unfold, it becomes clear that Trump’s tariffs are no more than a misguided attempt to solve problems that the free market can handle on its own. Far from promoting prosperity, these tariffs represent a step backward, increasing costs for consumers, distorting markets, and expanding government power.

At its core, the logic of tariffs rests on the assumption that by taxing imports, the government can artificially boost domestic production. Trump’s rhetoric revolves around saving American jobs, particularly in industries like steel and aluminum. But this view fails to recognize the fundamental economic principle that tariffs hurt consumers and disrupt the natural flow of trade. When tariffs are imposed, they do not create wealth. They simply reallocate resources in a manner that benefits politically connected industries while harming the rest of the economy. Those same workers that the tariffs aim to help will end up paying higher prices for everyday goods, from electronics to food. The lower-income families—those that Trump claims to champion—will bear the brunt of these price hikes, undermining any supposed benefit from saving a few steel jobs.

Moreover, the idea that protectionist measures like tariffs lead to increased employment is a fallacy. In fact, they often result in net job losses. Tariffs disrupt the global supply chain and lead to inefficiencies that harm businesses across the board. American companies that rely on imported goods face higher input costs, which reduces their competitiveness and leads to layoffs or downsizing. By raising the price of steel and aluminum, Trump’s tariffs hurt American industries that use these materials, including manufacturing, construction, and automotive sectors. These jobs, which are crucial to the broader economy, could be at risk—not to mention the international trade disputes that often follow, further threatening American employment.

Another argument often made in favor of tariffs is the need to protect national security. Trump has used this excuse to justify tariffs on everything from Chinese electronics to European wine. But this claim is a thinly veiled attempt to justify protectionism under the guise of safeguarding American interests. National security should never be used as a pretext to interfere with free trade. In a truly free society, the market is the best mechanism for determining what goods are necessary for the country’s welfare. Governments that intervene based on vague notions of “security” risk distorting the economy for political gain, and Trump’s tariff policies are a prime example of this overreach.

What is truly disturbing about Trump’s tariff strategy, however, is the fundamental disregard for individual liberty and the free-market principles that should guide economic policy. By imposing tariffs, the government is directly intervening in private market decisions. Businesses should have the right to choose the best suppliers, and consumers should be free to purchase the goods they desire at the lowest price. Government interference in the form of tariffs violates the very essence of a free society, where individuals make decisions based on their own preferences and needs. Instead, Trump’s tariffs impose a bureaucratic barrier that limits choices and forces individuals to pay higher prices for inferior goods.

As the great nineteenth-century French economist Frederic Bastiat noted in a satirical article, tariffs are a “negative railroad”: “I have said that as long as one has regard, as unfortunately happens, only to the interest of the producer, it is impossible to avoid running counter to the general interest, since the producer, as such, demands nothing but the multiplication of obstacles, wants, and efforts.

I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeaux newspaper.

M. Simiot raises the following question:

Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from Paris to Spain?

He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, of which I propose to examine only this:

There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.

Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services are given priority over the interests of the consumers.

But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a negative railroad.

Whatever the protectionists may say, it is no less certain that the basic principle of restriction is the same as the basic principle of breaks in the tracks: the sacrifice of the consumer to the producer, of the end to the means.”

The ultimate irony of Trump’s tariff policies is that they are being sold as a defense of the American worker, while simultaneously undermining the very foundation of the free market. Tariffs only serve to entrench the state’s power over the economy, disrupt global trade, and harm the very people they are meant to protect. If Trump truly wanted to help American workers, he would recognize that the best way to do so is to eliminate barriers to trade, foster innovation, and allow the market to determine the most efficient allocation of resources. Only in a world free from the distortions of tariffs can prosperity flourish.

In the end, Trump’s tariff policies are a reflection of the broader problem of government intervention in the economy. They perpetuate the myth that the state can solve economic problems by imposing artificial barriers. But as history has shown time and again, protectionism leads to stagnation, inefficiency, and higher costs for everyone. The true path to a prosperous America lies not in tariffs and trade wars, but in embracing the principles of free trade, voluntary exchange, and individual liberty.

Let’s do everything we can to promote free trade, as the great Murray Rothbard has taught us.

The post Trump on Tariffs appeared first on LewRockwell.

The same year that Copernicus published his book asserting that the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system, a Belgian doctor named Andreas Vesalius published an illustrated anatomy textbook, On the Fabric of the Human Body, that would result in a paradigm shift in medicine as impactful as Copernicus’ was in cosmology. It was 1543, and the doctors of the time still held sacred the teachings of the ancient Roman physician Galen.

Galen himself had revolutionized the medical practice of his time, publishing more than 125 books detailing his knowledge based on his experience treating gladiators. What he lacked, however, was a complete understanding of human anatomy. Although Galen had completed numerous animal dissections, the Romans forbade human dissection.

The practice was still frowned upon in Vesalius’ time. What need was there to dissect human corpses when Galen described them in such perfect detail? When evidence from dissection clearly differed from what Galen described, it was the corpse before them and not Galen’s descriptions that were declared to be flawed. Vesalius proved the need for these dissections was great indeed: via his own study of human bodies, Vesalius discovered over 200 mistakes in Galen’s supposedly flawless texts.

Rather than correct their errant teachings, the doctors of Vesalius’ time rejected his work. They preferred to cling to medical dogma despite what was right in front of their eyes: contrary evidence that could be easily attained through simple dissection. Even Vesalius’ own mentor, Sylvius, published a book denouncing him as a “madman.” Although Vesalius’ work would eventually come to be recognized as among the top ten most important events in medical science, he did not live to see his work vindicated.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. undergoes the rigors of his Senate confirmation hearing, the parallels are undeniable. Headlines abound to discredit RFK, an outsider lacking the medical expertise to weigh in on topics like vaccine safety. Despite having repeatedly iterated that he is not anti-vax, RFK’s opponents insist on characterizing him as such.

Conspiracy theorists will say that this is propaganda designed to keep the powerful in power and suppress the truth about vaccines that are making our children sick. Pragmatists like Calley Means will insist that we follow the money; RFK’s call for further testing of the CDC vaccine schedule will almost certainly take its toll on Big Pharma’s bottom line. While both of these scenarios are possibilities, it is also plausible that something else is at play here, something even more basic to our humanity than our greed: the instinct to enforce social conformity.

The history of medicine could be written in terms of thinkers who refused to accept “settled science,” who dared to question and investigate, even when their communities insisted that they weren’t qualified to ask questions. Nearly every single one of medicine’s top ten developments faced scrutiny, mockery, and disbelief. The doctors, chemists, and laymen who made these discoveries were unilaterally forced to defend not only their discoveries but their personal character against scathing criticism from friends, colleagues, and the medical and scientific communities of their day.

While new treatments and methods should be rigorously tested and investigated, their discoverers should not be demonized. Will we ever learn that silencing dissent over so-called “settled science” never serves science—or humanity—well?

Questioning Medical Dogma

As Vesalius’ discoveries in human anatomy were transforming medical practice in Europe, a French barber-surgeon named Ambroise Paré was experimenting with new surgical methods on French battlefields. In Paré’s day, there were no anesthetics. A surgeon’s skill was judged by his speed. Surgeons would amputate limbs that could not be saved and cauterize them with a hot iron as swiftly as possible. Soldiers often survived amputation only to die of shock from the sheer pain of the hot iron. Paré theorized that delicate silk threads might be used to tie off blood vessels.

It would be years before Paré’s discovery could be published and widely disseminated. Parisian surgeons discouraged other doctors and barber-surgeons from attempting Paré’s novel methods and fought publication of his book on legal grounds. He was not a doctor, and his book offered practical tips in plain language rather than repeating the accepted methods of the day. Though he would never receive a medical degree, Paré would go on to be named “First Surgeon of the King” in 1562.

