• The 2024 Election As A Spiritual War
  The 2024 Election As A Spiritual War

  Authored by Nic Carter via X (emphasis ours),

  

  My view of the election is that Trump and Harris were locked in a spiritual battle. Many, including myself, felt that the sparing of Trump’s life in the first assassination was an act of clear divine providence. For him to turn his head at that precise moment to avoid the assassin’s bullet, suffering only a grazed ear – it defies belief. I don’t believe in coincidences like that. Trump himself leaned into the religious overtones, understanding that many Christian supporters had come to see him as a messianic figure. Personally, I do believe – and there are many examples of this in the Bible – that God selects certain individuals to carry out His plans on Earth, and there is no doubt in my mind that Trump is one of those individuals. (Isaiah 6:8 says: “I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me”)

  Trump’s travails have been almost Job-like. Stripped of virtually everything, impeached, battered, humiliated, almost killed, slandered, deplatformed, sued, on the verge of being thrown in prison for the rest of his life, Trump found the strength to mount a remarkable campaign and win. It is the greatest political comeback in American history. Many see his resilience as superhuman and divinely inspired.

  Now on the other side we have another religion, one I consider idolatrous, but a religion nonetheless. See when you strip God from life, you don’t leave people intact, but rather you leave them with a God-shaped hole. Today’s left has eliminated (or corrupted) the Church, and in its place they have adopted secular religions (some call this ‘gnostism’). Harris and her progressive supporters subscribe to three of these cults: climate doomerism, wokeism, and to a lesser extent AI safety. Broadly, these all fall under the umbrella of decel-ism.

  It’s worth unpacking these slightly. Climate and AI doomerism are contemporary millenarian cults; that is, they are concerned with the apocalypse. Adherents to such cults believe that a reckoning is coming which will transform the earth, punish the sinful, save the worthy, or just wipe us out entirely. On climate, the idea is that we committed a grave original sin by debauching nature and emitting CO2; Gaia is punishing us by unleashing her wrath in the form of ever-intensifying storms (never mind that the cost to humans from climate-related disasters has been falling); and if we don’t sufficiently change our ways we will be extinguished in a final day of reckoning (think The Day After Tomorrow). AI safety is a newer cult, but very similar: we summoned a demon of sorts by creating AI, and we risk destroying humanity if we delve any deeper into machine intelligence. (There is a trippier variant of the AI doomer cult in which we achieve a rapture and merge with the Machine God in some kind of singularity.) Both cults stress the sin of industrial pursuit, and in both case the solutions are the same: slow down or even reverse progress.

  Compare Trump and Harris on AI and Climate. Trump wants to re-energize America’s heartland, unleash our abundant energy resources for Bitcoin mining, AI, chip manufacturing, and so on. Trump recognizes that we cannot hamstring ourselves with a Merkel-style Energiewende. It’s suicide to sacrifice ourselves to the angry climate God via Thunbergesque atonement while China prints coal and nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Harris stands for an insipid green transition which simply hasn’t paid off anywhere it has been tried. The left’s infatuation for green transitions should be understood as superstition, not policy. (If they really believed in the existential risk from climate, they would be all in on nuclear, or even global cooling with aerosolized sulfates. They aren’t.) On AI, Harris stands for AI Safety, the self-aggrandizing Silicon Valley cult which both worships and fears the machine God. Trump instead sees AI as a vital strategic resource to be unleashed, making no underlying metaphysical claims whatsoever.

  Leaving aside the decel cults, the most important spiritual lens through which Harris should be understood is wokeism. Wokeism is in some ways similar to those other two secular cults, in that it has rituals, priests, and has the elements of original sin – whiteness, privilege, etc. Wokeism even has a millenarian bent in that it presumes that the world is fundamentally unjust and subject to vast oppressive conspiracies (although it doesn’t clearly specify what the day of reckoning might look like). However the inherent flaw of Wokeism and the reason it doesn’t universalize well is that it offers no absolution. There’s no way for a straight white man (or anyone else near the top of the privilege hierarchy) to atone for their original sin. Compare with Christianity, which stresses (depending on the denomination) that all you have to do to be absolved of your sins is accept Jesus Christ into your heart. So wokeism can’t really sustain itself, because it’s dependent on a spiritual underclass of “oppressors” who are willing to continually submit to and elevate the least privileged (the trans disabled PoC, etc). But who would sign up for a religion that offers no atonement? Even the most ardent white wokes must feel a twinge of doubt at their membership in the cult, realizing that they are permanent Dalits in the woke caste system.

  So I see the Trump Harris conflict through the lens of a spiritual war. Of course, the battle between right and left already has a spiritual component in that it’s not just two sets of rival policy positions but in fact a much more deep-seated set of mutually conflicting worldviews; individual versus system-level thinking, merit versus racial score-settling, small government versus collectivism, nuclear family versus the state as your family, and so on. In the case of Trump and Harris it was even more direct. Trump plays the role of an unintentional Messiah, almost accidentally thrust into this savior role. Though Trump’s faith may not be particularly sincere, his fans’ belief that he is a tortured savior chosen by God is. Meanwhile Harris is the purest representative we’ve seen of the progressive religion to date, being selected for the role not due to her track record in government but because of her anointed status within the woke cult. She is perfect: Black, Indian, a woman, and so on. (She merely lacked charisma, meaningful policy views, a distinct message of change, or a platform.) There can be no real dispute that she was more of an empty vessel for woke payloads than a genuine candidate. Her campaign was mainly focused on marshalling the high-propensity female vote on abortion, shaming minorities into falling in line, scolding men into voting “for their wives and daughters”, and so on. She abjectly refused to specify meaningful policy positions, keeping them deliberately vague, running instead on pure identitarianism.

  To the right, her great sacrilege was her primary campaign issue – the murder of unborn children. Other issues she stands for – the coercive chemical castration of children, for instance, are considered not simply poor policy by the right, but downright satanic. It’s unsurprising that Trump’s strongest campaign message was “Kamala is for They/Them. Trump is for You.” For Trump’s Christian supporters, the distinction could not have been starker. Many felt that this was the last election if she won. The left misunderstood this when folks like Elon said it. The idea wasn’t that there would never be an election ever again, but rather that the left would vastly accelerate their import of the third world and spontaneously grant them citizenship. This isn’t far-fetched. The left was quite explicit about their desire to do this, and they partially executed on it under Biden. Some on the left, too, felt that if Trump regained power, he would fashion the government into a fascist authoritarian regime and permanently leave democracy behind. So this election had a decidedly existential bent to it. Many on both sides felt that this would be last freely contested vote.

  As a Christian and a conservative, I am encouraged that America resoundingly rejected these woke cults and their emissary in Harris. This was a realigning election which cannot be written off as a fluke like 2016 was. Hispanics shifted abruptly right, undermining the Left’s core coalition. Harris actually underperformed Biden with black voters, showing the weakness of her identitarian campaign. Black men in particular defected from the left quite markedly. Trump gained with young voters, a generally secular group that is still infatuated with wokeism. By contrast, Trump did astoundingly well with Catholics, winning them by 18 points, the largest gap in decades. Trump also gained with Protestants relative to 2020. Eighty percent of evangelicals broke for Trump, again a better margin than 2020. Harris’ campaign built around Roe simply wasn’t compelling enough. And some of her high-propensity supporters, like suburban white moms, were turned off by the left’s ritual sacrifice of girls at the altar of wokeism (by allowing males in women’s sports, for instance). Voters were more concerned with immigration and the economy.

  The democrats should engage in soul searching and realize that by embracing cults like wokeism, and GDP-destroying fantasies like climate doomerism and AI doomerism, they are swimming against the current. Their Obama coalition has been shattered in the biggest realigning election since Reagan. Having lost the working class, Hispanic vote, and unable to import new voters as they had planned, if they continue down the path of racial shame and elevating DEI candidates, they will lose over and over. As for the right, they have resurrected their messiah. Expectations couldn’t be higher. But one thing is clear. Religion, real religion, is still a force to be reckoned with in American politics. The left has lost the Mandate of Heaven. It belongs to Trump now.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 23:25

• Alex Soros Shocked That the Incumbent Political Order Is Being Crushed Around The Globe
  Alex Soros Shocked That the Incumbent Political Order Is Being Crushed Around The Globe

  Almost exactly one year ago, we wrote that 2024 would be the busiest political year on record…

  

  …. and it certainly has delivered, including these main highlights.

  • The Taiwanese election in January 2024
  • Indian elections in April/May
  • European Parliamentary elections in June
  • The US Presidential Election in November.

  So with the main events of 2024 now in the rearview mirror we can conclude that this has been a catastrophic year for incumbents at elections.

  And not just in the US where Democrats have lost ground relative to four years earlier, but incumbents have also lost ground in the UK, France, India, Japan and South Africa as well this year.

  

  It gets worse: an even more amazing stat comes from the FT, which reports that every governing party facing election in a developed country this year lost vote share, the first time this has ever happened!

  

  According to Deutsche Bank, it’s also the first time since the late 1800s that the incumbent party in the White House has lost three consecutive presidential elections.

  

  A fascinating stat. So why is this happening across the world? Accord to Jim Reid there are three things going on:

  1. The economy is a big factor for most if not all countries here, and growth has slowed down relative to previous decades. That’s left voters disappointed, having not seen gains in their living standards that they’d previously been used to. Even though growth is stronger in the US, voters have not tended to suggest this when polled, and have certainly highlighted inflation and the cost of living as a big issue.
  2. Immigration. Many voters have been concerned that incumbents have no solution to their concerns over migration.
  3. Selected mismanagement claims and domestic scandals. This is clearly not the case everywhere, but it’s cost incumbents in several countries.
  4. Voters in general have become much more willing to change their vote from election to election. A smaller share of the electorate vote the same way all the time, meaning it’s easier to see big swings from one election to the next, as there’s now more swing voters up for grabs.

  Overall, it feels like voters have ignored the extremely generous handouts after Covid – which ultimately sparked the biggest inflationary tsunami in 40 years – and instead focused on the costs of these in the aftermath. The top cost likely being inflation, and although it’s fallen back now, voters experience this on a cumulative basis, rather than a 12-month basis as economists often analyze.

  The interesting question is whether this trend will continue. The fact that this is the first time in over 120 years that the US incumbent party has lost three times in a row might hint at a more structural problem where politicians are unable to deliver against expectations in a world of lower growth and fairly regular shocks.

  Maybe, as Jim Reid concludes, James Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid” remains the key going forward. A world where productivity growth remains low doesn’t help any incumbent promising a brighter future. So if we do get a productivity miracle at some point from AI then maybe promises can be kept. Then again, to assume that a bunch of woke chatbots can revolutionize the way we live and work, may be even more naive than thinking Kamala Harris could defeat Donald Trump.

  One thing is certain: any political phenomenon which has even Alex Soros – who just wasted $1 billion backing the biggest Democrat loser in recent history – shocked that people everywhere are fed up with leaders who put globalist agendas above their own citizens, and are finally voting for leaders who actually serve them…

  Before you beat yourself up about the elections pls read this:
  The incumbents in every single one of the 10 major countries that have been tracked by the ParlGov global research project and held national elections in 2024 were given a kicking by voters. This is the first time… https://t.co/XiO03kEDDj

  — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) November 7, 2024

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

  … has got to be good.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 23:00

• Arizonans Approve Police Arrests Of Illegal Entrants, Right To Abortion
  Arizonans Approve Police Arrests Of Illegal Entrants, Right To Abortion

  Authored by Samantha Flom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Two controversial ballot initiatives concerning illegal immigration and abortion easily passed at the ballot box on Nov. 5 with broad support from voters.

  

  Proposition 314, a statutory amendment referred by the Arizona Legislature, prohibits illegal immigrants from entering the state directly from a foreign country at any location other than a lawful port of entry.

  The law effectively empowers Arizona law enforcement officers to arrest illegal immigrants. It also bars illegal immigrants from knowingly submitting false documents to apply for public benefits or a job and makes it a class 2 felony for an adult to knowingly sell fentanyl that later causes the death of another person.

  The proposition needed only a simple majority to pass and coasted to victory with 63 percent of the vote. Its success comes as Arizona has effectively become ground zero for the nation’s border crisis.

  In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector in Arizona reported more than 463,000 encounters with illegal immigrants—the highest total among all nine sectors.

  In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection made its largest-ever singular seizure of fentanyl when it intercepted 4 million pills at the sector’s Lukeville port of entry.

  A Noble Predictive Insights poll released in September had indicated widespread support for Proposition 314, with 63 percent of registered voters signaling their approval. It was also supported by majorities of Republicans (77 percent), independents (57 percent), and Democrats (52 percent) alike.

  But Living United for Change in Arizona, an opponent of the measure, has expressed concerns that it might lead to “rampant racial profiling” and civil rights violations.

  Abortion Amendment Passes

  Arizona was also one of 10 states that voted on the issue of abortion this election.

  In a 62–38 vote, the state approved a citizen-led initiative to establish a constitutional right to abortion through fetal viability, and when a “health care professional” deems it necessary to protect the mother’s life or health.

  Proposition 139 also bars the state from penalizing anyone who assists a woman in obtaining an abortion.

  At present, abortion is legal in Arizona through 15 weeks of pregnancy, though the issue has been a matter of contention in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, which overturned the federal right to abortion.

  The ruling gave way to a court battle in the state over the enforcement of a near-total abortion ban dating back to 1864. After the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in April that the law could be enforced, state lawmakers voted to repeal it.

  Arizonans for Abortion Access, the group that put forward the new amendment, applauded voters’ decision to adopt it.

  “We did it!” the group wrote in an X post. “Arizona has overwhelmingly voted to protect abortion access! We proved, yet again, that Arizona is a state that values freedom and individual rights.”

  Opponents of the measure argued that the inclusion of an exception for the mother’s general “health” could be interpreted to authorize late-term abortions for virtually any reason. They also held that it would prohibit health and safety regulations to protect women and minors while removing licensed physicians from the equation.

  By the morning of Nov. 6, a petition was already circulating online asking Arizona state senators to either repeal the amendment or enact new legislation to “help decrease the actual number of abortions performed in our state.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 22:35

• John Fetterman Calls Constituents 'Dipshits' For How They Voted In Post-Election Rage Tweet
  John Fetterman Calls Constituents ‘Dipshits’ For How They Voted In Post-Election Rage Tweet

  Among the chorus of unhinged outrage, name calling and mental breakdowns post President Trump’s massive landslide victory on Tuesday, Walmart fashion model and Democratic U.S. Senator John Fetterman added his own ‘special’ brew of insanity to the mix on Thursday when he called his constituents ‘dipshits’. 

  Tweeting about the ongoing Senate race in Pennsylvania, where Republican Dave McCormick has already declared victory (and has been called the winner by AP) while three term incumbent Democrat Bob Casey has yet to concede and is pushing for a recount, Fetterman tweeted that “Pennsylvania is going to count every last vote.”

  “That’s not controversial—that’s the law,” he wrote, before finishing his deep thought with “Also, Green dipshits’ votes helping elect the GOP.”

  

  The comment comes hours after the Democrats lost in a landslide, with some Democratic strategists coming to terms with the fact that the party has lost the country because it constantly insults and lectures them.

  “I’m going to speak some hard truths to my friends in the Democratic Party. This is not Joe Biden’s fault. It’s not Kamala Harris’ fault. It’s not Barack Obama’s fault — it is the fault of the Democratic Party in not knowing how to communicate effectively to voters,” Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky said on CNN on Wednesday.

  Apparently, Fetterman did not get that memo. 

  For those looking to keep track of what other consequential impacts Fetterman has had on his party, he also appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast and was completely unable to muster up any type of coherent excuse for Democrats’ horrific job on the border over the last 4 years.

  Keep up the great work, John.

  Calling Green voters “dipshits” is not a great way to win them over

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 8, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 22:10

• How A 2nd Trump Administration Might Affect Foreign Policy
  How A 2nd Trump Administration Might Affect Foreign Policy

  Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke and Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The second administration of President-elect Donald Trump is anticipated to bring great change to America’s foreign policy establishment.

  

  From wars in Europe and the Middle East to an increasingly adversarial relationship with China in the Indo-Pacific, Trump has vowed to make sweeping changes to the way the United States approaches international statecraft.

  That has some in the foreign policy establishment in Washington on edge. Still, others are confident that there will be a winding down of armed conflicts worldwide as the nation’s highest office embraces a more assertive and, at times, confrontational tone with allies and adversaries alike.

  Staring China Down in the Indo-Pacific

  Among the most pressing threats to be tackled by the second Trump administration is an increasingly adversarial China, whose ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has repeatedly sought to undermine U.S. interests throughout the world in recent years.

  Key to doing that will be to shore up alliances in the region, including with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, as well as reaffirming Washington’s commitment to defend Taiwan from CCP aggression.

  John Mills, who previously served as the director for cybersecurity policy, strategy, and international affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said that the nation’s regional partners would welcome the clarity that a second Trump administration would bring to Washington’s foreign policy.

  “These countries love the authenticity and clarity of Trump,” Mills told The Epoch Times.

  Likewise, Mills said he believes that same clarity would help thwart an overt military conflict between China and the United States from erupting.

  “The likelihood of conflict in the western Pacific decreases significantly under Trump,” Mills said. “Why? Because he’s showing clarity and resolve at all times. Clarity and resolve help prevent war. Lack of clarity and resolve creates war.

  “Trump 2.0 in the western Pacific will significantly decrease the likelihood of open conflict between the CCP and the Western world.”

  To that end, Mills said that the CCP is less likely to engage in overtly hostile acts against the United States under the incoming administration than the Biden administration because Chinese authorities “know they will be held accountable.”

  Casey Fleming, CEO of the global risk and intelligence advisory firm BlackOps Partners, said he expects the CCP to curb its more overt malign activity under a second Trump administration.

  “A Trump administration will put the CCP on notice and will challenge their unbridled aggression in the Indo-Pacific and throughout the world,” Fleming told The Epoch Times.

  Confronting a War in Europe

  During his first administration, Trump gained a prickly reputation for toughness with U.S. allies in Europe. He repeatedly threatened to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the world’s largest military alliance, due to a disparity in how much the United States contributed compared to other allies.

  Many of the nation’s NATO partners have significantly upped their defense spending since then, both in reaction to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and out of a concern that a Trump administration would not come to their aid if they were perceived as piggybacking on U.S. defense spending.

  Trump has also made ending the war in Ukraine swiftly a key campaign pledge, positioning himself in stark contrast to the outgoing Biden administration, which pledged security assistance to embattled Kyiv for as long as it would take to secure Ukrainian victory, though never defined what that victory would look like.

  While Trump has said he’d focus on bringing both sides to the negotiating table, Paul Davis, foreign policy analyst and adjunct professor at the Institute for World Politics, doesn’t expect a dramatic drop-off in U.S. support for Ukraine anytime soon.

  “I don’t think Trump is going to change a lot,” Davis said. “He did have a meeting with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy] back in September, and I think he understands the need to maintain support.”

  Likewise, Mills added that a second Trump administration would unlikely pull back its support for partners and allies in Europe so long as those nations carry their own weight in defense spending.

  “All that is being asked is at least 2 percent of GDP spent on defense and, in reality, 4 to 5 percent is the new 2 percent,” Mills said.

  “That’s all. That is the primary metric Trump looks at [with] partners, and I think that’s extremely reasonable.”

  Defending Israel in the Middle East

  The second Trump administration will also inherit a precarious situation in the Middle East as Israel expands its war against Iranian proxy groups in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Yemen.

  Trump has repeatedly given vociferous support for Israel and is likely to go to great lengths to ensure the nation has the full support of the United States, following a falling out between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Joe Biden over Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza.

  Davis said that he expects Trump “will definitely make sure that the world knows that Israel is secured by the U.S. military.”

  To that end, it appears Israeli leadership expects the same. Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to call President-elect Trump in the early hours of the morning after the election was called. Netanyahu congratulated Trump on the election and discussed the Iranian threat, according to an Israeli readout of the call.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 21:45

• This Is The Median Home Price In Each US State
  This Is The Median Home Price In Each US State

  In 2024, buying a home in the U.S. looks vastly different depending on where you are.

  Factors like local demand, land availability, economic conditions, and housing regulations all contribute to the median home prices in each state.

  This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the median home sale price for a single-family home in each U.S. state in 2024.

  

  The data is updated as of September 2024 and comes from ATTOM.

  Which States Have the Highest Home Sales Prices?

  As of August 2024, the median home sales price for a single-family home in the United States is about $385,000.

  State	Median Estimated Home Sales Price
  Hawaii	$851,930
  California	$776,000
  District of Columbia	$659,072
  Massachusetts	$640,113
  Washington	$609,540
  Colorado	$561,205
  Utah	$530,041
  New Jersey	$523,500
  Oregon	$511,434
  New Hampshire	$500,429
  Rhode Island	$487,985
  New York	$476,429
  Idaho	$456,839
  Nevada	$445,883
  Maryland	$436,985
  Arizona	$435,839
  Vermont	$411,381
  Florida	$405,289
  Connecticut	$403,750
  Delaware	$399,857
  Virginia	$394,678
  Montana	$388,053
  Maine	$384,783
  Alaska	$381,744
  Minnesota	$348,126
  Wyoming	$344,432
  North Carolina	$340,330
  Georgia	$333,903
  Tennessee	$327,855
  South Dakota	$318,000
  Texas	$314,750
  Wisconsin	$305,000
  South Carolina	$301,057
  New Mexico	$301,000
  Illinois	$286,413
  Pennsylvania	$279,709
  Michigan	$262,814
  Nebraska	$262,637
  Missouri	$259,250
  North Dakota	$253,116
  Kansas	$238,824
  Indiana	$238,411
  Alabama	$235,675
  Ohio	$230,500
  Kentucky	$211,235
  Iowa	$203,770
  Arkansas	$203,067
  Oklahoma	$200,378
  Louisiana	$190,900
  Mississippi	$183,507
  West Virginia	$167,110

  Hawaii has the highest median house price in the U.S. at around $852,000, over double the national average, primarily due to its limited land availability, strict housing regulations, and high demand for housing in a desirable climate.

  A University of Hawaii report found that regulatory costs, including lengthy permitting processes and strict zoning laws, account for more than half (58%) of the median price of a new condominium in Hawaii.

  Hawaii’s finite land area and high demand driven by tourism and military presence further inflate property values.

  California comes in at second, with a median home price of $776,000. The coastal state is home to some of the most unaffordable metropolitan areas in the U.S., including Los Angeles and San Jose, where the home price-to-income ratio is over 10.

  Predominantly rural states like West Virginia ($167K), Mississippi ($184K), and Arkansas ($191K) have significantly lower median home prices than urbanized states like California ($776K) or New York ($476K).

  To learn more about the U.S. real estate market, check out this graphic that visualizes which states have the most cities where homes average $1 million or more.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 21:20

• Levi Strauss Heir Leads San Francisco Mayor's Race
  Levi Strauss Heir Leads San Francisco Mayor’s Race

  Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Daniel Lurie, a philanthropist and an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, appears poised to oust San Francisco Mayor London Breed in her bid for reelection, as the city continued to post election results on Nov. 6.

  

  Lurie led Breed by 12 points Wednesday morning, earning 56 percent of the vote, compared to the incumbent’s 44 percent.

  Breed has not yet conceded, but told supporters Tuesday she would wait until all votes were counted.

  “It ain’t over till it’s over,” she told supporters at an election night party Tuesday, according to wire reports.

  She noted she was also behind in her first race for mayor in 2019, but won the office. Breed is the first black woman to serve as mayor of San Francisco.

  The county has not yet certified the results and planned to issue preliminary numbers around 4 p.m. Thursday, according to the Department of Elections.

  The county is still processing about 157,000 ballots, most of which are vote-by-mail ballots received Monday and Tuesday by mail and at polling places, the elections department reported in a press release provided to The Epoch Times Wednesday.

  The county also has to process 20,000 provisional ballots cast at polling locations by voters whose names are not on the voter registration list.

  The county may take up to 30 days after Elections Day to certify the final election results, according to the department.

  The mayor’s challenger signaled that he is ready to get to work, according to a letter to his supporters posted on social media and his website.

  Lurie thanked his supporters in the letter Tuesday night, saying the city was ready for change.

  “Over the past 13 months, I’ve had the great experience of meeting with San Franciscans in every corner of our city,” Lurie wrote. “I heard your frustrations but also your hope and desire to write our next chapter.”

  He added it was time for leadership rooted in “true public service, one that puts the people of San Francisco above all else.”

  The candidate spent more than $9 million of his own money in the race to replace Breed. He raised more than $16 million, according to financial reports.

  Lurie is the son of Rabbi Brian Lurie and Miriam “Mimi” Lurie Haas. His parents divorced when he was a child and Lurie’s mother subsequently married Peter Haas, a great-grandnephew of Levi Strauss.

  Haas is a billionaire and one of the largest shareholders of Levi Strauss & Co.

  Strauss, an immigrant from Bavaria, opened a dry goods company in San Francisco at the height of the California Gold Rush in 1853, according to the company. Strauss and tailor Jacob Davis created blue jeans in 1873 to meet the needs of miners, cowboys, and workers at the time.

  Lurie is the founder and CEO of Tipping Point Community, a San Francisco nonprofit launched in 2005 that raises money and helps educate, employ, house, and support impoverished people in the Bay Area, according to his biography.

  Breed is a native San Franciscan who was raised by her grandmother in the city’s public housing. She has spent much of her efforts during the last year responding to retail, tech, hotel, and corporate departures from the city.

  

  She supported two successful public safety ballot measures passed in March—propositions E and F—to expand police powers and compel some drug users to enter treatment.

  Multiple companies have shuttered businesses in the once-thriving City by the Bay in recent years, with some citing the increase in retail theft, homelessness, and open-air drug use.

  Most recently, San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Ricky Pearsall was shot during an attempted robbery in the city’s downtown Union Square in August. Pearsall survived the shooting.

  Breed did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday and her campaign has not released a public statement after results started rolling in.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 20:55

• The Grift Is Ending: ESG Fund Managers Being Told To "Keep Their Lawyers Very Close"
  The Grift Is Ending: ESG Fund Managers Being Told To “Keep Their Lawyers Very Close”

  We’ve known the ESG grift has been coming to a screeching halt for years now, with major investment banks and companies dropping their initiatives while the GOP goes on a rampage to try root out the faux-virtue signaling. 

  But now with President Trump once again taking the White House, one investment bank is advising ESG fund managers to “keep their lawyers very close”, as the full scale death of ESG may very well be on the door step, according to Yahoo Finance.

  Aniket Shah wrote in a note this week: “We’d encourage all ESG fund managers to have a lawyer on the team, or on speed-dial.”

  He continued: “Antitrust risk remains high for asset managers in ESG; there haven’t been any cases yet, thus there is no legal precedent. Further, legal risks regarding fiduciary duty will stay relevant as states enforce anti-ESG laws.”

  Yahoo reports that Trump’s victory has already hit green sector stocks, with wind-energy companies among the hardest hit. Beyond potential bans and obstructive policies, the ESG sector faces rising legal risks.

  

  Key GOP figures argue ESG-focused firms neglect fiduciary duties, while Republican attorneys general accuse financial firms using ESG metrics of collusion against fossil fuels and fueling inflation.

  In response, “greenhushing”—keeping ESG efforts quiet—is likely, Jefferies analysts note. Corporate CEOs are also expected to seek legal guidance to adapt to this shifting landscape.

  Jeffries said: “General counsels are in the ear of CEOs, frightened about legal retaliation to ESG initiatives. The backlash could lead to more focused and pragmatic companies, engaging in strategic discussions closely tied to their business model.”

  Analysts argue that a public backlash, similar to 2016, could pressure companies to address issues like abortion and diversity. Conflicting state policies on ESG could create a “nightmare” of fragmented requirements, they warn.

  Shareholders may still push for ESG risk disclosures aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board, even as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce maintains it isn’t against ESG or climate disclosures. Notably, these observations focus on the ESG label itself, not the broader clean energy transition.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 20:30

• Woke Bloodbath: Leftist Movements Are Paying The Price For Their Arrogance
  Woke Bloodbath: Leftist Movements Are Paying The Price For Their Arrogance

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  If you thought Kamala Harris was a sure win in 2024, then you haven’t been paying attention to the epic shift in the cultural zeitgeist over the past few years. The thing that bothers me most about political and social analysis is dealing with people who foolishly assume nothing ever changes. Things change all the time. People can and do learn from the past. Nothing is hopeless, and nihilists are lazy and incompetent.

  

  For example, since 2020 within liberty movement circles there has been a contingent of naysayers claiming that red states were being subversively “turned blue” by leftists relocating during the pandemic. My argument was that this was an idiotic take.

  Yes, there were mass relocations across the US but all the data showed the vast majority of these people were conservatives seeking to escape blue state tyranny. I can’t tell you how many “experts” tried to argue with me that Texas, Florida, Idaho, and even my state of Montana were all going to be overrun by progressives. In the aftermath of the election I was once again proven right and they were utterly wrong.

  Florida was an absolute landslide for conservatives. It wasn’t even close and I doubt that state will ever come close to being blue again. The same happened with Texas, Idaho, Montana, etc. There was no blue wave. It didn’t exist. It was actually a red wave.

  As I noted in my recent article ‘Losing Power? The Elites And The Leftist Mob Would Rather Burn It All To the Ground’, a Trump victory was inevitable along with a conservative mandate. The sea change in American society was evident. That’s why leftists and globalists will continue to use mob actions, economic disaster and geopolitical crisis to burn America to the ground. They know their time is quickly running out and if they can’t control the country, they’ll try to torch it.

  Regardless of what you might think of the candidates or the election in general, the fact of the matter is this election was a RESOUNDING rejection by Americans of the woke ideology and the political left. Trump won in a landslide, not just in the electoral college but also the popular vote, and Trump ran on an anti-woke and anti-globalist platform. The public has spoken.

  The Democrats embraced woke cultism, they embraced globalist authoritarianism and now they’ve paid the price. Kamala Harris’ embarrassing defeat is the ultimate expression of “Get woke, go broke”. It’s undeniable – No one likes the progressive left. No one likes their race grifting, no one likes their gay and trans grifting, no one likes their targeting of children for indoctrination, no one likes their censorship agenda, no one likes their open borders, no one likes their lying and no one likes their elitism.

  Their movement is dead in the water and a lot of them are bewildered as to what happened.  I’m here to explain some of the biggest reasons why they are universally despised…

  The Covid Coup

  Americans are pissed about the Democrat/globalist attempt to establish a medical tyranny and they aren’t going to forget what happened. Only a couple years ago Democrats and leftist governments around the world were talking about vaccine passports designed to force conservatives to take the experimental vaccine (and the boosters forever).

  They were trying to legislate the creation of covid camps for people who refused to comply. They wanted to fine people, lock them up, keep them under house arrest and even take their children away. They shut down the economy, ordered people to wear useless masks, told people to stay six feet apart and they closed down outdoor recreation. They violated every fundamental of viral science in an insane effort to dominate the world.

  To this day there are still leftists that wear the masks as a symbol of their fealty to the covid dictatorship. The problem was, they greatly underestimated public resistance to their agenda and it failed. Now, they face a reckoning for their power mongering.

  January 6th Propaganda And The Rewriting Of History

  Mass conservative protests are pretty rare. We tend to endure quietly and wait for reason to win the day. Violence is not usually in the cards until we are pushed to the brink. This is exactly what happened on January 6th.

  Video evidence shows capitol police fired rubber bullets and tear gas grenades into a peaceful and unarmed crowd of protesters. This attack led directly to the crowd fighting back and eventually raising the building itself. Then, the police ultimately opened the doors to the building and let people wander in. Those protesters walked around for a couple hours and then left on their own. That’s not what an “insurrection” looks like.

  Afterwards, Democrats cherry picked limited footage from the event and claimed it was an “attack on democracy” akin to treason. They lied incessantly and staged the narrative that conservatives were domestic terrorists bent on installing Trump as a totalitarian leader. Americans have seen through this nonsense and the election shows it.

  Economic Denial

  The Biden Admin spent the better part of the last four years trying to deny the reality of stagflation. They have also denied that the economy continues to decline, asserting that the country is in “recovery”, that the jobs market is improving and that inflation is going down.

  None of this was true. Inflation is cumulative and just because CPI goes down does not mean prices are going down. Americans are still paying 30% to 50% more on most necessities compared to 2019. Om top of that, nation debt and consumer debt have skyrocketed to dangerous levels. One could debate who is ultimately to blame for this (the central banks and establishment elites are to blame), but this doesn’t change the fact that the Democrats tried to hide the threat from the public.

  Sexualization And “Transing” Of Children

  Leave the kids alone. It was a simple warning from conservatives and leftists refused to listen. Now, they’re going to pay dearly. The woke movement to push trans ideology in public schools is perhaps the most evil scheme our civilization has ever encountered. Gender fluidity is a non-science, a fantasy with no basis in fact. There are only two genders. Period. Pushing confusing gender identity politics on vulnerable kids, often without parent’s knowledge, is monstrous.

  The end game of this plan is the chemical sterilization and even physical castration of America’s youth and the majority of Democrats support it. For this alone they should be booted from the country for the rest of their lives.

  Beyond the politics, there is also the issue of child sexualization. Democrat politicians have consistently pushed for more degeneracy in public education environments, with sexually explicit content made available even in elementary schools. This is child grooming, plain and simple, and most Americans know exactly where it leads.

  Mass Censorship And Government Collusion With Big Tech

  The Biden/Harris Administration has been thoroughly busted, first by the exposure of the Twitter Files and then by Big Tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg. It is a fact – The federal government worked directly with legacy media and social media conglomerates to silence public dissent.

  They censored contrary data on covid, on the vaccines, on the lockdowns, on the masks, on the mandates. They censored political stories that were harmful to the Democrats like the Hunter Biden Laptop story. They shut down entire YouTube channels and Twitter accounts, destroying people’s access to public discourse as well as their livelihoods. All of this was in absolute violation of the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment.

  They need to be punished for this, and that’s why so many Americans voted to give Trump a mandate. They want him to deal out retribution on the matter so that it never happens again.

  Race Grifting And Calling Latinos “Latinx”

  Democrats and woke activists treat minorities as if they are property of the political party. They try to keep minorities firmly chained to the progressive plantation by telling them they are “victims” that need the help of the DNC in order to get “justice.” Clearly, minorities are getting tired of being treated like they’re stupid.

  One big factor that I think really crippled Democrats in the election is the woke attempt to “de-gender” the Spanish language by calling Latinos “Latinx”. The Dems went full retard here and it really hurt them. Hispanics voted in record numbers for Donald Trump, and he also doubled his votes among blacks.

  I have a message to white liberal women in particular: Minorities don’t need your help, your protection or your pity. Please shut your mouths, shut your legs, go back to your cats and your pointless office jobs and leave them be.

  Open Borders And The Great Replacement

  The Great Replacement has been falsely portrayed by the corporate media as a “racist” theory, but race has nothing to do with it. The replacement issue is about culture, not skin color.

  There is an obvious effort on the part of the progressive establishment to flood the US with third world migrants, thereby erasing the cultural heritage of the west and diluting it with people that have no understanding of individual liberties or responsibilities.

  They have offered illegal migrants a host of subsidies and incentives to get them to come to America and they intend to offer these same people amnesty, using American tax dollars to buy off a permanent block of Democrat voters. This would give the leftists a voting majority for generations to come.

  It’s not just white Americans that see what’s happening; legal citizens who are Hispanic understand the game as well. Black communities in the US also always suffer when mass immigration takes place and they can read the writing on the wall. No one wants this, which is why the border issue was the top voter concern in every election survey, right next to the economy.

  Leftist Arrogance

  Progressives have long operated on the fallacy that they are “more educated” than conservatives and are thus smarter and more qualified to dictate the terms of our society. The reality is, most leftists are dumb as stumps.

  They live in their own echo chambers on social media. They live in the masturbatory halls of woke academia. They live in dwindling cities controlled by Democrat governments and rarely leave the comfort of their apartments, their dog parks and their coffee shops. They think they are worldly but they know nothing of the world because they never go outside of their ideological bubble. They don’t have the courage to do that.

  The reality is, a college degree is a wooden spoon (an award for last place) rather than a legitimate accomplishment these days. Unless a student enters a STEM field they are unlikely to come out of a university with anything of value. These places are indoctrination centers, not pillars of higher learning.

  The Inability To Accept Responsibility

  Leftists are inherent losers and mentally weak. They were the kids that were babied most of their lives. They were the kids that struggled most with meritocracy in school. They’re the kids that participation trophies were invented for. They have long relied on emotional outbursts rather than effort to get what they want. Instead of improving themselves and striving for something better, they cry victim when they can’t compete.

  I never met a leftist in my life that was good at taking responsibility for their own failures. Their narcissism and obsession with personal identity has been exposed. Their fake concern for victim status groups no longer convinces anyone. They desperately want to be the main character in some grand heroic drama that the rest of us applaud, but this is not going to happen.

  The best the woke mob can hope for is to return to a life of obscurity where they belong. The more they try to become the center of attention the worse things get for them. Their best bet is to stop trying to rule the world and thank their lucky stars they get to continue living in this country.

  *  *  *

  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
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 20:05

• Duke Energy Considers Making Coal Power Great Again Under Trump
  Duke Energy Considers Making Coal Power Great Again Under Trump

  In an interview with Bloomberg on Thursday, Duke Energy Chief Financial Officer Brian Savoy explained how a Trump victory could roll back climate regulations on power generation at utility plants, just as electricity demand soars due to newly built artificial intelligence data centers. Meanwhile, Democrats, wearing climate crisis blinders, have pushed disastrous de-growth ‘green’ policies removing fossil fuel generation from the grid, resulting in shockingly high power prices for some customers – and even causing power crisis in some parts of the Mid-Atlantic.

  CFO Savoy told Bloomberg that he would reexamine plans to convert some coal-fired power generation units in Indiana to natural gas. He said that in a deregulated environment under Trump, dual conversion, known as switching power plants or industrial boilers from coal to NatGas, would “make sense” in Indiana, adding there’s even a chance some power generation units would remain coal-burning. 

  Trump is expected to reverse Biden-Harris’ far-left climate policies, which have acted as an economic muzzle on the US economy. At the same time, China built a record number of coal plants that fed cheap power to factories, essentially making US companies unable to compete with Chinese ones in international markets. Trump may focus on rolling back greenhouse gas emission controls on the gas, oil, coal, power, and auto sectors.

  Following the victory on Wednseday, American Energy Alliance congratulated the former President and said it was excited to “unwind the Biden-Harris administration’s regulatory onslaught on American energy producers.”

  “Throughout his campaign, President Trump expressed his unabashed support for American energy,” IER and AEA President Thomas Pyle told Utility Dive in a statement.

  Pyle continued, “He promised to embrace domestic oil and gas production, lower energy and electricity prices, and undo the inflationary Biden-Harris Green New Deal policies, especially the wasteful taxpayer-funded subsidies in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.”

  There’s no denying that another Trump presidency will slow the energy transition to a more sensible speed, as the current trajectory puts the nation on a crash course with power inflation amid all the new power demand from AI data centers.

  Donald Trump says to be dominant in AI, America requires twice the electricity of current capacity and he pledges to meet that demand, partly through nuclear power pic.twitter.com/HooPgk4Qpa

  — Tsarathustra (@tsarnick) July 27, 2024

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

  With Republicans in charge of the Senate, the White House, and potentially the House, Trump will move quickly to deregulate the power industry and lower energy costs for Americans by restarting fossil fuel power generators. Trump must also continue the revival of America’s nuclear power plants. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 19:40

• Judge Denies AstraZeneca's Motion To Dismiss In Vaccine Injury Case
  Judge Denies AstraZeneca’s Motion To Dismiss In Vaccine Injury Case

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A federal law that grants broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers does not protect AstraZeneca against a breach of contract claim brought by a woman who was injured by the company’s vaccine, a U.S. judge ruled on Nov. 4.

  

  The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act protects manufacturers of vaccines during times of emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

  Brianne Dressen sued AstraZeneca for neglecting to, as promised in a contract, cover the costs of injuries she suffered after participating in the company’s clinical trial in 2020. The pharmaceutical company said it was immune from the lawsuit under the PREP Act.

  U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby disagreed, ruling on Monday in favor of Dressen and denying AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss.

  While Dressen can’t sue over the injuries, she can over the breach of contract because the legal immunity granted by the law does not cover at least some contractual claims, Shelby said.

  “The basis of Dressen’s claim is a broken promise, not a countermeasure,” he said, adding later: “Dressen was administered a covered countermeasure, and she was warned that she may suffer from an adverse reaction, but the fact that she suffered from such reaction was not sufficient to ripen her claim. Rather, she only has a claim because AstraZeneca made a contractual promise to her that happened to involve the effects of a covered countermeasure.”

  AstraZeneca put forth a theory in legal filings that immunity from breach of contract claims helps encourage the quick development and deployment of countermeasures during health emergencies, which is the purpose of the PREP Act. Dressen’s lawyers argued enforcing contracts achieves the same result. The judge sided with the latter.

  “If the PREP Act immunized deceptive contractual inducement and sanctioned illusory promises, then no one would agree to undertake the high-risk activities that are critical during public health emergency responses,” Shelby said. “The PREP Act drafters could not have intended to allow pharmaceutical companies to make illusory promises to clinical trial participants because doing so would erode public trust and undermine the ability to recruit willing participants, which in turn would erode and undermine pandemic preparedness.”

  The judge used the example of AstraZeneca agreeing to pay $125 for time and travel reimbursements to Dressen per study visit during the clinical trial. “AstraZeneca’s theory of immunity would allow it to shirk this and any other promise made to trial participants merely because the promise ultimately relates to the administration or use of a vaccine,” he said.

  Dressen, a preschool teacher in Utah, volunteered for the 2020 clinical trial. The consent form she signed said AstraZeneca would “cover the costs of research injuries” and “pay the costs of medical treatment.” After receiving the company’s shot, she suffered from a variety of injuries. U.S. National Institutes of Health doctors diagnosed her with vaccine side effects.

  AstraZeneca largely declined to offer payment for treatment, beyond a final offer of $1,243, according to court documents.

  AstraZeneca’s vaccine was administered widely in some other countries but U.S. authorities never authorized its use beyond clinical trials.

  Shelby’s ruling means Dressen’s case will move forward.

  Dressen wrote on the social media platform X that the judge “handed down a thoughtful and timely decision.”

  “My deepest gratitude to the court for respectfully reviewing this important case and allowing it to move forward,” she said.

  An AstraZeneca spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the company cannot comment on ongoing litigation.

  “Patient safety is our highest priority,” the spokesperson said. “From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real-world data, the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world consistently state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 19:15

• "I'm Dry As A Desert": White Liberal Women Threaten To Become Pro-Life After Trump Win
  “I’m Dry As A Desert”: White Liberal Women Threaten To Become Pro-Life After Trump Win

  Young white liberal women, plagued with the ‘woke mind virus,’ have swung so far off the deep end that some are now threatening to align themselves with pro-Christian values. They are advocating for abstaining from sex, dating, marriage, and even children over the outcome of the 2024 presidential election because males voted for the ‘Orange Man’…

  Far-left corporate media outlets like CBS News and the Washington Post have pushed out stories about South Korea’s “4B Movement”  gaining traction among feminists in the United States shortly after Trump won.

  The 4B movement is comprised of four “no’s”—no sex, no dating or marriage with men, and no having children. Some young feminists have adopted it on various social media platforms in the US to show young men voting for Republicans has consequences.

  Liberal women are abstaining from having s*x for the next 4 years. pic.twitter.com/VHLrhh26Im

  — TaraBull (@TaraBull808) November 7, 2024

  “Young men expect sex, but they also want us to not be able to have access to abortion. They can’t have both,” Michaela Thomas, an artist in Georgia, told WaPo. 

  Thomas continued, “Young women don’t want to be intimate with men who don’t fight for women’s rights; it’s showing they don’t respect us.” 

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

  Genuinely, end it with them if they don’t see the issue of that man being president.

  Put yourself first. Put your body first. #4BMovement https://t.co/CLO45pMFZS pic.twitter.com/KpvAUPDaGO

  — 🇵🇷𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖆𝖑𝖎𝖆 𝕺𝖗𝖙𝖎𝖟⧗𝕽𝖔𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖔𝖋𝖋🇵🇷 (@ScarletWidow901) November 6, 2024

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

  Woman says she has an IQ of 130 and will now “stay dry” and not sleep with men because Trump was elected.

  She said it’s punishment for taking away her right to an abortion.

  Sounds good. She won’t need any abortions then.

  Way to go IQ 130. pic.twitter.com/P6wgGrvYpt

  — Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) November 7, 2024

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

  What’s hilarious is that these young white liberal women have become so confused – and so radicalized – that they don’t even realize not having sex with random guys from Tinder, Bumble, and or Hinge on the reg is more or less a reversion to traditionalism and morally right choices that align with Christian values.

  Many liberal women are now beginning a movement called “4B” where they will stop dating and withhold any sex from their partners in response to Trump’s victory since they think abortion has been banned (it hasn’t been nationally banned).

  Ladies, welcome to the pro-life movement!

  — Ann Vandersteel™️ (@annvandersteel) November 7, 2024

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

  Red State’s Brandon Morse commented on the movement: 

  “Dude makes an excellent point about women’s sexuality. They went so left they started going right, claiming they’re going to stop being hoes and won’t put out until men respect them. Uh… that’s what we’ve been saying you should do all along.” 

  Dude makes an excellent point about women’s sexuality.

  They went so left they started going right, claiming they’re going to stop being hoes and won’t put out until men respect them.

  Uh… that’s what we’ve been saying you should do all along. #4BMovement pic.twitter.com/60SZxNZ4DI

  — Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) November 7, 2024

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

  One woman pointed out, “I think that liberal women are finally starting to understand what pro-life conservative women have been telling them for years …” 

  #4BMovement pic.twitter.com/5YwbZNNGLL

  — LOU ALFARO (@_louiexlouie_) November 6, 2024

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

  We penned a note shortly after Trump won, “Trump Wins, “Move To Canada” Searches Spike, Liberals Meltdown Online.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 18:50

• The Renaissance Of Civic Education
  The Renaissance Of Civic Education

  Authored by Michael Poliakoff and Jack Miller via RealClearEducation,

  Over the last 60 years, there has been unconscionable neglect of civics and American history at both the K-12 and university levels.

  Surveys by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) show that fewer than 20% of colleges nationwide require an American history or government course for graduation. Unsurprisingly, this deficit has made its way into the training of teachers too. Future K-12 teachers are unlikely to learn the basic facts about our founding principles and our long history of working toward that more perfect Union our founders envisioned.

  

  Fortunately, more and more public universities are doing their part to reverse this trend.

  In 2016, the Arizona legislature created the School for Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. This school has become a valuable training ground for ASU students seeking a thorough understanding of our nation’s governing institutions and the responsibilities of citizenship in a free society while being exposed to a diversity of viewpoints.

  The ASU model has since been replicated at 13 universities in several other states.

  Founded a year ago, the School of Civic Life and Leadership at the University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill, which ACTA helped create, has already gained national attention. It was deservedly featured in articles in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. And for good reason.

  UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Civic Life and Leadership (SCiLL) offers a civic life and leadership minor that introduces students to key ideas from philosophy, history, political science, and economics. It helps prepare them for participating in consequential policy discussions and debates.

  SCiLL is explicitly dedicated to promoting civil discourse and free speech and inculcating the responsibilities of informed, engaged citizenship. UNC-Chapel Hill students who do not participate in SCiLL classes nevertheless benefit from its speaker series and Program for Public Discourse.

  Programs such as these consist of a separate academic unit within the university, supported by the state and private donors. Crucially, the head of that unit has hiring authority and almost always reports directly to the provost or president of the university.

  New institutes like SCiLL not only educate undergraduates but are also developing M.A. and Ph.D. programs. And they have already reached out to train the K-12 social studies teachers in their regions so that those teachers will be better able to teach their own pupils.

  The goal is to continue expanding these programs in states across the country.

  The Tennessee General Assembly answered Governor Bill Lee’s call to establish an institute devoted to teaching informed patriotism with a $6 million initial appropriation by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

  The Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville offers minor and certificate programs in American civics and constitutional studies, as well as many other events, programs, and scholarships for students. It also features outstanding professional development programs for secondary school teachers. It is already drawing some of the best and brightest students – especially those who want to make a positive difference but previously could not find a constructive, nonpartisan path to pursue this passion.

  Through the efforts of Ohio state senators Jerry Cirino and Rob McColley, the State of Ohio has made the largest investment yet – $24 million – for the creation of civic education centers at five public universities in the state. Ohio State University, for example, now has the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society. Four other state universities are rapidly coming online with programs devoted to the American constitutional life.

  And at the University of Florida in Gainesville, the Hamilton Center is on its way to hiring 50 professors, including distinguished faculty recruited from elite institutions who have grown weary of having their views be marginalized.

  Young professors whose interests in the American founding, constitutional and diplomatic history, and our roots in Western civilization are often left without prospects in academe. Now, however, they are finding excellent opportunities to teach at civic centers being established throughout the country. And thousands of public university students now have a chance to get a world-class education in citizen leadership that will serve them well across an array of career pathways.

  Nonprofit organizations and their donors can play a valuable part in advancing efforts like these.

  For example, ACTA makes the case to trustees and legislatures that establishing these centers must be a priority.

  And for many years, the Jack Miller Center has invested in training and helping young professors in their careers and supporting established professors, including funding for outstanding postdoctoral fellows in American political thought and political theory.

  Today, the Jack Miller Center’s academic network includes over 1,200 professors on over 300 campuses around the country.  A number of them now hold faculty and senior leadership positions in these new schools and institutes of civic thought and leadership.

  These new institutes are devoted to teaching the whole story of America. As the late Bruce Cole, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and former member of the Jack Miller Center’s Board of Directors, said, they will provide “a story of the center and the margins, the peaks and the valleys.” In contrast to what sadly so often happens on campus, they not only recognize the flaws that must be mended but also the American achievements that inspire the world.

  We have an opportunity with new generations of students to create informed patriots and renew their search for the promise of achieving the American dream. Working together, the states, the organizations working in this field, and donors can make this civics renaissance become a reality across the country.

  Michael Poliakoff is the president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Jack Miller is the founder and chairman emeritus of the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America’s Founding Principles & History.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 18:25

• Putin Praises 'Courageous' Trump & Hints At Ukraine Talks, Phone Call Likely
  Putin Praises ‘Courageous’ Trump & Hints At Ukraine Talks, Phone Call Likely

  It appears President Vladimir Putin is jumping at the opportunity of pursuing a serious reset with the United States under the future Trump presidency. In surprisingly positive Thursday remarks, Putin issued congratulatory statements and heaped praise on Trump for winning the election, also saying he acted “like a man” following the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania last summer.

  “His behavior at the time of the attempt on his life made an impression on me,” Putin said at the Valdai Club in the Black Sea city of Sochi. “He turned out to be a courageous man. And it’s not just about the raised hand and the call to fight for his and their common ideals… He behaved, in my opinion, in a very correct way, courageously, like a man.”

  Significantly these were the very first public remarks given by Putin after the Tuesday election. The Russian leader emphasized that Trump’s campaign promises to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war “deserve attention”. Putin further highlighted Trump’s desire to improve relations with Moscow as a major plus as part of the remarks.

  

  “It seems to me, it deserves attention what was said about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis,” Putin said. “I have always said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people.”

  Without doubt, these mark the warmest words issued by Putin regarding the spiraling US relationship in years, and certainly the most positive remarks since the invasion of February 2022. Rhetoric between Moscow and Washington have over the course of the war up to now been marked by severe accusations and even veiled nuclear threats.

  And importantly, Putin signaled he might speak to Trump, per state media:

  Putin congratulated Trump on his win, and said that he is open to a phone call with the president-elect. “It wouldn’t be beneath me to call him myself,” Putin added.

  The US-President elect has in turn told NBC the following:

  President-elect Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin wasn’t among the “probably” 70 phone conversations he has held with world leaders since winning the election, but that he still is planning to speak with the Russian president, according to NBC News. 

  “I think we’ll speak,” Trump told NBC, Thursday, the news organization said. 

  This type of positive dialogue while the Ukraine war rages was unthinkable under the Biden-Harris administration, and for that reason the Kremlin was very closely watching the US election.

  Interestingly, despite their recent subtle tensions, Ukraine’s Zelensky and President-elect Trump have spoken in the wake of the landslide election victory. Trump confirmed to NBC that Zelensky was among the congratulatory phone calls from world leaders he’s received so far since Tuesday.

  President Zelensky also issued a congratulatory statement on X, expressing hope he could work with Trump to implement “peace through strength” and that his country was “interested in developing mutually beneficial political and economic cooperation that will benefit both of our nations.”

  Ukrainian soldiers SHOOT a mannequin wearing a TRUMP SHIRT.

  Are they upset that American funds will end?pic.twitter.com/1Ic86hcddf

  — Resist the Mainstream (@ResisttheMS) November 7, 2024

  However, following this, in a Thursday press briefing, Zelensky sought to pour cold water on the potential for a quick peace:

  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy poured cold water Thursday on a plan by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to strike a rapid peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow, arguing it would amount to a “loss” for Ukraine.

  “I believe that President Trump really wants a quick decision” to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Zelenskyy told journalists in Budapest. “He wants that. It doesn’t mean that it will happen this way.”

  He complained that a rapid ceasefire would be tantamount to “preparation to ruin and destroy our independence.” Below are more of Zelensky’s words aimed at Trump, revealing serious tensions remain, given in Budapest:

  “He [Trump] wants this war to be finished,” Zelenskyy said through an interpreter. “We all want to end this war, but a fair ending … If it is very fast, it’s going to be a loss for Ukraine.”

  The Ukrainian leader also responded to an appeal from Hungarian strongman Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, issued minutes earlier from the same stage, for a rapid ceasefire deal between the two warring camps.

  “I heard that it’s better to implement a ceasefire and then, ‘we’ll see,’” Zelenskyy said, referring to Orbán’s comments. “[A] ceasefire was tried back in 2014. We tried to reach this ceasefire and we lost Crimea and then we had the full-scale invasion.”

  But for several months as Ukrainian forces have suffered a string of defeats in Donetsk, putting the Russian army on the brink of capturing the strategic city of Pokrovsk, there have been signs that behind the scenes Western diplomats have actually been increasing the pressure on Kiev to find an exit strategy – sooner rather than later. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 18:00

• 2028
  2028

  Authored by Thomas Buckley via ‘The Point’ substack,

  So, well, now that’s over, let’s look at the 2028 presidential race.

  If you are polite, you just swore in your head – if you’re normal, you did it out loud.

  But sometimes we like to torture our readers, so let’s look ahead four years, shall we?

  

  On the Democrat side of the aisle:

  First, I wonder how one says “neener neener” in each of the world’s 7,000 languages?

  Mean, but I think we all deserve a football spike or two after the last four years.

  Donald Trump is the happiest person in the country today, the 73 or so million people who voted for him are a close second, and in a very close third is Gavin Newsom.

  It can only be assumed that the his Plumpjack (such a creepy name) wine flowed very freely last night at whichever house Gavin and the First Partner were at.  Donald Trump just did Newsom a huge favor – he vanquished the one person who could have absolutely guaranteed he couldn’t run for president at least 2032 and by that time – let’s face it: the boyish charm will have worn off a bit and the oil slick oin his head will be a bit grey and those are his two “best”  electoral qualities so, phewww.

  With her out of the way, Newsom now has a clear path to the nomination.  The national media will fawn over him and try to convince the rest of the country that California is not actually as much of a third world basket case as and if it is it’s, um, Ronald Reagan’s fault.

  Last night’s results also means that Newsom will tack to the middle for the next two years as governor, desperately trying to rub the progressive stink off of himself.  Not that that’s really great, but – for California – it’s better than nothing as he may turn back some of the most egregiously silly ideas the legislature tries to foist upon the state.

  Case in point, Newsom issued a statement yesterday that he will “work with” the new administration.

  One serious downside for Newsom did emerge last night – the nation’s opinion of the state.  That will be tough to overcome, hence one can expect the aforementioned policy shifts.

  As for Newsom’s potential competition, let’s start with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.  True, Kamala lost his state but that is not at all on him, as it were.  In fact, it seems she did him a favor by passing him over for the veep spot on the ticket.

  Of course she only settled on the rolling dough of goofball that is/was Tim Walz (note to Democrats: stopping nominating chubby white guys named Tim to be vice president,  it just doesn’t work) because Shapiro is Jewish. 

  There is no other reason, no matter what she has claimed.  She simply could not have a dastardly colonizing rapacious JEW on her ticket, what with her base being so rabidly anti-Semitic (not anti-Israel, just straight up anti-Semitic.)

  If the relatively moderate Shapiro holds Pennsylvania together for the next few years – which will be made easier by Donald Trump’s labor and energy policies, to be honest – he will be very strongly positioned for 2028 as the saner alternative to Newsom.

  Then we have Illinois Gov. J.B Pritzker, but he has some very heavy baggage.  First, he looks like a Thomas Nast caricature of an evil Gilded Age plutocrat/corrupt politician.

  Take a look:

  

  And now Pritzker:

  

  He is also in charge of one of the most poorly run, brokest, and corrupt states in the country that has outmigration numbers that give California a run for its money.  And Chicago has more murders than pretty much anywhere.

  In other words, he does not have the charm to try to cover things like that up like Newsom does.

  True, he’s a zillionaire (richer than Trump, actually) but it is inherited wealth (hotels) and his other trust fund relatives have done some absurdly woke things with their share of the money.  His cousin Jennifer – it used to be James –gave a $2 million donation to create the world’s first endowed academic chair of transgender studies, at the University of Victoria in British Columbia.

  Oh, and here she/he/whatever is:

  

  Kudos for her military service when she was a guy and her continuing support of veteran’s causes but, well, yikes.  Fat old white guys should not wear dresses.

  Case in point, Admiral Rachel Levine:

  

  Speaking of women, there’s Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.  Personally, I’m baffled by her appeal and why she is constantly touted as the Democrats “next big thing,” and that even before her Flamin’ Hot Eucharist stunt.

  

  Oh, and here’s the link to the vid: https://x.com/i/status/1844449775992893861

  She’s very controlling and privileged – her record during the pandemic could be the poster child for “rules for thee, not for me,” although she did get pretty lit at a football game so I’ll give her that.

  And then you have Pete Buttigieg – he’s gay, ya’ know – and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore – he’s black, ya’ know – and then a bunch of other folks who will give it a shot.

  And many others – except Kamala, lol – will give it a shot for it is a rather rare occurrence that a nomination for either party is completely wide open.

  On the Republican side, it’s Vice President Presumptive J.D. Vance’s race to lose.

  Trump cannot run again, so that opens up the nomination.  And short of Trump nuking Canada and/or appointing Mike Pence as his Chief of Staff, Vance is the very very odds-on favorite.

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis could have thought about challenging for 2028, but he made the huuuuge mistake of running for president this time around.  And his campaign was a pathetic disaster, so that’s strike two through eleven.

  Other than that, at this moment there is no alternative to Vance for the Republicans.

  But another issue that will be extremely important in the run up to 2028 will be what the Democrats do internally.

  No changes in California – they have 147 legislators out of 120, of course – but in the national arena.

  Tuesday’s results must show the party that it is utterly out of touch and that when it does try to touch people it can only be described a “BAD touch!!”

  But if the Democrats try to move to the center-ish they will have to deal with the lunatics they have let run the asylum.

  Gaza.  Trans.  DEI.  Government unions.  Speech codes.  Greenaholism.  Microaggressions.  And on and on…

  The party has based its existence over the past few years, as well as much of its funding, on those very things. 

  To paraphrase supporters of Joe Biden in 2020, they have let the children run the room.

  And now the regular Democrats – who obviated their responsibility –  have to give them a spanking and that is going to be difficult.  I mean, you have people on the loony left of the party that refer to being “pro-life” as being part of “the forced birth movement.”

  The wokerati – who bitch and moan about everything anyway – will not go gently into that good night.

  And whiny. And squirmy.  And howly.  And ragey.

  But it will be fun to watch.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 17:40

• Worse Off Now? Real Wages Have Declined Since Nov. 2020
  Worse Off Now? Real Wages Have Declined Since Nov. 2020

  “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

  Any incumbent president seeking re-election is faced with this political litmus test.

  A test that Kamala Harris, as the de-facto incumbent, apparently failed to pass.

  As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, according to exit polls, 46 percent of voters in key states said that their family was worse off now than it was four years ago, the highest ever in presidential exit polls. But is that really true or are we seeing what some economists described as a “vibecession”, i.e. an overly negative perception of an economy that is doing alright?

  While the U.S. economy has come through the inflation crisis relatively unscathed, with robust growth, low unemployment and high stock prices, many American families have not.

  Or at least it hasn’t felt that way.

  The main problem with inflation is the fact that it hits consumers right where it hurts: the wallet.

  In times of high inflation, when prices increase faster than nominal wages, real wages go down, meaning that workers see (and feel) the purchasing power of their income decline.

  During the current inflation crisis, this has been the case from April 2021 to April 2023, when average real hourly earnings declined for 25 consecutive months on a year-over-year basis. In May 2023, real wages began to rise again as nominal wage growth outpaced inflation once again as it normally should.

  By looking at cumulative wage growth and price increases since November 2020, we can at least try to answer the question of whether or not Americans are better off than they were four years ago and the answer is: not really.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Between November 2020 and September 2024, nominal wages increased 19.2 percent on aggregate.

  During the same time, consumer prices have surged by 20.6 percent, though, meaning that prices hikes have erased any wage growth and left real wages 1.1 percent short off where they were four years ago.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 17:20

• The Dam Has Burst, The Floodgates Of Liberty Just Opened
  The Dam Has Burst, The Floodgates Of Liberty Just Opened

  Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

  On Tuesday night, the country decided to take drastic measures to steer back toward the center of the aisle and common sense. At the same time, the populace delivered a fatal blow to the unholy alliance between the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, both of whom will now be forced to consider massive overhauls to the strategies they have employed over the last decade if they want a chance of being relevant over the next decade.

  Everyone knows the election was a decisive victory for Donald Trump, so there is no need to rehash the ins and outs of the numbers. Trump very clearly has a mandate, and with Republicans picking up Senate seats they were widely expected to secure back in 2022 but didn’t, American citizens have now made one of the boldest statements in the country’s history.

  My regular readers know that I wrote days ago about how a Trump win would spell the death of the mainstream media. But this victory goes far beyond that.

  Democrats thought they could compensate for a lack of merit and substance in their hand-picked candidate by doubling down on baseless inflammatory rhetoric, posturing as though they held the moral high ground, and resorting to their time-tested strategies of race hustling and identity politics.

  After all, Harris rose to the candidacy for president without any notable merit-based wins. She was crushed in the 2020 Democratic primary and was picked for vice president—admittedly by Joe Biden—only because she was a woman of color. And last night, the country’s “free market” of voters sent Democrats a reminder that meritocracy still rules the roost.

  Because Harris was such a grossly incompetent and downright phony candidate, the media’s efforts to cover for her were Herculean. This wasn’t a case of some slight liberal bias over the last few months; instead it was full-scale outright lying, deceptive editing of Harris’ interview responses, blatant, one-sided fact-checking that often ignored the facts, and a nonstop 24-hour cycle painting Donald Trump as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

  

  As the British would say, the media “over-egged the pudding.” And then set the house on fire by leaving the oven on.

  In doing so, they not only laid bare their agenda and the deep threads connecting the media machine to the Democratic Party, but they also sacrificed what was left of their credibility after half a decade of hoaxes, outright lies, and biased journalism. In other words, if the media were a poker player with a dwindling chip stack, it just went all-in—and got smoked by pocket aces.

  The irony isn’t lost on me. The media took a blowtorch to the rest of its credibility, preaching about “defending democracy,” only to run cover for a candidate who never earned one primary vote.

  In hindsight, even the most delusional consultants in whatever focus group the Democrats have been using will be forced to recognize the blatantly disastrous nature of this campaign. Had they chosen any other candidate, the Democrats could have won. If they’d picked someone like Josh Shapiro as vice president, they could have won. If Harris could even recite three or four memorized 30 second lines that hinted at policy ideas with any coherence, they could have won.

  But instead, they relied on the media to paint public-relations lipstick on the pig of their campaign, hoping to save it — and America got wise to the scam.

  And now, post-election, both the media and Democrats are back at square one.

  Democrats have alienated a significant portion of the center-right, center, and center-left due to their pandering to the radical left and bizarre ideological positions. Meanwhile, the media has lost another huge segment of viewership and portion of the public trust. And the trust that has been eroded between the media and Democrats with the American public over the last four years will take a very, very long time to rebuild.

  ---

  🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for as long as you wish: Get 50% off forever

  ---

  This is why I take the trust my readers place in me so seriously — and why I’m so appreciative of their support. Not just because at the end of the day I’m only seeking the objective truth, but because in a media subscription model (especially in finance) you can sheer the sheep of your viewers many times but only skin them once. This election cycle, the mainstream media skinned the trust of the American people for all the world to see. And they got the exact opposite result they intended for.

  I hinted over the past month that a decisive GOP victory would be more than just a win. I wrote last week that it would be a bold statement at a time when the country needed it most. Our nation has never been so stifled by dangerous, counterintuitive, and far left radical ideas and media coverage as it has been over the past five to ten years. To quote Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, “Liberty is the soul’s right to breathe. And when I cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight.”

  Never has our nation needed a massive gasp of fresh air more than it did going into last night. And that’s why I believe this mandate isn’t merely about four years of undoing the damage done by Democrats in their most recent term. Rather, it signals a potentially new golden age—a renaissance for our nation. Since Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008, there has been a growing faction in the U.S. that has fought for liberty, smaller government, lower taxes, reduced regulation, peace and fiscal responsibility.

  These are ideologies that don’t just fade over the course of four years, and now that they are firmly planted in this Trump administration and its Unity Party, they may remain a powerful force in the U.S. for decades, well beyond this administration.

  Thank you again for your trust and for supporting my work. 

  

  QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

  This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 17:00

• "You Don't Deserve Any Respect!": Steve Bannon Goes Scorched Earth On Democrats On Election Night Livestream
  “You Don’t Deserve Any Respect!”: Steve Bannon Goes Scorched Earth On Democrats On Election Night Livestream

  Steve Bannon took to his livestream on election day, just hours after leaving prison for contempt of congress charges, to offer up his take on the landslide victory President Trump was in the midst of at the time.

  Speaking about Democrats, Bannon exclaimed:

  “You stole the 2020 election. You’ve mocked and ridiculed and put people in prison and broken people’s lives because you said this thing was stolen. This entire phony thing is getting swept out. Biden’s getting swept out. Kamala Harris is getting swept out.” 

  “MSNBC is getting swept out. The Justice Department [DOJ] is getting swept out. The FBI is getting swept out. You people suck, okay? And now you’re going to pay the price for trying to destroy this country.” 

  “And we’re going to get to the bottom of where are the 600,000 votes. You manufactured them to steal this election from President Trump in 2020,” Bannon exclaimed.

  “Think of where the country would be if we hadn’t gone through the last 4 years of your madness. You don’t deserve any respect, you don’t deserve any empathy and you don’t deserve any pity,” he said.

  Bannon is on FIRE 🔥🔥🔥

  JUSTICE IS COMING! pic.twitter.com/ZcA8FIN62H

  — Patri0tsareinContr0l (@Patri0tContr0l) November 6, 2024

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

  “And if anybody gives it to you it’s Donald J. Trump because he’s got a big heart and he’s a good man. A good man you’re going to still try and put in prison on the 26th of this month, this is how much you people suck,” Bannon said. 

  “You tried to destroy his business and he came back in the greatest show of political courage in world history,” Bannon exclaimed. “What he has done is a profile in courage.”

  “No one speaks for the President but the president, and what the president said and as he said it last night on the stage is that he’s going to be a president for everybody, and we’ve got an opportunity right now to unify the country to bring this country back together,” Lewandowski, a senior adviser on Trump’s 2024 campaign, responded to The Hill. 

  “Listen, there’s going to be a lot of hyperbole out there; there’s going to be a lot of people saying they know Donald Trump or speak for him,” he said. “Unless you hear it from Donald Trump, you don’t have to listen to what these other people say.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 16:40

• Harris Was Always Doomed
  Harris Was Always Doomed

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

  The presidential race was not unpredictable, as the now once again discredited polls swore to us.

  

  Instead, the great Trump comeback victory was clear by the last weeks of the campaign.

  The Republicans had made massive gains in voter registrations since 2020, when Trump had lost the Electoral College by only a few thousand strategically placed votes.

  Republicans began to master the transition to non-Election Day balloting—first engineered by the left in 2020 under the pretext of COVID.

  They not only vastly exceeded their early/mail-in voting totals of 2020, but by Election Day, they often outpaced Democrats.

  For months, it was widely reported, albeit grudgingly, that there were large defections in Hispanic and African American voters from Harris.

  The betting odds over the last three weeks usually favored Trump.

  Harris simply could not run on anything she had so emphatically promoted in the past – given these left-wing, unpopular, and failed policies had no majority support.

  So, the chameleon Harris renounced her prior 30 years of earlier radical advocacies that, along with her race and gender, had forced Joe Biden in 2020 to select her as vice president.

