Dec 06

Today’s News 6th December 2024

  • Underwater Geopolitics
    Underwater Geopolitics

    Authored by Carlo J.V.Caro via RealClearWire.com,

    How China’s Control of Undersea Cables and Data Flows Reshapes Global Power

    Cable Routing Protocols

    The rapid construction of undersea cables has brought a hidden but crucial issue into focus: the manipulation of the protocols that control how data travels beneath the sea. These protocols determine the pathways internet data takes, influencing speed, costs, and even exposure to surveillance. Even small changes in these pathways can tilt the global balance of digital power. China’s increasing role in this area demonstrates how technology can be used strategically to reshape geopolitics.

    At the heart of this issue is a technology called Software-Defined Networking (SDN). SDN allows data traffic to be managed and optimized in real time, improving efficiency. But this same flexibility makes SDN vulnerable to misuse. Chinese tech companies like HMN Tech (formerly Huawei Marine Networks), ZTE, and China Unicom are leading the way in SDN development. China also holds sway in international organizations that set the rules for these technologies, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). This influence gives China a hand in shaping global standards and governance.

    Africa illustrates how this influence plays out. Chinese investments in digital infrastructure across the continent are massive. For example, the PEACE (Pakistan and East Africa Connecting Europe) cable, which links East Africa to Europe, was designed to avoid Chinese territory. Yet, thanks to SDN technology, its traffic can still be redirected through Chinese-controlled points. This redirection could introduce delays of 20 to 30 milliseconds per hop—not much for casual browsing, but a serious issue for latency-sensitive activities like financial trading or encrypted communication.

    In Southeast Asia, similar risks are evident. The Southeast Asia-Japan Cable (SJC), which connects Singapore to Japan, relies on several landing stations influenced by China. During a period of heightened tensions in the South China Sea, some data intended for Japan was mysteriously routed through Hainan Island, under Chinese jurisdiction. Such cases suggest technical routing decisions may sometimes have political motivations.

    These examples are part of a broader strategy. By exploiting SDN, China can turn submarine cables into tools for surveillance and control. Data traffic from Africa or Southeast Asia destined for Europe could be secretly rerouted through Shanghai or Guangzhou, exposing it to China’s advanced surveillance techniques like deep packet inspection. This threat extends to cloud computing, as major providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Alibaba Cloud rely on undersea cables. With SDN, Chinese cloud providers—aligned with state interests—could redirect sensitive inter-cloud traffic, putting critical communications at risk.

    Manipulating global data routes gives any actor significant geopolitical power. For instance, in a crisis, China could degrade or even sever internet connectivity for rival nations. In the Taiwan Strait, this could isolate Taiwan from global markets, disrupting financial transactions and trade. In Africa, where Huawei has built a significant portion of the continent’s telecommunications infrastructure—reportedly constructing around 70 percent of 4G networks—there is concern that this reliance could create vulnerabilities. If political tensions were to arise, China could cause slowdowns or disruptions to reinforce dependence, making countries more vulnerable in political standoffs.

    The numbers highlight the stakes. Submarine cables carry 99 percent of international data traffic—over 1.1 zettabytes annually. Significant portions of intra-Asia-Pacific data flows pass through key submarine cable landing stations, including Hong Kong, which is under Chinese jurisdiction. With Chinese firms increasingly involved in substantial global submarine cable projects—such as those undertaken by HMN Technologies—Beijing’s influence over the internet’s physical backbone is growing.

    The economic impact of internet disruptions on highly connected economies is substantial. For instance, the NetBlocks Cost of Shutdown Tool (COST) estimates the economic impact of internet disruptions using indicators from the World Bank, ITU, Eurostat, and the U.S. Census. According to data presented by Atlas VPN, based on NetBlocks’ COST tool, a global internet shutdown for one day could result in losses of about $43 billion, with the United States and China accounting for nearly half of this sum. Additionally, Deloitte has estimated that for a highly internet-connected country, the per-day impact of a temporary internet shutdown would be on average $23.6 million per 10 million population.

    A deliberate attack on routing protocols could cause widespread financial and operational chaos. In today’s interconnected world, where digital infrastructure underpins economic stability, the ability to manipulate undersea cable traffic represents a subtle but powerful geopolitical weapon.

    Addressing this threat goes beyond simply building more cables. It requires rethinking how routing protocols are governed. Transparent global standards must ensure no single country or company can dominate these systems. Routine independent audits should be conducted to detect anomalies that may signal interference. Efforts like the European Union’s Global Gateway initiative and Japan’s Digital Partnership Fund must focus on creating alternative routes to reduce reliance on Chinese-controlled nodes.

    This issue highlights a new reality in global politics: control over data flows is becoming a key form of power. While most attention has been on building physical infrastructure, the quiet manipulation of routing protocols marks an equally profound shift in global influence. To protect the integrity of the internet, the world must act decisively at both technical and governance levels.

    Fiber-Optic Cable Repair Networks

    China’s disproportionate control over fiber-optic cable repair networks reveals potential vectors for intelligence dominance, coercive leverage, and disruption of digital sovereignty. Globally, an estimated 60 dedicated cable repair ships service the planet’s 1.5 million kilometers of submarine cables. China controls a substantial percentage of the fleet, including ships operated by state-affiliated enterprises like Shanghai Salvage Company and China Communications Construction Group. In contrast, the United States and its allies maintain a small patchwork fleet, mostly concentrated in the North Atlantic and lacking coverage in the Indo-Pacific, where over 50 percent of global internet traffic routes through key subsea cables.

    China’s fleet is heavily concentrated in the South and East China Seas, regions critical to global connectivity due to chokepoints like the Singapore Strait and the Luzon Strait. With maritime exclusivity bolstered by China’s claims in disputed waters, its repair ships have nearly unrestricted access to monitor, repair, or potentially tamper with cables under the guise of routine maintenance.

    Repair missions involve exposing critical cable infrastructure, including repeaters, amplifiers, and branch units—hardware that boosts signal strength over long distances but also represents points of vulnerability. Chinese vessels are equipped with advanced robotic submersibles and precision cutting-and-splicing technologies, designed for repairs but capable of installing signal interception devices. Such tools could include optical fiber taps capable of harvesting unencrypted metadata or capturing latency patterns to infer sensitive traffic flow.

    China’s advancements in photonics and quantum communication technologies underscore its capacity to exploit these vulnerabilities. The Chinese Academy of Sciences has reported significant breakthroughs in quantum key distribution (QKD) systems, raising the possibility of developing quantum-based methods to crack encrypted data intercepted during repairs. Integration of AI-driven data sorting tools could automate the extraction and classification of intercepted information, rendering bulk data acquisition during repairs a strategic advantage.

    The high seas, where many repair operations occur, are governed by fragmented international frameworks like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which inadequately regulate activities involving critical infrastructure. The International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) provides voluntary guidelines for repair operations, but enforcement mechanisms are weak, leaving the system vulnerable to exploitation by state actors.

    Repair missions are often classified as “emergency operations,” requiring expedited approvals that bypass detailed oversight. In one case, a cable break in the South China Sea in 2021 prompted Chinese repair ships to operate without transparency for over three weeks, raising concerns about potential covert activities. These incidents are rarely reported, as they fall outside the jurisdiction of most maritime monitoring bodies.

    The lack of countermeasures by the United States and its allies amplifies the risks posed by China’s dominance. The U.S. Navy operates no specialized repair ships, relying on private operators like Global Marine Group, whose fleet is aging and ill-equipped for operations in contested waters. This contrasts with China’s state-backed model, integrating its repair fleet into broader maritime networks, providing dual-use functionality for civilian and military objectives.

    The financial model of undersea cable operations further constrains Western responses. Submarine cables are predominantly privately owned, with firms like Google, Meta, and Amazon investing heavily in infrastructure but lacking incentives to prioritize geopolitical considerations. This privatization leaves strategic gaps in surveillance and monitoring, as governments must negotiate access to privately controlled repair missions.

    To mitigate China’s strategic advantage, a multipronged response is essential. The United States and its allies must develop state-owned or state-subsidized repair fleets to operate in contested regions like the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Enhanced maritime surveillance systems, such as underwater drones and sonar-based monitoring arrays, should be deployed to track repair ship movements in real time.

    Revising international frameworks by expanding ICPC mandates to include mandatory reporting of repair operations could curb opacity. Collaboration with regional partners, particularly nations in the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States), could bolster collective maritime domain awareness and create redundancies in cable repair capabilities.

    Maritime Data Through Automated Vessel Tracking

    China’s exploitation of automated vessel tracking systems exemplifies a sophisticated component of its global digital strategy. At the heart of this initiative lies the Automatic Identification System (AIS), a maritime safety technology mandated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for vessels exceeding 300 gross tons engaged in international trade. While originally intended to improve navigational safety by broadcasting vessel identities, locations, courses, and cargo details, AIS has been effectively repurposed by Beijing into a dual-use asset that supports both economic intelligence gathering and military surveillance.

    Chinese firms, including the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System and Alibaba Cloud, have developed advanced platforms that aggregate AIS transmissions from shipping lanes worldwide. These platforms integrate AIS data with artificial intelligence-driven predictive analytics, enabling Beijing to monitor and analyze global maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, and the Suez Canal—key arteries of international commerce. By doing so, China gains critical insights into global shipping patterns, strategic trade routes, and supply chain dynamics. As of 2023, the global merchant fleet comprised around 60,000 ships.

    During the 2021 Suez Canal blockage, Chinese logistics firms, leveraging real-time AIS data, rapidly identified alternative routes through the Arctic and along the Indian Ocean, allowing Chinese exporters to reroute goods while Western competitors faced delays. Similarly, in the Strait of Malacca, a waterway facilitating the transit of over 16 million barrels of oil daily and 40 percent of global trade, Chinese analysts have used AIS data to optimize resource flow, preempt congestion, and study vulnerabilities in energy supply routes.

    AIS data plays a pivotal role in China’s military strategy, especially in the Indo-Pacific. By combining AIS information with satellite imagery and data from undersea acoustic arrays, China has established a surveillance network capable of tracking naval deployments with precision. AIS data has been used to monitor patrol patterns of the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet, revealing that over a third of its South China Sea operations in 2022 followed predictable routes. This surveillance allows the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to anticipate U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and position its assets accordingly.

    China’s manipulation of AIS extends to conflict simulations and asymmetric warfare. During military exercises near Taiwan in 2023, Chinese forces reportedly deployed unmanned surface vessels programmed to mimic civilian AIS signals, complicating the identification of hostile assets.

    Through its Digital Silk Road initiative, Beijing has exported various forms of maritime technologies that incorporate Automatic Identification System (AIS) capabilities. China often provides financial incentives to promote the adoption of its technologies abroad, which may enhance its access to regional maritime data. This asymmetry grants China an informational advantage and risks reshaping maritime transparency norms in its favor.

    Rare Subsea Mapping Data

    China’s increasing investment in subsea mapping has positioned it as a significant player in oceanographic intelligence, impacting scientific, commercial, and military domains. China has been actively mapping its claimed maritime territories using state-funded research vessels and autonomous systems. These efforts contribute to international initiatives like the Nippon Foundation-GEBCO Seabed 2030 project, which aims to map the entire global seabed by 2030 and had mapped approximately 23.4 percent as of June 2022 with international contributions. China’s activities extend to strategic regions in the Indo-Pacific, the Arctic, and the Indian Ocean, raising concerns over the dual-use potential of its data collection.

    Subsea mapping data is critical for submarine cable routing, undersea infrastructure development, and naval operations. China’s repository of high-resolution bathymetric maps—including surveys of key chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca and the Bashi Channel—provides a tactical edge. These chokepoints are vital for global trade and serve as strategic naval passages for power projection and anti-access/area-denial operations. The People’s Liberation Army Navy uses seabed data to optimize the placement of undersea sensor arrays, critical for its “Great Underwater Wall” initiative, integrating hydroacoustic monitoring to detect foreign submarines.

    China’s advancements in autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) enhance its capabilities. In 2021, the Hailong III and Qianlong II AUVs were deployed for deep-sea mapping missions in the South China Sea, gathering data at depths over 6,000 meters. These AUVs have multi-beam sonar systems achieving sub-meter resolution, surpassing commercial standards. Their ability to operate autonomously over long durations allows China to map intricate undersea topographies critical for resource exploration and undersea warfare.

    China has used seabed mapping as a diplomatic tool to extend influence over smaller nations. Through its Maritime Silk Road Initiative, Beijing has signed agreements with over 20 countries, granting Chinese research vessels access to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). Between 2015 and 2022, Chinese expeditions in Pacific Island nations’ EEZs often involved dual-use mapping activities.

    In 2019, the Chinese survey vessel Haiyang Dizhi 8 conducted seismic surveys near the Vanguard Bank within Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), collecting bathymetric data that aligns with key undersea routes potentially useful for submarine operations. This incursion led to a tense standoff with Vietnam, drawing international criticism over China’s assertive actions and raising concerns about the dual-use potential of the data collected. Similarly, in 2018, China’s proposed involvement in undersea cable projects connecting Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands through Huawei Marine raised significant security concerns. Fearing risks to the security of undersea communication cables and potential espionage, Australia intervened by funding and undertaking the projects themselves, highlighting apprehensions about granting Chinese entities access to critical seafloor data in the region.

    China’s seabed mapping strategy has significant military implications, particularly in the South China Sea. In this region, where China has constructed artificial islands such as Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef, high-resolution seabed data enables precise deployment of missile systems, naval patrols, and underwater drones. Detailed seabed mapping supports the construction and fortification of these islands, allowing for the installation of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, and the operation of military airstrips. Additionally, China’s deployment of unmanned underwater vehicles like the Sea Wing (Haiyi) gliders enhances their ability to collect oceanographic data crucial for submarine navigation and anti-submarine warfare. These activities have raised concerns among neighboring countries and the international community about the dual-use potential of China’s maritime endeavors and their impact on regional security.

    By controlling seabed mapping data, China influences submarine cable networks, which carry 95 percent of global internet traffic and $10 trillion in daily financial transactions. China’s involvement in projects like the South Pacific Cable Project through state-owned China Mobile led to concerns over data interception capabilities. Its presence in Arctic seabed mapping, facilitated by icebreaker vessels like Xuelong 2, underscores ambitions to secure alternative maritime routes and resources under the guise of scientific research.

    China’s approach to subsea mapping data has raised concerns about transparency and shared access in the global community. While international initiatives like the Seabed 2030 Project encourage open sharing of ocean floor data to advance scientific research and environmental understanding, China has been criticized for not fully sharing the extensive seabed data it collects. For example, much of the data gathered by Chinese vessels in international waters is not readily available in global databases like those managed by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) or the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO). This selective sharing limits other nations’ ability to leverage valuable information and contrasts with global norms promoting cooperation and transparency in oceanographic research.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 23:25

  • Will Trump Keep Or Break His Vow To Release The Secret JFK Records?
    Will Trump Keep Or Break His Vow To Release The Secret JFK Records?

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    In October 2022, the Mary Ferrell Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking the release of the JFK-assassination-related records that the CIA and other federal agencies have succeeded in keeping for more than 60 years. The foundation’s suit was based on the notion that the JFK Records Act of 1992 mandated the release of those records.

    Not surprisingly, the CIA, operating through the Justice Department, fiercely opposed the lawsuit. It argued that “national security” required the continued secrecy of those 60-year-old records, even into perpetuity.

    Recently, the Ninth Circuit federal Court of Appeals made it clear that it was siding with the government and keeping these records secret. See “Court Ruling Begs the Question, Is the JFK Records Act Dead?” by Chad Nagle, which is posted on the website of JFK Facts.

    That certainly doesn’t surprise me.

    While I greatly admire the people and attorneys who brought the lawsuit, I never had much hope that any federal judge, including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, would dare to buck the national-security establishment, especially on something like this.

    Meanwhile, a member of Congress is proposing to bring into existence a new version of the Assassination Records Review Board, the independent agency that was charged with enforcing the JFK Records Act back in the 1990s. The ARRB did a fantastic job in securing the release, oftentimes over the fierce objections of the Deep State, of thousands of assassination-related records that the CIA, Pentagon, Secret Service, and other Deep State agencies had succeeded in keeping secret for more than 30 years.

    Unfortunately, however, the JFK Records Act gave those federal agencies an additional 25 years of secrecy on thousands of records, on grounds of “national security,” while letting the ARRB go out of existence. That meant that when those 25 years were up, there was no federal agency in existence to enforce the law.

    Will Congress bring into existence another ARRB? In my opinion, there isn’t any reasonable possibility of that happening. That’s because Congress is even more deferential to the national-security branch of the federal government than the federal judiciary is. The members of Congress know what will happen if they buck the Pentagon or the CIA: they will be threatened with closure of military bases and installations within their district, thereby making them “ineffective” members of Congress. Moreover, there is now a large number of proud military veterans and “former” CIA officials now serving in Congress who remain fiercely loyal to the national-security establishment. In my opinion, there is no reasonable possibility that this military-intelligence-congressional complex is going to help secure the release of those long-secret assassination-related records, given that the Deep State continues to fiercely oppose disclosure.

    Given that President Biden has authorized the CIA and other federal agencies to keep their assassination-related records secret into perpetuity, there is, of course, no reasonable possibility that he will change his mind before leaving office (as he has done with his pardon of his son Hunter).

    That leaves President-elect Donald Trump. In his campaign for reelection, he vowed to release the long-secret JFK-assassination records this time around. As you’ll recall, the last time he was president, he announced that he intended to release them when that 25-year period came due during his administration. But once he received a visit from the CIA, Trump quickly changed his mind and ordered that the records continue to be kept secret.

    This time around, Trump’s supporters say that he has changed. This time, they say, he really is going to stand up to the Deep State and fulfill his vow to release those long-secret JFK-assassination-related records — no matter what the CIA, the Pentagon, and other federal agencies say. They say that his friendship with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will motivate him to keep his vow.

    Okay, so let’s make it easy for Trump to fulfill his vow to get those long-secret JFK-assassination-related records released. All he has to do is prepare an order right now — before he is sworn into office — that will be good-to-go on his first day in office.

    In fact, to make things easier and faster for him, I have prepared the following proposed order.

    ORDER

    I, President Donald Trump, hereby order the National Archives, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Secret Service, and all other federal agencies to immediately release and disclose all their records relating to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, including the removal of all redacted portions of all such records. After more than 60 years of secrecy, enough is enough. No more secrecy.

    Signed this 20th day of January 2025.
    ___________________________________
    Donald Trump, President

    Will Trump fulfill or break his vow to release such records by issuing that type of order? My prediction: Trump will join the federal judiciary and the Congress and, once again, defer to the Deep State. He will break his vow, either by ignoring it indefinitely or by, once again, ordering only a partial release of some of the records, including letting the CIA and other federal agencies keep portions of their long-secret records redacted.

    All he has to do is print it, sign it, and publish it on his first day in office.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 22:35

  • Full Lavrov-Tucker Interview: US & Russia Need To Cooperate 'For The Sake Of The Universe'
    Full Lavrov-Tucker Interview: US & Russia Need To Cooperate ‘For The Sake Of The Universe’

    Tucker Carlson first unveiled Wednesday that he had traveled to Moscow to interview Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the full interview has subsequently been published Thursday night.

    Among the most important messages conveyed was directed by Lavrov toward Washington and its allies, which “must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call strategic defeat of Russia.”

    And referencing Russia’s recent use of its Oreshnik hypersonic missile, Lavrov expressed hope that Kiev’s backers took “seriously” the new weapon, for which Russia says there is no defense, as Moscow remains ready to use “any means” to defend itself. “We are sending signals and we hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapons system called Oreshnik… was taken seriously,” Lavrov emphasized. Full interview:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The very opening question posed by Tucker got straight to the main point which is surely on the minds of many viewers:

    Tucker Carlson: Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?

    Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries especially with the great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for the American history, for the American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.

    Tucker Carlson: But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?

    Sergey Lavrov: Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is that some people call it hybrid war. I would call it hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without direct participation of the American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.

    We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik was taken seriously.

    In the context of these statements he invoked the undesired and catastrophic possibility of the standoff between Russia and NATO entering nuclear territory:

    “The message which we wanted to sell in testing, in real action, this hyper sonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interest. We hate even to think about war with the United States which will take nuclear character… [but] since some people in Washington … seem to be not very capable to understand [Russia’s interests], we will send additional messages if they don’t draw necessary conclusions.”

    And other interesting moment came when the top Russian diplomat outlined his country’s motives in Ukraine vs. Washington’s…

    “They fight to maintain global hegemony over every region, while we fight for our legitimate security interests. Senator Lindsey Graham even said Ukraine’s rare earth metals must not be left to Russia—openly admitting their goal is resource exploitation. They support a regime willing to give away natural and human resources. We fight for the people whose ancestors built and developed these lands for centuries.”

    “In any case, this is not what we wanted,” he elsewhere said on the question of war. “We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors—but generally, with all countries, especially a great country like the United States.”

    …”We don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate together for the sake of the universe,” Lavrov emphasized in a key moment.

    * * *

    Some highlights…

    “An Invitation to Disaster”: Sergey Lavrov commented on talk of a limited exchange of nuclear strikes between the US and Russia in the interview…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Escalation fears… the central question

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Russia’s real key condition for lasting peace in Ukraine

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Biden administration is seeking to leave as big a mess at it can for incoming Trump administration

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The permanence of the Russia-China alliance in the face of Washington aggression

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Cooperation for the sake of the peace of the universe

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Continue by watching the full interview here.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 22:10

  • Trump Needs To Make An Example Of General Milley
    Trump Needs To Make An Example Of General Milley

    Authored by Christopher Roach via American Greatness,

    In dealing with his enemies in the Deep State, President Trump could follow one of two paths. One would be the path of peace, reconciliation, and forgiveness. This would certainly be easier in the short term and also garner approval from insiders and the media. Alternatively, he could seek to clean house and punish the worst and most insubordinate offenders from his first term.

    Which path Trump should take all depends on whether one believes the last eight years were normal partisan squabbles or if one believes that something monumental happened: the obstruction of democratic self-government by a technocratic Deep State.

    I believe it is the latter for reasons I have explained before at length. In short, Trump was not allowed to govern, nor treated as other presidents were during his first term. The problem began before Trump, as entrenched bureaucratic interests have worked quietly to control more cooperative and less independent presidents, like Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the resistance to Trump reflected a mature, ideological, and increasingly self-conscious managerial class that believed they were entitled to rule without regard to electoral results.

    Trump was a threat to business as usual.

    Thus, a cabal of intelligence agencies cooperated to stop him from making changes to foreign policy or scrutinizing the outsized military-industrial complex. Contrary to the media’s dire pronouncements, these insiders were the real threat to democracy and self-government.

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, was one of the worst offenders.

    As documented in Bob Woodward’s book Peril, Milley spent a lot of time after the 2020 election caballing with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and reassuring her that the military would resist certain orders from President Trump.

    He met with the small group of officers who control our strategic nuclear forces and demanded they pledge to get his approval before executing any launch orders, even though, as head of the Joint Chiefs, he is merely an advisor and is statutorily excluded from the chain of command.

    Finally, and most controversially, he was telling his counterpart in China that he would let them know if an attack or other action was coming from the United States. He defended this as normal “deconfliction” communications, but these secret talks took place without authorization from either the Secretary of Defense or the president.

    All of Milley’s actions took place after he earlier joined with a group of retired officers to impede Trump’s use of the military to stop nationwide riots around June of 2020. Milley sent out an implied message to the troops suggesting that they could ignore any order to deploy, even though active-duty troops have been used in such a capacity repeatedly, including during the 1992 L.A. Riots.

    As he reminded the whole nation by using the term “white rage,” Milley is typical of the new class of liberal senior officers who take part in the culture wars, cleave to one-half of the partisan divide, and act like they are beyond the control of the president whom they serve when they disagree with his politics.

    Milley’s bad behavior was particularly egregious because of his role.

    The Joint Chiefs are supposed to serve as military advisors. They are statutorily excluded from the ordinary chain of command to maintain institutional separation between advisory and command roles. This arrangement is designed to contribute to increased trust and candor between the Joint Chiefs and the president.

    Secret talks with partisan opponents of the president, unauthorized back-channel communications to enemies, casual comparisons of the president to Adolf Hitler, and pseudo-idealistic suggestions that troops should disobey the orders they find disagreeable undermine that trust for obvious reasons.

    Some have argued this might all be permissible in extremis and as part of the right of service members to resist illegal orders. But too much is made of this right. This defense is only supposed to apply to a very narrow set of self-evidently illegal orders, typically involving war crimes. Whether the government properly approved the use of troops to stop a riot is not such a case. Normally, the military must follow orders without delay. This distinguishes it from slower and less energetic civilian institutions.

    There are a great many controversial—but legal—orders. Likely the most controversial would be an order to use nuclear weapons. The protocols on nuclear launch authority give exclusive power to the president to order a launch—a necessary, though admittedly dangerous, power to account for the fast timelines associated with a possible enemy first strike.

    Perhaps this authority should be pulled back—I believe it should, particularly for cases of non-retaliatory uses of these weapons—but this was the established policy stretching back to the Cold War. More important, it was firmly established when Milley took it upon himself to undermine Trump’s authority by secretly demanding a loyalty oath from the officers in charge of our nuclear arsenal.

    Milley did what he did because he was afraid of his own shadow and convinced himself that Trump was losing it and about to become a dictator.

    In his supercilious and adolescent phrasing, we were facing a “Reichstag moment.”

    The military is not part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. The military and the entire executive branch are subordinate to the president. He is their source of authority and is the boss, having attained his authority from an election involving the entire American people.

    Once upon a time, liberals worried that a conservative, authoritarian military might thwart a liberal president and his policies. But these fears proved to be completely overblown. The military was, until a decade or so ago, a self-consciously nonpartisan institution. Even as it trended more conservative during the Clinton years, there was no insubordination akin to Milley’s performance.

    It turns out that while the country was on the lookout for right-wing military extremists, the military had few defenses from leftist partisanship. Whether classified as treason or mere insubordination, a similarly corrosive performance risks repeating itself during Trump’s second term.

    In the immediate aftermath of the election, the left seems to realize it is unwise to resist openly and violently, as they did for much of the Trump administration. But I believe, at the moment, they are merely regrouping and working on a strategy they believe will work.

    The military, which retains prestige because it is still perceived as a nonpartisan repository of patriotic rectitude, will likely loom prominently in these plans, just as it did during Trump’s first term. As we know, the military and Milley lost all qualms about using the military domestically when they flooded the zone with armed National Guardsmen to create a Green Zone for Biden’s 2021 Inauguration.

    This unhealthy politicization and leftist partisanship among the military’s senior leadership must be stopped.

    The military should return to its role as a neutral instrument of national power. But this means it must chiefly be controlled by the elected president in the manner he directs. In order to restore healthier civil-military relations, there must be a dramatic and symbolic reset reminding the military and the rest of the country that Trump has full executive powers as president.

    In order to accomplish this, Mark Milley should be recalled to service, court-martialed, punished, and publicly dishonored in order to prevent a resurgence of the corrosive principle of leftist military partisanship during Trump’s second term.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 21:45

  • Israel Preparing For Possibility Of Syrian State Collapse
    Israel Preparing For Possibility Of Syrian State Collapse

    Israeli leaders and military officials are reportedly engaged in high level briefings over fast-moving events in Syria, which have seen Turkish-backed Islamists based in Idlib rapidly capture the major cities of Aleppo and Hama in less than a week.

    Defense Minister Israel Katz and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi are carefully monitoring the situation across the border as the jihadists move south. “The IDF is following events and is preparing for any scenario in attack and defense,” the military said.

    Anadolu/Getty Images

    “The IDF will not allow a threat near the Syrian-Israeli border and will act to thwart any threat to the citizens of the State of Israel,” it added. Of course, Israel has long directly contributed to destabilizing Syria through frequent airstrikes and at various times in past years supporting an anti-Assad insurgency.

    There have been some unconfirmed reports that one option Israel would consider is creating a buffer zone inside southern Syria in the scenario of some kind of state collapse, and should Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) make it to Homs and eventually Damascus. Some analysts have accused Israel of covertly supporting HTS’ ongoing rampage across the northern half of the country.

    According to one Israeli report:

    Channel 12 reports that Israel is preparing for the possibility that the Syrian army may collapse in the face of rapidly advancing rebel forces.

    The report says Israel has been surprised by the weakness of the Syrian army, as it continues to swiftly lose ground to the jihadist-led fighters. The report adds that Israel has sent a strong warning to Iran not to send weaponry to Syria that could reach the hands of the Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon.

    And an unnamed US official has told Axios on Thurdsay at a moment the HTS insurgents are in control of the central city of Hama, “The Syrian military forces are not really fighting.”

    The official added, “We don’t think the regime is in immediate danger, but this is the biggest challenge for the Assad regime in the last decade.”

    The last 12 hours have seen reports emerge of a Syrian Army counteroffensive around Hama, with some military bases on the outskirts having been taken back by national forces.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    How did the security situation in the Aleppo area unravel so quickly? How or why did the Syrian Army retreat so rapidly?

    * * *

    Below, a prominent and longtime Syrian commentator who goes by Bassem gives a quick bird’s eye view explanation…

    External:

    1) Russia got distracted with the war in Ukraine and resources diverted there.

    2) Hamas idiotically went on suicide mission in October 2023 and dragged Hizbollah into the conflict indirectly and exhausted them.

    3) Israel weakened Iran in Syria past few years.

    Source: @ThomasVLinge

    Internal:

    4) Assad did nothing to improve the lives of locals. Electricity for few hours a day, not enough fuel for daily matters, corruption, made the lives of Syrian business community hell (customs, etc), to name few.

    5) all the while opposition was rebuilding, changing their message, training, even Ukrainian intelligence came in to support them with intelligence and drone technology.

    * * *

    We should add that US and European sanctions have devastated the Syrian economy and infrastructure, which have without doubt negatively impacted the Syrian Army’s general readiness and morale. And the US military has been occupying Syria’s oil and gas fields in the east for years at this point. Part of Washington’s purpose has remained to squeeze Damascus of energy resources, further weakening the Syrian state.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 21:20

  • DEI Is Deflating
    DEI Is Deflating

    Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has, over the past several years, become part of the fabric of American institutions, notably businesses and schools. In a nutshell, DEI pays no mind to quality but, instead, is a system whereby racial bean counting is the sine qua non of our culture. While this has already been a disastrous policy for all concerned, a recent study delves into the serious damage it has done.

    On November 25, the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University Social Perception Lab released “Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias.” The study examines whether the themes and materials common in DEI training foster inclusion or exacerbate conflicts and whether such materials promote empathy or increase hostility towards groups labeled as oppressors. The study consists of three experiments—one that focused on race, one on religion, and the other on caste.

    As noted by National Review’s Abigail Anthony, although proponents of DEI training claim that they are designed to educate individuals about bias and reduce discrimination, “the study found that participants primed with DEI materials were more likely to perceive prejudice where none existed and were more willing to punish the perceived perpetrators.”

    In the experiment that focused on race, the researchers randomly assigned 423 Rutgers University undergraduates into two groups: one control group exposed to a neutral essay about U.S. corn production and the other exposed to an essay that combined material from Ibram X. Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility. After exposure to the essays, participants were presented with the following race-neutral scenario: “A student applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2024. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer. Ultimately, the student’s application was rejected.”

    The results showed that participants who were primed with Kendi’s and DiAngelo’s books perceived more discrimination from the admissions officer, despite the absence of any racial identification and evidence of discrimination. Those participants also believed that the admissions officer was more unfair to the applicant, had caused more harm to the applicant, and had committed more “microaggressions.”

    This is not the only objective examination that shows the deleterious effects of DEI. A study by researchers Jay Greene and James Paul in 2021 details many aspects of the harmful scheme. In a nutshell, the authors find DEI to be “counterproductive and politically radical.”

    The part of the study that examines DEI’s effects on elementary schools is particularly damning. It looks at school districts with at least 15,000 students, of which there are 554, and finds that schools with Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) “actually have larger gaps in achievement between black and white students, Hispanic and white students, and non-poor and poor students than districts without CDOs. Those gaps have grown wider over time. This pattern holds true even after controlling for a host of other observable characteristics of those districts.

    The researchers explain that the gaps occur because CDOs “are more focused on promoting a political agenda than they are on finding effective educational interventions.”

    And that political agenda includes advancing policies that typically exacerbate achievement gaps, such as eliminating gifted programs and advanced math classes “while selecting English and Social Studies content for its political orthodoxy rather than educational quality.”

    But the times are changing; businesses nationwide are eliminating their DEI programs.

    On Nov 25, Walmart announced that it would stop participating in the Human Rights Coalition’s Corporate Equality Index and remove the gender-neutral term “Latinx” from its documents, according to conservative filmmaker Robby Starbuck, who had been talking to Walmart for a story he was doing featuring the company’s DEI initiatives.

    The announcement comes in the wake of similar moves by a string of other major corporations—Ford, John Deere, Lowe’s, Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s, Microsoft, United Airlines, and Boeing—reflecting a backlash against DEI in American life.

    Colleges, too, are backing away from the DEI regimen, although these decisions come from state governments, not typically from the colleges themselves.

    Texas now has a law that bars public institutions of higher education from having DEI offices, as well as programs, activities, and training conducted by those offices. The law also restricts training or hiring policies based on race, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

    Public universities in Florida and Utah have banned DEI. At MIT, a private university, President Sally Kornbluth confirmed that the school would “no longer require diversity statements in faculty hiring.” As reported by City Journal, the University of Michigan may soon end its investment in DEI.

    Additionally, according to an analysis from OpenTheBooks.com, the University of North Carolina spends an estimated $90 million each year on 686 employees who promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their departments or across the system. But change there, too, is on the horizon. In a repudiation of DEI ideology, the UNC Board of Governors has voted to repeal its diversity policy.

    Not surprisingly, all the usual suspects are in a snit about the pushback against DEI. PEN America’s latest report, released in October, explains that new laws enacted this year are censoring teaching and research directly, imposing ideological restrictions on every aspect of university governance, banning DEI offices, restricting the topics of majors and minors, etc.

    What else needs to be done to quash the DEI bilge?

    On a national level, incoming President Trump will hopefully rescind all of Joe Biden’s executive orders implementing DEI and gender theory, including Executive Order 13985, which advanced a “whole-of-government equity agenda.”

    Additionally, Congress should pass the Dismantle DEI Act, which is currently working its way through the House. If successful, it would eliminate DEI practices throughout the federal bureaucracy.

    The feds could also have a hand in ending harmful woke practices in our colleges. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s plan, which he announced last summer, “would change the accreditation system, protect free speech, eliminate wasteful administrative positions, and use the Justice Department to file lawsuits against schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination.”

    Many Americans have had it and are pushing back against progressive nostrums regarding racial identity, diversity, equity, social justice, gender, and inclusion, reports Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He adds that average Americans of all races and ethnicities don’t agree with the views and values promoted by DEI trainers.

    Instead of DEI, a more constructive plan would be to implement merit, excellence, and intelligence, or MEI, on the employment level, hiring the best candidates for open roles without considering demographics.

    Per Alexandr Wang, MEI is a hiring process based on merit and will naturally yield a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and ideas. “We will not pick winners and losers based on someone being the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ race, gender, and so on.”

    Woke may very well be going broke. Good riddance!

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 20:55

  • Visualizing What Americans Eat
    Visualizing What Americans Eat

    The average American household allocated $9,986 – or 13% of their total expenditures – toward food in 2023. But what does that spending reveal about the nation’s eating habits?

    Visual Capitalist partnered with Brazil Potash to create this chart, which uses data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, to show a breakdown of what Americans eat.

    A Breakdown of Food Groups Consumed

    In 2023, food eaten away from home made up an average of $3,933 per household, representing a substantial 39% of total food spending.

    On the home front, the largest share of spending went to miscellaneous food items such as sugars, oils, and non-alcoholic beverages, amounting to $2,469. This is a significant 15% uptick from the previous year.

    Meanwhile, spending on meat, poultry, fish, and eggs fell by 4% to $1,164. However, not all livestock farming saw a decline in spending, as dairy, the smallest share of spending, increased by 13% year-over-year.

    Lastly, cereals and baked goods experienced the largest yearly increase, a 17% surge totaling $830.

    Where Potash Comes In

    U.S. food prices increased by 5.8% in 2023, influencing the spending habits of American consumers in various ways.

    This is where potash comes in as a solution to food inflation.

    Potash is a potassium-rich mineral used as a fertilizer to boost crop yields and support food production. Its use supports stable food supplies and affordability on a global scale.

    You too can get involved in solving global food inflation and cultivate returns in your investment portfolio.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 20:30

  • Trump Names David Sacks As White House AI, Crypto Czar
    Trump Names David Sacks As White House AI, Crypto Czar

    Donald Trump has named David Sacks as the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar,” according to a Thursday night post on Truth Social.

    “He will work on a legal framework so the Crypto industry has the clarity it has been asking for, and can thrive in the US,” Trump said in the post, adding that Sacks will “guild policy for the Administration in Artificial Intelligence and Cryptocurrency, two areas critical to the future of American competitiveness.

    “David will focus on making America the clear global leader in both areas.”

    Of note, Sacks has been buying Bitcoin since 2012:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The feeling is mutual David…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 20:05

  • How Often People Go To The Doctor, By Country
    How Often People Go To The Doctor, By Country

    If a country’s average doctor visits are high, it could be easy to assume the population isn’t healthy. At the same time not going enough may seem like there’s an accessibility issue.

    As with most sociological data, the devil is in the details. And differences in payment systems, insurance plans, and how healthcare is delivered all play a part into why going to the doctor is more common or not.

    This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, tracks the number of in-person doctor visits per year by country. Data is sourced from the OECD, as of 2021, or the latest year available. Figures are rounded.

    Nurse Practitioners are Easing Patient Loads in Some Countries

    At the top of the list, South Koreans visit the doctor the most, around 16 times a year on average. These visits are helped by the country’s famously fast and efficient healthcare sector.

    Like the U.S., South Korea has a fee-for-service system which allows patients to access what they need—but with very little wait times.

    However, unlike the U.S., its national insurance program covers over 70% of the medical bills, lessening individual costs.

    Rank Country Region Annual Doctor Visits per Person
    1 🇰🇷 South Korea Asia 16
    2 🇯🇵 Japan Asia 11
    3 🇸🇰 Slovakia Europe 11
    4 🇩🇪 Germany Europe 10
    5 🇭🇺 Hungary Europe 10
    6 🇳🇱 Netherlands Europe 9
    7 🇹🇷 Türkiye Middle East 8
    8 🇨🇿 Czech Republic Europe 8
    9 🇵🇱 Poland Europe 8
    10 🇮🇱 Israel Middle East 7
    11 🇧🇪 Belgium Europe 7
    12 🇱🇹 Lithuania Europe 7
    13 🇦🇹 Austria Europe 7
    14 🇦🇺 Australia Oceania 6
    15 🇱🇻 Latvia Europe 6
    16 🇭🇷 Croatia Europe 6
    17 🇸🇮 Slovenia Europe 6
    18 🇧🇬 Bulgaria Europe 6
    19 🇫🇷 France Europe 6
    20 🇮🇹 Italy Europe 5
    21 🇷🇴 Romania Europe 5
    22 🇱🇺 Luxembourg Europe 5
    23 🇪🇸 Spain Europe 5
    24 🇨🇦 Canada Americas 5
    25 🇫🇮 Finland Europe 4
    26 🇪🇪 Estonia Europe 4
    27 🇳🇴 Norway Europe 4
    28 🇩🇰 Denmark Europe 4
    29 🇵🇹 Portugal Europe 4
    30 🇺🇸 U.S. Americas 3
    31 🇬🇷 Greece Europe 3
    32 🇨🇱 Chile Americas 3
    33 🇸🇪 Sweden Europe 2
    34 🇨🇷 Costa Rica Americas 2
    35 🇧🇷 Brazil Americas 2
    36 🇲🇽 Mexico Americas 2

    On the other hand, Americans really don’t like visiting the doctor, averaging just two visits a year, one of the lowest in the world.

    The OECD states that a large majority of the population faces high co-payments, which reduces regular checkups.

    More importantly, nurse practitioners and other healthcare professionals play an outsized role in treating patients, especially those with chronic conditions, which means actual doctor visits fall.

    This difference in health care delivery explains also why the Swedes, Canadians, and Finns don’t go to the doctor as much either, as they rely on other medical staff for most of their health-related needs.

    As the world ages, the need for more doctors is only increasing. And some countries are able to attract them from across borders. Check out Europe’s Reliance on Foreign-Trained Doctors to see which ones are most successful.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 19:40

  • Technocracy Rising, Part 1: Why It's Crucial To Understand The End Game
    Technocracy Rising, Part 1: Why It’s Crucial To Understand The End Game

    Authored by Jesse Smith via TruthUnmuted.org,

    Major shake-ups are occurring across the global stage. History is replete with examples of breaks with the past from major political, economic, technological, and social upheaval. Throughout the ages, many self-serving individuals and groups have positioned themselves as rulers, financiers, benefactors, and thought leaders to steer change toward preferred outcomes. From the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt to the Jacobin and Napoleon-led French Revolution in the late 18th century, societal transformation has been constant as one form of government replaces another.

    We have now arrived at yet another historical inflection point. The desire for political and economic reconstruction is being demanded globally as the gap between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else continues to accelerate. In recent years, populism has taken flight by inspiring the masses to reject the rule of “the elite” and chart a new course. However, without scrutiny, this movement and its key figures could be just as dangerous as the establishment they are attempting to usurp. In fact, what we are witnessing is not populism in its truest sense but techno-populism or technocracy, as it has been called since its inception in 1920.

    Technocracy originated in the winter of 1918-19 when Howard Scott formed a group of scientists, engineers, and economists that became known in 1920 as the Technical Alliance — a research organization. In 1933 it was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York as a nonprofit, non-political, non-sectarian membership organization.” 

    – The Technocrat, Dec. 1964

    What is Technocracy?

    Historically, technocracy has not been well received. In fact, many who accurately comprehended its goals viewed it as a threat to democracy and the debt-based economic order run by the central banking establishment that has dominated the last century. Technocrats railed against this “Price System,” arguing it alone was to blame for the inequalities and inefficiencies of society. There is definitely some truth to their claims.

    Under the Price System at its best there is not a single field of endeavor where the best technical standards are allowed to prevail. In other words, poverty, waste, crime, poor public health, bad living conditions, enforced scarcity, and low load-factors, are every one the direct and necessary consequences of the Price System… What we have tried to make clear is that it is the Price System itself, and not the individual human being, which is at fault.”

    – Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy Inc. 1933, p.176

    Technocracy can be defined simply as an impersonal and scientific method of managing all aspects of a society. Its primary concerns deal with how energy is produced and used. But it goes much deeper than this. One of the best explanations can be found in an issue of The Technocrat magazine from September 1937, where it states:

    Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population of this continent. For the first time in human history it will be done as a scientific, technical, engineering problem. There will be no place for Politics or Politicians, Finance or Financeers, Rackets or Racketeers.”

    The technocratic dream is revolutionary in scope, envisioning a total reorganization of industry, government, and law and order. They readily admit their intent is to socially engineer all of society, seize control of the production and distribution of all goods and services, and rid the world of rule by politicians and (traditional) financial controllers. The U.S. Constitution is also viewed as a relic, completely unfit to serve as a basis of governance and human rights.

    Another job which has been neglected far too long is the rebuilding of our governmental machinery, from the village level right up to Congress. It cannot be avoided much longer, simply because the country has outgrown the constitutional clothes which the Founding Fathers tailored for it nearly two centuries ago. They have become as anachronistic, and as impractical, as a Pilgrim’s costume on an astronaut.” – Edith Chamberlain, The Technocrat, Dec. 1964

    Technocrats make no pretense about maintaining a representative form of government be it a republic (as the USA was founded as) or democracy (what the USA has become). Its goal is to establish a scientific dictatorship to initiate and control all societal functions. Technocrats distanced themselves and were highly critical of fascists, communists, socialists, and other political movements but don’t have a problem with their own totalitarian style of rule termed a Technate.

    Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.”

    – Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy Inc. 1933

    Figure 22.1 from the Technocracy Study Course illustrates the point above revealing that technocracy is simply another form of top-down rule with a Continental Director having total authority of all societal functions.

    Figure 22.1 – Technocracy Study Course

    A December 1964, issue of The Technocrat magazine further explained that:

    Technocracy holds that all decisions pertaining to the functional operation of the society — the production and distribution of goods and services, research, and governance — should be made by technical men and women. This does not mean that the technical people should leave their technical positions and go into politics, law, business promotion, public relations, and moral philosophy. Rather, it means that the scientists, technologists, engineers, and technicians shall continue to operate as such and that the decision-making of the society be moved into their functional realms.”

    Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. Form the Seat of Modern Technocracy

    Image: Adobe Stock

    Regardless of one’s comprehension of technocratic plans, a monumental reshaping of governments, economies, and societies is occurring, but not by elected representatives, constitutions, creeds, or the will of the people. Power is now concentrated in the hands of an exclusive class of scientists, technologists, engineers, and technicians—many of whom also happen to head multi-billion-dollar corporations.

    We are also finding that technology has made people more isolated and infringes upon privacy with consequences yet to be realized. When we see the relationship between tech companies and government flourish, we are ultimately watching the implementation of a full-fledged technocracy.”

    – Pendleton, Joseph. Californication: The Rise of the American Technocracy (p. 20). The Conservatarian Press.

    Silicon Valley is the seat of modern technocracy. Big Tech is the euphemism for which it’s currently known. The World Economic Forum defines this dynamic as public-private partnerships (PPP).

    Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreeson are some of today’s most prominent techno-populists. Many believe they are modern day Justice League type heroes leading the world to newfound freedom (or at least in the United States). All were major contributors to Donald Trump’s reelection campaign in 2024. Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance has deep connections to Peter Thiel, indicating how close technocrats truly are to running the country.

    Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, and Sam Altman are also among the many tech gurus aligning themselves with the newly elected Trump administration. These endorsements indicate that for now, technocrats are content with using politicians and the political system to quietly transform the government into a full-fledged Technate from the inside out and vice versa.

    It is the man who has command of the technical information who makes the real decisions in the functional phases of modern life. He is the only one who understands what needs to be done and how to do it. The politicians and financial manipulators who pretend that the right of decision is theirs are helpless without the technical men.”

    – The Technocrat, Dec. 1964

    Something else technocrats correctly understood was the sham of voting and elections. Perhaps this is another reason why they stayed hidden in times past, realizing the populace was not ready to accept this truth.

    In the United States, it is generally assumed that the people vote for the kind of government they want, but that is not exactly true. Technically, they do not even vote directly for their president; they vote for electors who, in turn, are tacitly committed to vote for indicated candidates, the exact rules varying with the different states. Moreover, the public has little voice in choosing the candidates; it usually ends up with their having a choice between two men chosen by the respective political party ‘machines.’ And they have less choice concerning the policies of the president. Once elected, the president is under no real obligation to heed the desires of the people and often acts contrary to his campaign promises.” 

    – The Technocrat, Dec. 1964

    Would Donald Trump have been “reelected” without the help of the aforementioned technocrats? Now that he will resume the Presidency, will he be more beholden to the people or his big moneyed investors from Silicon Valley?

    Why is Technocracy Rising Now?

    Technocracy has long been resisted by traditional powers and was originally conceived only for the North American Continent. Today, technocracy is rising from the ashes like the Phoenix legend to become a global force to be reckoned with. I believe this is largely because of the pending economic meltdown. The debt-based, fiat currency system is at the end of its life cycle and the central bank establishment is looking for new ways to maintain control of the monetary system. They have joined ranks with the technocrats who were correct in predicting that the system would crash (though it has yet to take place due to manipulation tactics keeping it at bay).

    If the human race on this Continent is to survive the crash of the Price System, Technocracy will have to be put into practice.”

    – Technocracy in Plain Terms, Technocracy Inc. 1939

    By adopting technocracy, the banking elite not only can retain control over the monetary system, they will also cement their rule over all industries, natural resources, governments, institutions, and people.

    Technocracy Wouldn’t Exist Without Advances in Technology

    Big Tech products are ubiquitous and thought to be indispensable in our ultramodern, future-oriented world. AI, robotics, and the Internet of Things (IoT) are touted as catalysts that can lead to a future of ease and prosperity for all. These technologies and more are considered part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution aka Industry 4.0, where the shift to digital technologies will supersede past ways of conducting business, communicating, and governing with one major caveat: the potential to overtake humanity itself and render humans as “hackable animals” and “useless people.” Consider the following statements from some of the world’s most prominent thought leaders.

    “Technologies that are emerging today will soon be shaping the world tomorrow and well into the future – with impacts to economies and to society at large. Now that we are well into the Fourth Industrial Revolution, it’s critical that we discuss and ensure that humanity is served by these new innovations so that we can continue to prosper.”

    – Mariette DiChristina, (former) Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, and chair of the Emerging Technologies Steering Committee

    “We must develop a comprehensive and globally shared view of how technology is affecting our lives and reshaping our economic, social, cultural, and human environments. There has never been a time of greater promise, or greater peril.”

    – Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

    “Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population… Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.”

    – Yuval Noah Harrari, Author, Historian, and Philosopher

    “Probably none of us will have a job.”

    – Elon Musk (referring to the rise of Artificial Intelligence)

    Paradoxically, technocracy claims to enable widespread prosperity while also rendering the lot of humanity replaceable, useless, and without meaning. How can this be? To technocrats of yesteryear, there was not much difference between human beings, dogs, pigs, and cars. The belief that humans are the capstone of all creation and made in the image of God was routinely mocked and discredited. In a chapter entitled, The Human Animal, the Technocracy Study Course further elaborates on its base view of humanity, stating:

    The developments in the fields of physiology, biochemistry and biophysics, chiefly since 1900, are at last bringing us down to earth. Attention has already been called to the fact that the human body is composed chemically of the ordinary substances of which rocks are made. So are dogs, horses and pigs. In an earlier lesson, while discussing the ‘human engine,’ we pointed out that the human body obeys identically the same laws of energy transformation as a steam engine. This also is true of dogs, horses and pigs. These facts might lead one to suspect that human beings are very far removed from the semi-supernatural creatures they have heretofore supposed themselves to be…

    When we observe a human being we merely perceive an object which makes a certain variety of motions and noises. The same is true, however, when we observe a dog or a Ford car.”

    Modern technocrats also view the human as mere biological material that can be manipulated as needed, as evidenced by World Economic Forum Founder and Chairman Klaus Schwab:

    This Fourth Industrial Revolution is, however, fundamentally different. It is characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital, and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.”

    Contemporary technocracy has now merged with transhumanism forming a dangerous combination, as noted by author Patrick Wood, who wrote:

    Technocrats see science and technology as the answer to improve and control society; transhumanists see the same science and technology as the answer to improve and control the human condition.”

    – The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism (p. 19). Coherent Publishing, LLC.

    Why You Should Care About the Rise of Technocracy

    Hopefully all the dots are starting to connect, enabling you to see where all of this is heading. Technocracy’s ascendance is a threat to all of humanity. Technocrats promise a utopian existence where abundance is the norm and work is optional, if not completely unnecessary. The self-appointed leaders believe they know best how to manage the world’s resources and its people. To accomplish these lofty goals, the social structure will have to undergo drastic changes which include redefining work and wages. The following excerpt from the Technocracy Study Course provides a detailed overview of what this entails.

    “If the production is to be non-oscillatory and maintained at a high level so as to provide a high standard of living, it follows that consumption must be kept equal to production, and that a system of distribution must be designed which will allow this. This system of distribution must do the following things:

    1. Register on a continuous 24-hour time period basis the total net conversion of energy, which would determine (a) the availability of energy for Continental plant construction and maintenance, (b) the amount of physical wealth available in the form of consumable goods and services for consumption by the total population during the balanced load period.

    2. By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.

    3. Provide a continuous 24-hour inventory of all production and consumption.

    4. Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced, and where used.

    5. Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.

    6. Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his individual share of Continental physical wealth.

    7. Distribute goods and services to every member of the population.

    In short, the goal of technocracy is to micromanage everything you do, produce, and consume through nonstop surveillance. This was not technically possible with the crude paper methods proposed by early technocrats. However, it is becoming achievable with the advent of digital technologies such as biometrics, Big Data, geospatial intelligence, digital currency, AI, and 5G. In a Technate, there will be no free-market economy where the average person could obtain wealth by starting a business or embarking upon a lucrative career path. Instead, technocrats promise each person a share of the overall wealth produced through the issue of Energy Certificates.

    Under a technological administration of abundance, there is only one efficient method—that employing a system of Energy Certificates…These certificates are merely pieces of paper containing certain printed matter. They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. The certificates issued to an individual may be thought of as possessing some of the properties both of bank cheque and of a traveler’s cheque. They would resemble a bank cheque in that they carry no face denomination. They receive their denomination only when being spent. They resemble a traveler’s cheque in that they possess some means of ready identification, such as counter-signature, photograph, or some similar device, so as to establish easy identification by the person to whom issued, and at the same time remain absolutely useless in the hands of anyone else.”

    – Technocracy Study Course, p.230

    Today, Energy Certificates could take the form of Universal Basic/High Income payments issued in the form of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) or some other form of digital currency. Corporate transactions could be conducted via carbon credits. Regardless of the mechanism of financial transfer, the individual will be totally dependent on the Technate with everything one does requiring a digital ID.

    Technate of North America ID Card – Source: Technocracy Technate Picture Archive

    The American dream of upward mobility, already heading toward extinction, will receive the knockout blow in a technocratic regime. Instead, compliance and energy usage will determine your level of prosperity. Property rights will also go out the window as the plan is to revolutionize housing into energy-efficient units with little variety and few manufacturers. This could occur today through the combination of an economic crisis wiping out individual wealth and mass printing of 3D houses fit for the technocratic era.

    As envisioned, technocracy is no better than communism, fascism, or socialism. It’s just another power grab by individuals who believe they are smarter than the rest of us, with a promised utopia that will never materialize.

    These prognostications may seem far-fetched now, but the rest of this series will spell out in detail how close the technocratic fantasy is becoming a reality. It is important for people everywhere to understand the implications of what is taking place and not be fooled by wolves in sheep’s clothing proclaiming a new golden age of humanity is imminent. The question is, a golden age for who? Cui bono?

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 19:15

  • China-Linked Hackers Breached 8 US Telecom Companies, White House Says
    China-Linked Hackers Breached 8 US Telecom Companies, White House Says

    Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times,

    Chinese state-sponsored hackers compromised at least eight U.S. telecommunication companies, a top White House official said on Dec. 4.

    Anne Neuberger, deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies, provided an update on the Chinese threat actor group called “Salt Typhoon” during a press briefing on Wednesday. The threat group is believed to have hacked into the communications of senior U.S. government officials and prominent political figures, she said.

    “We don’t believe any classified communications has been compromised,” Neuberger said.

    The Chinese hacking appeared to target a relatively small group of Americans, she added, with only their phone calls and texts compromised.

    The telecommunications companies that were breached have responded, but none of them “have fully removed the Chinese actors from these networks,” according to Neuberger.

    “So there is a risk of ongoing compromises to communications until U.S. companies address the cybersecurity gaps the Chinese are likely to maintain their access,” Neuberger said.

    In October, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) identified the Chinese hacks, saying at the time that an investigation was underway.

    In late November, Neuberger and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan hosted telecommunications executives for a meeting to share intelligence and discuss how the U.S. government and the private sector could work together.

    Neuberger said President Joe Biden has been briefed multiple times on the issue. The White House “has made it a priority for the federal government to do everything it can,” she added.

    Additionally, Neuberger pointed to efforts to improve cybersecurity in multiple sectors including rail and energy, after the 2021 ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline.

    “So, to prevent ongoing Salt Typhoon type intrusions by China, we believe we need to apply a similar minimum cybersecurity practice,” Neuberger said.

    Also at Wednesday’s press briefing, a senior administration official said Salt Typhoon’s activities started at least a year or two ago. Additionally, the official said a “couple dozen” countries have been impacted by the Chinese hacking.

    The FBI and the CSIA issued a joint statement on Nov. 13, revealing that Chinese hackers had compromised the networks of multiple telecom companies and stole customer call records and private communications from “a limited number of individuals who are primarily involved in government or political activity.”

    On Tuesday, the FBI, the CISA, the National Security Agency (NSA), and international partners published a guide on best practices for protecting communication infrastructures.

    CISA Executive Assistant Director for Cybersecurity Jeff Greene conceded on Tuesday that he didn’t have a timeline on when Chinese hackers could be purged from U.S. telecom networks.

    “It would be impossible for us to predict when we’ll have full eviction,” Greene said at the time.

    In September, the Justice Department announced that the FBI had taken down a botnet associated with “Flax Typhoon,” a threat group operating through the Beijing-based Integrity Technology Group. The botnet consisted of more than 200,000 consumer devices—such as network cameras, video recorders, and home and office routers—in the United States and elsewhere.

    Another Chinese threat group, “Volt Typhoon,” began targeting a wide range of networks across U.S. critical infrastructure in 2021. The group, which was dismantled by a multi-agency operation in January, had maintained “access and footholds within some victim IT environments for at least five years,” according to CISA.

    On Dec. 3, Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.), a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said her legislation, officially known as the Strengthening Cyber Resilience Against State-Sponsored Threats Act, will combat the Chinese Communist Party’s growing threats against U.S. critical infrastructure.

    “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will continue to exploit and undermine our national security every chance they get. We must stand up against foreign adversaries,” Lee wrote on the social media platform X.

    If enacted, the legislation (H.R.9769) would create an interagency task force led by CISA and the FBI to deal with cybersecurity threats posed by China’s state-sponsored cyber threat groups. It would also require the new task force to inform Congress of its findings every year for five years.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 18:25

  • These Are The Best (And Worst) American Cities For Economic Mobility
    These Are The Best (And Worst) American Cities For Economic Mobility

    Behold – the American dream.

    Where a fair and equal society allows anyone the ability to fashion the life they want, providing they’re willing to work for it.

    A cornerstone of that dream is that each generation does better than the last, building and benefiting from growing economic opportunities.

    But this does not necessarily hold true for all Americans.

    This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, compares the real household income of 27-year-olds from two generations: those born in 1978 and those born in 1992, both raised by low-income parents. All figures are in 2023 dollars.

    ℹ️ 27 is the earliest age at which estimates of adult incomes can be measured. Only the 50 largest metros were considered in this analysis. Low-income is categorized by percentile groups.

    A positive percentage change implies economic mobility, allowing us to see the cities where adults had a chance to better their circumstances, and to what extent.

    Data is sourced from a study conducted by Opportunity Atlas in partnership with the Census Bureau.

    Where is the American Dream Still Alive?

    Southern cities in Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina did see upward mobility between generations in the lowest income group, with real wages improving 5-7%.

    For example, in Brownsville, Texas, those born to low-income parents in 1992 earned an average of $33,000 at age 27. This is around $2,000 more than their 1978-born peers at the same age, the highest increase across all 50 metro areas.

    In contrast, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, saw real incomes decline across generations. The 1978 cohort earned a similar salary to their peers in Brownsville ($31,200), but a generation later, incomes dropped to $27,200.

    In fact, only 12 of the 50 saw real income growth across generations for this economic class. And five of them were in Texas. This means that in 38 cities real wages fell between generations.

    Zooming out, the average household income at 27 across the nation (for those born to low-income parents) dropped by 4%.

    This class difference is important. Because when looking at the highest income percentile, the average income between generations increased 5%.

    Wondering where wages adjusted for the cost of living are the highest in the country? Check out Mapped: Median Income by State for a quick overview.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 18:00

  • 54 Democratic Lawmakers Urge Biden To Distribute Climate Funds Before He Leaves Office
    54 Democratic Lawmakers Urge Biden To Distribute Climate Funds Before He Leaves Office

    Authored by Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

    Fifty-four Democratic members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking President Joe Biden to lock in future climate change initiatives by disbursing the promised funds before he leaves office.

    The letter urges the move to “avoid future politicization or manipulation of climate programs,” before President-elect Donald Trump and a Republican-led Congress take over in 2025.

    The president can do this “by working over the next few weeks to obligate funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” the lawmakers said.

    “Obligating” the funds would make it more difficult to redirect the money, likely requiring an act of Congress to do so.

    The lawmakers seek funding for programs across a broad range of governmental agencies, including the departments of Energy, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Postal Service.

    Even if Biden declines to take this step, dismantling the Inflation Reduction Act might prove tricky. The GOP will have a very slim majority next year, and this past August, a group of 18 House Republicans asked Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to leave some aspects of the program in place, as some of the tax credits were beneficial to their constituents.

    The request comes the same day the Biden administration announced it had “supported more than 23,000 climate-focused conservation contracts” through funding from the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Another $19.5 billion will be granted over the coming years for “climate-smart agriculture and forestry mitigation activities,” the statement said.

    John Podesta, senior adviser for international climate policy, told Reuters on Dec. 3 that the Biden administration had crossed the threshold of $100 billion in grants through this legislation.

    Signatories of the letter included Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), sponsors of the 2019 Green New Deal resolution, which called on the federal government to take a broader role in tackling climate change.

    That resolution was brought to the Senate floor by then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but failed. All Republicans, joined by four Democrats, voted no. The other Democrats voted “present.”

    Similar resolutions have been tried since, without success. Ocasio-Cortez earlier this year announced a rebranding of the program as the Green New Deal for Public Housing.

    Co-sponsored by another signer, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), that program seeks to secure $162 billion to $234 billion to renovate public housing units, making them more energy efficient and generating “green” jobs in the process.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 17:40

  • Asian Solar Panel Stockpiles Face December 3rd Deployment Deadline To Avoid Billions In Retroactive Tariffs
    Asian Solar Panel Stockpiles Face December 3rd Deployment Deadline To Avoid Billions In Retroactive Tariffs

    Companies that imported millions of Southeast Asian solar panels could have to pay tariffs on them “ranging from 30% to more than 230%”, according to a new report from Bloomberg. 

    Companies have until December 3rd to install the panels, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection has pledged strict enforcement to prevent stockpiling, potentially exposing importers to audits, inspections, and billions in backdated tariff costs.

    Tom Beline, a trade attorney and partner in Cassidy Levy Kent’s Washington office, told Bloomberg: “That bill will shock a lot of people.” 

    The issue stems from a 2022 tariff holiday ordered by President Biden to ease the impact of a trade probe that slowed solar projects. The Commerce Department later found manufacturers were dodging Chinese solar tariffs by assembling products in Southeast Asia.

    While tariffs were extended to these nations, Biden delayed enforcement until June. To address a surge in duty-free imports, the administration set a December deadline for using the panels.

    Bloomberg writes that federal regulators have warned importers for months that they must prove panels are “utilized” or face retroactive tariffs, rejecting loopholes like destroying panels or temporary warehouse installations.

    Despite a last-minute push, analysts estimate 30 to 40 gigawatts of imported panels remain unused—over two-thirds of the U.S.’s annual panel demand. BloombergNEF data shows more than 30 gigawatts failed to meet the deadline.

    Tim Brightbill, a trade lawyer and partner at Wiley Rein, said: “Given that the domestic industry is still facing a price collapse and a surge of imports that have left years of inventory still in warehouses, the enforcement of this circumvention regime remains extremely important to the domestic industry.”

    Most manufactures told Bloomberg they weren’t stockpiling or didn’t comment. Art Fletcher, Invenergy’s executive vice president for domestic content said: “All modules that we imported into the US have been deployed at project sites to meet domestic energy demand across the country, including a de minimus number of modules being held on site for parts and maintenance.”

    But the crackdown adds uncertainty for solar developers, compounding trade probes, concerns over renewable tax credits, and former President Trump’s tariff policies.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 17:20

  • Why Syria Is More Relevant Today Than Before
    Why Syria Is More Relevant Today Than Before

    Authored by Kamal Alam via Middle East Eye,

    Amid the swift and stunning collapse of Aleppo following an assault led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is internationally sanctioned as a terrorist group, it is important to pause and recall that we have been here before. The advance by HTS and Turkish-backed rebels in Syria suggests that Turkey is playing its cards before US president-elect Donald Trump takes office, driven by its existential fear of a Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. 

    Turkey had been frustrated with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s repeated refusal to come to the negotiating table and meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan, although both Syrian and Turkish defense and intelligence chiefs have met regularly in Russia. Al-Assad has been negotiating through his ministers while relying on the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Russia for the diplomatic push. Yet, while the finger of blame has been pointed at Turkey, the Israel factor cannot be discounted.

    Anti-Assad insurgent at entrance of Saraqeb town in northwestern Idlib province, Syria on 1 December 2024

    Just days before the fall of Aleppo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened Syria against facilitating aid to Hezbollah – and it is no coincidence that this crisis began shortly after the Lebanon ceasefire was finalized. 

    It was almost timed perfectly to suggest that there has been some sort of nod to the armed groups in Idlib. Some Syrian opposition groups have acknowledged that Israel’s ceasefire helped them. Turkish-backed groups went so far as to thank Israel and further said they want good relations with Tel Aviv.

    A key difference

    But while many observers assert that Assad is on the ropes, his main backers, Russia and Iran, are already flexing their military and diplomatic muscle – and unlike the previous time Assad was in trouble in 2012, major players in the region, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Iraq, are publicly backing Syria’s sovereignty. Iraq said it shall help Syria militarily as well. 

    With the exception of Qatar, all Arab ambassadors are back in Damascus – and since the fall of Aleppo, there has been a reaffirmation of support for Syria, marking a key difference from when the conflict was viewed as a civil war. 

    Indeed, as Aleppo was falling, the UAE and US were on the verge of potentially removing sanctions on Syria. Assad must now finally take their advice on rapprochement with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan before the situation spirals out of control. 

    There has been much talk of increased tensions in the occupied Golan Heights, with Israel violating the 1973 buffer zone as it ordered some army units to move out of the demarcated UN line since 1973, almost as if they anticipated trouble to create a buffer zone like in Lebanon along the Litani river.

    At the same time, there has been a quiet flurry of diplomatic activity in recent months, from the Italians to the Saudis, placing Assad center-stage for a potential new shakeup in the Levant. 

    A number of EU countries, led by Italy, are calling for a major rethink of ties with Syria, spurred by the need to engage Assad for their own migration and security issues. Erdogan is almost begging Assad for a meeting, and with the UAE already increasing aid to Syria to help displaced Lebanese people, Damascus is set to regain a key role in the region after the dust settles in Beirut and Gaza.

    Syria has carefully maintained a low profile during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Whilst being a key member of the axis of resistance for the last 40 years, Syria has not been averse to talking or doing deals with Israel. It has at numerous times almost solved the issue of Golan, so it knows the balance.

    US President Donald Trump’s new Arab envoy, Massad Boulos, is a political ally of Assad’s best friend in Lebanon, Suleiman Frangieh, who is one of the key candidates for the presidency.

    Those who know the history of Lebanon and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) will know just how critical Syria is to the delicate balance of the region’s unorthodox relationships, which are not quite as black and white as they seem. Everything is not simply what faraway DC analysts label as “Shia versus Sunni”. 

    A recent report outlines how, in the lead-up to Iran’s 1979 revolution, Syria refused safe passage to Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to avoid further antagonizing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Prominent Syrian journalist Ibrahim Hamidi goes further in explaining the nuances of what Syria was trying to achieve in Lebanon and Palestine, as Syrian troops and allies sometimes clashed with Hezbollah to protect their own interests. 

    But the Israelis know that for any final peace with the Palestinian people, there must first be an understanding with Damascus. Similarly, Hamas’s recent U-turn on its relationship with Syria – alongside Israeli support for Syrian armed groups against Assad, and Tel Aviv’s now-famous contention that there would have been no Syrian uprising “if Assad made peace with us” – show how intricately linked the Palestinian file is to Syria’s endgame for Israel. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    To be clear, Syria is under no illusions: half the country has been reduced to rubble. But its strength has never been an all-out powerful military or strategic arms advantage. It is what author David Lesch has called Syria’s ability to punch above its weight.

    It is Syria’s ability to outlast its opponents and ride out the storm, rather than beating its opponents into submission. Assad, despite Israel’s frequent strikes on Iranian targets in Damascus, has not taken any retaliatory actions that could further raise Israel’s ire.

    Pivot from Iran to Gulf

    Similarly, according to Hamidi, who is one of the well-informed Syrian journalists, Syria has clamped down on the activities of Hezbollah and Iran-affiliated militias in the country, with Russian help – leading some analysts to question the viability of Iran-Syria ties. 

    While Iran is not quitting Syria, Damascus has other options, as the UAE and Saudi Arabia are helping Syria with the influx of Lebanese refugees, and the EU views strengthened ties with Damascus as a potential way to mitigate its own migration problems.

    Perhaps the most important element of Assad’s pivotal role in the current mess is Erdogan’s eagerness to meet him. Assad has so far rejected these overtures, saying it would not be an easy path to reconciliation with Turkey. Erdogan, however, has been pleading with Russia to bring Syria to the table. This rejection appears to have prompted Turkish-backed groups to reshuffle the cards in northern Aleppo. 

    The big “so what” from all of this is that even in Syria’s diminished capacity, after more than a decade of war, almost every month we are seeing more ambassadors and global leaders return to Damascus. 

    They see Assad as the best option not just for Syria, but also to help both the Syrian and Lebanese refugees -who fled Lebanon during the recent war – and to resolve the deadlock of the Lebanese presidency. More than a year ago, France acquiesced to a plan to push Assad’s best friend, Frangieh, as the best candidate for president in Lebanon, against the wishes of other European allies. 

    Amid the reordering of Lebanon, one thing that has stood the test of time is Syria’s ability to remain relevant, despite all the damage it has incurred. While Syria depends on Russia and Iran militarily, its global diplomatic support has increased, from Italy, to Saudi Arabia, to China – and this will eventually decide the future of Syria, and the region. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 17:00

  • How Big Is America's Middle Class in 2024?
    How Big Is America’s Middle Class in 2024?

    This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, visualizes the income distribution of all U.S. households in 2023, along with the range for which they would be considered middle class.

    Pew Research estimates a household making between two-thirds to double the median annual income is considered middle class. While median income varies by state, we’ll use the U.S. average declared by the source to set the benchmark.

    Data is sourced from the Census Bureau, and all figures are inflation-adjusted.

    U.S. Household Income Distribution in 2023

    In 2023, the median income was $80,060, placing families earning $53,000–$161,000 in the middle class bracked. This is about 40% of all U.S. households.

    Here’s a more granular breakdown of household income distribution.

    Looking at just the Census Bureau defined bands: the largest share of American households (17%) are in the $100,000-$150,000 annual salary range. It’s followed by the $50,000–$75,000 category (15.7%). These are also the upper and lower bands of the middle class.

    Perhaps most interesting is that the $200,000 and over bracket had the third-largest cohort of households (14.4%).

    The History of the Middle Class and Why it Matters

    Like most parts of the modern economy, the middle class traces its roots back to the Industrial Revolution.

    A new social strata emerged between the aristocracy and the working poor—where professionals, merchants, and skilled workers benefited the most from the economic changes of the time.

    But why does it matter today? Because of their collective disposable income, a strong middle class provides a stable consumer base that drives productive investment and economic growth.

    Additionally, the expansion of the middle class has been linked to reduced poverty rates and improved social policies in many countries.

    Looking for more graphics that visualize wealth or income distribution. Check out How the Global Distribution of Wealth Has Changed Since 2000 for a bird’s eye view.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 16:40

  • A Reset For America
    A Reset For America

    Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

    In late November, $140 billion of American savings disappeared into thin air. This was the result of a revision to the U.S. personal savings rate by the BEA.

    Of course, the money only ever existed in a government-published report. But the original “bullish” data was widely cited as a sign that all was well with the economy.

    In truth, Americans are burning through their savings at a rapid pace. During the pandemic citizens reached record savings levels due to stimulus checks and programs, but since then all those excess savings have been burned through. Biden’s inflationary and anti-growth policies have taken their toll.

    U.S. credit card debt recently surpassed $1.14 trillion, a new record, while growing at unprecedented speed. Compounding the problem, APRs on credit card debt are also at record highs, well over 20% on average, with certain cards reaching APRs of over 33%. That’s not far away from payday loan APRs.

    And it’s not just American savings data that has been manipulated to appear healthier than it truly is.

    New home sales data for the U.S. over the summer was also recently revised sharply downwards.

    Payroll data and job openings have also been revised downward this fall. All sorts of bullish economic beats have been quietly revised to misses.  It appears that the Biden administration broadly exaggerated economic statistics in an attempt to make the economy appear healthier than it truly was.

    Strangely, these data corrections don’t get nearly as much attention as the original (incorrect) reporting did. Once the “good” headline number comes out, traders and algorithms react immediately to the news. But they largely ignore subsequent bearish revisions, which don’t get nearly as much coverage in the news.

    It’s just the way the world works. When investors want to see positive economic data, they’ll find it. But eventually, the country will have to address these underlying issues head-on. Fortunately, we will soon have a competent leader in the White House to do so.

    A Renewed Sense of Purpose

    If this economy was a game of poker, Donald Trump would have been dealt a 2-7 off suit. It’s a bad hand, statistically speaking.

    But I believe that the Trump administration will, in time, overcome the subpar cards they were dealt. President Trump is set to cut red tape, eliminate waste, and make smart infrastructure investments. These aspects alone will have a highly significant impact on our financial outlook.

    Moreover, since the election, there’s a renewed sense of purpose in the country.

    Investors and business people understand how important this outcome was for the country. Before Trump’s win, there was widespread malaise throughout the country. There simply wasn’t much cause for optimism.

    Now the nation feels reinvigorated. The country is excited about the idea of Elon and Vivek’s DOGE slashing government waste. The people want to see widespread agency corruption ended. And when was the last time you saw this much attention paid to cabinet picks? Never. Americans have finally re-engaged with their government.

    This morale boost will be immensely helpful as we work through these headwinds. In economics, attitude matters almost as much as fundamentals.

    I still expect a recession to hit soon, if we’re not already in it, due to the Biden administration’s economic fumbles. It remains to be seen just how bad things might get in the short run.

    In terms of Trump’s policy plan, the new tariffs will encourage foreign companies to manufacture in the U.S. It’s simple: if you want to sell to America, set up shop here and create jobs. Trump made some progress on this during his first term, but now that the GOP has control of Congress and a mandate from the American people, it should be a smoother process this time around. Tariffs can also be a powerful bargaining tool, as Trump has already shown with Canada and Mexico.

    Importantly, Trump’s team understands that it is impossible to tax our way out of this situation. The only path forward is to grow the economy faster than the debt. Once we turn that corner, the problem begins to address itself.

    I’m not saying it’s going to be all smooth sailing. True reform is always a challenging process. There will almost certainly be more inflation on the horizon (but not nearly as bad as if Kamala had won). This is an unavoidable consequence of decades of reckless government spending.

    Still, the outlook for the nation has improved dramatically since November 5th. We have a rare chance to make meaningful, lasting change in America.

    It’s exciting to see it finally taking shape.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 16:20

  • Ukraine Firmly Rejects US Calls to Lower Conscription Age To 18
    Ukraine Firmly Rejects US Calls to Lower Conscription Age To 18

    Ukraine has firmly rejected calls from Washington and NATO leadership to lower its age of conscription from 25 to 18, amid widespread acknowledgement that it doesn’t have enough able-bodied fighting men to defend the front lines or slow the Russian military advance.

    President Zelensky’s office responded to White House urgings to get “younger people” into the fight by saying there are not enough weapons to begin with, so forcing more young men into the military will make little difference.

    Volunteers: Maksym Lutsyk,19 (left) and Dmytro Kisilenko, 18. Via BBC

    Zelensky’s communications adviser, Dmytro Lytvyn, issued a statement Wednesday night, directly addressing the controversy which is currently in international headlines, also after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte piled on the pressure from Brussels. 

    He started by explaining that the real problem Ukraine’s military faces is delayed weapons transfers from Western partners. He asserted that Kyiv “lacks weapons to equip already mobilized soldiers.”

    “It doesn’t make sense to see calls for Ukraine to lower the mobilization age, presumably in order to draft more people, when we can see that previously announced equipment is not arriving on time. Because of these delays, Ukraine lacks weapons to equip already mobilized soldiers,” Lytvyn said on X.

    He claimed further that the Western allies “have complete access to the data and can compare promises to actual deliveries” – again putting the blame on Ukraine’s foreign supporters.

    “Ukraine cannot be expected to compensate for delays in logistics or hesitation in support with the youth of our men on the frontline,” he added.

    Earlier, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged the Zelensky government to make “hard decisions” about expanding mobilization efforts to fight the Russians. 

    “Getting younger people into the fight, we think, many of us think, is necessary” Blinken stated in a NATO press conference on Wednesday. “Right now, 18- to 25-year-olds are not in the fight,” he explained.

    He emphasized that that manpower is critical “because even with the money, even with the munitions, there have to be people on the front lines.” The Biden White House has been rushing as much arms to Ukraine forces as it can with little time left in the Democratic administration. Blinken also stressed that NATO is seeking to ensure every soldier Ukraine mobilizes has “the training and the equipment they need to effectively defend the country.”

    Zelensky’s rejection of lowering conscription age is probably a strong indicator that negotiations are just around the corner. Also, if he moved to suddenly change the current policy, he could face rebellion among Ukrainians who don’t want to prolong the war, and who worry about their family members dying in the Donbas.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 15:40

  • The Trump Trade Should Not Work In Theory, But Does In Practice
    The Trump Trade Should Not Work In Theory, But Does In Practice

    By Russell Clark, of The Capital Flows and Asset Markets substack

    I am generally of the view that risk can not be destroyed, but it can be transferred. Or in other words, you can protect one asset, but normally at the cost of another. There are lots of versions of this type of thinking in economics – beggar-thy-neighbor devaluation currency policies, helps businesses but reduce domestic wages. Central banks and governments can control either the exchange rate or the interest rate, but not both. Fiscal deficit spending, should be accompanied by higher interest rates, and a weaker currency. Emerging market investors are very familiar with the trade off – what the government gives you in spending, the currency markets take away with currency weakness.

    For example, Brazil is running a 10% of GDP fiscal deficit – much larger than in the 2000s.

    And like the US, the equity market Brazil has done well. The equity market is not far off highs.

    But Brazil has suffered a weak currency due to this spending, so the USD returns to Brazilian assets have been poor. Below is EWZ, a USD ETF that track Brazilian stocks. Currency weakness has overwhelmed equity performance.

    The US, particularly since Trump has come to be a political force, has had similar fiscal balance to Brazil – and with Trump’s re-election is likely to go wider.

    As you should be aware, the US dollar has been strong, and US asset markets have been very good. S&P 500 looks nothing like EWZ

    Theory and practice would have suggested that the Trump Trade should have seen good equity markets, but weak US dollar and much higher interest rates, and yet currency markets and interest rates have been very supportive. Certainly, this is what happened back in the 1970s when government spending was also growing rapidly. Dollar weakened dramatically, and interest rates spiked.

    Why is it not happening this time? One big difference is that the US consumer is not as important to commodities as it used to be. In 1970s, the US was 30% of total oil consumption, but now is only 20%.

    Even more importantly, the US is not the main player in the tradable oil market. China is by far the major importer of oil

    And this probably hints at the secret to the “Trump Trade”. The combination of fiscal spending, and aggressive policies to contain Chinese economic growth means that there is much less transmission of expansive fiscal policy to commodity markets.

    Collapsing bond yields in China point to the Trump trade likely continuing to work.

    Another way to think about it, is that the market has definitely noticed that the US government now treats fiscal deficits as a free lunch, and hence we have seen gold outperform treasuries (my GLD/TLT trade). Here is a long term graph of that trade.

    Generally speaking, gold prices and oil prices moving in different directions is unusual. This year gold is up strongly, while oil prices are down.

    For lovers of ratios, oil has rarely been this cheap compared to oil, and even more so when not in the midst of a recession, which is what typically drives oil cheaper than gold.

    This analysis would seemingly imply that the only constraint to US fiscal policy is the price of oil. There is some evidence to support this view. When the Soviet Union started to go into decline in the 1980s, falling demand and prices coincided with the 1980s and 1990s boom in the US. You could think that US asset prices and economy expand until they meet a physical constraint. Deflation and stagnation in the rest of the world is therefore “good” for the US.

    China has not collapsed like the Soviet Union (yet), but its bond market is pointing to economic stagnation. Economically the Trump Trade could keep going, but there are two unknowable risks, related to China and Trump. First, in 2017, China began a stimulus program that pushed commodity prices higher. There is a risk that they repeat this policy. The second risk is that China sees the likely success of Russia in Ukraine, and decides to move to a war footing on the issue of Taiwan, which would be a very stimulatory policy change. The Trump re-election makes both more likely – but as long as Chinese bond yields are falling, the Trump Trade looks like a winner.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 12/05/2024 – 15:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 05

Today’s News 5th December 2024

  • You'd Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making A List, And You're On It
    You'd Better Watch Out: The Surveillance State Is Making A List, And You're On It

    Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “He sees you when you’re sleeping

    He knows when you’re awake

    He knows when you’ve been bad or good

    So be good for goodness’ sake!”

    —“Santa Claus Is Coming to Town”

    You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.

    You’ll be on this list whether you like it or not.

    Mass surveillance is the Deep State’s version of a “gift” that keeps on giving…back to the Deep State.

    Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Drones. Contact tracing apps. License plate readers. Social media vetting. Surveillance towers.

    What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

    Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.

    Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.

    This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—has been made possible by a global army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms.

    Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

    Tracking you based on your phone and movements: Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protests without the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

    Tracking you based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

    Tracking you based on your face: Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

    Tracking you based on your behavior: Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

    Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities: With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every X/Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

    Tracking you based on your public activities: Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

    Tracking you based on your social media activities: Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

    Tracking you based on your social network: Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

    Tracking you based on your car: License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

    Tracking you based on your mail: Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

    Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

    Don’t believe it.

    The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—haven’t made America any safer. And they certainly aren’t helping to preserve our freedoms.

    Indeed, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 23:25

  • Blinken Ramps Up Pressure For Zelensky To 'Get Younger People Into The Fight'
    Blinken Ramps Up Pressure For Zelensky To 'Get Younger People Into The Fight'

    It’s no secret that the Biden administration has been pressuring Ukraine’s Zelensky behind the scenes to drop the age of conscription down to 18 from the current age of 25. But now the White House is becoming much more direct and out in the open about it.

    With less than 50 days to go of Biden in office, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called on Kiev to make “hard decisions” about expanding mobilization efforts to fight the Russians. He’s urging that younger men be forced into the fight.

    “Getting younger people into the fight, we think, many of us think, is necessary” Blinken stated in a NATO press conference on Wednesday. “Right now, 18- to 25-year-olds are not in the fight,” he explained.

    Reuters/AFP image

    He emphasized that that manpower is critical “because even with the money, even with the munitions, there have to be people on the front lines.” The Biden White House has been rushing as much arms to Ukraine forces as it can with little time left in the Democratic administration.

    Blinken also stressed that NATO is seeking to ensure every soldier Ukraine mobilizes has “the training and the equipment they need to effectively defend the country.”

    Additionally, Reuters quoted the US top diplomat as saying it remains “up to the Ukrainian authorities to decide how best to get younger men into the fight.”

    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte the same day echoed the US view in a press conference: “We need probably more people to move to the front line” – he said without specifying age groups.

    As the outgoing Biden administration is asking Congress to soon approve billions more for Ukraine, this conscription age change policy could serve as the quid pro quo being requested of Kiev from Washington, in order to keep the billions in arms and aid flowing.

    Last spring on one of his many visits to Ukraine, hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham expressed shock upon learning that men in their early 20s in Ukraine cannot be drafted. “I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe [conscription age starts] at 27,” he said at the time. “You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    When President Volodymyr Zelensky soon after this statement signed a bill into effect to lower the mobilization age for combat duty from 27 to 25, this took some of the pressure off for the time being.

    But now the pressure is ramping up once again. If Zelensky pulls the trigger it would be hugely unpopular among Ukrainians, and could result in internal dissent and mass protests, even as the war rages in the east.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 23:00

  • South Korea Martial Law Decree Spotlights Challenge Of Communist Infiltration
    South Korea Martial Law Decree Spotlights Challenge Of Communist Infiltration

    Authored by Eva Fu and Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A martial law order from South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has again put communist influence in the country under the spotlight.

    For the first time in nearly four decades, the South Korean leader invoked the authority, accusing the opposing Democratic Party of aligning with communist North Korea. He revoked martial law hours later after parliament voted to lift the order.

    South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the third session of the G20 Leaders’ Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Nov. 19, 2024. Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty Images

    “I declare martial law to protect the free Republic of Korea from the threat of North Korean communist forces, to eradicate the despicable pro-North Korean anti-state forces that are plundering the freedom and happiness of our people, and to protect the free constitutional order,” Yoon said in a late-night address on Dec. 3.

    He said the political opposition, which dominates the national assembly, was “paralyzing the judiciary by intimidating judges and impeaching a large number of prosecutors” and causing dysfunction in other government sectors as well.

    North Korea is far from the only country bringing communist influence over the peninsula.

    China, South Korea’s biggest trading partner, has considerable sway.

    Opposition Ties to China

    Lee Jae-myung, who has likened himself to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and leads the opposition party, has taken a more friendly stance toward the Chinese regime even as Yoon has tried to steer his country closer to the United States and reverse the country’s yearslong trend of appeasing Beijing.

    During a campaign rally in March, Lee criticized Yoon’s approach to China and his comments on the regime’s military encroachment on Taiwan, which the Chinese regime has sought to claim as its own.

    “Why are you provoking China?” Lee said. “What does the Taiwan issue have to do with South Korea?”

    A former presidential candidate, Lee was convicted two weeks ago of violating election law and was sentenced to a one-year suspended prison term.

    South Korea’s main opposition Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung (C) walks out from the main conference hall of the National Assembly in Seoul, Korea, after South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Dec. 4, 2024. Jung Yeon-je/AFP via Getty Images

    Lee lost the 2022 election to Yoon by less than 1 percentage point, making it the closest election in South Korean presidential history.

    “It’s a very serious problem that we need to be aware of,” Suzanne Scholte, president of Virginia-based Defense Forum Foundation, previously told The Epoch Times. “A liberal democracy like South Korea almost elected a pro-communist candidate in the last election.”

    The concern may be a pressing one if Yoon’s popularity plummets as a result of his emergency declaration. His own political party has disavowed the martial law order and said they would “stop it with the people.”

    “Yoon’s political days are likely numbered since the populace will be united in its criticism, and the majority opposition party will seek Yoon’s impeachment,” Bruce Klingner, a veteran at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency who specializes in Korean affairs, told The Epoch Times.

    During the brief martial law declaration, Lee called for people in South Korea to descend on the national assembly to protest the order.

    Lee’s party won a major legislative victory in April’s general election, winning 175 out of 300 seats to the ruling People Power Party’s 108 seats.

    Chinese Regime’s Wide Reach

    South Korea is heavily reliant on China for trade and investment, a relationship that has further allowed Chinese authorities to influence its other sectors, including politics.

    “Economy, culture, universities, there is no place that hasn’t been penetrated,” a former counter-espionage official, who asked to remain anonymous, previously told The Epoch Times.

    Cities in the two countries have signed nearly 700 friendship or sisterhood agreements.

    Hundreds of Chinese civil servants were sent to work and train in South Korea through a state-sponsored civil servant exchange program. The Chinese embassy pays for South Korean youths to spend a week in China; it hands them books of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s speeches to read before they depart and expresses hope that they’ll be leaders of future bilateral relations.

    Then-China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee Chairman Li Zhanshu (L) shakes hands with South Korea’s National Assembly Speaker Kim Jin-pyo during a joint press conference at the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, on Sept. 16, 2022. Kim Hong-ji/AFP via Getty Images

    A mayor for the South Korean city of Gwangju in 2023 tried to build a park to honor the composer of the anthem of the People’s Liberation Army and a marching song for North Korea in order to attract tourists from China.

    The subversion by the Chinese Communist Party in Korea is not as well known compared to the threats from North Korea, but “it is extensive, and it is rather deep,” Tara O, author of The Collapse of North Korea, previously told Epoch Times sister media outlet NTD. She said the effort to build the park was “very ironic.”

    “That is just one of cultural warfare by China,” she said.

    Dozens of South Korean media outlets carry articles by the Chinese regime’s propaganda mouthpiece People’s Daily.

    South Korea also has the highest number of Confucius Institutes, a Chinese state-funded language education program to promote Beijing’s agenda.

    In a previous interview with The Epoch Times, Choi Soo Yong, a retired case officer from the National Intelligence Service, noted that there’s a room dedicated to the collections of works about Xi at the Seoul National University.

    By contrast, the university has no memorial to South Korea’s forefathers.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 22:35

  • Cutting Back Blood Pressure Drugs Doesn't Raise Heart-Related Risk, Study Finds
    Cutting Back Blood Pressure Drugs Doesn't Raise Heart-Related Risk, Study Finds

    Authored by Rachel Ann T. Melegrito via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Blood pressure (BP) medications are some of the most overly prescribed medications.

    Over 70 percent of adults 60 years and older have high blood pressure, and over half of those take blood pressure medication to prevent cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes. For those who don’t need blood pressure medication, taking these drugs may do more harm than good.

    WINDCOLORS/Shutterstock

    In a new study challenging decades of medical practice, researchers have suggested that nursing home residents might safely stop or reduce their blood pressure medication use by 30 percent or more without increasing their risk of heart attack or stroke.

    Older adults have a higher risk of adverse drug reactions and side effects when taking multiple medications (polypharmacy), as their ability to absorb and eliminate drugs is often impaired. Taking people off these drugs can help reduce the risk of side effects like dizziness and falls and potential interactions associated with polypharmacy.

    Doing More Harm Than Good

    Published in JAMA Network Open on Nov. 25, the study found that discontinuing nursing home residents’ BP medications or reducing their dosage by at least 30 percent did not lead to hospitalization for heart attack or stroke after two years, compared to those who continued taking their prescriptions.

    Researchers analyzed electronic health record data from long-term care residents aged 65 and older admitted to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community living centers. These residents were taking at least one BP medication. Nearly 18 percent of the roughly 13,000 residents had their BP medications reduced in dosage or frequency for at least two weeks.

    Researchers monitored these residents for two years, finding no significant difference in the risk of hospitalization for heart attack or stroke between those who reduced or discontinued their BP medications and those whose prescriptions remained unchanged.

    This outcome may be attributed to the side effects of these medications potentially outweighing the benefits of tightly controlled blood pressure, Michelle Odden, who has a doctorate in epidemiology and is an associate professor of epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the Stanford University School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times in an email interview.

    “The other possibility is that high blood pressure may not be as risky in older people with a lot of health conditions or other conditions such as frailty that require them to live in a nursing home,” she added.

    Also, residents who reduced or discontinued their BP medications tended to have slightly lower systolic (the top number) and diastolic (the bottom number) blood pressure levels before going off medications. This group was also on more antihypertensive drugs and had a history of conditions such as diabetes, stroke, kidney failure, and acute kidney injury.

    High blood pressure is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. BP medications may need to be taken for life, especially if lifestyle changes fail to yield adequate results.

    Not controlling hypertension can lead to serious complications. For instance, a 20-mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure and a 10-mmHg increase in diastolic blood pressure can double the risk of ischemic heart disease, heart attack, and stroke.

    However, previous research has indicated that excessively lowering systolic blood pressure (below 130 mmHg) or excessive use of BP medications may actually harm older adults, particularly those on multiple medications or with preexisting health problems.​

    A 2015 investigation found that people with particularly low blood pressure and those taking multiple BP medications faced more than double the risk of death compared to others with high blood pressure, highlighting the dangers of overtreatment in frail populations.

    The new study reported that these findings contrast with an earlier Cochrane review. Cochrane is a British nonprofit recognized as the highest standard of evidence-based health care. The review suggested that stopping or reducing BP medications increased the risk of heart attack by 86 percent and stroke by 44 percent. However, the authors stated that the review had weak evidence, noting that the included studies were low-quality, had short follow-up periods, focused solely on discontinuation of diuretic antihypertensive medication, and were conducted over 20 years ago.

    Long-Term Use May Lead to Kidney Damage

    Apart from preventing cardiovascular disease, BP medications are also prescribed to avoid kidney damage. However, some research has suggested that going on BP medication for the long term may do the reverse and actually cause kidney damage.

    A study published in Circulation Research in October gave a potential reason for why long-term use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, a commonly prescribed type of BP medication, may lead to kidney damage.

    Renin is a protein that increases blood pressure. Cells in the kidney release renin when blood pressure is low and stop releasing it to lower blood pressure. Renin also activates angiotensin, which constricts blood vessels to increase blood pressure. RAS inhibitors reduce blood pressure by blocking these various biochemical processes.

    The research was conducted in mice, and three-dimensional imaging was used to detect changes in the animals’ kidneys.

    The researchers found that suppressing renin and angiotensin with antihypertensives caused blood vessels in the kidneys to balloon, causing kidney damage.

    “We found that RAS inhibition causes widespread vascular disease, impacting all arterioles (tiny blood vessels) and their associated glomeruli (the kidneys’ filtering units),” Dr. Maria Luisa S. Sequeira-Lopez, professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and co-author of the study, told The Epoch Times.

    Sequeira-Lopez said that RAS inhibition was also linked to increased scarring and inflammation and disorganized nerves in diseased blood vessels.

    Read the rest here…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 22:10

  • Bitcoin Soars Above $100,000 For The First Time
    Bitcoin Soars Above $100,000 For The First Time

    After toying with its fanatical fan base for much of the past 2 weeks, teasing a breach of the “nice round number” resistance several times only to fade right below it, moments ago bitcoin finally erupted higher with an aggressive buyer taking advantage of the illiquid Asian session and sending the world’s first digital token above $100,000 for the first time ever…

    …  rising more than 3% to $101,554 since president-elect Trump nominated a pro-crypto head of the SEC….

    …as the sell wall at $100,000 was promptly dismantled leading to massive levered liquidations…

    … and greenlighting the road to $200,000 and beyond.

    The crypto market has jumped by roughly $1.4 trillion since Trump’s US election victory on Nov. 5, on a platform that roundly embraces crypto and bitcoin is now larger in ‘market cap’ than Saudi Aramco (topping $2 trillion tonight)…

    Trump earlier confirmed that he had selected the crypto advocate Paul Atkins to replace outgoing SEC Chair Gary Gensler, who cracked down on digital assets at the bidding of his sith lord, Liz Warren.

    Speculators also digested comments from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who said at an economic forum in Moscow that nobody can prohibit the use of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Bitcoin on Nov. 22 was less than $300 from achieving $100,000 for the first time but fell back while teasing the crypto community. Crypto’s adherents view the six-figure number as a validation of claims that Bitcoin is a modern-day store of value and hedge for inflation risk.

    In addition to making new highs in USD terms, bitcoin’s rally tonight took it to a new record high versus gold…

    Bitcoin ETFs have attracted inflows of about $32 billion this year, including over $8 billion since Trump became president. The combined trading volume for digital assets and related derivatives across centralized exchanges climbed to a record of more than $10 trillion last month, according to CCData.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 21:49

  • Yes, The President Can Deploy Troops To Enforce Immigration Law
    Yes, The President Can Deploy Troops To Enforce Immigration Law

    Authored by Patrick O’Malley and Joe Buccino via RealClearDefense,

    President-elect Trump’s confirmation last month of his plan to deploy military assets for immigration enforcement sparked a constitutional debate. Legal scholars and commentators quickly declared such action forbidden by long-standing prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. But this conventional wisdom misreads both the letter and spirit of American law. A careful examination of a pair of longstanding statutes reveals military support for immigration enforcement is permissible.

    The issue hinges on two 19th century laws: the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. When properly understood, both allow the President to use active-duty military forces to support the deportation of illegal immigrants.

    Posse Comitatus: A Firewall Between the Military and Law Enforcement

    Since our nation’s founding, Americans have been wary of standing armies and their role in civilian affairs. Concerns about military involvement in domestic law enforcement dates back to colonial experiences under British rule, particularly the quartering of British troops in civilian homes and their use to enforce British law. This experience was so troubling that it influenced several key elements of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    The Third Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly prohibits American soldiers from occupying private homes inside the county during peacetime. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, informed by a distrust of a large military force employed against its citizenry, codified the separation of military and civilian law enforcement. This act established a firewall between military force and civilian law enforcement.

    The term “posse comitatus,” Latin for “power of the country,” dates back to the medieval England tradition of local sheriffs organizing citizens to assist in maintaining public order. A form of this practice made its way to the American Old West: sheriffs called for volunteers – “a posse” of the county – to chase down bandits. This power allowed sheriffs to deputize civilians to temporarily suppress lawlessness and maintain order.