In the early 1600s, English doctor William Harvey published On the Motion of the Heart and Blood, detailing his discovery of the circulatory nature of blood pumped by the human heart. He, too, was ridiculed as “crack brained” and would only be vindicated four years after his death with the invention of the microscope by Marcello Malpighi in 1661. Though Harvey could not explain how, he had posited that blood must flow from the arteries to the veins to make its way back to the heart. The microscope allowed doctors to see these tiny blood vessels, which would come to be named capillaries, connecting the arteries and veins.

In 1677, self-taught Dutch scientists Antonie van Leeuwenhoek constructed microscopes as a hobby in the back room of his dry goods store. He wrote to the Royal Society of England detailing his discovery of millions of tiny animals made visible only through the lenses of his microscopes. Years would pass before the Society would accept his discovery. When Leeuwenhoek was finally accepted as a member, his neighbors denounced him for wasting time on silly hobbies while sickness plagued the community. It would be 200 years before his discovery would uncover the cause of the bubonic plague.

The history of medical discoveries continues much in this same vein. Discoveries are sheer madness—until they aren’t. William Morton was openly mocked at his demonstration of the first painless surgery using ether gas. Surgeon Philip Semmelweis was demoted for insisting that his trainee doctors wash their hands to prevent the spread of childbed fever. When lowly chemist Louis Pasteur observed microbes as the cause of disease in silkworms and suggested that they might likewise be the cause of human disease, the doctors of his day called Pasteur a “quack.” Joseph Lister insisted on sterilizing bandages, a practice that the Munich hospital declared a “waste of money”—until their patient death rates went from four in five to one in 200.

Cautious Adoption

It goes the other way, too. António Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize for the lobotomy in 1949, a procedure that rose in popularity almost as quickly as it was discovered to be barbaric—not simply ineffective but actively harmful. I believe we are on the verge of a similar reversal in popularity of gender transition surgeries as more detransitioners come forward sharing their stories of mangled bodies, stolen fertility, and coerced consent.

But this is precisely the point: when adopting “revolutionary” medicine, when we fail to do so cautiously, we proceed at our own peril. This was the case with the x-ray. When Wilhem Conrad Röntgen received the Nobel Prize for the x-ray in 1901, thinkers like Thomas Edison urged caution regarding the widespread implementation of their use. In the early days, x-rays were used even for amusement in carnival funhouses. This lack of caution led to many needlessly suffering radiation burns.

When the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1945 for penicillin, doctors believed for at least a decade that they were seeing the advent of a cure for all diseases. Now we know that antibiotics have a more complicated story: in addition to saving lives, their overuse produces resistant strains that limit their effectiveness; and when they eliminate pathogens, they also indiscriminately kill the good bacteria our bodies need to function properly.

Reasonable Doubt

Despite media insistence that vaccine safety is “settled science,” public doubt persists. Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admissions to the public prove that voices have been suppressed. When RFK calls for caution and further safety testing of the CDC schedule of vaccines, he is called a madman and a danger to public health. Why should it be controversial when President Trump announces that particular vaccines should be eliminated “if they’re dangerous for the children”?

If vaccine proponents are so certain about the safety of the products, what do they have to fear from further scrutiny? However satisfied proponents might be with the conclusions of previous studies, these haven’t been enough to satisfy naysayers nor to sway public opinion. In fact, a new study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that American support for compulsory childhood vaccinations is dwindling, and opposition is growing. Sidelining and demonizing opposing opinion is unlikely to facilitate trust or ensure compliance.

It would be foolish to abolish vaccines or claim they do no good. As the history of medicine shows us, it is likewise foolish to assume that the full CDC schedule of vaccines can be adopted and any number of future vaccines safely added. Safety in medicine should never be assumed but always rigorously tested. Without such testing, we cannot claim that there is evidence for the safety of the CDC schedule in its entirety.

Double-blind placebo-controlled trials have not yet been conducted to assess the safety of the full schedule because such studies are ethically complex. The general consensus is that it is unethical to randomly assign some children to receive protection from disease via vaccines and to withhold that protection from others.

These ethical difficulties do not excuse the medical and scientific communities from establishing the safety of the full CDC schedule of vaccines. If it isn’t ethical to properly study the safety of the schedule, how can it be ethical to require an entire generation of children (as states like California do) to treatments that are untested in their full implementation and, therefore, the safety of which cannot be conclusively evaluated?

Can we not agree that Americans should have the right to ask these questions and advocate for these studies without being vilified? 

Read the Whole Article

The post RFK and the Silencing of Debate appeared first on LewRockwell.

At the annual Property and Freedom conference in September 2024, Hans-Hermann Hoppe criticized Argentinian President Javier Milei. Hoppe’s critique is, in summary, that Milei compromised on principle in pursuing his goals, and that he is more like a Reagan or Thatcher than a radical libertarian. Milei responded in an interview in December, but surprisingly, he only engaged one of Hoppe’s points at any length. Hoppe had said Milei should have closed the central bank on day one, Milei responded that this would have created hyperinflation. Milei’s counterargument, like Hoppe’s initial critique, is a matter of pure theory rather than practical politics: is a central bank needed to ensure the value of fiat money?

Milei’s Bad Arguments

How would closing the central bank lead to hyperinflation, according to Milei? The argument is pretty straight-forward: the pesos in circulation in Argentina are a liability of the central bank—like all fiat money in the modern world—so if you close the central bank, they lose their value, as there is no longer any institution that promises to back or redeem the liabilities. This is no different from what happens with the liabilities of other companies and institutions.

This argument must be seen in connection with a second point, which Milei hinted at: the last period problem. A fiat money only has value to an individual because others are willing to accept it in exchange. Now, at the end of time, there will no longer be anyone left or willing to exchange. That means that, in the period just before that, no one would be willing to accept fiat money, since they knew they wouldn’t be able to spend it, and the same would then be the case in the period just before that period. And so, in a logical process of backwards-induction, we come to the conclusion that a fiat money cannot have any value today, since it would not have any value at the end of time.

If the last period problem destroys the value of fiat money, the central bank or some other institution is needed to provide some positive value to money. Yet how does it do this if there is no redemption of money into something else? The answer is what is called the asset-backing theory of money. Backing theorists assert that money is in fact backed by and redeemable into something—the obligation to pay taxes in standard money, or the loans and bonds on the balance sheet of the central bank. This is no different today than on the gold standard, except that, on the gold standard, redemption in gold was a third possibility.

Thus, the Spanish economist Juan Ramón Rallo in his defense of Milei argues that the central bank is crucial for the supply of money and that the assets that it holds determine the value of the currency it issues. What makes the peso a bad, inflationary money is the quality of the assets backing it, not the rate of inflation, and removing all backing from the peso—the consequence of abolishing the central bank—would drive the value of the peso to zero, resulting in a hyperinflation, as Milei stated. While the asset-backing theory of money is not widely known, it has a long pedigree. Its modern formulation stems primarily from the economists Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace, but it is really just a modern version of the old real bills doctrine. It is thus no surprise that Rallo, a key defender and seeming influence of Milei, is known for his support of the real bills doctrine.

How Money Really Works

Javier Milei and his defender Juan Rallo argue against key tenets of the Austrian School in the realm of monetary theory, not only against positions unique to Hoppe. For while modern free bankers have some affinity for the real bills doctrine, Mises and his followers were and are committed to the tenets of the currency school and the quantity theory, rightly understood. But are Milei’s arguments successful?

The Final Period Problem

Let us take the final period problem first. If, at some point in the endless future, there are no more exchanges, and thus, no more demand for money, does this have any relevance for the value of money today? Backward induction from the endless future implies that a pure fiat money would today have no value. While the argument is logical as far as it goes, it overlooks a crucial point: time preference and discounting.

Expected future costs and benefits are discounted to the present when a person acts. The future costs of a given action may exceed the present benefits, but a person may nevertheless still undertake it, since what matters is the discounted cost in the present. Similarly, in the case of money, it might be true that fiat money is worthless in the far future, but this must be discounted to the present. In fact, the end of time is probably outside most people’s planning horizon and would never enter into their deliberations before acting. What matters when evaluating one’s cash holding is the expected value of money in the immediate future, not speculations about the end of time. So there is no difficulty in fiat money being valuable.