  There was no way Harris could still support banning fracking, defunding police, opposing border security and the wall, or calling for mass amnesties and an end to the border patrol.

  Nor could Harris still promote racial reparations, ending private health care insurance, or advocating for higher income and capital gains taxes and a wealth tax.

  Much less could Harris still boast of wanting mandatory “buyback” or confiscation of some semi-automatic weapons—including entering private homes to seize them.

  So given all that, Harris simply flipped—and serially lied about who she was, renouncing her entire political career.

  Indeed, Harris began to copycat Trump’s own positions.

  And so, she never convinced the electorate that she would not flip back to her earlier radicalism once elected or even in defeat finishing out her vice presidential term.

  There were three damning realities that even if Harris had been a gifted politician and an adept speaker, she could never have changed.

  One, Harris was preposterously running as a turn-the-page, new-generation candidate.

  But why had she not sought to implement such a “new chapter” for the prior 45 months as an incumbent vice president, especially while in office during the campaign itself?

  Voters knew the answer: the entire Biden-Harris tenure was a far left-wing utter disaster, one for which the radical Harris 1.0 had for three-plus years claimed co-ownership.

  Two, why did Harris avoid all impromptu interviews and the media for most of the campaign—only to reverse course and seek out reporters when her polls eroded?

  Did it hurt Harris more to avoid the media—or meet with them and thus confirm her inanity to millions of viewers and listeners?

  Three, why did Harris serially lie to America that Joe Biden was hale and vigorous—until hours before his senility prompted leftist donors and party insiders to force him off the ticket?

  And why could she not declare her independence from the historically unpopular Biden?

  Harris instead chose to terrify voters to vote against a demonized and “fascist” Trump rather than to vote for Harris and her make-believe agendas.

  But even in demonizing Trump, the maladroit Harris hit a wall.

  By campaign’s end, Trump’s favorables were often higher than her own.

  His prior four years as president polled higher than the current Biden-Harris train wreck.

  Trump, the purported “racist,” won more Hispanic and black voters than past “moderate” Republicans like Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney.

  It was hard to damn Trump as a crazy fascist when iconic liberal figures, like Robert Kennedy or Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, were campaigning for him.

  Trump had reinvented the Republican Party by substituting ecumenical, middle-class solidarity for polarizing racial tribalism. Elitist Democrats were left to cater to the interests of their well-off and very rich donors as well as the subsidized poor.

  Finally, workaholic Donald Trump campaigned nonstop for two years, won all the primaries, and was endorsed by his two chief primary rivals.

  In contrast, the Harris “nomination” was the product of a coup that, in 48 hours, removed from the ticket an incumbent president, nullified the will of his 14 million primary voters, and coronated Harris, who had neither won nor ever entered a primary.

  That late July forced abdication of Biden lent an air of illegitimacy to Harris’s candidacy, as well as truncating the time available to campaign.

  Finally, Harris’s first major decision was to nominate as her vice president the buffoonish and inept Tim Walz. His radicalism, serial lying, and herky-jerky “weirdness” proved a force multiplier of her own mediocrity.

  In contrast, the calm, empathetic, and astute J.D. Vance eviscerated Walz in their sole debate and did the same to the media.

  Add it all up—and Harris and her star-crossed candidacy were simply and rightly doomed.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 11/07/2024 – 16:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• German Government Collapses As Mass Strikes Grind Economy To A Halt
  German Government Collapses As Mass Strikes Grind Economy To A Halt

  It’s not a good day for the establishment. Just hours after Kamala Harris – and the Democrats – staggering loss which ushered in Trump as president for the third time and gave Republicans a sweep of Congress, Germany’s three-party ruling coalition which had been on the verge of collapse for months, imploded on Wednesday evening after Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced he will fire Finance Minister Christian Lindner over persistent rifts on spending and economic reforms, a move that paves the way for a snap election at the end of March.

  

  The firing ejects Lindner’s fiscally conservative Free Democratic Party  (FDP) from the troubled coalition, forcing Scholz to call for a confidence vote that he said would take place on January 15. If Scholz loses that vote, which is virtually certain, a snap election is set to take place by March.

  The collapse of Germany’s government came just hours after Donald Trump’s clear win in the U.S. election, a result that stunned German political leaders, who depend on American military might for their country’s defense and fear Trump’s tariff policies will hobble German industry.

  “Dear fellow citizens, I would have liked to have spared you this difficult decision, especially in times like these, when uncertainty is growing,” said Scholz – viewed as the weakest German chancellor in decades – in a statement at the chancellery.

  But the rifts inside the coalition proved too great to overcome. Caught in the middle of an impossible battle, Lindner and his conservative FDP insisted that the German government stick to strict spending rules and cut taxes, even as his left-wing coalition partners wanted to maintain social spending and boost German industry through economic stimulus.

  “All too often, Minister Lindner has blocked laws in an inappropriate manner,” said Scholz in a statement. “Too often he has engaged in petty party-political tactics. Too often he has broken my trust.”

  Scholz said he had offered Lindner a deal to create an emergency fund to aid Ukraine that would exist outside Germany’s regular budget, but Lindner refused to participate in such fiscal gimmicks that saw the UK recently redefine the nature of “debt.”

  “Olaf Scholz has long failed to recognize the need for a new economic awakening in our country,” said Lindner. “He has long played down the economic concerns of our citizens.”

  As Politico reports, the FDP is the smallest party in the coalition and is now polling at only four percent — below the threshold needed to make it into the German parliament — meaning its leaders have been mulling a coalition break in order to save their political futures.

  Crisis talks in the coalition of Scholz’s Social Democratic Party, the Greens and Lindner’s Free Democratic Party had come to a head after the FDP issued a paper with demands for liberal economic reforms that were difficult for the other two parties to accept.

  Lindner’s recent policy paper, leaked to the media last week, called for tax cuts and a scaling back of climate policies in order to stimulate economic growth — both positions that put the party at odds with his coalition partners.

  Central to the coalition disagreements was the adoption of the 2025 budget by parliament in which a gap of at least €2.4 billion, and potentially far more, needs to be filled, as well as an agreement on measures to revamp the country’s ailing economy.

  The government crisis comes at the worst possible time: Trump’s victory, which anticipates imposing significant tariffs on German exports, is expected to put heavy pressure on Europe’s largest economy. An analysis from the German Economic Institute (IW) estimates that a new trade war could cost Germany €180 billion over Trump’s four years in office.

  Many in Germany had hoped that the victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. election earlier in the day would force the coalition to hold together over fears that the incoming president would give Europe’s biggest economy a hard ride, targeting its all-important car industry in a trade war.

  Ultimately, however, not even the looming threat of Trump proved enough for the fractious parties to put aside their differences.

  Sensing that the economy is about to go from bad to much worse, last Tuesday – amid mounting concern about the imminent collapse of the EU’s largest manufacturing economy – Germany’s giant trade union IG Metall launched strikes in the nation’s metal and electrical industries in an attempt to win higher wages. According to the tabloid Bild, employees began walking off the job during the night shift, including at Volkswagen’s plant in the city of Osnabruck, where workers worry the plant may be closed.

  Elsewhere, around 200 employees of the battery manufacturer Clarios went on strike in Hanover, Lower Saxony, carrying torches and union flags, the outlet wrote.

  Meanwhile, in Hildesheim, Lower Saxony, around 400 employees, including those at Jensen GmbH, KSM Castings Group, Robert Bosch, Waggonbau Graaff and ZF CV Systems Hannover, have reportedly halted operations.

  Protests are also expected at BMW and Audi plants in Bavaria. Work is to be stopped nationwide during the course of the day, the tabloid wrote.

  ”The fact that production lines are now at a standstill and offices are empty is the responsibility of the employers,” IG Metall’s negotiator and district manager Thorsten Groger stated, as quoted by Deutsche Welle.

  IG Metall is demanding a 7% pay raise compared to the 3.6% raise over a period of 27 months offered by employers’ associations, due to soaring inflation. The companies call such demands unrealistic.

  The mass strikes come as Volkswagen announced on Monday it would close “at least” three of its ten plants in Germany, lay off tens of thousands of staff and downsize remaining plants in the country. The measures are part of a cost-cutting drive, the conglomerate said earlier. Oliver Blume, chief executive of the VW Group, has cited a “difficult economic environment” and “failing competitiveness of the German economy” as factors behind the decision.

  The German Association of the Automotive Industry warned last year that the country was “dramatically losing its international competitiveness” due to soaring energy costs.

  A recent survey by the VDA auto industry association suggested that the reshuffling of the German car industry could lead to 186,000 job losses by 2035, roughly a quarter of which have already occurred.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 23:25

• Cutting Sugar In First 1,000 Days Of Life Reduces Late-Adulthood Disease Risk
  Cutting Sugar In First 1,000 Days Of Life Reduces Late-Adulthood Disease Risk

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

  A low-sugar diet in utero and within the first two years of life can meaningfully reduce the risk of chronic diseases in adulthood, a new study finds.

  

  Researchers determined that a low-sugar diet during the first 1,000 days after conception lowered the child’s risk of diabetes and hypertension in adulthood by 35 percent and 20 percent, respectively, and delayed disease onset by four and two years. Eating sugar in the first two years of one’s life directly shapes a person’s long-term health risks, the findings suggest.

  “We all want to improve our health and give our children the best start in life, and reducing added sugar early is a powerful step in that direction,” Tadeja Gracner, corresponding author and senior economist at the University of Southern California (USC) Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research, told The Epoch Times.

  Dietary Experiences From Rationing: A Natural Scientific Experiment

  Researchers from USC, McGill University, and the University of California–Berkeley studied how early-life sugar restrictions affect the risk of diabetes and hypertension later in life by comparing people conceived before and after the United Kingdom’s WWII food rationing program, which limited sugar intake from 1942 to 1953. The rationing program controlled the distribution of essential goods to ensure fair access for everyone during wartime shortages.

  Those conceived shortly before rationing ended had mothers and early-life diets with low sugar intake, while those conceived after had more sugar in their early environment.

  During the rationing period, people only consumed about 8 teaspoons (40 grams) of sugar daily, which falls within today’s dietary guidelines.

  However, as soon as rationing ended, people’s sugar and sweets intake immediately shot up to almost 16 teaspoons (80 grams) per day. This increase is partly attributed to a rise in canned and dried fruit intake and a surge in sugar and sweets sales during the post-rationing period.

  Early Life Nutrition Affects Adult Health

  The study found that children exposed to rationing, both after conception and in early life, had a one-third reduced risk of developing Type 2 diabetes and hypertension when compared to those with little or no exposure to rationing.

  Previous research has shown that the first 1,000 days from conception, including pregnancy (270 days) and the first two years of life, represent a critical window for fetal development.

  “This period has been extensively studied and been shown as one of the most important developmental periods for several long-term outcomes,” said Gracner in an email.

  The study references the “fetal origins hypothesis,” which suggests that a person’s risk of disease later in life is influenced by their experience inside the womb. When a fetus detects cues from the mother’s health—like poor nutrition—it makes adjustments to help it survive, such as changing how it uses energy and responds to hormones.

  These adaptations can form “set points” that continue into adulthood. For example, if a fetus adapts to poor nutrition by slowing its metabolism, this slower metabolic rate can become a lasting set point, influencing how efficiently the body uses energy throughout life.

  Additionally, infancy and toddlerhood are identified as “crucial periods for developing a taste for sweets (or even addiction) that can elevate sugar consumption throughout life,” the authors wrote.

  “While humans generally like sweet taste, significant sugar exposure in early life can strengthen this preference,” Gracner said.

  In their current work, her team finds supporting evidence of this pattern. “We found that adults who experienced sugar rationing consume less added sugar into their midlife compared to those who never experienced rationing,” she added.

  While a mother’s low-sugar diet offered some protection, the reduced risk of development and delayed onset of chronic diseases were most pronounced when babies continued to experience a low-sugar environment beyond six months, typically when solid foods are introduced.

  While maternal nutrition during pregnancy contributed one-third of the risk reduction, adding postnatal exposure to sugar rationing (up to one year) led to significantly greater reductions in disease risk. This effect was even more pronounced when rationing continued for over a year, especially for females. This may be because, as animal studies suggest, females are more likely to develop sugar addiction and poor glucose control in high-sugar environments, both of which increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes.

  For those whose sugar exposure was restricted only in utero, Type 2 diabetes onset in older adulthood was delayed by about 1.5 years, and hypertension by half a year. However, people restricted both in utero and beyond one year postnatally had much longer delays: around four years for Type 2 diabetes and two years for hypertension.

  This suggests that an infant’s early solid-food diet may have an even more significant impact on health outcomes than maternal nutrition during pregnancy. However, this hypothesis could not be thoroughly tested due to insufficient data regarding early-life and maternal diets in the UK Biobank, Gracner noted.

  Read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 23:00

• Florida Rejects Measure To Make Abortion A Right
  Florida Rejects Measure To Make Abortion A Right

  Authored by Samantha Flom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A fierce battle over the legality of abortion in Florida came to a head on Nov. 5, when the state’s voters became the first in the nation to reject a push to enshrine abortion in the state’s constitution since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.

  

  After overcoming multiple legal challenges to secure its spot on Florida’s general election ballot, Amendment 4 failed to clear the final obstacle to its passage: the voters.

  A 60 percent majority was required for the measure’s adoption. At 9 p.m. on election night with 91 percent of the vote in, the measure had received 57 percent of the vote.

  The amendment sought to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability—the point at which a baby can survive outside the womb—or at any time if deemed necessary to protect the mother’s health by a “healthcare provider.”

  Its adoption would have nullified the state’s six-week abortion law, which took effect in May. That law states that abortion is illegal once a pregnancy passes the six-week mark. The law includes limited exceptions for situations involving rape, incest, human trafficking, or a serious threat to the mother’s physical health.

  Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser celebrated the voters’ decision in a statement.

  “The demise of pro-abortion Amendment 4 is a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” Dannenfelser said. “Thanks to Gov. Ron DeSantis, when we wake up tomorrow, babies with beating hearts will still be protected in the free state of Florida.”

  DeSantis fought hard against the ballot amendment, arguing that its broad language failed to define the specific conditions under which an abortion could be performed, and by whom.

  He also held that the law would undo existing parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, bar the state from enacting regulations to protect pregnant women, and effectively allow for abortion up until the moment of birth.

  “This Amendment 4, this is an intentional deception on the public,” DeSantis said at an Oct. 30 press conference in Clearwater, surrounded by a group of doctors who opposed the amendment.

  Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody made the same arguments in challenging the amendment’s validity before the state’s Supreme Court. The court found those arguments unconvincing and approved the measure for the ballot.

  Floridians Protecting Freedom, the yes campaign for the amendment, sued the Florida Health Department over its attempts to stop TV stations from airing ads supporting the measure that state officials said misrepresented the state’s current law.

  A ruling has yet to be issued in the case.

  Yes on 4 Campaign Director Lauren Brenzel criticized the state’s opposition to Amendment 4 in an Oct. 16 statement.

  “The State cannot coerce television stations into removing political speech from the airwaves in an attempt to keep their abortion ban in place,” Brenzel said.

  The amendment faced another obstacle in the final weeks of the election: allegations of fraud.

  The state’s Office of Election Crimes and Security alleged that the petition’s circulators forged signatures to secure the amendment’s placement on the ballot. Law enforcement is reportedly investigating 60 individuals in connection with the case.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 22:35

• Trump Has Sweeping Plans For His 2nd Administration: Here's What He Has Proposed
  Trump Has Sweeping Plans For His 2nd Administration: Here’s What He Has Proposed

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Projected President-elect Donald Trump has made a number of sweeping proposals for a second term in office, outlining a wide-ranging agenda that targets federal regulations, taxes, immigration, and social issues.

  

  As of Wednesday morning, The Associated Press projected that Trump is the winner of the election after securing enough electoral votes over his opponent Vice President Kamala Harris.

  Early Wednesday, the former president and president-elect claimed victory in the 2024 presidential contest, telling supporters that voters had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” Early projections show that Trump may win not only the Electoral College but also the popular vote, something he’s never done in his previous two campaigns.

  Immigration

  Since 2015, Trump has made curbing illegal immigration a cornerstone of his campaigns. As president, he built or reconstructed about 400 miles of border barrier along the U.S.–Mexico border and implemented a number of rules curbing illegal migration into the country.

  During the campaign, Trump often said that he would initiate the largest “mass deportation” effort in U.S. history if elected. Recently, he also warned Mexico that he would impose a 25 percent tariff targeting the country if it fails to curb illegal immigration and that he would raise that tariff if Mexico doesn’t comply.

  Also, he’s suggested more enhanced screenings for immigrants, ending birthright citizenship—which may require a constitutional amendment—and reimposing certain policies enacted during his first term such as the “remain in Mexico” protocol.

  Tom Homan, a former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who is expected to join the new administration, told media outlets last year that the scale of deportations depends on what resources are available.

  During a “60 Minutes” interview in October, Homan was asked about whether families would be separated. Homan responded, “Families can be deported together.”

  Vice President-elect JD Vance said in his debate with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Oct. 1 that deporting criminals would be a second Trump administration’s initial focus.

  “You’ve got to reimplement Donald Trump’s border policies, build the wall, reimplement deportations,” Vance said, adding that the United States has 20 to 25 million illegal immigrants in the country.

  “What do we do with them? I think the first thing that we do is we start with the criminal migrants.”

  Taxes and Regulations

  Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump has promised to curb federal regulations that he said would limit the creation of new U.S. jobs. He also has pledged to keep intact a 2017 tax cut that he supported and signed while in office.

  His team has also proposed a further round of individual and corporate tax cuts beyond those initiated in his first term.

  Trump has pledged to reduce the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 15 percent for companies that make their products in the United States. In a bid to win Nevada, Trump earlier this year pledged to end the taxation of tips and overtime wages to aid some service workers and waiters.

  He has pledged not to tax or cut Social Security benefits. Trump also has said that as president, he would pressure the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates but wouldn’t make any demands on the central bank.

  Some of his proposals would require congressional action. As of Wednesday morning, the GOP is projected to retake the Senate, but the picture around the House is murkier.

  Tariffs

  In multiple campaign stops this year, Trump floated the idea of a 10 percent or more tariff on all goods imported into the United States, which he said would eliminate the country’s trade deficit.

  He has also said he should have the authority to set higher tariffs on countries that have put tariffs on U.S. imports. He has threatened to impose a 200 percent tariff on some imported cars, saying he is determined in particular to keep cars from Mexico from coming into the country.

  Trump has targeted China in particular. He proposes phasing out Chinese imports of goods such as electronics, steel, and pharmaceuticals over four years. He seeks to prohibit Chinese companies from owning U.S. real estate and infrastructure in the energy and tech sectors.

  “To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariffs,’” Trump said in an interview with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, in October. “It’s my favorite word.”

  He added at the time, “You see these empty, old, beautiful steel mills and factories that are empty and falling down,” referring to facilities that used to make goods in the United States.

  “We’re going to bring the companies back. We’re going to lower taxes for companies that are going to make their products in the USA. And we’re going to protect those companies with strong tariffs,” Trump said.

  Micklethwait said that some economists have projected that the former president’s economic policies, including tariffs, could add trillions to the U.S. deficit. But Trump said that a number of countries, including “allies” have “taken advantage of us, more so than our enemies. ”

  More Drilling

  The former president said that he wants to cut federal regulations on drilling for oil and natural gas, a move that he says would lower energy costs and inflation. In multiple instances, Trump said he would reauthorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which was suspended under the Biden administration.

  Meanwhile, he would pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords, a worldwide plan that claims to reduce carbon emissions. Trump also said he would roll back some federal policies around electric vehicles.

  In his campaign, Trump has often said that gas prices were much lower under his administration than they have been under the Biden administration. He has suggested that prices would again fall when he takes office.

  “When I left office … gasoline had reached $1.87 a gallon. We actually had many months where it was lower than that,” Trump told reporters over the summer. “But we hit $1.87, which was a perfect place, an absolutely beautiful number.”

  According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline stands at around $3.10. The highest recorded average price for a gallon was on June 14, 2022, when it reached $5.01, AAA figures show.

  The federal Energy Information Administration’s data show that the average annual price for a gallon of gasoline did not exceed $3 under the first Trump administration.

  Social Policies

  Trump has pledged to require U.S. colleges and universities to “defend American tradition and Western civilization” and to purge them of diversity and inclusion programs, which he and Republicans have said are leftist in nature.

  He said he would direct the Justice Department to pursue civil rights cases against schools that engage in racial discrimination. At K–12 schools, Trump would support programs allowing parents to use public funds for private or religious instruction. Trump also wants to abolish the federal Department of Education and leave states in control of schooling.

  Regarding abortion, Trump has said that a federal ban on abortion is not needed and that the issue should be resolved by states. He’s also said he backs rules that advance in vitro fertilization, birth control, and prenatal care.

  In campaign events and interviews, Trump has been critical of schools allowing transgender individuals to compete in women’s sports, saying that he would impose a ban on such practices.

  “It’s a man playing in the game,” Trump said at an October town hall event. “Look at what’s happened in swimming. Look at the records that are being broken.”

  Reuters contributed to this report.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 21:45

• Toyota To Make Additional Investments In Hybrid EVs In The U.S.
  Toyota To Make Additional Investments In Hybrid EVs In The U.S.

  While the push toward EV mandates has likely taken a massive detour thanks to the election of President Trump, it still doesn’t mean hybrid vehicles (as opposed to totally battery operated vehicles) won’t continue their popularity.

  Hybrids have emerged over the last few years as the obvious choice for auto buyers looking for the benefits of EV range with the reliability that comes from traditional ICE vehicles.

  And the proof of hybrid adoption is clear. While EV investment has been cut by major legacy automakers, companies like Toyota are working on investing in and expanding their hybrid production in the U.S.

  In fact, Toyota Motor is considering further investments in North America for EV and hybrid battery production, potentially including a new factory, to strengthen its local supply chain for increased electrified vehicle output, according to Nikkei.

  

  Sean Suggs, president of Toyota Battery Manufacturing North Carolina, said that if demand persists, “we may need to consider building more [production capacity], and that may include a different site.”

  “We are going to let the customer drive how much we go forward with,” he added.

  Toyota is already investing $13.9 billion in its North Carolina plant, now under construction. Suggs added that future investments depend on customer demand and industry trends over the next five to ten years.

  Nikkei reports that Toyota aims to raise the share of electrified vehicle sales in North America from 50% to 80% by 2030, with local battery production helping reduce costs. Production of hybrid batteries at Toyota’s North Carolina plant is set for early 2025, with trial production for EV and plug-in hybrid batteries following in late 2025 and 2026, respectively.

  Despite an 11% rise in U.S. EV sales in recent months, they still make up less than 10% of new-car sales. Toyota’s first U.S. EV plant in Kentucky is likely delayed from 2025 to early 2026.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 21:20

• Restoring The Warrior Ethos To The Trump Military
  Restoring The Warrior Ethos To The Trump Military

  Authored by ‘Cynical Publius’ via American Greatness,

  As a second Trump term becomes possible (or even likely), the literary world of military pundits is ablaze with articles, recommendations, and ideas on how to reform the Department of Defense (DoD) in a second Trump Administration.

  As a retired U.S. Army colonel, I am encouraged to see such thoughtful analyses and deeply hope a new Trump Administration takes heed of these many excellent recommendations. However, one area of concern for which I have seen little commentary is how to halt the deep institutional rot associated with what I call the “civilianization” of America’s military. The military forces of the United States of America exist first and foremost to kill the nation’s armed adversaries.

  Historically, this understanding has underpinned the “Warrior Ethos” that has made our military so great, but somewhere along the way, we lost this ethos in favor of a politicized, more civilian approach to warfare. I believe this is due to certain dysfunctional and deeply ingrained institutional processes and structures that must be fully and radically reformed in order to restore our military to one that defends the nation effectively and does not merely defend its own budget.

  

  There are four fundamental areas for institutional reform, and all involve the “de-civilianization” of warrior institutions:

  1. The “interagency” process in the DoD. After 9/11, the DoD (and the federal government more broadly) placed a significant emphasis on better coordination between the DoD and other federal departments like the State Department and the CIA. The idea was simple and appealing enough: to produce better coordination across domains. Nowhere was this more important than in the intelligence community, where failure to crosstalk between agencies led to startling intelligence failures like 9/11. However, this “interagency” approach became unfocused across all of the DoD and all agencies and became a priority in and of itself, whether it related to, for example, supposed climate change, government acquisition, federal land and water management, or leader professional development. While the goal of burgeoning interagency processes was to improve efficiency, the actual and unfortunate effect it had on the senior officer warriors of the DoD was to civilianize their mindsets. Instead of the State Department becoming more like the DoD, the DoD started thinking like the State Department. Historically, there was a healthy tension between the State Department and the DoD. The new interagency emphasis made former warriors think the goal was to be like diplomats, and it turned too many of our senior officers into wannabe State Department grandees who get invited to the best Georgetown cocktail parties. That former healthy tension between State and Defense was destroyed, and the warrior ethos of so many officers with it. We see this today in the form of the many retired and political admirals and generals who view their devotion to the D.C. bureaucracy to be more important than their oath to the Constitution, and nowhere has this phenomenon been more apparent than the nefarious shenanigans of the infamous Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Alexander Vindman, who deemed his allegiance to the interagency to be more important than the judgment of his Commander-in-Chief.

  2. Civilian degree-producing programs for line officers. All of the military services send their promising O-4s, O-5s, and O-6s to advanced degree-producing programs at civilian universities, with the choicest schooling opportunities happening at Ivy League universities. (David Petraeus and H.R. McMaster are two well-known products of this process.) The idea of the “warrior scholar” is nice in the abstract, but in reality, what we did was infect our senior military leaders with DEI sensibilities and the same woke mind virus that has nearly destroyed America’s institutions of higher learning. While advanced civilian degrees are necessary for officer specialists like physicians, dentists, attorneys, chaplains, and officers serving in science and engineering fields, they do nothing but diminish the warfighting capabilities of line officers in tactical units, nor do they enhance the strategic abilities of our most senior officers. Even worse, we made possession of these degrees a positive criterion for promotion. The other negative consequence of this woke mind virus infestation is that it flows downhill—junior officers and NCOs emulate the successful senior officers above them, and the civilianization runs rampant, reducing combat effectiveness and focusing troops on all the wrong priorities.

  3. Service academies and War Colleges emulating Ivy League universities. The institutional learning processes of our nation’s military are built upon a foundation of prestigious uniformed learning institutions. You probably know the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy), but the service and joint service “War Colleges” (schools for O-5s and O-6s who are marked as having flag officer potential) are equally important in building military culture and skills. All of these once purely military schools now have large numbers of civilian faculty members, many of whom seek the “publish or perish” route so they can ultimately join the Ivies they so eagerly and enviously emulate. With this preponderance of civilian faculty come the civilian dogmas—DEI, the joys of the interagency, and the cancer of courses and majors that end in “studies.” When I attended the National Defense University as a promotable O-5, we even had a choice in uniforms—our usual duty uniform or a civilian coat and tie. That War College’s quest to look and feel like a civilian Ivy was palpable and very real.

  4. Career SES civilians actually control the nuts and bolts of the military. The Senior Executive Service (“SES”) represents the senior ranks of civilian federal employees. There are “career” SES members and “non-career” SES members. The non-career SES ranks generally represent political appointees, and the career SES ranks serve and keep serving regardless of who holds the presidency. In the DoD, career SES members sit in some of the highest and most influential offices in the Pentagon and the military agencies, wielding enormous power over defense budgets, material acquisition, warfighting doctrine, personnel policies, and force structure. As their military bosses come and go every two years or so, they stay. If they don’t like what their military boss tells them to do, they can obfuscate, delay, bluster, and just generally wait until a new military boss shows up, then the cycle can start again. What’s worse is that most career SES billets are filled via the Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, which generally includes sponsorship and mentorship components that allow serving SES bureaucrats to ensure that their vision of how the bureaucracy should run will endure for decades. This bloated, careerist system of never-changing bureaucracy contributes immeasurably to the civilianization of the military and the diminishment of the Warrior Ethos and is a great inhibitor to meaningful structural change.

  So how to fix these Four Horsemen of the Civilianization Apocalypse?

  It won’t be easy, but here are some ideas:

  • Dramatically cut back on interagency activities except for strict intelligence functions. Greatly reduce officer billets in interagency positions. Make service in a non-intelligence interagency position a hindrance to promotion. Eliminate cross-agency attendance at agency professional education programs.

  • Eliminate advanced degrees as promotion criteria for line officers. Stellar service in combat and line units/ships/planes will be the overwhelming consideration for promotion.

  • Eliminate all DEI programs of every kind at all levels. Demonstrated adherence to DEI principles will be a “do not promote” criterion for officers and NCOs alike.

  • Cease all advanced degree-producing programs at civilian universities for line officers (but doctors, lawyers, chaplains, and scientists can still go).

  • Except for essential scientific and engineering faculty, fire 100% of the civilian faculty at the service academies and the War Colleges. Screen the scientific and engineering faculty for retention to ensure that their subject areas cannot be taught by rotating uniformed personnel.

  • Greatly reduce permanent military faculty at the service academies and War Colleges and limit those billets to only very specialized areas.

  • Rotate accomplished line officers through these schools as instructors. Such instructor duty will be after successful command and will signal a “must promote” officer.

  • Refocus the service academies on disciplines related to warfighting, pure science, and engineering. Eliminate any and all courses and majors that end in “studies.”

  • Completely revamp the curriculums at all War Colleges so there is a laser focus on strategy at the national and theater levels. The uniform at these schools must be military attire only.

  • Mirror all of the above in junior officer and NCO professional development programs.

  • Eliminate all career SES positions in the DoD. Let non-career (i.e., political appointee) SES members handle the arcane stuff of navigating Congress. If the flag officers commanding Army and Marine divisions, Navy carrier battle groups, and Air Force MAJCOMs (and whatever it is generals do in the Space Force) can change out every two years, the SES running the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Organizational Entropy can be replaced too.

  I am entirely confident that the above recommendations can halt the civilianization of our military and serve as a great start to restoring an essential warfighting focus. I am also entirely confident that the DoD bureaucracy will fight every recommendation I made above tooth and nail and will in fact have a host of somewhat persuasive arguments as to why I am wrong. But here is the thing: this is like chemotherapy. Our military has a cancer, and drastic actions must be taken to cure it. Yes, some healthy tissue may get destroyed, but so will the cancer itself, and the patient will live.

  Let’s build back an effective, lethal, efficient military that wins its wars for a change and leaves us all proud once again.

  * * *

  Cynical Publius is the nom de plume of a retired U.S. Army colonel, veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and reformed denizen of the Pentagon who is now a practicing corporate law attorney. You can follow Cynical Publius on X at @CynicalPublius.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 20:55

• Thousands Of Californians Lose Power After PG&E Protects Grid As Wildfire Risks Soar 
  Thousands Of Californians Lose Power After PG&E Protects Grid As Wildfire Risks Soar 

  Pacific Gas & Electric Company has shut off power to thousands of commercial and residential customers in some areas of the Bay Area due to high winds that have increased the risk of fire. 

  “Due to changing weather conditions, PG&E has increased the estimated number of customers that could be impacted by a PSPS event. Currently, 22,000 customers are in scope in 17 counties and four tribal areas. Most of these customers are in the Western Sacramento Valley, the North Bay and in the elevated terrain of the East Bay,” PG&E wrote in a statement. 

  PG&E meteorologists warned: 

  • Above 50 mph over elevated terrain in the North and East Bay

  • Near or above 70 mph in the Geysers, Mt. St. Helena and Mt. Diablo.

  As of early Wednesday, here’s the list of the number of customers without power in Bay Area counties:

  • Napa County: 4,326

  • Solano County: 4,060

  • Alameda County: 3,554

  • Sonoma County: 2,555

  • Santa Clara County: 1,947

  Full map:

  

  SFGATE explained:

  Power shutoffs are a way to de-energize equipment and power lines that can get damaged in strong winds and send off sparks that ignite wildfires. While Tuesday’s blackouts could be a huge inconvenience for thousands of residents, the scope is much smaller than the power shutoffs that occurred in 2018 and 2019, when hundreds of thousands of households across the state were in the dark during blustery conditions. Sarkissian said that the shut-offs aren’t as widespread and large in 2024 because the utility has strengthened its equipment, including undergrounding and coating lines.

  The National Weather Service issued red flag warnings for much of the Bay Area through Thursday.

  🚩It’s about to get very dry and windy, as a result – a Red Flag Warning is now in effect for critical fire weather conditions through 7 AM Thursday for the majority of the Bay Area and the Central Coast. #CAwx #OneLessSpark 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Djsq7YhJ6b

  — NWS Bay Area 🌉 (@NWSBayArea) November 5, 2024

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

  PG&E is being extra cautious since its equipment was blamed for sparking wildfires that ultimately forced the power company into bankruptcy in 2019. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 20:30

• Did Government-Sponsored Disinformation Worsen COVID-19?
  Did Government-Sponsored Disinformation Worsen COVID-19?

  Authored by Robert Malone via The Brownstone Institute,

  Highlights

  • Political disinformation was positively associated with respiratory infection incidence.

  • Government-sponsored disinformation was positively associated with the incidence of Covid-19.

  • Internet censorship led to underreporting of the incidence of respiratory infections.

  • Governments must stop sponsoring disinformation to avoid blame or gain a political advantage.

  The recent report from the US House Energy and Commerce Committee titled “We Can Do This: An Assessment of the Department of Health and Human Services’ COVID-19 Public Health Campaign” provides detailed, documented information concerning the public Covid-19 PsyWar/Propaganda disinformation campaign delivered by the “Fors Marsh Group” corporation for the US Department of Health and Human Services. This was previously discussed in this Substack essay. 

  

  According to the documentation provided, the principal HHS partner cooperating with Fors Marsh to provide content and messaging guidance regarding approved Covid-19 interventions was the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The report conclusions and appendix include data summaries implying that this nearly one billion dollar campaign ($911,174,285) contributed to the development of widespread US citizen resistance to Covid-19 “vaccine” uptake, and was associated with deterioration in confidence concerning the CDC, the public health enterprise, and vaccines. 

  The Fors Marsh campaign specifically and intentionally deployed fear-based messaging to influence public behavior to comply with CDC and other USG recommendations. The intentional promotion of fear of death from an infectious disease disproportionate to actual risk of death is psychological bioterrorism and is associated with significantly greater social, political, and economic damage than that associated with known actual bioterror events such as the US Anthrax spore letter distribution campaign.

  The weaponization of fear of death from an infectious disease as a component of an intentional propaganda campaign designed to modify human behavior is morally abhorrent, and is associated with a wide range of direct economic and mental health harms. These harms were never considered during the development and deployment of this HHS-sponsored psychological warfare technology-based propaganda campaign. This type of messaging and propaganda meets the criteria of State-sponsored disinformation.

  In contrast to misinformation, which refers to simply false information, disinformation refers to false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people. Unsurprisingly, political leaders, especially those who have undermined democratic institutions, adopt disinformation as an instrument for gaining support and reducing resistance, especially during crucial political moments such as elections and wars (Guriev and Treisman, 2019).

  From the Energy and Commerce Committee report page 42:

  The CDC’s disregard for emerging evidence that contradicted its own preferred policy outcomes demonstrates an insular culture unable—and unwilling—to change course with evolving science. By November 10, 2021, in line with ACIP’s recommendation, the Campaign began airing ads targeting parents of children aged 5-11 years. These ads inaccurately suggested children were at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. Many ads were emotionally manipulative and sought to incite fear by exaggerating the risk of severe illness and death among low-risk populations, such as children. This was especially true of ads that targeted parents. At the same time, the ads played down vaccine associated risks. 

  From pages 45-46:

  Nine months later, faced with a surge driven by the Delta variant, the Biden-Harris administration reneged on its pledge and announced, in a nationwide primetime address, that it would impose Covid-19 vaccine mandates. President Biden stated that “in total, the vaccine requirements in my plan will affect about 100 million Americans.” He ominously warned unvaccinated Americans or those who had only received a single dose, that “[w]e’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.” The mandates were presented as a way to protect higher-risk vaccinated workers and those too young to be vaccinated from catching Covid-19 spread by unvaccinated individuals.

  At the time of the announcement, over 175 million Americans were vaccinated with about 80 million Americans remaining unvaccinated. The vast majority of unvaccinated individuals were under the age of 50 and at comparatively low risk of severe illness and death. More importantly, at that time, over 85 percent of people over 65 years old had received one dose, and around 78 percent had completed the two-shot primary series. Similarly, over 75 percent of people 50-64 years old had received at least one dose. Thus, the age groups at highest risk of severe illness or death were largely already vaccinated by the time the mandates were announced.

  From page 62:

  The fact that HHS’s COVID-19 pandemic policies, guidance, and recommendations, including Campaign messaging, were grounded in incorrect data generated by a faulty algorithm that had inflated the number of COVID-19 deaths shattered HHS’s remaining credibility. The CDC’s admission to overcounting deaths undermined the Campaign’s promotional materials. The Campaign’s messaging pressured parents to believe their children were facing life-or-death scenarios. By using artificially inflated child mortality rates, the Campaign greatly overstated the threat facing children and struck unnecessary fear into households everywhere. Parents felt betrayed, and those who resisted or tuned out the warnings felt vindicated. 

  Quoting for the report appendix:

  Over and over, the Campaign’s survey findings showed little to no change in vaccine uptake or readiness among the public. In spite of heavy promotion, findings reveal vaccine uptake remained unchanged for nearly a year between August 2021 and June 2022. 

  By April 2022, 76 percent of unvaccinated adults said they would never get a COVID vaccine. 

  Among unvaccinated adults, nearly half of all those surveyed remained unvaccinated due to concerns about the long-term side effects of the vaccines. Others remained concerned about the speed with which the vaccines were developed, their efficacy in preventing COVID infection and transmission, as well as mistrust of government motives in widely encouraging vaccines. 

  Survey findings between January and June 2022 also reveal no significant change in booster uptake among fully vaccinated adults. Notably, survey findings also reveal that while the Campaign was ongoing, booster uptake peaked at 27 percent in November 2021 and gradually declined to 3 percent in March 2022.

  The Campaign closely monitored vaccine hesitancy among the public, including among parents of children under 18 years. A CET survey finding from March 2022 showed between 60 and 76 percent of parents with unvaccinated children under 18 years were concerned about potential vaccine side effects. At the same time, 53 percent of adults agreed that parents should be able to make their own choices about getting their children vaccinated, and as the COVID pandemic lagged, Campaign findings indicated a 20 percent drop in the number of adults who supported mask mandates in schools over a seven-month period. Interestingly, school mask and vaccination mandates for teachers, staff, visitors, and students were most strongly supported by liberal, vaccinated adults, non-parents and those dwelling in urban areas. In contrast, parents were more likely to agree that COVID vaccines for young children, especially those under 5, were unnecessary. 

  By 2022, many Americans had had enough. In April 2022, nearly half of all surveyed adults agreed that vaccination and masking decisions are personal choices and should not be mandated. These statistics reveal how public perception significantly diverged from that of the Biden-Harris administration and the Campaign’s messaging. Demonstratively, when the federal mandate requiring masks in airports and on airplanes, buses, subways, trains, and other forms of public transportation was scheduled to expire on April 18, 2022, the CDC, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) chose to extend it another two weeks—until May 3. Although major airlines such as Delta and American Airlines called to an end to the requirement, President Biden “promised to veto any legislation overturning it.”

  By April 2022, 58 percent of adults surveyed stated they were tired of worrying about the risk of COVID and 46 percent claimed they tune out COVID related news. Fifty percent stated, “[t]he virus may not be done with us, but we need to be done with it.”

  In short, the campaign failed to achieve the intended objectives and instead was associated with the development of widespread citizen distrust and disillusionment with the State, the CDC, the US Public Health Enterprise, the Medical/Industrial complex, and vaccines in general.

  Not considered and unaddressed in the Energy and Commerce report was whether these types of State-sponsored infectious disease disinformation campaigns positively or negatively influence infectious disease outbreak outcomes. I used the US National Library of Medicine PubMed search engine to investigate this question to discover whether any high-quality peer-reviewed academic research addressing the issue had been published.

  My search revealed a March 2022 study publication by a group of Taiwanese researchers that was published in the Elsevier journal Social Science and Medicine. Is this journal a respected academic publication?

  

  Social Science and Medicine Impact Score (IS) Trend:

  • The Impact Score for Social Science and Medicine has been steadily increasing over the years, with a slight decrease in 2023 to 5.38.

  • The highest Impact Score recorded in the last 10 years is 5.54 (2022), while the lowest is 3.22 (2018).

  • According to SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Social Science and Medicine is ranked 1.954, indicating a high level of scientific influence.

  Clearly “Social Science and Medicine” is a credible peer-reviewed academic journal.

  The article is titled “Government-sponsored disinformation and the severity of respiratory infection epidemics including COVID-19: A global analysis, 2001–2020”

  This link will take you directly to the publication, which is published as an open source document (no subscription required). But you will need to verify that you are a human. It is not too technical, and I recommend that any readers seeking additional details (such as experimental methods and data) read the primary source.

  Both the background summary and the study findings are prophetic, and almost completely aligned with the Energy and Commerce committee report.

  Abstract

  Internet misinformation and government-sponsored disinformation campaigns have been criticized for their presumed/hypothesized role in worsening the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We hypothesize that these government-sponsored disinformation campaigns have been positively associated with infectious disease epidemics, including COVID-19, over the last two decades. By integrating global surveys from the Digital Society Project, Global Burden of Disease, and other data sources across 149 countries for the period 2001–2019, we examined the association between government-sponsored disinformation and the spread of respiratory infections before the COVID-19 outbreak. Then, building on those results, we applied a negative binomial regression model to estimate the associations between government-sponsored disinformation and the confirmed cases and deaths related to COVID-19 during the first 300 days of the outbreak in each country and before vaccination began.

  After controlling for climatic, public health, socioeconomic, and political factors, we found that government-sponsored disinformation was significantly associated with the incidence and prevalence percentages of respiratory infections in susceptible populations during the period 2001–2019. The results also show that disinformation is significantly associated with the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of cases of COVID-19. The findings imply that governments may contain the damage associated with pandemics by ending their sponsorship of disinformation campaigns.

  Introduction 

  Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a worldwide medical crisis that began in 2020. As the COVID-19 pandemic has escalated, accurate and inaccurate information has spread on the Internet (Islam et al., 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned of the risk of an “infodemic” wherein an overwhelming amount of circulating information discredits professional advice and prevents accurate information from reaching its target audience (WHO, 2020). Some studies have found that people’s exposure to misinformation may be associated with their violation of epidemic prevention regulations or resistance to vaccination (Lee et al., 2020; Hornik et al., 2021; Loomba et al., 2021; Prandi and Primiero, 2020), and the sources of this misinformation can be traced back to political leadership in the government. For example, one study found the name of former U.S. president Donald Trump appeared in 37.9% of misinformation conversations about the COVID-19 pandemic (Evanega et al., 2020). These findings imply that attempts to conceal or distort information about the disease may contribute to its spread globally.

  Most public health studies on information issues have emphasized only the spread and effects of misinformation (Roozenbeek et al., 2020) and not considered “disinformation.” In contrast to misinformation, which refers to simply false information, disinformation refers to false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people. Unsurprisingly, political leaders, especially those who have undermined democratic institutions, adopt disinformation as an instrument for gaining support and reducing resistance, especially during crucial political moments such as elections and wars (Guriev and Treisman, 2019). In the digital era, recent studies have uncovered that more than two dozen governments have been deeply involved in disinformation campaigns to pursue their own domestic or international purposes (Bennett and Livingston, 2018; Bradshaw and Howard, 2018). 

  The relationship between such disinformation campaigns and disease spread warrants investigation particularly in the case of the COVID-19 outbreak. Some governments adopt authoritarian strategies including disinformation and censorship to protect against political accountability and criticism over the spread of epidemics. However, the effects of such activities are unclear (Edgell et al., 2021). In this paper, we hypothesize that political disinformation may lead to worse public health outcomes. By examining comprehensive data on respiratory infections from 149 countries from 2001 to 2020, the present study discovered that government-sponsored disinformation is positively associated with the spread of respiratory infections including COVID-19. The findings imply that governments may contain the damage associated with pandemics by ending their sponsorship of disinformation campaigns. 

  Government-Sponsored Disinformation and Epidemics 

  Disinformation is widely understood as being misleading content produced to further political goals, generate profits, or maliciously deceive. It may be utilized by politicians to manipulate public perception and reshape the collective decisions of the majority (Stewart et al., 2019). As an effective political tool in the digital era, one of the major origins of disinformation is a variety of agents sponsored by governments (Bradshaw and Howard, 2018). The actors disseminating government-sponsored disinformation include government-based cyber troops working as civil servants to influence public opinion (King et al., 2017), politicians and parties utilizing social media to reach their political intentions, private contractors hired by the government to promote domestic and international propaganda, volunteers that collaborate with governments, and citizens who have prominent influence on the internet and are paid by governments to spread disinformation (Bennett and Livingston, 2020).

  Accompanied by the development of the internet, government-sponsored disinformation has become a global issue over the last two decades. Comparative political studies have noted that autocracies create more fake news than democracies, while the public in democracies has also severely suffered from it (Bradshaw and Howard, 2018). In contrast to democratic governments that are elected to provide public goods through majority rule, nondemocratic governments have leaders who remain in office by gaining support from a small group of political elites without checks and balances. Autocratic governments, therefore, face the constant threat of mass protests from large numbers of disenfranchised people (De Mesquita and Smith, 2003; Acemoglu and Robinson, 2006). In the digital age, autocracies prefer to use informational instruments such as censorship and disinformation to compromise potential protests, particularly during political crises (Guriev and Treisman, 2019). For example, a recent study revealed that autocracies such as China, Russia, and Iran used internet censorship as a reactive strategy to suppress civil society after the Arab Spring (Chang and Lin, 2020).

  The political effects of government-sponsored disinformation and internet censorship on disease spread, however, remains understudied. As a tool for maintaining political stability in the government’s favor; however, disinformation may lead to dysfunction in public health systems, as well as more infections from disease. In this paper, we highlight some suspected political, informational, and institutional processes to explain the positive association between government-sponsored disinformation and the exacerbation of infectious diseases—measured by the incidence, prevalence, and death percentages of respiratory infection before the COVID-19 pandemic—and how this disinformation was associated with the number of confirmed cases (henceforth, cases) of and deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

  Political Incentives to Spread Disinformation about Epidemics

  As the COVID-19 outbreak has made apparent, some government incumbents accountable for controlling the disease neglected the risk and failed to prevent its spread. The failure of leadership to control the disease stimulated blame avoidance behaviors (Weaver, 1986; Baekkeskov and Rubin, 2017; Zahariadis et al., 2020), which sometimes took the form of internet censorship and government-sponsored disinformation. The Chinese government has been criticized for its alleged ignorance and suppression of information at the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic (Petersen et al., 2020), while Chinese diplomats have openly accused the United States of spreading the disease, with the Iranian and Russian governments also supporting this conspiracy theory (Whiskeyman and Berger, 2021). In Iran, the government disseminated contradictory information on national COVID-19 fatalities. On February 10, 2020, the Iranian government falsely claimed that the country had no cases of coronavirus, but a 63-year-old woman died of COVID-19 on the same day. Finally, on February 19, the Iranian regime admitted that coronavirus had spread in Iran, 9 days after the first reported death (Dubowitz and Ghasseminejad, 2020). Under the cloud of poor transparency and disinformation regarding the epidemic in Iran, the country saw severe outcomes, with 55,223 deaths as of December 31, 2020.

  Disinformation as blame avoidance behavior by political leaders was exhibited not only in autocratic countries, but also occurred in some democratic countries (Flinders, 2020). For example, during his US presidency, Donald Trump understated the risk of the COVID-19 pandemic by accusing the political opposition of conspiracy and the media of exaggeration (Calvillo et al., 2020). His statements about hydroxychloroquine as a “miracle cure” also misled the public to employ false treatments (Evanega et al., 2020). This misinformation about the disease could directly result in ineffective coping by people and undermine their institutional trust in public health agencies. However, the suspected “disinformation” from democratic leadership, in contrast to autocracies, still encountered effective checks and balances by parliaments, medical professionals, free media, and voters. 

  Disinformation and Ineffective Coping 

  Some case studies have shown that reliable and transparent government-sponsored epidemic information could have alerted public health institutions and susceptible populations early and led them to take effective preventive behaviors before the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, a key lesson learned from the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) experience in Singapore was the importance of rapid and accurate information to support effective decision-making. The innovation of frequent information reviews effectively guided local public health decisions during the H1N1-2009 epidemic (Tan, 2006; Tay et al., 2010).

  In contrast, government-sponsored disinformation disrupts the mechanisms of information exchange among public health institutions and other bodies, which can lead to ineffective coping, such as perceptions of low risk and the slow development of preventive behaviors at both the individual level, and preparedness delays and resource misallocation at the institutional level. COVID-19 studies have demonstrated that people’s belief in misinformation reduced the likelihood that they would take preventive measures such as mask wearing, social distancing, and complying with official guidelines (Lee et al., 2020; Hornik et al., 2021; Pickles et al., 2021). Case studies of Iran have revealed that government-sponsored disinformation typically results in ineffective coping by individuals and public health institutions and that the disinformation can elevate disease incidence and prevalence in an epidemic (e.g., Bastani and Bahrami, 2020).

  In addition, in contrast to democracies, autocracies such as Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea are likely to refuse information sharing and regulations promoted by the global health system during a pandemic (Burkle, 2020). When governments disseminate disinformation or suppress valid information, therefore, we expect that it is difficult for public health institutions and citizens to protect themselves from the spread of the disease. 

  Disinformation and Institutional Distrust 

  Misinformation is likely to trigger institutional distrust in public authorities and thus directs citizens’ attention away from professional advice and instead towards skeptics and harmful treatments (Brainard and Hunter, 2019) harmful treatments (Brainard and Hunter, 2019). Disinformation could be associated even more strongly with dire outcomes. Studies conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic have illustrated that distrust of government or the medical profession creates obstacles to preventing epidemics by reducing people’s compliance with official messages related to disease containment and by engendering inadequate medical service utilization. For example, studies investigating Ebola outbreaks discovered that respondents with misinformation and low trust in the government were less likely to comply with social distancing policies or take precautions against the epidemic (Blair et al., 2017; Vinck et al., 2019).

  Recent global studies on COVID-19 have reported that trust in public institutions, but not general social trust, has a negative association with the disease incidence ratio and deaths related to the pandemic (Elgar et al., 2020). For example, online survey studies confirmed that trust in government amplified compliance with official health guidelines (Pak et al., 2021); evidence from a geographic information system in European countries revealed the same pattern—the higher the political trust, the lower the regional and national human mobility (Bargain and Aminjonov, 2020). Survey studies conducted in both China and Europe have demonstrated that higher political trust before the outbreak was associated with lower incidence and mortality rates (Ye and Lyu, 2020; Oksanen et al., 2020). In addition, studies conducted in the United States have shown a negative relationship between institutional trust in science and the public health system and belief in misinformation (Dhanani and Franz, 2020; Agley and Xiao, 2021) and that both trust and information sources influence the probability that individuals will perform preventive behaviors (Fridman et al., 2020). International comparative studies have also found that distrusting citizens may not comply with regulations because of their underestimation of the risk of non-compliance (Jennings et al., 2021).

  Therefore, government-sponsored disinformation may result in distrust of public health institutions and be positively associated with the incidence and prevalence of disease. In this study, cross-national data on vaccination is not included, although other studies suggest that misinformation could result in the spread of epidemics by reducing the willingness to receive vaccination. Studies before COVID-19 have revealed that vaccination-related information on Twitter is associated with regional vaccination rates in the United States and public confidence in vaccination in Russia (Salath´ e and Khandelwal, 2011; Broniatowski et al., 2018). Based on a global survey, Lunz Trujillo and Motta (2021) found that country-level internet connectivity is associated with individual-level vaccine skepticism. A recent study on the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines also demonstrated that misinformation exposure significantly reduced the willingness of people to accept a vaccine in the UK and USA (Loomba et al., 2021). As these studies implied, government-sponsored disinformation may reduce the acceptance and coverage of vaccination and thus are likely to be positively associated with the incidence and prevalence of epidemics. To sum up, blame avoidance and other interests of politicians may stimulate government-sponsored disinformation and internet censorship efforts during epidemics.

  The disinformation might be associated with ineffective coping by people and institutions, and contribute to institutional distrust of governments and public health systems. The ineffective coping, and resistance to official guidelines of preventive behaviors and vaccination because of the distrust, might facilitate the spread of disease in epidemics. Accordingly, we expect government-sponsored disinformation to be positively associated with the incidence and prevalence measures of respiratory infections including COVID-19. 

  Conclusion 

  This study hypothesized a positive association between political disinformation and its impacts on epidemics in light of political and institutional processes. The findings reveal that government-sponsored disinformation is associated with the incidence and prevalence of respiratory infections during the period 2001–2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Government-sponsored disinformation is also positively associated with the IRR of cases of COVID-19 before vaccination program implementation. In contrast to literature focusing only on the effects of misinformation and preventive behaviors at the individual level during the COVID-19 pandemic, the present study integrated evidence from global surveys and revealed the adverse effects of government-sponsored disinformation on the management of epidemics over the last two decades. We found that disinformation is positively and significantly associated with the incidence and prevalence of respiratory infections including COVID-19, though its positive relationship with mortality of these respiratory infections was not significant. This study has some limitations. First of all, the disinformation index focused on only government sources and not on other disinformation and misinformation sources. Also, the DSP database is expert-rated and inevitably subjective.

  However, it is the only existing global database regarding the interaction between politics and social media. Second, the pooled category of respiratory infections and the percentages of all disease causes could not be directly compared with the IRRs for a single pandemic. Data on both cases and deaths in the GBD and COVID-19 databases might not only present the impacts of the respiratory infections but also reflect differing levels of capacity among various public health systems and transparency among governments. The data on respiratory infections may be censored deliberately or underreported unintentionally by developing countries. For the application of the GBD database, we suggest that adopting the percentages of a specific type of epidemic from all causes might be a relatively more reliable choice than the rates or numbers. However, the database of epidemics might consider some adjustments to address the variation from the different capacity of public health systems.

  Despite these limitations, this study may be the first to present cross-national evidence of the association between political disinformation and the spread of epidemics including COVID-19. Our study also implies that the quality of data during the COVID-19 pandemic is an endogenous factor of informational politics. The internet censorship of autocracies tends to systematically underreport the morbidity and mortality of the pandemic. Iran is a vivid example of intentionally underreporting and also disseminating fake news. There is also evidence of deliberate inaccuracies and concealment of COVID-19 infections in lower- or middle-income countries (Richards, 2020). Rocco et al. (2021) revealed that subnational COVID-19 data quality, including mortality, is associated with media independence. Hansen et al. (2021) pointed out that in the United States, counties were more likely to release information about COVID-19 when there was a stronger opposition (Democrats) before the US presidential election. In our analysis, governments that applied censorship and spread fake news as blame avoidance behaviors may also intentionally underreport the numbers of infected and deaths. After all, concealing the numbers of cases and deaths during the pandemic is also a form of political disinformation. Therefore, we may have underestimated the association between disinformation and the severity of pandemics. The real damage of disinformation may be greater than the current findings show.

  Based on our findings, we suggest countering disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, we would ask that governments immediately stop sponsoring disinformation for blame avoiding or regarding the disease as a strategy for gaining political advantage in domestic and international conflicts. Also, we would propose that the international community and global civil society act to prevent governments from sponsoring disinformation campaigns and internet censorship. In practice, fact-checking authorities managed by civil associations may be established to efficiently refute fake news. 

  Eliminating fake news in civil society may help curb the spread of infections. In sum, to control the pandemic, fighting disinformation can play a key role. 

  Republished from the author’s Substack

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 20:05

• Big Oil CEOs Say Middle East Conflict, U.S.-China Tension Are Biggest Risks To The Industry
  Big Oil CEOs Say Middle East Conflict, U.S.-China Tension Are Biggest Risks To The Industry

  When it comes to the price of oil, geopolitical volatility is usually a tailwind. However, when it comes to what big oil CEOs worry about the most, these conflicts – including the ongoing ones in the Middle East – are top of the list, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

  Oil executives are meeting at the region’s largest energy conference amid high market volatility, the report says. Rising tensions between Israel and Iran, an OPEC member, have traders wary of possible supply disruptions, while China’s weak economy is slowing oil demand growth.

  Meanwhile, U.S.-China relations remain uncertain, since President-elect Donald Trump has pledged significant tariff hikes on China if elected.

  BP Chief Executive Officer Murray Auchincloss commented: “The conflict in the Middle East is probably the top risk of all right now. We operate across five or six countries in the region — we are worried obviously about the security of our people and the security of energy supplies.”

  

  Shell CEO Wael Sawan added that “what happens on the US-China axis” is also a concern. He added: “We fundamentally believe the world will need more energy and we fundamentally believe it will need different forms of energy.”

  Executives on Monday expressed confidence that oil demand will keep growing, despite Asia’s economic slowdown, necessitating continued investment to meet supply needs even as the world shifts toward cleaner energy.

  Bloomberg reports that CEOs voiced mixed views on demand, with some anticipating strong growth despite a cooling Chinese economy. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects demand to peak before 2030, while OPEC and Saudi Aramco remain optimistic, especially with recent Chinese stimulus.

  Petronas CEO Muhammad Taufik believes demand will continue beyond 2030, though price volatility hinders investment, potentially pushing futures higher, noted Eni’s CEO Claudio Descalzi. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 19:40

• The Worldly Pain Of Young Americans
  The Worldly Pain Of Young Americans

  Commentary by Mark Bauerlein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A survey by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University reported findings that won’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention. Among Millennials and members of Generation Z, fully one-in-three individuals suffer from some kind of mental disorder. Anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts afflict them, and the mental problems frequently manifest in physical symptoms.

  

  That’s not the evidence of the Research Center study, though. The mental health numbers above come from federal government agencies, which the Center cites in order to set up its attachment of these emotional pains to another factor, a cause rarely considered by public officials in charge of data collection and population surveys. Here is how the Center and its staff led by George Barna put it:

  “… Barna and his colleagues suggest that addressing those conditions may not require counseling, hospitalization, drugs, or other common remedies.

  “The research instead indicates that those are often symptoms of an unhealthy worldview …”

  That’s the assumption, a close relationship between a person’s general worldview and a person’s emotional state. A 20-year-old who thinks the world is a cruel habitat, that the world doesn’t care about individual human beings, that people are selfish and life is hard… that 20-year-old will feel the effects of that pessimism. He embraces a nihilism about the world that will recoil upon him and bring him down, that will include him in the negative judgment. If he thinks that climate change will bring devastation to the earth in the next 30 years, he loses hope and wonders what to do with his life. If he doesn’t trust other people, he can’t form solid and affirming relationships. Emotional agonies are inevitable.

  Data that the Center has gathered add support to the assumption. Consider these results:

  • Seven out of ten individuals under 40 years of age who responded to Center questionnaires stated that they “lack a sense of purpose and meaning in life.”
  • Only 13 percent of Generation Z and 22 percent of Millennials believe that “absolute moral truth exists and is an objective reality.”

  Given those dispiriting beliefs, we shouldn’t shake our heads at the malaise and panic of the young. In former times, thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger described such regrettable attitudes in terms that combined the philosophical and the psychological, for instance, “ontological insecurity” and “metaphysical discomfort,” which they understood as peculiarly modern diseases. Those traits are still with us, Barna et al. insist, and they run in two directions, outward and inward. That life has no purpose slides smoothly into “I have no purpose.” To think that moral truth is a relative or subjective thing only is to deny oneself a reliable foundation of judgment and conviction. Young Americans are fractious and fragile, and who can avoid that condition in a world so utterly careless and capricious.

  The daily experience of average 16-year-olds only reinforces the negative worldview they bear. The videos they watch, the music they hear, the texts and photos that flood their phones, the movies and TV shows they favor—it’s a wave of entertainment that shows people behaving badly with no moral accounting. These media allow for no transcendence and no organized worship, no prayer or devotion. They are the bricks of youth culture, which doesn’t revere the past or envision a happy future. No deep meanings and profound truths. The producers of it purvey shallow ideas and emotional chaos. We have handed the rising generations an environment hostile to their souls.

  The mental problems of 21st-century youth are real. Our methods of treating them are pharmacological and therapeutic, wholly individualized. These procedures are often incomplete.

  We should add to the mix the exploration of a wayward youth’s worldview, and the modification of it should that worldview prove discouraging and depressing.

  What a teen assumes about human existence at large affects daily mood and will, the head and the heart. It’s a warning to parents. Give your children a stable moral habitat. Teach them a meaningful past and a hopeful future. If they rebel against your vision, so be it, but you will make that rebellion itself meaningful by presenting to them something meaningful to oppose.

  The depression and anxiety, in some cases at least (a not insignificant portion, I believe), are a sane response to bad influences and cynical perceptions. Youth culture is itself unhealthy, and Americans coming-of-age need to be cured of it.

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 19:15

• The Chinese Tax Noose Is Tightening
  The Chinese Tax Noose Is Tightening

  As the rush to try and save its economy via stimulus continues, China is simultaneously looking to shake down its citizens for unpaid taxes.

  Chinese authorities are urging wealthy individuals and corporations to conduct “self-inspections” to ensure all taxes are paid, as the country seeks to boost revenue, according to an FT report out this week. This push for compliance may further impact investor confidence in China’s economy, the world’s second largest.

  Beijing is set to announce a major fiscal stimulus aimed at stabilizing local government finances, which have been strained by debt and delayed payments, the report notes.

  Economists hope this new phase, building on efforts from September, will boost investor and household confidence after prolonged deflation linked to the property crisis.

  With China’s third-quarter growth falling below the 5% target, recent tax demands have caused concern and even “fear” among wealthy individuals in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen, according to a local tax advisor.

  

  One China-based tax partner said: “Some of them simply didn’t really know what to declare when they were asked to conduct self-inspections. Many also didn’t realize before . . . [that] their overseas personal gains would be subjected to taxes in China.”

  FT reports that companies completing self-inspections have been instructed to submit stamped confirmations and keep records for potential review, according to a city notice seen by the Financial Times. Authorities are also asking individuals to pay back-taxes on overseas investments, sometimes citing a rarely used 2019 law.

  A lawyer noted that wealthy clients can negotiate with tax officials, allowing some flexibility in tax obligations. This revenue drive, including increased fines on the private sector, comes as local and central governments seek funds amid a three-year property downturn that has strained finances.

  Government land sales fell nearly 25% in the first nine months of this year, and tax revenue dropped 5.3%, leading to a 2.2% decline in fiscal revenue to Rmb16.3tn ($2.3tn).

  Gary Ng, a senior economist at Natixis, concluded: “China’s fiscal deficits have reached a tipping point. There is more urgency to find alternative revenue sources . . . and taxing the wealthy and some companies creates a less direct economic impact on most residents.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 18:50

• US Air Force Explores Strategic Overhaul In Pacific To Counter Rising China Challenge
  US Air Force Explores Strategic Overhaul In Pacific To Counter Rising China Challenge

  Authored by Stephen Xia and Sean Tseng via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The U.S. Air Force is considering revamping its operations in the Pacific to address increasing challenges from communist China. Rather than focusing solely on expensive fighter jets, it is shifting toward cost-effective technologies such as drones and hypersonic missiles and adopting dispersed operational tactics to maintain an advantage.

  

  A recent report from the U.S. Air Force’s China Aerospace Studies Institute highlights the need to update equipment priorities to counter China’s military expansion. Lessons from the Russia–Ukraine war have shown that modern conflicts consume resources rapidly, making reliance on a limited number of costly weapons impractical. To prepare for prolonged engagements, developing advanced yet affordable weapons is crucial.

  Long-range precision strikes and the use of drones have emerged as game-changers, allowing forces to remain effective while avoiding heavy enemy fire. Dispersed operational tactics have also proven advantageous, helping forces preserve strength and counterattack effectively. With these insights, the U.S. Air Force is preparing for potential conflicts in the Indo-Pacific, which could be more extensive and intense than the Russia–Ukraine war.

  China seeks to alter the global power balance and push U.S. forces out of the Indo-Pacific using anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies. These involve the use of missiles, aircraft, and naval defenses to block access, making it costly or difficult for opponents to access contested regions.

  To counter this, the Air Force think tank recommends focusing on inexpensive, easily replaceable weapons capable of penetrating defenses, such as low-cost drones and hypersonic missiles. While advanced aircraft such as the B-21 bomber and next-generation fighter jets remain important, there is increasing emphasis on survivable, high-tech weapons and expendable platforms.

  Air Base Defense

  A significant concern is the vulnerability of U.S. air bases in the region, particularly in Japan, which Chinese missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons could target. The Department of Defense (DOD) noted in its 2023 China Military Power Report that the People’s Liberation Army has consistently expanded its long- and mid-range ballistic missile capacity, enabling it to target critical U.S. military installations throughout the Indo-Pacific, including key bases on Guam.

  Additionally, the DOD estimates that as of May 2023, Beijing possessed more than 500 operational nuclear warheads, with numbers growing. Given China’s expanding missile capabilities, strengthening base defenses alone is insufficient. Therefore, the United States is adopting a new strategy: spreading out deployments to reduce risk.

  The U.S. military is repositioning its forces across multiple locations to reduce the risk of being targeted. This strategy involves identifying, upgrading, and restoring airfields throughout the Pacific, including old World War II sites, under an initiative known as Agile Combat Employment. This includes redeveloping airfields like the one on Tinian, a small island near Guam that was a strategic location during World War II.

  The airfields in Tinian are being expanded for the first time in decades. By positioning aircraft across a range of bases—including allied bases, remote islands, and civilian runways—the Air Force aims to increase flexibility and survivability.

  Michael P. Winkler, the Pacific Air Force’s deputy director for air and cyberspace operations, emphasized the need to avoid putting all aircraft in one place to prevent creating a “big, juicy target” for adversaries. This strategy requires access to more airfields during crises, necessitating coordination with regional allies like Japan and the Philippines.

  Operational Resiliency

  Securing access agreements with regional allies is crucial, as they are in a position to offer numerous military and civilian runways, although not all meet the Air Force’s requirements. U.S. pilots are visiting potential locations like Basa Air Base in the Philippines and airfields in Tinian, Guam, Saipan, and Palau to familiarize themselves and prepare for future operations. Upgrades are underway at several sites to enhance facilities and train personnel.

  While the Second Island Chain, which includes some U.S.-controlled areas, is easier to access and upgrade, the First Island Chain is strategically more important due to its proximity to China. This chain includes Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan. Operating there requires cooperation with regional partners, whose political situations can be unpredictable. Despite these challenges, the United States currently maintains strong partnerships in the region.

  Recent military exercises have tested this dispersed approach. In February, U.S. and allied aircraft operated from multiple airfields on Guam, Saipan, and Tinian. During the U.S.-led Valiant Shield exercises in June, U.S. fighter jets used Japan’s Matsushima and Hachinohe bases for the first time. Under the U.S.–Japan alliance agreement, Japanese bases can serve as evacuation sites for U.S. aircraft in emergencies.

  However, spreading out forces presents challenges, particularly in logistics. In a conflict, the United States must deliver equipment, spare parts, fuel, munitions, and support personnel to scattered and potentially contested locations or pre-position supplies there. This is complex, and the strategy’s effectiveness depends on reliable support. The Air Force must balance the benefits of dispersion with logistical practicalities.

  On a similar note, Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank, said operating from more locations with smaller units reduces the chance of a successful large-scale attack by the Chinese regime, adding a layer of deterrence.

  This strategic shift reflects a broader recognition that the nature of warfare is changing. The Air Force is adapting by embracing new technologies and tactics, prioritizing flexibility, resilience, and cost-effectiveness. By dispersing forces and investing in advanced yet affordable weapons, the Air Force aims to maintain its edge in a rapidly evolving security environment.

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 18:25

• Dave Smith: Will Trump Be Able To End The War In Ukraine?
  Dave Smith: Will Trump Be Able To End The War In Ukraine?

  At a recent pre-election speaking and podcast event, comedian and Libertarian political commentator Dave Smith expressed his view that it is very realistic that the next President Donald Trump could successfully negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. 

  Smith’s view is optimistic, as he articulated that he believes Trump’s expressed desire to end wars in Ukraine and Gaza is genuine. But Smith also laid out that much depends on who Trump puts around him in top national security positions. Below is the hard-hitting segment featuring the prominent commentator addressing the question: will Trump be able to end the war in Ukraine?

  PBD: Will Trump be able to end the war in Ukraine?

  Dave Smith: Yes, If he listens to Tucker Carlson, Bobby Kennedy, and Vivek Ramaswamy, but not if he picks Mike Pompeo, Liz Cheney’s pick for Defense Secretary, or John Bolton, Hillary Clinton’s pick for National Security Advisor pic.twitter.com/1f5kQZQEW4

  — Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) November 6, 2024

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

  Below are Dave Smith’s words from the segment on Trump and Ukraine below [emphasis ZH]…

  “Why the hell are we even expanding our military alliance to Ukraine? And listen, Donald Trump always says that the war ‘never would have happened if I was president, and I would negotiate an end to this.’