    The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 derives its name from this practice with a crucial distinction: it specifically prohibits the military from acting as this civilian force. The law’s architects recognized that using soldiers instead of citizens for domestic law enforcement would fundamentally alter the relationship between military power and civil society. They sought to ensure that federal troops were kept out of local law enforcement.

    Yet this legislative barrier against using military force for domestic law enforcement is not absolute. Congress regularly makes exceptions, allowing military support to civilian law enforcement for actions such as protecting federal property, conducting domestic counterterror operations, engaging in counterdrug efforts. In cases related to immigration enforcement, courts have ruled the Posse Comitatus Act only prohibits direct military involvement in law enforcement actions such as detaining citizens. Support activities, from transportation to surveillance, remain legal. This distinction between direct enforcement and support operations provides the legal basis for President-elect Trump’s proposed use of military assets in his planned deportation program.

    Military Assets Against Illegal Immigration Today: U.S. Troops at the Southwest Border

    The military currently provides support for immigration enforcement. Today, roughly 4,000 service members assist Customs and Border Protection along the southwest border. They operate surveillance aircraft, transport Border Patrol personnel, and maintain vehicles. These activities fall within the established legal framework for military support of immigration operations.

    The incoming administration has the potential to significantly expand this support role. Military aircraft could transport detainees, military installations could provide temporary housing facilities, and military personnel could assist with administrative and logistical tasks. None of these activities would violate Posse Comitatus because they do not involve direct law enforcement actions.

    The Insurrection Act: A Broad Authority for Military Force

    But what about using military forces to support law enforcement and enforce the law? This is where the Insurrection Act becomes crucial.

    The Insurrection Act, a composite of laws enacted between 1792 and 1807, represents a significant exception to the traditional separation of military and civilian law enforcement in the United States. The act grants presidents extraordinary power to deploy federal troops on American soil—a power that is typically forbidden but also vitally important to the success of federalism.

    The act’s broad language, largely unchanged since the Civil War, allows presidents to deploy troops whenever they believe domestic unrest, rebellion, or resistance to federal law makes normal enforcement impossible. This extensive authority is rooted in Congress’s constitutional power to call forth the militia to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,” as described in the Constitution. The act effectively creates a presidential override of the prohibitions against using military forces for domestic law enforcement. What was initially conceived as an emergency power for a young nation now stands as a powerful tool for President-elect Trump, who might see state resistance to federal immigration enforcement as justification for military deployment.

    Illegal Immigrant Safe Havens: Local Government Resistance to Federal Law

    Some jurisdictions have already declared their intention to resist federal immigration enforcement. Six states have already publicly announced plans to resist President-elect Trump’s plan to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. Under the Insurrection Act, such resistance justifies the use of military force.

    The deployment of military forces by a president inside the United States to enforce the law when local governments refuse to do so is not unprecedented. This happened several times during the Civil Rights era, most famously when President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to send the 101st Airborne to Little Rock in 1957 when state officials obstructed federal desegregation orders. Nearly seven decades later, the principle remains unchanged: local authorities cannot nullify federal law. If they attempt to do so, the President has authority to direct military power to enforce it. Invocation of the Insurrection Act in such an instance would permit American troops to detain undocumented immigrants inside the United States.

    The Constitution provides remedies when state and local authorities obstruct federal law enforcement. The incoming administration has legal authority to use military assets to support immigration enforcement. Those who claim otherwise misunderstand both the law and its historical context.

    Patrick O’Malley is an attorney in New York and Maryland, a former Assistant District Attorney in Queens County, NY, and a retired U.S. Army Reserve Judge Adjutant General officer who taught National Security Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

    Joe Buccino is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and the CEO of Vantage + Vox.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 21:45

  • President Biden, Where Are The Children?
    President Biden, Where Are The Children?

    Authored by Samuel Rodriguez via RealClearPolitics,

    In recent months, a disturbing revelation has emerged from the heart of our nation’s immigration system: Over 300,000 unaccompanied migrant children who crossed the U.S. border during the Biden-Harris administration are unaccounted for. An internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report dated Aug. 19, 2024, confirms this alarming statistic, highlighting a profound failure in our duty to protect the most vulnerable.

    The DHS report reveals that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has lost track of at least 32,000 unaccompanied migrant children, with the whereabouts of up to 323,000 remaining unknown. Without a doubt, we cannot deny the fact that many of these children are now tools and victims of the human sex trafficking industry – a heinous trade that represents the worst of the worst. This staggering number raises urgent questions about the safety and well-being of these children. They are left to fend for themselves in a dangerous world without proper oversight.

    The House of Representatives has taken notice, holding a hearing on Nov. 19, 2024, entitled “Trafficked, Exploited, and Missing: Migrant Children Victims of the Biden-Harris Administration.” This hearing aims to address the systemic failures that have led to this crisis and to hold those responsible for the welfare of these children accountable.

    The New York Times has previously reported on the challenges faced by unaccompanied migrant children. On Feb. 15, 2023, an article highlighted the surge in child labor among migrant children, noting that many are forced into hazardous jobs to survive. Another report on April 17, 2023, detailed the lack of proper vetting for sponsors, leading to situations where children are placed in unsafe environments. These reports underscore a pattern of neglect and systemic failure that demands immediate action.

    It is worth recalling the outcry during the Trump administration over the alleged “children in cages” narrative – a claim that was later debunked. The media and public were swift to condemn what was perceived as inhumane treatment of migrant children. Yet now, faced with the reality of hundreds of thousands of missing children, there is a deafening silence. Where is the collective moral outrage? How is it that a false alarm over detention centers led to national protests, but the disappearance of over 300,000 children has not moved us to the same level of indignation?

    The current administration must be held accountable for this humanitarian crisis. President Biden and Vice President Harris must take immediate and decisive action to locate these missing children and ensure their safety. Furthermore, those in positions of oversight who have failed in their duties must resign. The American people deserve transparency and accountability from their leaders, especially when the lives of innocent children are at stake.

    This is not a partisan issue; it is a moral imperative. The missing children are not just statistics; they are human beings, many of whom are now trapped in a cycle of abuse and exploitation. The human sex trafficking industry thrives on the most vulnerable, and these children, abandoned by the very systems meant to protect them, are its latest victims.

    We must demand answers and action. The time for complacency has passed. We must find the children. Let this be the rallying cry for a nation that claims to champion the cause of justice and freedom.

    Let the moral conscience of America awaken. Let the lives of these children remind us of our responsibility. Let us not rest until they are found.

    Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is lead pastor of New Season Church in Sacramento, California, and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. He has advised three U.S. presidents and is the first Latino to participate in multiple presidential inauguration ceremonies.  

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 20:55

  • Horrific Video Shows Assassination Of UnitedHealthcare CEO In Midtown Manhattan
    Horrific Video Shows Assassination Of UnitedHealthcare CEO In Midtown Manhattan

    Update (1351ET):

    X user Collin Rugg posted a horrific surveillance video of what appears to be the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson earlier today. 

    Rugg said: 

    “Video footage shows a man in the grey backpack pulling out a pistol with a silencer on it before opening fire. The man was seen firing multiple shots at Thompson who stumbled to the ground. According to The New York Post, the weapon jammed at one point, prompting the gunman to fix it so he could keep firing. He then fled down an alley and was last seen in Central Park.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *   *   *  

    Update (1329ET):

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *   *   *  

    Update (1040ET):

    CBS New York’s Tim McNicholas posted on X a screenshot of an NYPD Crime Stoppers flyer indicating that a $10,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

    Judging by the far-right image on the flyer, and as reported by other media outlets, the suspect is believed to have used a firearm with a suppressor.

    The Daily Mail provides an infographic of the incident area, noting that the suspect remains at large.

    Earlier, Mayor Eric Adams told reporters the killing appeared to be targeted: “We want to be clear to New Yorkers that this does not appear to be a random act of violence.”

    New York’s police commissioner called the killing a “brazen targeted attack.” 

    NYTimes noted:

    “The pages on the UnitedHealthcare and UnitedHealth Group websites with headshots and bios for company leadership were not available after the shooting on Wednesday morning. It was not immediately clear why the pages were no longer accessible.”

    *   *   *  

    Update (1040ET):

    The suspect in the UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thomspon killing used a “firearm with a silencer,” according to CNBC, citing a source close to the investigation. 

    According to the source, “The suspect is also described as a white male wearing a black hoodie, black pants, black sneakers with white trim, and a gray backpack.” 

    The shooting of Thomspon occurred in front of 1335 Avenue of the Americas in midtown Manhattan at 0646 ET.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *   *   *  

    Update (0955ET):

    Additional details about the shooting are emerging. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *   *   *  

    NYC media outlet PIX11 News has learned that the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, the parent company of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, was shot and killed in Midtown Manhattan, just outside the Hilton Hotel. 

    “Multiple sources confirm to @PIX11News that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed outside the Hilton hotel in midtown just before 7 am, where he was slated to speak at a investor meeting later today,” PIX11’s Dan Mannarino wrote on X. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Brian Thompson’s LinkedIn profile. 

    NYPost reports the fatal shooting of CEO Brian Thompson,50, was a “targeted attack.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Here’s more: 

    The CEO of UnitedHealth was fatally shot in the chest Wednesday morning outside the Hilton hotel in Midtown in what police say was a targeted attack. Brian Thompson, 50, was at the hotel at around 6:46 am when a masked man fired at the CEO and fled eastbound on 6th Avenue, police sources told The Post. Thomas was rushed to the hospital in critical condition, where he was pronounced dead, police said.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Thompson became CEO of UnitedHealthcare in 2021 after joining UnitedHealth Group in 2004. UnitedHealth Group is largest health insurance company in the US by revenue, with over $189 billion in 2024. 

    *Developing…

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 20:35

  • Kremlin Trolls South Korea & US: 'Professed Democracy' Can Morph Into 'Absolute Chaos' In Couple Of Hours
    Kremlin Trolls South Korea & US: 'Professed Democracy' Can Morph Into 'Absolute Chaos' In Couple Of Hours

    The Kremlin in a fresh Wednesday statement appeared to engage in a bit of trolling of South Korea and its Western backers like the US following the prior day’s wild and short-lived martial law events.

    “North Korea’s concerns over its security are understandable given the political instability in the South,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, which is somewhat ironic given the West constantly stresses the real threat and source of regional instability is actually Pyongyang. 

    Kremlin pool image

    Her comments sought to emphasize the unpredictability of democracies supported by Washington. “In my opinion, many have understood why the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea)… is so concerned over its security,” she said.

    “It’s because they see that in a couple of hours [South Korea] can morph from a professed democracy into absolute chaos, with tanks on the streets, a storming of parliament, popular confrontation and some brute-force tactics,” Zakharova continued. 

    This means the north’s vigilance and constant state of war readiness – which has included increased weapons testing of late – is entirely justified, she suggested in her explanation, given the “unpredictable” neighbor to the south.

    Just before 5am local time on Wednesday South Korea’s president Yoon Suk Yeol lifted his martial-law declaration after parliament voted unanimously against the measure. Troops had at one point stormed the parliament building, and there were bizarre scenes of lawmakers scaling fences to get back in.

    He had argued his drastic move was necessary as his political opponents made the nation vulnerable to North Korean “communist forces” as government couldn’t function. Parliament rejected the rationale.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “The martial law is aimed at eradicating pro-North Korean forces and to protect the constitutional order of freedom,” the 63-year old Yoon had claimed while declaring martial law on Tuesday.

    The less than day-long episode marked the largest flare-up in political turmoil in South Korea since full-scale martial law was declared in the spring of 1980.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 20:30

  • Was Gen Z Key to Trump's Electoral Success?
    Was Gen Z Key to Trump's Electoral Success?

    Authored by Nick Kayal via RealClearPennsylvania,

    Donald Trump completed his comeback to become the 47th president of the United States in resounding fashion. Trump was able to sweep the seven swing states, win the popular vote, and lead the charge as the GOP took back the Senate and retained the House, all while the party holds a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. There are many positives to highlight about Trump’s win, including his gains among black male and Latino voters, but the most fascinating ingredient of his success may be his appeal to Generation Z and young males, thanks in part to the evolving media landscape and how media is now consumed.

    According to NBC News exit poll data, Trump received 43% of Gen-Z voters (those between the ages of 18 and 29). Within that subset, Trump also received 42% of those aged 18 to 24. This youngest voting- eligible demographic accounts for only 14% of those who voted, but it’s fascinating to analyze how a 78-year-old Republican was able to appeal to them. He did so by making himself available where young people spend their time – on social media, following influencers, and listening to podcast hosts.

    As Politico has reported, Republicans increasingly seek out alternative news sources. Only 21% of Republicans read newspapers in 2024. Just 35% watched national network news. Republicans go to websites and apps 39% of the time. Forty-six percent gather information from social media (presumably X, Truth, and Rumble). A staggering 55% consume on-demand audio and video, such as podcasts and streaming services. Trump and his campaign staff understood this.

    Enter Joe Rogan.

    Trump appeared on Rogan’s Spotify show and spent three hours talking with the top podcast host in the world. Trump also joined the Theo Vonn podcast. He visited other hot properties such as Aidan Ross’s gamer channel and “Bussin’ with the Boys.” These interviews had an impact on young American voters; the casual, conversational approach to politics has appealed to Gen-Z and created a connection with Trump.

    “Trump’s victory isn’t a result of a failure by news outlets to sufficiently hold him accountable,” an article at Semafor explains. “The real answer is one that is a lot more uncomfortable to grapple with: The national news media is more limited in its reach and influence than ever in the modern era.”

    The NBC News exit polling data for swing states reveals striking numbers for the Generation Z demographic. In Pennsylvania, Trump received 41% of the Gen Z vote. In Georgia, it was 39%. In North Carolina, Trump won almost half (forty-nine percent); in Wisconsin, he took 45%, and in Michigan, 49%.

    Worth noting, too, is that Trump did better with Gen Z women than in 2020, which seems almost unfathomable when you consider that he was running against Kamala Harris, who made abortion rights a centerpiece of her campaign. Trump lost young women to Joe Biden by 35 points in 2020. In 2024, he reduced that deficit by eleven points, as Harris won by twenty-four points. Trump also made a 13-point swing in his favor with young men overall, compared to 2020, when Biden won these voters by 11 points.

    Donald Trump is a generational political figure. He surrounded himself with staffers who understood the shift in electoral and communication dynamics – how to get your message out and who to get it out to. Platforms matter. Evolving is essential. Trump did so, and it proved a major factor in defeating an opponent and a party that the media portrayed as more tech savvy. They were wrong, again – and Trump has won, again.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 20:05

  • "Who's Laughing Now?" NYC Mayor Boasts About Bitcoin Paychecks
    "Who's Laughing Now?" NYC Mayor Boasts About Bitcoin Paychecks

    “Remember y’all laughed at me when I first got my Bitcoin – who’s laughing now?”

    In early 2022, Adams took his first three paychecks as New York City mayor in Bitcoin and Ethereum – a sum of crypto that would have equaled roughly $32,000 at the time, according to publicly available data.

    Since then, Bitcoin has more than doubled in price and Ethereum has climbed some 40% in the same period.

    This morning, Adams, currently facing wire fraud and conspiracy charges, appeared to mock attendees at the groundbreaking ceremony for a museum over his Bitcoin holdings. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As CoinTelegraph’s Turner Wright reports, speaking at the American LGBTQ+ Museum on Dec. 3, Mayor Adams responded to a question about Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s potential role in the United States government, pivoting to Bitcoin he received while in office.

    According to the mayor, people “should not be afraid of Bitcoin” then appeared to mock viewers and attendees.

    “Remember y’all laughed at me when I first got my Bitcoin — who’s laughing now?” said Adams.

    “Go look at my Bitcoin now. You all mock me. ‘You’re taking your first three paychecks in Bitcoin, what’s wrong with you?’ Now you wish you would have done it.”

    Adams, who assumed office as the Mayor of New York City in January 2022, announced after winning his election that he intended to accept his first three paychecks in Bitcoin.

    The price of BTC at the time of his announcement was roughly $61,000 – the cryptocurrency has since surged to roughly $96,000, an increase of 57%.

    In September, US authorities indicted Adams on one count of conspiracy to receive campaign contributions from foreign nationals and commit wire fraud and bribery, one count of wire fraud, two counts of soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals, and one count of soliciting and accepting a bribe.

    If given the maximum sentences for each charge served consecutively, he could face decades in prison if convicted.

    As mayor, Adams has often been a proponent of many policies favorable to digital assets, including promises to make New York City the “center of the cryptocurrency industry.”

    He also criticized legislation passed by the state’s government in 2022 that imposed a two-year moratorium on proof-of-work mining using non-renewable energy sources.

    Adams’ offer to accept his paychecks in Bitcoin came in response to a social media challenge for elected officials to earn a crypto-based salary.

    Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, who won reelection in 2021, said he would accept his first paycheck in BTC, prompting Adams to say he would take the first three.  

    As with many subjects, Adams’ relationship to crypto is not without controversy.

    A year after taking a chunk of his salary home in BTC and ETH, the mayor landed in hot water for failing to disclose his crypto holdings in a mandatory report filed with the city’s Conflict of Interest Board.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 19:40

  • World War III Is Heating Up On Several Fronts, But Most Americans Have No Idea…
    World War III Is Heating Up On Several Fronts, But Most Americans Have No Idea…

    Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

    In recent months, quite a few pundits have been openly warning us that World War III has begun.  Sadly, those pundits are quite correct.  Right now, a historic global struggle is being waged by two very powerful alliances.  The “western alliance” made up of the United States, Europe, Israel and their allies is engaged in a battle for supremacy with the “eastern alliance” made up of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria and their allies.  Over the past week, this battle for supremacy has erupted on a couple of new fronts, but most Americans have no idea what is really going on.

    Just look at what is happening in Syria.  Most Americans have no idea that radical Sunni Muslims backed by the western alliance just conducted a highly successful offensive on Syria’s second largest city and are threatening to overthrow the Assad regime once and for all…

    The Syrian military and its ally Russia conducted deadly joint air raids Monday on areas that Islamist-led rebels seized control of over the weekend. The strikes were a response to a lightning offensive by the rebels that saw them wrest control of swathes of northwest Syria from government forces.

    The conflict that started more than a decade ago took a significant turn several days ago, catching many — including, it seems, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and his Russian backers — by surprise. On Saturday, rebels, including many with the U.S.-designated Islamic terrorist group Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), took control of the major city of Aleppo in northern Syria.

    The rebels seized Aleppo’s airport and started pushing into towns and villages in the countryside around the city on Sunday after leaving piles of dead government soldiers in the streets. Observers said the rebel forces were often met with little to no resistance by regime forces, but by Monday the pace of the surprise offensive appeared to have slowed, with Assad and his Russian backers ramping-up their response.

    While she served as Secretary of State during the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton was instrumental in starting the civil war in Syria.  That civil war caused a massive refugee crisis that western Europe is still wrestling with to this day.

    Now the civil war in Syria has freshly erupted, and if Assad gets toppled that will be a major victory for the western alliance.

    Of course the eastern alliance does not plan to go down without a fight.  Over the weekend, Iraqi militia groups that are backed by Iran “have been pouring across the border into eastern Syria”…

    Widespread reports, including observers on the ground, have indicated that Iran-backed Iraqi militias have been pouring across the border into eastern Syria to assist Damascus in repelling the Islamist militant advance after Al Qaeda splinter group Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham took over Aleppo this weekend.

    A Syrian army officer has told Reuters that Iraqi militia forces crossing the border are “fresh reinforcements being sent to aid our comrades on the frontlines in the north.”

    Many of the fighters have been identified as belonging to the Kataib Hezbollah and Fatemiyoun groups. The US has long been in an internecine conflict with Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, with over the years periodic rocket fire even targeting the US Embassy in Baghdad, as well as various bases which host remaining American troops.

    And it appears that Iranian military forces could be on the verge of intervening directly in the conflict…

    Boroujerdi told a news conference in Damascus that Iran was ready to render military assistance to Syria. “Iran’s military aid will be provided as soon as Tehran receives a request from the Syrian government. We are going to announce it immediately,” the Iranian deputy said.

    Boroujerdi, who is heading an Iranian delegation, arrived in Damascus on Wednesday for talks with Syrian Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is expected to meet Boroujerdi on Thursday.

    The Iranian deputy stressed the importance of the four-sided coordination of efforts by Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria in fighting terrorism.

    Iran normally prefers to fight their wars using proxy forces.

    But desperate times call for desperate measures.

    Meanwhile, Israel’s ceasefire with Hezbollah seems to be breaking down already…

    The ceasefire in Lebanon, barely five days old, is near collapse as of Monday after Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel, following the Biden-Harris administration’s erroneous claim that Israeli surveillance drones violated the agreement.

    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported Monday that two Hezbollah rockets had been fired at Har (Mount) Dov, a strategic mountain that Breitbart News visited last Thursday and which Hezbollah claims, wrongly, is Lebanese.

    If Hezbollah is forced to keep their forces in Lebanon in order to contend with the IDF, they won’t be able to intervene in the conflict in Syria.

    Ultimately, so many of these conflicts are interrelated.

    Ukraine is hoping that at least some Russian forces get diverted to Syria to help the Assad regime, because last month the Ukrainians lost a great deal of territory…

    Ukraine has endured a tough three months in which Russian forces made gains across the front, which are likely continue over winter, a military analyst has said.

    “The trend is very worrying, and there’s no reason to expect the situation to calm down in December either,” Emil Kastehelmi, from the Finnish-based Black Bird Group, told Newsweek.

    In an X, formerly Twitter, thread, the OSINT analyst said that, in the three months to December, Moscow’s troops had captured around 617 square miles in Ukraine and 190 in Russia’s Kursk oblast, where Ukrainian forces had staged an incursion but where they have lost the western flank, as well as positions in the Donbas region.

    Ukraine is the one place where the western alliance is losing badly, and western politicians are extremely determined to turn things around.

    But the truth is that unless NATO gets directly involved, Ukraine will definitely lose.

    As the war drags on, Ukrainian soldiers are deserting from their posts in staggering numbers…

    More than twice as many Ukrainian soldiers have been charged with desertion this year than in 2022 and 2023 combined, the Financial Times has reported. The spike in desertions has hampered Kiev’s ability to replenish its thinned-out ranks.

    Ukrainian prosecutors opened 60,000 cases against deserters between January and October of this year, the British newspaper reported on Saturday, noting that those convicted face prison terms of up to 12 years.

    Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have already died on the killing fields of eastern Ukraine.

    Let us hope for an agreement that will bring the endless slaughter to an end.

    Before I conclude this article, I want to mention one more nation where the great battle between east and west has suddenly erupted.

    In Georgia, angry protesters that are being backed by the western alliance have been clashing violently with the police for days.  Just like we witnessed in Ukraine in 2014, it appears that this could be an attempt to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Georgia…

    Days of protests have rocked Georgia following the government’s controversial decision to delay the former Soviet country’s bid to join the European Union.

    Tensions have been brewing for months in the South Caucasus nation of 3.7 million people, where critics accuse the ruling Georgian Dream party of following increasingly authoritarian, pro-Russia policies in a turn away from the West that has tempered hopes for Georgia’s long-promised path to EU membership.

    The protests have been met with a violent police crackdown as the ruling party and thousands of protesters become locked in a deepening battle over the country’s future and whether Georgia should forge closer ties with Russia or Europe.

    The U.S. and Europe would love to see a “color revolution” that removes the Georgian Dream party from power.

    Of course the Russians and other eastern alliance nations would very much like to avert such an outcome.

    I just wish that every country would be allowed to do what they want without outside interference.

    But that isn’t going to happen, is it?

    Sadly, the great struggle between east and west that we are witnessing is just going to continue to intensify, and at this stage it should be obvious to everyone that it is not going to have a happy ending.

    We live in such perilous times, and if you have not been paying much attention to what is going on around the world now would be a great time to start.

    *  *  *

    Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 19:15

  • Watch: Terror Leader Julani Makes Rare Appearance In Aleppo, Ending Rumors Of His Death
    Watch: Terror Leader Julani Makes Rare Appearance In Aleppo, Ending Rumors Of His Death

    Soon after the fall of Aleppo last week, rumors began to circulate that the longtime head of Syrian Al-Qaeda (now called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS) Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was killed in a Russian retaliatory airstrike in Idlib. These claims made it into Lebanese and Israeli media, but with no verification.

    But the rumors were laid to rest on Wednesday with Julani’s unexpected appearance in the center of historic Aleppo. Al Jazeera featured footage (below) of the HTS leader descending the steps of the historic and iconic Aleppo citadel in what was clearly a ‘victory’ celebration.

    HTS leader in Syria al-Jolani poses on top of citadel in Aleppo

    The terror leader, who has a $10 million bounty on his head by the FBI and US Rewards for Justice program, is asserting ownership over the major northern Syrian city. His jihadist forces are currently threatening the central city of Hama as well.

    According to the latest from the Associated Press, “Syrian insurgents captured four new towns early Tuesday, bringing them closer to the central city of Hama, opposition activists said, while government forces retook some territory they lost last week.”

    Large Syrian Army reinforcements have been observed heading north from Damascus over the last 24 hours. The HTS militants and AQ-aligned groups are less than six miles from Hama, and have threatened and taken adjacent towns on the edge of the city.

    Julani is believed supported from Turkey, and likely by other allied Western nations’ intelligence services as well, despite his Al-Qaeda background. Once known as the Nusra Front, which early in the Syrian war of the last decade cooperated at times with the Islamic State, the group now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has long attempted a rebranding campaign. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    HTS has gone through many names and iterations over the years while holding on to much of Idlib province bordering Turkey, even as much of the rest of Syria came back under the control of the Assad government. 

    Still, Washington has long admitted it is a terror organization. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Sunday  that HTS remains “a terrorist organization designated by the United States” and expressed that the US has “real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization.” But he also admitted that the US will not “cry” over the pressure the Syrian government and its allies are facing from the successful offensive on Aleppo.

    Meanwhile, just like in the opening years of the war, the US mainstream media is once again working overtime trying to whitewash Syria’s Al Qaeda factions, presenting them as mere ‘rebels’ and ‘revolutionaries’. The below is a real line from The Wall Street Journal this week:

    Once affiliated with Islamic State and al Qaeda, Jawlani professes religious tolerance.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Likely there will much more such obvious propaganda efforts to come. But the supposedly ‘tolerant’ Julani is still on the FBI’s ‘most wanted’ list, and no amount of obfuscation or Gulf think tank sponsored rebranding campaigns will change that.

    Given that the terror chief just appeared out in the open, posing on top of the Aleppo Citadel, the CIA or US military likely could have taken him out with a drone… but they won’t. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 18:50

  • Fauci, Schiff, And Cheney May Receive 'Preemptive Pardons'
    Fauci, Schiff, And Cheney May Receive 'Preemptive Pardons'

    Days after President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter for a 10-year period dating back to his involvement with Burisma, senior White House aides are reportedly locked in a contentious debate over a potential unprecedented move: issuing preemptive pardons to a wide range of current and former public officials who could find themselves under intense scrutiny, and prosecution, after Donald Trump takes office, Politico reports.

    Among those discussed for potential pardons are high-profile figures like Senator-elect Adam Schiff (D-CA), former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

    Their justification is that Trump will seek retribution, with their concerns growing more urgent following Trump’s announcement last weekend appointing Kash Patel as FBI director. Patel, a staunch ally of Trump, has vowed to pursue the former president’s critics, heightening concerns among Biden aides about possible investigations or indictments against officials who have opposed Trump in the past.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Biden aides are deeply divided, according to the report. On one hand, granting preemptive pardons could provide a shield against Trump’s promised “revenge tour” but might also create the appearance of impropriety, effectively validating Trump’s accusations of corruption. Additionally, those offered pardons might refuse them, citing innocence or the perception of guilt that could accompany a pardon.

    Meanwhile, were there any takers on this?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Because…

    Historical Precedent and Political Risk

    End-of-administration pardons are always politically fraught, but the stakes in this case are uniquely high. Biden’s aides have privately discussed the precedent set by President Gerald Ford’s 1974 preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon, which spared the nation further division after Watergate. Democrats like Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) have invoked that example, suggesting that pardons might be necessary to heal a polarized nation and protect officials from undue political persecution.

    “If it’s clear by January 19 that [revenge] is his intention, then I would recommend to President Biden that he provide those preemptive pardons to people, because that’s really what our country is going to need next year,” Markey said in a recent interview.

    Others are far less supportive. Schiff, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, has been outspoken in his opposition. “I would urge the president not to do that,” he said, adding “I think it would seem defensive and unnecessary.”

    As X user Derek Wang notes:

    Preemptive pardon has never been used in history and I think will likely be challenged and to be decided by SC.

    Section. 2 of US Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    “Offenses” are not “potential offenses”, the word clearly indicates the offenses that are already determined by court legally, not any potential offenses to be determined in future.

    Hunter Biden’s Pardon and the Broader Clemency Debate

    Biden’s recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, has further complicated the White House’s deliberations. Hunter’s sweeping 11-year pardon drew criticism from many within the Democratic Party and intensified pressure on Biden to extend clemency to others.

    House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) invoked Hunter Biden’s pardon this week in calling on the president to, on a case-by-case basis, spare “the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses.” -Politico

    Trump has repeatedly vowed to go after those he views as part of the Deep State. His disdain for figures like Cheney and Fauci is well-documented, with Trump even calling for members of the Jan. 6 committee to face jail time.

    The decision to issue preemptive pardons would undoubtedly solidify Biden’s status as one of the worst presidents in US history. On one side lies the risk of fueling Trump’s narrative of impropriety; on the other, the prospect of leaving key public servants exposed to investigations that are completely warranted.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 18:25

  • Renovation Downturn Forces These Home Furnishing Retailers To Increase Deals
    Renovation Downturn Forces These Home Furnishing Retailers To Increase Deals

    Record-high home prices, combined with the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate surpassing 7% once again, continue to create the worst housing affordability environment in a generation. Consequently, the residential renovation market sours, pressuring home furnishing companies to offer better deals. 

    A team of Goldman analysts led by Kate McShane updated their proprietary home furnishings promotional tracker for November, in which they found increased promotions, markdowns, and free shipping across the industry for notable home furnishings retailers including Arhaus, At Home, Bassett Furniture, Cost Plus World Market, Crate & Barrel, Ethan Allen Interiors, Havertys, Kirkland’s, Pottery Barn, PB Teen, Pottery Barn Kids, Rejuvenation, Wayfair, and West Elm.

    McShane noted that average markdowns were slightly higher for the industry year-over-year last month, although Williams-Sonoma was one of the only home furnishings retailers not offering increased deals to somewhat flattish compared with the same month last year. 

    Here are the key observations from their findings:

    • Free shipping ticked up sequentially and year over year in November across the industry and Williams Sonoma banners;

    • Markdowns increased sequentially and year over year across the industry;

    • Promotions are notably higher sequentially and year over year at the Williams Sonoma banner, while promotions are lower at West Elm and Rejuvenation

    Industry-wide, markdowns increased month-over-month and year-over-year, with PB Kids and Wayfair offering the best deals. 

    • November’s industry markdowns increased both m/m and y/y: Sequentially, the average markdown across the industry increased m/m at 40% in Nov vs. 37%/37%/41% in Oct/Sep/Aug. The average markdown increased y/y compared to 39% in Nov ’23.

    • Markdown level by company: Overall, PB Kids (58%) and Wayfair (58%) were the companies with the highest average markdowns in Nov ’24. PB Teen, Rejuvenation, and West Elm had the highest markdowns on a 1-year average (also taking account of consistency in promotions over the months).

    • Free shipping: Overall days of free shipping increased both sequentially and y/y in Nov ’24 to 14 days, vs. 9/13 days in Oct’ 24/Nov ’23. Kirkland’s, Pottery Barn, and Williams-Sonoma offered free shipping every day in Nov ’24, with the next highest frequency seen at PB Kids’s at 29 days.

    McShane noted, “While we don’t include RH in our promotional analysis, we do note the company continues to advertise its fall clearance sale with up to 60% off outdoor, living, dining, and bedroom items.” 

    Average Markdowns on a retailer basis:

    Pottery Barn 

    West Elm

    Williams-Sonoma

    Rejuvenation

    The number of days home furnishings companies offered ‘free shipping’ last month surged. 

    Williams-Sonoma’s free shipping promotion was much higher than the industry average. 

    The entire industry has been in the dumps since the Covid spike.

    And this is why.

    McShane highlighted that the barometer for the residential renovation market remains uninspiring. 

    Given all this, there are indeed deals for patient consumers who held back during the Covid surge in home renovations. Goldman’s McShane gives readers a broad understanding of what home furnishings companies offer the best deals. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 18:00

  • Trump Selects Peter Navarro As Top Trade Adviser
    Trump Selects Peter Navarro As Top Trade Adviser

    Authored by Jackson Richman and Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    President-elect Donald Trump announced on Dec. 4 that he has selected Peter Navarro as senior counselor for trade and manufacturing.

    During Trump’s first term, Navarro, a staunch advocate of tariffs, served as director of the National Trade Council and as director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy.

    The former director of the U.S. Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Peter Navarro, speaks on the third day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, on July 17, 2024. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

    Trump said the new role “leverages Peter’s broad range of White House experience while harnessing his extensive policy analytic and media skills.”

    Navarro’s “mission will be to help successfully advance and communicate the Trump manufacturing, tariff, and trade agendas,” the president-elect said.

    Navarro was released from prison on July 17 after serving a four-month sentence for refusing to appear before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

    Tariffs were an integral economic policy feature of Trump’s 2024 election campaign. Since his victory last month, Trump has threatened to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports, slap 10 percent levies on Chinese goods, and implement a 100 percent tariff on countries engaged in anti-dollar activities.

    As one of the top White House economic and trade advisers in Trump’s first administration, Navarro was a leading voice in enacting tariffs on the United States’ trading partners, particularly China.

    Navarro said levies would help level the playing field and rectify what he viewed as unfair imbalances in international trade.

    “President Trump has made it clear he’s a free trader. He’s made it abundantly clear that for this administration, free trade means is free, fair, reciprocal, and balanced,” Navarro said in prepared remarks at a June 2018 Hudson Institute event outlining Trump’s policy regarding the U.S.–China trade relationship.

    In 2019, he also championed Trump’s threat of tariffs on Mexico in response to Mexico’s “exports” of “illegal aliens.”

    “This is strictly about national security and threats to our economy from illegal immigration from a criminal enterprise,” Navarro told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.”

    Despite various criticisms that Trump’s tariffs would ignite inflation pressures and weigh on economic growth prospects, Navarro defended his trade agenda as “one of the most successful applications of a defense trade policy in U.S. history.”

    Appearing at a Harvard University event in April 2019, Navarro declared that “Ricardo is dead.” This was in reference to 19th-century economist David Ricardo, who touted that international trade is always beneficial and that nations can prosper with the theory of “comparative advantage.”

    However, according to Navarro, 19th-century economic philosophies have little relevance in modern global markets filled with “industrial espionage, rampant cheating, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, state capitalism, and currency misalignments.”

    Navarro has been reluctant to back trade agreements supported by whom he called “globalist elites” on Wall Street.

    “If Wall Street is involved and continues to insinuate itself into these negotiations, there will be a stench around any deal that’s consummated because it will have the imprimatur of Goldman Sachs and Wall Street,” Navarro said in a 2019 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Navarro will not be the only pro-tariff official in the incoming administration.

    Trump has been surrounding himself with staunch defenders of his trade agenda.

    Scott Bessent, a Wall Street financier tapped to lead the Treasury Department, has been vocal in supporting levies on U.S. trading partners.

    Bessent has spoken favorably about tariffs, describing the measure as a negotiating tool to accomplish the president-elect’s foreign policy objectives.

    “Whether it is getting allies to spend more on their own defense, opening foreign markets to U.S. exports, securing cooperation on ending illegal immigration and interdicting fentanyl trafficking, or deterring military aggression, tariffs can play a central role,” Bessent wrote in a recent Fox News op-ed.

    In an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Bessent also said that tariffs should be “layered in gradually” to prevent immediate inflationary pressures and allow disinflationary measures to offset higher prices.

    Trump selected billionaire Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary.

    Lutnick, the CEO of investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald, has also endorsed tariffs, calling them “bargaining chips” to negotiate better trade pacts that can slash levies.

    “I think tariffs make sense,” Lutnick told CNBC’s “Money Movers” in September. “We should compare what people tariff us and put the exact same tariffs on them and make it equal.”

    The president-elect recently rounded out his economic team with Kevin Hassett as director of the White House National Economic Council and international trade attorney Jamieson Greer as U.S. trade representative.

    Hassett was the previous head of the Council of Economic Advisers, a position that Trump has yet to announce.

    According to Trump, Greer was integral in his first term in replacing the decades-old North American Free Trade Agreement with the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement and implementing tariffs on China.

    Greer was the chief of staff to Robert Lighthizer, who served as Trump’s former trade representative.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 17:40

  • Israel Warns Troops Against Traveling Abroad Over 'Blacklists' In Europe 
    Israel Warns Troops Against Traveling Abroad Over 'Blacklists' In Europe 

    Israel continues feeling the pressure in the wake of the controversial International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision to issue arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister Yoav Gallant for overseeing alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip.

    Israel’s military has issued an alert to all troops warning about travel abroad. “Some soldiers have already been required to leave countries they visited due to concerns about legal proceedings,” the Israeli news site Ynet reports Wednesday.

    The report details that in many cases pro-Palestinian organizations are pressuring governments abroad to block certain individuals from traveling, by creating “blacklists” with details of Israeli army soldiers. Names and photos are used and circulated while “hoping to identify future travel plans.”

    Via Flash90

    “Individual proceedings against soldiers and junior officers traveling abroad could be based on ICC rulings. To any soldier or officer, if they are arrested, summoned for questioning, or feel they are being followed or photographed while abroad, Israel will provide immediate legal assistance through its local embassy or the Foreign Ministry’s situation room,” the army said in the message.

    “In non-ICC member countries such as the US, China, or India, there is local legislation governing the law of war. These nations are not obligated to act on ICC arrest warrants, but local laws could still pose risks,” it added. 

     Ynet notes that some European governments have already taken action against over a dozen soldiers:

    The IDF has identified about 30 cases of criminal proceedings initiated against its members. At least eight soldiers, including some who had traveled to Cyprus, Slovenia and the Netherlands, were forced to leave immediately.

    The push for the arrest warrants was overseen by The Hague-based ICC’s Karim Khan, and subsequently the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were obtained on November 21.

    While the ICC has no enforcement arm, relying on individual member states, it creates a political headache for the Israeli government. And clearly, given the army’s warning to all ranks of troops, the warrants are having a chilling and trickle-down effect.

    Israel, the US, and some other allies have blasted the ICC move as outrageous and even ‘antisemitic’. The ICC has in turn said it has long faced coercion and threats from Israeli officials.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 17:20

  • The FBI Has Been Political From The Start
    The FBI Has Been Political From The Start

    Authored by Connor O’Keefe via The Mises Institute,

    On Saturday night, Donald Trump announced he intends to appoint Kash Patel as director of the FBI.

    The news sparked an immediate frenzy from establishment figures across media and politics.

    Legal and national security “experts” were deployed to the Sunday morning news shows to characterize the move as evidence that Trump intends to politicize the FBI and use it as a weapon against his many political opponents.

    The political establishment’s concerns about what a Trump FBI could do mirror a lot of what we’ve heard from the right in recent years as they found themselves in the Bureau’s crosshairs.

    But almost all of these complaints and warnings have operated under the assumption that—with maybe the exception of a few bad episodes in the 1960s—the FBI has long been an essential crime-fighting force that has only recently become—or threatens to become—corrupted by politics.

    In truth, the FBI has always been used as a weapon against political movements and rivals of the established political class. That’s the reason it was created.

    At the end of the 1800s, left-wing anarchists were attacking heads of state all across Europe. In a few short years, the king of Italy, the prime minister of Spain, the empress of Austria, and the president of France were all assassinated by anarchists. While no communist or anarchist movement had yet to take over a country, the tenacity of these activists and revolutionaries was seriously concerning those in power in the United States.

    Then, in 1901, President William McKinley was shot and killed by an anarchist while attending a meet-and-greet in Buffalo, New York, which brought his vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, into office. It was President Roosevelt who tapped his Attorney General Charles Bonaparte—the grandnephew of Napoleon—to create the FBI.

    The AG was required by law to get congressional approval before creating this new “investigative” service of special agents within the Department of Justice. In the spring of 1908, Bonaparte officially requested the money and authority to create the FBI. Congress came back with an emphatic no.

    Members of the House saw through the innocuous language of the request and figured out exactly what the president and AG were doing—creating a secret police force that was answerable only to them.

    House Democrats like Joseph Swagar and John J. Fitzgerald and Republicans like Walter I. Smith and George Waldo all loudly condemned the proposal, saying it called for a “system of espionage” comparable to the Tsar’s secret police in Russia that stood in stark contrast to the very principles at the heart of the American system. Congress explicitly forbade the AG from creating this new Bureau.

    So what did Bonaparte do? He waited for Congress to break for the summer and then went ahead and created the FBI anyway.

    Congress was only notified about the new federal police force half a year later when Bonaparte included a quick throw-away line at the end of his annual report: “It became necessary for the department to organize a small force of special agents of its own.”

    So, the FBI was not created in response to out-of-control crime; its creation was a crime.

    Immediately, the new Bureau was unleashed on anyone and everyone who was perceived as a threat to those in power. That started with left-wing anarchists but quickly expanded to include many antiwar activists as President Wilson pulled the country into World War I.

    From the outset, the FBI operated primarily as a domestic intelligence agency—recruiting spies within groups they were targeting and breaking into their offices and homes, intercepting mail, and tapping the phones of anyone they considered a threat.

    As the years wore on—like most other executive agencies—the Bureau evolved away from serving the direct interests of whoever happened to sit in the Oval Office to instead serve its own interest and the interest of the broader entrenched, permanent power structure in Washington.

    In the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, the FBI conducted covert operations aimed at inciting violence between domestic groups, breaking up political organizations it disapproved of, and, perhaps most famously, collecting blackmail on Martin Luther King Jr. that they then tried to use to drive him to commit suicide.

    Although today’s FBI acknowledges and publicly disavows these past activities, they are still carrying out egregious operations that always seem to benefit the political class. The Bureau has taken up a kind of sting operation where, over and over again, agents find isolated, gullible, often mentally-handicapped young men, pretend to be political radicals or higher-ups in a terrorist organization, and then convince the young men to plan and carry out a terrorist attack with FBI-funds and resources. Agents then step in at the end and act like they heroically stopped a real plot.

    The FBI did this relentlessly with young Muslim men after 9/11. The arrests helped prolong the perception that the global war on terror and extreme measures like the Patriot Act were necessary.

    In recent years, the FBI has conducted a number of similar schemes with right-wing groups—advancing the establishment’s narrative that Donald Trump is radicalizing “uneducated” middle Americans and turning them into violent insurrectionists.

    And then there are, of course, all the ways the FBI directly tried to undermine and hinder Trump’s first term. Right-wingers are correctly deriding the establishment for panicking about Trump’s FBI doing to them what they have tried to do to him. But many—on both sides—go wrong when they present the Bureau as only recently, or imminently, being corrupted into serving the interests of those in power. That’s been its role since the beginning.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 17:00

  • Bitcoin Nears Record High As Trump Nominates Crypto-Friendly Paul Atkins To Replace Gensler As SEC Chair
    Bitcoin Nears Record High As Trump Nominates Crypto-Friendly Paul Atkins To Replace Gensler As SEC Chair

    With the departure of the most corrupt and incompetent – not to mention most hacked – SEC chair in history, Gary Gensler, is finally out.

    And, as we predicted, President-elect Donald Trump has nominated pro-crypto Paul Atkins to replace Gensler as the new chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)… and BTC exploded higher on the news…

    As CoinTelegraph’s Vince Quill reports, in a Dec. 4 announcement, Trump highlighted Atkins’ track record and experience as a former SEC commissioner. Trump wrote via Truth Social:

    “Paul is the CEO & Founder of Patomak Global Partners, a risk management consultancy. As Co-Chairman of the Digital Chamber’s Token Alliance since 2017, he has worked on & studied the digital assets industry.”

    “A former SEC Commissioner from 2002-2008, Paul strongly advocated for transparency & protecting investors,” Trump continued.

    “He also recognizes that digital assets & other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before.”

    Source: Donald Trump

    The nomination of a pro-crypto SEC commissioner was one of Trump’s promises to crypto voters early on in his campaign and a highlight of his keynote address at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

    Atkins served as an SEC commissioner from 2002 through 2008.

    Despite the threats of removal, Gary Gensler doubled down on his anti-crypto rhetoric in November before finally tendering his resignation.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 12/04/2024 – 16:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 04

Today’s News 4th December 2024

  • Open Borders Have Created A Terror Attack Time Bomb In The US In 2025
    Open Borders Have Created A Terror Attack Time Bomb In The US In 2025

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    If US security was represented as a great dam holding back a historic flood, today it would be a Chinese built Temu dam held together with paper mache and ramen noodles, ready to snap in half and kill a million people downstream. In 2024 there is no security: The public simply operates on blind faith that no one will take advantage of the vast weaknesses built into the system and government officials hide any risks associated with their policies.

    But what are the sources of the danger headed our way? Why is 2025 becoming more and more prominent as an inception date for an attack?

    Donald Trump’s election win, his impending return to the White House and his promise to close the border and deport millions of illegals could be the cleansing tsunami that America needs, but it could also inversely trigger a host of foreign attacks, domestic attacks as well as false flag events. 

    Here are the reasons why the next year is ripe for a large scale event…

    Open Borders Have Created Threat Saturation

    “Homeland Security” is a misnomer; the current head of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, openly admitted to a room full of border patrol agents this year that over 85% of illegal immigrants apprehended at the southern border are released into the country. Mayorkas originally claimed the release rate was 70% in an interview with FOX News, only to raise that number to 85% when agents pressed him during the private meeting.

    Reports indicate that at least 400,000 known criminals have crossed the border illegally during Joe Biden’s presidency, and 13,000 of those immigrants were convicted murderers. What we don’t know, however, is how many terror suspects and foreign agents have also entered the US in the past four years.

    The DHS releases limited data. Migrants that get a hit on the terror watch list are held and cataloged, of course, but with wide open borders and the Biden White House running interference there’s no way to know how many slipped through.

    The political left argues that “no terror attacks have happened on Biden’s watch”, but these are the same people that originally denied the existence of Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes in multiple cities across the country.  The saturation of illegal migrants will inevitably lead to a terror event in America, it’s only a matter of time.  Why?  Because now they are under threat of being removed en masse.

    Whatever their original plans, the reality of mass deportation puts these people on a time table and some may act out violently in response.  Many will feel entitled to stay in the US despite their criminal entry. 

    It may not happen on Biden’s watch, but his administration will have been the catalyst that made deportations necessary and the resulting attacks possible.

    Geopolitical Tensions And Open Borders Don’t Mix

    I believe an attack is inevitable in 2025 primarily because of the geopolitical brush fires being ignited across the globe right now. There is also always the looming danger of false flag events designed by covert actors trying to trick the public into placing blame on the wrong culprit.

    The war in Ukraine and the expanding wars in the Middle East involving Israel (and the resurgence in Syria) are dependent on US support and possibly future military involvement on the ground. It’s fair to say that without US involvement, all of these wars would end rather quickly. One can debate the ethical necessity of America engaging in proxy conflicts or the need for the US to protect certain allies and assets, but a lot of foreign elements view the US as the root cause of their pain.

    They also know the easiest way to attack the US is through the doorway that the current establishment has left wide open on the southern border.

    The US has been hit with a mass immigration storm while also embroiled in at least two regional proxy wars that have the potential to expand into world wars. Why wouldn’t Russia, China, or multiple nations in the Middle East use that weakness to their advantage?  Even more disturbing, the globalists that want the US to send troops to defend Ukraine or Israel could also perpetrate an attack that falsely leads back to Russia or Iran.

    I continue to argue that America has no reason to be involved in the majority of foreign entanglements and that we should stay out of these conflicts entirely. But we are where we are.  There are malicious people within our own government that want to force Americans into war, and there are foreign actors that hate us because of the actions of these same elites.  The dominoes have already been set in motion and guess where that leaves us?

    Conservatives Inherit Disaster While Leftists Go Weather Underground

    The  conservative sweep on election day means we inherit all the messes that Joe Biden and his handlers created – Economic, political, social, and geopolitical. There will also be considerable motivation for establishment elites to create chaos from thin air while conservatives hold governmental power, and this presents a third domestic threat which will definitely arise in the wake of a Trump presidency: Leftist activists.

    The goal of the progressive establishment when it comes to attacking conservatives is to create so much instability and fear that conservatives feel compelled to set aside their principles and the constitution in order to restore order. In this way the left hopes to “prove” that conservatives are the “fascists” they often accuse us of being.

    For the past several years conservatives have also been labeled “domestic terrorists” bent on civil war, but it’s actually the progressive left that engages in the majority of civil unrest and violence in the name of political expediency.

    The first time leftists were enraged by a political loss and took to the streets to riot, most conservatives and even the Trump administration erred on the side of constitutional flexibility. The problem is, leftists have a habit of exploiting free speech rights as a springboard for mob intimidation. Also, most of the riots took place in Democrat controlled states and cities where local officials defended the violence and tried to block any intervention.

    Some people argue that leftists are no longer motivated to engage in this kind of unrest and the lack of chaos after Trump’s election win is proof.  I beg to differ.  First, leftists are not a hardy bunch and they tend to wait for warmer weather before going out to cause disruption.  Second, Trump isn’t even in office yet.  Just wait until the mass deportations start and then you’ll see all kinds of riots.

    The political left believes that mob violence and looting is a form of free speech and “reparations” for perceived injustices. They feel completely justified in their behavior and that makes them exceedingly dangerous. If you see the mass burning of random neighborhoods as an “ends justify the means” situation, then you can probably convince yourself that any crime is acceptable.

    This trend of terrorism as activism is likely to evolve beyond simple mobs in the next round. In other words, under a new Trump Administration we should expect smaller Weather Underground-like groups among progressive activists; groups that will engage in terror attacks. The two assassination attempts against Trump this year support this hypothesis.

    To summarize, there are four distinct instigators of political violence all active going into 2025:

    • Organized criminal gangs crossing the border as migrants.

    • Foreign agents and terrorists slipping into the US using mass immigration as a cover.

    • Leftist activists radicalized to believe they are righteous in their violence.

    • Establishment elites and covert agencies creating false flag events.

    The types of attacks we face comprise a wide spectrum and I fear that conservatives may very well throw support behind a martial law scenario should the situation break out the way I think it will. Infrastructure attacks would be the most devastating (and would not require a high level of effort or sophistication); a lot of people may see military intervention as the best option.

    I would argue that this is exactly what the establishment wants. They want the liberty movement to abandon our foundations in the name of security – They want us to take shortcuts that lead us down an authoritarian path. If we are to increase the safety of the American populace it’s going to take years of work to fix the mess that progressives have left behind. No shortcuts like martial law.

    We’ll have to close the borders tight (The one place where a national guard or military presence makes sense). We’ll have to deport millions of illegal migrants already in the country. We’ll have to reduce our presence in global proxy wars. We’ll have to secure communities through localized efforts (militias).

    Most importantly, should violence break out, community participation in defense is paramount. The locals need to be prepared for grid down, for rioting, for random attacks. It’s the general public that needs to be ready. Regular civilians are the people that will be there the moment disaster strikes and they must be empowered to take action.

    When a terror attack takes minutes to achieve, regular people who are there when it occurs have seconds to respond. Until we can repair the damage done to our national security over the past four years, the public is the first and most important line of defense.

    *  *  *

    One survival food company, Prepper All-Naturals, has proactively dropped prices to allow Americans to stock up ahead of projected hikes in beef prices. Their 25-year shelf life steaks currently come at a 25% discount with promo code “invest25”.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 23:25

  • Ukraine Vows To Reject Any Alternative To NATO Membership
    Ukraine Vows To Reject Any Alternative To NATO Membership

    A new Ukrainian government statement has made clear the country will reject any alternative to NATO membership if it is proposed as part of a peace plan with Moscow.

    Reports of President-elect Trump’s peace plan say it hinges on security guarantees while indefinitely postponing Ukraine joining NATO (for at least 20 years). This is precisely what the Zelensky government is now very vocally pushing back against.

    A Tuesday statement from the Foreign Ministry asserts, “Having the bitter experience of the Budapest Memorandum behind us, we will not settle for any alternatives, surrogates, or substitutes for Ukraine’s full membership in NATO.”

    Source: EFE/EPA

    The statement continued by calling upon “the U.S. and Great Britain, which signed the Budapest Memorandum,… France and China, which joined it and all the states participating in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” to immediately back Ukraine’s efforts to joint NATO. 

    It further suggested that anything less is to fall in line with Russia’s ‘blackmail’. The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 saw Ukraine give up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons arsenal, and in return Moscow provided security guarantees and recognized borders.

    The hard-hitting Ukrainian government statement further stressed, “We are convinced that the only real security guarantee for Ukraine, as well as a deterrent factor for further Russian aggression against Ukraine and other states, is only Ukraine’s full membership in NATO.”

    Ukraine has representation at a Tuesday through Wednesday meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. Zelensky has been pushing allies hard to not back down on allowing full NATO membership. He’s even tried to argue that the alliance’s Article 5 self-defense pact doesn’t necessary have to apply to parts of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.

    But NATO leaders appear cold to the idea, given the risk of nuclear-armed confrontation with Russia, and given Ukraine’s military is clearly losing the war in the east. NATO chief Rutte has also rejected Zelensky’s plea:

    NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday sidestepped questions about Ukraine’s possible membership in the military alliance, saying that the priority now must be to strengthen the country’s hand in any future peace talks with Russia by sending it more weapons.

    Rutte’s remarks, ahead of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, came days after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that extending alliance membership to territory now under Kyiv’s control could end “the hot stage” of the almost 3-year war in Ukraine, where Russian forces are pressing deeper into their western neighbor.

    “The front is not moving eastwards. It is slowly moving westwards,” Rutte said. “So we have to make sure that Ukraine gets into a position of strength, and then it should be for the Ukrainian government to decide on the next steps, in terms of opening peace talks and how to conduct them.”

    Kiev is also urgently pushing for more anti-air defense weapons systems from partners. This after Russia has stepped up attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure.

    “We are talking about an emergency delivery of at least 20 additional Hawk, NASAMS or IRIS-T systems,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga said Tuesday in Brussels, as quoted by RBK Ukraine. “This will help us avoid blackouts. We understand that the Russians are trying to undercut our generation capacity.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 23:00

  • House Oversight Report Supports Chinese Lab-Leak Theory For COVID-19 Origin
    House Oversight Report Supports Chinese Lab-Leak Theory For COVID-19 Origin

    Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A Republican-led oversight subcommittee has concluded that the COVID-19 virus likely originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, following a two-year investigation into the pandemic.

    The House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a 520-page report on Dec. 2, detailing the findings of the subcommittee’s investigation.

    Laboratory technicians wearing personal protective equipment work on samples to be tested for COVID-19 at the Fire Eye laboratory, a COVID-19 testing facility, in Wuhan in Hubei Province, China, on Aug. 4, 2021. STR/AFP via Getty Images

    The report found that the U.S. National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and that EcoHealth Alliance Inc. used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate this research at the lab.

    It also found that the Chinese communist regime, agencies within the U.S. government, and some members of the international scientific community sought to cover up facts concerning the origins of the pandemic.

    The committee said that COVID-19 possesses biological characteristics not found in nature and that data indicates that all COVID-19 cases stemmed from a single introduction into humans, unlike previous pandemics, where there were more spillover events.

    “By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced,” the oversight subcommittee said in a statement.

    The report said that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has a history of conducting “gain-of-function” research under low biosafety precautions.

    Several researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell sick with a COVID-like virus months before the first case of the outbreak was allegedly detected at a wet market, according to the report.

    The report said that in January 2021, the U.S. State Department published an unclassified fact sheet that stated: “The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illness.”

    Citing the fact sheet, the report stated that the Wuhan Institute of Virology “has a published record of conducting ‘gain-of-function’ research to engineer chimeric viruses.”

    The report said the June 2023 ODNI assessment supported this conclusion and went further, stating, “Scientists at the WIV have created chimeras, or combinations of SARS-like coronaviruses through genetic engineering, attempted to clone other unrelated viruses, and used reverse genetic cloning techniques on SARS-like coronaviruses.” The June 2023 ODNI Assessment said that some of the “WIV’s genetic engineering projects on coronaviruses involved techniques that could make it difficult to detect intentional changes.”

    Among those interviewed during the panel’s investigation was Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who stepped down from his role in December 2022.

    The report stated that Fauci had “prompted” a research study titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”—which dismissed the idea that the virus was laboratory constructed—to “disprove” the lab leak theory.

    Fauci testified at a June hearing that he did not suppress the lab leak theory and did not view it as inherently a conspiracy theory but said that “some distortions on that particular subject are,” according to the report.

    Security personnel keep watch outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on Feb. 3, 2021. Thomas Peter/Reuters

    “Although Dr. Fauci believed the lab-leak theory to be a conspiracy theory at the start of the pandemic, it now appears that his position is that he does have an open mind about the origin of the virus—so long as it does not implicate EcoHealth Alliance, and by extension himself and NIAID,” it stated, citing Fauci’s memoir published just weeks after the hearing. “Understandably, as he signed off on the EcoHealth Alliance grant.”

    In a May 2021 Senate hearing, Fauci said his agency did not provide funds for “gain of function” research into coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Fauci told the hearing.

    The report also stated that Taiwan notified the World Health Organization (WHO) on Dec. 31, 2019, about “atypical pneumonia cases” reported in Wuhan and asked the agency to investigate, but the WHO ignored the warnings.

    The WHO response to the COVID-19 pandemic was “an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties,” the subcommittee said.

    In a statement accompanying the report, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chairman of the committee, said, “The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a distrust in leadership. Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust.”

    A study published in the journal Risk Analysis on March 15 found a high probability that the COVID-19 virus had an unnatural origin. Although the study did not prove the origin of the COVID-19 virus, its authors said that “the possibility of a laboratory origin cannot be easily dismissed.”

    The Epoch Times reached out to Anthony Fauci, NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance Inc., and the WHO for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

    Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 22:35

  • US Won't 'Cry' About The Pressure Syria Is Facing From Al-Qaeda-Linked Fighters: Sullivan
    US Won’t ‘Cry’ About The Pressure Syria Is Facing From Al-Qaeda-Linked Fighters: Sullivan

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com, 

    National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Sunday that the US will not “cry” over the pressure the Syrian government and its allies are facing from an offensive on Aleppo led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an offshoot of al-Qaeda.

    Sullivan acknowledged that HTS was “a terrorist organization designated by the United States” and said the US has “real concerns about the designs and objectives of that organization.”

    Commander of designated terror organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. Source: Enab Baladi

    But he added, “At the same time, of course, we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, are facing certain kinds of pressure.”

    HTS captured Aleppo following a surprise offensive that was launched last Wednesday, which came after Israel stepped up airstrikes on Syria.

    US officials have not been shy in the past about their preference for HTS and its leader, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, over other factions in Syria. James Jeffrey, an American diplomat who served as a special envoy to Syria under the Trump administration from 2018-2020, said in a 2021 interview that HTS was “an asset” to the US’s strategy in Idlib, a northwestern Syrian province that’s been under HTS control since 2017.

    “They are the least bad option of the various options on Idlib, and Idlib is one of the most important places in Syria, which is one of the most important places right now in the Middle East,” Jeffrey said.

    Julani was formerly the leader of al-Nusra Front, which was the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. In 2016, Julani publicly announced he was splitting with al-Qaeda and changed his group’s name to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, which merged with other Islamist groups to form HTS in 2017.

    Julani’s rebranding campaign was part of an effort to gain more support from the West. Jeffrey said he was in regular contact with Julani and HTS while he was working as the US envoy to Syria. Jeffrey said a typical message from al-Julani was like this, “This is what we’re doing. These are our goals. We’re not a threat to you.”

    Jeffrey said he responded to Julani by saying, “I couldn’t agree more. … Keep me informed as often as possible.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups always made up a significant portion of the opposition to Assad after the war broke out in 2011. In 2012, Jake Sullivan, who worked as an aide to then-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at the time, told his boss in an email released by WikiLeaks that “AQ (al-Qaeda) is on our side in Syria.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 22:10

  • Uranium Mining Revival Portends Nuclear Renaissance In Texas & Beyond
    Uranium Mining Revival Portends Nuclear Renaissance In Texas & Beyond

    Authored by Dylan Baddour via Inside Climate News (emphasis ours),

    In the old ranchlands of South Texas, dormant uranium mines are coming back online. A collection of new ones hope to start production soon, extracting radioactive fuel from the region’s shallow aquifers. Many more may follow.

    These mines are the leading edge of what government and industry leaders in Texas hope will be a nuclear renaissance, as America’s latent nuclear sector begins to stir again.  

    Texas is currently developing a host of high-tech industries that require enormous amounts of electricity, from crypto-currency mines and artificial intelligence to hydrogen production and seawater desalination. Now, powerful interests in the state are pushing to power it with next-generation nuclear reactors. 

    “We can make Texas the nuclear capital of the world,” said Reed Clay, president of the Texas Nuclear Alliance, former chief operating officer for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office and former senior counsel to the Texas Office of Attorney General. “There’s a huge opportunity.”

    Clay owns a lobbying firm with heavyweight clients that include SpaceX, Dow Chemical and the Texas Blockchain Council, among many others. He launched the Texas Nuclear Association in 2022 and formed the Texas Nuclear Caucus during the 2023 state legislative session to advance bills supportive of the nuclear industry. 

    The efforts come amid a national resurgence of interest in nuclear power, which can provide large amounts of energy without the carbon emissions that warm the planet. And it can do so with reliable consistency that wind and solar power generation lack. But it carries a small risk of catastrophic failure and requires uranium from mines that can threaten rural aquifers. 

    In South Texas, groundwater management officials have fought for almost 15 years against a planned uranium mine. Administrative law judges have ruled in their favor twice, finding potential for groundwater contamination. But in both cases those judges were overruled by the state’s main environmental regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

    Now local leaders fear mining at the site appears poised to begin soon as momentum gathers behind America’s nuclear resurgence. 

    In October, Google announced the purchase of six small nuclear reactors to power its data centers by 2035. Amazon did the same shortly thereafter, and Microsoft has said it will pay to restart the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania to power its facilities. Last month, President Joe Biden announced a goal to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050. American companies are racing to license and manufacture new models of nuclear reactors.

    “It’s kind of an unprecedented time in nuclear,” said James Walker, a nuclear physicist and co-founder of New York-based NANO Nuclear Energy Inc., a startup developing small-scale “microreactors” for commercial deployment around 2031. 

    The industry’s re-emergence stems from two main causes, he said: towering tech industry energy demands and the war in Ukraine.

    Previously, the U.S. relied on enriched uranium from decommissioned Russian weapons to fuel its existing power plants and military vessels. When war interrupted that supply in 2022, American authorities urgently began to rekindle domestic uranium mining and enrichment. 

    “The Department of Energy at the moment is trying to build back a lot of the infrastructure that atrophied,” Walker said. “A lot of those uranium deposits in Texas have become very economical, which means a lot of investment will go back into those sites.”

    In May, the White House created a working group to develop guidelines for deployment of new nuclear power projects. In June, the Department of Energy announced $900 million in funding for small, next-generation reactors. And in September, it announced a $1.5 billion loan to restart a nuclear power plant in Michigan, which it called “a first of a kind effort.”

    “There’s an urgent desire to find zero-carbon energy sources that aren’t intermittent like renewables,” said Colin Leyden, Texas state director of the Environmental Defense Fund. “There aren’t a lot of options, and nuclear is one.”

    Wind and solar will remain the cheapest energy sources, Leyden said, and a buildout of nuclear power would likely accelerate the retirement of coal plants.

    The U.S. hasn’t built a nuclear reactor in 30 years, spooked by a handful of disasters. In contrast, China has grown its nuclear power generation capacity almost 900 percent in the last 20 years, according to the World Nuclear Association, and currently has 30 reactors under construction.

    Last year, Abbott ordered the state’s Public Utility Commission to produce a report “outlining how Texas will become the national leader in using advanced nuclear energy.” According to the report, which was issued in November, new nuclear reactors would most likely be built in ports and industrial complexes to power large industrial operations and enable further expansion. 

    “The Ports and their associated industries, like Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), carbon capture facilities, hydrogen facilities and cruise terminals, need additional generation sources,” the report said. Advanced nuclear reactors “offer Texas’ Ports a unique opportunity to enable continued growth.”

    In the Permian Basin, the report said, reactors could power oil production as well as purification of oilfield wastewater “for useful purposes.” Or they could power clusters of data centers in Central and North Texas. 

    Already, Dow Chemical has announced plans to install four small reactors at its Seadrift plastics and chemical plant on a rural stretch of the middle Texas coast, which it calls the first grid-scale nuclear reactor for an industrial site in North America.   

    “I think the vast majority of these nuclear power plants are going to be for things like industrial use,” said Cyrus Reed, a longtime environmental lobbyist in the Texas Capitol and conservation director for the state’s Sierra Club chapter. “A lot of large industries have corporate goals of being low carbon or no carbon, so this could fill in a niche for them.” 

    The PUC report made seven recommendations for the creation of public entities, programs and funds to support the development of a Texas nuclear industry. During next year’s state legislative session, legislators in the Nuclear Caucus will seek to make them law. 

    “It’s going to be a great opportunity for energy investment in Texas,” said Stephen Perkins, Texas-based chief operating officer of the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative environmental policy group. “We’re really going to be pushing hard for [state legislators] to take that seriously.”

    However, Texas won’t likely see its first new commercial reactor come online for at least five years. Before a buildout of power plants, there will be a boom at the uranium mines, as the U.S. seeks to reestablish domestic production and enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel. 

    Texas Uranium 

    Ted Long, a former commissioner of Goliad County, can see the power lines of an inactive uranium mine from his porch on an old family ranch in the rolling golden savannah of South Texas. For years the mine has been idle, waiting for depressed uranium markets to pick up.  

    There, an international mining company called Uranium Energy Corp. plans to mine 420 acres of the Evangeline Aquifer between depths of 45 and 404 feet, according to permitting documents. Long, a dealer of engine lubricants, gets his water from a well 120 feet deep that was drilled in 1993. He lives with his wife on property that’s been in her family since her great-grandfather emigrated from Germany. 

    “I’m worried for groundwater on this whole Gulf Coast,” Long said. “This isn’t the only place they’re wanting to do this.”

    As a public official, Long fought the neighboring mine for years. But he found the process of engaging with Texas’ environmental regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, to be time-consuming, expensive and ultimately fruitless. Eventually, he concluded there was no point.

    “There’s nothing I can do,” he said. “I guess I’ll have to look for some kind of system to clean the water up.”

    The Goliad mine is the smallest of five sites in South Texas held by UEC, which is based in Corpus Christi. Another company, enCore Energy, started uranium production at two South Texas sites in 2023 and 2024, and hopes to bring four more online by 2027. 

    Uranium mining goes back decades in South Texas, but lately it’s been dormant. Between the 1970s and the 1990s, a cluster of open pit mines harvested shallow uranium deposits at the surface. Many of those sites left a legacy of aquifer pollution. 

    TCEQ records show active cases of groundwater contaminated with uranium, radium, arsenic and other pollutants from defunct uranium mines and tailing impoundment sites in Live Oak County at ExxonMobil’s Ray Point site, and in Karnes County at Conoco-Phillips Co.’s Conquista Project and at Rio Grande Resources’ Panna Maria Uranium Recovery Facility.

    All known shallow deposits of uranium in Texas have been mined. The deeper deposits aren’t accessed by traditional surface mining, but rather a process called in-situ mining, in which solvents are pumped underground into uranium-bearing aquifer formations. Adjacent wells suck back up the resulting slurry, from which uranium dust will be extracted. 

    Industry describes in-situ mining as safer and more environmentally friendly than surface mining. But some South Texas water managers and landowners are concerned. 

    “We’re talking about mining at the same elevation as people get their groundwater,” said Terrell Graham, a board member of the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District, which has been fighting a proposed uranium mine for almost 15 years. “There isn’t another source of water for these residents.” 

    “It Was Rigged, a Setup”

    On two occasions, the district has participated in lengthy hearings and won favorable rulings in Texas’ administrative courts supporting concerns over the safety of the permits. But both times, political appointees at the TCEQ rejected judges’ recommendations and issued the permits anyway. 

    “We’ve won two administrative proceedings,” Graham said. “It’s very expensive, and to have the TCEQ commissioners just overturn the decision seems nonsensical.” 

    The first time was in 2010. UEC was seeking initial permits for the Goliad mine, and the groundwater conservation district filed a technical challenge claiming that permits risked contamination of nearby aquifers. 

    The district hired lawyers and geological experts for a three-day hearing on the permit in Austin. Afterwards, an administrative law judge agreed with some of the district’s concerns. In a 147-page opinion issued September 2010, an administrative law judge recommended further geological testing to determine whether certain underground faults could transmit fluids from the mining site into nearby drinking water sources. 

    “If the Commission determines that such remand is not feasible or desirable then the ALJ recommends that the Mine Application and the PAA-1 Application be denied,” the opinion said. 

    But the commissioners declined the judge’s recommendation. In an order issued March 2011, they determined that the proposed permits “impose terms and conditions reasonably necessary to protect fresh water from pollution.” 

    “The Commission determines that no remand is necessary,” the order said. 

    The TCEQ issued UEC’s permits, valid for 10 years. But by that time, a collapse in uranium prices had brought the sector to a standstill, so mining never commenced. 

    In 2021, the permits came up for renewal, and locals filed challenges again. But again, the same thing happened. 

    A nearby landowner named David Michaelsen organized a group of neighbors to hire a lawyer and challenge UEC’s permit to inject the radioactive waste product from its mine more than half a mile underground for permanent disposal. 

    “It’s not like I’m against industry or anything, but I don’t think this is a very safe spot,” said Michaelsen, former chief engineer at the Port of Corpus Christi, a heavy industrial hub on the South Texas Coast. He bought his 56 acres in Goliad County in 2018 to build an upscale ranch house and retire with his wife. 

    In hearings before an administrative law judge, he presented evidence showing that nearby faults and old oil well shafts posed a risk for the injected waste to travel into potable groundwater layers near the surface. 

    In a 103-page opinion issued April 2024, an administrative law judge agreed with many of Michaelsen’s challenges, including that “site-specific evidence here shows the potential for fluid movement from the injection zone.”

    “The draft permit does not comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements,” wrote the administrative law judge, Katerina DeAngelo, a former assistant attorney general of Texas in the environmental protection division. She recommended “closer inspection of the local geology, more precise calculations of the [cone of influence], and a better assessment of the faults.”

    Michaelsen thought he had won. But when the TCEQ commissioners took up the question several months later, again they rejected all of the judge’s findings. 

    In a 19-page order issued in September, the commission concluded that “faults within 2.5 miles of its proposed disposal wells are not sufficiently transmissive or vertically extensive to allow migration of hazardous constituents out of the injection zone.” The old nearby oil wells, the commission found, “are likely adequately plugged and will not provide a pathway for fluid movement.” 

    “UEC demonstrated the proposed disposal wells will prevent movement of fluids that would result in pollution” of an underground source of drinking water, said the order granting the injection disposal permits. 

    “I felt like it was rigged, a setup,” said Michaelsen, holding his four-inch-thick binder of research and records from the case. “It was a canned decision.”

    Another set of permit renewals remains before the Goliad mine can begin operation, and local authorities are fighting it, too. In August, the Goliad County Commissioners Court passed a resolution against uranium mining in the county. The groundwater district is seeking to challenge the permits again in administrative court. And in November, the district sued TCEQ in Travis County District Court seeking to reverse the agency’s permit approvals. 

    Because of the lawsuit, a TCEQ spokesperson declined to answer questions about the Goliad County mine site, saying the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation. 

    A final set of permits remains to be renewed before the mine can begin production. However, after years of frustrations, district leaders aren’t optimistic about their ability to influence the decision. 

    Only about 40 residences immediately surround the site of the Goliad mine, according to Art Dohmann, vice president of the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District. Only they might be affected in the near term. But Dohmann, who has served on the groundwater district board for 23 years, worries that the uranium, radium and arsenic churned up in the mining process will drift from the site as years go by. 

    “The groundwater moves. It’s a slow rate, but once that arsenic is liberated, it’s there forever,” Dohmann said. “In a generation, it’s going to affect the downstream areas.“

    UEC did not respond to a request for comment. 

    Currently, the TCEQ is evaluating possibilities for expanding and incentivizing further uranium production in Texas. It’s following instruction given last year, when lawmakers with the Nuclear Caucus added an item to TCEQ’s bi-annual budget ordering a study of uranium resources to be produced for state lawmakers by December 2024, ahead of next year’s legislative session.  

    According to the budget item, “The report must include recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes and potential economic incentive programs to support the uranium mining industry in this state.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 21:45

  • "Very Unique" Russian Attack Submarine Spotted In South China Sea
    “Very Unique” Russian Attack Submarine Spotted In South China Sea

    The Philippine military deployed a navy ship and air force planes to shadow a Russian submarine, which passed through the South China Sea off the country’s western coast last week, a security official told AFP. One official said the navy was surprised to see the vessel because it was a “very unique submarine.”

    The Russian UFA 490 submarine identified itself about 80  miles from the Philippines coast in response to a navy two-way radio inquiry, saying it was en route home to Russia’s eastern city of Vladivostok after joining an exercise with the Malaysian navy, Jonathan Malaya, assistant director-general of the National Security Council, said.

    The submarine, like other foreign ships, has the right of “innocent passage” in the country’s exclusive economic zone but it still sparked concern when it was spotted on Thursday about 80 nautical miles off the Philippine province of Mindoro, Malaya said.

    Roy Vincent Trinidad, spokesman for the navy in the South China Sea, said the incident is “not alarming.”

    “But we were surprised because this is a very unique submarine,” he told AFP. The 74-metre (243-foot) long vessel is armed with a missile system that has a range of 12,000 kilometers (7,450 miles), according to Russia’s state-run TASS news agency.

    The submarine was sighted after it surfaced due to weather-related conditions, Malaya said.

    According to the Naval Technology website, Kilo-class submarines are considered to be “one of the quietest diesel submarines in the world.” With a crew of 52, the Kilo is designed for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface-ship warfare, and for general reconnaissance and patrol missions. It first entered service with the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

    The Kilo-class submarines can also detect other submarines at a range “three to four times greater than it can be detected itself.”

    Exported widely in several continents, nine countries operate the 65 Kilo-class subs currently in service, GMA News reports. Among these are China and Vietnam. According to the US Naval Institute, Kilo-class submarines have six 21-inch bow torpedo tubes that can launch torpedoes or naval mines. It can carry a maximum of 18 torpedoes or 24 naval mines.

    The 2,300-ton warship was designed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and the initial design progressed to Project 636 called the Improved Kilo or Kilo II submarine in 1990.

    The US Naval Institute also said many Kilo-class submarines can launch the Kalibr family of missiles from their torpedo tubes for long-range land attack (3M-14) or antiship (3M-54) operations.

    Kilo-class subs have a hull-mounted sonar suite, an underwater sensor capability that can be used in a wide range of operational missions.

    According to the USNI, Russia’s Improved Kilo II–class submarines first conducted long-range attacks against Islamic State targets in Syria in 2015. It has also been used to attack Ukraine since the 2022 war.

    According to the National Security Council, the Russian attack sub (UFA 490) was seen traveling on the surface 80 nautical miles west off the Occidental Mindoro coast on November 28 and eventually left in the afternoon.

    * * *

    “All of that is very concerning,” President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. told reporters when asked about the submarine. “Any intrusion into the West Philippine Sea, of our EEZ, of our baselines is very worrisome. So, yes, it’s just another one.”

    Marcos used the Philippine name for the South China Sea, where his country plus Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and other coastal states have faced an increasingly aggressive China, which claims the busy waterway virtually in its entirety.

    An alarming spike in territorial confrontations, particularly between Chinese and Philippine coast guard and naval forces, starting last year has prompted closer surveillance by the United States and other Western governments of the key global trade route.

    The Philippines coast guard said Monday that a Chinese military helicopter flew close to fishing boats manned by Filipinos in a “dangerous act of harassment” last week at Iroquois Reef, a disputed fishing area in the South China Sea.

    Two Philippine coast guard patrol ships have been deployed to the area to protect Filipino fishermen, coast guard spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela said. There was no immediate comment from Chinese officials.

    As “60 Minutes” reported recently, tensions have escalated precariously in the waters off the western coast of the Philippines where an international tribunal ruled the Philippines has exclusive economic rights. But China claims almost all of the South China Sea, one of the world’s most vital waterways through which more than $3 trillion in goods flow each year.

    Meanwhile, China and Russia have expanded military and defense ties since Moscow ordered troops into Ukraine nearly three years ago, and joint exercises involving the Russian and Chinese militaries have ramped up recently.  Last week, South Korea’s military said it scrambled fighter jets as five Chinese and six Russian military planes flew through its air defense zone.

    In September, the U.S. military moved about 130 soldiers along with mobile rocket launchers to a desolate island in the Aleutian chain of western Alaska amid a recent increase in Russian military planes and vessels approaching American territory. Eight Russian military planes and four navy vessels, including two submarines, had recently come close to Alaska as Russia and China conducted joint military drills.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 21:20

  • Second Democrat Judge Reverses Decision To Create Judicial Vacancy After Trump Victory
    Second Democrat Judge Reverses Decision To Create Judicial Vacancy After Trump Victory

    Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A second Democrat-appointed federal judge has rescinded a decision to create a new judicial vacancy in the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory.

    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) answers a journalist’s question during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Budapest, Hungary, on Feb. 18, 2024. Attila Kisbenedek/AFP via Getty Images

    The move by U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn of North Carolina was made as time is running out for President Joe Biden to nominate new judges and get them confirmed by the Senate before Democrats lose their majority in that chamber when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3, 2025. Biden leaves office on Jan. 20.

    Cogburn’s name disappeared from an official list of expected judicial vacancies on Nov. 30 after appearing on the list the month before.

    Cogburn said in 2022 that he planned to take on senior status, a kind of semi-retirement for long-serving federal judges that creates a vacancy that a president can fill, subject to Senate confirmation. Judges with senior status continue to receive full pay but typically have a reduced workload.

    U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn of North Carolina

    After Cogburn’s 2022 announcement, Biden failed to nominate anyone to succeed the judge. Under Senate customs, home state senators may block a judicial nominee. Both of North Carolina’s senators—Thom Tillis and Ted Budd—are Republicans. The senators and the White House failed to agree on a replacement for Cogburn.

    After senators reached a deal to advance some of Biden’s remaining judicial nominees before he leaves office, Tillis said on Nov. 21 that judges should not back out of a commitment to assume senior status.

    “I expect that the judges who submitted their retirements will not play partisan politics with a presidential transition and a bipartisan Senate deal by going back on their word to retire,” Tillis said.

    Before Cogburn changed his mind about taking senior status, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley of Ohio told the White House after Trump’s election victory on Nov. 5 that he planned to withdraw his bid for senior status. Marbley was appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in 1997.

    Ohio’s senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican JD Vance, who is the vice president-elect, reportedly could not agree with Biden on a replacement for Marbley.

    Marbley’s name was on the same list of expected judicial vacancies in October but did not appear in the November update.

    On Nov. 19, Trump urged Senate Republicans to not confirm Biden’s remaining judicial nominees before Trump is sworn in next month.

    “The Democrats are trying to stack the courts with radical left judges on their way out the door,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Republican senators need to show up and hold the line—no more judges confirmed before Inauguration Day!”

    The Epoch Times reached out to Cogburn’s office for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.

    Reuters contributed to this report.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 20:55

  • Watch: US A-10 'Warthog' Filmed Engaged In Attacks Over Eastern Syria
    Watch: US A-10 ‘Warthog’ Filmed Engaged In Attacks Over Eastern Syria

    A US Air Force A-10C “Warthog” Thunderbolt II Close-Air Support Aircraft has been filmed flying low and doing strafing runs over eastern Syria as fighting has broken out there in the wake of the fall of Aleppo to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) jihadists.

    It appears that US-backed “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) are clashing with pro-Syrian forces, including possibly the Syrian Army and allied militias, some of which have been pouring across the border from Iraq.

    US Central Command (CENTCOM) has yet to confirm anything, but one independent geopolitical news source writes, “US Air Force (USAF) A-10 Warthog combat jets were purportedly deployed in Syria to conduct airstrikes against Iran-linked militias that entered Syria to fight the rebels that have launched a fresh offensive against Bashar al-Assad regime.” A Pentagon official has said that at least one airstrike took place “in self defense”. 

    And Fox News Pentagon correspondent Lucas Thomlinson has posted the below footage from Deir Ezzor…

    The original source, an analyst who closely watches eastern Syria, wrote: “U.S. airstrikes target positions of Iran-backed militias in Deir Ezzor, eastern Syria.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Pentagon is perhaps reluctant to comment, also just ahead of the new Trump administration taking office in January, given the fact that it’s waging a war in Syria – including the deployment of warplanes – with no Congressional debate or approval whatsoever.

    We detailed earlier that on Monday a Syrian army officer told Reuters that Iraqi militia forces crossing the border are “fresh reinforcements being sent to aid our comrades on the frontlines in the north.”

    More footage (unverified) reportedly from along the Euphrates River in the Deir Ezzor area:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Many of the fighters have been identified as belonging to the Kataib Hezbollah and Fatemiyoun groups. The US has long been in an internecine conflict with Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, with over the years periodic rocket fire even targeting the US Embassy in Baghdad, as well as various bases which host remaining American troops.

    These forces have been fully aware that the Pentagon could attack their convoys at any moment, and so have reportedly been crossing the border in small groups and using concealed roads.

    “At least 300 fighters, primarily from the Badr and Nujabaa groups, crossed late on Sunday using a dirt road to avoid the official border crossing, two Iraqi security sources said, adding that they were there to defend a Shi’ite shrine,” Reuters reports. Clearly the Pentagon is now getting more deeply involved in the current regional fighting, after having occupied oil and gas areas of northeast Syria for years.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 20:30

  • Why It's Time To Abolish The Department Of Education
    Why It’s Time To Abolish The Department Of Education

    Authored by Lane Johnson via The Mises Institute,

    Ryan McMaken makes a convincing case on Mises Wire for abolishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But DHS is not the only executive branch cabinet department that has been occasionally mentioned as a candidate for elimination. 

    Aside from the US cabinet departments of State, Treasury, and Defense that date back to the earliest years of the nation, the names of other departments—Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs—do not typically roll off the tips of Americans’ tongues.

    Many of these departments and agencies could easily be considered candidates for elimination or consolidation.

    One embarrassingly unforgettable example of a proposed cabinet department abolition was former Texas governor (and Secretary of Energy in the Trump administration) Rick Perry’s fiasco during a Republican primary presidential debate in 2012. Asked which cabinet departments he would eliminate if he were elected president, he spent 53 seconds (a lifetime in a debate) trying to remember the third of three federal agencies that he would abolish, before admitting failure and saying “Sorry, oops.” One of the other Republican candidates in the debate—Mitt Romney—helpfully suggested that perhaps Perry was thinking of the Energy Department, but the point had been lost and Perry soon withdrew from the primary race.

    Education’s Checkered Past and Current Critics

    The US Department of Education (ED) was created in late 1979 during the Carter administration. He had run for president in 1976, advocating a stand-alone education department after the National Education Association (NEA) had offered to endorse a candidate who would support a new department. NEA by that time had transformed from a professional association to a labor union, and was flexing its political muscles.

    Until 1979, federal education functions were either independent agencies or housed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which itself had been created in the early years of Dwight Eisenhower’s first presidential term. These various educational functions included the Office of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and several other entities. But the federal government’s involvement in education was at that time minor and benign compared to its expansion in more recent years.

    There are plenty of critics who advocate eliminating ED. Many Americans have long believed that education should not be a federal responsibility, and that it was always left to the states for funding, administrative, and curricular choices. The US Constitution nowhere refers to any federal activity in either K-12 or postsecondary education. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt—well known as a governmental interventionist president—is not remembered as ever having advocated any federal role in education.

    The December 2024 edition of Reason Magazine, published by the libertarian Reason Foundation, in its cover story entitled “Abolish Everything” includes a short article entitled “Abolish the Department of Education,” asserting that, not only must the entire department be eliminated, but all of its unconstitutional programs as well.

    Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and currently president of the non-profit think tank American Action Forum, states in his recent November 15 column that ED’s “…$250 billion budget is essentially a large financial funnel passing dollars to states for activities such as…financial assistance to schools with a high percentage of low-income students and special education programs for children and youth with disabilities. Oh, yes, and federal student loans.”

    The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—with which Donald Trump disavowed any affiliation during the 2024 presidential campaign—has stated that neither the Department of Education nor its constituent programs have any constitutional business existing.

    ED’s Recent Scandals: FAFSA, Title IX, and Student Loans

    During the Biden administration, ED has been a high-profile cabinet department under its inept Secretary Miguel Cardona since early 2021, with three newsworthy scandals under his leadership having received much headline coverage.

    The FAFSA Scandal: 

    The “Free Application for Federal Student Aid” (FAFSA) mess leads this list of ED’s dirty laundry because of the large number of college students, their parents, and institutions adversely affected by ED’s efforts to revamp the online application form after Congress required this in 2020.

    Richard Cordray—controversial former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and then chief operating officer for ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid—left ED in June 2024 after many problems with the 2023-24 FAFSA form’s financial aid calculations that left students with delayed college admissions and without financial aid (grants, scholarships, work-study programs, and loans) for which they otherwise would have been eligible. Collegiate institutions have blamed the FAFSA fiasco for reduced student matriculation levels in the 2024-25 academic year.

    ED was late in posting its academic year 2024-25 FAFSA, then recently announced that the 2025-26 FAFSA form will be released in December 2024, but that multiple beta tests are being made to identify and resolve system errors that could derail the FAFSA process for students and institutions. ED further announces that participation in the beta release is by invitation only.

    New Title IX Regulations and Lawsuits:

    Title IX of the 1972 amendments to the 1965 Higher Education Act prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or educational program that receives federal funding. Violations include gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual violence, retaliation, and a hostile environment. Title IX has also been implicated in denying students (typically male) due process when accused of such violations.

    In 2020 Betsy DeVos—ED Secretary in Trump’s first administration—announced new Title IX due process regulatory protections for those accused of campus sexual harassment or assault, ending Obama-era guidance that had denied due process to the accused.

    Then, in 2024, the Biden administration announced another new era for higher ed institutions’ handling of sexual harassment and assault cases, in particular expanding protections for LGBTQ+ and pregnant students. Before these new regulations could take effect, however, 26 states objected to expanded LGBTQ+ rights, and challenged the regulations in court, leading to temporary injunctions that prevent ED from enforcing those regulations. In Congress, House Republicans argued that the regulatory changes undermine Title IX’s protections for “cisgender” women and girls.

    Injunctions against the new Title IX regulations remain in place, leaving the Biden administration to make its case before the Supreme Court to allow parts of the new rule to take effect while litigation continues, portending that the Court will ultimately have to settle the questions raised in the states’ lawsuits.

    ED has quite obviously entered the cultural wars in its efforts to regulate the administration of Title IX on campuses. Most likely, these regulations will ebb and flow with every succeeding presidential administration, as they have from Obama through Trump, Biden, and now Trump again.

    Last But Not Least—Student Loan “Forgiveness”:

    Federal student loan repayments were suspended during the pandemic, then officially resumed in September 2023. Following that, the Biden administration loan forgiveness project has taken so many twists and turns that it’s difficult to keep up with the billions of loans already written off, number of students affected, those still promised loan relief, and the ultimate costs to the federal budget deficit.

    Hoping to gain votes from student borrowers, the administration first attempted to forgive loans under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), which, in July 2023, the Supreme Court struck down in Biden v. Nebraska. But some subsequent attempts at forgiveness have succeeded for certain groups of students. The Biden administration has now approved nearly $138 billion in student debt cancellation for almost 3.9 million borrowers through more than twenty executive orders. And some further cancellation promises remain pending.

    ED’s Questionable, Murky Future

    Given ED’s inept management and the three headline-grabbing scandals, what is likely to become of the Department? Though Trump clearly wishes to abolish ED—and his supporters would surely approve—it’s unlikely that he will be able to shut it down. Doing so would require a Senate supermajority of 60 votes to repeal the original 1979 legislation that established ED. Republicans will control the upper chamber of Congress but only hold 53 seats, while Democrats and Independents make up the other 47. Senate Republicans are also highly unlikely to abolish the filibuster, which would be required to pass legislation with fewer than 60 votes.

    Eliminating ED could also send shock waves throughout the nation by impacting student loan plans and impounding funds that were congressionally appropriated for K-12 school districts that depend most on federal grants. It could also hurt students in low-income schools and those in special education programs.

    One can be sure that the proposed Musk-Ramaswamy Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will discuss the possibility of abolishing ED, but one can also make an educated guess that any proposal will fail to take effect within Trump’s upcoming administration. Yet, if enough scandals continue to plague this benighted department, perhaps over the longer run some downsizing—and ultimately elimination—may be possible.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 20:05

  • Iran Ready To Send More Troops To Syria, But This Could Trigger Deeper Israeli Entry
    Iran Ready To Send More Troops To Syria, But This Could Trigger Deeper Israeli Entry

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Tuesday that Tehran is ready to consider sending more troops to Syria if the request is made by the Assad government in Damascus.

    “If the Syrian government asks Iran to send troops to Syria, we will consider the request,” Araghchi was quoted as saying by the Qatar-based outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, which was later picked up by Reuters. Iran is preparing “a series of steps to calm the situation in Syria and find an opportunity to present an initiative for a permanent solution,” he said additionally.

    Araghchi suggested more troops to defend Syria would be necessary for broader regional stability given that the takeover of Syrian territory by terrorist groups “may harm Syria’s neighboring countries such as Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey more than Iran.”

    Image via The Atlantic Council

    Tehran is willing to “consult and dialogue” with Turkey over regional differences, and its leaders will soon hold direct talks again with Russian President Vladimir Putin to coordinate a response.

    Iran has of course long had troops in Syria assisting Assad forces, but any kind of bigger surge of Iranian and IRGC troops is sure to be noticed in a big way by Israel.

    Israel has already been bombing Syria on a weekly basis, ostensibly as part of efforts to thwart pro-Iranian assets in the Levant region. If the Islamic Republic sends more of its troops this would likely trigger greater direct Israeli military intervention.

    While rumors and speculation have abounded over the degree to which Israeli intelligence is actively helping in the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) takeover of the northwest, all of this could hasten much more direct levels of assistance by Israel to the anti-Assad insurgency.

    While Israeli support to the Sunni extremists happened earlier in the war of the past decade (in the south of Syria), any support to HTS would prove deeply awkward given Washington has since formally designated the HTS group a terrorist organization. 

    Sunni terror groups have long sought to push out any Shia groups from all of Syria:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But such a legal designations has never stopped the NATO-Gulf-Israeli axis in prior years of fighting in Syria from aiding terror proxies. The strategic fault lines laid out in Seymour Hersh’s foundational text The Redirection are still clearly at play.

    Here’s what the legendary journalist wrote all the way back in 2007, predicting the entirety of the Syrian proxy war:

    To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

    One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. 

    …This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

    ‘Salafis throwing bombs’ is precisely what played out in Aleppo days ago. The new war has has now reportedly entered the gates of the central city of Hama, where pro-Syria forces are once again battling the black-clad well-armed jihadists.

    Dramatic video which emerged from Hama on Tuesday shows the HTS targeting Syrian national forces with a drone equipped with a large munition:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Currently, pro-Iranian militias are coming across the border from Iraq to assist national forces. These numbers are said to be limited, in the hundreds and counting, but if a large enough movement of Shia forces begins, this could trigger Israel and Turkey’s greater intervention. As for Turkey in particular, it is also without doubt using the HTS fanatics to ethnically cleanse northern Syria of Kurds.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 19:40

  • Universities Have A 2025 Rendezvous With Reality
    Universities Have A 2025 Rendezvous With Reality

    Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

    Public confidence in universities has sharply declined due to rising costs, administrative bloat, ideological bias, student debt issues, and discrimination concerns…

    Universities have suffered a cataclysmic decline in public approval and support.

    A Gallup poll taken this year found that only 36 percent of Americans polled either expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education – once the agreed-on touchstone to upward mobility.

    Gifting to most universities has been down for two consecutive years.

    There is zero intellectual diversity on most university campuses.

    Speakers with conservative viewpoints are often either disinvited or shouted down—and worse.

    The federally guaranteed student loan program is in shambles.

    Some $1.7 trillion in outstanding loans were taken out by half of all college students.

    Nearly a fifth are now not being paid back.

    Marriage, child-rearing, and home ownership are all delayed by some 40 million indebted graduates, who can take decades to pay loans back.

    The Biden administration demagogued the issue by illegally granting rolling student loan amnesties to win votes just before both the midterm and general elections. That proposed debt relief would be covered by taxpayers, over half of whom never went to college.

    The expansion of student loan debt roughly correlates with universities raising their annual costs higher than the rate of inflation—largely due to administrative bloat.

    Although the Supreme Court recently struck down the practice of using race and gender to adjudicate applications and hiring, universities are already seeking ways to circumvent the ruling.

    Asian- and white-Americans for decades have been systematically, overtly, and supposedly with justification, discriminated against by ignoring or not requiring test scores and downplaying grade point averages.

    Stanford University may be representative of these crises.

    In the 2020 election, 94% of Stanford faculty voted for the Biden-Harris ticket. Four years later, some 96% of all Stanford-affiliated donations went to Democrats during the 2024 election season.

    Former Stanford law professors Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried – parents of mega-Democratic donor and now imprisoned Sam Bankman-Fried, and recipients of millions in gifts from their felonious son—were reportedly heavily involved in either bundling large left-wing campaign donations or offering legal advice to their son’s bankrupt and Ponzi-like business.

    In 2023, a federal judge was shouted down at Stanford Law School, his lecture aborted and then hijacked – by a Stanford DEI administrator!

    Former Trump health advisor and Hoover Institution scholar Scott Atlas in 2020 was censured by the Stanford faculty.

    Yet subsequent events supported Atlas’s prescient warning that a complete lockdown of the country and the shutdown of K-12 schools would not only not retard the COVID epidemic but would cause far greater economic, social, cultural, and health damage than the virus itself.

    Two recent attempts to lift that censure failed – in part because some faculty claimed that to do so would empower the Trump reelection bid!

    In contrast, Stanford Professor Jeff Hancock, who founded the “Stanford Social Media Lab,” boasts he researches “how people use deception with technology.” Yet when liberal Minnesota officials wanted such “experts” to support their new law banning “deep fake” technology at election time, they called in the expert deception-detector Hancock.

    However, the references Hancock provided to prove his support for the law allegedly never existed.

    In fact, the lawyers who challenged his online expertise argued his sources apparently were invented by artificial intelligence software like ChatGPT.

    Who will police the deception police?

    Last academic year, anti-Israel Stanford students with impunity violated university rules and camped out for months in the free speech area, shouting and disrupting passersby.

    A small group of students occupied and trashed the president’s office and another vandalized historic campus architecture.

    After October 7, a Stanford lecturer was suspended for singling out and targeting Jewish students in his classroom.

    A Stanford faculty committee on anti-Semitism recently concluded, “The most existential problem at Stanford is the emergence of a general atmosphere in which Jewish and Israeli members of the Stanford community are denied dignity and respect based on their Jewish identities, denied treatment and protection afforded to other minority groups, and afforded equal respect and inclusion only if they denounce Israel in various ways and forms.”

    Can out-of-control universities reform?

    The incoming Trump administration has floated a variety of tough-love remedies.

    They include predicating hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants on campuses’ adherence to the Bill of Rights, taxing the income on universities’ multibillion-dollar endowments, and removing the federal government from the student loan business.

    Recently, there have been a few hopeful signs that campuses are aware of the need to change.

    At Stanford, a new president was hired, widely respected for his singular commitment to disinterested education and freedom of expression.

    The SAT entrance exam is returning to many campuses and is still appreciated as crucial to most universities’ applications.

    A number of partisan elite college presidents have resigned in disgrace.

    So, hope springs eternal, even if it may be too little, too late.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 19:15

  • Majority Supports Social Media Ban For Children
    Majority Supports Social Media Ban For Children

    Australia has passed a social media ban for teenagers and children under the age of 16, which will apply to companies including Instagram, X and TikTok.