While the final period problem is formulated in relation to fiat money, it would also affect other kinds of money. A commodity money such as gold is valued partly for its industrial and consumptive uses, partly for its use as money. Yet gold, too, would have no monetary use at the end of time, so it could not in the present have any monetary value. That is, people would only value gold for its non-monetary uses. Is it really a reasonable conclusion that only demand from industry and jewellers determined the value of gold on the gold standard? Yet this is the conclusion we are forced to if we accept the final period problem.

More generally, the problem only exists in the reified world of mathematical economics, where you model time as a spatial dimension. An objective fact at the end of the timeline is, in this world, just as real as an objective fact at the beginning. But this is not the case. As a philosophical point, it must be stressed that the future does not exist—only the present exists. And, in economics, what matters is not what may objectively come to pass in the future, but present expectations about what may come to pass and present subjective valuations of expected future outcomes.

The Central Bank and Backing Theory

As the final period problem is not a real problem, we don’t need an alternative theory of the value of money. However, what merit does the proposed backing theory have? Not a lot, as it turns out.

Money is, first of all, in no real sense, a liability of the central bank. You do not have an enforceable claim against the American central bank or government if you hold a dollar, nor does an euro note grant you a claim against the ECB, and so on. That dollars are recorded as a liability on the balance sheet of the Fed is a vestige of the gold standard, when the Fed really was liable to redeem Federal Reserve notes in gold. The same holds true for other central banks. It is simply an accounting fiction that helps the central bank keep track of its issue, nothing more.

What then about the assets of the central bank backing its currency? Is it not possible to redeem money into the bonds and other assets it holds? Well, no. The public has no better access to assets on the central bank balance sheet than it does to the market where said assets are traded. The only connection between the assets of the central bank and the currency it has issued is historical: its money entered circulation initially through purchase of its current assets. There is no current tie between assets and liabilities, as backing would require. The value of fiat money is completely independent of the value of central-bank assets, since there is no way to turn your money into these assets except by buying them. If that is backing, then money is backed by any service or commodity offered in exchange. Yet it does not sound quite as convincing if you argue that the value of money is backed by tinned tuna and dentistry.

The backing theory is, as mentioned, a version of the real bills doctrine, which has again and again been dissected and refuted by Austrian and other economists, most recently by Philipp Bagus. According to the real bills doctrine, a bank can safely expand its circulation and increase the money supply without causing inflation, if it does so on the security of short-term real bills (i.e., bills originating in real economic activity). So long as a bank or central bank acts in this way, it cannot issue more money than is needed. It is from this thesis that backing theorists—quite logically, it is true—conclude that the value of the money in circulation depends on the assets “backing” it. Yet the real bills doctrine fails, since it does not see that the value of bills is not independent of bank action. If banks lower their discount rates, more bills will be presented for discounting (and the same bill multiple times) and the nominal value of bills will increase.

Closing the Central Bank

What would then really happen if Milei followed Hoppe’s advice and closed the central bank? We can dismiss his own scenario of hyperinflation, as it is the product of wrong-headed theories. Rather, the opposite would likely occur—the peso would appreciate greatly in value, to the benefit of holders of Argentinian money.

The value of the peso is, as we have established, independent of the assets of the Argentinian central bank, but this does not mean that the central bank has no influence. It is the monopoly producer of pesos, and its existence is thus a guarantee for inflation. By shutting down the central bank, the Argentinian government would give a guarantee that, at least in the short term, there would be no increase in the supply of pesos. The stock of pesos would become fixed, which would greatly increase the quality of the peso as a money. Demand for pesos would therefore likely rise, leading to further appreciation.

For the Argentinian government, this would also mean a substantial financial benefit. Insofar as its debt is denominated in dollars, an appreciating peso would lighten the debt burden, as fewer pesos would be needed to pay back the debt (of course, the principled policy would be debt repudiation).

Closing the central bank is thus an ideal short-term policy. It is also superior to dollarization, as I’ve argued previously. Yet sadly, Milei is beholden to false theories and blind to this opportunity.

Conclusion

Javier Milei has repeatedly claimed to be inspired by Rothbard and Hoppe and to have read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises multiple times. Apparently, he did not read what Mises had to write on the subject of money, or he was unable to comprehend it. He will, therefore, waste his opportunity to bring monetary freedom to Argentina.

This, of course, does not mean that he is not a vast improvement on the alternative candidates in Argentina—a point that Hoppe also made. But Milei is no Austrian, and that he resorted to name-calling and quack theories in response to Hoppe’s calm critique suggests that he is not much of an economist either.

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

The post Hoppe Versus Milei on Central Banking: Breaking Down the Differences appeared first on LewRockwell.

One might need to go back to the administration of Grover Cleveland to find a U.S. president who understood, revered and sincerely attempted to honor his oath to the U.S. Constitution. For sure and for certain, America has been under an imperial presidency for the entirety of the 21st century—and that includes 2025 under the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

It’s really hard to fathom the utter ignorance of the Constitution, the utter bankruptcy of honesty and fidelity, the depth of moral depravity, the profound indifference to international law, the extreme callousness to the heritage, homes and hearts of people in other lands and the complete abdication of America’s sovereignty and national interests to an alien power—namely, Israel—that we saw demonstrated in the presidential administration of Joe Biden and are now seeing in the presidential administration of Donald Trump.

The very first foreign head of state that Trump invited to the White House was Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And what came out of that meeting is something out of The Twilight Zone.

Netanyahu is without a doubt the world’s most notorious war criminal and mass murderer—bar none! Instead of putting him in a limousine and driving him to the White House, he should have been met by law enforcement personnel, put in shackles and immediately put on a plane to The Hague to stand trial for International War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide.

Many of us had hoped that perhaps Trump brought The Monster of the Middle East to Washington to set him down and tell him in no uncertain terms that the White House was no longer Israel’s puppet. Our hopes were dashed. It is business as usual at the Oval Office.

The announcement Trump made in a sit-down next to Netanyahu with reporters is beyond indescribable in its iniquity. I am on record as saying, it is my belief that Benjamin Netanyahu is a demon-possessed madman. I also believe that there are many politicians in D.C.—from both parties—who are demon possessed. And after Tuesday’s announcement by Trump, I question who owns the soul of this man.

There is no doubt that Herod the Great was a much greater tool in the hands of Satan than the maniac of Gadara. People in positions of power are the Evil One’s greatest assets, as their positions magnify their maliciousness.

From Zero Hedge:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was all smiles as he visited the White House and met with President Trump in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon, especially given Trump said many things in terms of the future of Gaza that the Israeli leader would welcome.

Trump in an exchange with reporters while sitting next to ‘Bibi’ continued pressing the idea that Palestinians should be relocated out of Gaza. “There’s hardly a building standing, and the ones that are are going to collapse. You can’t live in Gaza right now. And I think we need another location,” Trump said, echoing prior comments.

Trump stoked further controversy by claiming Palestinians would “love to leave” Gaza – comments which have already been condemned by many pundits as tantamount to an ethnic cleansing campaign. Arab leaders too have blasted any plan which would see a mass exodus or removal of Palestinians to neighboring countries.

“ Who would want to go back?” Trump posited during the sit-down with Netanyahu. Indeed the place has been leveled, but as the ceasefire has held there’s been evidence of a mass return of tens of thousands of Palestinians to their largely destroyed communities in the northern Gaza Strip.

“It would be my hope that we could do something really nice where they would not want to return,” Trump reasoned, despite the current Israel-Hamas truce calling for future reconstruction of the Strip.

“It doesn’t have to be one area, but you take certain areas and you build really good quality housing, like a beautiful town, like someplace where they can live and not die,” Trump said.