  And I gotta say I think he’s right about that. I don’t think the war would have happened if he was president – I think he will negotiate an end to it.

  I don’t think he’s right that Hamas wouldn’t have attacked Israel if he was president – that seems kind of ridiculous to me. But he’s right: the Ukraine war could be over tomorrow if American wanted to negotiated a peace to it.

  Vladimir Putin has been trying to the entire time… 

  Well the question becomes who does Donald Trump put around him? If Donald Trump puts Mike Pompeo, aka Liz Cheney’s pick for Defense Secretary… if he puts John Bolton, aka Hillary Clinton’s pick for national security adviser – then maybe not, maybe it doesn’t happen.

  But if he listens to Tucker Carlson, and ‘Bobby’ Kennedy, and Vivek Ramaswamy, and all the smart people around him – then yes, he could negotiate an end to that war.”

  

  * * *

  Indeed, the question ultimately becomes: will Trump really keep the ‘swamp’ out of his administration this time around? We hope so.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 18:00

• "These Are Not Good People" – Trump Derangement Is The Stupidest Political Phenomenon Of Our Lifetime
  “These Are Not Good People” – Trump Derangement Is The Stupidest Political Phenomenon Of Our Lifetime

  Authored by Chris Bray via ‘Tell Me How This Ends’ substack,

  Trump Derangement is the Stupidest Political Phenomenon of My Lifetime, and Its Idiot Propagators Need to be Shoved Into a Forgotten Corner of the Culture Forever

  Spare a thought for them, America.

  Liz Cheney is probably being executed by that firing squad as you read this, and Molly Jong-Fast is undoubtedly already on her way to the camps, and the cities are emptying as the brave survivors sew diamonds into the lining of their coats and set off on foot for political asylum in Canada. What time do we get the first delivery of handmaids, Vladimir?

  So.

  The dismal cabal of hysterical adult children that makes up the alleged American cultural “mainstream,” the responsible people you see on television and in the op-ed pages — Anne Applebaum, Tom Nichols, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Joe Scarborough and his idiot wife, Jonathan Capehart, Max Boot, Jen Rubin, David French, Bill Kristol, Ruth Marcus, Nicolle Wallace, Dana Bash, and on and on, all of them completely interchangeable, one set of asinine talking points with a series of different faces sewn on the front — has spent the last year or ten descending into a urine-soaked psychotic tantrum. They don’t know anything, they don’t understand anything, they don’t say anything of value, they don’t contribute anything, ever, and their voices are ubiquitous. Living in this media environment is like living in a place where the air is made of manure.

  They have absorbed no lesson. This morning, the media is full of warnings about fascism and white nationalism and VLADIMIR PUTIN!!!!!!!, a wall of empty noise in response to the rejection of a wall of empty noise. Ruth Ben-Ghiat is still the Dumbest Professor in America™, by the way, and just a profoundly indecent human being:

  

  The lesson of last night is that Trump “has declared war on the US.” You disgusting braindead pig.

  The unifying reality about these soulless, mindless, worthless people is that they have no history to them, and that goes double for the history professors. How many times have you heard, for example, that the January 6 insurrection was the worst act of political violence in America since the Civil War, and how many times have you heard any of the people who made that ritual claim deal with any of the obvious examples that disprove the claim — the Colfax Massacre, the Ludlow Massacre, the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, the bombing campaigns of the Weatherman and other radical groups in the early 1970s, the wave of political assassinations in the late-1960s, and on and on — in any way?

  Related, all of their history is LITERALLY ADOLF HITLER, but you have to eventually notice that their constant demands for guardrails on the discourse and rules for social media never deal with any American history, any history of the place they think they’re talking about: the Adams administration and the Sedition Act, the military arrest of Clement Vallandigham for an anti-war speech, the Wilson administration’s arrest of anti-war activists, and so on. People who have no history but Hitler have no history.

  So in the end, they say things, but they don’t think about the things they say. At all. Their very loud voices aren’t attached to any form of cognition. The Potemkin village of our media-academic-political class barely sustains the facade. It’s nothing. They have nothing, they are nothing, the offer nothing.

  The New Republic, November 1:

  

  Here’s the lede: “Donald Trump doubled down Friday on his disturbing comments about placing Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad.”

  

  Chevy Chase, Maryland, Nov. 6

  Here’s the part of the story that describes the terrifying threat to murder an opponent with a firing squad:

  “She’s a war hawk. She kills people. She wanted uh, even in my administration, she was pushing that we go to war with everybody,” Trump said.

  “And I said that if you ever gave her a rifle, [indistinguishable] if you ever do that, she wouldn’t be doing too well.”

  “If she had to do it herself, and she had to face the consequences of battle, she wouldn’t be doing it. So it’s easy for her to talk, but she wouldn’t be doing it,” Trump continued. “She’s actually a disgrace.”

  You see, people are handed rifles when they’re shoved up against the wall to be executed by a firing squad, and being killed by a firing squad is an example of facing the consequences of battle. Makes total sense.

  These are not good people. They’re stupid, dangerous, empty, and a threat to any form of public knowledge. They deserve to have derision howled in their ugly faces for the rest of their worthless lives.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 17:40

• Hurricane Rafael Revs Up To Cat. 2 As Gulf Oil Rigs In Crosshairs 
  Hurricane Rafael Revs Up To Cat. 2 As Gulf Oil Rigs In Crosshairs 

  Hurricane Rafael intensified to a Category 2 storm on Wednesday morning and may reach Cat. 3 strength on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale by evening. Rafael’s cone of uncertainty shifted further west than previous forecasts (read: here & here), putting offshore oil/gas rigs at increased risk across the Gulf of Mexico. 

  The National Hurricane Center in the US said Rafael was just southeast of Havana and packing winds around 100 mph, making it a Cat. 2 storm. The storm is expected to strengthen into a Cat. 3 storm, unleashing “life-threatening storm surge, damaging hurricane-force winds, and flash flooding” across west and central Cuba. 

  “Rafael is likely to remain a hurricane over the southeastern and southern Gulf of Mexico during the next few days,” NHC’s Dan Brown wrote in a forecast. 

  The current trajectory of the storm puts about 1.55m b/d of oil production at risk, according to Bloomberg calculations of data from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the NHC.

  

  More from Bloomberg about potential storm impacts on US Gulf area oil/gas assets:

  • Rafael also threatens to cross leases that produced 1.59b cf/d of gas, 29k b/d of condensate

  • Rafael direction has shifted eastward

  • US oil production could be cut by 3.1 million to 4.9 million barrels if hurricane reaches Category 2 status: Mansfield Energy

  Oil and gas platforms that are within the cone of the storm include:

  • 

  Once Rafael arrives in the southeastern and southern Gulf of Mexico, computer models do not clearly agree on trajectory. 

  Global + Hurricane Models

  

  GFS Ensembles

  

  GEPS Ensembles

  

  “It is too soon to determine what, if any, impacts Rafael could bring to portions of the northern Gulf Coast,” NHC noted. 

  For now, Rafael’s trajectory and intensity should be closely monitored as computer models are still subject to change. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 17:20

• Goodbye Middle Class: Half Of All American Workers Make Less Than $43,222.81 A Year
  Goodbye Middle Class: Half Of All American Workers Make Less Than $43,222.81 A Year

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  It is that time of the year again.  

  The Social Security Administration has finally released the final wage statistics for 2023, and they are quite sobering.  

  According to the report, last year the “median wage” in this country was just $43,222.81.  In other words, half of all American workers made less than $43,222.81, and half of all American workers made more than $43,222.81.

   That is terrible news, because the cost of living has been rising much faster than paycheck have.  More people are being squeezed out of the middle class with each passing day, but most Americans don’t even realize that this is happening because the media isn’t really talking about it.

  Poverty, homelessness and hunger are all growing all around us, and if we stay on the path that we are on the middle class will continue to be systematically eviscerated.

  

  Once upon a time, the vast majority of the country could afford to live a middle class lifestyle.

  But now those days are long gone.

  A study that was recently released found that it now takes more than $100,000 a year for a typical U.S. household to live “the American Dream” in all 50 states, and in 29 U.S. states it takes more than $150,000 a year…

  A household would have to spend more than $150,000 a year to live the dream in 29 of the 50 states, according to an analysis published in April by the personal finance site GOBankingRates.

  According to the report, the optimal American lifestyle would cost $137,842 a year in Ohio, $147,535 in Texas, $159,932 in Florida, $194,067 in New York and $245,723 in California.

  The state that has the lowest cost of living is Mississippi.

  Living the American Dream only costs $109,516 a year in that state.

  Needless to say, someone earning $43,222.81 a year is not going to be able to live the American Dream anywhere in the nation.

  Even if there are two people earning $43,222.81 a year in the same household, that still isn’t going to get you anywhere close to living the American Dream.

  When I was growing up, my father worked and my mother stayed home with the kids, and we were still able to live a middle class lifestyle.

  But now most households cannot afford to live a middle class lifestyle even if both parents are working.

  After reading that, is there anyone out there that would like to disagree with me about the fact that we have been experiencing a long-term economic decline?

  What I have been warning about all these years has been slowly but steadily playing out right in front of our eyes.

  Not too long ago, a Wall Street Journal/NORC poll found that only about one-third of the entire U.S. population actually believes that the American Dream “is still alive”…

  Only about a third of U.S. adults believe the American dream is still alive, a Wall Street Journal/NORC poll published Wednesday found.

  A survey of 2,501 people conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute twelve years ago found more than half of respondents believed the American dream “still holds true,” but now only a third feel that way, according to a recent WSJ/NORC poll of 1,502 adults. The study also found an increasingly large gap between people’s economic goals and what they think is actually attainable — a trend that was consistent across gender and party lines, but was especially common amongst younger generations.

  Nobody out there can deny what is happening.

  This is our country now, and conditions are getting worse with each passing day.

  One of the biggest reasons why the American Dream is out of reach for most of the population is because home prices have gone absolutely haywire over the last four years…

  Twenty-four percent of likely voters who rent their homes said that “the cost of housing” is the most important economic issue they’re considering as they decide their vote, according to a CNN poll conducted by SSRS between September 19 and 22.

  That’s no surprise: The US is facing a once-in-a-generation housing affordability crisis. In the four years through August 2024, national home prices have risen 45%, according to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sales price of a home in the US hit a record high this summer and now hovers just below that level.

  Renting used to be an affordable alternative for many people, but these days close to half of all renters in this country “spend more than 30% of their income on housing”…

  Nor has renting become any easier than buying. Nearly half of US renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, qualifying them as “cost-burdened,” according to US Census data from September.

  In September 2024, the median rent in the U.S. was $2,050 a month.

  How are you supposed to be able to afford that if you are making just $43,222.81 a year?

  Increasingly, America is being divided into the “haves” and the “have nots”.

  If you don’t know which group you belong to, let me clue you in.  If you are not making more than $100,000 a year, you are definitely among the “have nots”.

  Unfortunately, economic conditions are rapidly getting worse, and we are seeing high profile bankruptcies happen at a pace that we haven’t seen since the global financial crisis.  For example, one of the largest crafting chains in the U.S. just filed for bankruptcy…

  Joann — the craft store chain formerly known as Jo-Ann Fabrics — has filed for bankruptcy amid ongoing financial troubles.

  But DIYers need not worry just yet: The company’s more than 800 stores nationwide will remain open and its website will stay active as the Hudson, Ohio-based company restructures its finances.

  As hordes of businesses fail all over the nation, our historic commercial real estate crisis just continues to intensify.

  If you doubt this, just check out these numbers…

  The delinquency rate of office mortgages backing commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) spiked to 9.4% in October, up a full percentage point from September, and the highest since the worst months of the meltdown that followed the Financial Crisis. The delinquency rate has doubled since June 2023 (4.5%), according to data by Trepp, which tracks and analyzes CMBS.

  I don’t even have to tell many of you what those numbers mean.

  We are headed for a historic meltdown, and it is going to absolutely devastate small to mid-size banks from coast to coast.

  Meanwhile, most Americans are just barely scraping by from month to month as our standard of living steadily deteriorates.

  We are in far more trouble than most people realize, and the months ahead are going to be extremely challenging.

  *  *  *

  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, 11/06/2024 – 17:00

• Middle East At War: How Are Regional Leaders Reacting To Trump's Victory?
  Middle East At War: How Are Regional Leaders Reacting To Trump’s Victory?

  The Middle East remains on edge, and Israel is still at war on multiple fronts – in Gaza, and in Lebanon, and with the Houthis in the Red Sea region and Yemen. Iran is still threatening to retaliate against Israel, and Iraqi paramilitaries supported from Tehran are reportedly readying for battle. Israeli airstrikes on Syria have been ongoing for days. US assets from warships to long-range bombers are also parked in the region, ready for anything.

  The region could explode into bigger escalation at any moment, and tit-for-tat big attacks between Hezbollah and Israel’s military will likely persist through January, when Trump steps into the oval office. Hezbollah’s attacks on northern Israel have not relented, and neither have massive Israeli strikes on Beirut and eastern and southern Lebanon.

  In his victory speech, Trump acknowledged the regional hot wars playing out in various parts of the globe, two of which have involved US participation by proxy. “They said ‘He will start a war,’ I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars,” Trump said.

  

  Below are the reactions of various Middle East leaders to the Trump victory…

  Israel

  To the surprise of no one, Israel is overjoyed that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was actually the very first world leader to issue a hearty congratulations to Trump. 

  “Congratulations on history’s greatest comeback!” he said in an English-language statement. “Your historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America. This is a huge victory!” he said.

  Netanyahu’s hardline and hawkish National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir simply wrote on social meda “Yesssss”.

  Yesssss 💪🏻🇮🇱🇺🇸 https://t.co/kPqkYI3PDP

  — איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) November 6, 2024

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

  Turkey

  “I congratulate my friend Donald Trump, who won the presidential election in the US after a great struggle and was re-elected as the President,” said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan via X.

  “In this new period that will begin with the elections of the American people, I hope that Turkiye-US relations will strengthen, that regional and global crises and wars, especially the Palestinian issue and the Russia-Ukraine war, will come to an end; I believe that more efforts will be made for a more just world,” Erdogan added. 

  He declared his hope that “the elections will be beneficial for our friendly and allied people in the US and for all of humanity.”

  Iran

  Iranian government spokesperson, Fatemeh Mohajerani, said “US elections are not really our business. Our policies are steady and don’t change based on individuals. We made the necessary predictions before, and there will not be a change in people’s livelihoods,” in reference to US sanctions on Iran.

  Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Deputy Commander in Chief Ali Fadavi on Wednesday repeated that Tehran is ready for a confrontation with Israel.

  Hamas

  Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said “We urge Trump to learn from [US President Joe] Biden’s mistakes” and said that the new president will be “tested” on his statements about being able to end the war in Gaza.

  He also pointed out past statements of Trump and/or his campaign officials about US support to Israel not being endless. Interestingly Trump had received record Arab-American support in swing states like Michigan, amid anger at the Biden-Harris administration for its blank check support to Israel even as tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians die.

  “Our position regarding the new US administration will depend on its stances and practical actions towards our Palestinian people, their legitimate rights, and their just cause,” the group, designated by the US as a terror organization, additionally said.

  “The elected US President is urged to heed the voices that have risen from within American society itself for more than a year since the Zionist aggression on Gaza, rejecting occupation and genocide, and objecting to support and bias toward [Israel].”

  It’ll be interesting to watch the immediate foreign policy shifts following the Trump victory. Especially in the Middle East.

  Remember, the Abraham Accords were signed under President Trump in 2020. Israel/Saudi Arabia normalization is likely under the new administration.

  — Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) November 6, 2024

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

  Palestinian Authority

  Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas congratulated Trump and expressed hope for regional peace and stability based on the future declaration of a Palestinian state and equal right and freedoms.

  “We will remain steadfast in our commitment to peace, and we are confident that the United States will support, under your leadership, the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people,” Abbas said.

  Saudi Arabia

  King Salman and MBS sent issued separate formal diplomatic cables congratulating Trump. MbS and Trump have long been close, despite during Trump’s first term the Jamal Khashoggi murder creating tensions and some distance between Riyadh and Washington.

  King Salman also praised the “historically close [bilateral] relations that everyone seeks to strengthen and develop in all fields.”

  Iraq

  Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani formally congratulated Trump. “We affirm Iraq’s firm commitment to strengthening bilateral relations with the United States on the basis of mutual respect and common interests,” he said.

  “We look forward to this new phase being the beginning of deepening cooperation between our two countries in various fields, which will contribute to achieving sustainable development and benefit the two friendly peoples.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 16:40

• Watch: Kamala Harris Gives Concession Speech
  Watch: Kamala Harris Gives Concession Speech

  After speaking with President-Elect Donald Trump earlier in the day, and after ghosting thousands of supporters last night who showed up for her at Howard, Kamala Harris is giving a concession speech.

  Watch:

  *  *  *

  Vice President Kamala Harris has called President-Elect Donald Trump to concede the election and congratulate him on beating her like Doug Emhoff’s ex-girlfriend.

  

  A crestfallen Wolf Blitzer delivers the news:

  JUST IN: Kamala Harris has called President Donald Trump to congratulate him and concede the 2024 election.

  “We are told she talked about the importance of the transfer of power…” pic.twitter.com/AuprXkAgxr

  — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 6, 2024

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

  Harris campaign manager, meanwhile, sent a letter to staff in which she said “losing is unfathomably painful. It is hard. This will take a long time to process. But the work of protecting America from the impacts of a Trump Presidency starts now.”

  

  The media cope, meanwhile, continues…

  Pure, perfect projection. The lack of self-awareness is awe-inspiring. pic.twitter.com/CQrrJFJMs6

  — Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) November 6, 2024

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

  Check back for updates…

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 16:24

• How The Democrats And Media Finally Went Too Far
  How The Democrats And Media Finally Went Too Far

  Authored by Frank Meile via RealClearPolitics.com,

  The reelection of Donald Trump represents, if not the single greatest comeback in political history, certainly the largest middle finger ever shown to the smug, self-centered, superior-minded elitists who think the rest of us are garbage.

  

  Of course, we didn’t need President Biden to call us “garbage” for everyday Americans to know that what we care about means nothing to the establishment. But Biden obliged anyway, and put an exclamation point to the final sorry week of Kamala Harris’ galling campaign.

  You just can’t get any worse than “garbage” – or can you? Isn’t Nazi worse? After all, the Nazis killed 17 million people. If you include all the victims of fascism, you can get that number up to 20 million. But for some reason, the legacy media didn’t care when Harris and her surrogates repeatedly called Trump and his supporters Nazis or fascists.

  You almost get the feeling that the left-leaning press despises Republicans as much as Biden, Harris, and the rest of the Democrats do. If you had any doubt, the totally bogus claim that Trump said he wanted to execute Liz Cheney was the last straw. He was making a perfectly valid argument that the former congresswoman would be less inclined to support wars if she had to fight in them. But apparently that was too sophisticated an attack for the news professionals who decided to lie about it. Instead, they maliciously claimed that Trump literally wanted to put Cheney in front of a firing squad.

  Overall, the past three weeks have been instructive in just how little the nation’s elites in the media and politics respect average citizens, and just how much they think they can manipulate us into believing their lies.

  It’s nothing new, but the latest iteration started on Oct. 13 when Kamala Harris began peddling the “enemy within” hoax, which would have voters believe that Trump had said he planned to use the military against his political opponents.

  In fact, that never happened. Fox News host Maria Bartiromo interviewed Trump and said that Joe Biden doesn’t expect a peaceful Election Day. She asked Trump if he was expecting chaos that day, but she specifically asked about the impact of outside agitators, bringing up the case of an Afghan who was charged with a terror plot, and also mentioning Chinese nationals and criminals who had crossed the border illegally.

  It was in this context that Trump said he wasn’t worried about outside agitators, but rather “the enemy from within,” meaning American citizens who might riot following the election, just as happened in 2016. He continued:

  I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics, and … it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by the National Guard, or if really necessary by the military, because they can’t let that happen.

  This turned into the closing argument of the Harris campaign, claiming that Trump had promised to unleash the military on his political opponents. It was yet another hoax by Democrats and the media, which is either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. CNN’s headline was typical: “Trump suggests using military against ‘enemy from within’ on Election Day.”

  Notice that Trump didn’t “suggest” using the military; he said that chaos could be averted “if necessary” by the National Guard or “if really necessary” by the military. He never suggested this was his plan.

  The most obvious part of the lies told by CNN, Harris, and all the Democratic Party machinery was that Trump could do anything, anything at all, about Election Day violence. NOTE TO CNN: On Election Day, Joe Biden will be the president, not Donald Trump. In saying that “they can’t let that happen,” Trump was actually crediting Biden with the common sense not to let violence disrupt our most sacred democratic ritual of voting.

  Yet for more than a week, Harris and her allies peddled this nonsense to convince voters that Trump is “unhinged, unstable and unchecked.”

  Then, almost as though on cue, just over one week later on Oct. 22, Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a scandalous article that quoted anonymous sources as saying Trump had insulted the family of Vanessa Guillén, a Mexican-American soldier who was murdered in Texas. The article included a quote from Guillén’s sister praising President Trump for his kindness to the family, but Goldberg essentially pretended the quote didn’t exist. Instead he smeared Trump as a heartless exploiter.

  Later in the same article, Goldberg quoted Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s disgruntled former White House chief of staff, as saying Trump had told him, “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.”

  This dubious old quote was dusted off and included in the article for only one reason – to give Kamala Harris and the Democrats and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC more fodder for their “Trump is a fascist” narrative. Lots of White House staffers were ready to deny the Kelly story, but that didn’t matter to Goldberg. Let ’er rip.

  And as further evidence of media collusion with the Harris campaign, the New York Times on the same day, Oct. 22, revealed an interview with Gen. Kelly in which he said that Trump “falls into the general definition of fascist” and “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

  This double whammy of remarks by Kelly gave Harris permission to expand her attack on Trump as a fascist, and it quickly became apparent that her campaign was going to replace “joy” with “fear” as the closing argument.

  The media ran with this as a willing partner in the attempt to keep Trump out of the White House. And even before Trump held a historic rally at Madison Square Garden on Oct. 27, many news outlets drew bizarre comparisons to a 1939 pro-Nazi rally held by the German American Bund in an earlier iteration of the world-famous arena. Yes, that 1939 rally was an offensive anti-American gathering, but it had nothing to do with Trump’s rally in a different building 85 years later.

  Moreover, the Fake News historians somehow missed the fact that in 1933, shortly after Adolf Hitler was named chancellor of Germany, the American Jewish Congress held a National Day of Protest in the same venue. The National Park Service, in its history of Madison Square Garden, writes that “After a day of fasting and prayer, more than 55,000 people flooded MSG III and the streets surrounding it for the largest rally. Jewish leaders, union presidents, politicians, and Christian clergy addressed the crowd. They denounced the Nazis and compared the persecution of European Jews to the terror of the Ku Klux Klan.”

  The media somehow also missed the fact that there were Israeli flags and Orthodox Jews at Trump’s rally, along with two former Democratic presidential candidates, the richest man in America, a black congressman, and a variety of Jewish advisers. All that mattered in the long run was that rally organizers had invited an obscure insult comedian named Tony Hinchcliffe to open the show. Turned out Hinchcliffe lived up to his title and insulted a variety of people and ethnic groups, including Puerto Ricans.

  “I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico,” he joked.

  The media went nuts, claiming that Trump was racist because the comedian had insulted Puerto Rico. But that never made any sense.

  Yes, it was an uncomfortable joke, one that seemed inappropriate in the middle of a political campaign where former President Trump has been working hard to build up his share of the Hispanic vote. But it was a joke, and though most in the audience had no idea, it wasn’t a random insult, but a topical one. 

  Puerto Rico has a trash problem  thanks to a variety of causes, and it’s something a future president of the United States should help to resolve.

  But the current president can’t be bothered. Instead of using the tasteless joke to bring attention to the plight of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, President Biden deflected attention away from the island and provocatively said “The only garbage I see floating out there is his [Trump’s] supporters.”

  Which brings us full circle to the disastrous last week of the Harris campaign. As she lectured her would-be constituents during a speech on the Ellipse in D.C., preaching peace, brotherhood, and unity, her boss Joe Biden was in the White House behind her, telling a Zoom call that Trump supporters are “garbage.” You can’t make this stuff up.

  The Democratic Party has been unmasked once again as the party of hypocrisy, insincerity, and smugness. Just as in 2016 when the MAGA base embraced Hillary Clinton’s description of them as “deplorables,” so too did the Trump faithful now begin to greet each other as pieces of garbage. When Trump descended from his jet in Green Bay and entered a garbage truck wearing a sanitation worker’s orange vest, he closed the deal with millions of voters who are tired of being ignored.

  Don’t ever underestimate how much the establishment hates Donald Trump, but also, don’t ever underestimate how much everyday Americans hate the establishment. End of story.

  *  *  *

  Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His book “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA and on X/Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 11/06/2024 – 16:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Watch Live: Republicans Take Senate As Trump Leads Across All Swing States
  Watch Live: Republicans Take Senate As Trump Leads Across All Swing States

  Here we go…

  Results from the 2024 election have begun pouring in from around the country. Of course we won’t have a final count from several counties, until, well they’re ‘done’ so to speak…

  Coverage:

  Color:

  What we’ve got so far:

  Presidential: Trump Leads

  Harris:

  • *HARRIS WINS VERMONT: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS MASSACHUSETTS: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: NETWORKS

  • *HARRIS WINS RHODE ISLAND: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS CONNECTICUT: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS MARYLAND: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS MAINE’S FIRST DISTRICT: FOX

  • *HARRIS WINS NEW JERSEY: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS DELAWARE: NBC

  • *HARRIS WINS ILLINOIS: AP

  • *DECISION DESK HQ PROJECTS HARRIS WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE

  • *HARRIS WINS NEW YORK: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS COLORADO: FOX

  • *HARRIS WINS WASHINGTON STATE: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS CALIFORNIA: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS OREGON: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS VIRGINIA: AP

  • *HARRIS WINS NEBRASKA’S 2ND DISTRICT: FOX

  Trump:

  • *TRUMP WINS KENTUCKY: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS INDIANA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS WEST VIRGINIA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS MISSISSIPPI: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS ALABAMA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS OKLAHOMA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS FLORIDA: NETWORKS

  • *TRUMP WINS SOUTH CAROLINA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS TENNESSEE: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS ARKANSAS: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS NEBRASKA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS NORTH DAKOTA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS SOUTH DAKOTA: CNN

  • *TRUMP WINS TEXAS: NETWORKS

  • *TRUMP WINS WYOMING: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS LOUISIANA: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS KANSAS: FOX

  • *TRUMP WINS OHIO: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS UTAH: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS MONTANA: AP

  • *DECISION DESK HQ PROJECTS TRUMP WINS IOWA

  • *DECISION DESK HQ PROJECTS TRUMP WINS GEORGIA

  • *TRUMP WINS IDAHO: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS KEY MAINE DISTRICT FOR 1 ELECTORAL VOTE: FOX

  • *TRUMP WINS NORTH CAROLINA, KEY BATTLEGROUND STATE: AP

  • *TRUMP WINS BATTLEGROUND STATE OF GEORGIA: NETWORKS

  States called:

  

  The shift to Trump from 2020 is very broad…

  

  The market is shifting significantly pro-Trump:

  The Dollar, Bitcoin (record high), and 10Y Yields are spiking…

  

  

  Prediction markets shifting strongly pro-Trump:

  

  Swing States:

  Georgia and North Carolina have been called for Trump:

  Trump leads across all swing states…

  

  Trump just took the lead in PA…

  

  Senate: Republicans Take Control

  Republicans flip Ohio and West Virginia to take control of the Senate:

  

  House:  Republicans Lead

  

  What to watch for:

  It’s all about the swing states – most notably Pennsylvania, where Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are virtually tied according to polls – so who actually knows.

  1/ Pennsylvania is key for Harris to win.

  2/ The best early indications for the presidential race might come from North Carolina and Georgia (key for Trump to win).

  3/ Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are likely to be the most important results to the presidential outcome but will take longer.

  4/ Arizona and Nevada are likely to take the longest of the swing states.

  The earliest results in most states will likely be dominated by early votes and mail-in ballots, with some states reporting these separately at the start of election night reporting, while others will report with partial election-day results, according to Goldman.

  • For Harris, most obvious path is to win Michigan (15), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10), netting the bare majority 270 electoral votes.

  • For Trump, the most obvious path is to win the Sunbelt states of Arizona (11), Georgia (16), and North Carolina (16) and one of the Rust Belt states (any would be worth enough to reach 270).

  In 2020 and 2022, early voting resulted in a shift to Democrats, however this year may be different – and might even slightly lean Republican, as early voting trends appear much more even based on party than in the past.

  In larger counties, reporting is expected to take days vs. smaller counties.

  

  Here’s Goldman Sachs’ expectations of how the night goes:

  7pm ET  
  •    28 electoral votes lean toward Trump: Indiana, Kentucky and South Carolina
  •    16 electoral votes lean toward Harris: Virginia and Vermont
  •    16 toss-up votes: Georgia (16). In 2020, the AP first reported Georgia results at 7:20 p.m. ET
   
  7.30pm ET
  •    21 electoral votes lean toward Trump: Ohio and West Virginia
  •    16 toss-up votes: North Carolina (16). In 2020, the AP first reported results at 7:42 p.m. ET  
   
  8.00pm ET
  •    74 electoral votes lean toward Trump: Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District
  •    78 electoral votes lean toward Harris: Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Washington, DC
  •    19 toss-up votes: Pennsylvania (19). In 2020, the AP first reported results at 8:09 p.m. ET
   
  8.30pm ET
  •    Polls close in Arkansas, which has 6 electoral votes and is likely to support Trump. Polls will now be closed in half the states.
   
  9.00pm ET
  •    73 electoral votes lean toward Trump, including Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Texas and Louisiana
  •    54 electoral votes lean toward Harris, including New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, New York and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District
  •    36 toss-up votes: Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan (11, 10, 15, respectively)
  In 2020, the AP first reported Michigan results at 8:08 p.m. ET (note Michigan runs two time zones; most of the state close at 8pmET, with rest at 9pm ET)
  In 2020, the AP first reported Wisconsin results at 9:07 p.m. ET  
  In 2020, the AP first reported Arizona results at 10:02 p.m. ET
   
  10.00pm ET
  •    10 electoral votes lean toward Trump, including Utah and Montana
  •    6 toss-up votes: Nevada (6)
  In 2020, the AP first reported Nevada results at 11:41 p.m. ET
   
  11.00pm ET
  •    4 electoral votes lean toward Trump: Idaho
  •    74 electoral votes lean toward Harris, including California, Oregon and Washington
   
  Midnight to 1am ET
  •    3 electoral votes lean toward Trump in Alaska
  •    4 electoral votes lean toward Harris votes in Hawaii

  Here’s when previous presidential election results were called:

  

  According to prediction markets, a Republican sweep is the most likely outcome, followed by a divided Democrat win.

  

  In the House, the generic ballot shows a much tighter race than we had a few weeks ago – an is in line with the notion that the party that wins the White House usually carries the House as well.

  Earliest indications will come from Florida (13th District), Virginia (2nd and 7th Districts) and North Carolina (1st District), where according to Goldman, trends could become clear by 9-10pm ET. It may take until 11pm – midnight ET before further House races come into focus.

  In the Senate, Republicans continue to maintain an advantage in both polling and prediction markets implying that two Democratic seats will likely flip, and a third (Ohio) has a slight chance of flipping to the Republicans, giving them either 51 or 52 seats.

  That Ohio senate tossup should be decided tonight – as the state typically reports fairly quickly. The first vote counts should roll in around 8pm ET, and around half of the vote reported before 9:30pm, according to Goldman. If R’s win the seat, it would take the possibility of a Democratic sweep off the table.

  

  Montana Senate results will likely take longer, as polls close around 10pm ET, and the state usually takes longer to count, reporting only 1/4 of its vote by midnight, and 1/2 by 2am ET.

  Stay tuned for updates…

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 23:55

• Antifa Returns On Election Night, Causing Chaos In Downtown Seattle
  Antifa Returns On Election Night, Causing Chaos In Downtown Seattle

  The potential return of former President Trump to the White House appears to have sparked rage among far-left activists on Tuesday night. With Trump currently leading the electoral count at 214 votes to Harris’s 179, reports are surfacing from Seattle that show Antifa activists have mobilized. 

  Breaking — Seattle PD moves in to make additional arrests of Antifa members near the former CHAZ zone.

  Black bloc Antifa members called for police officers to be killed. pic.twitter.com/WuKrj7ovMo

  — Katie Daviscourt 📸 (@KatieDaviscourt) November 6, 2024

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

  Breaking — Seattle PD arrests several members of black bloc Antifa wrecking havoc on Election Day downtown Seattle.

  Antifa defied orders to get get out of the road resulting in at least four arrests. pic.twitter.com/TJqUNfZcf9

  — Katie Daviscourt 📸 (@KatieDaviscourt) November 6, 2024

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

  Seattle PD had a heavy police response to Antifa’s violent direct action on Election Day.

  Officers made at least half a dozen arrests after Antifa defied orders 🧵pic.twitter.com/7CLeikJGhl

  — Katie Daviscourt 📸 (@KatieDaviscourt) November 6, 2024

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

  Lt. Brooks trailed the group issuing orders to remain lawful over the LRAD, and a police helicopter circled the group issuing similar orders. pic.twitter.com/EPAQ5lbSjn

  — Katie Daviscourt 📸 (@KatieDaviscourt) November 6, 2024

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

  Ahead of the elections, National Guard troops were activated in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Guardsmen in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Washington, D.C., are on standby.

  Earlier this week…

  Watch: DC Begins Boarding Up Ahead Of Election Over Social Unrest Fears https://t.co/3WdDM3wy2n

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 1, 2024

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

  *Developing…

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 23:45

• Sachs: The BRICS Summit Should Mark The End Of Neocon Delusions
  Sachs: The BRICS Summit Should Mark The End Of Neocon Delusions

  Authored by Jeffrey Sachs via Scheerpost.com,

  The recent BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia should mark the end of the Neocon delusions encapsulated in the subtitle of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, The Global Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Since the 1990s, the goal of American foreign policy has been “primacy,” aka global hegemony. The U.S. methods of choice have been wars, regime change operations, and unilateral coercive measures (economic sanctions). Kazan brought together 35 countries with more than half the world population that reject the U.S. bullying and that are not cowed by U.S. claims of hegemony.

  

  In the Kazan Declaration, the countries underscored “the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order.”

  They emphasized “the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities,” while declaring their “commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone.” They took particular aim at the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies, holding that “Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements.”

  Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice.

  The neocon quest for global hegemony has deep historical roots in America’s belief in its exceptionalism. In 1630, John Winthrop invoked the Gospels in describing the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a “City on the Hill,” declaring grandiosely that “The eyes of all people are upon us.” In the 19th century, America was guided by Manifest Destiny, to conquer North America by displacing or exterminating the native peoples. In the course of World War II, Americans embraced the idea of the “American Century,” that after the war the U.S. would lead the world.

  The U.S. delusions of grandeur were supercharged with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. With America’s Cold War nemesis gone, the ascendant American neoconservatives conceived of a new world order in which the U.S. was the sole superpower and the policeman of the world. Their foreign policy instruments of choice were wars and regime-change operations to overthrow governments they disliked.

  Following 9/11, the neocons planned to overthrow seven governments in the Islamic world, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, the neocons expected the U.S. to prevail in these wars in 5 years. Yet now, more than 20 years on, the neocon-instigated wars continue while the U.S. has achieved absolutely none of its hegemonic objectives.

  The neocons reasoned back in the 1990s that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Brzezinski, for example, argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the U.S.-led expansion of NATO and the geopolitical dictates of the U.S. and Europe, since there was no realistic prospect of Russia successfully forming an anti-hegemonic coalition with China, Iran and others. As Brzezinski put it:

  “Russia’s only real geostrategic option—the option that could give Russia a realistic international role and also maximize the opportunity of transforming and socially modernizing itself—is Europe. And not just any Europe, but the transatlantic Europe of the enlarging EU and NATO.”

  (emphasis added, Kindle edition, p. 118)

  Brzezinski was decisively wrong, and his misjudgment helped to lead to the disaster of the war in Ukraine. Russia did not simply succumb to the U.S. plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, as Brzezinski assumed it would. Russia said a firm no, and was prepared to wage war to stop the U.S. plans. As a result of the neocon miscalculations vis-à-vis Ukraine, Russia is now prevailing on the battlefield, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead.

  Nor—and this is the plain message from Kazan—did U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures isolate Russian in the least. In response to pervasive U.S. bullying, an anti-hegemonic counterweight has emerged. Simply put, the majority of the world does not want or accept U.S. hegemony, and is prepared to face it down rather than submit to its dictates. Nor does the U.S. anymore possess the economic, financial, or military power to enforce its will, if it ever did.

  The countries that assembled in Kazan represent a clear majority of the world’s population. The nine BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa as the original five, plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates), in addition to the delegations of 27 aspiring members, constitute 57 percent of the world’s population and 47 percent of the world’s output (measured at purchasing-power adjusted prices). The U.S., by contrast, constitutes 4.1 percent of the world population and 15 percent of world output. Add in the U.S. allies, and the population share of the U.S.-led alliance is around 15 percent of the global population.

  The BRICS will gain in relative economic weight, technological prowess, and military strength in the years ahead. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is growing at around 5 percent per annum, while the combined GDP of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific is growing at around 2 percent per annum.

  Even with their growing clout, however, the BRICS can’t replace the U.S. as a new global hegemon. They simply lack the military, financial, and technological power to defeat the U.S. or even to threaten its vital interests. The BRICS are in practice calling for a new and realistic multipolarity, not an alternative hegemony in which they are in charge.

  American strategists should heed the ultimately positive message coming from Kazan. Not only has the neocon quest for global hegemony failed, it has been a costly disaster for the US and the world, leading to bloody and pointless wars, economic shocks, mass displacements of populations, and rising threats of nuclear confrontation. A more inclusive and equitable multipolar world order offers a promising path out of the current morass, one that can benefit the U.S. and its allies as well as the nations that met in Kazan.

  The rise of the BRICS is therefore not merely a rebuke to the U.S., but also a potential opening for a far more peaceful and secure world order. The multipolar world order envisioned by the BRICS can be a boon for all countries, including the United States. Time has run out on the neocon delusions, and the U.S. wars of choice. The moment has arrived for a renewed diplomacy to end the conflicts raging around the world.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 23:20

• Rare Bees Nuke Mark Zuckerberg's Plan For Atomic-Powered AI Data Center
  Rare Bees Nuke Mark Zuckerberg’s Plan For Atomic-Powered AI Data Center

  At an all-hands meeting last week, 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.

  Meta’s proposed AI data center project with an existing nuclear power plant operator fell apart over environmental and regulatory challenges, according to a Financial Times report, citing two people familiar with the meeting.

  

  The people gave no details about which nuclear power plant Meta planned to build an AI data center in an adjacent lot. They noted that Meta continues to search for locations to tap into carbon-free energy. 

  Here’s more from the report…

  Zuckerberg told staffers at the all-hands that, had the deal gone ahead, Meta would have been the first Big Tech group to wield nuclear-powered AI, and would have had the largest nuclear plant available to power data centres, two people said.

  One person familiar with the matter said that Zuckerberg has been frustrated with the lack of nuclear options in the US, while China has been embracing nuclear power. China appears to be building nuclear reactors at a fast clip, whereas only a handful of reactors have been brought online over the past two decades in the US.

  Incredible power demand growth from AI data centers has sparked a nuclear power revival in the US (but no fast enough when compared with China): 

  • Amazon To Invest More Than $500 Million In Small Modular Nuclear Reactors To Power AWS

  • Nuclear Names Surge After Three Mile Island Planned Restart To Power Microsoft Data Centers

  • Nuclear Is Back: US Closes On $1.5 Billion Loan To Resurrect Holtec’s Palisades Nuclear Plant

  • Sam Altman-Backed Nuclear Startup Oklo Signs Agreement With Dept. Of Energy For Next Phase Of Siting In Idaho

  While we may not always see eye to eye with Zuckerberg, we share his concerns about China outpacing the US in nuclear power development. It’s alarming that Western lawmakers, wearing climate crisis blinders, have pushed de-growth global warming and climate policies that only stifle industrial output and fuel inflation, while providing China a clear runway to eclipse the West’s economy due to its total disregard for such policies.

  It’s safe to say that when the Communist Party in China builds coal power plants, concerns about bees are likely the last thing on their minds. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 22:50

• Homes In SoCal's Planned 'City Of Kindness' To Start In The Very Friendly $400,000s
  Homes In SoCal’s Planned ‘City Of Kindness’ To Start In The Very Friendly $400,000s

  Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Imagine living in a city built on kindness, where residents are encouraged to respect one another and not judge their neighbors.

  John Ohanian, general manager of DMB Development, hopes to build just that—a “City of Kindness” called Silverwood in San Bernardino County.

  

  “It’s really important to us,” Ohanian told The Epoch Times. “The idea is to create some expectations of how we’re all going to live together.”

  The nearly 15-square-mile development is in Hesperia, California, on State Route 138 near the Cajon Pass in the San Bernardino Mountains, about 75 miles east of Los Angeles.

  The project will offer homes built around active outdoor lifestyles and priced from the mid-$400,000s up to the $700,000s. The community will also have five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, according to plans.

  “We’re trying to create a special place for folks to live that embraces an outdoor lifestyle and is community oriented,” Ohanian said.

  With home prices far below those closer to the coast, Ohanian said the housing will be more attainable for Californians who can’t afford Los Angeles and Orange County.

  “We’re trying very hard to articulate a lifestyle that is family oriented, allowing young families to be able to stay in California and afford to live here,” Ohanian said.

  Living in Silverwood will also include paying $158 a month in homeowner association fees, but that will include connections to full-gig speed internet, which is 10 times faster than older cable connections, according to the developer.

  Ohanian was inspired to build a community of kindness after hearing about former Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait’s “Kindness Initiative,” developed after he took office in 2010. The city officially made “kindness” its motto in 2017.

  Silverwood might be just the kind of city the former mayor was hoping to inspire.

  

  “Kindness is very simple. It’s doing something for someone else with no expectation in return,” he explained in 2017 on City Talk. “Imagine an entire city where people are just a little kinder. Where they know it’s who we are. When that happens, literally everything gets better.”

  Tait did not return a request for comment about Silverwood on Friday.

  In this spirit, though, Silverwood’s homeowner association would offer residents who buy one of their nearly 15,700 homes a chance to sign a pledge promising to be kind.

  “We’re trying to make it feel like people have a voice, and have an opportunity to also be respected, not judged, and treated kindly,” Ohanian said. “It sets an expectation and we hope everybody who becomes a homeowner signs a pledge.”

  Kindness won’t be enforced, but Ohanian said he hoped peer pressure and conscience would drive residents to enforce the idea themselves.

  The project has been in the works since 2012, when the developer purchased the land out of a bankruptcy. The southern edge of the property was a working cattle ranch and will remain open space.

  The lower cost of the land is part of what will allow the developer to offer more affordable houses. The homes will range from 1,400 square feet for a one-story condo close to the town’s center, up to 4,000-square-foot executive homes at the higher end.

  

  “Silverwood will create the opportunity for thousands of families to live in a gorgeous natural setting with endless opportunities for outdoor recreation, all within a reasonable commute to San Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, and other existing employment hubs,” according to the project’s website.

  Each house will also come with solar panels, which are now required by California law. 

  The development will also build a wastewater treatment facility that will allow the association to use recycled water for all parks and schools. Half of the houses will also be built to offer homeowners the ability to use recycled water for irrigation and landscaping, according to the developer.

  The project is planned to include eight villages, each with its own theme and anchored by a green space. One might be built around pickleball courts, while another might have a swimming complex, according to the developer.

  “Each village will have their own neighborhood identity and each of them will have their own character,” Ohanian said.

  The community will also have its own medical services, grocery stores, and other services, he added.

  People will be able to gather at the pools, recreational facilities, bandstands, and other areas, according to the developer. Nearly half of the land in the development has been set aside for natural open space, conservation easement, parks, and the Serrano Preserve.

  The project is expected to include 59 miles of off-street trails, 107 miles of paths and paseos, and 387 acres of parks. Every house will be within a five-minute walk of a park, according to plans.

  Silverwood Lake is on the southern boundary of the property, and Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear are about an hour away.

  

  Model homes at the development should be open in the spring of next year, Ohanian said. He expects to have people living in the community between April and June.

  Home builders include Lennar, Richmond American Homes, Watt Capital Developers, and Woodside Homes.

  The developer expects to take up to 20 years to completely build out the community.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 22:20

• Game Of Chess: US Prepares Next Move With More B-52s, Warships To Middle East 
  Game Of Chess: US Prepares Next Move With More B-52s, Warships To Middle East 

  It’s been a week since Israeli fighter jets pounded high-value Iranian military sites and assets with missiles and bombs. Iran has since delayed a retaliatory strike on Israel as the US presidential election is just days away, and now the US appears to be bolstering defense capabilities in the Middle East as regional war risks remain elevated. 

  Pentagon officials confirmed to Fox News on Friday that US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered several B-52 Stratofortress bomber aircraft, refueling aircraft, and Navy destroyers to the Middle East. 

  In a statement to Reuters, Pentagon spokesperson Air Force Major General Patrick Ryder said additional military assets will begin arriving in the region in the coming months. 

  “Should Iran, its partners, or its proxies use this moment to target American personnel or interests in the region, the United States will take every measure necessary to defend our people,” Ryder said. 

  The strategic positioning—think of it as a game of chess—of additional US military assets in the region in the very near term may only suggest broadening war risks after the US election cycle ends. In other words, the Pentagon may finally get serious about Iranian-backed Houthis, other Iranian proxies, and even Tehran, which have sparked chaos in critical maritime chokepoints.

  Ryder said Austin’s latest order shows the “US capability to deploy worldwide on short notice to meet evolving national security threats.” 

  One week ago, the US signaled defense guarantees to the Saudis – in the event Tehran or its proxies attempt to weaponize crude oil by targeting the Kingdom’s Abqaiq refinery (the largest crude oil stabilization plant in the world) with drone swarms or hypersonic missiles. 

  Austin revealed last month that B-2 stealth bombers targeted underground Houthi weapons storage facilities – indeed, a message to Tehran.

  “This was a unique demonstration of the United States’ ability to target facilities that our adversaries seek to keep out of reach, no matter how deeply buried underground, hardened, or fortified,” Austin said at the time, adding, “The employment of US Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers demonstrates US global strike capabilities to take action against these targets when necessary, anytime, anywhere.”

  On Saturday morning, Iran’s supreme leader threatened Israel and the US with “a crushing response” … 

  Meanwhile, the geopolitical risk premium in Brent crude oil has all but evaporated. 

  But will that all change after the US presidential election?

  

  Here are the latest geopolitical bets that can be taken on Polymarkets: 

  Reuters noted that the additional US bombers and warships being shifted to the region came as the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group prepared to exit the region. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 21:50

• See The Human Brain Like Never Before
  See The Human Brain Like Never Before

  Authored by Makai Allbert via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A decade ago, a small and unassuming brain sample arrived at Dr. Jeff Lichtman’s lab at Harvard University. Measuring less than a grain of rice, the 1 cubic millimeter of tissue contained 57,000 cells and 150 million synapses, each one a vital part of the brain’s intricate communication network.

  

  Now, after a decade of collaboration with Google scientists, a monumental dataset—with 1,400 terabytes—has turned into the most detailed map of the human brain ever created.

  “A terabyte is, for most people, gigantic, yet a fragment of a human brain—just a minscule, teeny-weeny little bit of human brain—is still thousands of terabytes,” Lichtman said in a National Institutes of Health report.

  The detailed 3-D reconstruction reveals beautiful structures in the brain. Neurons forming dozens of connections, mirror-image neural pairs, and networks far more complex than expected, are just some of the groundbreaking discoveries.

  “I remember this moment, going into the map and looking at one individual synapse from this woman’s brain, and then zooming out into these other millions of pixels,” said Viren Jain, a senior scientist at Google in Nature Magazine. “It felt sort of spiritual.”

  The map, now part of an open-access dataset online, opens the door to new understandings of human cognition, psychiatric disorders, and the architecture of our minds.

  “There is the saying that ‘A map of synaptic connections is necessary but insufficient to understand the brain.’ In its current form it is still missing a lot of important information, but it is a step in the right direction,” Daniel Berger, a scientist in the Lichtman lab, told The Epoch Times.

  All images below are by Google Research and Lichtman Lab (Harvard University). Renderings by D. Berger (Harvard University)

  

  Excitatory neurons, color-coded by size, with red being the largest and blue the smallest. Cell cores range from 15 to 30 micrometers.

  

  A single white neuron receives signals from more than 5,000 blue axons, with green synapses marking the points where the signals transfer.

  

  Neurons with long dendrites and dendrite spine. In very rare cases, a single axon (blue) made repeated synaptic connections (yellow) with a target neuron (green).

  

  One unexpected discovery in the study was the presence of “axon whorls”—tangled loops of blue axons—which typically transmit signals away from nerve cells. These structures were rare in the sample and sometimes appeared to be resting on yellow cells. Their purpose remains unclear.

  Read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 21:20

• Israeli Airstrikes Pummel Syria For A Second Day In A Row
  Israeli Airstrikes Pummel Syria For A Second Day In A Row

  The last two days have witnessed more Israeli airstrikes carried out on Syria, with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Tuesday issuing rare direct confirmation that it targeted Hezbollah weapons depots in the al-Qusayr area in western Syria, close to the border with Lebanon.

  “The IDF says Hezbollah’s armament unit is responsible for storing weapons in Lebanon, and it recently expanded its activities to Syria, storing weapons in al-Qusayr,” Israeli media reports.

  

  And the NY Times writes of the expanding and more frequent nature of the raids, “The Israeli military on Tuesday said its Air Force had struck targets in Syria for the second day in a row, attacks it said were aimed at cutting off the flow of weapons and intelligence between Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese group, and its sponsor, Iran.”

  The day prior, on Monday, Syrian state media confirmed Israeli airstrikes south of Damascus. The attack again targeted an area known to attract many Shia religious pilgrims.

  SANA indicated that it involved Israeli warplanes hitting “a number of civilian sites south of Damascus, resulting in material losses.” There are regional reports that at least two were left dead and five injured in the Monday attack on the Syrian capital’s suburbs.

  This could in part be Israel’s signaling Washington that whichever administration takes the White House, efforts to break up the ‘resistance axis’ of Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah will continue.

  On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear in remarks that regardless of whether a cease-fire deal could be reached related to Lebanon, Israel’s military would remain committed to “cutting Hezbollah’s oxygen line from Iran via Syria.”

  We reported previously that just last week Israeli government minister and war cabinet member Gideon Saar threatened Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, warning that he will be “in danger” if his country continues to act as a “conduit” for Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah.

  Saar – who rejoined Benjamin Netanyahu’s government late last month – said during a conference that Tel Aviv “missed an opportunity” to “collapse” Assad’s government, which was “saved” by Iran and Hezbollah. 

  #Israel struck Al Qusayr on the outskirts of Homs in #Syria. pic.twitter.com/EaAgcAr6lR

  — Yeghia Tashjian /يغيا/ Եղիա Թաշճեան 🇱🇧🇦🇲 (@yeghig) November 5, 2024

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

  Syria must not be permitted “under any circumstances to be a conduit for weapons supply from Iran to Hezbollah,” the minister went on to say, adding that “Israel must make clear to Assad that if he chooses to harm Israeli security in this manner, he places his regime in danger.”

  Israel “will not agree to Hezbollah’s renewed buildup of power through Syria, and will not agree to the opening of a front against it from Syrian territory,” he said. “Removing Assad from the Iranian axis will have far-reaching consequences for Israel’s security.” Thus even if somehow ceasefire is reached in Lebanon, these regular Israeli attacks on Syria will likely continue.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 20:50

• 77 Days Of Transition: New Law Aims To Streamline Presidential Power Transfer Process
  77 Days Of Transition: New Law Aims To Streamline Presidential Power Transfer Process

  Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

  The 2024 presidential election will see the first application of a 2022 amendment to the laws governing the transfer of power between administrations.

  

  There are 77 days between the Nov. 5 election and the Jan. 20, 2025, inauguration of the next president, during which time the president-elect will ready his or her administration to take over from President Joe Biden.

  The handoffs between an outgoing administration and a government-in-waiting have been largely drama-free for decades, and they have been governed by the rules enumerated in the Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

  The Electoral Count Reform Act will take effect this year, ensuring that five days after the election, the team of the winning candidate (or both candidates if the winner is not yet identified), will begin readying for the White House.

  Unless another authority is designated by state law, the act appoints governors as the principal officials responsible for filing certificates of state presidential electors. By providing expedited court review of matters pertaining to electors, it guarantees that Congress can establish a final slate of electors.

  The vice president’s involvement in the electoral vote count is defined by the new act as purely ceremonial, and he or she is not given any power to affect the count in any way. It also reduces the possibility of challenges by raising the threshold for congressional objections to one-fifth of each house. Previously, a single member of both chambers was needed to enter an objection to an elector or slate of electors.

  Additionally, the General Services Administration (GSA) is now required to provide money to both candidates in the event that a candidate does not withdraw their candidacy within five days following the election. This change affects the presidential transition process. The GSA will cut off financing to the unsuccessful campaign once the results are finalized.

  The initial responsibility of the successful candidate is to acquire knowledge of the current agency missions, policies, and ongoing projects, as well as to commence the process of filling political positions in the executive branch, ranging from Cabinet secretaries to press assistants.

  The new team is provided guidance by career leaders and appointees from the outgoing administration to assist in the launch of its government. They also provide briefings on significant issues and facilitate inquiries. An orderly transition has long been dependent on the flow of resources.

  Delays occurred following the 2020 presidential election as President Donald Trump questioned the validity of the election results as they were being reported. Because Trump was contesting the results in court, there was a delay in the start of the transition from Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020, to Nov. 23.

  Emily Murphy, then head of the GSA, reviewed the transition law from 1963 and concluded that she lacked the legal authority to determine a winner and commence funding and collaboration with the transition to a Biden administration.

  Weeks after the election, Murphy sent a Letter of Ascertainment to Biden and commenced the transition process after Trump’s efforts to contest the results had collapsed across key states.

  According to the GSA’s guidelines on the new rules, the amendment eliminates lengthy delays and states “an affirmative ‘ascertainment’ by GSA is no longer a prerequisite for obtaining transition support services.”

  However, the new law also effectively mandates federal support and cooperation for both candidates to initiate a transition. It is stated that such support should persist until “significant legal challenges” that could affect electoral outcomes have been “substantially resolved” or until electors from each state convene in December to formally select an Electoral College winner.

  Under this mandate, Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris may find themselves forming rival administrations for weeks.

  The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement amendment to the Presidential Transition Act was passed in December 2022.

  During a committee hearing on the Electoral Count Act on Aug. 3 that year, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) said, “We were all there on Jan. 6 … We have a duty [and] responsibility to make sure it never happens again.” Manchin was referring to the events on Jan. 6, 2021, when protesters breached the U.S. Capitol while Congress was counting electoral votes.

  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in her testimony: “In four out of the past six presidential elections, the Electoral Count Act’s process for counting electoral votes has been abused with frivolous objections being raised by members of both parties. But it took the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6 to really shine a spotlight on how urgent the need for reform was.”

  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) opposed the bill, stating in a press release: “This bill is a bad bill. … It’s bad policy and it’s bad for democracy. There are serious constitutional questions in the bill. The text of the Constitution, Article Two says, ‘Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.’ This bill is Congress trying to intrude on the authority of the state legislatures to do that.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 20:20

• Space Force Will Test Launch ICBM Minuteman III Shortly After Election 
  Space Force Will Test Launch ICBM Minuteman III Shortly After Election 

  While everyone is hyper-focused on the US presidential election, America is testing its nuclear deterrent capabilities. With war raging in Eastern Europe and the risk of broadening conflict between Iran and Israel in the Middle East, the US Space Force will launch an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Space Force Base later this evening.

  “These launches are scheduled years in advance on a quarterly basis, and there is often one in early November. The election had nothing to do with its scheduling,” an Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs representative told the local newspaper Lompoc Record, located in the town of Lompoc, California, down the street from Vandenberg. 

  Vandenberg’s Test Range will launch the LGM-30G Minuteman ICBM shortly after 2300 local time, with a launch window open through Wednesday. 

  The re-entry vehicle with a dummy warhead will travel across the Pacific Ocean and, 22 minutes later, plunge into the ocean near the Marshall Islands. 

  

  Here’s from from Lompoc Record about the launch:

  In accordance with standard procedures, the United States has transmitted a prelaunch notification pursuant to the Hague Code of Conduct, notifying the Russian government in advance, as outlined in existing bi-lateral agreements, officials reported.

  Test re-entry vehicles related to such missions travel approximately 4,200 miles southwest of California to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

  Data collected from the missions are used by the wider ICBM community, consisting of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and US Strategic Command.

  Anti-war group CodePink noted, “This Tuesday, while everyone’s attention will be on who our next president will be, the U.S. Air Force will test-launch an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with a dummy hydrogen bomb on the tip from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.” 

  The ICBM test comes one week after Russia test-fired missiles that simulated a “massive” nuclear response to an enemy’s first strike. And Iran has threatened Israel with severe retaliation amid further risks of broadening conflict.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 19:50

• California Takes Controversial Approach To Fentanyl Crisis
  California Takes Controversial Approach To Fentanyl Crisis

  Authored by Beige Luciano-Adams via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  By now the statistics are familiar: Fentanyl is killing Americans at an unprecedented rate—around 73,000 annually.

  

  For those aged 18 to 45, it is the leading cause of death.

  And it’s everywhere—tainting counterfeit pills, poisoning children and adults, addicts and first-time users, overwhelming any potential response. As a deluge of pills and powder flows across the southern border, authorities regularly seize enough fentanyl to kill everyone on earth, several times over.

  Into this carnage, a windfall.

  Nationwide, more than $50 billion is expected to flow from legal settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors over the next two decades—with California in line to receive about $4 billion, divvied up among the state and local governments.

  This money will now largely go to abating illicit fentanyl—the third wave in an opioid crisis that began with prescription pain medication in the 1990s.

  In the first two years, California state programs have primarily used their share for “harm reduction” efforts—including opioid overdose reversal medication, needle exchange, and public education campaigns aimed at destigmatizing drug use.

  Nationally, experts and progressive advocates are keeping a close eye on settlement spending, in an effort to avoid mistakes of Big Tobacco settlements and ensure funds go to actual abatement, rather than plugging municipal budgets.

  But some wonder if another obvious lesson from the fight against Big Tobacco—in which stigmatization, graphic warnings about the dangers of cigarettes, and enforcement led to a radical decrease in smoking—is missing from the state’s approach to the fentanyl crisis.

  California’s Department of Public Health recently gave a San Francisco-based advertising agency $40 million in opioid settlement funds to produce a youth awareness campaign that aims to “meet people where they are” by reducing stigma around using fentanyl and other drugs and encouraging the use of naloxone.

  According to state records, the department has also paid that same advertising company nearly $900 million to produce campaigns that expressly stigmatize tobacco use and encourage abstinence from it.

  “In general, there is a strange contradiction between [California] Public Health trying hard to stigmatize tobacco smoking while destigmatizing fentanyl use,” Keith Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, told The Epoch Times.

  By now, Humphreys said, the lessons from Big Tobacco are clear.

  “Disapproving of smoking has been a life-saving thing. And we should not be afraid to say to people that using fentanyl is incredibly dangerous and you shouldn’t do it.”

  

  Harm Reduction Movement

  Harm reduction is a social justice movement that seeks to reduce drug harms without judging, punishing, or even interfering in drug use. It is an explicit pendulum swing away from the War on Drugs of past decades, which state leaders continue to criticize as a “failed” approach.

  Many who are critical of the harm reduction movement in California, where it is orthodoxy—baked into the law—support harm reduction measures like naloxone distribution, medication-assisted treatment, and needle exchange.

  Where people tend to disagree is whether hard drugs should be decriminalized and destigmatized, whether those using and selling them should be penalized when they break the law—and especially, whether treatment can be coerced or, as many harm reduction advocates insist, can only happen when and if the person who uses drugs decides they are ready.

  Humphreys supports harm reduction measures as part of a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to the addiction crisis, and champions naloxone. As chair of the Stanford-Lancet Commission, he helped develop a national model for opioid response that recommends overdose rescue medications as “broadly the most lifesaving action policymakers can take.”

  But he recognizes the limitations and has criticized the trend, prominent in blue cities, toward de-stigmatization of hard drugs.

  “No one stops using drugs because of Narcan,” Humphreys said, citing recent research showing those successfully treated with naloxone—the overdose reversal medicine sold under the brand Narcan—have a 13-fold increase in mortality compared to the general population.

  “Twelve percent of people are likely to be dead from their addiction within 12 months of getting the Narcan,” he said.

  

  Further complicating the equation is the fact that non-opioids such as the “zombie drug” xylazine—which does not respond to naloxone—is showing up in nearly 30 percent of all fentanyl powder seizures, and there is no long term research indicating how effective naloxone is after repeated use, or the impact of increasingly higher doses needed to reverse synthetic opioid overdoses.

  Meanwhile, naloxone has a shorter half-life than many powerful synthetic opioids—including nitazenes, an “emerging threat” in the U.S. drug supply—meaning people can re-overdose after revival.

  California’s current fentanyl awareness campaigns elide the ugly realities of using fentanyl—or meth, which in Los Angeles County last year killed nearly as many people—in favor of a message that works “in alliance with people who use drugs for safer and managed drug use.”

  There are no photos of children who died from a single dose, no acknowledgement of the people suffering what amounts to a living death on the streets, no testimony from people who have recovered from their addiction.

  “I don’t see one ad in here that says anything about treatment,” noted Gina McDonald, co-founder of Mothers against Drug Addiction and Deaths (MADAAD), a San Francisco-based nonprofit critical of California’s permissive approach to fentanyl.

  “I eradicated my risk of overdose by stopping doing drugs—it’s the only foolproof way to prevent overdose. You would think that would be in at least one ad,” said McDonald, a former addict.

  According to 2024 statistics published by Mental Health America, a national nonprofit, nearly 83 percent of Californians with a substance use disorder, around five million people, did not receive needed treatment.

  

  Nationally, only Illinois has a higher rate of untreated substance use disorder than California.

  McDonald co-founded MADAAD with other mothers who have lost children to the streets—mothers with children currently addicted to fentanyl in places like the Tenderloin and Skid Row.

  Their children are the intended targets of the state’s advertising campaigns—and the presumed beneficiaries of funds from a prescription opioid crisis that seeded subsequent heroin and fentanyl epidemics.

  McDonald, like most everyone, wants to see Narcan everywhere—in every school and workplace and store—and knows what the shame of addiction feels like.

  “I’m not saying we need to stigmatize drug users,” she said.

  “But how many times are people going to be Narcan-ed and go back to die another day? It’s usually what happens,” she said. “I don’t know too many people who’ve been Narcan-ed on the street and went into treatment after being resurrected. … Narcan isn’t dealing with any root cause of why people are using drugs.”

  Representatives from influential policy organizations that advocate harm reduction and opiate decriminalization—including the National Harm Reduction Coalition and OpioidSettlementTracker.com—did not respond to inquiries.

  

  An Empathetic Conversation

  Robert Marbut, the former executive director of the U.S. Interagency on Homelessness and producer of the forthcoming documentary, “Fentanyl: Death Incorporated,” says the government is under reacting to an existential and continually evolving threat.

  “We absolutely have to get into drug education and prevention at a level that we did with cigarettes,” he told The Epoch Times, pointing to the nearly 75-percent reduction in smoking since 1965, when nearly half of Americans smoked; now around 12 percent do.

  “[Those campaigns] said cigarette smoking is not cool—it’s dirty, it’s ugly, it’s awful. If you go look at the PSAs, they didn’t go into a sort of kinder, gentler thing. It was hard. It was direct—it was: ‘This is nasty. It’s horrible.’ And governments backed it up with real fines,” Marbut said.

  Generally, harm reduction advocates say a softer, empathetic approach is needed to avoid the stigmatization and punitive tones of the War on Drugs. They argue shaming or scaring people who use drugs will prevent them from seeking help.

  Representatives of Duncan Channon, the ad agency behind California’s “Facts Fight Fentanyl” campaign, say they avoided the “fear and tragedy” of traditional PSAs in favor of an “approachable and empowering” way to talk about the fentanyl crisis and get people comfortable using naloxone.

  “The last thing we are going to do is wag a finger at anybody or follow the failed tactics of ‘Just Say No,’ which has never really worked,” Duncan Channon’s CEO Andy Berkenfield told AdAge last year.

  “The state strongly believes—and we are very much in line with them—that our job is to engage in empathetic conversation and ultimately reduce harm,” he told the industry publication.

  Fentanyl de-stigmatization campaigns are common across the United States, and California’s opioid-settlement-funded “Unshame CA” campaign reports “measurable changes” in moving the needle on public perception of substance use disorder as a medical condition and naloxone as an everyday resource.

  Read the rest here…

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 19:20

• Censorship & The Criminalization Of Election Integrity
  Censorship & The Criminalization Of Election Integrity

  Via The Brownstone Institute,

  Throughout this election cycle, we have witnessed an incessant assault on our First Amendment.

  The regime sent dissidents to prison, destroyed opposition news sites, colluded to control the free flow of information, bankrupted its critics, and boasted that it would criminalize “misinformation.”

  

  The election threatens the death knell for free expression in the United States as Kamala Harris and her lead attorney, Marc Elias, vow to punish anyone who questions their pursuit of power. 

  No political actor has been more influential in overturning election integrity efforts than Marc Elias. Recently, he led the crusade to overturn the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, which banned the use of “drop boxes” in the state. 

  In deciding whether to hear the case, Republican Justice Rebecca Bradley called the Elias-led litigation a “shameless effort to readjust the balance of political power in Wisconsin.” Elias was successful, and dropboxes are now taking votes in Wisconsin, a state that may be the tipping point in the election.

  In 2020, President Biden won Wisconsin by just 20,000 votes. The rejection rate for absentee ballots plummeted from 1.4% to 0.2% as 1.9 million of the state’s 3.3 million voters cast absentee ballots. 

  Similarly, Elias led lawsuits to defend dropboxes in Pennsylvania. In 2020, President Biden received 75% of the 2.5 million mail-in ballots and won the state by under 100,000 votes. 

  But temporary political victories are insufficient for Elias. Along with Project 65, Elias has called for the disbarment of attorneys who challenge him in court. “I don’t think any lawyer should have a bar license for the privilege of destroying our country’s democratic traditions,” Elias insists, though “democratic traditions” apparently means months of absentee voting without signature verification or photo identification. He demanded an “accountability structure” for those who challenge the Democrats’ mandated standards for a “free and fair election.” 

  Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, evidently share this intolerance for dissent. Walz has insisted that the First Amendment does not protect “misinformation or hate speech…especially around our democracy.” The Biden-Harris administration has fiercely championed censorship and the regulation of social media content.

  Now, they threaten to jail anyone who criticizes their pursuit of power. Their judges – likely to be in the mold of Ketanji Brown Jackson – will not let the First Amendment “hamstring” their efforts to reshape the American government. And perhaps most tellingly, they’ll censor the critiques that are most obviously true. 

  “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

  –Jimmy Carter, 2005

  We have long known the threat that absentee ballots pose to our elections. Following the controversy of the 2000 Presidential election, the United States formed a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker, a Republican, chaired the group.

  After almost five years of research, the group published its final report – “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections.” It offered a series of recommendations to reduce voter fraud, including enacting voter-ID laws and limiting absentee voting. The commission was unequivocal: “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” Yet, Elias and Harris would gladly disbar any attorney who uttered such a sentence in court. 

  The report continued: “Citizens who vote at home, at nursing homes, at the workplace, or in church are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation. Vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”

  Recent history supports this thesis. Just last week, a Chinese national illegally voted in Michigan. He was only caught because he brought it to the attention of authorities, who later revealed that his vote (though admittedly invalid) will still count. 

  The 1997 Miami mayoral election resulted in 36 arrests for absentee ballot fraud. A judge voided the results and ordered the city to hold a new election due to “a pattern of fraudulent, intentional, and criminal conduct.” The results were reversed in the subsequent election.

  Following Dallas’s 2017 City Council race, authorities sequestered 700 mail-in ballots signed “Jose Rodriguez.” Elderly voters alleged that party activists had forged their signatures on their mail-in ballots. Miguel Hernandez later pled guilty to the crime of forging their signatures after collecting unfilled ballots and using them to support his candidate of choice.

  The following year, it appeared that Republican Mark Harris defeated Democrat Dan McCready in a North Carolina Congressional race. Election officials noticed irregularities in the mail-in votes and refused to certify the election, citing evidence and “claims of…concerted fraudulent activities.” The state ordered a special election the following year.

