Tag: perpetual war

Kiev Regime and EU Globalists Scheming To Send Ukrainian Refugees Back Home to the Meatgrinder

Europe cares so much about Ukrainians, that it will send them back to die in the war.

Among the millions and millions of ‘asylum seekers’ that turn out to be mere ‘economic migrants’, there is a subset of people who are actually refugees feeling the bloodiest war in Europe since WW2: the Ukrainians.

But now, Kiev and the Euro-Globalist establishment are plotting to send the military age men back to Ukraine to face the meatgrinder against Russian forces.

On Thursday (4), Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell forcefully expressed this view, saying that there is ‘strong support’ among EU countries to ‘exclude men who could be called up to the military’ from Europe’s temporary protection scheme.

Politico reported:

“The temporary status scheme — under which more than 4 million people who fled Ukraine have been given the right to work, live and study in European countries — will expire in March 2027. The directive has already been extended several times and preparations to prolong it once more are underway. A proposal to exclude men aged 23 to 60, who may be conscripted, from the scheme is being discussed.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of EU home affairs ministers in Luxembourg on Thursday, Forssell said the ministers had been ‘more or less unanimous’ in favoring an extension of temporary protection.”

Keep reading

Trump says he never promised ‘no new wars’

Amid ongoing scrutiny over the U.S. war with Iran, President Donald Trump on Sunday defended his foreign policy stance — and denied that he ever campaigned on the promise of “no new wars.”

In a wide-ranging interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker that aired on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said he built a “tremendous military.”

“First of all, I didn’t guarantee no war. Why would I have built the strongest military in the world?” Trump said. “I built our military. I inherited a terrible military. We had no equipment. We had nothing. I built a tremendous military. When you say I promised, I didn’t promise anything.”

Trump said he doesn’t like “endless wars” but added that the current conflict with Iran “is not an endless war,” asserting that the Vietnam War lasted for 19 years “because of stupid people.”

“We’re there for a few months and the threat is largely over,” Trump said. “Soon, it will be over. But you cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, or they will blow you up. There will be no Kristen. There will be no NBC. There will be no ‘Meet the Press.’”

Throughout his campaigns for president, Trump has repeatedly criticized the U.S.’s involvement in lengthy military action in Middle Eastern countries, including lambasting former President George W. Bush for the war in Iraq during a 2016 GOP debate.

While campaigning in Pennsylvania in 2024, Trump told rallygoers: “I will not send you to fight and die in stupid foreign wars that never end.” He reiterated the promise in his 2024 victory speech, stating at the time: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”

And Trump’s official White House biography also states that one of the president’s top priorities is “putting a stop to endless wars.”

Trump on Sunday denied that the U.S. is at war with Iran, telling Welker he does not “consider” the current situation a war.

Keep reading

The Praxian Genocidal Kill Chain — Part 2

In Part 1, we discussed how a group of Silicon Valley oligarchs, the self-professed “Praxians,” have seized control of the Trump administration and have aligned themselves with the “startup nation” of Israel. In my latest book, The Technocratic Dark State, I refer to the Praxians as NEONERDS, but we’ll continue to use their own moniker in this series of articles.

In Part 1, we also explored Praxian companies’ practical symbioses with Israeli SIGINT, especially Unit 8200. The evidence strongly indicates that the October 7th Hamas attack, which the Israeli Zionist Likud government cited as the justification for its genocidal destruction of Gaza, was a LIHOP false flag attack, in which an unknown number of Israelis were evidently killed—not by Hamas, but by their own military. That the attack proceeded unimpeded as it did was officially attributed primarily to SIGINT “failures.” Thus, the strong possibility exists that the Praxians participated in the extraordinary sequence of supposed SIGINT mistakes, oversights, and miscalculations that allegedly enabled Hamas to attack Southern Israel virtually unopposed.