“The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too,” Mr. Trump said.

“We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings — level it out. Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area. Do a real job. Do something different.”

“Just can’t go back,” he continued. “If you go back, it’s gonna end up the same way it has for a hundred years.” —CBS [Emphases in the original]

From Al Jazeera:

United States President Donald Trump has said the US will “take over” and “own” Gaza after resettling Palestinians elsewhere under an extraordinary redevelopment plan that he claimed could turn the enclave into “the Riviera of the Middle East”.

“The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it,” Trump said at the White House after talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In his announcement, Trump suggested the US would take a “long-term ownership position” over the enclave.

“This was not a decision made lightly. Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs with something that will be magnificent,” he said.

Asked if US soldiers could be sent to Gaza to maintain security, Trump said it was a possibility.

“As far as Gaza is concerned, we’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that,” he said.

Trump is now providing more evidence for what I wrote in this column last week:

Trump is saying it out loud: He intends to displace the remaining Palestinian people in Gaza to the U.S. puppet states of Egypt and Jordan and depopulate Gaza of the Palestinians.

“We just clean out that whole thing [Gaza].”

Trump has now revealed to the whole world—including the Palestinians he lied to in Michigan to obtain their vote—that he is a racist and supports Israel’s ethnic cleansing.

This is also part of Trump’s deal with the Israeli government and Mossad asset, billionaire Miriam Adelson, for the hundred million dollars they put into Trump’s election campaign.

Can we expect to see a new Trump Tower in Gaza? If Trump has his way, Yes.

The Zionists put Biden in office to do the dirty work of helping Israel commit genocide against the Gazan people and completely destroying the infrastructure, making Gaza unlivable.

Now the Zionists have put Trump in office to do the work of moving the remaining Palestinians to U.S. puppet countries (Jordan and Egypt) in order to allow the U.S. and Israel to develop the beachfront property of Gaza on the Mediterranean Sea and seize the oil, natural gas and minerals that exist there—and to also help Israel seize the land in the West Bank.

USMC General Smedley Butler was right: “War is a racket.”

By what constitutional, lawful, moral or ethical authority does Trump declare to the world that he is going to take over, subjugate and own the people and land of a foreign territory? You know the answer: There is no such authority.

Trump is as lawless as Biden.

This is raw imperialism and naked Empire. This is the crime of using power for profit. It reeks of rot and corruption.

The only way Trump can accomplish his pernicious plans is to use the brute force of the U.S. military. So, will America’s generals and admirals allow themselves to be used as the slavish instruments of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s power-lust and greed and issue orders to commit such crimes?

I ask that question, because the only way you will displace the Palestinians from their ancestral homeland is with bombs and bullets, which Trump said he is prepared to do.

No! Palestine is NOT the ancestral homeland of Ashkenazi Jews Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, et al. Their ancestral homeland is Eastern Europe—Ukraine to be specific (which is why they are identified as Ashkenazi Jews). The Palestinians can trace their ancestry in Palestine for over one thousand years. Israeli sycophant ex-preacher/politician and now U.S. Ambassador to Israel (actually, he’s Israel’s pitchman in Washington), Mike Huckabee, is dead wrong when he absurdly spouts that Israel’s homeland goes back 3,500 years. No, it doesn’t!

The Assyrians destroyed Israel in 722 BC; the Babylonians destroyed Judah in 587 BC; and the Romans destroyed the Jewish remnant in 70 AD. And God has NOT given the land of Palestine to the Jews in perpetuity. I urge readers to watch my message God’s Chosen People, in which I delve deeply into this subject.

Truly, the emperor Donald Trump has no clothes. Tell me how Trump’s proclamation differs from those of the Caesars.

Trump’s invasion of Gaza would produce revolt, violence, war and bloodshed across Palestine and the Arab world—and perhaps across the whole world.

And while Trump is busy committing ethnic cleansing in Palestine to build his Riviera of the Middle East, he wants to take over Greenland (which is the sovereign territory of Denmark)—by force if necessary; and he wants to annex Canada, making it America’s 51st state.

It appears that Trump is too stupid to realize that if such a thing happened with Canada, the Republican Party would never again have a majority in either chamber of the U.S. Congress, as Canada’s politics are mostly dominated by socialist liberals. Does anyone inside the GOP have the political acumen and internal courage to tell Trump just how idiotic his notions are? Probably not.

So, the American servicemen who are about to be ordered to fight and die invading Gaza to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people and the opposition forces who will fight and die resisting such tyranny can all chant in unison to Emperor Trump:

“Hail Caesar! We who are about to die salute you.”

Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live.

The post ‘Hail Caesar! We Who Are About To Die Salute You’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Canadians are among the world’s calmest, most polite, and gracious people.  They are also, in my experience, peaceful, honest and modest. You never see them angry – except for now.

Donald Trump, with his absurd megalomaniac claims to Greenland, Canada, Panama and now Gaza, has managed to do what no one else has done.  He has made the United States hated across Canada, even in usually pro-American Alberta.

Trump has looked at foreign affairs in the same way he viewed leasing store locations, as a simple straightforward business function, like renting property in New York City.  Fury over his Mussolini-like claims to Canadian land will eventually abate but the damage has been done.

What the newly reminted president fails to understand is that what holds together the American empire is trade and access to the giant US market.  Japan and Germany were rebuilt after World War II thanks to America’s wise, generous trade policies after the end of WWII.

I well recall when superb Japanese electronics and superior German cars appeared in US and then European markets.  Everyone benefitted by this new trade.  Postwar Japan and Germany were rebuilt thanks to their access to America’s market.  Complaints about trade imbalances and German or Japanese surpluses were brushed aside as essential to building strong allies that would become a bulwark against Soviet expansionism.

In fact, joining America’s ‘greater co-prosperity sphere’ was seen as a huge benefit across war-battered Europe and Asia.  Trade imbalances with new allies were seen in Washington just as they were regarded by Imperial Britain in the 19th Century, ‘a cost of empire.’ Access to the vast American market is seen today as the glue that holds the empire together.

Canadians would love to pay lower US taxes, and benefit from America’s much better health system. Large numbers of Canadians are already residents in sunny Florida.  Miami even has a French-language newspaper for Quebecois refugees from Canada’s fierce winter.

Canadians love Florida, but they love dear old Canada even more. Maybe Trump the Master Builder would be willing to trade Florida to Canada for oil-rich Alberta?

Seriously, most Americans don’t understand how fragile Canada is as a nation. Canada’s territory is vast, even larger than the US, though much of its lies in extreme cold.  West Coast Canadians with strong links to Asia don’t have much in common with French-speaking Quebeckers or Maritime fisherfolk. One of the word’s largest boreal forests extends from Canada’s east up to the beautiful Pacific northwest.

Canada has always been a collection of inward-looking regions. Its 40.1 million people often have little in common. East coasters resent the west; the west looks down on Eastern Canada. In the leading province, Ontario, the third most spoken languages are Hindi and Cantonese.  Strange religious sects dot the West.

Throughout its history, Canada has been overshadowed and sometimes menaced by a much more powerful United States.  Its easy-going, liberal ways have outraged right-wing Republicans.  One remembers former US President Lyndon Johnson picking up a Canadian prime minister and calling him rude names.  Belgium often suffers the same bullying treatment from France who rudely dismiss the Belgians as ‘les petits Belges.’

Trump’s threats against Canada have outraged one of America’s most important military and trade allies. And for what purpose? To make Trump feel powerful and virile.

Remember when Chancellor Adolf Hitler proclaimed ‘anschluss’ (reunion) with neighboring Austria? Many Austrians were delighted at the time, unlike today’s not happy Canadians.

The post Hostile Takeover of Canada appeared first on LewRockwell.

The basic blind spot in people who register as Democrats is a total ignorance of human nature.
They blindly trust what they’re told by authority, giving no weight to the temptations of corruption that arrive with power.
Democrats take mainstream media and authority at face value and never account for the possibility of lies, bias, theft, bribery, blackmail, collusion and treason.
Democrats believe if they just give leaders more money, they will solve all problems.