  In 2018, the Democratic National Commission challenged an Arizona law that set safeguards around absentee voting, including limiting who could handle mail-in ballots. US District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, an Obama appointee, upheld the law.

  “Indeed, mail-in ballots by their very nature are less secure than ballots cast in person at polling locations,” he wrote.

  He found that “the prevention of voter fraud and preservation of public confidence in election integrity” were important state interests and cited the Carter-Baker Commission’s finding that “Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

  In May 2020, New Jersey held municipal elections and required all voting take place via mail due to Covid. The State’s third largest city, Paterson, held its election for City Council. Election officials rejected 19% of the ballots from Paterson, a city with over 150,000 residents. While Paterson’s election was particularly troublesome, mail-in ballots were problematic across the state. Thirty other New Jersey municipalities held vote-by-mail elections that day, and the average disqualification rate was 9.6%.

  New Jersey brought voting fraud charges against City Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman-Elect Alex Mendez, and two other men for their “criminal conduct involving mail-in ballots during the election.” All four were charged with illegally collecting, procuring, and submitting mail-in ballots.

  A state judge later ordered a new vote, finding that the May election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters. It was rife with mail in vote procedural violations constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance.”

  In Wisconsin, the April 2020 primary election offered further evidence of the challenges and corruption surrounding mail-in voting. Following the primary, a postal center outside Milwaukee discovered three tubs of absentee ballots that never reached their intended recipients. Fox Point, a village outside Milwaukee, has a population of under 7,000 people. 

  Beginning in March, Fox Point received between 20 and 50 undelivered absentee ballots per day. In the weeks leading up to the election, the village manager said that increased to between 100 and 150 ballots per day. On Election Day, the town received a plastic mail bin with 175 unmailed ballots. “We’re not sure why this happened,” said the village manager. “Nobody seems to be able to tell me why.”

  Democrats admitted the system threatened election integrity. “This has all the makings of a Florida 2000 if we have a close race,” said Gordon Hintz, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo went further. “It’s a harder system to administer, and obviously it’s a harder system to police writ large,” he said. Cuomo continued, “People showing up, people actually showing ID, is still the easiest system to assure total integrity.”

  The Wisconsin primary also featured special elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A liberal judge upset the incumbent conservative justice, and partisans embraced their overhaul of the electoral system. The New York Times reported: “Wisconsin Democrats are working to export their template for success – intense digital outreach and a well-coordinated vote-by-mail operation – to other states in the hope that it will improve the party’s chances in local and statewide elections and in the quest to unseat President Trump in November.” 

  Scores of other reports of election fraud came forward as the Democratic Party used the pretext of Covid to reshape American elections. Despite the corruption, lost ballots, and admitted threats to electoral integrity, the process had been a success in political terms; their candidate had won. The ends had justified the means. Citizens lost faith in their election process, and political leaders readily admitted that their concerns were justified; but the professional politicos and their mouthpiece, the New York Times, characterized the disaster as a “template for success.”

  The stakes of the election could not be more stark. We either remain free to criticize those who reign over us, or we surrender this nation to a cabal of censorious thugs who will remain insatiable in their pursuit of ever-more power. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 18:25

• Elon Musk's 1950s-Style Drive-In Supercharger Installs Giant 45-Foot LED TV Screen
  Elon Musk’s 1950s-Style Drive-In Supercharger Installs Giant 45-Foot LED TV Screen

  Tesla’s 1950s-inspired drive-in Supercharging station, currently under construction at 7001 Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood, recently installed a giant 45-foot LED television in the parking lot. 

  

  The West Hollywood Supercharger station is the next generation of Tesla charging stations, featuring a restaurant, drive-in movie theater, and dozens of charging bays. Tesla seems eager to spice up the currently dull charging experience by blending the 1950/60s Americana style with cutting-edge new technology. 

  

  Teslarati’s Zachary Visconti first reported on the new construction development: 

  Tesla has been hard at work on its Southern California diner, Supercharger, and drive-in movie theater location over the past year or so, and a recent update shows that the site has finally gotten its first full movie screen.

  …

  The screens, one of which still needs the final LED display, will run from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., while the diner and charging stations will be open 24 hours a day, according 247Tesla. The screens will also reportedly be visible from both the diner building and the Supercharging stations.

  Here’s the full video:

  From EVs to catching giant rockets with ‘chopsticks’ …

  Mechazilla has caught the Super Heavy booster! pic.twitter.com/6R5YatSVJX

  — SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 13, 2024

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

  … to space age vehicles …

  Did you expect the Tesla Robovan? pic.twitter.com/uIZz8GFAHv

  — Tesla Owners Silicon Valley (@teslaownersSV) October 31, 2024

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

  And robots. 

  This is how Tesla Bot can generate $1 trillion in profit per year for $TSLA:

  1/ Ratio of humanoid robots to humans will be 2 to 1

  2/ Equates to ~10 billion humanoid robots on earth

  3/ Build rate of humanoid robots on earth will be 1 billion per year

  4/ If Tesla makes 10% of… https://t.co/tbyxMOddct pic.twitter.com/2Cfjdb6XW4

  — Teslaconomics (@Teslaconomics) October 29, 2024

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

  Musk appears to have a deep love for ‘Americana’ and wants to inspire the next generation to look toward the stars to spark a new wave of innovation and power the nation forward. It all begins with freedom and healthy youngsters.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 18:00

• After The Ball Is Over…
  After The Ball Is Over…

  Authored by Thomas Neuburger via “God’s Spies’ Substack,

  What does the country look like, four years down the road, after a Trump or Harris victory?

  

  Many people have made election predictions (some in abundance), but few have looked at the post-electoral state.

  What happens if Harris wins? What does a Trump II world look like?

  I offer below what Ryan Grim sees post-November. I think in the main he’s right. His virtue is that he avoids conventional thinking and looks at what’s real.

  The whole piece went out to his Drop Site News subscribers and is also available there. But I’d like to offer it here; I know our readers are thoughtful and decidedly unconstrained by conventional ways. No one wants to fall prey to “what everyone knows to be true” without close examination.

  Grim’s analysis, with his permission, is printed in full below. Some comments first.

  A Pyrrhic victory

  Grim holds that if Harris wins, it will work like a loss. First, she’d likely rule without House and/or Senate support.

  Without the Senate, Harris will have a hard time confirming a dog catcher, let along [sic] a judge or a cabinet nominee. With the Senate but without the House, she won’t be able to get any of her agenda through. Worse, the debt ceiling will be hit in January, before she’s even inaugurated. 

  Would Democrats, especially decidedly unpopulist ones, be willing to take advantage of the advantages that populism-by-executive order confers? They haven’t yet. Grim is doubtful they will — to do so, Harris would have to find “populist Jesus” — and I would agree. Democrats are self-defined as the party of status quo Jesus. “Nothing will fundamentally change,” we’re regularly told, a contrast to the change their electoral opponents would bring.

  For that plan to work, people have to like what they see. Playing it safe in a land this dissatisfied won’t produce lasting wins.

  

  Grim also thinks a Harris win now tees up a Republican win in 2028.

  A status quo powerless Democrat with no personal base of support (“support for Kamala is more accurately described as opposition to Trump and support for Democratic policies generally”), ruling a party reduced to “an upper-middle-class center,” is not a winning combination, especially if it follows a term where little gets done.

  What kind of dictatorship?

  After a Trump win, many predict a dictatorship. Grim disagrees:

  Even with two new justices, the Supreme Court is not willing to turn power over to him. Trump is their tool to wield power, and they will be content to see him retire from the field. Trump also lacks the support of the military leadership. Without the court or the military, he has no path to hold on to power illegally.

  “Without the court or the military” — sounds pretty third-world to me. That’s how Egypt is ruled. Just wanted to point that out.

  The Realignment

  This will take much more thought, but the start point is here:

  [T]he class realignment already underway … leaves a coalition of the working class and the super rich in the Republican party. That’s an extremely dangerous coalition, and while it will be hampered by Trump’s defeat, it would be structurally strengthened longterm by a Harris victory[.]

  What it looks like when all the ripe apples have dropped is anyone’s guess. Grim thinks its possible that Republicans, if Democrats keep shedding their base, could “lock in generational power” in 2028.

  We’ll see if that’s true: it’s a “dangerous coalition” indeed. What happens with working class Sanders populists — yes, there are many; Sanders might have wiped the floor with 2016 Trump — is clearly up in the air. Rich material for a novelist.

  The NatSec state

  Here Grim is silent, but we don’t have to be. At this point, no president can oppose the cemented-in apparatus, our heroes who “maintain security.” (Trump on Joe Rogan talked about how he was convinced not to release the JFK files as he first intended. Listen between the lines and you hear, “Sir, you don’t want to do that.”)

  To the extent there’s real rebellion in the U.S., there will be real repression, more than what’s already here. What elites do abroad, they will do at home, given a sufficiently media-marginalized target. (The military calls this “preparing the battlefield.”)

  There are only two end points historically for this kind of collision — a state in chaos (think ‘60s and ‘70s rebellion) or a locked-down, Stasi society, surveilled and policed. Ask yourself, how would today’s guardians of security handle the 1960s? Gloves on or gloves off?

  Now for Grim’s analysis. If you want just his bottom line, skip down to “What It Means”. Enjoy.

  *  *  *

  Ryan Grim’s election predictions

  What will realistically happen if Harris or Trump wins

  Just like Jeff Bezos, I would never tell you who to vote for. You don’t need that from me anyway. What I can do though is offer a few thoughts on what might happen if either candidate is elected, which I haven’t seen anybody try to do with any seriousness.

  According to Elon Musk, if Kamala Harris wins, there’ll never be another election, and according to lots of Democrats, if Trump wins, he’ll turn into a dictator. Both are wrong. The truth is more complicated but not necessarily less frightening. In tonight’s newsletter, I’ll game out what that might look like…

  If Kamala wins:

  Congress goes

  If Harris wins, the chance she also takes Congress relies on a number of miraculous upsets. Joe Manchin is leaving the Senate, and his Senate seat is leaving the Democratic caucus for the rest of all of our lives. That takes Dems from 51 down to 50 seats. Jon Tester won extremely narrow races in Montana in 2006, 2012, and 2018, and he’s about as good a rural politician as you’re going to find, but Montana’s rightward drift might be too much for him to overcome. Polls have him down. If they’re right, he’s toast, and that brings Democrats down to 49 seats. 

  To get back to 50 – which would let Tim Walz break ties – they’d need to hold on to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin (all doable, even likely) but also win in either Florida or Texas – or Nebraska. 

  If you’ve been following our coverage of the Nebraska Senate race, you know independent populist Dan Osborn has a genuine shot at upsetting the incumbent Republican. Internal polls I’ve heard about from both sides, however, suggest Trump’s ads tagging him as a “Democrat in disguise” may have done enough damage to blunt his momentum. If he wins though, I’m confident he’d caucus with Democrats, and that would make a majority. But he’s still a longshot.

  Colin Allred, the former NFL linebacker and member of Congress, has a credible chance of beating Ted Cruz. The question will be whether pollsters missed an influx of Democratic donors to the Lone Star state. If they did and the polls are slightly off, he could win. But he’s also a longshot.

  Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell could theoretically pull off an upset in Florida, but man is that hard to see. So Democrats would need one of those four longshots—Montana, Nebraska, Texas, or Florida—to come through.

  And then they’d have to win the House, too. 

  Without the Senate, Harris will have a hard time confirming a dog catcher, let along a judge or a cabinet nominee. With the Senate but without the House, she won’t be able to get any of her agenda through. Worse, the debt ceiling will be hit in January, before she’s even inaugurated. 

  Bankruptcy?

  With control of Congress, Republicans will play economic-armageddon brinksmanship, take a chunk out of the global economy, get our credit-ratings downgraded, and probably extract a chunk of fiscal flesh in exchange for simply agreeing to pay the bills that are due. The other possibility, that we actually go over the cliff and get a mini or major financial crisis can’t be ruled out. 

  Antitrust

  Harris will then be left to govern strictly from the executive branch. She’d probably have to keep Lina Khan, whether she wants her as chair of the FTC or not, since Republicans wouldn’t confirm a replacement anyway. Her victory would be meaningful for climate action, as she’d continue to disperse and execute the clean energy policy and subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act, while Trump would smother it (or send it all to Elon Musk?).

  Taxes

  Trump’s tax cuts also expire during Harris’s first two years in office, meaning she’ll negotiate their extension. There, she has the advantage, because if she does nothing, the old tax policy snaps back into place. Her ability to do anything at all her first two years would be limited to this tax realm and, potentially, immigration. She’s likely to sign a tough border and immigration bill into law. 

  It’s hard to see how she emerges from this two years with anything higher than an approval rating in the low-30s. Given she has no organic base of support—support for Kamala is more accurately described as opposition to Trump and support for Democratic policies generally—it’s impossible to say how low her floor is. We might find out. 

  Ukraine

  Russia is making major advances in Ukraine and the U.S. public is no longer interested in the war. Harris will probably have to end it with some sort of ceasefire/non-deal that leaves Ukraine in a wildly worse off position than they’d have been in if they’d made a deal in early 2022—a deal the U.S. scuttled at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Or she could prove she’s a tough commander-in-chief—leader of the “most lethal military” ever, as she puts it—by escalating the conflict and striking deeper inside Russia, risking nuclear war. Let’s hope it’s not that. The same dynamic could be at play with China, with much of her party leadership egging on confrontation.

  The Mideast

  I interviewed Israeli journalist Amir Tibon recently, who said that Netanyahu made a bet sometime around December that Trump would be elected president and therefore he was willing to take whatever minor grief he suffered from Biden for ignoring all the U.S. entreaties to protect civilians, allow in humanitarian aid, and negotiate in good faith toward a ceasefire. There was little grief. But, said Tibon, if Harris wins, Netanyahu will be exposed politically, and he predicted his government would collapse “within months.” A Harris win would signal to Netanyahu’s coalition partners that two of their big dreams will be at least put on hold for four years. Those two major ambitions, Tibon said, are reform of the Israeli courts in order to subsume them to the judiciary, and the Israeli settlement of Gaza. With those ambitions stymied, Netanyahu’s coalition becomes untenable.

  Foiling Netanyahu’s bet on Trump is the most persuasive case I’ve heard for a vote for Harris. The problem, though, is what comes next. Tibon is confident a candidate from a coalition that does not includes the ultra-orthodox or settler movements would triumph and that any new government that replaced Netanyahu would be similarly supportive of the various Israeli war efforts, but more willing to cut a ceasefire-for-hostages deal. But I checked Tibon’s theory with people in Israel to the right of Tibon, and they agreed that the Netanyahu government would indeed fall and new elections would be called—but that Netanyahu would win those new elections. 

  Abortion Rights

  Harris wouldn’t be able to get anything through Congress, but having Democrats control the Justice Department and Health and Human Services would put some of the brakes on right-wing states pushing ahead with increasingly aggressive abortion restrictions, including laws that make it a crime to “traffick” a minor across state lines to get an abortion. Such laws are plainly unconstitutional, but Trump’s DoJ would do nothing to stop them, whereas a Harris administration would.

  Midterms

  Every president faces brutal headwinds in their first midterm, and Republican gains are the most likely result of the 2026 midterms. The only pickup opportunities in the Senate would be in Maine and North Carolina, and both would be unwinnable in a Republican reaction year. The good news for Dems is they don’t have to defend many seats – Georgia and Michigan – but they’d still fall that much further behind in the House. 

  2028

  Republicans would be the heavy favorites in 2028. Democrats seem to hate primaries, so maybe Harris doesn’t face one even if she’s in the low 30s, with Democratic rivals holding their fire for 2032. The most likely outcome, then, of a Harris victory in 2024 is a Republican sweep in 2029, giving them a trifecta and the opportunity to lock in Supreme Court control for several generations. That court could issue abortion-related rulings that would make Dobbs look downright liberal.

  If Trump wins:

  Let’s take seriously what Trump will actually do, versus what his opponents claim he’ll do. Some of the more lurid warnings, I think, are wildly overblown. But not all of them. It’s extremely likely he will assign significant resources toward a roundup of immigrants, and will do so in a flamboyant fashion, deploying the military if he can get away with it. If he’s extra lucky, there’ll be mass resignations of military brass as a result, allowing him to elevate loyalists. 

  Stephen Miller, a deeply dangerous and strategic man, will have immense power. Trans rights will be in the crosshairs and so will abortion rights. 

  I’m less worried about his promise to add a 20 percent tariff to everything. He continues to speak highly of Robert Lighthizer as his top trade adviser, and Lighthizer is very good at what he does. Lighthizer was Trump’s United States Trade Representative and lefty trade hands and unions were generally supportive of his approach, even as they had some disagreements. If Lighthizer guides trade policy, it won’t be reckless. 

  Trump’s tax cuts from his first term will also come up for renewal, and I’d expect he’ll successfully extend and deepen them, particularly for the rich and corporations. 

  He will fire an enormous number of federal employees. Whether he can hire enough to replace them is a different question, but at minimum he’ll be able to break a lot of federal agencies. 

  He’ll go after the American university system with a vengeance. Look at what Chris Rufo has managed to do in Florida under Ron DeSantis for a flavor of what Trump could do nationally. 

  He will rescind or simply not deploy much of the climate spending included in the Inflation Reduction Act. He hates eclectic vehicles, though his alliance with Elon Musk may protect some of that. 

  Supreme Court

  Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will retire, allowing Trump to appoint at least two more justices. 

  Trump, however, will not have the capacity to become a dictator. Even with two new justices, the Supreme Court is not willing to turn power over to him. Trump is their tool to wield power, and they will be content to see him retire from the field. Trump also lacks the support of the military leadership. Without the court or the military, he has no path to hold on to power illegally. 

  Voters will reject his displays of extremism at the polls in the 2026 midterms, likely delivering the House and Senate both to Democrats. They’ll impeach him immediately, just as Republicans will impeach Harris, but neither effort will have enough support in the Senate to go anywhere. In 2028, Republican voters will choose between J.D. Vance and opponents like Ted Cruz (unless he loses his Senate race, of course). 

  The economy will probably take a cyclical downturn toward the end of Trump’s term, and he’ll be deeply unpopular. Democrats would be favored to win in 2028 and likely hold Congress, too. 

  Mideast

  It’s impossible to predict what Trump will do here. On the one hand, he calls himself “the candidate of peace”—on the other, he has said Biden’s biggest problem has been that he’s been too tough on Netanyahu and he should let him take the gloves off. Trump has been mad at Netanyahu for congratulating Biden on his win, but he knows Bibi has been rooting for him and doing what he can to help him win, and in Trump’s world alone, that means a lot to him. You know Trump as well as I do, I’ll let you guess on this one.

  Ukraine

  The conventional wisdom is that Putin will strike a deal to end the war if Trump wins, on favorable terms to Russia, given how much ground they’ve gained. On Ukraine, the CW is probably right.

  China

  Trump will do way more jawboning of China than Harris would, but he seems to have no appetite for a war. Let’s hope that prevails.

  What It Means

  So far, we’ve talked about the near-term future relying on historical precedent. That only gets us so far. We also have to look at the coalitional trends underway and ask how a victory by each candidate influences each. If Harris wins, Democrats will be rewarded for having skipped the nominating process and overseeing a genocide in Gaza. They will have done so while embracing the Cheneys and other neocons expelled from the MAGA coalition. They will now have to be understood as a faction of the Democratic coalition. With Democrats already becoming increasingly militaristic, that only pushes the party further toward a confrontational imperial foreign policy. 

  Harris also ran detectably to Biden’s right when it came to labor, antitrust, and the economy. Winning on that message could convince Democrats that their dalliance with economic populism was unnecessary, which would speed up the class realignment already underway, with more working class voters of all races and genders feeling unrepresented by Democrats, who come to fully stand in for coastal elites. With Democrats representing an upper-middle-class center, that leaves a coalition of the working class and the super rich in the Republican party. That’s an extremely dangerous coalition, and while it will be hampered by Trump’s defeat, it would be structurally strengthened longterm by a Harris victory – unless Harris somehow finds populist Jesus like Biden did. There is still a strong faction of populist-progressives in the Democratic coalition, and Harris’s victory would not be the final word. But a Democrat who comes after Harris could be facing nearly insurmountable odds if Republicans are able to lock in generational power in 2028. 

  The short version is that there’s reason to be optimistic that Harris may win. There’s reason to be scared if she does. Or doesn’t. Hope that helps.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 17:40

• WTI Holds Gains Despite Bigger Than Expected Crude Build
  WTI Holds Gains Despite Bigger Than Expected Crude Build

  Oil prices closed higher for a fifth straight day as traders were sensitive to geopolitical headlines (from Israel) and the domestic election situation.

  The tension in the oil market is “palpable” as headlines around the U.S. election, turmoil in the Middle East, economic woes in China and a potential hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico “swirl,” Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader and managing director at CIBC Private Wealth US, told MarketWatch.

  “The reality of very short-term volatility has traders cutting risk and taking the shoot first, ask questions later approach the moment trades stop working.”

  Additionally, a tropical storm threatens production from the Gulf of Mexico.

  API

  • Crude +3.13mm (0.00mm exp)

  • Cushing +1.72mm

  • Gasoline -928k (-900k exp)

  • Distillates -852k (-300k exp)

  US crude inventories continued their noisy run of the last few weeks with a bigger than expected crude build. Products saw inventory draws and stocks at the Cushing hub rose by the most since May…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  WTI dipped very modestly on the API-reported crude draw, but is holding above $72 for now…

  

  Oil prices maintained an upward trend Tuesday as “risk taking remains limited with many headlines expected in the next few days, coming from the Federal Reserve’s Policy meeting, China’s congressional meeting that will determine governmental stimulus, and the U.S. election,” Alex Hodes, director of energy market strategy at StoneX, wrote in Tuesday’s energy newsletter.

  Finally, pump prices remain very low relative to crude and wholesale gasoline prices…

  

  …with the election now behind us, how long before prices snap up higher?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 17:20

• With JD Vance And Elon Musk, Suddenly Ideas Are Back In This Campaign
  With JD Vance And Elon Musk, Suddenly Ideas Are Back In This Campaign

  Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,

  This presidential campaign season may be one of those turning points in history for reasons good and bad. Anyone watching the one debate between the Republican and Democratic Party candidates would not have come away with the view that this was a great battle of competing principles and visions for the future. It was a campaign of name-calling and bullets, where one candidate avoided discussing ideas at all costs – and even avoided the media at all costs. Where the other candidate dodged two attempted assassinations while throwing red meat rhetoric to an understandably angry population.

  

  It was a campaign where, more than ever, the mainstream media completely abandoned any idea of being a neutral source of information and instead jumped into the ring on the side of one candidate. In the one debate between presidential candidates, the mainstream media went so far as to “fact check” one candidate while giving the other a “pass.” The “fact check” turned out to be misinformation – something the mainstream media excels in – but they have long figured out that by the time the actual facts are in, people have already absorbed the falsehood.

  According to the conservative Media Research Center, mainstream media coverage of the Trump campaign was 85 percent negative while its coverage of the Harris campaign was 78 percent positive. If accurate, it explains why the public holds the media in such contempt.

  

  What felt missing in the campaign was a discussion of the real issues we are facing.

  The destruction caused by interventionism in our economy, in our lives, and in the rest of the world.

  There was no talk about the Federal Reserve and how it hurts the middle class, helps the wealthy, and greases the war machine.

  Then, at the tail end, things got interesting.

  Republican candidate for Vice President, JD Vance, mentioned last week that he had come to the view that the Federal Reserve was not the benevolent force for good that its supporters claim.

  He didn’t say it in those exact words, but that was his point.

  Then Trump surrogate campaigner Elon Musk made an announcement that no-doubt terrified the DC swamp: were he to get the government efficiency job Trump suggested, he’d start with a bang, cutting two trillion dollars from the Federal budget!

  We even had a little fun with it.

  After I posted some encouragement on Musk’s Twitter/X, he responded that he would be happy to have me join him looking for places to cut!

  While the last thing I am looking for is another job, I am encouraged by the outpouring of support and happy to help any effort to correct the wrong path we have been going down – a path toward total bankruptcy.

  Perhaps the most encouraging development this election cycle is the well-earned decline in the influence of the corrupt mainstream media.

  When Elon posted a funny meme of the two of us cutting government on his Twitter/X platform, it garnered some 50 million views! Compare that to the steady decline of mainstream media viewership.

  An alternative way of reporting and analyzing the events of our time is emerging on the ruins of the legacy media and it’s driving them insane.

  Good.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 17:00

• MSM's Matrix Cracked This Election Cycle As Americans Woke Up In Droves
  MSM’s Matrix Cracked This Election Cycle As Americans Woke Up In Droves

  The censorship and manipulation of political information by Big Tech companies led by “woke” white-collar activists, corporate media, fact-checkers funded by far-left billionaires, a web of leftist-controlled non-profits, and the censorship blob in Washington, DC – all working in unison to combat free speech and control public narratives is at its worst: election interference. 

  

  One of the best examples is Facebook and Twitter’s suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election… 

  The censorship blob has been at it again, waging an all-out blitzkrieg against the American people. Democrats have been obsessed with uploading far-left propaganda into the minds of not just children but adults, telling them how to vote, think, and, in some cases, what gender they should be.

  Anyone challenging the Deep State-approved narratives, like Biden’s mental acuity, was labeled as “misinformation” and “disinformation” in this election cycle, despite Democrats pushing the president aside for Harris-Walz. 

  Data from media bias rating company AllSides shows how Google tweaked search results on voters, with a majority of the search results leaning hardcore to the left this election cycle. 

  Where’s the outrage? 

  

  AllSides analyzed the search engines Microsoft Bing, Yahoo!, and Google and found that Google displayed the most far-left-leaning news stories in search results for voters. 

  

  Search engine bias on Google was obvious for “election news,” with 80% of the content leaning towards leftist organizations while only 5% leaning towards right-leaning organizations.

  

  Even searching for “Trump News,” Google pushed out content that leaned mostly toward leftist organizations:

  Google Search displayed 64% outlets rated Lean Left, 4% rated Left, 16% rated Center, 11% rated Lean Right, and just 9% rated Right.

  The 2024 Google Search bias analysis examined 545 articles over a two-week period in August. It looked at the featured articles based on 10 search terms: Election News, Abortion News, Economy News, Harris News, Climate Change News, Trump News, Crime News, Voter Fraud News, Immigration News, Gun Control News. The results were similar to what AllSides found in separate analyses of Google News (Lean Left).

  

  For nearly every subject searched on Google, the big tech firm directed left-leaning sources to populate for users.

  

  “Out of the 545 articles analyzed, outlets that were featured the most in Google Search results for selected search terms were The New York Times (Lean Left), Fox News (Right), CNN (Lean Left), The Guardian (Lean Left), ABC News (Lean Left), NBC News (Lean Left), Washington Post (Lean Left), Politico (Lean Left), Associated Press (Lean Left), and NPR (Lean Left). All of the top 10 featured outlets were rated Lean Left, except for Fox News,” AllSides said. 

  

  Separately, the non-profit Media Research Center showed that election coverage this cycle was the worst in history for a Republican candidate, with only 15% positive stories, while the Democratic candidate received 78% positive stories. This means Democrats had a huge vantage point on spewing misinformation and disinformation on legacy media outlets, such as ABC, CBS, and NBC. 

  

  Meanwhile, polling data has been distorted statistically three weeks before the election, usually towards Democrats. 

  

  But for the first time in any election cycle, the Democratic machine’s matrix glitched and Deep State-approved narratives were instantly shattered by Elon Musk’s X and citizen journalist who waged a ‘meme-war’ against the censorship blob.

  The biggest takeaway from this election cycle is that an increasing number of Americans have broken free from the MSM’s matrix. 

  

  Jeff Bezos penned an op-ed in his Washington Post paper, in which he explained last week the reason why he did not endorse Harris-Walz: 

  “Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.”

  In other words, Musk glitched the Deep State’s matrix over the American people. The Overton Window shifted back towards the center after being artificially held to the far left for years.

  Also, the Davos elites are livid with Musk and the US Constitution. They said the quiet part out loud during this election cycle. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 16:40

• Post-Election Truths: The Things That Won't Change (No Matter Who Wins)
  Post-Election Truths: The Things That Won’t Change (No Matter Who Wins)

  Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “If voting could ever really change anything, it’d be illegal.”

  – Thorne, Land of the Blind (2006)

  After months of handwringing and mud-slinging and fear-mongering, the votes have finally been cast and the outcome has been decided: the Deep State has won.

  

  Despite the billions spent to create the illusion of choice culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting for Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, when it comes to most of the big issues that keep us in bondage to authoritarian overlords, not much will change.

  Despite all of the work that has been done to persuade us to buy into the fantasy that things will change if we just elect the “right” political savior, the day after a new president is sworn in, it will be business as usual for the unelected bureaucracy that actually runs the government.

  War will continue. Drone killings will continue. Surveillance will continue. Censorship of anyone who criticizes the government will continue. The government’s efforts to label dissidents as extremists and terrorists will continue. Police shootings will continue. SWAT team raids will continue. Highway robbery meted out by government officials will continue. Corrupt government will continue. Profit-driven prisons will continue. And the militarization of the police will continue.

  These problems have persisted – and in many cases flourished – under both Republican and Democratic administrations in recent years.

  The outcome of this year’s election changes none of that.

  Indeed, take a look at the programs and policies that will not be affected by the 2024 presidential election, and you’ll get a clearer sense of the government’s priorities, which have little to do with representing the taxpayers and everything to do with amassing money, power and control.

  • The undermining of the Constitution will continue unabated. America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, has chipped away at our freedoms, unraveled our Constitution and transformed our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws—which completely circumvent the rule of law and the constitutional rights of American citizens, re-orienting our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States—will continue to be enforced.

  • The government’s war on the American people will continue unabated.  “We the people” are no longer shielded by the rule of law. While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled. Consequently, you no longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class—that is, the citizenry—of the American police state. As a de facto member of this so-called criminal class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent. The oppression and injustice—be it in the form of shootings, surveillance, fines, asset forfeiture, prison terms, roadside searches, and so on—will come to all of us eventually unless we do something to stop it now.

  • The shadow government— a.k.a. the Deep State, a.k.a. the police state, a.k.a. the military industrial complex, a.k.a. the surveillance state complex—will continue unabated. The corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials will continue to call the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House or controls Congress. By “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

  • The government’s manipulation of national crises in order to expand its powers will continue unabated. “We the people” have been subjected to an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security. Whatever the so-called threat to the nation, the government has a tendency to capitalize on the nation’s heightened emotions, confusion and fear as a means of extending the reach of the police state. Indeed, the government’s answer to every problem continues to be more government—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.

  • Endless wars that enrich the military industrial complex will continue unabated. America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $93 million an hour (that adds up to $920 billion annually). Incredibly, although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 40% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 9 biggest spending nations combined.

  • Government corruption will continue unabated.  The government is not our friend. Nor does it work for “we the people.” Americans instinctively understand this. When asked to name the greatest problem facing the nation, Americans of all political stripes ranked the government as the number one concern. In fact, almost three-quarters of Americans surveyed believe the government is corrupt. Our so-called government representatives do not actually represent us, the citizenry. We are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests whose main interest is in perpetuating power and control.

  • Government tyranny under the reign of an Imperial President will continue unabated. The Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers. In recent years, however, American presidents have anointed themselves with the power to wage war, unilaterally kill Americans, torture prisoners, strip citizens of their rights, arrest and detain citizens indefinitely, carry out warrantless spying on Americans, and erect their own secretive, shadow government. The powers amassed by each past president and inherited by each successive president—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whoever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability.

  The grim reality we must come to terms with is the fact that the U.S. government has become a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this state of affairs has become the status quo, no matter which party is in power.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 16:20

• Election Day Exuberance Sparks 'Buy All The Things' Theme
  Election Day Exuberance Sparks ‘Buy All The Things’ Theme

  Stocks up, Bonds (prices) up, Gold up, Bitcoin up, Crude up… VIX & Dollar down… as ISM Services soars on Election Day.

  

  All the majors were green on the day with a squeeze in Small Caps leading the way…

  

  Traders should not be surprised – we haven’t had a down-day on election day for the S&P 500 since 2000:

  11/3/2020 +1.78% ELECTION DAY
  11/4/2020 +2.20%

  11/8/2016 +0.37% ELECTION DAY
  11/9/2016 +1.11%

  11/6/2012 +0.79% ELECTION DAY
  11/7/2012 -2.37%

  11/4/2008 +4.08% ELECTION DAY
  11/5/2008 -5.27%

  11/2/2004 +0.01% ELECTION DAY
  11/3/2004 +1.12%

  11/7/2000 -0.02% ELECTION DAY
  11/8/2000 -1.58%

  11/5/1996 +1.05% ELECTION DAY
  11/6/1996 +1.46%

  11/3/1992 -0.67% ELECTION DAY
  11/4/1992 -0.67%

  The Trump Trade saw another very small profit-taking day today as PolyMarket odds increased…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  NVDA overtook AAPL once again to become the world’s largest market cap company…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  VIX was slammed lower as the inverted curve starts to unwind into ‘less uncertainty’ (don’t forget FOMC Thursday)…

  

  But the vol term structure has a long way to fall from its extreme inversion as we await Thursday…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  “Most Shorted” stocks were a one-way street of squeeze today…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  BUT there was one stock that was wild today: DJT

  

  Treasury yields were all over the place, hurt early on by knock-on effects from a terrible auction in Gilts, then strong ISM Services pushed yields higher still only to see a strong 10Y auction slam yields back lower (and when DJT started to crack, so did bond yields)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Only the 2Y yield remains higher post-payrolls…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Bitcoin, bond yields, and DJT all dumped at the same time (around 1430ET)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  The dollar dived once again, back to three-week lows…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Despite the intraday volatility elsewhere, gold continued to tread water around $2740…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Bitcoin was a bit chaotic today, ripping back above $70,000 only to get slammed lower as DJT and bond yields slipped…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Crude traded wild today. Strong open was hit by Israeli HLs (Gallant fired), but then the machines realized that Gallant was the less war-hawky one…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Finally, with the election almost over, traders wil turn to Thursday’s shenanigans with The Fed…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Today saw rate cut expectations slump again (50-50 chance of 1 or 2 cuts in 2024 and 50-50 chance of 2 or 3 cuts more in 2025).

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 11/05/2024 – 16:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Netanyahu Aide Arrested Over Intel Leak Which Damaged Ceasefire Talks
  Netanyahu Aide Arrested Over Intel Leak Which Damaged Ceasefire Talks

  Via The Cradle

  Israeli police have arrested a top aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and four others for allegedly leaking classified information to foreign media, court documents released on Sunday revealed. The intelligence allegedly claimed Hamas was planning to smuggle Israeli captives from Gaza to Egypt.

  Opposition leaders say the intelligence was leaked to take pressure off Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire deal with Hamas that would bring home the roughly 100 Israeli captives still held by the Palestinian resistance movement. It is estimated that roughly 70 remain alive.

  

  Netanyahu has repeatedly sabotaged ceasefire talks with Hamas since the start of the war on October 7 last year, despite heavy pressure from the families of the captives to reach a deal.

  Court documents released on Sunday identified Eliezer Feldstein, an aide to Netanyahu, as one of several people being detained and interrogated over the leak of “classified and sensitive intelligence information.” The names of the other four detained persons have not been cleared for publication by Israel’s military censors.

  The intelligence was leaked to two foreign media outlets, the Jewish Chronicle in the UK and Bild in Germany, both of which published stories about the leaked intelligence. The Jewish Chronicle later retracted its story.

  The court documents said that information taken from the Israeli military’s systems and “illegally issued” may have damaged Israel’s ability to free the captives held by Hamas in Gaza.

  Opposition leader Yair Lapid on Sunday accused the prime minister’s office of leaking “faked secret documents to torpedo the possibility of a hostage deal – to shape a public opinion influence operation against the hostages’ families.”

  By claiming that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was planning to flee to Egypt with the captives, the leaked documents appeared to promote Netanyahu’s claim in the minds of the Israeli public that any ceasefire deal must allow Israel to keep its forces on the Philadelphia Corridor, which runs along the Gaza-Egypt border. 

  Otherwise, the captives could end up in Egypt’s Sinai or “pop up in Iran or Yemen,” Netanyahu claimed.

  Netanyahu added the demand that Israel be allowed to continue occupying the Philadelphia Corridor in the 11^th hour of negotiations for a ceasefire this summer. The demand torpedoed the talks, as Hamas has long insisted on a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as part of any ceasefire deal.

  The issue with the leaks from Netanyahu’s office is that intelligence assets may have been burned not for military purposes but for PR or politicking, @da64 tells @laura_i24 pic.twitter.com/vFs4LNEI7h

  — i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) November 4, 2024

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

  Members of the Likud, Religious Zionism, and Jewish Power parties, which comprise Netanyahu’s governing coalition, have stated it is their priority to continue the war. They hope to ethnically cleanse Gaza and annex it, ideally to build Jewish settlements atop destroyed Palestinian cities. 

  Israeli soldiers have stated the army is currently carrying out the so-called “Generals’ Plan” to forcibly expel the remaining 300,000 residents in northern Gaza and move them to the south of the strip. The plan calls for starving or killing any militants or Palestinian civilians who refuse or are unable to leave. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 23:00

• Election 2024: The Day Before
  Election 2024: The Day Before

  Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

  We’re just a day away from the 2024 Presidential election and if you’re feeling a little on edge, let us offer a little consolation: the Democrats are wracked with worry.

  We have documented the polling trends for the last couple of months. The movement from September 10, 2024 to the present day, November 1, has Republicans feeling confident. Victory isn’t guaranteed, but it’s safe to say that leadership is cautiously optimistic.

  Back in September, based on the aggregate polls, Vice President Kamala Harris enjoyed slim leads in the majority of swing states – Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania – and was essentially tied with Trump in Nevada, Georgia, and Arizona.

  September 2024 Aggregates:

  

  But things have changed. Momentum shifted. In a race with a number of close states, the last ~60 days have been very good for Donald Trump. Per the New York Times aggregates, Trump has secured slim leads in Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia. He has gained 3 points in Arizona. Kamala’s lead in Wisconsin has shrunk and she is now fighting to not lose Michigan.

  November 2024 Aggregates:

  

  Nate Silver was kind enough to post this chart showing shifts for the last week and month. While there are some changes from last week benefiting Democrats, they have been insufficient to cut into Republican gains this past month. If polling can be believed.

  

  Contrary to much of the polling relied upon by The New York Times, AtlasIntel, which had some of the most accurate polls of the 2020 election, has Trump ahead in every swing state. (Their November 1-2 poll is available here.)

  

  Theoretically, Trump could have a clean sweep of all the swing states. But don’t get too confident just yet – the race for independents is tight. According to the latest Atlas polls, Trump is winning independents in Arizona (45.4 to 44.9); Nevada (51 to 41.6); and North Carolina (49.4 to 44.7). He’s lagging behind Kamala in the independent vote in Georgia (38.2 to 50); Michigan (45.7 to 47.9); Pennsylvania (41.9 to 45.6); and Wisconsin (45.6 to 47.9). Georgia seems like the outlier – but even with that large margin, Atlas has Kamala behind Trump in Georgia by 2.5%.

  For what it’s worth, here’s Karoline Leavitt (Trump’s Press Secretary) discussing their internal polling: “Our internal polls have President Trump leading in every single key battleground state.”

  You expect a campaign to say that – but that doesn’t mean she’s wrong. In fact, early voting results indicate motivated Republicans and suggest potential problems with Democrat turnout. There’s an enthusiasm gap.

  Early Results – Nevada

  In Nevada, as of yesterday, Republicans have a lead of approximately 43,000 votes – equaling 4 percent – over Democrats (not counting independents, which may skew Trump). Jon Ralston – who abhors Trump – at The Nevada Independent observed that Republicans “have a substantial turnout advantage of a whopping 8 percent statewide (57-49) and approaching 10 percent (57-47) in Clark County [Las Vegas]”.

  Nevada is trending in the right direction for Trump and other Republicans – it seems Nevada Republicans and rural counties are highly motivated this year – but it’s too early to celebrate, as Clark County continues to cut into the Republican lead and the Nevada Democrat machine is strong. Ralston believes Harris edges Trump by 0.3 percent based on a “feeling”, but concedes the election is “really a coin flip” and that “It’s going to be very, very close.” The winner may not be clear on election night. We’ll see.

  Early Results – Pennsylvania

  In 2020, Pennsylvania Democrats had a firewall of nearly 1.1 million early votes.

  

  The latest numbers show a dramatic decrease. The Democrat early voting lead is approximately 400,000. That’s 700,000 less than the 2020 lead, the result of 700,000 fewer Democrat mail-in voters. (Republicans stayed fairly even.) Again, indications of a Democrat enthusiasm problem.

  

  Spelling more trouble for Democrats in Pennsylvania is the fact that “there are now more registered Republican voters in Pennsylvania than ever before.” Democrats still hold the registration lead with 286,291 more registered Democrats than Republicans, but this is a dramatic decrease from 2020, where the Democrat margin was 685,818.

  Early Results – Arizona

  Republicans currently lead the Arizona mail-in ballots by 182,681 votes.

  

  By comparison, in 2020, Democrats had a slight lead of nearly 10,000 votes. As of November 1, 2024, there have been approximately 200,000 fewer Democrats voting by mail.

  

  More Numbers and More Democrat Issues

  The Trump campaign has gone into more detail on lagging Democrat turnout – something Democrats have voiced concern about – particularly in the swing states. Here are the numbers:

  Arizona:

  • Urban turnout is down -385,285 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -170,011 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Rural turnout is UP +14,124 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  Georgia:

  • Urban turnout is down -153,846 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -46,732 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Rural turnout is UP +171,837 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  Michigan:

  • Urban turnout is down -321,523 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -204,856 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Rural turnout is UP +55,951 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  North Carolina:

  • Urban turnout is down -175,470 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -154,459 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Rural turnout is UP +26,911 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  Nevada:

  • Urban turnout is down -191,199 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -126,112 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  Pennsylvania:

  • Urban turnout is down -381,519 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -450,802 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  Wisconsin:

  • Urban turnout is down -100,733 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  • Female turnout is down -238,452 votes compared to this point in 2020.

  Will we see an urban/female turnaround, and has the GOP vote been frontloaded? It’s possible, but it may not be likely. We’ll find out soon enough.

  But if it’s any indication, the Democrats are admitting that “the early vote numbers are a little scary.” And that’s probably an understatement.

  Zero Hedge
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 22:35

• Rogan Endorses Trump After Wild Musk Interview
  Rogan Endorses Trump After Wild Musk Interview

  Following an awesome 2.5 hour podcast with Elon Musk, Joe Rogan announced his endorsement of Donald Trump.

  

  In a post on X dropping the podcast, Rogan said of Musk “He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you’ll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way. For the record, yes, that’s an endorsement of Trump.”

  The great and powerful @elonmusk.
  If it wasn’t for him we’d be fucked. He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you’ll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way.
  For the record, yes, that’s an endorsement of Trump.
  Enjoy the podcast pic.twitter.com/LdBxZFVsLN

  — Joe Rogan (@joerogan) November 5, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsTrump thanked Rogan:

  🚨🇺🇸TRUMP ON TIKTOK: IT’S A GREAT HONOR TO HAVE ROGAN’S ENDORSEMENT pic.twitter.com/SB1XAiaB58

  — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) November 5, 2024

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

  BREAKING: President Donald J. Trump ENDORSED by Joe Rogan @joerogan pic.twitter.com/VLg14PdLXw

  — RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) November 5, 2024

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

  Nuggets from the interview:

  Musk and Rogan discussed how an influx of illegal migrants to swing states followed by some sort of amnesty program would turn the country into a one-party state.

  Vote for @realDonaldTrump or the Dems will legalize so many illegals in swing states that this will be the last real election in America. @JoeRogan agrees.

  pic.twitter.com/AtPVm3lSr2

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 5, 2024

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

  They slammed Democrats for constantly spreading hoaxes:

  NEW: Elon Musk and Joe Rogan rip the Democratic party for spreading hoax after hoax, call out President Barack Obama.

  The pair also called out YouTube for the apparent suppression of the Trump-Rogan interview.

  “What the flying f**k? He doesn’t give a f*ck.” Musk said in… pic.twitter.com/hHzPRyAzmI

  — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 4, 2024

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

  They discussed the killing of Peanut the squirrel:

  🚨ELON MUSK TALKS ABOUT PEANUT THE SQUIRREL! 🐿️🥜

  ELON: “How can it be that we live in America, supposedly the land of the free, and the Government can barge into your home with guns, and take your pets and execute them. If they can do that to your pets, what do you think they… pic.twitter.com/C7UrvgUik4

  — Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 5, 2024

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

  Musk was at the White House correspondents dinner where the elites shit-talked Trump over Obama-birther comments and he got so pissed he ran for president.

  🚨ELON MUSK AND ROGAN ON THE ORIGINAL TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS DINNER:

  ELON: “I was at the White House correspondents dinner. The degree to which they attacked Trump was so over the top it was making everyone uncomfortable. A few passing jokes are fine but they twisted… pic.twitter.com/UppMKPVxhx

  — Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 5, 2024

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

  John McAfee was discussed:

  🚨ELON MUSK AND JOE ROGAN TALK ABOUT JOHN MCAFEE:

  ELON: “McAfee had a lab and he was making a wide range of drugs. I talked to a reporter who went down and interviewed him in Belize. He was quite terrified. One of the things that McAfee did was that he played Russian Roulette… pic.twitter.com/vKrvvszqtl

  — Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 5, 2024

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

  Musk and Rogan talked video games – noting a study in which surgeons who also game are more effective at their jobs.

  🚨ELON MUSK ON VIDEO GAMES

  “I’m in the top 20 in the world in Diablo IV. I’m listed with my actual name on the list. There’s only two Americans in the top 20, and I’m one of them.”

  “If I play a video game on extreme difficulty, I have to concentrate fully on the game and it has… pic.twitter.com/I8EWbN3L3r

  — Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) November 4, 2024

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

  So there you have it – at the 11th hour, Rogan goes for Trump after yet another interesting interview with Elon Musk.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 22:05

• Read The Opponent, Not The Polls
  Read The Opponent, Not The Polls

  Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,

  For recovering politicians, this is the most dangerous time for a relapse, especially those living in a swing state. Their televisions, radios, and social media are chock with political news and ads. This can spark a recrudescence of old vices, such as arguing at the top of one’s lungs at an offending ad or slanted news story, and, worse, then conjuring a way to counter it and win the election for their side. It may even spur them to contact old friends still in the political arena and urge them to incorporate their “unexpectedly” inspired idea into their campaign. Such a loss of realistic expectations and understanding of what others are going through constitutes sure signs the poor creature is reverting to a politician’s solipsistic mindset.

  

  Further exacerbating the risk of their relapsing, interested friends from across the country send recovering politicians’ links to ads, news, or tweets to get their reaction. This can further trigger bouts of the ex-pol shouting to the heavens—or elsewhere—and reengaging the sordid political world they had renounced.

  Yet, by far the most frequent temptation occurs when friends from across the country contact the recovering politician to see if he or she has any insight into how their swing state and/or the nation will ultimately choose for president (and often who will control both chambers of Congress). These contacts are usually precipitated by the inquirer seeing a poll and asking if the recovering politician believes it is “accurate.” Tragically, the recovering politician may immediately commence addressing the merits of the poll’s methodology; the voting history of various constituencies vis-à-vis the poll results; and sundry other micro- and macro-critiques and speculations regarding the election—including their view of “what they need to do to win!”

  When the relapsed pol hits rock bottom, it “ain’t that pretty at all….”

  Of course, the friends of an ex-pol do not want to be the reason he or she goes cannonballing back into the political cesspool. So, for their sake and that of my fellow recovering politicians, I offer this bit of advice to avoid the temptation to relapse posed by “the polls say” query: Watch the opponent, not the polls.

  The virtue of this approach is to allow the inquirer to refrain from dragging the recovering politician back into the electoral fray for a simple reason: the inquirer can figure it out on their own. Granted, it isn’t foolproof, since fools will be too benighted to interpret an opponent’s political machinations. Still, it can help reduce the number of “the polls say” questions and, ergo, the near occasion of temptation for the ex-pol to reengage.

  Presently, the Democrat nominee’s presidential bid exemplifies why understanding what a campaign is doing is the best barometer of how a candidate is performing with the electorate—not a poll.

  On the micro-level, one can view the Harris campaign’s targeting of individual constituencies, which have traditionally comprised integral parts of the Democrat coalition. From young African-American men to Hispanics to Arab-Americans to Jewish-Americans, the Harris campaign’s assumed, almost unanimous, and necessary support has been lacking. As a result, we see not only an increase in her campaign’s messaging to these constituencies, we see the surreal hectoring of young black males—and males, in general—by surrogates, such as the Obamas. Asking voters to support your candidate indicates your campaign is okay; urging voters to support your candidate indicates your campaign is troubled; criticizing voters as not being “man” enough to vote for your candidate indicates your campaign is cooked. Other targeted messages abound within the Harris campaigns, including the emphasis on increased federal spending within the African-American community (in one of the most patronizingly racist appeals imaginable); abortion (though it is hard to imagine those who believe abortion is the overriding issue not already voting for the vice president); and the big lie about “Project 2025” being Donald Trump’s post-election agenda—all of which are designed to unite and rally a presently eroding and unenthusiastic Democrat voter base.

  On the macro-level, be one a political junkie or a well-adjusted person, the Harris campaign’s desperation is patent for all to see, notably by those Democrat candidates’ running from the radical leftist Ms. Harris and racing toward the middle:

  August’s “politics of joy” has devolved into October’s “Trump is Hitler.”

  Now, do you really need to risk a recovering politician’s relapse to recognize the Harris campaign is circling the drain?

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 21:45

• This Pennsylvania County Built America, And May Decide The Next President
  This Pennsylvania County Built America, And May Decide The Next President

  Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  BETHLEHEM, Pa.—Nestled in the heart of eastern Pennsylvania is one of two state counties that has been a bellwether in the last four presidential elections, and may decide who controls the White House next year.

  

  Northampton County, home of the former Bethlehem Steel plant—once the world’s largest producer of steel—is one of two once-blue counties in the Keystone State, along with Erie County, that then-candidate Donald Trump flipped in 2016 before moving back to the Democrats in 2020.

  Now considered a swing county in the largest battleground state, Northampton is seeing significant attention this year. Democrats visited the county in September, Trump stopped repeatedly in the larger Lehigh Valley area, and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has been to Bethlehem twice recently.

  The attention underscores how important the county will be in determining the winning presidential candidate in Pennsylvania and, by extension, the White House.

  “These fluctuations between Donald Trump and Joe Biden and Barack Obama, I think, are indicative of the fact that we truly are a true bellwether,” Northampton County GOP Chair Glenn Geissinger told The Epoch Times.

  “We reflect the national feel as well as that of the Commonwealth pretty well, because our demographics accurately reflect the cross-section of everybody. We [also] have a good, solid portion of independents.”

  Part of that political diversity comes from the region’s decades-long evolution.

  Industrialization “was a sort of a slam dunk for the Democrats,” Tony Iannelli, president and CEO of the Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce, told The Epoch Times. “There’s still a fair amount of labor here.”

  When manufacturing went offshore in the mid-1990s, Iannelli says the area “hit a wall “ but has since bounced back.

  “The bad times literally set us up for the good times,” he said. Health care, life sciences, sports, and other industries are flooding into the area, building a bustling tourism industry.

  Residents in neighboring New York City and Philadelphia—both a 90-minute drive away—are moving into Northampton County, leading to a 5.1 percent population growth from 2010 to 2020, according to U.S. census data.

  Now “softer R” or moderate Republicans are moving into the area from neighboring New York and New Jersey, Geissinger said, adding to the area’s political diversity.

  That growth has also allowed the GOP to shave off the Democrats’ voter registration advantage in Northampton County. In 2008, there were over 30,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in the county, but by September, that margin was roughly 12,000.

  “We’ve cut the margin significantly over time … and we’ve also seen an increase in the number of independent voters,” Geissinger said.

  “What Donald Trump did is he brought a populist message to the Republican Party, and that populist message has paid off for him,” he added, especially in appealing to working-class voters.

  President Joe Biden, in Geissinger’s view, won over older blue-collar voters in 2020 because of his connections to Scranton, where he was born and raised.

  “We’re not going to experience that this time around with Kamala Harris. It’s just not going to happen,” he said.

  The chairman acknowledged that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has advantages with younger, college-educated groups, but is confident of Trump’s chances this year.

  

  “[Trump has] made inroads with blue-collar … Democrats, and that’s going to pull him over significantly in Northampton County,” Geissinger said.

  The Epoch Times contacted the Northampton County Democratic Party but did not receive a response by press time.

  “This race is a toss-up. So it tells me that we’re still kind of a purple state in the sense the urban areas … tend to be more Democratic, and then our outlying regions tend to be Republican,” Iannelli said.

  County Demographics

  The cities of Bethlehem and Easton toward the south near Bucks County have been traditionally blue but Pennsylvania’s rural, agricultural areas to the north are largely Republican, Geissinger said.

  “Certainly, we would have the traditional Democrat base that will still be there in the cities, just as we have the traditional Republican base that will be in the rural areas,” he added.

  Some of the locals are drawn to the county’s diversity.

  “There’s a lot of diversity out here, and not even just in terms of culture or ethnicity, but just in terms of like different groups,” Francisco Santana, 25, told The Epoch Times.

  “You have seniors, you have middle-aged people, and there’s a lot of colleges here.”

  While the county is 85.1 percent white, according to the U.S. census, 8.3 percent of residents are black, and 15.9 percent are Hispanic or Latino.

  Trump’s support among Hispanic voters has increased in 8 years, but Harris has leaned into the controversial remarks said at his Madison Square Garden rally last month about Puerto Rico, where a comedian called the territory a “floating island of garbage.” Those with Puerto Rican heritage make up 56.4 percent of Northampton County’s Hispanic population.

  Bethlehem Voter Vibes

  Modern-day Bethlehem sits like a crown jewel beneath the hills of the Appalachian Highlands, and is a central hub of Northampton County.

  Like much of industrial Pennsylvania, Bethlehem was a victim of the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing, which led to the demise of its once-mighty Bethlehem Steel plant—formerly the world’s largest producer of steel, fabricating structures like the Empire State Building and the Golden Gate Bridge.

  Nestled along the Lehigh River, the sprawling site’s towering buildings are now weathered, rusted, and decayed from decades of neglect. Windows are cracked or shattered, with crumbling bricks exposing the entrails of what used to be a mighty industrial giant.

  

  “When so much went overseas [in] steel making, they just weren’t ready for it. And that was the end of their demise,” Iannelli said.

  Some in the area still have connections to the plant.

  “For some families, it took a huge toll,” Amanda Holi, 36, whose father, uncle, and grandfather once worked at Bethlehem Steel, told The Epoch Times. When part of the site became the Sands Casino, she worked there as well.

  However, she sees a resurgence in the area,with new developments and businesses feeding the local economy.

  “There’s tons of traditions that I feel make it cute and quaint,” she said, describing the local sports rivalries and the new restaurants opening locally.

  

  Along the winding streets of Bethlehem’s residential borrows, rows of houses sport Harris-Walz yard signs. But for every four homes backing the Democratic nominee, one will see a Trump-Vance sign—a reminder of the support for Republicans in a county that was once solidly blue, and now has only a tiny majority of registered Democrats.

  Voters of all ages, including students at Lehigh University, spoke about their desire for political unity, access to healthcare, reproductive rights, the economy, and their fears about the 2024 election.

  Some were aware of the significance of their vote as residents of a bellwether county in the largest U.S. battleground state.

  “It makes me feel a little responsible to try to convince people to vote the way I think is important, because I think we’re in a crucial time here,” Norah Hooper, a retiree who moved to the area two years ago, told The Epoch Times.

  “It’s made me try to talk to people about it, and to work towards Harris to make sure that she wins,” she said. Hooper feels “scared to death” about the election and wants a president who empathizes with all Americans.

  Northampton’s diversity gives many different voter groups a chance to make their mark on the nation, Santana said.

  “Even if it is a battleground state, I think it’s nice to see that a lot of demographics are here and are having their voice heard,” he said.

  Ben Cohen, 43, said he would vote regardless. His support for Harris this year is a “very simple, binary choice” as he does not think Trump is a good leader for the country, calling him a wild card. Cohen says he supports an economic agenda that focuses on the middle class.

  Others downplayed the state and county’s significance in the election, pointing out that every ballot nationwide contains many local and statewide races.

  “I think every vote counts regardless of where you are,” a man who declined to give his name told The Epoch Times. “Every vote counts in some way.”

  Concerns About Election Results

  Some expressed deep concerns about what could play out on election day.

  “I already voted by mail, and I’m kind of scared that [Trump] might win,” Mary Jean Langman, a retired teacher who moved to Northampton County from Scranton, told The Epoch Times.

  

  She’s worried about the former president cutting Social Security, which, along with Langman’s teacher’s pension, is her lifeline. While Trump has said this year he would not make any changes to Social Security, he has discussed making cuts to it in the past, including in 2020, during the last year of his administration.

  The economy is often named as one of the top issues on voters’ minds in most polls, although some expressed optimism about the country’s trajectory.

  “All these years that I’ve been here, it was always the economy; that was the issue” that mattered in most elections, Babak Kamyab told The Epoch Times. He owns a gift shop in downtown Bethlehem and immigrated to the United States from Iran in 1977.

  Despite economic woes since COVID, Kamyab says his business is thriving.

  “The economy is like an ocean, if it’s turning whether up or down, it’s going to make a huge circle, very slowly, to come back up or go down. That’s the way [the] economy works,” he said.

  Kamyab’s shop is one of the only along Main Street with a Harris-Walz sign at its entrance. Given how close the race seems in recent polling, he expressed concerns about Trump’s chances but said he thinks Harris will prevail if she stays the course.

  

  “I mean, the international situation is a terrible situation,” Kamyab said, referring to the escalating military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. “But at least I know with [Trump], the Ukraine situation is going to get worse.”

  Frankie Lozada, 37, and Timear Haley, 30, both moved to the Lehigh Valley to join Hogar Crea, an international drug rehabilitation program that has a location in nearby Allentown. While Lozada doesn’t pay much attention to politics, Haley is inspired by Harris’s messaging.

  “[Her slogan] ‘When we fight, we win,’ it kind of caught me, because I was at a stage in my life where I wanted to give up, and I just didn’t want to live life anymore,” Haley said.

  “When she said that, it kind of took to me, and I was just like, I would keep going with her with that slogan, so fight and win. So far, so good, I’ve been a month clean,” he said. Haley hopes to start a business when he gets back on his feet.

  

  The College Vote

  Many of the students at Bethlehem’s Lehigh University are deeply engaged in the 2024 election. For some, it is the first time they’re old enough to cast a ballot.

  “I just want younger candidates” and smaller generational gaps between them, Raquel Romero, 19, told The Epoch Times.

  “Our financial state right now is absolutely horrible with the fact that living expenses are almost that height of this generation, at least mine,” she said. Bodily autonomy as a woman is also a central issue on her mind this election.

  “It’s definitely difficult because it’s almost choosing between two evils. I definitely understand how difficult it could be for the candidates themselves,” Romero said. She sees no quick and easy solutions for inflation, as raising salaries could also increase the prices of goods.

  

  “At the end of the day, we’ve had so many experiences where one candidate says one thing, and then they just never do it,” she added. Romero knows who she’s voting for, but declined to say.

  Even though Haksheel Alleck, 23, an international student from Mauritius Island, can’t vote in this election, he’s concerned about illegal immigration and the nation’s geopolitical tension with other countries.

  

  He’s also worried about how both candidates could affect visas for international students like himself.

  “It’s always on my mind, would my visa still be relevant in the next few years? Would my status change [as] the political landscape changes here?” Alleck added.

  Other students, acknowledging the voting enthusiasm among their social circles, expressed frustration with the choices of candidates.

  “It’s really sad,” Max Denbow, 20, told The Epoch Times. “It’s also tough because … each candidate has aspects that appeal to me, but I can’t get myself to vote for either of them.”

  

  Denbow is writing in his own name on his ballot this year.

  When asked what kind of message or agenda he’d like to hear from a future presidential candidate—either Republican or Democrat—to win his vote, Denbow was quick to respond.

  “Someone that prioritizes unity. We need to be unified.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 20:55

• NBC Airs Trump Message After Harris Saturday Night Live Appearance
  NBC Airs Trump Message After Harris Saturday Night Live Appearance

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  NBC aired a message from former President Donald Trump one day after Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live (SNL).

  

  Trump spoke for about one minute during the message, which was prerecorded and broadcast during a NASCAR race on Nov. 3. It was aired again during an NFL game.

  Trump, after greeting fans of sports, noted that the presidential election is slated for Nov. 5.

  “We’re two days away from the most important election in the history of our country. We’ve got to save our country, and it needs saving. It’s in very bad shape,” Trump said.

  “We’re going to end up in a depression based on what’s been happening,” he added later.

  “We have to straighten out our country, we have to close our borders, we have to lower our taxes, we have to get rid of inflation. I’ll fix it.“

  NBC declined to provide a comment on the development.

  Harris appeared live during Saturday’s SNL. She participated in a skit that portrayed her speaking to another version of herself ahead of the election.

  “It is nice to see you, Kamala, and I’m just here to remind you, you got this. You can do something your opponent cannot do. You can open doors,“ Harris told Maya Rudolph, who was playing the vice president and had said she wished she could talk to someone ”who’s been in my shoes; a black, South Asian woman running for president, preferably from the Bay Area.”

  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brandon Carr wrote in a Nov.3 post on social media platform X that the Democratic presidential nominee’s appearance may have violated an FCC rule against licensed broadcasters using public airwaves to influence an election in favor of a candidate unless the other candidate is offered equal time by the same broadcasters.

  The rule in question “generally means providing comparable time and placement to opposing candidates,” according to an FCC fact sheet.

  The regulator gives an example of a qualified candidate appearing on a station. In that scenario, the station “will be required to entertain requests for Equal Opportunities by opposing legally qualified candidates for the same office,” the FCC states. “However, the station is not required to seek out opposing legally qualified candidates and offer them Equal Opportunities.”

  The FCC grants licenses to some broadcasters. The agency can revoke licenses, although its chairwoman said in October that revocation would not happen “for political reasons.”

  Over the weekend, NBC lodged a notice with the FCC that said Harris appeared on its network for one minute and 30 seconds. The broadcaster said the appearance came “without charge.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 20:20

• Losing Power? The Elites And The Leftist Mob Would Rather Burn It All To The Ground
  Losing Power? The Elites And The Leftist Mob Would Rather Burn It All To The Ground

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  It’s been a long time since we’ve seen a significant positive evolution within American society. In the early days of the Ron Paul movement I remember the hopeful groundswell of support for a new conservative epoch that adopted a little Libertarianism and a recognition that most “conspiracy theories” are actually conspiracy realities. It was the kind of catalyst that was needed to break the long running false paradigm of Neo-Cons vs Democrats; it was the beginning of the conservative rebellion we see happening today.

  

  How do I know things have changed? For one, Neo-Cons are almost universally hated by real conservatives. So much so that it has forced those politicians to show their true colors and come out in favor of Democrat/globalist candidates like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The mask is truly off and the act is over. You’re not going to see people like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney or Lindsay Graham taken very seriously by anyone anymore.

  The return to a true conservative philosophy has been initiated and this time it doesn’t look like it will be snuffed out like the Barry Goldwater era of the early 1960s. The concept of limited government, an end to debt spending, sound money, the removal of elitist NGOs from political influence, a hard-line stance against globalism, legit border security, meritocracy, a rejection of progressive deconstruction and moral relativism, all of these things are prime conservative principles.

  Such ideas have been treated as “archaic” and “barbaric” for decades because they threaten the structures that keep the establishment elites in power. Today, they are making a comeback.

  Some will say that it’s all because of Donald Trump, but this is not the case. This movement was growing into a Juggernaut long before Trump, though he is certainly riding the wave as it comes to fruition. The question is, will Trump do it justice if he gets the gold this week?    I predicted a Trump win in 2016 for months leading up to the election despite the army of naysayers (I also predict he will win in 2024).  But, for me, his first term left a lot to be desired; the biggest problem being the elitist creepers filling his cabinet.

  But hey, at least he wasn’t promoting transsexual procedures for children or trying to start World War III with Russia like the Democrats have been doing.  I’ll also admit that Trump’s coalition of allies is looking FAR better this time around. Talk of Ron Paul joining the team is surprising and gives me some hope.

  During the Ron Paul movement in 2012 I was once invited to a conservative dinner with some liberty bigwigs at the time (most of them are long out of the picture now, either retired or dead) and some were arguing about the presidential election. The position was presented that voting for Romney over Ron Paul would at least get Obama out of the White House. Others suggested that this was simply choosing the lesser of two evils.

  I and others argued that there was no lesser evil. They were both equally demonic. One man in the group said “Well Jesus isn’t running for office.”

  I doubt that man would defend Mitt Romney today. That said, I don’t view the election of 2024 the same way I did in 2012. Jesus isn’t running, that’s for certain, but the Devil definitely is in the form of the extreme political left. They are evil incarnate. Maybe Trump turns out to be a disappointment, but he’s no devil.  And if he doesn’t follow through on his campaign promises then conservative can hold him accountable and it won’t be treated as an insurrection, just a correction.

  There’s already millions of conservatives putting the candidate under a microscope and we don’t function the way Democrats do. The party is meaningless to us, it’s the policies and the follow through that matter. You can’t mention Trump around a group of conservatives without half of them noting his shortcomings. His mistakes are tallied regularly by the very people who originally voted for him.

  Leftists don’t dare do that within their own circles. They don’t care about policy, they only care about power.

  No conservative is going to change his or her mind about securing the border, deporting the illegals, shrinking government, ending American participation in the Ukraine War and ending the transing of kids on a federal level (to start with). These things are going to happen eventually with or without Trump.

  And I can’t help but notice how much the establishment seems to be breaking down in a panic over the idea of a new conservative renaissance. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the new world order elites look as worried and despondent as they do right now.  (I’m thinking specifically of Lynn de Rothchild at the beginning of this year pouting over the public exposure of ESG and talking about how the globalists would have to abandon it in favor of a more discreet program. Or, John Kerry this month at the climate talks in New York bitterly admonishing free speech on the web and how it was sabotaging the globalist agenda).

  When was the last time you saw WEF globalists taking center stage in the media? What happened to the Council For Inclusive Capitalism? ESG controls and lending have been crushed. DEI is quickly dying, as it should. Gen Z men are reportedly the most conservative group of young men in generations. There is a sea change happening right now, and if you’ve been paying attention from within the alternative sphere for a decade or more then you have probably noticed it.

  This is not a momentary flash of cultural awareness. This is a permanent societal shift. Unfortunately, when this sort of thing happens engineered calamity usually follows.

  Globalists and their leftist puppets can’t conceive of losing. They can’t fathom the idea that their ideology is failing and that the public isn’t buying what they’re selling. They will council themselves and suggest that the populace is simply “too stupid” to understand the necessity of the globalist vision. They’ll say that the rise of the conservative right is a “great step backwards” and a “dark age”. They’ll claim that this will lead to an epic disaster on a planetary scale.

  Then…those same people take action to CREATE that disaster.

  My original prediction for 2024 was that another presidential election would not happen; that there would be an event that disrupts the election and sends the country into chaos. We almost had that happen with two separate assassination attempts on Donald Trump. However, by sheer luck it appears that I was wrong and the election is moving forward.  What does this mean for the future?

  I think most of us in the alternative economic field understand well that if Trump reenters the White House the complex manipulation of financial data and jobs data by the Biden/Harris Administration will suddenly end. Meaning, the real data will come out, it will look very bad, and the media will immediately accuse Trump and conservatives of destroying the economy.

  On top of that, conservatives will be inheriting two separate proxy wars from Democrats – The war with Russia through Ukraine and the war with Iran through Israel. Both of these scenarios have the potential to escalate into a world war. I would argue that at this point a world war is inevitable (the first stage has already begun) and Trump will not be able to keep America out of it even if he wants to. Too many dominoes have been set in motion.

  Then you have the potential domestic fallout from a Trump win with leftists rioting across the country (as soon as the weather warms up enough enough for their dainty little hands to throw bricks and Molotovs). The goal of the leftist mob is to force conservatives to act like the very “fascists” the activists accuse us of being. Of course, if that happened they would be dead, but they will have destroyed the conservative moral ideal in the process.

  These are the kinds of people we’re dealing with. They aren’t going to sit back and let us prove the country can function far better without progressive influence and woke social engineering. They would rather burn the whole thing to the ground first.

  My point is, always be on guard in the moments when you think you’re winning. That’s when the people that mean you harm will be most angry, when they will be most unhinged, and when they will be most inclined to strike.

  *  *  *

  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
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 20:05

• Philly Judge Allows Musk's Million-Dollar Giveaway To Continue
  Philly Judge Allows Musk’s Million-Dollar Giveaway To Continue

  Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

  A judge has denied Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s request to block the $1 million giveaway program that billionaire Elon Musk and America PAC have been operating in the lead-up to the Nov. 5 election.

  

  Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Angelo Foglietta issued the denial after a Nov. 4 hearing that was prompted by Krasner’s civil lawsuit against Musk and America PAC.