    The measure is intended to reduce the “social harm” done to young Australians and is set to come into force from late 2025. Tech giants will be up against fines of up to A$49.6 million ($32.5 million) if they do not adhere to the rules.

    As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, the new law was approved on Thursday, with support from a majority of the general public.

    However, the blanket ban has sparked backlash from several child rights groups who warn that it could cut off access to vital support, particularly for children from migrant, LGBTQIA+ and other minority backgrounds.

    Critics argue it could also push children towards less regulated areas of the internet.

    The new legislation is the strictest of its kind on a national level and comes as other countries grapple with how best to regulate technology in a rapidly-evolving world.

    Data from an Ipsos survey fielded earlier this year shows that it’s not just Australians who support a full ban of social media for children and young teens.

    As the following chart shows, two thirds of respondents across the 30 countries surveyed said the same…

    Infographic: Majority Supports Social Media Ban For Children | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    In France, an even higher share of adults (80 percent) held the view that children under the age of 14 should not be allowed social media either inside or outside of school.

    This belief was far less common in Germany (40 percent), which was the only nation where a majority did not support the ban.

    Sentiments on smartphone use differed by generation.

    Where 36 percent of Gen Z said they would support a ban on smartphones in schools, the figure was far higher among older generations (66 percent of Boomers, 58 percent of Gen X and 53 percent of Millennials.)

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 18:50

  • Democrat Staffer Carrying Ammunition Arrested At US Capitol
    Democrat Staffer Carrying Ammunition Arrested At US Capitol

    Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Capitol Police officers arrested Michael Hopkins, a staffer for Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 2.

    Officers manning a checkpoint saw on the X-ray screen what appeared to be ammunition in a bag being screened, the Capitol Police said.

    The U.S. Capitol building in Washington on Nov. 19, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

    “After a hand search of the bag, officers found four ammunition magazines and eleven rounds of ammunition. The staffer told the officers that he forgot the ammunition was in the bag,” a spokesperson for the agency, which is responsible for keeping members of Congress and congressional buildings safe, told The Epoch Times via email.

    Hopkins, 38, was arrested and is facing charges of illegally possessing ammunition, including possession of a high-capacity magazine, according to the Capitol Police.

    Visitors to the Capitol are barred from carrying guns, ammunition, replica guns, and electric stun guns, among other items. Visitors are subjected to magnetometers before entering the complex.

    Hopkins did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

    A spokesperson for Morelle’s office told news outlets in a statement that the congressman was made aware of the arrest.

    “This morning, our office was informed that a member of our staff was arrested by Capitol Police. We are currently gathering more information regarding the circumstances of the arrest,” the spokesperson said.

    “Our office is fully committed to cooperating with the investigation. As Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, Congressman Morelle is devoted to ensuring a safe and secure workplace for all.”

    Morelle, 67, has represented New York’s 25th Congressional District since 2018. The district includes about 766,000 people and is on the northern border of the state, partly set off by Lake Ontario. Morelle won reelection in November with 60 percent of the vote.

    Hopkins started working for Morelle in October, according to his LinkedIn page. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and the Cardozo School of Law. His past work experience includes a stint as an adviser for former Democratic congressman Charlie Crist’s 2022 gubernatorial campaign. Crist lost that year to Gov. Ron DeSantis after serving as the Sunshine State’s Republican governor from 2007 until 2011.

    Hopkins also briefly worked for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 18:25

  • Russia Flexes By Test-Firing Missiles In Eastern Mediterranean Drills As Syria Burns
    Russia Flexes By Test-Firing Missiles In Eastern Mediterranean Drills As Syria Burns

    Russia’s military has announced Tuesday that it conducted major naval and air force drills in the eastern Mediterranean, off Syria’s coast, in the wake of Aleppo falling to Al-Qaeda linked jihadist insurgents, and at a moment the central Syrian city of Hama is coming under threat.

    Russia confirmed that it has “increased” its troop numbers stationed in the region as a result of the exercises. “Russia’s army said Tuesday it had fired hypersonic missiles during naval and Air Force drills in the eastern Mediterranean that come as its ally Syria loses ground to Islamist rebels,” AFP writes.

    Russian Defense Ministry

    Presumably Russia’s naval base off the Syrian city of Tartus played a role as a center of operations for the drills, at a moment Russian warplanes are actively assisting Syrian jets in striking the positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

    “On 3 December, during an exercise to test the combined activities of Russian Navy and Air Force troop groups, precision sea-based missiles were launched in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea,” Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed in a Telegram post.

    The ministry listed that this included the test-firing of hypersonic Zirkon missiles and a Kalibr cruise missile – and additionally an Onyx cruise missile was launched “from a designated area on the Mediterranean coast.”

    “In the course of preparing for the exercise, the Russian Armed Forces’ troops grouping in the eastern Mediterranean was increased,” the ministry added, detailing that it included over 1,000 personnel manning ten naval vessels and two dozen aircraft.

    Footage of one of the Tuesday missile launches in the eastern Mediterranean: 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Despite the significant muscle-flexing off Syria’s coast, Russia has for years steered clear of directly engaging Israeli fighter jets as they repeatedly bomb Syria, especially targets in and near the capital.

    These exercises seem a warning primarily aimed at the United States and its proxies on the ground in Syria. The Pentagon has been sending its own warplanes airborne over regions it occupies in Syria’s east. Moscow also is trying to signal that even though it’s busy fighting in Ukraine, it can still demonstrate a strong force posture in other war theatres as well, specifically the Middle East.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 18:00

  • Jury Begins Deliberation In Daniel Penny Trial
    Jury Begins Deliberation In Daniel Penny Trial

    Authored by Michael Washburn via The Epoch Times,

    The jury in the trial of former Marine Daniel Penny began its deliberations on Dec. 3.

    The 12 men and women must now decide whether Penny’s actions were justified when he put Jordan Neely, a mentally ill homeless man, into a headlock on May 1, 2023, and wrestled him to the ground, or whether those actions crossed the line into manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, as prosecutors allege.

    The trial has captivated the attention of much of the nation and the world, and protesters sympathizing with Neely have assembled outside the courthouse at 100 Centre Street almost every morning while it has been underway.

    Opinions about the case have been polarized from the beginning. Some accuse Penny of an excess of zeal and careless overuse of physical force, while others believe that Penny acted to protect innocent people on an uptown F train from a crazed, menacing individual, and that his actions were entirely understandable given the failure of the police and mental health service providers to do their job and keep the public safe.

    The defense and prosecution have been in agreement that Neely, who a postmortem examination found to have synthetic cannabinoids in his system, provoked the confrontation on that day in May 2023. They concur that his words and actions were menacing and gave passengers on the train reasonable and immediate fear for their safety.

    They have disagreed about the appropriateness of deadly force.

    Prosecutor Dafna Yoran has repeatedly pointed out that Neely had no weapons anywhere on his person, and spent a lot of time explaining to the jury when deadly force can and cannot be justified under New York law.

    The defense has highlighted Neely’s history of mental illness and drug use, his explicit threats, and the terror that multiple witnesses say Neely caused them to feel.

    Central to the defense’s case are the arguments of forensic pathologist Satish Chundru, who testified that Penny had not choked Neely to death and told jurors under oath that Neely died of complications from a sickle cell condition.

    Under direct examination from defense lawyer Steve Raiser, Chundru attributed Neely’s death to the convergence of a number of factors, including the powerful drugs in his system, his schizophrenia, and, crucially, a sickle cell trait that the stress of the chokehold exacerbated but did not cause.

    At a time of unusual stress, red blood cells in the body of someone with a sickle cell condition metamorphose from their usual round shape to what Chundru described as a “crescent moon or banana shape,” in which they stick to blood vessel walls rather than carrying oxygen to tissue cells.

    Chundru argued that during the chokehold—which would not by itself have been lethal—Neely suffered a sickle cell crisis, and died as a consequence of it.

    Before the seating of the jury on Tuesday morning, defense lawyer Thomas Kenniff told Judge Maxwell Wiley that Yoran had acted as an “unsworn witness” when she presumed to tell jurors what they were seeing happen in cell phone footage of the May 2023 incident played on screens in the courtroom on past days of the trial. Lawyers are not witnesses, and Yoran’s conduct was improper and prejudicial to the jury, Kenniff said.

    Yoran denied this characterization, and the judge was unsympathetic to Kenniff’s arguments.

    Yoran strove to discredit Chundru, saying he wasn’t qualified to discuss the case and accused him of enriching himself by coming to a biased conclusion.

    “Dr. Chundru would not have made the over $90,000 he made in this one case, if he had agreed with the evidence that Mr. Neely died from a chokehold,” Yoran alleged.

    Chundru’s assessment of Neely’s death conflicted with the views of experts at the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner, and in particular with Dr. Cynthia Harris, who said last month under oath how she believed Penny’s chokehold resulted in an asphyxial death.

    She also accused Penny of having departed from the training he received in the Marines, which, she argued, clearly set forth how to apply more than one type of nonlethal choke.

    Yoran argued what Penny did to Neely involved improper compression of the neck was neither a correctly applied blood choke, nor a correctly applied air choke.

    “A properly executed blood choke would only hit the veins and arteries on both sides of the neck. A properly executed air choke would hit only the trachea,” Yoran said.

    With the aid of cell phone footage of the incident, Yoran told the jury that the center of Neely’s neck was not in the crook of Penny’s elbow, as it would have been in a properly applied choke.

    Yoran argued that the alleged prolonged misapplication of force for about six minutes culminated in asphyxial death.

    At the end of her remarks, Yoran acknowledged that this case was a difficult one for jurors to have to decide, because Penny had initially tried to do the right thing, and it is not easy to convict someone for a killing that the person had not intended.

    She also maintained that the prosecution had shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Penny “recklessly and needlessly” took Neely’s life.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 17:40

  • Meta Becomes Latest Tech Giant To Embrace Nuclear Power With Open Arms
    Meta Becomes Latest Tech Giant To Embrace Nuclear Power With Open Arms

    We wrote back in early November that Mark Zuckerberg reportedly told Meta workers that plans to build an AI data center powered by nuclear energy were scrapped after rare bees were discovered on the proposed site.

    Now it looks like things could be back on track, according to new reporting from Axios, who writes that Meta is joining industry heavyweights like Amazon and Google in exploring nuclear energy as a zero-carbon solution.

    Like Microsoft, Amazon and other giants, Meta is making a bold move to embrace nuclear energy as a cornerstone of its sustainability strategy.

    The tech giant has issued a sweeping “request for proposals” (RFP) aimed at identifying developers capable of bringing nuclear reactors online by the early 2030s to support its energy-intensive data centers and surrounding communities.

    Axios wrote that Meta’s RFP targets an ambitious pipeline of new generation capacity ranging from one to four gigawatts. The company seeks partnerships with entities that can streamline the entire lifecycle of nuclear projects—from site selection and permitting to design, construction, and operation.

    Urvi Parekh, Meta’s head of global energy, underscored the company’s commitment to fostering innovation in nuclear energy. “We want partners who will be there from start to finish,” she said, emphasizing that Meta is prepared to offer long-term support and collaboration to optimize project development.

    But Meta’s strategy has been a bit different than some other tech giants we have written about. While other tech companies have announced specific deals with emerging nuclear startups, Meta is casting a wider net.

    The company is open to a variety of reactor sizes, technologies, and locations, adopting a “geographically agnostic” approach. This flexibility allows Meta to prioritize regions where nuclear projects can be developed most efficiently, even if they are not directly tied to existing data center sites.

    Meta is also open to creative partnerships and cost-sharing early in the development process to mitigate the industry’s traditional hesitancy around capital-intensive nuclear investments. Parekh emphasized that Meta’s long-term purchasing commitments aim to provide certainty to developers, accelerating innovation and deployment.

    Parekh noted similarities with Meta’s early renewable energy initiatives, which required securing buyers for electricity to spur development.

    “There were a lot of steps in that process, and there was a lot of need for certainty that there would be someone to buy the electricity on the other side,” she said, drawing parallels between past and present strategies.

    And as we have continued to report, accelerating power demand growth from AI data centers has sparked a nuclear power revival in the US:

    For those who missed it, in our note “The Next AI Trade” from April of this year, we outlined various investment opportunities for powering up America, most of which have dramatically outperformed the market.

    A favorite name of ours has been the Sam Altman-backed Oklo, which we have highlighted as the potential solution to the extreme forthcoming demands in energy as a result of artificial intelligence. It makes nuclear power plants, ranging from 15 MWe to 50 MWe, utilizing liquid metal reactor technology, in soon-to-be everywhere small modular reactors. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 17:20

  • Newsom's Publicly-Funded War Chest: "Trump-Proofing" California Could Prove A Costly Option For Californians
    Newsom’s Publicly-Funded War Chest: “Trump-Proofing” California Could Prove A Costly Option For Californians

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is widely known to be angling to be the next Democratic presidential nominee after the implosion of Vice President Kamala Harris. This week, Newsom positioned not just his campaign but also his state as part of the “resistance” for the next four years against the Trump Administration. Newsom pushed a special session to secure a $25 million war chest to take the Trump Administration to court, even before the inauguration and release of policies by the incoming administration.

    I wrote earlier about how the loss of both houses, as well as the White House, will mean that lawfare and obstructive efforts will shift to the states. Newsom is moving to out-position governors (and potential primary opponents) like Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.  Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker moved first in a chest-pounding press conference that he would stop the incoming administration from trying to remove undocumented persons, declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.”

    New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda.

    Newsom has upped the ante by demanding millions to pre-fund litigation against the new administration.  With a massive budget debt burden, Newsom has continued to pile on new debt for politically popular initiatives.

    I cannot recall any state pre-positioning funds for the sole purpose of litigating against any incoming administration. The most obvious area of disagreement is the effort to ramp up the enforcement of immigration laws and to carry out deportations. While polls show that the public overwhelmingly supports such enforcement, including deportations, California is seeking to take the lead in court actions designed to slow or frustrate such efforts.

    It could prove costly, not just in litigation expenditures. The Trump Administration could seek to withhold federal funding from states and cities obstructing enforcement efforts.

    In the meantime, sanctuary cities are continuing to face rising costs associated with rising populations of undocumented migrants.

    For example, as we previously discussed, Denver Mayor Mike Johnson (D) declared that he was preparing the Mile-High City for its “Tiananmen Square moment” to fight the federal government in any attempt to deport unlawful migrants.

    Johnson warned that he would have not only Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep [ICE] out” but also “50,000 Denverites.” He later walked back the comments while repeating that the city is positioning itself to be part of the resistance.

    Now the Common Sense Institute (CSI), a non-partisan research organization estimated that eight percent of the city’s 2025 budget of $4.4 billion is now dedicated to housing and services for undocumented persons.  If true, that amounts to $356 million or $7,900 per migrant.

    California has led other states in offering a wide array of benefits to undocumented persons.

    Notably, Californian voters surprised many Democrats this election with almost 40% voting for President-elect Trump over California’s own Vice President Kamala Harris.

    There is an obvious political advantage to Newsom in securing these public funds to assume the mantle as the leader of “the resistance” as a foundation for his 2028 campaign.

    The question is how such an obstructive position will prove to the advantage of Californians. As citizens sought to increase criminal penalties by passing Proposition 36 by over 70 percent (over the opposition of Newsom), the governor is focusing on setting aside millions to fund a high-profile legal campaign against Trump’s administration.

    Ultimately, the litigation campaign is unlikely to change federal enforcement efforts significantly. However, Newsom hopes it will significantly change his electoral enhancement efforts.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 17:00

  • Fani Full Release Ordered After Fulton DA Sat On RICO Records
    Fani Full Release Ordered After Fulton DA Sat On RICO Records

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been ordered by a local judge to release all communications between her office, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office, and the January 6th Committee regarding her RICO case against President Donald Trump and his allies, after she was found to have violated federal law by withholding them.

    “The Court also hereby ORDERS Defendant to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this Order. Within that same five day period, Defendant is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with copies of all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure,” reads a Tuesday order.

    If Willis can’t find them, she is mandated to follow court-ordered procedures to “provide an explanation why such correspondence does not exist.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Willis, who had been served on March 11, 2024 in the suite involving conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, failed to respond by an April 10 deadline. After later claiming she ‘misunderstood’ the court’s directive, she then said that the document release would jeopardize her RICO case.

    Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton responds:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As the Epoch Times notes further…

    In mid-2023, Willis told a local radio station that she was not coordinating in any way with Smith’s office in investigations and cases brought against former President Donald Trump. Smith had charged Trump, now the president-elect, with both classified documents-related and 2020 election-related charges in two different jurisdictions, while Willis brought charges against him and more than a dozen others for alleged election-related crimes in Fulton County.

    “I don’t know what Jack Smith is doing and Jack Smith doesn’t know what I’m doing,” Willis said in July of that year. “In all honesty, if Jack Smith was standing next to me, I’m not sure I would know who he was. My guess is he probably can’t pronounce my name correctly.”

    Since then, however, she has made no comments about Smith’s investigation. Smith, meanwhile, has never commented on Willis’s case against Trump.

    Smith in November filed court papers confirming he would be dropping his election case against Trump and would stop the appeals process in his classified documents case. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said he would terminate Smith as special counsel upon taking office.

    A letter sent by Willis’s office on Dec. 17, 2021, to the House Jan. 6 committee had “requested access to any Select Committee records relevant to her investigation into President Trump’s actions to challenge the 2020 presidential election, including ‘recordings and transcripts of witness interviews and depositions, electronic and print records of communications, and records of travel,’” House Judiciary Republicans said in a report released last year relating to an investigation they launched into Willis.

    Willis has been critical of House Republicans’ investigation into her office and the Trump case, accusing House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) of trying to interfere in the case at one point.

    “Jim Jordan has, time after time after time, attacked my office with no legitimate purpose,” she told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in May.  “Anyone who knows Jim Jordan’s history knows that he only has the purpose of trying to interfere in a criminal investigation.”

    In a letter issued to Republicans in 2023, Willis said Republicans are trying to “obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations.”

    Her case against Trump has stalled in recent months after one of the president-elect’s co-defendants submitted a court filing earlier this year claiming Willis and then-special prosecutor Nathan Wade were engaged in a romantic relationship. The pair confirmed they were in a relationship but denied any wrongdoing.

    A judge overseeing the case issued an order in March allowing Willis to remain on the case if Wade resigned, which he did hours later. Trump and several of his co-defendants appealed the decision to the  Georgia Court of Appeals earlier this year, where the case is still pending.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 16:40

  • The Looming Debt Crisis: Is America Following The Path Of Collapsed Empires?
    The Looming Debt Crisis: Is America Following The Path Of Collapsed Empires?

    Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

    Debt can topple even the most powerful empires.

    Whether it’s Rome, Spain, France, Britain, or the Soviet Union, excessive debt has played a critical role in their decline.

    The typical pattern in these examples of collapsing empires is:

    Stage #1: Empires achieve success and become overconfident.

    Stage #2: Overconfidence leads to extravagant spending on luxuries and wars.

    Stage #3: Empires finance this lavish spending by going into debt.

    Stage #4: The debt grows to an unsustainable level and creates a crushing burden.

    Stage #5: Empires finance the debt through taxation and currency debasement.

    Stage #6: The populace bears the brunt of debt repayment as empires raise taxes and debase the currency—to the maximum extent—until it causes internal instability.

    Stage #7: Empires cannot finance their militaries because of their debt burden. This is usually the tipping point.

    Stage #8: Underfunded militaries plus internal instability make empires vulnerable to foreign invasion, domestic revolution, civil war, and other existential dangers.

    Stage #9: The empire collapses.

    Now, it’s the US Empire’s turn.

    The US federal government has the biggest debt in the history of the world. And it’s continuing to grow at a rapid, unstoppable pace.

    Annualized interest on the federal debt exceeded $1 trillion for the first time this year and is shooting higher at an exponential rate.

    The federal debt’s annualized interest cost is already higher than the defense budget.

    It’s on track to exceed Social Security and become the BIGGEST item in the federal budget.

    Historian Niall Ferguson summed it up nicely:

    “Any great power that spends more on debt service (interest payments on the national debt) than on defense will not stay great for very long.

    True of Habsburg Spain, true of ancien régime France, true of the Ottoman Empire, true of the British Empire, this law is about to be put to the test by the US beginning this very year.”

    Consider this:

    1. The American populace is nearing its breaking point as taxation and inflation rise.

    2. Interest on the federal debt exceeds defense spending and is set to become the BIGGEST expenditure, and it will keep growing from there.

    As a result, the US Empire is somewhere between Stage #6 and #7 in the empire collapse pattern I described above. It is nearing the point where its crushing debt burden will make it difficult to finance existing military spending.

    As we saw in the historical examples, a tipping point is reached once an empire’s debt burden becomes so great that it struggles to pay for its military. It’s like someone waving a big red flag.

    The US government will soon have to choose to:

    1. Cut defense spending amid the most chaotic geopolitical period since WW2.

    2. Default on its promises regarding Social Security, Medicare, Veterans’ Benefits, and welfare generally.

    Though it may try, the US government cannot continue to pay for entitlements and defense even if their current levels stay flat into the future. But they won’t stay flat. Both are set to grow significantly in the years ahead.

    Tens of millions of Baby Boomers—about 22% of the population—will enter retirement in the coming years. Cutting Social Security and Medicare is a sure way to lose an election.

    With the most precarious geopolitical situation since World War 2, defense spending is unlikely to be cut. Instead, defense spending is all but certain to increase.

    Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said: “Barely staying even with inflation or worse is wholly inadequate. Significant additional resources for defense are necessary and urgent.”

    The most likely outcome is that the US will try to have its cake and eat it too by paying for both growing defense and domestic obligations via currency debasement. However, it will likely end up just like other powerful collapsed empires that preceded it—with an underfunded military and domestic instability.

    The truth is that Trump cannot make America great again any more than Gorbachev could save the Soviet Union. Once an empire struggles to pay for its military, the decline is impossible to reverse.

    Consider this.

    The Denarius—the Roman silver coin—lost nearly all its silver content between 180 and 280 AD.

    The US dollar has lost over 98% of its value against gold since 1971.

    Just as the Roman citizens realized their government was defaulting on its promises to them through currency debasement, I am confident that Social Security and Medicare recipients and others who have been promised something from the US federal government will notice they are being paid in debased currency. They won’t be happy.

    Just as Roman soldiers realized they were being paid in debased currency, I am confident American soldiers will realize the same thing, and they won’t be happy either.

    In short, the US will soon reach the tipping point that has caused the collapse of other powerful empires.

    Its crushing debt burden is nearing the point where it will cause the military to be underfunded and internal instability as average citizens bear the brunt of debt repayment through increased taxation, inflation, and broken promises on Social Security and other programs.

    Remember, the interest expense is set to exceed Social Security and become the BIGGEST item in the budget. It will only get bigger from there as the debt continues to grow at an unstoppable and exponential rate.

    Therefore, I don’t think it will be long before the exploding interest expense crowds out funding for defense, Social Security, and other domestic commitments.

    As that happens, I expect the US is headed for a disaster of historical proportions.

    I am confident that the collapse of the US Empire, which has been in place since the end of WW2—otherwise known as the US-led world order—could happen a lot sooner than most realize.

    The global geopolitical situation was already trending towards a multipolar world order.

    The US debt crisis is compounding its geopolitical problems and will accelerate this established trend.

    That means we’re likely to see the end of the US-led world order and the emergence of a multipolar world order in the not-so-distant future.

    Russia, China, Iran, and other proponents of a multipolar world order are no doubt asking themselves: “Why start a war when your enemy’s debt burden is already leading them to defeat?”

    Many people will be unprepared for the collapse of the US Empire.

    However, when you look at the Big Picture, that is where I think we’re headed. And just like the collapse of previous empires, debt will play a significant role.

    When private businesses go bankrupt, shareholders get wiped out.

    When governments go bankrupt, those who hold its fiat currency get wiped out.

    Given the historical examples, one thing I think we can be sure of is that the US government will try to service its debt costs with currency debasement, just like many empires that collapsed before it.

    That’s terrible news for the US dollar.

    I have little doubt the coming months and years will be the most chaotic of our lifetime.

    Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—as previous empires collapsed because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.

    That’s why I’ve just released an urgent report, The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years: Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. This exclusive PDF reveals exactly what’s happening and the crucial steps you must take to protect yourself. Click here to download it instantly.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 12/03/2024 – 16:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 03

Today’s News 3rd December 2024

  • Escobar: Trump May Be 'Oreshniked' On Ukraine Even Before He Gets To China
    Escobar: Trump May Be ‘Oreshniked’ On Ukraine Even Before He Gets To China

    Authored by Pepe Escobar,

    With Oreshnik now entering the picture, everywhere the Hegemon will try to harass China they will also have to face Russia…

    When it comes to state of the art Russian weaponry, what the inestimable Ray McGovern defines as the MICIMATT – the whole Hegemonic complex – seems to dwell in perpetual stupor.

    They had no clue about Kalibr, Sarmat, Khinzal, Zircon or Avangard before they were introduced. They had no clue about Oreshnik (‘Hazel”) before the 30-minute protocolar warning by the Russians, stating a missile test was coming, and it was not nuclear. The Americans assumed that would be just another ballistic missile test, as they happen routinely close to the Arctic.

    Even President Putin didn’t know Oreshnik was ready for its close-up until the last minute. And Kremlin spokesman Peskov confirmed that only an ultra-rarefied circle knew Oreshnik even existed.

    In a nutshell: the MICIMATT only sees what Russia shows off – and when it happens. Call it a leak-proof vow of secrecy permeating the Russian military complex – which, by the way, is a massive state, nationalized company, with a few private components.

    And that offers the Russian government, in practice, better engineering, better physics, better mathematics and better practical, final results than anything across the self-important collective West.

    Oreshnik – a kinetic weapons system – is a certified game-changer when it comes to military technology and warfare in more ways than one: actually several. Simple physics tells us that by combining enough kinetic force and mass, utter devastation is guaranteed, comparable to a low-to-medium yield nuclear weapon. With the added benefit of no radiation.

    Oreshnik is an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), under development by Russia (along with other systems) even before Trump 1.0 pulled the U.S. out of the INF treaty in 2019.

    A few concise analyses have pointed out how Oreshnik can be fitted into intercontinental (italics mine) non-nuclear missiles. The Russians are being very diplomatic, not stressing that if Oreshnik is launched from the Russian Far East, it can easily reach most latitudes across the USA.

    Moreover, applying Oreshnik tech to tactical missiles – Putin late last week said this is already happening – also changes the whole tactical domain.

    The new game in town is Russia being capable of unleashing ultra-high-velocity kinetic weapons literally anywhere around the world – after warning civilians to abandon the area around the targets. And there’s absolutely no defense against it, anywhere.

    Nowhere to run, baby, nowhere to hide

    It’s quite predictable that the woke, arrogant/ignorant MICIMATT, as well as NATO and the whole, brainwashed collective West simply have no idea what just hit them, seemingly out of the blue.

    To be concise: a system with the destructive power of a tactical nuclear weapon but carrying the precision of a top sniper’s bullet.

    Ergo, sitting duck billion-dollar aircraft carriers; the whole, 800-plus Empire of Bases; assorted underground bunkers; ICBM launch platforms; naval shipyards; not to mention NATO’s HQ in Brussels, the Aegis Ashore base in Redzikowo (Poland), the NATO joint force center in the Netherlands, southern NATO command in Naples – all these immensely expensive assets are fair game for non-nuclear Oreshniks capable of reducing them to dust in a flash after flying for mere minutes at over Mach 10.

    By now multitudes around the world are aware that Oreshnik may reach Berlin in 11 minutes and London in 19 minutes. Also that launched from southern Russia, Oreshnik may reach the U.S. air base in Qatar in 13 minutes; launched from Kamchatka in the Far East, it may reach Guam in 22 minutes; and launched from Chukotka, it may reach Minuteman III silos in Montana in 23 minutes.

    To quote the epic 1960s Motown hit: “Nowhere to run, baby, nowhere to hide.”

    Graphic proof that the MICIMATT and NATO have absolutely no clue what hit them – and will hit them again – is the escalation dementia in effect even after Oreshnik’s warheads reduced a missile factory in Dnipropetrovsk to smithereens. And even after Moscow made it quite clear that they don’t need nuclear weapons to hit anything they want anywhere on Earth.

    The MICIMATT plus NATO, in tandem, fired ATACMS twice against Kursk; released a P.R. trial balloon related to the suicidal possibility of sending nuclear weapons to Kiev; NATO warned businesses to enter a “wartime scenario”; NATO’s armchair admiral Rob Bauer, a Dutch non-entity, advocated pre-emptive bombings of Russia; Le Petit Roi in France and the ghastly British PM re-started the gambit of “troop deployments” to Ukraine (Starmer later backed off); and last but not least, the Liver Sausage government in Germany started to draw plans to use metro stations as air raid shelters.

    All this escalation paranoia sounds like a bunch of screaming kids playing in their dirty sandbox. Because for all practical purposes it is Russia which is now ruling the escalation game.

    Breaking up Russia-China is hard to do

    And that brings us to Trump 2.0.

    The Deep State has already targeted Trump with a vicious war – a de facto pre-emptive counter-insurgency, even before he attempts to do anything practical regarding NATO’s collapsing Project Ukraine.

    His ideal off-ramp might be an Afghanistan-style exit, leaving all the burdens ahead to a basket of NATO chihuahuas. Still, that’s not gonna happen.

    Andrey Sushentsov is a program director of the Valdai Club and dean of MGIMO’s school of International Relations. He’s one of Russia’s top analysts. Sushentsov released this pearl to TASS, among other things:

    “Trump is considering ending the Ukrainian crisis, not out of any sympathy for Russia, but because he acknowledges that Ukraine has no realistic chance of winning. His goal is to preserve Ukraine as a tool for U.S. interests, focusing on freezing the conflict rather than resolving it. Consequently, under Trump, the long-term strategy of countering Russia will persist. The U.S. continues to benefit from the Ukrainian crisis, regardless of which administration is in power.”

    Sushentsov fully recognizes how “the U.S. state system is an inertial structure that resists decisions it deems contrary to American interests, so not all of Trump’s ideas will come to fruition.”

    That’s just one graphic illustration, among many, that Moscow harbors no illusions whatsoever about Trump 2.0. Putin’s conditions for an attempt to solve the Ukraine riddle have been known at least since June: total Kiev withdrawal from Donbass and Novorossiya; no Ukraine in NATO; end of all 15,000+ Western sanctions; and a non-aligned, nuclear-free Ukraine.

    That’s it. Everything non-negotiable; otherwise the war will continue on the battlefields, the way Russia sees fit, until Ukraine’s total surrender.

    Evidently the Five Eyes – actually only 2 (U.S.-UK) – plus minion France, side by side with the most powerful silos inside the Deep State will continue to force Trump to double down on Project Ukraine, which is an essential part of the Forever Wars ethos.

    The best he might be able to do is to divert attention from Project Ukraine by accommodating the Old Testament psychopathological genocidals in Tel Aviv, plus the Zio-con armada in D.C., in their obsession of forcing Washington to fight their war on Iran. Talk about a slight change of focus of the Forever Wars.

    Tehran not only exports most of its energy to China but is an absolutely essential node of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) as well as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); that is, north-south and east-west crisscrossing Eurasia.

    That would be the real war of choice – simultaneously against three BRICS (Russia, China, Iran). After all the American ruling class is already invested on a do-or-die Hybrid War against BRICS.

    Still, the Trump 2.0/China face-off will be the fulcrum of the Hegemon’s foreign policy starting January 20. Virtually all of Trump’s appointments – as misguided as they may be – believe it is possible to break apart the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership and prevent China from buying energy from Iran.

    There will be attempts to disrupt shipping lanes and supply lines – from the Maritime Silk Roads in the Indian Ocean rimland to the Northern Sea Route by the Arctic, including possible false flags along the INSTC.

    But with Oreshnik now entering the picture, everywhere the Hegemon will try to harass China they will also have to face Russia. So the temptation to end Project Ukraine and NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s western borders will always be there in the back of Trump’s mind, part of a “seduce Russia to undermine China” syndrome.

    The problem for the Hegemon is that the interlocking BRICS/SCO-wide Russia-China-Iran strategic partnerships do have other – kinetic – ideas.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 23:25

  • Mexico Stops 2 Migrant Caravans After Trump Tariff Threat
    Mexico Stops 2 Migrant Caravans After Trump Tariff Threat

    Days after Donald Trump announced that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum had “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States,” or face 25% import duties on Mexican goods, it appears she’s done just that.

    Migrants walking in a caravan heading to the United States take a break in the municipality of Tapachula in Chiapas.Juan Manuel Blanco (EFE)

    According to the Associated Press, Mexico has already broken up two migrant caravans consisting of approximately 4,000 people at their peak. Some of the migrants were bused to cities in southern Mexico, while others were offered transit papers, which allow them to travel across Mexico for 20 days.

    According to migrant rights activist Luis García Villagrán, Mexico’s actions against the two caravans appear to be part of “an agreement between the president of Mexico and the president of the United States.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsAccording to the report, the first of the caravans started near the Mexico-Guatemala burder on Nov. 5, the day Trump was elected. It had traveled roughly 270 miles in the ensuing four weeks of walking, ending up in Tehuantepec in the state of Oaxaca when it was broken up.

    “They took some of us to Acapulco, others to Morelia, and others from our group to Oaxaca city,” said said Bárbara Rodríguez, a native Venezuelan who ended up catching a bus into Mexico City.

    In a statement Saturday, the National Immigration Institute said the migrants voluntary accepted bus rides “to various areas where there is medical assistance and where their migratory status will be reviewed,” and said “upon accepting (the rides), they said they no longer wanted to face the risks along their way.” -AP

    The second caravan made it around 140 miles to the town of Tonala in Chiapas state, where authorities offered the migrants the transit visas.

    Meanwhile, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has approved an injunction filed by the Jesuit Refugee Service and the Alaíde Foppa Legal Clinic to create a public registry of detained migrants.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 23:00

  • US Market Valuation: One For The History Books
    US Market Valuation: One For The History Books

    By Damien Cleusix of the Quantastic World substack

    Executive Summary

    This analysis presents a sobering outlook for the S&P 500, arguing that it is currently the most overvalued it has ever been, surpassing even the 2000 Tech Bubble and 2021 market frenzy. Key points include:

    1. The Margin-Adjusted Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earning Ratio (MAPE) indicates extreme overvaluation.
    2. Projections suggest negative nominal total returns for the S&P 500 over the next 10 years, with potential annual losses of 1.4% to 8.9%.
    3. A market correction to historical valuation norms could result in substantial losses, potentially up to 21.4% annually if occurring within the next three years.
    4. Ultra-loose monetary and fiscal policies have contributed to market distortion and speculation.
    5. Current market behavior reflects complacency and diminished critical thinking among investors.
    6. The analysis warns of potential inflationary pressures and the need for investors to reassess risk tolerance and prepare for lower returns or significant drawdowns.

    The article concludes that achieving positive real returns in the coming decade would require exceptional circumstances, urging investors to remain grounded in fundamental valuation principles.

    “Value investing is at its core the marriage of a contrarian streak and a calculator.”   – S. Klarman

    “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easier person to fool.” – R. Feynman

    In this analysis, we aim to objectively examine the current discrepancy between the intrinsic value and the market price of the S&P 500.

    Our conclusion is that the S&P 500 is unlikely to have a positive nominal total return in the next 10 years and a ‘miracle’ would be needed to achieve positive real total returns.

    Central Banks have brought forward future equity returns (and some more) with their accommodative policies and hyper-sensibility to downside volatility. Ultra-loose fiscal policies since Covid (justified in the first 6 months not thereafter) have put gasoline on the fire.

    Being blunt, there is a real possibility for the S&P 500 to revisit at least the 2020 lows in the coming years.

    Before we dive in, it’s important to recognize that valuation metrics have little to no ability to predict short-term market fluctuations. Think of it like a rubber band: the farther the market price is from its intrinsic value, the stronger the pull back toward that value. This means that even seemingly insignificant events can trigger the start of a mean reversion when valuations are extreme.

    Market Behavior and Investor Psychology

    When equity markets appear unstoppable—rising relentlessly on good, bad, or no news—investors may neglect the fundamental principle that value anchors price.

    Over a decade of quasi-invincibility, where every market decline is swiftly recovered, can lead to complacency and diminished critical thinking. Reflection becomes a liability. The educated fools are in control.

    This environment fosters narratives like “Buy the Dip,” and the creation of viral acronyms such as BTFD (Buy The F***ing Dip), FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out), and HODL (Hold On for Dear Life).

    This time it is really different! Is it?

    Central Banks around the world, by lowering interest rates aggressively and providing unlimited support, verbally and/or materially, to the markets at the slightest emergence of stress and by taking too much time or even refusing to remove the accommodations they provided, have set the stage for historical markets and social dislocations.

    If one add that a chunk of the post-Covid fiscal spending largess going directly to the equity markets through gamified trading applications or passive mom and pop vehicles or the emergence of the YOLO meme/life mantra you have all the ingredients for a massive speculation frenzy.

    When finance dominates everything, when companies’ management are obsessed by financial engineering and short-term personal rewards, when governments/central banks/regulators are controlled and not controlling, dogmatic and not pragmatic, the end result cannot be good.

    While we will expand on this in another article, Ben Hunt of Epsilon theory has written extensively and brilliantly on the subject. One could start here.

    Bubbles need leverage to expand

    Although central banks have rapidly increased their target rates—often belatedly—they are now swiftly reversing course, once again demonstrating their asymmetric reaction functions.

    Interest rates below a certain level probably have a detrimental effect for the real economy as investments in new productive capital become less and less elastic to rates as they decline toward 0%.

    Zombie companies survive, preventing any Schumpetarian creative destruction, leaving excess supply in place, pushing inflation rate down (what? low rates could be deflationary?).

    Furthermore, savers are forced to spend less unless they take more risk as their fixed income portfolio doesn’t generate much of an income.

    The only thing striving is finance where actors put on more and more leverage to buy existing capital (buybacks, M&A, dividend payment to private equity firm, etc).

    The sad consequence is a larger stock of debt unbacked by new productive capital.

    A system where overall debt cannot be repaid, ever. A system where the can is kicked down the road until it can’t anymore.

    The end game is either an inflationary burst to save the debtors, a multi-decade’s slow growth environment or a deflationary burst.

    Given that the debtors are governments, interest groups lobbying them and Generation X and the younger ones (who will soon dominate the electorate), we have little doubt that the inflationary scenario is the most probable.

    But let’s come back to the main subject of this article, the US equity market valuation.

    Stocks are a claim on a expected future stream of cash flows. To assess this stream’s value today, we have to calculate its present value using an appropriate discount rate. This present value is called the intrinsic value of a stock or of a group of stocks.

    At a given discount rate, the short-term fluctuations of cash flows have very little influence on intrinsic value. Remove entirely 1 or 2 years of cash flow and the difference will be small.

    Longer-term expectations, on the other hand, have a large impact. Those expectations are highly pro-cyclical.

    Earnings are already, as we will shortly demonstrate, well above trend and, therefore are highly likely to grow less than the overall economy. Still analysts are expecting them to grow much more quickly.

    Changing the discount rate can have a huge impact.

    Discount rate assumptions backed by market participants are strongly correlated with their mood. Bullish participants will accept a lower discount rate, ceteris paribus.

    Prevailing interest rates usually serve as a loose anchor to discount rate assumptions. We can nevertheless see, experimentally, an increased exposure to risky assets the lower the risk-free rate is, even when the mean excess return is the same.

    On the graph below, one can see the average allocations to a risky asset across different interest rate conditions. Each condition has 200 participants, from the MTurk platform. The x-axis shows the risk-free rate in each condition. The mean excess return on the risky asset is 5% in all conditions.

     

    We will now demonstrate using a methodology proposed by J. Hussman, the Margin-Adjusted Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earning Ratio (MAPE), that the US stock markets is the most overvalued it has ever been.

    R. Shiller and J. Campell proposed the concept Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earning (CAPE) to forecast 7-12 years markets future return using a long moving average of earnings back in 1988 (originally 10 years). The goal was to smooth out the business cycle influence on earnings in order to get a smoother series they called trend earnings.

    The CAPE model was good at forecasting forward return in the past (M. Faber applied it to foreign markets too) but some argue that accounting changes, payout policies, a move toward less competitive markets could have made the CAPE model lose some or even most of its forecasting ability.

    One can find some great discussion on the subject here and here.

    R. Shiller introduced the Cyclically-Adjusted Total Return Price Earning Ratio to account for the change in company payout policies with the increased use of buybacks to return capital to shareholders.

    Two flaws remained nevertheless.

    First, as identified by J. Hussman, one can get an even smoother trend earning series by adjusting the CAPE to get constant historical margins. He uses 5.4% margin as its average. So if the most recent 10 years average margin is 7%, one ought to multiply the CAPE by 7%/5.4% (1.3). A CAPE of 30 becomes a MAPE of 40.

    The second problem is that margin could have increased permanently due to structural change in the economy and the dominance of capital-light businesses.

    While this might explain some of the increase in margin, we are convinced that a large part of the increase in margin is transitory and that once capitalism is allowed to work as it should, it will disappear. It will be the subject for another article.

    Anyhow, we have assumed a permanent increase of margin to 7% starting in 1998 with the emergence of internet.

    Let’s now look at the data.

    As one can see, today’s MAPE is the highest it has ever been, dwarfing the 2000 Tech Bubble and the end of 2021 frenzy.

    We won’t talk about the divergence on factor valuations here, it will be the subject of another article.

    If we construct an historical corridor with boundaries between the 0% and 50% percentiles of MAPE history, the prospect looks grim for Buy and Holders.

    If we construct an historical corridor with boundaries between the 0% and 50% percentiles of MAPE history, the prospect looks grim for Buy and Holders.

    The S&P 500 is currently almost 400% above the level corresponding to a bottom MAPE and 130% above the 50% percentile MAPE history.

    If we assumed a return to the MAPE 50% percentile, with nominal trend earnings growing at their historical pace and the current 1.26% dividend yield, one can see that the S&P 500 nominal total return for the next 10 years would be at -1.4% annually.

    If the markets reached similar valuation to the summer 1982, the nominal total return for the next 10 years would be at -8.9% annually.

    We doubt (and it is a strong understatement) the markets will wait 10 years to test the MAPE 50% percentile. A retest in the next 3 years is possible. Reaching the MAPE 50% percentile in 3 years’ time would imply an annualized 21.4% loss.

    Even if we assume normalized margins to be 10%, a return to the MAPE 50% percentile in 3 years’ time would imply an annualized loss of more than 15%!

    One should also not forget the historical tendency of deeply overvalued markets to fall significantly below the MAPE 50% percentile.

    It is also important to remember that today’s margins are above our 7% assumption and that the CBO is projecting around 4% nominal US GDP growth to 2034. The odds are thus stacked against the >6% nominal earning growth we have assumed.

    Among all the factors which will impact the markets nominal total return, the most important is inflation. As we have said earlier, on a 10-20 years’ basis the politicians’ rulers and their electors will favor much higher level of inflation.

    In this scenario, while nominal earning growth will be higher, ceteris paribus, with increasing inflation, the price investors will be willing to pay for each unit of earning will decline. Investors do not like inflation or deflation.

    Conclusion

    In light of our analysis, the current state of the S&P 500 presents a sobering outlook for investors. The unprecedented levels of the Margin-Adjusted Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earning Ratio (MAPE) signal a market that is significantly overvalued, even surpassing the extremes of the 2000 Tech Bubble and the 2021 market frenzy.

    Our projections suggest that achieving positive real returns in the coming decade would require nothing short of a miracle. The combination of ultra-loose monetary policies, misaligned fiscal measures, and a pervasive “this time is different” mentality has created a perfect storm of market distortion.Investors should be acutely aware that:

    1. The S&P 500 is currently trading at levels that are unsustainable in the long term.
    2. Even with optimistic assumptions, the potential for negative returns over the next 10 years is significant.
    3. A market correction to historical fair value could result in substantial losses, potentially as high as 21.4% annually if occurring within the next three years.

    As we navigate these treacherous waters, it’s crucial to remember the wisdom of Seth Klarman: “Value investing is at its core the marriage of a contrarian streak and a calculator.” Now, more than ever, investors must resist the siren song of market euphoria and anchor their decisions in sound valuation principles.

    The road ahead may be challenging, but it also presents opportunities for those who maintain discipline and a clear-eyed view of market fundamentals.

    As we face the possibility of increased inflation and potential market turbulence, prudent investors should reassess their risk tolerance, diversify wisely, and prepare for a period of lower returns or even significant drawdowns.

    In closing, let us heed Richard Feynman’s caution against self-deception. The markets have a way of teaching harsh lessons to those who ignore the fundamentals.

    By staying grounded in reality and maintaining a long-term perspective, investors can navigate the coming years with greater resilience and potentially position themselves to capitalize on the opportunities that inevitably arise when markets return to more rational valuations.

    “It is better to be out of the markets wishing to be in than in the markets wishing to be out” – Unknown

    “I never invest at the bottom, and I always sell too soon.” – Nathan Rothschild

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 22:35

  • Japanese 'Human Washing Machine' Uses AI For When You're Too Lazy To Wash Your Own Ass
    Japanese ‘Human Washing Machine’ Uses AI For When You’re Too Lazy To Wash Your Own Ass

    As if obese redundant piles of American protoplasm, to borrow George Carlin’s phrase, weren’t already stagnant enough with the invention of Ozempic and the likes, there is now an AI powered human ‘washing machine’ that’ll wash their ass for when they’re too lazy to perform the most basic of hygiene tasks. 

    Japanese firm Science Co. has unveiled an AI-powered “bath of the future,” a shower pod called the “Mirai Ningen Sentakuki.”

    Resembling a high-tech capsule, it can wash and dry users in just 15 minutes. Chairman Yasuaki Aoyama revealed at an Osaka lecture that the device is 70% complete, aiming for a revolutionary bathing experience, according to the New York Post.

    The user sits in a transparent capsule that partially fills with water, as shown in a viral video we’ve posted below. Sensors in the seat monitor vital signs to ensure an optimal bath, while high-speed jets with micro-sized air bubbles cleanse the body.

    Chairman Yasuaki Aoyama commented: “We’re about 70% there.”

    The Post wrote on Monday that the pod uses AI to monitor user biomarkers, projecting calming videos inside the capsule to enhance relaxation.

    High-speed jets create microbubbles that burst with pressure waves, scrubbing away grime—a technique inspired by cleaning delicate electronics. The experience offers both physical and psychological cleansing, according to the company.

    The design draws from the Ultrasonic Bath exhibited at the 1970 Japan Expo, which also used water and ultrasound for cleaning. Inspired by that, company chairman Yasuaki Aoyama plans to showcase the new “human washing machine” at Expo 2025 in Osaka, where 1,000 visitors can try it.

    Reservations are already open, with plans for a home edition in the works.

    And as for “enhanced relaxation”, this can only mean we are just one step from…well, The Dude said it best…

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 22:10

  • Pakistan: Slow Motion Train Wreck
    Pakistan: Slow Motion Train Wreck

    Authored by Eric Margolis via EricMargolis.com,

    Pakistan is the world’s most important Muslim nation. It has 251 million people, nuclear weapons, the world’s sixth largest armed forces, intelligent, capable people, vast lands and major sources of water.

    Yet Pakistan is a giant mess. Its current politics are a form of tribal warfare. Corruption engulfs almost everything. Disease, particularly diabetes, afflicts its long-suffering people. Polio is making return.

    In recent years, Pakistan has suffered vast floods that have ravaged this nation. Equally menacing, next-door India remains an ever-present danger. Far-right Hindu extremists who are heavily represented in the current Modi government, keep talking about ‘reabsorbing’ Pakistan into ‘Mother India.’ This would have happened long ago except for Pakistan’s important nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.

    Via Reuters

    India has also built an extensive nuclear arsenal, including three new submarines armed with intermediate-ranged nuclear missiles. This while people in India and Pakistan starve in the streets. And 60% of homes in India lack indoor plumbing.

    The only institution in Pakistan that really works well is the armed forces. I have met many of its generals: most of them are intelligent, combat-ready officers. I knew Gen. Akhtar Abdur Rahman Khan, the ferocious chief of ISI intelligence service who led the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. He was murdered with the tough tank general Zia ul Haq who ruled Pakistan until his aircraft was sabotaged in 1988. Zia was a great Islamic warrior and man of steel. Many Pakistanis still believe he was assassinated by the US though there is no direct evidence.

    I was friends with the late Benazir Bhutto, a fascinating and alluring woman who was murdered in 2007. I interviewed Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 1999, a man who seemed insignificant compared to Gen. Zia.

    Benazir Bhutto, whose father Zulfikar was ordered hanged by Zia, used to tease me, ‘oh Eric, you love your Pakistani generals.’ I did. Most were fierce Pashtuns from the NW Frontier, born warriors. They first defeated the Soviet Union, then the mighty USA.

    I also took to some of the Indian generals that I met. They and their Pakistani counterparts had none of the slipperiness and deceit of most politicians.

    This brings me to the jailed, 51-year-old former cricket star, Imran Khan, Pakistan’s most popular political figure. Khan was jailed on fake charges over receiving gifts, when the ruling oligarchy feared Khan would win a landslide in elections. His wife was also thrown into prison.

    Imran Khan’s chief enemies were the Sharif brothers, Shebhaz and Nawaz. Both were rich Punjabi industrialists often accused of egregious corruption. I came out of war-torn Afghanistan to interview Nawaz. He left me unimpressed, particularly after the time I spent with the fiery General Zia.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The United States and Britain, vocal champions of democracy, had nothing to say about the illegal imprisonment of Pakistan’s most popular democratic politician. It was clear they were supporting the Sharif brothers who were more amenable to America’s wishes and anti-Islamic policies. Pakistan’s influential army appears to be backing the Sharif regime.

    This is interesting. Washington, which makes so much noise about democracy, is now supporting undemocratic regimes in Morocco, Tunisia, totalitarian Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Gulf, not to mention Africa and Latin America. The CIA installed the current Ukrainian regimes. Efforts are again afoot to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria and, of course, to crush the life out of Palestinians.

    What Washington really wants around the globe is total obedience, not real democracy.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Pakistan is a sad example. President Pervez Musharraf told me that a senior State Department official warned him that if Pakistan did not allow US troops to use his nation to attack Taliban-ruled Afghanistan ‘we will bomb you back to the Stone Age.’

    Great powers want to have their way. Democracy and common sense too often do not stand in the way. At least the new Trump administration in Washington is being brutally frank about its wants and needs unlike the honey-tongued hypocrites of the Biden years.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 21:45

  • NATO Chief Warned Trump 'Bad' Ukraine Peace Deal Is A 'Dire Threat' To US, Europe
    NATO Chief Warned Trump ‘Bad’ Ukraine Peace Deal Is A ‘Dire Threat’ To US, Europe

    NATO’s new secretary-general is trying to talk tough ahead of Donald Trump taking office. Surely he knows Brussels is in for a rough ride, given that during the first Trump administration the president (rightly) ripped NATO member states for not paying their fair share in defense spending, while relying on Washington to shoulder the burden.

    Mark Rutte has warned Trump in a Financial Times interview that if Ukraine is pressured into a ‘bad’ peace deal which is favorable to Moscow, then the United States and Europe would face a “dire threat” from Iran, China, and North Korea.

    Via Associated Press

    All of these ‘rogue’ states (in the lexicon of some Western leaders) have deepened their relations with Russia throughout the course of the nearly three-year long war in Ukraine. North Korea and Russia in particular even signed a defense pact last summer, resulting in some 10,000 North Korean soldiers being deployed to support the Russian side. All are also coordinating on circumventing US-led sanctions.

    Like some pundits at hawkish US think tanks, Rutte tried to frame to outcome of the Ukraine war as of dire importance for Taiwan’s freedom. According to FT:

    Rutte noted the risks from Russia supplying missile technology to North Korea and cash to Iran. In an apparent reference to Taiwan, he said that Chinese President Xi Jinping “might get thoughts about something else in the future if there is not a good deal [for Ukraine]”.

    “We cannot have a situation where we have [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un and the Russian leader and Xi Jinping and Iran high-fiving because we came to a deal which is not good for Ukraine, because long-term that will be a dire security threat not only to Europe but also to the US,” Rutte told the FT in his first interview as head of the western military alliance.

    Rutte had met with Trump a week-and-a-half ago at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. It was their first such meeting since Trump won the election on November 5.

    Clearly the NATO chief tried to persuade Trump to essentially keep up the same muscular stance on Moscow as the Biden administration. It seems he tried to present the same ‘domino’ effect argument which hearkens back to the Cold War – which goes something like if ‘X enemy is not stopped here, then Y enemy will also feel emboldened and seek military conquest’ etc.

    “Look at the missile technology which is now being sent from Russia into North Korea, which is posing a dire threat not only to South Korea, Japan, but also to the US mainland,” Rutte said he told Trump, as quoted in FT.

    “Iran is getting money from Russia in return for, for example, missiles, but also drone technology. And the money is being used to prop up Hizbollah and Hamas, but also steering conflict beyond the region,” he had claimed.

    “So the fact that Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are working so closely together . . . [means] these various parts of the world where conflict is, and have to be managed by politicians, are more and more getting connected,” explained Rutte.

    “And there is one Xi Jinping watching very carefully what comes out of this,” he added, in apparent reference to Taiwan. “These were the points I made,” the NTO leader stressed.

    But we doubt that that Ukrainians young and old, tragically dying along the front lines in this horrific war of attrition, will care much about NATO and Western grand strategy regarding far-flung places like China or North Korea.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 21:20

  • De Beers Pulls "Last Resort" Price Cut As Diamond Price-Floor Crumbles 
    De Beers Pulls “Last Resort” Price Cut As Diamond Price-Floor Crumbles 

    A new report says the collapse in rough diamond prices has prompted the world’s largest producer to implement broad price cuts. 

    Bloomberg reports that De Beers’ final sale of rough diamond stones on the secondary market was led by a 10% to 15% price cut amid a slumping market pressured by the proliferation of artificial diamonds and sliding demand across the West and China. 

    Yet on Monday, the company capitulated on that position at its final sale of the year. De Beers cut prices by 10% to 15% for most of the goods it sells, according to people familiar with the situation. That’s the first major price cut since the start of the year and a historically large reduction.-BBG

    Price cuts at Anglo American’s De Beers come as the Diamond Standard Index, which dates back to early 2022, has plunged to record low levels. 

    Here’s more from the report:

    De Beers wields considerable power in the rough-diamond market. It holds 10 sales each year in which the buyers — known as sightholders — generally have to accept the price and the quantities offered.

    Still, even after the steep cut in prices today, the company’s stones are still more expensive than the going rate in the secondary market, the people said, asking not to be identified as the matter is private. The company also removed some of the flexibility it had offered at previous sales.

    De Beers typically reserves aggressive price cuts as a last resort. While it keeps pricing secret, the across-the-board cut this month is hefty.

    So much for the diamond giant putting a floor under prices… 

    Take a look at our prior note titled “Diamond Prices Crash To Multi-Decade Lows As Art, Wine, & Rolex Markets Sour.” 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 20:30

  • The Failure Of COP29: Does The "Green Agenda" Have A Future?
    The Failure Of COP29: Does The “Green Agenda” Have A Future?

    Authored by Raphael Machado,

    Following the conclusion of the multilateral climate conference COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, the atmosphere is one of defeat.

    Nearly an entire week of speeches and endless meetings did not suffice to reach a reasonable consensus on a series of practical measures that had been anticipated.

    Specifically, the debate on funding climate policies sank.

    The so-called “developing countries” had expected an annual grant policy exceeding $1 trillion for energy transition and climate change mitigation policies, but only $300 billion per year will be allocated—optimistically.

    Moreover, this sum will not necessarily be in the form of grants but may include loans and other financing mechanisms that bring interest and debt.

    India denounced the final result of COP29, supported by Bolivia, Cuba, and Nigeria, as a farce and an insult from developed countries to developing nations.

    This financing debate will now be deferred to COP30, scheduled to take place in Brazil in 2025. However, the chances of COP30 succeeding where COP29 failed seem very slim.

    While climate alarmism and eco-globalism are now part of Brazil’s official ideology, in the rest of the world, these postmodern beliefs are losing momentum.

    Take, for example, the reasons why expanding funding for the “Green Agenda” has been impossible in “developed countries.” Observing European governments’ behavior since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, one can see increasing difficulty in advancing energy transition and net-zero carbon policies.

    Germany, for instance, was once one of the main drivers of climate alarmism worldwide, even closing its nuclear power plants “for the environment” (despite nuclear plants being far less polluting than most other energy sources). Yet today, facing an energy crisis caused by the NordStream’s destruction, Germany is reopening its coal-fired power plants.

    Sweden, long a leader in international climate activism, has reversed many of its previous environmental measures. The Ministry of the Environment has been dismantled, and the government now prioritizes ensuring cheap fuel.

    Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the previous administration of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak suspended the ban on diesel car sales and decided to stop promoting the replacement of gas heaters. Similar examples can be found in several other countries.

    Clearly, sanctions and the NordStream’s destruction have made Europe’s energy situation difficult enough to raise living costs, convincing European governments to roll back at least some environmental measures and dampen their enthusiasm for promoting global climate alarmism.

    This retreat by European nations will be compounded by the fact that, starting in 2025, the United States will likely be governed by Donald Trump, who holds a critical stance toward climate alarmism and promises to intensify fracking for hydrocarbon extraction in the country. This is corroborated by the nominations of Chris Wright as Secretary of Energy and Lee Zeldin to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    In Brazil, the media has revealed that Lula’s administration fears a lackluster COP30 in the Amazon region in 2025, with the U.S. under Trump’s administration. Naturally, for Brazilian patriots focused on safeguarding national sovereignty over the Amazon and exploring oil in the Equatorial Margin, this is good news.

    Indeed, Brazil’s insistence on adhering to the “Green Agenda” is puzzling, considering it often serves as a geopolitical control tool favoring major powers at the expense of developing nations. The climate agenda frequently imposes disproportionate obligations on Brazil relative to its actual contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, which are significantly lower than those of more industrialized economies.

    With a predominantly renewable energy matrix, Brazil is already an example of sustainability and energy efficiency worldwide. Approximately 84% of Brazil’s electricity is generated from clean sources, such as hydropower, wind, solar, and biomass—a level that countries like the United States and Germany have yet to achieve, despite leading global climate discourse.

    Meanwhile, developed countries that built their wealth through the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources and environmental pollution now advocate environmental restrictions designed to limit the growth of emerging economies like Brazil. These impositions often harm strategic sectors such as oil and gas exploration, mining, and agribusiness, which are vital to national development and sovereignty.

    In practice, we appear to be witnessing the crisis of the “Green Agenda” that has dominated global politics for years. Yet some countries still seem unaware that this entire agenda has never been more than a new strategy by global elites to accumulate capital and impose new forms of social control.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 20:05

  • Education: The Global Challenges Facing Schools
    Education: The Global Challenges Facing Schools

    A new report by Ipsos on global attitudes towards education and schools has highlighted the breadth of issues that affect different systems around the world.

    More than 1,000 respondents took part in each of the 30 countries surveyed between June 21 and July 5, 2024.

    As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, a third of respondents in the U.S. say that political or ideological bias is the greatest challenge facing their country’s educational system today. Similarly, 30 percent of adults in Hungary and Poland felt the same.

    Infographic: Education: The Global Challenges Facing Schools | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Worry over their children’s safety was the second most commonly picked concern in the U.S. at 31 percent.

    It was also a main concern in France (30 percent), India, Mexico and Brazil (24 percent each).

    In Indonesia, six in ten respondents stated that unequal access to education was the greatest issue troubling the schooling system, with the next two most commonly selected answers inadequate infrastructure (36 percent) and insufficient usage of technology (30 percent).

    Meanwhile, in the UK, a lack of public funding was cited by 40 percent of respondents, marking the largest share of the 30 countries polled, followed by several South American nations (Colombia at 37 percent, Chile at 36 percent and Brazil at 35 percent).

    The survey also found that the most positive perceptions of education systems were primarily in Asia.

    Adults in several countries across the region were also more likely to say that they thought the education system in their country is contributing to reducing social inequalities.

    For example, the vast majority of respondents in India (72 percent) agreed with this statement, as well as Singapore (68 percent), Thailand (66 percent), Indonesia (64 percent) and Malaysia (63 percent).

    At the other end of the spectrum of 30 countries were Turkey (34 percent) and Hungary (30 percent).

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 19:40

  • Biden-Linked Delaware Judge Rejects (Again) Musk's '70%-Shareholder-Approved' $56 Billion Pay-Package
    Biden-Linked Delaware Judge Rejects (Again) Musk’s ‘70%-Shareholder-Approved’ $56 Billion Pay-Package

    Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick has once again sided against Elon Musk…

    After ruling against the billionaire in July 2022 when he tried to break his $44 billion contract to buy Twitter, and again in January 2024 when she initially rescinded Musk’s record (but “deeply flawed” according to her) $56 billion performance-based compensation package (determining that Tesla deceived shareholders when the all stock compensation was approved in 2018), she has once again ruled that pay package.

    Musk’s legal team argued that McCormick should reverse her earlier decision because Tesla had conducted a shareholder vote to “ratify” the 2018 pay plan at the company’s annual shareholder meeting in June, per CNBC.

    In fact, 72% of Tesla shareholders voted in June to approve the company’s CEO’s pay package.

    The judge said Musk’s attorneys made an argument with multiple “fatal flaws,” including their argument that the shareholder vote was enough to validate the pay package after the fact.

    “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick said in her ruling.

    McCormick ruled that the vote on the payment package did not have a “ratifying effect” on the current case, because shareholders had not ratified the payment plan prior to her ruling.

    “Were the court to condone the practice of allowing defeated parties to create new facts for the purpose of revising judgments, lawsuits would become interminable,” she wrote.

    In addition to rejecting the revisions, Quartz reports that Monday’s decision granted $345 million in attorney fees to the lawyers who successfully challenged Musk’s pay plan on behalf of Tesla shareholders.

    The court deemed this amount an “appropriate sum to reward a total victory.”

    Tesla has the option to pay this fee in either cash or by issuing stock that can be sold on the open market.

    While Musk could appeal the decision to the Delaware Supreme Court, this ruling could have broader implications for how companies structure executive compensation and the role of shareholder votes in such decisions.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Finally, the judge has some interesting ‘friends’…

    “Before becoming the head of the Delaware Chancery Court, McCormick worked at a Delaware law firm called Young Conaway.

    This firm and its employees have been major donors to President Joe Biden for decades.

    In 2016, Hunter Biden hosted a gubernatorial campaign event for Congressman John Carney, with then-Vice President Joe Biden as the guest speaker.

    This event took place at the Law Offices of Young Conaway in Wilmington, Delaware.

    Carney, a close friend of Joe Biden for the last four decades, later became governor and nominated Kathaleen McCormick, a partner at Young Conaway, to her position on the Delaware Chancery Court.

    In a March 2018 email, Hunter Biden claimed to personally know every judge on the Delaware Chancery Court while threatening legal action against his Chinese business partners.

    “I will bring the suit in the Chancery court in Delaware – which as you know is my home state and I am privileged to have worked with and know every judge on the chancery court.

    … another clear example of the Biden administration and its allies weaponizing the American legal system against their political opponents.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tesla issued a statement on X shortly after the decision, confirming that it will appeal her decision….

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    There is also the fact that Musk’s move to relocate his business to Texas (after telling people on X after the original ruling that “companies should get the hell out of Delaware”) which could change things, but it is is unclear how this will proceed for now.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 19:15

  • Nearly One In Five US Teens Experienced Depression Last Year
    Nearly One In Five US Teens Experienced Depression Last Year

    One of the reasons governments are moving to restrict teenagers’ access to social media is the fear of its harm to mental health.

    As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, the topic has been reignited by the release of a new book titled The Anxious Generation, by New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who links the rise in mental health illness directly to the proliferation of social networks and smartphones.

    While Haidt writes that social media and smartphones are not the only causes of the mental health epidemic seen in several countries, he points to how such technologies are hindering children’s healthy development by reducing their time spent playing with friends in real life, eating into time for sleeping, as well as corroding their self esteem. Even children who do not use social media are struggling, he argues, due to the changes brought about to social life. Critics say, however, that correlation is not the same as causation and that the data does not show a complete picture.

    As the following chart shows, the share of U.S. 12-17 year olds having experienced a depressive episode in the past year has risen from 7.9 percent in 2006 to 18.1 percent in 2023.

    Infographic: Nearly One in Five U.S. Teens Experienced Depression in 2023 | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    While the figure has come down from the pandemic high of 20.1 percent in 2021, it is still above that of 2019 and 2020.

    This is according to data from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The source classifies a major depressive episode in the past 12 months if a respondent has had at least one period of two weeks or longer when they felt depressed or lost interest or pleasure in daily activities for most of the day nearly every day. Depressive symptoms include problems with sleeping, eating, energy, concentration, self-worth, or having recurrent thoughts of death or recurrent suicidal ideation.

    The share of teens who had reported a major depressive episode was particularly high among Multiracial (24.4 percent) respondents in 2023, followed by white adolescents (19.6), Asian (13.7 percent) and Black teens (13.3 percent).

    There was insufficient data for calculating the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander teenagers.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 18:50

  • What Is The Administrative State?
    What Is The Administrative State?

    Authored by Roger Kimball via American Greatness,

    Last week in this virtual space, I wrote that Donald Trump would make a renewed effort during his second term to dismantle “the administrative state.” As in his first term, he would employ various strategies to blunt the effects of the administrative apparatus that governs us. He would, for example, disperse some parts of the government outside the overwhelmingly left-progressive swamp of Washington, D.C.

    As an aside, I should note that I regard the persistence of Washington as the seat of our government as a serious impediment to the goal of “deconstructing” the administrative state. “It has,” I wrote back in 2022, “long been obvious to candid observers that there is something deeply dysfunctional about that overwhelmingly Democratic, welfare-addicted city.”

    It is a partisan sinkhole. Jefferson wanted the capital moved from New York to Washington in part to bring it closer to the South, but also to place it in a locality that was officially neutral. There is nothing neutral about Washington today. The city has some impressive architecture and urban vistas. They should be preserved and staffed as tourist attractions. But the reins of power should be relocated.

    I doubt that will happen. Which means that the eternal vigilance that MAGA must maintain around its enemies will have to be redoubled. Trump attempting to govern from Washington will be like Ike trying to undertake the Normandy invasion with half his planners on loan from the German general staff.

    Still, there are some symbolic gestures that he and his aides might consider. I have long suggested that the inauguration be held somewhere other than Washington, D.C. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the inauguration be in Washington. LBJ, remember, was sworn in on Air Force One just a couple of hours after Kennedy was assassinated. When Warren Harding died, Calvin Coolidge was visiting the family homestead in Vermont. His father, a justice of the peace, administered the oath of office in the parlor. I think the next inauguration should be well away from the swamp of Washington. Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach is one venue that springs to mind, but I am sure there are other attractive spots. At a minimum, I hope the inauguration committee will consider having some of the parties elsewhere. A ball in Butler, PA, for example, would not only be celebratory but also serve as a useful reminder of how close Trump came to a fatal encounter with an assassin’s bullet.

    But the trouble with “Washington”—I use scare quotes to indicate that we are dealing with spiritual as well as geographical dispensation—is not only its partisan nature. There is also its apparently unstoppably expansionist character. No matter which party is in power, the business of Washington is to make government bigger—forever. Republicans talk about “limited government.” They then sign on to nearly every scheme to make government bigger and more intrusive. Democrats do the same, of course, but they generally skip the rhetorical foreplay about making government smaller.

    One huge difference this time around will be the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE for short, an ad hoc executive initiative that will be overseen by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. They outlined their bold plan in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal last week. “Unlike government commissions or advisory committees,” they noted, “we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.” Will they? It would be pretty to think so. Musk has said that he wants to cut government expenditures by $2 trillion. If he could manage even a quarter of that amount, it would be something to write home about. It may seem utopian. But remember, Musk bought Twitter and instantly cut the workforce by 80 percent. He vastly improved the platform, salvaged free speech, and transformed a dying company into a dynamic one.

    As usual, the devil will be in the details. Musk and Ramaswamy may identify the ideal candidates for downsizing or elimination. Exactly how will they move from pen to scissors is the $64,000—or rather, the $2 trillion—question. I take solace from the thought that if anyone can do it, the triumvirate of Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy can. Naturally, opposition will be ferocious. Will it also be effective? Time will tell.

    I have not yet answered the question posed in my title: “What is the administrative state?” A friend asked me that in the course of our conversation about my column last week. Isn’t it possible, he asked, that “administrative state,” like its scarier sounding cousin, “deep state” is just a polysyllabic synonym for “state,” for the complex activities of government in a complex, technologically advanced polity? Maybe “administrative state” is just an invention of right-wing “conspiracy theorists” who find goblins where there are only harmless bureaucrats?

    I nattered on about the growth of the regulatory state, the battalions of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who govern us from their perches in the alphabet soup of modern, Kafkaesque governance, and put in a plug for Tocqueville’s analysis of “democratic despotism.” I also noted that the phrase “conspiracy theorist” is generally used in a prophylactic, not a descriptive sense. That is, it is a phrase that is wheeled out when the aim is to end, not further, the conversation. The problem is not conspiracy theories, but conspiracies in fact.

    One example.  When revelation of the contents of Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” threatened to upend Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, Anthony Blinken asked acting CIA director Michael Morell to organize a letter signed by 51 former intelligence officers stating that the laptop bore all the signs of “Russian disinformation.” Morell did this, he said,  in order to give Biden a “talking point” for his forthcoming debate with Donald Trump. The public did not know this at the time. When the truth leaked out, the establishment claimed it was only a “conspiracy theory” put about by Trump supporters. But it wasn’t a conspiracy theory. It was a conspiracy in fact. 

    I stand by everything I said, but I did not say enough, and what I did say was not precise enough. Formulating definitions is often a mug’s game. This is because, for any important matter, a definition that is true will also have to be so general as to be vacuous or at least unilluminating. What is love? What is virtue? What is knowledge? In everyday life, these chestnuts from the philosophy seminar tend to get assimilated to the indefinite definition Justice Potter Stewart offered for “obscenity”: “I know it when I see it.”

    Still, there’s something to be said for making the effort. So here goes. “‘The administrative state’ is that quota of political power that covertly fills the vacuum left by the failure of the legislative branch to discharge its obligations.”

    Two things are critical.

    • One is the displacement of sovereignty. No longer are the people sovereign. The bureaucracy is.

    • The second critical thing is the covert nature of the enterprise.

    The question “What is the administrative state?” can seem difficult to answer because it is not supposed to exist in the first place. You know it only by its actions. You cannot look it up in the statute book, much less in the Constitution. Indeed, the very fact of the administrative state violates any number of Constitutional norms, not least its being a sort of “fourth branch” of government when the Constitution provides for only three.

    Edmund Burke touched on an essential aspect of this process in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770). Criticizing the Court of George III for circumventing Parliament and establishing by stealth what amounted to a new regime of royal prerogative and influence-peddling, Burke saw how George and his courtiers maintained the appearance of parliamentary supremacy while simultaneously undermining it. “It was soon discovered,” Burke wrote with sly understatement, “that the forms of a free, and the ends of an arbitrary Government, were things not altogether incompatible.” That malign co-habitation stands behind the growth of the administrative state. We still vote. We still have a bicameral legislature. But behind these forms of a free government, the essentially undemocratic activities of an increasingly arbitrary and unaccountable regime pursue an expansionist agenda that threatens liberty in the most comprehensive way, by circumventing the law. 

    The shadowy nature of the administrative state helps to explain why it is so hostile to free speech and, by the same token, why it tends to be receptive to the deployment of censorship and police power to achieve its ends and stymie the ends of its critics. That is why the rise of the administrative state goes hand in hand with the loss of public confidence in society’s guiding institutions. Talk of “democracy” and “our democracy” is ever on their lips. SWAT teams, prosecutorial abuse, and lawfare are out on the street for all to see. Bottom line: The age of the administrative state is at the same time an age of declining legitimacy in the foundational institutions of civil society.

    Officially, the administrative state is not supposed to exist.  Having people talk about the fact that it does exist and that it often pursues ends that are contrary to the ends of the people outside its magic circle of custodians means that by definition free inquiry is a threat to its perpetuation. That is one reason that the administrative state is so hostile to democracy. It is also an important reason why it must be dismantled and returned to the graveyard of rebarbative systems of political obfuscation and bureaucratic tyranny. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 18:25

  • Enron Is Not "Back"
    Enron Is Not “Back”

    There was a lot of chatter on Monday morning about defunct Enron rising from the ashes after an X account named “Enron” posted, “We’re back. Can we talk?”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    On its website, “Enron.com,” the company, supposedly operating as “Enron Corporation,” published what could be described as one of the laziest press releases imaginable, with formatting that resembles something generated by ChatGPT… 

    Buried in the “Terms of Use and Conditions of Sale” section of the website, Enron states: “THE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE IS FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED PARODY, REPRESENTS PERFORMANCE ART, AND IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.”

    Public records forensic analysis via the platform Sayari shows “Enron Corporation” has been “Inactive” for years. In other words, the website has nothing to do with defunct Enron.

    “No @Enron is not back… Original IP is DEAD and some clever people registered it earlier this year… Caveat emptor,” one X user said. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Exactly. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And trademarks?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Take a look at the alleged Enron team. Whoever built the website just used iStock models with a focus on diversity.

    Not believable. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    More LoL from the website. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Selling merchandise is the goal? 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Possibly, but this might be tied to a crypto pump-and-dump scheme.

    Not sure if this coin is related.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Caveat emptor. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 18:00

  • Debanked: The Financial Suppression Of Bitcoin Businesses Must End
    Debanked: The Financial Suppression Of Bitcoin Businesses Must End

    Authored by Colin Crossman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

    “We can’t live in a world where somebody starts a company that’s a completely legal thing, and then they literally [] get sanctioned [] and embargoed by the United States government through a completely unaccountable [process] by the way. No due process. None of this is written down. There’s no rules. There’s no court, there’s no decision process. There’s no appeal. Who do you appeal to, right? [] Who do you go to to get your bank account back?”

    – Marc Andreessen, speaking to Joe Rogan, published on 11/26/2024

    In yet another troubling manifestation of “Chokepoint 2.0,” a Wyoming company was summarily debanked in early November, 2024, by Mercury, a banking platform operated with Evolve Bank (and other banking partners). After years of seamless operations and exemplary service, Mercury abruptly terminated the account without clear cause. The excuse? A vague nod to “internal factors” that remain as opaque as the regulatory pressures likely behind them.

    Let’s be clear: The company’s banking activity was uncontroversial. The only potential offense is that the company accepts a sizable portion of its customer payments in Bitcoin. Aside from monthly wires from Kraken (a regulated crypto exchange), its transactions included rent, utility payments, hardware store purchases, and subcontractor invoices.

    The termination couldn’t have had anything to do with risky behavior or financial misconduct. Instead, the closure is emblematic of a systemic effort to hobble Bitcoin businesses by exploiting the centralized banking choke points regulators have turned into tools of suppression.

    This is Chokepoint 2.0 in action. Regulators have found new ways to suppress industries they disfavor—this time, targeting Bitcoin miners and businesses. Instead of legislative debate or due process, unelected bureaucrats leverage their oversight of banks to nudge them into “de-risking” clients that engage in entirely legal activities. The company was simply collateral damage in the campaign to isolate Bitcoin from the traditional financial system.

    This is a chilling echo of Operation Chokepoint 1.0, where federal regulators illegally pressured banks to cut off services to lawful but disfavored industries, such as firearms dealers and payday lenders. That campaign ended in disgrace when the FDIC was forced to settle a lawsuit in 2019. The settlement affirmed what should have been obvious: weaponizing the financial system against legal businesses is unconstitutional. Regulators know this—and yet here we are again.

    Why This Matters

    Debanking isn’t just an inconvenience. For businesses, it’s existential. Operating without a reliable banking partner in today’s economy is like trying to breathe without air. When banks are coerced into severing ties with Bitcoin-related companies, it sends a chilling message: engage in this industry at your peril. It also stifles innovation, a dangerous precedent for a country founded on economic freedom.

    Moreover, this practice undermines the core tenet of fairness in financial services. The American banking system isn’t a private fiefdom. It operates under public charters and with public trust, and its gatekeepers should not act as arbiters of political or ideological purity.

    The harm extends beyond Bitcoin. If regulators can throttle this industry, what stops them from targeting others? What happens when innovation, dissent, or inconvenient truths are deemed “too risky” for the comfort of entrenched powers? This is about more than Bitcoin—it’s about the integrity of the financial system and the preservation of free markets.

    A Call to Action: Accountability for Regulators

    The new Congress and Trump administration must seize this moment to hold the architects of Chokepoint 2.0 accountable. This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a constitutional one. Regulators acting as de facto lawmakers, imposing policies that would never survive public scrutiny, must be reigned in.

    1. Investigations into Regulatory Overreach

    Congress must launch comprehensive investigations into the agencies pressuring banks to sever ties with Bitcoin businesses. Who issued these directives? Under what authority? The American people deserve answers, and the offending parties deserve consequences.

    2. Personal Accountability for Regulators

    Bureaucrats who abuse their power should not be shielded by the anonymity of the regulatory machine. Those responsible for weaponizing the financial system against lawful businesses must be named, shamed, and removed from their positions, permanently lose any security clearances they may have, and potentially lose their government pensions and retirement benefits.

    3. Restoration of Due Process

    Any decisions to restrict banking access should require clear, codified standards and a transparent appeals process. No more shadow rules. If a business is to be debanked, the reasons should be public, defensible, clearly articulated & defined, grounded in law, and appealable.

    4. Legislation to Protect Financial Access

    Congress should pass laws prohibiting banks from discriminating against lawful industries based on political or ideological reasons. The free market thrives on neutrality; it withers under bias.

    5. Decentralization of Financial Systems

    Bitcoin exists as a hedge against precisely this kind of overreach. Policymakers should embrace and encourage its growth, not fight it. America cannot afford to fall behind in the global race for financial innovation.

    Much of the above could be addressed through Section 10 of the SAFER Banking Act, which directly limits undue regulatory influence over banking services. Specifically, it prohibits federal banking agencies from pressuring financial institutions to terminate relationships with lawful businesses, including those in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency industry, based on reputational risks or political motivations. This provision reinforces the principle that decisions about financial services should rely on risk-based analysis of individual accounts rather than blanket biases against entire industries. By codifying such protections, the SAFER Banking Act would promote fairness and transparency in financial services, ensuring that regulators adhere to their duties of impartial oversight while respecting the rights of businesses operating legally under state or federal law.

    In addition to legislative solutions, the presence of even one bank with the willingness and capability to resist undue regulatory pressure could dramatically reshape the financial landscape for Bitcoin businesses. Caitlin Long’s Custodia Bank, based in Wyoming, exemplifies this potential. Custodia has consistently demonstrated its commitment to operating within the law while challenging the overreach of federal regulators, as seen in its lawsuit against the Federal Reserve.

    A bank with this level of resolve, direct access to the Federal Reserve itself, and a proven track record of standing up to regulators will provide a lifeline for Bitcoin (and other) businesses seeking reliable financial services. By fostering an ecosystem where lawful businesses can thrive without fear of arbitrary debanking, Custodia Bank offers a template for how other institutions might follow suit, ensuring that innovation and economic freedom remain protected.1

    Taken together, the SAFER Banking Act and the perseverance of institutions like Custodia Bank represent two critical fronts in the fight against financial discrimination. While the SAFER Act provides a legislative framework to curtail regulatory overreach and protect lawful businesses from debanking, it has faced significant resistance, having been introduced multiple times in Congress only to be repeatedly blocked. Meanwhile, Custodia Bank’s struggle underscores the severity of institutional hostility; the Federal Reserve’s refusal to grant Custodia access to the banking system forced the bank to file a federal lawsuit just to claim its rightful place in the financial ecosystem. These challenges highlight the entrenched opposition to reform, but they also emphasize the urgent need for a multi-pronged strategy—legislative, judicial, and entrepreneurial—to ensure fair and impartial access to banking services for all lawful businesses.

    Bitcoiners: The Frontline of Freedom

    Bitcoin isn’t just money; it’s an idea—an idea that money and power belong to the people, not the state. This is why we’re here. This is why Bitcoin exists. The legacy financial system is crumbling under its own corruption, and every act of suppression only underscores the need for decentralized alternatives.

    To be clear, I don’t fully blame Mercury and Evolve for this. They’re likely being forced into it by their regulators.2 Indeed, due to the Orwellian Bank Secrecy Act, the banks aren’t allowed to disclose the reasons for these matters to the affected customers. Banks like Mercury, and any others who have willingly cooperated with Chokepoint 2.0 should be subject to Congressional Subpoenas to explain themselves, and also name-and-shame the regulators who coopted them.

    The future of Bitcoin—and America’s role as a leader in innovation—depends on exposing and dismantling Chokepoint 2.0, and holding all those who participated in it accountable.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 17:40

  • Iran-Backed Iraqi Militias Pour Across Border Into Syria To Bolster Assad
    Iran-Backed Iraqi Militias Pour Across Border Into Syria To Bolster Assad

    Widespread reports, including observers on the ground, have indicated that Iran-backed Iraqi militias have been pouring across the border into eastern Syria to assist Damascus in repelling the Islamist militant advance after Al Qaeda splinter group Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham took over Aleppo this weekend.

    A Syrian army officer has told Reuters that Iraqi militia forces crossing the border are “fresh reinforcements being sent to aid our comrades on the frontlines in the north.”

    Many of the fighters have been identified as belonging to the Kataib Hezbollah and Fatemiyoun groups. The US has long been in an internecine conflict with Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, with over the years periodic rocket fire even targeting the US Embassy in Baghdad, as well as various bases which host remaining American troops.

    The Iraqi militias have been staging in the area of Abu Kamal overnight. There were rumors that US warplanes attacked their positions, but these reports turned out to be untrue.

    But these forces have been fully aware that the Pentagon could attack their convoys at any moment, and so have reportedly been crossing the border in small groups and using concealed roads.

    “At least 300 fighters, primarily from the Badr and Nujabaa groups, crossed late on Sunday using a dirt road to avoid the official border crossing, two Iraqi security sources said, adding that they were there to defend a Shi’ite shrine,” Reuters reports.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Monday that with regard to new fighting in Syria, “resistance groups will help and Iran will provide any support needed.” Russia has been assisting with aerial bombardments.

    To recap via a note from Rabobank:

    On the geopolitics front the swift dismantling of Hezbollah by Israel, and Russia’s preoccupation with its war on Ukraine appears to have come at great cost for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. ‘Rebel’ forces recaptured the country’s second largest city of Aleppo as regime troops were left somewhat stranded by Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies and were consequently overwhelmed by the Turkish-backed rebels.

    In a situation similar to Yemen, civil war has been raging in Syria for 13 years without attracting a great deal of mainstream interest in Western media. In the case of Yemen, that all changed once the civil war impacted upon freight transits through the Suez Canal, while in Syria the ongoing competition for spheres of influence by Great Powers (Russia, USA, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Israel etc) provides a useful microcosm of the new global paradigm, but only if one cares to look.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In Lebanon, interestingly Hezbollah has said it does not plan to send its fighters “for now” to northern Syria to help Assad forces regain territory. Lebanese Hezbollah has of course been bogged down in over a year of fighting with Israel’s military, which has included the last two months of an IDF ground offensive in the south.

    Hezbollah was instrumental during the first ten years of proxy war in pushing out the US-Gulf backed jihadists; however, currently it looks like Assad’s main help will come from Iran and Iraq.

    President Assad was somewhat quiet throughout much of the Israel-Hezbollah war, and this could be at play in Hezbollah leadership’s current reluctance to engage in the Syria theatre of the war. But it remains that the Lebanese Shia group is still desperately trying to rebuild its command structure and replenish its resources. 

    via BBC

    As for the Iraqi militia presence in eastern Syria, they are likely to clash with the US-backed ‘Free Syrian Army’ and ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ (SDF) in the area. It remains possible that US warplanes could engage as well.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 17:20

  • Cartels Demand Higher Border Crossing Fees After Trump Victory
    Cartels Demand Higher Border Crossing Fees After Trump Victory

    Authored by Eric Lendrum via American Greatness,

    Drug cartels and other human trafficking groups have begun demanding higher fees for illegals seeking to be smuggled across the border in the aftermath of President-elect Donald Trump’s comeback victory.

    As Breitbart reports, illegals at an alleged “charity” shelter in Sonora, Mexico told a Mexican newspaper that the smuggling fee has doubled in recent weeks, with Trump’s victory and impending return to office being given as a major reason.

    The previous fees of $5,000 have risen to at least $10,000, as illegals from all around the world, including Africa, Asia, and Central America, try desperately to sneak into the country before Trump returns to office.

    The smugglers have also increased their fees for additional services, such as using vehicles to cross private property, with these fees increasing from $15,000 to $20,000.

    Fees have also risen dramatically for certain illegals based on how far they have traveled to try to enter the United States illegally.

    Chinese illegals are paying as much as $55,000 per person to attempt being smuggled into the U.S.

    In fiscal year 2023, at least 24,000 illegals from China were apprehended trying to cross the southern border.

    Other illegals paying increased fees include illegals from Africa and the Middle East, due to their designation as “Special Interest Aliens.”

    President-elect Trump once again campaigned heavily on the issue of immigration, vowing to finish building the border wall that he started constructing in his first term, and to carry out the largest mass deportation operation in American history.

    He has announced former Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Tom Homan as his new Border Czar, with Homan repeatedly vowing to do whatever is necessary to deport as many illegals as possible.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 17:00

  • Special Counsel Rejects Hunter Biden's Pardon, Files Scathing Rebuke In Court Case
    Special Counsel Rejects Hunter Biden’s Pardon, Files Scathing Rebuke In Court Case

    Last night Hunter Biden’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss his California tax fraud case after Joe Biden issued a blanket pardon absolving him of all crimes committed over a 10 year period.

    “The President’s pardon moots Mr. Biden’s pending and yet to occur sentencing and entry of judgment in this case and requires an automatic dismissal of the Indictment with prejudice,” wrote Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell in the filing, adding that “this Court must dismiss the Indictment against Mr. Biden with prejudice and adjourn all future proceedings in this matter.”

    Special Counsel David Weiss isn’t having it. In a Monday response in opposition, Weiss argued that “The defendant’s motion should be denied since there is no binding authority on this Court which requires dismissal.”

    “As a matter of past-practice in this district, courts do not dismiss indictments when pardons are granted,” Weiss wrote – citing cases involving Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Joe Arpaio and Ollie North, Above the Law reports. “Instead, it has been the practice of this court that once an Executive Grant of Clemency has been filed on the docket, the docket is marked closed, the disposition entry is updated to reflect the executive grant of clemency, and no further action is taken by the Court.”

    Although Weiss purported not to have seen the pardon itself (which Lowell inexplicably failed to docket), he took particular umbrage at the suggestion that the prosecution was politically motivated, huffing that “The court similarly found [Biden’s] vindictive prosecution claims unmoored from any evidence or even a coherent theory as to vindictiveness.”

    Judge Mark Scarsi of the Central District of California has taken no action, thus far. But in Delaware, Judge Maryellen Noreika said in a minute order that she intends to terminate the proceedings, and instructing the government to say by tomorrow if it objects to termination by dismissal. Presumably it does, although no objection has hit the docket as of this writing. -Above the Law

    Hunter pleaded guilty to the tax charges earlier this year, after a Delaware jury found him guilty of lying about his drug use on a background check form used to purchase a firearm. 

    In Weiss’ new filing, he writes:

    “The defendant did not docket the pardon nor has the government seen it. If media reports are accurate, the Government does not challenge that the defendant has been the recipient of an act of mercy. But that does not mean the grand jury’s decision to charge him, based on a finding of probable cause, should be wiped away as if it never occurred. It also does not mean that his charges should be wiped away because the defendant falsely claimed that the charges were the result of some improper motive. No court has agreed with the defendant on these baseless claims, and his request to dismiss the indictment finds no support in the law or the practice of this district.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 16:36

  • "They Must Be Eating Xanax Like Tic-Tacs…" – The Blob Has A Migraine
    “They Must Be Eating Xanax Like Tic-Tacs…” – The Blob Has A Migraine

    Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

    “It’s a beautiful thing to watch the Biden family destroy the Democrat Party.”

    – @Mazemoore on “X”

    You can be sure the blobists have seen this coming from years away. The boys and girls in the agencies have behaved more than just a little badly, and they know it. They committed serious crimes against our country and its citizens under color-of-law since 2015, ranging from seditious conspiracy clear up to treason (say, just for instance, the case of Col. Alexander Vindman using his Ukraine connections to lever Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office in the 2019 impeachment scam.)

    You have whole C-suites of agencies teed-up on RussiaGate for felonies, misprision of felonies, abuse of power, deprivation of rights, lying under oath, conspiracy to commit fraud, and much more. You have Judge James Boasberg playing games in the FISA Court he presided over; Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann running a two-and-a-half-year Chinese fire drill to cover-up years preceding of FBI / DOJ misconduct; John Brennan, James Clapper, and Gina Haspel abusing the “Five Eyes” intel arrangements to turn the CIA on innocent citizens at home; the fifty-one current and former intel agents colluding to bury Hunter’s Laptop to sway the 2020 election; the antics of Judge Emmet Sullivan in the Flynn case. . . .

    And then on to a whole new round of frolics under “Joe Biden” including the malicious prosecutions of J-6 protesters; the pipe-bomb caper at the DNC; the use of several agencies to censor speech and manage the news media; the treasonous negligence of Alejandro Mayorkas on the nation’s borders; the DOJ-coordinated lawfare hounding of Mr. Trump and his adjacent lawyers; the Ukraine War project ginned up by the State Department’s Victoria Nuland and cohorts; and the sinkhole of greed, malice, and medical homicide that was the Covid-19 operation, millions killed and disabled, and likely more of that yet to come from the vaccines, trillions in wealth purloined or just plain lost, and businesses destroyed in lockdowns. It’s not a mere “swamp,” it’s a whole forbidden planet of turpitude.

    Then there are the floaters and freelancers who move from one blob venue to the next, like lawfare artists Mary McCord, Norm Eisen, Marc Elias, David J. Kramer, or the girl-band of Lisa Monaco, Fiona Hill, Kathryn Ruemmler, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Nellie Ohr. And finally, there are the real big fishes: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, Chris Wray, Merrick Garland, General Milley, and “Joe Biden.”

    Add William Barr to that list for failing to reveal that he was in possession of Hunter’s laptop as early as the fall of 2019. Of course, it was crammed with exculpatory evidence that could have ended impeachment No. 1 on day one of the initial hearings, yet he never alerted President’s lawyers to its existence. Weird, a little bit. And also, for the effrontery of allowing Jeffrey Epstein to be killed in his Manhattan jail, and never offering the public a coherent account of how the cameras on the cellblock failed, or why the guards who fell asleep on-duty were disciplined with only 100 hours of “community service.”

    My Gawd, they must be eating Xanax like tic-tacs in their drawing rooms and boudoirs as the name Kash Patel floats across their social media screens. Kash Patel, a real-live exterminating angel, will finally step in to the FBI Director’s office and turn the investigative powers of the FBI on. . . the FBI! And its parent, the DOJ. The poetic justice is sublime. You must wonder: how does Mr. Patel get through the RINO-infested Senate confirmation process? Start with: what have they got him? Answer: probably not a goshdarn thing, not a hair out of place. More to the point: what has Mr. Patel got on them? (Especially Messers Thune, Barrasso, Cornyn, and let’s just throw in the Democrat Mark Warner, VA, who was up to his eyeballs in RussiaGate as chair of the Senate Intel Committee.)

    And were Mr. Patel to land in the FBI Director’s office 49 days from now, what additional info might he uncover about years of weaponized government with assistance from John Ratcliffe at the CIA and Tulsi Gabbard as DNI — who will access a pipeline to the vast national security server farm out in Bluffdale, Utah. So, in case you think that the document-shredding party currently underway in DC will conceal all that criminality, consider what lives forever in the alternate universe of cyberspace. There are additional NSA intel server farms in Fort Meade, MD, Augusta, GA, and San Antonio, TX, all with troves of agency emails and cell phone texts. Not to mention what whistleblowers-to-come might have saved on their thumb drives. And you may be sure that the whistles will be blowing, even while the culpable rat each other out. Remember too: there is the document dossier of FBI crimes that Mr. Trump had in his personal possession after leaving office— the reason for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, August, 2022, and Jack Smith’s bullshit court case to justify it.

    In a new wrinkle to things transitional, you have the news late Sunday that “Joe Biden” issued a blanket pardon to “the smartest person I know,” Hunter Biden, that covers every last criminal act he committed from January 1, 2014, to present, including bribery, wire fraud, money-laundering, trafficking minors for sex, handgun violations, tax evasion, crack-cocaine parties, and probably more.

    “JB” assured America more than once that he would never pardon Hunter. Turned out to be the joke that all his utterances were supposedly not. But, really, did you expect anything else? Do you see now, also, why Hunter pled guilty to those tax charges in the LA federal court? I’ll tell you why: because in a trial all the mechanisms of the money transfers through a myriad of bank accounts would have been disclosed. And the money trail leads from the multiple accounts of Hunter’s Rosemont Seneca operation to the personal bank accounts of Biden family members, brother Jim and wife Sara, possibly Hunter’s half-sister Ashley, and, of course, “the Big Guy.” Where are their pardons? And where is “Joe Biden’s” pardon for Joe Biden?

    It is unfortunate that the way forward (to a national government different in scale, scope, and disposition toward its citizens) will require so much consorting with what is past.

    But it must be if consequence is to be restored as a basic element in our constitutional arrangements. You can’t just have people doing stuff outside the law because they feel like it.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 16:20

  • "Cold Weather Fails To Persist" Across Lower 48 Could Stall NatGas Rally
    “Cold Weather Fails To Persist” Across Lower 48 Could Stall NatGas Rally

    Goldman’s Thomas Evans distributed a note to clients this morning highlighting that the latest weather models show the Arctic cold blast, in place last week, is “failing to persist” across portions of the Lower 48, which could potentially cap the recent natural gas price rally. 

    “A feature of winter weather in recent years has been an inability to persist cold patterns for two weeks at a time. This looks to continue with this upcoming cool stretch giving way to broad warmth returning across East and South in the 11-15 day,” Evans wrote in the note. 

    He said, “The models have not broken down the strong West coast to Alaska ridging that had been instrumental in funnelling cold air from Canada into the US – and for the moment just have the cold air retreating back into Western Canada.” 

    “If the ridging can be maintained there’s a chance for another cold pattern for the East at the end of December, however the Polar Vortex is strong, which will make it harder to see serious cold spilling down from the Arctic,” Evans noted. 

    The latest weather models via Bloomberg show Lower 48 average temperatures are expected to rise above a 30-year trend into the mid-point of the month after a deep chill last week across the eastern part of the US. 

    Evans provided color on what’s happening in NatGas markets:

    The market needed to bring some production back ahead of the current cold shot, and priced to do so over the course of last week. With production >4.5 Bcf/d above it’s low in early November, producers have provided some reassurance that they’ll be active in cash.  This reassurance coupled with a breakdown of the colder-than-normal weather pattern is being reflected in vol market softening today. While breakevens still look a little rich, call skew still scans as the more expensive expression in the front.

    Meanwhile, in fixed price, we estimate CTAs flipped from short to long over the course of the past couple weeks – that new length looks vulnerable to any further deterioration in the weather outlook. If the balance of Dec rolls forward with a warmer outlook and Jan sells off below $3, the market will still want to keep some delivery risk (storm) premium in the F/H.  With H/J already back to ~2c, this will put pressure on widening the J/F unless the market wants to take premia out of the C26.  Given the path to balance tightening with LNG growth (and no new rigs going down in Haynesville) into X25H26, this (wider spreads, elevated back end) may be the right path forward, even though J/V is already wide for this point in the season.

    NatGas futures trading in New York has jumped 52% since mid-October due to cold weather trends across the Lower 48. Prices have since hit resistance around $3.50 per million British thermal units. 

    Latest NatGas coverage:

    Keep an eye on 6-10-day and 8-14-day temperature outlooks via NOAA. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 12/02/2024 – 15:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 02

Today’s News 2nd December 2024

  • The Nuclear Energy World Awaits Trump
    The Nuclear Energy World Awaits Trump

    Authored by Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    America’s nuclear energy industry has something special going for it.