Their selection for president, Joe Biden, has been proven to have suffered from dementia.
His aides admitted it and were actually using him as a sock-puppet to do whatever they told him to do.
These aides were only following orders from other nefarious people in the worldwide cabal that answers directly to the devil.

Democrats were fooled by all this, Democrats enabled all this, and they did it very loudly, shrilly and harshly against people who knew better, trying to warn them and educate them.

If you are a Democrat, you owe everyone an apology.
You owe yourself lots of self-introspection.
You were a horrible citizen and a loud and ignorant human being.

Your behavior during Covid was especially vile because your words and actions actually enabled the injury and death of millions of people by the bioweapon injections.
These injections never stopped transmission, never reduced symptoms or hospitalization and never prevented death.
They CAUSED death, with deaths in working-age people increasing 40% more than normal.
Heinous injuries and disabilities increased just as much.
This is why there are employee shortages everywhere.

In a rational world, there would be NO Democrats.
As Clint Eastwood said, “If you could reason with a Democrat, there would be no Democrats.”

The federal government is now being opened up for examination.
The USAID has been revealed as a slush fund for the CIA and Democrats.
The money paid tens of millions to 6,200 “journalists” at 707 different media outlets that broadcast government and Democrat talking points.
Their talking points were promoted because they are the most ridiculous and damaging to society.
The money funded the overthrow of America and President Trump.
The money funded election theft.
The money funded terrorism, border invasion and child trafficking.
The money funded criminal activity, started wars, overthrew countries, divided the USA, destroyed America and is the very definition of treason, which has a penalty of death.
This money came from American taxpayers.

Democrats, through their ignorant and loud support, enabled all of this because they were fooled by cabal-owned, mainstream media.
Their information was fake propaganda so Democrats’ conclusions of truth were wrong.
This is proven by the MILLIONS in payments from USAID that went to Reuters, Associated Press, The New York Times, the BBC, The Financial Times and Politico.
It’s certain more big names will be revealed in time.

Democrats must now face the fact that their entire worldview on everything is false.
They built their political beliefs on lies that were presented as truth.
They were massively fooled.
Most people can’t handle such mental disruption.
Most Democrats will refuse to believe the horrifying truths exposed by the nefarious payments made by USAID.

I know some Democrats who are otherwise fine people.
They have good hearts.
They want the best for the world.
But to identify and register as a Democrat, proves their minds are addled. Stunted. Retarded.
Because they never questioned mainstream media or authority.
They never researched other sources.
They were fooled.
They ARE fools.
They blindly trusted the devilish people who have taken over our media, government and leadership institutions.

If you are STILL a Democrat after all that has been revealed, you are a danger to your community and this nation.
You deserve to be shunned in matters of politics and health.

Republican leaders are no angels either.
They too are massively corrupt.
And what I say about Democrats blindly trusting media and authority can apply to Independents and Republicans too.
It’s one big devilish cabal at the top.

Independent and Republican citizens just see more of the truth and understand the weaknesses of human nature.
They were right, but the Democrats refused to listen.

Government has been corrupted at all levels since the founding of the USA.
The founders knew the weaknesses of human nature and corruption of power.
This is why they only delegated 17 authorities to the federal government and no more.
The federal government now claims hundreds they are not lawfully entitled to.

This is why the founders wanted an extremely small and under-funded government.
The more money we send them, the more trouble they cause.
The more authority they’re given, the more tyranny they cause.

Start your reeducation by reading the US Constitution which includes the bill of rights.
It only takes about an hour.
Now you’ll know the rule book that government MUST obey.
And you’ll learn your rights that they can NEVER reduce, restrict or take away, for ANY reason.

Read your state constitution too.
It only takes another hour.

Now you’ll see massive corruption and tyranny in ALL levels of government.
People are corruptible.
Easily corruptible.
So you sure as shit don’t want to ever live under the thumb of any of them.

This controlled demolition of the corrupt federal government is glorious to watch.
It is so satisfying to watch criminal leaders get exposed and ignorant citizens shocked.
I want to live in a world that rewards good and punishes evil.
I want to live in a world where people can see the difference.

But don’t blindly trust Trump either.
He can easily lead us right into the clutches of one-world-government tyranny too.
He’s created massive amounts of chaos.
And the biggest crimes, corruption and tomfoolery occur during chaos.

Earth is the biggest learning facility in the universe.
Experience teaches a hundred times deeper than books.
Those of us who are aware, have learned much.

Those who have learned little, are Democrats.
But life is going to force them to catch up right now.

Legal Disclaimer

This originally appeared on MikeLeeJohnson.com.

The post Democrats Wrong, Must Apologize appeared first on LewRockwell.

Many people will have heard of the French Resistance, the name given to the various underground organizations that fought against the Nazis during the German occupation of France in World War II. Few, however, will be aware of another “French Resistance,” a century and a half earlier, in which around 170,000 people died. This was the Vendée Uprising of 1793.

The rising of the peasants and people of the Vendée region in the west of France came amid the Reign of Terror which followed the proto-communist and anti-Christian French Revolution of 1789. The tyranny instituted by the revolutionaries had intensified with the September Massacres in 1792, a slaughter of the innocents instigated by Georges Danton, the Revolution’s Minister of Justice. In a speech, Danton sentenced all enemies of the Revolution to death: “We ask that anyone refusing to give personal service [to the Revolution] or to furnish arms shall be punished with death.”

Within a couple of hours of Danton’s speech, the massacres began. Within two days, more than a thousand people were killed. Several hundred more would die in the following two days. The victims included women and children and around 250 priests. Such was the “justice” ministered by the Revolution’s Minister of Justice. Such was the madness of Paris. Three hundred miles to the west, the Catholic people of the Vendée, aware of the horrors being unleashed by the stormtroopers of the Revolution, prepared to respond courageously to the threat to their Faith and their way of life.

One example of the fidelity of these country folk was given in The Guillotine and the Cross, a history of the French Revolution and its aftermath by Warren H. Carroll, who is himself an unsung hero of Christendom not merely for his important work as a historian but as the founder and first president of Christendom College, one of the first of the new wave of faithful colleges established in the 1970s to resist the rising tide of modernism in Catholic education. Dr. Carroll recounts the inspiring story of the people of the village of Saint-Hilaire-de-Mortagne and their peaceful but resilient resistance to the decrees of the Revolution.

Before their priest was exiled for refusing to take the required oath of fidelity to the Revolution, he had told them that he would continue to offer Mass at the same scheduled time every Sunday for his flock, even though he could not be with them in person. At the last Mass he would be permitted to celebrate in the village, he told them:

My brothers, I am going to leave you; but, wherever I go, my heart will be with you and I will pray for you. Each Sunday, so long as I am able, I will say Mass, at this same hour, for you. Join with it in your intentions and your prayer.

Dr. Carroll takes up the story:

Thenceforth, every Sunday, the faithful of Saint-Hilaire-de-Mortagne parish would meet at ten o’clock for the “invisible Mass.” When the parish church was closed and locked against them, they went instead to the cemetery at this same hour. Asked by government men what they were doing, the peasant Lumineau answered for them: “We are at Mass. Our priest promised us when he left that he would say Mass for us, each Sunday, wherever he was.” “Imbeciles!” they were mocked. “Your priest is a hundred leagues from here, and you think you are assisting at Mass?” “Prayer,” Lumineau responded gently, “goes more than a hundred leagues; it ascends from earth to Heaven!” 

Such peaceful protest and such a gentle response would be no longer possible once the secularist regime tried to enforce compulsory conscription into the revolutionary army. Not only were Catholics being killed by the Revolution, they were now being forced to kill for it.