  Krasner had accused Musk and America PAC of running an illegal lottery, which he said created a public nuisance, and violating a state consumer protection law.

  The program is set to conclude on Election Day, Nov. 5.

  The two sides had a brief hearing on Oct. 31, but Foglietta decided that he had been divested of jurisdiction after Musk filed to move the case to federal court. A federal judge sent the case back to state court the following day, and Foglietta quickly responded by scheduling a hearing for Nov. 4.

  Foglietta said at the beginning of the hearing that because another day remained for the program, he didn’t think the case was moot.

  Musk was not in the courtroom, located within Philadelphia City Hall.

  America PAC attorney Chris Gober argued that despite Musk’s description of the giveaway as random, the program was not random.

  Gober said the program involved a contractual relationship in which participants served as spokespeople for the political action committee after being selected by a predetermined pool of people.

  So far, several individuals from Pennsylvania have won as part of the giveaway. Krasner’s complaint cited a post on X in which America PAC said more than 280,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania had signed the petition, which makes them eligible for the giveaway.

  Gober said that 6,661 of 18,000 payments—of differing amounts—owed to the residents of Philadelphia County had already been mailed. Around 3,000 were in process and slated to be mailed on Nov. 4 while the remaining—around 7,000—were slated to be mailed on Nov. 5.

  John Summers, an attorney representing Krasner’s office, said the PAC is relatively opaque about details surrounding the giveaways and terms for the PAC’s relationship with participants.

  Summers pointed to Musk’s giveaway statement and argued that the fact that the giveaway wasn’t actually random was not a valid defense. He also noted the testimony from America PAC Director Chris Young stating that he was surprised to hear Musk call the giveaway random.

  During his closing argument, Summers alleged the defendants’ lack of transparency cheated thousands of Philadelphians.

  Andy Taylor, another attorney for the defense, basing his closing argument on the First Amendment, said Krasner was asking for a violation of core political speech by stopping people from signing the PAC’s petition.

  Taylor said that the giveaway was by design rather than by chance. The winner selection process, he said, should be likened to a job application rather than a lottery.

  Summers responded to Taylor in part by stating that the case had nothing to do with freedom of speech and should instead be viewed as fraud.

  “No one’s First Amendment rights are being smothered,” Summers said.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 19:15

• How To… Rig Your Rigged Elections
  How To… Rig Your Rigged Elections

  Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

  Are you an aspiring oligarch, dictator or autocrat? Do you want to wield power whilst maintaining a façade of popular support and democratic mandate? Do you want to make your proles believe they have a choice?

  Well then, welcome to the first of our “How to…” series.

  A selection of articles dedicated to teaching aspiring authoritarians how to hide tyranny behind a reassuring mask of  freedom.

  Here we’ll go into the finer points of how it’s possible to have “elections” that mean almost nothing.

  

  What we talk about when we talk about rigging an election

  First things first, we need to establish what we mean when we talk about “election rigging”.

  Controlling the outcome of an election is a comparatively simple, even vulgar, process. All you need to do is manipulate the count and/or simply lie about the result.

  However doing this efficiently  – rigging an election with as little effort as possible and disguising that fact is more difficult.

  In short, if your rigged election is entirely reliant on simply forging ballots you have done something wrong. If you want to reliably and consistently control the results of your “elections” you need to be more creative than that.

  The vast majority of your work pre-election will be dedicated to laying the groundwork, building infrastructure, and lubricating the public.

  The vote itself is the final destination in a long journey that starts with…

  1. The System

  

  The CIA is a perfect example of the kind of institution which is not answerable to the electorate. You’ll need to create your own version of this.

  “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

  Your first priority when constructing your system should be establishing an infrastructure that is not significantly impacted by elections.

  Unelected civil servants,  intelligence agencies, military officers, judges, NGOs, corporate interests and lobby groups should form the permanent foundations of the power structure, while “elected officials” should ideally be mere window dressing and wall-paper, with zero opportunity to act independently.

  Having by this means established a covert power structure that effectively guarantees an election will never be able to change anything meaningful – what we can call your “Deep State” – you need to set about creating a “democracy” that camouflages this fact.

  The design of your “democracy” can make or break an efficiently controlled election. Following our advice on the voting system you employ can make controlling the outcome of your “elections” relatively hassle-free.

  For starters, you should be aiming to make as little work for your Deep State as possible. A country is a big and complex entity,  and effectively micro-managing millions upon millions of individual votes is demanding of man-hours and man-power.

  That’s where your “voting system” comes into play, and it should work, not by falsifying and manipulating every single vote, but by making the vast majority of those votes mutually-canceling.

  Using your fully controlled “two-party system” (point 2), you should try to achieve a status quo in which the voting intentions of the majority will always split fairly evenly between two meaningless “choices”.

  You can do this with class or race or gender messaging, it doesn’t matter, just so long as their minds are made up at an early stage and tend to stay that way.

  Essentially you need a situation in which roughly 49% of your populace will vote for Team Red and 49% will vote for Team Blue.

  This then creates your mythical “election deciders” – the remaining 2% of the electorate whose votes you will need to care about. You can call them “swing states” or “floating voters” or some terminology of your own.

  What you’re aiming for by this means is an “election” that is decided by as few votes as possible.

  Once you have the system in place you need to start thinking about your political parties.

  2. The Parties

  

  “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.”

  An essential part of your control mechanism is, as referenced above, the  “Two-Party System”. Ideally this would be a perfect but meaningless binary, but this method can absorb  a few token “third party” options provided they remain purely minority choices.

  In fact permitting a few “independents” or “wild cards” to proliferate can even be beneficial  for a few reasons –

  a) it reinforces your appearance of genuine democracy, while remaining largely meaningless since the aforementioned entrenchment means they will never gain any serious traction.

  b) because sandwiching your Big Two parties between the “kill the rich and eat their babies” party on the Left and the “set fire to everyone darker than taupe on the Dulux paint scale” party on the Right only makes your two “REAL” parties look more sensible and “safe”.

  c) Hopeless minority third parties can act as good anger-sponges  and safety-valves for people who may be beginning to see through your rigged system.

  Of course, if you are doing this thoroughly you will probably be controlling the third parties as well. But that isn’t essential and in the main, you’ll want to focus on The Big Two.

  Establishing your Big Two is relatively easy, after all, you have money and power and (thanks to your candidate filtering processes, point 3) you have an entire political class dedicated to the pursuit of those things.

  Bringing both Big Two parties under your banner is easy.  The hard part is refining the skill of taking two near-identical things and somehow making them appear not just different but diametrically opposed.

  Your press will play an important role here. They must report only on the minor points of difference, and completely ignore or elide the obvious fact that the two parties agree on every single major issue.

  IMPORTANT – The unquestioned assumptions holding your system in place only work if they remain unquestioned, and they only remain unquestioned if people don’t realise they are there.

  This is the primary purpose of the Big Two parties, limit choice and control public discourse – while appearing to do the exact opposite.

  When the press discuss the Big Two parties they should talk about ill-defined concepts instead of facts. Use words like “progressive”, “liberal”, “traditional” and “common sense”. Words with relative qualitative meaning as opposed to objective quantitative value.

  Focus on aesthetic, surface-level differences. Contrast colours and iconography. Make sure they aim at different bases and demographics to encourage that 50/50 entrenchment we discussed in point 1.

  Sidenote: One of the additional benefits of these two near-identical parties that constantly pretend to be polar opposites is that when you really need to sell something to everyone you can unite the parties in “bi-partisan support”, and the press can sell the issue as “so important that even Red and Blue agree”.

  3. The Candidates

  

  “If you own everyone on the ballot, you don’t have to rig anything.”

  So, you have a power structure in place that works independently of any and all “elected” officials, you have a voting system that is easy to sway in either direction, and you have two parties as near-identical as makes no difference.

  But you still need actual – for want of a better word – “people”, to fill the role of “leader”. These are your candidates, the pool of potential puppets from which you pick.

  The good news here is that this process is partly automated via self-selection. The kind of shallow narcissists who seek positions of power are exactly the kinds of people you want on your roster.

  It is essential for the maintenance of the status quo that ANY candidates for high political office must be passed through levels of filtration before any ordinary person has the opportunity to put a check next to their name on a ballot paper. 

  a) Money. Your system needs to ensure no one can run for high office without a LOT of money behind them. Since you and your class allies control all the money worth controlling, this essentially means no one can run for office without your approval.

  b) Education and training.  As part of your power structure you should have invested resources in your education system. You should be selecting potential “leaders” at an early stage and directing their development through internships and “excellence programs” etc.

  As people progress through this system, you need to offer them opportunities to compromise themselves – morally and financially. Anyone who does not avail themselves of those opportunities must be rejected immediately and their career stalled or curtailed.

  Only those candidates willing to compromise themselves will progress to the next level.

  This both de-selects inappropriate applicants and provides important kompromat for future utility. Your intelligence agencies should maintain up to date dossiers on prospective candidates. Records used for what might be vulgarly described as “bribery” and/or “blackmail”.

  We prefer the term “carrot and stick”.

  4. The Press

  It’s nearly election day. The longterm planning is done. You have a political system immune to change, a voting system where most votes are irrelevant, near identical political parties advocating your selected agenda in slightly different words, and a shortlist of candidates who you handpicked and can easily control with carrots or sticks.

  But, when the actual voting is about to happen, all of that is of secondary importance to the press.

  A cooperative press is one of the fundamental pillars of your political system (point 1), and we won’t be going into creating that here, that’s another lesson for another time.

  For the sake of this lesson, we’ll be assuming your “Deep State” assets own and operate the vast majority of mainstream social media, print media, and audio-visual media outlets.

  At that point, The Press is your first and best tool for effectively disguising the nature of your “democracy”.

  Your press will tell the story of the election, and an efficiently controlled election is nothing but a story. A candidate only says what the press say he says. A candidate only does what the press say she does. Intrigues, scandals, highs-and-lows are the meat and lifeblood that make this show feel “relevant” –  a wave of “incident” painting a picture of a dynamic fluid situation with an uncertain outcome, even as it steadily steers the result in your chosen direction.

  Remember this isn’t about convincing people how to vote – the locked-in two-party system already renders that self-canceling and meaningless in all but those vital  “swing states” (or whatever your chosen terminology).  This is simply about making people pay attention, care about the outcome, feel as if vital life-changing choices are at stake, and that you are invested in those choices.

  Further, this is a type of propaganda that needs to exist on the meta-level to maintain the facade of choice. The very act of attempted persuasion reinforces the idea that people need to be persuaded and, as such, that their votes matter.

  This is the most vital task of your captive press –  not controlling the result, but making your chosen result believable.

  If you want a landslide polls can predict a landslide, if you want it to be close polls can predict it will be close. By making your carefully curated future what people expect to happen they will be more accepting of it when it happens.

  Sidenote: Control of the press was simpler for the generations that came before. Unfortunately, while some aspects of your job have been made easier by technology, some others have been made far more difficult. The modern tyrant must concern themselves with the independent media, but that’s another article in this series.

  5. The Votes

  

  “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

  You might be wondering, if you control both sides of the election, handpick the candidates, puppeteer the press and have a system in place which means your interests are on both tickets and can literally never lose, do you need to actually rig the votes?

  Well, of course you do.

  While all your candidates are under your control and promoting the same basic agenda, you will still have a preferred story you want to tell at any given time and a puppet best suited to promoting that story.

  For example, you might have a future psy-op planned which only works if Team Red is at the helm.

  Or it might be that there is a lot of ill-feeling in the populace that you want to either a) focus on a new hate figure or b) dissipate with an apparent regime change.

  It might be you owe some favours to a powerful ally and getting their relative/spouse/son into office is a pay-off.

  It might be that you’ve realised, too late,  your chosen puppet is so mentally unbalanced he/she might become essentially uncontrollable through your usual methods, and a last minute switch is needed.

  These are circumstances where actual vote rigging becomes essential.

  Thankfully, as we discussed in point one, you’ve designed a system where an election with millions of votes can be decided by a few thousand,  and you have a press that will always obediently lay the groundwork by “predicting” your planned result, however improbable it might seem and even if it requires a last minute change of direction that defies all reason and sense.

  You also have “tame” political parties you can unite in bi-partisan acceptance of the result and you have candidates who will always do what they are told, which makes concealing the rigging relatively easy.

  So – how do we do the actual rigging?

  Surprisingly, in our experience, the traditional in-person hand-written ballots are actually the hardest to manipulate, especially when there is infrastructure in place to confirm IDs and count quickly and efficiently.

  This method should therefore be discouraged.

  Have your captive Press refer to it as “old-fashioned” and “outdated”. Claim it benefits one side or is “racist”. The specifics don’t matter.

  At the same time, you need to be promoting more “modern”, “efficient” and “fairer” methods of voting – postal voting, drop boxes, electronic voting machines and online voting.

  All these methods allow for extra votes to be added quite easily via mail fraud or algorithm, or taken away via “lost ballots” or “technical glitches”. They put space – real or metaphorical – between the voter and the people who count the votes.

  You can slide into that space and get to work.

  And since your system means only a few thousand votes in a relatively small area will likely decide the election you don’t need to go too crazy.

  Just a thumb on the scales and you get the result you want.

  No one will notice  – unless you happen to encounter a situation where your chosen puppet proves to be vastly more unpopular than you anticipated.

  This may require last-minute “adjustments” overt enough to raise some comment.  However, just make sure your tame press dismiss all such comment as “conspiracy theory”  and there will be no significant long-term damage.

  Sidenote: To finesse this even further, have the press report on some “glitches” and “lost ballots”. Create a background white noise of chaos but ensure BOTH SIDES are seen to both suffer and benefit, and underline that this is just the way huge modern elections work, and the margin wasn’t impacted. Then, after the fact, issue apologies, censure those  “responsible” and promise to improve.

  We call this “incompetence camouflage”.

  Conclusion

  Congratulations, with the completion of this guide you are now one step closer to a perfectly controlled dictatorship in the guise of  a democracy.

  You should have in place:

  1. A system where your elected officials have very little power, and most votes don’t count.

  2. Political parties that agree on everything of importance whilst constantly squabbling over matters of very little import.

  3. A roster of candidates that are either morally or financially compromised and have been trained to do as they are told.

  4. A captive press which will report only what you tell it to report.

  5. Measures which make actually rigging the vote simple.

  Remember, with all these safeguards and plans in place, it is easy to control the outcome of the election without anyone ever revealing the level of corruption.

  …unless, for some reason, you want to make it obvious, perhaps to discredit democracy or start a civil war.

  But that’s advanced-level narrative management, which we will cover in a future lesson.

  You need to remember – Public belief is the reason we’re doing all of this. The illusion of choice is the lifeblood of your system. Once you reveal it’s fixed and voting doesn’t matter, they will stop voting and lose all investment.

  From there your power base can quickly crumble.

  Only aim for this if you have a better system already set up to replace it.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 18:25

• RFK Jr Says Trump Plans To Remove Fluoride From American Drinking Water
  RFK Jr Says Trump Plans To Remove Fluoride From American Drinking Water

  The debate over the forced medication of the American population by the government is a long standing conflict.  Today it is more important than ever after the draconian efforts of Democrats to create a path to forced covid vaccinations using economic coercion.  The fight over experimental mRNA vaccines and vaccine passports has had an interesting side effect – The public is now motivated to question many other medical mandates and FDA standards with suspicious origins. 

  Water fluoridation is one of those standards.

  Robert F. Kennedy Jr, now part of Donald Trump’s campaign dream team, is to be put in charge of US health initiatives should Trump win the election this week.  Kennedy’s secondary career focus (beyond politics) has been exposing faulty medical establishment practices and food industry corruption.  He was a stalwart opponent of covid mandates and forced vaccination attempts and it’s fair to say he is widely hated by the government funded medical elite and the media.     

  Kennedy announced this week that he has turned his sights on water fluoridation, and says Donald Trump plans to set policies in motion to end fluoridation if he returns to office. 

  On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President…

  — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) November 2, 2024

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

  Fluoridation of the US water supply has been a key battleground since it began in 1945.  The practice was not widely accepted by the scientific community or the dental community back then, but that was before government manipulation of medical and scientific research through subsidies became a standard.

  After a few decades of indoctrination in universities and the growing habit of the medical community to police its own when it comes to investigating certain subjects, very few researchers had the courage to publish evidence contrary to the narrative that fluoride in the water supply was anything other safe.

  To question fluoride treatment is almost as taboo as questioning climate change if you are a scientist.  It’s just not done, but that attitude is completely contrary to the scientific method.  Try to study the subject online and most search engines will bury you in hundreds of “Fact Check” articles claiming that questioning fluoridation is pure conspiracy theory.

  

  The early days of mass fluoride medication are as shady as any conspiracy could possibly be.  Rumors of fluoride testing on unwilling subjects by the Third Reich and the Soviets abound, but there is little concrete evidence to confirm the claims that this was done to “control the population.”  The Soviets did in fact pass a directive in the 1960s for mass fluoridation of the water supply, and this ended in the 1990s.  The reason why is not officially admitted.

  The theory was that the chemical caused docile behavior and reduced IQ, making the population easier for the elites to manage. 

  Here are the facts:

  1)  Fluoride (or sodium fluoride) is a toxic chemical byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industry often used in rat poison.  It is also a cumulative agent, which means it continues to collect in the human body over time when ingested. 

  2)  Initially, these industries pumped fluoride gases into the air, causing health concerns and lawsuits.  This forced the manufacturers to capture the gases and reduce them down to a chemical sludge.  This is then distilled into a powder which makes it easier to contain and transport.  The problem was, the chemical was expensive to dispose of safely under environmental protocols.

  3)  Trace elements of natural fluoride already exist in many water supplies.  In some places with higher fluoride content in ground water in the early 1900s, residents were found to suffer from a condition called “brown teeth”.  Scientists found that people with brown teeth also had lower instances of cavities.  Eventually a correlation to fluoride was established by a man named Trendley H. Dean. 

  4)  Dean, a dentist and scientist, ultimately led the charge for mass fluoridation in US cities.  Another entity also lobbied the government for mass fluoridation:  Aluminum giant Alcoa.

  5)  And here’s where it gets shady – Trendley Dean worked for the NIH and the Public Health Service, which was run by Andrew Mellon.

  6)  Wealthy elitist Andrew Mellon, a founder of ALCOA and one of its major stockholders, was the U.S. Treasury Secretary from 1921-1932, when the PHS was still a division of the Treasury Department.  It was therefore Mellon’s PHS that ordered Dean to study fluoride in the first place.  In other words, Mellon and Alcoa had Dean conjure up the very studies that would change fluoride from a toxic waste into a public health miracle. 

  7) This is yet another example of the revolving door between corporations and government health agencies. 

  8)  Not only did industry magnates no longer have to pay for expensive chemical disposal for fluoride, they stood to make millions selling the poison to the government for water treatment.  After that, the medical community (under Mellon) hyped up fluoridation as a magical cure for bad teeth.  

  9)  Dozens of recent studies now confirm what many people suspected decades ago:  Fluoride does in fact decrease IQ.  Children are especially vulnerable.  It is also proven to cause weaker bones, thyroid problems and a host of neurological issues.  Several published articles have postulated that fluoride could be producing alterations in mitochondrial DNA; mitochondrial DNA has many implications in various mental disorders.

  10)  Federal Courts have ruled against the EPA in the forced fluoridation of water.  They have ordered officials to take action over concerns about potential health risks from currently recommended levels of fluoride in the American drinking water supply.

  11)  Trendley Dean claimed that tooth decay was reduced by 60% in his studies on fluoride.  More recent studies claim a more modest 15% to 25% reduction. 

  12)  Around 70% of US communities fluoridate.  Communities that have stopped fluoridation have not experienced a significant increase in dental decay.

  Even if fluoride does have legitimate value as a treatment for tooth decay, this is ultimately irrelevant.  The dangers involved in using the toxic chemical in public water far outweigh the potential benefits.  The suspicious history of the practice also needs to be investigated.  It is better to err on the side of caution and not lace our water supply with an industrial waste product.

  Plenty of alternatives exist in our modern era for healthy teeth.  Beyond that, the government should not be given authority to mass medicate the population.  Politicians are not qualified enough or trustworthy enough to make such decisions.  Ask yourself, is the government really that concerned about your teeth, or is something else going on?

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 18:00

• Philly Shipyard's Transformation: How Hanwha's Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness
  Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness

  By Wilson Beaver of Heritage.org

  Earlier this year, Hanwha Ocean Company bought Philly Shipyard for $100 million. Though it was met with little fanfare from the public at the time, the investment was a big deal in the Navy.

  

  It came after requests from American defense experts and government officials for shipbuilders from allied countries to invest into the worn down, depleted, and inefficient mess that is the US shipbuilding industry. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro even called the deal, “a game-changing milestone” for America’s “Maritime Statecraft.”

  Now, the new partnership is paying dividends, for Hanwha, Philadelphia, and the United States. In late August, Hanwha secured an annual Navy maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) contract. That contract and the new work at Philly Shipyard will go a long ways towards fixing the Navy’s current maintenance backlog, which is currently contributing to both shipbuilding delays and cost overruns.

  According to a 2022 Government Accountability Office report, the Navy’s current maintenance backlog amounted to $1.8 billion. This inefficiency has a major impact on America’s combat readiness has contributed to the Navy’s decision to decommission 9 ships before their expected service life.

  Unfortunately, things have only gotten worse under the Biden-Harris administration. Misguided spending priorities and a lack of urgency have set back America’s ability to keep up with and deter China, which is the world’s largest Navy numerically and whose fleet is still growing fast.

  Hanwha could help turn the tide in that fight, though. With the purchase of the Philly Shipyard, it is now positioned to compete for contracts for building new ships, which could be an enormous windfall not only for Philadelphia workers, but also our naval power.

  Specifically, the Philly Shipyard is well positioned to compete for contracts to construct Constellation-class frigates. Currently, these ships are only being built at Marinette Marine in Wisconsin, with the first ship set to set sail in 2029 following production delay. But Navy leadership has already called for an increase in the construction of new missile-guided frigates, and the Philly Shipyard is now well-positioned to compete for building these additional frigates.

  The new investment in the Philly Shipyard is a refreshing step in the right direction. It is also a reminder that our efforts to reshore industry and rebuild our defense industrial base will benefit American workers first and foremost, like the new workers who will need to be hired as Philly Shipyards expands.

  If we want to win, however, we need to build on this positive momentum. Policymakers should work to create maritime prosperity zones, implement programs to solve labor shortages, and cut down on overregulation in order continue to promote further investments in and expansion of our naval infrastructure, especially at Philly Shipyards.

  As our Navy works to meet the challenges of tomorrow, Hanwha’s new investment means Philadelphia will be playing a leading role in the fight. By fixing the maintenance glut and building new ships, Philly Shipyard will be vital to preserving the security of the American people.

  Why? Because the first battle of the next great power competition will not take place in the far-off seas of the Pacific; it will be fought in places like Philly Shipyard on the Delaware as we set out to defeat our own deficiencies. And this is a battle we can’t afford to lose.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 17:40

• The Closest Election In History?
  The Closest Election In History?

  According to RealClearPolitics, the current US Presidential polling averages have Trump at 48.5% and Harris at 48.5%, literally a tie.

  

  On this measure the two candidates have been within two percentage points of each other since mid-August. So in terms of the popular vote, this is officially the closest election on record.

  Today’s Chart of the Day from DB’s Henry Allen (available to pro subscribers in the usual place), looks at the gap between the candidate declared President and the runner up in percentage terms in every election since 1868 after the US Civil War.

  

  Those in red mark the times where the eventual President didn’t win the popular vote. Allen has also annotated all those with less than a 3 percentage point differential.

  There have been six elections with less than a percentage point between the candidates.

  1. 1880 Garfield beat Hancock by 0.1pp
  2. 1884 Cleveland beat Blaine by 0.5pp
  3. 1888 Harrison was elected although he lost the popular vote to Cleveland by -0.8pp
  4. 1960 Kennedy beat Nixon by 0.2pp
  5. 1968 Nixon beat Humphrey by 0.7pp
  6. 2000 Bush won even though he lost the popular vote to Gore by -0.5pp. See Henry Allen’s piece here this morning that looked at the market reaction after each election since and including this contested one.

  So if current polls are correct then this could be the closest of any US election in popular vote terms. Of course in reality, polls are subject to a margin of error, so you’d expect some variation, but one thing is certain: in just a few days, the avalanche of lawsuits will begin.

  Literally the worst case scenario for the country. Why? The 2020 census was wrong, as the Census Bureau has admitted…and it gave extra electoral college votes to blue states. If they’d done it right, Trump would win WITHOUT any of the blue wall states. Get ready for lawsuits. https://t.co/hJR1tiwUGB

  — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 4, 2024

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

  Shortly we will publish a comprehensive Election Day guide, providing a comprehensive overview of the “swing states” that will decide the election, a list of bellwether counties to pay attention to within those states, as well as a precise recap of the time line for vote reporting and media projections of the winner in 2020.

  It will also cover the rules for challenging the voting results in the swing states as well as rule changes at the federal level adopted in the wake of the last election.

  Finally, we caution that while a winner is likely to be declared in MI, AZ, WI and NV within the first 24 hours of the polls closing on Tuesday, PA and GA are likely to take longer to assess – potentially 3-4 days or longer if there are recounts.

  So if it is close, stand by for a long few days/weeks/months.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 17:20

• From 'Clingers' To 'Garbage' – Why The 16 Years Of Vilification?
  From ‘Clingers’ To ‘Garbage’ – Why The 16 Years Of Vilification?

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

  Who actually are the “garbage” people?

  Are they one and the same with Joe Biden’s “semi-fascists,” “chumps,” and “dregs of society?”

  Or Barack Obama’s “clingers?”

  Do they include Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” and “irredeemables?”

  Are they FBI grandee Peter Strzok’s Walmart shoppers who “smell?”

  

  Over the last decade-and-a-half, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harris-Walz, and a host of other self-described elites have variously invented a wide range of smears and slurs—but about whom exactly?

  Who are these people that leftwing politicians have so vehemently derided—and why?

  They include Trump supporters, of course, or what Biden also dubbed “ultra-MAGAs” and Tim Walz called “fascists,” now without the prior qualifying prefix “semi.”

  In general, these adjectives of disdain denote about half the country according to the results of what will soon be the last three presidential elections.

  This half is more rural than urban, characterized by larger than smaller families, more high-schooled diplomaed than college degreed, and more conventional and traditional than vanguard and trend-setting.

  Statisticians tell us that the new non-clinging Democratic Party finds its greatest support from those who earn less than $50,000 and those who make considerably more than $100,000. These are the rich/poor bookends that surround the reformed Republican party in between.

  So, in terms of generalized income and earnings, the left is now the party of the well-to-do professional and credential class and the rich, along with the subsidized poor. The Republicans, by contrast, are increasingly represented by the middle classes.

  The Democratic top dogs are most likely to embrace agendas that never garner 51 percent of public support—vast reductions in gas and oil to lessen “climate change,” open borders to welcome in the world’s needy, the government promotion of a third, transgendered sex, abortion on demand without restrictions, the reifications of various critical (race/legal/penal/modern monetary) “theories,” and radical changes in the current system (ending the Senate filibuster, the Electoral College, the nine-justice Supreme Court, the 50-state union, etc.).

  Two truisms stand out about the elite boutique agenda: one, when these theories are implemented – often by the courts, and the permanent and unelected administrative and bureaucratic state – the architects of such experimentation do not really feel the inevitable deleterious consequences.

  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Silicon Valley masters of the universe, the professors of law, the corporate CEOs, and the Bill Gates of the world really don’t care much whether gas is at $3 a gallon or $6, or Romex wire is $39 a spool or $150.

  Illegal aliens do not go to their children’s schools or crowd the offices of their concierge cardiologists and oncologists, much less dump trash on their streets and curbs.

  They are strong supporters of teachers’ unions, despising the very idea of charter schools and homeschooling. And yet they send their children more often to private schools where students are not the lab rats of the public school system.

  Their ideology is the fruit of their privilege and so is often more utopian and abstract. Given that if it results in economic, social, and cultural damage to millions, they will certainly avoid the ensuing flotsam and jetsam.

  The fallout from defunding the police falls upon the inner city, not the privately patrolled Presidio Heights or the secluded sorts in Martha’s Vineyard.

  Given their income and status, the new Democratic credentialed and moneyed classes do not care about the struggle of others to live one more day, clinging to the middle-class vestiges of their parents’ era. Instead, for the anointed who have transcended the fear of not filling up their tank or coming up short on monthly rent and power bills, it is not hard to mandate job-killing EVs or to chuckle over biological boys in girls’ locker rooms and pride flags flying from the abandoned American embassy in Kabul.

  By the same token, the poor count on the left’s largesse to cushion themselves from the damage of their own party’s dreams turned into nightmares. Various food, housing, medical, legal, and educational subsidies to the poor are testaments that the left’s own agendas stagnant upward mobility and confine the poor to permanent poverty.

  In a cynical sense, left-wing elites square the circle of the guilt over their privilege through government subsidies for those whom they’d rather not necessarily live next to or have their children attend school with. In other words, they find them useful rather than empathetic. They welcome in millions of illegal aliens—as long as they don’t camp out at Yale, the Hamptons, or Malibu Beach.

  Not so the struggling middle classes. Modern theories can result in hyperinflation that can ruin them or easily send them into the ranks of the government-subsidized poor. They are conservative in wanting a secure border, legal-only immigration, affordable food and energy, safe streets, and equality of opportunity rather than of result, because they have no margin of error, lacking the wherewithal of secure home zip codes, or the perks of gargantuan grocery bills at Whole Foods, or a new foreign car every two years.

  Such conservatism is reflected in the worldview of the clingers and irredeemables. They accept not cosmopolitism but 2,500 years of nationhood that remind them there can be no nation without borders.

  There can be no modern comforts and security without access to affordable food and energy. There can be no public society without safe streets—and indeed, not even public places without sanitation and common decency.

  So, the great middle class is wary about falling at the hands of others into government dependency and even more fearful of destroying what has worked over the ages. They resist experimenting with the unknown, especially when thought up and designed by those who will easily ride out the ensuing disasters when such harebrained schemes inevitably fail.

  These chumps, fascists, and garbage people know that their advantages in numbers are outweighed by the Eloi’s absorption of institutional and government power. So, in depression, they often shrug and drop out. They assume wisely that the network news, the New York Times and Washington Post, Hollywood, and the corporate boardroom are mere extensions of the utopian and cultural left, who despise them for ignoring their supposed betters.

  They pass on watching the Emmys, Oscars, Tonys, and Grammys. They are deaf to the top-down sermons from an Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons, the Obamas, or Joe Biden, which assume the grubby majority is either too ignorant or amoral or both to know what is good for them and so must be shamed, smeared, and slurred rather than won over by argumentations and persuasion. Is not the 2024 election about just that—the haughty who sermonize and those weary of being lectured?

  The dregs could care less who is president of Harvard or how many letters and titles follow a professional’s name—except to confirm to themselves when watching or hearing such people that our elites increasingly have neither common sense nor integrity. A high school history teacher could have answered congressional questioning on race, anti-Semitism, and bias far more effectively and adroitly than a deer-in-the-headlights, clueless Harvard president Claudine Gay.

  Yes, the semi-fascists are lectured that they are racist, sexist, and xenophobic. They are damned by the credentialed as “white privileged” who “rage,” as they dutifully go off to Iraq and Afghanistan to die in combat at double their numbers in our demographics.

  They are advised of their toxic illiberality and bigotry, even as their children lack the race, gender, and ethnicity advantage accorded to the so-called Other and the inside edge that money, influence, and status provide for the elite.

  What has recently brought this great divide to a head and exposed the fury of the elite is resurgent anger at the newfound impudence of the deplorable class, or the notion that they would dare call the dishonest media the “fake news” or suggest that “fit-as-fiddle,” “smart-as-a-tack,” cognitively challenged Joe Biden is the proverbial emperor with no clothes.

  Who are these arrogant who pack the 20,000 seats of Madison Square Garden even after the good people have warned that they were mindlessly reenacting Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will?

  The left believes that either racial victimization or money should guarantee privilege and so despises those qualifying for neither. In the elite’s view, the working class so often lacks the romance of the poor and non-white, but worse still, the culture and pretensions of the progressive Übermenschen.

  Finally, the unspoken irony of this divide is that the self-professed elite know that they are not the elite by any definable standard or meritocracy. Yale gives a higher percentage of A’s on spec to its students than do trade schools and junior colleges.

  Today’s supposedly brilliant Columbia student would likely struggle to earn an objectively graded C on a state college’s standardized, multi-choice history exam.

  Those who run the Washington Post or NPR are less competent, worldly, and knowledgeable than the chumpy and dregsy sexagenarian who publishes a small town’s weekly newspaper.

  The average salesman and electrician can far better spot fraud and deceit than an Anthony Fauci or Peter Daszak. And the tractor driver is more likely not to lie under oath than a John Brennan, James Clapper, or Andrew McCabe. The lineman working with high voltage is far more likely to err on the side of safety with the lives of others than the executives of Pfizer or Moderna.

  In a wider sense, the deplorable class believes it can still build reliable pipelines, frack, truck our nation’s goods, and clean up after a hurricane. But it has utterly lost confidence that the best and the brightest at the Pentagon can win a war, at Boeing can craft a safe jet, or at NASA can send astronauts safely into space and back in the fashion of their grandfathers more than half a century ago.

  This election is about many things—left/right issues, of course, and the peculiar personalities of Trump and Harris perhaps.

  But it will likely be defined by those who are not just tired of being smeared as the underbelly of America but, far more unforgivably, are beginning to enjoy and mock the disparagement from those who have never earned the right to smear anyone but themselves.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 17:00

• "Coma In A Bottle": Miami Doc Charged With Trafficking Date Rape Drug
  “Coma In A Bottle”: Miami Doc Charged With Trafficking Date Rape Drug

  As if there weren’t enough problems in academia right now, an assistant professor at the University of Miami’s medical school has just been charged with trafficking a date rape drug, according to the NY Post.

  On Friday, Dr. Dairon Garcia was charged with trafficking the drug. Authorities say they connected him to a package intercepted at Miami International Airport containing 15 pounds of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid.

  Miami-Dade Judge Mindy Glazer said at the arraignment: “He should be so embarrassed being here. He’s a medical doctor, going through all those years of education and committing his life to helping people and to get arrested for this.

  She added: “That’s between you, your lawyer and the criminal justice system. Good luck to you, sir.”

  

  The NY Post article says that Garcia, an assistant professor of clinical radiology at the UM Miller School of Medicine, is facing charges linked to a package from Paris addressed to his rental property, intercepted by customs at Miami Airport on Aug. 29.

  Miami police, alerted by Homeland Security, monitored the address as the package was delivered on Sept. 12 and collected by a woman. After a search, her daughter reported Garcia had informed them of the delivery, asking them to accept it.

  Another tenant reported receiving a separate package for Garcia on Sept. 7, and customs intercepted yet another on Sept. 25, addressed to his registered company, DG Diagnostics MD LLC, the report says. 

  He pleaded not guilty at Friday’s arraignment, was held on $15,000 bail, and posted it that evening.

  The DEA says gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), often called “grievous bodily harm” or “coma in a bottle,” is colorless and can be slipped into drinks, causing sedation without the victim’s knowledge.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 16:40

• Escape From Psychopathocracy
  Escape From Psychopathocracy

  Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

  “Most people do not get a clear opportunity to vote against Communism and prevent a historical evil from taking hold. We have that opportunity. Vote Trump.”

  – James Lindsay

  You thought Halloween was over, but somehow the horror show won’t stop, and it’s not so much fun anymore.

  Those oversized ghouls, werewolves, and dead souls you erected in the front yard, like shrines to wickedness, represent something truly roiling and moiling around the zeitgeist of this troubled land: the ruling Party of Chaos.

  Look at what they have done to you and what they are still doing. Hoaxing you, sucking the life-blood out of you, and lying about everything. Wrecking the country.

  

  Why does it seem that the Democratic Party is in it solely to remain in power?

  I will tell you: because it controls the money-flows to the vast cadres of a vicious parasitical bureaucracy and its support system of outside orgs that commit crimes and make war on the rest of us.

  It’s called “the blob” for a reason. It’s exactly like that monster out of the 1950s horror movies, a shape-shifting leviathan that devours everything in its path with only one purpose, to grow ever larger until it consumes. . . everything.

  In my state of New York last week, the DEC authorities sent a swat team to seize a man and woman’s pet squirrel and raccoon and then killed the animals. Why? Because they could. How is that different from the DOJ swatting and seizing a grandmother for walking through the US capitol building and then stuffing her in prison for the rest of her natural life on misdemeanor charges? It’s not different. They are both demonstrations of deliberate cruelty — and that’s why the squirrel story resonated so widely around the country. You know exactly what it says: we can take whatever is dear to you. . . your pets. . . your livelihood. . . your freedom. . . your life.

  Who failed to notice that candidate Kamala Harris was unable to articulate any coherent notion about how her government might manage its business beyond some empty nostrums about “joy,” and “turning the page?” Because the party’s actual purpose, which it hides and lies about, is just to push you around, tell you what to do and what to think, and to punish you if you don’t comply — in other words, to exercise despotic power. It can’t do anything else with that power.

  It lacks the competence to manage an economy from the top down, and it certainly won’t allow the countless volitional transactions of people at liberty to produce and sell things of value on their own. It will go to war against anything to steal more money: some pitiful foreign kleptocracy of country. . . the liberty-minded people of our own country. . . against sound ideas, proven principles, standards of decency, and, not unusually, against reality itself.

  And now you and I face the ordeal of an election that, by design, will be nearly impossible to audit, will remain inconclusive for weeks, and subject to endless dispute. Why, because it serves the purpose of the Party of Chaos, which is. . . chaos! The scheme was to introduce so many devices of uncertainty as to guarantee political paralysis. Why else would you use batteries of hugely expensive computerized vote-counting machines that can be easily hacked, untraceable mail-in ballots with no chains of custody, the automatic registration of non-citizens, and laws (as in California) to literally forbid the requirement of voter-ID?

  This was the work of lawfare terrorist Marc Elias — with hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal, some from the government itself, a bunch from the party, and some from rogue billionaires such as George Soros, Bill Gates, and Reid Hoffman, and then disbursed surreptitiously through hundreds of NGOs — to elect officials such as Secretaries of State and district attorneys who will ignore or bend the law, to pay off state legislators around the country to change voting rules, to hire brigades of ballot “harvesters,” and to file ruinous lawsuits against anyone who objects to these pranks. It is an enormous, dastardly machine designed to deprive you of your consent to be governed. It is the work of political psychopaths.

  You’ve no doubt heard about one of the blob’s instrumental players, Rep. Jamie Raskin’s audacious plan to un-do the election, should Donald Trump happen to generate a landslide vote that overwhelms Marc Elias’s ballot-box-stuffing operation. The Raskin scheme is to disqualify Mr. Trump as an “insurrectionist” by an act of Congress before the January 6 certification ceremony. Of course, that would suppose a Democratic majority in Congress, which is unlikely to be the case.

  But Mr. Raskin put his foot in his mouth so deeply that he nearly choked to death last week when, discussing election matters with entertainer Bill Maher on TV, Mr. Raskin stated that he would accept the results only of a free and fair election – with himself left to determine whether it was free and fair.

  This, you understand, is exactly what he accuses Donald Trump of doing in 2020: thinking-and-saying that the election might not have been free and fair.

  The problem for Mr. Raskin is that this sort of “election denial” he exhibits is exactly the basis for accusing Mr. Trump of “insurrection” in the first place.

  Thus: Mr. Raskin has just made a potential “insurrectionist” of himself. What’s more, as if the Jack Smith Case in Judge Chutkan’s DC court was not already compromised enough by the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity, Mr. Trump’s lawyers can now call Jamie Raskin as a witness in the case, play the video of his remarks to Bill Maher, and ask him how expressing doubt about the freeness or fairness of an election amounts to “insurrection.”

  One way or another, looks like we’re in for a hard, anxious winter.

  Threats galore loom concerning possible blob / Party of Chaos mischief ahead, designed to disorder our national life: false flags prompting the imposition of martial law. . . aggressive censorship and cancellation of free-speaking regime opponents. . . deployment of Antifa mobs against civil order, with violence, looting, arson.

  This symbiotic enemy of the people is desperate to evade accountability for the crimes they’ve already committed as officials running institutions: abuse of power, conspiracy to deprive many citizens of their civil rights, perhaps even treason. They’re capable of anything. They must be defeated.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 16:20

• Bonds Bid, Bitcoin Skids As Traders Take Profits On 'Trump' Bets
  Bonds Bid, Bitcoin Skids As Traders Take Profits On ‘Trump’ Bets

  The equity market was mixed today with The Dow lagging and Small Caps leading (S&P/Nasdaq modestly lower) ahead of tomorrow’s big day. NOTE the drop in the morning was reportedly triggered by WSJ HLs that Russia is suspected of a plot to send incendiary devices on US-bound planes, citing Western security officials, but that was quickly BTFD back…

  

  The bigger theme of the day was profit-taking on the so-called “Trump Trade” after extreme outpereformance of the Kamala basket in recent weeks…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  VIX ended the day notably elevated with the vol term structure extremely inverted ahead of this week’s extreme event risks…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  …in fact this is the VIX’s longest stretch above its 200dma since 2019…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  For the first time since early 2019, VIX Specs are net long futures…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Maybe this is more than an election-uncertainty trade… maybe it’s structural…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Mega-Cap Tech fell once again today but has found support for now…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  After Friday’s utter chaos in bond land, reality set in that piss poor payrolls means lower yields and Treasury yields tumbled across the board with the long-end outperforming (2Y -3bps, 30Y -8bps). Yields are still marginally higher from Thursday’s close…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  The 10Y yield ended back at pre-payrolls levels…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  The dollar continued to drift lower (ignoring the manic buying after payrolls)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Arguably another “Trump Trade” continues to build as the Mexican Peso plunges to its weakest since Sept 2022

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Despite the dollar weakness, gold trod water today, holding just above support around $2730…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Bitcoin fell again after tagging record highs last week. BTC is finding support in the $67-68k region for now

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Oil prices rallied (with WTI back up near $72), erasing last week’s plunge on Israel-Iran optics…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  With oil prices rising again, we wouldn’t question you for being surprised that pump-prices are testing multi-year lows (right ahead of the election)… probably nothing, right?

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Finally, what happens to USA Sovereign Risk tomorrow?

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  From 12-month highs – will a divided govt soothe the pain?

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 16:00

• Leaked NBC Election Night Rehearsal Shows Trump Winning Swing States
  Leaked NBC Election Night Rehearsal Shows Trump Winning Swing States

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  Footage has leaked online of an NBC News dry run of election night, and interestingly it shows president Trump winning the swing states.

  

  The mock election night scenario is accompanied by a chyron stating “THIS IS A TEST,” and has NBC anchors covering wins for Trump in key states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

  “Right now, it looks like there’s a big crack in Michigan,” one of the anchors is heard saying.

  “Saginaw, Michigan, this is really big for Donald Trump. Joe Biden won it in 2020, but this time it’s going to Trump. If he does that in Michigan, it’s a good sign for him,” one of them says in the clip.

  Pointing to a map showing Trump heading to victory, an anchor comments, “Kamala Harris only has a couple of ways to get there,” pointing particularly to Pennsylvania.

  The footage shows that even with Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Minnesota and Virginia voting blue, Kamala falls short with 247 electoral votes.

  The leaked footage also suggests Republican gains in both the Senate and House.

  Watch:

  🚨🇺🇸 SCOOP: LEAKED MSM ELECTION NIGHT MOCKUP SHOWS KAMALA HARRIS LOSING ELECTION IN SWING STATES

  Leaked MSM mockup footage of election night *reported to use Harris’ internal polling* shows Trump leading in Pennsylvania by a small margin, winning in Michigan, winning in North… pic.twitter.com/D4nHLkCCcV

  — Diligent Denizen 🇺🇸 (@DiligentDenizen) November 3, 2024

  They have to rehearse keeping calm for when Trump is in the lead.

  — Susan Jane (@JayClower) November 3, 2024

  To be fair they’re just practicing, but the guy on the board looks scared because he knows what’s coming

  — bitchboy.eth (@bwneth) November 3, 2024

  As we highlighted last week, a news station in Pennsylvania was forced to apologize for flashing up the US presidential election results in the state as part of a “test” that wasn’t supposed to be seen by viewers.

  The ‘results’ showed Kamala beating Trump by 52 per cent to 47 per cent of the vote.

  Most final polls are calling it for Trump. A fresh AtlasIntel swing state poll shows Trump leading in all seven states.

  In 2020 they were the most accurate pollster, and now they also have Trump leading nationally by 2 points.

  JUST IN: AtlasIntel, the most accurate pollster of 2020, releases their official swing state poll showing Donald Trump leading in every swing state.

  The poll shows Trump leading in Arizona and Nevada by a very comfortable margin.

  North Carolina: Trump +3.4
  Georgia: Trump +2.5… pic.twitter.com/W8EJvnIsKP

  — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 3, 2024

  *  *  *

  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
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 15:45

• The Biden-Harris' Economic Time-Bomb: A Warning To Trump & Musk
  The Biden-Harris’ Economic Time-Bomb: A Warning To Trump & Musk

  Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

  The insane neo-Keynesian policies implemented by the Biden-Harris administration have created persistent inflation and record levels of debt with two objectives: to bloat Gross Domestic Product and jobs with public spending and government jobs.

  

  The United States’ insane inflation is solely due to out-of-control spending and currency printing. Corporations, wars, or supply chains cannot cause aggregate prices to rise, nor can they consolidate the increase even at a slower pace. Although this can have an impact on individual prices, the only factor that causes aggregate prices to rise year after year is the decline in the value of the US dollar that the government issues.

  Over 20.5% accumulated inflation over the past four years, government deficit spending has reached nearly $2 trillion annually despite record tax receipts and a growing economy, public debt has reached almost $36 trillion, and the monthly job figure includes an astonishing 43,000 new government jobs each month. In 2023, nearly 25% of all job gains were government ones, and the entirety of the growth of the labor force in the past four years came from foreign workers. The latest jobs figure is so poor it seems disingenuous to blame it on hurricanes and strikes, as if economists and forecasters had not considered those two factors in their estimates. Furthermore, the only factor that continued to increase uncontrollably was the number of government jobs, adding 40,000 new positions to an overall total of just 12,000 jobs. No wonder the labor participation rate and employment-to-population ratios remain below 2019 levels. Furthermore, in the latest GDP figure, government spending accounted for 30% of the annualized growth, while investment was basically stagnant. In the past nine quarters, government spending has been one of the top drivers of GDP growth, and its contribution to GDP in the third quarter of 2024 was the largest in a year.

  This is upside-down economics in full swing. Private sector investment weakness, higher taxes for the productive economy and government spending and debt driving the economy. Of course, this never ends well.

  The Harris-Biden administration arrived in January 2021, when the economy was bouncing back strongly. Instead of allowing the private sector to thrive, it embarked on a strategy of out-of-control spending and tax increases with two objectives: increase the size of government in the economy so much that the next administration would be unable to reduce it enough in four years. The second objective was to bloat growth and job figures so aggressively that the next administration will see a recession if it reduces public sector growth. You may ask yourself why they would do it if Harris intended to win the elections. If Kamala Harris wins, she will continue to expand the size of government, inflate prices through spending and printing, and blame companies and stores for these actions.

  The Biden-Harris administration has left a massive time bomb for Trump and Elon Musk’s government efficiency office if they win. It will be almost impossible to avoid a recession if they cut discretionary spending and eliminate duplicate jobs. It is the same strategy that the socialists followed in Greece, Spain, and France, by the way.

  However, the socialist strategy may backfire. The evidence is that citizens do not value Biden’s policies and the state of the economy. The approval rate regarding the economy is atrociously low, 39.8%, according to RCP. United States citizens do not believe that they are better off than in January 2021. Inflation, immigration, and rising taxes have crippled small businesses and families. Furthermore, a strong pro-growth strategy and lower taxes will likely boost the dormant investment figure, create jobs in the private sector, and help small businesses achieve critical mass and grow. In Argentina, Milei recognized the necessary actions and cautioned the citizens about the inevitable reduction of the bloated state. The Kirchner socialists left a more significant time bomb legacy than what Trump might inherit. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Lower inflation led to lower taxation, an eight-month budget surplus, and rapidly improving public finances.

  The biggest risk for the United States economy and the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency is out-of-control public spending and constant currency printing added to tax hikes. Healing public finances and reducing government jobs may have a temporary negative impact on GDP, but higher exports, investment, and private sector jobs will likely compensate for it, and the result will be better for the US dollar and American citizens.

  More government is always poorer citizens. The potential of the United States economy’s private sector is much greater than the short-term negative impact of efficiency and budget control on headline GDP.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 15:05

• Gold – Best Asset In 2000s, But You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!
  Gold – Best Asset In 2000s, But You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet!

  Authored by Egon von Greyerz via VonGreyerz.gold,

  There is a fine line between happiness and misery, as Dickens describes in David Copperfield. Copperfield’s landlord, Mr Micawber, was just on the wrong side of happiness by six pence. 

  

  In a recent article called THE END OF THE US ECONOMIC AND MILITARY EMPIRE AND THE RISE OF GOLD, I stated: “Unsustainable deficits and galloping debt levels, combined with a crumbling military, are the perfect recipe for the end of an Empire.”

  So, we are obviously not talking about a six-pence deficit in the case of the virtually bankrupt US empire but instead about a debt that is growing exponentially, now by several trillions of dollars annually.

  History doesn’t just rhyme, but it repeats itself over and over and over again. 

  Let’s just look at the final stages of a debt crisis. 

  The table below shows the disastrous result of irresponsible governments during the last 54 years.

  

  Governments never tell their people that they consistently destroy the value of the people’s money. 

  In 1971, when Nixon took away the dollar’s gold backing, he said: “YOUR DOLLAR WILL BE WORTH AS MUCH TOMORROW”.

  If Tricky Dick was still alive today, he can, of course, argue that he didn’t lie.

  

  Because a dollar today is still worth a dollar, he would argue. But he wouldn’t tell anyone that the dollar 53 years later has lost 99% of its purchasing power.

  

  Gold is up 78X since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. The next phase will be acceleration.

  As I explain in this article, gold will rise by multiples in the coming years (obviously with corrections).

  The Roman emperors who ruled the Roman Empire from 190 to 290 AD could argue the same, although the Denarius silver coin went from almost 100% silver content to zero. 

  The same was true for Friedrich Ebert, the president of the Weimar Republic in the early 1920s. He would have argued that a Mark is always a Mark, even when it has lost 100% of its purchasing power. 

  But gold doesn’t lie. Measured in real money, an ounce of gold in 1923, was worth 87 trillion Marks.

  Until a currency totally dies in a hyperinflationary collapse, the deceit of the leaders is never revealed to public.

  But we must never forget what Voltaire said in 1729 – “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – ZERO.”

  When have we ever heard of a leader telling us that we must protect ourselves against the fraudulent destruction of our wealth by constantly debasing the value of money?

  As Alan Greenspan said in 1967:

  “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value…The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”

  Have a look at the tables above again.

  These are but a few examples of thousands of currencies having been destroyed throughout history.

  Governments create inflation by printing money and by allowing the financial system to create unlimited amounts of credit in the fractional reserve banking system. 

  In short, it means that banks and other financial institutions receive a deposit of, say, $100 and can lend 10 to 50X or $1,000 to $5,000 against that. Add derivatives, which allows the system to create trillions of dollars out of thin air. 

  This immoral and totally undisciplined financial model doesn’t just create unlimited leverage for financial players, whether they do it in banks, hedge funds, private equity, or any part of the shadow banking system. 

  This is how the total global debt of $350 trillion probably is in the quadrillions of dollars if we include all these creative “financial weapons of mass destruction”, as Warren Buffett called them. See the debt pyramid below.

  

  Until now, conventional investment assets like stocks and property have been excellent \protection as they have gone up substantially as a result of the constant growth of credit and money supply.

  So, this massive liquidity injection has created colossal paper fortunes for most investors.

  WHEN WILL IT END

  That party is now coming to an end. Valuations of these bubble assets are now at perilous levels. History tells us that manias always end badly. 

  

  But history doesn’t tell us when they will end. Will it be tomorrow, in six months or several years? 

  So, can we forecast the end?

  Well, the most exact of all sciences is hindsight. With the benefit of this very accurate method, many people will tell us afterwards that the crash was bound to happen. 

  Sadly, no one realises that this time, dip buying will fail. Still, investors will buy dip after dip until they are exhausted. So when the market has fallen further than anyone expects most investors will sit tight based on greed and FOMO (fear of missing out). And just at that point, the biggest wealth destruction in history will take place. 

  Very few will think of alternative investments like gold to preserve wealth until it is too late.

  And at that point, gold will have gone up so much in value with very few participating. Everyone will find gold too expensive. Very few will realise that gold isn’t going up, but paper money is down.

  A FASCINATING JOURNEY LEADING TO A POT OF GOLD

  I was born in Sweden and have dual Swedish / Swiss citizenship. I started my career in banking in Switzerland and then in corporate life in the UK. 

  In 1972, I was offered a job by a bank client, a small listed retail company called Dixons. I became Finance Director in 1974 at the age of 29. I was thereafter appointed Vice-Chairman. 

  We made the company to be the biggest electric and consumer electronic retailer in the UK and a FTSE 100 company. 

  It was an incredibly stimulating time building a dynamic business both organically and by acquisition. As business leaders we experienced adversity as a positive challenge. We sold electrical goods including televisions by candle light in 1974 when there was only electricity for 3 days per week due to a major coal miners’ strike. And we grew by contested takeovers of companies much bigger than ourselves.

  Corporate life in a dynamic business is extremely exciting. But since I started that career in my late 20s, I felt it was time to do my own thing in my early 40s. 

  So, in the 1990s, I started investing my own funds as well as the capital of some wealthy friends. 

  I have always been interested in understanding risk and protecting the downside, both in banking and in corporate life. 

  In the 90s I started to be concerned about the growth of debt and derivatives. So I was looking at the best ways of preserving wealth. 

  Having experienced Nixon closing the gold window and the subsequent 24X growth of the gold price from $35 in 1971 to $850 in 1980, I had always been fascinated by gold. 

  Seeing debt and especially derivatives growing with no shackles and especially tech stocks becoming a massive bubble in the late 1990s, I was convinced that gold par excellence was the best asset to preserve wealth.

  Having experienced gold go from $35 in 1971 and then correct from $850 in 1980 to $250 in 1999, I was closely watching the gold price for confirmation of a bottom. So in early 2002 we invested heavily into physical gold at $300 for ourselves and a group of co-investors that we were advising. 

  We haven’t looked back since and only increased our investment in gold over the years. Since we had created a superb system for buying and storing physical gold based on our stringent wealth preservation principles, people around the world started to ask for help.  That led to the creation of Matterhorn Asset Management / GoldSwitzerland. The name was changed at the beginning of this year to VON GREYERZ AG. 

  Today we have clients in over 90 countries and are probably the biggest company in the world outside the banking system for HNWIs acquiring and storing gold. 

  We have been actively involved in gold for soon a quarter of a century and experienced almost 10X growth in the gold price since we started the business. 

  Still, we believe that the gold journey is only starting now.

  Why, you may ask. 

  Well, gold is the best-performing asset class in this century, better than the S&P including reinvested dividends and still NOBODY OWNS GOLD.

  Only 0.5% of global financial assets are invested in gold. 

  It is totally incomprehensible that gold has gone up 9.5X. This century, investors are not even looking at it. 

  So why is gold still so unloved?

  Gold held in the investor’s name in safe vaults and jurisdictions outside the financial system is the ultimate form of wealth preservation.

  But asset managers and banks dislike gold since they can’t churn commission with an asset that can’t be turned over at regular intervals. So no commission and no performance fees. Also, very few people understand gold. 

  In my view, gold is now ready to explode, measured in paper money. 

  I have explained the reason for gold’s coming explosion in many articles, including this recent one.

  But remember that gold never goes up. All it does is to reflect governments’ and central banks’ destruction of fiat money.

  Gold is just stable purchasing power in a world where goods and services go up exponentially in price because the money you buy it with always goes to ZERO. 

  Having said that, I do expect gold to do better than just keeping pace with purchasing power in the next few years.

  Again let me make it clear – no paper money has ever, ever, ever survived in history (in its original form). 

  With such a perfect record of destroying money, why should we believe that the FED, ECB, BoE (Bank of England) or BoJ (Bank of Japan) or any other central bank will stand a chance to save the global financial system with $2-3 quadrillion of toxic exposure?

  Well, I can personally guarantee that they won’t. 

  Remember that destroying the value of money by printing quadrillions is a technical default, although no central bank will call it that. 

  And creating digital money for the central bank is just a technical diversion. 

  Debt can never be written off without totally destroying the value of the assets it supports. That is how a balance sheet or double-entry accounting works. 

  So, this global financial system will collapse, as they all have. But this is the first time it has been global. 

  BRICS countries will also suffer, but not as much as the West. 

  The coming era will be commodity-based. Take Russia, for example, with $85 trillion of natural reserves. They will be one of the major winners in the coming commodity era. They also have low debts. 

  So, let’s look at the risks.

  WAR RISK 

  There are today two major wars that could lead to global conflicts and potentially nuclear war. 

  The US is directly involved in both conflicts with weapons and money, although US territory is not threatened. The best chance for the world to avoid a global conflict is for Trump to be elected. He has both proven and stated that he will stop the war, especially in Ukraine. Harris will not change the direction of Biden and the neocons, which means a much higher risk of global conflict.

  COLLAPSE OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM

  As outlined above, this collapse is inevitable. The only question is when and to what extent. I strongly believe that most of the BRICS countries will suffer less from the collapse and emerge from it much faster. 

  The West, with its massive debt bubble and moral decadence, has already started a major secular decline that could last for centuries.

  WEALTH PRESERVATION 

  Gold is not the panacea for the problems outlined above. However, history proves that in any period of crisis, gold has always stood as a protector, both financially and for personal safety.

  But what is more important than anything else is protecting and helping family and friends. 

  Strong family ties and a group of close friends are more important than all gold in the world. 

  As Dickens said:

  

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 11/04/2024 – 14:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• "An Existential Race Amongst The Great Powers Accelerates, At The Dawn Of The AI Age"
  “An Existential Race Amongst The Great Powers Accelerates, At The Dawn Of The AI Age”

  By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

  “In the global competition on AI, the alleged role of a single, and outdated, version of an American open-source model is irrelevant when we know China is already investing more than one-trillion dollars to surpass the US on AI,” said a Meta spokesperson, defending itself against an allegation.

  The Jamestown Foundation had released an academic paper [here] with the following claim: “The military and security sectors within the People’s Republic of China are increasingly focused on integrating advanced AI technologies into operational capabilities. Meta’s open-source model Llama (Large Language Model Meta AI) has emerged as a preferred model on which to build out features tailored for military and security applications. In this way, US and US-derived technology is being deployed as a tool to enhance the PRC’s military modernization and domestic innovation efforts, with direct consequences for the United States and its allies and partners.”

  The report also stated: “In September, the former deputy director of the Academy of Military Sciences (AMS), Lieutenant General He Lei, called for the United Nations to establish restrictions on the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare. This would suggest that Beijing has an interest in mitigating the risks associated with military AI. Instead, the opposite is true. The People’s Republic of China is currently leveraging AI to enhance its own military capabilities and strategic advantages and is using Western technology to do so.”

  As the world waited for America to choose its next commander-in-chief, I spent the week thinking about security matters.

  “The number of different categories of space weapons that China has created and the speed with which they’re doing it is very threatening,” warned General Chance Saltzman, head of space operations for the US Space Force, as an existential race amongst the great powers accelerates, at the dawn of the AI Age. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 23:20

• The Future Of Debanking
  The Future Of Debanking

  Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

  Among many worrying trends is the problem of debanking. It is underreported. The victims do not like to talk about it, even among family and friends.

  It is rarely discussed at all in public forums. Only specialists write about it. But it is a threat to everyone in the most intensely effective way. The practice denies people access to the basics of life and yet there is no appeal, no process, no methods of challenge, and no remediation.

  We did not know until Melania Trump’s latest biography that she and her son Barron were victims of debanking, the practice of shutting down a person’s bank account based on an unsigned and unexplained decision in which the account holder is merely notified that all services are hereby denied.

  

  Good on her for admitting this. People rarely do.

  This apparently happened in 2021, after her husband had left the office of the presidency. There were concerted efforts at the time to wipe out the memory of his time in office.

  Back in those days, I used the home assistant app called Google Home. I asked who the 45th president was and the product responded that it had no information on that. Indeed, it was like a scene from Orwell.

  Apparently Melania and Barron were also being deleted by their own bank.

  “I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,” she wrote.

  She did not say the name of the bank. Nor do most victims of this practice. The bank simply sends a letter and encloses the balance. The victim then has to hunt around for an alternative, now with the black mark of having been canceled by another bank, which raises real questions. The problem is compounded by the absence of any real reason for the actions.

  We do not know how widespread this practice is but, anecdotally, it has clearly escalated in recent years. The same has happened to the former president, and many of his supporters.

  The Free Press comments: “Also debanked have been a number of Christian charities, including Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Memphis-based charity that does philanthropic work for orphans in Uganda, and Family Council, a pro-life charity based in Arkansas. According to Democratic lawmakers, many Arab and South-Asian Americans—who are considered ‘high risk’ because of being Muslim—have been debanked, too.”

  There is no human right to have a bank account, and banks have every legal right to decide with whom they would like to do business. They can end client services for anyone at any time and have no legal obligation to explain or allow appeal.

  Confusing matters is that banks may not necessarily want to kick out account holders but are pressured to do so by their own compliance standards. If they see a business account engaged in activity that seems even slightly sketchy—dealing with crypto or moving cash around in strange ways or taking too many deposits from a strange source—the system itself could flag the account and the process is then set in motion with no human decision-maker.

  Indeed, the letter could be sent and the account removed without any knowledge of someone at the bank. The algorithms are ruling the people in this case, a problem that has become extremely serious in a range of areas.

  At the same time, there is real danger presented when the practice is deployed for purely political reasons. It is a digital application of the principle of Sun Tzu: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” Debanking allows exactly this.

  Banking services exert an incredible power over our lives. Our automatic payments keep the lights on, the mortgage paid up, and the cellphone going. The debit cards and credit cards hooked into them are the lifeblood of our living standards. Try to function even a day or two without them and you’d see what I mean.

  Having them suddenly cut off is like falling into the abyss. You can march down to bank headquarters and demand answers, but this much I promise you: You will get none. Probably no one there, not even the branch manager, has any answer. For whatever reason, the powers that be have decided that your account is not one they want and that is the end of it. There is no one to sue because no one did anything wrong. Granting banking services is at the discretion of the bank, period.

  The problem is that the banking system is integral to power itself, regulated by agencies and holding vast amounts of government debt in a system that is ultimately overseen by the legislative and executive branches. That makes banking political, not just in the United States but all over the world. The discovery by political elites that they can weaponize the banking system should alarm anyone and everyone simply because it allows the punishment of political enemies through surreptitious means.

  The Free Press points to “an emerging, bipartisan, anti-debanking bloc on Capitol Hill.” They quote Ro Khanna, a Democratic representative from California. “Every American should have the ability to take out a loan or save for their future without fear of discrimination or having their accounts closed without explanation,” Khanna said, according to the publication.

  Indeed, that seems entirely reasonable. There needs to be some action taken before this gets out of hand, which it will very quickly in today’s contentious political environment.

  Experts on this topic all agree: The debanked need to speak out about this now, posting letters and recording communications. It’s the only way we draw public attention to this.

  There is a broader problem relating to the creation of social-credit systems around the world, most especially in China. Political compliance becomes a standard of inclusion in financial and social life generally. It’s a highly effective way that regimes can carefully and quietly control their citizens. It has no place in a free society, and it seems like our laws ought to be clear about that.

  Even if the technology allows it, even if the algorithms dictate it, we need systems in which banks and other financial institutions cannot end services for people without some explicitly cited reason and an opportunity for appeal, in addition to some legal recourse in the case of arbitrary action. Taking those steps would help underscore the point that this society aspires to be free and grants its citizens dignity and rights.

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 22:10

• Medvedev: US Election Doesn't Matter, Ukraine War Won't Stop, And Trump May Get JFK'd If He Intervenes
  Medvedev: US Election Doesn’t Matter, Ukraine War Won’t Stop, And Trump May Get JFK’d If He Intervenes

  Days after Russia launched a massive readyness drill of their nuclear forces, former Russian President and current deputy chairman of the country’s Security Counsel Dmitry Medvedev says that the outcome of the US election doesn’t matter, as both candidates believe “Russia must be defeated,” and that if Donald Trump is elected and tries to intervene, he may be assassinated.

  

  Medvedev made the comments to his nearly 1.4 million followers on Telegram.

  The entire post, translated (emphasis ours);

  The whole world stands frozen in uneasy anticipation, waiting for the results of the presidential election in the distant land of ‘Us.

  There is no reason why we should have high expectations about it.

  1. The outcome of the election will not change anything for Russia, as both candidates share the same bipartisan consensus that ‘Russia must be defeated’.

  2. Kamala is dumb, inexperienced, and easy to control, as she will be terrified of everyone around her. All the real decision-making will be done by a coterie of top ministers and advisors plus (indirectly) the Obamas.

  3. A low-energy Trump, spewing clichés like “I’ll offer them a deal” and “I have a very good relationship with…”, will be forced to comply with the system and its rules. He won’t stop the war. Not in one day, not in three days, not in three months. And if he actually attempts to do it, he could end up becoming the new JFK.

  4. The only thing that matters is how much cash the new POTUS can squeeze out of Congress to finance someone else’s war, fought in a far-off land. Cash to feed the American military-industrial complex and to line the pockets of the Banderite scum in Ukraine.

  5. That is why, if we want to please both candidates for the highest American office, the best thing to do on November 5 is keep pummeling the Nazi regime in Kiev!

  Meanwhile, Medvedev reiterated to Russian state-controlled news agency RT that adding Ukraine to NATO could lead to World War III.

  “Shortly before his death, already at a very mature age, he (Kissinger) as if with some regret suggested that now we have no choice but to accept Ukraine into NATO,” he told the outlet. “I think that he was still mistaken in this. There is no such predetermination. Because, choosing between some promises and the possibility of starting a third world war—the choice is still quite obvious.”

  Ukraine’s long-held goal of NATO membership was among the objectives in the Victory Plan that Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky unveiled during a visit to the U.S. in September.

  Kyiv’s ambassador to the alliance Nataliia Galibarenko said in October that the Ukrainian government would like a formal invitation to join the alliance before President Joe Biden leaves office in January.

  Along with claims of alliance encroachment on Russia, Moscow often refers to the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO to justify its actions. Kyiv says it needs to join NATO to resist any future Russian aggression. -Newsweek

  He also told RT that Moscow believes the current US and European political establishments lack the “foresight and subtlety of mind” of Kissinger, and should take the Kremlin’s nuclear warnings seriously.

  “If we are talking about the existence of our state, as the president of our country has repeatedly said, your humble servant has said, others have said, of course, we simply will not have any choice,” he said, per Sky News and The Sun, adding that the US and the West are “wrong” if they think Putin won’t turn to nuclear weapons if NATO sought to inflict a defeat on Russia in the Ukraine war.

  “If the new [US] leader is going to be fiercely dedicated to adding fuel to the fire of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it will be a very bad choice,” adding “Because this is the road to hell.”

  “It’s really a road to World War Three,” he continued. “Whoever decides to continue the war will be making a very dangerous mistake.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 21:35

• What's Wrong In Our Nation?
  What’s Wrong In Our Nation?

  Authored by Star Parker via The Epoch Times,

  As we move to the conclusion of this election cycle, there seems to be only one thing about which all Americans agree.

  That is, that something is very wrong in our nation.

  

  In the latest Gallup polling, only 22 percent say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. The highest this has been over the last 16 years was 45 percent back in February of 2020.

  So, despite change in party control over these years, the sense that something is wrong in the country has persisted.

  More in the framework of this election, only 39 percent say they are better off than they were four years ago, and 52 percent say they are not better off.

  Most Americans do not even have confidence in the sources where they get their news. Only 31 percent say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in mass media. The first time Gallup asked this question, back in 1972, 68 percent expressed confidence in mass media.

  A record high percent of Americans, 80 percent, say the country is “greatly divided” on the most important values.

  In a New York Times/Siena College poll, only 49 percent say “American democracy does a good job representing the people.” And 76 percent say “American democracy is currently under threat.”

  All agree that something is wrong, but no consensus emerges about what exactly is the problem.

  Is it possible to put a finger on what is causing the cynicism and disillusionment that grips the psyche of our nation?

  My view is the problem is the drift of the nation from its founding principles.

  To put it another way, we have no choice about whether we have faith or belief. But we do have choice about what it is we believe.

  The dramatic change that has taken place in America is the uprooting of the Bible as our starting point for right and wrong.

  We have exchanged our faith in God for a faith in government.

  In 1950, Gallup reports 0 percent of Americans said they have no religion. By 1970, this was up to 3 percent. And by 2023, this was up to 22 percent.