    “Nuclear energy is one of the few issues that receives bipartisan support across the country,” Maria Korsnick, the president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, told The Epoch Times in a statement.

    The then former U.S. President Donald Trump and Republican presidential nominee, speaks at a campaign rally at McCamish Pavilion in Atlanta, Ga., on Oct. 28, 2024. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    Democrat-aligned billionaires like Bill Gates have invested heavily in advanced nuclear, as have Republican-aligned billionaires like John Catsimatidis. Meanwhile, sustained, large-scale opposition to nuclear power from the left has mostly dissipated, at least in the United States. Environmentalists increasingly see it as an attractive source of carbon-free baseload power.

    Physicist James Walker, CEO of the microreactor firm Nano Nuclear Energy Inc., pointed out that the ADVANCE Act of 2024, key legislation for the deployment of new reactor technologies, was backed by Republicans and Democrats alike. As part of the Fire Grants and Safety Act, it gained overwhelming support from both parties in the House of Representatives, where it passed 393 to 13, and in the Senate, where it passed 88 to 2.

    A Nov. 12 policy blueprint from the Biden White House outlines a plan to triple the country’s nuclear energy capacity over the next quarter century.

    It certainly appears that the outgoing administration and Democrat-led Senate are pro-nuclear. Yet, with Donald Trump’s reelection, “there also might be additional benefit,” Walker told The Epoch Times.

    He hopes the new administration will spur domestic production of a fuel used by advanced nuclear reactors. Russia and China dominate the supply chain for that fuel, which is called high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

    Earlier this year, the U.S. banned the importation of Russian uranium, with any waivers set to expire by 2028. In October, the Department of Energy awarded six companies contracts for HALEU production.

    “I can’t see, even under the new administration, that relationship being remedied enough that we can go back to sourcing Russian weapons-grade material,” Walker said.

    At a Nov. 21 Heritage Foundation roundtable on nuclear energy, Constellation Energy’s David Brown said that American firms involved in producing low-enriched uranium, also supplied by Russia and other countries, have generally set the end of this decade as their launch date, but progress has been slow.

    Even amid the bipartisan push for advanced reactors, some scientists and activists worry HALEU is far more easily weaponized than low-enriched uranium, which has become more of a concern recently as the possibility of nuclear war lurches back into public discourse.

    “The risk of nuclear war is currently higher than it has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Matthew Bunn, a nuclear and energy policy analyst at the Harvard Kennedy School, told The Epoch Times via email.

    “The acute issue is Iran, which is now closer to the edge of a nuclear weapons capability than ever before.”

    ‘We Need to Revolutionize How We Think’

    Trump’s vision includes a new National Energy Council that, in his words, will cover “all forms of American energy” and blaze a trail to American energy dominance. Its prospective members include his pick for energy secretary, fracking innovator Chris Wright. Wright sits on the board of directors of a fission reactor company, Oklo Inc.

    Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. CEO Chris Wright on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Jan. 12, 2018. Lucas Jackson/Reuters

    The council’s chair, likely Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, would also be part of the National Security Council.

    Trump’s planned Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, will be led in part by businessman Vivek Ramaswamy. During his own presidential run, Ramaswamy called to eradicate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC.

    He described the agency as “the damper on the revival of nuclear energy in the United States of America.”

    Some other insiders have shared similar frustrations with the regulatory status quo.

    “We need to revolutionize how we think, how we regulate,” said Jack Spencer, an energy and environmental policy researcher at the Heritage Foundation, during the Nov. 21 nuclear energy roundtable.

    Doug Bernauer, the CEO of microreactor startup Radiant Nuclear, objected to the pace of reactor licensing in a Nov. 20 post on X.

    “No new nuclear reactor design has been licensed in over 50 years in the US. … Will DOGE fix nuclear?” Bernauer wrote.

    Mixed Reactions From Industry to DOGE

    Some in the nuclear industry have reservations about DOGE.

    John Kutsch, the leader of the Thorium Energy Alliance, hopes the administration makes its cuts carefully.

    “There’s actual useful things the Department of Energy does,” he told The Epoch Times, citing the agency’s role in nuclear weapons management.

    Kutsch believes the closure of the Bureau of Mines during the 1990s was a mistake that ultimately hampered American mining. He said he doesn’t want to see something similar happen again.

    “We don’t have critical materials readily available in this country because we can’t open up a mine to save our lives,” he said.

    Walker also sounded a note of caution about possible cuts.

    “Downsizing something like the NRC might not inherently make it better, because they still will need a lot of people to do a lot of work,” the nuclear industry entrepreneur said.

    Walker was cheerier about the prospect of using artificial intelligence to speed up licensing of new reactor designs, at least if such an approach proves technologically feasible.

    “You could probably reduce the number of people by an order of magnitude,” he said.

    Walker hopes that the administration can develop a better approach to regulating advanced reactors. The current framework, he said, is adapted to the large, light-water reactors currently operating on the U.S. grid.

    Nuclear power plant Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 sites are under construction near Waynesboro, Ga., in February 2017. Georgia Power/Handout via Reuters

    DoE Destruction of Uranium-233 Worries Thorium Advocates

    While Kutsch defended some aspects of the Department of Energy, he’s not happy with its approach to uranium-233, a uranium isotope that can be used in thorium-based nuclear energy production.

    “This is what gets me mad about bureaucracies,” said Kutsch, whose organization in 2023 signed a memorandum of understanding with El Salvador.

    Kirk Sorensen of Flibe Energy, a molten salt reactor company exploring thorium in one of its designs, described uranium-233 as “a marvelous pre-fuel” during the Heritage roundtable with Spencer and Brown.

    The Department of Energy has started eliminating the U-233 stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    “Originally created in the 1950s and 1960s for potential use in reactors, U-233 proved to be an unviable fuel source,” the Department of Energy stated in a June post on its disposition project webpage.

    An aerial view of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus in a file photo. Oak Ridge National Laboratory via The Department of Energy

    Sorensen said the department’s U-233 disposition “should be stopped immediately.”

    Kutsch said much of that stored U-233 could be used in thorium-based molten salt reactors or in nuclear medicine.

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s (R-Ala.) proposed bill, the Thorium Energy Security Act of 2022, aimed to facilitate U-233 storage and mandate reports on China’s thorium-based reactor research. It never moved out of committee.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 23:20

  • Seattle Sees First Net Increase In Police Officers In 4 Years
    Seattle Sees First Net Increase In Police Officers In 4 Years

    Don’t call it a comeback…days after President Trump has been re-elected, Seattle has announced it has seen its first net increase in police officers in four years, according to an exclusive new report from KIRO.

    The Seattle Police Department reported its first net increase in officers in four years, adding five to seven in the last quarter, reversing losses since 2020.

    Council President Sarah Nelson attributed the earlier decline to a 2020 pledge by most council members to halve police funding, which led to officer departures and reduced the force to about 900, well below the 1,400 target.

    Nelson said: “Morale was significantly impacted when officers felt their jobs were at risk. However, this recent net positive is a step in the right direction.”

    KIRO reported that as the city council reviews its budget, the focus is on addressing underspending and ensuring effective allocation of funds. Council President Sarah Nelson stressed the need for transparency and accountability, particularly in public safety and social services.

    The 2025-2026 budget includes key investments: $3.2 million to sustain 300 shelter beds, $3.5 million for 23 new CARE positions, and $14.5 million for health initiatives. Nelson underscored the importance of measurable performance metrics to evaluate the impact of these expenditures.

    She added: “We need to see the big picture by knowing exactly what we’re spending right now. Transparency is absolutely key.”

    Nelson highlighted additional ongoing efforts to address public safety and budget challenges, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in spending. Initiatives include maintaining the Storefront Repair Fund to assist small businesses, boosting police hiring with competitive wages, and investing in addiction treatment to tackle the fentanyl crisis and homelessness.

    Nelson called for improved oversight of departmental budgets and nonprofit grants to ensure funds align with policy goals, alongside performance reviews for programs like affordable housing and emergency response. She remains hopeful these measures will enhance public safety and fiscal efficiency.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 22:45

  • China Would Be Taking A Major Risk If It Deployed PMCs To Myanmar To Protect BRI Projects
    China Would Be Taking A Major Risk If It Deployed PMCs To Myanmar To Protect BRI Projects

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

    The US could do to China in Myanmar what it’s currently doing to Russia in Ukraine…

    The latest phase of Myanmar’s nearly four-year-long conflict, which is part of the world’s longest-running civil war that first began in 1948, has seen the military (locally known as the Tatmadaw) retreat from the minority-majority and resource-rich periphery since October 2023’s Operation 1027. They now only control less than half of the country’s territory. Here are some background briefings over the past year to bring unaware readers up to speed about this worsening conflict and its military-strategic dynamics:

    * 8 February: “Myanmar’s Three-Year-Long Conflict Isn’t As Simple As It Seems At First Glance”

    * 23 February: “America Is Preconditioning The Public For More Meddling In Myanmar”

    * 5 March: “American Meddling Could Disrupt Myanmar’s Fragile Chinese-Mediated Peace Process”

    * 18 March: “Myanmar’s Rebels & Their Foreign Supporters Really Dislike Thailand’s Four-Point Plan”

    * 28 March: “TASS’ Interview With Myanmar’s Leader Had An Interesting Connectivity Tidbit”

    * 5 April: “The West Is Returning To The Rohingya Issue In An Attempt To Divide & Rule This Part Of Asia”

    * 27 May: “Bangladesh Warned About A Western Plot To Carve Out A Christian Proxy State In The Region”

    * 2 June: “There’s A New Coordinated Push For More Western Meddling In Myanmar”

    * 7 August: “Russia Has Limited Means For Helping Myanmar Wage Its War On Terror”

    What’s most important for casual observers to know is that China has ties with the “Three Brotherhood Alliance” (3BA) that’s behind Operation 1027. The People’s Republic relied on some of their members for facilitating trade with the rest of Myanmar in prior years but then pivoted to supporting last year’s offensive so as to punish the Tatmadaw. China was angry about its past fling with the US as well as its alleged refusal to crack down on cross-border cybercrime and human trafficking rings.

    At the same time, the US has also been backing the 3BA and other armed anti-state militias from the get-go since it considers them to be its best chance for carrying out regime change in this geostrategically positioned country at the crossroads of East, South, and Southeast Asia. The US also wants to threaten China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) projects there that are part of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC), which includes pipelines, a port at Kyaukphyu in the Bay of Bengal, and a planned railroad.

    The 3BA’s unexpected military success, which was facilitated by Beijing’s tacit support and refusal to punish them by cutting off their economic lifelines in the People’s Republic, threw China into a dilemma. It can either let events unfold at the risk of losing all influence in Myanmar after the US superceded its own over the 3BA, possibly leading to CMEC’s cancellation or it falling under the US’ proxy control, or it can intervene with private military contractors (PMC) like the latest reports claim that it’s planning:

    * 15 November: “Myanmar Junta Planning Joint Security Firm with China”

    * 20 November: “China’s joint security proposal sparks controversy in Myanmar”

    * 21 November: “Are Chinese private armies entering the fray in Myanmar?”

    * 23 November: “What happens when China puts boots on the ground in Myanmar?”

    * 26 November: “Myanmar: How far will China go to keep junta afloat?”

    None of these reports have been confirmed by China or the Tatmadaw so readers should be cautious, but in the event that there’s any truth to them, they’d represent an unprecedented escalation of the conflict. China’s latest call for peace talks might fall flat just like the ceasefire that it mediated earlier this year so it might feel compelled to unconventionally intervene via PMCs so as to safeguard its investments and influence there out of desperation.

    That fateful move would entail the following risks:

    1. From Mission Creep To Quagmire

    Chinese PMCs might only be authorized to defend BRI projects at first, but this could easily evolve into providing logistical, intelligence, and eventually battlefield support to the Tatmadaw, thus raising the chances of a larger intervention that might even become a formal one with time just like Vietnam did. They might even get trapped in a quagmire due to the ethno-regional complexity of the world’s longest-running conflict as well as the mountainous and jungled geography in which it’s being fought.

    2. China’s PMCs Lack Experience

    There are no credible reports indicating that China’s PMCs have anywhere near the level of experience that American, other Western, and Russian ones do. Their possibly creeping involvement in this potential quagmire might therefore prove disastrous since they’ll either be defending or advancing against militants with literally decades-worth of experience on their home turf. The Chinese state and its people might also have less of a tolerance for high casualties than their aforesaid counterparts do.

    3. Hastening The US’ Return To Asia

    Trump 2.0 is already expected to “Pivot (back) to Asia” upon the inevitable end of the Ukrainian Conflict, whenever that might be and regardless of the terms, but they’ll have an even greater incentive to accelerate this process if China unconventionally intervenes in Myanmar. That development would predictably be spun as “aiding a genocidal military dictatorship” in order to justify this move, which could also lead to increased American involvement in the conflict as their proxy war there intensifies.

    4. Falling Into A Brzezinski-Esque Trap

    The above risk directly leads to the next one of the US having possibly planned this entire time to set a Brzezinski-esque trap for China in Myanmar along the lines of what that late National Security Advisor set for the erstwhile USSR in Afghanistan. The purpose is to draw it ever deeper into this seemingly intractable series of ethno-reginal conflicts in order to bleed it dry, establish the pretext for more sanctions, and rally a growing number of countries across the world against it.

    5. Cross-Border Proxy Attacks

    Just like the US uses Ukraine to launch cross-border artillery attacks and even raids against Russia, including the now-infamous invasion of Kursk that still hasn’t been pushed back one-quarter of a year since it started, so too might the US use the 3BA or other anti-state militias against China. The purpose would be to humiliate the People’s Republic and provoke an overreaction like more mission creep or an outmatched response that’s exploited to rally even more countries against it.

    China is certainly aware of the risks that any unconventional PMC intervention in the Myanmarese Conflict would entail, but the military-strategic dynamics have changed so much over the past year that it might be willing to throw caution to the wind. That would be uncharacteristic of China, however, so it might ultimately not happen. If it does go through with this, then it might become as much of a game-changer as Russia’s special operation has been, for better or for worse depending on how it unfolds.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 22:10

  • The Top 5 States Americans Are Leaving
    The Top 5 States Americans Are Leaving

    Americans are constantly on the move, with many leaving their home states in search of better opportunities, lower living costs, or a change in scenery. Some states see more departures than others, raising the question of what’s driving people to pack up and leave.

    This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the top five states that American residents moved away from in 2023 and their migration outflows, with the top three states where people from those states moved to labeled.

    State-by-state migration flow data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau and is updated as of August 2024. Only residents aged one year and older were included and the data includes Puerto Rico but does not include U.S. island territories.

    Which States Did Americans Move Away From in 2023?

    Below, we show the top five states that Americans moved away from in 2023, with each states’ total number of residents who left, and the number of residents who went to the top three outbound states.

    The average American moves about 11 times throughout their life, according to Steinway Moving and Storage. U.S. Census Bureau data shows that in 2023, 12% of Americans moved to a different residence within the country.

    Some stayed close to home and moved within their home state, while others embarked on cross-country relocations. Out of those who moved to a different residence in 2023, 80% moved within their state and 20% moved to a different state.

    Interestingly, three out of the top five states Americans are moving away from–Florida, Texas, and California–are also seeing the highest number of new residents from other states.

    These states experience high migration turnover due to factors like job opportunities, housing affordability, tax policies, and lifestyle preferences such as weather and urban amenities.

    New Yorkers Have Been Leaving In Droves

    New York has also seen high levels of domestic out-migration since 2012, primarily due to job transfers, family reasons, or wanting to own a new home.

    As one of the most expensive states to live in, it’s no surprise that many people are leaving New York due to affordability concerns and a desire for better quality of life.

    Additionally, the pandemic-driven shift to remote work led to significant workforce losses in major metropolitans like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

    To learn more about American domestic migration check out this graphic which shows the top five states Americans are moving to.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 21:35

  • Study Finds Plant-Based Food Additive Associated With Increased Insulin Resistance
    Study Finds Plant-Based Food Additive Associated With Increased Insulin Resistance

    Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A new study suggests potential health risks associated with carrageenan (derived from red seaweed), a common food additive used as a thickener and found in everything from ice cream to plant-based milk.

    Hanna Lepisto/Shutterstock

    Researchers found that overweight people who ate foods with the additive became more insulin resistant and had more inflammation.

    “In overweight participants, carrageenan exposure resulted in lower whole body and hepatic insulin sensitivity,” the study authors wrote, highlighting the need for further investigation into food additives that consumers might consider harmless.

    Carrageenan Linked to Reduced Insulin Sensitivity, Inflammation

    The research, published in BMC Medicine on Tuesday, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 20 young, healthy male participants who received either 250 milligrams of carrageenan or a placebo twice daily over two weeks.

    Key outcomes of the study included the measurement of insulin sensitivity through various tests, including the oral glucose tolerance test. Although no significant differences in overall insulin sensitivity were observed among all participants, interactions between participants’ body mass index (BMI) and their exposure to carrageenan or the placebo were notable.

    In overweight people, carrageenan led to lower insulin sensitivity, increased brain inflammation, and higher levels of inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin-6).

    Additionally, carrageenan was linked to increased intestinal permeability, suggesting the participants’ digestive systems might allow substances to enter the bloodstream more easily. The study also showed immune cell activation and increased pro-inflammatory proteins released from white blood cells after carrageenan exposure. This supports the theory that the additive may influence insulin sensitivity by fostering inflammation.

    While existing research demonstrates carrageenan’s correlation with heightened metabolic risks, inflammation, and gut disruption, the precise molecular mechanisms driving these adverse effects remain unclear.

    While previous animal studies had suggested that carrageenan could induce glucose intolerance and worsen the adverse effects of high-fat diets, the new study represents one of the first clinical investigations into the additive’s effects on human glycemic response.

    The researchers called for further research into the long-term health impacts of carrageenan and similar food additives, particularly in populations at higher risk for developing Type 2 diabetes.

    Cutting Out Carrageenan

    Carrageenan is fairly common in highly processed foods, dairy products such as chocolate milk and ice cream, and plant milks, Stephanie Schiff, a registered dietician and certified diabetes care and education specialist at Huntingdon Hospital, a part of Northwell Health in New York, told The Epoch Times.

    The additive can be easily avoided if you’re eating a diet based on whole foods that are as close to their natural state as possible, she noted.

    “If a food is made in a factory and has ingredients that are not familiar or are difficult to pronounce, it is likely highly processed and may contain carrageenan,” Schiff said. “If you’re eating a packaged good that is creamy or thick, check the label; it may contain carrageenan.” Although carrageenan is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Schiff noted that it has no nutritional value.

    Schiff also recommended a whole-food, plant-focused diet to circumvent carrageenan and other unhealthy additives. Alternatives such as gellan, locust bean, guar, and xanthan gums can be used in place of carrageenan without the associated health risks. However, she cautioned that buying organic does not guarantee a product is free from carrageenan.

    The amount of carrageenan in a typical Western diet can range from 250 milligrams to 2 to 4 grams per person per day. Carrageenan is the fourth-most commonly consumed food additive in pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease, according to research.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently allows carrageenan in organic food, despite opposition from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a federal advisory board that makes recommendations on organic food and products.

    Carrageenan Isn’t the Only Additive of Concern

    According to Schiff, people should be aware of other additives commonly found in processed foods, including:

    • Sodium Nitrite: Found in processed meats, nitrites have been linked to a higher risk of several types of cancer when heated.
    • High-Fructose Corn Syrup: This sweetener is associated with weight gain, diabetes, and inflammation.
    • Trans Fats: Present in hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils, these fats can increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
    • Monosodium Glutamate (MSG): MSG can cause sweating, flushing, numbness, palpitations, and tingling in sensitive individuals.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 21:00

  • Turkish Intelligence Directing Extremist Offensive In Northwest Syria: AFP
    Turkish Intelligence Directing Extremist Offensive In Northwest Syria: AFP

    Via The Cradle

    Militants from the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) currently invading Aleppo, Syria’s second-largest city, are taking orders from Turkish intelligence, French news agency AFP has reported.

    HTS, formerly known as the Nusra Front, launched a lightning offensive from the group’s stronghold in Idlib Governorate on Wednesday. Its fighters took over numerous villages in the Aleppo countryside before taking control of large parts of Aleppo City on Saturday, including the ancient citadel. AFP writes that “Opposition sources in touch with Turkish intelligence said Turkey had given a green light to the offensive.”

    An AFP correspondent in HTS-held Idlib further reported that “The jihadists and their Turkey-backed allies took orders from a joint operations command.” During the US-backed covert war on Syria that began in 2011, the CIA and allied intelligence agencies established joint operations rooms in southern Turkey and Amman, Jordan, to direct the activities of their extremist proxies fighting the Syrian government.

    Image source: AFP

    Izvestia reported that the current HTS attack on Aleppo was coordinated between Turkish, Ukrainian, and French intelligence, with Israeli support and US approval.

    The Russian newspaper said the assault was originally planned for March but was launched early in response to events in Lebanon. On Wednesday, a ceasefire took effect to halt 66 days of brutal fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli army in Lebanon.

    Just as the ceasefire began, Israel turned its sights on Syria by bombing Lebanese-Syrian border crossings in an effort to prevent weapons transfers from Syria to Hezbollah.

    Syrian army sources said on Saturday that Israel was also backing the extremists attacking Aleppo and areas on the Idlib front. In the past, Israel has kept its support for Al-Qaeda groups in Syria covert so as not to damage their credibility in the eyes of Arabs and Sunni Muslims.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a special security discussion Friday evening with the heads of the defense establishment to discuss the current fighting in Syria.

    According to Yedioth Ahronoth, Israeli officials view the Turkish-backed extremist advance on Aleppo as an opportunity to weaken Syria, which is a key ally of Hezbollah and Iran in the Axis of Resistance.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    An unnamed Israeli official told the Hebrew newspaper that the fighting “is something we need to closely monitor and see how it develops.'”

    “It doesn’t necessarily affect us, especially not in the short term, but any erosion of stability in a neighboring country could also impact us. It seems here that there are also opportunities for change,” the official said.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 19:50

  • Hunter's Lawyer Moves To Dismiss Indictment After Pardon
    Hunter’s Lawyer Moves To Dismiss Indictment After Pardon

    Update (2257ET): And of course, Hunter Biden’s lawyer has moved to dismiss his indictment based on his pardon.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *  *  *

    President Joe Biden is pardoning his son Hunter, despite Biden and the White House repeatedly denying he would do so.

    The pardon comes ahead of Hunter’s Dec. 12 sentencing for his conviction on federal gun charges, as well as an upcoming Dec. 16 sentencing in a separate criminal case in which he pleaded guilty on federal tax evasion charges.

    The pardon, which is “Full and Unconditional,” is expected to cover both the gun conviction and the guilty plea, and covers offenses “which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in” over a nearly 11-year period from Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 1, 2024. Including this, which Donald Trump was impeached for asking about.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In a statement, Biden said Hunter was “treated differently” by his own Justice Department, adding that the charges only came about “after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.”

    “In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me,” Biden continued, adding “Enough is enough.“

    Wow…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In recent months Biden has said he wouldn’t pardon Hunter…

    “I will not pardon him,” Biden said in June. However, according to NBC News, Biden has been discussing a pardon with his closest aides since Hunter’s June conviction, adding that the decision was made at the time for the president to lie and say he wouldn’t pardon him.

    In November, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated that Joe’s position hadn’t changed.

    “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands which is ‘no,’” she said.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And when asked on Monday if Biden is still committed to not pardoning Hunter, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said “The president has spoken to this.”

    Jill Biden also said Hunter wouldn’t receive a pardon.

    “Joe and I both respect the judicial system, and that’s the bottom line,” she told NBC News in June.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And remember…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 19:41

  • "This Is Nuts": NYC Pays Pakistani-Owned Roosevelt Hotel $220 Million To House Illegal Aliens 
    “This Is Nuts”: NYC Pays Pakistani-Owned Roosevelt Hotel $220 Million To House Illegal Aliens 

    Americans should be outraged by New York City’s $220 million sweetheart deal with Pakistan to lease the prestigious Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan as a luxury shelter for illegal aliens. The most alarming issue is that NYC paid a foreign government to help house the migrants.

    X user John LeFevre resurfaced a 2023 news story, first published by The Economic Times, regarding Pakistan’s decision to lease the iconic Roosevelt Hotel to the local government, sympathetic to globalist policies, such as open borders. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    For some context, Pakistan has owned the Roosevelt Hotel since 1979. State-owned Pakistan International Airlines acquired the trophy property through its investment arm, PIA Investments Limited. 

    According to the 2023 report, the lease agreement spans three years, during which NYC stuffed thousands of illegal aliens into the 1,250-room hotel like cattle—funded entirely by taxpayers. This arrangement has sparked outrage about how NYC paid a foreign gov’t to help support the invasion of the third world into a first-world city.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “The hotel is owned by the government of Pakistan, and the deal was part of a $1.1 billion IMF bailout package to help Pakistan avoid defaulting on their international debt,” LeFevre wrote on X. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to the public records website The Org, Najeeb Samie is a director at Roosevelt Hotel Corporation, as well as a director at Habib Bank and board member and managing director at PIA Investments.

    Samie’s connection with Habib Bank is alarming, given that in 2017, the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the Pakistani bank $225 million and surrendered its license to operate in the US over compliance failures in its New York branch, such as weaknesses in monitoring transactions for potential links to terrorism financing and sanctions evasion. 

    Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE’s Vivek Ramaswamy (also led by Elon Musk), is livid over NYC funding a foreign gov’t entity with taxpayer dollars in supporting the migrant invasion. He called the migrant housing scheme totally “nuts”:

    “A taxpayer-funded hotel for illegal migrants is owned by the Pakistani government which means NYC taxpayers are effectively paying a foreign government to house illegals in our own country. This is nuts.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Musk also chimed in, calling it “Crazy.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Here’s what X users had to say: 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    What in the actual!

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 19:15

  • AOC May Launch 2028 Bid In Likely Redux Of Kamala Blunder
    AOC May Launch 2028 Bid In Likely Redux Of Kamala Blunder

    Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

    Leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is rumored to be a candidate in the 2028 presidential election, immediately drawing laughter and mockery from critics on social media. 

    Ocasio-Cortez’s name “always bubbles to the top” when Democrats discuss the party’s future, The Hill noted Friday in a compilation list of potential presidential contenders. 

    One leftist strategist claimed the congresswoman has impressed Democrats by cutting “through the BS and telling it like it is.” This positive characterization sharply contrasted with online comments from users on X. 

    Former Rep. Matt Gaetz reacted to the news by jesting, “Alex has told people she’s running in 2028 since 2019.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This comment appears to reference the suggestion made by some Democrats in 2020 that Ocasio-Cortez would have been a presidential “front-runner” had she not been so young. 

    One user shared Ocasio-Cortez’s infamous crying photo at the southern border, with a Trump-Vance sign photoshopped into the image.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Another user shared an AI-generated image of Ocasio-Cortez as a swamp-like comic villain, with incoming Vice President JD Vance’s face photoshopped onto a Captain America costume in the image. 

    “Think of the memes!” the second user said, predicting that an Ocasio-Cortez candidacy would invite mockery. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Podcast host and author Alec Lace mocked Ocasio-Cortez by recalling how her endorsement of outgoing Rep. Jamaal Bowman failed to save him from losing his Democratic primary. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    A second Democratic strategist told The Hill that Ocasio-Cortez and her leftist “Squad” are deemed too controversial. 

    “She and the ‘squad’ started pushing too hard, too fast,” the Democrat said. “D.C. doesn’t work that way. And our party doesn’t work that way. We need to get back to the basics.” 

    A potential Ocasio-Cortez candidacy could mirror outgoing Vice President Kamala Harris’s first presidential bid in 2020. 

    Harris launched her campaign as a progressive leader but ultimately failed to make it to the primaries.

    Her campaign was plagued by controversy, wasteful spending and ineffective staff. Four years later, Harris would renounce most of her leftist policies in a failed bid to appear moderate. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 18:40

  • Thanksgiving 5-Day US Box Office Sets Record At $420M; AMC CEO Calls Moviegoer Surge A "National Phenomenon" 
    Thanksgiving 5-Day US Box Office Sets Record At $420M; AMC CEO Calls Moviegoer Surge A “National Phenomenon” 

    Paul Dergarabedian, a media analyst for Comscore, revealed on X on Sunday afternoon that US domestic box offices set a record, raking in $420 million over the five-day Thanksgiving holiday period. According to Deadline, Disney’s Moana sequel was the most popular movie, attracting 17.4 million admissions,  Universal’s Wicked with 8.7 million viewers, and Paramount’s Gladiator II drew 3.3 million from Wednesday through Sunday. 

    Dergarabedian said Comscore reports “a monumental Thanksgiving weekend (and week) for movie theatres!”

    He noted that “this weekend’s overall total estimated 3-day Domestic box office is around $272M (5-day at an estimated $420M) & YTD 2024 (now at $7.781B through Sunday) is down now just 6.4% vs. 2023, Note: a week ago Sunday the YTD deficit was at 10.6%!” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    X user Tony Denaro posted that the top ten grossing flicks for the five-day period hit new records.

    “Press reporting that Americans are pouring into movie theatres this holiday weekend for Moana 2, Wicked and Gladiator II,” AMC Entertainment Holdings CEO Adam Aron wrote on X. 

    He noted, “So many appealing movies in theatres. Smaller titles too like Red One, Conclave and Juror #2. Be part of a national phenomenon.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    For nearly a week, we have reported on the surge of moviegoers attending AMC’s theaters nationwide…

    Shares of AMC closed around the $5 handle on Friday. 

    Bloomberg data shows 13.3% of the float is short, or about 49.8 million shares. 

    Going to the theaters is apparently back. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Any AMC rally on this news should be approached with caution, as the company is burdened by $4 billion in long-term debt and hefty interest payments. This may only suggest that CEO Aron might hit equity markets on any significant pop.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 18:05

  • Death Toll From Islamist Assault On Aleppo Nears 500 As Iran Says 'Firmly Supports' Assad
    Death Toll From Islamist Assault On Aleppo Nears 500 As Iran Says ‘Firmly Supports’ Assad

    President Bashar al-Assad has reportedly sent large reinforcements to the southern Aleppo area after Al-Qaeda linked insurgents’ shock offensive which captured the city. Assad said he will defend Syria’s stability and territorial integrity.

    The London-based political opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Sunday that the total death toll from the fighting is over 400 people on both sides. The tally includes the deaths of 214 members of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and allied factions which launched the assault.

    Associated Press: Islamist insurgents captured a Syrian army tank in the town of Maarat al-Numan, southwest from Aleppo, Syria, Saturday.

    And at least 137 pro-government forces and 61 civilians have been killed. The AFP has described that the military campaign launched out of Idlib is being coordinated from an operations room in Turkey.

    AFP wrote on Friday that “Opposition sources in touch with Turkish intelligence said Turkey had given a green light to the offensive.” AFPs correspondent in HTS/AQ-held Idlib additionally reported that “The jihadists and their Turkey-backed allies took orders from a joint operations command.”

    A fresh report in Israeli media has acknowledged that this is all about weakening the ‘Iran axis’:

    But the primary reason for the success of the rebel offensive and the collapse of the regime forces is the effectiveness of Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah and Iran since October 8, 2023.

    HTS had been building up its military capabilities for years in preparation for such an offensive.

    “The group operates a professionally staffed military academy run by defectors from the Syrian military, and it has restructured its armed wing into a conventional armed force structure,” wrote Charles Lister, Syria expert at the Middle East Institute. “In recent years, it has also developed ‘special forces’ units dedicated to covert operations, lightning raids behind enemy lines, and nighttime operations.”

    In prior years, any time an air and artillery campaign against Al-Qaeda held Idlib would ramp up, there would be an outcry from the West, and more condemnation of Damascus and Moscow, urging their militaries to halt efforts to take back Idlib.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to more on the Israeli and Sunni Islamists’ efforts to roll back the pro-Tehran axis:

    “The timing is not coincidental,” Carmit Valensi, head of the Northern Arena Program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, told The Times of Israel.

    “They identify well the critical, even historical, weakness that the ‘Resistance Axis,’ primarily Hezbollah and Iran, find themselves in,” she continued.

    As for Iran, it says that it firmly supports Assad in a new statement. Iran’s top diplomat Abbas Araghchi said Sunday he will soon arrive in Damascus to deliver a strong message of support for Syria’s government and military, Iranian state media has said.

    “I am going to Damascus to convey the message of the Islamic Republic to the Syrian government,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. He pledged that Iran will “firmly support the Syrian government and army,” IRNA news agency said.

    Iran is pointing the finger at Washington and Tel Aviv for this new jihadist offensive:

    Araghchi again called the surprise rebel offensive a plot by the United States and Israel.

    “The Syrian army will once again beat these terrorist groups as in the past,” the foreign minister added.

    In the past couple days of Aleppo fighting, not only has the Islamic Republic’s consulate in the major northern city come under attack, but there have been reports that an Iranian general may have been killed.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The HTS-led coalition is attacking Kurdish groups in the environs of northern Aleppo as well. Currently there are reports the militants are reinforcing their positions near Hama, possibly poised to attack the central city next.

    After years and years of crippling sanctions, the Syrian Army remains in a precarious position in terms of resources and logistics. “Outside the city of Hama, Syrian government military vehicles could be seen all over the roads, apparently abandoned by fleeing government troops after they ran out of fuel,” The New York Times writes Sunday.

    * * *

    As a reminder, amid this renewed conflict the United States still occupied large portions of Syria, and curiously the HTS/AQ militant groups are not attacking these US-occupied areas…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 16:55

  • Cruising Into Year End?
    Cruising Into Year End?

    By Peter Tchir, chief strategist of Academy Securities

    For the record, I am not advocating cruising into year-end. I think there will be potential opportunities to be captured by diligent asset managers and corporations. We will focus on yields and credit spreads today. But let’s start by hoping that you all had a great Thanksgiving! Last weekend’s An Amazing Country (with some questions) hopefully helped you navigate through some holiday meal discussions (or more likely, work discussions), and it remains relevant today, as does 3D Chess or 52-Card Pickup.

    In fact, now that “consensus” has become that everything President-elect Trump does is “just a start” to his bargaining, I’m a little concerned that the market has become a little too complacent. Yes, we were arguing for this view, but it is surprising how quickly it seems to have morphed into a consensus trade.

    Around the World with Academy Securities

    In case you missed our Around The World report on Wednesday, it covers the usual suspects, but with some different twists and turns.

    Sierpinski Triangle

    As there is a lot of chatter about “chaos” (along with our analysis of 3D Chess versus 52-Card Pickup), I’ve been thinking a lot about the Sierpinski Triangle. You start with any type of triangle. Then, you start rolling the dice and moving from your current position in the triangle to one halfway to the corner “selected” by the die. Once you’ve gone a couple of turns to “seed” the solution, you mark the points and repeat ad infinitum. What seems random, creates, with 100% certainty, an elaborate pattern that I cannot believe many people would have guessed to be the output of this exercise (it is often one of the early chapters on anything about chaos theory).

    So, as we watch the machinations coming out of D.C., we are still left wondering whether an elaborate pattern will emerge from the current selection process.

    It does seem that the market went from doubting all the moves out of D.C. (which seemed too pessimistic) to suddenly seeing order (or at least no major stumbling blocks) from D.C. – which might be too optimistic.

    Expect Some Chaos

    Okay, chaos is probably too strong of a word, but I do think that the market should be prepared for some setbacks, as not every negotiation or appointment will go smoothly. It is the nature of President-elect Trump’s style – from his old real estate days to his first term as president – he will push, he will be aggressive, and there will be some confusion.

    Inflation

    Inflation might be the trickiest variable to estimate right now. Over time, we could see the economy turn one way or the other, and we could see the jobs situation change, but inflation, in my view, has  the widest range of possible outcomes in the coming months.

    • Tariffs, as discussed last week, could push inflation higher. That is not our base case (and is not consensus), but there is some risk here.

    • Immigration issues could impact inflation quite dramatically. Again, we covered this last week, and our base case is that Trump will go after some high profile wins and listen to some of his constituents, who don’t want wholesale deportations that would disrupt the labor force. Again, consensus seems to have moved in this direction as well, but our conviction on this base case is medium (at best) and there could be risks that are not being priced in appropriately.

    • The natural ebbs and flows of supply and demand. We were in the camp that believed inflation was under control, but not tamed (call it, settling into a 1.75% to 2.75% range). As businesses are allegedly pulling forward purchases to avoid potential tariffs, as China continues to try to stimulate its economy, and as we see policy to promote “onshoring,” there are some risks of inflation moving back to the high end of our range, which would likely make the Fed (and bond markets) uncomfortable.

    • Commodity prices should help the inflation story if we really are going to see a “Drill Baby Drill” mentality. Or, as discussed in detail last weekend (yes, I’m referring to that fairly often, but it forms the building blocks for much of our current work), we could see a pushback against “Not In My Backyard”, but commodity prices should remain under control (while commodity related companies can do very well with increased production).

    Rates

    Positioning has been and will continue to be a factor.

    I’ve been pointed to the “Commitment of Traders” report: there is a lot of short interest by speculators, especially in the 10-year part of the curve. It apparently has been coming down, but if traders remain short, it will continue to help support bond prices. TLT, a 20+ year ETF, has been seeing outflows even as yields went higher – another potential indicator that positioning remains “underweight” bonds.

    The negative buzz around the deficit and bond yields seems to have dissipated. In a quick note on Friday to our capital markets team and via Bloomberg to the clients I’m in IB chats with, we reduced our bullish outlook on bonds at 4.19% on 10s.
    We actually saw buying right up to the last minute on Friday’s trading, but I think with the “index extension” trade over and back to full days to trade bonds, it will be difficult for the rally to continue Our target was 4.1% to 4.2%, and while we are at the high end of our range, the rally has been almost too ferocious of late to be truly believable. The fears around tariffs, immigration, and the deficit (which were overdone), have now been replaced with a degree of complacency that doesn’t seem deserved.

    China TIC data showed China holding $772 billion of Treasuries at the end of September. That number has been between $780 billion and $767 billion (a very narrow range) since February. There is no obvious reason for China to grow their holdings, and if anything, as they continue their efforts to stimulate their economy and gird for potential tough negotiations with Trump, we could see them lowering the amount held in the coming months. Not a big problem for markets, but not helpful as we have a lot of bonds to auction in the coming months.

    The Fed:

    • 1 cut in the next two meetings, probably this one.

    • A terminal rate of 3.875% next year, a bit above the 3.45% priced in for December 2025 (according to the Bloomberg WIRP function).

    Bond Yields:

    • Expect the 10-year to inch a touch higher, pushing back towards 4.3%, with a lot of difficulty getting back to 4%.

    Should be a good “range trading” environment, with a much greater risk of 50 bps higher than 50 bps lower from here, for the long end.

    Credit

    It has been almost six months since we devoted serious attention to the credit markets.

    Back in June, we published How Tight Can Credit Spreads Go?, and were unequivocally and unapologetically bullish on credit. We listed trends like private credit, banks competing for lending (to grow their net interest margin), and how much the high yield bond market has changed as reasons why fretting over old charts makes little sense. We dragged out our old standbys – Maslow’s Hierarchy of a Credit Bubble, The 5 Circles of Bond Investor Hell, and a picture of one of the remaining IG 200 hats! If you lived through the GFC and traded CDX indices, you likely remember the hats.

    While CDX didn’t get to 20 bps, it has traded very well, as has any measure of corporate bond spreads.

    While I remain very comfortable with credit, it is more difficult to sit here near the lows and continue to add to credit. It might not take much to “upset” the apple cart here, at least a little. While the arguments for liking credit so much (at what already seemed like tight levels back in June) largely remain in place, they are all a bit worn here. Just like that favorite shirt that is still up there on your list, but you can tell that it is getting dated.

    If you go back two years, we are still at, or near, the lowest average yield for the corporate bond index (it varies with time, depending on the type of issuance, maturity, rating, etc.). We’ve seen a brief reprieve on the rates side, but even though I’m bullish credit (kind of) and bullish rates (but not really at this moment), the Bloomberg League Tables show $1.58 trillion issued this year and $1.2 trillion issued last year.

    The number of scenarios that are likely to play out, ending with higher average yields on this index, are more numerous and plausible than those scenarios that drive this average yield lower.

    • Much lower Treasury yields. I don’t see how we get to much lower Treasury yields from here, without some sort of a problem facing the economy. Something that we’re trying to do could backfire, but I find it difficult to believe that credit spreads will remain tight if we see Treasuries rally significantly from here. Sure, we can get back to 4%, but the scenario for a “benign” move back to 3.7% doesn’t seem plausible to me. I’m recalling a longtime client once telling me that the best interest rate hedge, if you own high-yield bonds, is to own Treasuries. It sounds backwards, but works surprising well in times of stress – which is what would have to be occurring to push yields lower now.

    • Much higher Treasury yields. This risk seems much greater than getting much lower yields (especially as the opposite view becomes consensus). It is extremely difficult for spreads to keep up with bond yields. It just becomes difficult for spreads to move even 10 bps tighter from these levels, if bond yields move 25 bps higher. So yes, higher Treasury yields will likely be accompanied by tighter spreads, but all-in yields will be higher.

    Sure, Goldilocks could make an appearance and let overall yields go lower, but Goldilocks tends to be a better acquaintance of equity traders than fixed income traders!

    Bottom Line

    If you are a fixed income asset manager, you can switch to moderately underweight duration here. If you are a corporate bond manager, I think it’s time to get back down to a normal, rather than overweight, position. Maybe even inch towards underweight/short. While it is anathema for hedge funds to think about running IG credit without rate hedges, I think betting on overall yields going higher is the right move, as scenarios with significantly lower overall yields seem unlikely.

    If you are an issuer, do the opposite and look for opportunities to sell debt at reasonable yields. While some people will be on vacation, coupon payments, maturing debt, and the pressure to match indices do not take time off in December. There will be cash coming into the market, and in this day and age, even desks that are half-staffed can process a LOT of bonds! I’d rather take advantage of what I think will turn out to be a decent overall yield, relative to what we might see in January.

    If you are an equity investor, nothing has really changed – be nimble, trade the ranges, and be overweight sectors that are catching up. Seasonality should still be helpful, but since people have been talking about (and presumably positioning for) seasonality since September, I’m a bit skeptical it will be overwhelmingly strong, at least at the start of the month.

    Be long on risks that benefit from a push to extract and refine commodities, if not domestically, much closer to home (and further away from China). Be wary of big tech at these valuations and watch carefully for China’s attempts to push their brands globally, especially into emerging markets – that is a risk that still seems largely dismissed, even as it is occurring.

    Everything that comes across my stream in terms of CRE scares me, which the contrarian in me finds even more tempting. The exact opposite is occurring with crypto, but watch out for a rug pull there. Hopefully you all had a great Thanksgiving weekend and a fun holiday season, but I suspect that the market will create multiple opportunities to adjust portfolios as D.C. will remain front and center.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 16:20

  • "It's Illegal": Canadian Media Sues OpenAI For 'Scraping Large Swaths Of Content' To Train Chatbot
    “It’s Illegal”: Canadian Media Sues OpenAI For ‘Scraping Large Swaths Of Content’ To Train Chatbot

    Five Canadian media companies are suing OpenAI, alleging that the ChatGPT creator has breached copyright and online terms of use in order to train the popular chatbot.

    The joint lawsuit, filed on Friday in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, follows similar suits brought against OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023 by the New York Times, which claimed copyright infringement of news content related to AI systems.

    The Canadian outlets – which include the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), are seeking what could amount to billions of dollars in damages, as they have demanded 20,000 Canadian dollars (US$14,700) for each article they claim was illegally scraped and used to train ChatGPT.

    “OpenAI is capitalizing and profiting from the use of this content, without getting permission or compensating content owners,” the group said in a Friday statement, adding that they’re responsible for the “bulk of Canada’s journalistic content.”

    The plaintiffs are also seeking a share of OpenAI’s profits, as well as a halt to the use of future content.

    “OpenAI regularly breaches copyright and online terms of use by scraping large swaths of content from Canadian media to help develop its products, such as ChatGPT,” the group said in a statement.

    “OpenAI’s public statements that it is somehow fair or in the public interest for them to use other companies’ intellectual property for their own commercial gain is wrong,” they added. “Journalism is in the public interest. OpenAI using other companies’ journalism for their own commercial gain is not. It’s illegal.”

    The lawsuit claims that OpenAI circumvented specific technological and legal tools – such as the Robot Exclusion Protocol, copyright disclaimers and paywalls, which exist in part to prevent scraping or other types of unauthorized use of their published content.

    In the NYT vs. OpenAI and Microsoft case, which is currently in discovery, the Times claims the company similarly broke laws to train ChatGPT, as well as provide search results.

    The Canadian case has a narrower focus – scraping data for training – not search results, and does not name Microsoft.

    “We believe we have a strong case related to the training of the models. The training of the models is the core of the problem,” said Sana Halwani, a partner at the Canadian law firm Lenczner Slaght, which represents the media organizations in the lawsuit, in a statement to the NYT.

    The Canadian publishers could find some of their claims easier to prove than others, with copyright infringement being the toughest, according to Lisa Macklem, a lecturer King’s University College at Western University in Ontario, who is an expert in copyright and media law. -NYT

    “While it seems obvious that OpenAI is infringing copyright, it is technically very difficult to prove, and this underscores the immediate and pressing need to have regulations put in place, demanding, at the very least, transparency on what is in the training data of generative AI,” said Macklem.

    OpenAI’s problems don’t end there. Over the summer, Elon Musk – who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 but left in 2018 under bad circumstances, sued OpenAI, claiming that two of its founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, breached the company’s founding contract by putting commercial interests ahead of the public good.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 15:45

  • America's First 24-Hour Stock Exchange Gets Operational Approval
    America’s First 24-Hour Stock Exchange Gets Operational Approval

    Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    U.S. regulators have approved a nonstop stock exchange to begin operations in the country, which is expected to boost overnight liquidity available to traders.

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington on Sept. 18, 2008. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    “24 Exchange announced today that it has received approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to operate 24X National Exchange as the first national securities exchange in the U.S. that allows trading of U.S. securities 23 hours each workday,” the company said in a Nov. 27 statement.

    The exchange will be launched in two steps. In the first stage, it will operate between 4 a.m. ET and 7 p.m. ET on weekdays beginning in the second half of next year.

    In the second stage, trading will be offered between 8 p.m. ET on Sunday through 7 p.m. ET on Friday. Every trading day will have a one-hour operational pause aimed at allowing the company to conduct tests and upgrades.

    Dmitri Galinov, the founder and CEO of 24 Exchange, called the SEC approval a “thrilling development.”

    “With this historic SEC approval in place, we will build and operate a customer-driven Exchange that can rapidly align with market demands and adapt quickly to client feedback,” he said.

    Galinov pointed out that traders are often at risk when markets remain closed at their geographical location. Traders are not able to quit positions when major and sudden events unfold.

    The 24X National Exchange seeks to solve this issue by offering around-the-clock trading, he noted. Initially, the exchange will seek to boost overnight liquidity for American equities by tapping into trading volumes from the Asia Pacific region.

    Some procedures are pending, including making additional filings with the SEC, before the 24-hour trading is activated, the company said.

    Benjamin Schiffrin, the director of securities policy at market advocacy group Better Markets, criticized the SEC approval of 24X National Exchange, warning that this harms investors and damages markets.

    Allowing overnight trading subjects retail investors to new risks, he said. “Retail investors trading during an overnight session will be trading in a market where there are few buyers and sellers, and where prices will be more volatile and less favorable than during normal hours.”

    “This means that, during overnight sessions, retail investors will only get the best prices in a bad market, thereby losing money if they had traded during normal business hours,” he said.

    Risky Behaviors

    Schiffrin noted that people tend to engage in “riskier behaviors” during nighttime.

    Trading platforms may send notifications and prompts at night when traders are “particularly susceptible” to inducements and allow people to easily trade with just a simple push of a button.

    He provided an example of legalized sports betting that entices people to bet with ease, thus leading to a “gambling addiction crisis.” The financial industry could use similar tactics to hook investors into trading that can have “potentially serious consequences,” Schiffrin said.

    In comments submitted to the SEC, two researchers from the University of Washington and Stanford University suggested that increasing trading hours could reduce net gains made by retail investors.

    They said that during pre-market and post-market sessions, liquidity tends to be low, volatility high, and prices “arguably less informationally efficient.”

    “Our research indicates that retail investors systematically underperform during these types of conditions,” they said.

    “While attracting more volume to these sessions is presumably the intention of 24X Exchange, the majority of trading activity will likely remain in the daily market session, meaning these issues will remain salient for out-of-hours retail traders.”

    24X National Exchange’s approval comes as the NYSE revealed in October that it plans on extending weekday trading time at its Arca equities exchange to 22 hours per day.

    With this update, trading during weekdays will operate between 1:30 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. ET. The fully electronic exchange will offer all stocks, ETFs, and closed-end funds listed in the United States for trading.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 15:10

  • Northern Druzhba Pipeline Springs Possible 'Leak', While Terror Threats Plague Southern Stretch
    Northern Druzhba Pipeline Springs Possible ‘Leak’, While Terror Threats Plague Southern Stretch

    The Druzhba Pipeline, also known as the “Friendship Pipeline,” is one of the world’s largest and most critical oil pipeline systems. It transports crude oil from Russia to several European nations, including Germany, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.

    A report of a potential leak along the northern stretch (in Poland) of the pipeline emerged from Bloomberg on Sunday morning. At the same time, in a separate report, concerns are mounting over terrorist attempts to sabotage the southern part of the pipeline.

    Bloomberg provides additional details on the unfolding incident:

    Emergency workers secured the area around the pipeline near Pniewy, western Poland, after receiving information about a possible leak at around 7:30 a.m. on Sunday, Martin Halasz, a spokesman for the firefighters, said by phone. He was confirming an earlier report by the PAP newswire.

    Representatives of pipeline operator PERN SA are on site and closed crude flows from east to west, according to Halasz. The pipeline supplies the Leuna and Schwedt refineries in Germany, which buy oil via the Polish Baltic Sea port of Gdansk. Schwedt also buys from Kazakhstan.

    Russian crude on the northern stretch of the pipeline supplies Leuna and Schwedt refineries in Germany, and the southern stretch supplies Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic refineries. 

    Separate from Bloomberg’s reporting, Russian media agency Tass News cited Slovakian interior minister Matus Sutaj Estok, who warned that an organized group in the area could be preparing for possible terrorist acts in the area where the Druzhba oil pipeline runs. 

    “The activity that can be associated with the possible preparation of a terrorist act against the critical infrastructure [of the republic] was registered in the east of Slovakia,” Estok said, adding, activity of the group was observed in Slovakia and Hungary. 

    Several weeks ago, S&P Global Commodity Insight analysts noted, “Although most European refiners supplied by the 1 million b/d Druzhba network have already stopped buying Russian crude in response to the Ukraine war, the southern branch had still been pumping around 300,000 b/d of Urals crude to three plants.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 14:35

  • Doc Drops COVID Truth Bombs: "Everything Was A Lie From The Beginning…"
    Doc Drops COVID Truth Bombs: “Everything Was A Lie From The Beginning…”

    Via The Burning Platform,

    Dr. Richard Urso shares some truth bombs about COVID-19, vaccines, lockdowns, masks…

    “Everything was a lie from the beginning. The asymptomatic people don’t transmit. Kids were not harbingers of the disease. They don’t actually, they’re like a break on the disease. Lockdowns were a farce. Masks don’t work.”

    “I tell people, I joke sometimes I say masks do work. A lot like bathing suits work to keep pee out of the pool. They’re not very effective. So that’s one of those things that, you know, it was a farce. Pretty much everything they said was a farce. I know we’re still recovering from it. Just yesterday we walked into a pharmacy and they were advertising COVID-19 vaccines.”

    “Well if you want to destroy your immune system, take a COVID-19 vaccine. It will destroy your immune system. It distributes widely in your body. It can’t be broken down because it’s a genetically modified RNA. There are contaminants, process related impurities, what I usually call them, but contaminants for most people, that they haven’t gotten out of the vaccines.”

    “The drug that I invented took eight years for us to get the process related impurities out. It’s hard to do and I knew this would be a problem early on when they were trying to push this so fast because nobody had ever made these vaccines in anything bigger than a blender. What we had is found is even worse.”

    “They put an SV40 promoter in the vaccine, Pfizer did, that actually well known for the last five decades to bind P53 to Guardian the genome and cause cancers. They know that. We just kept them in the head of the Human Genome Project did this discovery with a few other molecular biologists.”

    “This is really big news because the contaminants and the impurities in the vaccine are very dangerous and there’s design flaws like I just pointed out. Wide distribution to the brain, the bone marrow, the ovaries, the testes and long term production six months or more in the last study that we did. So there’s a lot to talk about. Do not get the vaccines unless you just want a crummy immune system. ”

    “I think the main thing is these vaccines are dangerous. They have process related impurities. They cause cancer, strokes, heart attacks. The data is in 40% more deaths in 2021 between 18 to 64. This is just data we can’t ignore, so please stay away from the vaccines.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 14:00

  • Trudeau Bends The Knee To Trump At Mar-a-Lago After Tariff Pledge
    Trudeau Bends The Knee To Trump At Mar-a-Lago After Tariff Pledge

    Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Was pictured meeting with president-elect Trump and his team at Mar-a-Lago over Thanksgiving, as it emerged that he has made an agreement to crack down on drug trafficking.

    The meeting came following Trump’s announcement of a 25% tariff on all products coming from Mexico and Canada until they agree to secure their borders.

    In a Truth Social post earlier this week, Trump wrote “On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States, and its ridiculous Open Borders.”

    “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump added.

    He continued, “Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!”

    Fast forward four days and Trudeau was seen sitting with Trump, Elon Musk, and the rest of his team.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In a further post after the meeting, Trump explained, “I just had a very productive meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, where we discussed many important topics that will require both Countries to work together to address, like the Fentanyl and Drug Crisis that has decimated so many lives as a result of Illegal Immigration, Fair Trade Deals that do not jeopardize American Workers, and the massive Trade Deficit the U.S. has with Canada.”

    “I made it very clear that the United States will no longer sit idly by as our Citizens become victims to the scourge of this Drug Epidemic, caused mainly by the Drug Cartels, and Fentanyl pouring in from China. Too much death and hardship!” Trump continued.

    “Prime Minister Trudeau has made a commitment to work with us to end this terrible devastation of U.S. Families,” Trump further added, noting “We also spoke about many other important topics like Energy, Trade, and the Arctic. All are vital issues that I will be addressing on my first days back in Office, and before.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *  *  *

    Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 13:25

  • Searches For 'Cords Of Wood' Hit Record As Cold Blast Chills Lower 48
    Searches For ‘Cords Of Wood’ Hit Record As Cold Blast Chills Lower 48

    While residents in parts of the Great Lakes region dig out after feet of snow, much of the eastern US faces bitter Arctic air over the next few days. This cold snap has reminded cash-strapped households of the importance of stockpiling cords of wood as Old Man Winter comes knocking.

    Brr… 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It’s that time of year in the Northern Hemisphere when winter roars across the Lower 48, and search trends on Google for “cords of wood near me” or “how much does a cord of wood cost” surge.

    Google search trends data shows that interest in burning firewood has hit a record high this year—perhaps because low- and middle-income households are in dire financial straits. Many have depleted their personal savings and racked up insurmountable credit card debt just to survive the inflation storm triggered by failed Bidenomics.

    Search trends for “cost of a cord of wood” just hit a new record high. 

    Households are increasingly worried about power bill inflation, as this is the time of year when heating bills soar.

    Take a look at the CPI for electricity—this is the first time in a generation that electricity prices have seen a three-year rate of change greater than any period since the inflation storm of the 1970s and early 1980s, even outpacing the commodity price surge leading up to 2008.

    It’s no wonder households are loading up on cords of wood this year—power prices have gone bonkers. Goldman unveiled this alarming trend in a report for Mid-Atlantic households several months ago… 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to Angie’s List, the average price for a cord of wood topped $300 this fall. The cost of the cord ranges from $150 to $500, depending on many factors, including type of wood and geographical location.

    Angie’s List expert René Bennett breaks down the costs of hardwood versus softwood.

    Most importantly, Bennett provides a state-by-state analysis of the average cost of a cord of wood.

    For some folks, why pay for firewood when they own property?

    All they need to do is fire up their Polaris Ranger or any other UTV with a bed, grab a Stihl 2-stroke chainsaw, and scour their land for fallen or standing dead trees.

    Or the easier way…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Become ungovernable—live off the land.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 12:50

  • Key Dates In Lead Up To Trump's Inauguration
    Key Dates In Lead Up To Trump’s Inauguration

    Authored by Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

    After a rocky election season marked by two assassination attempts, President Joe Biden leaving the race just ahead of their convention, and a decisive victory by the Republican candidate, the swearing-in date for the new president is on the horizon.

    Here are a few key dates before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.

    Dec. 11: States Certify Election Results

    Six days before the state electors officially cast their votes reflecting the election results from Nov. 5, according to federal law, “the executive of each State shall issue a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors.”

    In this case, the “executive” is the state governor, and the certificate names the residents appointed as the electors for each state. Although the process changes from state to state, electors are usually nominated and chosen by each political party at their convention.

    Dec. 17: Electoral Colleges Vote

    On Dec. 17, the electors will meet at a designated location, usually the state capitol, to cast their votes for the president. Normally, their votes reflect the decision of that state’s residents, but occasionally, the electors go rogue and pick a different candidate.

    This happened in 2016 when three electors from Washington voted, in protest, for Gen. Colin Powell instead of for Hillary Clinton.

    Dec. 20: Government Funding Expires

    The funding of the government tends to be a sticky process as both sides of the aisle seek cash for their issue areas in 2025. The process often results in numerous “band-aid” spending bills, with Congress passing a final omnibus bill at the last minute.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wants to avoid this by passing one more temporary funding package—known as a continuing resolution—that will carry on into 2025 and give the new Congress and Trump a free hand to shape the government.

    The Farm Bill, which funds the SNAP food stamp program, will be at the top of the list—this year’s bill is expected to be around $1.5 trillion.

    Biden has also asked Congress to provide another $100 million in disaster relief funding, with $40 million slated to go to FEMA to shore up relief efforts after hurricanes Helene and Milton.

    Jan. 3: New Session of  Congress Begins

    The 119th session of Congress kicks off on Jan. 3, and Republicans have maintained control of the House of Representatives.

    This year’s election also saw the GOP retake control of the Senate, which means that the chamber of Congress will have a new majority leader. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will step down as the leader of Senate Republicans, and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) will take his place.

    Although Thune and Trump have been at odds in the past, they expressed a willingness to cooperate following the South Dakota senator’s elevation to majority leader on Nov. 13.

    “We are ready to get to work with unified Republican leadership to implement President Trump’s agenda,” Thune said on X on Nov. 14.

    Jan. 6: Congress Certifies the Election

    In a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, members of the House and Senate will certify their state’s electoral votes. The final certification will come from the president of the Senate—Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump on Nov. 5.

    Jan. 20: President, Vice President Inaugurated

    On Jan. 20 the inauguration will occur with Vice-President-elect J.D. Vance being sworn in first at noon.

    Trump will then take the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    A military procession and a parade down Pennsylvania Ave will follow the inauguration.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 12/01/2024 – 12:15

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 01

Today’s News 1st December 2024

  • The Five Reasons Why Syria Was Caught By Surprise
    The Five Reasons Why Syria Was Caught By Surprise

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

    The disaster in Aleppo was avoidable and is just as bad as it looks…

    The Turkish-backed terrorists’/“rebels’” advance on Aleppo, which was analyzed here, came as a shock to most observers.

    There was almost half a decade of peace between the March 2020 ceasefire and now, yet practically nothing was done to prepare for this possibility.

    This was in spite of the front line remaining roughly two dozen kilometers away from Aleppo, which should have reminded Assad of how vulnerable his country’s second city is.

    Here are the five reasons why Syria was caught by surprise:

    1. Complacency & Corruption

    The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) rested on its laurels because it took the Russian-brokered ceasefire for granted, after which the country’s infamous corruption kicked in to degrade its capabilities. There’s no excuse for why even basic drones weren’t used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to detect the buildup that preceded this advance. A large part of why the SAA didn’t do anything is likely because it assumed that its Russian and Iranian allies would shoulder these responsibilities for them.

    2. The Russian-Iranian Rivalry

    Russia and Iran fought together against terrorism in Syria, but they’re also rivals who are competing with each other for premier influence over Damascus. So intense is their competition that Russia always does nothing other than occasionally complain whenever Israel bombs the IRGC there, never once giving Syria the means to intercept these attacks or retaliate afterwards. Had they not been rivals, then Russia and Iran could have jointly strengthened the SAA, carried out ISR in Idlib, and bolstered Aleppo’s defenses.

    3. Distracted & Crippled Allies

    To make matters even worse for Syria, the terrorists’/“rebels’” advance on Aleppo came precisely at the moment when Russia is distracted with the special military operation (SMO) and Iran has been crippled by its West Asian Wars with Israel. Without sufficient Russian airpower and Iranian manpower, including that which the latter could have called upon from Hezbollah, it’ll be extremely difficult for the SAA to push the attackers away from Aleppo. This factor, more than any other, might have even sealed its fate.

    4. Ignoring The SMO’s Lessons

    Even amidst the Russian-Iranian rivalry and its allies’ aforesaid problems, the SAA could have learned the SMO’s lessons on its own and correspondingly prepared much better for what ultimately came to pass. Masterful drone tactics and strategically dispersed units have characterized the attack thus far, both of which are hallmarks of the SMO, yet the SAA was totally unprepared for this. It must therefore take final responsibility for failing to do its duty in learning from that conflict and adapting its defenses accordingly.

    5. Not Compromising For Peace

    The last reason why Syria was caught by surprise is because it didn’t compromise for peace by accepting 2017’s Russian-written “draft constitution”, which was constructively critiqued in detail here. It’s chock-full of concessions so one can sympathize with Syria for rejecting it, but in hindsight, this could have finally resolved the conflict and thus averted the ongoing fiasco in Aleppo. For this reason, it could be revived during these desperate times, but the “opposition” might now demand even more concessions.

    The disaster in Aleppo was avoidable and is just as bad as it looks.

    It’s not part of a “5D chess master plan” to “trap the terrorists in a cauldron” like some members of the Alt-Media Community have implied or claimed.

    Observers should reject the “insight” shared by those who already discredited themselves with their fantastical takes on the SMO and the West Asian Wars.

    The “politically inconvenient” truth is that Syria was caught by surprise, the SAA is on the backfoot, and the worst might be yet to come.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 23:20

  • 'God Of Darkness' Asteroid Will Pass Extremely Close To Earth In 2029
    ‘God Of Darkness’ Asteroid Will Pass Extremely Close To Earth In 2029

    Authored by Leslie Eastman via LegalInsurrection.com,

    Asteroid Apophis, named after the Egyptian god of chaos and destruction, is a near-Earth asteroid that has garnered significant attention due to its close approach to our home planet.

    Discovered in 2004, Apophis is classified as a potentially hazardous object. Due to swing close enough to the planet in 2029, the gravitational influence will be enough to cause tremors.

    A recent study led by Ronald-Louis Ballouz from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory suggests that the asteroid 99942 Apophis may experience tremors—similar to earthquakes—due to Earth’s gravitational pull during its close flyby on April 13, 2029, with simulations indicating significant surface changes.

    Apophis, approximately 340 meters in size, will pass within about 32,000 kilometers of Earth, closer than many satellites in orbit.

    When Apophis was discovered on June 19, 2004, by Roy Tucker, David Tholen, and Fabrizio Bernardi during the University of Hawaii Asteroid Survey (UHAS), initial calculations indicated that it could approach Earth with a risk of collision, especially during its pass in 2029. It didn’t help that it is named after the Egyptian god of darkness and chaos.

    The original estimates for collision were as high as 2.7%, and Apophis achieved the highest rating ever on the ‘Torino scale’ – a method used to evaluate the threat that an asteroid poses to Earth.

    However, new calculations and observations have led scientists to conclude that there will be no impact….for at least 100 years.

    ….Using the data available at the time, astronomers believed that there was a chance that the flyby could alter the trajectory of Apophis in a way that would line it up for a collision with Earth in 2068.

    However, radar observations of Apophis made by NASA’s Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California and the Green Bank Observatory, West Virginia, in March 2021 greatly improved our knowledge of the asteroid’s current orbit and allowed astronomers to finally rule out any chance of Earth impact for at least 100 years.

    And while it won’t strike Earth, Apophis will be bright enough in the skies to be visible to the unaided eye. So, the viewing parties could be fun!

    As I mentioned, the viewing parties of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are currently making their own plans for up-close-and-personal observations.

    The OSIRIS-APEX mission is slated to visit the asteroid. It continues the OSIRIS-REx mission, which successfully collected and returned samples from asteroid Bennu (which I reported on in a 2023 post).

    OSIRIS-APEX is a mission to study the physical changes to asteroid Apophis that will result from its rare close encounter with Earth in April 2029. That year, Apophis’ orbit will bring it within 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers) of Earth’s surface — closer to Earth than our highest-altitude satellites. Our planet’s gravitational pull is expected to alter the asteroid’s orbit, change how fast it spins on its axis, and possibly cause quakes or landslides that will alter its surface.

    OSIRIS-APEX will allow scientists on Earth to observe these changes. Additionally, the OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft will dip toward the surface of Apophis ­– a “stony” asteroid made of silicate (or rocky) material and a mixture of metallic nickel and iron ­ – and fire its engines to kick up loose rocks and dust. This maneuver will give scientists a peek at the composition of material just below the asteroid’s surface.

    Other satellite projects, including those related to planetary defense, are also being planned.

    Under the auspicious “NEAlight” project, a team from Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg (JMU) and led by space engineer Hakan Kayal has revealed three concepts for such spacecraft. Each of the suggested satellites will aim to exploit this asteroid passage because Earth experiences just once such event every millennium.

    The goal? To collect data that could help scientists better understand the solar system, and perhaps even aid in the development of defense measures against dangerous asteroids.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 22:45

  • How America's East- And West-Coast Economies Compare
    How America’s East- And West-Coast Economies Compare

    America’s East and West Coasts together contribute about half of the country’s $27 trillion GDP. For context, these two regions are home to 17 states and 160 million people.

    But how do they stack up against each other?

    In this map, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao takes a look at which states constitute both coasts and also measure their combined economic productivity.

    Data is sourced from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau, as of 2023.

    So, Which Coast is the Best Coast?

    The Eastern Seaboard, where a third of Americans live, has a combined GDP of $9 trillion, also about a third of the U.S. economy.

    Note: All figures rounded.

    On the other hand, the West (figures listed below) comes in at about $5 trillion. And despite the smaller overall number, it’s punching above its weight, with less than half the population. This is better seen in how the GDP per capita shakes out for both: $98,000 for the West versus $84,000 for the East.

    California leads the way for its coast, with its economy nearing $4 trillion, just by itself.

    Note: All figures rounded.

    Of course, the East has the pedigree, the history, and the people. It’s where the original 13 states declared independence in 1776 after all. On the other hand, California joined the union in 1850, followed by Oregon (1859) and Washington (1889).

    But even before Silicon Valley changed California (and the West, and perhaps the world?), the Golden State has been central to America’s economic growth.

    California King

    The gold rush set off the largest inter-state migration in U.S. history and fueled wild dreams. After it ended, agriculture became California’s largest sector, followed by oil at the start of the 20th century. In fact, as recently as 2012, California was the third-largest oil producing state.

    All of that has now been eclipsed now by California’s booming tech sector, home to four trillion-dollar companies—Alphabet, Apple, Meta, and Nvidia. Further noth, Washington has another two: Amazon and Microsoft.

    In stark contrast, the East Coast has none, though it is home to several finance giants: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.

    Looking for more comparison graphics? Take a look at How State Economies Compare to Entire Countries where five U.S. states could replace countries in the top 20 by GDP.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 21:35

  • Turkey-Backed Jihadists Eye Hama Next After Capturing Central Aleppo, International Airport
    Turkey-Backed Jihadists Eye Hama Next After Capturing Central Aleppo, International Airport

    Update(1425ET): After capturing the central and northwestern parts of Aleppo, Syria’s largest northern city, armed jihadist insurgents led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) are reportedly seeking to take the west-central city of Hama next.

    Regional media has cited HTS sources to say they’ve “begun marching towards Hama, successfully capturing six towns and villages in the countryside, including Morek, which lies along an important highway connecting central Syria to the north.” The Syrian government has denied that many of these towns or villages were captured, amid conflicting social media reports.

    Importantly, the jihadists also now claim control of Aleppo city’s international airport, which has long been a key regional hub. Russian and Syrian airstrikes have continued to pound the central occupied parts of Aleppo. These mark the first such major aerial bombardments of the city since the anti-Assad insurgents were driven out in 2016.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Amid rapid and stunning gains on Saturday, HTS and other allied al-Qaeda splinter groups have also captured the strategic city of Khan Sheikhoun in southern Idlib region. Dozens of civilians, Syrian Army soldiers, as well as HTS militants have died Friday into Saturday, especially as airstrikes ramp up against the black-clad and well-armed invaders.

    The Syrian Army has acknowledged a temporary retreat from Aleppo in order to regroup, also as Moscow is demanding that President Assad quickly restore order:

    The military said on Saturday that dozens of its soldiers had been killed or wounded in fierce battles with “armed terrorist organisations” in the governorates of Aleppo and Idlib over the previous few days and that it was now regrouping, redeploying troops to strengthen its defence lines as it prepared a “counterattack”.

    It said that rebel groups had launched “a broad attack from multiple axes on the Aleppo and Idlib fronts”, reporting clashes “over a strip exceeding 100km [60 miles]”.

    The army said the rebels had entered large parts of Aleppo but army bombardment had stopped them from establishing fixed positions. It promised to “expel them and restore the control of the state … over the entire city and its countryside”.

    Al Jazeera correspondent Resul Serdar has remarked, “That this happened in just four days is unbelievable.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    One of the more interesting revelations and admissions from mainstream media has been that this new assault is being directed from NATO member Turkey. The AFP has bluntly said Turkish intelligence gave the greenlight for the attack on Aleppo.

    AFP writes that “Opposition sources in touch with Turkish intelligence said Turkey had given a green light to the offensive.” AFPs correspondent in HTS/AQ-held Idlib additionally reported that “The jihadists and their Turkey-backed allies took orders from a joint operations command.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And this is precisely how Idlib was taken over by various Al-Qaeda factions in 2015: an operations room in southern Turkey staffed by NATO allies’ intelligence officers supported it from start to finish.

    The Syrian Army reportedly has a strong presence in Hama in preparation for possible attack:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Meanwhile, below is a brief trip down memory lane to understand how all of this began over a decade ago, and Washington’s direct role in the regime change efforts in Syria…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Hours after thousands of Syrian Islamic militants entered Syria’s largest city of Aleppo, facing little resistance from government troops, and fanned out inside the city in vehicles with improvised armor and pickups, deploying to landmarks such as the old citadel on Saturday, Russian fighter jets stationed in Syria carried out airstrikes against the jihadist militants attacking the northern city of Aleppo, the spokesman for Moscow’s expeditionary force has said. The escalation follows after the Al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham or HTS (an offshoot of Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra) insurgent group, which was added by the US State Department to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 2018, and allied militias attacked government-controlled territory in northern Syria on Wednesday, breaking a fragile truce mediated by Russia and Turkey in 2020.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “Providing support to the Syrian Arab Army, the Russian Aerospace Forces are carrying out missile and bomb strikes on the equipment and manpower of illegal armed groups, command posts, warehouses, and artillery positions of terrorists. Over the past 24 hours, at least 200 militants have been eliminated,” Colonel Oleg Ignasyuk, the deputy head of the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria, told reporters in a briefing on Friday. He added that another 400 militants were killed by Russian and Syrian forces the day before.

    A HTS rebel fighter in Aleppo

    Also on Saturday, Syria’s armed forces said that to absorb the large attack on Aleppo – which is located 350 kilometers north of Damascus – and save lives, it has redeployed and is preparing for a counterattack. The statement acknowledged that insurgents entered large parts of the city but said they have not established bases or checkpoints.

    Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) fighters kneel to pray in a street in Aleppo

    Terrorists were filmed outside police headquarters, in the city center, and outside the Aleppo Citadel. They tore down posters of Syrian President Bashar Assad, stepping on some and burning others.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The surprising takeover of Aleppo following the blitz campaign is an embarrassment for Assad, who managed to regain total control of the city in 2016, after expelling insurgents and thousands of civilians from its eastern neighborhoods following a grueling military campaign in which his forces were backed by Russia, Iran and its allied groups.

    Aleppo has not been attacked by opposition forces since then. The 2016 battle for Aleppo was a turning point in the war between Syrian government forces and rebel fighters after 2011 protests against Assad’s rule turned into an all-out war.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Before adopting its current name in 2017, HTS was known as Jabhat al-Nusra, and was one of the main Sunni islamist factions opposing President Bashar Assad’s government during the Syrian Civil War. Jabhat al-Nusra was originally founded as an offshoot of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

    The jihadists launched their shock offensive in the Aleppo and Idlib countryside on Wednesday and wrestled control of dozens of villages and towns before entering Aleppo on Friday. The pro-government Al-Watan newspaper reported airstrikes on the edge of Aleppo city targeting rebel supply lines. It posted a video of a missile landing on a gathering of fighters and vehicles, in a street lined with trees and buildings.

    The timing is remarkable: over the past decade, Syria has become a focal point of rapid foreign military escalation with the CIA-backed Islamic State emerging out of nowhere in 2014 and destabilizing the region for the next 4 years, and now – during a time of upheaval for the Deep State – it is once again Syria that is the focus of CIA escalatory tactics, this time involving another Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist organization, the HTS.

    The push into Aleppo followed weeks of simmering low-level violence, including government attacks on opposition-held areas. In its amusing commentary, the AP notes that Turkey, which has openly backed Syrian opposition groups, “failed in its diplomatic efforts to prevent the Syrian government attacks”, which were seen as a violation of a 2019 agreement sponsored by Russia, Turkey and Iran to freeze the line of the conflict. What the AP really means is that Turkey has once again been quietly seeking to destabilize the region and has succeeded.

    The latest offensive comes as Iran-linked groups, primarily Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which has backed Syrian government forces since 2015, have been preoccupied with their own battles at home. A ceasefire in Hezbollah’s two-month war with Israel took effect Wednesday, the day the Syrian opposition factions announced their offensive. Israel has also escalated its attacks against Hezbollah and Iran-linked targets in Syria during the last 70 days.

    According to social media reports, government troops remained in the city’s airport and at a military academy but most of the forces have already filed out of the city from the south. Syrian Kurdish forces remained in two neighborhoods. The redeployment “is a temporary measure and (the military central command and armed forces) will work to guarantee the security and peace of all our people in Aleppo,” the military statement said.

    There was light traffic in the city center on Saturday according to AP. Opposition fighters fired in the air in celebration but there was no sign of clashes or government troops presence. Earlier in the day, HTS told Al Jazeera and Türkiye’s Anadolu news agency that its fighters had entered several neighborhoods of Aleppo. The group claimed to have taken control of over 400 square kilometers of land in Aleppo and Idlib provinces and captured heavy weaponry and other equipment from the Syrian Army.

    Videos shared on social media purportedly show HTS gunmen moving through Aleppo on foot and in armored vehicles.

    The government in Damascus said its troops have “inflicted heavy losses” on the attackers and regained control of some areas. Local media reported the arrival of Syrian Army reinforcements to both Idlib and Aleppo on Friday. Meanwhile Russian fighter jets stationed in Syria carried out multiple airstrikes against jihadist militants attacking the northern city of Aleppo. Twenty fighters were killed in the airstrikes, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Aleppo residents reported clashes and gunfire. Some fled the fighting.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Schools and government offices were closed Saturday as most people stayed indoors, according to Sham FM radio, a pro-government station. Bakeries were open. Witnesses said the insurgents deployed security forces around the city to prevent any acts of violence or looting.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Russia intervened in the conflict in 2015, helping Assad retake much of the country from al-Nusra, the Islamic State, and dozens of US-supported armed groups described by Washington as ‘moderate rebels’.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Syrian forces lifted the nearly five-year siege of Aleppo in December 2016 and pushed al-Nusra and other groups west into Idlib province. Türkiye took responsibility for Idlib in 2018, vowing to separate terrorists from “legitimate rebels,” but never did so. A March 2020 agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was meant to permanently end the fighting around Idlib.

    * * *

    Appendix: A Primer on the Islamic group HTS, Who They Are, and why Iran, Israel are wary of al-Qaeda-linked jihadists? (via The Week)

    Syria’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is once again in the news after a fresh rebel offensive in Aleppo put the government forces on the back foot. Bashar al-Assad’s government troops lost significant ground to the sudden attack by HTS-led fighters, losing control of several villages and military establishments in Aleppo — located almost 350 kilometres away from Damascus.

    In an already volatile Middle East, reports of unrest and gunfights returning to Syria are bad news. As the country braces for the return of conflict-ridden days, the focus is back on the HTS, which was once affiliated with terror group al-Qaida. Here is what you need to know about Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is the principal rebel fighting force behind the fresh violence in Syria.

    Syria’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham rebels

    The US Department of State added Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) in 2018. Traced back to the early days of the Syrian civil war, HTS is an offshoot of al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

    Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham loosely translates to the “Organization for the Liberation of the Levant” in English. Based out of Idlib, the organization enjoyed operational presence in Syria’s Aleppo, Hama, Dera’a, and Damascus during its prime.  According to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), Hayat Tahrir al-Sham remains the most powerful anti-government armed group in northwest Syria.

    Who leads HTS? What is its take on Israel?

    Initially, the organization was funded by sympathizers from the Persian Gulf. Its style of taxing territories under control and effective insurgent attacks attracted more fighters to its ranks despite the presence of numerous outfits in the region.

    In 2017, the group guided by Salafi-jihadist ideology openly split from the al-Qaeda and is currently led by Abu Mohammed al-Golani. According to US-based Center For Strategic and International Studies, despite the split, HTS, in theory, continues to have a secret relationship with al-Qaeda and receives strategic and operational guidance from the Islamic terror organisation.

    Also called Muhammad al-Jawlani and Muhammad al-Julani, the 42-year-old led the al-Nusrah Front (ANF) before its merger with the HTS. On May 16, 2013, the US Department of State designated al-Jawlani as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist for carrying out several terrorist attacks targeting civilians across Syria.

    HTS: An Islamic organization with “local” goals

    The major difference between HTS and al-Qaeda is the fact that unlike the latter, HTS in recent times has distanced itself from the dream of establishing an Islamic Caliphate across the world.

    The organisation has declared its ultimate objective to be the establishment of Islamic rule in Syria and the expelling of Iranian militias from the country. The toppling of the Assad government remains the aim of “modern” HTS, CSIS says, despite Abu al-Jolani having made statements like “With this spirit… we will not only reach Damascus, but, Allah permitting, Jerusalem will be awaiting our arrival” in the past.  

    This indicates the Zionist ideology and the Jewish state of Israel is a sworn enemy of the HTS like most other Islamic militant groups.

    A rebel group that governs Syrian regions!

    In 2017 of the Syrian Salvation Government (SSG), a body made up of independent and HTS-linked technocrats, was formed to function as the HTS’s governance wing. Through the SSG, HTS administers various welfare services, delivers essential goods, and runs food aid programs.

    It also has a monopoly on the economy through control of al-Sham Bank and the oil sector through Watad Company. SSG has established itself as the de facto administrative authority in the territories under its purview and controls the Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey, through which flows the humanitarian aid on which 90% of the four million people living in northwest Syria depend, the ACLED report claims.

    HTS has pushed the theory that it is “an independent entity that follows no organization or party, al-Qaeda or others” hard in recent years. HTS leadership went to the extent of arresting al-Qaeda-linked individuals in its territories to prove its independent existence. Yet, the West has reasons to believe secret ties exist between the two groups and refuses to engage in talks with its leadership.

    Hayat Tahrir al-Sham today: War in Aleppo and total strength

    The Russian-Turkish truce of March 2020 ended Syrian government offensives against rebel factions. This gave HTS and its sworn ally al-Fath al-Mubin Operation Room to regroup. US reports show that since 2022, Syrian forces have come under constant attacks by the two groups. Sniper fire has been the common strategy of HTS fighters to target government troops in its strongholds and many lives have been lost in these frequent skirmishes.

    HTS commanded the allegiance of a fighting force of between 12,000 and 15,000 militants as of October 2018. It is unknown how many new fighters were recruited ahead of the fresh offensive. It is reported that HTS is supported by several Turkish-backed factions in the recent offense. Although many of these groups dislike each other, they have come together under the ‘Syrian National Army’ due to their mutual hatred for Assad.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 21:11

  • Airlines Charge Billions In 'Junk Fees' To Boost Revenue: Senate Report
    Airlines Charge Billions In ‘Junk Fees’ To Boost Revenue: Senate Report

    Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    As millions of Americans prepare for record-setting air travel this holiday season, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) released a report on Nov. 26 detailing the growing reliance of major airlines on ancillary fees.

    A plane sits on the tarmac at San Francisco International Airport in California on June 10, 2015. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    These charges, sometimes referred to as “junk fees,” have become a vital revenue stream for the airlines while travelers “confront more and increasingly complex fees and fewer options for avoiding them,” according to the report.

    The report, led by the chairman of the subcommittee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), examines practices by American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines, and United Airlines.

    It highlights the use of dynamic pricing, incentive programs, and other strategies the committee said are used to generate revenue from services that were previously included in ticket prices.

    “Our investigation has exposed new details about airlines exploiting passengers with sky high junk fees,” Blumenthal said in a statement accompanying the report. “As we head into the Thanksgiving weekend, we regret that travelers will be charged millions of dollars in fees that have no basis in cost to the airlines but simply fatten their bottom lines.”

    Among the findings, the report revealed that Spirit and Frontier paid $26 million to gate agents and personnel between 2022 and 2023 for enforcing baggage policies.

    These incentives were designed to identify passengers who exceed baggage allowances, often leading to additional fees, the report stated. Frontier agents, for example, can earn up to $10 per bag flagged for a fee at the gate.

    The report also explored how airlines use algorithms to adjust ancillary fees based on customer data. This approach allows fees for services like seat selection to vary significantly, even on the same flight.

    Between 2018 and 2023, the five airlines generated $12.4 billion in seat fee revenue, with some charges reaching as high as $899 for premium seats.

    The subcommittee further noted that these fees are not consistently tied to the airlines’ costs of providing the associated services. Airlines reported that they do not maintain granular cost data to calculate the expenses of baggage handling or seat assignments, raising questions about fee transparency.

    In some cases, airlines classify charges as “optional” services to avoid federal transportation taxes, which are applied to the airfare. The report found that such practices create inconsistencies in how services are taxed across carriers, potentially complicating price comparisons for travelers.

    Executives from the five airlines are scheduled to testify before the subcommittee on Dec. 4 during a hearing titled “The Sky’s the Limit—New Revelations About Airline Fees.” Topics for discussion include consumer complaints about fee practices and potential measures to improve transparency and fairness in airline pricing.

    Delta and American Airlines referred The Epoch Times to industry lobbyist group Airlines for America (A4A) for a comment, who said they were deeply disappointed in the report.

    “The report demonstrates a clear failure by the subcommittee to understand the value the highly competitive U.S. airline industry brings to customers and employees,” A4A told The Epoch Times. “Rather, the report serves as just another holiday travel talking point.”

    A4A defended the use of ancillary fees, stating that these charges provide consumers with greater flexibility and affordability.

    The lobbyist group said that modern air travel is more accessible than ever, a development they attribute to pricing models that allow travelers to pay only for the services they need.

    A4A further noted that airlines fully disclose fees at the time of purchase and comply with all laws and regulations, including those governing taxes and fees, which can comprise over twenty percent of ticket prices. They described any suggestions of noncompliance as “uninformed and inaccurate.”

    Delta in a separate emailed statement said: “Delta looks forward to the continued dialogue with the Subcommittee including appearing at next week’s hearing. For more than a year, Delta has voluntarily responded to the Subcommittee’s sweeping requests, including providing documents and information, responding to numerous rounds of requests and follow-ons, and providing a senior level employee and subject matter expert at the Subcommittee’s request for a lengthy interview to discuss ancillary fees.”

    Spirit Airlines told The Epoch Times that the company has “a long history of offering affordable, low-fare flights, which has made travel more accessible for the public.”

    “We are transparent about our products and pricing, our airport policies ensure Guests are treated fairly and equally, and we comply with all tax laws and regulations. We respectfully disagree with numerous statements and conclusions contained in the report.”

    Spirit said they look forward to explaining their position at the December hearing and believe that it’s “time to come together and discuss meaningful initiatives that would even the playing field between larger and smaller airlines to benefit all travelers, including those who rely on airlines like Spirit.”

    United Airlines declined to comment to The Epoch Times. Delta and Frontier Airlines did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 21:00

  • Trump Nominates Kash Patel For FBI Director
    Trump Nominates Kash Patel For FBI Director

    After weeks of speculation, President-elect Donald Trump announced on Saturday that he’s picked Kash Patel to replace Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI.

    Patel has been a longtime critic of the bureau who has called for shutting down the agency’s Washington headquarters, cleaning house when it comes to top leadership, and bringing the nation’s law enforcement agencies “to heel.”

    According to a Saturday post to Truth Social, Trump called Patel a “brilliant lawyer, investigator, and “America First” fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People.”

    “He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump continued.

    Patel has been open about what kind of changes he’d pursue if given the chance. His various proposals include reducing the FBI’s footprint in Washington and “dramatically” limiting its authority. He hopes to curb the power of the Justice Department’s Civil Division and jettison a Pentagon office that produces classified assessments of long-term trends and risks, arguing it is just a tool of the “deep state.”

    Patel has said he also intends to aggressively hunt down government officials who leak information to reporters, and change the law to make it easier to sue journalists. During an interview with Steve Bannon in December, Patel said he and others “will go out and find the conspirators not just in government but in the media.” –AP

    Patel has served as both a federal prosecutor and a public defender, and filled a number of administrative roles at the tail end of Trump’s first term, including on the National Security Council and in the Pentagon.

    And in a sign this is a good move – in 2021 when Trump floated Patel for deputy director of the CIA or the FBI, former AG William Barr said that would happen “over my dead body.”

    Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said that no part of the FBI would be “safe” with Patel in a leadership position.

    In response, Patel told the Washington Post: “Those calling me a danger, let’s just ask them for a proof, a piece of evidence that actually shows I’ve committed any constitutional violations or any ethical quandaries, and I’d love to hear their response to this.”

    Current FBI Director Christopher Wray will now either have to resign or be fired, assuming Patel makes it through Senate confirmation.

    And as noted above, Patel has vowed to investigate and possibly prosecute regime-puppet journalists.

    “Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections — we’re going to come after you,” Patel said last year. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 20:25

  • Australian Senate Passes 'World First' Law Banning Under 16 Kids From Social Media
    Australian Senate Passes ‘World First’ Law Banning Under 16 Kids From Social Media

    Authored by Monica O’Shea via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Late into the night on Nov. 28, the Australian Senate passed a “world first” law that bans under 16-year-old children from accessing social media.

    The new law, once in effect, means young Australians will be barred from accessing platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, and X—age verification technology will be implemented by the Big Tech firms to ensure compliance.

    AAP Image/Lukas Coch

    Certain social media programs will be allowed, including YouTube and educational apps.

    The centre-left Labor government achieved passage of the Bill with support from the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition amid a blitz of Bills on the last sitting day of Parliament in 2024.

    The ban passed the lower house a day earlier.

    Keeping Phones From Kids Unrealistic: Senator

    Liberal Senator Dave Sharma speaking in the Senate on Nov. 28, argued that parents need assistance managing social media for children.

    “I think parents need help with this, and this is why I think there is a case for government intervention,” he said.

    “Partly because parents have to grapple with the ubiquity of phones and electronic devices, and the crude measure that some suggest—which is take away your kid’s phone, or give them a non-smartphone without adding any apps—I don’t think is particularly realistic,” Sharma said.

    “I think in today’s era we expect our children to be able to be contacted and be contactable, and this is especially true in situations in many households today where both parents are working, and they are often not home when the children might be home or coming home from school.”

    Sharma added he did not discount that there were some benefits to children using social media, providing a way for them to stay in touch and stay connected.

    “We all saw this during the COVID pandemic, when our children weren’t going to school and they stayed in touch through messaging platforms, through social media platforms, and it allows them to build and maintain a social circle,” he said.

    “I also appreciate that the people who are isolated geographically or socially or otherwise, it provides them a way to build a community which might not be available to them in the real world.

    Greens Oppose

    Greens Senator David Shoebridge, however, described the bill as “deeply flawed” and was a proposal that appeared to come from people who have “never been on the internet.”

    “It’s a bill to appease [media mogul] Rupert Murdoch,” he claimed.

    Shoebridge also described the short Senate inquiry into the legislation as a “sham” and said the evidence against a social media ban was “overwhelming.”

    Labor Minister Jenny McAllister noted the law would not come into force for a year, emphasising that keeping “Australians safe online” was a top priority of the government.

    “Through extensive consultation and with the input of states and territories, the government is agreeing that until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age-appropriate for them,” the speech said (pdf).

    “Critically, this legislation will allow for a twelve-month implementation period—to ensure this novel and world-leading reform can take effect with the care and consideration Australian’s rightly expect.”

    What Social Media Companies Will Be Impacted?

    The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which will come into force within a year, will require social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to stop Australian children from holding an account.

    “The penalty amounts are intentionally large, which reflects the significance of the harms the Bill is intended to safeguard against,” the government said in its explanatory memorandum (pdf).

    “It will also strongly signal the expectation that age-restricted social media platforms treat the minimum age obligation seriously.”

    Companies that do not comply face fines of up to $49.5 million (US$32 million).

    Social media platforms will also need to roll out technology to verify the minimum age of users.

    “The Bill does not dictate how platforms must comply with the minimum age obligation,” the explanatory memorandum states.

    “However, it is expected that at a minimum, the obligation will require platforms to implement some form of age assurance as a means of identifying whether a prospective or existing account holder is an Australian child under the age of 16 years.”

    X Corporation’s Concerns With Legislation

    X Corporation raised concerns about the legality of the legislation and failure to incentivise parents, in a submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

    “We have serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the Bill, including its compatibility with other regulations and laws, including international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory, as further detailed below,” X said in a submission (pdf).

    “By design, the Bill ignores the realities of the wider technology ecosystem and goes as far as to exclude entire industries and parts of society, including parents and caregivers, all of whom should be motivated and supported to work together to keep young Australians safe online.”

    Billionaire Elon Musk also weighed into the debate on the social media ban personally on Nov. 21, responding to a post from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese touting the ban.

    “Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” Musk posted to X, in reference to the possible rollout of a national ID or age verification technology.

    Catholic School Parents in Favour

    The Senate Committee also heard views in favour of the bill, with the New South Wales government presenting a survey of 21,000 people that showed 87 percent of people supported a minimum age standard for social media.

    Catholic school parents in Western Australia also argued that social media could impact children’s behaviour.

    “Parents are worried that children and young people are becoming desensitised to some of the content that they are seeing, and that it is leading to a distorted understanding of some serious topics,” the advocacy group told the inquiry.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 19:50

  • Majority Will Rely On Financing For Black-Friday/Cyber-Monday Despite Discounts
    Majority Will Rely On Financing For Black-Friday/Cyber-Monday Despite Discounts

    Millennials are the most likely among the four generations to resort to financing with credit cards or Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) schemes for this year’s Black Friday and Cyber Monday purchases, while only 55 percent of Baby Boomers will likely resort to these tactics to take full advantage of discounts offered by e-commerce platforms and retailers.

    This data stems from a Deloitte consumer survey conducted in October 2024.

    As Statista’s Florian Zandt details below, among all financing methods surveyed, credit cards were the most popular at 53 percent respondent share.

    Infographic: Majority Will Rely on Financing for BFCM Despite Discounts | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Despite shoppers planning to stretch their budget either by paying at a later date or shouldering more credit card debt, the survey results suggest that average per-consumer spending will increase to $650 for the period between Thanksgiving Thursday and Cyber Monday.

    This spending expectation is seemingly unaffected by the multiple crises like the war in Ukraine and the coronavirus pandemic influencing the world’s economy; since 2019, spending has increased at a compound growth rate of almost ten percent per year.

    While annual credit card payments have shot past 50 billion transactions in 2022, schemes like BNPL have only recently become popular. According to Worldpay’s 2024 Global Payments Report, BNPL was utilized for five percent of domestic e-commerce payments in the U.S., up three percentage points from 2020.

    Out of the 41 countries and territories surveyed, BNPL was especially popular in Sweden, Germany and Norway with e-commerce purchase shares of 21, 21 and 15 percent. Sweden ranking as highly is unsurprising, since Klarna, one of the premier BNPL providers, was founded in 2005 in Sweden’s capital of Stockholm.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 19:15

  • Canadian Town Fined And Mayor Sent For Compulsory Education After Failing To Hoist Pride Flag
    Canadian Town Fined And Mayor Sent For Compulsory Education After Failing To Hoist Pride Flag

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    CBC News is reporting that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered the small town of  Emo to pay damages after failing to hoist an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” in celebration of Pride Month. One problem is that the town of fewer than 2000 inhabitants does not have a flagpole (though you could presumably “show the flag” in other ways).

    The National Post reports, that there has been a lengthy arbitration process between the tribunal and the town.

    In a decision handed down last week, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that Emo, its mayor, and two councilors violated the Ontario Human Rights Code. The tribunal admitted in a later opinion that “the record indicated the Township did not receive many requests for declarations or proclamations or requests for display of a flag.”

    Indeed, in a single 12-month period, they received only four — two from Borderland Pride.

    Emo does not have a central flagpole, other than the Canadian flag over the front door of the Emo Municipal Office.

    One issue that factored greatly in the tribunal hearings occurred during the debate over the flag proposal, which the council rejected by a vote of three to two. In the meeting. Mayor Harold McQuaker stated, “There’s no flag being flown for the other side of the coin … there’s no flags being flown for the straight people.”

    Doug Judson, a lawyer and a member of Borderland Pride’s board of directors, said that “the important thing we were seeking here was validation … as 2SLGBTQA plus people.”

    The tribunal ruled that Borderland Pride will be awarded $15,000, with $10,000 coming from the township and $5,000 from Emo mayor Harold McQuaker.

    At first, the fine against “McQuaker” in the town of “Emo” for failing to hoist an “LGBTQ2 rainbow flag” on a non-existent flagpole seemed too contrived.

    However, the mayor of Emo is a McQuaker, and the Canadian press is standing by the story.

    For years, the Canadian human rights tribunals have been the spearhead of the anti-free speech movement. We have previously discussed the tribunals (here, here, and here) in such controversies.

    Not only must the town pay the fines, but McQuaker and Emo’s chief administrative officer were ordered to complete an online course called “Human Rights 101” and “provide proof of completion … to Borderland Pride within 30 days” as recompense for their disobedience.

    The Post report notes the course being offered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The animated video begins with what McQuaker must feel is a tad Orwellian with a statement that the Human Rights Code “is not meant to punish.” After all, being retrained to be a better human can hardly be viewed as punishment.

    Hoist that on your nonexistent flagpole.

    *  *  *

    Here is the opinion: Ontario Human Rights Tribunal 

    Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 18:40

  • Armed Terrorists Attack Iranian Consulate In Syria, Tehran Says
    Armed Terrorists Attack Iranian Consulate In Syria, Tehran Says

    On Saturday as the new jihadist assault on Aleppo was unfolding, the Iranian government announced that “some terrorist elements” attacked the Iranian consulate located in the large northern Syrian city.

    Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei in a statement said his country “strongly condemned the attack” by “some armed terrorist elements” on the consulate of the Islamic Republic, and noted that all its staff members are safe.

    Iranian consulate. Source: Mehr News Agency

    While few other details were given, Baghaei stressed further that Tehran plans to provide a “serious” response to the attack, “both legally and internationally.”

    Iran has also branded the new offensive launched out of Al-Qaeda held Idlib as “an American-Zionist” plot. The past ten decades of proxy war in Syria did see Israel team up with the Sunni anti-Assad insurgency, which also had the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, Turkey, and some European countries.

    This appears to be happening again, crucially at a moment Hezbollah is distracted and bogged down in the war with Israel. 

    Broadly, the Syrian proxy war pit the Shia axis against hardline Sunnis supported by extremists Gulf clerics, who had Western guns. While part of the self-styled ‘resistance’ axis which includes Hezbollah, Damascus represents one of the last secular and nationalist states in the Middle East (under the Ba’ath party).