On March 12, 1793, a delegation of government officials arrived in the small town of Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, on the banks of the River Loire, protected by National Guardsman, to forcibly enlist the townsman into the army. The selection of conscripts would be made by the drawing of lots. This was the final straw for the enraged people of the Vendée. Two thousand peasants gathered in the town square, armed with shotguns, clubs, pitchforks, and swords made from scythe blades.

According to Dr. Carroll, “they were led by a carpenter, a carter, a tailor, and a barrel-maker, and their sons.” As the first lot was drawn, a shot was fired from the crowd, killing one of the government officials. The National Guardsmen responded by firing indiscriminately at the people, killing four and wounding forty. Far from scattering in panic, the enraged peasants attacked the Revolutionary Guards. “Vive le roi!” and “Vive les bons prêtres!” were the battle cries. “Long live the king!” and “Long live the good priests!” The great Vendée uprising had begun.

Within days, the people of the Vendée had united against the common foe. The local Catholic nobility joined the fray, fighting alongside the peasants and townsfolk. Forming what became known as the Catholic and Royal Army, the insurgents won a string of victories in the spring and summer of 1793, wresting control of the region from the repressive revolutionaries.

Inevitably, however, the hydra-headed hegemon in Paris responded with overwhelming force. A revolutionary army of almost 150,000 well-armed troops was sent against the 80,000 poorly armed Vendeans. Outnumbered and outgunned, the heroic peasantry and people of the Vendée finally succumbed in battle. Around 30,000 revolutionary troops were killed in the uprising and at least as many members of the Catholic and Royal Army.

Read the Whole Article

The post Heroes of the Vendée appeared first on LewRockwell.

Over the last year and a half, I’ve been doing all that I can to push RFK Jr.’s candidacy along. This was essentially because:

• From both mutual friends who know him personally and my own interactions with him, I know that RFK Jr. is sincerely dedicated to advancing the issues I believe are important and hence unlikely to sell-out to the pharmaceutical industry (whereas the majority of politicians who campaign on populist issues inevitably do so once they are in a position where they can threaten the system).

• A variety of extremely unusual political factors (I described in detail here) coalesced to make what RFK Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again movement were doing suddenly possible—while in contrast, for decades, anything like what we’re witnessing now had simply been impossible (and due to the rapid proliferation global censorship from COVID-19, rapidly becoming increasingly impossible).

• A very small window existed to make the critical changes in medicine we needed, and I felt it was quite likely that this window would close, and if that happened, it would be a long time before a similar opportunity presented itself. Since the abuses of the medical industry keep on increasing, that meant if this window was missed, a lot of people would be severely harmed before the next opportunity to fix things emerged (assuming it even did).

Fortunately, a few miracles happened over the last week, and it appears that RFK Jr. is on his way to becoming the Secretary of Health and Human Services (H.H.S.). From watching that process unfold, I realized there were a few critical points that need be understood as we move forward into the next stage of healing America’s health.

Note: the Secretary of H.H.S. is typically considered to be one of the most important cabinet positions, as in addition to overseeing roughly a quarter of the Federal budget, roughly half of our health related laws have provisions that leave their implementation to the discretion of the Secretary of H.H.S. This is a major reason why the healthcare lobby (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and insurance companies) is considered to be the most powerful lobby in Washington and why so much was invested into stopping RFK’s nomination.

Manipulating the Public

When I was in middle school (due to the boys around me entering puberty) I quickly became acutely aware of the common tricks children would use to manipulate others to get what they want, and before long, noticed that many adults were doing the same things, and then that the media was as well (which I later realized indicated they were copying each other).

This rapidly became immensely frustrating for me as I began to see how frequently the media would lie to people, the people around me would then believe it, and that it was often impossible to change their minds regardless of what I said.

To sublimate my frustration, I decided to start seeing if could predict what would happen in the future based on how the things were being portrayed in the present by the media, and before long, patterns started to repeat and the nature of the propaganda we were being exposed to indeed made it possible to predict what its end goal would be (that typically came to fruition).

As I was on this journey, I learned of the concept of “Public Relations” (PR) which forever reshaped my world view. Briefly, PR was a social science created by Freud’s nephew that combined psychology, marketing and propaganda to heavily influence the population in order to shift societal viewpoints in a favorable way for a client (e.g., get women to smoke at a time what that was socially unacceptable, make Americans want to go to war, stopping being mad at a company for causing an environmental disaster, continuing to support an abhorrent leader, convincing the populace to support a policy that goes against their own interests, etc.).

In turn, it is truly remarkable (once you investigate it) how many deeply ingrained beliefs within our society originated from a PR firm being commissioned to instill the belief, and much of what I do here is aimed at dispelling the false beliefs that destroy our health. Likewise, it is immensely tragic that PR has transformed Democracy from being a form of government where policies are decided on the basis of how palatable they are to the electorate to one where they’re decided on the basis of how much the PR campaign to get the public behind them will cost. For example, the 2021-2022 spike in the below graph was in part due to the over-the-top campaign we were bombarded with to badger the public into taking experimental “vaccine” gene therapies many were being harmed or killed by.

Sadly, because PR works, as the years have gone by, more and more has been invested into this invisible industry, and the techniques have become increasingly refined and widespread. In turn, once you learn to recognize those tactics, your perception of reality complete changes (in a manner analogous to putting on the glasses from the 1988 cult classic “They Live” which allowed the wearer to see how invisible aliens were secretly manipulating every facet of society). As such, I find it both immensely valuable to understand the PR industry’s tactics and simultaneously immensely frustrating that those tactics (at least until recently) always worked.

Some of these tactics include:

• Paying focus groups to identify which sculpted messages can emotionally draw the listener to the desired position (which is why you frequently hear “odd” phrases be continually repeated).

• Monopolizing every mass media platform (including medical journals) so that the targeted messages (and no competing narrative) will be heard by everyone, and then blasting it out across those channels at the optimal time.

• Providing fake “news programs” to media stations (especially underfunded local news stations) which are made to look like legitimate news programs but are actually part of a PR campaign.

• Using a variety of “credible” third parties (discussed further here) to promote your client’s message (e.g., paid-off “experts” or “non-profits” with misleading names that imply they are opposed to the industry that’s actually funding them).

• Using a variety of compelling gimmicks (often incorporating the previous three methods) to create a viral story that sweeps the country.

Sadly, this just touches the surface of what this industry does, and for that reason, I highly advise reading this book.

In the case of RFK Jr., I suspected a targeted PR campaign would be launched against him once his H.H.S. nomination was announced, but what I did not expect was for a Left-Wing dark money group (a “non-profit” that is able to hide its industry funding) would publicly announce a campaign against RFK Jr. (likely to solicit more funding), after which a Right-Wing dark money group (led by Mike Pence) would do the same. However, once this happened, I expected to see all the familiar PR tactics be leveled against RFK, the most remarkable of which was RFK Jr. being attacked for being both too “pro-choice” and too “pro-life” (in an effort to take away both Republican and Democrat RFK supporters).

Note: it’s important to remember that the pharmaceutical industry becomes quite vicious when its revenue is threatened and (until recently) could overturn even the most justifiable challenges to its business.

For example, methamphetamine production has been immensely damaging for many parts of America (e.g., roughly 4% of Americans have an amphetamine use disorder, overdoses now kill over 30,000 Americans a year, parental methamphetamine has become a leading reason children are put into foster care and in numerous states cleaning up toxic meth labs have overwhelmed law enforcement). Much of this arose from it becoming possible to easily synthesize meth at home from pseudoephedrine (one of many cough medicines), so legislators in hard hit states sought to stop this by placing limits on how much pseudoephedrine could be purchased over the counter.

However, as this (eye-opening) 2013 article details, since amphetamine production created millions of pseudoephedrine sales, the pharmaceutical industry (behaving like an angry hornet’s nest) mobilized massive campaigns to shoot down every state attempt to limit purchasing it—despite it being well-established restricting pseudoephedrine sales directly reduced methamphetamine catastrophes in communities. As such, despite many attempts to enact these laws, only a few were ever able to pass.