The result of this LIHOP false flag attack was the deployment of the Praxians’ genocidal kill chains in Gaza. And now we have a larger Middle East conflagration. Not only have Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran, but the Israeli government, with Praxian kill chain assistance, is attempting to do to Lebanon what it has already done to Gaza. In Part 3, we shall see how the Praxians’ fingerprints are also observable in so-called intelligence “misjudgments” that led the US, for otherwise inexplicable reasons, to attack Iran.

Also discussed in Part 1 was how the Praxians have used their signature investment strategy—which they call “accelerationism”—to disrupt everything from markets to international relations by deploying “creative destruction” as their version of a “revolutionary tool.” Indeed, just as the Praxians’ accelerated “digital kill chain” is central to the devastation of Palestinian lives, so is it now featuring in a “new kind of war” in the Middle East.

Keep reading

Charles Lee: The Alternative “George Washington” You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

History repeatedly demonstrates the difficulties faced by large conventional powers confronting decentralized resistance movements. From the American Revolution to Vietnam and Afghanistan, weaker forces have often offset military inferiority through mobility, dispersion, decentralization, local support, and the avoidance of decisive engagements.

While George Washington and the American Patriots are often credited with defeating the British Empire through asymmetric warfare, Washington arrived at that strategy belatedly and embraced it only partially. His instinct was to fight as a state—with a professional army, centralized administration, and conventional military institutions.

Charles Lee, on the other hand, recognized much earlier that America’s greatest strengths lay in decentralized resistance, militia warfare, and making British occupation prohibitively expensive. The distinction mattered not only militarily but politically, as conventional warfare demanded many of the fiscal and administrative measures that accompanied the Revolution. In reality, Washington gradually moved toward a strategy of exhaustion, avoidance, and attrition, while Charles Lee had recognized from the beginning that America’s greatest military advantage lay in avoiding the sort of conventional contest Britain wanted to fight.

The Continental Congress had the option between both men—George Washington and Charles Lee. In Conceived in Liberty, Rothbard wrote regarding the choice between Washington and Lee, “What Congress decided to do about that army would determine what it would do about the entire Revolution.” These men had entirely different strategies as to how to fight the British and maintain independence. Obviously, Washington was chosen over Lee, however, this article seeks to explore the little-known alternative: What if Charles Lee and his strategy had been chosen instead?

At the outset, a word of caution is necessary. We always have to be careful with speculation from counterfactual history and not overstate unverifiable conclusions. There are limits on the conclusive power of available evidence and there were negatives of Lee’s strategy. Human decisions, unforeseen circumstances, and countless variables make definitive conclusions impossible. Moreover, Lee’s proposed approach was not without risks or drawbacks of its own.

We can, however, examine what did happen, the available evidence, appreciate Lee and the logic behind his proposed strategy, and recognize some of the drawbacks of Washington’s strategy. Such an exercise helps guard against historical determinism—the assumption that the course of events was inevitable—or that Washington’s state-centered approach to warfare was the only realistic option. The American Revolution could have been fought differently. Charles Lee believed it should have been, and his arguments deserve closer examination.

This key decision of the Continental Congress matters because the way a war is fought affects the outcomes. It is the contention of this article that the choice to fight like a state means either losing or winning like a state.

Keep reading

China Sends Angry Memos While Japan Builds Real Defense

China keeps sending diplomatic tantrums toward Japan, and Tokyo keeps moving.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s government placed four Japan Self-Defense Forces personnel at NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine headquarters in Germany. The Ministry of Defense described the dispatch as a way to learn from Ukraine’s battlefield experience and deepen Japan-NATO cooperation.

Beijing heard all of that and reached for the complaint drawer again. Lin Jian, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, accused Japan of working with NATO to stir up confrontation, as reported by Gateway Hispanic, and interfering in China’s internal affairs. 

Spokespersons from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including Lin Jian , have condemned these developments as:

  • “Colluding with NATO to interfere in China’s internal affairs.”
  • “Stoking regional tensions.”
  • “Promoting confrontation.”