    The radical group Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham or HTS (an offshoot of Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra) has launched a rapid surprise assault which has resulted in its militants reaching the center of Aleppo city.

    Moscow has meanwhile blasted the “attack on Syria’s sovereignty in the region” and urged the Assad government to restore “order there as soon as possible.” Russian aircraft have reportedly been helping the Syrian Army do just that. But the insurgents now control key neighborhoods of Aleppo.

    HTS/Nusra terrorists waiting the flag of jihad in historic central Aleppo:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But what’s become clear to many is that the Syrian Army was caught on its backfoot in Aleppo, following years of grueling war and devastating Western sanctions, which has caused a drain on both manpower and resources, also amid runaway inflation.

    The HTS jihadists are now threatening other parts of Syria, and may be eyeing the central Syrian city of Hama next. The war appears to have returned to northern and central Syria with a vengeance.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 18:05

  • Rumble Sues California; Says State's "War Against Political Speech Is Censorship"
    Rumble Sues California; Says State’s “War Against Political Speech Is Censorship”

    Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

    Video streaming site Rumble has filed a lawsuit against the state of California in response to legislation forcing social media platforms to censor political speech.

    Rumble is being represented by The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed suit against AB 2655, aka the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024,” in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

    The legislation is Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to a deepfake satire video of Kamala Harris that was shared on X by Elon Musk among others.

    ADF stated in a press release that the law “deputizes” Rumble to restrict its user’s free speech, while another law, AB 2839, “Protecting Democracy Against Election Disinformation and Deepfakes,” uses vague standards to punish individuals posting political content about elections.

    “California’s war against political speech is censorship, plain and simple. We can’t trust the government to decide what is true in our online political debates,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler.

    “Rumble is one of the few online voices stepping up against this trend of censorship while other platforms and sites cave to totalitarian regimes censoring Americans,” Sechler further urged.

    He added that “Rumble is standing for free speech even when it is hard. Other online platforms and media companies must see these laws for what they are — a threat to their existence.”

    Chris Pavlovski, Chairman and CEO of Rumble, further urged that “The very thought of the government judging the content of political speech, and then deciding whether it should be permitted, censored, or eliminated altogether is about the most chilling thing you could imagine.”

    “Rumble
will always celebrate freedom and support creative independence, so we’re delighted to work with ADF to help protect lawful online expression,” Pavlovski asserted.

    The Democratic Party is pushing hard to enact laws that force censorship.

    As both Hillary and Bill Clinton have noted, its a response to them losing ‘total control’ over the free flow of information.

    *  *  *

    Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 17:30

  • NFL, NBA Issue "Security Alert" After Migrant Gangs Target Players' Mansions
    NFL, NBA Issue “Security Alert” After Migrant Gangs Target Players’ Mansions

    America’s top professional sports leagues have warned players about the growing threat of illegal alien criminal gangs targeting their mansions. This comes after a string of break-ins of athletes’ homes, including Kansas City Chiefs stars Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce. 

    NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero published a note about how the sports league issued a “security alert” to teams after “organized and skilled criminals” targeted players’ homes. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Pelissero continued:

    Sources say the FBI is investigating the crime wave as international organized crime. The league, the NFL Players Association and team security forces also have been monitoring the crime spree, which is believed to be tied to a South American crime syndicate. At least one other current NFL player’s home was burglarized in the past week.

    “It’s legit,” said one source familiar with the situation. “It’s a transnational crime ring, and over the last three weeks, they’ve focused on NBA and NFL players, and it’s all over the country.”

    …

    The homes of Mahomes and Kelce were burglarized on consecutive days last month in the Kansas City area. The Minnesota home of former Vikings defensive tackle Linval Joseph, who now plays for the Dallas Cowboys, was part of a series of burglaries last weekend, according to police.

    Multiple people with knowledge of the crimes said the perpetrators are nonconfrontational and do not burglarize homes while residents are inside. Instead, they use public records to find players’ addresses and conduct extensive surveillance. Then, by tracking team schedules and the social media accounts of players and their families, they wait until homes are empty — often during games — and gain access and quickly steal items such as cash, jewelry, watches and handbags, focusing mainly on master bedrooms and closets.

    The alert issued on Wednesday by NFL Security confirmed the modus operandi and offered a number of recommendations, including not posting in real time on social media, installing security systems and keeping valuables out of plain sight.

    Separately, NBC News confirmed a memo sent by the NBA to teams, citing FBI intelligence, about crimes linked to “transnational South American Theft Groups” that target “professional athletes and other high-net-worth individuals.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    An alarming trend of illegal alien crimes has spread nationwide to major cities because of the Biden-Harris administration’s nation-killing open southern border invasion (championed by globalists) that rolled out the red carpet to ten-plus million unvetted migrants. 

    One of the worst transnational South American gangs is Tren de Aragua, spreading across the nation like stage four cancer, setting up operations in major cities. 

    Source: NYPost

    Just months ago, investigative reporter James O’Keefe published a US Army North Division memo that warned an estimated 5,000 TdA gangsters were in the US. We suspect that number is a lot higher. 

    The American people have given President-elect Donald Trump and incoming Border Czar Tom Homan a mandate to fix this illegal alien invasion crisis. It’s time to hold accountable those who rolled out the red carpet for dangerous illegal aliens.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 16:55

  • Schedule F: Trump's Plan A For Emptying The Swamp
    Schedule F: Trump’s Plan A For Emptying The Swamp

    Authored by Tim Donner via Liberty Nation news,

    Ever since Election Day, much talk has focused on President-elect Donald Trump’s appointments – in record time – of his Cabinet, advisors, and agency directors. This new administration is a diverse mix, but they all have one thing in common: The returning president sees them as loyal to him and his outsized agenda.

    But what about all the other, more entrenched denizens of DC?

    Enter Schedule F – Trump’s bold plan to “drain the Swamp.”

    Washington is abuzz with the extraordinary diversity of beliefs among the new designees. This is far from typical for incoming presidents, who ordinarily populate their administrations with political veterans in lockstep with their ideology. But after assembling a largely forgettable team upon his arrival in DC as a novice in 2017, the road-tested 47th president has broken the mold, as is his wont, by selecting Republicans and Democrats, hawks and doves, neoconservatives and populists, corporatists and unionists, insiders and outsiders.

    Trump’s most famously ambitious objective, however, is to drain and ultimately empty the DC swamp of its unelected, unaccountable, and obstructionist bureaucrats who can thwart the will of the president, as they did so often during his first administration. The arrogance of these supercilious apparatchiks is due to the iron-clad protections they enjoy as civil servants. They cannot be fired no matter their behavior, except in the rarest of circumstances. Presidents come and go, they tell themselves, but we will outlast them all and can act accordingly.

    Trump and the “All of Government” Edict

    You may recall the so-called “all-of-government” approach to the DEI agenda during the current administration, where the goal of equity must be embraced and adopted not only in social planning and policies but across all agencies and cabinet departments. Well, the incoming president will employ that same broad, sweeping approach to weeding out the most unproductive and recalcitrant employees among the federal government’s 2.2 million-strong civilian workforce. And while DOGE – the newly formed non-governmental Department of Government Efficiency to be headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy – has been the talk of Washington, it faces severe limits in its attempts to affect systemic reform. No less than 60% of the government’s $6.8 trillion budget is “non-discretionary” and largely untouchable because it is devoted to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the exploding national debt, now more than $36 trillion. Another 13% is devoted to defense, which Trump has pledged to increase. Thus, Musk’s stated goal of cutting $2 trillion in unnecessary federal spending will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

    However, taking an axe to the bloated budget ultimately figures to have less permanent impact than Trump’s audacious plans to alter the federal government’s modus operandi and its entrenched culture. The linchpin for his game-changing reforms is reinstating the innocuous-sounding Schedule F, instituted by Trump in the waning days of his first term but immediately reversed by Joe Biden upon taking office. It will empower massive changes in the bureaucracy, re-classifying thousands of careerists as political appointees. It refers to a section of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, exempting some federal employees from civil service protections, specifically those “whose position has been determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.” Under Trump’s plan, the number of such employees would jump from roughly 4,000 to about 50,000, signaling a sea change in the way Washington does business.

    The outgoing Biden administration, deeply fearful of Trump’s bold plans to upend the DC establishment, is working overtime to “Trump-proof” (as much as possible) the federal government, hoping to minimize the damage to its familiar and comfortable way of life.

    The Downside of Schedule F

    The danger inherent in Schedule F is the likelihood that the next Democratic president could use the same expanded executive control over the bureaucracy to reverse course from Trump and bring in committed progressives who could do even more damage than the present embedded bureaucrats. So, to make these plans stick beyond Trump’s next term, his administration might attempt to move one or more executive agencies out of Washington. This would wrench thousands of civil servants out of their comfort zone, likely leading to a significant number of resignations by those accustomed to life inside the DC beltway.

    Despite setting a risky precedent that could backfire on Republicans in the years ahead, Trump is focused on the here and now, believing the addition of Schedule F will force permanent structural change on what has effectively become a fourth branch of government, namely, the administrative state. Everyday Americans have complained about federal bureaucratic hegemony for as long as we can remember, but now they will finally have a president in place with specific plans to do something about it.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 16:20

  • Zelenskyy Offers To End 'Hot Phase' Of War In Exchange For NATO Membership
    Zelenskyy Offers To End ‘Hot Phase’ Of War In Exchange For NATO Membership

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he’s willing to end the “hot phase of the war” with Russia – including ceding captured territory – in exchange for NATO membership that includes Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks to Sky’s Stuart Ramsay

    “If we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we need to take under the Nato umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control,” he told Sky News, adding “We need to do it fast. And then, on the occupied territory of Ukraine, Ukraine can get them back in a diplomatic way.“

    Zelenskyy said that a ceasefire was needed to “guarantee that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will not come back” to take more Ukrainian territory,” or that “he [Putin] will come back.”

    In short, to end the war, Zelenskyy wants the thing that started the war.

    The comments are a drastic departure from previous statements – as Zelenskyy has long-asserted that Ukraine’s sovereignty is non-negotiable, including over Crimea.

    Putting things in recent perspective, Zelenskyy’s comments come as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted to Fox News that Ukraine is not in a strong enough position to negotiate an end to the war, explaining that there is not enough battlefield leverage to “prevent the Russians from getting what they want.”

    “I think that’s crucial that we have a good deal because the whole world will be watching what type of deal will be struck between Russia and Ukraine when it comes to it,” Rutte said.

    “We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of more strength than they are at the moment,” Rutte continued, “so that a deal can be struck which is favorable not to the Russians — and therefore to China, North Korea and Iran — because they all will be watching.”

    It also comes amid pressure from the Biden administration to lower the draft age in Ukraine to 18 so it has enough troops to continue fighting Russia, aka more meat for the grinder.

    Former British PM Boris Johnson – who allegedly scuttled early peace talks in Turkey that might have ended the Ukraine war – has called for NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine, again.

    Johnson also asserted that if Russia gets the upper hand in the conflict then Britain may deploy it’s forces regardless in order to “defend Europe.”  Ukraine’s eastern defenses are currently being overrun by ongoing Russian attrition tactics. This reality in combination with Trump’s avalanche election win seems to have triggered establishment ghouls into a frenzy of escalation with Joe Biden giving the greenlight on long range missile strikes coordinated directly by NATO forces.   

    Watch the entire interview below:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 15:55

  • FinTech CEOs Expose How Feds Colluded In 'Debanking' Schemes After Andreessen 'Opened The Floodgates' On Rogan
    FinTech CEOs Expose How Feds Colluded In ‘Debanking’ Schemes After Andreessen ‘Opened The Floodgates’ On Rogan

    Last week Marc Andreessen sat down with Joe Rogan for three hours, where the billionaire investor and founder of VC firm Andreessen Horowitz dropped an aerial bombardment of redpills on the general public – spanning everything from the US government’s designs to completely control AI, to a weaponized government effort to secretly ‘debank’ 30 tech founders in an effort to destroy political opponents, particularly those in crypto.

    Following the interview, former PayPal president, Facebook executive, and Coinbase board member (2017-2018) David Marcus revealed on Friday how political pressure and red tape led to the demise of Facebook’s cryptocurrency project, Libra (later rebranded as Diem).

    Libra was an advanced blockchain paired with a stablecoin aimed at solving global payment inefficiencies at scale. Despite extensive efforts to address regulatory concerns, including financial crime prevention, reserve management, and consumer protections, the project was ultimately derailed—not by legal obstacles but by political opposition.

    “Prior to announcing the project, we spent months briefing key regulators in DC and abroad. We then announced the project in June 2019 alongside 28 companies. Two weeks later, I was called to testify in front of both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, which was the starting point of two years of nonstop work and changes to appease lawmakers and regulators,” Marcus writes on X.

    According to Marcus, the turning point came in 2021 after having “addressed every last possible regulatory concern across financial crime, money laundering, consumer protection, reserve management, buffers, and so much more” in advance of launch. 

    Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell appeared ready to greenlight a limited pilot of the project, but Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen allegedly intervened. In a private meeting, Yellen reportedly warned Powell that supporting Libra would be “political suicide,” a move that Marcus describes as the definitive blow. Shortly thereafter, Federal Reserve representatives discouraged participating banks from moving forward, effectively intimidating the financial institutions into withdrawing their support. For Marcus, this marked not just the end of Libra but also a disheartening realization about the political dynamics within the U.S. financial system.

    “Shortly thereafter, the Fed organized calls with all the participating banks, and the Fed’s general counsel read a prepared statement to each of them, saying: “We can’t stop you from moving forward and launching, but we are not comfortable with you doing so.” And just like that, it was over.” -David Marcus

    Marcus emphasized that there was “no legal or regulatory angle left for the government or regulators to kill the project. It was 100% a political kill—one that was executed through intimidation of captive banking institutions.”

    [ZH: Hey PayPal, can we get our account back now?]

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Gemini COO Marshall Beard replied to Marcus’ post, saying “We were closely aligned with his team during this and saw first hand went they went through.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    After Andreessen then brought up the ‘critical question’ of “Who has been making these decisions? Management? The government? Or both,” Dennis Porter, CEO and Co-Founder of the Satoshi Act Fund, a US-based nonprofit which advocates for Bitcoin adoption, replied “the banks themselves. But the reason they do it is totally out of their control.”

    Porter and team wrote a paper on the problem, highlighting how the feds pressure banks to classify certain industries as “risky,” and then threaten to investigate.

    The federal regulators (OCC, FDIC, and the Federal Reserve) apply soft-power pressure to banks. Federal regulators started by classifying certain industries (such as crypto) as risky and by default any crypto account holders as a risk to any bank that banked them. If a bank is discovered to be banking “risky” businesses that gave Federal regulators the authority to dig deeper and audit the bank to see if anything else they are doing is “risky”. Banks don’t like to be audited. It’s expensive and time consuming. So banks “voluntarily” began to debank their “risky” customer. Also, a “risky” bank may have its FDIC payments (premiums) increase due to its “risky behavior” of banking risky industries. So the banks once again prefer to debank these customers voluntarily to avoid increased costs. –Dennis Porter

    Gemini co-founder Tyler Winklevoss chimed in, saying “This is how debanking works.”

    Meanwhile, Andreessen highlighted that Melania and Barron Trump were debanked – to which the recently redpilled Bill Ackman replied “Which bank?”

    Turns out at least Donald Trump was debanked by Bank United, Signature Bank, and Professional Bank: 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Others reflected on Marcus’ account:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 15:45

  • Commercial Real Estate Bond Distress Reaches Record High
    Commercial Real Estate Bond Distress Reaches Record High

    Via SchiffGold.com,

    From the national debt to negative jobs reports, data has been piling up that suggests America’s economic bubble is ready to burst. Now, with the Fed’s most recent round of rate cuts moving through the economy, fault lines are appearing in the commercial real estate sector.

    The following article was originally published by the Mises Institute. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.

    Commercial real estate continues to suffer despite the Federal Reserve’s attempt at ameliorating the capital markets with a 50-basis point rate cut in September.

    The pain is especially apparent in the so-called “CRE-CLO” bond market. CRE-CLO bonds are packaged commercial real estate mortgages comprising short-term floating rate loans. These bridge loans were recently, and most notably, used to facilitate the biggest apartment investment bubble in history, but were also used in financing other commercial real estate sectors including office, retail, hotel, industrial, and self-storage.

    Most of the current batch of bridge loans originated in the 2020-2022 period—when benchmark rates were near zero and commercial real estate prices were peaking—and carried maturities of three to five years. Benchmark rates are now much higher, prices much lower, and property performance far worse than anticipated. Thus, a wall of maturities is staring borrowers, lenders, and bondholders in the face, all while underlying property performance disappoints.

    Despite attempts by lenders to extend and pretend—kicking the can down the road in the short term to avoid defaults until the Federal Reserve lowers rates enough to bail them out—their delusions of reprieve may be fading fast.

    Apartment Investors Play Checkers Instead of Chess

    At the end of Q3, the distress rate for CRE-CLO loans across all commercial real estate sectors reached 13.1 percent, an all-time high. Distress in this instance is defined as any loan reported 30 days or more delinquent, past the maturity date, in special servicing (typically due to a drop in occupancy or a failure to meet certain performance criteria), or any combination thereof.

    Figure 1

    While roughly one in seven loans meets these criteria, the weakness is concentrated in two or three sectors.

    Unsurprisingly, office properties have the highest rate of distress, with nearly one in five CRE-CLO office loans experiencing current distress. This is to be expected after the covid panic of 2020, subsequent to which various “work-from-home” directives essentially made the office market obsolete.

    For similar reasons, distress is also high in the retail segment, as all but the most well-heeled retailers were forced under by the maniacal and criminal government edicts of the time.

    However, the real story here is in the apartment, or multifamily, sector. Seen in Figure 1, the distress rate for apartments touched 16.4 percent in August. An astonishing number, indicating that one in six apartment bridge loans were distressed. The improvement to 13.7 percent shown for September is seasonal, as renters settle in at the start of the school year.

    While this picture is bad enough, the reality under the surface is far worse. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, using Q2 data from MSCI, the batch of currently distressed apartment bridge loans comprise roughly $14 billion in total loans, but there exists an additional $81 billion in potentially distressed loans. MSCI categorizes loans as “potentially distressed” if they have seen delinquent payments, forbearance (when the lender lets interest payments accrue rather than taking a default action), or where key performance metrics like occupancy and net operating income are dangerously low.

    Figure 2

    The arithmetically-aware will note that if the $14 billion of currently distressed apartment bridge loans comprise a roughly 14 percent distress rate at the end of Q2 (as shown in Figure 1) and there are an additional $81 billion in potentially distressed loans not yet categorized as “currently distressed” (as shown in Figure 2), then MSCI data implies that 95 percent of all apartment bridge loans are either currently distressed or in imminent danger of distress.

    While astounding, this level of distress will come as no surprise to veterans of the apartment market. In the 2020-22 period, bridge loans of this variety were ubiquitous above a certain minimum loan size. And, because of the extreme and reckless nature of money printing undertaken by the Federal Reserve during this time—when interest rates were effectively zero—lenders underwrote property acquisitions with a 1.0x debt service coverage ratio (“DSCR”), meaning the initial net operating income of the property was projected to just cover interest payments, with nothing left over.

    Bridge loan interest rates floated at a spread (typically around 350 basis points, or 3.5 percent) to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), which was essentially 0 percent until mid-2022. Because of the 1.0x DSCR standard, a property acquired during this period that had net operating income of $1 million would have also had interest payments of $1 million at the then-prevailing interest rate of 3.5 percent.

    SOFR is now 4.9 percent, indicating a total interest rate of 8.4 percent (SOFR + 3.5 percent spread). This same property now has interest payments of $2.4 million while net operating income is unlikely to have increased to any significant extent, if at all. Insurance and property tax increases in particular have damaged apartment profitability while rent increases have been difficult to execute in the face of stagnating real wages. By the same token, absurdly optimistic renovation plans have been impossible in the face of cash flows increasingly shunted towards paying interest.

    The Amazing Disappearing Rate Cut

    The high amount of potential distress in CRE-CLO bonds, and the loans that underlie them, indicate an expectation on the part of lenders that help is coming in the form of lower interest rates. After all, capital markets have become used to being bailed out by the Federal Reserve, all but demanding that the taxpayer—not they—be held responsible for their poor decisions. Nevertheless, the Fed’s recent rate cut is proving not to be the magic bullet on which lenders relied.

    By August of this year, futures markets had fully priced in a 25-50 basis point Fed rate cut in September, and were expecting additional 25 basis point cuts in November and December. This expectation for the Fed Funds Rate carried over into Treasury yields, a key benchmark for the commercial real estate industry. Particularly important in the case of distressed bridge loans since any hopes of refinancing are placed not on more bridge loans—which are now much less pervasive—but on the fixed-rate agency market comprising Fannie- and Freddie-backed apartment loans, which prices loans off a spread to treasuries.

    At the beginning of August, as markets priced in 75-100 bps of Fed rate cuts by year-end, 10-year Treasury yields reacted accordingly, dropping from 4.30 percent in late July (they had been 4.70 percent in April) to 3.65 percent in the middle of September. As of early November, most of that move had been erased—with yields back near 4.30 percent—roughly where they were prior to market pricing in this year’s Fed rate cuts.

    Fear and Trembling

    Undeniably, participants in the commercial real estate market—apartment bridge lenders in particular—are relying on loose monetary policy for their immediate salvation. They may get their wish. While Treasury rates have moved stubbornly higher, market forces only mean so much if the Fed decides to supplement rate cuts with purchases of treasuries, driving yields lower—another round of quantitative easing.

    Nevertheless, to the extent they’re allowed to be heard, market signals are unmistakable. A regime that can’t stop spending and continues to appropriate the property of its citizens through inflation will provide upward pressure on Treasury yields, all else equal. In a free market context, the rent-seekers that comprise the commercial real estate market will have to work out their own salvation.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 15:10

  • Israel Lifts Restrictions In Northern Israel As Ceasefire Holds; Hezbollah Chief Claims 'Victory'
    Israel Lifts Restrictions In Northern Israel As Ceasefire Holds; Hezbollah Chief Claims ‘Victory’

    The Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire began four days ago, and has held enough to where for the fist time in more than a year tens of thousands of Israelis who’ve remained forcibly evacuated form their homes in the north can return to assess the situation.

    The IDF Home Front Command on Saturday announced for the first time in many months that it is easing restrictions in northern Israel, allowing larger gatherings and for schools to finally reopen, in the clearest indicator so far that the ceasefire is holding and both sides are taking it seriously.

    “Under the changes, schools in the northern frontier communities and the north Golan Heights will now be able to operate if adequate shelter can be reached in time,” Israeli media writes. 

    All restrictions previously in place throughout all areas of the country have now been lifted, which was approved by Defense Minister Israel Katz. Some 80,000 Israelis had been displaced by daily Hezbollah rocket and drone fire in the north.

    On the other side of the border, tens of thousands of previously displaced Lebanese have been viewing their homes and communities for the first time in months. The opening couple days of the ceasefire, which took effect early on Nov.27, saw reports of some intermittent fire – especially from the Israeli side.

    The 60-day US and French-brokered ceasefire has been widely viewed as off to a successful start, ending over 14 months of cross-border fire between Iran-linked Hezbollah and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

    Source: Al Jazeera

    Despite the assassinations of its upper-tier leadership, including Hassan Nasrallah who died in an Israeli airstrike on September 27, the new head of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, claimed ‘victory’ in the war. Yet Hezbollah’s top command ranks have been devastated, suffering historic losses after over two months of bombs falling on Beirut.

    Still, he hailed that the group had achieved a “divine victory” in a Friday speech. “To those that were betting that Hezbollah would be weakened, we are sorry, their bets have failed,” he said.

    But he also pledged that the ceasefire deal with Israel will be upheld, and that Hezbollah leadership had agreed to it “with heads held high.” Qassem explained Hezbollah had “approved the deal, with the resistance strong in the battlefield, and our heads held high with our right to defend [ourselves].”

    A Reuters report at the end of this week claimed that Hezbollah’s internal numbers are that it lost 4,000 of its fighters, which is a much higher tally than what the Lebanese government lists.

    But what is very evident is that the death and destruction surpasses even the 2006 Lebanon war, which up till this year was the deadliest on Lebanese soil in the last several decades.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 14:35

  • Legal Plunder: Indiana Police Prey On Packages Transiting Huge FedEx Hub
    Legal Plunder: Indiana Police Prey On Packages Transiting Huge FedEx Hub

    Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

    From a federal government operating far beyond the bounds of the Constitution to law enforcement agencies routinely entering private property without warrants, tyranny takes many forms in the United States. However, few are as shocking to the sensibilities as civil asset forfeiture, the controversial practice that empowers police to seize money, cars, trucks, houses or anything else they merely accuse of having a link to criminal activity — regardless of whether the property owner is charged with a crime.

    Civil asset forfeiture is an affront to anyone who’s sincerely committed to the American justice system’s cornerstone presumption of innocence. With law enforcement typically keeping some or all of the assets that are seized, the practice has rightly been called “policing for profit.”

    I’ve previously examined the raw tyranny of civil asset forfeiture, spotlighting the story of a Mississippi man who took $42,300 in cash to Houston with the intent of buying a second semi truck for his fledgling trucking business, only to have it seized — or, in legal jargon, “forfeited” — by Harris County police, who pulled him over for allegedly following the vehicle in front of him too closely.

    Now I’m compelled to share a new example of this legalized theft — the most brazenly unjust and opportunistic one I’ve encountered yet: In an ongoing, multi-million-dollar racket in Indianapolis, police are routinely seizing cash they find in FedEx packages that happen to be routed through that company’s second-largest hub.

    Like bears wading into a river teeming with salmon, state and local Indiana police officers routinely stride up to the conveyer belts at FedEx’s sprawling Indianapolis facility, where tens of thousands of packages flow by every hour, pouncing when they see a package with traits that meet their absurdly broad definition of “suspicious.”

    Ample opportunity for Indiana’s predatory police agencies: The FedEx hub in Indianapolis can sort up to 99,000 packages per hour (WRTV)​

    Review the criteria and you’ll quickly conclude you’ve sent and received many “suspicious” packages yourself. Supposedly damning attributes include:

    • A box that’s taped on all its seams — something FedEx itself recommends

    • A box that’s new

    • A package that was dropped off at a FedEx shipping center

    • A shipment paid by credit card, or “possibly by cash,” or by “unknown means” — a trio of criteria that seems to cover every possible means of payment.

    • A package being sent to or from a so-called “source state” — a state that police consider a prominent conduit of illegal drugs. Depending on the law enforcement agency, that could encompass, among others, California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. That sample list alone accounts for 29% of the US population.

    After plucking a package from the FedEx stream, police present it to a K-9. If the dog alerts — which dogs have been found to do unjustifiably up to 66% or more of the time — police obtain a warrant to open it. While they often find no drugs, they’re all too happy when they find cash, which is confiscated and held as prosecutors file suit for the government to take permanent ownership.

    In April of this year, Henry and Minh Cheng, who run a mom-and-pop jewelry wholesaling business in Los Angeles, were caught in Indiana’s unconscionable web, as police confiscated $42,825 in a FedEx package en route to them from a retailer in Virginia. The retailer had been slow to pay for jewelry the Chengs had shipped to them in January. When the Chengs followed up on the invoice, the retailer offered to pay immediately via cash. In a fateful move, the Chengs obtained a FedEx shipping label and transmitted it to the Virginia retailer.

    Henry and Minh Cheng sent this invoice to a Virginia jewelry retailer in January; when the retailer shipped cash in April, police seized it (Institute for Justice)

    “The next thing I know is the police and the prosecutor [are] forfeiting my money…based solely on suspicions,” Henry Cheng told Los Angeles station ABC7. “They didn’t even name the crime that I’ve committed, because I know I have not committed any crime.”

    Consistent with the inherent madness of civil asset forfeiture — in which property itself is put on trial — asset forfeiture cases are given bizarre case names such as “Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin).” The case in which Indiana seeks ownership of the Chengs’ seized cash is “State of Indiana v. $42,825.00 in US Currency.”

    It’s bad enough when Indiana police seize cash out of a car they pull over for speeding somewhere in the state, baselessly assuming the money played some unknown role in the violation of Indiana law. However, in their exploitation of the FedEx facility, Indiana police are typically taking cash that’s only in Indiana because FedEx’s logistical algorithms routed it there rather than through another FedEx hub.

    (When asked by Stark Realities if the police presence at the facility requires FedEx’s consent, the company declined comment. FedEx likewise chose not to say if it was concerned about customers’ property being seized by police without any specific allegation of a crime.)

    The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office has sued to confiscate currency in FedEx packages traveling to and from states other than Indiana at least 130 times in just the past two years, never identifying any specific violation of Indiana law that’s the basis for the asset forfeiture. The prosecutor’s complaint typically only alleges that “the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished in exchange for a violation of a criminal statute, or is traceable as proceeds of a violation of a criminal statute, in violation of Indiana law” — which is utterly implausible given the money was merely being shipped through the state, and not at the direction of the shipper or receiver.

    Asset forfeiture filings by Indiana prosecutors often specify no crime, leaving citizens perplexed as to how to proceed (via Institute for Justice)

    Civil asset forfeiture places a daunting burden on those are victimized by it, forcing them to spend time and money navigating the government’s house of mirrors in an attempt to prove their money or property wasn’t associated with a crime. In many cases, victims of this legalized theft find the situation hopelessly complex and expensive, and simply give up. That demoralizing dynamic is compounded where the Indianapolis FedEx hub is concerned, as victims often live several hundred or even thousands of miles away.

    Fortunately for the Chengs and hundreds of other victims of Indiana’s FedEx trap, their plight is now the focus of a class action lawsuit filed on their behalf by the Institute for Justice — a non-profit, public interest law firm that’s represented civil asset forfeiture victims across the country. Among other wrongs, the suit asserts that the police seizures of FedEx packages violate the US Constitution’s guarantees of due process, and the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition against prosecuting alleged crimes that occur outside Indiana.

    “This scheme is one of the most predatory we have seen, and it’s past time to put a stop to it,” said Institute for Justice attorney Sam Gedge when the suit was filed. “It’s illegal and unconstitutional for Indiana to forfeit in-transit money whose only connection to Indiana is the happenstance of FedEx’s shipping practices.”

    Perhaps seeking to thwart the class action suit, the Marion County prosecutor’s office last week said it would give the lead plaintiff Chengs their money back — some seven months after taking it without articulating any specific violation of Indiana law. The suit will proceed, however, with Institute for Justice lawyers asking the court to bar the state of Indiana and Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears from initiating currency forfeitures like the one that targeted the Chengs.

    Reflecting on what police have done to him and continue doing to people across the country, Henry Cheng’s sentiments echo those of many Americans upon first learning about civil asset forfeiture: “I am just totally stunned that this can happen in America.”

    * * *

    Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Read more and subscribe at starkrealities.substack.com  

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

    You may also like:

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 14:00

  • Kremlin Warns Biden It Will Mount Response To 'Each' Use Of US-Supplied Missiles
    Kremlin Warns Biden It Will Mount Response To ‘Each’ Use Of US-Supplied Missiles

    The Kremlin has communicated to the Biden administration that its forces will hit back in major attacks on Ukrainian targets “each time” Russia is hit with US-supplied missiles.

    President Putin “had warned that the authorization to use U.S. and other foreign-made missiles was an irresponsible and escalatory step,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in a Friday briefing.

    “And if these missiles are used, there will be an appropriate response every time,” he warned.

    Prior illustrative image of drone attack, via The Guardian 

    This new warning came after President Putin said Russia could hit “decision-making centers” in Kiev with the new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile, the Oreshnik. “As I have said repeatedly, there will always be a response from our side,” Putin stressed.

    This past week began with days of record-setting drone and missile attacks on Ukraine, chiefly targeting the country’s energy infrastructure. This has left vast swathes of Ukraine without power, or else on a rolling blackout rationing system.

    A Thursday overnight attack had additionally included 90 missiles and around 100 drones, according to Moscow’s description.

    Ukraine’s Energy Minister German Galushchenko has said the national power infrastructure was “under massive enemy attack.“

    “Once again, the energy sector is under massive enemy attack. Attacks on energy facilities are taking place across Ukraine,” Galushchenko said.

    Emergency power outages have been confirmed in the regions of Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipro and Donetsk. Ukrenergo said it “urgently introduced emergency power cuts,” as temperatures hover at around 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Outside of Ukraine, a ‘dirty war’ and NATO escalation is taking shape. The below is a summary of events via Al Jazeera:

    • Russia is waging a “staggeringly reckless campaign” of sabotage in Europe, while also stepping up its nuclear sabre-rattling to scare other countries off from backing Ukraine, the head of the United Kingdom’s MI6 foreign spy agency said.
    • Poland has deployed Leopard 2 battle tanks in Latvia to reinforce the NATO brigade there.
    • German defence giant Rheinmetall and Lithuania signed deals to begin construction of a $190m ammunition plant to make artillery shells in the country.
    • German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius wants to order four new submarines to help meet NATO’s security requirements in Europe, a parliamentary budget committee source told the AFP news agency.
    • Germany’s BfV domestic intelligence agency has warned of possible attempts by other states to influence the upcoming federal election.

    When President-elect Donald Trump enters the White House on January 20, he will certainly have his hands full on the diplomatic front, if he hopes to negotiate a quick end to the war – as currently the conflict is only growing.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 11/30/2024 – 13:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Nov 30

Today’s News 30th November 2024

  • Socialism: Science Or Cyanide?
    Socialism: Science Or Cyanide?

    Authored by Lawrence Reed From the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

    Editor’s note: Marianna Davidovich, head of external relations at FEE, recently published a booklet titled “The Buried Stories of Communism & Socialism.” The following essay by FEE’s president emeritus, Lawrence W. Reed, appears in it as the Afterword.

    In this volume, Marianna Davidovich vividly recounts the world’s horrific experiences with the evil of communism. It’s a ghastly record, littered with the bodies of a hundred million victims and the lost liberties of hundreds of millions more. No one should have ever expected otherwise; even the founder of modern communist ideology, Karl Marx, advocated extreme violence as a necessary ingredient in the communist formula.

    What the world refers to as “communist” countries—such as the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, and others Marianna discusses—would not be labeled as such by Karl Marx himself. He postulated that communism would be the end game of all history and would be characterized by government “withering away” after a period of socialism and its brutal “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

    So, what we widely refer to as communist countries are, according to both Marx and the governments of those very countries themselves, socialist. None of them called themselves communist; all of them proudly adopted the socialist label. The full name of the old Soviet Union, for example, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Marx’s prediction that socialist dictatorships would eventually dissolve into government-less, communist utopias was embraced by pseudo-intellectuals as some sort of messianic prophecy. But how could Marx know the future of his own country, let alone that of others? Was he a palm reader? Did he use tarot cards, a crystal ball, or a Ouija board? Or did God (in whom he didn’t believe) generously gift him with visionary powers that no one else has?

    Of course, none of those things apply here. Marx was no fortune-teller. He was a charlatan, an angry and nasty scribbler with vile, racist, and anti-Semitic tendencies. He mooched off others all his life. As British historian Paul Johnson explained in his book, “Intellectuals,” Marx was cruel to his own family. He yearned for the violence his predicted socialist dictatorships would produce. Hardly anyone showed up for his funeral.

    Marx’s notion that under communism, government would “wither away” was always a nonsensical non-starter. He never explained how or why that would occur. What would possibly prompt dictators with absolute power to one day just walk away from it? That’s more like a dumb fairy tale than a prophecy.

    Now that Marianna has provided the awful details of death and destruction in the countries influenced by Marx’s teaching, the big remaining question is WHY? Why does socialism so naturally produce mayhem on an industrial scale?

    Wait a minute, you ask.

    What about the peaceful “democratic socialism” of Scandinavia?

    Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have no minimum wage laws, almost no interference with prices and the market forces of supply and demand. They have lower taxes on business and more school choice than the United States. They boast trade-based, globalized economies, and few if any nationalized industries.

    The prime minister of Denmark recently declared, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as among the freest (most capitalist) in the world.

    It’s true that after World War II, Scandinavian countries stumbled into generous welfare states, but being no more than a welfare state is not by itself dictionary socialism. More to the point, those nations eventually turned away from even that—cutting taxes and spending and reviving private sector entrepreneurship. Margaret Thatcher forced the same changes in Britain when, by the late 1970s, her country’s welfare state turned Britain into “the sick man of Europe.”

    When countries adopt a blend of socialism and capitalism—a formula once termed “the middle way”—socialists claim credit for progress real or imagined. But repeatedly, such situations reveal that most if not all the “progress” such places achieve is not because of the socialism they’ve adopted, but because of the capitalism they haven’t yet destroyed. Capitalism produces wealth (even Marx admitted to that), whereas socialism and socialists simply confiscate and redistribute it.

    Back to the central question: Why does socialism so naturally produce mayhem on an industrial scale?

    One very big reason is its accumulation and centralization of power, the most toxic motivation in human history. The desire to dominate and control, to plan other people’s lives, to push others around and take their stuff, to monopolize one corner of society after another—all these elements of a “power trip” are part and parcel of the socialist vision.

    But socialism promises to help the poor and the needy, you say! Well, of course, it promises such things. How far would it get if its advocates told the truth? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. all proclaimed “solidarity with the people,” especially the poor. They never honestly declared, “Give us power, and we will crush dissent and throw you to the dogs for opposing our plans!”

    Socialism is rightly and widely perceived as diametrically opposed to capitalism. So, it can’t possibly be defined as acts of caring, sharing, giving, and being compassionate toward the needy. There is demonstrably more caring, sharing, giving, and compassion toward the needy under capitalism!

    Even when it comes to most foreign aid, capitalist countries are the donors and socialist countries are the recipients. You can’t give it away or share it with anybody if you don’t create it in the first place, and socialism offers utterly no theory of wealth creation, only wealth confiscation and consumption.

    Note that socialists do not propose to accomplish their objectives by mutual consent. They do not advocate raising the money for their plans by way of bake sales or charitable solicitations. Your participation is not voluntary. From start to finish, socialism’s defining characteristic is not so much the promises meant to beguile but rather, the method by which it implements its agenda—FORCE. If it’s voluntary, it’s not socialism. It’s that simple.

    In theory, practice, and outcome, socialism is profoundly anti-social. Here’s why:

    1. The plans of socialists are more important than yours. Why? Because they say so. Isn’t that reason enough? “The more the State plans,” wrote Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, “the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” But socialists don’t care about that because what they have in mind is surely more noble than anything us peasants are thinking. Socialism is profoundly anti-individual because it seeks to homogenize people in a giant, collectivist blender.

    2. Socialists are know-it-alls and know-nothings, simultaneously. This is a remarkable achievement, perhaps socialism’s singular contribution to sociology. Even if a socialist’s own life is a mess, he still knows how to run everybody else’s. Even if he doesn’t believe there’s a God, he thinks the State can be one. F. A. Hayek nailed it when he wrote, “The curious task of economics is to convince men of how little they know about what they imagine they can design.”

    3. Socialism rejects biological science. No climate-change denier denies that climate exists. But socialists claim that if there’s such a thing as human nature, they can abolish and reinvent it. Humans are individuals, with no two alike in every way, but socialists believe they can homogenize and collectivize us into an obedient blob. It doesn’t bother them to punish individual success and achievement even if the result is equal impoverishment. They believe that human beings will work harder and smarter for the State than they will for themselves or their families. This is much closer to witchcraft than science.

    4. Socialists call the cops for everything. Have you ever noticed that the socialist agenda is not a page of helpful suggestions, or a list of tips for better living? When they’re in charge, you don’t get to say, “No, thanks.” Freedom of choice? No, sir! Socialist ideas are so good, the old saying goes, that they must be mandatory and opposing views must be censored. Deep inside every socialist, even the naïve but well-meaning ones, a totalitarian demon is struggling to get out. This is what socialists eventually do with such monotonous regularity that you can absolutely count on it.

    5. Socialism is more than anti-capitalism. It’s anti-capital. In his remarkable book, “Intellectuals,” British historian Paul Johnson penned a blistering chapter about Karl Marx. Johnson quotes Marx’s own mother as famously remarking that she wished her son Karl “would accumulate some capital instead of just writing about it.” Mrs. Marx was on to something. Karl and his acolytes, to one degree or another, make war on the single most powerful generator of the material wealth that improves the lives of people—namely, private property and its accumulation by private, profit-seeking individuals who invest and create and employ. Wherever such lunacy gains power, it marches its subjects backward towards the Stone Age.

    6. Conflict is their God. From Marx to socialists of the present day, conflict is everything.If it’s not present, they will invent it. After all, everyone is either a victim or a villain, an oppressor or part of the oppressed. Conflict is the way history unfolds, so they tell us. And like palm readers and tarot card practitioners, they declare the future to be on their side. This always-angry perspective rules out a spirit of gratitude, especially toward capitalists. Socialists never show up at a business of any size with signs exclaiming “Thank you for taking risks, providing products and employing people.”

    One of the greatest economists ever, Ludwig von Mises, wrote this eloquent summation:

    A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

    Communism as envisioned by its intellectual father Karl Marx is an unachievable and undesirable fantasy. In the real world, efforts to realize Marx’s delusions are simply full-blown, unadulterated socialism. And that’s the cyanide that both Mises and Marianna are warning us about.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 23:50

  • Moana, Wicked, Gladiator II Set To Shatter Thanksgiving Box Office Records
    Moana, Wicked, Gladiator II Set To Shatter Thanksgiving Box Office Records

    The Hollywood Reporter cited impressive data showing that Disney’s Moana sequel, Universal’s Wicked, and Paramount’s Gladiator II are set to break US box-office records for the Thanksgiving holiday week. 

    “Thanks to the potent combination of Disney’s Moana sequel, Universal’s Wicked and Paramount’s Gladiator II, overall five-day revenue will hit a high for the long Turkey Day holiday, or well north of $400 million (the previous best was 2018 with $316 million),” the media outlet wrote in a report on Friday. 

    Here’s more from the report:

    Disney’s fantasy musical Moana 2 opened to a record-shattering $57.5 million on Wednesday, followed by $28 million on Thursday — the biggest Thanksgiving of all time and the fourth-biggest Thursday for a non-opening day. Rival studios show the animated sequel opening north of $200 million — as in $225 million or more — but Disney won’t comment until Friday so as to avoid what happened last weekend when Wicked and Gladiator II came in millions lower than estimated.

    …

    Moana 2 will shatter numerous records in its launch, including becoming the top Thanksgiving opening of all time for the five days, beating Frozen ($94 million). It will also pass up Frozen II ($125 million) to become the top earner for the five days. And it has already served up the top opening day ever for a Walt Disney Animation title and the third-biggest opening day for any animated title behind Incredibles 2 and Inside Out 2, not adjusted for inflation. It was also the third-biggest day of 2024 to date behind Deadpool & Wolverine and Inside Out 2.

    As of early Friday afternoon, Bloomberg dropped this headline…

    • DISNEY SEES ‘MOANA 2’ SETTING THANKSGIVING WEEKEND RECORD

    ‘Moanapocalypse’ hits the box office.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday week, AMC Entertainment Holdings, the world’s largest movie theater chain, reported record revenue last weekend. The chain operates 900 theaters with 10,000 screens globally, including 660 theaters and 8,200 screens in the US. 

    “Naturally, we are pleased that at our US theatres, AMC just recorded our highest revenues for a pre-Thanksgiving weekend in AMC’s entire history. Similarly, it is thoroughly satisfying that fully 4.6 million people graced our AMC Theatres in the US and Odeon Cinemas abroad over the just completed four days Thursday to Sunday. What a wonderful way to head into what we expect will be a busy and entertaining holiday moviegoing season,” AMC Chairman and CEO Adam Aron wrote in a statement. 

    In markets, the ‘meme’ stock AMC hovers around the $5 handle as traders on this quiet half-day overlooked this week’s Thanksgiving box-office blowout.

    Bloomberg data shows 13.3% of the float is short, or about 49.8 million shares. 

    We covered AMC earlier this week in a note titled “‘Meme’ Stock AMC Reports Pre-Thanksgiving Revenue Record.”

    Redditors are more focused on crypto pumps than meme stocks…

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 23:15

  • What Kennedy Must Do To Defeat Regulatory Capture
    What Kennedy Must Do To Defeat Regulatory Capture

    Authored by Bretigne Shaffer via The Brownstone Institute,

    President-Elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services is cause for celebration for anyone who cares about the pharmaceutical industry’s influence over regulatory agencies, and the deleterious effect it has had on the health of Americans. 

    It is nearly impossible to express just how remarkable and potentially world-changing this is. Only a few years ago, it would have been beyond the imagination of any serious political commentator. Those of us who believe in the freedom of medical choice – and especially those who have been personally harmed by the industry – have every reason to be ecstatic.

    But even if Kennedy is confirmed, and even if he manages to implement his ideas, will they be enough to bring about real, lasting, change?

    One of Kennedy’s primary targets will be the regulatory capture that practically defines the pharmaceutical industry and the agencies tasked with overseeing it. He has spent decades tirelessly battling this particular beast, and has recently articulated a number of specific policy ideas aimed at rooting out the “corruption” that characterizes the regulatory agencies as well as the world of medical research. But is that even possible?

    In order to answer this question, we need to examine the nature of the regulatory state itself.

    The Regulatory State

    There is nothing new about private commercial interests seeking to use government force to subvert the free market to their advantage – and to the disadvantage of everyone else. The medical and pharmaceutical industries are hardly unique in this regard. Generally, interest groups, or individual corporations, do this by convincing politicians to erect barriers – in the form of laws and regulations – to those who would compete with them.

    Much has been written about the extent to which the regulation of business sprang, not from a desire to protect consumers, but rather from the desire on the part of a few businesses to secure for themselves an environment in which they are insulated from competition. In their 1993 paper, “The Protectionist Roots of Antitrust,” for example, Don Boudreaux and Tom DiLorenzo look at some specific examples of business interests lobbying government to enact antitrust legislation that would stifle their competition.

    They write:

    “(F)or over a century the antitrust laws have routinely been used to thwart competition by providing a vehicle for uncompetitive businesses to sue their competitors for cutting prices, innovating new products and processes, and expanding output. This paper has argued that, moreover, antitrust was a protectionist institution from the very beginning; there never was a ‘golden age of antitrust’ besieged by rampant cartelization, as the standard account of the origins of antitrust attests.“

    The world of health care as we know it today in America is the result of similar efforts by some practitioners and professional associations to defeat their competitors, not by outperforming them in the marketplace, but by enacting laws to limit their ability to practice.

    Most notorious among these efforts was the 1910 Flexner Report. Commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation, the Report recommended closing down the vast majority of medical schools; streamlining medical education to exclude non-allopathic modalities (and mostly eliminating medical schools for women and African Americans); giving state governments the power to approve medical schools; and dramatically tightening medical licensing restrictions.

    In fact, the Flexner Report was, for the most part, an unpublished 1906 report written by the American Medical Association (AMA). At the time, the AMA made no secret about its motives in seeking the reforms to which Abraham Flexner lent his name. It sought to reduce the supply of physicians in order to further enrich its own members. In 1847, the Association’s committee on educational standards reported that:

    “The very large number of physicians in the United States…has frequently been the subject of remark. To relieve the diseases of something more than twenty millions of people, we have an army of Doctors amounting by a recent computation to forty thousand, which allows one to about every five hundred inhabitants…No wonder, then, that the profession of medicine has measurably ceased to occupy the elevated position which once it did; no wonder that the merest pittance in the way of remuneration is scantily doled out even to the most industrious in our ranks…”

    The very history of the regulatory state informs us that it was not implemented for the purpose of protecting consumers from powerful corporate interests, but to protect the interests of certain powerful corporations and groups of professionals. It is important to remember this when we hear critics bemoan the “corruption” in the regulatory agencies, and insist that this can be remedied if we just put the right people in charge of them.

    No. “Corruption” is the primordial swamp from which these agencies emerged. It is in their DNA. It is, in fact, their very reason for being. There is no “reforming” that which is operating precisely as it was designed to operate.

    Moreover, even if these agencies had been designed with the interests of the public in mind (and never mind that “the public” is not a single entity with uniform interests to begin with), the reality remains that there is no mechanism by which they can be made accountable to us.

    Accountability between two parties can only come when each party has choice regarding whether or not they interact with the other. This is not the case with regulatory agencies. These are imposed upon us. We are forced to use their “services” whether we are happy with them or not; whether they do a good job or not; whether they make our lives more dangerous than they otherwise would be or not. No matter how badly regulatory agencies perform, we are not free to take our business elsewhere.

    The FDA

    What this means is that – just as with all other political actors – the leaders of these agencies are removed from the consequences that their actions have on others. In the case of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this has led to decades of malfeasance and error that have cost many, many, lives.

    Perhaps the most infamous example in recent times is the FDA’s complete failure to protect the public from the painkiller Vioxx. The agency approved the drug in 1999, following which it is believed to have killed as many as 55,000 Americans before being withdrawn in 2004. Significantly, the FDA did not withdraw Vioxx from the market, Merck did that itself. In fact, it appears that the regulatory agency worked to suppress information about the known risks of the drug:

    “A Merck memo uncovered in November showed that Merck scientists were aware in 1996 that the drug might contribute to heart problems. Then in 2000, a Merck study found that patients taking Vioxx were twice as likely to suffer heart attacks as patients taking older painkillers. Meanwhile, mid-level FDA officials who warned of these dangers were shunned by the agency. In FDA parlance, those with a “point of view” on Vioxx were unwelcome in certain meetings concerning the drug.’”

    To believe that the Vioxx scandal was an isolated event would be a mistake. 

    Indeed, the history of the agency is littered with similar stories. Worse, it also uses its power to prevent people from having access to treatments that may help them, but that would not be very profitable, or which might otherwise go against the interests of the agency’s industry benefactors. We witnessed this in the extreme during the past few years, when the FDA and the rest of the regulatory establishment waged a war on Covid-19 treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and even Vitamins C and D.

    The FDA does not fail to protect the public because it happens to have bad people in its leadership, or because they are “incompetent.” It fails to protect us because it has no incentive to do so. We are captive “customers.” We cannot take our money elsewhere. The leadership at the FDA has no tangible reason to care about our interests. And there is no amount of “draining the swamp” that can change this.

    What Can Be Done?

    The only hope, within this kind of system, is to defy the odds – and not insignificantly, to defy the vast sums of industry lobbying money – and get someone into a position of power over the regulatory agencies who has the will to force them to act contrary to their own incentives within the system. That person right now is undoubtedly Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and, should he be confirmed as Secretary of HHS, he will undoubtedly do some good things.

    But what happens after he is gone? The system itself will not have been changed. The incentives that are in place now will still be in place then. What happens when there is no longer a good person, with good intentions, in a position of some power over these agencies? Should our right to informed consent, for example, rely on our being fortunate enough to have “good people” in charge of fundamentally unaccountable agencies? Agencies that have the power to withhold potentially life-saving products from the marketplace, while at the same time providing a false sense of security about the dangerous ones they allow?

    One of the proposals Kennedy has put forward is to reform the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. He writes: 

    “Pharmaceutical companies pay a fee every time they apply for a new drug approval, and this money makes up about 75% of the budget of the Food and Drug Administration’s drug division. That creates a barrier to entry to smaller firms and puts bureaucrats’ purse strings in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry.”

    Reforming, or better yet, eliminating, this fee would be a step in the right direction. But it would not change the fundamental nature of the FDA. It would not magically make that agency accountable to the public, nor would it remove the ability of those in the pharmaceutical industry to make other forms of payments to the agency.

    Even now, the industry has other ways of exerting its influence, including the infamous “revolving door,” whereby agency officials who do well by a particular drug company while working for the FDA are later rewarded with lucrative positions in that company. And according to an investigative report by Science, post-approval payments in varying forms are also common. 

    Science examined payment records between 2013-2016, and found that:

    “Of the more than $24 million in personal payments or research support from industry to the 16 top-earning advisers—who received more than $300,000 each—93% came from the makers of drugs those advisers previously reviewed or from competitors.”

    Critics of this kind of industry capture have long called for “getting money out” of the regulatory structure. But it remains unclear how this might be achieved. Certainly, specific payment channels, such as the Prescription Drug User Fees, can be eliminated or banned. But to imagine that those in the industry would not contrive of other ways to buy influence is not realistic. 

    Just as critically though, even if pharmaceutical companies were somehow prevented from being able to pay off the agencies that regulate them, this would still not render those agencies accountable to the public, or to anyone other than themselves. 

    The only way to “get money out” of the regulatory state is to stop giving that state favors to sell. It is to eliminate the state’s power to restrict market entry and market participation. These are the political favors that powerful industry interests bid for. If we want to stop that from happening, we need to eliminate those favors.

    But We Need the Regulatory State to Keep Us Safe!

    Astonishingly, even after the past four years, there are still a great many people who believe that the regulatory state exists to keep us safe. That it withheld potentially life-saving therapeutics from us, not out of malice or the interests of its corporate cronies, but for our protection. That it worked hard to censor information about these therapeutics, and about the dangers of the experimental product it was promoting, for the same reason. That maybe some mistakes were made during this time, but that really, truly, these agencies are designed to protect us and if we just get the right people in charge, and maybe do a little tinkering with the machinery, they will work as they are supposed to.

    Again, no. They are working precisely as they are supposed to. 

    But for those who remain unconvinced, for anyone who still believes that existing laws against fraud, malpractice, and other torts are not enough, that we need some sort of government oversight over the medical industry, let’s look a little closer.

    Economist Milton Friedman famously recommended abolishing both medical licensing and the FDA. He wrote: 

    “The FDA has done enormous harm to the health of the American public by greatly increasing the costs of pharmaceutical research, thereby reducing the supply of new and effective drugs, and by delaying the approval of such drugs as survive the tortuous FDA process.”

    Others who have examined the agency’s track record concur that the agency does more harm than good.

    Nobel laureate George Hitchings, for instance, estimated that the FDA’s five-year delay in introducing the antibiotic Septra to the market resulted in 80,000 deaths in the US.

    Drug regulation expert Dale Gieringer says that the death toll resulting from the FDA forcibly keeping new medications from the market far outweighs any benefits it may have produced. He writes:

    “The benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties per decade or 10,000 per decade for worst-case scenarios. In comparison…the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade.”

    Economist Daniel Klein notes that, prior to the FDA’s powers being expanded in 1962, existing tort law did a good job of protecting consumers:

    “The FDA was much less powerful before 1962. The historical record—decades of a relatively free market up to 1962—shows that free-market institutions and the tort system succeeded in keeping unsafe drugs to a minimum. The Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy (107 killed) was the worst in those decades. (Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States.) The economists Sam Peltzman and Dale Gieringer have made the grisly comparison: the victims of Sulfanilamide and other small tragedies prior to 1962 are insignificant compared to the death toll of the post-1962 FDA.”

    He goes on to compare medical regulation to safety regulation in other industries:

    “How is safety assured in other industries? In electronics, manufacturers submit products to Underwriters’ Laboratories, a private organization that grants its safety mark to products that pass its inspection. The process is voluntary: manufacturers may sell without the UL mark. But retailers and distributors usually prefer the products with it.

    “Suppose someone proposed a new government agency that forbade manufacturers from making any electronic product until approved by the agency. We would think the proposal to be totalitarian and crazy. But that is the system we have in drugs…”

    Conclusion

    As long as regulatory powers exist that allow state entities to restrict entry into markets, and to dictate how producers may participate in those markets, there will always be those who are incentivized to gain access to the levers of that power and use it to further their own ends. Those who have the means to pay for this power will always find ways to do so.

    What many call “corruption” is rather the predictable and inevitable outcome of institutions that are, by their very nature, unaccountable to those they purport to serve. The solution is not to get “better people” in charge of these institutions, nor is it to engage in a never-ending battle to stop participants from following the incentives the system has created for them. The solution is to remove those incentives. The solution is to remove the powers of the regulatory state itself.

    If Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is confirmed as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, he will undoubtedly strike some blows against regulatory capture. Whatever he does in this position can only be an improvement over what we have now, and it is possible that some of his reforms may even endure beyond his own tenure. But he has the chance to do much more.

    The regulatory state is a Gordian knot, and it is not enough to work at untangling its various components. It needs to be sliced through once and for all. The way to do this is simple: Abolish the FDA, abolish the NIH, abolish the CDC. End all medical licensing and accreditation. Get the government out of health care everywhere. 

    Perhaps this sounds like a political impossibility. And perhaps it is. But until very recently, RFK, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services was a political impossibility. I submit that we do not know what is possible and what is not.

    Kennedy has an unprecedented opportunity to strike at the root of what makes our healthcare system so dysfunctional: to dismantle the institutions that stifle the production of medicine, distort information about its safety, and suppress alternatives. He has an opportunity to make a profound difference not only for the next four years but for generations to come. We should all hope that he does not waste it.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 22:40

  • Democrat Mayors Say They Will Use Police To Obstruct Trump's Deportation Of Illegals
    Democrat Mayors Say They Will Use Police To Obstruct Trump’s Deportation Of Illegals

    There are only two issues that Democrats might care more about than the national legalization of abortion: Blocking the passage of voter ID laws, and, blocking the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. 

    The reason should be relatively obvious – Keeping the border open and illegal immigrants flowing into the US is the key to election victory for progressives in the long run.  If leftists are going to exterminate millions of future voters in the womb, then their only other option to fill ballot boxes is to import people from the third world and give them as much free stuff as possible so they’re sure to vote blue.

    Democrats have been pushing for a sweeping amnesty for illegals for years.  If they had won the 2024 election by a comfortable margin it’s a certainty that an amnesty would be at the top of their priority list.  The open border policies and sanctuary actions of the political left are in direct violation of US immigration law, but Democrats act as if these laws are a suggestion rather than the rule.  Without federal enforcement squarely in their corner blue cities and states only have one option left – Pretend they have the moral high ground and drum up as much civil unrest as possible.

    This might work in deep blue sanctuary cities, but the Trump Administration won the election in a landslide which included the popular vote.  The majority of Americans want deportations and these cities do not have significant national backing.  Despite this fact, some Democrat mayors are threatening to utilize local police forces to obstruct Trump’s mass deportation efforts.

    Denver Mayor Mike Johnston claims the deportation of illegals is “unconstitutional” and he initially threatened to use local law enforcement to block federal agencies from entering the city to carry out migrant arrests.  He ultimately walked these comments back, but only to a point, saying he’s ‘willing to go to jail’ to prevent deportations.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    For leftists the standard procedure is to wait and see how effectively they can use activist groups as a shield and then they change their rhetoric accordingly.  If they can get the mob to show up on the doorsteps of DHS and ICE officials like they did with Supreme Court judges in 2023 then they may feel emboldened to escalate. Johnston seemed to tone down his chest puffing theatrics after incoming Border Czar Tom Homan gave him a reality check.

    “You are absolutely breaking the law. All he has to do is look at Arizona v. U.S. and he would see he’s breaking the law, Homan said flatly. “But, look, me and the Denver mayor, we agree on one thing. He’s willing to go to jail, I’m willing to put him in jail.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Democrats don’t have the testicular fortitude to go into any fight alone, but the deportation debate is within their favorite wheelhouse, which is “resistance against the man”.  For the past four years progressives have had the support of every government institution, almost every corporation and every NGO in the US and abroad, yet, they still tried to pretend they were the underdog fighting a rebellion against an oppressor.  Now they truly are the underdog and they will certainly try to play to that image using the deportation drama as a background.  

    The Mayor of Tuscon, Regina Romero, has also threatened the use of local police to obstruct deportation arrests.  Her messaging is once again centered on the claim that deportations of illegals are a violation of higher moral standards.  The law and the will of the voters must therefore take a back seat to the superior virtues of the progressive ideology.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It should be noted that members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua have been intercepted in Denver County and in Cochise County just east of Tuscon.  They are specifically organizing in sanctuary cities with lax immigration standards, and they often recruit from illegal migrant shelters already in these areas.   

    Multiple blue cites have stated publicly that they intend to refuse help to immigration agents during deportations.  This includes the catch and release of violent criminals in order to prevent their arrest by ICE.  In other words, Democrats would rather see rapists and murders back on the streets than hand them over to Trump.  The thought process here seems utterly insane, but again, it makes perfect sense when one realizes how much time and energy Democrats have invested in their amnesty model.  

    Without a massive third world voting block bought off with US tax dollars, it’s unlikely that progressives will win another election for a very long time.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 22:05

  • US Firms Compete For 'Huge Contracts' To Control North Gaza Security
    US Firms Compete For ‘Huge Contracts’ To Control North Gaza Security

    Via The Cradle

    Israel is examining the launch of a “pilot program” that could see US private security firms replace the army in northern Gaza to “accompany food and medicine convoys” for Palestinians who remain in the devastated region, according to a report by Israeli daily Globes.

    Among the top competitors for the multi-million dollar contract are Constellis, the direct successor to infamous mercenary company Blackwater, and Orbis, a little-known South Carolina company run by former generals that has worked with the Pentagon for 20 years.

    Image source: silentprofessionals.org

    Officials say the pilot program for north Gaza aims to “prevent Hamas or other gangs from taking over the aid trucks and free the IDF soldiers from the dangerous mission.”

    In recent weeks, Gaza’s interior ministry established a new police force to deal with groups of bandits and gangs that have been raiding humanitarian aid shipments and blackmailing international organizations in the southern Gaza Strip.

    The UN has said these gangs are likely “benefiting from a passive if not active benevolence” or “protection” from the Israeli army.

    In October, a third US security firm – Global Delivery Company (GDC) – which describes itself as “Uber for warzones” – claimed to be working with another firm to create and manage “humanitarian bubbles” in Gaza.

    GDC is run by Mordechai Kahane, an Israeli businessman who worked with Israeli intelligence during the war on Syria to arm extremist groups seeking to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    Although no official figure exists about the size of the contracts being offered by Tel Aviv for these mercenary firms, Globes cites Lt. Col. Yochanan Zoraf, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and former advisor on Arab affairs in the Israeli army, as saying the figure will likely reach “billions of shekels per year.”

    “These are not companies that will manage the daily lives of the residents,” Zoraf claims, adding that “peripheral responsibility for the defense of [north Gaza] as well as the civil responsibility itself” falls at Israel’s feet.

    The former army officer also says Tel Aviv will likely “ask that the US – or an outside party – finance the program.”

    On Tuesday, Israel Hayom reported that the pilot program has yet to receive approval from the security cabinet “due to legal difficulties in defining the occupation” based on international law.

    “In order to circumvent the legal obstacles, the security services are examining bringing in external funding from humanitarian aid organizations or foreign countries for the [mercenary firms], which costs tens of millions of dollars to operate,” the report adds.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Since the start of what UN sources and others denounce as the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, the Israeli government has turned to mercenaries to overcome an enlistment crisis. This includes cooperation with German intelligence to recruit asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

    “Over the past seven months, the Values Initiative Association and the German–Israeli Association (DIG) have worked to enlist these refugees from war-torn Muslim-majority countries as mercenaries for Israel. Offered monthly salaries ranging between €4,000 to €5,000 and fast-tracked German citizenship, many have joined the fight. Reports suggest that around 4,000 immigrants were naturalized between September and October alone,” writes The Cradle columnist Mohamed Nader al-Omari.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 21:30

  • China Discovers World's Largest Gold Deposit Worth $83 Billion
    China Discovers World’s Largest Gold Deposit Worth $83 Billion

    Chinese scientists have uncovered a “supergiant” deposit of high-quality gold ore hidden near some of the country’s existing gold mines. The vast reserve, which could be the largest single reservoir of the valuable metal left anywhere on Earth, could end up being the largest known deposit of the precious metal anywhere in the world, and is worth more than $80 billion.

    As LiveScience reports, the new deposit was uncovered at the Wangu gold field in the northeast of Hunan province, representatives from the Geological Bureau of Hunan Province (GBHP) told Chinese state media on Nov. 20. Workers detected more than 40 gold veins, which contained around 330 tons (300 metric tons) of gold down to a depth of 6,600 feet (2,000 meters). However, using 3D computer models, mining experts have predicted that there could be up to 1,100 tons (1,000 metric tons) of gold — roughly eight times heavier than the Statute of Liberty — hidden at depths of up to 9,800 feet (3,000 m).

    If true, the entire deposit is likely worth around 600 billion yuan ($83 billion), GBHP officials said.

    Researchers drilled down around 6,600 feet below the ground and identified more than 40 veins of gold ore.

    Officials revealed that the maximum quality of the new deposit was 138 grams of gold per metric ton of ore, which is relatively high compared with most other gold mines around the world. “Many drilled rock cores showed visible gold,” Chen Rulin, an ore-prospecting expert with GBHP, told state media.

    More gold was also found during test drills around the new site’s “peripheral areas,” suggesting there are more large deposits waiting to be tapped in the future, experts said.

    It is hard to keep track of the amount of gold left in the various mines across the world due to fluctuations in the rate of extraction at each site and a lack of transparency in reporting results. However, as of 2022, the largest known remaining gold reserves on Earth are found in South Africa’s South Deep gold mine, which has around 1,025 tons (930 metric tons) of gold, according to Mining Technology. This means the new deposit could be the largest known natural stockpile of gold on the planet.

    Mining experts believe that the new deposit contains up to 1,100 tons of gold

    News of the discovery sent ripples through the mining community and the wider global economy. As LiveScience notes, the price of gold jumped to around $2,700 per ounce – just below a record high set earlier this year – although it is unclear why a surge in gold supply would push the price of gold higher.

    China is already the biggest producer of gold in the world, accounting for around 10% of global output in 2023, according to Reuters. However, the country still uses more gold than it can produce, consuming around three times as much of the precious metal as it can dig up. As a result, China relies heavily on importing gold from countries like Australia and South Africa.

    China currently mines around 10% of the world’s newly dug up gold every year.

    The new gold deposit could help alleviate this issue but will not solve the problem completely. Based on current consumption rates, the entire deposit would only supply the country’s needs for around 1.4 years.

    By the end of 2023, an estimated total of 234,332 tons (212,582 metric tons) of gold have been dug up in human history, with more than two-thirds of this being extracted since 1950, according to the World Gold Council.

    This may seem like a lot. But if you were to melt down all the gold ever mined and put it into a single cube, it would only be around 72 feet (22 m) across, according to the World Gold Council, slightly shorter than the length of a blue whale.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 20:55

  • A Top Priority For The DOGE Commission: Decentralizing The Federal Government
    A Top Priority For The DOGE Commission: Decentralizing The Federal Government

    Authored by Fred Fleitz via American Greatness,

    One of the best ideas I heard from Donald Trump for his second term is to move as many as 100,000 federal employees to “new locations outside the Washington Swamp” to places “filled with patriots who love America.”

    This initiative will save tax dollars and help depoliticize federal agencies. There also are important security and fairness reasons to relocate these agencies across the United States.

    I speak from experience.

    In the early 1990s, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) drafted legislation to move thousands of CIA employees to West Virginia. Bryd proposed closing 21 CIA offices in Washington, DC, and its Virginia and Maryland suburbs and moving them to large campuses in Jefferson County, West Virginia.

    My wife and I were CIA employees at the time, and we were thrilled about the potential move of our office out of the DC area. We were unable to afford a house without a lengthy commute on our federal salaries because the large presence of federal workers and contractors had driven housing prices through the roof.

    (Five of the seven wealthiest U.S. counties are in the DC suburbs.)

    We also disliked the liberal culture and high taxes of the DC area.

    Unfortunately, the Washington establishment, including many well-paid senior CIA officers and contractors, blocked Senator Byrd’s attempt to relocate CIA offices to West Virginia. As a result, when my wife could no longer work full-time because of the disability of one of our children, we ended up buying a house 50 miles from DC with a roundtrip commute of 2.5 to 3 hours per day.

    Moving federal agencies out of the DC area to areas with affordable housing and reasonable commutes are two good reasons why the Trump administration should decentralize the federal government. The current practice of locating these agencies within a few miles of the White House and Congress reflects a bygone era before telephones, email, and video conferences. Most federal employees rarely interact with members of Congress and the White House and can do their jobs more efficiently and economically in more affordable and less congested areas of the country.

    There’s also the issue of fairness.

    DC, Maryland, and Virginia receive huge tax revenues from federal employees’ salaries and retirement checks. They also benefit from large federal expenditures like the DC Metro, DC airports, free federal museums, etc. Since technological advances have made it unnecessary for these agencies to be located near our nation’s capital, it is time to share the wealth of federal agencies by spreading them across the United States. There is no reason why this government spending and jobs should continue to be concentrated in one part of the country.

    Many of these moves would make these agencies more effective and accountable to the American people.

    For example, relocating the Agriculture Department headquarters to a farming state would move the agency closer to the Americans it was created to serve. Agriculture employees could interact with farmers and ranchers on a daily basis. The Agriculture Department could also hire many employees who actually live on farms and ranches.

    The same would be true for moving the headquarters of the Transportation Department to Detroit or the Interior Department to Utah or Wyoming. Other possibilities: move the Department of Health and Human Services to North Carolina’s Research Triangle, move the FBI headquarters to the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, move the Energy Department headquarters to the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and move the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters to Florida. Large portions of the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, IRS, and other agencies should also be moved to locations across the U.S.

    There are two other crucial reasons for decentralizing U.S. government agencies away from the Washington, DC area.

    The most important is security. Given growing threats from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; drones; and violent demonstrations by radical groups, keeping large numbers of federal agencies and employees in the Washington, DC, area is a significant and avoidable threat to national security and the continuity of government. Spreading federal agencies across the United States would make it harder for a U.S. adversary to deal a devastating blow to the federal government with a single attack.

    Decentralizing federal agencies also would help depoliticize them and fight the so-called “deep state.” The resistance by federal employees to the president’s constitutional authority as the head of the federal government is driven by a self-serving Washington, DC, culture consisting of entrenched employees, former employees, federal contractors, think tanks, and the mainstream media. Many of these employees do little work and are extremely hard to fire. Even worse, nearly 90% of federal government office space in Washington is vacant because most federal workers began working from home during the COVID pandemic and never returned to their offices.

    Moving federal agencies out of the corrupting influence of the DC bubble would weaken deep state resistance to presidential control of federal agencies. It would also attract new employees from other parts of the country who are more interested in working hard to serve their country.

    An added bonus of moving federal agencies to other areas of the U.S. is that many career employees in the DC area will quit instead of moving to new offices in the heartland.

    Such relocations can thus be a way to get past the red tape of downsizing these agencies and firing problem personnel. This was proven in 2019 when President Trump moved the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Grand Junction, Colorado. Of 328 BLM employees given relocation orders, only 41 agreed to move. Unfortunately, President Biden reversed this move in 2021.

    Decentralizing the federal government should be a top priority for Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Despite the many good reasons for doing this, DC’s entrenched bureaucrats and interest groups will fight hard to stop this initiative. Only a disrupter administration like the second Trump presidency can pull this off.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 20:20

  • Haitian Migrants Flee Springfield, Ohio Ahead Of Trump Inauguration
    Haitian Migrants Flee Springfield, Ohio Ahead Of Trump Inauguration

    Is an open border reckoning at hand?  Migrants brought to the US under shady temporary legal status changes made by the Biden Administration seem to think so.  In June of this year Biden granted special immigration benefits to at least 300,000 Haitians (out of 500,000 already allowed into the US) brought into the country in 2022, allowing them to remain until early 2026.  The plan included minimal background checks and was originally touted by Biden as a way to “slow illegal border encounters”.

    Biden offered migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela easy access to work visa programs and special benefits so that the same people wouldn’t cross into the US illegally.  In other words, Biden was desperate to reduce embarrassing border crossing numbers so he paid vast sums of money to transport and house hundreds of thousands of migrants under a veil of legality.

    The administration, however, did not renew legal status protections in 2024 for a large percentage of these immigrants and they will be required to leave the US in the near term.  A host of NGOs advise migrants on how to use legal loopholes to stay within the country for extended periods of time, usually dragging out the clock until they can apply for permanent residency.  None of this, however, will matter much in the wake of Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans.

    In response to the impending cleanup of Biden’s immigration mess, Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are reportedly fleeing the area and relocating to sanctuary cities in an attempt to avoid deportation.  The president of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield says some families have left the city for locations like Dayton and Columbus because of uncertainty about the changes in government.  

    “Some of them, they relocate in those areas just to follow or observe the unfolding of the situation with the expectation that they can come back if everything gets back to normal,” said Viles Dorsainvil, Haitian Support Center president.

    “We still have some kind of anxiety going on, of fear just because people do not know what will be happening with the upcoming the next administration…” 

    The media has attempted to portray deportation policies as a threat to all immigrants, even those that have been in the US for many years following the legal citizenship process.  

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But for every story of a migrant that has actually added something of value to their new community, there are thousands of migrants feeding off government subsidies.  Democrats often claim that illegals and migrants under TPS don’t receive government benefits.  This is false.

    The majority of Haitian migrants under the Biden program are eligible for cash assistance, medical assistance, employment preparation, job placement, English language training, and other services offered through the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

    They may also be eligible for federal “mainstream” (non-ORR funded) benefits, such as cash assistance through Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), health insurance through Medicaid, and food assistance through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

    This is on top of cash aid provided to Haitians by pro-immigration NGOs. 

    Over 20,000 Haitian migrants were shipped to Springfield, Ohio; the city originally had a population of only 60,000.  That’s a 33% increase in total population made up of a third world demographic, all in the span of a couple years. This was done subversively without any warning or input from native residents.  The situation became national news after locals reported increasing disappearances of pets and park wildlife after the arrival of the migrants, which Donald Trump commented on during the second presidential debate.  

    The ability of migrants living in the US under tenuous circumstances to fight deportation is limited.  Democrats and sanctuary city officials suggest they can tie up the DHS and ICE for months or years on each case, exhausting the Trump Administration with legal battles.  This is not reality.  

    Trump can indeed place a moratorium on asylum requests and revoke Temporary Protection Status (TPS) applications. He did this during his first term and he can do it again.  Legal battles are harder to fight when the person in question is booted out of the country where the courts reside.  There is nothing that can stop deportations, including ambiguous sanctuary city protections.  One way or another, most migrants in the US illegally and those under Biden’s TPS policy will be sent back to where they came from.       

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 19:45

  • Florida Authorities Recover 37 Gold Coins Stolen From 1715 Fleet Shipwrecks
    Florida Authorities Recover 37 Gold Coins Stolen From 1715 Fleet Shipwrecks

    Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

    Florida authorities have recovered 37 gold coins worth more than $1 million that were stolen from the 1715 Fleet shipwrecks, the state’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) said on Nov. 26.

    The FWC said the gold coin recovery marked “a major milestone” in a years-long investigation into the theft and illegal trafficking of historical artifacts.

    The gold coins were initially found by contracted salvage operators for the 1715 Fleet—comprising Spanish ships that sank in a hurricane off Florida’s coast in 1715—off Florida’s Treasure Coast in 2015.

    There were 101 gold coins found from the wreckages, but only 51 of them were reported and adjudicated, while the remaining gold coins were not disclosed and were later stolen, the FWC said in a statement.

    FWC investigators launched a probe with the FBI after new evidence came to light in June this year, leading to the arrest of Eric Schmitt, whose family had been contracted to salvage the centuries-old fleet.

    Schmitt was connected to the illegal sale of stolen gold coins between 2023 and 2024, the FWC stated.

    During the probe, investigators carried out multiple search warrants and recovered coins from private residences, safe deposit boxes, and auctions. Five coins were retrieved from an auctioneer living in Florida, who had purchased them from Schmitt, the FWC stated.

    Investigators also used advanced digital forensics to identify metadata and geolocation data, which linked Schmitt to a photo of the stolen coins taken at the Schmitt family condominium in Fort Pierce.

    The FWC said that Schmitt also took three of the stolen gold coins and placed them on the ocean floor in 2016, which were subsequently found by new investors of the 1715 Fleet.

    “This case underscores the importance of safeguarding Florida’s rich cultural heritage and holding accountable those who seek to profit from its exploitation,” FWC investigator Camille Soverel said in a statement.

    Authorities said the recovered artifacts will be returned to their rightful custodians, though the probe is still ongoing to locate 13 remaining stolen gold coins and hold those involved in the illegal sale accountable.

    The custodian and salvaging company of the 1715 Fleet, Queen Jewels LLC, said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the theft and has been working with law enforcement and the state in the case.

    “We take our responsibilities as custodian very seriously and will always seek to enforce the laws governing these wrecks,” the company said in a statement.

    “The recovered coins are now going through the proper process for legal adjudication.”

    The FWC said it partnered with the 19th and Ninth Judicial Circuits to bring charges against Schmitt for dealing in stolen property.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 19:10

  • Hezbollah Believes It Lost Up To 4000 Fighters Killed, Far Surpassing 2006 War
    Hezbollah Believes It Lost Up To 4000 Fighters Killed, Far Surpassing 2006 War

    Reuters has cited Hezbollah and Lebanese sources to say that Hezbollah believes the number of its fighters killed by Israel over the last year of fighting could be as high as 4,000.

    A fragile ceasefire has held for the last three days, and the Shia group backed by Iran has been burying its dead this week. Ground fighting has been most intense in the last two months before the ceasefire was agreed to.

    “The sources’ estimate far outstrips tallies published by the group, but skews close to Israel’s announced figure and could provide a window into the extent to which Israel was able to damage the powerful Iranian proxy, which saw its leadership largely decapitated and its rocket arsenal significantly depleted, according to authorities,” Reuters says.

    AFP/Getty Images

    According to more, based on a source cited by Reuters, “the Iran-backed group may have lost up to 4,000 people — well over 10 times the number killed in its monthlong 2006 war with Israel.”

    Tens of thousands of Lebanese have been moving back into their southern villages and towns, some of which are in rubble and ruins. Bodies are still being searched for under the rubble.

    The Lebanese army is also moving into southern districts in coordination with UN peacekeeping authorities, as part of the truce deal to monitor for potential ceasefire violations.

    “The concerned military units are moving from several areas to the South Litani Sector, where they will be stationed in the locations designated for them,” the Lebanese military said in its first statement following the truce going into effect.

    Meanwhile, amid a war-weary and devastated Lebanese population, Hezbollah might be more unpopular then ever. The economy was already in tatters even long before Oct.7, 2023.

    “Hezbollah’s claim of victory holds little weight outside its core constituency,” Imad Salamey, a Middle Eastern politics professor and analyst at the Lebanese American University, has explained.

    “The war was not widely popular among the Lebanese people, many of whom are more focused on the devastating economic losses inflicted during the conflict,” he added.

    Despite some positive indicators that the ceasefire will hold, including the cessation of daily rocket fire onto northern Israel, the conflict might not be over

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 18:35

  • Divide & Conquer: Political Riptides Threaten To Overwhelm The Nation
    Divide & Conquer: Political Riptides Threaten To Overwhelm The Nation

    Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must–at that moment–become the center of the universe.”

    – Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Speech

    Once again we find ourselves approaching that time of year when, as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, we’re supposed to give thanks as a nation and as individuals for our safety and our freedoms.

    But how do you give thanks for freedoms that are constantly being eroded?

    How do you express gratitude for one’s safety when the perils posed by the American police state grow more treacherous by the day?

    How do you come together as a nation in thanksgiving when the powers-that-be continue to polarize and divide us into warring factions?

    You can see this struggle—to reconcile the hope for a better, freer, more just world with the soul-sucking reality of a world in which greed, meanness and war continue to triumph—in John Lennon’s two songs, “Imagine” (which exhorted us to “Imagine all the people livin’ life in peace”) and “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” (which was part of a major anti-war campaign, which were released within months of each other in 1971.

    Lennon—a musical genius, anti-war activist, and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the Deep State will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority—made clear that the only way to achieve an end to hunger, violence, war, and tyranny is to want it badly enough and work towards it.

    All these years later, we still don’t seem to want those things badly enough.

    Peace remains out of reach. Activists and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives.

    For those of us who joined with Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state.

    Those who do dare to speak up about government corruption are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship or involuntary detention.

    And then there are those who remain silent while the world falls apart.

    By doing nothing, the onlookers become as guilty as the perpetrator.

    It works the same whether you’re talking about kids watching bullies torment a fellow student on a playground, passersby watching someone dying on a sidewalk, or citizens remaining silent in the face of government atrocities.

    There’s a term for this phenomenon where people stand by, watch and do nothing—even when there is no risk to their safety—while some horrific act takes place: it’s called the bystander effect.

    Historically, this bystander syndrome in which people remain silent and disengaged—mere onlookers—in the face of abject horrors and injustice has resulted in whole populations being conditioned to tolerate unspoken cruelty toward their fellow human beings: the crucifixion and slaughter of innocents by the Romans, the torture of the Inquisition, the atrocities of the Nazis, the butchery of the Fascists, the bloodshed by the Communists, and the cold-blooded war machines run by the military industrial complex.

    Psychological researchers John Darley and Bibb Latane mounted a series of experiments to discover why people respond with apathy or indifference instead of intervening.

    According to Darley and Latane, there are two critical factors that contribute to this moral lassitude. First, there’s the problem of pluralistic ignorance in which individuals in a group look to others to determine how to respond. Second, there’s the problem of “diffusion of responsibility,” which is compounded by pluralistic ignorance. Basically, this means that no one acts to intervene or help because each person is waiting for someone else to do so.

    Their findings underscore the fact that evil prevails when good people do nothing.

    We see it all the time: when people are vocal about politics but silent in the face of human suffering and injustice, tyranny triumphs.

    For instance, psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment studied the impact of perceived power and authority on middleclass students who were assigned to act as prisoners and prison guards. The experiment revealed that power does indeed corrupt (the appointed guards became increasingly abusive), and those who were relegated to being prisoners acted increasingly “submissive and depersonalized, taking the abuse and saying little in protest.”

    This is how imperial presidents preside over police states.

    So, what can we do? Be modern-day Good Samaritans and do your part to push back against the darkness. Recognize injustice. Don’t turn away from suffering. Refuse to remain silent. Take a stand. Speak up. Speak out.

    “If you think there is even a possibility that someone needs help, act on it,” advises Zimbardo.  “You may save a life. You are the modern version of the Good Samaritan that makes the world a better place for all of us.”

    This is what Zimbardo refers to as “the power of one.” All it takes is one person breaking away from the fold to change the dynamics of a situation.

    Here’s what I suggest: this holiday season, do yourselves a favor and turn off the talking heads, shut down the screen devices, tune out the politicians, take a deep breath, then do something to pay your blessings forward.

    Find something to be thankful for about the things and people in your community for which you might have the least tolerance or appreciation. Instead of just rattling off a list of things you’re thankful for that sound good, dig a little deeper and acknowledge the good in those you may have underappreciated or feared.

    When it comes time to giving thanks for your good fortune, put your gratitude into action: pay your blessings forward with deeds that spread a little kindness, lighten someone’s burden, and brighten some dark corner.

    Engage in acts of kindness. Smile more. Fight less. Build bridges. Refuse to let toxic politics define your relationships. Focus on the things that unite instead of that which divides.

    Do your part to push back against the meanness of our culture with conscious compassion and humanity. Moods are contagious, the good and the bad. They can be passed from person to person. So can the actions associated with those moods, the good and the bad.

    Acts of benevolence, no matter how inconsequential they might seem, can spark a movement.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, all it takes is one person to start a chain reaction.

    For instance, a few years ago in Florida, a family of six—four adults and two young boys—were swept out to sea by a powerful rip current in Panama City Beach. There was no lifeguard on duty. The police were standing by, waiting for a rescue boat. And the few people who had tried to help ended up stranded, as well.

    Those on shore grouped together and formed a human chain. What started with five volunteers grew to 15, then 80 people, some of whom couldn’t swim.

    One by one, they linked hands and stretched as far as their chain would go. The strongest of the volunteers swam out beyond the chain and began passing the stranded victims of the rip current down the chain.

    One by one, they rescued those in trouble and pulled each other in.

    There’s a moral here for what needs to happen in this country if we only can band together and prevail against the riptides that threaten to overwhelm us.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 18:00

  • Zelenskyy Offers To End 'Hot Phase' Of War In Exchange For NATO Membership
    Zelenskyy Offers To End ‘Hot Phase’ Of War In Exchange For NATO Membership

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he’s willing to end the “hot phase of the war” with Russia – including ceding captured territory – in exchange for NATO membership that includes Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy speaks to Sky’s Stuart Ramsay

    “If we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we need to take under the Nato umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control,” he told Sky News, adding “We need to do it fast. And then, on the occupied territory of Ukraine, Ukraine can get them back in a diplomatic way.“

    Zelenskyy said that a ceasefire was needed to “guarantee that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will not come back” to take more Ukrainian territory,” or that “he [Putin] will come back.”

    In short, to end the war, Zelenskyy wants the thing that started the war.

    The comments are a drastic departure from previous statements – as Zelenskyy has long-asserted that Ukraine’s sovereignty is non-negotiable, including over Crimea.

    Putting things in recent perspective, Zelenskyy’s comments come as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte admitted to Fox News that Ukraine is not in a strong enough position to negotiate an end to the war, explaining that there is not enough battlefield leverage to “prevent the Russians from getting what they want.”

    “I think that’s crucial that we have a good deal because the whole world will be watching what type of deal will be struck between Russia and Ukraine when it comes to it,” Rutte said.

    “We have to make sure that Ukraine is in a position of more strength than they are at the moment,” Rutte continued, “so that a deal can be struck which is favorable not to the Russians — and therefore to China, North Korea and Iran — because they all will be watching.”

    It also comes amid pressure from the Biden administration to lower the draft age in Ukraine to 18 so it has enough troops to continue fighting Russia, aka more meat for the grinder.

    Former British PM Boris Johnson – who allegedly scuttled early peace talks in Turkey that might have ended the Ukraine war – has called for NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine, again.

    Johnson also asserted that if Russia gets the upper hand in the conflict then Britain may deploy it’s forces regardless in order to “defend Europe.”  Ukraine’s eastern defenses are currently being overrun by ongoing Russian attrition tactics. This reality in combination with Trump’s avalanche election win seems to have triggered establishment ghouls into a frenzy of escalation with Joe Biden giving the greenlight on long range missile strikes coordinated directly by NATO forces.   

    Watch the entire interview below:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 17:41

  • India's GDP Growth Slows To Two-Year Low
    India’s GDP Growth Slows To Two-Year Low

    Two weeks ago, when looking at the recent sharp drop in Indian stocks and the concurrent slide in earnings expectations, we asked whether the Indian stock bubble – one of the most resilient of the past decade – had finally burst.

    Today we got another confirmation that the answer appears to be yes, when we learned that India’s economy grew at its slowest pace in almost two years, dampening the outlook for the full year and putting pressure on the central bank to cut interest rates.

    GDP grew 5.4% in the three months to September from a year earlier, the Statistics Ministry said in a statement on Friday. That was the worst reading since the fourth quarter of 2022 and lower than the central bank’s projection of 7% for the period. It is also well below the roughly 10% growth pace observed in the pre-covid era.

    The data will prompt economists to further downgrade their GDP growth forecasts for the year through March 2025. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are already predicting growth as low as 6.4%.

    The figures will also put pressure on the Reserve Bank of India, which has been predicting growth of 7.2% for the full year, to cut interest rates. The next monetary policy decision is scheduled for Dec. 6. The yield on India’s 10-year bond fell 5 basis points to 6.76% after the GDP release. The rupee was steady, having closed before the data.

    “While we expect the RBI to keep the policy rate unchanged at its meeting next week, the possibility of a move in the February policy for a rate cut has increased,” said Sakshi Gupta, an economist at HDFC Bank Ltd.

    The slump in last quarter’s growth was largely due to weaker manufacturing and electricity and gas production, while mining contracted.

    Slumping company profits, falling wages and inflation have hurt the economy’s breakneck speed in recent months. The central bank has kept rates unchanged for almost two years now, with Governor Shaktikanta Das recently reiterating that a rate cut at this stage would be “very risky” given inflation risks.

    Prominent ministers in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, including the finance minister, have recently stated that high borrowing costs are hurting the economy. Weak growth will make it difficult for India to cash in on its demographic dividend. Joblessness, especially among young people, emerged as a key concern for voters in India’s election this year, contributing to Modi’s worse-than-expected showing at the polls.

    Despite the rapid slowdown in growth, India’s economy continues to grow notably faster than that of India, which is officially expected to grow by 5% but unofficially is stagnant at best if not contracting.

     

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 17:30

  • The "Let It Rip" Canard: Reflections On Jay Bhattacharya
    The “Let It Rip” Canard: Reflections On Jay Bhattacharya

    Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

    Early in the Covid period, the skeptics of government closures and universal quarantines were denounced as favoring a policy of “let it rip.” The phrase has been in use since the 19th century. It is apparently drawn from experience with steamships. When you released power to its maximum extent, it made a ripping sound. 

    The implication is that when you let it rip, you let go of all controls and just wait to see what happens. 

    Think about the application to infectious disease, at least in the context of the debate over lockdowns. The theory is that if you don’t force people to stay home, force businesses to close, and force schools and churches to shut down, people will mindlessly move about here and there and cause infection to spread wildly. No one will have a clue about what to do about it. 

    The implication is that people are unbearably stupid, lack all personal incentive to protect themselves, and somehow cannot but be as reckless as possible.

    There will be no strategies, no methods of mitigation, no therapeutics, no limits on the spread of incurable sickness. 

    We need geniuses like Anthony Fauci to give us police-enforced guidance in order to stay safe from the consequences of our own choices. We don’t have brains. We don’t have habits born of experience. We don’t have any social mechanisms embedded in our traditions. We don’t have anything. 

    We are worse than an anthill, which at least has a rules-based order born of instinct. In this view, human behavior is purely randomized and rote, moving about here and there, fully unable to process information about guidance, lacking completely in any capacity to be careful, wise, or otherwise govern ourselves. 

    This is the essence of the push for lockdowns. Anything less than totalitarian control of the human population amounts to utter chaos in which the virus rules us all whereas the geniuses at the controls of government power know all things.

    This is the essential worldview of all those who said that lockdown opponents merely want to let the virus rip. 

    This was of course the core criticism of the Great Barrington Declaration of which NIH Director-nominee Jay Bhattacharya was the main author. It advocated no such thing as “let it rip.” Instead, it called for public health to recognize the existence of human intelligence and consider the costs of overriding it with police-state edicts that ruin businesses and lives. It came out six months after lockdowns began and already revealed themselves to be devastating. There should not have been anything even slightly controversial about the statement. 

    And yet truly there was something about those times that tempted intellectuals toward grave extremes of utopian thinking. Remember the “Zero Covid” movement? Talk about insane. 

    I just read an outrageous paper in Frontiers of Health (date March 2021!) that claimed to have the magical solution to Covid. The plan would defeat the disease in “one day” by ordering simultaneous universal testing, forcing all positive tests to isolate, and monitoring all public spaces with concentration camp guards. The authors proposed this seriously, forgetting that a respiratory virus with a zoonotic reservoir cares nothing for such antics. To have signed one’s name to such a suggestion should confine one to a lifetime of ill repute as an intellectual. 

    There is also the slight problem of human rights and freedom. But, hey, anyone who yammered on about those topics was then accused of being an advocate of “let it rip.” 

    The truth is that we do have intelligence and brains. Older people have always known to avoid large crowds in flu season. Pick up any geriatric magazine and you can discover that this is true. Even our habits of the season reflect that. Intergenerational family units tend to stay indoors as we enter winter months and get out and about in the spring when threats of infectious disease die down. “Focused protection” is embedded in the habits of the calendar year. 

    We are also capable of reading data on risk demographics. We knew from February 2020 that Covid posed a medically significant risk mainly to the aged and infirm. There was never a serious risk associated with beach parties or schooling. We knew this at least intuitively, and vast numbers of people also knew to disregard the crazy fear-mongering from the top that was designed to prepare the population for the shot. 

    Society knew better than its managers. It is this way in every sector of life in a world in which society is trusted as the primary manager of itself. 

    It’s true in economics. Now that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are pushing for radical deregulation of all things, the same critique is being offered. They merely advocate that enterprise “let it rip.” It’s the new name for laissez-faire, another smear term from the 19th century. 

    But in the same sense that people have the intelligence to judge disease risk, society generates systems and institutions that put limits and guardrails up for enterprise too. The existence of rivalrous competition with easy entry and exit keeps prices, profits, and costs toward an equilibrium. Producer accountability is instilled with user ratings, reputation, and strict liability (unless you are a vaccine maker enjoying full indemnification). 

    People forget that the best institutions assuring quality and safety are not government agencies but private services like Underwriters Laboratory, which has been around since the 19th century, long before the federal government had a single agency regulating even food quality. Remove the regulations, abolish the agencies, and competent and well-run private institutions would appear in every area, the same as professional credentialing now. 

    Trusting people to manage infectious disease based on realistic risk assessments is no different from trusting property owners, workers, prices, and markets to work out the best possible solutions to the problem of scarcity in the material world. It doesn’t mean full throttle come what may any more than not locking down means zero control over our health. 

    In other words, this whole phrase has been deployed against the idea of freedom itself. In fact, the proponents of lockdowns were not opposed to smearing that word too, spelling it as freedumb. 

    Early on in the pandemic response, I was interviewed in Germany and the person asked what the best rhetorical strategy would be to push for a reopening. I suggested they campaign for freedom. The response: that is not possible because the word itself has been discredited. My response: if freedom is discredited, we have no cause of hope at all. 

    The legacy of Jay Bhattarcharya’s actions during Covid – joining what felt like a half-dozen of us immediate critics of these awful policies – is not only his attention to science and facts; it is also a reverence for the idea of freedom itself, which really means to trust that society can manage itself with the best-possible outcomes apart from the dictates of pretentious and powerful people at the top. 

    In a beautiful irony, Jay now inherits the position of the man who called him a “fringe epidemiologist” and called for the censors to do a “quick and devastating takedown” of his work. It’s been a very long journey lasting nearly five years, but here we are, the man who led the opposition to the worst-imaginable public health policies now in a position to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. 

    Savor this moment: it’s a rare one when justice prevails. As for accountability and the truth about what happened in those dark days, there is a good phrase for what should happen to the information flows that should now happen: let it rip. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 17:00

  • Looming Trump Tariffs Spark Wave Of Freight Frontloading From China
    Looming Trump Tariffs Spark Wave Of Freight Frontloading From China

    Anticipating that President-elect Donald Trump will fulfill his promise of a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China, importers are frontloading freight before the tariff wall takes effect in less than two months.

    Bloomberg reports that international cargo flights out of the world’s second-largest economy are ramping up to new records in the weeks after the presidential election. 

    According to the Ministry of Transport data, there were 3,485 international cargo flights in or out of China last week, the most since March 2023—or about the time when China reopened its economy after a few years of lockdowns. Last week was the third consecutive week with more than 3,400 flights. 

    Souce: Bloomberg

    “The threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico will motivate US importers to frontload imports and accumulate inventories, regardless of whether the tariffs are implemented,” Barclays analyst Pooja Sriram wrote in a note to clients earlier this week. 

    Sriram said, “The 25% tariffs could intensify this pull-forward effect, leading to an even stronger surge in imports in late 2024 and early 2025, thereby widening the trade deficit.”

    Several Chinese manufacturers, including Shenzhen Lingke Technology, a lighting products manufacturer, told Nikkei Asia that major US retailers have already increased orders.

    “The thinking is that American clients want to lock in as many profits as possible before a new round of tariffs kick in,” Wu Zhiqiang, CEO of Shenzhen Lingke, told the media outlet.

    Nikkei reported, “Microsoft, HP and Dell are scrambling to obtain as many electronic parts as they can before January.”

    “We think shipment could be front-loaded, boosting exports in the first half of 2025 before dampening them in the second half,” other Barclays analysts wrote in a note. Analysts at the bank expect a 30% tariff increase from the U.S. on Chinese goods next year, which would cap China’s economic growth in 2025 to about 4%. 

    Mike Beckham, CEO of Simple Modern, which produces drinkware and other lifestyle production in Oklahoma, although it relies on components from China, warned there is a lot of tarrif “uncertainty right now.”

    “Some companies are attempting to ship as much as they can right now, but it has not been a major driver of strategy for the companies I am close with,” Beckham said. 

    China’s export boom bodes well for logistics firms, such as freight forwarders and carriers, in the short term, as the panic to pull forward as much product as possible before tariffs go into effect early next year. 

    A report from Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, noted that air cargo prices out of China “have still not spiked and carriers report being busy but not overwhelmed even as December approaches,” adding, “Capacity additions to these lanes and shippers who adjusted and planned ahead may prove to be enough to prevent extreme rate climbs and congestion through the end of the year.”