Framing a Debate

One of the most common methods used to manipulate people and win arguments is to present them within a context (frame) where only the desired point can be “true.”

For example, one technique the media will use to discredit their target is to have (often false) insinuations of domestic abuse float into the cultural gossip, and then ask the target not “Did you beat your wife” but rather “Do you enjoy beating your wife,” as that leading question exists within a frame where the allegations are a now an indisputable truth and hence much harder to effectively rebuke (as many of the replies one can give to that question will make them sound “guilty”).

Likewise, we frequently will be presented with unreasonable demands by manipulative individuals where extensive work is done by them to create a frame where the demands seem plausible, and then two choices will be given which both reinforce the frame that individual wants. For example, you could repeatedly be pressured into acknowledging a monetary debt you don’t actually have (in such a manner that it is difficult to argue against it due to the pushback you will receive) and then be told you have two choices to address the debt (one of which is worse than the other), at which point the frame succeeds in its underlying goal, getting you to pay a debt you never owed in the first place (assuming you “choose” the less bad choice given to you).

Similarly, when individuals seek to manipulate others, a great deal of work will often be put into the way they present themselves, as that can often create a frame where the target is pressured to go along with an otherwise dubious scheme. For instance, I’ve lost count of how many unscrupulous people over the years have tried to hustle me into a scam which began with me “being given the honor to work with them,” followed by them doing everything they can to exert the frame they are luxury goods while simultaneously finding ways to direct the conversation away from anything which threatens their frame and their grift.

Note: when I find myself in these situations, I will often go along with it for a bit (to lull them into a false sense of security as they sense an easy victim), and then when the right window appears, “pop their frame” at which point they frequently get quite upset (as by that point they typically have an expectation you will be the successful catch they’ve been waiting for after numerous failed attempts to scam people). All of this for instance frequently comes up when acquaintances approach me with investments “opportunities” that promise a return on the investment far exceeding the existing market rates (which is almost always a red flag as I’ve lost count of how many people I knew who lost a lot of money in those types of situations).

In turn, to overcome a bad frame, one or more of the following can be done:

• Overpower the existing frame with a stronger frame (which is often what people do when they fight for dominance in a social situation).

• Find a way to shatter or dispel an existing frame (which is often an art requiring significant verbal talent).

• Recognize that the premises behind the frame are false.

Framing Vaccination

Within the vaccination debate, over the years, a variety of frames have been developed by the industry (and PR firms) that are constantly overlaid onto any discussion of vaccine safety. As you might expect these frames:

• Reinforce the reality that all vaccines are 100% safe and effective and that all ways vaccines are given are “necessary.”

• Reinforce the reality that vaccines were the greatest thing in human history.

• Reframe any questions of vaccine safety or efficacy as an existential danger to mankind.

Note: the phrase “safe and effective” is a very clever marketing frame, as the terms are deliberately not defined but imply “100% safe and effective,” thereby both giving vaccinators the wiggle room to not be caught in a lie (as they [e.g., Fauci here] can say “I never said it was 100% effective”) but simultaneously effectively able to constantly assert that lie [e.g., which Fauci did throughout COVID-19] and gain all the political capital that comes with it (since arguing against the widespread belief vaccines are completely safe and effective is a huge uphill battle). As such, vaccine zealots will never define what “safe and effective” means (as that would destroy their grift), and as I showed here, this slogan so effectively frames the vaccination debate that it’s been re-used since the dawn of vaccination despite honest experts in each generation complaining about its dishonesty. Likewise, we are constantly told extensive testing goes into ensuring vaccines are safe (and that they are the safest thing in existence), but most of that is never made available to public, and whenever it is unearthed, inevitably shows vaccines actually are quite dangerous.

In turn, since the same arguments are continuously reused, one of the “missions” of this Substack has been to dispel the false premises behind many of the common vaccine talking points. As such, when I watched the confirmation hearings, I noticed that the deceptively framed arguments repeatedly used there were the same ones I’d repeatedly discussed in this publication.

Read the Whole Article

The post Dismantling the Common Lies Used To Push Vaccines appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thomas Jefferson urged peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, but entangling alliances with none.

Are threats of punitive tariffs and territorial conquest the best ways to achieve that goal? Is Jefferson’s desire one Donald Trump even shares?

Picking Fights

That the US would purchase Greenland and reclaim the Panama Canal was initially perceived as typical Trumpian bluster. But the president seems serious.

Denmark’s claim to its oversized iceberg derives from a few Viking landings more than a millennium ago. Yet there’s little love lost between them and the locals. Particularly after some sinister sterilization projects a couple generations back, the natives would probably prefer the Danes take a hike.

Not that they’d want the US to replace them (Americans shouldn’t want that either). But the US military already has bases on the island (shocking!), so… as with Germany, Britain, and Japan… the Americans essentially already own the place. Making the conquest official would merely convert Greenland into a polar Puerto Rico… a frozen rathole to waste more of our wealth.

The situation in Panama is a bit different. Americans invented the country, carving it from Colombia to create the canal. Having fomented a rebellion and acquired construction rights from the French, the US government paid Panama for territory on either side of the passage.

The Americans held the corridor almost ninety years, till it was transferred to Panama at the turn of the century. Now, apparently, the gringos want it back.

In some sense, that’s reasonable. They created the country, built the canal, maintained it for decades, then gave it away while receiving almost nothing in return.

As with Greenland, Trump may be talking tough to obtain concessions. Like he did last week with Colombia, he’ll probably get some… allowing him to claim “victory” from pushing puny countries around.

A Disgusting Display

Whatever rationale may exist for grabbing Greenland or recapturing the Canal, the most repulsive land grab is underway in the Levant. If nothing else, we know one country on which Trump will never impose a tariff!

This evening, seated beside the Israeli war criminal who’s spent fifteen months ethnically cleansing Gaza, Donald Trump grabbed a sponge.

In a sickening display, he announced that all Palestinians in the strip would need to go. When asked how many people he’s thinking should get out of Gaza, the president replied with his normal nuance:

“all of them….We’re talking probably a million-seven people, maybe a million-eight. But I think all of them. They’ll be resettled in areas where they can live a beautiful life and not be worried about dying every day.”

As a side note, by implying 1.7 – 1.8M Gazans is “all of them”, Trump gives an idea how many Palestinians Israel’s onslaught has killed. More than 2M lived in Gaza before the bombing began.

Is there a way to describe what Trump advocates as anything other than ethnic cleansing? If so, it would be as a real estate deal.

As the president put it, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip. And we will do a job with it too. We’ll own it…” [emphasis added]

If innocent Palestinians should worry about “dying every day” by being in Gaza, why wouldn’t the Americans? Apparently, Mariam Adelson gave Donald Trump millions of reasons.

Some of them enabled him to say something this revolting:

“It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn’t want to return. Why would they want to return? The place has been Hell [he says with the Devil sitting at his side]… nobody could live there….We can build something for them in one of the countries. It could be Jordan, it could be Egypt, it could be one of the other countries… and you build really good quality housing….Someplace they could live and not die. Because Gaza is a place that’ll guarantee they’ll end up dying. The same thing is gonna happen again.”

Yet the man urging people to leave this hellhole wants to own it. Why?

As Trump “lamented” the mortality, the ruler responsible for the killing kept smiling beside him. It was doubtless a grateful grin, because his slaughter couldn’t occur without his American suckers being forced to fund it.

Trump’s son-in-law is fine with that. Jared Kushner already had his sights set on the strip:

“Gaza is a waterfront property and it could be very valuable. It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but I think from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move people out and then clean it up.”

This is as astounding and insulting as it is gruesome and galling.

When Trump says “they’ll end up dying” or Kushner quips that “I would do my best to move people out and then clean it up”, those aren’t predictions. They’re threats. This is akin to chasing Kulaks from Ukraine or Cherokee out of Georgia.