  Over this same time, in 1950, the federal government consumed 14.2 percent of our GDP. The estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is that in 2024, that percent will be 23.9 percent.

  The preamble to our Constitution explains its purpose is “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.”

  Our Constitution was not presumed to be the source of our freedom. We are already free by virtue, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, of being created thus by our God.

  Our Constitution was designed to limit interference by government in the ability of free, God-fearing men and women to live their lives as they see fit.

  The guideline for behavior, for right and wrong, is that which is transmitted to us from our Creator through the Bible.

  Under this reality, America grew and became great.

  However, success brings the sin of pride, and we begin to attribute our success to our cleverness rather than our faith and personal responsibility. As increasing numbers of Americans have turned away from God, they have turned more to government.

  The sad paradox is that as Americans turn to government, they abrogate the very freedom that the founders envisioned government’s role to secure.

  The result is less economic growth, breakdown of the American family and disappearance of children.

  Growth of government, growth of federal debt, and no children is no formula for a country with a future.

  I believe this is what Americans are sensing and what is producing all the negative feelings and pessimism.

  We must return to the vision of our founders.

  A free nation, under God. And a Constitution that secures “the blessings of liberty.”

  Short of this, although we may experience ups and downs, the nation will not realize its great potential.

  *  *  *

  Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 21:00

• America's Out Of Control Debt "Is A National Security Threat" – Judy Shelton On Gold & Global Peace
  America’s Out Of Control Debt “Is A National Security Threat” – Judy Shelton On Gold & Global Peace

  “I want the United States to be the leader if there’s any kind of gold backing to a currency.”

  – Judy Shelton

  Economic advisor to former President Donald Trump, Judy Shelton, joins GoldTelegraph’s Alex Deluce for a captivating conversation spanning a wide range of subjects.

  

  Judy Shelton is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of the book Good as Gold: How to Unleash the Power of Sound Money.

  She is the former Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy and former U.S. Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. She has testified before the U.S. Senate Banking, Senate Foreign Relations, House Banking, House Foreign Affairs, and Joint Economic Committee.

  In their conversation, Deluce and Shelton explore a series of compelling topics, highlighted by Judy’s riveting career stories, including her interactions with figures like Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and other influential central bankers.

  One of the most powerful revelations she shared was Paul Volcker’s frank admission: he had always believed the United States would eventually return to the Bretton Woods system.

  For those unfamiliar, Volcker was referencing the pivotal moment known as the Nixon Shock in 1971, when President Nixon abruptly suspended the U.S. dollar’s convertibility into gold, shattering the foundation of the Bretton Woods system.

  At that historic moment in history, Volcker served as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Monetary Affairs.

  This marked the transition to a pure fiat monetary system.

  Deluce and Shelton get into a wide-ranging conversation that covers many topics, which include:

  • The US Dollar

  • The U.S. National Debt as a Security Threat

  • Federal Reserve’s Role in America’s debt and Financial Instability

  • Historical Perspectives on Monetary Policy

  • Potential Return to a Gold-Backed System

  • Comparisons Between Soviet Central Planning and Current Economic Policies

  • BRICS Countries and Global Financial Shifts

  • Treasury Bond Backed by Gold and the Potential for Gold Backed Stablecoins

  TIMESTAMPS:

  0:49 – How much does the US dollar’s global dominance depend on the upcoming election?

  2:08 – Is debt a threat to U.S. national security?

  3:20 – How responsible is the Federal Reserve for America’s current debt level?

  7:54 – How has the Federal Reserve contributed to the financial instability we face today?

  13:22 – How do you see today’s shifting global landscape, given your deep background in historical analysis?

  19:46 – Are we on the verge of another major global monetary shift, and what might it look like?

  29:13 – Was there a specific moment or event early in your career that sparked your interest in the study of gold?

  34:09 – Memorable stories from your conversations with Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker and Robert Mandel

  39:22 – How do you define sound money?

  46: 14 – How interconnected are sound money, economic opportunity, stability, and global peace, especially in today’s polarized world?

  49:51 – Why do you think so many policymakers dismiss and mock gold, even as global demand is at records and central banks are stockpiling?

  54:13 – How does the Fed’s dual mandate open it to political vulnerabilities, and could a rules-based system address these issues?

  59:37 – How does the Fed’s centralized control over interest rates affect what is supposed to be a market-based economy?

  1:02:48 – Are central banks aggressive policies eroding or undermining capitalism and the concept of free markets?

  1:06:23 – Are BRICS nations positioning gold to become a unit of account and medium of exchange, potentially bypassing the traditional financial system?

  1:09:38 – Could imposing tariffs on countries that move away from the dollar actually help America maintain its financial muscle?

  1:14:47 – What gives you hope for potential reforms that could create a monetary system supporting economic freedom and stability for everyone?

  1:16:58 – Could we potentially see you in the next administration advocating for these policies?

  Watch the full interview below:

  GOLD TELEGRAPH CONVERSATIONS #1:
  JUDY SHELTON

  “I want the United States to be the leader if there’s any kind of gold backing to a currency.” – @judyshel

  Economic advisor to former President Donald Trump, Judy Shelton, joins me for a captivating conversation spanning a wide… pic.twitter.com/gmk9GqBCPz

  — Gold Telegraph ⚡ (@GoldTelegraph_) November 3, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 20:25

• What Drives US Voters
  What Drives US Voters

  By Philip Marey, Senior US Strategist at Rabobank (also available in pdf format)

  Summary

  • We analyze a 2022 survey from AP VoteCast to understand what drives US voters. We find that voters who judged economic conditions as “poor”, were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the Senate or the House of Representatives, punishing the Biden-Harris administration. In contrast, those who considered economic conditions to be “good” were more likely to vote Democrat. However, voters who judged economic conditions as “not so good” were also more likely to favor a Democrat, suggesting that Biden did not get all of the blame for the disappointing economy or that voters made a trade-off between the economy and other issues.

  • On social policy issues, voters are more likely to vote for a Republican if they think that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, if they think that the racism issue is not too or not at all serious, if they were not too or not at all concerned about COVID and if they strongly favor increased border security.

  • We also found that demographic characteristics determined US voter behavior. Men are more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, women and non-binary people are more likely to vote Democrat. The same is true for Black, Latino and Asian people. White people are more likely to vote Republican. People with a higher income are more likely to vote Republican, but – at a given income level – college graduates and people with a postgraduate degree are more likely to vote Democrat.

  • While this confirms several stereotypes, we also find some more nuanced results. For example, the probability of voting Republican increases with age until it peaks at the 50-64 segment, then it falls back a little. Moreover, if we take a closer look at the Hispanic vote, we find that Cuban Americans are more likely to vote Republican. Finally, it should be noted that the regression results imply that Black men are less likely to vote Democrat than Black women.

  • We also find that pop culture affects voter behavior, with people having a favorable view of Taylor Swift more likely to vote Democrat – even within their age cohort– and those with an unfavorable view of her more likely to vote Republican.

  • For the 2024 elections, our results suggest that the economy is a drag on the Harris campaign, but there are opportunities to offset this through social policy issues such as abortion. What’s more, our results show that in demographic terms Kamala Harris more closely resembles the typical Democratic voter than Joe Biden, which could help explain the increase in enthusiasm among Democratic voters after she replaced him at the top of the ticket. However, our results also explain why Harris has difficulty convincing Black men to vote for her: they are less likely to vote Democrat than Black women more generally, even if she is not on the ticket.

  Introduction

  The 2022 US midterm elections presented a complex political landscape. This report uses data from the AP VoteCast survey to delve into the various factors that shaped voter behavior and electoral outcomes, focusing on three key areas: the impact of economic anxieties on voting behavior, the changes in policies on abortion and immigration, and the demographics of American voters. The 2022 midterms occurred against a backdrop of significant economic uncertainty, with inflation emerging as a dominant concern among voters. As inflation hit a 40-year high of 9.1% in June 2022, Americans expressed growing anxiety about their financial wellbeing, despite a low unemployment rate of 3.6%. By November 2022, inflation had started to fall, but was still very high at 7.1%.

  

  The 2022 midterms also demonstrated the rapid evolution of voter priorities. Just two years earlier, during the height of the pandemic, healthcare and public health concerns dominated the political discourse. By 2022, these issues had taken a backseat to inflation. However, despite the changes in priorities compared to the 2020 elections, voters were still concerned with  non-economic issues. Figure 2 and 3 show the responses of voters to “Which one of the following would you say is the single most important issue for you?”

  The economy was the main concern among both Democrats and Republicans, with 33.2% and 63.2% of respondents choosing it respectively. However, for Democrats climate change, abortion and healthcare followed closely. For Republicans, at some distance, immigration and crime were mentioned most often.

  Regarding abortion, The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had a significant impact on the 2022 midterm elections. For about a quarter of voters, the Court’s decision was the single most important factor in their midterm vote. This figure increased to more than 3 in 10 among groups traditionally aligned with prochoice positions: Democratic voters, younger women, and first-time voters. These voters predominantly supported Democratic candidates. The impact was particularly pronounced among women of color. Majorities of Black and Hispanic women reported that the Supreme Court decision influenced their voting behavior. Finally, a key issue for Republican voters in 2022 was immigration, because of a surge in the number of migrant apprehensions at the southern border. Democrats, however, ranked immigration as their last concern.

  

  The data set from the 2022 midterms offers valuable insights into US voter behavior. It reveals that while economic concerns were at the forefront of voter priorities, these were not the only factors driving electoral decisions. The economic anxieties that dominated the political discourse led to a Republican majority in the House. However, the data also underscores the continued significance of non-economic issues, such as abortion and immigration, in shaping voter behavior. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade emerged as a pivotal factor, underscoring the powerful role of social issues in mobilizing the electorate.

  Data and model

  Our analysis is grounded in a comprehensive dataset primarily sourced from AP VoteCast, a nationwide survey conducted after midterm and general elections in the US comprising more than 100 thousand respondents. This data provides direct insights into the demographics, sentiments, and perceptions on various economic and non-economic topics of individual voters. AP VoteCast, initiated in 2018, combines interviews with randomly sampled registered voters from state voter files and self-identified registered voters from NORC’s AmeriSpeak® panel and nonprobability online panels.

  To examine the relationships between voters’ attitudes and their candidate preferences, we employ a logistic regression model. The regression analysis of the data at the individual level helps us understand how these various factors interact and influence voting behavior. We can analyze the impact of economic factors and social policy issues, given the demographic characteristics and vice versa. This means that we can isolate the pure effects of economic factors, social policy issues and demographic characteristics on voter behavior at the micro level, rather than effects at the macro level that are distorted by the composition of the sample.

  Empirical results

  Our regression results can be described as follows. In 2022, voters who judged economic conditions as “poor”, were more likely to vote for a Republican candidate in the Senate or the House of Representatives. This is a plausible result since the Democrats (the Biden-Harris administration) were in charge of economic policy. In contrast, those who considered economic conditions to be “good” were more likely to vote Democrat. Interestingly, also voters who judged economic conditions as “not so good” favored a Democrat. So some voters were willing to forgive Biden or thought that he was not (fully) to blame for the economic conditions. We should not forget that high inflation in 2021 and 2022 was not restricted to the US, although the empirical evidence suggests that excessive fiscal policy has made it worse. Also, some voters could be making a trade-off between the economy and other issues. For example, if you oppose making abortion illegal, you may be willing to tolerate some economic adversity from the party that is pro-choice.

  Now let’s turn to these social policy issues. Voters who thought that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases were more likely to vote Republican. In contrast, voters who though that abortion should be legal in most cases were more likely to support a Democratic candidate. Voters who were not too or not at all concerned about COVID were more likely to vote Republican, while voters who were somewhat or very concerned favored the Democrats. Compared to voters who strongly favored increased border security, those who only somewhat favored this or opposed this were more likely to vote Democrat. Those who thought the racism issue was not too or not at all serious were more likely to vote Republican compared to those who thought it was somewhat or very serious.

  These questions were all about political issues, but we also found that demographic characteristics – even after correcting for economic and social policy issues – determined voter behavior. In particular, women and non-binary people were more likely to vote Democrat. The same is true of Black, Latino and Asian people. Age also matters, as people above 30 are more likely to vote Republican. This probability increases with age until it peaks at the 50-64 segment. People of 65 and older are also more likely to vote Republican, but not as much as the cohort below. If we look at education, we find that college graduates and people with a postgraduate degree are more likely to vote Democrat. In contrast, people with a higher income are more likely to vote Republican. This may seem contradictory because people with a higher education tend to have a higher income. However, our regression allows us to identify the effects of education given a certain level of income and vice versa. So if two persons with the same education differ only in their income level, then the one with the higher income is more likely to vote Republican. And if two people with the same income level differ only in their level of education, then the higher educated person is more likely to vote Democrat.

  

  To summarize, the Republican voter in 2022 could be characterized as an older white male with a higher income but no college degree who judged economic conditions as poor, who thought that abortion should be illegal, strongly favored increased border security, was not too or not at all concerned by COVID and thought that the racism issue was not too or not at all serious. In contrast, a Democratic voter was typically a younger college-educated woman of color with a lower income who judged economic conditions as good or not so good, who thought that abortion should be legal, did not strongly favor increased border security and was concerned about COVID and racism.

  While table 1 may confirm several stereotypes, the regression results show some nuances. Take age for example: the tendency to vote Republican rises with age, but falls back a little for people of 65 and older. We have also taken a closer look at ethnicity and found that not all Hispanic groups exhibit the same voting behavior. In particular, Cuban Americans are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. This can likely be attributed to the tougher foreign policy stance of the GOP regarding Cuba. Hispanics from all other countries of origin are more likely to vote Democrat. Finally, since the regression isolates the effect of being Black from being a man, the results explain why Kamala Harris is currently having trouble getting support from Black men. Note that these regression results are based on the 2022 midterms, so well before Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket. It shows that Black men being less likely to vote Democrat than Black women is not specific to presidential elections. While former president Obama recently suggested that Black men “just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president”, Democrats should probably better ask themselves why one of their key demographics has been drifting toward the GOP for some time now. The Democrats’ “Opportunity agenda for Black men” that they are now suddenly rolling out may be too little too late for this year’s election.

  The Taylor Swift effect

  The 2022 midterms also highlight an intriguing connection between pop culture and political preferences. In 2020 Taylor Swift released the song “Only the young” – a political anthem aimed to encourage young adults to “speak up and stand for what is right.” It made references to the surprise victory of Donald Trump in 2016 and how the young voters were outnumbered. Swift’s influence reflects broader trends in youth political engagement. Her public support for Democratic candidates, particularly her advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, and opposition to systemic racism, aligns with issues that resonate strongly with younger voters. This alignment is significant given that Swift’s fan base largely consists of Millennials and Gen Z, demographics that statistically lean more liberal and are generally more receptive to social justice movements. The “Taylor Swift effect” thus serves as a microcosm of larger cultural shifts influencing political engagement among younger voters.

  This raises two interesting questions: are Taylor Swift fans more likely to vote Democrat, and if so, is this simply a reflection of their age cohort being more liberal, or are “Swifties” (Taylor Swift fans) actually more likely to vote Democrat than other people with the same demographic characteristics? We find that people with a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” view of Taylor Swift are more likely to vote Democrat. In contrast, those with a “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” view of her are more likely to vote Republican. Note that the regression takes into account age, so even within the subset of Millennials and Gen Z those with a favorable view of Taylor Swift are more likely to vote Democrat. In this sense, the “Taylor Swift effect” is real. After the debate between Trump and Harris on September 10, Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris “because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them.” Swift’s endorsement could help raise the voter turnout among a demographic that is culturally close to the values of the Democrats.

  Conclusion

  Our findings reveal that while economic anxieties drove many voters towards Republican candidates in 2022, social issues and demographics provided countervailing forces, contributing to the Democrats’ stronger-than-expected performance. In our midterm preview in 2022, we explained that based on economic performance, Biden’s approval rating and the usual midterm loss for the party occupying the White House, the Republicans should be heading for a landslide victory in the midterms, but that the more modest polling results suggested that other factors, such as abortion, could be leading to Republican underperformance, as it did on Election Day.

  For the 2024 elections, our results suggest that the economy is likely a drag on the Harris campaign, but there are opportunities to offset this through social policy issues such as abortion. What’s more, while Kamala Harris may have been picked as Vice-President to balance the 2020 Democratic ticket, our regression results show that she is not just another demographic of the Democratic Party, but she actually gets close to representing the typical Democratic voter. This could help explain the recent enthusiasm among Democratic voters that was absent when Biden was on top of the presidential ticket. This also meant that picking Tim Walz as VP candidate was necessary to balance the ticket and attract swing voters. However, our results also show that Black men have been less likely to vote Democrat than Black women well before Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic ticket. Taking a key demographic for granted could hurt the Democratic Party well beyond the 2024 presidential election.

  Also available in pdf format.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 19:50

• How Chinese Traders Will Help Drive Gold to $3,000+
  How Chinese Traders Will Help Drive Gold to $3,000+

  By Jesse Colombo of the Bubble Bubble Substack

  In my debut Substack article on September 6th, I theorized that Chinese futures traders would return from their summer hiatus with renewed vigor, to drive gold prices sharply higher once again in an encore of their spring performance, when they pushed prices up by $400, or 23%, in just six weeks. When I wrote that article, gold was trading at $2,497 an ounce; today, it stands at $2,738 an ounce. I’m now providing an update because the trend I anticipated is unfolding as expected, and I believe the most thrilling, explosive phase is still to come.

  The Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) gold futures were the primary vehicle behind the gold frenzy in March and April, a surge that subsequently spilled over into international gold prices:

  

  A fascinating Financial Times article from that time titled “Chinese Speculators Super-Charge Gold Rally” highlighted how trading volume in SHFE gold futures had surged by 400%, propelling gold prices to record highs:

  

  The spring Chinese gold trading frenzy can also be seen in the chart of long open interest in SHFE gold futures:

  

  Following the Chinese-driven gold frenzy in the spring, it was as if a switch flipped off on April 15th, leading SHFE gold futures to trade sideways for five months. In my original September 6th article, I explained that SHFE gold futures were merely taking a pause, likely setting the stage for another surge similar to the one seen in the spring. I also noted that a decisive close above the 585 resistance level would trigger a new rally in gold prices—not only in China but globally. As the chart below shows, that’s precisely what’s happening:

  

  As shown in the chart below, the international spot price of gold in U.S. dollars traded in a choppy manner from April until mid-September, when it hit an inflection point and began climbing vigorously once again. This timing is no coincidence; it aligns with SHFE gold futures breaking out of their trading range, drawing Chinese traders—known for their strong affinity for gold—back into the market.

  

  Technical analysis of SHFE gold futures implies that the international gold price in U.S. dollars should reach approximately $3,000 per ounce during the current rally. This projection relies on the concept of a “measured move,” where the price following a consolidation pattern or trading range is expected to rise by the same number of points as the rally preceding the consolidation. The diagram below illustrates how measured moves work:

  

  The chart of SHFE gold futures below shows a 105 yuan/gram rally in the spring, followed by a five-month trading range. This suggests that the current rally should also reach 105 yuan/gram, projecting a target of 690 yuan/gram, or roughly $3,000 per ounce. This target is also logical because $3,000 is a significant psychological level, and major levels like that typically act like a magnet for prices. And, in case $3,000 seems ambitious, it’s only a 9.3% increase from current levels. I’m confident that gold will climb even higher in the course of this bull market, though it may pause or consolidate around the $3,000 level for a time to catch its breath.

  

  Gold analysts and investors who closely follow developments in China often monitor whether the domestic Chinese gold price trades at a premium or discount compared to the international price. In recent months, China’s domestic gold price experienced an unusual discount of up to $40.60 per ounce against the international price. However, this discount has quickly reversed following the breakout in SHFE gold futures, with Chinese gold now trading at a $1.10 per ounce premium over the international price. This transition from a discount to a premium is an indication that gold trading activity in China is starting to heat up once again.

  

  Another sign that gold trading activity in China is heating up is the recent increase in SHFE gold futures trading volume over the past two months. As seen in the chart, volume surged dramatically during the spring rally. While trading activity is currently rising in a measured and orderly way, I expect it to ramp up significantly as the rally progresses toward $3,000. That’s when the real frenzy in Chinese gold trading will likely begin in earnest.

  

  Despite rising gold prices and increased trading activity, the high cost of gold has actually dampened physical consumer demand in China. According to Bloomberg, overall demand fell by 22% to 218 tons in the three months leading to September, with jewelry consumption dropping 29% to 130 tons and bar and coin purchases declining 9% to 69 tons. This suggests that the rapid price surge has created sticker shock for many Chinese consumers, who are likely waiting for a price dip to buy at more favorable levels.

  The reality is that high gold prices are here to stay, however, with even further increases ahead as global debt, money supply, and inflation continue to rise. Soon—possibly during the intense “frenzy phase” I mentioned—physical gold buyers may recognize that prices aren’t dropping and, driven by the fear of missing out (FOMO), start buying aggressively before prices climb even higher. This shift in behavior will only add further fuel to the fire.

  Another factor supporting the bullish outlook for gold in China is the country’s struggling economy, weighed down by the collapse of massive bubbles in real estate and the stock market. In response, the Chinese government recently announced a plan to issue special sovereign bonds totaling approximately 2 trillion yuan ($284.43 billion) this year as part of a new fiscal stimulus. Fiscal and monetary stimulus programs are typically bullish for gold because they add to national debt, debase the currency, and drive inflation higher. Burdened by a substantial overhang of bad debt, inflated asset prices, “zombie” companies, and a rapidly aging population, China is now on a path toward an addiction to stimulus to keep its economy afloat—much like the United States, Europe, and Japan.

  

  In conclusion, the stage is set for Chinese traders and investors to continue fueling a powerful rally in gold prices, pushing it to $3,000 and then beyond. Now that SHFE gold futures have broken out of their consolidation and trading activity is heating up once again, all indicators point toward a renewed surge that could mirror or even surpass the intensity of the spring rally. Meanwhile, China’s economic struggles and increasing reliance on stimulus add further support to the bullish outlook for gold. As global debt and inflationary pressures rise, and with Chinese physical gold investors and consumers likely to return in droves once they recognize that high gold prices are here to stay, the conditions are primed for an explosive phase in the gold market. This momentum, driven by both domestic factors in China and international dynamics, is likely just the beginning of an even greater upward trend.

  Also watch the video presentation of this report:

  The Bubble Bubble Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support Jesse’s work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 18:40

• 'A Coordinated Effort' To Rig States – Rogan Exposes Democrats' Plan To Destroy American Democracy…
  ‘A Coordinated Effort’ To Rig States – Rogan Exposes Democrats’ Plan To Destroy American Democracy…

  “Undeniably,” admits Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman to podcaster Joe Rogan, “immigration is changing our nation.”

   The two men spoke about a wide variety of political topics ranging from how Donald Trump won in 2016 to how immigration stands as a key issue in the election today.

  Specifically, Fetterman played the Democratic Party card, claiming that Republicans in 2024 “had an opportunity to do a comprehensive border-bipartisan-and that went down because Trump, he declared that that’s a bad deal after it was negotiated with the other side.”

  

  Rogan then brutally ‘fact-checked’ the stammering senator, pointing out the reality that that the deal made many concessions that Republicans concerned about the border found to be unacceptable.

  “But, didn’t that deal also involved amnesty,” responded Rogan,“and didn’t that deal also involve a significant number of illegal aliens being allowed into the country every year?” 

  Silence from Fetterman.

  Rogan continued:

  “I think it was 2 million people. So still the same sort of situation. And their fear is exactly what I talked about, that these people will be moved to swing states and that that will be used to essentially rig those states and turn them blue forever.“

  Finally, the PA Senator responded

  “I’ve never witnessed those kinds [illegals voting] of a thing… I don’t think there’s that level kinds of organization.“

  

  But Rogan once again would not allow the politician to ‘lie’ pointing out that “there is an organization that’s moving these people [illegals] to swing states.”

  “There’s a significant number of these people that are illegal immigrants that have made their way to swing states.

  And then there’s been calls for amnesty. There’s been calls for allowing these people to have a pathway to citizenship and allow them to vote.

  The fear that a lot of people have is that this is a coordinated effort to take these people that you’re allowing to come into the country, then you’re providing them with all sorts of services like food stamps and housing and setting them up and then providing a pathway to amnesty.

  And then you would have voters that would be significantly voting towards the Democrats because they’re the people that enabled them to come into the country in the first place, first place and provided them with those services.

  This is a big fear that people have and that you’re rigging this system and that this will turn all these states into essentially locked blue like California is.”

  Fetterman’s responds:

  “undeniably,” adding that “immigration is changing our nation.”

  “I haven’t spent a lot of time in Texas but it’s very clear that immigration has remade Texas and I think it’s generally, it’s a good thing.”

  Watch the discussion on immigration below:

  John Fetterman eventually admits to Joe Rogan that Democrats’ ‘Border Bill’ merely converted illegal immigrants into legal immigrants, rather than preventing illegal immigration:
  John Fetterman: “I’ve never witnessed those kinds of a thing.” [Illegals voting]
  I don’t think… pic.twitter.com/sEs6Xd0pEJ

  — Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) November 2, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 18:05

• In Addition To Not Being Funny, SNL May Have Violated Election Law With Kamala Cameo
  In Addition To Not Being Funny, SNL May Have Violated Election Law With Kamala Cameo

  Vice President Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” last night – playing herself across from Maya Rudolph’s version of her in the show’s cold open.

  Kamala Harris spent THREE HOURS rehearsing for this cringe fest on SNL.

  Complete with the fake black accent.

  This is a tough watch. Good Lord. pic.twitter.com/B3RbafOsH9

  — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 3, 2024

  It was essentially an exact copy of Trump’s appearance in 2015, except not funny.

  Kamala Harris SNL skit DIRECTLY copied Trump’s from 2015.

  Can she do ANYTHING original at all? https://t.co/RX3zMprYfo pic.twitter.com/wwbdVJgig1

  — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 3, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsWhat’s more, it may have violated election laws.

  As Michael Shellenberger points out, “The producer of Saturday Night Live said neither Harris nor Trump would appear on the show “because of election laws.” Last night, about 60 hours before polls open, he put Harris on the show in a warm & humanizing sketch. He and NBC violated the equal time provision of the law.”

  On October 1, 2024, Hollywood Reporter published this article. It said, “In a recent interview ahead of the show’s 50th season, SNL creator and long-running maestro Lorne Michaels revealed that he hadn’t reached out to the real-life candidates, and he didn’t intend to before the… pic.twitter.com/3olU8qMmeT

  — Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) November 3, 2024

  Continued:

  That article linked to a September 19 interview between Michaels and SNL cast members, Colin Jost and Michael Che. Weirdly, however, the September 19 does not contain the Lorne Michaels quote referred to in the October 1 Hollywood Reporter article. Even more weirdly, neither does the WayBack Machine’s first capture of the article on September 19.

  

  The reason that’s weird is that many media outlets reported on Michaels’ statement in early October.

  

  

  NBC clearly violated the law. In a 2022 fact sheet, FCC writes, “FCC rules seek to ensure that no legally qualified candidate for office is unfairly given less access to the airwaves – outside of bona fide news exemptions – than their opponent.”

  

  I will interview @BrendanCarrFCC about this at 11:45 ET on an X Spaces— please tune in https://t.co/PaCiLoVUfP

  — Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) November 3, 2024

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

   

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 17:45

• 'Fourth Turning' Election Igniting A Firestorm
  ‘Fourth Turning’ Election Igniting A Firestorm

  Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

  “Imagine some national (and probably global) volcanic eruption, initially flowing along channels of distress that were created during the Unraveling era and further widened by the catalyst. Trying to foresee where the eruption will go once it bursts free of the channels is like trying to predict the exact fault line of an earthquake. All you know in advance is something about the molten ingredients of the climax, which could include the following:

  Economic distress, with public debt in default, entitlement trust funds in bankruptcy, mounting poverty and unemployment, trade wars, collapsing financial markets, and hyperinflation (or deflation)

  Social distress, with violence fueled by class, race, nativism, or religion and abetted by armed gangs, underground militias, and mercenaries hired by walled communities

  Political distress, with institutional collapse, open tax revolts, one-party hegemony, major constitutional change, secessionism, authoritarianism, and altered national borders

  Military distress, with war against terrorists or foreign regimes equipped with weapons of mass destruction”

  The Fourth Turning – Strauss & Howe

  

  How many times have you heard this is the most important election of our lifetimes in the last few weeks? When Strauss & Howe published The Fourth Turning in 1997, the national debt was $5.4 trillion, and the country was running an annual deficit of $22 billion. We now add $22 billion of debt every 4 days, amounting to $2 trillion per year. They postulated the major catalysts for the next Fourth Turning would be debt, civic decay, and global disorder.

  As we enter the 17th year of this Crisis, no one can question their prescience in predicting the facilitators which have propelled this ongoing Crisis thus far. The volcanic debt eruption created by the Federal Reserve and their Wall Street cabal owners in 2008 initiated all the chaos, debt creation, crushing inflation, authoritarian measures, social decay, celebration of delusion, delegitimization of the regime media and their corrupt government co-conspirators, and the rise of Trump. This country, and most of the western world, is experiencing extreme economic, social, political and military distress, as this upcoming election is guaranteed to ignite a civil and global conflagration.

  

  No matter the result of this election, the losing side will not accept the outcome. It has been unequivocally evident for several weeks Trump would win this election in a landslide, on par with Reagan’s destruction of Mondale in 1984, if the Democrat cheat machine of fraudulent mail-in ballots, illegal hordes voting, and ever trusty Dominion vote switching algorithms cannot overcome his overwhelming margin.

  Those pulling the levers are willing to do anything to retain power, not excluding assassination of Trump, initiating WW3 or some other manufactured crisis to cancel the election, illegal lawfare schemes to convict Trump of fake crimes or prevent his inauguration in January, or releasing their BLM, Antifa, and Illegal terrorist hordes into the streets to wreak havoc and initiate civil war. The treasonous bastards who stole the 2020 election and have committed crimes against the American people fear the retribution and prison sentences which could be inflicted upon them if Trump wins. They will not go silently into the night.

  The Deep State skullduggery implemented through election fraud shenanigans, using their captured Soros judges and district attorneys to commit illegal lawfare, will rile the normies (aka deplorables, aka garbage) if they feel another election has been stolen by these treasonous totalitarians. Normal Americans have reached their breaking point. They have seen their bank accounts defunded by the Biden/Harris inflationary tsunami, unleashed by their covid debacle and ironically named Inflation Reduction Act, and their enablers at the Federal Reserve who printed trillions of new fiat, while keeping interest rates at 0% for years.

  Anyone living in the real world knows inflation is at least twice as high as the reported government manipulated figures. They gaslight us about GDP growth, number of jobs added (850,000 overestimation last year), unemployment rate (% in labor market hugely underestimated), and every government statistic, in order to portray a false narrative of an economy doing well and raising all boats. The only boats being raised are the yachts of the .1%.

  

  In reality, economic distress is creating psychological trauma on young and old alike. Seniors on fixed incomes and the poor dependent upon welfare, sink further into poverty, as the cost of food, energy, rent, medicine, and most necessities reach all-time highs. No one earning the average income in this country can afford a home. Credit card debt and auto loan debt have reached unpayable levels, and an avalanche of defaults and re-possessions has commenced. Meanwhile, with stock markets and housing markets at all-time highs, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, so the plight of the bottom 90% is of no concern to their day-to-day luxurious existence.

  This bifurcation of economic circumstances is evidenced by the populist rage propelling Trump’s campaign. Normal Americans are tired of being screwed over by the system and fed up with politicians, left wing billionaires (Soros, Gates, Bezos, et al), and regime media talking heads demanding they acquiesce to their totalitarian mandates, while being propagandized to believe their provably false narratives about the “great” economy. Biden is president in name only, as proved by his dementia ridden rants and those pulling the strings casting him aside like a piece of trash when he no longer met their needs.

  

  I don’t think Strauss & Howe envisioned the types of social distress which would be ushered in by the ruling oligarchy in a desperate attempt to divide, destroy, and degrade the social fabric of our society, obliterating the common values which helped build this nation. The organized, funded, and promoted invasion of our country by third world bottom feeders with the intent to take the lower paying jobs of native Americans, overwhelm the country’s social welfare system, funnel illegal voters into swing states, and create civil chaos in formerly homogeneous communities, is designed to contribute to the economic collapse of the country, allowing the Great Reseters to implement their new world order machinations.

  The race riots, funded by Soros and encouraged by his bought off district attorneys in every shithole Democrat run sanctuary city in America, conducted by his BLM and ANTIFA hired terrorists, were designed to bring down Trump and demoralize the white middle class families who are the backbone of the country. We were supposed to bow down to these race baiters and pretend a drug addict black criminal thug was a saint, while honoring fictitious made-up ridiculous black holidays like Juneteenth and Kwanzaa. The entire narrative has been to make white people take the knee and accept this woke drivel. The goal has been to destroy the community standards we grew up with and replace them with an anything goes mentality of degeneracy and delusion.

  

  The other socially explosive issues designed to divide and conquer have involved pretending mentally ill men are women and vice versa, while mentally ill women encourage the mutilation of their children as a sacrifice to the woke gods. Allowing mentally ill perverted men into women’s restrooms is pure insanity, but corrupt politicians, bought-off government bureaucrats, and woke judges have mandated this dangerously absurd behavior.

  

  Men dominating women’s sports is perfectly fine to these seekers of societal implosion. Allowing and encouraging young girls to cut off their breasts because their batshit crazy mothers suffer from a woke form of Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a despicable surrender to degeneracy. We are failing our children, resulting in massive levels of depression, drug use, self-mutilation, and suicide among the young.

  The most socially distressful act in the history of mankind was our authoritarian government politicians and bureaucrats forcing over 270 million guinea pigs (over 5 billion worldwide), under threat of losing their livelihood and being ostracized from society, to be injected by an experimental gene therapy marketed as a vaccine, that did not prevent people from catching, spreading or dying from the most overhyped flu in history.

  The ruling overlords, who planned this fake pandemic (Event 201), successfully created the largest mass formation psychosis among the fearful masses than has ever been achieved through a propaganda of fear campaign. They proved they could force the sheep to willingly lock themselves down and beg to be injected with a toxic concoction designed to kill them suddenly or over time, while reducing fertility and disabling millions, accomplishing a major goal of the Gates depopulation agenda. The pure bloods will never forget or ever forgive those who treated them like trash. The coming civil war will see the dividing lines very much aligned between the jabbed versus the unjabbed.

  

  Political distress has been building in this country since the day Trump descended that Trump Tower escalator in June of 2015, announcing he was running for president. He was able to corral the populist rage of the economically and socially distressed deplorables and achieve the upset of the century against the Deep State chosen one, initiating the Deep State coup against him, which continues to this day. The political system is wrought with fraud, corruption, malfeasance, and a disregard for the proper legal functioning of elections.

  The 2020 election was stolen, mainly through fake mail-in ballots supposedly instituted as a one-time covid measure. Now it is a permanent fixture, and systematic fraud is purposely built into the system, as no ID or proof of citizenship is required to vote, illegals are being enabled to vote illegally by the Democrat party, and the judicial system is filled with left-wing activist judges whose sole purpose is to promote criminality and deviancy.

  The desperation of the Deep State oligarchs and their hired henchmen within the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and State Department is palpable and exceedingly dangerous, as they are willing to burn down the system to prevent their criminal conspiracy from being revealed. They have tried to imprison and kill Trump already and will continue to do so before his January inauguration. It is probably too late to stop the election from taking place, but nothing they do is too diabolical to exclude at this point. When Trump’s margin of victory exceeds their ability to cheat, they will proceed with plan B and unleash their paid hordes of violent felons in every major city in America, to try and stop Trump from assuming power.

  Biden and Harris’ handlers will use every lawfare means at their disposal to prevent the smooth transition of power. The fake January 6 insurrection will seem quaint compared to what these traitors will attempt to pull off. We know they consider us deplorable, garbage, racist Nazis, so that belief allows them to consider us as non-humans and use lethal means to suppress our voices. The Biden-Harris administration updated DOD Directive 5240.01 on Sept. 27 to include provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances when assisting civilian law enforcement. The timing of this change sure seems suspicious, as this volatile election enters the home stretch.

  

  This is where military distress will rear its ugly head. We know the woke military cooperated and conspired with the other Deep State bad actors in the coup against Trump. Milley acted in a treasonous manner behind Trump’s back by communicating with adversaries and planning to override any direct order from the Commander–in-Chief. The military leadership under Biden has proven to be incompetent, committed to diversity & equity, and willing to do the bidding of the forces aligned against Trump.

  The possibility of the military participating in violent coup against Trump before he takes office, or shortly thereafter, is not out of the question. When men who know they have committed illegal, treasonous acts feel threatened with exposure and prosecution, they are capable of anything to avoid their fate. Militarily, this is an extremely dangerous period for our nation.

  

  With neocons dominating in Congress, and their regime media partners regurgitating their propaganda talking points about Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, these psychopaths are pushing as hard as possible for WW3. Whether it launches in the Ukraine, Gaza, the Taiwan Straits, or on the border of the two Koreas, their goal is global conflict and obscene profits for the military industrial complex who dole out the bribes. They know Trump is not a war monger and will attempt to broker peace deals in the Ukraine and in the Middle East. Therefore, they are recklessly flailing about trying to initiate a global firestorm before Trump assumes the presidency.

  Beware of our “Gulf of Tonkin” false flag incident, which will be used as the basis to go to war with whichever “evil dictator” suits our purposes at that moment. No matter the outcome of this election, there will be blood – whether it be American blood on American soil or American blood on foreign soil, or both simultaneously. Fourth Turnings always accelerate towards a violent denouement, with an unanticipated number of deaths. Over 5% of the male population was killed in the American Civil War Fourth Turning, while 65 million people were killed during the WWII Fourth Turning. With the current level of killing technology, the potential number of casualties in a global conflict would be astronomical and inconceivable to average Americans.

  I do not have any misconceptions that the election of Trump can undo the fiscal disaster heading our way. At best, he could delay the timeline for financial catastrophe and possibly keep WW3 from launching during his term.  I even wonder whether the selection of Kackling Kamala and Tampon Tim, the single worst presidential ticket in American history, has been purposely engineered by the Deep State in order to insure the economic and financial implosion happen during Trump’s reign.

  Discrediting Trump, as they did by blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, when it was FDR’s policies that exacerbated the problem, might provide the Democrat Deep State Party with the narrative that Trump’s policies caused the collapse. There is absolute certainty the losers in this election will declare it stolen and refuse to acknowledge the winner. With over 75% of the population expecting post-election violence, there will be violence. Where it leads and what unintended consequences befall the nation are unknown but guaranteed to further split a divided nation.

  

  The core elements of this Fourth Turning Crisis (debt, civic decay, global disorder) were the driving factors at the outset and continue to be the driving factors as we approach the climax of this winter of our discontent in the early 2030s. Between now and then will be the most perilous years of our lifetimes. Panic, chaos, financial disaster, authoritarian measures, civil war, global war, and a myriad of other epic challenges await. They will attempt to abscond with your wealth through their Great Taking plans.

  They will attempt to implement their Great Reset though CBDCs, mass surveillance, and totalitarian enforcement of their new world order mandates. They will continue their depopulation efforts through war, vaccines, and starvation of the poor. They will attempt to put a final nail in the coffin of the U.S. Constitution, ushering in their one world government, controlled by billionaire oligarchs, and enforced by their military/police thugs. They are attempting to demoralize the masses, propagandizing them into believing only the government can save them, and forcing them to march into an electronic gulag with no escape routes.

  All my ruminations about this Fourth Turning always come down to the potential outcomes laid out by Strauss and Howe twenty-seven years ago, before the turn of the century, and eleven years before the triggering of this Crisis. No matter which channels of distress the volcanic molten lava breaks free from, the next several years will be disconcerting, difficult, destructive, and deathly. There is no escape from the grim reality of what is coming. You cannot be prepped enough to withstand the bitter winter winds which will begin to blow with the outcome of this election.

  Nothing will be the same after November 5. Will there ever be another election? Will our country still exist in its current form ten years from now? Strauss and Howe did not predict a specific outcome but provided four realistic possible outcomes. Three out of four are dire, including the end of humanity as a distinct possibility. After reading the recent best-selling book Nuclear War – A Scenario, you realize the world could end in a matter of hours if the weak-minded psychopaths leaders initiate an unstoppable progression of responses.

  

  I know the linear thinking noobs who believe the world always progresses in a straight line will dismiss these warnings as just conspiracy theory doom porn. They have no interest in the cyclical nature of history and will continue to trust the government narrative, enforced by the regime media propaganda mouthpieces, and repeated by the NPCs who make up a major percentage of the population. That’s fine. They can keep their heads in the sand and believe the delusional drivel doled out by those in power, but Fourth Turnings are going to deluge them under a tsunami of reality, pain, death and destruction. That’s just the way it is.

  

  People need to get their heads straight and understand the challenges that lie ahead. I don’t see any easy solutions, and I’m not selling a newsletter with the secret to surviving this Fourth Turning. I’ve been issuing warnings for over a decade, and I’ve seen nothing that has happened or is happening, to make me change my mind.

  1. This Fourth Turning could mark the end of man. It could be an omnicidal Armageddon, destroying everything, leaving nothing. If mankind ever extinguishes itself, this will probably happen when its dominant civilization triggers a Fourth Turning that ends horribly. For this Fourth Turning to put an end to all this would require an extremely unlikely blend of social disaster, human malevolence, technological perfection and bad luck.

  2. The Fourth Turning could mark the end of modernity. The Western saecular rhythm – which began in the mid-fifteenth century with the Renaissance – could come to an abrupt terminus. The seventh modern saeculum would be the last. This too could come from total war, terrible but not final. There could be a complete collapse of science, culture, politics, and society. Such a dire result would probably happen only when a dominant nation (like today’s America) lets a Fourth Turning ekpyrosis engulf the planet. But this outcome is well within the reach of foreseeable technology and malevolence.

  3. The Fourth Turning could spare modernity but mark the end of our nation. It could close the book on the political constitution, popular culture, and moral standing that the word America has come to signify. The nation has endured for three saecula; Rome lasted twelve, the Soviet Union only one. Fourth Turnings are critical thresholds for national survival. Each of the last three American Crises produced moments of extreme danger: In the Revolution, the very birth of the republic hung by a thread in more than one battle. In the Civil War, the union barely survived a four-year slaughter that in its own time was regarded as the most lethal war in history. In World War II, the nation destroyed an enemy of democracy that for a time was winning; had the enemy won, America might have itself been destroyed. In all likelihood, the next Crisis will present the nation with a threat and a consequence on a similar scale.

  4. Or the Fourth Turning could simply mark the end of the Millennial Saeculum. Mankind, modernity, and America would all persevere. Afterward, there would be a new mood, a new High, and a new saeculum. America would be reborn. But, reborn, it would not be the same.

  I’ve been issuing warnings for over a decade, and I’ve seen nothing that has happened or is happening, to make me change my mind. Befriending like-minded people and summoning all the courage and fortitude you can muster is the best advice I can give.

  The best analogy for the next several years is: get prepared to slog many miles through a raging blizzard in sub-zero temperatures with less than 50% chance of survival.

  

  Good luck and Godspeed.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 17:30

• US Warns Tehran It Will Not Restrain Israel If Iran Retaliates
  US Warns Tehran It Will Not Restrain Israel If Iran Retaliates

  Iran has kept up its saber-rattling in the wake of last week’s Israeli aerial attack, which itself was the much anticipated response to the Iranian ballistic missile attack of October 1st. Washington is now warning Tehran that it “won’t be able to hold Israel back” if the Islamic Republic retaliates, US and Israeli officials told Axios Saturday.

  “We told the Iranians: We won’t be able to hold Israel back, and we won’t be able to make sure that the next attack will be calibrated and targeted as the previous one,” the US official said.

  

  The message was reportedly passed to Iranian officials via Swiss intermediaries, the Axios report details, which is a rare public disclosure.

  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the same day warned of “tooth-breaking” response for Israel’s actions. Recent international reports have also suggested Iran-linked paramilitaries in Iraq could be preparing a new attack on Israel.

  The Iranian Supreme Leader has also said, “We will do whatever is necessary in confronting arrogance, whether in terms of military and armament or politically. The Iranian people and officials will never hesitate in facing global arrogance and the criminal apparatus ruling the world order.”

  “The issue is not just about revenge, but rather acting with logic and confrontation consistent with religion, ethics, Sharia, and international laws. The issue is confronting international injustice, and for the Iranian people, confronting oppression and arrogance is a mandatory duty,” he added. 

  The Iranians are signaling that an attack is “definitely” coming, per Axios:

  • Esmail Kowsari, a member of the national security committee in Iran’s parliament, said Saturday that Iran’s security council had agreed on a response but not yet on the exact date and scope.
  • Kowsari said the attack will be executed in coordination with other “resistance” groups in the region and will be stronger than Iran’s Oct. 1 attack, which involved 180 ballistic missiles.

  But the reality is that Iran also is signaling its own domestic population with all this tough talk, as well as enemies across the region, even if it doesn’t actually intend to hit back against Israel.

  🚨 Breaking: Israel 🇮🇱 Navy ship crossed Suez canal and enters the Red Sea.

  According to N12 News, onboard the ship are Israeli LORA ballistic missiles with a range of up to 500km. As the ship is travelling eastward, Iran 🇮🇷 will be within the range of these missiles. pic.twitter.com/ylvCnddofP

  — Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) November 2, 2024

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

  With the Oct.1st attack, and Israel’s retaliation, Tehran is still able to claim ‘victory’ of sorts for its strikes involving over 180 ballistic missiles. It sent a strong message, and now that status quo has been restored to some extent.

  The US days ago began moving extra B-2 bombers and other major military assets in the region, as a precaution in the scenario of another Iranian strike on Israel.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 16:55

• "We're Not Going To Allow Them To Steal It": Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation On Accepting Election Results
  “We’re Not Going To Allow Them To Steal It”: Raskin Repeats Trump-Like Reservation On Accepting Election Results

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  On Bill Maher’s HBO Show on Friday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) appeared to repeat his reservation about accepting a Trump win in the presidential election. Raskin said that Democrats will only support a “free and fair election.” Trump was widely criticized for the same position when he said “If everything’s honest, I’ll gladly accept the results.”

  

  Raskin previously said that he would not guarantee certifying Trump and that, if he wins, he may be declared as disqualified by Congress:

  “It’s going to be up to us on January 6th, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified. And then we need bodyguards for everybody and civil war conditions.”

  Raskin went on HBO to repeat his reservation on accepting the results of any Trump victory:

  “When I say we will support a free and fair election, no, we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, or steal it in the Department of Justice or steal it with any other election official in the country.

  If it’s a free and fair election, we will do what we’ve always done. We will honor it.”

  Jamie Raskin says Democrats will only uphold the peaceful transfer of power if they view the election as fair:
  Jamie Raskin: “When I say we will support a free and fair election, no we we’re not going to allow them to steal it in the states, steal it with the Department of… pic.twitter.com/wiczm4yz0I

  — Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) November 2, 2024

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

  Remarkably, as the audience applauded Raskin, Maher added “That is the Democrats’ history: They honor it. That’s the big difference between the parties.”

  However, that is not the history and Raskin knows it.

  The certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election was opposed by Democrats and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort of then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) who organized the challenge.

  Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.

  Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result.

  Raskin also insisted on CNN that the effort to prevent citizens from voting for Trump is the very embodiment of democracy:

  “If you think about it, of all of the forms of disqualification that we have, the one that disqualifies people for engaging in insurrection is the most democratic because it’s the one where people choose themselves to be disqualified.”

  Democrats not only sought to strip Trump from the ballot this election, but sought to cleanse ballots of 126 House members.

  We are already seeing an ominous uptick of challenges, which I discuss in my column this weekend. There are also new allegations of systemic fraudulent registrations in multiple districts.

  Raskin presumably expects any voters to protest “peacefully” if they are declared the losers.

  I am leaving for New York today to join in the coverage. This could prove a long night, if not a long week.

  *  *  *

  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
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 15:45

• Some Clarity This Week
  Some Clarity This Week

  By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

  Some Clarity This Week?

  We get the election and the Fed this week, both of which should provide us with some clarity.

  The Fed

  Let’s start with the Fed because I think the Fed is easy:

  • Cut 25 bps. That’s what they were planning to do, and Friday’s jobs report gives them the ammunition to do so.
  • Push back on the pace of rate cuts going forward. This will be relative to the last meeting since the market has already dialed back significantly on rate cuts in 2025. They will mention a more balanced concern between a potentially better job market (see NFP – An Ugly Report) and signs that inflation may be stabilizing above their target level. The jobs data was definitively impacted by hurricanes and strikes, but the JOLTS Quit Rate really caught my eye, as it dipped to levels that we haven’t seen since mid-2008.
  • Higher neutral/terminal rate. We discussed this in a Much Higher Neutral Rate at the beginning of October. Markets have moved to the lower end of our band (3.5% to 4%), but there is room for that to edge higher (though we might be getting greedy). We had a lot of reasons for expressing this view, but one that stands out is this simple chart. Look at where rates have been and what the economy has done, and it is difficult to argue that 5% and higher was very restrictive.

  

  The market has moved closer to our views, and we expect that it will continue to do so. Actually, the 10-year yield up at 4.38% is above the top end of our range, but we remain reluctant to fight it (at least not yet) as market positioning (amongst other things) makes us nervous – see Bond Vigilantes in last weekend’s report.

  Expectations

  This might be a good way to segue from bond markets and the Fed to election prognostications.

  • Who had a weak jobs report = 10 bps higher on the 10-year yield?

  We did think that the rally in bonds after the report would fade. But going from 4.22% all the way to 4.38% was a much bigger fade than I would have expected. I did think that stocks would fade, and they did close well off their highs, but they were above their opening levels, so I got this wrong. What is surprising is how resilient stocks were in the face of bond yields rising for the wrong reason (not due to economic strength), but it was the first day of the month and the first big “buy the dip” opportunity in the past month as well.

  But I digress. The main point of this section, ahead of the election section, is to point out that sometimes, even if you knew the data in advance, it would have been difficult to make money. A weak jobs report sending Treasury yields to a fairly large one-day loss doesn’t seem obvious – even in hindsight.

  We discussed some of our scenarios and views on the election in last weekend’s report (Who Wins and What Does it Mean?). Since then, the betting markets have reversed course to some degree, making even those markets closer than they were last weekend.

  I’m also hearing more people question whether the “Trump Bump” is real. This is the view that he tends to get more votes than the polls indicate. With a sample size of 2, where the 2nd time certainly wasn’t as strong as the first time, I’m pretty dubious about this view heading into Tuesday.

  I do remain convinced, despite being told I’m dead wrong, that a lot of “undecided people” will be flip- flopping their thoughts right until the moment they vote (kind of like how many market participants will second guess their well-thought-out Fed strategies between noon and 2pm ET on November 7th).

  The Election

  Frankly, I think that there are too many permutations to properly analyze this. There is virtually no scenario that would “surprise” me. I don’t think all scenarios are equally likely, but I could be convinced that a lot of them are possible.

  Also, with the cop-out in the previous section, I’m not sure it is easy to interpret how markets will react to what could be quite complex outcomes.

  Having said that, it would be irresponsible not to have some sort of a playbook coming into this week. That is particularly true as I will be on Bloomberg TV at 9pm ET on election night trying to digest the information real-time.

  Best Case for Markets:

  • A clear winner on the presidential side with gridlock established. If we can wake up Wednesday morning (better yet, go to bed on Tuesday night) knowing that there is a clear and obvious winner for president and that there will be gridlock, we can buy stocks and bonds. I don’t think there is a better case for the market than this, and we should get some indications if this is happening quite early in the evening.

  Worst Case(s) for Markets:

  • I think that there are two bad cases for markets, both of which are very different.
  • A clear sweep. Anything where it is clear that the presidential election has been decided and that the winning party will have both the House and the Senate firmly in control would likely be bad for markets. The “mandate” would (rightfully so) convince that party that they can implement even some of their more extreme policies. I don’t see that being good for the deficit. For stocks it might turn out to be good, but I think, at least initially, the response to this would be negative. It is ironic that we could get a situation where the country really supports one ideology and Wall Street doesn’t like it, but that’s my sense of how this would play out.
  • A prolonged and hotly contested election result. I’m thinking more at the presidential level. Even there, I think if the House and the Senate are split, even a hotly contested presidential result might not hurt markets, at least not for a few days. While the Geopolitical Intelligence Group staunchly believes that we will have a legal and normal transfer of power and that all the systems (and the checks and balances) will work, the longer any dispute lingers, the more likely it is to affect domestic behavior.
    • There is a risk that if this goes on for an extended period, our enemies (or competitors) will take advantage of what they might view as an opportunity. The media (and nation) will be fixated on internal issues and there may be a perceived power vacuum if the contested election reaches vitriolic levels (which cannot be discounted with the power of social media). If you missed Academy’s latest Around the World, this might be a good time to catch up on the issues we focused on this month.

  Beyond that, I just think there are too many possibilities. We might not know who will control the House or the Senate right away. Again, I think that any uncertainty will be digested by the market if gridlock looks likely.

  I think that a few days of contested results and recounts is pretty much built into markets. However, I’m not sure if contested results extending well into the following week, with rhetoric getting increasingly nasty, is priced in (I’d like to say that this possibility is extremely low, but I’m not sure that it’s that low).

  It would be great if election night gives us clarity, even if that clarity is bad for markets, but that is not a certain outcome. I do think that many people are being a bit cavalier about how easily we will absorb a “contested” election – since I think it very much depends on how hotly that election is contested (if we get to that point at all).

  Not sure this is much of a game plan for the election, but it is the best that I can come up with at the moment.

  Bottom Line

  We will get through this election. The system will work as intended and we will adjust and adapt our strategies appropriately.

  Yes, there is a lot of heated “debate” occurring in social media and it is easy to get disheartened. But I think that is really just at the extreme and gets far too much attention relative to the people working together to get the country, the economy, and even the globe on a good path forward!

  Due to some misspent youth, I am well aware of the Sex Pistols. They had songs like “Anarchy in the U.K.” (what would have been my walk up song if they had those when I played sports) and “God Save the Queen.” So, a lot of what we are hearing and seeing (as many of our Geopolitical Intelligence Group members remind our clients) is not new. It just receives a lot more attention than it should. And now, I cannot resist one message about “unintended consequences” because that is a favorite subject of mine. The Queen’s Jubilee had the Queen floating down the river Thames. Word leaked that the Pistols were going to perform “God Save the Queen” somewhere along the route and annoy the entourage and many of the spectators. So, as I recall, they implemented some rule about no performances within a certain distance from the Queen. Problem solved? No, the band, or their organizers, put them on a barge and they followed the Queen to play the song – making the entire experience for the Queen likely much worse. Unintended consequences are always worth thinking about!

  But in any case, decades later, England is still functioning and the “dire” warnings never materialized, so I think much of the concern is misplaced and will be largely forgotten (or at least tuned out) as we move forward!

  Good luck with this week and I cannot believe that we still make it dark extra early on purpose!

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 15:10

• OPEC+ Delays Production Hike (Again)
  OPEC+ Delays Production Hike (Again)

  OPEC+ agreed to push back its December production increase by one month, the second delay to its plans to revive supply as faltering demand in China and swelling supplies from the Americas pressure prices.

  but… but “Reuters sources” inside the Biden oil selling department said OPEC would flood the market any second https://t.co/ICGWItFYL0

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 3, 2024

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

  No reason was given for the delay.

  

  “Market conditions won out,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of oil research at Onyx Commodities Ltd.

  “OPEC+ showed it couldn’t ignore the current macroeconomic economic realities centered on China and Europe, which point to weaker oil demand growth.”

  OPEC Plus had first announced in June that it would gradually increase production by an estimated 2.2 million barrels a day, or around 2 percent of global supplies, in October.

  That had been a major source of concern for the markets.

  Then, in September, the group announced a delay until at least December.

  And this is how Reuters and its “sources” manipulate the oil market pic.twitter.com/YsRe1Ft2Xy

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 4, 2024

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

  The OPEC+ move is “modestly positive,” said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS Group AG in Zurich. The market will focus instead on Iran’s response to Israel’s attacks and the outcome of US elections, he said. However, JP Morgan analysts wrote that “with geopolitical concerns temporarily set aside, attention is once again shifting back to market fundamentals.”

  We suspect the election will matter… a lot.

  “Given all the geopolitical tension in the Middle East and, perhaps more importantly, the upcoming US presidential elections, it makes perfect sense for OPEC+ to postpone the unwinding of the voluntary cuts for an extra month,” said Jorge Leon, senior vice president at consultant Rystad Energy AS.

  These eight OPEC+ countries reiterated their collective commitment to achieve full conformity with the Declaration of Cooperation, including the additional voluntary production adjustments.

  “For me, the impact is more important on sentiment than the numbers,” said Amrita Sen, director of research at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd.

  “The market has been incorrectly viewing OPEC+ as wanting to flood the market to regain market share,” but instead, their “primary focus remains keeping oil inventories under control.”

  Prices are headed into the $60s next year, and potentially lower if OPEC+ opens the taps, according to Citigroup and JPMorgan analysts.

  

  That poses a financial threat for Riyadh, which needs levels closer to $100 a barrel to cover the ambitious economic plans of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, according to the IMF.

  The market outlook the group faces ultimately hinges on the outcome of US presidential elections on Nov. 5, Currie added.  “The real geopolitical risk has yet to come, which is the shockwave from the US election,” he said. “Not only will it jar fragile flash points around the world, but it will also reveal the all-important path that Chinese stimulus takes in response.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 14:35

• Iranians Frustrated By China, Russia For Meager Response To Israeli Strikes
  Iranians Frustrated By China, Russia For Meager Response To Israeli Strikes

  Via Middle East Eye

  China and Russia’s response to Israel’s attacks on Iran has drawn widespread criticism, with many deeming the reactions insufficient and delayed.

  The Tehran-based Ham-Mihan daily newspaper emphasized that given the extensive promotion of strategic relations between Tehran, Moscow and Beijing in recent years, there was an expectation that Russia and China would officially condemn the attacks on Iran.

  The newspaper wrote: “Three days passed after the Israeli military attack on sites in three Iranian provinces before China’s foreign ministry responded. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson also commented on the attack only hours afterwards. In the end, neither Beijing nor Moscow condemned Israel’s actions.”

  

  The daily continued to criticize the stances of these two countries, comparing them to some European nations that have tense relations with Iran.

  As western sanctions against Iran have increased in recent years, Tehran has strengthened economic ties with Moscow and Beijing, with one key outcome being the sale of cheap oil to China.

  However, the expansion of these political ties has consistently faced criticism within Iran and discontent has intensified following recent direct conflicts between Iran and Israel.

  Calls for direct military action against Israel

  A newspaper affiliated with Iran’s so-called “hardliners” has called for direct military action against Israel, arguing such attacks are essential for ensuring regional stability.

  In an article titled “Killing the Dog”, the Agaah daily emphasized the need to intensify military confrontations with Israel, saying: “Attacks on the interests of the Zionist regime worldwide guarantee the security of the region.” The report featured images of Israel’s political and military leaders alongside suggested targets, including military and economic centers.

  This is not the first instance Agaah has advocated direct action against Israel. Last month, the daily released a list of sites that could potentially be targeted by Hezbollah’s missiles and drones. The list included food factories, power facilities, technology plants and chemical production sites. 

  Moreover, the Dimona nuclear plant was identified as a target for Hezbollah, reportedly within range of Iran’s Fateh-110 missiles.

  Ex-legislator: Iran’s diplomacy hampered by internal conflicts

  The former head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission has criticized the government’s handling of “extremist” groups within the country, saying they are undermining diplomatic efforts.  

  In an op-ed, Hashmatullah Falahat Pishe argued that the failure to unify domestic political forces has led to setbacks in the nation’s foreign policy. “Diplomacy is accepted and trusted globally when it reflects a unified and strong voice within a country. Therefore, the key obstacles to diplomacy here are internal,” he wrote, adding: “Mr Pezeshkian’s government must address these issues first.”

  Falahat Pishe also mentioned Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s recent visits to nine Middle Eastern countries, stressing that the activities of extremist groups in Iran have undermined these diplomatic efforts.

  “This shows the government has not yet resolved its internal challenges with extremist factions. The government must first prove its ability to address foreign policy issues internally. Only then can diplomacy succeed,” he concluded.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 14:00

• Growing Risk In Private Credit And Shadow Banks
  Growing Risk In Private Credit And Shadow Banks

  Submitted by Brent Johnson of Macro Alchemist (read it here in pdf format)

  The transformation of banking and financial services away from traditional public markets and the banking system itself has been dramatic since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008.

  This shift has reshaped the financial landscape, as more activities that were once dominated by banks and public markets have moved into private and non-bank financial sectors.

  In 2008, when the GFC struck, the financial world experienced a severe breakdown. Banks, which had been the backbone of lending and liquidity, stopped trusting one another, ceasing to lend in overnight markets, which are crucial for short-term liquidity. Simultaneously, public markets suffered immense losses, with the S&P 500 plunging by roughly 50%.

  As a result, both the banking system and public markets effectively froze, becoming illiquid and dysfunctional almost overnight. What had once been highly liquid, smoothly functioning financial ecosystems ground to a halt.

  Fast forward to today, and we are witnessing a striking evolution: the non-bank financial sector, which includes institutions like hedge funds, private equity firms, and shadow banks, has grown larger than the traditional banking sector. Similarly, private markets, such as those for private equity, private debt, and direct lending, are expanding at a much faster rate than public markets.

  This rapid growth is fundamentally altering the structure of global finance.

  Such a shift of this magnitude raises critical questions about the potential impact on future financial crises. One key issue is that risk-taking is now concentrated in markets that are inherently less liquid. Even before a liquidity crisis occurs, the financial system is building up risk in markets that, by their nature, are harder to exit quickly. So, what happens when these already illiquid markets face a shock and become even less liquid, potentially triggering a crisis?

  Consider direct lending, private credit, and private equity investments, all of which are largely concentrated in the non-bank financial sector. If the global financial system could experience a crisis of the scale seen in 2008—when liquidity dried up in highly liquid public markets—what might happen when the starting point for risk-taking is in far less liquid, private markets?

  The consequences could be even more severe and far-reaching.

  This paper explores the rapid expansion of the non-bank financial sector and the liquidity constraints that characterize private markets.

  One of the key concerns with liquidity crises is the cascading, second- and third-order effects they can generate. These effects occur when markets that are perceived to be liquid—markets where investors believe they can easily buy and sell assets—suddenly become illiquid, trapping participants and causing widespread disruptions.

  Such second and third order effects often impact investors, institutions, and sectors that would ordinarily consider themselves insulated from high-risk financial activities.

  However, the interconnectedness of the global financial ecosystem means that shocks in one part of the system can quickly reverberate through others, catching seemingly unrelated players in the fallout. This is why understanding shadow banking, private markets, and the broader non-bank financial system is critical for assessing the risks posed to the overall financial system.

  The increasing prominence of non-bank and private financial markets presents new challenges for managing liquidity and systemic risk. As the financial system becomes more dependent on these less liquid sectors, the potential for liquidity crises and their ripple effects across the global economy grows, highlighting the importance of monitoring and addressing risks in the shadow banking and private market ecosystems.

  Backdrop – The Global Financial Crisis

  No two financial crises are exactly the same, though human behavior and emotions are always central to them. Each crisis has its own unique characteristics, and as long as human nature remains constant, cycles of boom and bust are inevitable.

  Given today’s historically high equity valuations, comparisons to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 and the Dot-Com bubble of the late 1990s are natural, and the current enthusiasm for Artificial Intelligence is reminiscent of past periods of euphoria. However, it’s important to remember that valuations are symptoms of broader market conditions, not the underlying causes. For example, during the Dutch Tulip Mania in 1636, a single black tulip was valued at several years’ salary—an indicator that something was amiss, but not the root of the issue.

  Pinpointing the exact moment when a financial crisis begins is often only possible in hindsight. Did the GFC start with the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in 2007? Was it the fall of Bear Stearns itself? Or perhaps Lehman Brothers’ collapse? Some might even argue it began with Meredith Whitney’s 2008 analysis, revealing that Citigroup couldn’t maintain its dividend. The answer depends on perspective—those directly impacted by these events would likely give different timelines.

  What’s crucial today is understanding that comparing current credit conditions to 2008 is misleading.

  All credit crises share a common feature: relaxed lending standards. Before the GFC, subprime lending accounted for around 3% of mortgage lending; by 2007, it had surged to nearly 25%. Loan standards deteriorated so badly that defaults on the first mortgage payment were rising, yet this was just one part of the problem.

  Other key players in the crisis were institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage insurer MBIA. As long as these entities retained their high credit ratings, they were able to keep issuing loans to borrowers who couldn’t repay. MBIA, for example, wrote billions in liabilities while holding only $30 million in shareholder funds.

  But the real breaking point came when large banks stopped lending to each other overnight, driven by concerns about both their counterparts’ liquidity and their own over-leveraged balance sheets. Bear Stearns, for instance, had $3 of equity for every $100 in assets, a precarious 33:1 leverage ratio.

  Once regulators stepped in after the crisis, they sought to prevent a repeat by imposing stricter rules on large banks through the Dodd-Frank Act. This curtailed trading and market-making activities, bringing these financial giants into line. But as with any financial system, where there is demand, supply will find a way. This time, the non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) stepped in. In just over a decade, these NBFIs grew to become the largest lenders, overtaking traditional banks.

  The lesson here is simple: credit demand doesn’t disappear—it shifts. Understanding where that demand goes is crucial in predicting how future financial risks may unfold.

  The Rapid Growth of Non-Bank Financial Institutions (NBFI)

  In addition to the increased regulatory pressure on banks after the 2008 crisis, the prolonged low-interest-rate environment has been a major catalyst for the rapid growth of non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs).

  With traditional savings accounts and government bonds offering historically low yields, investors began seeking higher returns through alternative avenues. NBFIs responded by offering a range of financial products that provided more attractive returns, such as collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), private debt, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and other investment opportunities that banks, due to regulatory constraints, did not provide.

  

  This shift allowed NBFIs to fill a crucial gap in the market by catering to the increasing demand for yield-driven investment products.

  As banks became more restricted in their ability to engage in riskier, high-yield activities due to post-crisis regulations like the Dodd-Frank Act, NBFIs stepped in with offerings that were not only higher-yielding but also often more complex and less transparent. The flexibility of NBFIs to operate with fewer regulatory barriers became an attractive alternative for both institutional and retail investors hungry for returns in a low-rate world.

  At the same time, technological innovation has accelerated the growth of NBFIs, especially through the rise of fintech companies. These firms have revolutionized the financial services sector by utilizing data analytics, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and digital platforms to deliver more efficient and accessible financial solutions.

  Fintech innovations such as peer-to-peer lending platforms, robo-advisors, online wealth management services, and digital payment systems have disrupted the traditional banking model. These technologies offer faster, more cost-effective services tailored to the modern consumer, enabling individuals and businesses to access credit, make investments, and manage their finances without relying on traditional banks. Fintech’s rise has made NBFIs even more prominent by providing an infrastructure that is more agile and responsive to market demands.

  However, with this agility comes a trade-off in oversight.

  Because NBFIs are subject to fewer regulatory constraints than traditional banks, they can accumulate risks that may not be visible to regulators or market participants until it’s too late. Hedge funds, for example, often engage in highly leveraged strategies, which can magnify losses during periods of market volatility. The collapse of such funds can quickly spiral into broader financial instability, as these firms are tightly interconnected with traditional banks and financial institutions through various channels of lending, derivatives, and investment portfolios.

  An example of this occurred in 2020, during the market turbulence triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Money market funds, once considered stable and low-risk investments, experienced rapid outflows as investors fled to safety, highlighting the unpredictable fragility within certain corners of the NBFI sector.

  The spillover effects of these outflows flowed throughout the broader financial system, underscoring the interconnected nature of banks and NBFIs.

  Given the systemic importance of NBFIs, policymakers and regulatory bodies, including the Federal Reserve and the Financial Stability Board (FSB), have become increasingly concerned about the potential risks posed by the growing influence of these institutions. There is ongoing debate about whether NBFIs should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and oversight as traditional banks, particularly those that have grown large enough to pose a significant threat to financial stability.

  The challenge for regulators is to strike a balance between encouraging the innovation and growth that NBFIs bring to the financial system, while ensuring that these institutions do not become the next source of systemic risk.

  However, history suggests that regulators are often reactive rather than proactive when it comes to addressing potential crises. Despite growing awareness of the risks associated with NBFIs, regulatory intervention may lag until after significant financial disruptions have already occurred.

  The rise of NBFIs represents a profound shift in the U.S. financial system. Their ability to innovate rapidly, operate with less regulatory oversight, and meet investor demand for higher-yielding products has allowed them to outpace the traditional banking sector in many respects. Yet, their growth also requires a closer examination of their role in maintaining financial stability.

  The lack of visibility into NBFIs’ balance sheets and activities poses a risk, as it makes it harder to assess their vulnerabilities and potential for triggering broader financial distress. As NBFIs continue to expand, understanding their impact on the overall financial ecosystem will be crucial in preparing for and mitigating the risks of future financial crises.