Beijing argues that NATO is a North Atlantic regional organization and therefore has no legitimate reason to expand its presence into the Indo-Pacific region.

Chinese officials also maintain that Japan should “learn lessons from history” rather than pursue what they describe as remilitarization.

Tensions have been further aggravated by broader diplomatic disputes, particularly those related to Taiwan .

Japan’s move grew from an offer made in April by Gen. Nakatini, then Japan’s defense minister, to Mark Rutte, NATO secretary general. The cooperation now includes cyber defense, new technologies, military teamwork, maritime security, and support for Ukraine. From Reuters:

Japan’s Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi on Sunday rejected accusations of “new militarism” by Tokyo and criticised China for rapidly expanding its military with ‌little transparency, underscoring mounting tensions between the two countries.

China continues to increase its defence spending at a high level, Koizumi said at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, adding: “China’s external approach and military activities are matters of serious concern for Japan and the international community at the same time.”

Rebutting criticism that Japan was embracing new militarism, he said: “Think about it. There’s a country that has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers. Japan ⁠has neither of such weapons, and yet Japan is labelled ‘new militarism’?”

Koizumi said Japan’s record since World War Two “speaks for itself”, citing its adherence to international law and commitment to the United Nations Charter, alongside efforts to uphold a “free and open international order.”

None of that creates a NATO war guarantee for Asia, but it does show Japan has stopped pretending the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific worlds live in separate rooms.

Keep reading

Where’s the Beef? A Long-Gone Livestock-Eating Bug Is Back, and I have a Theory As to Why.

It turns out that a flesh-eating larva, the screwworm, not seen in the U.S. since 1966, has found its way back onto livestock ranches in southern Texas, and I smell a stink badger in the perfume aisle.

The infected calf (rumors have it that a second cow has been located, but I cannot yet verify this report) is on a ranch very close to the Mexican border. Authorities have set up a 12-mile quarantine zone around the ranch.

You may recall the feds arrested three Chinese scientists spies at the Detroit airport, one of whom was busted for sneaking in a fungus that could be used to wipe out our crops, and another was caught sneaking in roundworms, which are also devastating to mammals, including livestock.  

Here’s the fun part: Texas authorities arrested six camo-clad Chinese nationals with backpacks on a ranch in Texas on May 26, allegedly with the help of Mexican cartels. Less than a week later, the first case of screwworm was discovered. Somehow, that didn’t make the big Operation Mockingbird headlines. 

We do not yet know what the authorities found in those aforementioned backpacks.

The ranch where the Chinese were discovered is about 41 miles away from the ranch where the first infected calf was located, roughly a day-and-a-half walk. Both ranches are located very close to the Mexican border, in an area where few Chinese illegal border-rushers have been apprehended in the open-border years of the Biden administration.

Keep reading

Central Command Announces Strikes in Goruk and Qeshm Island After Iranian Drone and Missile Strikes – Iran Threatens to Escalate, Says Negotiations Are “At a Deadlock”

The US and Iran traded missile strikes, with Iran targeting neighboring Gulf countries and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, on Friday, as negotiations to end the war stall. 

Mohsen Rezaei, military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, told CNN on Friday, “The negotiations are at a deadlock and (US President Donald) Trump must break this deadlock.”

“The ball is in Trump’s court,” Rezaei added. He further threatened that Iran will “drag the war” beyond the region “by attacking these other American bases that we have been attacking so far.”

After intercepting six Iranian missiles launched in the Strait of Hormuz,  “U.S. forces subsequently struck Iranian coastal surveillance radar sites in Goruk and on Qeshm Island to defend against further maritime attacks,” Central Command said in a statement late Friday, releasing video from the strikes.