And I’m sure it isn’t lost on the president or his son-in-law that an enormous gas field sits off-shore of Gaza. The grift is glaring.

Read the Whole Article

The post Land Grabs appeared first on LewRockwell.

Should we be distracted, or merely appalled, by Trump’s abrupt proposal to clear the remaining 1.9 million Palestinians from Gaza, with a new demand that Arab neighbors absorb them?

US intelligence, software, bombs, guns, tanks, aircraft, fuel and bulldozers all found a small resting point in the form of the Trump-demanded ceasefire in Gaza.  Yes, US taxpayers have funded, fueled, supported and provided political cover to Israel for long before the past 500 days.  In fact, the United States has done this every single day since the very first day of the LBJ administration in 1963.  Those who understand that history cannot also claim to be appalled at the destruction visited on a tiny strip of beachfront property in the name of Zionist genocidal land and resource grab.  Washington’s knee jerk apologetics for the Zionist state are habitual; it’s muscle memory for the United States at this point.

Israel as a state can do no wrong, even when it directly attacks American ships, assassinates peacemakers and negotiators, lies directly to the faces of the US Congress and US Presidents, steals technology, conducts covert influence and blackmail operations inside the United States, and defrauds the US taxpayer.  Israel’s government, society and state are not self-sustaining, certainly not symbiotic with the rest of the world.  The way of the modern Zionist state is land theft and genocide, with rights to land and targets of genocide assigned through an ethnic and religious caste system that only one party has accepted.

Modern Israel faces an impossible conundrum.  Can there exist a free market in ideas, in faith, in mobility, in property – can there be freedom at all – when citizens are strictly accounted for, managed and utilized via state constructed labels of religion, ethnicity, and social credit?  Israel’s discordant system mimics the dysfunctional political system of Lebanon – itself a colonial census-driven vestige that allocates political power based on single census of tribe and faith from three generations ago.  Israel’s murderous rage and internal terror didn’t mirror the hated Assad regime, which like the other Ba’ath dictator Saddam Hussein, made a point to protect ethnic and religious minorities.  But Tel Aviv today, and Israel’s own terrorist origin story does parallel the political miracle that transformed Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS masked bandits into well-dressed cosmopolitan gangsters overnight.

We mustn’t be appalled, at either US policy or Israel’s actions, nor the great global cost of US-Israeli co-dependencies, nor by the repudiation of historic ethical or legal precedent, or even signed treaties.  This is a reality that American Congresses, donors, presidents and activists have created, and we see this in flagrante delicto with each new Trump soundbite, policy, proposal and appointment regarding our best sidepiece ever. To be appalled suggests surprise or shock – and no living person who has paid any attention to US-Israeli history can be surprised or shocked.

But there is something mildly distracting about the whole Bibi and Donald show.  Like the old Soviet man and woman, Americans are learning to watch their political leadership intensely, divining their situation, strength, designs, and weaknesses as carefully as a tea reader reads the leaves.

The Trump-Netanyahu meeting last week had Trump literally dressed as the Israeli flag. His pro-Israel bias is almost as embarrassing to the Adelson crowd and AIPAC as it was to the rest of us.  American Zionists are reacting like the host of a party who discovers her dog has been humping the legs of her guests under the table.  The AKC explains why dogs hump, and it’s not always what you think.  Sometimes it is, but often it is simply rowdiness, irritation, a medical issue or to signal, or establish, dominance.

It was remarkable in the joint presser that Trump stated that he wanted peace, and then said sheepishly, “And he does too, really, he does,” gesturing towards a Bibi who seemed in a moment of acid reflux (or maybe it was just his heart).   Trump then blew up the hump saying he would own all of Gaza, and that Gazans could come back after he and the Kushners were done building the new riviera there, because there would be lots of new jobs if they wanted them.  Beautiful, well-paying jobs.

Trump understands that only the Israel government owns land in Israel, and it believes it owns every square inch its army can destroy, depopulate, and defend from the river to the sea, and more.  Trump understands the official two-state solution is a bald fiction, and that a single state solution is the end of the Zionist entity in one generation.  Trump understands the widely shared Smotrich vision of no living Palestinians, and no Palestine.  Trump understands, in line with this, there is no right of return allowed them.  Trump understands that as President he personally cannot purchase what is left of Gaza, and he insisted that the US wouldn’t be paying for its reconstruction.

H.L. Mencken talked about democracy giving the people what they wanted, good and hard, and while nothing about the US-Israeli policy is democratic, Trump’s strange dominance display towards Bibi, his persistent leg humping behavior, reminds me of that quote.

I’m wondering which Donald Trump we were even watching last week.  Was it the one who divorced Ivana, or the one who divorced Marla Maples?  Were we instead watching the one who took his latest oath of office standing next to a frighteningly V for Vendetta outfitted Melania, her nautical hat coding Juliet “I am on fire and have dangerous cargo?”

Was the latest Trump hump really nothing more than rowdy behavior?  I think, given how differently this second Trump presidency has been conducted so far, that every public statement he makes, and every tie he wears, and every handshake and gesture, is focused on something big, and frankly, I don’t think it’s MIGA, because Trump is transactional, not ideological. I’m not sure it is MAGA either.  I think Trump needed to get his “debt” to Adelson and AIPAC publicly expunged, something he has done with weapons promised, words that mean nothing to anyone other than Tel Aviv, as the entire remainder of the planet made up their mind about Israel sometime last year, and a raft of hyper-Zionist tone deaf appointments.

I doubt Bibi liked the public leg humping Trump gave him, and I doubt he took it as a compliment. I personally doubt he’ll be visiting the White House again this year, or next.  Trump’s “new ideas” for Gaza fit nicely with Trump’s simultaneous but less publicized imminent withdrawal of US troops from Syria, a huge indication that Bibi’s on his own.

Trump the Zionist is a bit player in the Trump political kaleidoscope, and last week strikes me as a distraction intended to neutralize Israel’s rapacious interference in DC as Tel Aviv prepares for a post- Netanyahu world, and manages domestic repercussions of the war Bibi fought and lost against his little golem, Hamas.

Trump – for some reason – needed to distract Israel, mildly humiliate Bibi, and take the Middle East off the front burner in the third week of his current administration.  I wonder, as I’m sure Zelensky does,  how quickly Trump will do the same with Ukraine.  I suspect Trump knows with some certainty where the real threat to America, and to himself personally, resides.  It runs on Eastern Standard Time, very close to home, and is extremely dangerous.  When reading the tea leaves, Twinings suggests that we look for letters and combinations of letters, at the bottom of the cup.  That’s what I’m doing.

The post Ethnic Cleansing For Fun and Profit – Or Something Completely Different? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The unfortunate ignorance of most Americans – and especially the elderly in Retirement Homes – about the CHOICES they have about their health care is highlighted in this important article that will be a wake up call to those of you who have loved ones in – or soon to be in – “Elder Care.”

Please Read this short article, HERE, and share it with all those you care about – particularly if they are “older.”

Thank you to Mr JB for alerting me to this article.

The post Dangerous Retirement Homes and Today’s Healthcare Racket appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Ginny Garner:

Lew,

I’m not surprised, just sickened by this. And if anyone should control Gaza maybe it’s Egypt. Israel stole Gaza from Egypt in 1967 during the Six Day War.

See here.

The post Trump: US Could Take Over Gaza, Palestinians Would Love to Leave appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes John Frahm.

FOX News

The post Rand Paul recoils at Trump’s Gaza takeover plans: ‘I thought we voted for America First’ appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Gail Appel:

Haiti’s interim President is welcoming officers from El Salvador and Guatemala to combat gang violence.

The American left is welcoming violent gangs and combating American officers tasked with deporting them.

Somehow, this makes sense. Can’t wait for the screaming and accusations of racism targeting the lily white Salvadoran and Guatemalan officers.

The post El Salvador Sends Officers to Combat Gang Violence in Haiti appeared first on LewRockwell.