  Private Equity and Credit Markets

  Private equity and private lending have not only expanded in size but also grown in complexity, becoming critical pillars of global finance.

  

  These sectors have evolved in response to regulatory changes, technological advancements, and shifting investor demand, reflecting broader trends across the financial landscape.

  Initially, private equity was a niche field focused on venture capital for early-stage companies and distressed assets. It played a limited role in mainstream corporate finance. Over time, however, private equity has matured into a sophisticated industry that now employs a wide range of investment strategies, including leveraged buyouts (LBOs), growth equity, special situations, distressed investing, and infrastructure investments.

  Leveraged buyouts (LBOs), in particular, have become a defining feature of private equity. These transactions allow firms to acquire companies using a mix of equity and significant amounts of borrowed capital, with the expectation that the target company’s cash flow will be used to pay off the debt.

  The rise of LBOs has transformed how private equity firms approach value creation, using financial leverage to amplify returns while taking control of large, established companies. This strategy has proven immensely profitable, but it also introduces higher levels of risk, particularly in uncertain economic environments.

  In recent years, private equity firms have shifted from purely financial strategies, like cost-cutting and restructuring, to a more hands-on operational approach. Known as the “operational value-add” strategy, private equity firms now leverage their industry expertise and resources to drive operational improvements, digital transformation, and leadership development within their portfolio companies.

  By engaging more actively in business operations, private equity firms are unlocking new growth opportunities and generating more sustainable returns, setting themselves apart from traditional investors.

  Furthermore, private equity firms are increasingly investing in technology-driven sectors, such as software, fintech, healthcare technology, and digital infrastructure.

  The rise of tech-focused private equity funds reflects the industry’s growing recognition that innovation and data analytics are key to staying competitive in the modern economy.

  By adopting data-driven decision-making and enhancing due diligence processes, private equity firms are now better positioned to identify high-potential investments and maximize long-term growth.

  

  At the same time, private lending has grown into a critical component of alternative finance, providing capital to companies that may not qualify for traditional bank loans. The sector’s rapid expansion is a direct response to the regulatory tightening following the 2008 financial crisis, which limited banks’ ability to engage in riskier lending activities.

  Direct lenders—including private credit funds, hedge funds, business development companies (BDCs), and institutional investors—offer a diverse array of debt instruments, such as senior secured loans, uni-tranche loans, mezzanine financing, bridge loans, and subordinated debt. Private lenders’ flexibility and speed in underwriting and approving loans have made them an appealing option for companies looking to finance leveraged buyouts, acquisitions, expansions, or debt refinancing. Their ability to offer more customized terms than traditional banks has enabled private lending to become a significant source of financing, particularly for middle-market companies.

  The rise of private lending has also been fueled by the global search for yield in a low-interest-rate environment.

  Institutional investors, including pension funds, insurance companies, and endowments, have increasingly allocated capital to private debt as it offers attractive risk-adjusted returns with low correlation to traditional equity and fixed-income markets.

  This influx of capital has allowed private lending firms to scale their operations, even competing with traditional banks on larger, more complex transactions.

  

  Technological innovation has also played a transformative role in both private equity and private lending.

  In private equity, advancements in data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning have revolutionized deal sourcing, due diligence, and portfolio management. Firms now use sophisticated tools to assess market trends, predict business performance, and identify high-potential investment opportunities.

  Similarly, in private lending, the rise of digital platforms and marketplace lending has democratized access to credit, allowing businesses to secure loans through online platforms that connect borrowers directly with investors.

  This innovation has streamlined the lending process, reduced costs, and increased transparency.

  Due to their significant growth, private equity and private lending are facing increased scrutiny from regulators due to concerns over high levels of leverage, lack of transparency, and the potential buildup of systemic risks.

  In private equity, the use of leveraged buyouts has raised questions about the impact of high debt levels on the financial stability of acquired companies, especially during economic downturns. Additionally, private equity’s impact on employment and wages has drawn criticism, with some arguing that short-term profit motives can undermine long-term business sustainability.

  In private lending, the rapid expansion of direct lending and private credit funds has triggered concerns about the buildup of credit risks outside the traditional banking system. Since private lenders operate with far fewer regulatory constraints, there is less visibility into their risk exposures.

  As these institutions continue to grow and become more interconnected with traditional banks and other financial institutions, distress in the private lending market could have far-reaching implications for the broader financial system.

  

  The broader Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries sector, of which private equity and private lending are key components, has seen explosive growth since the 2008 financial crisis.

  With the NBFI sector now being larger than the traditional banking system in the U.S., its growth trajectory still shows no signs of slowing down.

  This rapid expansion has caught the attention of regulators such as the Financial Stability Board, who are increasingly concerned about the systemic risks posed by the shadow banking sector. Historically, tighter regulatory frameworks—like the Dodd-Frank Act—have only been enacted in response to crises, such as the 2008 meltdown, when it became clear that greater oversight was needed.

  Their rapid growth and evolving complexity present both opportunities and challenges.

  

  While these sectors have provided new avenues for investment and credit, their lack of transparency and regulatory oversight makes them vulnerable to systemic risks.

  

  The FSB acknowledges the need for tighter regulatory frameworks to mitigate these risks, but historically, such regulations tend to be reactive, implemented only after a crisis occurs.

  Legislation such as Dodd-Frank would not have been necessary had the Clinton Administration not repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in the 1990s—a law originally enacted in the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash to regulate the banking industry. The repeal removed the separation between commercial and investment banking, a move that many argue contributed to the excesses leading up to the GFC.

  Today, the NBFI sector has become an increasingly important borrower, which carries two significant implications.

  First, the line between traditional banks and non-bank financial institutions has become increasingly blurred, even though they operate under different regulatory regimes. This blurring creates ambiguity around risk oversight.

  

  Second, NBFIs are borrowing at a much faster rate than the overall market, raising concerns that the sector could be headed for a crisis of its own.

  The question remains: will regulators act in time, or will they once again be left playing catch-up when growth rates like these become unsustainable?

  Moreover, private equity firms and direct lenders have become vital sources of credit for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and leveraged buyouts. These areas are often considered too risky or capital-intensive for traditional banks, further underscoring the growing role that NBFIs play in providing essential credit where banks have become more risk-averse.

  

  As NBFIs continue to expand in influence and borrowing magnitude, the urgency for regulatory bodies to address their systemic risks grows—before another financial crisis emerges from the shadows.

  Shadow Banks and Private Markets – Illiquidity

  Liquidity risk is one of the most significant challenges faced by private equity and private lending firms, largely shaped by the illiquid nature of their investments, market dynamics, and their funding structures.

  These firms invest primarily in assets without active secondary markets, making it difficult to quickly convert investments into cash. While taking on illiquidity risk allows them to pursue higher returns, it also exposes them to considerable vulnerabilities, especially during times of financial stress or economic downturns.

  In private equity, firms acquire stakes in privately held companies or engage in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) of public companies. These investments typically involve multi-year commitments, with the goal of enhancing operations, growing value, and eventually exiting via a sale or initial public offering (IPO).

  However, when markets enter downturns, the exit strategies of private equity firms often face severe constraints.

  In such situations, potential buyers may vanish, and IPO markets may close, leaving firms unable to sell their holdings at favorable prices—or in some cases, unable to sell at all. This lack of liquidity creates significant challenges, tying up capital much longer than expected and potentially derailing planned investment cycles. Without the ability to exit their investments, private equity firms can experience a liquidity crunch, where the inability to generate cash flow limits their ability to return capital to investors, pursue new investments, or meet other financial obligations.

  Similarly, private lending firms face their own liquidity risks.

  These firms provide loans to businesses that often fall outside traditional banking channels, including middle-market companies and those with lower credit ratings. While these loans typically offer higher yields to compensate for the greater risk, they come with a major trade-off: illiquidity. Unlike publicly traded bonds, which can be quickly bought and sold on secondary markets, private loans lack a ready market, making it difficult for lenders to raise cash in times of need.

  During periods of financial distress, these risks become even more pronounced. Companies facing economic challenges may struggle to meet their repayment schedules or refinance their debt, leading to a higher rate of defaults. As defaults rise, the value of these private loans can plummet, leaving lenders exposed to significant losses. The inability to sell or restructure these illiquid loans in a timely manner compounds the liquidity risk, as lenders face mounting pressure to meet their own financial commitments.

  Moreover, the increasing use of payment-in-kind (PIK) structures, where interest payments are capitalized rather than paid in cash, adds another layer of complexity.

  

  While PIK arrangements provide temporary relief to borrowers by postponing cash payments, they heighten liquidity risks for lenders. Capitalizing interest rather than receiving cash inflows delays revenue and pushes the lenders deeper into illiquid positions, further limiting their ability to generate liquidity when needed. In times of economic stress, this can leave lenders with growing obligations but limited options for raising cash, intensifying financial vulnerabilities across the system.

  Of course, a key factor that exacerbates liquidity risk in both private equity and private lending is the use of leverage.

  Private equity firms often rely heavily on debt to finance acquisitions, using the acquired company’s cash flow to service that debt. When cash flows falter or interest rates rise, debt servicing becomes more difficult, potentially forcing firms to inject more capital into struggling companies or sell assets at a steep discount.

  In private lending, leverage is present both in the loan structure and in borrowing companies. If economic conditions worsen, highly leveraged borrowers may struggle to repay their loans, leading to defaults and creating further liquidity pressure for lenders who depend on regular repayments to maintain their own financial commitments.

  Another dimension of liquidity risk comes from the fund structure itself.

  Private equity and credit funds are typically closed-end, meaning investors cannot access daily liquidity like in mutual funds or ETFs. Investors commit capital for a set period, usually 5 to 10 years, expecting distributions from asset sales over time.

  However, if too many investors demand early liquidity, these funds may be forced to liquidate assets under unfavorable conditions, creating what is known as a liquidity mismatch. This problem is often magnified during economic crises, when many investors seek to withdraw funds simultaneously, putting additional pressure on these funds to generate liquidity when they are least able to.

  The COVID-19 pandemic provided a recent example of this liquidity mismatch. During the market turmoil, many investors sought to reduce their exposure to riskier assets, prompting significant pressure on private equity and credit funds to meet these demands in a difficult market. If forced into fire sales, these funds can push asset prices lower, sparking a downward spiral that further erodes investor confidence and increases redemption requests.

  Private equity and lending firms also rely on external financing from banks or other financial institutions to manage liquidity needs and execute deals. This reliance further entangles these firms with traditional banks and non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs), despite operating under different regulatory frameworks. In times of economic stress, banks may tighten lending conditions or withdraw credit, adding more complexity to liquidity management for these firms.

  The interconnectedness of the financial markets means that liquidity issues within private equity and lending firms can have broader implications for the entire financial system. As these sectors have grown, they have become deeply intertwined with banks, institutional investors, and other market participants. A liquidity crisis in one area can trigger wider disruptions, affecting asset prices, credit availability, and investor sentiment across the financial ecosystem.

  For the broader NBFI sector, managing liquidity risk is critical, as it directly impacts their operational stability and ability to navigate financial stress. NBFIs, which include entities such as asset managers, hedge funds, insurance companies, private equity firms, and private credit funds, provide crucial financial services without the same access to central bank liquidity or deposit bases that traditional banks rely on.

  This lack of access makes liquidity management more challenging for NBFIs, particularly because they often hold or finance illiquid assets such as private debt, real estate, or equity stakes in private companies. During periods of volatility, these assets become even more difficult to liquidate, exposing NBFIs to significant liquidity risk if they need to meet sudden cash demands.

  Many NBFIs face an additional challenge from their reliance on short-term funding to finance longer-term investments. This funding mismatch, where liabilities are short-term and assets are long-term, leaves NBFIs vulnerable when short-term funding markets tighten or become more expensive.

  For instance, hedge funds and private credit funds often depend on short-term repurchase agreements (repos) or commercial paper to finance their positions. If these markets dry up during periods of stress, NBFIs can face severe liquidity pressures that threaten their solvency.

  Investor runs or mass redemption requests are another prominent liquidity risk for NBFIs. Investment funds, such as mutual funds, ETFs, and hedge funds, allow investors to redeem their investments on short notice. In times of uncertainty, a rush of investors trying to withdraw their money can force NBFIs to sell assets quickly at depressed prices, further exacerbating market stress and undermining investor confidence.

  Given the interconnectedness of NBFIs with the broader financial system, liquidity challenges can have far-reaching effects. Many NBFIs maintain relationships with banks and other institutions through credit lines, derivatives, and other financial instruments.

  If an NBFI experiences a liquidity crisis, the impact can quickly spread to other market participants, affecting asset prices and destabilizing the broader financial system.

  The growing systemic importance of NBFIs highlights the need to carefully manage liquidity risk within this sector. As these institutions continue to take on roles traditionally filled by banks, the potential for liquidity pressures to create broader market disruptions has increased.

  While NBFIs provide essential credit and financial services, their reliance on illiquid assets and short-term funding leaves them particularly vulnerable to market shocks, making liquidity risk a central concern for the stability of the financial system.

  Conclusion

  The transformation of the global financial landscape since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has been monumental.

  The shift from traditional banking systems and public markets toward non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs) and private markets has significantly altered the structure and functioning of finance. As a result, NBFIs—including hedge funds, private equity firms, private credit funds, and fintech companies—have grown to occupy a larger portion of the financial ecosystem, becoming major players in corporate lending, investment management, and liquidity provision.

  One of the most profound developments has been the rapid expansion of private equity and private lending markets. These sectors have evolved to meet investor demand for higher-yielding opportunities, offering a wide range of innovative financial products such as leveraged buyouts (LBOs), private credit, and alternative debt structures. The rise of these markets is a testament to the adaptability of finance and the relentless pursuit of returns. However, it is not without significant risk—particularly in the realm of liquidity.

  Liquidity risk remains a critical challenge for private equity and private lending firms. Both industries rely on illiquid assets, such as private debt and equity stakes, which are difficult to convert into cash when needed.

  This inherent illiquidity can become a major vulnerability during periods of financial stress, when market conditions deteriorate, exit strategies are delayed, and asset sales become constrained. The complex and often opaque nature of these investments further compounds the risk, making it difficult for market participants and regulators to accurately assess the extent of exposure.

  The use of leverage amplifies these risks.

  Private equity firms, in particular, utilize significant amounts of debt to finance acquisitions, while private lenders provide loans to highly leveraged borrowers. When economic conditions worsen, the strain on both the firms and their borrowers becomes acute, leading to increased defaults, liquidity shortages, and the potential for forced asset sales. This situation is exacerbated by the “payment-in-kind” (PIK) structures that delay cash flow, creating additional stress on firms’ liquidity positions.

  Another crucial aspect of liquidity risk lies in the fund structures used by private equity and private credit firms. Closed-end funds with limited liquidity options can face a liquidity mismatch during economic downturns, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  Investors, seeking to withdraw capital, may force these funds to sell assets at unfavorable prices, sparking further market disruption. Moreover, the reliance of private equity and lending firms on external financing from traditional banks ties them closely to the regulated financial system, despite operating under different regulatory frameworks.

  As private equity, private lending, and NBFIs continue to grow in influence, so too does their interconnectedness with the broader financial system.

  This interconnectedness poses systemic risks.

  A liquidity crisis within one sector could quickly cascade across the financial landscape, leading to broader disruptions in asset prices, credit availability, and investor sentiment. The ripple effects of a crisis in private markets or shadow banking could undermine the stability of the global economy, just as the collapse of major financial institutions did during the 2008 GFC  – but with less warning due to less visibility.

  The starting point for private markets is illiquidity, unlike public markets whose starting point is liquidity. When things get illiquid, and they always do, this will pose a much bigger problem for private markets.

  Despite the significant role NBFIs play in modern finance, the regulatory framework governing these institutions lags behind their growing importance. NBFIs operate with far less oversight than traditional banks, which heightens the risks associated with leverage and illiquidity.

  While the lessons from past crises, such as the GFC, have led to some regulatory improvements, history shows that regulations often follow crises rather than prevent them.

  The question remains whether policymakers can enact tighter oversight of the NBFI sector before a liquidity-driven crisis emerges.

  In conclusion, the rise of NBFIs and private markets presents both opportunities and challenges.

  While these sectors have provided new avenues for investment and credit, their inherent illiquidity and use of leverage make them vulnerable to market shocks. The growing systemic importance of NBFIs highlights the need for a proactive regulatory approach to managing liquidity risks.

  Only by addressing these vulnerabilities can the financial system hope to mitigate the impact of future crises, ensuring that the benefits of financial innovation do not come at the cost of systemic stability.

  About

  The Macro Alchemist is an amalgamation of ideas, experiences, and investing disciplines sourced over decades from the minds of Brent Johnson and Michael Peregrine.

  Explore this latest topic further, and additional market insights from the creators, at MacroAlchemist.com

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 12:50

• Visualizing 'Law and (Dis)Order' Around The World In 2024
  Visualizing ‘Law and (Dis)Order’ Around The World In 2024

  Many prosperous countries are among the safest globally, highlighting the link between economic stability and physical security.

  Despite global conflicts reaching their highest levels since World War II—currently at 56—the public’s sense of safety has improved over the past decade. This rise in perceived safety is largely attributed to greater trust in law enforcement, which remains a key factor in how secure people feel, regardless of a country’s economic standing.

  This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, shows Law and Order Index scores by country, based on data from Gallup’s Global Safety Report 2024.

  

  Methodology

  The Law and Order Index reflects public perceptions of safety, based on a survey of 146,000 people from 140 countries. Respondents were asked about their perceptions on three key areas:

  • Feelings of personal safety

  • Confidence in police

  • Experience of assault and theft

  Where Are the Safest Countries in the World?

  Below, we show how each country ranks according to their Law and Order Index scores in 2024:

  Country	Law and Order Index Score 2024
  🇰🇼 Kuwait	98
  🇸🇬 Singapore	95
  🇹🇯 Tajikistan	95
  🇳🇴 Norway	93
  🇪🇪 Estonia	91
  🇫🇮 Finland	91
  🇮🇸 Iceland	91
  🇽🇰 Kosovo	91
  🇱🇺 Luxembourg	91
  🇨🇭 Switzerland	91
  🇩🇰 Denmark	90
  🇦🇪 UAE	90
  🇻🇳 Vietnam	90
  🇧🇭 Bahrain	89
  🇸🇻 El Salvador	89
  🇮🇩 Indonesia	89
  🇵🇹 Portugal	89
  🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia	89
  🇸🇮 Slovenia	89
  🇺🇿 Uzbekistan	89
  🇨🇳 China	88
  🇪🇬 Egypt	88
  🇲🇪 Montenegro	88
  🇳🇱 Netherlands	88
  🇸🇪 Sweden	88
  🇹🇼 Taiwan	88
  🇦🇹 Austria	87
  🇦🇿 Azerbaijan	87
  🇯🇴 Jordan	87
  🇲🇾 Malaysia	87
  🇪🇸 Spain	87
  🇬🇪 Georgia	86
  🇩🇪 Germany	86
  🇭🇰 Hong Kong, S.A.R.	86
  🇮🇪 Ireland	86
  🇯🇵 Japan	86
  🇱🇹 Lithuania	86
  🇦🇲 Armenia	85
  🇨🇿 Czech Republic	85
  🇰🇷 South Korea	85
  🇦🇱 Albania	84
  🇫🇷 France	84
  🇮🇶 Iraq	84
  🇮🇱 Israel	84
  🇲🇹 Malta	84
  🇵🇭 Philippines	84
  🇧🇪 Belgium	83
  🇨🇦 Canada	83
  🇭🇺 Hungary	83
  🇮🇳 India	83
  🇷🇸 Serbia	83
  🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina	82
  🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan	82
  🇱🇻 Latvia	82
  🇹🇷 Northern Cyprus	82
  🇸🇰 Slovakia	82
  🇸🇴 Somalia	82
  🇹🇷 Türkiye	82
  🇬🇧 United Kingdom	82
  🇦🇺 Australia	81
  🇧🇩 Bangladesh	81
  🇭🇷 Croatia	81
  🇮🇷 Iran	81
  🇮🇹 Italy	81
  🇵🇱 Poland	81
  🇷🇺 Russian Federation	81
  🇺🇸 United States	81
  🇰🇭 Cambodia	80
  🇰🇿 Kazakhstan	80
  🇲🇺 Mauritius	80
  🇲🇩 Moldova	80
  🇲🇰 North Macedonia	79
  🇹🇿 Tanzania	79
  🇹🇭 Thailand	79
  🇧🇬 Bulgaria	78
  🇧🇫 Burkina Faso	78
  🇲🇦 Morocco	78
  🇵🇰 Pakistan	78
  🇷🇴 Romania	78
  🇨🇾 Cyprus	77
  🇬🇷 Greece	77
  🇱🇦 Lao	77
  🇲🇱 Mali	77
  🇳🇵 Nepal	77
  🇵🇦 Panama	77
  🇱🇰 Sri Lanka	77
  🇱🇾 Libya	76
  🇳🇿 New Zealand	76
  🇹🇳 Tunisia	76
  🇵🇸 State of Palestine	75
  🇺🇾 Uruguay	75
  🇧🇷 Brazil	74
  🇨🇮 Côte d’Ivoire	74
  🇬🇹 Guatemala	74
  🇨🇷 Costa Rica	73
  🇭🇳 Honduras	73
  🇱🇧 Lebanon	73
  🇺🇦 Ukraine	73
  🇧🇯 Benin	72
  🇵🇾 Paraguay	72
  🇸🇳 Senegal	72
  🇬🇭 Ghana	71
  🇲🇳 Mongolia	71
  🇲🇿 Mozambique	71
  🇹🇬 Togo	71
  🇾🇪 Yemen	71
  🇪🇹 Ethiopia	70
  🇰🇲 Comoros	69
  🇩🇴 Dominican Republic	69
  🇿🇼 Zimbabwe	69
  🇨🇱 Chile	68
  🇲🇬 Madagascar	68
  🇳🇪 Niger	68
  🇲🇽 Mexico	66
  🇻🇪 Venezuela	66
  🇦🇷 Argentina	65
  🇨🇴 Colombia	65
  🇲🇷 Mauritania	65
  🇳🇬 Nigeria	65
  🇿🇲 Zambia	65
  🇨🇲 Cameroon	64
  🇲🇲 Myanmar	64
  🇳🇦 Namibia	64
  🇬🇳 Guinea	63
  🇰🇪 Kenya	63
  🇲🇼 Malawi	63
  🇵🇪 Peru	63
  🇨🇬 Republic of the Congo	63
  🇧🇴 Bolivia	62
  🇸🇿 Eswatini	62
  🇬🇦 Gabon	62
  🇺🇬 Uganda	62
  🇧🇼 Botswana	60
  🇹🇩 Chad	60
  🇬🇲 The Gambia	59
  🇨🇩 DRC	58
  🇿🇦 South Africa	58
  🇸🇱 Sierra Leone	57
  🇪🇨 Ecuador	55
  🇱🇷 Liberia	50

  Countries with high state control had the strongest public perceptions of safety, led by Kuwait, Singapore, and Tajikistan.

  Globally, Singapore ranks as one of the safest countries in the world. This is aided by low violent crime rates, at 9 per 100,000 people as of 2021. Strict law enforcement and banning the possession of weapons likely increase feelings of safety among the public. Additionally, the government enforces capital punishment for murder and illegally possessing firearms.

  Moreover, seven of the top 10 countries were in Europe, likely due to low crime rates and high trust in government institutions. In particular, Finland has one of the highest public trust in police systems, at 87% of the population, while 74% trust the judicial system.

  By contrast, Liberia fell at the bottom of the list for the second year in a row, driven by personal experience of crime, low trust in law enforcement, and economic hardship. Concerningly, 28% of respondents were the victim of assault in the last year, while 45% had experienced theft. As one of the poorest countries worldwide, Liberia has faced years of political corruption and low access to public services, exacerbating public perceptions of safety.

  To learn more about this topic from a homicide rate perspective, check out this graphic on the world’s most dangerous countries.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 12:15

• How The 7 Swing States Will Count Votes And Post Election Results
  How The 7 Swing States Will Count Votes And Post Election Results

  Authored by Lawrence Wilson, Allan Stein, John Haughey, Nathan Worcester, Jackson Richman, Arjun Singh, Jeff Louderback, Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

  The 2024 presidential election on Nov. 5 likely hinges on the outcome in seven battleground states.

  

  Battlegrounds—also called swing or purple states—are where support for Democratic and Republican candidates has been split in recent presidential elections. Current swing states are Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.

  Most other states consistently break for the same political party and aren’t considered competitive.

  The battleground states account for 93 of the nation’s 538 electoral votes. The winner needs at least 270 electoral votes—more than half—to win.

  Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris appear nearly tied in those seven states, according to current polling averages. And all of those states currently are considered tossups that could go either way, according to Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan elections rating group.

  How long it will take for Americans to know the results in the seven swing states depends on the individual states’ laws.

  State Election Laws Differ

  Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are conducted by each state.

  Unofficial results often are reported soon after polls close, sometimes within hours. News organizations often announce presumed winners of national races within hours or by the early morning of the next day.

  But the official result takes longer for several reasons.

  State laws vary regarding when to count ballots that are mailed in, dropped off, or cast during in-person early voting.

  Though they go by different names, all seven battleground states allow some kind of absentee or mail-in voting. And all offer early in-person voting, which is now underway throughout most states.

  Some state laws allow for early ballots to be tallied before Election Day. Others prohibit counting before polls close.

  Mailed ballots received after Election Day still will be counted in some states, as long as they were postmarked by Nov. 5. The deadline for receiving them varies by state.

  

  Poll workers demonstrate how ballots are are received, processed, scanned, and securely stored on Election Day during a press tour by the Philadelphia City Commissioners, at the Philadelphia Election Warehouse in Philadelphia on Oct. 25, 2024. Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

  Verifying Voters

  Counting ballots not cast in person can take more time.

  Some states—Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan—require a voter’s signature on a mail-in ballot to be verified.

  In Georgia, officials must verify that the driver’s license number or state-issued identification number included on the returned ballot matches what’s on file for the voter.

  In Wisconsin, an adult witness must sign the ballot being returned, verifying the voter filled out his or her own ballot.

  In North Carolina, a voter using an absentee ballot must sign a certificate witnessed by a notary or two adults who also provide their addresses.

  Pennsylvania requires proof of identification to be submitted when requesting an absentee or mail-in ballot. But no challenges may be made to mail-in or absentee ballots at any time based on signature analysis, the commonwealth’s rules stipulate.

  Provisional ballots can complicate the process further.

  A provisional ballot usually is used when a voter shows up at a precinct to vote and his or her name doesn’t appear on the list of registered voters.

  After being marked, a provisional ballot is slipped into a secrecy envelope and kept separate from the regular ballot box. After the polls close, that ballot will be counted only if the voter is confirmed as eligible to vote.

  But even after all ballots have been tallied, the results still aren’t official.

  Each state has a canvass period and certification process in which officials formally certify their state’s results, which usually takes place around three weeks after Election Day.

  The U.S. Election Assistance Commission lists each state’s certification deadline online.

  

  Voters cast their ballots during Michigan’s early voting period in Dearborn, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2024. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

  Arizona

  Arizona has 11 electoral votes and about 4.4 million registered voters.

  Candidate Joe Biden flipped Arizona in his favor in 2020, besting incumbent Trump by fewer than 10,500 votes or 0.3 percent.

  The deadline in Arizona to register to vote in this election cycle was Oct. 7. In-person early voting began two days later and continued through 7 p.m. on Nov. 1.

  Voters on the state’s Active Early Voting List automatically receive a ballot by mail. Those can be returned by mail or at drop boxes at the state’s polling places.

  Counties can begin tabulating those ballots after early voting begins. Early ballots that come in on Election Day will be tabulated in the days immediately following the election.

  But before any are counted, election officials must compare the signature on the ballot envelope to the voter’s signature on file.

  If the signatures match, the ballot is counted immediately. If the signature is in question, election officials are to try to contact the voter to confirm the ballot’s validity. 

  Military members and other overseas citizens can cast their ballots by fax or by uploading to a secure system maintained by the secretary of state. Ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

  Voting in person in Arizona requires valid identification.

  Anyone who attempts to vote on Election Day has “the right to cast a ballot,” according to the Arizona secretary of state. But provisional ballots only will be counted if the county recorder can verify the voter’s eligibility.

  On Election Day, polling locations in the 15 Arizona counties close at 7 p.m. Anyone in line at that time is allowed to vote.

  After polls close, ballots are either tabulated at the polls or at a county’s central counting location.

  Arizona provides livestream viewing of county vote-tabulation rooms and publishes details online about measures used to keep electronic voting equipment secure.

  Maricopa County is home to about 2.4 million registered voters—more than 60 percent of the state’s electorate.

  

  A glass-enclosed room, which is open to the public for observing the verification process, is located at the electoral center in Pinal County, Ariz., on Oct. 18, 2024. Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

  Maricopa counts votes at its own centralized location, the Maricopa County Tabulation and Elections Center (MCTEC) in Phoenix. The facility provides livestream viewing of signature verification, early-ballot processing, and ballot tabulation.

  Officials there warned on Oct. 22 that it may take between 10 and 13 days to tabulate the results of the Nov. 5 election.

  In the aftermath of the 2020 contest, Trump and other Republicans alleged that Arizona’s election was rife with voter fraud. Ultimately, lawsuits against Arizona and Maricopa County officials were dismissed. In 2020, county officials certified the results 17 days after Election Day.

  Election Day voters in Maricopa County usually make up 10 to 15 percent of the vote in the county. To vote in person, Arizonans must present identification, get a new ballot printed, fill it out at the voting location, and feed it into a tabulator.

  After polls close, rules direct bipartisan employees of Maricopa County to put memory drives from tabulators into tamper-proof packages and take them to MCTEC. There, workers verify they’ve been kept secure and load election results into the election server, periodically releasing updated race results.

  On Election Night, Arizona’s election results will be available online after 8 p.m. and will be updated sporadically.

  State statute requires that bipartisan appointees validate the accuracy of the vote-tabulation system through a random hand-count audit of 1 percent of early ballots and 2 percent of votes cast at a voting center.

  Canvassing begins on Nov. 11. Canvassing is the process of accounting for every ballot cast. It ensures each valid vote is included in the official results.

  During the canvass, election officials resolve discrepancies and check for accuracy before certifying the results as final.

  If a county hand-count audit is held, each recognized party on the ballot appoints representatives to participate. County officials have until Nov. 21 to certify their results.

  A statewide canvass will be conducted on Nov. 25. The deadline for Arizona to certify election results is Dec. 2.

  

  Election workers open envelopes and sort ballots at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center in Phoenix on Oct. 23, 2024. Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

  Nevada

  Nevada has six electoral votes and nearly 2.4 million registered voters.

  All active registered voters were sent ballots by mail, unless they opted out. And most Nevadans traditionally vote early or by absentee ballot.

  In 2020, a little more than 77 percent of the state’s voters cast ballots. Only about 11 percent voted on Election Day. The rest voted early in person or returned absentee ballots.

  To be counted in Nevada, mailed ballots must be postmarked by Election Day and received by the county no later than four days later, on Nov. 9.

  Early in-person voting in Nevada began on Oct. 19 and runs through Nov. 1. On Day 1 of early voting, 42,237 Nevadans cast ballots.

  Tallies of those early ballots can’t be released before polls close at 7 p.m. on Election Day.

  Under Nevada law, “compromising the secrecy of the ballot by releasing results early is a crime,” according to Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar.

  Even on Election Day, eligible citizens can register to vote and cast a ballot in the state.

  In the hopes of speeding up results, new guidance from Aguilar instructs election officials to start tabulating early voting returns and mail ballots at 8 a.m. on Election Day.

  By 6 p.m., county clerks and registrars are to provide their first election results to the secretary of state’s office for verification.

  “This year, the country will be looking to Nevada to determine the winner of the presidential election,” Aguilar stated in a news release.

  

  A banner marks a voting site on the first day of in-person early voting at the Thunderbird Family Sports Complex in Las Vegas on Oct. 19, 2024. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

  “Voters deserve available results on Election Night; releasing results sooner will increase transparency, help us combat misinformation, and alleviate pressure on election officials … [and] this change is a win for our entire state.”

  Clark County—home to Las Vegas and 71 percent of Nevada voters—has 132 polling and drop box locations.

  Once county clerks and registrars confirm all polls are closed and the last voter has voted, the secretary of state’s office plans to release unofficial results online. Results are expected to be updated routinely until the final update after the canvass of the vote by the counties.

  Ballots are tabulated on voting devices and saved on removable media that are taken by two election board members to a receiving center or counting place, according to Nevada law.

  “If practical,” the law stipulates, those election board “members must be of different political parties.”

  Members of the general public are allowed to observe the delivery of those voting components in sealed containers and watch vote-counting.

  Nevada’s electronic voting system isn’t connected to a network or the Internet, and it can’t connect wirelessly. All components go through a series of tests and audits before they can be used.

  And components have a chain of custody, with “tamper evident” security seals. Access to them is limited to authorized personnel.

  City or county clerks supervise the operation of the central counting places.

  As soon as the returns from all the precincts and districts have been received by the board of county commissioners, the board shall meet and canvass the returns.

  Counties have up to 10 days to certify elections.

  In 2020, the Nevada GOP sued, citing claims of fraud. So the election was not officially finalized until the state’s Supreme Court certified the results on Nov. 24.

  This year, Nevada’s deadline to certify its election results is Nov. 26, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

  

  Clark County Election Department poll workers check in voters at a table as people vote at the Meadows Mall in Las Vegas on Oct. 21, 2024. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

  Wisconsin

  Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes and more than 3.5 million active registered voters.

  As of Oct. 29, more than 1.1 million absentee ballots had been sent out, and a little more than 511,000 had been returned.

  The ballots must be returned by mail or in person at a ballot drop-off location by 8 p.m. on Nov. 5, when polls close.

  Absentee ballots are counted by being put through a tabulator at polling places on Election Day. To be counted, the envelope must include a signature from the voter along with one from a witness and the witness’s address.

  They also can be processed at what’s known as a “central count” location, common in larger municipalities, such as Milwaukee.

  To vote on Election Day, Wisconsin residents must show a photo ID that meets state standards when checking in at a polling place. State law does not authorize or require a voter’s signature to be verified.

  At each polling place, there normally are seven election inspectors led by a chief inspector who is coordinated by the municipal clerk. Municipal clerks also can appoint tabulators to help count votes.

  The group of inspectors normally includes Democrats and Republicans. Under state law, the party that garnered the most votes in the territory covered by the polling place during non-presidential election years “is entitled to one more inspector than the party receiving the next largest number of votes at each polling place.”

  Wisconsin has a three-step process for certifying elections.

  After polls close and ballots have been entered into the machines for voting, poll workers convene their “board of local canvassers.” Anyone, including the media, may observe and record the proceedings from a designated area.

  Municipal clerks transmit results to Wisconsin’s 72 county clerks, who are required to post unofficial results on their websites. Wisconsin doesn’t have a statewide system for reporting unofficial results on Election Night, and there isn’t a central official website where results will be reported.

  

  People vote early at a polling site at the Warner Park recreation center in Madison, Wis., on Oct. 30, 2024. Scott Olson/Getty Images

  “The municipality, or the county, on behalf of the municipality, is responsible for ballot retention post-Election Day,” a spokesperson for the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission told The Epoch Times. “The two entities would need to work together to determine which option is best.”

  Counties have 14 days to transmit their certified results to the state.

  This year, that’s Nov. 19.

  The state elections commission will canvass the election and report the state’s official results by Dec. 1.

  Michigan

  Michigan has 15 electoral votes and more than 8.4 million registered voters.

  The state uses all paper ballots, which are fed into a tabulator in each precinct to calculate the results, Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini told The Epoch Times.

  Michigan law allows so-called “poll watchers” to be present in a designated public viewing area where they can observe the process at a polling place, early voting site, or place where absentee voter ballots are being processed. 

  Early in-person voting is open at regional sites within each county for a minimum of nine days and for up to 28 days ending on Nov. 3.

  Counties were allowed to start the early-voting period as late as Oct. 26.

  Early votes are tabulated when cast, Forlini said.

  Absentee ballots are received and stored securely by township clerks, he said.

  

  Workers process absentee ballots for the 2024 general election at Huntington Place in Detroit on Oct. 29, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

  To be counted, mailed absentee ballots must be received by the voter’s local clerk by 8 p.m. on Election Day.

  Ballots returned by military and overseas voters must be postmarked by Nov. 5 and received within six days after Election Day.

  As of Nov. 2 at 7 a.m., nearly 2.8 million voters—about 38 percent of the electorate—had voted early or returned an absentee ballot. The numbers are updated online daily by the state.

  Cities and townships can provide written notice to the secretary of state and begin processing and tabulating absentee ballots early. But totaling the vote count and generating, printing or reporting election results isn’t allowed before 8 p.m. on Election Day.

  Some counties have a centralized absentee-vote-counting center, according to Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown. 

  Polls close at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

  At that time, precinct officials—including at least two Republicans and two Democrats—will canvass the election to ensure that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who received a ballot, Forlini said.

  Precinct officials then print results from the tabulator, remove the computer memory stick that was locked into the tabulator, and seal both, along with their paperwork, in three tamper-proof envelopes. 

  One is directed to the county clerk. One goes to a probate judge. And one remains with the local clerk, according to Forlini.

  Ballots are placed in sealed containers, and the serial number of the seal is recorded in the ballot book. Ballots remain with the local clerk, Forlini said.

  Precinct results are then delivered to the county clerk.

  Some counties, such as Macomb, deliver them in person. Others, including Oakland, do so by modem, using an air-gap computer that has not been connected to the internet.

  In an October interview on CBS, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson estimated that unofficial election results for her state will be available by the end of the day on Nov. 6.

  

  Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson speaks during a House Administration Committee hearing at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 11, 2024. Bonnie Cash/Getty Images

  But Michigan’s results remain unofficial until the Board of State Canvassers audits them and certifies the election.

  That county-level canvass process begins the day after Election Day and must be completed within two weeks. This year, the deadline is Nov. 19.

  The Board of State Canvassers meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. on Nov. 22. The meeting will be livestreamed.

  Under Michigan law, the state must canvass and certify the election results no later than the 20th day after the election, which falls on Nov. 25 this year.

  Pennsylvania

  Pennsylvania has 19 electoral votes and a little more than 9 million registered voters.

  Oct. 21 was the last day to register to vote in Pennsylvania. In 2020, slightly more than 76 percent of registered voters cast a ballot in the presidential election.

  The period for “early on-demand voting” differs by county. The deadline to apply for a “no-excuse mail-in” or absentee ballot was Oct. 29 at 5 p.m. Some locations accepting those ballots in person had already closed before Oct. 29.

  The deadline to return a mail-in or absentee ballot is 8 p.m. on Nov. 5. Pennsylvania law requires voters to return their own ballots. A voter with a disability may use a form to designate someone else to deliver his or her ballot.

  Unlike many other states, Pennsylvania law prevents counties from opening any ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, when voting starts at more than 9,100 polling places.

  On the morning of Election Day, Pennsylvania poll workers can begin counting mail-in ballots.

  They’ll begin counting in-person ballots when polls close at 8 p.m. Poll workers will continue counting into the next day, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State.

  Poll watchers from political parties with candidates on the ballot can observe the counting. The locations for vote tabulation vary by county.

  In Philadelphia County, home to more than 1.1 million voters, ballot tabulation will take place at the Philadelphia City Commissioners Office & Election Warehouse, a spokesman for the Philadelphia City Commission told The Epoch Times in an email. The Philadelphia County Board of Elections, led by three city commissioners, will count the ballots, he said.

  

  A person drops off a mail-in ballot in Doylestown, Pa., on Oct. 15, 2024. Registered voters in Pennsylvania can vote “on demand” by requesting a mail-in or absentee ballot, filling it out, and dropping it off all in one visit to their county election office or other designated location. Hannah Beier/Getty Images

  Each county must submit the initial results to Pennsylvania’s Department of State by 3 a.m. on Nov. 6.

  Unofficial results will be published online starting after 8 p.m. on Election Night and will be updated periodically.

  The county boards will meet to canvass the election results by 9 a.m. on Nov. 8. During that process, they’ll reconcile results to ensure the number of people who voted in each precinct matches the number of ballots.

  Election officials also will check provisional ballots and process those that are eligible to be counted. By 5 p.m. on Nov. 12, counties must submit their results to the Department of State. Military-overseas ballots must be delivered by that time.

  By Nov. 25, counties must certify their election results. After reviewing them, Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt will certify election results statewide.

  By Dec. 11, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro must sign a certificate of ascertainment, appointing electors. At noon on Dec. 17, those electors meet at the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg to vote for the new president and vice president.

  North Carolina

  North Carolina has 16 electoral votes and almost 7.8 million registered voters.

  As of Nov. 1, more than 4.1 million ballots had been cast. That’s about 53 percent.

  In-person early voting started in all 100 counties on Oct. 17 and ended on Nov. 2 at 3 p.m.

  On the first day, a record 353,166 ballots were accepted at polling sites statewide, according to preliminary North Carolina State Board of Elections data.

  That surpassed the previous first-day record set in 2020 by 1.3 percent.

  

  A long line of potential voters wait outside an early voting site in Asheville, N.C., on Oct. 17, 2024. Several counties affected by Hurricane Helene had a large voter turnout on the first day of early voting. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

  By Election Day in 2020, when the state went for Trump, about 65 percent of North Carolinians had cast their ballots.

  That was up from 62 percent of voters casting early ballots in 2016. Trump won the state’s electoral college votes that year, too.

  This year, the state’s official voter registration deadline was Oct. 11. But any voters providing acceptable photo identification will be allowed to register and vote during early voting.

  North Carolinians were able to request absentee ballots online or in person through Oct. 29. The deadline was extended until 5 p.m. on the day before Election Day for active military families or U.S. citizens outside the United States.

  North Carolina absentee voting has been adjusted since Hurricane Helene ravaged the western part of the state on Sept. 28. Now, voters from the 25 counties hit hardest by Helene’s flooding and mudslides can return absentee ballots to any early voting site during early voting.

  Those counties are Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Clay, Cleveland, Gaston, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancey.

  The State Board of Elections website offers detailed information for voters affected by the disaster.

  North Carolina also provides detailed information online about the state’s voting procedures designed to protect election integrity, including the staffing of two “judges” from at least two different political parties at each site. Additionally, the chair of each political party in a county can appoint observers to monitor early voting and Election Day voting.

  On Election Day, voters without the required photo ID still can vote by filling out a form explaining why they don’t have identification, or by casting a provisional ballot and showing valid identification at their county board of elections office by 5 p.m. on Nov. 14.

  After the polls close in North Carolina on Election Night at 7:30 p.m., the counting of all received ballots begins. Results are updated every 5 to 10 minutes online as they are approved by county boards of elections.

  But results still will be unofficial.

  

  A voter checks her information while checking in for early voting in Hendersonville, N.C., on Oct. 17, 2024. Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images

  The day after the election, bipartisan teams at every county board of elections will conduct an open-to-the-public hand-count audit to ensure voting equipment recorded voters’ choices accurately, according to the state board of elections.

  The state board of elections chooses two groups of ballots to count from each county, either from individual precincts or early voting sites, or all the absentee ballots cast in a county. The state tells each county which groups to count. Examined in the audit is always the top contest on the ballot—this year, the presidential race.

  Also counted are absentee by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Nov. 5 and those received from military members serving overseas. They can arrive as late as 5 p.m. on Nov. 14.

  Each county board is scheduled to certify results in open-to-the-public meetings 10 days after the election on Nov. 15. The State Board of Elections is scheduled to meet on Nov. 26 at 11 a.m. to certify the election results.

  Georgia

  Georgia has 16 electoral votes and more than 8.2 million registered voters.

  The deadline to register to vote was Oct. 7.

  Early voting began on Oct. 15 and ended on Nov. 1. And Day 1 smashed records, according to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

  More than 310,000 cast ballots, he said, up from 136,739 on the first day of voting in the 2020 presidential election and up from 134,962 on Day 1 of voting in the 2022 midterms.

  As of Nov. 2, more than 4 million ballots had been cast either in person or by mail and numbers were being updated periodically online. That’s 55.3 percent turnout.

  On Election Day, polls will be open in the state from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

  Voters not able to show valid identification to poll workers can vote by provisional ballot and will have three days to resolve questions of eligibility. Any voters in line by 7 p.m. still will be allowed to vote.

  Georgia’s State Election Board voted 3–2 on Sept. 20 to establish a rule requiring ballots to be hand-counted on the evening of the election after the polls close. But Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney blocked that rule on Oct. 15, saying the change was “too much, too late.”

  

  Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger holds up a mobile device during a news conference at the State Capitol in Atlanta on Oct. 23, 2024. Alex Wong/Getty Images

  McBurney also repeated criticisms that others, including Raffensperger, had leveled at the change—that there were no procedures in place under the new hand-count rule, and that the counting process would result in delays that would undermine voter confidence in the results.

  Absentee ballots are verified in Georgia by elections workers as they are received. Information on each ballot is cross-checked with an official photo ID on file with the state, according to a spokesman for the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

  On Election Day, elections workers will begin tabulating early and absentee ballots at 7 a.m., the spokesman said. Absentee ballots must be received by 7 p.m. on Nov. 5 to be counted, he said.

  When the polls close, each poll station manager, accompanied by two poll officers serving as witnesses, will record the number of ballots scanned and generate three paper “tapes,” receipts with election results from each scanner. 

  One tape is affixed to the polling station’s door for public view. Another is stored in an envelope, along with the memory card with scanning machine data to be sent to the county election superintendent. The third tape is stored in an envelope along with a polling recap form. 

  All the voting data—the scanner memory card, the paper ballots, the voting machine access cards voters use to operate voting machines, and electronic poll books with voter information—are placed in sealed containers.

  These are delivered to the county election superintendent by the poll manager and at least one other poll worker or law enforcement officer.

  Georgia state law requires that results from precincts are consolidated by the county election superintendent and counted in public view.

  The rules say that the counting “shall not cease” until the results are all tabulated, barring an emergency. The results are then reported to the secretary of state.

  

  Lee County poll workers look for watermarks on voting paper during poll worker training in Leesburg, Ga., on Oct. 2, 2024. Becca Milfeld/AFP via Getty Images

  In 2020 a water leak, originally reported as a burst pipe, led to a counting delay of several hours at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena polling station in Fulton County.

  After the election, paper ballots are stored by the clerk of the county superior court with other county records. If there is no contest to the election they may be destroyed after two years.

  State rules require each county election board to meet by 3 p.m. the Friday after the election, this year on Nov. 8, to conduct a review of precinct returns.

  The election must be certified by 5 p.m. on the Monday after Election Day. This year, that Monday is Veterans Day. So the deadline will be extended to the next day, Nov. 12.

  But even the certification deadline is the subject of a legal battle in Georgia.

  McBurney ruled on Oct. 15 that election officials cannot refuse to certify results by the required deadline, even if they suspect fraud.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 11:40

• Kamala Harris Bans Virtual Guns In Her Own "Freedom Town" Fortnite Game
  Kamala Harris Bans Virtual Guns In Her Own “Freedom Town” Fortnite Game

  In the digital era video games are the most consumed form of entertainment by far, and gamers who spent their formative years playing the first generation Nintendo, Sega and Playstation are all now adults with careers, businesses, families and voting status.  A lot of them still play. 

  While surveys suggest that this demographic is made up almost evenly of men and women, the reality is that most women who do play games do so casually, focusing predominantly on less intensive and non-competitive media.  Meanwhile, the vast majority of competitive gamers are men.  “Competitive” generally means combat games featuring combat mechanics and weapons.  In other words, they are the same demographic that Democrats have been demonizing as “toxic incels” for the past ten years.   

  The 2024 election is perhaps the first election in which both major political parties are vying for the attention of gamers for votes.  Trump has done live events with popular video game streamers and the group is increasingly leaning conservative.  Let’s not forget the “Gamer Gate” controversy in which gamers were attacked relentlessly by the mainstream media for pointing out that the gaming industry had been invaded by woke activists.  In 2024 this agenda is thoroughly exposed but in those days the culture war was just a tiny spark.

  

  At the time the political left denied that they were infiltrating and controlling pop media.  Gamers were one of the first groups outside of the alternative media to openly challenge the political left’s subversive dominance in the entertainment space.

  True to form, even when Democrats court gamers for their affections the party does so with nefarious intentions.  Kamala Harris in an odd campaign stunt has partnered with the company behind the popular Fortnite franchise; an online third person shooter which requires players to eliminate all their competition on a map and be the last person standing.

  Harris’ map, ironically labeled “Freedom Town”, set the players on a mission to “squad up, go vote and fight for freedom.”  However, the combat game lacks one important item in Freedom Town: Guns.

  That’s right, Harris banned guns in her own virtual video game world.  Players no longer fight competitively; rather, they scour a city covered in Kamala propaganda while they collect items like lost Harris campaign posters “scattered by the wind.”  Hopefully the game is a portent of the Harris campaign being scattered to the winds instead of a representation of the world to come.

  If Harris is banning virtual guns in her video game, what would she do with real guns in the real world as President…?

  Not surprisingly, the gaming gimmick was a complete failure.  The number of players participating?  A maximum of 383.  To put this embarrassment in perspective, Fortnite has over 400 million registered players worldwide and the average established map has over 300,000 participants in a 24 hour period.  Harris couldn’t even break 400 players in 24 hours.

  The amount of money put into the stunt must have been sizeable.  Securing a partnership with Fortnite, paying for the programmers that created the special map, renting the server space, and the background music is a track from Megan Thee Stallion.  All for nothing.  

  The woke movement’s relentless mission to inject progressive ideology and LGBT messaging into video games has not helped to endear gamers to Democrats – It’s done the opposite.  A majority of these video games are now imploding, with development studios shutting down after  losing hundreds of millions of dollars on AAA titles.  Get woke, go broke.

  Kamala Harris may end up being the ultimate get woke go broke allegory if she loses the election on November 5th.  It’s difficult to find a demographic (beyond childless cat ladies and Hollywood celebrities) that actually respects the candidate.  Gamers have shown she’s certainly not popular with them.            

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 11/03/2024 – 11:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Portents Of Chaos
  Portents Of Chaos

  Authored by Patrick Lawrence via Consortium News,

  At this moment it is hard to locate the limit of what either of the two main political parties in the U.S. will do to avoid losing…

  

  Uh-oh. The New York Times is picking up its familiar theme now that the Nov. 5 elections are but a few days out front: Those mal-intended foreigners are again “sowing discord and chaos in hopes of discrediting American democracy,” it reported in a piece published Tuesday. 

  The Beelzebubs haunting this political season, when everything would otherwise be orderly and altogether copacetic among Americans, are Russia, China and Iran.

  Why can’t this year’s version of the old, reliable “Axis of Evil” leave us alone with our “democratic process,” the one the rest of the world envies and resents? Troublemakers, with all their “sowing.” You could probably call them “garbage” and get away with it. 

  Uh-oh. We’re already reading of tampered voter-registration forms and forged applications to vote by mail in two districts in Pennsylvania, the populous state where the results in 2020 could not have been blurrier and whose 19 Electoral College votes were decisive in getting Joe Biden into the White House last time around.

  But not to worry. In a delightful reprise of one of the truly memorable phrases to come down to us from the 1960s, an election commissioner in one of the districts where officials uncovered the malfeasance tells us, “The system worked.” 

  I think I understand.  

  I tell you, whenever I read of people in other countries sowing anything, whether it is doubt or chaos or disinformation, and at this point even pumpkin seeds, it always turns out the same. This word “sowing” has been a favorite in the mainstream press since 2016, when we read daily — and of this we were to have no doubt — the Rrrrrussians were “interfering in our elections.”  

  Since then, everytime I read of someone sowing something it sows more doubt in my mind — more than I already harbored — that one can take our electoral system, as we have it in the 21st century, the slightest bit seriously.  

  This is to say nothing of putting one’s name on it behind a little green curtain in a voting booth.

  On the one hand you have the Times, which has diminished itself over the past eight years to little more than the Democrats’ house organ, already preparing to suggest that the malign enemies of American democracy corrupted the elections. Believe me, you will hear this if Kamala Harris loses but not if she wins.  

  On the other hand, you have early but clear cases of attempted vote-rigging and local election officials waving these cases off as nothing at all to fret about. It is interesting to consider why said officials profess so cavalier a view.  

  I have thought for months that the 2024 elections, discord already in plentiful supply, could easily tip over into a degree of civil chaos beyond anything so far recorded in the American story. Just such a day of reckoning now seems to beckon. 

  Neither of the main parties appears prepared to lose. At this moment it is hard to locate the limit of what either party will do to avoid losing. 

  Remnants of Democracy

  All by our lonesome selves, it seems to me, we Americans have made a mess of the remnants of our democracy these past eight years.

  This is not to suggest American politics has ever been other than, let’s say, in the way of a barnyard. In this, neither of the major parties, whose function since the mid–19th century has been to circumscribe acceptable politics and policy, is free of responsibility. 

  But in the matter of responsibility I assign more to the Democrats than to the G.O.P. It was Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump eight Novembers ago that confirmed America’s swift drift into post-democracy.

  The Democrats have never recovered from the disruption in 2016 of their dream that history was about to end and their idea of the liberal ethos would eternally prevail, all alternatives withering away the way Marx and Engels thought the communist state would.

  

  Anti-Trump protest in Washington, D.C., Nov. 12, 2016. (Ted Eytan/Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)

  I have long detected that American liberalism has at its core a vein of illiberalism that is essential to its character.

  America is simply not, to put this point another way, a tolerant nation. It does not encourage its people to think: It requires them to conform. Alexis de Tocqueville saw this coming two centuries ago in the two volumes of Democracy in America. 

  We are now, post–Clinton, treated to the spectacle of full-dress liberal authoritarianism, and if you do not like the term there are others. De Tocqueville, prescient man, called it “soft despotism.” I’ve always favored “apple-pie authoritarianism.”

  Institutional Corruptions

  There is a feature of this awful manifestation among NPR–addicted, kale-eating liberals that distinguishes our time as especially discouraging as to the future.

  This is their wanton corruption of some of the institutions without which even a semblance of democratic government is impossible. I am thinking particularly of three that figure in the pre-election picture.

  One is the judiciary — federal, state, county, local. Beginning with the Mueller investigation, the in-plain-sight corruption of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the ridiculous court cases brought against Donald Trump, Attorney–General Merrick Garland’s subversion of the Justice Department to protect President Joe Biden as his son’s influence-mongering schemes came to light — all this in behalf of the Democrats:

  Well, as I learned during my days as a correspondent abroad, when the judicial system goes down, the path to failed-state status opens.  

  Two is the intelligence apparatus and the military. Intel, from the days of James Clapper and John Brennan, has lined up unequivocally behind the Democrats ever since the brash real-estate man from New York foolishly assumed he could “drain the swamp” — his declaration that he would take on the Deep State.

  

  U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, Feb. 18, 2017. (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

  As to the military, the generals thought nothing of declaring eight years ago, at the Democrats’ convention in Philadelphia and in open letters published in the Times, that they would refuse the commander-in-chief’s orders were Trump to win and attempt a new détente with Russia and an end to “the forever wars.” 

  Yes, you’ve got John Kelly, who served in Trump’s cabinet and then as his chief of staff, suddenly calling Trump a fascist — the Democrats’ favorite epithet these past weeks. Doesn’t anyone want to know why Kelly worked closely with a man he considered a fascist? Doesn’t it occur to anyone — it must, surely — that Kelly, a retired Marine general, says these things to serve the party he trusts to keep the wars going and the tax dollars flowing?  

  A paradox here, more apparent than real: John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, James Mattis, Mark Esper, and various others like them did not wear uniforms when they served in the Trump administration, but they never took them off. 

  If this election is about anything — apart from the price of groceries, of course — it is about the national-security state’s place in American politics. In our post–2016 era, intel and the military are perfectly welcome to operate openly, unabashedly, in the American political process — this because the Democratic Party gives them a wide berth to do so. 

  Deep-State Democracy

  Now, do you think the Deep State gives a toot about democratic process? Ask the Italians and the Greeks, the Iranians and the Guatemalans, the Japanese, the South Koreans and the Indonesians, the Chileans and the Venezuelans, and… and damn, ask most of humanity at this point. As others have pointed out since the Russiagate days, what the spooks have long done abroad now visits itself upon the American polity. 

  The obvious follow-on: Should we be concerned as to whether the Democrats and these institutional allies would let this election go to Trump just by the vote count? 

  I am.

  As to the third of the institutions that have corrupted themselves in the Democratic Party cause, may I let mainstream media speak for themselves? Apart from independent publications such as the one you are reading, the intent of American media is no longer to inform the public but to protect the institutions they purport to report upon from the public gaze.   

  Trump’s “a threat to American democracy,” Harris its savior: It’s a bust at this point. The New York Times has made itself a re-enactment of The New York Times. The Washington Post under the ownership of Jeff Bezos and this ghastly new chief executive of his, Will Lewis, cannot manage, and doesn’t seem to attempt, even a re-enactment. 

  I do not seem to be the only one ill-at-ease at the prospect of mayhem to come after midnight Nov. 5. The Post published a survey Wednesday, conducted in the first half of October, indicating that among voters in the states where the election could go either way, 57 percent are nervous that Trump supporters won’t accept defeat and may resort to violence, while a third of those surveyed think Harris supporters will take it to the street, as they used to say, if the candidate of joy and vibes loses.

  

  Harris campaigning in Glendale, Ariz., on Aug. 9. (Gage Skidmore, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)

  The numbers skewed even more dramatically when The Post asked Democrats about Trump’s people and Trump’s people about Democrats. In a survey The Associated Press published Thursday, you have 70 percent of those polled saying they are “anxious and frustrated.”

  Join the party. I cannot, myself, take either candidate seriously. I take seriously the thought that a lot of people will not take the result seriously and a mess will ensue. 

  And in this I worry more about Democrats resorting to corrupt conduct than I do the Republicans. Why this, you may ask.

  To begin with, I do not at all like the smell of that Times piece quoted at the top of this column. It reeks too strongly of the scene in 2016, when, on either side of the election, the Democrats and all manner of repellent “progressives” conjured of thin air a frenzy of Russophobia from which American has yet to recover. 

  Steven Lee Myers, previously of the Times’s Moscow bureau, is now some kind of “disinformation” reporter and led the work on the piece in question. And all is as it was for four years after Clinton’s defeat: no shred of independent reporting or sourcing in anything under his byline. Intel people and other unnamed officials feed this guy like a foie gras farmer feeds his geese. 

  This is all you get from our Stevie. And I don’t see anyone trying on this disgraceful stuff in behalf of the Trump campaign. I have suggested my conclusions.

  But Jan. 6, Jan. 6, Jan 6! First of all, what happened on Jan. 6 does not rise to “coup” or “insurrection.” It was a protest, with much to suggest the presence of agents provocateurs. And second, there seems to me there was plenty to protest by that point. 

  Straight off the top, there was the liberal authoritarians’ perfectly legible collusion to suppress the contents of Hunter Biden’s vastly incriminating laptop computer three weeks before the vote, to the point of blanket censorship of the New York Post, the oldest newspaper in America. If this was not open-and-shut election interference someone will have to tell me what constitutes it.

  On less certain ground, I have read of many election officials in many states, Pennsylvania high among them, certifying the 2020 results. But a truly convincing, here-are-the-numbers case for these results in states such as Pennsylvania is hard to come by. You never read of Trump’s claims that the Pennsylvania results were rigged. You read only and always of Trump’s “false claims” or “discredited claims” or “disproven claims” to the point you start thinking of Lady Macbeth and how she doth protest too much, methinks.   

  

  Trump addressing The Believers religious group, in July in West Palm Beach, Fla. (Gage Skidmore, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)

  I recall, very imperfectly, seeing research purportedly done by a computer scientist at one of the universities in Philadelphia. Just after the election he or she put out a series of screenshots on social media, time-stamped to the second, that appeared to show the results in a significant number of districts changing all at once and by enough to give Biden a swift come-from-behind victory by a margin of slightly more than 1 percent.  

  Genuine or a put-up job, this research? Credible or not credible? I would not dream of judging it, but this is not my point. My point is that there should be no cause to doubt such results as these and, eight years on, as I read it there still is. 

  Doubt recreates itself, as you may have noticed, like some organism that regenerates. So we come to the Times’ report Tuesday of attempted voter fraud in Lancaster and York counties, two populous areas of, once again, Pennsylvania.

  Campbell Roberston’s piece has just about everything, starting with a headline that has Trump “sowing doubt.” He, Trump, is even “using reports about suspicious voter registrations to cast the election as already flawed.” 

  What a cad. What a scoundrel. What a… fascist tyrant. 

  It seems that some thousands of forged or otherwise fraudulent voter registration forms and requests to vote by mail arrived recently in the offices of the Lancaster and York election authorities.

  So far as one can make out, some official or officials in each county brought these “large batches” of falsified government documents to light. Whereupon other officials in each case smothered this discovery as if suffocating the matter with a pillow. 

  Alice Yoder, an election commissioner in Lancaster, put it best, or anyway most preposterously.

  “The system worked,” saith Ms. Yoder.

  “We caught this.”

  I honestly had to read this quotation several times to believe anyone would say this. 

  I would like to know a few things about this case that we are not told. 

  The batches of forgeries “were submitted by out-of-state canvassing groups,” Robertson reports, groups that remain unidentified.

  One, what are canvassing groups and what do they do in whose behalf?

  Two, what were such groups doing in Lancaster and York counties if they are not from Pennsylvania?

  Three, if they are not from Pennsylvania, what were they doing with Pennsylvania election forms that were purportedly genuine?

  Just two more questions.

  Four, why are the election officials in these two counties not naming the guilty canvassing organizations? This seems to me very troubling. 

  And five, what are the party affiliations or otherwise the voting preferences of officials who will not identify the offending organizations and say things such as “The system worked.”

  There are no grounds to draw any conclusions whatsoever on this point, given we know absolutely nothing about these people, but I went to the trouble of looking up Ms. Yoder’s c.v. 

  There is a bit of the sociologist in all of us, well– or underdeveloped as the case may be. Journalists often make use of their endowments in this line.

  Drawing on mine, I would speculate that Ms. Yoder’s c.v., after a careful peruse, is highly suggestive of a Kamala Harris voter, perhaps even of a liberal authoritarian. 

  Could be dead right, could be dead wrong. I cannot go beyond more or less idle speculation.

  And not more or less idle doubt as Nov. 5 draws close.

  *  *  *

   

  The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News or ZeroHedge.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 23:20

• Israeli Commandos Snatch 'Hezbollah Naval Official' In Daring Beach Raid
  Israeli Commandos Snatch ‘Hezbollah Naval Official’ In Daring Beach Raid

  Regional media reports and government statements have confirmed that Israeli naval forces have captured an alleged senior Hezbollah official in a daring raid launched from the Mediterranean sea on Friday.

  The man described as a high-ranking Hezbollah operative has been identified as Imad Amhaz. Commandos on speed boats reportedly landed on a Lebanese beach and snatched him from a cabin in the early morning hours. 

  “A sizable force, suspected to be Israeli, stealthily touched down on the shores of Batroun in northern Lebanon, roughly 87 miles from the Israeli border, with the intent of snatching a high-ranking terrorist operative from his hideaway in a cabin,” Israel’s YNet news details, adding that the raid involved 25 Israeli elite troops.

  

  Lebanese national broadcaster National News agency separately described that an “unidentified military force” carried out a “sea landing” at a beach at Batroun, south of Tripoli.

  The commando group “went with all its weapons and equipment to a chalet near the beach, kidnapping a Lebanese man… and sailing away into the open sea on a speedboat,” NNA added.

  Lebanese media is only saying that the man that was nabbed was a “student” of a maritime institute in Lebanon. According to more from eyewitnesses of the strange episode:

  He was taken from student housing near the Batroun institute, but was a resident of the Shia-majority town of Qmatiyeh further south, said the acquaintance who spoke on the condition of anonymity for security concerns.

  He was completing courses to become a sea captain, the source told AFP, adding that the man was in his thirties and was well known by the teaching staff at the center.

  But the IDF has called the man a “significant source of knowledge” for Hezbollah’s naval force. It’s expected that Amhaz will be detained and interrogated in a military prison.

  “He was taken to Israel to be questioned by the Military Intelligence Directorate’s Unit 504 — which specializes in HUMINT, or human intelligence — on Hezbollah’s naval operations,” Times of Israel subsequently reported.

  UN peacekeeping forces in South Lebanon have entered the controversy, amid conflicting reports they may have prevented the Lebanese armed forces from responding to the raid (which UNIFIL firmly denies) on Lebanon’s sovereign territory and its citizens:

  Lebanese journalist Hasan Illaik, who first reported on the raid, cited anonymous Lebanese military officials as saying the operation was apparently carried out in coordination with the German Navy operating within UNIFIL forces, to prevent the Lebanese Navy from interfering.

  Meanwhile, some Lebanese sources say that the kidnapped man is innocent, and not affiliated with Hezbollah, and that the IDF kidnapped a regular Lebanese citizen. Video also captured the raid:

  🚨BREAKING 🚨 An Israeli commando kidnapped a Lebanese licensed boat officer, believing he was a high-ranking Hezbollah official, in a “daring operation” yesterday in Batroun north Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/BraFMuTdmy

  — Hala Jaber (@HalaJaber) November 2, 2024

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

  Israel’s military has further said that “The operative has been transferred to Israeli territory and is currently being investigated.”

  The Associated Press has acknowledged that the occupation of the kidnapped man is murky and uncertain, amid continuing speculation: “Three Lebanese judicial officials told AP the incident occurred at dawn Friday, adding that the captain might have links with Hezbollah.” The report added: “The officials said an investigation is looking into the man is linked to Hezbollah or working for an Israeli spy agency and an Israeli force came to rescue him.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 22:45

• If Trump Wins…
  If Trump Wins…

  Authored by Bret Swanson via The Brownstone Institute,

  Trump enjoys the momentum.

  

  Four of the most recent major national polls show him up 2 to 3%, while Democratic-friendly outlets like the New York Times and CNN both show a TIE race in their final surveys.

  

  The 2016 and 2020 elections were razor close even though Clinton (5%) and Biden (8%) had solid polling leads at this point.

  We need to contemplate a Trump win not only in the electoral college but also in the popular vote.

  

  Here are some thoughts:

  1. JD Vance ascendant, obviously. Big implications for the Republican trajectory. 

  2. Will Trump replace Fed chairman Jay Powell? Or merely jawbone for a change in policy? In a new CNBC interview, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh argues that the Fed has juiced both the stock market and inflation. Would reducing inflation, which Trump has promised, automatically therefore lead to a stock market correction and economic slowdown? Not necessarily. If Trump unleashes productive economic activity and Congress ends the fiscal blowout, the Fed could normalize monetary policy without causing a major economic slump.

  3. Will Trump impose the broad and deep tariffs he proposed? Or will he mostly threaten them as a bargaining tool with China? I’m betting on some of the former but more of the latter. We notice, however, Trump allies are floating a trial balloon to replace income taxes with tariffs. As impractical and improbable as that may be, we’re glad to see the mention of radical tax reform reemerge after too long an absence from the national discussion.

  4. How will he organize the “deportation” of illegal migrants? In the best case, it will be difficult. There will be scuffles and chases. Critics will charge the new Administration as cruel and worse. How much stomach will Republicans have for a messy process? One idea would be to offer a “reverse amnesty” – if you leave peacefully and agree not to return illegally, we will forgive your previous illegal entry(s) and minor violations. This would incentivize self-identification and quiet departure. Plus it would help authorities track those leaving. Would migrant departures truly hit the economy, as critics charge? We doubt large effects. Substantial native populations are still underemployed or absent from the workforce. 

  5. We should expect a major retrenchment of regulatory intrusions across the economy – from energy to crypto. Combined with recent Supreme Court action, such as the Chevron reversal, and assisted by the Elon Musk’s substance and narrative, it could be a regulatory renaissance. Extension of the 2017 tax cuts also becomes far more likely.

  6. Trump has never worried much about debt, deficits, or spending. But he’s tapped Elon Musk as government efficiency czar. It’s an orthogonal approach to spending reform instead of the traditional (and unsuccessful) Paul Ryan playbook. Can this good cop-bad cop duo at the very least return out-of-control outlays to a pre-Covid path? Can they at least cancel purely kleptocratic programs, such as the $370-billion Green Energy slush funds? Might they go even further – leveraging the unpopular spending explosion and resulting inflation to achieve more revolutionary effects on government spending and reach? Or will the powerful and perennial forces of government expansion win yet again, sustaining a one-way ratchet not even Elon can defeat? 

  7. What if the economy turns south? One catalyst might be the gigantic unrealized bond losses on bank balance sheets; another might be commercial real estate collapse. Although reported GDP growth has been okay, the inflation hangover is helping Trump win on the economy. But many believe the post-pandemic economic expansion is merely a sugar-high and has already lasted longer than expected. A downturn early in Trump’s term could complicate many of his plans. 