    Trump announced earlier this week he intends to levy a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada would remain in place until the flow of “drugs, in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop,” while tariffs on China would remain in place “until such time as [the drugs that are pouring into our country] stop.”  He also stated that on January 20, he would “sign all necessary documents” to implement the tariffs on Mexico and Canada as one of his “many first Executive Orders.”

    Overall, the tariff announcement is reminiscent of the first Trump administration, when such tariffs were announced as a negotiating tactic, rather than the more systematic tariff policies (e.g., the 10-20% “universal baseline tariff”) Trump frequently discussed during the campaign.

    Deutsche Bank’s chief FX strategist, George Saravelos, wrote a note late this week outlining the ten biggest takeaways his desk had about the incoming Trump tariffs. 

    Saravelos pointed out the countries that would be most affected by tariffs, including Mexico, Vietnam, and Canada. 

    The great pull-forward of freight to hedge against Trump tariffs is well underway—reminiscent of 2018. The only problem is that freight demand will likely slide once frontloading is over. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 16:30

  • Syrian Jihadists Mount New Assault On Aleppo After Surprise Advance
    Syrian Jihadists Mount New Assault On Aleppo After Surprise Advance

    Authored by Jaston Ditz via AntiWar.com,

    The Syrian proxy war never really ended, but it certainly had quieted down for a time, with various factions confined to various areas, and the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seeming stuck in Idlib Province. Today the war is flaring up again in a big way.

    HTS forces have pushed eastward out of Idlib into the western part of Aleppo Province and toward Aleppo itself, seizing several towns along the way. It is being reported that around 182 people have been killed Thursday alone in the fighting on the ground in the area. That includes 102 HTS fighters and 80 fighters including both Syrian troops and their allies.

    Via Middle East Eye

    The battles are still ongoing, and the toll continues to increase all the time. The Syrian military seems to be seeing substantial backing from Russian air assets in the area. The HTS is also reported using Ukrainian drones against the Syrian forces. It has been reported for months that Ukraine has offered “drones for fighters” to HTS, but this would mark the first time such drones are being used in a big way in combat.

    On top of those killed in the ongoing fighting, the Syrian and Russian air forces have caused substantial civilian casualties. 19 civilians were killed in attacks in and around al-Atareb and Darat Izza, and at least 26 others were wounded. Both of those cities are about 25 km from Aleppo itself, the largest city in Syria, underscoring how quickly the HTS has advanced.

    A number of other towns and villages reported airstrikes in the area. Al-Nayrab is by far the closest town to Aleppo to have reported strikes, saying they were hit twice. They are only about 10 km from Aleppo, making them virtually a suburb of the major city.

    HTS formed in early 2017 as a merger of several Islamist militant groups, centering initially around fighting Jabhat al-Nusra but ultimately merging with them as well. Jabhat al-Nusra was effectively the Syrian wing of al-Qaeda, though they broke with them publicly in 2016. Despite that, HTS maintains much of the underlying rhetoric of al-Qaeda.

    Publicly, HTS and their leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani has tried to disavow al-Qaeda and ISIS and has courted favor with the US. He has styled the civilian body in HTS-dominated Idlib the Syrian Salvation Government.

    It has long been suspected that this rebranding was more about trying to turn Syrian Sunni Islamist factions into a more palatable partner for Western involvement in the region than any major ideological differences with the international jihadists.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The West has a history of backing some of the more local Sunni Islamist groups in the Syrian War. Indeed, the HTS ties with Ukraine’s government underscores that many see them as a practical partner in their respective regional wars.

    This could be a growing concern for the Syrian government, as what was once a contained problem in the Idlib Province looks to explode outward starting many of the same fights all over again.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 16:00

  • Trump Taps Chris Rufo To Help De-Wokify Ivy Leagues Receiving Federal Funding
    Trump Taps Chris Rufo To Help De-Wokify Ivy Leagues Receiving Federal Funding

    President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is ramping up efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education. In a significant move, key conservative figure Christopher Rufo has been invited to present a proposal to slash federal funding for universities that maintain such programs.

    Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a prominent critic of DEI efforts, plans to outline how federal funds could be conditioned on the removal of these programs. The proposal aims to eliminate perceived discrimination in university practices, arguing that DEI programs violate the Civil Rights Act by favoring certain racial, ethnic, or gender groups.

    “If you don’t stop discriminating and violating the law, you will no longer be qualified for federal funding,” Rufo emphasized. He anticipates that institutions, particularly Ivy League universities that receive billions annually in federal research funding, would quickly comply.

    Rufo’s presentation is part of a broader cultural and political strategy supported by Trump’s incoming administration. Russ Vought, tasked with spearheading government efficiency efforts, is hosting Rufo at Mar-a-Lago to discuss the proposal. Notably, Vice President-elect JD Vance has voiced strong support, citing the need to dismantle DEI in education and proposing significant taxation on university endowments.

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Vance views Rufo as “a leading voice in the movement to restore merit and excellence” to universities, adding that Vance believes Rufo “recognizes schools and universities exist to equip American students to face tomorrow’s challenges, not to indoctrinate them with the fringe beliefs of the far left.”

    Universities have said they are legally and ethically responding to the changing demographics of the nation. Photo: Scott Eisen/Getty Images

    This effort mirrors Trump’s earlier actions during his presidency, including banning federal race and gender bias training programs—a measure reversed by President Biden.

    As the WSJ notes:

    From his perch outside Seattle, the 40-year-old documentary filmmaker and writer has become one of the country’s most influential—and effective—culture warriors, waging public fights against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools, businesses and government. 

    Rufo exposed plagiarism in the academic scholarship of Harvard President Claudine Gay and in the writings of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. His reports played a role in Gay’s subsequent resignation in January of this year and damaged Harris’s campaign. He has also taken aim at diversity practices in large companies, most recently at Boeing. 

    …

    Rufo said he is meeting with members of the Trump administration next month. He has said he thinks colleges and universities have been taken over by the left, and he wants to recapture them by cutting federal money to schools that continue to engage in DEI practices. He also wants to excise race-based affirmative action from any institution with which the federal government does business.

    Impact on Universities

    The proposed restrictions could have profound financial implications for universities reliant on federal grants and student aid. For example, Harvard University received $686 million in federal research funding in the last academic year. Institutions like Harvard, already under scrutiny for race-based admissions policies, have begun scaling back DEI efforts.

    Critics of these programs, including investor Bill Ackman, have linked them to broader cultural issues, such as antisemitism and the suppression of free speech on campuses. Protests and demonstrations have intensified these debates, particularly following the recent conflict in Gaza.

    “I hope the president turns the screws on DEI in the Ivy Leagues,” Rufo told Bloomberg. “This would put conditions on federal funding, especially the Ivy Leagues, if they practice discrimination regarding DEI.”

    While universities are a great start, Rufo says the incoming Trump administration envisions a broader crackdown, including denying federal contracts to corporations that continue DEI efforts. This aligns with growing opposition from corporate leaders like Elon Musk, who recently praised Walmart’s decision to scale back diversity initiatives.

    “Now the fight returns to the White House, the center of power for the country as a whole,” Rufo said.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 15:30

  • Playing Nuclear Chicken
    Playing Nuclear Chicken

    Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

    We continue to climb steadily up the World War III escalation ladder.

    Last week, Biden foolishly gave Ukraine the green light to strike deep into Russian territory using U.S. missiles.

    Now Russia has responded, as Putin promised they would.

    On November 21st Russia launched a new hypersonic missile known as the Oreshnik. It is a unique weapon designed to send a clear message.

    The Oreshnik utilizes a system similar to MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) technology common on nuclear ICBMs.

    This new missile has 6 warheads which each have 6 submunitions. That’s 36 projectiles per missile in total.

    Here is a still shot of one of the sets of 6 submunitions just before reaching its target.

    It is important to note that the projectiles are not glowing due to rocket engines firing. The warheads separated from the booster engine at a much higher altitude and are now gliding.

    The submunitions are glowing due to the plasma bubble created by friction against the dense atmosphere at speeds of around Mach 10 (7,600 mph). That’s 2.1 miles per second.

    At such speeds, even if the Oreshnik’s submunitions lack significant explosive payloads, the kinetic energy alone would make for an effective strike asset. This is similar to the sci-fi weapon concept colloquially known as “rods from God”, in which inert tungsten rods are flung down from orbit.

    The U.S. and NATO have no defense against the Oreshnik. Targeting 36 independent projectiles traveling at 7,600 mph is a fool’s errand. Striking the missile before the warheads separate is also unlikely, as it has a variable-speed solid rocket engine which makes its trajectory unpredictable.

    This new missile adds to Russia’s impressive hypersonic arsenal:

    • Kinzhal – Mach 10 air-launched ballistic missile
    • Zircon – Mach 9 ship-launched cruise missile
    • Iskander – Mach 7 ground-launched ballistic missile
    • R-37M – Mach 6 air-to-air missile

    Each of these weapons is fully operational, in full production, and has been used successfully during the Ukraine war. To date, these weapons have only been used with conventional explosives. But the first three can also be armed with nuclear warheads.

    NATO air defenses have not found much if any, success against Russian hypersonics. And with new options such as the Oreshnik, which would likely target air defenses and ballistic missile sites, the balance in conventional weaponry in Ukraine has moved further in Russia’s favor.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. is struggling to get our first hypersonic conventional missile, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), in service. The U.S. has long worked on hypersonic missiles, but the engineering challenges are extreme. Traveling at speeds of Mach 5+ generates massive amounts of heat and friction.

    America’s bloated defense sector has been unable to meet the requirements so far. Hopefully, Trump finds success in revitalizing our military-industrial complex. Otherwise, we will continue to fall behind.

    Nuclear Options

    As Biden goads Russia, he is implicitly relying on America’s nuclear weapons stockpile as a deterrent. At this point, we cannot match Russia when it comes to conventional missile technology.

    So when Biden willingly crosses Russia’s red lines, he is counting on the threat of American nuclear weapons to prevent full-out war. He also appears to be attempting to sabotage President Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine.

    This is incredibly reckless behavior. One major problem is that Russia has an even larger and more modern nuclear arsenal.

    If Moscow or a nuclear power plant is targeted by Ukraine using American missiles, there is a possibility that Russia retaliates with a nuclear strike. We are in essence calling their bluff. And they need to preserve their own defense deterrence posture, or they could look weak.

    From there, things could get very ugly very quickly.

    In a nuclear war, there are no winners. Biden and his handlers are playing a dangerous game. They are gambling with hundreds of millions of lives.

    All of this is simply to drag out another unwinnable conflict. Have we learned nothing from the War on Terror? America’s reign as a lone superpower is over. That’s a reality that needs to sink in so U.S. policy can adapt accordingly.

    The sooner the Deep State realizes this, the better off we’ll all be.

    The lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis were clear. Lesson One is to avoid escalation. Lesson Two is that if escalation begins, it’s crucial to de-escalate. Failure to abide by these lessons is a straight path to nuclear war.

    Russia has signaled that it is ready to begin immediate negotiations with the Trump administration. Trump’s upcoming presidency may be the only thing preventing WW3.

    Inauguration Day can’t come fast enough.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 15:05

  • Meta Plans $10 Billion Undersea Global Fiber Network In "W" Formation To Avoid Sabotage
    Meta Plans $10 Billion Undersea Global Fiber Network In “W” Formation To Avoid Sabotage

    A new report from TechCrunch reveals that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—one of the largest drivers of internet usage globally, accounting for about 10% of all fixed and 22% of mobile traffic—is planning to secure its own undersea fiber-optic cables to “avoid areas of geopolitical tension.” This move comes amid alarming sabotage incidents of undersea cables from the Baltics to the Red Sea region.

    Sources familiar with the plans say Meta’s new undersea fiber pipe will begin with a project cost of $2 billion and could rapidly expand to upwards of $10 billion as the project expands in the years ahead. 

    Sources close to Meta confirmed the project but said it is still in its early stages. Plans have been laid out, but physical assets have not, and they declined to discuss budget. The expectation is that Meta will talk more publicly about it in early 2025, when it will confirm plans for the cable, including intended route, capacity, and some of the reasoning behind building it.-TechCrunch

    Ranulf Scarborough, a submarine cable industry analyst, told the tech media outlet that cable ships are in extremely “tight supply” at the moment, adding that many of these vessels are usually booked several years ahead.

    Sources explained that the planned 25,000-mile cable project is expected to track from the US East Coast to India via South Africa, then to the US West Coast from India via Australia, essentially making a giant “W” worldwide. 

    Sources pointed out that the “W” formation allows Meta to avoid “areas of geopolitical tension,” such as areas in Middle Eastern waters where a cable sabotage incident was reported earlier this year (read here) and the most recent sabotage incident in the Baltics (read here).

    For years, Meta has been part-owner of 16 existing undersea fiber networks. However, this new cable project would allow the big tech firm to have first dibs on capacity to support expanding traffic across its platforms in the era of AI.

    More from TechCrunch, “Sources close to the project tell us that it’s too soon to say whether AI is part of the equation for Meta in this project, describing it as part of the “long tail” of considerations and possibilities, along with whether Meta would open capacity to other users alongside itself.” 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/29/2024 – 14:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Nov 29

Today’s News 29th November 2024

  • This November, Voters Chose Price Tag Over Awkward Conversation
    This November, Voters Chose Price Tag Over Awkward Conversation

    Authored by Ed Goeas & Celinda Lake via RealClearPolitics,

    Discussing politics on Thanksgiving is a tradition that many of us could live without, but can’t seem to get away from. It’s especially poignant every four years after the tidal shifts accompanying presidential elections. This year, we saw remarkable outcomes, most notably that voters prioritized bringing down the cost of their Thanksgiving meal over bringing the family together for a civil conversation. 

    Ok, that is an oversimplification, but let’s take a look at the numbers. 

    The two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, have been conducting polling together around civility in our political discourse for decades. For the last five years, we’ve partnered with the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service to dive into just what this means for the state of our politics. We conducted our most recent poll of 800 likely voters right after the outcomes of the 2024 elections. We asked voters which candidate they believed ran a more divisive campaign, who messaged their ability to get things done more effectively, which candidate they thought represented their shared values the best, and much more. 

    We learned that many voters found Vice President Harris to be someone who is a unifier and ran a less negative campaign as opposed to President Trump, but President Trump had advantages in key areas that propelled him over the top. He was able to effectively message himself as the candidate who addressed the kitchen table issues that most stood out to voters. We’ve seen in exit poll after exit poll that the economy was the issue most on people’s minds on Election Day, and when you look at our findings, you see a pattern that reflects President Trump’s win. 

    When asked, “Which candidate is talking to you about this issue,” we see some of the dynamics in the race represented. Vice President Harris outperformed President Trump in addressing abortion, protecting Democracy, sharing my values, and caring about people like me. Fifty-two percent found that Vice President Harris was the candidate who better messaged bringing the country together. Conversely, voters found that President Trump more effectively talked about the economy, inflation, and immigration, and a majority thought he would be better at getting things done, but most do not expect him to be a unifier in the White House.

    Clearly, voters were less concerned about civility than they were about costs. The overall outcome has surprisingly resulted in a drop in political tensions based on the measure we have used for the last five years – largely driven by Republicans who are feeling relief after Election Day. We measure tension by asking folks where they feel the country is on a scale of one to 100, with one being no division at all and 100 being civil war. We saw a four-point drop since our last poll in March from 70 to 66, the lowest mark in the last five years that we have done this poll. Division scores are highest among Democrats at 70, while independents are at about the total sample’s mean (66), and Republicans see the least division (61). These scores reflect a significant 14-point drop for Republicans, specifically from March, with independents remaining largely the same and Democrats seeing a small, two-point uptick.

    Of particular note is the hope respondents share about a brighter future and the possibilities of collaboration between the parties. Despite President Trump’s “trifecta’ control, 95% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I want President Trump, Republicans in Congress, and Democrats in Congress to work together to solve the major problems facing this country.” Also, 82% of respondents agreed, “It will be good for the country if President Trump and Congress compromise to find solutions even if this means I will not always get everything I want.” In what could be a reflection of these hopes, when asked how much division they expect in the country a year from now, respondents predicted a 61 out of 100, a more than 12-point decrease led largely by Republicans in projected division from September 2023.

    So, how does this impact your Thanksgiving meal this year? Prices are projected to drop this year, pretty significantly, dropping nearly $10 compared to this time last year when the average cost for a Thanksgiving meal was $67.84, all the way to $58.08. Your Republican relative might take a minute to brag that this is the market reacting to President Trump’s win, but your Democrat relative might say that it’s a sign that Bidenomics is working and the country went down the wrong path on Election Day. 

    Either way, we know that politics will be debated this Thanksgiving in many homes across the country. We only hope that it’s a little more civil this time around.

    Ed Goeas is president and CEO of The Tarrance Group, a Republican political survey research and strategy team.

    Celinda Lake, president of Lake Strategies, is a political strategist serving as tactician and senior adviser.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 23:20

  • China's Role In Fentanyl Crisis Back In Spotlight As Tariffs Loom
    China’s Role In Fentanyl Crisis Back In Spotlight As Tariffs Loom

    Authroed by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    When President-elect Donald Trump announced a hike in his tariff plans for China, as well as U.S. trade partners Canada and Mexico, he drew attention to China’s involvement in the illicit fentanyl crisis in the United States.

    Paramedics attend to a man who is overdosing, in the Drexel neighbourhood of Dayton, Ohio, on Aug. 3, 2017. The Epoch Times

    The day one plan would add 10 percent duty on top of the tariffs Trump already has planned for Chinese products, and a 25 percent tariff on all products coming in through Canada and Mexico.

    Trump said on Nov. 25 that the three countries have not done enough to help the United States stem illegal immigration and the entry of illicit drugs.

    Over the past two administrations, including Trump’s first term, Beijing has made a number of promises to help curb the movement of illicit fentanyl but kept few of them.

    Fentanyl is an FDA-approved synthetic opioid used to treat severe pain, such as in open-heart surgery, or epidurals for mothers in labor.

    Illicit fentanyl, however, is often mixed with other drugs, and illicit drug makers are increasingly producing analogs, or drugs similar to fentanyl, with small molecular changes that can make the drug up to 100 times more deadly.

    Fentanyl is already a potent drug—2 milligrams is enough to be a lethal dose depending on a person’s size.

    Illicit fentanyl and its various analogs have been linked to nearly 400,000 deaths in the United States since 2016. The United States has identified China as the primary source of illicit fentanyl coming in across the border since at least 2017 and the source of other drugs years before that.

    In 2023, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized more than 80 million fentanyl-laced pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, representing 390 million lethal doses, more than the population of the United States.

    Steve Yates, a China expert and former national security official in the George W. Bush administration, has made recommendations to Trump advisers on fentanyl policy. He and others say sanctions on Chinese banks for backing money launderers and chemical sellers will accomplish what diplomacy to date has not.

    “When you don’t do those things, then you’re a doormat,” Yates told Reuters.

    David Asher, a top former U.S. anti-money laundering official who helped target the finances of the Islamic State terrorist group, said this mechanism has been used against designated foreign adversaries like Iran but never Mexican or Canadian banks.

    “You need to hit all the bankers. It’s sort of basic,” said Asher, who has recommended criminal indictments against Chinese and Mexican financial institutions, bounties on traffickers, and other measures.

    A demonstrator holds a sign depicting the Chinese Communist Party’s role in drug trafficking networks, at a rally in front of the United Nations headquarters in New York City on Oct. 1, 2020.

    China Agreements

    Fentanyl-linked deaths sharply increased in 2016. Near the end of President Barack Obama’s term, China agreed to block exports of precursor chemicals, or ingredients, used to make methamphetamine, fentanyl, and its analogs to the United States.

    Trump, who had campaigned on stopping the opioid crisis, formed a commission to combat the issue in March 2017 and declared a public health emergency in October that year.

    The DEA increased its presence in China and engaged Chinese regime drug authorities to try to block shipments to the United States. The DEA has met with Chinese officials about blocking fentanyl since 2014 and held expert-level bilateral meetings in 2017 and 2018 to satisfy Chinese demands for more information about how these drugs were being used. This resulted in Beijing putting several key fentanyl precursors on a control list.

    By 2019, Trump had secured another promise from Chinese communist regime leader Xi Jinping that China would curb exports of all fentanyl variants to the United States, putting them on an export control list.

    But while the DEA and the U.S. Postal Service found that imports from China indeed decreased by 2020, the DEA noted that illicit fentanyl and analogs were increasingly coming in from Mexico.

    Experts and officials have determined that precursor chemicals—which can be hard to ban if they have benign, legal applications—are shipped from China to Mexico, where local labs finish the process to create illicit fentanyl and analogs.

    DEA officials note that the drugs are cheap to manufacture, as Mexican labs can buy $3,000 worth of Chinese fentanyl and sell it for $1.5 million on American streets.

    Former DEA official Derek Maltz told The Epoch Times that tariffs only address one aspect of a vast and complex problem, but they certainly help and, more importantly, signal that the incoming administration will show strong leadership on the issue.

    “We have to be more aggressive to get [Beijing] to cooperate more than they have in the past,” he told The Epoch Times.

    Read the rest here…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 22:40

  • The Terrorist Offensive In Aleppo Is Meant To Deliver A Coup De Grace To Syria
    The Terrorist Offensive In Aleppo Is Meant To Deliver A Coup De Grace To Syria

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

    The terrorist-designated Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS), which is the rebranded form of the Al Qaeda-backed Al-Nusra, launched a surprise offensive in Aleppo this week. It’s already made a lot of progress due to the terrorists’ use of drones and other modern warfare tactics. These were reportedly taught to them by Ukraine according to reports in the run-up to the latest hostilities. Other reports included Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warning about a false-flag chemical weapons attack.

    Syrian, Iranian, and Russian forces (including its aerospace ones) are currently trying to push back HTS’ advance. This intense fighting comes immediately after the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire deal, which that Iranian-backed Resistance group agreed to in spite of the late Nasrallah’s pledge not to do so without a ceasefire in Gaza first. It can therefore be interpreted as an Israeli victory despite Iran hailing this agreement and its ideologically aligned influencers spinning it as a Resistance victory.

    With the Resistance objectively on the backfoot in the region, it makes sense why their HTS foes decided to go on the offensive at this specific moment, something that they’d clearly planned to do for a while. If the hostilities continue, then another large-scale humanitarian crisis might follow, which could see more internally displaced people in this war-torn country and some of them even fleeing to Europe. Terrorist sleeper cells elsewhere in the country might also awaken and reverse the progress of the past few years.

    None of this would be possible without Turkiye’s support since all of HTS’ food, clothes, and arms come from that neighboring country in spite of Ankara formally designating it as a terrorist group. Erdogan’s prioritization of what he believes to be his country’s national interests, whether rightly or wrongly and regardless of morality, explains why he’s exploiting recent events to this end. He sees an opportunity to deliver a coup de grace to Syria for ending its long-running conflict on better terms for Turkiye.

    Assad is unlikely to be toppled, but Erdogan wants him to grant broad Bosnian-like autonomy to the Islamist-controlled northwest of the country in which Turkiye continues to exert influence, but the Syrian leader refuses to do so since he remains adamant that his Arab Republic must remain a unitary one. Likewise, he also won’t grant such autonomy to the Kurds in the US-occupied northeast, which is also the country’s most agriculturally and energy-rich region. Readers can learn more about this proposal here.

    On that topic, RFK Jr. revealed shortly after the US elections that Trump is considering withdrawing these American troops, which could lead to another Turkish offensive just like the several prior ones that were all carried out under the pretext of stopping Kurdish separatism. Unless pro-Turkish Kurds replace the political influence of Ankara-designated Kurdish terrorists there like they earlier did in Iraq, then Ankara will consider any autonomous project to be a stepping stone to more separatism inside of Turkiye itself.

    With this in mind, one of Turkiye’s strategic objectives in HTS’ offensive is to coerce Damascus into granting autonomy to the Islamists under its influence in the northwest while agreeing to do the same in the northeast but only after replacing the current ruling Kurdish clique with pro-Turkish ones. Turkiye could carry out joint operations with Syria in the northeast to defeat the separatists if American troops are withdrawn and Damascus first agrees to grant autonomy to the aforesaid Islamists.

    The other strategic objective that Turkiye is pursuing right now is to get on Trump’s good side by doing the US the strategic favor of delivering a coup de grace to Syria that finally ends this long-running conflict and thus frees him up to fully refocus on his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia”. In exchange, Trump might agree not to expand the sanctions regime that he’s inheriting to include Turkiye’s trade with Russia, which involves energy, agriculture, and also the transshipment of Western-sanctioned tech.

    Building upon this imperative, Turkiye also knows that the unexpected exacerbation of the hitherto largely frozen Syrian Conflict at precisely the moment when the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine is also intensifying following the latest ATACMS-Oreshnik escalations works against Russia’s interests. Accordingly, by opening up a “second front”, Turkiye might hope to pressure Russia into either coercing Syria into the previously described concessions and/or also enacting its own concessions in Ukraine.

    Either outcome, and especially both, would by default work in advance of the US’ interests and thus possibly ingratiate Erdogan much more with Trump. The Turkish leader might be concerned that the returning American one could take a harder line towards Turkiye if he doesn’t give him some impressive geopolitical gifts before the inauguration due to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) nominee Tulsi Gabbard’s documented dislike of his country. He therefore has an urgent impetus to deliver on this.

    Lost amidst the discussion about Syrian, Russian, and Turkish interests in this newly thawed conflict is Israel’s interests. The Alt-Media Community largely believes that Israel wants to overthrow Assad due to its prior backing of terrorist-designated Islamist militants, but its interests nowadays are arguably to have Assad expel Iran and Hezbollah. Its hundreds of bombings against those two there over the years, none of which Russia interfered with despite occasionally condemning them, hasn’t yet led to that.

    It’s admittedly a far-fetched scenario, but if Syria, Iran, and Russia struggle to fend off Turkish-backed HTS’ latest advance, then it can’t be ruled out that Israel might lend a helping hand to Damascus on the condition that Iran and Hezbollah are immediately expelled. The Russian Aerospace Forces are naturally prioritizing the Ukrainian front over the Syrian one so their limited capabilities in the latter theater might lead to a situation where Damascus becomes desperate enough to seriously consider this possibility.

    Even though Erdogan never took any meaningful action in support of Hamas or Hezbollah, limiting himself purely to the realm of demagogic rhetoric, Israel still didn’t appreciate this and thus has an axe to grind with him if the right opportunities and incentives present themselves. Turkish-backed HTS’ offensive represents such an opportunity while the incentive to bomb them could emerge if it advances in Aleppo, Syria and its allies struggle to stop them, and Damascus agrees to the abovementioned deal.

    To be absolutely clear, there are no signs that Assad is seriously considering kicking his Iranian and Hezbollah allies out of the country as a quid pro quo for the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) support against HTS, which would amount to a total betrayal of the Resistance that Syria itself helped found. Nevertheless, his calculations could change if Iran’s ground forces and Russia’s Aerospace ones aren’t able to save Aleppo, in which case he might consider this option out of desperation to stop the terrorists’ advance.

    Unlike Russia, which is focused on the special operation, Israel just agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon and is pretty much done with its Gaza campaign so the IAF could focus on destroying HTS if Assad agrees. Turkiye won’t go to war with Israel in response no matter what Erdogan might then threaten so it’s possible that Turkiye ends up being the one that’s dealt a coup de grace instead of Syria if Israel helps Syria destroy Turkiye’s proxies there and thus foils Erdogan’s grand plans that were explained.

    The odds of Syria agreeing to this would increase if Israel leveraged its influence inside the US and especially within Trump 2.0 to ensure sanctions relief in exchange for kicking Iran and Hezbollah out of the country, which could be paired with Emirati-led Arab reconstruction assistance. Once again, the likelihood of this admittedly far-fetched scenario materializing is very low, but it would represent a regional game-changer that would also greatly advance America’s strategic interests too.

    Russia’s military presence in Syria might also be unaffected since neither Israel nor the US minds it. In fact, Putin might even appreciate Netanyahu teaching Erdogan a lesson since the Turkish leader’s proxy offensive in Syria risks reversing Russia’s anti-terrorist progress there and thus harming its reputation. Moreover, Trump might also appreciate Netanyahu doing the same to Erdogan, which Tulsi would applaud as well if she’s confirmed as DNI. Erdogan might thus ultimately regret approving this offensive.

    It’s premature to predict that such a scenario sequence will unfold since it’s still very unlikely that Assad would fulfill the prerequisite of betraying the Resistance like Israel would demand, especially since it’s still possible that Syria and its allies will beat back HTS’ Turkish-backed offensive on Aleppo. Even if there’s another full-fledged Battle of Aleppo, so long as that city doesn’t fall to the terrorists, Assad will probably still rule out such a “deal with the devil” as he sees it.

    In the event that he loses Aleppo and his allies can’t help him liberate it again, such as if Russia’s Aerospace Forces are still focused on the special operation while Iran’s might have been irreparably weakened by the latest West Asian Wars, then he might finally consider it. Everything will therefore depend on whether HTS is stopped outside of Aleppo; the outcome of any possible battle for that city; and how desperate Assad becomes if he loses control over it and the terrorists advance on Damascus.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 22:00

  • Taiwan Indicts Surgeon Who Sent Patients To China for Organ Transplants
    Taiwan Indicts Surgeon Who Sent Patients To China for Organ Transplants

    Authored by Frank Fang and Eva Fu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A Taiwanese surgeon and four other individuals have been charged with illegally brokering organ transplantation in China, a case that a local medical advocacy group said is alarming given that Beijing sources organs from prisoners of conscience.

    Doctors prepare for a kidney transplant in a file photo. Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP/Getty Images

    The surgeon, Chen Yao-li, is accused of orchestrating a criminal group that helped send 10 Taiwanese patients to China for organ transplant surgery from 2016 to 2019, the district prosecutors’ office in southern Taiwan’s Changhua County said in a press release on Nov. 25.

    Chen is charged with violating the island’s Human Organ Transplant Act, which says that any transplant organ “shall be provided or acquired free of charge” and “persons who broker organ transplants or the provision and acquisition of organs” may be jailed for up to five years and a maximum fine of NT$1.5 million (about $46,200).

    Chen once worked at the Changhua Christian Hospital’s organ transplant center.

    After prosecutors announced the indictment, the hospital said Chen has not worked at the facility since July 2022. The Changhua prosecutors began investigating Chen in March of that year.

    The hospital warned locals against traveling to China for liver transplants, citing reports and the United Nations’ warning about the regime’s forced organ harvesting that targets Falun Gong practitioners, prisoners of conscience, Uyghurs, and Christians. It added that it prohibits unethical and illegal medical conduct and respects the results of judicial investigations.

    David Huang, vice chairman and spokesperson of the Taiwan Association for International Care of Organ Transplant, said the case marks an important milestone.

    It is the first indictment against illegal organ brokers since Taiwan amended its Human Organ Transplant Act in 2015, to prohibit the use of organs from executed prisoners, as well as the sale, purchase, and brokering of organs.

    “I hope that this indictment will attract the attention of local citizens and the government. Going to China for organ transplantation involves medical, moral, and legal risks,” Huang said in an email to The Epoch Times.

    The Epoch Times requested comment from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, where Chen works as the vice director of the facility’s liver transplant center. The hospital declined to comment on the indictment but said, “Dr. Chen has always followed our hospital’s managerial procedures and professional standards while carrying out medical work in our hospital.”

    Liver and Kidney Transplants

    Prosecutors alleged that Chen, while working at the transplant center, had his transplant patients contact an accomplice surnamed Huang, who was the head of an unnamed biotech company. Huang allegedly arranged for six Taiwanese patients to have either a liver or kidney transplant surgery at a Chinese hospital in Qingdao, a city in eastern China’s Shandong Province.

    Huang allegedly charged each of the six patients NT$5 million to NT$7.5 million (about $154,000 to $231,000) for a liver transplant, and NT$3 million to NT$3.5 million (about $92,400 to $107,800) for a kidney transplant. Huang’s wife, surnamed Yang, then connected patients with doctors at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University to arrange the surgeries.

    Chen allegedly also went to the Chinese hospital in Qingdao to “provide instruction” inside the operating room while the liver surgeries were taking place, according to prosecutors.

    Separately, Chen allegedly instructed a Taiwanese nurse assistant surnamed Hsieh to travel to China to administer post-operative care for a payment of NT$200,000 (about $6,150) per patient.

    Chen also worked with an accomplice surnamed Lin, who had for years provided “organ transplant services” between Taiwan and China, to have four Taiwanese patients undergo either kidney or liver transplant surgery in Changsha, a city in central China’s Hunan Province. The two then split the payments.

    Prosecutors are seeking a six-year sentence for Chen and a three-year sentence for each of his four accomplices. They aim to confiscate the group’s total illegal earnings of about NT$20.4 million (about $628,000).

    Chen allegedly earned over NT$14.8 million (about $455,600) during the three-year span. He returned $83,060 during the investigation, and prosecutors have confiscated his property to prevent him from “enjoying the illegal proceeds,” the Changhua prosecutor’s office said.

    Hsieh must now return NT$1.1 million (about $33,800) in illegal earnings as part of her settlement with prosecutors, who agreed to a deferred prosecution against the nurse.

    Organ Transplants in China ‘Highly Risky’: Prosecutors

    Taiwanese prosecutors warned people of the risks that come with undergoing organ transplants in China.

    Most of the patients involved only survived for two or three years after the organ transplants, they said. Some died within a week after returning to Taiwan.

    “It demonstrates that organ transplant surgeries that involve intermediaries and are untransparent are highly risky,” the press release stated.

    The London-based China Tribunal in 2019 concluded that forced organ harvesting was happening on a “significant scale” in China, with Falun Gong practitioners being the main source of organs. Practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual practice also known as Falun Dafa, have been targets of persecution by the Chinese regime since 1999.

    The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Falun Gong Protection Act (H.R. 4132) in June.

    If enacted, the legislation would require the president to provide relevant congressional committees with a list of foreign individuals who have “knowingly and directly engaged in or facilitated the involuntary harvesting of organs within the People’s Republic of China.” Those on the list would face sanctions such as a ban on entering the United States.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) introduced the Senate version (S.4914) of the legislation in July. Rubio has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to serve as U.S. Secretary of State.

    David Huang from the Taiwan Association for International Care of Organ Transplant applauded the legislative efforts in the United States. Should the Senate pass the legislation, Huang said it would be “an epoch moment in the making.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 21:20

  • Man Allegedly Part Of Rothschild Banking Family Dies In Mysterious Hollywood Hills House Fire
    Man Allegedly Part Of Rothschild Banking Family Dies In Mysterious Hollywood Hills House Fire

    The internet is abuzz after a man, identified by local media outlets as a possible member of the Rothschild banking family, died in a mysterious house fire in the Hollywood Hills area on Wednesday.

    ABC 7 News reports that fire crews responded to a house fire on the 8500 block of Lookout Mountain Avenue on Wednesday afternoon. While battling the blaze, firefighters discovered a deceased man inside the home. Neighbors identified him as “Will Rothschild,” according to the media outlet.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The outlet further reported, “Rothschild was described by neighbors as an eccentric millionaire—or even billionaire—with multiple properties and dozens of expensive cars,” adding that “Rothschild was said to have lived as a bit of a recluse.”

    ABC 7’s Jory Rand commented, “It turns out the man who lived there might have been a billionaire.”

    The plot thickens…

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 20:40

  • Gold-Backed Or Bust: Judy Shelton's Plan To Tame The Fed And Restore The Dollar
    Gold-Backed Or Bust: Judy Shelton’s Plan To Tame The Fed And Restore The Dollar

    Authored by Paul Mueller via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

    Judy Shelton has spent her career advocating for sound money. Her latest book, “Good as Gold: How to Unleash the Power of Sound Money,” makes an up-to-date case for reinstituting a gold standard. Her intriguing conclusion is that the dollar can be reconnected to gold by simply issuing federal treasury bonds with gold-redeemability clauses. The book also addresses recent events and important current debates about monetary systems like whether central bankers should have wide policy discretion, whether fixed or floating exchange rates are better for economic growth, and what happens when countries manipulate their currency to boost exports.

    Dr. Shelton engages these questions in the context of academic debates, but she also uses the lens of rational economic planning to evaluate how the monetary system contributes to or detracts from economic growth. At the end of the day, the case for sound money rests on the claim that it will generate more stable and greater long-run economic prosperity. Dr. Shelton believes sound money will do just that. But what would such a sound money regime look like?

    Although Dr. Shelton would prefer a system along the lines of a classical gold standard, she would probably be content with other monetary systems that dramatically reduced the discretion of policymakers. The real problem with our current monetary regime is not primarily technical. It is behavioral. Because public officials have strong incentives to inflate the currency, bail out various corporations, and underwrite extensive government borrowing, they do a poor job conserving the value of fiat currency or providing a predictable stable system of interest rates, credit, liquidity, etc.

    In the first couple chapters of “Good as Gold,” Dr. Shelton takes the Federal Reserve to task. The wide discretion Fed officials can exercise makes monetary policy unpredictable. Although Fed officials argue that their decisions are countercyclical, that may not always be the case. As Milton Friedman famously noted, the effects of monetary policy decisions have “long and variable” lags. Despite claims to being “data-driven,” Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decisions remain unpredictable. Data can change rapidly and unpredictably, which can make policy change rapid and unpredictable too.

    Another problem is that the “data-driven” mantra invokes the assumption that the data always clearly indicate what ought to be done. In fact, this is rarely the case. Not only do a wide variety of inflation measures exist, but there are also a wide range of time intervals over which to compare inflation trends. But that’s not the worst of it!

    Employment, unemployment, GDP, and a host of other economic numbers suggest different things are going on in the economy. Retailers expect strong record spending this holiday season while the N.Y. Fed just released a study where the number of people reporting concern about their ability to make debt payments hit its highest level since 2020. How to weigh these various factors is far from clear.

    Another problem with Fed policy is the rapid change in its interest rate targets. Three years ago, the short-run interest rate was ~.5 percent. Within two years it was over 5 percent. That rapid change created many issues in the economy, only some of which we have recognized. The rate-hike cycle created significant turmoil in the banking industry with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failing entirely while many large regional banks shrank or were enfolded into larger national banks.

    The commercial real estate market has also been upended. While the owners of office buildings were already facing strong headwinds from the pandemic’s normalization of remote work, the Fed delivered a one-two punch when it raised interest rates. Most large commercial real estate investors use variable rate debt to finance their portfolios—which means the interest rate they pay moves with the market. Adding a couple percentage points to one’s debt rapidly changes the viability of a venture. In addition to higher debt-servicing costs, commercial real estate investors saw the market value of their holdings decline precipitously as buyers disappeared, financing costs rose, and future potential cash flows were more heavily discounted.

    The previous rate-hike cycle in 2006 and 2007 preceded a major recession and financial crisis. Even as the Fed creates disruptions in markets, it has also overseen the relentless decline in the value of the dollar—ironically in the name of pursuing their mandate to maintain price stability. A dollar in 2024 is worth what a quarter was in 1980 and what a dime was in 1965. And a 2024 dollar is worth about what a penny was worth in 1900.

    This downward march in the value of the dollar creates problems.

    It drives up asset prices, favoring those who have investment savvy while eating away at the value of people’s savings and undermining the prosperity of those on fixed incomes. The steady fall of the dollar also distorts price calculations and expectations.

    I’ve argued elsewhere that the Fed has been a prime culprit in boosting housing prices and, as a result, creating a “transitional gains trap” where homeowners with significant equity, juiced in large part by easy money, have organized to protect their equity by putting up local legal barriers to building new housing.

    But “Good as Gold” includes much more than criticism of the Fed. Dr. Shelton points out that unstable money and exchange rates create costs to doing business. International firms must devote time, energy, and money to protect themselves from erratic fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Creating these “hedges” to protect their profitability from exchange-rate risk necessitates additional classes of assets and asset traders—contributing to greater “financialization” of the economy. While the services being offered create real value for corporations, they come at a price and would not be needed under more stable monetary arrangements.

    Besides the frictions and costs that unstable money introduces into day-to-day business operations, it also creates long-term consequences when it comes to investing. If certain exchange rates can move 15 percent, 30 percent, or more in a single year, Dr. Shelton asks, then how can investors rationally allocate capital based on real factors and comparative advantage? The structure and mix of capital investment we currently have across countries and within the same country looks very different than it would in a world of stable money.

    Dr. Shelton makes this point indirectly in a fascinating chapter about the monetary debate between Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell. Both were staunch advocates of free markets, but they differed in what monetary regime they thought best. Friedman argued in favor of freely floating exchange rates set by market participants. In this world, governments would feel pressure from markets, in the form of capital outflows, if they engaged in domestic monetary policy shenanigans. Mundell, on the other hand, favored more stability in exchange rates that would require domestic prices to adapt to changes in trade and capital flows. Friedman and Mundell both agreed, however, that government officials and central bankers should have very little discretion in how they managed a country’s monetary system.

    In a later chapter, Shelton offers the problem of “currency manipulation” as a reason for implementing a sound money regime. Her argument basically asserts that countries that actively depreciate or weaken their domestic currency experience short-run benefits (in the form of more competitive exports) and long-term costs (in the form of inflation and capital outflows). Other countries, however, feel short-run pain as their exports decline and their factories shut down—even though they also receive cheaper goods and reallocate much of the displaced labor and capital. I find this line of reasoning a bit curious.

    Shelton rightly champions free trade and argues that it works best when countries do not artificially manipulate the value of their currencies. No objection here. But I am not convinced that a sound money regime, even a gold standard, would change other countries’ incentives to devalue their currency. Gold convertibility of one currency does not prevent the issuer of a different fiat currency from issuing large amounts of that fiat currency to reduce the relative price of its exports.

    I suppose one could argue (and Dr. Shelton does) that currency manipulation becomes easier to discern because currencies will be valued in terms of a fixed standard (gold), rather than in terms of another fluctuating fiat currency. For example, the price of gold in terms of dollars increased by 77 percent from May 2014 to May 2024.

    The currencies of the largest trade partners with the United States lost far more value relative to gold in that period: Euros (129 percent), Mexican Peso (131 percent), Canadian dollar (122 percent), Chinese yuan (105 percent), and Japanese yen (165 percent). But that probably matters relatively little to the devaluing regime. Using gold as a benchmark might reveal relative changes in the value of currencies better. It could also defuse the language of “currency manipulation.”

    Instead of attributing motives to foreign central bankers, policy makers could set relatively straight-forward criteria for when another country’s currency declines in a distortive way. Shelton suggests that some level of tariffs should be imposed in response to another country’s currency devaluation to offset the monetary distortion to international trade. This idea may not be crazy from a purely technical standpoint, yet I would hesitate to recommend it because of the likely distortions and co-opting of such policies by special interests. I also question whether the costs of not imposing tariffs on depreciating currencies is as high as Dr. Shelton believes.

    Sound money advocates like Shelton must explain how we could get to a sound money regime. On the one hand, advocating a gold standard seems archaic and implausible. On the other hand, it would not be technically difficult to implement. And, in fact, given the dominance of the U.S. dollar, if another major currency, such as the Euro, also chose to move back to gold redeemability, it is not hard to imagine other major currencies (Yen, Yuan, Pound, etc.) following suit. The political difficulty, of course, is getting the United States to take the first step and then getting the EU to follow suit.

    The odds of successful reform are highest when pursuing the easiest path to transition the current system to a sound monetary regime. Abolishing the Federal Reserve is not on that path. So tying dollars back to gold using the Fed makes more sense than moving back to a pre-Fed world. Similarly, constraining the FOMC seems far more plausible than abolishing it.

    It may be worth raising a few other important secondary questions. At what price will the currency be convertible into gold? Dr. Shelton has suggested that incorporating a gold clause in Treasury bonds could be a good method for discovering the right price of convertibility. In fact, putting gold convertibility into government bond contracts may be sufficient, in and of itself, to tie dollars back to gold.

    Afterall, depreciation of dollars would create consequences for the federal government and the Federal Reserve, the very institutions primarily responsible for managing the dollar and maintaining the monetary system. Shelton also makes the important point that currency should be seen as being like a weight or measure—something standardized for the public to use. It should not be viewed as a policy instrument or lever for managing the economy. This simple point rarely arises in modern commentary on the Fed and on monetary policy—yet it has deep legal and historical roots in the American founding and beyond.

    Another benefit of moving to gold redeemability for U.S. bonds is that it utilizes U.S. gold reserves more effectively. Currently, the United States is the largest holder of gold in the world. But ironically, that gold is severely undervalued on the government’s ledger. Its book value is less than two percent of its market value (i.e., on the ledger the gold is valued at less than $50/oz when its market value is over $2700/oz). Offering gold redeemability might also open up the option for extremely long-dated debt (50 years or more) and lower interest rates because the most significant risk to lending to the federal government, the devaluation of future dollars, has been taken off the table.

    The likely benefits of such bonds are so significant that it may seem surprising that they have not been implemented. The problem, of course, is that this form of bond would reveal the man behind the curtain. It would show that government officials can and do play fast and loose with the dollar and with the U.S. financial system to enable themselves and their friends a free hand to borrow and spend, and to actively “manage” the economy.

    Dr. Shelton’s proposed changes will be vigorously resisted by those who benefit from the existing status quo—large commercial banks and financial institutions, Federal Reserve officials and bureaucrats, politicians and regulators—everyone who benefits from the Fed’s tendency to loose monetary policy. Still advocates of freedom and prosperity should continue to make the arguments and offer proposals for moving to a sound monetary regime.

    And that is exactly what Dr. Shelton does in “Good as Gold.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 20:00

  • These Are The US States Producing The Most Turkeys In 2024
    These Are The US States Producing The Most Turkeys In 2024

    Every Thanksgiving, millions of Americans gather around the table to feast on a traditional turkey dinner. But have you ever thought about the origins of these Thanksgiving turkeys?

    As Visual Capitalist’s Jenna Ross details below, turkey production in the U.S. is highly concentrated, with a few states dominating the market. In this infographic from BGO, we’ll explore the top 10 turkey-producing states in 2024.

    Ranking the Top States

    Over four out of every five turkeys come from just 10 states. Most of these states are located in the Midwest or the South.

    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, as of October 28, 2024.

    The top spot goes to Minnesota, having produced nearly 34 million birds so far in 2024. Minnesota became the top-producing state due to a number of factors:

    • Multi-generational farm families have passed down their knowledge and expertise

    • The state grows a lot of soybean and corn, which are the main ingredients in a turkey’s diet

    • A veterinarian from the University of Minnesota Extension helped eliminate a disease that once killed many turkeys

    North Carolina lands in second place for turkey production. The state’s moderate climate and affordable land and labor likely contributed to the industry’s growth. Like Minnesota, North Carolina also has easy access to crops like corn and soybean to feed the birds.

    Rounding out the top three, Arkansas produces 12% of America’s turkeys. Many poultry companies are located in the state, including Butterball and Tyson Foods.

    Transporting Turkeys to Tables

    With turkey production being so concentrated, most birds will need to be shipped to consumers. It’s critical that they don’t spoil on the journey, and that producers have them transported quickly. Cold storage is a key part of the solution.

    BGO is a leading investor in cold storage buildings that are strategically placed to ensure quick delivery to stores. Ultimately, these facilities help ensure turkeys arrive cool and on time for Thanksgiving.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 19:20

  • Trade Policy Is About Much More Than Tariffs
    Trade Policy Is About Much More Than Tariffs

    Authored by Gordon Gray via RealClearMarkets,

    Since the early days of his campaign, President Donald Trump has pledged to impose wide-ranging tariffs on many imported goods, including a 10 percent or higher tax on imports from other countries. This decision has made waves, drawn criticism, and largely dominated the trade policy debate in recent months – understandable, given the far-reaching implications of such a drastic change in policy. Nevertheless, President Trump’s tariffs are far from the only trade policy issue deserving of attention by the new administration. As we look ahead to January, any trade reform effort considered by President Trump and his advisors should also include overdue changes to a little-known agency responsible for implementing our country’s trade agenda: the International Trade Commission (ITC).

    Congress has given the executive branch wide authority to set trade policy. The ITC’s role is less widely understood. Due to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the ITC maintains the ability to institute “unfair import investigations,” a tool ostensibly designed to protect American companies from intellectual property infringement violations stemming from foreign competitors.

    If an infringed product is imported into the United States, the ITC has one remedy – an Exclusion Order – that completely ban the product in question from the U.S. market.

    Unfortunately, in recent years, the ITC has become the forum of choice for opportunistic patent assertion entities (PAEs). Also known as patent trolls, PAEs are companies that purchase portfolios of patents with the sole purpose of using them as the basis for infringement litigation. While the threshold for injunctions in federal courts are much higher, patent trolls flock to the ITC thanks to its unique ability to issue relief via ITC Exclusion Orders.

    When an Exclusion Order is issued, the ITC is supposed to investigate and determine whether banning the imported product in question will negatively affect the public. In the past, a wide range of stakeholders, from Hispanic interest groups to rural community advocates, have called on the ITC to issue public interest exemptions and ensure consumers’ access to critical products is not impeded. Unfortunately, the ITC rarely conducts a thorough public interest review before taking action. In fact, it’s been nearly forty years since it last used a public interest exemption to decline issuing an Exclusion Order.

    Fortunately, there are bipartisan efforts in Congress to address these deficiencies in how the ITC considers such cases. Last year, Representatives David Schweikert (AZ-01) and Don Beyer (VA-08) introduced the Advancing America’s Interests Act (AAIA) to stop patent abuse at the ITC and reaffirm its public interest standard.

    The AAIA would also strengthen an important feature of the the Tariff Act – the “domestic industry” standard – that would prohibit a U.S. company from being used as a plaintiff unless they voluntarily join a complaint requesting the ITC’s relief. As part of the Tariff Act of 1930, a complainant at the ITC needs to demonstrate that it contributes to the industry in the U.S. related to whatever patent rights it is alleging have been infringed. Yet in an oft-used loophole, the patent holder can satisfy this requirement by stating it licenses its patents to other companies even if those companies did not join the complaint.

    This creates a “domestic industry by subpoena” problem where a patent troll claims it has met the domestic industry requirement by involving an otherwise unwilling and uninterested licensee in the investigation. The AAIA would prohibit this practice unless the licensed entity in question ‘joins’ the complaint.

    Tariffs policy and protectionism figured prominently in the presidential campaign, and there is no doubt these issues will remain salient during the second Trump administration. But trade policy is more than simply a function of tariffs. Congress should act and pass legislation to return the ITC to its original mission. The constant threat of patent troll litigation is a drag on many U.S. companies and pulls resources away from developing the new technologies necessary to grow our economy and out-innovate the world.

    As policymakers look forward to what should be included in a new administration’s trade agenda, fixing the ITC should be at the top of the list.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 18:40

  • Thanksgiving Pilgrimage: Holiday Travel To Beat Record
    Thanksgiving Pilgrimage: Holiday Travel To Beat Record

    Thanksgiving holiday travel is expected to reach a new record in 2024, as nearly 80 million Americans are forecast to hit the road or the skies to travel more than 50 miles for this year’s celebrations.

    That’s according to projections from AAA who are predicting that 71.7 million Americans will take to the nation’s roads, while 5.8 million will fly domestically and 2.3 million will travel by train or other means to be with family or friends for the holidays.

    Infographic: Thanksgiving Pilgrimage: Holiday Travel to Beat Record | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, that represents an increase of 2.1 percent from last year and 2.7 percent from 2019, as lower gas prices compared to last year are fueling Americans’ appetite for travel.

    “Thanksgiving is the busiest holiday for travel, and this year we’re expecting to set new records across the board, from driving to flying and cruising,” Stacey Barber, Vice President of AAA Travel, said.

    “Americans reconnect with family and friends over Thanksgiving, and travel is a big part of that.”

    All modes of transport are set to see a noticeable increase this year and road trips will continue to dominate Thanksgiving travel.

    90 percent of travelers are expected to drive to their holiday destination, as gas prices are currently lower than they have been for the most part of the past three years. Even though air travel is far less common for Thanksgiving celebrations, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is bracing for the busiest Thanksgiving period on record, with airports expected to be especially crowded on Tuesday and Wednesday before Thanksgiving and the Sunday after.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 18:00

  • The Outcome Of Romania's Presidential Election Could Spoil The US' Potential Escalation Plans
    The Outcome Of Romania’s Presidential Election Could Spoil The US’ Potential Escalation Plans

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

    The surprise victory of populist conservative-nationalist Calin Georgescu in the first round of Romania’s presidential election gives this heterodox outsider the chance to enter into office next month. The Mainstream Media is apoplectic since he criticized Romania’s hosting of the US’ missile defense infrastructure and is against perpetuating NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. He’s also a devout Orthodox Christian and praised some of his country’s most controversial World War II-era figures.

    Interestingly, he was also the diaspora’s favorite, with the added twist being that more in Western Europe voted for him than those in Eastern Europe. This suggests that his appeal is also due to the hope that he’ll bring long-overdue accountability to his infamously corrupt country and finally help its people improve their living standards through more effective economic, financial, and developmental policies. Foreign policy is important, but local issues and economics far outweigh the former for average voters.

    If Georgescu becomes President of Romania, he’s therefore much more likely to try to change his country’s internal workings than he is to radically transform its foreign policy, but it also can’t be ruled out that his potential victory could adversely affect NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine. Those who voted for him dislike how Ukrainian grain flooded their domestic market to local farmers’ detriment and also aren’t pleased with the government financially supporting Ukrainian refugees.

    Additionally, the latest military-strategic developments in this conflict raised worries among many about the spectre of World War III, in which case Romania would be directly involved due to its hosting of the previously mentioned US missile defense infrastructure. Their country also plays an important logistical role in arming Ukraine and its newly built “Moldova Highway” could facilitate the deployment of NATO troops there if the bloc or a “coalition of the willing” therein decides to conventionally intervene.  

    Even if Romania doesn’t dispatch troops, the transit role that it could play in others’ intervention there could put a Russian target on its back, especially if this leads to direct NATO-Russian hostilities. For this reason and keeping in mind his criticism of NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, he as Supreme Commander might not approve of these plans. After all, he’s a populist conservative-nationalist who prioritizes what he sincerely believes to be national interests, which this scenario is contradictory to.

    If he wins, then he’ll assume office on 21 December, which could therefore make it impossible for the US to rely on Romania in the abovementioned respect from there on out. That would be significant, provided that Georgescu has the political will to implement such a policy, since it means that the outgoing Biden Administration might thus only have less than a month to do this if it wants to. After all, even if Trump decides to “escalate to de-escalate” through such means, he too might not be able to.

    There’s always the possibility that Poland might serve as the only route through which conventional NATO troops could enter Ukraine, even if it doesn’t dispatch its own, but neither the outgoing conservative-nationalist president nor his liberal-globalist rivals in the ruling coalition might allow this. The reason is that both want to appeal to Ukro-skeptical voters ahead of next year’s presidential election, the first in order to keep the second in check while the second wants to finally be unrestrained.

    That’s why each have been trying to outdo the other in populist rhetoric, with the ruling coalition even going as far as to trump the former conservative-nationalist government of which the outgoing president is a part by taking an even harder line towards Ukraine. To that end, they demanded that it exhume and properly bury the Volhynia Genocide victims’ remains like it earlier did for 100,000 Wehrmacht troops, and it’s now only offering more military aid in exchange for a loan and no longer for free.

    In fact, one of the Deputy Prime Ministers went as far as accusing Zelensky of wanting to provoke a Polish-Russian War in Ukraine, which powerfully signals that the ruling liberal-globalist coalition isn’t really interested in facilitating a conventional NATO intervene there and thus can’t be relied on for this. If Romania is ruled out in this respect too should Georgescu win, assume office next month, and promulgate the proposed policy, then the US might therefore be more willing to cut a deal with Russia.

    Therein lies the most globally significant consequence if this populist conservative-nationalist becomes President of Romania since it could greatly limit the ways in which the US – whether under the outgoing Biden Administration or the incoming Trump one – could “escalate to de-escalate” on more of its terms. By removing the likelihood of a conventional NATO intervention, the odds might then greatly increase for Russia ending this conflict on more of its own terms instead, which could lead to a more lasting solution.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 17:20

  • NYPD Raid Uncovers Rifles & Ammo Linked To Illegal Alien Prison Gang In Bronx
    NYPD Raid Uncovers Rifles & Ammo Linked To Illegal Alien Prison Gang In Bronx

    Venezuelan prison gang activity has dangerously surged nationwide, with an alarming amount of activity observed in New York City—a mecca for illegal aliens. The invasion of migrants, some of whom are gangsters and cartel members, poses a severe national security risk. This migrant crisis is set to be addressed in less than two months by President-elect Donald Trump and incoming Border Czar Tom Homan.

    X user Viral News NYC reports the New York City Police Department and Emergency Service Unit executed a search warrant targeting members of the extremely dangerous Tren de Aragua (TDA) gang at a residential building in the Bronx (isn’t this AoC’s district?) on Wednseday morning. 

    NYPD sources told the media outlet that “a significant cache of weapons” was found during the raid, including rifles, pistols, and “a large quantity of ammunition.” It is as if these illegal alien gangsters were preparing for war.

    Here’s more from the report:

    The operation also resulted in the detention of 15 individuals, including 8 females, 7 males, and one child. Investigators revealed that several of the suspects have multiple warrants issued from jurisdictions across the country, highlighting the gang’s widespread criminal network.

    Authorities are continuing to search the premises for additional evidence. This operation marks a significant step in the ongoing effort to dismantle the Tren de Aragua gang, a transnational criminal organization known for its involvement in human trafficking, extortion, and other violent crimes.

    Originally formed in Venezuela, the Tren de Aragua gang has expanded its reach in recent years, posing a growing threat in the United States. Police sources described this morning’s raid as a critical move toward reducing their influence in New York City

    “This is a dangerous organization, and we’re committed to taking the necessary actions to protect our communities,” one official stated.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In recent days, CBS News cited NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny, who said TdA gangsters were recruiting children from migrant shelters.  

    “We have 39 members of TDA that have been identified and we have an additional four members that have been identified of a subgroup called Little Devils of 42nd Street. Those are much younger kids,” Kenny said.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Kenny continued, “We have no fingerprints on file for them. We have no photographs on file for them. We have no prior criminal history on them, adding, “They swap out their IDs. We have no way of tracking or knowing who they are when they enter the country.”

    The New York Post recently learned from sources that TdA gangsters have been setting up operations nationwide, including in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. Some of these operations include human trafficking to the drug trade and organized retail crime theft.

    Source: NYPost

    Just months ago, investigative reporter James O’Keefe published a US Army North Division memo that warned an estimated 5,000 TdA gangsters were in the US. We suspect that number is a lot higher. 

    The southern border invasion facilitated by the open border globalist Biden-Harris regime has plunged this nation into chaos as national security risks continue to surge. Now it’s up to President-elect Trump and the incoming Border Czar to clean up the Biden-Harris regime’s mess. It’s time to Make America Safe Again….

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 16:40

  • Lake Tahoe To Make Waves With First Flying Electric Ferry In US
    Lake Tahoe To Make Waves With First Flying Electric Ferry In US

    Authored by Ilene Ang via The Epoch Times,

    Getting from one end of Lake Tahoe to another could soon become easier, as the first electric hydrofoil ferry in the United States is expected to debut at the popular tourist destination.

    The “flying” ferry, which uses computer controlled hydrofoil wings to lift its hull above the water, is a joint venture of Swedish tech company Candela and U.S. operator FlyTahoe. A similar launch took place in Stockholm last month.

    The Candela P-12 ferry will make the north-south trip across the lake in just 30 minutes, saving passengers a drive around the lake that typically takes about three hours.

    Millions make the drive around Lake Tahoe each year to admire its beauty. But according to Ryan Meinzer, founder and CEO of FlyTahoe, the wear of tires on the roads over time causes particulates and road sediment to form.

    “This road sediment isn’t just causing damage to lungs and the air, but it’s also ending up [in] the lake,“ he told The Epoch Times. ”Essentially, Lake Tahoe is a large watershed, and in fact, this is one of the largest contributors to the degradation of the clarity of the famous blue cobalt lake that we love.”

    There were over 15 million visitors to Tahoe last year, and about 20,000 trips a day between the north and south of the lake, Meinzer said. “This is why FlyTahoe has decided to focus its primary efforts on that particular route.”

    In an announcement on Nov. 21, Candela said the hydrofoil ferry is the world’s fastest electric vessel at 25 knots, or about 30 miles an hour, with a range of about 40 nautical miles. It cuts energy consumption by 80 percent compared to other vessels due to the design of its wings, which lift the hull above the water and reduce drag. This, in combination with technology and sensors to balance the vessel, provides “a silent and smooth ride,” the announcement said.

    “It basically works like a jet fighter, which is constantly balanced using ailerons. The principle of the P-12 is the same, except our wings fly in water instead of air,” said Gustav Hasselskog, CEO and founder of Candela. Ailerons are small hinged sections on the outboard portion of an aircraft’s wing.

    The interior of an electric hydrofoil ferry, the Candela P-12. Candela

    Meinzer hopes to have a fleet of electric hydrofoil ferries traversing Lake Tahoe in the future, but for now, the company is under contract for just one.

    Meinzer says one of his biggest challenges is working with local laws and complying with federal regulations like the Jones Act, which regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters.

    “We, of course, need to make sure that we’re complying with all safety standards and inspection standards, because at the end of the day, this is a vessel that is flying across a lake,” he said.

    Meinzer also cited infrastructure considerations such as charging. “This electrification of waterways is relatively new,” he said, and while there are some electric boat charging stations in and around Lake Tahoe, “we need more.”

    “A rising tide lifts all boats. In that respect, the more electric chargers are installed around the marinas of the lake, the better it is for anyone who has electric boats in the lake, not just FlyTahoe.”

    Meinzer explained that if the ferry’s range is 40 miles fully charged and the lake is about 20 miles across, it can make a round trip on one charge.

    The cost for a one-way trip across the lake is expected to be about $50, Meinzer said. Eventually, he hopes to lower the price with government grants.

    The hydrofoil will be able to ferry up to 30 people across the lake per trip, and is wheelchair accessible, with storage for snowboards, skis, and bikes.

    Ryan Meinzer, CEO of FlyTahoe. FlyTahoe

    FlyTahoe has not finalized pickup and drop-off destinations, boat storage, or parking options yet, Meinzer said.

    A spokesperson for Candela told The Epoch Times that the hydrofoil ferry is expected to begin operations in late 2025 or the first half of 2026.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 16:00

  • Bloomberg Ruins Thanksgiving: "Gobbling Meat Is Fueling A Climate Crisis" 
    Bloomberg Ruins Thanksgiving: “Gobbling Meat Is Fueling A Climate Crisis” 

    Legacy media journalists at Bloomberg published an article titled “Gobbling Meat Is Fueling a Climate Crisis. Here’s How to Cut Back” on Thanksgiving morning, attempting to guilt-trip readers into reducing meat consumption to address the so-called climate crisis. The article advocates for a shift from meat-based diets to plant-based alternatives as their proposed solution to combat climate change. 

    The article’s climate crisis messaging is nothing new—just repackaged ‘green’ propaganda tailored with a Thanksgiving theme. It continues the narratives pushed by the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates about the dire need to shift away from cows to save the planet from a fiery death.

    Here’s an excerpt by Bloomberg journs trying to ruin Thanksgiving: 

    Some of the highest-emission foods come from cows and other ruminant animals, which roam across acres of land emitting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, during their unique digestion process. Compared to plant-based proteins including beans and legumes, for example, beef is responsible for some 20 times more emissions per edible gram of protein.

    The article is a subliminal advertisement for plant-based food companies.

    Source: Bloomberg

    Separately, and in markets, fake meat company Beyond Meat was just a fad – shares are down 43% on the year to record low levels. Interestingly, BYND’s float is massively short – upwards of 46%, equal to 28 million shares.

    As long as Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and other billionaires continue flying around the world in private jets, we’re not giving up our meat. 

    Plus, new research shows that ultra-processed vegan food can increase the risk of heart disease and early death…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Thanks, but no thanks, we’ll stick with clean beef from mom and pop farms—maybe even the Amish—than ever switch to fake meat.

    Here’s what X users are saying about legacy media trying to ruin Thanksgiving with climate propaganda:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 15:20

  • Lebanon Accuses Israel Of Already Violating Ceasefire Several Times
    Lebanon Accuses Israel Of Already Violating Ceasefire Several Times

    Who could have seen this coming?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As The Cradle reports, the Israeli military carried out several artillery and bombing attacks on the south of Lebanon on Thursday, marking yet another round of ceasefire violations on the second day after the cessation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. 

    “Israeli enemy artillery is shelling the heights of the town of Halta, Hasbaya district, targeting citizens in the outskirts of the town,” Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported on Thursday afternoon. 

    Via Reuters

    Taybeh, Khiam, and the Marjayoun plains were also struck by Israeli artillery, according to NNA. Three shells were fired at the town of Rmeish, damaging a house and a supermarket. Israeli troops also opened fire on Lebanese citizens trying to return to their homes in Bint Jbeil. 

    Israeli tanks shelled the towns of Kfar Shuba and Wazzani as well. At least two Lebanese citizens were injured in an airstrike on the town of Markaba. 

    The Lebanese army warned displaced residents of southern border villages on Wednesday not to enter areas where Israeli troops are still deployed. 

    Israeli forces have been violating the ceasefire since it took effect early on November 27. The Israeli army opened fire on a group of Lebanese journalists in the southern town of Khiam on 27 November. 

    Earlier on Wednesday, Israeli troops also opened fire on Khiam, Kfar Kila, and other towns as displaced residents made their way back. Israeli Army Radio and Channel 12 reports claimed several people were killed. Lebanese media did not acknowledge any deaths. 

    Hezbollah said in a statement on Wednesday night “that its fighters from various military specialties will remain fully prepared to deal with the Israeli enemy’s ambitions and attacks, and that their eyes will continue to follow the movements and withdrawals of the enemy’s forces beyond the borders, and their hands will remain on the trigger, in defense of Lebanon’s sovereignty and for the sake of the dignity and honor of its people.”

    Lebanese forces announced their deployment across the south on 27 November as part of the ceasefire deal, which is based on the implementation of UN Resolution 1701. As part of the agreement, Lebanese troops are required to dismantle all Hezbollah infrastructure south of the Litani River, and Israel is required to withdraw its army from Lebanon – all within a period of 60 days.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The entry of weapons into Lebanon and attempts by the resistance to restock weaponry are prohibited in the agreement.

    A pre-existing tripartite mechanism, including France and the UNIFIL, has been headed by the US to monitor any violations reported by both Israel and Lebanon.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 14:40

  • "Good Faith" Discussions Underway To Un-Cancel NFL Redskins Logo 
    “Good Faith” Discussions Underway To Un-Cancel NFL Redskins Logo 

    In a recent X post by Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines, the senator wrote, “The censorship of the former Commander logo was a classic case of woke gone wrong. I applaud the Commanders & the NFL for their commitment to never censor the logo again.”

    Speaking to Fox News, Daines said, “The irony – they [woke left] were canceling Native American culture, as in the DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] movement went way too far …” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    At a recent Energy & Natural Resources Committee meeting on Capitol Hill, Daines stated that there had been “good faith negotiations” with the NFL team to restore the logo of Blackfoot Chief John Two Guns White Calf, which had been in use for half a century.

    In 2020, the NFL team succumbed to pressure from the radical left, promoting woke culture and forcing a name change from the Redskins to the “Washington Commanders.”

    Before the woke left unleashed cancel culture, the NFL franchise used Native American artist Walter “Blackie” Wetzel’s artwork of the Blackfoot chief as the inspiration for the team’s logo from 1972 to 2020.

    In 2022…

    And just like that, the iconic logo, celebrating Indian Country, was memory-holed, as were many other logos.

    The nation is waking up from a terrible decade of toxic and nation-killing wokeism nightmare. As we’ve previously noted, the ‘Overton Window‘ has shifted. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    For the sake of humanity, let us hope the woke mind virus—destructive by nature and detrimental to the nation—comes to an abrupt end. Woke ideology was never intended to succeed; its true purpose is to destroy. Even The New York Times and Bloomberg acknowledged a new Rutgers study showing that DEI initiatives transform individuals into being “hostile.” 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 14:00

  • Will Your Thanksgiving Table Become A Political Battleground?
    Will Your Thanksgiving Table Become A Political Battleground?

    Authored by Mary Prenon via The Epoch Times,

    The presidential election is over, and while half of America may be celebrating, the other half may be feeling a mixture of emotions from angst to anger. But when it comes to breaking bread with family for the Thanksgiving holiday, will the politicians hold the upper hand and wreak havoc at your dinner table?

    New data from Prolific reveals that many Americans are bracing themselves for potentially uncomfortable Thanksgiving dinner conversations with family or relatives who share opposing political views.

    In fact, 20 percent of respondents to a recent poll say they plan to skip the traditional holiday gathering to avoid family interactions. Some indicated they would take a vacation instead, while others intend to spend Thanksgiving alone or with a few like-minded friends.

    Prolific, a technology and research company based in California, polled more than 2,000 U.S. residents of different ages, genders, and ethnicities. Of that number, 96 percent reported feeling confident in their voting decisions with no regrets.

    While the poll indicated that 62 percent of those surveyed expressed disapproval of the current Biden administration, 58 percent had an unfavorable opinion of President-elect Donald Trump. Some 22 percent already reported increased polarization within families following the election. Among younger voters—ages 18 to 24—that number jumped to 36 percent.

    Andrew Gordon, senior consultant at Prolific, told The Epoch Times that researchers were quite surprised by the survey responses.

    “While the depth of potential political division within families was striking, it actually aligns well with the trends we’ve been observing in our ongoing polling—extreme polarization within the electorate on any number of key issues,” he said.

    “The data underscore just how deeply woven into the fabric of everyday life politics has become, even extending into family dynamics during traditionally unifying occasions like Thanksgiving.”

    More than 23 percent of people living in Northeast states such as Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island believe the election has stirred up political tensions within the family. California and Washington state were the only western states included at that level.

    “This year has been marked by a perfect storm of political and societal factors: an extremely polarizing election, a big focus on leadership across party lines, and a worldwide economic slowdown that has led to general dissatisfaction with government performance,” Gordon said. “Add to this social platforms, and politics has become an unavoidable part of daily conversations.”

    Tim Ives, a licensed New York psychoanalyst specializing in family therapy, told The Epoch Times it’s important that people decide what they want to do before getting into a potentially stressful situation.

    “As much as many of us are family-oriented, holidays don’t necessarily look like Norman Rockwell paintings,” he said. “Families getting along together is not always the norm.”

    Ives, who is also a minister serving the Scarborough Presbyterian Church in Briarcliff Manor, New York, said the key for those choosing to spend Thanksgiving and the holidays with family is to be non-reactive.

    “Politics can be divisive and it’s difficult sometimes to ignore opinions that are different from yours. My advice is to just smile and nod,” he said.

    Alcohol can also fuel the fires for controversial discussions, so Ives recommends keeping drinks to a minimum.

    “If discussions do get heated, people can always quietly get up from the table and go to another part of the house or outside to avoid getting caught up in that turmoil,” he said. “A lot of families set a rule of no politics or religion discussions at gatherings.”

    Political polarization is nothing new, noted Ives.

    “I remember back during the 1964 election when everyone was scared to death of Barry Goldwater—they thought it was going to be the end of the world,” he recalled. Lyndon Johnson eventually defeated Goldwater in a landslide.

    Ives has recently been involved with counseling couples who find themselves on opposite sides of the political fence.

    “This year’s election has caused some angst among couples, but the bottom line is people have to consider how much this is really going to affect their personal lives,” he said.

    Almost 50 percent of the survey respondents living in southern and western states reported that they were not surprised at the outcome of the election. These states included Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Texas, Tennessee, and the Carolinas.

    Answering the question of whether democracy is alive and well in the United States, 52 percent of those aged 45 to 54 said yes, compared with 47.1 percent of those aged 55 to 64, and 45.2 percent of people in the 65-plus range. Fifty-five percent of those surveyed in Wyoming also provided an affirmative answer to the question, as did 52 percent of those polled in Montana, North and South Dakota, and Utah.

    “While we have conducted numerous studies on political sentiment and its impact on societal interactions, this is the first time we have explicitly explored how these divisions might manifest during Thanksgiving,” Gordon said.

    “This year’s findings take that dynamic a step further, demonstrating how political tensions are reshaping holiday traditions and prompting Americans to reconsider how they celebrate.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 13:30

  • Did Trump Just Solve The Border Crisis: Mexican President "Agreed To Stop Migration Through Mexico" Trump Claims
    Did Trump Just Solve The Border Crisis: Mexican President “Agreed To Stop Migration Through Mexico” Trump Claims

    Did Trump solve the border crisis two months before even being sworn in as the 47th president?

    Two days after surprising markets – and sending the peso plummeting – by announcing he would enact 25% import duties on Mexican goods if the country doesn’t stop the flow of drugs and migrants across the border.

    tariffs on Mexican goods in response to the flood of drugs across the porous southern border, best known for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the US in the past four ears, Trump’s unexpected gambit may have already paid off.

    In a post on Truth Social network, Trump announced that after a “wonderful” conversation with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, she “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border.”

    He added that the two also talked about “what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States” concluding that it was a “very productive” conversation which of course, it would be, if indeed Trump – who again is still two months away from inauguration – managed to solve the US border crisis just 48 hours after using targeted tariffs as a bargaining chip.

    While it remains to be confirmed on the Mexican side if Trump’s recollection of the conversation is accurate, Trump’s announcement comes just hours after the legacy media reported that Mexico would take on a more aggressive posture, with the AP reporting that Sheinbaum had suggested that “Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own” and that while she was willing to engage in talks on the issues, drugs were a U.S. problem.

    “One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses,” Sheinbaum said, referring to U.S. automakers that have plants on both sides of the border.

    She said Tuesday that Mexico had done a lot to stem the flow of migrants, noting “caravans of migrants no longer reach the border.” However, Mexico’s efforts to fight drugs like the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl – which is manufactured by Mexican cartels using chemicals imported from China – have weakened in the last year.

    Amusingly, Sheinbaum also said Mexico suffered from an influx of weapons smuggled in from the United States, and said the flow of drugs “is a problem of public health and consumption in your country’s society” which judging by the libs ongoing reaction to Trump’s victory is pretty much spot on.

    As noted, there is still no official confirmation or full context of the agreement from President Sheinbaum’s side, but the market certainly reacted with the peso surging, and almost wiping out all losses from the past 48 hours after Trump’s first unveiled his 25% tariff threat.

    If confirmed, this would be the second time Trump has managed to convince Mexico to suspend migrants from crossing its territory to enter the US. Back in 2018, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador – a charismatic, old-school politician – developed a chummy relationship with Trump. The two were eventually able to strike a bargain in which Mexico helped keep migrants away from the border – and received other countries’ deported migrants – and Trump backed down on similar threats.

    While Sheinbaum, who took office Oct. 1, has been seen as a stern leftist ideologue trained in radical student protest movements, and appeared less willing to pacify or mollify Trump, it seems she too has capitulated just 48 hours after Trump unveiled what was coming.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 13:17

  • Denmark Hit By 'Whole Country' Mobile Outage, Trains Halted 
    Denmark Hit By ‘Whole Country’ Mobile Outage, Trains Halted 

    While Americans celebrate Thanksgiving by chowing down on turkey and mashed potatoes (and, of course, gravy), Denmark has experienced a widespread telecommunications outage, disrupting cellphone service and bringing train networks to a grinding halt. 

    The German news website Der Spiegel reports that the TDC Net network suffered a nationwide outage on Thursday due to technical difficulties. The exact cause has yet to be disclosed. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Here’s more from the German news site:

    The lack of mobile coverage occurs randomly across the country. “The whole country is affected sporadically,” said Lasse Bjerre Sørensen. Accordingly, it could take some time before the network is back up and running.

    …

    The outage also affects emergency calls. Because the local emergency call center – 112 – is affected by the mobile network outage and calls may not be able to be put through, the emergency rescue service Hovedstadens Beredskab is sending vehicles onto the streets. As the rescue service announced on X, these vehicles should be contacted when urgent help is needed.

    rail traffic is at a standstill

    The administrator of the Danish rail network, Banedanmark, reports errors in the digital signaling system in the west of the country on X. They have therefore suspended operations until 6 p.m.

    The Deputy Traffic Director of Banedanmark, Nicolai Smidt Sigsgaard, wrote on X, “We are working hard to get the traffic going again and are investigating the cause of the breakdown.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This incident comes ten days after a Chinese bulk carrier transporting Russian fertilizer sabotaged two undersea fiber optic cables connecting Finland, Germany, Sweden, and Lithuania across the Baltic Sea. 

    Also, these incidents come as World War III risks are soaring in Eastern Europe. 

    *Developing… 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 12:35

  • Joy Reid Has Thanksgiving Meltdown Over Trump Supporters "Suffering The Consequences" Of Their Vote
    Joy Reid Has Thanksgiving Meltdown Over Trump Supporters “Suffering The Consequences” Of Their Vote

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via modernity.news,

    MSNBC’s Joy Reid took all the joy out of Thanksgiving by going on a 10 minute meltdown rant about how Trump supporters won’t get a “cookie, trophy or hug” from her.

    Oh no, how awful.

    Still furious that Trump supporters refer to ‘undocumented immigrants’ as “illegal immigrants” (they are), Reid suggested “right-wingers” should have to suffer the consequences of voting for Trump.

    “Make your own sandwiches, wipe your own tears, troll amongst yourselves with Elon, and leave us alone,” said the host, acting as if Trump supporters would want to socialize with her anyway.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “You got your heart’s desire. The president you dreamed of and worshiped instead of Jesus. And this time, you didn’t even have to storm the Capitol, smash the windows or try to kill police officers or issue death threats to poll workers,” she added.

    “But if you expect the 73 million who voted for the prosecutor, not the felon, and particularly the 92% of black women who voted for Kamala to give you a cookie for your vote, a trophy, a hug, a high five, you might be asking too much,” said Reid.

    No one asked, Joy, no one asked.

    “If we want to eat with you, we will. But if we just want some peace over the holidays, and we don’t want to put up with your trolling… get over it. Stop acting like we owe you,” added the host, pretending as though any Trump voter actually thinks like this.

    “And for God’s sake, stop whining, it’s embarrassing, our Thanksgiving, our choice,” she concluded.

    The only person whining is you, Joy, for 10 minutes straight.

    Given that MSNBC is up for sale and Elon Musk has suggested he might buy it, this might be the last Thanksgiving that Reid will have to spew such vitriol on cable news.

    As we previously highlighted, after spending the entire election campaign demonizing Trump supporters as Nazis and fascists, on the eve of the election she bragged that the media had “said all they can” to help Kamala win.

    After she lost, Reid told what few viewers she has left to stay away from Trump-supporting family members because they might “turn you in” to the authorities.

    One suspects it’s going to be a far from joyful Thanksgiving in the Reid household this year.

    Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 11/28/2024 – 12:10

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Nov 28

Today’s News 28th November 2024

  • Did Trump Just Solve The Border Crisis: Mexican President "Agreed To Stop Migration Through Mexico" Trump Claims
    Did Trump Just Solve The Border Crisis: Mexican President “Agreed To Stop Migration Through Mexico” Trump Claims

    Did Trump solve the border crisis two months before even being sworn in as the 47th president?

    Two days after surprising markets – and sending the peso plummeting – by announcing he would enact 25% import duties on Mexican goods if the country doesn’t stop the flow of drugs and migrants across the border.

    tariffs on Mexican goods in response to the flood of drugs across the porous southern border, best known for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter the US in the past four ears, Trump’s unexpected gambit may have already paid off.

    In a post on Truth Social network, Trump announced that after a “wonderful” conversation with Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, she “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border.”

    He added that the two also talked about “what can be done to stop the massive drug inflow into the United States” concluding that it was a “very productive” conversation which of course, it would be, if indeed Trump – who again is still two months away from inauguration – managed to solve the US border crisis just 48 hours after using targeted tariffs as a bargaining chip.

    While it remains to be confirmed on the Mexican side if Trump’s recollection of the conversation is accurate, Trump’s announcement comes just hours after the legacy media reported that Mexico would take on a more aggressive posture, with the AP reporting that Sheinbaum had suggested that “Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own” and that while she was willing to engage in talks on the issues, drugs were a U.S. problem.

    “One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses,” Sheinbaum said, referring to U.S. automakers that have plants on both sides of the border.

    She said Tuesday that Mexico had done a lot to stem the flow of migrants, noting “caravans of migrants no longer reach the border.” However, Mexico’s efforts to fight drugs like the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl – which is manufactured by Mexican cartels using chemicals imported from China – have weakened in the last year.

    Amusingly, Sheinbaum also said Mexico suffered from an influx of weapons smuggled in from the United States, and said the flow of drugs “is a problem of public health and consumption in your country’s society” which judging by the libs ongoing reaction to Trump’s victory is pretty much spot on.

    As noted, there is still no official confirmation or full context of the agreement from President Sheinbaum’s side, but the market certainly reacted with the peso surging, and almost wiping out all losses from the past 48 hours after Trump’s first unveiled his 25% tariff threat.

    If confirmed, this would be the second time Trump has managed to convince Mexico to suspend migrants from crossing its territory to enter the US. Back in 2018, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador – a charismatic, old-school politician – developed a chummy relationship with Trump. The two were eventually able to strike a bargain in which Mexico helped keep migrants away from the border – and received other countries’ deported migrants – and Trump backed down on similar threats.

    While Sheinbaum, who took office Oct. 1, has been seen as a stern leftist ideologue trained in radical student protest movements, and appeared less willing to pacify or mollify Trump, it seems she too has capitulated just 48 hours after Trump unveiled what was coming.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 23:17

  • The Top States Where Americans Are Looking to Buy Homes Heading Into 2025
    The Top States Where Americans Are Looking to Buy Homes Heading Into 2025

    A new study has revealed where Americans are most likely to buy a home heading into the end of 2024. Highland Cabinetry conducted a comprehensive analysis of all 50 U.S. states to determine where homebuying is most preferred.

    The study utilized search data from Google’s Keyword Explorer Tool to gauge interest and incorporated additional factors such as home sale prices, mortgage rates, average rent, and home value changes over the past year. Data was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau, Business Insider, Zillow, and others.

    A preference score was then assigned to each state, combining these metrics to create a comparative ranking.

    California emerges as the most sought-after state for homebuyers, boasting a preference score of 75.8. Despite its high average home sale price of $782,695, the Golden State saw the largest home value decrease at 2.8% over the past year. Coupled with over 5.6 million searches for terms like “buy a house,” this drop signals growing interest in the state as a potential investment opportunity. However, California remains the priciest state to rent, with average monthly rent at $1,870, presenting challenges for renters but opportunities for landlords.

    Texas and Ohio stand out for their affordability. Texas, with a preference score of 55.8, recorded nearly 4.8 million home-buying searches and offers one of the lowest average home sale prices at $303,352. Monthly rent in Texas is relatively low at $1,290, making it an attractive choice for both buyers and renters.

    Ohio, ranked eighth with a score of 51.1, is the cheapest state to rent, with an average monthly rent of $949. It also boasts the lowest home sale price among the top states at $221,816, combined with a 3.5% rise in home values, signaling strong investment potential.

    Florida, New York, and New Jersey round out the top states for homebuying interest. Florida’s reasonable home prices, averaging $396,318, and moderate rent costs of $1,525 earned it a score of 62.2, while New York secured second place despite its high mortgage rates and modest home value growth, according to Highland Cabinetry.

    New Jersey, with a significant 5.2% increase in home values and one of the lowest mortgage rates at 4.84%, remains a strong competitor, though its average home sale price of $508,430 places it in the mid-range.

    While California leads in overall interest, states like Texas and Ohio highlight the appeal of affordability. The findings suggest that prospective buyers balance various factors, including potential long-term value, cost of living, and market trends.

    A Highland Cabinetry spokesperson emphasized the importance of looking beyond upfront costs: “If you’re considering purchasing a home, look beyond just the price tag. While states with declining home values, like California, may seem attractive, remember to weigh other factors such as mortgage rates, average rent, and potential long-term value growth.”

    They concluded: “A state with a modest initial investment can become a hidden gem if its home value trends upward, offering a better return in the long run. Diversifying your search can help you spot opportunities that align with your financial goals and lifestyle needs.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 23:00

  • A Single Point Of Failure
    A Single Point Of Failure

    Submitted by Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Kimberly Process Chair 2024

    The global diamond industry once again finds itself at a crossroads, and while the need to curb conflict diamonds and ensure ethical sourcing remains paramount, the European Union’s proposal for a single diamond control node in Antwerp raises serious concerns about sovereignty and efficiency, while undermining the integrity of the Kimberley Process (KP).

    In a statement issued by the Diplomatic Service of the European Union, my comments made during the KP Plenary meeting in my capacity as the KP Chair were described as “regrettable” and that the Kimberley Process had “failed, for a third year in a row, to address the implications of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine on the global rough diamond sector.”

    As an organization, the KP serves a very specific function – to unite administrations, civil societies, and industry in reducing the flow of conflict diamonds. It has no mandate to endorse political sanctions against sovereign nations. As a process that has proven its purpose and function, particularly by identifying all diamonds at source, the EU should first ask themselves why now they wish to displace an operation they have trusted for a generation with a less effective proposal that is untried, untested, and unrequired. It should also question why its position has isolated itself within the global diamond community, which increasingly sees its proposal as a play for hegemony over the holistic needs of the industry.  

    Contrary, the KP’s decentralized solution is overwhelmingly supported by industry members, KP observers, including the World Diamond Council, civil society, and numerous Belgian stakeholders, many of whom are afraid to speak out in fear of reprisal. As the Kimberley Process Chair, I have consistently voiced my concern about this centralized approach. Not only does it disrupt the established KP framework, a decentralized network of 59 nodes, (60 if you include recently onboarded Uzbekistan), that has functioned effectively for over two decades, but worse, undermines the trust and collaboration that has upheld the equitable participation and sovereignty of all member states.

    Conversely, the single-node model imposes a Eurocentric lens on the global diamond trade by placing disproportionate burdens on African producers, requiring them to channel their diamonds through Antwerp for verification before accessing G7 markets. This not only adds logistical and financial costs but also undermines the ability of African nations to self-regulate and manage their own natural resources. In other words, the EU’s agenda can only be seen to be self-serving as a way of preserving its relevance in an industry that overwhelmingly rejects supervision and bureaucracy in favour of decentralised collaboration.

    Frankly, it is disheartening to see that despite vocal opposition from African nations, including Botswana, Namibia, and Angola, and the concerns raised by the African Diamond Producers Association (ADPA), Europe remains deaf and committed to its single-node concept, setting a troubling precedent reminiscent of its imperial past. Even in terms of practical efficiency, this centralised approach creates a single point of failure, making the system vulnerable to corruption, bottlenecks, and inefficiencies; vulnerabilities for which Antwerp already has a demonstrable track record.

    And what logic selects Antwerp? Not consensus. Not its track record.

    Belgium, and specifically Antwerp, was long considered the heart of the global diamond trade. However, this glittering reputation is tarnished by a history of corruption, smuggling, and ethical breaches. The Monstrey Case exposed a network of 220 corrupt diamond dealers, of which 107 were charged for large-scale forgery, including fraudulent Kimberley Process certificates and money laundering. Other notable cases include Agim De Bruycker – the long-standing Antwerp Federal Police Commissioner and Head of the Diamond Squad, who was arrested twice and served a custodial sentence for similar charges.

    If one were to choose some paradigm of efficiency, Antwerp is hardly a strong candidate, leading to the conclusion that the choice was made at a geopolitical level for the benefit of the few. This isn’t to say that any location is perfect. Any single location is, by its nature the wrong choice. The argument for a decentralized system based on transparency, versus blindly trusting the EU for certification, is just common sense. Even when taking a step back from the diamond industry specifically, the current global political climate, with its shift towards nationalism and self-determination, further underscores the need for a decentralized approach. As former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi aptly stated, the future of competitiveness lies in embracing decentralization and empowering individual nations.

    Throughout its twenty-four-year history, the KP has proven its effectiveness in curbing conflict diamonds and promoting ethical sourcing, while its tried and tested processes have the capacity to adapt and improve, ensuring that all nations have the right to self-regulate their natural resources. Additionally, the UAE’s proof-of-concept KP certification platform, which was showcased at the KP Plenary in Dubai, is a testament to the potential for innovation within the existing framework. It demonstrates that technology can be leveraged to enhance transparency and traceability without compromising sovereignty or imposing undue financial and logistical burdens. In this, I look forward to working with the KP family to build a future where all stakeholders, particularly Africa’s producing nations, continue to have a voice and benefit equitably from their natural resources.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 22:30

  • Thanksgiving Dinner Will Be 19% More Expensive This Year Than Before Biden Was Elected
    Thanksgiving Dinner Will Be 19% More Expensive This Year Than Before Biden Was Elected

    Each year the American Farm Bureau Federation releases a price survey of classic items found on the Thanksgiving dinner table. This year, the average cost of feasting stands at $54.33, which is less than last year but still constitutes a $8.64 increase from before the pandemic.

    The most expensive item by far is the turkey, which this year costs an average of $25.67 and is an increase of $4.87 from pre-pandemic levels. While most ingredients have increased somewhat, sweet potatoes, fresh cranberries and whipping cream have dropped in value.

    2024 marks the second consecutive year that the average price of a Thanksgiving dinner in the United States has decreased.

    However, as Statista’s Anna Feck reports, this does not erase the increases seen between 2020 and 2022, when the meal rose from an average of $46.90 to $64.05 thanks to the impacts of inflation on food prices and farmers’ costs.

    Infographic: What Does a Thanksgiving Dinner Cost in 2024? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The AFBF discovered regional differences in the average cost of a Thanksgiving meal, with the most affordable prices found in the South at $56.81 and the most expensive in the West at $67.05.

    The shopping list of the survey includes all ingredients and foods in quantities sufficient to serve a family of 10 (though quite frankly we question the serving sizes that implies). Volunteers checked prices in grocery stores in all 50 states and Puerto Rico for the Farm Bureau.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 22:00

  • Financialization & Missed Boats: When Mythology Papers Over Reality
    Financialization & Missed Boats: When Mythology Papers Over Reality

    Authored by David Bahnsen via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Executive Summary

    Despite its ubiquitous use in modern America, the term ‘financialization’ is deeply misunderstood. Evidence shows the concept’s meaning often changes in different contexts. In some instances it serves as a relatively benign catch-all term for anything construed as a “greater role for the financial sector in the economy.” Others have described financialization as a “mismatch between the public interest and Wall Street interest.” In some instances, it is misunderstood as the simple pursuit of profit. 

    As the term ‘financialization’ has gotten more mileage in recent years, critics have seized on the ambiguity of the word to wage class warfare and attack capital markets, which are little understood. Among the most heavily criticized institutions and actions in the financial sector are the following: hedge funds, private equity, high-frequency trading, stock buybacks, dividends, and banks.

    Key Points

    This paper explores how the term ‘financialization’ has been employed – and explains why it should not be confused with mere financial sector activity—and demonstrates how its critics have done the following:

    • Inadequately defined the term
    • Used a critique of the financial sector to disguise rank-class envy
    • Failed to understand the nature of markets and the primacy of resource allocation
    • Demonized instruments of financial markets that have been overwhelming positives for economic growth
    • Proposed policy initiatives that would unilaterally do more harm than good
    • Failed to see the most egregious actors in that which distresses them: excessive government debt and excessive monetary policy

    Introduction

    The term ‘financialization’ has received significant attention in recent years and is seeing far greater use in the vernacular of policymakers and thought leaders. The term is used in different ways by different parties, and a plethora of agendas exist behind these discussions. What’s clear is that there is growing interest in the role of financial markets in the broader economy.

    While a treatment of financialization that embraces nuance is difficult in our time, no treatment will be coherent without nuance. The different uses, agendas, and contexts matter, and using vocabulary to poison a well is easy to do in this discussion, and also counterproductive. This essay explores the underlying concerns behind financialization, and seeks to more accurately describe what market forces do while addressing misconceptions about ‘financialization’ and free markets.

    Conscious effort is required to avoid the laziness embedded in the label to paper over a class warfare argument. At the same time, advocates of robust capital markets concede that financial activities exist that offer limited productive value. In other words, it is entirely possible (and, indeed, will be the position of this paper) that what is often referred to as ‘financialization’ is no such thing at all, and is rather a misguided attack on all capital markets. And yet, it is also entirely possible (and the thesis of this essay) that a consortium of policies has facilitated what can be called financialization, and these policies should be rebuffed as contrary to the aim of a productive economy which facilitates maximum opportunity for flourishing.

    In this nuance, we find the tragic irony of this contemporary debate. A growing movement, increasingly bipartisan, hostile to various activities in financial markets, has identified the wrong targets for critique. In so doing they not only have demonized healthy and vital components of an innovative economy but have missed the culprits who do warrant our attention. The reasons for this misidentification of cause and effect vary from a weak understanding of financial market reality to more severe ideologically driven errors. When the critics of financialization show a weak understanding of the problems they seek to solve, their proposed solution can only be flawed, incomplete, and misguided. Activities pejoratively referred to as financialization that are healthy and useful need to be defended. Likewise, activities, policies, and incentives that pollute the engines of a healthy economy need to be criticized. In short, a lot is on the line in this contemporary discussion.

    The first section of this paper seeks to define what financialization is and what it is not. Upon establishment of a clear definition, analysis is needed to determine what is negative and what is positive. Once defined, an objective assessment of the causation of this phenomenon is in order.

    After clarifying what financialization is, it will be useful to note the dangers of class warfare in the debate. This essay strives for an intellectually honest critique of any economic development or policy disposition that is weighing on the cultivation of prosperity. It does not seek to exploit or incite class envy. Nor does it seek to utilize demonization as a substitute for argument.

    Critics of financialization, or at least those prone to using the term, have concerns about economic productivity and how resources are currently allocated. A basic refresher in how markets work and how resources are most efficiently allocated will be a useful foundation for this study.

    In a similar vein to how class warfare underlies many misguided attacks on financial markets, a vigorous defense of profits is paramount to this discussion. Financial activity that hurts the common good is fair game for our scrutiny; an activity that is criticized merely because of its profitability is not. This essay will explore why corporate profits are vital in a prosperous society.

    There exists a lengthy list of expected targets of criticism, even beyond the abstract and poorly defined “Wall Street.” Specific vehicles, institutions, and activities such as private equity, hedge funds, high-frequency trading, both commercial and investment banking, the payment of dividends, the buyback of corporate stock, and passive ownership of public equity all receive the ire of today’s market critics. In each case, their concerns ring hollow, incomplete, or woefully inaccurate.

    An abundance of policy solutions now circulate seeking to remedy various conditions described herein. Eliminating bad solutions and embracing good solutions, all the while considering expected trade-offs, must be our aim. Unfortunately, many proposed remedies must be considered worse than the disease, and for this reason, also deserve our attention.

    Likewise, it behooves us to consider the positive innovations in financial markets, fruits of a market economy and society ordered in liberty, that have demonstrably improved conditions for prosperity and flourishing. It does critics of finance no good to analyze that which is prima facie problematic without also looking at the clear positive results that robust financial markets have made possible.

    And finally, we must look at that which is truly responsible for downward pressure on economic growth and productivity. Critics of financial markets so often reach over dollar bills to pick up pennies, concerning themselves with benign activities that present nothing more than a cosmetic concern, while ignoring the substantial and measurable negative impact of excessive government indebtedness, an obese regulatory state, an inefficient tax system, and most ignored of all, monetary policy that substantially misallocates resources.

    Re-orienting our understanding of this subject will promote a cogent direction in economic policy and better move us towards the proper aim of financial markets—human flourishing.

    What ‘financialization’ is, and isn’t

    ‘Financialization’ can mean different things in different contexts, but it generally carries negative overtones. The definition matters because, for some (including the author), there is a ‘financialization’ phenomenon that warrants significant criticism. But upon closer scrutiny, the actions most often described as ‘financialization’ warrant no such criticism. A coherent definition also allows for precision in what is being scrutinized and criticized, while failure to define the term properly risks generating an inadequate critique of what should be criticized, and a wrongheaded critique of that which should not.

    There is an abstract but fair context in which financialization is a catch-all term for a “greater role for the financial sector in the economy.” At that level, it is a reasonably benign description and does not necessarily indicate any malignant effects on the economy as a whole or specific economic sectors. Here ‘financialization’ simply describes a scenario whereby capital markets activity becomes more prominent.

    Other conceptions of financializations, however, are explicit in their condemnation of the manner in which financial markets re-allocate capital in ways that increase profits to owners of capital but without paying heed to what such critics’ conceptions of social justice or equality. An example of this is an American Affairs article that views financial actors as tools of “market worship” which, its author claims, undermines a just and responsible society.