“Initial assessments indicate six of the missiles launched by Iran were intercepted and a seventh did not reach its intended target. There are currently no reports of harm to U.S. personnel, and Iranian claims of damaging U.S. 5th fleet headquarters in Bahrain are false,” Central Command said. “CENTCOM forces remain vigilant and postured to continue responding to unwarranted Iranian aggression in self-defense.”

Keep reading

BEGINNING OF THE END: Russians Storming Konstantinovka, Fortified Bastion in the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk Agglomeration, Last Donetsk Stronghold Still Held by Ukraine

Konstantinovka is the key to the fortress belt.

The cradle of the war in Ukraine are the Oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk – two majority Russian-speaking regions that have since voted to be part of Russia.

By now, the Luhansk region has been completely conquered by Russians, and Donetsk is being fought inch by inch, with Kiev still retaining around 15% of the territory.

The last Ukrainian bastions are the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk fortress belt, a formidable group of fortified cities who have been preparing for this day ever since 2014.

Even though the pace of Russian advances is somewhat lackluster compared to the rapid conquests of 2025, we have arrived to the point where the Russian forces have broken through to Konstantinovka, the first bastion of the region.

Keep reading

If This Is Winning, America Can’t Afford Much More of It

“We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, ‘Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.’”—Donald Trump

Donald Trump promised Americans they would get tired of winning.

If this is what winning looks like, America can’t afford much more of it.

We are losing ground economically. We are losing credibility abroad. We are losing tourists, workers, stability, trust, constitutional guardrails, and whatever remained of the illusion that the government answers to “we the people.”

The tourism economy is taking a hit, with international visitors increasingly reluctant to come to the United States. Even migration—the lifeblood of America’s economic growth, innovation, labor force and national renewal—is now moving in the wrong direction. Fewer people are coming in, more Americans are leaving, and by some estimates the country has already crossed into negative net migration.

That is not the mark of a nation “winning.” It is the mark of a nation people are increasingly choosing to escape.

Even the looming World Cup—normally an economic windfall for tourism, travel and hospitality—is being shadowed by the administration’s immigration crackdown, detention protests and threats to disrupt international travel at key airports.

That is what happens when a nation treats visitors, immigrants and dissenters as threats first and human beings second: people stop coming, businesses suffer, and fear becomes official policy.

The economy, despite the administration’s relentless victory laps, is flashing warning signs: downgraded growth, strained consumers, rising costs, depleted savings, and policy chaos that leaves families, small businesses and entire industries guessing what fresh disruption tomorrow will bring.

We are being worn down by the losses.

Meanwhile, the man who promised to end wars has presided over their continuation and expansion. The man who promised to bring prices down has helped drive uncertainty up. The man who promised to drain the swamp has turned government into a spoils system for loyalists, cronies, contractors, oligarchs and power brokers. The man who promised law and order has treated the law as something to be weaponized against enemies and waived for friends.

This is not winning.

Keep reading

The United States Of Austrian Economics

Earlier in the week, on Monday, Axios reported that “Iran threatened to abandon the negotiations with the US over Israel’s actions in Lebanon,” with inside sources suggesting that Trump called Netanyahu “crazy.” While Trump did not comment on the exact language, he did confirm the use of “expletives” in an interview with the New York Post on Wednesday that he and Netanyahu haven’t exactly been seeing eye-to-eye: “I was a little perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon. You know, at some point, I said, ‘Bibi, we gotta stop this. You gotta stop it.’” Since then, the US has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, “contingent on a complete cessation of fire by Hezbollah and evacuation of operatives from Lebanese territory south of the Litani River.” However, if one looks at the state of the current ceasefire between the US and Iran, one may be tempted to manage their expectations with regards to how long the ceasefire will last, and if this will set a foundation for meaningful negotiations between Washington and Tehran. More importantly, Hezbollah, who operates independently from (and often against the interests of) the Lebanese Government, has not yet indicated that they agree to the terms of the ceasefire. After the announcement, brent crude oil 1-month futures dropped a little more than $1 to $96.7/bbl.

According to Bloomberg, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has published a “restricted” document which reveals that the nuclear risk posed by Iran is now higher today than it was before the war began. Specifically, prior to the war, the IAEA was allowed to inspect Iranian enriched uranium, but such inspections have since largely halted. However, it should be noted that the IAEA was always only inspected where the IRGC told them they were allowed to, and many suspected that nuclear proliferation was happening behind the scenes, in facilities that were not accessible to the IAEA.

Tariff headlines are once again entering the news circuit. Trump has lowered the benchmark of US-content necessary for a copper product to be considered “US-made” and therefore exempt from the 50% Section 232 tariffs. However, there was also bad news for some US trading partners, as the USTR has announced proposed tariffs of 10-12.5% under Section 301. There is also the proposal of 25% tariffs on Brazil, which President Lula responded to by saying “he could not accept the treatment” his country had received.

Kevin Warsh appointed Paul Winfree and Daniel Heil to support him as Fed Chair. Winfree was working at the Heritage Foundation when Project 2025 was published in 2022, and contributed the chapter dedicated to the Federal Reserve. While Warsh has criticized the Fed himself, citing an article he wrote, published in the Wall Street Journal in November of 2025 called “The Federal Reserve’s Broken Leadership,” Warsh’s criticism is aimed at the how the Fed was being run. Some of Winfree’s comments echo those of Warsh (or perhaps Warsh echoed Winfree, given the chronology), such as critiques of mission creep, like how “political pressure has led the Federal Reserve to use its power to regulate banks as a way to promote politically favorable initiatives including those aligned with ESG objectives.” However, the bulk of Winfree’s manifesto takes aim at the Fed as an institution, arguing that it “lacks both operational effectiveness and political independence.” Winfree offers several recommendations, including the following:

  • Eliminate the dual mandate: Winfree argues that expansive monetary policy (the labor mandate) may “inadvertently contribute to recessions” as it provides “easy money” which “causes the clustering of failures that can lead to a recession.” He advocates instead of a focus on dollar protection and managing low and stable inflation.
  • Eliminate the Federal Reserve’s lender-of-last-resort function: Winfree believes that the lender of last resort function acts as a conduit for moral hazard. This is an especially interesting point as it lies in partial opposition to a strategy laid out by Stephen Miran (and friends) in his article, “A User’s Guide to Reducing the Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet.” While their respective arguments do not lie in total opposition, Miran’s argument is that there should be more communication to lessen the stigma often associated with using the Fed as a lender-of-last-resort, as it “makes banks reluctant to access the [discount] window even when genuinely needed, leading them to hold larger precautionary reserve buffers than rely on the discount window as intended” and “has played a meaningful role in driving up demand for reserves.” See more in Winfree, next recommendation below:
  • Wind down the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet: Winfree, Miran, and Kevin Warsh are aligned on the goal of shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet. However, the methods for doing so are clearly controversial (see above). Miran’s report highlights many (many) strategies for reducing the balance sheet, so further discussion on one component is likely not a dealbreaker.

However, the aforementioned recommendations are overshadowed by his “monetary rule reform options,” the first of which, is free banking. Straight out of the Austrian School, Winfree advocates for the functional abolition of the Federal Reserve altogether, claiming that “potential downsides of free banking stem from its greatest benefit: It has massive political hurdles to clear,” saying that “transitioning to free banking would require political authorities, including Congress and the President, to coordinate on multiple reforms simultaneously.” Recall that this was published in 2022—before the GOP got Trump in the White House, Bessent in the Treasury, and a majority in both Congressional Houses. Naming a self-proclaimed free banker, who supports the dissolution of the Fed, as an advisor to the Chair of the Fed sets the stage for a potential dramatic restructuring of how monetary policy is conducted in the US. Winfree also argues in favor of either restoring the gold standard, or enforcing Milton Friedman’s “K-percent rule,” where the Federal Reserve creates money at a fixed rate.

Keep reading