  8. How will NATO and its transatlantic network respond? Or more generally, what will the neocon and neoliberal hawks, concentrated in DC and the media, but little loved otherwise, do? Does this item from Anne Applebaum — arguing Trump resembles Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin all rolled into one — portend continued all-out war on prudent foreign policy? Or will they adopt a more sophisticated approach? If the neocons move wholesale and formally (back) into the Democratic fold, how long will the coalition of wokes and militarists hold? On the economic front, Europe, already underperforming vis-a-vis the US, will fall even further behind without big changes. Reformers should gain at the expense of the transatlantic WEF-style bureaucrats. 

  9. Can Trump avoid another internal sabotage of his Administration? Before then, if the election results are tight, will the Democrats seek to complicate or even block his inauguration? Can he win approval for his appointees in the Senate? Can he clean house across the vast public agencies? How long will it take to recruit, train, and reinvigorate talented military leadership, which we chased away in recent years? And how will Trump counter – and avoid overreacting to – taunts, riots, unrest, and lawfare, designed to bolster the case he’s an authoritarian? 

  10. Will the Democrats reorient toward the center, a la Bill Clinton? Or will the blinding hatred of Trump fuel yet more radicalism? Orthodox political thinking suggests a moderation. Especially if Trump wins the popular vote, or comes close, pragmatic Democrats will counsel a reformation. James Carville, for example, already complains that his party careened recklessly away from male voters. And Trump’s apparent pickups among Black and Latino voters complicate the Democrats’ longstanding identity-focused strategy. Other incentives might push toward continued belligerence and extreme wokeness, however, and thus an intra-party war. 

  11. Will the half of the country which inexplicably retains any confidence in the legacy media at least begin rethinking its information diet and filters? Or has the infowarp inflicted permanent damage?

  12. Will big business, which shifted hard toward Democrats over the last 15 years, recalibrate toward the GOP? Parts of Silicon Valley over the last year began a reorientation — e.g. Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, and before them, Peter Thiel in 2016. But those are the entrepreneurs. In the receding past, businesses large and small generally lined up against government overreach. Then Big Business and Big Government merged. Now, a chief divide is between politically-enmeshed bureaucratic businesses and entrepreneurial ones. Does the GOP even want many of the big guys back? The GOP’s new alignment with “Little Tech” is an exciting development, especially after being shut out of Silicon Valley for the last two decades. 

  13. Industry winners: traditional energy, nuclear energy, Little Tech. Industry losers: Green Energy, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Food. Individual winners: X (nee Twitter), Elon Musk, RFK, Jr. 

  14. How will the Censorship Industrial Complex react? A Trump win will pose both a symbolic and operational blow to governmental, non-governmental, old media, and new media outlets determined to craft and control facts and narratives. It will complicate their mission, funding, and organizational web. Will they persist in their “mis/disinformation” framing and their badgering of old media and social media companies to moderate content aggressively? Or will they devise a new strategy? A.I. is pretty clearly the next frontier in the information wars. How will those who propagandize and rewire human minds attempt to program and prewire artificial ones?

  15. How will Trump integrate RFK, Jr. and his movement? Will RFK, Jr. achieve real influence, especially on health issues? Big Pharma and Big Public Health will wage a holy war to block reforms in general and accountability for Covid mistakes in particular. 

  16. Trump has promised to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. On one hand, it should be easy. Despite what you hear from DC media and think tanks, Ukraine is losing badly. Hundreds of thousands are dead, and its military is depleted and faltering. Ukraine should want a deal quickly, before it loses yet more people and territory. Russia, meanwhile, always said it wants a deal, even before the war started, focusing on Ukrainian neutrality. Why Ukrainian neutrality should bother the US was always a mystery. And yet even critics of the West’s support for Ukraine, who want an agreement, think it will be difficult to achieve. The Western foreign policy establishment has invested too much credibility and emotion. It will charge “appeasement” and “betrayal” and make any deal difficult for Trump. Russia, meanwhile, has secured so much territory and now has Odessa and Kharkiv in its sights. Putin will not be eager to accept a deal he would have taken in 2021 or before. The far better path for all involved was a pre-war agreement, or the one negotiated but scuttled in April 2022. 

  17. What if A.I. launches a new productivity boom, enabled by an agenda of energy abundance, including a nuclear power revival? The economic tailwinds could remake politics even more than we currently see.

  18. Can Trump, having run and won his last campaign, consolidate gains by reaching out and uniting the portions of the country willing to take an extended hand?

  Republished from the author’s Substack

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 22:10

• Witness In Diddy Case Claims To Have Sex Tapes With 'Intoxicated' Celebrities And Minors
  Witness In Diddy Case Claims To Have Sex Tapes With ‘Intoxicated’ Celebrities And Minors

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  A witness in the ongoing Sean “Diddy” Combs case says that he has several sex tapes that allegedly feature “intoxicated” and “victimized” celebrities, including two who were underage.

  

  During an interview with NewsNation, Courtney Burgess, who testified against Combs before a grand jury in Manhattan, claimed that he has in his possession flash drives featuring videos of eight celebrities with Diddy.

  Burgess said the flash drives originally belonged to Kim Porter, an ex-girlfriend of Diddy.

  Explaining his relationship with Diddy, Burgess said “I’ve been knowing him for 35 years. I think we probably entered into the music business at the same time.”

  Burgess said he is willing to turn over eleven flash drives to the court, claiming that the videos on them feature six well known males and two celebrity females.

  Burgess said “I think all, to be honest — all,” those in the tapes seemed “victimized” and “intoxicated.”

  Burgess also claimed that the flash drives include a manuscript from Porter that outlines Combs’ alleged crimes.

  Burgess’s attorney, Ariel Mitchell, was also featured in the interview, and claimed that the federal government sent U.S. Marshals to serve Burgess a subpoena for the flash drives.

  As we have previously highlighted, a former bodyguard of Combs has claimed that the rapper has footage of not only celebrities, but elite politicians and state figures engaging in compromising activities.

  The bodyguard, Gene Deal, says the secret footage was captured at Diddy’s various so called “freak off” parties, which are claimed to have involved victims being forced to engage in sex acts while Combs masturbated and recorded the events.

  “I don’t think it’s only celebrities gonna be shook. He had politicians in there, he had princes in there. He also had a couple of preachers in there,” said Deal, adding that “he had every room bugged.”

  One alleged victim of Combs has filed a lawsuit claiming that the rapper raped her when she was 13 years old while a male and female celebrity pair watched and joined in.

  The suit claims that the male celebrity also raped her while the female and Diddy observed.

  Combs has been denied bail twice on charges of racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution.

  He remains in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, and has repeatedly denied all allegations against him.

  * * *

  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, 11/02/2024 – 21:00

• Leftists Predict Hysterical Dystopian Future Ruled By JD Vance And An Immortal Elon Musk
  Leftists Predict Hysterical Dystopian Future Ruled By JD Vance And An Immortal Elon Musk

  The secret to understanding the average progressive mind is to first realize that everything they do revolves around a deeply ingrained fantasy world in which they are rebels; righteous underdogs fighting against “the system” or “the patriarchy.”  Leftists cannot function within their collectivist ideology without first creating a fascist bogeyman to revolt against.  If they were to ever realize that they are, in fact, the establishment and the authoritarians, their entire world view would collapse.

  This is why you will continue to see content like the election propaganda video below, no matter how ridiculous the premise might be.  Leftist activists create these narratives, not because they are necessarily convincing to most people, but because they need to convince themselves that they are still the good guys. 

  This Democrat fearmongering ad is amazing. It depicts JD Vance as President for life and Elon Musk opens up concentration camps for illegal aliens and homeless people before uploading his consciousness into a super AI to become immortal. So based. pic.twitter.com/fHE4o16uX6

  — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 1, 2024

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

  JD Vance as dictator for life?  Conservatives banning contraception?  Elon Musk as an immortal techno god who spies on the masses using X and AI?  Global warming destroying the planet and creating a Mad Max future in which the homeless are forced into concentration camps?  The only thing missing is the forced birthing ceremonies from The Handmaid’s Tale.

  The video credits cite a handful of progressive NGOs as references for donations (including Vote.org) but little on who specifically made it.  The relevant issue is the insight this gives into the insanity of left activists.  They cling to so many assumptions they have been proven wrong about time after time (global warming), and they also imagine a world in which conservatives are the elites searching for immortality.  They seem to be projecting the habits and hobbies of the very globalists that fund leftist groups today.  

  

  One could argue that perhaps this is gaslighting – They’re accusing conservatives of scheming to rule the world when they are the people that actually want control.  That could be, but the conspiracy theories surrounding “Project 2025” suggest a Q-Anon level of delusion going on that feeds directly into bizarre narratives like those in the video.  Leftists have to believe they’re fighting the good fight, even though they’re actually useful idiots for the establishment. 

  This desperate need to take on the role of “freedom fighter” doesn’t mesh very well with reality.  Keep in mind, for nearly two decades progressives have enjoyed expanding political and social power, with nearly every western government, every major NGO, every corporation, every legacy media outlet and every Big Tech platform dominated by woke ideology.  From ESG to DEI to LGBTQ+ and beyond, Americans and much of the west have been endlessly bombarded from every angle by leftist propaganda.  

  Their war on conservative principles and individual freedom nearly came to a crescendo during the covid pandemic when they claimed the power to take away people’s access to the economy if they refused to accept an experimental vaccine and follow the mandates to the letter.  Surveys showed a disturbing number of Democrats supported the outright destruction of constitutional freedoms in the name of forcing people to adhere to medical mandates based entirely on lies.

  

  Leftists also supported the widespread censorship of conservative voices on everything from the covid vaccine, to the lockdowns, to climate change, to Hunter Biden’s laptop.  This censorship was spearheaded by the Biden Administration acting in violation of the constitution as they worked closely with Big Tech companies to shut down dissent.

  They aren’t fighting “the man”, they are the man.  Ridiculous AI generated political videos like the one above are not going to change that.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 20:25

• Halloween Is Over, But The Election Litigation Is Getting Really Scary
  Halloween Is Over, But The Election Litigation Is Getting Really Scary

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  “Something wicked this way comes.” Those words from William Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” capture a certain dread that takes hold of some of us tasked with covering the legal elements of the presidential election. 

  Just as Halloween ended, things in the days leading into Election Day have begun to get…well, spooky. Call it election jitters, but some of us have been here before. 

  

  More than 200 cases have been filed around the country before the election this year. In the last week, worrisome elements have begun to pop up in various swing states.

  Over the last couple of decades, I have covered presidential elections for three networks (as I will do for Fox News in this election). The lead-up to elections always includes a flurry of lawsuits. As the voting margin shrinks between the parties, the number of lawyers increases.

  Some lawsuits are important efforts to make changes to remove barriers for voters or the counting of early balloting. For example, on Friday an emergency lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union secured an order for election officials in Cobb County, Ga., to overnight mail ballots to roughly 3,000 citizens and to guarantee that they be counted after a snafu by election officials. Other lawsuits are what I call “placeholders,” where campaigns establish areas of concern to be able to reference later in any specific challenges on or after Election Day.

  The Supreme Court has already intervened to stop an effort by the Biden-Harris administration to force Virginia to put people back on the voting rolls who had identified themselves as non-citizens. It is a crime for non-citizens to vote. Although Virginia allows any mistaken information to be corrected (and also allows for challenged voters to file provisional ballots), lower courts ordered Virginia to enable people to vote who had said they were not citizens.

  Critics charge that the case is the continuation of the administration’s unrelenting attacks on voter identification and proof of citizenship laws, even though 84 percent of Americans support such laws. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic legislators actually made it a crime for any poll worker to ask voters for identification.

  Some of these early challenges are welcomed, in the sense that we still have time to work out problems. Courts are notoriously reluctant to intervene after an election with the limited time before the certification of votes. They often refuse challengers access to vital election board information or bar cases as speculative or litigants as lacking in standing. This fuels the public’s distrust of the integrity of the election.

  Some challenges potentially involve a high number of votes in swing states. For example, in North Carolina, the Republican National Committee is suing the North Carolina State Board of Elections over 225,000 people who may not have been appropriately registered because that state failed to require a driver’s license or partial Social Security number.

  In Arizona, a judge had to order Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to release the names of roughly 218,000 voters who may have been allowed to register without the proof of citizenship required by state law.

  There is also a growing concern over possible systemic voting registration violations in multiple districts in Pennsylvania. Initially, 2,500 forms were marked as suspicious for possible false names, duplicative handwriting or unverifiable or incorrect identifying information. Lancaster County District Attorney Heather Adams and her team found that about 60 percent of the 2,500 forms were potentially illegitimate. Monroe County District Attorney Mike Mancuso linked the registrations to “Field and Media Corps,” a subsidiary of Fieldcorps, an Arizona-based organization.

  Field and Media Corps appears to have taken down its website, but it previously identified itself as a subsidiary of FieldCorps. It described itself as “connecting campaigns and projects with communities of color across the state. Our clients benefit from our social activism and coalition leadership experience gained through decades of leading campaigns, highlighting social inequalities, and developing BIPOC coalition building.”

  FieldCorps has reportedly been working for the Harris-Walz campaign, the Mark Kelly campaign in Arizona and other Democratic campaigns. Efforts to reach FieldCorps for comment have been unsuccessful.

  The concern is that companies like FieldCorps could be replicating errors across districts and states in the rush to register new voters.

  If these are knowing falsifications, it could constitute a federal crime.

  We also have the same controversies arising in this election about changes to voting laws just before the election. In 2020, many voters were opposed to courts in states like Pennsylvania issuing last-minute changes. Many assumed that these laws had been finally worked out to guarantee the criteria for consideration of mail-in ballots and other forms of voting. 

  However, with less than two weeks to go, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court voted 4-3 to order a significant change in election rules. The Election Code in the state is a model of clarity — it says that a provisional ballot “shall not be counted if the elector’s [mail] ballot is received in a timely manner by a county board of elections.” However, the court ruled that provisional ballots must be counted even if an individual has already sent in a mail ballot rejected for violating a mandatory rule, such as failure to place the ballot in a secrecy envelope or to date or sign the envelope. Late Friday night, the Supreme Court declined to block the counting of the provisional ballots.

  However, on Friday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did hold the line on another major change of the state election laws ordered by a lower court. The court stayed a decision that it is unconstitutional to reject mail ballots without handwritten dates on the return envelopes. The stay means that the law will remain in effect for the election. Justice Kevin Doughtery (joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd) wrote a reassuring concurrence for many of us having to follow these cases: “’This Court will neither impose nor countenance substantial alterations to existing laws and procedures during the pendency of an ongoing election.’  We said those carefully chosen words only weeks ago. Yet they apparently were not heard in the Commonwealth Court, the very court where the bulk of election litigation unfolds.” 

  In what may be the closest election in history, late changes to election laws are inflammatory for an already suspicious electorate. According to the Gallup polling, only 63 percent are “very (34 percent) or somewhat confident (29 percent) that votes in the upcoming midterm elections will be accurately cast and counted.” That is near a record low, and there is a 45 percentage point gap separating Republicans (40 percent) and Democrats (85 percent) in their confidence in election integrity.

  To my astonishment, voting officials are still committing basic errors. In Bucks County, Pa., voters were turned away in their attempt to apply in person for mail-in ballots. Some were told that there were computer or staffing problems. A court then ordered additional days to request ballots, so that matter at least is resolved. Yet such glitches are concerning. This is not rocket science. Rocket science is Elon Musk catching a massive booster rocket on what looked like a giant barbeque fork. Getting the staff and computers in place in a historic election should not be a great challenge.

  Given the emotions and closeness of this election, any such irregularities will only confirm the worst expectations of some voters. They are often neither sinister nor particularly suspicious. With tens of millions voting, there are going to be problems. Election officials can help reduce the suspicions by being more forthcoming in sharing information. In past years, officials have acted reflectively to oppose any disclosures while seeking the dismissal of cases. That largely succeeded legally but proved costly politically. It left many allegations (including ill-supported theories) unresolved in the minds of many citizens. 

  It would be far better for the nation to resolve questions before the elections and strive for greater transparency in post-election challenges. That is why, if something wicked this way comes, we can more easily send it along its way.

  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, 11/02/2024 – 19:50

• "If Trump Is A Dictator…"
  “If Trump Is A Dictator…”

  Throughout the 2024 election, Democrats have gone into overdrive to paint Trump as a dire threat to democracy – comparing him to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.

  

  LOL pic.twitter.com/9YdplerIR1

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 18, 2024

  In one week, ‘Trump-Hitler’ stories topped 5,500 according to Bloomberg.

  “Trump Hitler” story count pic.twitter.com/lP6pG6f6S6

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 26, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsAnd people wonder why trust in the media has plummeted. But let’s entertain the claim that Trump is a dictator…

  X user ‘Insurrection Barbie‘ posts the following 12-point rebuttal, where the Biden-Harris administration did exactly that:

  *  *  *

  If Trump is a dictator, name one time he usurped power from the other branches of government to enact his will in violation of the separation of powers.

  Here are all the times the Harris/Biden administration did exactly that:

  1. The Harris and Biden administration extended the eviction moratorium after COVID by abusing their emergency powers at the expense of private property rights.

  2. This administration issued vaccine mandates for workers because their “patience” had run thin. This was struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

  3. Our constitution gives the legislative branch the power to pass laws. This administration was not able to cancel student loan debt by getting Congress to vote on a bill to do so. So, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did this by executive of fiat. They did this after the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. Twice.

  4. In violation of our first amendment, they tried to enact a disinformation governing board to censor your free speech. Ultimately the public backlash was so great that they scrapped the project for now.

  5. Through executive fiat and death by regulation they have upended our energy policies making our emergency oil reserves drop to the lowest they have been since 1984. They killed the Keystone pipeline and they defied court rulings and continued to opt out against holding oil drilling sales.

  6. This administration threatened and coerced social media companies to silence the speech of American citizens because it did not agree with the position of the government in violation of the first amendment.

  7. This administration has absolutely zero respect for property rights and have publicly announced that they pledge to protect 30% of land and water by 2030. That is a land grab. Very dictatorial.

  8. This administration has purposefully, ignored our immigration laws and allow 13 million people into the country. They have willfully failed to uphold deportation orders letting them lapse.

  9. In violation of our laws they have failed to secure our border and have allowed 425,000 [known or suspected] criminals into the country.

  10. They have targeted parents for protesting at their children’s school board meetings in violation of their first amendment rights of free speech and have had the FBI place them on a watchlist.

  11. They have targeted pro-life demonstrators and thrown them in prison while letting pro-abortion activists burn down clinics. The executive branch has to faithfully execute the laws without bias, clearly, they have failed to do that.

  12. They were not able to pass any legislation in Congress to force their transgender agenda into the school system so they passed it by executive fiat and the courts struck down much of it at this point.

  *  *  *

  And there you have it…

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 19:15

• First, Second, & Fourth Amendments Endangered By Kamala Harris
  First, Second, & Fourth Amendments Endangered By Kamala Harris

  Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics.com,

  Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats claim they are the party of freedom. In Harris’ interview on Club Shay Shay on Monday, she argued that people need to vote for her to preserve the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, that Trump “wants to terminate the Constitution.”

  

  Yet, on the First Amendment, Harris previously called for government “oversight or regulation” of social media to stop what she calls misinformation. In 2022, her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, claimed: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”

  On gun ownership, Harris went so far as claiming: “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that we should be taking anyone’s guns away.”

  Reassuring, but Harris’ emphatic past support for gun control is consistent and legion. Let’s look at her record. She claimed during her 2020 presidential campaign, “I support a mandatory buyback program.” When pressed about Joe Biden’s claim at the time that she couldn’t ban assault weapons with an executive order, Harris enthusiastically responded, “Hey, Joe, rather than saying ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘Yes, we can.’”

  But this is nothing new. Harris has strongly advocated for gun control for years. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she declared, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

  She even supports warrantless searches, raising concerns she also doesn’t want to be bothered by the Fourth Amendment.

  In a 2008 amicus brief, Harris argued that a complete ban on all handguns is constitutional. She even said there is no individual right to self-defense.

  The Biden-Harris administration has been the most anti-self defense administration to date, shutting down thousands of gun dealers by mid-2022 due to minor paperwork errors. They renewed Obama’s Operation Choke Point to cut off financial resources for gun manufacturers and dealers; the companies that remained had to grapple with increased costs. The Biden-Harris administration has also established a national gun registry.

  If Kamala Harris becomes president, she will push for even more restrictions. The new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is “overseen” by Harris, which coordinates the administration’s gun control initiatives. The office oversaw a recently released U.S. Surgeon General report that fails to mention a single benefit of gun ownership.

  The OGVP was instrumental in implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing complex rules that classify many gun owners as firearms dealers. If you sell a gun to a friend once and discuss selling a second one to anyone, you must first become a licensed dealer. If you sell one gun and keep a record of the transaction, you are also required to first become licensed.

  Many BCSA rules are vague, giving the government discretion to arbitrarily label individuals as dealers.

  Under Harris’ leadership, the OGVP pushed for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers whenever criminals use their guns. She also pushed to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons, and require background checks on all private gun transfers.

  By early 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had developed a digital database containing nearly a billion firearms transactions.

  U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie found that Bank of America provided the FBI with credit card data for firearms purchases without even requiring a warrant or probable cause.

  With a national gun registry in place, officials can now easily identify legal gun owners. Harris’ past threats to confiscate guns become much more likely to succeed.

  Gun control has already taken center stage in Harris’ campaign. Harris made gun control a key topic in her first event in Wisconsin and again at a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers.

  It isn’t just that Democrats want to regulate every part of our lives, but the real threat to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are at risk from Harris. Those freedoms are endangered if she wins.

  *  *  *

  John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He served as senior adviser for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 18:40

• "There Are NO WATCHERS": RNC Sues Georgia Counties Over "Last Minute" Decision To Accept Weekend Ballots, Block GOP Observers
  “There Are NO WATCHERS”: RNC Sues Georgia Counties Over “Last Minute” Decision To Accept Weekend Ballots, Block GOP Observers

  The Republican National Committee (RNC) is suing several counties in Georgia, citing a simultaneous decision to accept ballots over the weekend – then block Republican poll watchers in defiance of guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

  

  “Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett counties decided at the last minute to accept ballots over the weekend — which disregards the law,” wrote RNC Chairman Michael Whatley on X.

  Democrat officials in Georgia are playing fast and loose with election law.

  Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett counties decided at the last minute to accept ballots over the weekend — which disregards the law. They have also failed to let our poll observers in to watch the process. The Secretary of State has issued guidance to allow Republican poll watchers in but local officials REFUSE.

  Our election integrity operation has filed a lawsuit.

  Georgia voters demand that the state and courts ensure that these reckless counties administer fair, transparent, and secure elections. Anything less undermines public trust. -Michael Whatley

  Georgia GOP Chairman Josh McKoon condemned the decision, writing on X:

  “Emboldened by the failure of our judicial branch to stop their changing election rules days before Election Day, Georgia Democrats and their allies in Fulton County are banning poll watchers from observing their “special” weekend operations to try to bank more Democrat absentee ballots.”

  We all know what is going on — Democrats are panicked by the incredible Republican turnout in early voting and will do anything to try to catch up even if it means doing it under the cover of darkness and stiff arming any independent observation of whatever the hell is going on in their four “special voting locations” open today with no notice or approval by anyone authorized to oversee elections administration.

  Georgia Republicans are calling on our elected officials and elections administrators to stop this madness which is doing incalculable and irreversible damage to confidence in this election.”

  McKoon posted what appears to be an internal, yet unverified (by ZeroHedge) email which reads: “Good Morning Team! FYI – There are NO WATCHERS approved for the ballot drop off! Do not let them in the building. If they want to observe from the parking lot, you can’t stop that but they are not allowed to sit in the building.”

  🚨 🚨 🚨

  GEORGIA REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN JOSH MCKOON CONDEMNS BLATANT VIOLATION OF GEORGIA POLL WATCHING LAW

  “Emboldened by the failure of our judicial branch to stop their changing election rules days before Election Day, Georgia Democrats and their allies in Fulton County… pic.twitter.com/MUPmmBG2zY

  — Josh McKoon 🇺🇸 🇹🇼 🇮🇱 (@JoshMcKoon) November 2, 2024

  In response, Georgia state Senator Greg Dolezal said “I am in communication with the Secretary of State’s office and my Senate colleagues about this. The Secretary has sent investigators to all four locations and the outside monitoring teams (which were assigned specifically to observe Fulton for prior issues) are also deploying people to each location.”

  I am in communication with the Secretary of State’s office and my Senate colleagues about this. The Secretary has sent investigators to all four locations and the outside monitoring teams (which were assigned specifically to observe Fulton for prior issues) are also deploying…

  — Greg Dolezal (@dolezal4senate) November 2, 2024

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

  Stay tuned for updates…

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 18:05

• Flip The F*cking Table Over And Scream
  Flip The F*cking Table Over And Scream

  Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

  I had an old friend who used to be a bouncer at one of the bars where I worked in Philadelphia many years ago. We got along decently outside of work because we both had the same mutual interests in our twenties: beer, sports, gambling, and women.

  The big differences between us were that he had a much shorter temper than I did, a much tougher time controlling his emotions and a much larger appetite for alcohol. As would happen given those differences, as the years went by, we eventually lost touch, only to bump into each other randomly at the airport one day after we hadn’t seen each other for about ten years.

  I was returning from a trip I had taken for my job, and he was on his way outbound to some tropical destination I can’t remember. After the perfunctory catch-up, I asked him why he was taking what seemed like a random vacation during the middle of the week.

  He told me that days prior, he had been at the local casino in Philadelphia playing poker and had won $30,000 from the bad beat jackpot, so he was celebrating.

  

  I asked him how it happened and what he did when he found out he’d won.

  He told me: “Chris, that place has taken so much money from me that when I finally won, I flipped the f*cking poker table over in the middle of the room, while all eight people were sitting at it, and screamed at the top of my lungs.”

  Then, he told me, they paid him out and asked him to leave and never come back.

  Anybody else might easily write this story off as someone with a flair for the dramatic, but having seen my friend flip a table once or twice under far less exciting circumstances (or for no reason at all after multiple shots of Jameson), I knew he wasn’t making it up.

  Heading into the weekend, I kept thinking about metaphors to make some type of big statement about how important I think Tuesday’s election is for our nation. No matter how many ways I tried to word it, all I could think about as an analogy to a potential Trump victory was my friend, sitting inside a casino he’s probably lost a zillion dollars in, finally scoring a big win against the house—the machine that always has the odds in its favor—flipping that table, with the chips, drinks and cards on it, and then getting kicked out carrying a massive Publisher’s Clearing House-style novelty check.

  I don’t like that this is how I think of the government, the Democratic party and the media, conjoined as one unbeatable, dystopian chimera with the odds always in its favor—but I can’t help it. What else could you possibly call a ruling party of elites, using one hand to rig their primary process while using the other to write diatribes about the importance of democracy? What else could you call the party that blankets its deeply flawed policy prescriptions under the cloak of the moral high ground? What do you call the party that used to preach freedom of choice, speech and liberty that now takes its cues from giant pharmaceutical corporations and the military industrial complex? How about the party that outright lied in 2020 to the public about the president’s involvement in a Chinese influence-peddling scam days before the last election?

  And then, what can be said about almost all of the major media networks that have enabled, and run cover for, these actions, all while making concerned looking faces like they actually give a shit about the truth and can’t believe how stupid we are?

  Just last week, I watched the media arm of the Democratic Party, consisting of all the major news networks with the exception of Fox News, accuse Jewish people at President Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally of being Nazis. This week, I’m watching them tell the public that Trump said Liz Cheney should be executed when he said nothing of the sort.

  Over the last four years, there have been countless instances like these — the “very fine people” hoax, the never-ending live coverage of the Russia collusion hoax, and CNN putting a yellow filter over Joe Rogan’s face and telling the world he was taking horse medicine when they knew he was not. I wrote it days ago: the media has sacrificed what’s left of its credibility at the altar of an un-elected woman who thinks the PCE deflator is something you sit on at a party that makes a farting noise and that “Strategic Petroleum, Reserve” is a brand of top shelf vodka.

  National Review said it pretty well last month:

  

  The media has gotten so much wrong over the last four years that not only is it bleeding viewers to alternative media, but major networks like CNN have been forced to lay off staff and completely rethink their programming. It’s a phenomenon that we saw continue last week, with Jeff Bezos making a point not to endorse a political candidate at the Washington Post because, in his words “Americans don’t trust the news media”.

  Among the dead weight purged from CNN some years ago was anchor Brian Stelter. This week, probably without even knowing it, he made a very cogent point when he quoted an anonymous TV executive who said:

  “If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they’re not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely. A Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form.”

  Stelter doesn’t know it, but he’s onto something much bigger than he thinks. He’s presenting that statement out of protest because he believes that mainstream media really is the authority for objective truth and the moral high ground.

  

  Of course, what the last decade has proven to us is that he’s wrong — deadass wrong. He may not know why he’s wrong, but the point he makes still stands: as I wrote days ago, at some point, the bias and outright lying are going to hit such a fever pitch that even independent and center-left viewers and voters are going to take notice.

  People are simply not going to stand for one-sided fact-checking at debates, “60 Minutes” deceptively editing interviews, and political anchors injecting their politics into the “news.” In fact, longtime Washington Post contributor Hugh Hewitt walked off the set of one of his live streams and quit the Washington Post just hours ago because of exactly this: Democrats are not even hiding their bias anymore and completely lack finesse in their attempts to sway public opinion, as I have noted in a previous article.

  For a glance at how left-wing mainstream media is imploding, watch the entirety of this four minute clip.

  Now that we have the miracle of the internet and alternative media, when that moment comes, mainstream media will have officially crossed to the other side of the adoption bell curve and will begin its slow descent into irrelevance. Before that descent can begin, tolerance for the media must hit a zenith where viewer interest peaks, then ever so slightly starts to fade toward alternative media. This election could very well mark that apex officially moving behind us. Here’s how I see it:

  

  A GOP victory on Tuesday not only flips the media’s figurative table over, it flips over the table of government in favor of empowering people. It flips over the table that is addicted to spending and racking up trillions of dollars in debt every year. It flips over the table that spends those trillions of dollars on other countries while increasing taxation on American citizens. It flips over the table that cleans up San Francisco for when China’s president arrives but can’t do so for American citizens. It flips over the table of every lie you’ve been told about Joe Biden’s mental health when you could clearly sit at home and watch with your own two eyes how poor of a state he was in. It flips over the table of identity politics and looking at everybody by their race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality under the guise of fighting discrimination. And most importantly, a victory for the GOP on Tuesday flips over the table of trying to stifle the most important God-given right of them all: our right to free speech.

  I’m not going to make some sensationalist claim like if the Democrats win, it’s going to be the end of the world. It won’t. That’s why we have three branches of government and, frankly, there are far too many lazy and incompetent people in government to effectively make too many negative changes quick enough for our nation to deteriorate much quicker over the next four years than it already is. But I bet even the Democrats who are going to vote for Kamala Harris know in the back of their mind that the nation isn’t on the right path right now, and that’s the way we will continue under a Harris administration. Only faster.

  ---

  🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for as long as you wish: Get 50% off forever

  ---

  If the GOP wins this election, I believe it will be far more consequential to the nation. It feels as though a dam is about to break in the United States and the magnetic poles of the two parties are about to shift. Joe Rogan alluded to this while interviewing Trump when he said:

  “The rebels are Republicans now. You want to be punk rock? You want to buck the system? You are conservative now. The liberals are now pro-silencing criticism. They are pro-censorship. They talk about regulating free speech. It’s bananas to watch.”

  There’s no question the left is pulling us further and further left and, at some point, the nation will snap back in the other direction, regardless of whether it is this election cycle or not. But I’ll be damned if it doesn’t feel like we are right on the doorstep of making a statement that’s bigger than politics by reelecting Donald Trump.

  Sure, it’ll be a statement that we want lower taxes, our freedom of speech, less regulation and small government. But most importantly, it would be a rebuke of all of the names that Democrats have called Republicans, all of the blatant lies they’ve told us and then scolded us like children for not believing, and the party and media machine’s assumption it could serve up whatever candidate it wanted, without a primary, and because they have the moral high ground and the media machine backing them, the country will just shut the fuck up and swallow it.

  When my friend lost money consistently at the casino for years and years, he just “shut the fuck up and swallowed it” and kept coming back for more. The games were rigged, but hell—he was in there taking his shot. And when he finally had the chance to take the house, big, not only did he take some of that money back, but he made a statement in doing so. And while I don’t usually condone destructive behavior, deep down, I know how good it felt for him, and I’m glad he did it. Now, I wonder if the nation can do the same.

  

  Note from QTR: This will be my last post about politics at least until after Election Day. If you haven’t yet, I urge you desperately to get to the polls on Tuesday and make your voice heard. Just like in 2020, this election may come down to single-digit numbers of votes in many places.

  QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

  This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 17:30

• Buffett Calls The Top: Berkshire Dumps 100 Million Apple Shares As Unprecedented Selling Spree Boosts Cash To Record $325 Billion Dollars
  Buffett Calls The Top: Berkshire Dumps 100 Million Apple Shares As Unprecedented Selling Spree Boosts Cash To Record $325 Billion Dollars

  Back in August, when discussing Buffett’s ongoing liquidation of his Bank of America stake, we said that “Berkshire’s rising cash stockpiles merely reflect the firm’s inability to find deals in today’s overvalued and weak economic environment”, little did we know just how accurate that would be, because just one day later we and the rest of the market were stunned to learn that far from only dumping Bank of America, the 94-year-old Omaha billionaire had been busy quietly liquidating his most iconic holding in an unprecedented selling spree that sent Berkshire’s cash pile soaring by a record $88 billion to an all time high $277 billion at the end of Q2.

  That was just the beginning, however, and this morning we subsequently learned that through the end of Q3, Berkshire’s unprecedented cash build continued, and the world’s largest conglomerate added another $48 billion to its cash – through both “harvesting” (i.e., selling of existing holdings) and cash from operations, taking it to a record $325.2 billion, or nearly a quarter trillion in cash. As shown for context in the chart below, Berkshire has nearly doubled its cash holdings from $168 billion at the start of the year to a staggering $325 billion 9 months later, up 94%!

  

  The bulk of the new cash came from sales: in the third quarter, Berkshire sold a net $34.6 billion worth of stock, following the record $75.5 billion in Q2 liquidations, the bulk of which we now know came from Buffett’s sale of half his Apple shares. In other words, the third quarter was the 8th consecutive quarter in which Berkshire has been a net seller of stocks.

  

  And the selling continued: while there was no 13F filed yet to go with the Berkshire’s 10Q, the company provided a snapshot of its top holdings, revealing that as of Sept 30 it held only $69.9 billion in Apple stock, down a quarter from the $84.2 billion as of June 30, down 62% from $135.4 billion as of March 31 and down 70% from the $174.3 billion as of Dec 31, 2023. This translates into just 300 million shares of AAPL held as of Sept 30, less than a third of what Berkshire owned at the end of 2023, and 30% of Buffett’s peak AAPL holdings of 1 billion shares as of 2018. 

  

  Buffett said in May that Apple would likely remain Berkshire’s top holding, indicating that tax issues had motivated the sale. “I don’t mind at all, under current conditions, building the cash position,” he said at the annual shareholder meeting. It was unclear if BRK shareholders understood that to mean a sale of 70% (and rising) of the AAPL holdings.

  Going down the list, with the exception of Bank of America (where Buffett is the single largest shareholder) which we already knew was also being aggressively sold – and in Q3 Buffett confirmed that he took down his BAC holdings by 23%, from 1033 million shares to 799 million which in turn made the BAC stake his 3rd largest after American Express –  the rest of Berkshire’s top 5 holdings (American Express, Coca Cola and Chevron) was largely untouched in Q3, meaning that Buffett clearly decided that it was time for Apple and Bank of America to go (we have since learned that subsequent to the end of Q2, Buffett also started to dump a large portion of his Bank of America shares where he is the single largest shareholder).

  While Berkshire’s cash balance rose by a record $35 billion – where proceeds from the sale of Apple and Bank of America were the bulk of the new cash – the company also generated substantial cash from its own operations, and in Q3 Berkshire reported operating earnings of $10.09 billion, down from the $11.6 billion in Q2 and down 6% from a year ago, as insurance underwriting earnings slumped. The company also recorded a $1.1 billion foreign-currency-exchange loss during the quarter.

  Berkshire has for years struggled to find ways to deploy its mountain of cash in a sluggish deal environment, lamenting the lack of cheap opportunities. At the firm’s annual shareholder meeting in May, Buffett said he wasn’t in a rush to spend “unless we think we’re doing something that has very little risk and can make us a lot of money.” It now appears that not only was Buffett not in a rush to spend, but taking advantage of the AI bubble, he has been aggressively liquidating his biggest holding.

  Finally, it’s not just AAPL that Buffett believes is overvalued and is aggressively dumping: the billionaire clearly believes the entire market is way expensive, and in the third quarter, Berkshire refused to repurchase any of its own shares, the first time it has done that since the company changed its buyback policy in 2018.

  

  It’s hardly a surprise why:  as we noted in “Berkshire’s Growing Cash Pile Has A Hidden Message On Stocks” the Buffett Indicator has rarely signaled a more expensive market.

  

  Bottom line: unlike October 2008, when Buffett led the clarion call to “Buy American“, this time he is selling American at a never before seen pace.

  

  Are you?

  One thing we know, Buffett is fearful.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 16:55

• Latest Trump Hoax Drops: No He Wasn't Simulating Oral Sex
  Latest Trump Hoax Drops: No He Wasn’t Simulating Oral Sex

  Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

  Another hoax has dropped today in an attempt to stop Americans voting for Trump. They’re now claiming he simulated performing oral sex on a microphone stand.

  

  What?

  ? pic.twitter.com/vl8h6OXzsf

  — Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) November 2, 2024

  This is a presidential candidate pretending to perform oral on a microphone. Can’t wait to hear the excuse for this one. #TrumpIsUnfitForOffice https://t.co/3Il3wp4bOu

  — Alicia Waltman (@AliciaWaltman) November 2, 2024

  There is something seriously wrong with this person. He’s willing to do or say ANYTHING to get some applause from his sycophantic cult.

  — StrictlyKamala🥥 🇺🇦🌻 (@StrictlyChristo) November 2, 2024

  The jerk off is simulating oral sex

  — Outspoken™️ (@Out5p0ken) November 2, 2024

  Of course, it’s complete nonsense again.

  He was again having technical difficulties with the microphone and explained that the stand was useless because it was too low.

  This is what he’s doing if you stop selectively editing your propaganda clips pic.twitter.com/Isett9jAGG

  — Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) November 2, 2024

  There are two days to go until the election and nothing is working for the desperate Democrats.

  Yesterday they attempted to say Trump called for executing Liz Cheney. It fell flat on its face because anyone can watch the clip in full context.

  The day before they attempted to claim he wanted to force women to adhere to a federal abortion ban when he wasn’t even talking about abortion.

  This idiocy only serves to highlight how the Harris campaign is happy to outright lie and distort reality.

  They’ve built their campaign on out of context 10 second clips of Trump coupled with lies anyone can see through from a mile away.

  The Harris campaign’s Kamala HQ X account also posted several other edited clips of Trump Friday and suggested he was “confused” and “unhinged.”

  Meanwhile, they’re claiming that this unintelligible person reading something off a phone is “fire”:

  .@iamcardib endorses Kamala Harris: “Donny Dump, if your definition of protection is making sure our daughters have fewer rights than their mothers, then I don’t want it”

  🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/cA5Hz9TX5f

  — Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) November 2, 2024

  And they had yet another person relating something about the state/size of her vagina:

  🔥🚨BREAKING NEWS: Rapper Glorilla is performing at Kamala Harris rally with lyrics that explain the size of her vagina

  Glorilla: “Turned up with some biker shorts in showing off my Moose Knuckle.”

  Every remaining relevant female rapper excluding Nicki Minaj has officially… pic.twitter.com/e3GdLJKNtp

  — Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) November 2, 2024

  Lets balance it out with some clips of what actually went on at Trump’s rallies Friday where he related his closing arguments.

  PRESIDENT TRUMP: I stand before you today as the only candidate who can rescue our economy from obliteration, and restore it to strength, prosperity, and greatness… the economy is now a disaster, and is expected to get substantially worse. pic.twitter.com/FyxavrDi2z

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 2, 2024

  PRESIDENT TRUMP: Four days before the election, they did 12,000 jobs last month—hundreds of thousands of jobs less than what it should be. Those numbers are so low they’re almost DISQUALIFYING. pic.twitter.com/ZU2uF0w0hx

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 2, 2024

  PRESIDENT TRUMP: If Kamala wins, you are 4 days away from the start of a “1929-style economic depression that will crush your incomes… When we win, you are 4 days away from the best jobs, the biggest paychecks, and the brightest economic future the world has ever seen.” pic.twitter.com/Pf3Dg7r62J

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 1, 2024

  PRESIDENT TRUMP: The day I take the oath of office, the migrant invasion ENDS, and the restoration of our country BEGINS…

  The United States is now an OCCUPIED COUNTRY, but it will soon be an occupied country no longer. November 5th, 2024 will be LIBERATION DAY in America. pic.twitter.com/anvkUsuGNQ

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 2, 2024

  PRESIDENT TRUMP: Kamala’s closing message to Americans is that she hates you. My closing message is that I love America—and I am inviting you to join us in building an extraordinary future for our nation. My oath of office is an oath of allegiance to you, the American People. pic.twitter.com/UAjp0oPnk5

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) November 2, 2024

  *  *  *

  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, 11/02/2024 – 16:20

• Polymarket's Trump-Bullish Whale Speaks Out: "Absolutely No Political Agenda"
  Polymarket’s Trump-Bullish Whale Speaks Out: “Absolutely No Political Agenda”

  While still guarding his anonymity, the mysterious man who’s bet more than $30 million on a Trump election victory via the Polymarket prediction marketplace has come forward to assert that his wagers aren’t intended to sway the election, but simply to profit from an outcome he’s highly confident in.    

  “My intent is just making money,” said the man who describes himself as a Frenchman and former US resident who was a trader for American banks. In an exclusive interview with the Wall Street Journal via Zoom, he used the pseudonym “Théo,” saying he wanted to remain anonymous out of a desire to conceal the extent of his assets from his children and friends. The Journal said he was “sport[ing] a short, neatly trimmed beard” and spoke English with a small accent. 

  Here’s how the Journal described the precipitation of the interview, and the paper’s process to ensure it wasn’t talking to an imposter: 

  Théo emailed the Journal after the publication of an Oct. 18 article about his wagers. To prove that he was behind the Polymarket wagers, the Journal asked him to place a bet on whether Taylor Swift would announce that she is pregnant in 2024—one of the many small, nonpolitical wagers available on the platform. Minutes later, Polymarket’s website showed that one of the four accounts, Theo4, had placed a small bet on Swift’s pregnancy. 

  

  In that original Oct. 18 article, the Journal gave some credit to the idea that the concentrated bets may represent some form of intentional narrative-control scheme meant to benefit Trump. Théo emailed the Journal to refute that theory, writing, “I have absolutely no political agenda.” 

  In his subsequent interview, Théo told the Journal he’s a veteran trader with a history of risking tens of millions of dollars when he discovers a high-confidence trade — and said that’s what he sees in the chance to wager on a Trump victory.  

  When news broke of the whale’s huge wagers on Trump, Polymarket engaged outside experts to scrutinize transactions in presidential election betting, an unnamed source told the Journal at the time. Last week, Polymarket said it had contacted the whale and confirmed it was a French citizen with an extensive financial services and trading background. “Based on the investigation, we understand that this individual is taking a directional position based on personal views of the election,” the firm said. 

  

  Théo said his conviction on a Trump victory rests on pollsters’ failure to capture the full extent of Trump’s support in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, and his belief that the “shy Trump voter effect” still endures in 2024. “I know a lot of Americans who would vote for Trump without telling you that,” he said, while also scoffing at the possibility that pollsters have improved their methodologies this time around.  

  Having been previously accused of trying to shape the election, Théo dished out an accusation of his own, saying leftist major media outlets are setting America up for post-election social unrest by perpetuating a fiction that the race is a close one. Théo thinks Trump is poised to rout Harris, which is why he has more than $30 million on Trump reaching 270 electoral votes, with the potential to receive $80 million if he’s right. He says his $30 million on Trump represents most of his liquid assets.

  Théo also has bets on a Trump popular-vote victory, along with bets on various swing-state wins. He also gave some insights into how he’s been trading:  

  He started quietly in August by betting several million dollars on Trump, using an account with the username Fredi9999. At the time, Trump and Harris had roughly even chances on Polymarket.

  Théo spread out his wagers over multiple days and weeks to avoid causing a price spike. Still, as his bets grew, Théo noticed other traders were backing away from quoting prices when Fredi9999 was buying. That made it harder for Théo to get attractive prices. He created the other three accounts in September and October to obscure his purchasing, Théo said.   

  Single-handedly accounting for 25% of the contracts on a Trump electoral college win and 40% of the bids on a popular vote victory, Théo would have a hard time pulling money off the table without pushing the value of his contracts down. Speaking of which, the electoral college version of a Trump win peaked on Wednesday at 76 cents (with a dollar payoff if Trump wins). However they’ve taken a big dive since — plunging to 57.5 cents as this is written in the wee hours of Saturday morning. You can check the current price here.    

  

  If you’re itching to buy the dip, note that Americans are officially barred from Polymarket. You can thank your all-powerful, all-knowing, Constitution-violating federal government for protecting you from yourself: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined the platform in 2022 for allegedly providing illegal trading services, prompting Polymarket to bar Americans going forward.  

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 15:45

• YouTube Pushes Back Against NY Times' Attempts To Censor Conservatives
  YouTube Pushes Back Against NY Times’ Attempts To Censor Conservatives

  Authored by Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov via Headline USA,

  Despite its reputation as one of the most well-known Big Tech censors, YouTube surprised conservative Americans by pushing back against the New York Times’ claim that some right-wing political commentators were spreading “misinformation” right before the election.

  

  The Times pressured YouTube to censor or outright deplatform political commentators like Tim Pool, Michael Knowles, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Steve Deace and Rudy Giuliani, but the Big Tech platform refused.

  “The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial, is an important value — especially in the midst of election season,” she said in a statement to the newspaper.

  After realizing that YouTube won’t censor those people, the Times made the Big Tech platform one of the villains in the story.

  “Within months [after June 2023], the largest video platform became a home for election conspiracy theories, half-truths and lies. They, in turn, became a source of revenue for YouTube, which announced growing quarterly ad sales on Tuesday,” the newspaper wrote.

  The Times also claimed that YouTube has “acted as a megaphone for conspiracy theories.”

  “The commentators used false narratives about [2020 election] as a foundation for elaborate claims that the 2024 presidential contest was also rigged — all while YouTube made money from them,” the newspaper wrote.

  Conservatives on Twitter criticized the Times for its attempts to silence those who oppose the mainstream media narrative.

  “This article is effectively trying to strongarm YouTube into censoring voices that the New York Times disapproves of. Shameful behavior from a newspaper,” @TheRabbitHole84 wrote.

  This article is effectively trying to strongarm YouTube into censoring voices that the New York Times disapproves of.

  Shameful behavior from a newspaper. pic.twitter.com/Z26vPbju6I

  — The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) October 31, 2024

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

  Conservative commentator Ian Miles Cheong also responded to the recent news.

  “You really don’t hate the New York Times enough,” he wrote.

  You really don’t hate the New York Times enough. The paper has published a massive hitpiece against popular conservative influencers in a joint effort with Media Matters to get YouTube to ban them from the platform.

  Washington Post is due to publish a similar article.

  You… pic.twitter.com/0eLdBAaGK9

  — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 31, 2024

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

  People from the free-speech platforms also used their chance to criticize the Times and promote their companies.

  Notice how the New York Times is targeting @TuckerCarlson [and] @benshapiro on YouTube, even though those same creators are also on Rumble. Reason why? They know Rumble will them to [f***] off,” CEO of Rumble Chris Pavlovski wrote.

  Notice how the New York Times is targeting @TuckerCarlson @benshapiro on YouTube, even though those same creators are also on Rumble.

  Reason why? They know Rumble will them to F off.

  — Chris Pavlovski (@chrispavlovski) October 29, 2024

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

  Twitter’s CEO Linda Yaccarino also responded to the recent article.

  “We are not afraid of Media Matters. We are not afraid of The NY Times. And they shouldn’t be afraid of an informed group of citizens who are dedicated to preserving freedom of speech. Yet THEY seem to be?” she wrote.

  We are not afraid of Media Matters.

  We are not afraid of The NY Times.

  And they shouldn’t be afraid of an informed group of citizens who are dedicated to preserving freedom of speech.

  Yet THEY seem to be?https://t.co/aBcV9arfr3

  — Linda Yaccarino (@lindayaX) October 31, 2024

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

  Conservatives mentioned in the article also responded after discovering that the Times was working on the hit piece.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 15:10

• "The Guy's A Retard. He's Retarded": The Atlantic Accidentally Makes Trump Look Hilarious Over Biden Nickname
  “The Guy’s A Retard. He’s Retarded”: The Atlantic Accidentally Makes Trump Look Hilarious Over Biden Nickname

  For pearl-clutching, politically correct liberals, casually calling someone ‘retarded’ is a grave sin, as it may offend actual retards (but how would they know?)

  

  To normal people it’s just what you call a stupid person – which brings us to today’s unintentionally hilarious article from The Atlantic – owned by the woman on the left…

  

  Donald Trump. Called Joe Biden. A RETARD!

  

  Just read:

  At the end of June, in the afterglow of a debate performance that would ultimately prompt President Joe Biden to end his campaign for reelection, Donald Trump startled his aides by announcing that he’d come up with a new nickname for his opponent.

  “The guy’s a retard. He’s retarded. I think that’s what I’ll start calling him,” Trump declared aboard his campaign plane, en route to a rally that evening, according to three people who heard him make the remarks: “Retarded Joe Biden.”

  Who exactly is going to read this and not vote for Trump because of it?

  “Donald Trump called Joe Biden a retard, according to three sources familiar with the matter” is perhaps the greatest unintentionally funny line to appear in an article that isn’t supposed to be funny.

  — T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) November 2, 2024

  It was even a ‘HARD R!’

  When DRUMPLER fails, go full retard…

  LOL pic.twitter.com/9YdplerIR1

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 18, 2024

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 14:35

• Disputes In South China Sea Could Disrupt Trade Lanes, Lead To War, Experts Say
  Disputes In South China Sea Could Disrupt Trade Lanes, Lead To War, Experts Say

  By Noi Mahoney of FreightWaves

  

  Territorial confrontations in the South China Sea pitting several Asian nations against China have entered a perilous phase that could possibly lead to a war involving the U.S., experts say.

  China has claimed virtually all of the South China Sea for decades, but the country’s assertiveness in the region has steadily increased the past several years, resulting in heightened tensions with nations including the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Brunei.

  Krista Wiegand, a professor at the University of Tennessee, said the U.S. has no direct claims of sovereignty or unique maritime rights in the South China Sea, but the waterway nevertheless is a place where war could break out between the U.S. and China.

  Wiegand is the director of the Center for National Security and Foreign Affairs at the Howard J. Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the university. She is a specialist in territorial and maritime disputes, maritime law, and East Asian security.

  “If the U.S. were to get involved in any kind of war with China, it would most likely be over Taiwan,” Wiegand told FreightWaves in an interview. “But at the same time, there is a possibility of an accident or some kind of crisis happening in the South China Sea. For example, if a U.S. vessel has a collision with a Chinese naval vessel or there’s a missile shot at a U.S. destroyer ship or frigate, that would certainly lead to some kind of crisis that might escalate. Nobody wants a war, obviously, including China, but they definitely want the South China Sea, and there’s a possibility that the war might happen.”

  The 1.3 million-square-mile sea in the Western Pacific Ocean contains some of the busiest trade routes in the world.

  The South China Sea stretches from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the southwest to the Strait of Taiwan in the northeast and sits between China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia and Malaysia.

  Researchers at Duke University calculated that total trade through both the South China Sea and the East China Sea — which lies between China, North and South Korea, and Japan, is worth $7.4 trillion per year. 

  About 24% of global maritime trade passed through the South China sea in 2023, according to the United Nations’ 2024 review of maritime transport.

  The South China Sea’s share of global seaborne trade volume per commodity in 2023 included crude oil (45%), propane (42%), cars (26%) and dry bulk (23%).

  Exports from China to both the U.S. and Mexico have shown strong growth the past five years. The trade route for goods from China to North America passes either through the South China or the East China Sea.

  As of Thursday, twenty-foot equivalent units moving from China to the U.S. are about 10% lower year over year compared to 2023, but are more than 40% higher y/y compared to 2022, according to the SONAR Inbound Ocean TEUs Volume Index.

  

  The South China Sea may also hold valuable undiscovered resources, such as oil and natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

  In 2023, the U.S. Geological Survey reported the South China Sea may contain up to 9.2 billion barrels of untapped petroleum and other liquids, and up to 216 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a recent EIA report.

  China’s disputes in the South China Sea include territories that fall within a country’s economic exclusion zones (EEZ), such as the Philippines. An EEZ is a maritime area where a coastal state has the right to explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources, according to the United Nations.

  In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines in a case opened in 2013 against China. The court of arbitration said China’s claims in the South China Sea had no legal basis.

  Wiegand said the Permanent Court of Arbitration and other international organizations made it clear that China did not have any solid claims to owning all of the South China Sea.

  “There are some historic claims that may have legitimacy, but at the same time, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, which China signed and ratified, along with most other countries in the world, with the exception of the U.S. and a few others, is very clear about the maritime boundaries of countries,” Wiegand said. “China’s claims or maritime features about islands in the waters of countries like Vietnam and the Philippines that fall under their control … those are completely illegitimate.”

  Hasim Turker, an international security expert based in Istanbul, said if the U.S. gets drawn into the South China Sea conflict, it will most likely be through its treaty with the Philippines or to help Taiwan or other nations.

  “The U.S. has substantial strategic interests in the South China Sea, centered around maintaining freedom of navigation and enforcing international maritime norms,” Turker told FreightWaves in an email. “This is not just about economic stakes, but also about reinforcing the rules-based international order. Regular Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) are a clear expression of Washington’s intention to challenge China’s expansive claims. These operations are designed to assert that the waters in question remain open to all nations, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — even though the U.S. itself has not formally ratified the treaty.”

  In August 2023, ships belonging to China and the Philippines accused each other of causing collisions in a disputed area of the South China Sea.

  Philippine authorities said a Chinese Coast Guard ship carried out “dangerous blocking maneuvers” that caused it to collide with a Philippine vessel carrying supplies to troops, according to a statement on CNN.

  In June, China and the Philippines blamed each other for causing a collision in the South China Sea near the contested Second Thomas Shoal, with the Philippines saying its armed forces would resist Beijing’s actions in the disputed waters, according to Reuters.

  U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines MaryKay Carlson condemned China’s “aggressive, dangerous” maneuvers near the Second Thomas Shoal in a post on X in June.

  In September, authorities in China and the Philippines agreed to a temporary deal after the countries had repeated collisions near the shoal. However, the Philippines said the deal might not be permanent.

  

  The U.S. and the Philippines have a long history of cooperation, officially starting in 1951 with the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty. The treaty requires both nations to support each other if another party attacks either country.

  “The likelihood of armed conflict in the South China Sea remains significant due to ongoing tensions, frequent confrontations, and increased militarization,” Turker said. “Incidents like the August 2023 underscore the persistent risk of military escalation. These confrontations reflect a broader pattern of assertive behavior by China, involving the deployment of coast guard vessels, maritime militia, and military assets to enforce its claims over disputed waters.”

  Turker, a former commander in the Turkish navy, is the author “European Security and Defense Policy” (2007) and “Towards the New Cold War: Rising China, the U.S., and NATO,” (2019). He was also the academic coordinator and senior researcher at the Bosphorus Center for Asian Studies, an independent think tank based in Ankara, Turkey.

  “Frequent incidents … demonstrate how easily low-intensity confrontations can occur, especially given the dense presence of military, coast guard, and civilian vessels in contested waters, which increases the likelihood of accidental or deliberate escalation,” Turker said. “This risk is compounded by China’s militarization of artificial islands, where airstrips, missile systems, and surveillance infrastructure have been constructed. These moves have prompted other claimants to bolster their defenses, leading to a more volatile environment.”

  Turker said U.S. involvement would significantly escalate the situation in the South China Sea, particularly if military assets are deployed.

  “This would not only raise tensions in the region, but could also lead to direct military confrontation with China — a scenario neither side desires, given the stakes involved. A U.S.-China conflict would have global repercussions, impacting trade, regional alliances, and the geopolitical balance of power. The specter of a broader war looms if such an incident escalates beyond a controlled, localized response, especially if U.S. allies like Japan or Australia are drawn in to support collective security efforts in the Indo-Pacific,” Turker said.

  While a war breaking out in the South China Sea is a strong possibility, each country also has reasons for keeping the peace, he added.

  “Several factors deter the escalation of limited skirmishes into a full-scale war in the South China Sea. The economic costs of a major conflict are substantial, as a war would disrupt critical trade routes, affecting global supply chains and damaging regional economies, including China’s, which heavily depends on maritime commerce,” Turker said. “Regional stability remains a priority for Southeast Asian nations, which, despite their assertive territorial claims, generally favor diplomatic solutions to maintain economic stability and avoid the risks associated with a prolonged conflict. The possibility of a broader confrontation involving major powers, such as the U.S. and its allies, is another significant deterrent. A full-scale war could draw these external actors into the conflict, raising the stakes to a regional or even global level, a scenario that all parties are keen to avoid.”

  Wiegand said while she hopes there is a diplomatic solution to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, it will be difficult to quell China’s rising ambitions.

  “The problem is that the Philippines tried a diplomatic solution through the arbitration case, and China refused to even show up to the courts; they didn’t even send representatives,” Wiegand said. “Vietnam has tried negotiations multiple times, and China just refuses to back down, and they just keep repeating the same claim: These are our territories, these are our waters. There’s only so much you can do diplomatically. For the other countries, they’re kind of stuck until China makes a move. It’s really at a standstill right now, and unfortunately, I think the status quo is just going to be a continuation of China maintaining its claims, maintaining the control of the islands, controlling the waters. It’s really up to the other disputing countries, whether they want to really pressure China any further to try to overturn that status quo. That’s a very difficult thing to do diplomatically.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 14:00

• "RIP My Best Friend": Outrage Ensues After Beloved Rescue Squirrel Seized By NY, Euthanized
  “RIP My Best Friend”: Outrage Ensues After Beloved Rescue Squirrel Seized By NY, Euthanized

  The internet is ablaze with rage after the state of New York seized a beloved rescue squirrel Peanut from its owner’s home Wednesday and euthanized it.

  

  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation staged a five-hour raid on the home of Mark Luongo after an anonymous complaint was lodged against the P’nuts Freedom Farm, where internet sensation Peanut the squirrel was taken into custody before the state euthanized it along with a raccoon ‘in order to test for rabies.’

  

  “RIP MY BEST FRIEND. Thank you for the best 7 years of my life. Thank you for bringing so much joy to us and the world. I’m sorry I failed you but thank you for everything,” Longo wrote in a post announcing Peanut’s death.

  Mark Longo has just revealed that the New York Department of Environmental Conservation euthanized his cherished pet squirrel, Peanut. This innocent creature was taken from him, where he had lovingly raised it since it was a baby, after its mother got hit by a car.

  Mark used… pic.twitter.com/C4K4mGq0S5

  — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 1, 2024

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsLongo has asked for financial help for a “legal battle” against the state.

  A Connecticut native, Longo moved to Elmira, NY in 2023 to start the Freedom Farm, a 501.C.3 approved nonprofit.

  “Last year we moved to NY in hopes of starting a NONPROFIT animal rescue in PNUT’s Name. [P’Nuts Freedom Farm] will forever live in PNUT’s memory,” Longo wrote in a post announcing the seizure.

  “With over 350 rescues, we’ve relied heavily on PNUT and his internet family to father donations to help more animals. I don’t even know how will [sic] continue to fundraise for this nonprofit.”

  The organization is made up of veterinarians and caregivers who rescue animals from abusive or dire situations.

  NEW: The owner of Peanut the squirrel explains how New York officials raided his house, took Peanut and his raccoon, and k*lled them.

  7-year-old Peanut and Fred the raccoon were euthanized after anonymous complaints.

  “Officers raided my house as if I was a drug dealer. I was… pic.twitter.com/sSlbandoYO

  — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 2, 2024

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

  Needless to say, people are pissed.

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

  Others expressed similar outrage. And memes.

  Them: “So how did you get radicalized?”

  Me: “I watched the NYDEC murder a happy and healthy pet squirrel named Peanut for no reason other than some useless apparatchiks had too much power.” pic.twitter.com/GWDGj3qRgB

  — Kiki (@kikisknees) November 2, 2024

  

  My hatred for the government is renewed with every Peanut video. pic.twitter.com/m9di34VUPb

  — The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) November 2, 2024

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

  The Internet after hearing what they did to Peanut the Squirrel pic.twitter.com/FxpD7TNEFQ

  — Mostly Peaceful Memes (@MostlyPeacefull) November 2, 2024

  You are sheltering a pet squirrel and raccoon are you not? pic.twitter.com/ynH22gp0Rg

  — Ramp Capital (@RampCapitalLLC) November 2, 2024

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

  “For Peanut.” https://t.co/N66s4Bdu6f pic.twitter.com/h8qzlGumNL

  — Vagrant of Rhodes 🗡️🕯️ (@vagrantwires) November 2, 2024

  

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

  RIP Peanut 🐿️ pic.twitter.com/KGHfEOhr9E

  — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) November 2, 2024

  

  Trump would have saved Peanut. We all know what Liz Cheney would have done.

  — David Sacks (@DavidSacks) November 2, 2024

  

  

  Actually true.

  Worth noting that criminals vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, because they are the soft-on-crime party.

  The Democratic Party is literally the party of criminals! Just a statement of fact. https://t.co/NHAJrzQrh6

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2024

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

  Editor’s note: a previous version of this article included a comment from President Trump that was confirmed as inauthentic, and there was in fact a warrant. We apologize for the squirrel-related fake news.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 13:25

• People Aren't Garbage. Partisan Politics Is
  People Aren’t Garbage. Partisan Politics Is

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,

  Voting says very little about who we are, but propaganda telling us otherwise reveals a lot about America’s political leaders…

  

  The cycle was the usual nonsense. At a Donald Trump rally in Manhattan a comic called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage.” Joe Biden emerged from his crypt to croak, “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.” The Internet exploded. Reporters were dispatched around the country to gauge how much more pissed off everyone was now.

  ABC’s take interviewing Harris supporters in Pennsylvania was, “Voters view one another across partisan divide with increasing animosity.” They quoted humans-in-the-street, who all felt strongly. “I would say that some of them are garbage,” said Samantha Leister, 32, while Shawn Vanderheyden, 44, opined, “I just think they are uneducated, and they believe all the lies.” ABC summed up the cultural divide: “Interviews with voters in battleground states reveal that it’s only growing deeper and more insurmountable.”

  Surely people know it, but this is all a trick. First, campaign writers only talk to people at campaign events, so the pool of quotes is automatically pared to holders of Very Strong Political Opinions. Second, the odd “Who cares?” answer is instinctively culled by campaign writers as commercially/politically unhelpful. Non-voters or even just people who care more about other things than Harris/Trump — UFOs, knitting, the girl in biology class — ruin the suspension of disbelief. You end up reading copy that hugely over-represents that strange subset of people who define themselves by their votes.

  When I was first sent to cover campaigns in 2004, a year in which 40% of eligible voters didn’t bother, I was troubled by the absence of non-voters in coverage. A Rolling Stone editor with whom I rarely worked rolled eyes and said, “We don’t cover them because they’re not part of the fucking story,” which I instantly knew wasn’t true, but I was new and to my shame I didn’t say anything. The numbers of non-voters exposed how inconsequential presidential politics was for most people. It measured the number of people left behind or out, and leaving the non-enthused out of the shot was journalism’s way of covering the holes in the charade.

  Two years later I was embedded with a group of Oklahoma reservists sent to work as MPs in Iraq. Sgt. Stephen Wilkerson was the team commander. He wore a tattoo on his foot with an arrow pointing to his big toe that read, TAG GOES HERE. His nickname was “Stretch-Nuts” because it was said he could balance a Heineken bottle on his ball-skin. On my first day he asked what I do. I cover presidential elections, I said. He made a jerk-off gesture. That was the last mention of politics on the trip.

  In the roughly twenty years since the act of not voting, or even just not really really caring about presidential politics, has been villainized. Now the emotionally healthy person, the one who has a life and isn’t consumed with fears about the Next Hitler, is assumed to harbor secret sympathies, as bad as the worst MAGAT.

  This is different from the old scam.

  Now the person who shrugs and says “Who cares?” is called a liar. Everyone must care the way they do, and if you don’t care in that right way — every waking minute, with chewed nails and a carefully weeded social circle to match the correct vote and attitude set — you’re garbage.

  Many of us have seen in recent years what this hounding has done even to friends or relatives, turning them to Flatland characters, two-dimensional nerve cases scanning everyone for signs of unsuitability.

  Whatever happens next week, I don’t ever want to be that. It’s the people who define us by votes who are garbage, not the other way around.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 12:50

• Ron Paul "Revolution" Reignites After Elon Musk Asks Libertarian Legend To Join Department Of Gov't Efficiency
  Ron Paul “Revolution” Reignites After Elon Musk Asks Libertarian Legend To Join Department Of Gov’t Efficiency

  With just two days left before the presidential election, Libertarians are waking up Saturday to a bunch of buzz on X about a potential “Ron Paul Revolution” in the White House—only possible if Donald Trump wins next week. 

  On Friday evening, AFpost wrote on X, “Ron Paul says he wants to join Elon Musk to cut government waste in second Trump administration.” 

  Ron Paul says he wants to join Elon Musk to cut government waste in second Trump administration.

  Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/fsFH05vWan

  — AF Post (@AFpost) November 1, 2024

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

  Musk chimed in on X: “It would be great to have Ron Paul as part of the Department of Government Efficiency!”

  Would be great to have Ron Paul as part of the Department of Government Efficiency!

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2024

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

  Ron Paul responded: “I’d be happy to talk with you about it, Elon.” 

  I’d be happy to talk with you about it, Elon. https://t.co/tjG6O5CpIj

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) November 1, 2024

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

  X users instantly went bananas on the prospect that Musk would give Ron Paul a role in the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, only if Trump wins. 

  For months, Musk and Trump have been discussing DOGE, which the billionaire would serve as “Secretary of Cost-Cutting” – a government agency that doesn’t exist yet… Musk would basically take his skills as a successful manager – in which he slashed 80% of the Twitter workforce a few years ago to make the ‘free speech’ social media platform operate more efficiently.

  In August, Musk said the goal of DOGE was to cut wasteful spending by the federal government and roll back massive regulations that stifle the economy. 

  Musk recently said DOGE could identify “at least $2 trillion in cuts” as part of a formal review of federal agencies. This would also mean tens of thousands of job cuts—if not more—across the federal government. 

  Just imagine if Trump wins, Musk and Ron Paul would wind down unneeded federal agencies like a scene from Argentina’s Javier Milei.

  Elon Musk + Ron Paul, January 2025 (colorized) pic.twitter.com/uJ7v2yYTCX

  — Good Morning Liberty (@GoodAMLiberty) November 2, 2024

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

  You hear that, Libertarian…

  Libertarians can put Ron Paul in the White House by voting Trump. pic.twitter.com/KAs43mcB6f

  — John LeFevre (@JohnLeFevre) November 2, 2024

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

  Deal of a lifetime.

  Ladies and gentlemen,

  If you buy one Donald Trump before Tues they are throwing in one Ron Paul on top of an Elon Musk run (DOGE) Department of Government Efficiency

  This is a deal of a lifetime folks.

  If you are looking to write-in Ron Paul, vote for Trump to make it count. pic.twitter.com/bLuNIJ2GWQ

  — Being Libertarian (@beinlibertarian) November 2, 2024

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

  And Libertarians, even Trump’s VP JD Vance, is coming around to Ron Paul’s argument on the Federal Reserve.

  JD Vance (@JDVance) Is Coming Around to My Argument on The Fed pic.twitter.com/Y3sY2vLuDo

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) November 1, 2024

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

  Ron Paul had fun on X in the overnight hours. 

  Start cutting? https://t.co/0398incApo

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) November 2, 2024

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

  Delayed over the years … but now entirely possible. 

  We are still in the Ron Paul r3VOLution pic.twitter.com/kczrGXxB0I

  — Being Libertarian (@beinlibertarian) November 2, 2024

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

  For decades, Ron Paul has proposed a smaller government by eliminating several wasteful federal agencies, ending foreign wars, eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends, eliminating the estate tax, and—everyone’s favorite—abolishing the Federal Reserve.

  

  This has become true over the years. 

  

  The only problem is when federal government spending accounts for 22.7% of the US GDP (in fiscal year 2023), reducing this spending could spark a recession. However, if Trump wins, DOGE could be messaged to the American people as a way to curb sky-high inflation sparked by disastrous ‘Bidenomics.’ 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 11/02/2024 – 12:15