    A more particular definition of financialization might incorporate the influence or power of financial markets in overall economic administration. If we referred to the ‘technologization’ of society we would more likely be referring to a greater use of technology than increased power for technology elites, but it seems fair to allow for the inclusion of both—some increase of use and some increase of power.

    Regardless, however, of what sector of the economy is having a new noun made out of its description, greater use of that sector is not self-evidently problematic. It may even be an obvious improvement (“medical sophistication”). Indeed, one could argue that influence or power is expected when greater utility is found in a particular segment of the economy. Whether it be consumer appetites or just general product novelty, the influence of various segments of the economy ebb and flow quite organically around their use, relevance, and capability. A generic increase in the use of financial services and accompanying influence lacks the specificity necessary to identify it as problematic.

    As the term ‘financialization’ has gotten more mileage in recent years, those concerned with its allegedly malignant impact have taken advantage of the ambiguity, complexity, and mystery of capital markets (real or perceived) and present them as a malignant force. In this sense, class envy is a more likely description for much of what is described as financialization. It is therefore incumbent upon us to break down the ambiguity of where financial sector activity might be putting downward pressure on productivity, and where the term is being used only for its well-poisoning virtues.

    Because financialization involves some basis for warranted criticism, mere financial sector activity is not the same as financialization. Likewise, increasing financial sector profits should not be considered the same as financialization. Critics are fair (prima facie) to suggest that if such profits come at the expense of other sectors, and at the price of total economic growth, then there may be a problem. However, the mere accumulation of financial sector profits is not financialization unless, in a zero-sum sense, such profits result from a decline in total profits and productivity. This will be a tough burden to overcome.

    Is financialization the same thing as securitization, i.e., manufacturing financial products (securities) around other aspects of economic activity and streams of cash flow? Does the economy suffer when more components of economic life are securitized, meaning, capitalized, traded, valued, priced, and institutionally owned and monitored? Does securitization distract from organic economic activity, product innovation, and customer service? Or does it facilitate more of the above, mitigate risk, and enhance price discovery? Does securitization invite profits into the financial sector, while benefiting the public good by opening new markets for healthy activities (i.e. auto loans, inventory receivables, debtor financing, and more)? Is a critic of financialization willing to say that securitization enhances economic opportunity and activity, but still must be viewed skeptically because of the enhanced profits it produces for the financial sector?

    Some have said that financialization produces a “mismatch between the public interest and Wall Street interest.” This may be getting closer, if we believe that scenarios exist where the production of goods and services that make people’s lives better are contrary to the wishes of Wall Street (i.e. our nation’s financial markets). Do those who invest, steward, trade, and custody capital do better when that capital is put to work for the public or against the public? It would be a high burden of proof to suggest that the financial sector at large (distinct from an individual actor) has interests disconnected from the broad economy.

    The above listed distinctions and clarifications should make critics of Wall Street be more careful in framing their critiques of the financial sector. Confusing the financial services sector by giving the public exactly what it wants for working against public interest is a profound mistake. Close analysis of this dynamic reveals that what Wall Street is often being criticized for is not working against the public interest, but rather giving the public exactly what it wants too liberally. From subprime mortgages to exotic investments, many products and services may prove to be bad ideas, but they can hardly be called things that “Wall Street” distributed to “Main Street” against the latter’s will.

    Nor should financialization’s problems be confused with the mere pursuit of profit. To the extent that critics of the profit motive exist, their philosophical objections are hardly limited to the financial sector. The productive pursuit of profits in a market economy is a good thing, and this judgment does not exclude the financial sector. The profit motive is not a problem in ‘financialized’ or in ‘non-financialized’ enterprises. Economic activity intermediated by financial instruments does not suddenly take on a different character. Rather, the problem is where more productive activities are substituted for less productive activities. If the production of goods and services towards the meeting of human needs is replaced by non-productive ‘financializing’, a problem exists that requires attention.

    As we shall see, such ‘financialization’ does, indeed, exist. However, the culprits behind such are never the ones targeted by financialization’s loudest critics[1].

    Class warfare by any other name

    Associating Wall Street with greed and callous disregard for the public is not new. While Hollywood portrayals of Wall Street in the 1980s and 1990s focused more on hedonism and a general profligate culture, there has been a multi-decade distrust of “money changers” and various representatives of the financial markets of America. “Wall Street” has the disadvantage of being nebulous. It has not been known in a geographical context for a century, and its linguistic shorthand for capital markets is ill-defined and understood. What it is, though, is an easy target of the envious. It suffers from the lethal combination of being affiliated with riches and success, while at the same time lacking a clear definition. This tandem allows for an all-out class warfare on the very concept of Wall Street without any need for nuance or specificity.

    Greed, arrogance, corruption, and disregard for the common good ought to be repudiated regardless of the industry in which they occur. These character components are common traits in fallen mankind, not unique to the financial sector. The particular disdain felt for Wall Street is really class envy that receives intellectual and moral cover from the widespread impoverished understanding of what our financial markets and the actors within them do.

    We thus need a sober separation of the envy of wealth and success from a granular understanding of the work being done in any sector of the economy. A middle-class worker may believe a Hollywood A-list actor is grotesquely overpaid, or they may be jealous of the generous compensation that such an elite group of professionals enjoys, but demonizingall “acting” or “entertaining” makes no sense. Reasonable people can hold different subjective opinions about the talent of a given celebrity, but analyzing their theatrical or cinematic skills is hardly enhanced when buried underneath an intense jealousy of their compensation.

    The same dynamics unleashed by envy and lack of knowledge applies to Wall Street and particularly the scrutiny of financialization’s role in driving or hindering economic productivity. That such a dynamic is common should not allow it to stand. Our economy either has a problem with financial sector activity in itself hindering productivity, or it doesn’t. We either need policy reforms to limit the use, power, and influence of financial markets, or we do not. The reality of this discussion is that those components of the modern economy that have most distorted and hindered economic growth are not as easily demonized as Wall Street, because bad policy, bad ideas, and the folly of central planning do not fall into a class envy narrative. A vital ingredient in our task is correctly identifying that class warfare is part of the ‘financialization’ critique.

    Resource allocation and productivity

    Getting to the core of this issue becomes possible once we accept that financialization, properly understood, is the substitution of productive activity with non-productive activity.. Financial markets involve the intermediation of capital in facilitating transactions, but they do much more. When one speaks of financial markets taking from another part of the market, what does that mean? How can we identify when this is occurring? What should we do about it?

    Much of the problem comes down to not knowing what a market is.  If markets were created by the state, or imposed by a third party, one could argue that the financial sector is negatively impacting markets.  But a market is not imposed or created by the state or any other disinterested third party. A market is two people transacting. Embedded in market transactions are all sorts of realities about the human person.  Humans make choice and act individually.  They have subjective tastes and preferences, have reason, are fallible, have a high regard for self-preservation, and tend to pursue what they regard as their self-interest.

    Given that humans are also social beings, most market activities also involve some degree of social cooperation.  Our transactions with one another often take place in the context of a community.  Our transactions often involve access to goods and services for entire communities. Steve Jobs did not make the iPhone for his childhood friend; he made it to scale distribution globally. Some products are purposely more limited in scope and appeal. The complexity and inter-connectedness of markets cause us to forget that markets are actions of mutual self-interest between free people.

    When we hold to the fundamental basics of the market we are in a better place to consider where a financial sector may enhance the facilitation of our market objectives. Likewise, when we forget what a market is, we are more likely to be tempted by the allure of third-party actors to intervene, oversee, regulate, plan, and control the economic affairs of mankind. We forget that a market is grounded fundamentally on human actions at our peril.

    In the context of free men and free women making a market together, negotiating the terms of trade, commerce, use of labor, and other conditions of economic activity, we can see both individually and cooperatively where financial markets can be a powerful tool of facilitation. Currency facilitates divisibility in exchange at the simplest and historically earliest of levels. Trading a herd of cattle for water presented challenges; trading with a currency to allow for settling accounts without impossible barter exchange values changed the world. Currency rationalizes exchange and facilitates more of it.

    But it still must be said: the currency is not the end, but the means to the end. The financial instrument that facilitates the accumulation of water or cattle of whatever the goods or services may be is a mere tool. The resources being allocated, traded, pursued, exchanged, and acquired—enhances productivity and quality of life—are separate from the financial instrumentation. This intermediary functionality of money is a feature, not a bug. At the most basic of levels, it was the initial function of financial markets to drive resource allocation and free exchange.

    It would be disingenuous to assert that all we mean, today, by financial markets is its intermediary function in exchange. Currency remains a vital part of economic activity and for much of the same reasons it was thousands of years ago. While the discussion of the financial sector facilitation of resource allocation begins with currency and it evolves, the fundamental function does not. When capital is made available for projects, the goods and services underlying the capital are still paramount. The use of debt or equity to entice support of a project invites a risk-reward trade-off, and creates a new “market,” but it does so towards the aim of an underlying market. Will customers like this product, or not? Will this entrepreneur execute? Is this cost of capital appropriate for this endeavor? Financial markets represent the pursuit of a return on capital, and yet, the return that capital rationally pursues comes from an underlying good or service.

    Forgetting these points leads to economically ignorant conversations where you hear critics of financial markets suggest that we must stop talking about “cash flows” and “financial engineering,” and start focusing more on productive activity, customer satisfaction, and innovation. Where are “cash flows” from, if not the sales of goods and services? When financial activity is considered in the prospects of a business, or even for macroeconomic impact, it is all in the context of a “means to an end” – the instrumentation of finance to generate wealth-building activities. Financial resources (debt capital, equity capital, deposit funds, working capital, etc.) are evolved tools for driving resource allocation.

    Our capital markets have matured and fostered innovation because, like our culture, they embrace and help us calibrate risk-taking. Devoting a significant amount of financial resources to a risk-taking enterprise is inappropriate for a person of limited means with certain obligations and monthly cash flow needs, lacking the capital to absorb losses. But the great projects that enhance our quality of life represent the risk of failure. Bank depositor money has only a limited capacity for loss absorption; a widow’s retirement savings might have no capacity for loss absorption; but money pooled and targeted for equity investment contains the risk-reward character suitable for investment. That our financial markets have developed, further, into more complex structures for both debt and equity, as well as various securitized options, does not alter this basic fact: Money is a mere instrument in allocating resources.

    Have financial markets in the economy over the last five decades put downward pressure on capital expenditures, as we are often told? Quite the contrary, the empirical support is overwhelming that the evolution of capital markets enhanced capital expenditures over the last fifty years. The trendline was broken after the global financial crisis, but the upward trajectory of capital expenditures is indisputable.

    Likewise with “non-residential fixed investment,” the so-called business investment component of how Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is measured, we see a steady increase in tandem with financial markets evolution. A post-crisis interruption of trendline growth will be better explained shortly, but fundamentally business investment has stayed robust as financial markets have innovated, grown, and evolved.

    Perhaps an increased role of financial markets in the economy has not hurt capital expenditures or investment into new goods and services (i.e. R&D, factories, inventories, machinery, etc.), but has siphoned off profits from other sectors. Those making that specious claim carry the burden of proving it, but the empirical evidence is not up for debate. As the financial sector has become a modestly higher percentage of GDP, total national income has risen, making obsolete the fact that the financial sector’s portion of that income has risen, too.

    The claim that profits from trade and production have been replaced with profits from financial activity is incoherent at best and patently false at worst. Profits inside the financial sector are tangential to the underlying activity of resource allocation. The financial sector is certainly capable of incorrectly allocating resources. Inherent to risk capital is the possibility of loss. Do financial markets allocate capital, subject to the trade-offs of risk and reward, more resourcefully and efficiently thanthe alternatives?.

    What are those alternatives? One option is significantly limited access to capital markets, thereby limiting the instruments available for economic output. Another option is to meet capital needs with an expanded role for the state instead of using private capital. Again, the contest is between robust financial markets, declining financial markets, and greater governmental allocation of resources. These are the options on the table, and this is so because of what a market is. Markets allocate resources based on the decisions of people operating in their self-interest. Condemning financial markets for easing the operation of natural processes hampers economic growth and invites crony corruption.

    In defense of profits

    The topic of corporate profits is integral to discussions of financialization. Financial markets critics worry that profits have become problematic, and that ‘financialization’ is to blame. For our purposes, it is reasonable to ask if we are concerned with how profits are generated, or if we are concerned with what is being done with profits. 

    Many critics of financial markets claim that its profits are not connected to social productivity. This implies the existence of “socially unproductive” profits. Support for this view seems reasonable if we are talking about the profitability of certain unwholesome activities—strip clubs, online pornography, so much of the mindlessness of a gaming technology culture, etc.

    But is the sentiment of “socially unproductive profits” putting a burden on profit makers and profit-seekers that is unfair?  The general objective of meeting the needs of humanity through a profitable delivery of goods and services is unobjectionable. Profits become problematic when they are ill-gotten (fraud, theft, corruption), and yes, many would concede that profits from legal but also immoral activities warrant discussion.  Yet the burden of creating fruitful and uplifting profit-creating activities belongs to the people in the market place and the associations and communities that constitute civil society – not the state. When undesirable activities occur, it is not the profit pursuit behind the activity that is the problem, but rather the problem itself. The last concern we should have with hired hitmen is their financial aspiration!

    Concerns about “socially unproductive profits” is a category error that lacks a limiting principle. The creation of “socially productive” profits by disinterested third parties via intervention, cronyism, or some other form of central planning has to be read in the context of its trade-offs. The unintended consequences unleashed in this vision for society are catastrophic. It is not the burden of financial markets to resolve the tension that can exist between worthy social aims and profit-seeking activities. It is also untrue that financial markets exacerbate this tension. Because markets reflect the values, aims, interests, and intentions of free human beings, the financial resources behind these market-making endeavors will reflect the values of the people engaged in them. Demonizing the profit motive per se misidentifies the appropriate solution of moral formation and strong mediating institutions.

    The financialization critique of profits is built on class envy and economic ignorance (not how profits are created, but what is being done with them). Robust financial markets allow for optionality that supports flexibility, choice, and future decision-making (for example, dividends, stock buybacks, and investing in corporate growth). Risk-taking owners receiving profits incentivizes future investment, promotes facilitates cash flow needs for investors, and enables consumption that satisfies other producers, and makes possible charitable bequests and other activities. Nothing in the prior sentence is possible without presupposing the existence of a profit. Optionality in what to do with profits is vital. The assumption that only the reinvestment of profits into more hiring, wage growth, further inventories, or other forms of business investment are appropriate is short-sighted, arrogant, and lacks factual evidence. Yes, some reinvestment of profits is generally warranted for the sustainability of a business. Many more mature companies reach a free cash flow generation that does not require additional capital reinvestment, but many do. Decisions around profit allocation are impacted by competitive pressures, company culture, investor desires, and other complexities.

    What is not complex is that profits are the sine qua non of the entire discussion. Financial markets are a tool in generating profits whose very distribution is the subject of this discussion, and financial markets provide greater possibilities for how those profits are distributed. Profits themselves are not problematic, and in no way do financial markets “financialize” what is done with those profits. Optionality should be heralded, not condemned.

    The usual bogeymen

    At the heart of the modern crusade against financial markets are objects of ire: the institutions, innovations, and categories that become convenient targets for those who lament the role of the financial sector in the economy. As previously noted, these complaints are often reducible to rank class warfare. However, accepting the concerns at face value allows us to analyze many financial market innovations. This assessment should result in gratitude for capital markets, not condemnation. The following list is just an overview.

    Private Equity

    Perhaps no component of financial markets has become more caricatured and demonized than what is known as “private equity.” The words carry more connotation than just “equity ownership of companies that are not publicly traded.” The private equity industry is large, powerful, and dynamic, and has become a vital part of the American economy. To critics, this is something to bemoan. An objective analysis comes to a very different conclusion.

    At its core, private equity represents professional asset managers serving as general partners, putting up some equity capital themselves (in amounts that can be majority ownership or often very limited), raising further equity capital from professional investors as limited partners, and taking ownership positions in companies. While the ownership is usually a majority position, it is almost always intended to be temporary (assume 5-7 years as a median hold period), and is very often financed with debt capital on top of the equity the general and limited partners put in.

    The targets being acquired may be distressed companies whereby some enterprises have suffered deterioration and distress, and the hope is that new capital, management, and strategy may right the ship. But often the targets are highly successful companies that have achieved a certain growth rate and strong brand, but require additional growth capital to scale, more professional or seasoned management, or some synergistic advantage that a strategic partner can bring. And beyond the objective of “repaired distress,” and “growth and scale,” there is often an exit strategy for founders and early investors who can monetize what they have built by selling to new investors who could have any number of strategic or financial considerations in the acquisition (roll-ups, ability to introduce greater operational efficiency, etc.). Motives and objectives of buyers and sellers vary across private equity, and the industry’s growth and success have facilitated a highly specialized, niched, and diversified menu of private equity players.

    There are various arguments made against the industry that are sometimes at odds with one another (they return too much capital to the owners compared to workers; but also, the returns are terrible and the industry is a sham). Opponents see private equity as either too risky, too opaque, too illiquid, too conflicted, or too unsuitable for the common good of society. Each concern deserves analysis.

    First, the notion that private equity returns are terrible ought to be the greatest encouragement to the cottage industry of those concerned about private equity. If the returns on invested capital coming back to private equity investors were terrible, or even subpar, in any market known to mankind this industry would self-destruct over time. Sponsors would not be able to raise money. Limited partners would find other alternatives for the investment of their capital. Even acquisition targets (who generally carry some skin in the game) would seek better buyers out of their self-interest. Could some constituency of “sucker” leave some lights on longer than one might expect? Sure. But as a growing, thriving, popular institution in capital markets, private equity would evaporate if it were not generating returns that satisfied its investors. This strikes rational market students as obvious. Now, the range of return outcomes has historically been much wider for private equity managers than public equity managers, and the delta between top-performing managers and bottom-performing managers is much wider in private markets than in public markets. This is an advantage to the space, as skill is more predominantly highlighted, and noteworthy advantages are more statistically compelling, purging the space of poor performers and attracting more capital to diligent asset allocators. But no rational argument exists for why the largest, most sophisticated investors on the planet (institutional investors, pension funds, sovereign wealth, endowments, and foundations) would maintain exposure to private equity strategies with either inappropriate fees or inadequate results. If one believed that private equity was damaging to economic growth or the public good, poor investment results would be the ally of their cause.

    Second, opacity and illiquidity are features, not bugs. Entrepreneurial endeavors are not straight lines. Businesses routinely face headwinds, cyclical challenges, unforeseen circumstances, and interruptions to strategy. Likewise, investors routinely face emotional ups and downs, sentiment shifts, and volatility of temperament. That a reliable capital base exists in private equity which prevents the latter (investor sentiment) from damaging the former (the realistic time frame needed for a business to succeed) is a huge advantage to the structure of private equity. Of course, some investors’ circumstances render illiquidity unsuitable for them. The solution is not to strip the illiquidity advantage and patient capital that it presents from private equity, but rather for free and responsible investors to exercise agency, and not invest where not suitable. Private equity provides a highly optimal match between the duration of capital and the underlying assets being invested.

    Opacity is similarly beneficial. The better way to say this is that public markets suffer from the curse of transparency, meaning that competitors, the media, and all sorts of interested parties with any kind of agenda, are made privy to the deepest of details of the company’s financials, disclosures, and circumstances. For clarity, this is a trade-off that publicly traded companies accepted for other advantages to being public, but it is just that—a trade-off. All things being equal, there is no reason that a business would want the world to know its trade secrets, and financial dynamics in near real-time, let alone challenges and obstacles, especially not its competitors. The opacity of being private is not a negative; it is a tautology (when a company is private, it is private).

    Finally, there is the concern that private equity is a negative force for workers. Specifically, the argument goes that private equity’s pursuit of operational efficiencies, the use of debt to fund the acquisition itself and subsequent growth, and the period promised to investors for an exit, all pit the interests of capital against the workers. There is, however, a fatal flaw in this argument, and that concerns the empirical data. Private equity-owned businesses employ 12 million people in the United States, a 34 percent increase from just five years ago. Eighty-six percent of private equity-owned businesses employ less than 500 people, and half of all companies with private equity sponsorship employ less than 50 people[2].

    Interestingly, the National Bureau of Economic Research[3] found that where net job losses did occur (three percent after two years of a buyout and 6 percent after five years), it was predominantly in public-to-private buyouts and transactions involving the retail sector. Put differently, 20 percent or more job losses were highly likely had a public retail company failed, but a “take private” transaction minimized those losses. The same study found that private equity buyouts lead to the rapid creation of new job positions and “catalyze the creative destruction process as measured by both gross job flows and the purchase-and-sale of business establishments.” In other words, those who claim private equity leads to worse circumstances for laborers must establish that the jobs lost would not have been lost anyway.

    That investors are not driven by the employee headcount is a given, similar to workers who are not driven by the ROI for investors. The argument for free enterprise is that there is a reasonable correlation of interest between all these parties and that the natural and organic tension between labor and capital is healthy and best managed by market forces. Demonizing this specific facet of financial markets (private equity) for possessing the same embedded tension as all market structures are selective, dishonest, and unintelligible.

    Private equity defenders need not avoid the facts of failure. Private equity-backed businesses do sometimes (albeit rarely) fail. The reason is that businesses often do fail. The dynamic nature of market forces, changes, trends, consumer preferences, macroeconomic conditions, cost of capital, competitive forces, manager skill, and company strategy all lead to the very real possibility of failure, or what we learn as children to call “risk.” That private equity is not immune to risk is not a criticism. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 percent of small businesses fail in the first year, 30 percent fail by the second year, and 50 percent by the fifth year[4].  Small business suffers a high rate of failure (and attendant job losses) because small business is hard. A more stringent regulation of small business or vilifying small business, though, would seem absurd to most reasonable people.

    What about the argument that private equity uniquely increases risk by its use of debt?  As we will see, there is a large actor in the American economy whose use of debt is threatening workers and the general welfare, but that actor is not the private equity industry. The capital structure of a business ought to be optimized to drive a healthy and efficient operation. Sub-optimal use of debt creates credit risk for lenders, and because debt is senior to equity in the capital structure, it threatens the entire solvency of the equity investors. In other words, ample incentives exist to prevent reckless debt use from doing damage. What is paramount, though, is that risk-takers suffer when there is a failure. Private equity works against the socialization of risk, but it doesn’t eliminate the existence of risk.

    The private equity industry has added trillions of dollars to America’s GDP over the last four decades, employed tens of millions of people, added monetization and liquidity to founders and entrepreneurs, and created access to capital for talented operators who make the goods and services that enhance our quality of life. No part of this warrants skepticism or ire.

    Hedge Funds

    Similar criticisms exist for the hedge fund industry as private equity, in that many without skin in the game feel the fee structures and performance results are underwhelming. Again, it bears repeating that for the anti-hedge fund crowd, this outcome would be ideal. Indeed, over-priced and under-performing strategies have no chance of surviving over time. Some return-driven, self-interested investors must find something compelling within the hedge fund industry that keeps them returning for more.

    That objective is a risk and reward exposure not correlated to the beta of traditional stock and bond markets. Idiosyncratic strategies may involve various arbitrage opportunities and the pursuit of mispriced securities and relationships, but the fee level and performance reflect an entirely different characteristic than that offered by broad stock and bond markets. This is not unknown to the investors of hedge funds but it is the entire point. Correlation is cheap (i.e. index funds), and non-correlation comes at a cost. Top-performing managers and strategies command a fee premium, and sub-par managers lose the Darwinian battle for assets. Market forces have a funny way of sorting this out, without the commentary of disinterested third-party critics.

    Sebastian Mallaby’s masterful More Money than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite[5] pointed out that hedge funds privatized gains and losses in the events of the 2008 global financial crisis, whereas the banking system allowed the socialization of losses even as gains had been privatized. Put differently, the banking system inherently poses systemic risks, risks that can be (and should be) mitigated and monitored. The hedge fund industry, though, represents an ecosystem of capital allocation, price discovery, information sharing, and profit-seeking, all with highly privatized risk and reward (as it should be).

    Hedge fund criticism is always reducible to concerns the critics have with individual hedge fund operators (political, persona, etc.), or rank class warfare. That an alternative investment world exists where idiosyncratic trades can be executed, contrarian themes pursued, and various knobs of risk turned up and down (often with leverage and hedging) is an overwhelming positive to American enterprise.

    High-Frequency Trading

    High-frequency trading (so-called) has become a popular scapegoat for the anti-financial markets crowd. Advancements in digital technology have enabled complex algorithms to trade large blocks of shares of stock in nanoseconds. Those who have invested in this technology and infrastructure have bet on the ability of technology to identify opportunities and deliver value through speed and execution. Banks, insurance companies, and institutional investors can buy large blocks of stock quickly. Human decisions are disintermediated in favor of computers, and those utilizing high-frequency trading are accepting the trade-off that algorithms, speed, and execution will offer advantages over the cost of losing human interaction.

    A trade-off is just that: a trade-off. The benefit of technological advancements in the trading of our capital markets has been unprecedented levels of speed and liquidity, which has meant dramatically lower costs of execution. Across our public stock and bond markets, trading costs are virtually zero, and bid-ask spreads are nil.

    The advantages of high-frequency trading are obvious. But what about the disadvantages, and not merely the loss of human interaction the principal is now exposed to? Does this innovation pose the possibility of systemic risk, enhanced volatility, and system errors in our financial markets? Again, a better question would be: does high-frequency trading represent an exacerbation of those risks relative to what existed before it? Volatility, a mismatch of buyers and sellers, trading errors, and any number of market realities existed before high-frequency trading, and exist today (albeit with a bare minimum of instances of actual damage done). Market-making is a complicated business, and there is no question that high-frequency trading facilitates the making of a market (matching buyers and sellers, in this case at light speed). Opportunities for manipulation are highly regulated, and the net benefits from this innovation have spread to all market participants in greater liquidity, improved price discovery, and diminished trading costs.

    Banks

    From the days of the 1946 film It’s a Wonderful Life, the notion of a bank failure has been the subject of public fear and trepidation—and for good reason. Banks exist to hold customer deposits, facilitate customer payments from those deposits, and generate a profit by lending out those deposits at a positive net interest margin (i.e. the spread between interest paid to depositors and the interest collected on money lent out). Banks have largely been in the business of residential mortgage lending, but also handle 40 percent of commercial real estate lending in America[6]. Hundreds of billions of dollars of small business loans are also processed by commercial banks, funded by the capital base of the banks, which is largely depositor-driven.

    That the banking business model effectively amounts to short-duration funding (i.e. bank deposits) being matched to long-duration loans (i.e. mortgages and business loans) is a theoretical flaw that is intended to be remedied by (a) Capital reserves, (b) Diversification, and (c) Quality underwriting. Liquidity issues can still surface when banking assets (the money they have lent out) prove to be longer duration than its liabilities (the money it owes its depositors back). Capital requirements mitigate if not fully eliminate, this risk, yet admittedly favor large banks to regional banks due to the disproportionate impact these requirements have.

    Nevertheless, our financial markets, largely through trial and error and the lessons of experience, have increasingly presented the banking system as a store of value and a medium for payment processing, with engines of risk and opportunity increasingly coming from other aspects of financial markets. Banks still have a vital role to play in lending needs. Bank failures are increasingly rare, and competition has created ample optionality for the products and services banks offer (i.e. mortgages, credit cards, business loans, etc.).

    Mergers & Acquisitions

    Straight out of the class warfare playbook is the belief that investment bankers are money changers with no productive economic aim who are looking to squeeze money out of good and productive companies. Concerns about excess corporate deal activity are not limited to those who bemoan investment banking. Consider the words of one of the most highly regarded investment bankers of the last 75 years, Felix Rohatyn, atop his perch at Lazard in 1986:

    In the field of takeovers and mergers, the sky is the limit. Not only in size, but in the types of large corporate transactions, we have often gone beyond the norms of rational economic behavior. The tactics used in corporate takeovers, both on offense and on defense, create massive transactions that greatly benefit lawyers, investment bankers, and arbitrageurs but often result in weaker companies and do not treat all shareholders equally and fairly … In the long run, we in the investment banking business cannot benefit from something that is harmful to our economic system.[7]

    Like under-performing hedge funds or poor execution from high-frequency trading, the cure for bad Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) is M&A. Markets will not support premiums irrationally paid for acquisitions (over time), and boards will not tolerate management eroding value through bad mergers (over time). Bad deals will happen, and good deals will happen, and short-sighted investment bankers will be incentivized to promote deals that do not represent good financial, strategic, or social sense. And yet, to not have access to robust merger and acquisition opportunities is to take away optionality in capital markets that are desperately needed. Competitive forces evolve over time in ways that can combine the embedded strengths of one company with the embedded strengths of another, creating value. The diversification of talent and subject matter expertise, properly channeled, is a huge benefit to our complex enterprise system and has allowed for the pairing of tremendous talent and corporate ecosystems that have created trillions of dollars of wealth. The simplicity of casting aspersions on all mergers and acquisitions because of the cases where some transactions proved ill-conceived is dangerous and harms economic opportunity. While it is incumbent on corporate management, company boards, and especially shareholders to resist unattractive M&A (that is, those with skin in the game), access to such innovation of capital markets is a vital part of our free enterprise system.

    Dividends

    Though not yet as demonized as stock buybacks, the return of corporate profits to minority owners via dividends is viewed as an example of ‘financialization’—as the favoring of owners of capital over the workers who help create corporate profits. Of course, these two things are not mutually exclusive. Owners are only paid dividends with after-tax profits, and profits are only realized after workers are paid. Dividends represent a substantial incentive to feed equity capital into businesses and therefore facilitate capital formation. The dividends then cycle through the hands of the risk-takers into their consumption desires or reinvestment aspirations. Any argument against dividends is an argument against profits, and an argument against profits is an argument against a market economy.

    When we look at companies that failed after paying out dividends and buying back stock, the conclusion that it was a net loss to society requires an assumption of facts not supported by the evidence.  That company not returning cash or buying back shares but continuing to invest in a failed business is what would have eradicated value.  Cash to shareholders via share purchases or dividends allowed those owners to re-deploy capital in better businesses. And since dividends and share buybacks can only take place with after-tax profits, we are not talking about companies eroding the capital base of the company to pay them, but rather the allocation of profits after the fact.

    Stock buybacks

    Like dividends, share buybacks with after-tax corporate profits is a form of capital return to shareholders. As a professional dividend growth investor, I have ample reasons for believing dividend payments are a superior mechanism for the interests of shareholders. But the idea that share buybacks are inherently dangerous, short-sighted, or anti-worker, is demonstrably false. Once again, we are not talking about eroding the capital base of a company, but rather how to return capital to the owners of a business when that capital is enhanced by profit creation. Because many employees in public companies are paid via stock issuance (restricted shares, stock options, etc.), stock buybacks offset the theoretical expense that this form of executive compensation represents.

    Examples exist of companies buying back stock at what is later revealed to be a high stock price, later running into cyclical challenges with the company operations, and having less cash to work through those times than they otherwise would have. All cases of a business challenge not perfectly predicted ahead of time are exposed to this risk. It does not address the underlying issue of share buybacks. If a company knew that it would later face an existential crisis and suffer a cash crunch, using the after-tax profits to pay down debt, pay bonuses to workers, or do anything other than increase reserves, would be unwise. This is not a unique burden for share buybacks, but rather a general challenge for businesses that are not guaranteed a perpetual path of easy profits.

    Markets often provide incentives for corporate managers to use share buybacks more favorable to their compensation metrics than other forms of capital return. This is problematic. But it is a problem that must be addressed by those who bear risk, among managers, boards, and shareholders. The state has not proven itself a model capital allocator. For government to put its thumb on the scale of how companies allocate their capital is to invite distortion, corruption, and flawed information into economic calculation.

    Passive ownership/indexing

    Finally, there is the so-called passive ownership dilemma.  An enormous increase in the popularity of low-cost index funds has led to a wide disintermediation of ownership across public equity markets.  Passive stakes are voted on by non-beneficial owners like Blackrock and Vanguard. As the intermediaries who are legal owners, their agendas may conflict with the agendas of their customers. This issue can be solved in one of two ways: (1) Investors themselves will determine that their chosen intermediary is voting or operating in a way that does not serve their interests, and either choose a different intermediary or investment option; (2) Passive equity facilitators and managers will present innovations and options to solve for this tension.

    The growth of passive/index strategy and the perceived power it gives these asset managers is a worthy conversation. It does not negate the substantial advantage of low-cost ownership and easy liquidity and access to public markets for investors, but it warrants attention and alteration to ensure that investors are receiving the best representation that achieves the highest returns on investment. Nevertheless, that attention and innovation are sure to be found in a combination of both #1 and #2 in the previous paragraph, and not by limiting the advent of passive equity ownership vehicles.

    Cures that are worse than the disease

    Opponents of financial sector growth have argued that the public interest calls for a variety of draconian measures to curtail freedom in capital markets. Introducing friction in financial sector activity by limiting its growth, protecting other economic actors, or generally reallocating capital in a way that central planners find more advantageous for the public good would accomplish this objective. All of these ideas carry unintended (or sometimes intended) consequences that would be counter-productive to the aim of economic growth.

    A policy proposal to both suggest and critique is a special transaction tax on various stock and bond transactions in American public markets. Progressive politicians have taken advantage of the public popularity of this rhetoric (a “Wall Street tax”) to suggest that “free money” can be found by removing it from ‘financialization’ and into the coffers of the federal government for some spending initiative (Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, etc.). What is never understood, or otherwise is completely ignored, is that this money is not free. It comes out of financial transactions. This means that it becomes an additional cost to be borne by the private economy. The price may be paid by smaller investors who would incur greater trading costs, or it may be paid with less net money received in a particular transaction, leading to a less productive outcome over time for market actors rationally allocating resources. Regardless, it is not “free.”

    Nor should we forget, it is not likely to work. Large institutions have resources outside of the United States for trading capital. Such a money grab would leave higher costs for smaller investors and sophisticated investors would pursue global options that avoid such a burden. Incentives matter, and the unintended consequences here would not curtail excesses in financial markets while raising money for other social aims. Rather, it would move money offshore, empower global competitors, and damage those who are not the target of the policy.

    Some have suggested that making debt interest cost non-deductible would remove incentives to take on debt, thereby protecting workers in the case of companies exposed to excessive leverage. Of course, lowering the business income tax rates also better protects workers, and so removing a tool used to reduce that tax burden is simply the inverse when it comes to workers. Driving tax obligations higher does not protect workers. To the extent the policy succeeded in limiting debt, astute commentators might wonder what those costs would be. What is the debt being used for and what uses of capital would now be sacrificed if this policy suggestion prevailed? Will companies have less working capital, less liquidity, and be more susceptible to an equity sale (where job losses would be more likely, not less)? These expensive policy proposals have failed to count the costs, and in this case, the cost would be monumental. More than likely, the loss of deductibility of the debt would just be priced into the market rate of the loans, leaving less interest income for the lenders and banks, not a higher after-tax interest expense for the borrowers. In other words, it would be ineffective at best, and distortive at worst.

    Various other proponents of de-financializing the economy suggest that increased tax rates would do this, including matching the tax rate on capital to the tax rate on income. The present tax policy is inefficient, but not for the reasons suggested by critics. Presently, a long-term capital gain of $100,000 creates a tax burden on the entire $100,000 in the tax year it was realized. However, a loss of $100,000 only allows for a $3,000 deduction in the year it was realized. This law was passed in 1977 but has not been updated for inflation. Furthermore, when a gain of $100,000 on capital is realized (real estate, stock, etc.), if their holding period was 10, 20, or 30 years, a significant part of the nominal gain was eroded by inflation, leaving the real gain to be a fraction of the total nominal gain. However, the capital gain tax is paid on the entire nominal gain.

    Fundamentally, taxes on investment income are “double taxes”—as the money was already taxed when it was first earned (i.e. income), and now is facing additional tax when it is being invested (capital gains or dividends). But if that basic fact does not trouble the anti-finance constituency, the notion of matching income rates to investment tax rates can surely be done by lowering earned income tax rates. An increase in investment tax rates stifles capital formation, disincentivizes risk-taking, freezes capital in static projects, and impairs economic growth. If one wants to make a “fairness” argument for equal rates between tax on capital and labor, that fairness is already stretched in that the tax on capital represents a second tax on the same dollar. But if they persist in the fairness argument, lower ordinary income rates will likely be an agreeable solution for those wanting to protect capital formation.

    From transaction taxes, to greater scrutiny of private equity, to changing the tax rules on debt or investment income, to various regulatory burdens on financial actors—no proposed solution from the anti-financial crowd serves workers or the cause of public interest. Rather, these and other proposed policy solutions invite hidden costs (and some that truly are not hidden), build state power, and damage broad prosperity.

    Monetary and fiscal policy getting a pass

    This concluding section can reasonably be called a tragedy. As was established in our early pursuit of a definition of ‘financialization,’ there is, indeed, an unattractive phenomenon that sub-optimally allocates resources. This ‘financialization,’ however, is not a by-product of more profitable investment banks, larger private equity managers, or increased technological capacity in capital trading. This ‘financialization’ where less productive activities take precedence over more productive ones is not created by Wall Street. Rather, the culprits are the very forces that the anti-finance critics are so often looking to play savior: the governmental tools of fiscal and monetary policy. In other words, the regulatory state, Congress, and the Federal Reserve are actors involved in this discussion, but not as fixers. The modern critics of finance have failed to identify the root causes of ‘financialization’ and in so doing have not only enabled the damage to continue but have invited them to do far greater damage, still.

    No single factor has put greater downward pressure on economic growth than the explosion of government indebtedness, particularly, the ratio of that debt to the overall economy.

    Common ground exists with those worried about diminished economic productivity and what that means to workers, and indeed, all economic actors. That common ground has not parlayed into shared despair over the growth of government spending, the growth of government debt, and the crowding out of the private sector both represent.

    Furthermore, post-financial crisis monetary policy has been a series of gigantic monetary experiments that have served to do the very thing that critics of financial sector activity profess opposition to. Defenders of interventionist monetary policy may claim that it served to stimulate the economy post-crisis and to reflate the corporate economy as the household sector de-leveraged in the aftermath of the housing bubble. Yet even the most zealous defenders of that trade-off could not argue that such a monetary framework came at no cost. That cost was a substantial increase in real financialization.

    The fiscal components are easy to identify. Government debt represents dollars extracted from the private sector either in the present or future tenses. A Keynesian would argue that such debt when used for productive projects like the Hoover Dam adds to GDP (a positive multiplier). However, present debt explosions have not been to build a Hoover Dam. Post-crisis spending exploded above the trendline, well before the 2020 COVID pandemic. The spending response to COVID created a huge outlay of expense, unfortunately as the pandemic subsided and all pandemic-related expenditures were completed, expenditures resumed far above the trendline, and far above the level of economic growth.

    The federal government is doing what Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, and JP Morgan have never done—removing resources from the productive portion of the economy to the non-productive. It is outside the scope of this paper to evaluate what government spending projects ought to be. One can believe that current spending priorities are legitimate without believing they are productive. Some cost of government is necessary, and that funding will come from the private sector. However, when the cost of funding the government grows exponentially quicker than its revenue sources, and when the level of debt accumulates to the absolute levels it has, and with the annual debt funding costs it has, then declining productivity is the ultimate result.

    Economic growth pulled into the present means less economic growth in the future. In the current debt predicament, this is not even economic growth pulled forward, but rather the accumulation of seemingly endless transfer payments. This extraction of wealth from the private sector to fund income replacement does not produce anything nor build anything. A real GDP growth rate that has declined from over +3% to below +2% measures the impact on economic output.

    The monetary component of this strikes at the heart of resource allocation. If the Federal Reserve was tasked with holding interest rates at a natural rate, it would be at that level where economic activity would be most “natural”—where the interest rate was neither incentivizing nor disincentivizing economic activity. For 14 of the last 16 years, the Fed held the interest rate at or near zero percent, well below the natural rate in all but the most extreme crisis years out of 2008. That artificially low cost of capital extended the lifeline of many over-levered economic actors, and in the early years of post-crisis economic life likely facilitated some productive reflation. Yet over time, the perpetual zero-bound rate target encouraged economic actors to bypass the production of new goods and services for financial engineering. Incumbent assets in the economy—real estate or equity stock already in existence—could be bought and levered with little financial risk, with the low cost of leverage intensifying returns for these economic actors. Such activity was far more attractive than the creating new projects, sinking capital into new ideas, and innovating with one’s capital at the risk of loss. The zero-bound was a substitute for new goods and services, and it has taken a toll on productive economic investment.

    Likewise, a prolonged unnaturally low rate facilitated ongoing resources into sub-optimal assets, keeping “zombie” companies alive where a natural cost of capital would have expedited their demise. While seemingly generous in its impact, the real cost of this process is in the resources that do not work their way to innovation, new growth, and new opportunities. Overly accommodative monetary policy extends the lifeline of those whose time has come and gone preventing fresh ideas from receiving the capital and human resources they need to breathe life into the economy. It fosters malinvestment, distorts economic calculation, and wreaks havoc on economic growth.

    The twin towers of fiscal and monetary policy are powerful economic levers. On one hand, the fiscal tool crowds out the private sector and inhibits innovation by taking from the growth of the future to fund excessive spending today. On the other hand, the monetary tool uses the cost of capital to manipulate economic activity, ignoring the diminishing return and obvious distortions created by their efforts.

    If one is looking for a malignant financialization, they have found it, and Wall Street is nowhere near the scene of the crime.

    Conclusion

    Critics of financialization have:

    • Ambiguously or inadequately defined the term,
    • Used a critique of the financial sector to disguise class envy,
    • Failed to understand the nature of markets and the primacy of resource allocation,
    • Demonized instruments of financial markets that have been overwhelming positives for economic growth,
    • Proposed policy initiatives that would unilaterally do more harm than good, and
    • Worst of all, failed to see the most egregious actors in that which distresses them: Excessive government debt and excessive monetary policy

    An optimal vision for the economy does not favor the financial sector over the “real economy,” nor does it pit the financial sector against the real economy. Rather, an optimal vision sees financial markets as capable instruments in advancing the economic good and public interest. A large public bureaucracy cannot improve the economic lot of workers, and diminished financial markets cannot optimally allocate resources to the real economy.

    The need of the hour is better price discovery, starting with the price of money. The cost of capital as a tool of manipulation in the hands of our central bank has facilitated ‘financialization’ and hampered productive economic activity. The tools of modern finance can advance the cause of prosperity when we limit distortions in economic decision-making, maximize the availability of resources in the sector of the economy most equipped to utilize those resources productively, and remove impediments to growth.

    Human beings are capable of great things. Advanced financial markets enhance those capabilities and build opportunities for the future.

    Download the Paper here

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 21:30

  • Arabica Futures Surge Into Blue-Sky Breakout As Traders Panic: "We Might Not Have Enough Coffee"
    Arabica Futures Surge Into Blue-Sky Breakout As Traders Panic: “We Might Not Have Enough Coffee”

    Arabica coffee futures blasted through March 1977 highs into blue sky breakout territory as traders panicked about global supply fears originating in Brazil, the world’s top producer. 

    Arabica beans trading in New York hit $3.26 per pound on Wednesday, exceeding the $3.08 high last reached in March 1977. Bean prices have jumped 123% since September 2023. 

    On Monday, we outlined that adverse weather conditions in Brazil spooked agricultural traders as bean stockpiles are being quickly drained ahead of next season. 

    Carlos Santana Jr., a Brazil-based commercial director at trader Ecom Group, told Bloomberg, “There are about eight months before the start of the next season, and the percentage of coffee sold by Brazilian growers is very high.”

    “We might not have enough coffee to get to the next season,” Santana warned. 

    Rabobank analyst Carlos Mera pointed out, “The rally is due to a number of complex circumstances,” including concerns about Brazil’s output next year, plus shipping and logistical challenges. 

    Mera added that the European Union’s deforestation rules and bean front-loading ahead of a potential trade tariff war are other factors pressuring bean prices higher. 

    Citi commodity strategist Arkady Gevorkyan told clients, “Coffee’s bull run [is] likely to continue near term,” adding, “We revise up our three-month target for Arabica coffee to $US3.10 a pound, and note a significant upside risk skew to this forecast as supply from Brazil and Vietnam could still underperform.”

    Here is Gevorkyan’s full comment to clients about the bull run in coffee prices:

    We revise up our 3M target for Arabica coffee to $3.10/lb, and note a significant upside risk skew to this forecast as supply from Brazil and Vietnam could still underperform. Coffee is up 57% YTD, making it one of the best performing commodities. Such a bull run has been fueled by unfavorable weather in key producing regions in Brazil damaging crops as well as support from the roasting switching demand driving Robusta demand from Vietnam. We project a consecutive three-year deficit in balances will switch to a surplus in 2025 and expect ICE coffee to trade rangebound. We also upgrade our base case 2025 forecast to $2.80/lb, while prices should normalize at $2.65/lb in 2026 (see Figure 1). Nevertheless, we note the large uncertainty on the health of Brazilian crops after the adverse weather and general production issues poses the possibility of falling into a structural deficit.

    Vietnam, a major producer of the cheaper Robusta bean, has also faced adverse weather conditions, impacting harvest outputs. In London, Robusta bean prices are currently around $5,200 per metric ton, down from a record high of $5,829 observed in mid-September.

    “The increased costs of hedging — due to higher margin calls — and the possibility of producer defaults have contributed to panic buying recently,” analysts at coffee trader Sucafina SA wrote earlier this week. 

    Price action here reminds us of the cocoa squeeze earlier this year… 

    Anyone know if oil trader Pierre Andurand is buying Arabica coffee futs? He dabbled with cocoa.  

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 21:00

  • In The Beginning, There Was Pax Americana
    In The Beginning, There Was Pax Americana

    Authored by Lorenzo Maria Pacini,

    We often speak of the collective West, Hegemon, Seapower and Civilization of the Sea in relation to the United States of America. It is necessary to understand well what is the origin of this geopolitically determinant power for the world order.

    He who wins the war, dictates the rules

    Let us make clear at once an empirically incontrovertible factual truth: He who wins the war, dictates the rules of the post-war order. Whoever wins, writes history. Whether we like it or not, the defeated never had much decision-making power (which is not to say that they could not organize well to retaliate and return to power – but that is another matter).

    World War II ended with the victory of the United States of America as the first, undefeated and predominant power. From there followed an expansion of U.S. influence toto orbe terrarum in all respects (cultural, economic, military, political).

    The twentieth century was the “American century.” Almost the whole world took the shape the U.S. wanted to give it. The second half of the century was marked by the low-tension conflict of the Cold War, which ended-if it really did-with the collapse of the Soviet political system in the USSR and the beginning of the unipolar phase of American global domination. That period aroused much optimism in the West for a new world order, marking the end of the military and ideological rivalry of the 20th century. Two possibilities were on the horizon: a system based on balance of power and egalitarian sovereignty, or a U.S.-led liberal hegemony based on the values of democracy. The first approach evoked perpetual conflict, while the second promised lasting peace and global stability.

    U.S. hegemony, already dominant in the transatlantic region after World War II, was seen as a model of peace and prosperity. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union removed the justification for a world order built on the balance of power, pushing the United States toward a mission of recognized hegemony to prevent the rise of new rivals. American supremacy, as declared by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, was deemed “indispensable to ensure global stability.”

    This was the Pax Americana: the U.S. would ensure a period of prosperity and global peace – as early as the end of WWII – by extending control over the entire world. A peace for America was equivalent to a peace for the globe; a war for America would mean war for the entire globe. The stated goal of building a peaceful world often justified imperialistic approaches, revealing the contradictions of the hegemonic project.

    Set this paradigm as an axiom of reasoning in international relations and geopolitical programming, lo and behold, everything acquired new meaning. The world had been formatted and the “control room” was now in Washington.

    The time of ideologies

    It was the time of ideologies. In the “short century” everything had changed rapidly. The great world chessboard was constantly being shaken and reshuffled. The clash between the Western bloc and the Eastern – or Soviet – bloc characterized all concepts of each country’s politics in an extremely powerful way.

    In the 1990s, two visions dominated the debate on world order: that of Francis Fukuyama and that of Samuel Huntington. Fukuyama in his famous book The End of History, envisioned a future in which liberal democracy and capitalism would triumph universally, leading to perpetual peace under the leadership of the United States: he argued that economic interdependence, democratic reforms, and shared institutions would unite the world around common values, which were, of course, American values. Any other model of civilization would have been beside the point, because History was finished, there would be nothing left to write about. In contrast, Huntington, wrote The Clash of Civilizations, in which he predicted that the world would be fragmented into distinct cultural blocs based on civil, religious and economic identities. Individualism and human rights, according to him, were peculiar to the West and not universal. His theorizing assumed a future marked by conflicts between civilizations, fueled by the decline of Western hegemony and the emergence of alternative powers, particularly in Confucian and Islamic societies.

    The influence of Fukuyama’s ideas shaped post-Cold War Western politics, justifying the expansion and exceptionalism of Pax Americana. Exceptionalism that has been one of the U.S.’s most pragmatic “values”: there are rules and only we can break them, when we want, how we want and without having to account to anyone.

    History, however, does not have only one actor: other countries, such as Russia, have chosen to be fascinated by Huntington’s proposal – confrontational, certainly, but not already “final.” In Russia, this debate has deep roots, linked to the historical rivalry between Westernists and Slavophiles. In the 1990s, Russia initially tried to move closer to the West, but the West’s failure to include it reinforced the idea of a distinct Russian civilization, culminating in Vladimir Putin’s view that no civilization can claim to be superior.

    A matter of ideologies, indeed, a low-profile but very high-value battle in which the steps of the new century that was beginning would be defined. These divergences highlighted the tension between universalist aspirations and distinctive cultural identities, defining the geopolitical conflicts of the 21st century.

    Building Pax Americana at any cost

    Washington promoted a world order based on the Pax Americana, a liberal hegemony that reflected the success of the peaceful and prosperous transatlantic system created by the United States during the conflict with the Soviet Union. It proposed to extend this model globally, citing as examples Germany and Japan, transformed from militaristic and imperialist nations into “peaceful”-or, rather, defeated-democracies under U.S. influence. But the success of these transformations had been made possible by the presence of a common adversary, Russia, and the history of Latin America suggested that U.S. hegemony was not always synonymous with progress and peace.

    Charles Krauthammer described the post-Cold War period as a “unipolar moment,” characterized by American dominance, where the new Hegemon dictated the rules and the others had little choice. Although he recognized that a multi-participant set-up (today we can say “multipolarism”) would inevitably return, he believed it was necessary to exploit unipolarity to ensure temporary peace, avoiding a return to turbulent periods. There was a weakness, however: the United States was unlikely to voluntarily relinquish its dominant role, preferring instead to counter any threat by force, fueled by an obsession with its own historical greatness. It is a missile issue: whoever has it bigger, wins. Let us not forget that the U.S. invented the strategic concept of deterrence precisely by virtue of the atomic weapon it held, throwing the world into a climate of constant fear and risk in which we still live today.

    It is equally true that many Americans wished for a dismantling of the U.S. empire, proposing a less interventionist foreign policy focused on domestic challenges: abandoning the role of superpower would allow the United States to strengthen its society by addressing economic, industrial and social issues. Walter Lippmann argued that a mature great power should avoid global crusades, limiting the use of power to preserve internal stability and coherence. Sort of like a “good hegemon.” But this has not been the case.

    The notion of “good hegemon” has been criticized for the risk of corruption inherent in power itself. John Quincy Adams warned that the search for enemies to fight could turn the United States from a champion of freedom into a global dictator. Similarly, President Kennedy, in his 1963 speech at American University, opposed a Pax Americana imposed by arms, calling instead for a genuine and inclusive peace that would promote global human progress, which he called “The Peace of All Time.” An ideal that has faded into the oblivion of collective memory.

    American hegemony is the sine qua non for having a Pax Americana. The universalism that characterizes this hegemony admits of no discounts. Inequality among global powers has been exploited as a pivot to increase U.S. profits and administrative expansion at the expense of weaker countries. Neoliberally speaking, there is no error in this. Everything is very consistent. The struggle of the strongest to destroy all the smallest. Not only the one who produces and earns the most wins, but the one who can maintain the power to produce and earn the most wins.

    A hegemonic system needs internal stability without which it cannot subsist. A kingdom divided in itself cannot function. This applies to economics as well as politics. It is essential that the ideological paradigm does not change, that power can always be understood and transmitted, from leader to leader, as it has been successfully established. Because the “peace” of the ancient Romans was a peace given by the maintenance of political control to the very ends of the empire, which only came about through a solid military administration.

    The Americans did not invent anything. To really control (realpolitik) one must have military control. In front of an atomic bomb, reasoning about political philosophies is worth little. The U.S. knows this very well and its concept of Pax has always been unequivocally based on military supremacy and the maintenance of it.

    Something changed when with the first decade of the 2000s new poles, new civilization-states, began to appear that promoted alternative models of global life. The U.S. began to see its power wane, day by day, until today, where the West is worth less than the “rest of the world,” the U.S. no longer has its “exclusive” status, and we are not even so sure that it is then so strong that it can control the globe. The geometries change again. What Pax for what borders of what empire?

    Is Trump ready to give up his Pax?

    The crux of the question is, if imperialistic military supremacy is what has allowed the U.S. to maintain its dominance and this dominance is precipitating today, will the newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump really be ready to compromise the Pax Americana?

    We are talking about a polymorphous compromise:

    • Economically, he would have to accept the end of the dollar era and downsize the U.S. market on comparison with sovereign global currencies. Practically throw a century of global financial architecture in the trash.

    • Politically, accept that it is possible to think otherwise and do otherwise. Politics is not just American “democracy.” There are so many possibilities, so many different models, so many futures to be written according to other scripts.

    • Militarily, it means stopping with the diplomacy of arrogance and threats, accepting that we cannot arbitrarily decide how to deal with anyone and stop aiming missiles at the flags of other states.

    • Most complicated and risky of all, all this means giving up peace within the United States. If the balances of power implemented externally are broken, those internally begin to falter and the organism undergoes remodeling.

    Giving up the Pax Americana as it has been known does not mean that alternatives do not exist. The concept of “pax” is broad and can be interpreted differently by the American school. Taking this step, however, involves giving up a “tradition” of global power, having to go through the collapse of the entire U.S. domestic system and then rebuilding an alternative.

    Make America Great Again will mean what? Restoring American hegemony in the world, or rebuilding America?

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 20:30

  • Electric Revenge: Texas Sues BlackRock And Others For 'Conspiring' To Quash Coal, Sending Energy Prices Soaring
    Electric Revenge: Texas Sues BlackRock And Others For ‘Conspiring’ To Quash Coal, Sending Energy Prices Soaring

    Texas is leading a new lawsuit with 10 other red states against BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street for allegedly breaking antitrust law by colluding to suppress coal – causing electricity prices to spike.

    “Competitive markets — not the dictates of far-flung asset managers — should determine the price Americans pay for electricity,” wrote Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the complaint.

    The Republican-led states, including West Virginia and Montana, are asking the court to bar the three largest US investment firms from using their stock in coal companies to vote on shareholder resolutions and take other steps in a way that restrains output and limits market competition. -Bloomberg

    The complaint, filed in Tyler, Texas, is one of the highest profile lawsuits targeting companies that promote environmental, social and governance goals, or ESH.

    “Over several years, the three asset managers acquired substantial stockholdings in every significant publicly held coal producer in the United States, thereby gaining the power to control the policies of the coal companies. Using their combined influence over the coal market, the investment cartel collectively announced in 2021 their commitment to weaponize their shares to pressure the coal companies to accommodate “green energy” goals,” the complaint continues.

    “Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street utilized the Climate Action 100 and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative to signal their mutual intent to reduce the output of thermal coal, which predictably increased the cost of electricity for Americans across the United States.”

    The ‘cartel’ is accused of “deliberately and artificially constricting supply,” which “increased prices and enabled investment companies to produce extraordinary revenue gains.”

    The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, West Virginia and Wyoming.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js“Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponization of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicized ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices,” said Paxton in a statement. “Their conspiracy has harmed American energy production and hurt consumers. This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”

    The lawsuit follows years of investigation by GOP officials, who have taken aim at Wall Street’s efforts to force a green agenda.

    Specifically, the lawsuit accuses BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street of using their shareholdings in Peabody Energy Corp, Arch Resources, Inc. and others to press management to cut their carbon emissions starting in 2021 – at the height of the ESG boom, Bloomberg reports.

    The firms also joined activist groups such as Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative in which they formed “a syndicate and agreed to use their collective holdings of publicly traded coal companies to induce industry-wide output reductions.”

    The suit repeatedly refers to allegations that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have the power through their large shareholdings to constrain the supply of coal, which significantly diminishes competition in the market and produces “cartel-level profits” for the firms.

    Climate-finance coalitions are “voluntary associations and therefore don’t include any form of collusion and coercion, so it’s hard to see a legal basis for this claim,” said Lisa Sachs, director of sustainable investment at Columbia University Law School. But “coal-financed politicians are now using the bully pulpit to scare financial institutions, which won’t in any way benefit the coal sector and will harm the constituents these AGs purport to represent.” -Bloomberg

    That said, the firms have since reversed course – with State Street announcing in February that it quit Climate Action 100+ because its requirements were inconsistent with the firm’s “independent approach” to shareholder voting. Vanguard left the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative in 2022, however BlackRock and State Street remain members of the group.

    Plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit acknowledge the departures, but say that they don’t “change the reality that defendants’ holdings threaten to substantially reduce competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.”

    The case is Texas v. BlackRock, 24-cv-00437, US District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Tyler).

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 20:00

  • Historians Debate Ukraine War As WWIII Risk Mounts: Niall Ferguson Vs Scott Horton
    Historians Debate Ukraine War As WWIII Risk Mounts: Niall Ferguson Vs Scott Horton

    Watch the debate replay below (or on YouTube)

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Despite Trump’s promises to bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine by negotiating with Russia, the war has escalated to a dangerous inflection point with long-range U.S., British, and French missiles being deployed deep in Russian territory and talks of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine. That… and anonymous officials in the New York Times saying what is impossible to believe:

    “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications,” the newspaper wrote.

    Amid the chaos, ZeroHedge will be hosting preeminent historians Sir Niall Ferguson and Scott Horton to debate the history of the conflict and U.S. policy in the region. They will be joined by the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson (if you’ve seen a Thomas Sowell interview, it was probably his).

    Join us at 7pm ET right here on the ZeroHedge homepage (as well as Twitter/X and YouTube channels) for an epic matchup that you won’t find anywhere else.

    Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He’s written over a dozen books on geopolitical and monetary history.

    Horton is the founder of the Libertarian Institute and recently published his book, Provoked, on the history of the war in Ukraine and decades of rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

    We hope you’ll join us on the eve of Thanksgiving. Recent war context included below:

    ***

    Nukes for Ukraine?!

    Days ago, The NY Times revealed that US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including the possibility of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire,” the report said.

    The article then stated, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

    Former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev has responded by pointing out that if the West actually went forward with transferring nukes to Ukraine, this would be seen as tantamount to an attack on Russia. He explained that this is a key aspect of Russia’s newly expanded nuclear doctrine.

    Image source: Presidency of Russia

    In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev specifically referenced the recent NY Times report, and said: “Looks like my sad joke about crazy senile Biden, who’s eager to go out with a bang and take a substantial part of humanity with him, is becoming dangerously real.”

    Medvedev then stressed that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power” is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have “massive paranoid psychosis.”

    His biggest and most specific threat came as follows: 

    “The fact of transferring such weapons may be considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence’,” Medvedev wrote.

    Talk of NATO Troops

    Prominent French publication Le Monde on Monday followed by saying serious discussions over injecting Western troops into the war have intensified in the last days: 

    As the conflict in Ukraine enters a new phase of escalation, discussions over sending Western troops and private defense companies to Ukraine have been revived, Le Monde has learned from corroborating sources. These are sensitive discussions, most of which are classified – relaunched in light of a potential American withdrawal of support for Kyiv once Donald Trump takes office on January 20, 2025.

    Britain is once again at the forefront of urging NATO’s deeper involvement in the war, which threatens at any moment to explode into WW3 among nuclear-armed powers. Enter Keir Starmer… in the hawkish footsteps of Boris Johnson:

    However, it was relaunched in recent weeks thanks to the visit to France of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, for the November 11th commemorations. “Discussions are underway between the UK and France on defense cooperation, particularly with a view to creating a hard core of allies in Europe, focused on Ukraine and wider European security,” confided a British military source to Le Monde.

    Jean-Noël Barro’s aforementioned words about ‘no options’ ruled out appears to have been a reflection on these continued ‘sensitive’ conversations.

    There have been more reports of US-supplied ATACMS launches on Russian territory since their initial use last week:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 19:44

  • Biden Asks Congress To Authorize $24BN More To Spend On Ukraine
    Biden Asks Congress To Authorize $24BN More To Spend On Ukraine

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    The Biden administration has asked Congress to approve $24 billion in additional spending on Ukraine as it’s working to ramp up the proxy war as much as possible during President Biden’s final weeks in office.

    POLITICO Pro obtained a request from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget that asked Congress to include additional Ukraine spending in a continuing resolution that’s expected to be voted on next month. Two congressional aides said Congress received the proposal on Monday.

    Image source: US Air Force

    The request asks for $8 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance initiative, a form of military aid that allows the US to purchase weapons for Ukraine, and $16 billion to replace US military equipment that’s been sent to Ukraine.

    The money to replenish US weapons would allow the Biden administration to use the remaining Presidential Drawdown Authority for Ukraine, which allows the US to ship weapons directly from US military stockpiles. The administration is looking to rush arms shipments to Ukraine throughout the rest of the transition period.

    If Congress agrees to the request, it would bring total US spending on the proxy war, according to publicly available data, to about $210 billion.

    Earlier this year, President Biden signed a foreign military aid bill into law that included $61 billion for Ukraine. Before that, the US spent at least $125 billion on the conflict.

    US officials have told The Washington Post that the Biden administration is trying to put Ukraine in the best position possible before President-elect Donald Trump might push for an end to the war.

    US officials acknowledged that within a few months, Ukraine could be pushed into negotiations and could end up ceding territory. “Biden’s reversal of his previous policies on mines and missiles was intended in part to give Ukraine the strongest possible hand as it enters those potential talks,” The Washington Post wrote.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “The change of direction also caps a long-standing pattern, as Biden has often resisted upgrading Kyiv’s weaponry for fear of escalation with Russia, only to relent a few months later,” the report added.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 19:25

  • Why Trump's Election Case Was Dismissed 'Without Prejudice'
    Why Trump’s Election Case Was Dismissed ‘Without Prejudice’

    Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 25, bringing an end to a highly contentious prosecution and raising questions about whether the charges could once again surface.

    Special counsel Jack Smith prepares to speak about an indictment against former President Donald Trump in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    Chutkan’s dismissal was entered “without prejudice,” which means the charges can hypothetically be brought against Trump at a later date.

    Special Counsel Jack Smith based his request for a dismissal on longstanding Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that says prosecution of a sitting president would violate the constitution. Smith’s motion added that “although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.”

    Analysts say it’s unlikely, however, that Smith’s indictment would be filed again given that the statute of limitations will run out before the expected end of Trump’s second term in 2029.

    “The fact is that asking the judge to dismiss the case without prejudice is common practice,” John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times. “The government wants to keep all of its options open, even if those options are remote or if it’s likely that the options will expire because of the statute of limitations.”

    Smith’s reference to temporary immunity was about a type of immunity that was separate from what the special counsel’s office and Trump’s attorneys were debating in recent months. That litigation focused on immunity that stemmed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States.

    That decision held that presidents enjoy varied levels of immunity from criminal prosecution for actions they engage in during their tenure, including for former officeholders like Trump.

    Smith’s argument about the DOJ’s longstanding policy, by contrast, focused on the prosecution of a sitting president. Smith added that his request for dismissal was “not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

    Shu told The Epoch Times that Smith’s motion pointed to an attempt by him to preserve other future prosecutions.

    “Smith and the DOJ are not just thinking about the current case, they’re thinking about future cases,” he said. “They still want to keep the option open of prosecuting in the future—not Trump but, in the future, some former president, even though the Supreme Court made that significantly harder with its presidential immunity opinion.”

    In her opinion explaining the dismissal, Chutkan said her decision was consistent with Smith’s interpretation of Trump’s immunity while in office. She also said that dismissing without prejudice was appropriate in this case because “there is no indication of prosecutorial harassment or other impropriety underlying the [motion to dismiss].”

    Even if Trump left office early and the prosecution resumed, it’s unclear how successful it would be.

    The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump v. United States arose from an appeal of Smith’s prosecution, which has been mired in a delayed pre-trial process since he brought the initial indictment last year. Chutkan’s court was headed towards deliberations over how that decision applied more specifically to Trump’s actions.

    Besides the immunity issue, Trump also sought to challenge the case on statutory grounds and the legitimacy of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.

    The latter issue is the subject of an appeal by Smith in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which is reviewing Florida Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision that constitutional issues surrounding Smith’s appointment meant his classified documents case against Trump should be dismissed.

    Smith filed a motion on Nov. 25 to dismiss his appeal as it related to Trump but sought to leave it in place for two other defendants involved. The 11th circuit granted Smith’s motion on Nov. 26. Also on Nov. 26, Smith’s team filed a brief defending Smith’s appointment as legal.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 18:30

  • "Significant Uptick" In M&A Rumors Observed In News Cycle Ahead Of 2025 
    “Significant Uptick” In M&A Rumors Observed In News Cycle Ahead Of 2025 

    Goldman Sachs analysts have noted a “significant uptick” in merger and acquisition rumors in the press over the past six weeks. The investment bank forecasts positive M&A growth trends over the next 12 months, signaling a potential rebound in dealmaking activity. 

    Analysts Matt Michon and Hannah Taylor penned a note Wednesday to clients about the surge in M&A headlines.

    “In the last six weeks, there has been a significant uptick in M&A “rumours” relative to the prior three-quarters so hopefully an encouraging sign that corporate activity is picking-up…!” they said. 

    The list of companies below is part of the desk’s M&A monitor, which shows “potential M&A situations reported through the press” and also “highlighted in blue are those with news updates since our last note.” A list of failed M&A approaches was also recorded. 

    Most recent M&A headlines… 

    Failed M&A approaches. 

    In a separate but recent note, Goldman analysts James Yaro and Richard Ramsden told clients that internal leading indicators “forecast 20% M&A growth over the next twelve months.”   

    The latest remarks from the FOMC Minutes suggest that Fed officials are leaning toward a more gradual interest rate-cutting cycle. One that could certainly provide relief to corporates… 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 18:00

  • US To Deepen Footprint In Lebanon As Part Of Ceasefire Deal
    US To Deepen Footprint In Lebanon As Part Of Ceasefire Deal

    Via Middle East Eye

    The US is set to deepen its footprint in Lebanon as part of a ceasefire deal aimed at ending more than a year of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. According to details of the agreement shared with Middle East Eye by current and former US and Arab officials, the 60-day ceasefire will see all Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanon in phases, with Hezbollah moving north of the Litani River.

    The deal which was announced late Tuesday is broadly based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah and was supposed to see the Lebanese army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) deployed to southern Lebanon.

    As per the deal, the Lebanese army, with assistance from Unifil, will be deployed to the south to ensure that Hezbollah does not re-enter the area between the Israeli border and the Litani.

    Via Reuters

    “By day 60 there will be no Israeli or Hezbollah troops in southern Lebanon,” a senior Arab official told Middle East Eye. 

    The agreement, which seeks to end more than a year of fighting that has claimed more than 3,700 lives in Lebanon, will also see the US deploy technical military advisers to Lebanon and see Washington provide additional funds to the Lebanese army.

    The US will also provide oversight on Hezbollah’s withdrawal and a military official – likely from Central Command (Centcom) – will head an international committee that will coordinate with hundreds of soon-to-be-deployed French soldiers as part of a beefed-up UN peacekeeping mission.

    A senior US official told MEE that Israel will not be granted the right to attack Lebanon based on any suspicious movements. Israel will have to report any movement it deems suspicious to the international committee, which in turn will inform the Lebanese army to take the necessary action.

    If the Lebanese army fails to act after receiving a complaint regarding suspicious activities south of the Litani or in any Lebanese area, Israel will consider the agreement void and resume its attacks on Lebanon.

    The US is not expected to deploy additional troops on the ground. Instead, the pending ceasefire is set to expand the 10,000-strong Unifil peacekeeping mission. Hundreds of French soldiers are expected to deploy to Lebanon as part of Unifil, according to the former US and Arab official. 

    The agreement will also deepen the US’s ongoing efforts to support the Lebanese military. The US started funding the Lebanese army in 2005 after a protest movement prompted the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the country.

    In the last 20 years, Washington has been the army’s largest donor, giving more than $2.5bn in support to the military, which is seen as a national institution that crosses sectarian and political divides.

    The sources told MEE that the army has already recruited 1,500 troops and seeks to bring on board roughly 3,500 more in the next four months. 

    Via Middle East Eye (MEE)

    The US will also beef up training, equipment and reimbursement funds to the army. Washington is also speaking with Saudi Arabia and Qatar about providing funds to the Lebanese forces to pay additional salaries. Qatar already provides funds to the cash-strapped Lebanese army, pledging $60m in 2022 to support soldiers’ salaries.

    Lebanon was in the midst of a disastrous financial crisis before Hezbollah began launching missiles and drones at Israel on 8 October 2023 in solidarity with Palestinians under attack in Gaza.

    The ceasefire will also include a renewed commitment to several other UN Security Council resolutions, including 1559 and 1680, which call for the disarmament of Hezbollah. 

    Unlike other Lebanese armed groups, Hezbollah kept its weapons after the 1975-90 civil war so it could continue to fight against Israel’s occupation of south Lebanon. Though Israel mostly withdrew in 2000, it continues to occupy the Shebaa Farms, which Hezbollah says are Lebanese.

    Hezbollah’s year-long attacks have displaced around 60,000 Israelis from their homes in northern Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli bombardment and the ground invasion launched in October have forced more than a million people in Lebanon to flee.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 17:40

  • Chinese Automakers Are Dethroning Their Once-Dominant Japanese Competitors
    Chinese Automakers Are Dethroning Their Once-Dominant Japanese Competitors

    China is doing the unthinkable and dethroning once dominant Japanese automakers, who are struggling to compete in China.

    China is the world’s largest car market and domestic brands are dominating with a surge of electric vehicles. Chinese companies are also expanding into Southeast Asia, challenging the long-standing dominance of brands like Toyota, Honda, and Mitsubishi, according to w new report by Bloomberg.

    Between 2019 and 2024, Japanese automakers experienced the steepest market share declines in China, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, according to Bloomberg’s analysis of sales and registration data.

    Japanese automakers are losing ground across Asia, with all six tracked by Bloomberg experiencing declines in China. Even Toyota, the global leader in car volume, has seen its sales stagnate. In Southeast Asia, a traditional stronghold for Japanese brands, market share has dropped sharply.

    In Thailand and Singapore, Japanese carmakers now control just 35% of the market, down from over 50% in 2019, while streets once dominated by Nissan and Mazda are increasingly filled with Chinese brands.

    The Bloomberg profile notes that Toyota remains competitive in some segments, like pickups, but the broader outlook is troubling for automakers once renowned for efficiency and reliability. Their slow pivot to fully electric vehicles puts them at risk of falling behind in a market driven by advanced battery technology and smart software.

    Although Chinese automakers face high tariffs in Europe and the U.S., the erosion of Japanese dominance in Asia could signal wider challenges ahead.

    Toyota’s stronghold in Southeast Asia is supported by regional production of gasoline cars with larger engines, appealing to local preferences. In 2023, Thailand and Indonesia accounted for nearly 10% of Toyota’s 11 million global vehicle output. However, other Japanese brands, like Nissan, are struggling.

    Nissan’s outdated lineup and lack of hybrids contributed to profit losses and production cuts, with its presence in Jakarta now fading.

    Meanwhile, Chinese automaker BYD has rapidly gained traction in Indonesia, ranking as the sixth top-selling brand just months after delivering its first vehicles. Its $40,000 Seal EV is proving especially popular.

    Japan’s global auto production share has dropped from over 20% two decades ago to 11%, while China has surged to dominate, now accounting for nearly 40% of worldwide car manufacturing. Chinese automakers are leveraging their expertise in low-cost batteries and flexible supply chains to expand into Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, further challenging Japan’s dominance in these markets.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 17:20

  • How Trump Voters Learned To Love, And Turn Out, The Mail-In Ballot
    How Trump Voters Learned To Love, And Turn Out, The Mail-In Ballot

    Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClearPolitics,

    In the spring, James Blair, political director for the Trump campaign, called a meeting in West Palm Beach. The occasion: Marc Elias had changed the world.

    It was Elias who had petitioned the Federal Election Commission at the beginning of the year to allow a George Soros-funded political action committee to coordinate with campaigns. And the Democratic super lawyer had won. A nine-page advisory opinion followed in March. For the first time, the FEC ruled that federal candidates could coordinate with outside organizations. And now politics would change forever.

    Blair sensed opportunity. All he had to do, the reason he gathered the most loyal MAGA captains of the biggest grassroots armies around a conference table inside Trump campaign headquarters last April, was convince them to accept a little heresy. The political director had to teach them to love the mail-in ballot.

    Trump had taught his base to hate mail balloting, a practice he blamed for his loss in 2020. Now Blair was urging the former president’s most faithful followers to embrace what was previously verboten. According to sources inside the room that day, the conversion did not go smoothly.

    Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, balked. A confidant of the Trump family, Kirk and his lieutenant Tyler Bowyer were allegedly “horrified” by the idea of pushing absentee ballots for fear of alienating MAGA diehards. Ned Ryun, CEO of American Majority Action, insisted absentee ballots were half the battle, arguing that Republican hopes would languish in long lines on Election Day without them. One source described the mood that day as “snippy.”

    Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet dismissed that characterization and told RealClearPolitics the organization was making plans as early as 2022 to “hammer home” the early vote.

    “There were skeptics,” Blair said in retrospect. Without singling anyone out, he told RCP that “less sophisticated” operatives on the right still subscribed to “this theory that ‘well, if the votes come in early, then [Democrats] know how many they need to cheat.’” His counter-argument as he showed the grassroots the math: “No, once a vote is banked, that’s good.”

    This was easier said than done, as Trump had hardwired a deep distrust into the minds of millions of Republicans by arguing that anything other than same-day voting was synonymous with fraud. “We have to get rid of mail-in ballots,” Trump said during his January victory speech after winning the Iowa caucuses. As he began his easy march through the GOP primary field, Trump added, “Once you have mail-in ballots, you have crooked elections.”

    Data alone would not be enough to convince the base to abandon that belief. Only Trump could change their minds. “He had to create the permission structure for his voters,” Blair explained, “which is that voting early, whether by mail or in person, can be a pathway to victory, not to defeat.”

    Clearing a primary field of Republican challengers too afraid to attack him was one thing. Unseating an incumbent president would be another. Enter Susie Wiles.

    She came from Florida, just like Blair, where Republicans had built majorities for decades despite being outnumbered by Democrats on registered voter rolls. As campaign co-chair, she had just helped Trump brush aside the primary challenge of Florida’s own governor. Then Wiles looked to the general election, directing Blair to draft a memo outlining a new Trump way to win. In short, they planned to export the Florida model.

    They laid out the data, pointed to successful case studies, and ran sophisticated election simulations. But the final argument that changed Trump’s mind? “Look, sir,” the former president was told, according to sources familiar with the discussions, “people are really excited to vote for you, and they want to vote for you as soon as they have the chance to vote.” On the evening of April 19, in characteristic all caps, Trump did something very uncharacteristic: He reversed himself and blessed the mail ballot. Wrote the former president on his social media website Truth Social:

    ABSENTEE VOTING, EARLY VOTING, AND ELECTION DAY VOTING ARE ALL GOOD OPTIONS. REPUBLICANS MUST MAKE A PLAN, REGISTER, AND VOTE!

    Once the green light was given, the Trump machine kicked into another gear. They would still drive turnout on Election Day, but they would work just as hard to bank votes in advance. This has an obvious tactical advantage. Every supporter who cast their ballot early represented one less voter the campaign had to spend time and resources on getting to the polls on November 5. All campaigns do this. But the FEC decision that allowed federal candidates to coordinate with outside groups, the one ushered in by liberal lawyer Marc Elias, turbocharged everything. Tim Saler, chief data consultant for the Trump campaign, took full advantage.

    Saler was the analytical brain behind the GOP’s ground game juggernaut. Despite all the massive reporting from the Associated Press to the New York Times suggesting the opposite, he insisted in an interview with RCP that Trump actually had one. “It was not outsourced at all,” Saler said of the get-out-the-vote apparatus. “It was coordinated.”

    Flashback to Florida. Many of the groups inside Trump headquarters, almost a dozen in total, were already planning their own canvassing programs. Some had more experience than others.

    Turn Out for America, a political action committee bankrolled by conservative billionaire Dick Uihlein, was on board from the beginning and widely considered among Trump operatives as “the gold standard.”

    American Majority Action, Ryun’s group, had just run two pilot programs the year before, one in Louisiana and another in Virginia. Ryun was convinced Republicans could win by banking votes. “We had faith in what they did,” said a source with direct knowledge of the Trump operation. The newest addition: Turning Point Action.

    Kirk and Bowers leveraged their influence with millions of conservative students to create a turnout machine. “Turning Point will just need to keep evolving,” a Trump operative said of the newest edition while stressing that their efforts were welcome and helpful.

    America PAC, the Elon Musk upstart that would eclipse all the rest in spending, would come later.

    Saler loves them all and says each did good work. Ahead of Election Day, the first order of business was making sure the assorted groups “did no harm.” Under the new FEC paradigm, and for the first time, the campaign could communicate priorities, coordinate strategy, and share best tactics. Hence the second priority discussed at the West Palm Beach meeting: A data-sharing agreement.

    “There was a real misnomer, or just a false attack, that we didn’t have a field program,” Saler said of the idea “that our field program had been farmed out.” The campaign already had in-house volunteers, a program called Trump Force 47, that fanned out to all 50 states and knocked on millions of doors on its own. What the new coordination rules provided for was the creation of the outside armies fanning out to each of the seven battleground states in search of the all-important low-propensity voter.

    “The president’s coalition is more rural, lower propensity, and more down scale,” Saler explained. “Think a 35-year-old man who turns a wrench in small-town, central Wisconsin, who never engages face-to-face with anybody in politics.”

    To turn out a coalition like no other, Saler had to assemble an apparatus like no other. The campaign would be at the center. They shared targeting priorities with the outside groups, who then sent their people into the field to find and identify Trump voters, building a real-time data loop. They didn’t just go where other GOP presidential campaigns had been in years past. Because of the new canvassing rules, Trump HQ could send outside groups, not just to big population centers, but door to door even in the most rural areas. On front porches, outside grocery stores, and everywhere in between, canvassers sought out the MAGA faithful, registered them to vote, and pushed them to do it early.

    “The president is a unique character in American history; He is the champion of the forgotten man and woman,” Saler said before adding that the campaign was just as unique. “We also didn’t forget them.” In the moment, though, skepticism abounded. Some Republicans, many of them on the outside looking in, questioned the wisdom of relying so heavily on mercenary doorknockers ahead of what was sure to be a make-or-break election. Even Ben Shapiro was worried. In an October interview, Shapiro warned the former president that he was hearing mixed reviews about the ground game. Was his campaign up to the job? Trump avoided the question. In the final stretch, no one had a definitive answer.

    A team of rivals, meanwhile, was working on his behalf in pursuit of low-propensity voters.

    A staple on the college circuit, Kirk focused on the youth vote while directing his organization’s political arm, Turning Point Action, to decamp from campus and field an army of more than a thousand paid doorknockers across each of the swing states in pursuit of low-propensity voters overall. A spokesman denied that there was any hesitation about registering voters for absentee ballots. Instead, the organization modeled its early-vote strategy off of the Democratic playbook while making accommodations for lingering concerns over mail-in ballots.

    The emphasis was on early voting, but if a voter preferred to cast their ballot in person on Election Day, the organization was ready to drive them to the polls. Explained Turning Point spokesman Andrew Kolvet, “We only care about getting ballots in the box.”

    At times, the organization took “low propensity” to the extreme. Scott Presler, a conservative activist who partnered with Turning Point in Pennsylvania, courted a normally apolitical and untapped constituency: the Amish. 

    That community’s aversion to politics wasn’t the chief obstacle. It was the calendar. “Get this,” he told RCP, “Amish get married on Tuesdays in November.” Otherwise, they generally match the voter profile of a normal social conservative, he reported. Armed with that information, Presler parachuted into rural farming communities west of Philadelphia and north of Pittsburgh with absentee and mail-in ballot applications.  

    While Turning Point and their partners earned praise for that kind of innovation, elsewhere, some questioned the efficiency of their organization. One Turning Point intern attracted online criticism when he bragged in a social media post that he knocked on just 500 doors over the course of nine weeks, a seemingly low number. Another paid Turning Point Action employee, currently under contract in Wisconsin through November, told RCP that management had set a daily goal of just 10 voter contacts.

    “We set out on a mission to chase low-prop and first-time voters across the country,” Kirk wrote in a social media post the week after the election. Across four states (Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin), according to their internal numbers, Turning Point Action had helped no less than 300,000 low-propensity voters cast their votes. “Mission accomplished,” he wrote.

    American Majority Action took a more traditional approach with Ryun at the helm. The hard-nosed operative, who helped former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker become just the second state executive to survive a recall 13 years prior, had raised and deployed as many grassroots armies in the time since. The difference this time? Ever since the “Red Wave” fizzled in the 2022 midterms, Ryun had been on a one-man crusade to force Republicans to embrace absentee and early voting in earnest.

    After running two successful pilot programs in state races, he was convinced the GOP could take the approach national. Trump supporters would learn to love the mail-in ballot, he was convinced, once they won with it. Toward that end, American Majority picked four targets: Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. They hired 1,600 staff, drilling into each canvasser two numbers: Seven and nine. Between seven and nine is how many times a single low-propensity voter, on average, must be contacted before they will return a mail-in ballot. A blunt Ryun calls it “targeted harassment.”

    According to an after-action report, the group made more than 11 million phone calls in support of Trump and sent just shy of four million texts to voters in each of their four target states. They knocked on nearly 2 million doors.

    On the eve of the election, Ryun wrote in an op-ed for “American Greatness” that Republicans had experienced their fair share of growing pains. It would take time for the GOP to catch up to Democrats on the early voting front, but overall, the conservative movement earned a passing grade: “A solid B to B+ level with lots of room for growth.”

    America PAC was the last big group to arrive. Elon Musk endorsed Trump after the first assassination attempt, and while Republicans welcomed the many millions of dollars from the world’s richest man, the political novice attracted his fair share of scrutiny. His group planned to compete in all seven battleground states. They initially hired just a handful of vendors to execute a one-size-fits-all, top-down strategy.

    By the end of the summer, though, Musk fired his initial team and hired Genera Peck and Phil Cox, veterans of the defunct DeSantis campaign, to put together a national plan with individual directors in each of the battleground states. They took a tailored approach, and by the end, Musk lent his celebrity to the Pennsylvania campaign, a state he often told voters was the key to the whole election. His group spent north of $200 million, a deep war chest that lent itself to sending canvassers nearly everywhere.

    The scope of all of this was relatively new territory. Few national, grassroots organizations previously had the resources and expertise to chase votes across multiple states concurrently. Each additional battleground added another level of complexity and difficulty. But it wasn’t all top-down. A patchwork of groups supplemented the work in the individual swing states.

    Motivated by the frustration that the right had “yielded voter registration to the left,” former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler launched “Greater Georgia” in the Peach State. The group identified tens of thousands of conservative Georgians and helped get them registered to vote. Another state-specific get-out-the-vote engine to the north: PA Chase. Founded by Cliff Maloney, that organization canvassed throughout Pennsylvania in search of low-propensity voters in need of a mail-in ballot. “We’re finally catching up to the Democrats,” Maloney said of his efforts before Election Day. “This is straight out of their playbook, right?

    In this way, the Trump campaign and its allies chased the low-propensity voter. And it worked. He not only swept each swing state on his way to becoming just the second president in history to win non-consecutive terms, but Trump also won the popular vote, something Republicans haven’t achieved since 2004. Said Saler of the electorate that returned the former and future president to the Oval Office, “He created them.” Many were first-time voters. Some voted only for him. Now every Republican operative involved in planning for the midterms and the next general election is focused on one question: How to keep these voters in the GOP fold? It will likely include a heavy emphasis on the early vote.

    Trump World, even in victory, sees the mail-in ballot as a pragmatic necessity, not an ideal way to vote. “Look, they’re not perfect, and if we could just do away with them, we probably would, but that’s not the world we live in,” Blair said. “They exist. So, it is what it is.”

    For his part, Ryun has become their biggest apostle of early voting and the mail-in ballot. After Republicans won big, he isn’t in a hurry to see the GOP set them aside. “I’m telling you, this works, and this should be our game planning forward,” he said, before adding that a more pressing question for the right was discerning which groups did real work and which did little more than gobble up donor dollars.

    “There are some vaporware organizations, like Turning Point, that I’m afraid were not as effective as they could have been because they were on a journey of self-discovery in politics,” Ryun said. “My concern for the future is, how do we make sure that some of these voters who turned out for Trump-only become consistent Republican voters.”

    A Turning Point spokesman dismissed that criticism. Said Kolvet, “We’re not in the business of getting down in the mud.” The results, he said, speak for themselves. “The campaign, which knows the data and accomplishments well, knows how successful our program was,” the spokesman concluded.

    Republicans will have their work cut out for them in the midterms. They have historically underperformed whenever Trump is not on the ballot. The coordination between federal candidates and outside groups – that the FEC allowed at the insistence of Democrats like Elias – will not change. It was central to a Trump victory.

    “Thank you, Marc,” quipped Saler, the Trump data consultant who helped engineer the former, and future, president’s comeback. “We appreciate you.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 17:00

  • Exxon Pours Cold Water On Trump's "Drill, Baby, Drill" Plans
    Exxon Pours Cold Water On Trump’s “Drill, Baby, Drill” Plans

    Contrary to expectations for a self-defeating flood of new energy production under the second Trump admin, Exxon’s Upstream President Liam Mallon said that oil and gas producers in the US will not raise output significantly in the coming years despite calls from President-Elect Donald Trump to “drill, baby, drill.”

    “I think a radical change is unlikely because the vast majority, if not everybody, is primarily focused on the economics of what they’re doing,” Mallon said on Tuesday at a conference in London, according to Bloomberg.

    Trump is expected to open up federal lands for more oil and gas drilling, in part to execute on Scott Bessent’s “3-3-3 plan” which envisions boosting US oil production by an addition 3 million barrels per day (from the current record 13.3 million), but much of the land in the country’s largest oil and gas producing state, Texas, is private. Still, there’s plentiful federal land in neighboring New Mexico which includes the oil- and gas-rich Permian Basin.

    “If those rules were substantially changed, you would be able to drill more, assuming you have the quality and met your economic threshold,” Mallon said. “But I don’t think we’re going to see anybody in the drill, baby, drill mode. I really don’t.”

    Exxon’s European rival TotalEnergies is also skeptical of Trump’s vow to open US taps.

    “Maybe he has a magic recipe to push them to drill like mad,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanne said at the conference. He cited US producers’ commitment to return cash to shareholders and said “it’s not only decisions by politicians” that drive American output.

    The US is pumping more than 13 million barrels of crude a day, exceeding every other nation and up almost 45% in the past decade. With a surplus looming next year, the global oil market is watching to see at what rate American explorers drill new wells. Many of the biggest US operators are taking a long-term approach to production, weighing when to bring certain wells online against their overall inventory. Many have throttled their output to maximize shareholders returns (i.e. higher prices) over total production (higher volumes).

    Mallon’s comments mark the second time since the election that the largest US oil company has diverged from Trump’s policies. CEO Darren Woods discouraged the president-elect from withdrawing the US from the Paris climate pact, arguing that it’s better to participate and push for “common sense” carbon-cutting policy.

    Mallon reinforced Woods’s recent remarks supporting the US Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump has characterized as Washington’s “green new scam.” Some IRA incentives — including tax credits for capturing carbon, producing hydrogen and making sustainable aviation fuel — are particularly popular with oil companies.

    “Our position on the IRA is very good,” Mallon said. “We strongly believe in what it is, what it stands for and the incentives it’s providing.”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 16:40

  • What Ails America… And How To Fix It
    What Ails America… And How To Fix It

    Authored by Jeffrey Sachs via CommonDreams.org,

    When a nation is very sick, we need multiple and overlapping remedies…

    America is a country of undoubted vast strengths—technological, economic, and cultural—yet its government is profoundly failing its own citizens and the world. Trump’s victory is very easy to understand. It was a vote against the status quo. Whether Trump will fix—or even attempt to fix—what really ails America remains to be seen.

    The rejection of the status quo by the American electorate is overwhelming. According to Gallup in October 2024, 52% of Americans said they and their families were worse off than four years ago, while only 39% said they were better off and 9% said they were about the same. An NBC national news poll in September 2024 found that 65% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track, while only 25% said that it is on the right track. In March 2024, according to Gallup, only 33% of Americans approved of Joe Biden’s handling of foreign affairs.

    At the core of the American crisis is a political system that fails to represent the true interests of the average American voter. The political system was hacked by big money decades ago, especially when the U.S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign contributions. Since then, American politics has become a plaything of super-rich donors and narrow-interest lobbies, who fund election campaigns in return for policies that favor vested interests rather than the common good.

    Two groups own the Congress and White House: super-rich individuals and single-issue lobbies.

    The world watched agape as Elon Musk, the world’s richest person (and yes, a brilliant entrepreneur and inventor), played a unique role in backing Trump’s election victory, both through his vast media influence and funding. Countless other billionaires chipped into Trump’s victory.

    Many (though not all) of the super-rich donors seeks special favors from the political system for their companies or investments, and most of those desired favors will be duly delivered by the Congress, the White House, and the regulatory agencies staffed by the new administration. Many of these donors also push one overall deliverable: further tax cuts on corporate income and capital gains.

    Many business donors, I would quickly add, are forthrightly on the side of peace and cooperation with China, as very sensible for business as well as for humanity. Business leaders generally want peace and incomes, while crazed ideologues want hegemony through war.

    There would have been precious little difference in all of this with a Harris victory. The Democrats have their own long list of the super-rich who financed the party’s presidential and Congressional campaigns. Many of those donors too would have demanded and received special favors.

    Tax breaks on capital income have been duly delivered by Congress for decades no matter their impact on the ballooning federal deficit, which now stands at nearly 7 percent of GDP, and no matter that the U.S. pre-tax national income in recent decades has shifted powerfully towards capital income and away from labor income. As measured by one basic indicator, the share of labor income in GDP has declined by around 7 percentage points since the end of World War II. As income has shifted from labor to capital, the stock market (and super-wealth) has soared, with the overall stock market valuation rising from 55% of GDP in 1985 to 200% of GDP today!

    The second group with its hold on Washingtons is single-issue lobbies.

    These powerful lobbies include the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, Big Oil, the gun industry, big pharma, big Ag, and the Israel Lobby. American politics is well organized to cater to these special interests. Each lobby buys the support of specific committees in Congress and selected national leaders to win control over public policy.

    The economic returns to special-interest lobbying are often huge: a hundred million dollars of campaign funding by a lobby group can win a hundred billion of federal outlays and/or tax breaks. This is the lesson, for example, of the Israel lobby, which spends a few hundred million dollars on campaign contributions, and harvests tens of billions of dollars in military and economic support for Israel.

    These special-interest lobbies do not depend on, nor care much about, public opinion. Opinion surveys show regularly that the public wants gun control, lower drug prices, an end of Wall Street bailouts, renewable energy, and peace in Ukraine and the Middle East. Instead, the lobbyists ensure that Congress and the White House deliver continued easy access to handguns and assault weapons, sky-high drug prices, coddling of Wall Street, more oil and gas drilling, weapons for Ukraine, and wars on behalf of Israel.

    These powerful lobbies are money-fueled conspiracies against the common good. Remember Adam Smith’s famous dictum in the Wealth of Nations (1776): “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    The two most dangerous lobbies are the military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower famously warned us in 1961) and the Israel lobby (as detailed in a scintillating new book by historian Ilan Pappé).

    Their special danger is that they continue to lead us to war and closer to nuclear Armageddon. Biden’s reckless recent decision to allow U.S. missile strikes deep inside Russia, long advocated by the military-industrial complex, is case in point.

    The military-industrial complex aims for U.S. “full-spectrum dominance.” It’s purported solutions to world problems are wars and more wars, together with covert regime-change operations, U.S. economic sanctions, U.S. info-wars, color revolutions (led by the National Endowment for Democracy), and foreign policy bullying. These of course have been no solutions at all. These actions, in flagrant violation of international law, have dramatically increased U.S. insecurity.

    The military-industrial complex (MIC) dragged Ukraine into a hopeless war with Russia by promising Ukraine membership in NATO in the face of Russia’s fervent opposition, and by conspiring to overthrow Ukraine’s government in February 2014 because it sought neutrality rather than NATO membership.

    The military-industrial complex is currently—unbelievably—promoting a coming war with China. This will of course involve a huge and lucrative arms buildup, the aim of the MIC. Yet it will also threaten World War III or a cataclysmic U.S. defeat in another Asian war.

    While the Military-Industrial Complex has stoked NATO enlargement and conflicts with Russia and China, the Israel Lobby has stoked America’s serial wars in the Middle East. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, more than any U.S. president, has been the lead promoter of America’s backing of disastrous wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

    Netanyahu’s aim is to keep the land that Israel conquered in the 1967 war, creating what is called Greater Israel, and to prevent a Palestinian State. This expansionist policy, in contravention of international law, has given rise to militant pro-Palestinian groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Netanyahu’s long-standing policy is for the U.S. to topple or help to topple the governments that support these resistance groups.

    Incredibly, the Washington neocons and the Israel Lobby actually joined forces to carry out Netanyahu’s disastrous plan for wars across the Middle East. Netanyahu was a lead backer of the War in Iraq. Former Marine Commander Dennis Fritz has recently described in detail the Israel Lobby’s large role in that war. Ilan Pappé has done the same. In fact, the Israel Lobby has supported U.S.-led or U.S.-backed wars across the Middle East, leaving the targeted countries in ruins and the U.S. budget deep in debt.

    In the meantime, the wars and tax cuts for the rich, have offered no solutions for the hardships working-class Americans. As in other high-income countries, employment in U.S. manufacturing fell sharply from the 1980s onward as assembly-line workers were increasingly replaced by robots and “smart systems.” The decline in the labor share of value in the U.S. has been significant, and once again has been a phenomenon shared with other high-countries.

    Yet American workers have been hit especially hard. In addition to the underlying global technological trends hitting jobs and wages, American workers have been battered by decades of anti-union policies, soaring tuition and healthcare costs, and other anti-worker measures. In high-income countries of northern Europe, “social consumption” (publicly funded healthcare, tuition, housing, and other publicly provided services) and high levels of unionization have sustained decent living standards for workers. Not so in the United States.

    Yet this was not the end of it.

    Soaring costs of health care, driven by the private health insurers, and the absence of sufficient public financing for higher education and low-cost online options, created a pincer movement, squeezing the working class between falling or stagnant wages on the one side and rising education and healthcare costs on the other side.

    Neither the Democrats nor Republicans did much of anything to help the workers.

    Trump’s voter base is the working class, but his donor base is the super-rich and the lobbies. So, what will happen next? More of the same—wars and tax cuts—or something new and real for the voters?

    Trump’s purported answer is a trade war with China and the deportation of illegal foreign workers, combined with more tax cuts for the rich. In other words, rather than face the structural challenges of ensuring decent living standards for all, and face forthrightly the staggering budget deficit, Trump’s answers on the campaign trail and in his first term were to blame China and migrants for low working-class wages and wasteful spending for the deficits.

    This has played well electorally in 2016 and 2024, but will not deliver the promised results for workers in the long run. Manufacturing jobs will not return in large numbers from China since they never went in large numbers to China. Nor will deportations do much to raise living standards of average Americans.

    This is not to say that real solutions are lacking. They are hiding in plain view—if Trump chooses to take them, over the special interest groups and class interests of Trump’s backers.

    If Trump chooses real solutions, he would achieve a strikingly positive political legacy for decades to come.

    • The first is to face down the military-industrial complex. Trump can end the war in Ukraine by telling President Putin and the world that NATO will never expand to Ukraine. He can end the risk of war with China by making crystal clear that the U.S. abides by the One China Policy, and as such, will not interfere in China’s internal affairs by sending armaments to Taiwan over Beijing’s objections, and would not support any attempt by Taiwan to secede.

    • The second is to face down the Israel lobby by telling Netanyahu that the U.S. will no longer fight Israel’s wars and that Israel must accept a State of Palestine living in peace next to Israel, as called for by the entire world community. This indeed is the only possible path to peace for Israel and Palestine, and indeed for the Middle East.

    • The third is to close the budget deficit, partly by cutting wasteful spending—notably on wars, hundreds of useless overseas military bases, and sky-high prices the government pays for drugs and healthcare—and partly by raising government revenues. Simply enforcing taxes on the books by cracking down on illegal tax evasion would have raised $625 billion in 2021, around 2.6% of GDP. More should be raised by taxation of soaring capital incomes.

    • The fourth is an innovation policy (aka industrial policy) that serves the common good. Elon Musk and his Silicon Valley friends have succeeded in innovation beyond the wildest expectations. All kudos to Silicon Valley for bringing us the digital age. America’s innovation capacity is vast and robust and an envy of the world.

    The challenge now is innovation for what? Musk has his eye on Mars and beyond. Captivating, yet there are billions of people on Earth that can and should be helped by the digital revolution in the here and now. A core goal of Trump’s industrial policy should be to ensure that innovation serves the common good, including the poor, the working class, and the natural environment. Our nation’s goals need to go beyond wealth and weapons systems.

    As Musk and his colleagues know better than anybody, the new AI and digital technologies can usher in an era of low-cost, zero-carbon energy; low-cost healthcare; low-cost higher education; low-cost electricity-powered mobility; and other AI-enabled efficiencies that can raise real living standards of all workers. In the process, innovation should foster high-quality, unionized jobs—not the gig employment that has sent living standards plummeting and worker insecurity soaring.

    Trump and the Republicans have resisted these technologies in the past. In his first term, Trump let China take the lead in these technologies pretty much across the board. Our goal is not to stop China’s innovations, but to spur our own. Indeed, as Silicon Valley understands while Washington does not, China has long been and should remain America’s partner in the innovation ecosystem. China’s highly efficient and low-cost manufacturing facilities, such as Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai, put Silicon Valley’s innovations into worldwide use … when America tries.

    All four of these steps are within Trump’s reach, and would justify his electoral triumph and secure his legacy for decades to come. I’m not holding my breath for Washington to adopt these straightforward steps. American politics has been rotten for too long for real optimism in that regard, yet these four steps are all achievable, and would greatly benefit not only the tech and finance leaders who backed Trump’s campaign but the generation of disaffected workers and households whose votes put Trump back into the White House.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 16:20

  • Biden Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Lower Conscription Age From 25 To 18
    Biden Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Lower Conscription Age From 25 To 18

    The Ukrainian military accepts voluntary enlistments from those 18 and older. However, in stark contrast to Americans’ experience with military drafts, Ukraine had long exempted men under 27 from being conscripted. The country’s legislature last April finally moved to lower the minimum draft age to 25.

    Last spring on one of his many visits to Ukraine, hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham expressed shock upon learning that men in their early 20s in Ukraine cannot be drafted. “I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe [conscription age starts] at 27,” he said at the time. “You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27.” 

    When President Volodymyr Zelenskiy soon after this statement signed a bill into effect to lower the mobilization age for combat duty from 27 to 25, this took some of the pressure off for the time being.

    AFP/Getty Images

    This debate has now been renewed as President Biden, on his way out of office, is ramping up the pressure on Kiev to drastically change things.

    The Associated Press reports Wednesday:

    President Joe Biden’s administration is urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow for the conscription of troops as young as 18.

    A senior Biden administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private consultations, said Wednesday that the outgoing Democratic administration wants Ukraine to lower the mobilization age to 18 from the current age of 25 to help expand the pool of fighting-age men available to help a badly outnumbered Ukraine in its nearly three-year-old war with Russia.

    The official said “the pure math” of Ukraine’s situation now is that it needs more troops in the fight.

    As the outgoing Biden administration is asking Congress to soon approve billions more for Ukraine, this conscription age change policy could serve as the quid pro quo being requested of Kiev from Washington, in order to keep the billions in arms and aid flowing.

    The AP further cites an official who says the Ukrainians “believe they need about 160,000 additional troops, but the U.S. administration believes they probably will need more than that.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In the early days of the war, some US hawks admitted their view is that Ukraine would be willing to “fight to the last person” as long as the US continued to provide the weapons. These politicians don’t seem to actually care about Ukrainians and their future in making remarks like this.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 15:45

  • 'Conservative' Outfits Are 'Scouring' Because Journalists Won't
    ‘Conservative’ Outfits Are ‘Scouring’ Because Journalists Won’t

    Authored by Michael Chamberlain via RealClearPolicy,

    The other day I acquired a new title: “Scourer.” My organization, Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT), was among the groups mentioned in a Politico article the outlet’s X account promoted as “Conservative outfits are scouring feds’ emails.”

    I know “scouring” isn’t meant as a compliment, but I’m happy to take it that way. As stated in the article, PPT has made more than 1,600 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests of the Biden-Harris administration. We’ve done so because the journalists and watchdog groups so enthusiastic about policing the Trump administration seem to have decided sometime around January 20, 2021, that their vigilance was no longer needed.

    I have no issue with how I and PPT were portrayed in Robin Bravender’s report, but the piece’s framing and marketing were a bald attempt to whip up fear inside the Beltway of a Trump II purge of the bureaucracy. Bravender quoted the overwrought words of the Environmental Protection Network’s Jeremy Symons: “This abuse of the FOIA system is to intimidate civil servants and pave the way for hit lists in the event that Trump takes office.” 

    I can only speak for PPT, but that’s certainly not something we’ve focused on. We’ve found that there are more than enough conflicts and ethics problems with Biden-Harris political appointees to keep us busy. Our work mentions career civil servants when necessary, but PPT doesn’t target them and we keep no lists.

    Career bureaucrats should not be above scrutiny, however. Transparency is not for certain classes of government employees. Civil servants must be accountable to the people who pay their salaries … and who elect their boss.

    Symons told Bravender that the Trump administration would seek “excuses to get rid of anybody of significance and importance, so that the only people left in the agency are political hacks that are loyal to the president.”

    No doubt, that would be bad. But, as long as we’re being reductive, wouldn’t it be just as bad to countenance “political hacks” who actively oppose the president? Those hacks would be flouting the will of the majority that elected the president and thus subverting “our democracy.”

    The article states that the FOIAs “are causing concern among government employees and their allies.” That government employees have or need allies means they have adversaries, which, whatever their personal politics, civil servants shouldn’t have. Presidents serve at the pleasure of the electorate. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. Career bureaucrats serve at the pleasure of … whom?

    It recently surfaced, thanks to a whistleblower, that in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton, a career FEMA supervisor in Florida directed workers to avoid houses with Trump signs. That certainly sounds like a situation in need of scouring.

    All federal employees, appointed or career, work for the taxpayers. They use taxpayer-provided resources to spend taxpayer-provided money. There is nothing sinister about insisting that the taxpayers have the right to know what they are getting for the salaries they pay and the resources they provide.

    There was a time when scouring legally obtained public documents was also known as journalism – a noble and necessary role in a functioning republic. Journalists could and sometimes did shine light into the career bureaucracy. Few seem interested in doing that anymore, so it falls to others – some of whom journalists ascribe politics they dislike. That’s the price of abandoning the field.

    But since there will be a second Trump administration, we can expect journalists and erstwhile “watchdogs” to rediscover their curiosity. Maybe “scouring” will no longer be a term of derision.

    For our government to function for the maximum benefit of the American people, transparency is paramount. And nobody in government should be immune to scrutiny.

    Michael Chamberlain is the Director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog organization focused on ethics and transparency.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 11/27/2024 – 15:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Nov 27

Today’s News 27th November 2024

  • The Triggers For & Consequences Of Russia's Possible Missile Deployment To The Asia-Pacific
    The Triggers For & Consequences Of Russia’s Possible Missile Deployment To The Asia-Pacific

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

    Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in response to a question about his country’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific that this “will depend on the deployment of corresponding US systems in any region of the world.” This came less than a week after Putin authorized the use of Russia’s previously secret hypersonic medium-range Oreshnik missile in Ukraine, the strategic significance of which was analyzed here, and parallels newly deteriorating Russian-South Korean ties.

    Seoul is considering arming Ukraine in response to unsubstantiated reports about Russia’s use of North Korean troops against that former Soviet Republic, which prompted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko to warn that “we will respond in every way that we find necessary. It is unlikely that this will strengthen the security of the Republic of Korea itself.”

    The two triggers for Russia’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific are therefore the US doing so first or Seoul arming Kiev.

    It’s important to point out that while China is Russia’s close military partner and Moscow believes that Washington is engaged in what Russian officials describe as a “dual containment” strategy against both, Beijing isn’t its military ally, unlike Pyongyang with which Moscow just recently signed a military pact. That document was analyzed here and amounts to updating a Soviet-era one. Its strategic significance is that each pledged to help the other if they come under aggression and such assistance is requested.

    Accordingly, Russia’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific would be in defense of its own and North Korea’s security, with the first immediate consequence being that it could inadvertently worsen China’s by serving to justify and accelerate the US’ regional containment plans against it. To explain, Trump plans to “Pivot (back) to Asia” upon the end of the Ukrainian Conflict, whenever that might be and regardless of the terms agreed to, which is already troubling enough from China’s perspective.

    To make it even worse, Trump is inheriting the Biden Administration’s achievement of having brokered the improvement of South Korean-Japanese ties to such an extent that the US’ long-hoped-for regional trilateral is finally on the brink of becoming a strategic reality. The deployment of short- and intermediate-range Russian missiles to the Asia-Pacific, especially the state-of-the-art Oreshnik, would naturally justify the aforesaid and accelerate all three’s convergence into a tighter triangle.

    On the diplomatic front, these missiles could always be withdrawn pending a grand deal between Russia, the US, North Korea, and possibly also China, though the latter’s involvement shouldn’t be taken for granted. After all, an agreement could be reached between the first three in exchange for de-escalating tensions in Northeast Asia, which could then free up the US and Japan to concentrate on more muscularly containing China in Southeast Asia via Taiwan and the Philippines, which both are close with.

    It’s premature to predict that this is exactly what will unfold, but the point is that Russia’s role in the emerging Asian front of the New Cold War could be leveraged for de-escalation purposes if its and North Korea’s security interests are met, which only requires negotiating with the US and not with China. Given these military-strategic dynamics, it’s possible that Trump might try to fulfill his campaign pledge to “un-unite” Russia and China by playing them off against each other, though that’s very unlikely to succeed.

    All told, Russia’s possible missile deployment to the Asia-Pacific would be triggered by the US or South Korea, with the consequences being that it’ll solidify Russia’s role in that emerging front of the New Cold War while inadvertently worsening China’s security by justifying and accelerating the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”. The Kremlin wants to fulfill its allied commitments to North Korea and highlight its relevance in that part of Eurasia, both goals of which are driven by security, diplomatic, and soft power motives.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 23:25

  • "Business As Usual": NYT, Reuters, Vox Media Reportedly Have Zero Plans To Leave 𝕏
    “Business As Usual”: NYT, Reuters, Vox Media Reportedly Have Zero Plans To Leave 𝕏

    The New York Times, Reuters, Vox Media, and more than a dozen other media organizations have confirmed to Digiday their intention to remain on Elon Musk’s 𝕏. This follows the decision by some far-left folks, frustrated with the ‘free speech’ platform in the wake of Trump’s historic presidential victory, to migrate to Bluesky—a social media platform tailored for those infected by the woke mind virus. 

    Digiday reported:

    Over a dozen major publishers — including The New York Times, Reuters and Vox Media — told Digiday that they didn’t have plans to leave 𝕏 anytime soon. About half declined to comment on the record. The other half confirmed that it was business as usual.

    However, the media outlet focused on the future of media and marketing noted some corporate media outlets were planning to give Bluesky a try:

    Last week, The Guardian joined NPR in vowing not to post on the platform anymore, citing the toxicity on Twitter 2.0 and 𝕏 owner Elon Musk’s political involvement. Meanwhile, 𝕏 alternative Bluesky received an influx of new users after the U.S. presidential election, with publishers like The Economist, The Week, Politico and Semafor following them there.

    What’s certain is that 𝕏 was the number one app in the App Store as of Sunday. This comes as legacy media continues to implode, with how people receive their news shifting dramatically—from corporate media outlets to 𝕏, alternative news websites, and podcasters.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Axios CEO recently had a meltdown over Musk’s comment, telling 𝕏 users, “You are the media now.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Meanwhile, major brands, including Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Brothers, Discovery, and Lionsgate Entertainment, have all resumed ad spending on 𝕏, an indication that the social media platform remains the top spot for news and current affairs.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 23:00

  • Trump Transition Team Signs Modified White House Agreement, Without Govt Technology To Conduct Surveillance
    Trump Transition Team Signs Modified White House Agreement, Without Govt Technology To Conduct Surveillance

    Authored by ‘sundance’ via The Last Refuge,

    The President Trump transition team has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to start the process of transferring control of the federal government.  The landing teams from each of the cabinets will now begin to engage with their exiting counterparts.

    There were many articles written about the delays in signing the agreements.  However, President Trump waited until he has his cabinet fully assembled before signing the first part that permits the landing teams to engage.  The second part with government provided offices and technology is NOT being accepted.

    President Trump’s Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, announced the Trump transition team has refused to sign an MOU with the Government Services Administration (GSA), and will not be using cell phones, computers, offices or “any technology” provided by the GSA.  This is a smart move to avoid the Deep State surveillance situation that was faced in the first term.

    In the first Trump administration, the GSA had wiretaps, office bugs, and gave all the electronic communication information from the Trump transition to the FBI, IC and later Robert Mueller. In essence, the GSA spied on the Trump team, then gave all the data to the operatives who were in place to target them.  The Trump team is not making this mistake again.

    The Trump transition team is also not going to use the office space provided by the GSA and will instead have their own offices and security systems in place to coordinate the transition to power.

    WASHINGTON DC – […] The Trump team’s unprecedented delay in signing these agreements, weeks after being declared the winner of the election, had alarmed former officials and ethics experts who warned it could lead to conflicts of interest and leave the new government unprepared to govern on Day One.

    In the Tuesday announcement, Wiles suggested the Trump transition will not sign a separate agreement with the General Services Administration, which would have allowed them to receive federal funding, cybersecurity support and government office space, pledging instead to fund the transition with private dollars, run it out of private facilities, and deploy their own “existing security and information protections” for sensitive data.

    The transition, Wiles said, “will operate as a self-sufficient organization, adding that declining government funding will “save taxpayers’ hard-earned money.”

    And while Wiles also pledged in the Tuesday statement to publicly disclose the private donors to the transition and “not accept foreign donations,” there will be no legal mechanism to enforce those promises of transparency.

    The lack of federal cybersecurity support could also make the Trump transition a softer target for foreign hackers — who already successfully penetrated the campaign earlier this year.

    “That’s something that in 2020 was maybe the single most important worry of the [Biden] transition team — that they would be hacked, and all of this information, including intelligence information, personal information about job applicants, would be threatened,” said Heath Brown, an associate professor of public policy at CUNY’s John Jay College who wrote a book about Biden’s transition. “It’s imperative that the Trump Transition Team has installed the proper procedures to protect itself.”

    White House spokesperson Saloni Sharma said the Biden administration is concerned about the ramifications of their successors forgoing GSA support, but remains “committed to an orderly transition.”

    “While we do not agree with the Trump transition team’s decision to forgo signing the GSA MOU, we will follow the purpose of the Presidential Transition Act which clearly states that ‘any disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and wellbeing of the United States and its people,’” she said.

    In the White House memo, Sharma added, the Trump transition “agreed to important safeguards to protect non-public information and prevent conflicts of interest, including who has access to the information and how the information is shared,” and also agreed to publicly share the ethics agreements it is imposing on its own employees.

    (read more)

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 22:35

  • "This Looks So M16-Ish To Me": Russian Special Forces Receive New Main Battle Rifle
    “This Looks So M16-Ish To Me”: Russian Special Forces Receive New Main Battle Rifle

    Russian special forces, commonly known as “Spetsnaz,” are set to receive a newly designed main battle rifle that closely resembles the German Heckler & Koch 417 automatic assault rifle.

    The Russian media outlet TASS News Agency reports that the new semi-automatic rifle is chambered in .308 caliber, described as “lighter than analogs” and offering “high precision.”

    Named Titan, the rifle is reportedly “already engaged in the zone of the Ukrainian operation,” according to a media outlet citing the Russian arms company SWC.

    “Semiautomatic Titan rifle of .308 caliber has been designed for Russian special task units. It can be used as a sniper or assault rifle. Experts say the new universal rifle has good characteristics and is in demand among scouts and commandos,” SWC stated.

    SWC added, “The .308 caliber cartridge is powerful and reliable. Russia produces it in various options, including armor-piercing. Therefore, the rifle is popular among the Russian military.”

    In October, the Russian media outlet Sputnik reported that the Russian Army received a new sniper rifle, the STM-308, to replace the Dragunov platform.

    Earlier this year, the US Army began fielding its brand-new Next Generation Squad Weapon rifles: the Sig Sauer XM7, intended to replace the M4 carbine in close combat formations, and the XM250, which will replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

    The X account Defense Politics Asia commented on the Titan, stating that it “looks so M16-ish to me.“

    . . .  

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 22:10

  • US Marshals And FBI Warn Public Of Nationwide Phone Scams
    US Marshals And FBI Warn Public Of Nationwide Phone Scams

    Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI are alerting the public about widespread phone scams involving individuals impersonating law enforcement officials. Scammers are posing as U.S. Marshals, court officers, or other government agents in attempts to defraud victims by demanding payments to avoid arrest.

    The FBI seal is pictured in Omaha, Neb., on Aug. 10, 2022. Charlie Neibergall/AP

    These fraudulent callers claim the victim has committed an offense such as identity theft or failing to report for jury duty. The scammers instruct victims to withdraw cash and transfer it to the government, purchase prepaid debit or gift cards, or deposit money into Bitcoin ATMs to “satisfy” alleged fines.

    Scammers often sound convincing by providing badge numbers, names of real law enforcement officials and federal judges, and even spoofing caller IDs to appear as if they’re calling from a government agency or courthouse, the agencies said in a statement.

    In Colorado, multiple incidents have been reported in which scammers use the names of actual U.S. Marshals, including U.S. Marshal Kirk Taylor, claiming there’s a warrant for the victim’s arrest unless a payment is made.

    Victims across the state have suffered losses totaling tens of thousands of dollars, the agencies said. The U.S. Marshals Service receives daily inquiries from individuals targeted by these scams.

    Authorities recommend scam victims file a report with local police and a complaint with the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center at ic3.gov. Callers can remain anonymous.

    The law enforcement agencies said Americans should never divulge personal or financial information to unknown callers. The U.S. Marshals Service said it will never ask for credit or debit card numbers, wire transfers, bank routing numbers, or Bitcoin deposits for any purpose.

    Authorities suggest hanging up and calling a local court clerk to verify any supposed court orders.

    According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), more than $37 billion has been reported lost due to cyber-enabled crimes from 2019 to 2023. While not every report can receive a direct response, each submission helps law enforcement understand the broader threat landscape and can lead to actionable investigations.

    The IC3 notes that tips are extremely valuable.

    “Combined with other data, [tips] allow the FBI to investigate reported crimes, track trends and threats, and, in some cases, even freeze stolen funds,” the agency said. “Just as importantly, IC3 shares reports of crime throughout its vast network of FBI field offices and law enforcement partners, strengthening our nation’s collective response both locally and nationally.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 21:45

  • Trump Said To Be Weighing Direct Talks With North Korea's Kim
    Trump Said To Be Weighing Direct Talks With North Korea’s Kim

    During his first term in the White House, President-elect Donald Trump held three meetings with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. The First was in Hanoi, followed by a highly ‘controversial’ meeting at the Korean border, which was the first time in history that a sitting American president had stepped foot into the North Korean side of the border.

    There was talk at the time of the two leaders falling “in love”—however, the past couple years of Biden’s Pentagon parking a nuclear submarine at a South Korean port has done much to undo these good will displays. Washington has requested that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons development, while Kim has demanded nothing less than full sanctions relief.

    What will the policy be under the second Trump White House?

    “US president-elect Donald Trump’s team is discussing pursuing direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, hoping a fresh diplomatic push can lower the risks of armed conflict, according to two people familiar with the matter,” South China Morning Post and Reuters report Tuesday.

    BBC: Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, seen here in 2019, failed to reach a deal to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. API/Getty Images

    While Trump’s transition team has said nothing official on the issue as yet, insider sources say a return to direct diplomacy is hopeful: 

    Several in Trump’s team now see a direct approach from Trump, to build on a relationship that already exists, as most likely to break the ice with Kim, years after the two traded insults and what Trump called “beautiful” letters in an unprecedented diplomatic effort during his first term in office, the people said.

    As for the North Korean side, it doesn’t seem in any hurry, or at least is building leverage in anticipation of potential near-future Trump overtures. 

    The Wall Street Journal summarized Kim’s reaction as of last week as follows: 

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appeared to rebuff the prospect of reviving his nuclear diplomacy with President-elect Donald Trump, according to his first public remarks about disarmament talks since the election.

    North Korea’s state media reported Friday that the 40-year-old dictator called the U.S. a superpower that operated by force rather than a will to coexist and belittled the value that previous talks had for his cash-strapped regime.   

    Kim was quoted in a speech days ago as saying, “We have already explored every possible avenue in negotiating with the US.”

    He cited Washington’s “unchanging aggressive and hostile policy” toward North Korea, which has included stepped-up joint US-South Korean military exercises on the peninsula. 

    Earlier on the Trump campaign trail…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It’s possible that if Trump is able to oversee peace in Ukraine, which he is pledging to begin in earnest from day one of entering the Oval Office, things could stabilize with US-North Korea relations as well.

    But looming large as a complicating factor is North Korea’s sending some 10,000 of its troops to Russia, where they are reportedly assisting Moscow forces in pushing back Ukraine’s occupation of the southern Kursk region. Kiev has used this to decry the ‘internationalization’ of the war, despite NATO having injected billions of dollars and heavy weaponry on Ukraine’s side.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 21:20

  • Winds Of Change Might Blow Through Crypto Sector During Trump's 2nd Term
    Winds Of Change Might Blow Through Crypto Sector During Trump’s 2nd Term

    Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler’s departure in January could transform the U.S. cryptocurrency regulatory landscape.

    An image of Bitcoin and U.S. currencies are displayed on a screen as delegates listen to speakers during the Interpol World Congress in Singapore on July 4, 2017. Dominic Gwinn/AFP via Getty Images

    Gensler, a staunch critic of the digital assets industry, confirmed on social media platform X last week that he will resign from his role the day of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

    Trump and Gensler possess contrasting views of crypto.

    Gensler has cracked down on the crypto industry since he was appointed head of the SEC in 2021.

    Speaking at the Piper Sandler Global Exchange and FinTech Conference in New York City last year, the outgoing SEC chief said the crypto frenzy has been rife with “Hucksters. Fraudsters. Scam artists. Ponzi schemes.”

    “The crypto securities markets should not be allowed to undermine the well-earned trust the public has in the capital markets,” Gensler said. “The crypto markets should not be allowed to harm investors.”

    President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to herald a change in federal crypto policy.

    While he promised to fire Gensler on his first day in the White House, Trump has also proposed a plethora of pro-Bitcoin measures.

    He wants to establish a national Bitcoin reserve, create a presidential crypto advisory council, and ensure all remaining Bitcoin is mined domestically.

    “For too long, our government has violated the cardinal rule that every Bitcoiner knows by heart: Never sell your Bitcoin,” Trump said during a keynote address at the largest industry conference this past summer.

    This is a reversal from Trump, who has called it a scam and a threat to the U.S. dollar.

    “I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air,” Trump said in social media posts in 2019.

    “Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.”

    Now that the new administration features pro-crypto officials, will the SEC’s regulatory pursuits change?

    Winds of Regulatory Change

    The agency’s fiscal year 2024 enforcement in the crypto industry resulted in fines and investor relief totaling $8.2 billion.

    With the record-high penalties, the number of cases tumbled 26 percent compared to the previous year.

    “The Division of Enforcement is a steadfast cop on the beat, following the facts and the law wherever they lead to hold wrongdoers accountable,” Gensler said in a statement attached to the announcement.

    This comes as the SEC outlined its aims for the new year.

    In October, the SEC’s Division of Examinations published its Fiscal Year 2025 Examination Priorities.

    The report reiterated the SEC’s position to continue monitoring the crypto sector, including investment advisers, broker-dealers, and other financial intermediaries that sell digital assets or facilitate transactions.

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington on Sept. 18, 2008. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    “Examinations of registrants will focus on the offer, sale, recommendation, advice, trading, and other activities involving crypto assets that are offered and sold as securities or related products, such as spot bitcoin or ether exchange-traded products,” the report stated.

    With a new regime set to take the reins, market watchers are bracing for change, especially with prominent crypto advocates leading various departments, including Scott Bessent as treasury secretary and Howard Lutnick as commerce secretary.

    For now, industry experts are submitting recommendations in the suggestions box.

    Stuart Alderoty, the chief legal officer of blockchain-based digital payment company Ripple, outlined several priorities the Trump transition team should consider when choosing the next SEC head.

    On the new administration’s first day, Alderoty thinks the federal government should end non-fraud crypto litigation and ensure commissioners Mark Uyeda and Hester Peirce remain at the regulatory body, he said on X.

    Uyeda and Peirce have been crypto’s allies at the SEC.

    Uyeda, in an interview with FOX Business’s “Varney & Co.,” agreed with the president-elect that the “war on crypto needs to stop.”

    “There are a number of things that we can do with respect to crypto to help make America one of the global leaders in crypto,” he said.

    The SEC needs to provide clarity, produce safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes for investors, and advocate for a whole-of-government “cohesive and comprehensive approach to crypto,” Uyeda said.

    “President Trump and the American electorate have sent a clear message. Starting in 2025, the SEC’s role is to carry out that mandate,” he said.

    Peirce, speaking on the “CryptoCounsel” podcast this month, has touted more open dialogue between the crypto industry and SEC regulators.

    The Ripple CLO has echoed this sentiment, supporting improved relations between lawmakers, regulators, and market participants.

    “Collaborate with all financial regulators and Congress on clear and simple rules for crypto, but without presuming that those rules give the SEC primary jurisdiction over anything,” Alderoty wrote.

    “Guarantee accountability and restore public trust by addressing past issues within the SEC by emboldening the Office of Inspector General.”

    Alderoty also proposed rescinding the SEC’s 2019 Framework for Investment Contract Analysis of Digital Assets, which was published after the industry called for better regulatory clarity between securities laws and blockchain-based tokens.

    This guidance, which is neither a rule nor a regulation, offers a blueprint for determining whether a digital asset possesses the characteristics of an investment contract (security).

    With Republican control of Congress, lawmakers are likely to adopt a “principles and disclosure-based” approach to policymaking, says Dorothy DeWitt, a former director of market oversight at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    Enforcement will also likely target high-risk areas of the crypto market, such as national security, fraud, and misconduct, she said.

    “Finally, a path to regulatory clarity will almost certainly involve registration of exchanges, intermediaries and digital assets securities, and implementation of more extensive disclosure standards as well as formal compliance with agency-prescribed principles,” DeWitt said in a Nov. 18 post for the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum.

    Despite the winds of change expected to blow through the crypto sector, industry parties should not anticipate significant policy and regulatory changes immediately.

    Instead, DeWitt notes, these adjustments could “take place over a year or more, not months.”

    Since Trump’s electoral victory, Bitcoin prices have rocketed to all-time highs and were a few hundred dollars short of reaching $100,000.

    The growth in the chief cryptocurrency, which controls 58 percent of the market, has lifted other digital tokens, from stablecoins to altcoins.

    A spokesperson for Securities and Exchange Commission declined a request for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 20:55

  • Niall Ferguson, Scott Horton To Debate Ukraine War Tomorrow Evening In ZeroHedge Exclusive
    Niall Ferguson, Scott Horton To Debate Ukraine War Tomorrow Evening In ZeroHedge Exclusive

    Despite Trump’s promises to bring a swift end to the war in Ukraine by negotiating with Russia, the war has escalated to a dangerous inflection point with long-range U.S., British, and French missiles being deployed deep in Russian territory and talks of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine. That… and anonymous officials in the New York Times saying what is impossible to believe:

    “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications,” the newspaper wrote.

    Amid the chaos, ZeroHedge will be hosting preeminent historians Sir Niall Ferguson and Scott Horton to debate the history of the conflict and U.S. policy in the region. They will be joined by the Hoover Institute’s Peter Robinson (if you’ve seen a Thomas Sowell interview, it was probably his).

    Join us at 7pm ET right here on the ZeroHedge homepage (as well as Twitter/X and YouTube channels) for an epic matchup that you won’t find anywhere else.

    Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. He’s written over a dozen books on geopolitical and monetary history.

    Horton is the founder of the Libertarian Institute and recently published his book, Provoked, on the history of the war in Ukraine and decades of rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia.

    We hope you’ll join us on the eve of Thanksgiving. Recent war context included below:

    ***

    Nukes for Ukraine?!

    Days ago, The NY Times revealed that US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including the possibility of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire,” the report said.

    The article then stated, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

    Former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev has responded by pointing out that if the West actually went forward with transferring nukes to Ukraine, this would be seen as tantamount to an attack on Russia. He explained that this is a key aspect of Russia’s newly expanded nuclear doctrine.

    Image source: Presidency of Russia

    In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev specifically referenced the recent NY Times report, and said: “Looks like my sad joke about crazy senile Biden, who’s eager to go out with a bang and take a substantial part of humanity with him, is becoming dangerously real.”

    Medvedev then stressed that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power” is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have “massive paranoid psychosis.”

    His biggest and most specific threat came as follows: 

    “The fact of transferring such weapons may be considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence’,” Medvedev wrote.

    Talk of NATO Troops

    Prominent French publication Le Monde on Monday followed by saying serious discussions over injecting Western troops into the war have intensified in the last days: 

    As the conflict in Ukraine enters a new phase of escalation, discussions over sending Western troops and private defense companies to Ukraine have been revived, Le Monde has learned from corroborating sources. These are sensitive discussions, most of which are classified – relaunched in light of a potential American withdrawal of support for Kyiv once Donald Trump takes office on January 20, 2025.

    Britain is once again at the forefront of urging NATO’s deeper involvement in the war, which threatens at any moment to explode into WW3 among nuclear-armed powers. Enter Keir Starmer… in the hawkish footsteps of Boris Johnson:

    However, it was relaunched in recent weeks thanks to the visit to France of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, for the November 11th commemorations. “Discussions are underway between the UK and France on defense cooperation, particularly with a view to creating a hard core of allies in Europe, focused on Ukraine and wider European security,” confided a British military source to Le Monde.

    Jean-Noël Barro’s aforementioned words about ‘no options’ ruled out appears to have been a reflection on these continued ‘sensitive’ conversations.

    There have been more reports of US-supplied ATACMS launches on Russian territory since their initial use last week:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 20:30

  • "Superheroes" Reflect Our Powerlessness
    “Superheroes” Reflect Our Powerlessness

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    And so we end up back in MovieLand, where we vicariously experience having powers we do not possess in real life.

    Films reflect the collective unconscious in ironic ways. During the Great Depression, films didn’t dwell on the miseries of real life; they were carefree concoctions making light of the idle rich (The Thin Man, 1934, My Man Godfrey, 1936), with the realistic (but still ending on a positive note) The Grapes of Wrath arriving a decade into the Depression in 1940.

    In contrast, the boom years of the 1950s were the heyday of dark-themed Noir films that explored (and exploited) the underbelly of human nature and American life.

    Cast in this light, what do we make of our multi-decade cultural embrace of Superhero films? We can try to write it all off as Hollywood’s happy discovery of an entire realm of “tentpole” franchises that can be milked for billions of dollars in reliable revenues, but this misses the undertow of cultural significances.

    Is it coincidence that the decades of Superhero worship track the rise of our collective powerlessness over the shape of our future? I sense the outrage and indignation this ignites–how dare you say we’re powerless, we have more power over our lives than ever before.

    For a contrarian view, let’s tap the 1964 classic by Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (this link is to a free PDF of the book, with gratitude to correspondent Bruce M. for bringing this book to my attention). It is impossible to summarize a 500-page book dense with important ideas, but let’s start with Ellul’s insight into our collective powerlessness over the future course of the economy and our own daily lives.

    In essence, Ellul explains how technology and the ever-expanding need for profitable investments control our collective future. Once the basic human needs have been met–shelter, food, water, education, medical care, etc.–then investment opportunities aren’t driven by human need, but by technology’s continuous advance.

    Did humanity really “need” every appliance to have WiFi? No. Technology generated WiFi and the need for investment opportunities then generated The Internet of Things (IOT) which spawned vast new product lines–appliances with WiFi. Coupled with the the collapse of quality and durability, this technology led to water heaters having WiFi, just in case your phone doesn’t have enough apps, alarms, chirps and notifications.

    That water heaters once cost $160 and now cost $500 is the financial payoff of advancing technology creating new opportunities to invest capital. For if capital can’t find new opportunities to invest and grow profits, the economy slides into Depression, and that ghastly prospect looms in the collective unconscious as the nightmare to be avoided at all costs.

    And so microwave ovens now have a second “child safety button” that must be pushed first to open the door. Safety is a ready-made excuse for adding whatever technology has come up with, and as we scan the horizon, it’s already abundantly clear that the tens of billions of dollars gushing into AI will be followed by trillions of dollars seeking higher profits from putting some simulacrum of AI into every device, every appliance, every app and indeed every technology, not because it improves our well-being but because it’s the investment opportunity that we desperately need to avoid the cataclysm of Depression.

    We are powerless to question this process, much less resist it, and so we revel in fantasies of super-powers that enable the defeat of powerful forces that threaten us. That AI will automate away entire sectors of human livelihoods–we’re powerless to resist that, just as we’re powerless to stop the collapse of durability and the Anti-Progress of useless complexity and the ever-greater demands on us to perform unpaid shadow work to keep all the complexity duct-taped together so we can maintain all the technologies that we are now dependent on, not by choice but because there is no choice.

    The cavalcade of superheroes reflect our powerlessness and our yearning for actual control of our lives rather then the simulacrum of consumer choice of products and services that don’t serve our well-being, they serve the one true need, to expand opportunities to invest.

    Ellul’s insights from 60 years ago also illuminate our desire for real-world political-financial Superheroes who will set the world right again. But political solutions are another form of fantasy, as I explained in Why Political “Solutions” Don’t Fix Crises, They Make Them Worse (10/2/24). Hoping that giving other mortals power will restore our own power over our own lives is akin to hoping that technology will magically transform itself from humanity’s Monster Id into a machine that oversees us with loving kindness, or as poet Richard Brautigan put it, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.

    Sci-Fi movie fans know that the Monster Id is from the classic film Forbidden Planet: the limitless power of the planet’s immense technological machinery is guided by thoughts, and since there are no filters on what thoughts guide the technology, all the dark drives of the Id are amplified by technological powers, such that the Monster Id melts solid steel doors like butter in its quest to destroy the mind that created it.

    And so we end up back in MovieLand, where we vicariously experience having powers we do not possess in real life. The power we still have is not a superpower; it is a merely human power to opt out, to choose not to participate, to limit our exposure to a world guided by investment opportunities and the moral vacuum of technology that is blind to all but its own advancement.

    That all technological advancement is good is, well, a lie. Much of what’s presented as Progress is actually Anti-Progress, a theme of my new book The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century.

    If all we believe boils down to “technology good, investment opportunities good,” then we’ve relinquished the ability to distinguish between truth and lies, and as Hannah Arendt observed, the difference between right and wrong.

    This too is powerlessness, a black hole from which there is no technological escape.

    *  *  *

    Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

    Subscribe to my Substack for free

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 20:05

  • Russian State Media: 'How Fast Can Oreshnik Missile Hit US Bases Across The World?'
    Russian State Media: ‘How Fast Can Oreshnik Missile Hit US Bases Across The World?’

    Russia continues to warn the West over its newly unveiled Oreshnik medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile. The Kremlin days ago touted that Washington has now understood and better been able to grasp Putin’s warnings and red lines more clearly after last Thursday’s missile strike on a Ukrainian defense industry facility in Dnepropetrovsk. Importantly, the Oreshnik is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

    State media has produced yet another ominous segment showcasing the purported reach of the new hypersonic weapon. The Sputnik segment emphasized that Europe has no protection against such a missile which can reach Mach 11, and it even warned it can reach many US missile bases.

    The publication wrote, “Check out Sputnik’s video to learn how quickly the Oreshnik missiles can reach US bases in the Middle East, in the Pacific and Alaska, as well as the missile silos in the United States.” Watch below:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Below is some of the information claimed of the Oreshnik missile, featured in the Russian publication.

    * * *

    How fast can the Oreshnik missile hit US bases across the world?

    1. Middle East Distance and flight time from southern Russia:  

    US airbase in Kuwait: 2,100 km, 11 minutes;   

    US 5th Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain: 2,500 km, 12 minutes;  

    US Air Base in Qatar: 2,650 km, 13 minutes;  

    US Air Base in Djibouti: 4,100 km, 20 minutes.

    2. Pacific and Alaska Distance and flight time from Kamchatka:  

    Air Base in Alaska: 2,400 km, 12 minutes;  

    US Air Force and Navy Base in Guam: 4,500 km, 22 minutes;   

    US Air Force and Navy Bases in Pearl Harbor: 5,100 km, 25 minutes.

    3. Minuteman III missile silos Distance and flight time from Chukotka:  

    Minuteman III missile silos in Montana: 4,700 km, 23 minutes;  

    Minuteman III missile silos in Minot,

    North Dakota: 4,900 km, 24 minutes.

    * * * 

    Russian Defense Ministry, handout via Reuters

    Last Friday, Russian state media sources have begun publishing specs for the Oreshnik missile, claiming it flies at Mach 10+, and can reach 5,500km in distance, or 3,400+ miles (as a medium-range weapon).

    A retired Russian Army colonel and military analyst, identified as Viktor Litovkin, has described, “The West does not have missiles that fly at such a speed or hypersonic missiles at all.” He claimed further, “Although the US has repeatedly boasted that it has such missiles, it has never demonstrated a missile flight. They appeared to show missiles that flew at a supersonic speed of 5.5 times the speed of sound or Mach 5.5. However, hypersonic speed begins at Mach 6-7.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 19:40

  • The Libs Are Not Alright
    The Libs Are Not Alright

    Authored by Dante Moretti via American Mind.org,

    Political fearmongering has real psychological consequences…

    In the wake of Donald Trump’s crushing victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, social media has been flooded with videos of apartment- or vehicle-bound neurotics screaming, banging pots and pans in sheer disbelief, packing their belongings, or generally convulsing as if Kristallnacht were upon us. The American public has been introduced to the 4B movement, in which liberal women appropriate a South Korean sex strike because justice.

    To be sure, social media is at best a caricature of real life. Only the most dramatic individuals will shave their heads for “reproductive rights” (read: for likes), but most people do not express themselves in quite such a hyperbolic register. That said, in this case the memes are imitating real life. Not every ex-Kamala voter is experiencing a full-scale breakdown. But judging based on my own clinical observations as a practicing therapist, I think it may well be true that a significant number of young American leftists are going through a collective mental health crisis.

    I speak from some experience, having spent multiple hours per day over the past few weeks hearing from clients about the damage inflicted upon their psyches “by the Trump win.” This is their account of things. My own opinion, however, is that someone has subjected these kids to psychic trauma. But it wasn’t Donald Trump.

    First Things

    I usually begin each appointment by reminding clients of our previous appointment, whereupon the client usually picks up where he or she left off, telling me about personal struggles, generational dynamics, or relationship problems. But since Trump’s victory, a startling number of clients have simply pivoted to another subject entirely. Usually I hear some variation of “I just can’t. I just can’t,” before I am told, with some incredulity that it needs saying, that it is impossible to focus on anything other than THE ELECTION.

    When, after listening to a client’s political fears, I gently suggest that we should now get back to discussing his husband’s death, cocaine use, crushing panic while driving, infidelity, or what have you, I am waved off as if we needed a full clinical hour to talk about Trump, WW3, reproductive rights, or a future daughter’s reproductive rights. Maybe the most jarring comment I heard was from a client who expressed relief that a close relative had already died and thus escaped “this sh*t that’s about to go down.” 

    One truism I’ve observed in my practice is: “you love what you pay attention to.” I am not saying that my clients spend $180 to talk about the election because they don’t care about their addiction, spouses, etc. But I am saying that they are choosing to prioritize, and therefore nourish, their hatred for Trump. This of course increases their distress, which increases their hatred. This is not a vicious cycle they all just stumbled into by unfortunate happenstance. They were taught incessantly—by friends, by online forums, by figures they trust in the media—that Trump trumps all.

    Spiraling Out

    Practitioners of what’s called positive psychology will often talk in terms of clients’ tendency to fixate on either an external or an internal locus of control. Different individuals will either instinctually take responsibility for problems that arise, or defer responsibility to another person, system, or institution. A teenage boy who gets caught with weed, if his natural locus of control is internal, will admit fault and responsibility even if everyone else on the soccer team tried it at the party. A boy whose natural inclination is external will cite peer pressure, or insist that his friends’ parents said it was fine. Although one type of locus isn’t necessarily better than the other, the external locus of control does tend to foster victimhood. Often it needs to be counterbalanced by inward focus in order to facilitate agency and improvement. Taking radical responsibility for one’s issues is a key engine of change.

    I have been working with some of my clients for quite some time now, and many have gradually learned to shift their locus of control inward. This has aided them in their mental health pursuits. But one common trait I have noticed amongst my Trump-focused clients is that, when the Orange Man comes up, they dart instantly back to an external locus of control. After the election, many of them have taken notable steps backward in our work together. One client even reverted to a cocaine habit after three months of sobriety because “What’s the point now?”

    Another client who struggles with depression reported just sitting in bed to “rot” for two days straight. Others have threatened to cut off their parents because they don’t know how they can possibly have another conversation with family members who voted for Trump. These clients are spiraling back out to an external locus of control.

    The tragic element in all these cases is that these fragile individuals have been violently interrupted in their healing progress by a completely imaginary evil, projected in Hitler-moustachioed IMAX across the pages of The New Republic, blared from the anchor’s desk on CNN, and generally beaten into the heads of everyone in their immediate circle of trust. And though I personally make a principle of never sharing my political beliefs, some therapists actually encourage their clients’ persecution complexes by adopting an overtly ideological approach, attributing trauma to “systems” of racism, sexism, or homophobia. The effects of this are as you would expect. It is the opposite of helpful.

    The Stanford- and Harvard-trained psychiatrist Dr. Paul Conti has qualified what exactly, good mental health means. According to Dr. Conti, someone who exemplifies good mental health, and therefore someone who can be considered “well-adjusted,” cultivates an attitude of gratitude and a feeling of personal autonomy. Keeping this definition in mind, one does not need to be a trained psychotherapist to understand how mental health has deteriorated so grievously in the past 20 or so years, especially among those who lean Left.

    When parents, teachers, university professors, and statesmen espouse a rhetoric of ingratitude and dependence, it is no wonder why much of the public suffer from anxiety, depression, and compulsion. Of course, we will laugh at the libs of TikTok shaving their heads and screaming in their cars. But we have to realize this is not the worst of it. If anything, those who engage in such spectacles may have more promise, given that they are more than likely to be opportunistic actors who abandon their political ideas as lightly as they take them up. But we should not laugh at those who break their sobriety, or plunge into isolation because of the Trump victory. They are truly sick, and ideological bad actors have preyed off their desperation for personal clout, terrorizing them with confected fears and then discarding them to suffer the psychological consequences.

    There’s a mental health crisis in this country—on this we can all agree. But the peddlers of Trump Derangement Syndrome don’t seem to care that their cynical, apocalyptic politics bear no small part of the blame.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 19:15

  • Why Trump's Tariffs Underwhelmed The Market, And Why Was Vietnam Excluded
    Why Trump’s Tariffs Underwhelmed The Market, And Why Was Vietnam Excluded

    As we reported last night, president-elect Trump announced he intends to levy a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on imports from China. Tariffs on Mexico and Canada would remain in place until the flow of “drugs, in particular fentanyl, and all illegal aliens stop,” while tariffs on China would remain in place “until such time as [the drugs that are pouring into our country] stop”.  He also stated that on January 20th he would “sign all necessary documents” to implement the tariffs on Mexico and Canada as one of his “many first Executive Orders”.

    To be sure, Trump has proposed most of this before, in different forms:

    • in May 2019, he announced a tariff that would rise to 25% on imports from Mexico, effective 10 days later, if Mexico did not address immigration, but the tariff was never imposed.
    • On Nov. 4, 2024, he also pledged to impose a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico, again related to immigration.
    • On Canada, he has announced the intent to renegotiate USMCA but has not formally threatened tariffs, so the announcement is somewhat more surprising.
    • On China, the tariffs are notably lower than the 60% he proposed during the campaign but, if imposed, might not be the only tariff on imports from China.

    Overall, the announcement is more reminiscent of the first Trump administration, when such tariffs were announced as a negotiating tactic, rather than the more systematic tariff policies (e.g., the 10-20% “universal baseline tariff”) Trump frequently discussed during the campaign.

    Some more details: 43% of US goods imports come from Mexico (15.4%), Canada (13.6%), and China (13.9%).

    At the proposed tariff rates, this would generate slightly less than $300bn (or 1.0% of GDP) in tariff revenue annually, without accounting for dynamic effects, such as changes to import volumes and prices or taxable incomes, and boost the US effective tariff rate by 8.6% (Goldman’s rule of thumb is that every 1% increase in the effective tariff rate would raise core PCE prices by 0.1%), while the proposed tariff increases would also boost core PCE prices by 0.9% if implemented.

    In its commentary on the tariff announcement, Goldman political analyst Alex Phillips writes that while he had assumed tariffs on imports from China will rise early next year, it is more likely Mexico and Canada will avoid across-the-board tariffs. Phillips also notes that if implemented, these are about three times as large as the China and auto tariffs the bank assumes in its baseline economic forecasts but slightly smaller than a 10% universal tariff.

    In a separate note from Goldman Delta One trader Rich Privorotsky (available here for pro subs), he writes that the bigger surprise in the Trump proposal is Canada. To this point, Goldman tried to calibrate the FX impact of tariffs by assessing the importance of US trade for different economies and the complexity of the products they produce: here the Loonie stands out too.

    Privo also found it curious that China’s HSI was actually up for most the session having now eventually back some its gains (now unch) and believes that “if tariffs on China went up only another 10% I think relative to expectations that have been built up this might be taken as a modest positive.”

    Privorotsky also suggests that Trump’s announcement is another part of the wall of worry for Europe. Tariffs are known risk  (unknown in magnitude) and “it’s the waiting that is really the problem.” So while it make sense for European stocks to be down in sympathy on the news (especially after some hopefulness that recent cabinet picks might mean a less hawkish approach), he would argue that a 25% tariff on Canada (biggest source of trade is the import of energy) is likely more of a negotiating tactic rather than a likely outcome.

    Bottom line: while the CAD will lurch lower on this, it will likely find support.

    Turning to China, Goldman’s EM strategist Sun Lu focuses on the silver lining, i.e., “it’s priced in”, and lays out the following analysis (excerpted from her full note available to pro subs). 

    Dovish views:

    • if Trump starts with China on 10% tariff in order to push China stop fentanyl into US, this is one of the easy areas to agree with China during previous trade talks and bilateral meetings. In August, China already agreed with Biden administration to impose controls on production of critical chemicals for the manufacturing of fentanyl.
    • Trump clearly wants to use these tariffs as leverage, to push Canada, Mexico and China to impose tougher restrictions on the above matters, thus there is a clear path of tariff suspension if such conditions are met.  

    FX response:

    • CNY fixing still sticky, onshore spot above 7.25. MXN and CAD response more. Post headline, USDCNY midpoint fixing came in 7.1910, 8pips below last reflecting weaker DXY yesterday. Fixing bias is 484pips on the stronger side, similar magnitude compared to recent week. This fixing follows similar sticky pattern as seen in recent weeks, with clear bias to defend 7.2 in fixing this year.
    • Goldman continues to expect PBOC may defend 7.2 fixing and limit CNH selloff to 7.30 area this year, before actual tariff announcement and prepare for negotiations. USDCNH TN may go higher again after the recent dip. CNH pressure trades including points higher and long USDCNH-USDCNY basis may benefit again.
    • Meanwhile, onshore USDCNY spot went above 7.25 for the first time in recent month. With today’s fixing, onshore spot can theoretically go up to 7.3348 still, per 2% daily trading band.
    • In comparison, MXN and CAD has reacted more, selling off ~1% vs 20bp for CNH. In Asia, the other currencies with strong intervention willingness at current level (KRW, IDR) are likely to continue outperform.

    What trades does Lu like? Continue to like owning 1y USDCNH, USDTWD and USDSGD topside, funded by selling short-dated downside. The Goldman strategist prefers to be long USD ahead of actual tariff announcements rather than just headlines.

    Finally, we go to Goldman EM vol trader trader Sanjiv Nanwani who writes that “the market remains in a holding pattern despite early AM tariff headlines – but as far as China is concerned, the tariffs seem to underwhelm what is already expected, and in any case, the authorities are clearly unwilling to let FX move as evidenced by the ~unchanged USDCNY fix today.”

    The vol market seems to suggest the same – don’t expect spot to do a whole lot before the inauguration. Nanwani found  that a little surprising, “as we now have confirmation that Trump is already contemplating tariff policy and is prepared to announce them ahead of his formal inauguration, which the market will surely have to re-price in response to.”

    Nanwani likes owning some cheap 1mth USD calls here, notwithstanding the poor realized performance (suppressed by the fix) over the past 1-2 weeks. Further out, the market remains very keen on holding onto term premium, keeping calendars uber steep but creating a very high bar for the delivery of realized performance – there is a real risk that the premium decay on some option structures will more than offset expected gains from delta. He therefore likes vol-selling strategies in 3mth+ expiries, particularly via USD bull seagulls, to benefit from both the inverted forward curve and steep vol curve. ATM run: 1m 4.6 3m 6.1 6m 6.6 1y 6.9.

    It’s not just Goldman however: in a note to clients (available to pro subs), SouthBay Research this morning reminds us that while attention is focused on China, it really should be on Vietnam; here’s why:

    • In 2012, Vietnam exported $19B in goods to the United States.  A lot of raw materials and foodstuffs, and a lot of assembled electronic parts. By 2017, 5 years later, the value was $49B. This year, it is likely to reach $133B.
    • Not coincidentally, Chinese exports to the US have dwindled over the same period.  And by almost the same amount.
    • Vietnam isn’t the only way Chinese production enters the US and bypasses trade and tariffs on Chinese goods.  Mexico has become a major off ramp as well.

    Here is the timeline to consider:

    • 2017 – Trump initiates a trade war
    • 2018/2019 – China leverages Vietnam to begin bypassing restrictions.  Chinese direct exports fall, Vietnam’s exports surge
    • 2020-22 – Trend reverses as China exports recover (Trump exit, COVID drives consumer demand).  Port congestion elevates Mexico as an alternative route into the US
    • 2023-24 – China direct exports continue to fall and indirect exports continue to rise

    Next, and especially for all the inflation alarmists, it is worth noting that there was minimal inflationary impact in the last trade war:

    • Trump initiated tariffs on China in 2018 and the downstream impact on consumer prices was minimal at best.  A key reason is that China is so dependent on US market access that they absorbed the higher costs and kept prices relatively flat.
    • Fast forward to today and China is even more economically weak today and even more dependent on keeping factories running, which is why they may absorb another round of tariff-induced hits.  It is likely that Chinese government support will increase in order to prioritize capacity utilization & employment over profits.

    In this context, the real question – according to Southbay – is why doesn’t Trump also Tariff Vietnam?

    Consider this: in 2023, registered Chinese investment in Vietnam was $8.3B. Thanks to offshoring production by Chinese manufacturers, Vietnam has become a player in the global supply chain.  

    This is a response to Trump initiated tariffs whereby OEMs like Apple want to de-risk their exposure to China. Despite proclamations of de-risking and ‘internationalizing the supply chain’, these moves don’t really change the reality that products and components are still sourced from Chinese producers.

    Given that it’s obviously a shell-game, why isn’t Trump lumping Vietnam into the anti-China trade tariffs?  Here, geopolitics is the most likely reason.

    There is a containment policy in place.  While it’s nice to talk about democracy, the major reason for US support of Taiwan is power projection: Taiwan sits at the underbelly of China. With South Korea and Japan to the East, and Taiwan and the Philippines to the South, the US and allies have China surrounded. In case war breaks out with China, a naval blockade would be very effective and complete.

    Or almost complete, as Vietnam would seal the deal. Turning Vietnam into a friendly ally would plug a big hole in the shipping routes out of Hong Kong. Ships would have to thread a path between Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan.

    In other words, it’s not just negotiation, but more like foreplay… and at the moment there is a courtship underway.  China is throwing billions of dollars at Vietnam. The US not so much.  But Vietnam is wary of China and might want an American military presence.

    Trump belligerence towards Vietnam would not create necessary goodwill. Which also means that as long as Trump plays softball with Vietnam, China will continue to bypass most if not all of the tariff threat.

    More in the full note from Southbay available to pro subs.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 18:50

  • A Whimper, Not A Bang: Where Was Antifa After Trump's Victory?
    A Whimper, Not A Bang: Where Was Antifa After Trump’s Victory?

    Authored by David Reaboi via Late Republic Nonsense,

    Perhaps the only disappointment for those of us elated with the outcome of this month’s presidential election was the muted, downcast response from the Left at Donald Trump’s massive victory.

    We’d expected angry riots from purple-haired Antifa goons; emotive demonstrations of impotent and self-righteous defiance by Handmaid’s Tale cosplayers; and, maybe best of all, delicious cable news highlight reels reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s surprise defeat in 2016. The quiet sobbing we got instead came as somewhat of a surprise. 

    For the Left, it all seemed to end, as it did at Kamala Harris’s victory party at Howard University, with a whimper. There was no defiant or fiery speech that night; in fact, the candidate wasn’t seen at all, unwilling to face even the dedicated supporters who had worked hardest for her candidacy. Over the next few days, while there was some hissing and a few entertaining misfiring synapses at MSNBC and CNN — including some angry denunciations of elements of the Democrat coalition — the emotion seemed forced and perfunctory. 

    For many, though, the downbeat response to Trump’s victory seemed out of place, given the feverish severity of how Democrats had articulated the stakes of this election. In her final month, Harris’s campaign dispensed with messaging on any issues, leaning hard into explicit comparisons of Trump with Adolf Hitler, and of MAGA politics with fascism and Nazism, evoking the specter of American death camps in the event of the ex-president’s victory.

    Using a strategically-timed news-hook from former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly, Harris stared gravely into the camera outside her residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory, warning that her opponent was no longer simply a “threat to democracy” but, as a Hitlerian-Nazi-Fascist, was openly dedicated to its destruction. The setting, too, was significant: rather than simply reaching down into the rhetorical gutter at a campaign stop, she was using the trappings of her role as vice president to make an official pronouncement on a rival domestic political leader, using language usually reserved for foreign enemies with whom we are at war. The bloody result of a Trump victory, Harris and her media surrogates assured us, was certain.

    While some in the press had never been shy of slandering Donald Trump as a “fascist,” the message coming from the candidate herself marked a serious escalation.

    After all, when faced with an enemy that would extinguish all freedom in America and usher in a holocaust, procedural resistance in courtrooms or acts of civil disobedience are plainly inadequate. With the evil of a Hitler, there is no negotiation, comity, civility, or ordinary politics; only violent resistance is commensurate with the threat.

    Some on the Left received the message clearly, as intended. Even before Harris herself began referring to him as a “fascist,” Trump had already been the attempted victim of two failed assassinations. Immediately following the first shooter’s very near miss, the New Republic all but endorsed this violent, final solution to the Trumpian problem, revealing a menacing, monochrome drawing of the former president on its cover complete with Hitler mustache. And below the image — subtle, in the color of dried blood — was the headline, “American Fascism: What It Would Look Like” in faux-Germanic typeface. Scandalously, law enforcement disappeared any information about the would-be assassins’ motives, saving the Democrats having to address the fact that their manifestos dovetailed too closely with the party’s messaging.

    All this gathered momentum and intensity in the press until, on the evening of November 5, “our sacred democracy” simply ended. Donald Trump won the electoral college and the popular vote by wide margins, and his party was in control of every branch of the Federal government. The people had spoken with a clear and resounding voice. If you’d been following the speeches of Vice President Harris, you’d assume that what they wanted was Nazi Germany.

    When the defeated Democrat finally emerged in public early the next evening, however, her tone had shifted. “Earlier today,” she told the crowd, “I spoke with President-elect Trump and congratulated him on his victory. I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition…” Would she congratulate Hitler for his victory? Would she help Hitler’s team during their transition? 

    The Democrats had gone to the very edge of American discourse — beyond which is the disintegration of normal political life — and then, when they’d been repudiated by the voters, meekly pulled back. By stubbornly denying us our riots and hoped-for schadenfreude, the Left had us confused. We on the Right weren’t the only ones expecting immediate rage from Antifa and aligned groups in the event of a Republican victory; after all, half of downtown Washington, D.C., was boarded up in anticipation of election night. Why did nothing happen?

    The surface explanation, of course, is that the Democrats didn’t really believe any of it; all that rhetorical venom was merely cynical election year politics at the final crunch of a close election. That theory certainly has some merit, based on the warm, smiling welcome with which Joe Biden received the victorious former president at the White House. And, while corrosive to social cohesion, the gambit made strategic sense: as Trump was gaining momentum in the final weeks, Democrats began to grow despondent. Harris’s campaign needed to raise the temperature to make sure her most committed voters got to the polls. 

    Even if the leadership of the Democratic Party and its surrogates in the media were simply generating outrage, millions of Americans in their audiences now believe, with conviction, that the long night of fascism has finally descended on America. The rhetoric naturally calls to mind Antifa, the bands of militant “Antifascists” who inflicted so much disorder on the country during the first Trump administration. For many on the Right, the trauma of the Black Lives Matter riots on the heels of Covid in 2020 — followed by Trump being turned out of the White House the next January — has made us understandably jumpy about black-blocs and cities ablaze in destructive, ideological rage.

    Harris’s scurrilous rhetoric about Trump’s alleged fondness for Hitler, however, wasn’t aimed at bringing Antifa’s violent shock troops into the streets, but at radicalizing the far larger cohort of mainstream Democrats. (After all, Antifa believes both Biden and Harris qualify as “fascists” and, for good measure, “war criminals.”) But Antifa has always been more strategic than it is reactive, and it’s far more concerned with revolutionary politics than with the electoral variety.

    For many of the senior Antifa thinkers and organizers, the model of 1968 continues to resonate: even as the protests against the Vietnam War had been gaining strength for a half-decade, it wasn’t until the election of Richard Nixon that the Left’s mass-movement exploded. Presented with the foil of a “law-and-order” Republican hate-object, the intensity of the anti-war protest movement ballooned, leading to the radicalization of militant groups like the Weather Underground into outright terrorism.

    This was only achievable with the assistance of the media; unencumbered by the balancing act of having to defend a Democrat president, print and television journalists created a roar of grassroots anger that provided far-Left radicals with new recruits, funding, and energy. The parallels to Trump’s return to the White House are significant, and the opportunity for a replay of this dynamic has certainly not escaped Antifa’s strategic thinkers.

    It’s a common misconception that Left-wing violent protest is a spasm of powerlessness. While a David and Goliath narrative is useful in many overseas conflicts, in the United States, violent protest is most useful when it can be used as an expression of majority frustration against an easily identifiable (and beatable) tyrannical minority. Regardless of income bracket, Americans like to think of themselves as middle-class, have a bourgeois investment in the continuance of society, and resent violent revolutionaries and anarchists. 

    Unlike in Europe, significant Left-wing violent riots in America don’t appear spontaneously in response to lost elections; they exist in the context of more sweeping political mobilizations that can plausibly be described by allied media as “largely peaceful.” As with Nixon and the anti-war movement, the media is the essential element in creating conditions for justifying the cause of unrest and ignoring or contextualizing violent excesses.

    In this way, Antifa is useful as a fearsome tip of the spear, then melting away into a grander social justice narrative that is, on its surface, familiar and sympathetic rather than threatening. As such, all successful modern Left-wing movements in this country are framed in the language of civil rights. The successes of the Left’s modern race-oriented protest movements — Trayvon Martin (2012), Michael Brown (2014), and George Floyd (2020) — illustrate that the Left learned valuable lessons about the kind of topical triggers that work, and those that fail. The coming mass mobilization in response to Trump’s promises on immigration and deportation will be an obvious inciting event, and law enforcement needs to be prepared, especially in blue states.

    In short, we didn’t see post-election violence or mass protests because the scale of Trump’s victory meant that such rioting would appear — at least temporarily — as the angry self-indulgence of a minority that had been legitimately beaten at the ballot box. But the riots will come soon enough, and Antifa will menace the streets once again. While it wouldn’t have served to activate them during or after the 2024 campaign, the Democrats’ rhetoric about fascism and Nazism is a boon to Antifa, which looks forward to being presented again (as it was memorably in 2020, storming the beach at Normandy) as “freedom fighters” in the media’s next just cause.

    Subscribe to Late Republic Nonsense here

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 18:25

  • Transfer Of Nukes To Ukraine Would Be Tantamount To Attack On Russia: Medvedev
    Transfer Of Nukes To Ukraine Would Be Tantamount To Attack On Russia: Medvedev

    Days ago, The NY Times revealed that US and European officials have discussed a range of options they believe will deter Russia from taking more Ukrainian territory, including the possibility of providing Kiev with nuclear weapons. “US and European officials are discussing deterrence as a possible security guarantee for Ukraine, such as stockpiling a conventional arsenal sufficient to strike a punishing blow if Russia violates a cease-fire,” the report said.

    The article then stated, “Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

    Former Russian president and current deputy chairman of the Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev has responded by pointing out that if the West actually went forward with transferring nukes to Ukraine, this would be seen as tantamount to an attack on Russia. He explained that this is a key aspect of Russia’s newly expanded nuclear doctrine.

    Image source: Presidency of Russia

    In a Telegram post on Tuesday, Medvedev specifically referenced the recent NY Times report, and said: “Looks like my sad joke about crazy senile Biden, who’s eager to go out with a bang and take a substantial part of humanity with him, is becoming dangerously real.”

    Medvedev then stressed that “giving nukes to a country that’s at war with the greatest nuclear power” is so absurd that Biden and any of his officials considering it must have “massive paranoid psychosis.”

    His biggest and most specific threat came as follows: 

    “The fact of transferring such weapons may be considered as the launch of an attack against our country in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the ‘Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence’,” Medvedev wrote.

    President Putin had formally approved a lowering of the threshold for nuclear weapons use on November 19. The change has been widely seen as in response to Ukraine being authorized by the Western allies to use US-made ATACMS and HIMARS systems, and British-made Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles on Russian territory.

    The aforementioned NY Times report did note that President Putin doesn’t appear ready to actually significantly escalate the war, giving a chance for the Trump administration to take office.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “But the escalation risk of allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with US-supplied weaponry has diminished with the election of Mr. Trump,” the report said, and added: “Biden administration officials believe, calculating that Putin of Russia knows he has to wait only two months for the new administration.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 18:00

  • If Politics Were Business, Regulators Would Bust It
    If Politics Were Business, Regulators Would Bust It

    Authored by Lura Forcum via RealClearPolitics,

    In the marketplace, competition empowers consumers. The more options you have for a particular product, the lower prices become. Moreover, having more options means you are more likely to find exactly what you want instead of just settling for something good enough.  

    In politics, competition empowers voters. However, unlike the marketplace, where consumers are accustomed to a variety of options, politics offers only two. Worse still, the two options available are so feckless that a plurality of voters choose neither. 

    When there’s little competition, power ends up in the hands of companies, not consumers. And that’s what we see with the Republican and Democratic parties. The lack of competition allows both parties to continue to be unresponsive to voters’ concerns. 

    According to recurring surveys by Gallup, beginning around 2010, independents have been the electorate’s plurality, with few exceptions. And since Obama’s reelection in 2012, independents have been the plurality without exception.  

    Put differently, voters have reported feeling disempowered for more than a decade. 

    It’s no wonder why. The parties set it up so they don’t have outside competition. A number of rules make it difficult – or impossible – for non-party voices to be heard. For instance, in 10 states, you can’t vote in a party’s primary unless you’re a registered party member. Another nine states allow unaffiliated voters but not opposing party members to vote in party primaries. Only 15 states allow for open party primaries where any voter can participate.  

    If you’re running for office as an independent, you don’t have access to the resources that a major party offers its candidates for statewide or national office. It’s hard enough to win political office even with the support of the duopoly; independents are forced to do the impossible.  

    While the election results suggest that voters found the Trump campaign more responsive to their concerns this time, that doesn’t mean Republicans will become better listeners going forward. And why should they? Without competition, there is no incentive for either party to take voters’ concerns seriously for longer than an election cycle. 

    With the Republican party the party of Trump now, attention has focused on his public and private lives, his various legal cases, and his influence over the Republican Party writ large. These distractions have taken attention away from good policy and effective governance. And while you might expect when one party takes its eye off the ball, it would allow the other party to flourish, but that hasn’t been the case.  

    Democrats are flailing because the shift in the Republican party led them to believe that it was enough to just not be Republicans. Since the rise of Donald Trump, their offering to voters has increasingly been, “At least we’re not those guys.” On a variety of issues, from the environment to health care to national defense, one party’s position is, “We should do this,” and the other’s is, “No, we shouldn’t,” and the result is a gridlocked Congress. 

    The Independent Center does the exact opposite. We are bringing competition back to politics by identifying, activating, and empowering independent voters. 

    These voters insist on effective government. They are the swing voters who went for Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020, and Trump again in 2024 because they value results over political allegiances. They expect the government to be fiscally responsible, but they don’t like the more extreme positions on social policies favored by Republicans. In short, they want government to live within its means, as they do, and respect the decisions of consenting adults.  

    The Independent Center believes that the best way to make government more responsive to voters is to bring more people into the political process, especially the people who don’t identify as Republicans or Democrats. By creating a movement of independent voters, we will have more voices about what people want and need, more ideas about effective policy responses, and more feedback about what the best policy solutions are.  

    By competing with Democrats and Republicans for voters, independents will push those parties to understand voters’ values and preferences better, develop better policy proposals, and actually pass legislation instead of devoting their energies to name-calling and obstructing the other side. 

    Lura Forcum is the incoming president of the Independent Center. A former professor and researcher, she conveys complex ideas and policy insights to engage independent voters who now comprise the plurality of the electorate.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 17:40

  • The COVID Cover-Up: 19 Questions We Must Answer
    The COVID Cover-Up: 19 Questions We Must Answer

    Authored by Justin Hart via ‘Rational ground’ substack,

    So here’s the deal – remember when “experts” kept telling us what to do during COVID?

    Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong.

    We’re talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work (spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories).

    Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies.

    He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It’s time to set the record straight…

    Did he get anything right?

    1. Origin of the disease—wrong

    2. Transmission—wrong

    3. Asymptomatic spread—wrong

    4. PCR testing—wrong

    5. Fatality rate—wrong

    6. Lockdowns—wrong

    7. Community triggers—wrong

    8. Business closures—wrong

    9. School closures—wrong

    10. Quarantining the healthy—wrong

    11. Impact on youth—wrong

    12. Hospital overload—wrong

    13. Plexiglass barriers—wrong

    14. Social distancing—wrong

    15. Outdoor spread—wrong

    16. Masks—wrong

    17. Variant impact—wrong

    18. Natural immunity—wrong

    19. Vaccine efficacy—wrong

    20. Vaccine injury—wrong

    Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it’s not just Monday morning quarterbacking – they’ve got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn’t exist), data proving schools could’ve stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn’t the brilliant strategy they claimed.

    Listen, I’m not here to say “I told you so” (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don’t learn from how badly our “experts” messed up, we’re just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don’t think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking.

    Let’s break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up – this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history.

    These are the questions WE want answered!

    TRANSMISSION

    1. Why did officials insist on surface transmission protocols when evidence showed primarily respiratory spread?

    2. Why weren’t hospitals evaluating transmission patterns early to inform policy?

    3. Why did the CDC not conduct studies on actual transmission patterns in schools and workplaces?

    4. Why was outdoor transmission overemphasized despite minimal evidence?

    5. Why weren’t transmission studies prioritized to guide evidence-based policies?

    ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD

    1. What evidence supported the claim that asymptomatic spread was a major driver?

    2. Why did health officials emphasize asymptomatic spread without solid data?

    3. Why were resources wasted testing asymptomatic people when they could have focused on symptomatic cases?

    4. How did the emphasis on asymptomatic spread affect public trust when evidence didn’t support it?

    5. What data actually existed on true asymptomatic (vs presymptomatic) transmission rates?

    PCR TESTING

    1. Why did the CDC insist on developing its own test rather than using WHO’s?

    2. Why weren’t cycle threshold values standardized or reported?

    3. Why did labs use cycle thresholds up to 40 when this led to false positives?

    4. Why wasn’t PCR testing prioritized for high-risk populations early on?

    5. How did high cycle thresholds affect case counts and policy decisions?

    FATALITY RATE

    1. Why were infection fatality rates not properly stratified by age from the beginning?

    2. Why were deaths “with COVID” vs “from COVID” not distinguished?

    3. How did inflated fatality rates affect public perception and policy?

    4. Why weren’t accurate age-stratified fatality rates clearly communicated?

    5. How did misrepresenting fatality rates affect public trust?

    LOCKDOWNS

    1. Why were lockdowns implemented without cost-benefit analysis?

    2. Why were lockdown harms (mental health, delayed medical care, etc.) ignored?

    3. What evidence supported the effectiveness of lockdowns?

    4. Why weren’t less restrictive focused protection measures tried first?

    5. How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown policies?

    6. Why weren’t regional/seasonal factors considered in lockdown decisions?

    COMMUNITY TRIGGERS

    1. Why were arbitrary case numbers used to trigger restrictions?

    2. Why weren’t hospital capacity metrics prioritized over case counts?

    3. How were community trigger thresholds determined?

    4. Why weren’t triggers adjusted based on actual risk levels?

    5. Why weren’t clear exit criteria established for restrictions?

    BUSINESS CLOSURES

    1. What evidence supported closing small businesses while keeping large retailers open?

    2. Why weren’t occupancy limits tried before full closures?

    3. How many businesses were unnecessarily destroyed?

    4. Why weren’t economic impacts weighed against minimal health benefits?

    5. What data supported effectiveness of business closures?

    SCHOOL CLOSURES

    1. Why were schools closed despite early evidence of low risk to children?

    2. Why did the US ignore data from European schools that stayed open?

    3. Why weren’t the developmental/educational harms to children considered?

    4. How did school closures affect mental health and suicide rates in youth?

    5. Why weren’t teachers unions’ influence on closure decisions examined?

    6. What evidence supported claims that schools were major transmission vectors?

    QUARANTINING THE HEALTHY

    1. Why was mass quarantine implemented without precedent or evidence?

    2. Why weren’t focused protection measures tried instead?

    3. What was the cost-benefit analysis of quarantining low-risk groups?

    4. How did mass quarantine affect mental health?

    5. Why weren’t vulnerable populations prioritized instead?

    IMPACT ON YOUTH

    1. Why weren’t developmental impacts on children considered?

    2. How did isolation affect mental health and suicide rates?

    3. What were the educational losses from remote learning?

    4. Why weren’t sports/activities preserved for youth wellbeing?

    5. How did masks/distancing affect social development?

    6. What were the impacts on college students’ mental health and development?

    HOSPITAL OVERLOAD

    1. Why weren’t early treatment protocols developed to prevent hospitalizations?

    2. Why were field hospitals built but never used?

    3. How did “flattening the curve” messaging affect hospital preparations?

    4. Why weren’t at-risk populations protected to prevent hospitalizations?

    5. What was the actual vs projected hospital capacity usage?

    PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS

    1. What evidence supported effectiveness of barriers?

    2. Why weren’t airflow patterns considered?

    3. How did barriers affect ventilation?

    4. What was the cost-benefit of barrier installation?

    5. Why weren’t barrier recommendations updated when shown ineffective?

    SOCIAL DISTANCING

    1. What evidence supported 6-foot distancing?

    2. Why wasn’t distancing adjusted based on ventilation/masks/context?

    3. How did arbitrary distance rules affect businesses/schools?

    4. Why wasn’t 3-foot distancing considered adequate earlier?

    5. What research supported outdoor distancing requirements?

    OUTDOOR SPREAD

    1. Why were outdoor gatherings restricted despite minimal transmission risk?

    2. Why were beaches/parks closed?

    3. Why weren’t outdoor activities encouraged as safer alternatives?

    4. How did outdoor restrictions affect mental/physical health?

    5. What evidence supported masks outdoors?

    MASKS

    1. Why were mask mandates implemented without RCT evidence?

    2. Why weren’t potential harms of masking children considered?

    3. Why were cloth masks promoted despite ineffectiveness?

    4. How did masks affect learning/development in children?

    5. Why weren’t mask policies updated when studies showed limited benefit?

    6. Why was natural immunity discounted in mask policies?

    VARIANT IMPACT

    1. Why were variants used to justify continued restrictions?

    2. How did variant fears affect vaccine confidence?

    3. Why weren’t policies adjusted for milder variants?

    4. How did variant messaging affect public trust?

    5. Why weren’t seasonal patterns considered in variant projections?

    NATURAL IMMUNITY

    1. Why was natural immunity ignored in policy decisions?

    2. Why were recovered people required to vaccinate?

    3. Why wasn’t natural immunity studied more thoroughly?

    4. How did dismissing natural immunity affect public trust?

    5. Why were natural immunity studies from other countries ignored?

    VACCINE EFFICACY

    1. Why were initial efficacy claims not properly qualified?

    2. Why wasn’t waning efficacy communicated earlier?

    3. How did overselling efficacy affect public trust?

    4. Why weren’t breakthrough cases tracked properly?

    5. Why were boosters promoted without clear evidence of benefit?

    VACCINE INJURY

    1. Why weren’t adverse events properly tracked/investigated?

    2. Why were vaccine injuries downplayed or dismissed?

    3. How did VAERS data interpretation affect public trust?

    4. Why weren’t age-stratified risk-benefit analyses conducted?

    5. Why weren’t early warning signals investigated more thoroughly?

    6. How did dismissing injuries affect vaccine confidence?

    We have a LOT of work to do and THANKFULLY we may have people in charge who are willing to ask these questions!

    *  *  *

    Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 17:00

  • NYT & Bloomberg Bury Rutgers Study Showing DEI Makes People Hostile
    NYT & Bloomberg Bury Rutgers Study Showing DEI Makes People Hostile

    Corporate media outlets have buried, downplayed, or otherwise shelved a new study which reveals that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies cause people to become ‘hostile’ – essentially seeing racism where none exists.

    The new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) and Rutgers University found that people exposed to DEI talking points about race, religion and gender form integroup hostility and authoritarian attitudes towards others.

    “What we did was we took a lot of these ideas that were found to still be very prominent in a lot of these DEI lectures and interventions and training,” said NCRI Chief Science Officer Joel Finkelstein, a co-author of the study. “And we said, ‘Well, how is this going to affect people?’ What we found is that when people are exposed to this ideology, what happens is they become hostile without any indication that anything racist has happened.“

    Researchers exposed 324 participants to two sets of reading material; a racially-neutral text about corn, or the writings of race-baiters Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo. The participants were then exposed to a racially neutral scenario in which a student was rejected from college.

    Those who were exposed to the writings of Kendi and DiAngelo injected racism into the scenario.

    It gets worse… as X user Crémieux (@cremieuxrecueil) notes, those exposed to DEI wanged to punish the “offenders.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    SHUT IT DOWN!

    As Colin Wright of Reality’s Last Stand notes (h/t Mike Shedlock), the New York Times and Bloomberg “abruptly shelved coverage” of the study.

    The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

    This context makes the suppression of the study even more alarming. The New York Times, which has cited NCRI’s work in nearly 20 previous articles, suddenly demanded that this particular research undergo peer review—a requirement that had never been imposed on the institute’s earlier findings, even on similarly sensitive topics like extremism or online hate. At Bloomberg, the story was quashed outright by an editor known for public support of DEI initiatives. The editorial decisions were ostensibly justified as routine discretion, yet they align conspicuously with the ideological leanings of those involved. Are these major outlets succumbing to pressures to protect certain narratives at the expense of truth?

    Research cited in the report highlights how many DEI programs rely on untested theories or unverified self-reports, with little oversight or accountability. A 2021 meta-analysis found that some initiatives not only fail to reduce prejudice but actually exacerbate it, fueling resentment and perceptions of unfairness. The NCRI study’s findings echo these conclusions, suggesting that far from fostering inclusion, DEI programs may perpetuate a cycle of suspicion and punitive retribution.

    Yet, as troubling as the study’s findings are, its suppression may be even more consequential. The decision to withhold this research from public discourse speaks to a larger issue: the growing entanglement of ideology and information. In a moment when public trust in institutions is already fragile, the media’s role as a gatekeeper of information becomes all the more worrying. When powerful outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg withhold stories of such significance, they fracture trust with the American people.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 16:40

  • Globalists Go For Broke: Plan To Trigger World War III Moves Forward
    Globalists Go For Broke: Plan To Trigger World War III Moves Forward

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    There are considerable and insidious forces at play when it comes to the development of the war in Ukraine; a swirling mass of think tanks, globalists and bureaucrats are doing everything in their power to instigate an international conflict between the US, the EU and Russia. They’ve specifically been looking for a way to leverage the western populace into supporting direct and open warfare.

    At the beginning of the event the propaganda was very effective in herding the political left into cheering for NATO involvement, with leftists calling for the “cancellation” of Russia and demanding boots on the ground to “wipe them off the face of the Earth.” One of those rabid activists (Ryan Routh) even tried to assassinate Donald Trump, ostensibly because Trump promised immediate peace negotiations with Russia should he become president again.

    The Democratic Party, once considered the “anti-war party”, is now the warhawk party. Add to that a gaggle of frothing Neo-Cons (leftists and globalists posing as conservatives) like Lindsay Graham and Mitt Romney, and it’s difficult to see how we will be able to avoid an escalation. There are people on both sides trying to trigger greater bloodshed and anyone who calls for peace comes under threat of assassination.

    Russia and Vladimir Putin have culpability of their own and one could argue that the east vs west paradigm is itself a brand of theater. However, the evidence for now leans heavily towards globalist think-tank instigation, leading to the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014, the flood of NATO weapons and “advisers” into the country under the Obama Administration and the deep involvement of Lindsay Graham, John McCain and The Atlantic Council in attempts to secure EU and NATO membership for the country; a red line which Russia consistently warned would lead to confrontation.

    Keep in mind, the promise made by NATO to Russia in the 1990s was that they would not attempt to move east once Russia tore down the Berlin Wall and unified Germany. NATO activities in Ukraine violate that promise in numerous ways.

    In January of 2022 I predicted that open war in the region was highly likely given the ultimate failure of the covid lockdowns and mandates (The Great Reset plan). The establishment needed a new global crisis to instill public fear, and they also needed a scapegoat for the ongoing stagflationary decline in the west. It’s only natural that they would turn to the classic fallback of world war after their previous agenda failed to get the results they wanted.

    In September of 2022 after NATO flooded Ukraine with weapons and foreign “mercenaries” I predicted that Russia would adopt an attrition warfare strategy with increased attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure. This has been their strategy ever since and now Ukraine faces a winter with an 85% loss in their power grid as Russian forces roll forward mile by mile on the Eastern and southern fronts.

    Russian forces are taking long standing Ukrainian strongholds with complex defensive works and Ukrainian troop strength is dwindling. Ukraine is losing the war by every metric and I now predict they have a year or less before complete defensive collapse.

    The corporate media will not talk about these developments. They will diminish them until Russia is on the verge of gaining a vast amount of ground and then they will act indignant, saying “How could this have happened?” Then they will call for western troops to enter the fray (it’s already starting).

    The only thing that might stop this outcome is Donald Trump’s promise to force negotiations between the Kremlin and Kyiv on day one of his administration. The problem is, that’s another two months away and the globalists are using that window of time to sabotage any future peace efforts. Their goal is to turn the proxy war into an open international conflagration.

    In August in my article ‘Globalists Are Trying To Escalate The Ukraine War Into WWIII Before The US Election’ I outlined a theory on what was likely to happen if the establishment saw a possible shift in US and EU sentiment towards continuing support for Ukraine:

    “But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?

    The proxy (in this case, Ukraine) would have to take actions that provoke Russia into an explosive outburst. Russia would have to utilize tactics or weaponry that puts a vast number of civilians at risk, requiring greater NATO involvement and perhaps even UN intervention…”

    I noted that the greenlight for use of long range missile systems provided by the US and Europe could be the trigger the globalists were looking for:

    “Long range strikes into Russia, I believe, will set in motion more Russian strikes on major cities in the west of Ukraine where the majority of the population lives. These areas have gone largely untouched during the duration of the war. Putin, despite what the media claims, has been careful to limit the targeting of larger civilian centers. That will end if NATO missiles hit Russian cities…”

    “The idea that ballistic volleys into Russia using NATO supplied missiles won’t result in Putin using MOABs or nukes is truly insane. Keep in mind, long range strikes into Russia will do nothing to change the conditions on the ground in the Donbas…”

    I outlined why this strategy was beneficial for globalist think tanks in light of an impending Trump presidency.

    “Donald Trump is looking increasingly likely to be the winner of the presidential race. I have long held that the globalists will wrap up an economic collapse or a world war and throw it in Trump’s lap. They already tried to do the same thing with the covid pandemic and the inflationary crisis.

    “The timing of the Kursk offensive and the call for missile strikes on Russia is not a coincidence. Trump claims that his intention is to end the Ukraine war as quickly as possible once he enters office.”

    “They need to escalate the war into something bigger, something that can’t be undone. Right now, the war can be ended – All it takes is some diplomacy and forcing Ukraine to understand that they’re not going to get the Donbas or Crimea back no matter how many lives they sacrifice. But if there are massive civilian casualties on either side, the situation becomes irreversible.”

    I want to point out that you don’t need a crystal ball to predict the path of this conflict; the stages and outcomes are relatively clear if you understand the hidden motivations behind the war. Most of the events I outlined in August have now happened, but only because these are the events that MUST happen in order to get to the end game of WWIII.

    After Trump’s landslide election win this month the Biden Administration responded by giving the greenlight for Ukraine to use long range ATACMS deeper inside Russian territory. The decision was reportedly made to “Trump-proof” the Ukraine war and prevent a quick resolution before he entered office.

    The ATACMS would do nothing to change the immediate conditions on the battlefield. ATACMS are precision guided munitions designed for surgical strikes on high value targets, they are not very useful in winning a war of attrition. The reason these weapons are so controversial is because they CANNOT be fired without help from NATO technicians and satellites. Meaning, Biden’s decision represents an open declaration of war on Russia.

    In response, the Kremlin reportedly fired a nuclear capable IRBM (an RS-26 Rubezh missile) on the city of Dniprio. The weapon had multiple warheads and video evidence shows all of them apparently striking the target. Luckily, none of those warheads were carrying a nuclear payload.

    The strike occurred right after Putin changed Russia’s nuclear defense policy and this appears to be a final warning. Globalist think tanks like The Atlantic Council continue to claim that Putin’s red lines are a “farce” and that he will never use nukes. I think that they know Putin is not bluffing and that they intend to poke the bear until they get a limited nuclear attack. I believe the chances are very high for at least one nuke strike within Ukraine if conditions continue to deteriorate with NATO.

    Some will argue that there’s no way this will happen because Russia would be obliterated by nuclear retaliation. I suspect that in the face of a nuke strike in Ukraine, NATO will do nothing. They certainly won’t escalate to a global exchange of ICBMs.

    The globalists have little to gain by incinerating decades of work building the mass surveillance systems and digital economic infrastructure they need for their “New World Order.” Ukraine just isn’t worth it. What such an incident would do, though, is open the door to wider war on multiple fronts between the east and the west.

    If the war is escalated beyond the zero point before Trump gets into office, then Trump may have no other choice than to commit the US to the conflict despite vast public disapproval. It would be disastrous for his administration, disastrous for conservatives and disastrous for the western world at large. The majority of the public will NOT volunteer to fight for Ukraine and conscription would be an invitation to civil unrest.

    Leftists hate Russia because the media tells them to, but they aren’t going to risk their lives for Ukraine. Conservatives definitely aren’t going to submit to a draft and most of us would rather go to war against the globalists instead.

    Putin is savvy enough to wait for Trump to enter office and start negotiations, but my greatest concern is that something is about to happen which will sabotage any eventual peace plan. A long range attack by Ukraine on a major civilian center, a nuclear power plant, or the assassination of a political figure using NATO weaponry would be the only spark needed to light the powder keg. Putin will be required to show Russia is not weak and follow through on his red line threats.

    There’s a good chance that we will see a mushroom cloud over Ukraine (or adjacent region) in the near future unless there is serious intervention to defuse the conflict. The next two months will be key.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 16:20

  • The Case For Gold Is Incontrovertible
    The Case For Gold Is Incontrovertible

    Authored by Egon von Gryerz via VonGreyerz.gold,

    Gold Will Rise By Multiples

    As Eastern and Southern Central Banks substantially increase their gold holdings, Western Central Banks will most probably have little physical gold in their coffers. 

    Total global gold reserves allegedly held by central banks (37,000 tonnes) are valued at $3.1 trillion at the current market price of $2,700. 

    That value is absurd when one US company – Microsoft – has the same valuation. Just think about it: Microsoft is as big as the gold backing of the global financial system.

    Furthermore, Western central banks have most probably hypothecated and re-hypothecated (lent, leased) their gold several times via bullion banks. That gold will never come back.

    Consequently, CBs is heavily short on gold and will be badly squeezed as the gold market becomes disorderly.

    The combination of Eastern/Southern Central Bank gold buying and all CBs replacing their dollar reserves with gold will lead to unprecedented demand for gold for many years. More gold cannot satisfy this demand since the current gold mine production of around 3,000 tonnes cannot be increased.

    Thus, the substantial increase in physical gold demand can only be satisfied by much, much higher prices. 

    This is why gold will rise by multiples.

    This article could stop here.

    You must know the above to understand why gold will be significantly revalued. Still, the article contains a lot of interesting material explaining THE INCONTROVERTIBLE CASE FOR GOLD, so I recommend you read on.

    Just look at the chart above, which shows the relentless bull market in gold since 1971, going up 78X since Nixon closed the gold window. 

    As I have stated in many articles, gold is now in its exponential phase. 

    I have shown my illustration of what exponential means with this picture. 

    They make it clear –  gold is now in a phase when the price will go up by MULTIPLES.

    Since the mid-1990s, I have been convinced of the importance of gold for wealth preservation and investment. 

    I started my first job in Swiss banking in 1969 and experienced Nixon’s 1971 closing of the gold window. The consequences of Nixon’s “temporary” action were spectacular, as gold went up 24X between 1971 and 1980.

    MAJOR GOLD SELLING BY WESTERN CENTRAL BANKS 

    A long correction followed after 1980, and gold finally bottomed out at $250 in 1999. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Many Western central banks liquidated part or all of their gold holdings. Countries like the UK, Switzerland, and Canada halved their holdings in that period, and Norway sold all its gold. 

    One of the best signals of a gold bottom was the Bank of England and Swiss National Bank selling over half of their gold near the lows. 

    This central bank selling almost 10,000 tonnes was another sign of their total incompetence. As I have often argued, financial markets would function much better without these politicised bureaucrats. Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth. 

    History tells us that gold should never be sold. 

    If politicians and central bankers ever studied history, they would know that no paper money has ever survived, ever, ever. 

    All papers of fiat money have always been destroyed by governments, without exception. Today, this is achieved by credit expansion or “money printing”. 

    When gold or silver was money, the precious metal would be diluted by other metals like copper or zinc. 

    Physical gold is for wealth preservation and the protection of purchasing power. 

    As Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

    GOLD IS FOR FREEDOM AND BENEFIT 

    FORT KNOX HOLDS “NOTHING BUT MOTHS AND HALF-EATEN IOUs”

    Vincent Lanci of GoldFix recently wrote the above article:

    Vince published the article here. He starts by quoting my Tweet: 

    He goes on to say:

    “Bold claim, right? He’s not wrong.

    Bottom line with regard to Ms. Shelton’s call to monetize our Gold by throwing it out on the yield curve (with which we agree) there is no way you can do it honestly if you wanted to.

    We’d wager no Gold is there at all. Anyway, there is much less Gold in Fort Knox than people think, which brings us to Pozsar’s predictive analysis.“

    He goes on to quote the revered Zoltan Pozsar’s article:

    Banks have been managing their paper gold books with one assumption, which is that [Nation] states would ensure gold wouldn’t come back as a settlement medium.”

    The above article is really worth reading, and it confirms my initial statement in this article that Central Banks have hypothecated gold to the extent that, if attacked by Russia and China, would collapse the Western Central Bank and LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) cabal.

    GOLD UP 11X IN THE 2000s

    So here we are 24 years into the 21st century, and gold is up 11X in US dollars and more in many other currencies.

    Between 2001 and 2011, gold rose 8X with no single down year.

    Then, there was a 3-year proper correction from $1,920 in 2011 down to $1,046 in 2016. 

    Since 2016, gold has gone up for 9 years, including three sideways years. 

    The chart speaks for itself. 

    In the last 24 years, we have seen an incredibly strong bull market in gold, with virtually no one participating. Still, only 0.5% of global financial assets are invested in gold, so virtually nobody understands or invests in it.

    As the graph below shows, gold has gone from 0.2% of global assets in 2001 to 0.5% today. During that time, I have been standing on a soapbox explaining the importance and virtues of gold, even in my father-of-the-bride speech in 2002. Still, very few own it. 

    GOLD IS ONLY 0.5% OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL ASSETS

    GOLD HAS VASTLY OUTPERFORMED STOCKS IN THE 2000s

    With a similar bull market in stocks, which has been the case in most of the 2000s, no investor would have been out of the stock market.

    Still, gold has vastly outperformed stocks in this century. 

    For the last 24 years, the S&P 500, with dividends reinvested, has risen by 572%.

    Gold is up 990% for the same period with much less volatility.

    Gold ownership is like a hidden, well-guarded secret. Very few, not even professional investors, know that gold has gone up 1,000% or 11X in this century. 

    Still, very few own gold, and even fewer are aware that gold fulfils the dual function of being both the ultimate protector and ultimate enhancer of your wealth.

    If you own gold, you never have to worry about the price. Because on your side stand governments and central banks who will always support gold by creating an endless amount of new money, thus expanding debt and the money supply. This guarantees the continuous debasement of paper money, directly reflected in the gold price. 

    Only since 2000 has the US dollar lost 92% of its value in real terms – GOLD.

    History proves that gold over the medium to long term always reflects the government’s irresponsible and opportunistic management of the country. 

    Governments always spend money that doesn’t exist in a futile attempt to placate the people and buy votes.

    GOLD SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERVALUED 

    Let’s look at a breakdown of all the gold that has ever been produced in history. 

    The cube below gives a good picture. 

    Only 201,000 tonnes of gold have been produced in history. All this gold is assumed to be still around, although some might be at the bottom of the sea and some hidden forever.

    Just under half, or 93K tonnes, have been used for jewellery.

    But now come the very important figures.

    Only 43T tonnes or $3.6 trillion in private investment gold.

    If we compare that to the biggest US companies, only NVIDIA has a market cap of $3.5 trillion, and so does Apple.  

    Even more astounding is that all the gold held by central banks globally is just $3.1 trillion, which is Microsoft’s market cap.

    So, the shareholders of Microsoft could swap their shareholdings against all the Central Bank Gold in the world. 

    I doubt the central bankers would sell their countries’ gold at the current price, but we shouldn’t put it past them. As mentioned above, they have often sold gold at the bottom and against fiat money. 

    As all paper money has gone to ZERO throughout history, it clearly can’t be real money. 

    It is only a claim or an IOU issued by your government. Remember what the banker JP Morgan said: 

    THE DOLLAR ON ITS WAY TO ZERO

    As all government debt always increases over time, we know that this debt will never be repaid. Instead, it is inflated away by the constant printing of new worthless paper money and debt until it becomes worthless, which is a de facto sovereign default. 

    Remember that this has happened to every currency in history without exception. 

    Since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, the dollar and most currencies have lost 99% of their value. 

    The total market capitalisation of the top 10 US companies is $19.2 trillion.

    Let’s look at the cube above again. At today’s price, ​​all the gold ever produced in history is at today’s price worth $17 trillion,  $2 T less than the top 10 US stocks.  

    GOLD UNDERVALUED BY MULTIPLES

    When all the central bank gold in the world is valued at the same price as one major US corporation, we know that this is an absurdity. 

    The stock market is currently overvalued. 

    As our friend, Bill Bonner recently wrote in his wonderful style:

    “Sooner or later, the lava flows of red-hot credit are going to meet up with the cold reality of rising interest rates. When this happens, most likely, stocks, bonds, and real estate will all be buried, like Pompeii.  

    Some investors will take a Big Loss. Big deal. Markets are correct all the time. But we’re not making predictions. We’re just looking for the worst-case scenario. And it could be far worse than just a market sell-off.”

    What Bill states above is inevitable. 

    And gold’s coming rise by multiples is a “Sine Qua Non” (absolute prerequisite).

    In numerous articles, I have stated the reasons for gold’s acceleration in price.

    In my article WE HAVE LIFT-OFF in March this year (when gold was $2,000), I said:

    “YES, GOLD IS ON THE CUSP OF A MAJOR MOVE AS:

    • Wars continue to ravage the world.

    • Inflation rises strongly due to ever-increasing debts and deficits.

    • Currencies continue their journey to ZERO.

    • The world flees from stocks, bonds, and the US dollar. 

    • The BRICS countries continue to buy ever bigger amounts of gold.

    • Central Banks buy major amounts of gold as currency reserves instead of US dollars.

    • Investors rush into gold at any price to preserve their wealth”. 

    And back in August, I said: $1 MILLION GOLD PRICE AND EXCHANGE CONTROLS:

    “DOLLAR, GOLD AND EXCHANGE CONTROLS 

    As I have outlined in this article, a continued and steep dollar decline in the coming years is a virtual certainty. 

    As there has been no gold window to close since 1971, the US government is almost certain to implement foreign exchange controls as the dollar falls. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes relatively soon, but the timing is irrelevant. The risk is here today, and now is the time to prepare for it. Thus, for Americans, it would be an advantage to have funds or assets outside of the US as soon as possible. Physical gold and silver are clearly the best assets to hold as they also protect against the dollar debasement. Switzerland and Singapore are obvious places to hold gold. Switzerland has a strong currency and a very sound economy. Exchange controls would be unlikely here. What is extremely important is not to hold your precious metals through a US company or other entity, which the US government can order to return the gold or silver from a foreign vault to the US.” 

    However, as has been pointed out relentlessly, gold is undervalued by multiples.

    I have also warned that we will not have a 2008-type correction in the gold price for quite some time. But some so-called experts have, for most of this year, warned gold investors that this would happen. Thus, virtually no private investor has bought gold this year in the West. But non-Western Central banks, the astute Chinese, and the BRICS countries have. This strong buying will continue to drive the gold price up by multiples in the next few years. 

    MOST PRECARIOUS GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION IN HISTORY

    Finally, the geopolitical situation is more precarious than ever in world history due to both the Middle East and Ukraine crises.

    The deep state or neocons who steer Biden are doing everything they can to start WWIII by provoking Russia with US and UK missiles sent from the UK in the remaining 8 weeks before Trump takes over. This is totally ludicrous and irresponsible by an unaccountable and anonymous group of people who cannot stand that the US is losing its hegemony. 

    Let’s hope that the superiority of the Russian Oreshnik missiles just fired has made the US military and the world realise that this is a conflict that the US, NATO and the world can only lose. 

    Let’s also hope that the world gets to January 20, 2025, without any serious escalation.

    Trump clearly is determined to solve the US problems, as he declared in this video.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 11/26/2024 – 15:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest