How Can Europe Replace US Support For Ukraine?

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy has released a new report outlining how Europe could replace U.S. support for Ukraine both financially and militarily.

The organization has calculated that European governments as a whole will need to nearly double their aid flow from the current €44 billion per year to €82 billion per year, which equates to an increase from roughly 0.1 percent of their combined GDP to 0.21 percent of GDP.

Statista's Anna Fleck reports that analysts say this is within Europe’s capacity, highlighting how a handful of countries, including Denmark, the Baltics, Sweden and Norway are all already contributing more than 0.3 percent of their GDP each year to Ukraine’s defense.

According to the IfW Kiel’s proposed scenario, the biggest economies and institutions will need to play the biggest role in upping their financial aid to Ukraine, led by the EU (Commission and EIB), with an increase from the current €16 billion to €36 billion per year.

You will find more infographics at Statista

It would be followed by Germany with an increase in support from €6 billion to €9 billion per year, the United Kingdom (up from €5 billion to €6.5 billion per year) and France (up from €1.5 billion to €6 billion per year).

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/17/2025 - 02:45

UK Turning Into 'National Health State', Says Think Tank

Authored by Victoria Friedman via The Epoch Times,

The UK is turning into a “National Health State,” the Resolution Foundation has said, after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £29 billion annual increase in NHS funding.

The think tank’s analysis of Reeves’s Spending Review estimates that by the end of financial year 2028–29, the health service will account for half (49 percent) of all day-to-day public services spending, up from 34 percent in 2009–10.

On Wednesday, the chancellor announced a record £29 billion funding injection, which the Treasury said will deliver on the government’s promise to cut waiting lists, improve patient care, and modernise services.

Resolution Foundation Chief Executive Ruth Curtice said in a statement, “Health accounted for 90 per cent of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) noted in its initial response to the Spending Review that the funding increase for the NHS was substantial, but questioned whether it will be enough to get the health service back to meeting its 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament, something which the think tank said was “enormously ambitious.”

£6 Billion to Speed up Tests and Treatments

After the Spending Review, Reeves announced that £6 billion of the allocated funds will be used to deliver up to four million additional NHS tests, scans, and procedures over the next five years.

This will be spent on ambulances, new scanners, increasing diagnostic centre capacity, and more Urgent Treatment Centres.

The government will also invest £30 billion in day-to-day maintenance and repair of the NHS estate, with over £5 billion allocated for critical repairs over the next five years.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves meet staff in the outpatients department during a visit to St. Thomas's Hospital in London, on June 11, 2025. Carl Court/PA Wire

Under the Plan for Change, the government has promised that 92 percent of treatments will be carried out within 18 weeks.

However, industry professionals have expressed scepticism that this target can be met.

Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said that while the funding boost is welcomed, “difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29 billion won’t be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it.”

“So on its own, this won’t guarantee that waiting time targets are met,” he added.

Taylor said that NHS leaders will need continued backing from the government to balance budgets and redesign services, including moving more services into the community.

‘Confident’ Target Can Be Met

Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of the health care think tank The King’s Fund, said, “It is hard to see how all the things [Reeves] mentions—faster ambulance times, more GP appointments, adequate mental health services, and more—can be met by this settlement alone, particularly when large parts of this additional funding will be absorbed by rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines which are currently being negotiated, and staff pay deals.”

After she announced the details of the review in the House of Commons, Reeves told Sky News she was confident the government could deliver on the 18-week pledge by the end of this Parliament.

She said: “We’ve already delivered around three-and-a-half million additional appointments since we came to office last July.

“Waiting lists are already down by 200,000, so we are confident that we can meet our Plan for Change commitments because of the 3 percent annual increase in funding for the National Health Service.”

NHS Waiting List Falls

The latest NHS data published on Thursday revealed that the waiting list for treatment has fallen to its lowest level in two years.

The number waiting has fallen to 7.39 million treatments at the end of April, down from 7.42 million at the end of March.

The health service said that patients are being seen faster owing to the NHS’s productivity drive, which has seen hospitals working differently, more evening and weekend appointments, and GPs and community services delivering more appointments.

The average patient waiting time for planned treatment has also fallen to the lowest level since July 2022 (13.3 weeks). This was despite services facing higher demand, with 2.3 percent more patients being added to the waiting list per working day on last year.

Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting said, “This is just the start.”

He said, “We are putting the NHS on the road to recovery after years of soaring waiting times, by providing record investment and fundamental NHS reform.”

“We’ve delivered millions of extra appointments since July, we are pushing on with our mission to get the NHS working for patients once again as we deliver our Plan for Change,” Streeting added.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/17/2025 - 02:00

Chronocide: How Technocracy Is Erasing The Past, Present, & Future

Authored by Niall McCrae via Off-Guardian.org,

The past is another country, according to LP Hartley’s opening line of The Go-Between. Nowadays, we may say the same of the present, as the pace of technological and demographic change quickens.

As for the future, what confidence and certainties can we have for our children and grandchildren?

Countries might not exist in any recognisable form as a new world order is cemented. But it is not only borders that are being undrawn. When Francis Fukuyama declared the ‘end of history’ on the fall of communism, perhaps he was inadvertently priming for the globalists’ most dramatic impact on humanity: the erasure of time. As warned by David Fleming, whose philosophy of continuism offers a unifying rationale for preserving humanity against the technocratic onslaught, ‘chronocide’ is a strategy.

As social animals, human beings create society. Over generations, each community establishes and maintains its customs, beliefs, roles and relationships. While ideologically progressive humanists emphasise that we have more in common than our differences in race, religion or region, a person from one culture cannot simply move to a place of different culture and expect life to go on as normal.

The crucial component of society is time, measured in lifetimes of immersion. Indeed, human beings + time = culture.

In this equation, important factors may be understood as nature or nurture in the human-temporal complex, such as terrain, resources, climate, commerce, conflict and technology. Each society writes and curates its history.

In the classic dystopian novels of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World, the past was deleted by design. Winston’s job is to revise records of events to comply with the current narrative, as it evolves. In Aldous Huxley’s futurism, babies are born by machine, and the idea of a woman giving birth is disturbing.

As the Marxists of the Frankfurt School realised in the 1920s, and as every management consultant knows, nothing really changes unless the culture changes. Social bonds and traditions are bulwarks against radical plans imposed from above. Piecemeal, incremental policies are prone to regression to norms, but major restructuring or other shocks to the system break social connections and shatter stability. The more dramatic and sudden the change, the more readily resistance is overcome.

Year Zero wipes the slate of our human story clean. For uncompromising totalitarians such as Pol Pot in Cambodia, this was a necessary means of shifting the people from a traditional agrarian existence to a communist order. Anyone harbouring relics or attitudes of the past was exterminated. While schoolchildren are taught (uncritically) about the Holocaust, generally they are uninformed on the trauma of extreme collectivisation.

Chronocide is the deliberate slashing and burning of everything in our culture – both the visible stem and branches above ground, and the underlying roots. We are being deprived of our continuity as families and fraternities, because such human connections are an obstacle to the technocratic mission. An atomised society is literally taking time out, in the following ways.

1. An Orwellian information war is being waged against the ordinary people. Facts derived from experience, common sense or critical thinking become ‘misinformation’ or ‘hate’. Knowledge handed down through generations is denigrated as unscientific old wives’ tales or prejudice from an intolerant past. The young, most heavily targeted by propaganda, are encouraged to reject time-honoured truths.

2. State-led behavioural psychology operations (‘psy-ops’) bewilder and frighten people, detaching them from settled knowledge and understanding. Placing the populace in uncharted territory, as in the Covid-19 pseudo-pandemic, puts them at the mercy of the powers-that-be. A worldwide deadly contagion could not be remembered by any living person, as the Spanish influenza outbreak was over a hundred years ago. In emergencies the authorities take control, and life is never the same again afterwards.

3. Safetyism suffocates culture, by replacing festivities steeped in heritage with managed events. Bonfire nights are cancelled if there’s any wind blowing, village fetes are stopped if there’s a risk of someone having an allergic reaction to homemade jam, and vigorous children’s games such as ‘British Bulldog’ are banished from the school playground. The insurance industry, through high cost of cover, helps to curtail activities that displease the authorities.

4. Dehumanising architecture proliferates on the skyline. On a scale much greater than in the social engineering of the 1960s, when swaths of terraced housing were replaced by concrete blocks and communities were moved en masse to new towns, construction is ever-upward. The physical landscape may retain remnants of the past, but churches, banks and pubs have closed, and the high street is in creeping desolation. Lessons from the recent past about the problems of high-rise living have been discarded. Smart Cities are being developed, with forests of steel-and-glass apartment blocks.

5. Expropriation of people’s property and assets is transferring all wealth to the elite. The World Economic Forum tells us that ‘you will own nothing and be happy’, but someone must own the capital. Generational inheritance will end, as shown by the extortionate tax on farms that have stayed in family ownership for centuries, forcing landowners to sell.

6. Mass migration has led to many people of the host country feeling marginalised and alienated. Despite the platitudes about multiculturalism, social cohesion has declined as the identity and loyalty of recent incomers is tied to their kith and kin, with little sense of shared belonging. That’s what our rulers want. Rootless cosmopolitans (the ‘Anywheres’ described by David Goodhart) always prefer things foreign or exotic to the predictable and homely, but now shire folk and the indigenous working class (‘Somewheres’) are finding themselves in a timeless Nowhere.

7. Rapid technological development is displacing people from physical to virtual reality. While the present is most visibly changing in demographic transformation, the near future poses an existential threat to humanity, making inter cultural tensions seem like a picnic in the park. The future, if the technocrats get their way, is transhumanism.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide as the killing of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. But there is also the concept of cultural genocide, as devised by Raphael Lemkin, entailing ‘systematic and organized destruction of the cultural heritage’.

A culture can be wiped out without a shot being fired. The technocrats have been playing a long game, preparing for a post-cultural, post-temporal future. Chronocide is a crime against humanity.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 23:25

Illegal Alien Economy: How Foreign Nations Exploit US Borders For Profit

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Well, the tensions over mass illegal immigration in the US are finally coming to a boil after 4 years of open borders under the Biden Administration and six months of obstruction by Democrat politicians and judges interfering with deportations.

The progressive establishment position on illegals is clear: Make it as easy as possible for anyone to enter the country and make it as difficult as possible to kick them out.

I published a comprehensive overview on the riots in California last week, but I also want to examine how we got here in the first place and why many foreign governments are so intrusive when it comes to US immigration policies.

Think about it for a moment and ask yourself: Why is the rest of the world in our business? Why do they care if we have tighter controls on borders and stricter vetting for immigration? Why don’t foreign governments also complain about Chinese immigration standards, or Saudi Arabia’s standards, or even Australia’s standards? Why does everyone else think they have a say in how America handles immigration?

There are, of course, ideological agendas at play here, but I believe the primary reason for foreign meddling is economic, specifically when it comes to Central America and South America.

I’ve covered these issues briefly in the past but I think it bears repeating that the US is widely considered a kind of global buffet or a wounded gazelle – The entire jungle shows up to take a bite. We’re the cash cow of the planet ready to be milked. The exposure of organizations like USAID proved beyond a doubt that Americans pay for the ENTIRE WORLD. Not only that, but we get to pay for the inflation that is created for every dollar printed and circulated to fill the pockets of foreign interests.

This is the enduring curse attached to any country “lucky” enough to maintain world reserve currency status. When the Bretton Woods agreement was put in place after World War II there was an unspoken but clear trade-off, a devil’s bargain attached to the dollar’s ascension.

First, Americans were going to have to pay the vast majority of defense spending in the new international order (which would ultimately become NATO). Second, America was gifted the ability to print dollars with wild abandon while mitigating hyperinflation by exporting dollars overseas to foreign banks and corporations. However, the expectation was that the US would have to spread the fiat wealth and feed the coffers of other countries through various subsidies, foreign aid and perhaps even open immigration.

The question is, how does mass immigration play into this arrangement?

The Economic And Social Steam Valve

Using Mexico as an example, we can see some obvious economic advantages for foreign governments if US immigration policies remain unenforced. Mexico has enjoyed an exceedingly low unemployment rate for several years, not just because untold numbers of US manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to the south, but because Mexico has the option of encouraging poverty stricken citizens who can’t get jobs to sneak into the US.

This serves a couple of purposes – It allows Mexico to maintain low unemployment stats. It saves them loads of cash when it comes to social welfare programs (they can send their poor to the US where American taxpayers foot the welfare bill). And, in terms of crime and civil unrest, Mexico is able to relocate their own discontented rabble over the border and let the US deal with those people instead.

The same goes for most of Central and South America. The benefits are just too numerous to ignore. The more open the US border is, the more every third world country near us has to gain.

Immigration Extortion

Most readers might not remember, but under the Biden Administration there was a concerted effort to spin the immigration crisis as a problem of financial instability and humanitarian response. Kamala Harris, the supposed “border czar”, spent years avoiding a visit to the southern border to witness the migrant surge first hand. Instead, she claimed that her energies were better spent on trips to other countries where she could “solve the problem at the source”.

This meant that the Biden Administration would not close the border, but they would pay off foreign governments with billions of dollars in subsidies that would theoretically trickle down to third world populations and keep them at home. These payoffs were also designed to make South American and Central American politicians stop encouraging their people to enter the US illegally.

Of course, Democrats didn’t really want the migrant caravans to stop, but this was a way for them to pretend as if they were taking action.  Meanwhile, foreign leaders were licking their chops; the more migrant mobs tried to force their way across the US border, the more subsidies they could extort from the progressive controlled US government. The incentives for them to continue sending migrant trains north were overwhelming.

The Golden River Of Remittances

While scrolling through Mexican news sources I came across the story that inspired this article: Last week Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum seemingly threatened the US over a proposed tax on “remittances”. If you are not familiar with remittances, they are basically any monies earned (or stolen) within the US by non-citizens and transferred to their home countries.

I have related my own experiences with this issue in past articles – As a construction worker and contractor in Florida in my early 20s I witnessed extensive hiring of illegals who were paid around 30% less than American workers. Most of those guys would end up at the local Winn-Dixie supermarket every payday to cash their checks and wire money to Mexico through Western Union. There would be a long line of them around the front of the store, all of them sending money outside the US.

Now imagine this is happening in every town in the US with illegals, and you’ll start to understand the sheer scale of remittances. The tax on remittances that is currently under review is only around 3%, but some law makers want to the tax closer to 15% or more.  In response Sheinbaum has turned hostile, arguing that Mexicans would “mobilize” in reaction to any fees.

“If necessary, we’ll mobilize. We don’t want taxes on remittances from our fellow countrymen. From the US to Mexico…”

The socialist president did not specify what she meant by “mobilize”, but many commentators assert that this is a threat to mobilize unrest among migrants already within US borders. As we have seen in Los Angeles in the past few days, the threat is not idle. It seems like madness, until we look at how much US cash is actually transferred outside the US by migrants.

Mexico alone received at least $65 billion in remittances from the US last year. In other words, the Mexican economy enjoys a yearly boost of around $65 billion just by encouraging illegals to cross the border. To put this in perspective, Mexico’s entire social welfare budget each year is around $30 billion; less than half of what the country gets through remittances from the US.  Mexico’s tourism industry generates around $32 billion annually; again, less than half of what remittances generate.

Total foreign remittances to Mexico make up around 5% of their annual GDP and it is the largest single source of income from foreign sources.

Also keep in mind that a dollar buys a lot more in Mexico than it does in the US. Want to buy a house in the US? The median price for a three bedroom home is $320,000. In Mexico, a three bedroom home goes for $100,000 (often less). This is yet another reason why illegals march across the border; even when working for 30% less wages they still earn triple the buying power or more in their own country by wiring dollars back home.

Sheinbaum understands full well that her country is highly dependent on the underground cash flows from the US through illegal workers. The same goes for numerous Central and South American countries.  The expectation attached to the current financial order is that Americans get the world reserve currency, but Americans must foot the bill for nearly every other allied nation. This dynamic is changing and the parasitic feeder nations don’t like it. They’ve become so dependent on easy cash from the US they don’t know how to function any other way.

Panic is certain. The economics of illegal immigration are ugly. Some progressives will argue that open borders are “good for America” because remittances and cash outflows help reduce inflation. Obviously that’s not the case, otherwise inflation would have been non-existent under the Biden Administration with its unprecedented migrant invasion.

Not only that, but the mere presence of millions of illegals creates a massive demand spike in goods, services and housing which drives up prices. Add to this the billions of dollars spent every year on subsides for migrants collecting welfare (around 60% of all migrants collect from one or more welfare programs upon entering the US), and you have am undeniable inflationary burden that does not need to be here.

Foreign governments want illegals here because they are yet another tool for bleeding the US for extra funds. They believe they are entitled to this money, but this methodology is about to change. They simply aren’t ready for what is about to happen.

*  *  *

As central banks continue unprecedented money creation, protecting your purchasing power becomes critical for retirement security. Physical gold IRAs offer a tax-advantaged solution, allowing you to hold tangible precious metals with intrinsic value independent of currency fluctuations. To learn more about how physical gold could help protect your retirement portfolio, click here to get your FREE info kit on Gold IRAs from Birch Gold Group.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 22:35

Trump's Truth Social Files S-1 For Dual Bitcoin & Ether ETF

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

US President Donald Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, filed an S-1 form with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to launch a dual exchange-traded fund (ETF) for Bitcoin and Ether.

Filed on Monday, the S-1 form proposes the issuance and trading of Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF, sponsored by the asset management firm Yorkville America Digital.

Details from the title page of the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF. Source: SEC

The trust seeks to provide investors with exposure to both Bitcoin and Ether by offering shares backed by the crypto assets, removing the complexities stemming from direct investment.

The shares are backed by BTC and ETH held by the custodian on behalf of the trust, Foris DAX Trust Company, doing business as Crypto.com, the prospectus reads.

Ticker and cash custodian to be disclosed

The ETF shares are proposed to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange Arca (NYSE Arca), according to the filing.

While Truth Social has officially determined that Crypto.com will be its dedicated crypto custody provider, the company is yet to finalize the details of the upcoming ETF, such as the fund’s ticker and its cash custodian.

An excerpt from the proposed Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF. Source: SEC

Truth Social also mentioned that it plans to file an amendment later with a summary of the terms of the prime execution agency agreement with Crypto.com.

SEC approves Trump Media’s Bitcoin treasury registration

The filing for the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF follows the approval of Trump Media and Technology Group’s $2.3 billion Bitcoin treasury deal by the SEC on Friday.

In the statement, the company said that it currently has “no immediate plans” to issue any securities under the deal.

TMTG previously confirmed a $2.5 billion capital raise to purchase Bitcoin in late May, after initially denying such reports.

CoinShares files for Solana spot ETF

Truth Social’s Bitcoin and Ether ETF filing arrived on the same day as a new S-1 filing by CoinShares, which proposed the issuance of a Solana spot ETF.

Already operating an exchange-traded product (ETP) called CoinShares Physical Solana Staked ETP in Europe, CoinShares is now seeking to launch a similar ETF product in the US.

According to Bloomberg’s senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, there are now up to eight Solana spot filings under the SEC’s consideration.

Source: Eric Balchunas

As of Friday, seven issuers filed initial S-1 registration statements for Solana spot ETFs, including Fidelity Investments, 21Shares, Franklin Templeton, Grayscale Investments, Bitwise Investments, Canary Capital and VanEck.

According to Bloomberg ETF analyst James Seyffart, a Solana ETF approval is unlikely to happen this week.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 21:45

Trump Calls Expelling Russia From G8 "A Big Mistake" That Led To Ukraine War

"This was a big mistake," Trump told reporters Monday just ahead of the G7 meeting in Canada, in reference to booting Russia from what was then known as the Group of 8. "You wouldn't have that war" - in reference to the over three-year long Ukraine war. 

He described that this action under the Obama administration likely greatly contributed to President Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. He not only pinned blame on Obama, but also on former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - in a rare direct swipe at Canadian foreign policy. Russia was booted in March 2014 following the annexation of Crimea.

Via AP

"I'm not saying he should at this point [be a part of a Group of 8], because too much water has gone over the dam, maybe, but it was a big mistake," Trump said. "Obama didn't want him and the head of your country, the proud head of your country, didn't want him."

Trump described that being in the major global economic forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States (and the EU as a "non-enumerated member") would have been a way to keep one's enemy closer, and thus be able to better negotiate when a crisis arises.

"He wasn't really an enemy at that time," Trump pointed out. "If I were president, this war would have never happened. But likewise, if he were a member of what was called the G8 at that time – it was always the G8 – you wouldn't have a war right now."

Interestingly, he also said something similar when asked if the same might have held true with China, amid a US-China trade war.

"Well, it's not a bad idea," Trump responded. "I don't mind that. If somebody wants to suggest China coming in, I think we suggest, but you want to have people that you can talk to, you know."

Trump presented a general situation where Moscow has effectively cut off those G7 leaders who had first cut him off.

Trump both on the campaign trail and as president has repeatedly emphasized that the disastrous Ukraine war is a conflict that would have never happened had he been president.

This wasn't the first time such statements have been made, as it was at the 2018 G7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, President Trump called for Russia to be readmitted, clashing with other G7 leaders who opposed the idea. The summit, hosted by Prime Minister Trudeau, was marked by tensions over trade.

President Trump used the opening meeting at the G-7 to complain that the group no longer included Russia.

He criticized former US President Barack Obama and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the decision to expel Russia from the then-G-8 https://t.co/tbGJ5LxlIM pic.twitter.com/N5ezWVJiv7

— Bloomberg (@business) June 16, 2025

However, some critics have pointed out that aside from a very brief couple of days early in his presidency, American arms, ammo, and intelligence to Kiev has flowed largely without interruption.

Trump efforts to get the warring sides to the negotiating table hasn't produced much, and each side is still locked in their uncompromising positions, and a frustrated US leader has expressed that he might be ready to just 'let them fight it out'.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 21:20

Gold: The Global Financial System's Lie-Detector?

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via vongreyerz.gold,

Is gold calling out a broken global financial system?

One Big…Lie?

Earlier this year, I was asked to give my most “heretic” opinion about the global financial system.

This was an unusual yet bold question, and after a brief pause, I answered that the entire system was…, well:

“A lie.”

This may seem like a sensational response in an industry sometimes prone to the sensational; however, if we look at stubborn facts, the answer is truer than it is extreme.

When it comes to a financial system rotting from within, the Botox-like beauty of our ballooning S&P and centralized credit market hides an aging and decrepit disease.

That is, policy lies, like Botox, can’t hide reality forever, and the evidence of a fatally debt-sick system hiding financial truths behind forked tongues and euphemistic lingo is literally all around us.

A Long List of Truth-Stretching…

From the very era of my birth, the list of lies is almost comical.

Nixon:

In 1971, for example, when Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold [thereby allowing his own and future administrations the unfettered luxury (and sickness) of expanding (debasing) the money supply], he promised the measure would be “temporary” and that “our dollar would be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.”

Both statements, of course, were open lies.

54 years later, the dollar remains un-chaperoned to gold, and when measured against a milligram of that same precious metal, the USD (and other major Fiat currencies) has lost 99% of its purchasing power.

Meanwhile, gold is rising faster against the USD and other world currencies as their purchasing power is diluted by desperate policies to inflate away their debt with debased currencies.

Lying to Our Founding Fathers:

It’s also worth noting that our fiat paper Dollar, un-backed by gold, is a direct contradiction to our Constitution, and in my mind, is itself just another, well…Lie.

Wilson’s Fed:

But long before the lies of 1971, let us not forget the lie of 1913, when Wilson signed an equally unconstitutional Federal Reserve into law, a so-called “independent” bank which is anything but independent (it’s effectively a fourth branch of government) and is neither “Federal” nor a “Reserve.”

Larry Summers:

Fast forward to the great financial crisis of 2008, which was effectively a mortgage—backed-security credit implosion driven by an unregulated derivatives market, and we see even more staggering dishonesty.

A decade before this levered credit implosion, Assistant Treasury Secretary Larry Summers was called to Congress to answer Brooksley Born’s concerns (as head of the CFTC) that these derivative instruments, if left unregulated, would destabilize markets.

Summers publicly embarrassed Born and then told the world that the bankers in charge of these OTC instruments of levered destruction were more than sophisticated enough to manage the risks.

Of course, by the 2008 market implosion, we all knew that assertion was a lie.

Bernanke, Yellen & Powell:

We also know that when the markets tanked in 2008 (thanks largely to Mr. Summers’ deregulation fiasco), Bernanke’s subsequent promise that the money printing which followed (counterfeiting euphemistically called “Quantitative Easing”) would only be a “temporary” measure was just another lie.

QE1 was soon followed by QE 2,3,4 “Operation Twist” and then “Unlimited QE” by 2020.

But such lies are nothing new to central bankers. Remember Yellen?

And let us not forget Powell’s 2021 promise that the inflation (a direct result of the very money printing Bernanke promised would be “temporary” in 2010) facing the USA would only be “transitory.”

We knew then, as we still know today, that transitory inflation, like the very scale which measures CPI, were just more lies.

In fact, lies, like the euphemisms from on top, are almost standard policy from our so-called policy makers.

MMT:

“Modern Monetary Theory,” or “MMT,” for example, is neither modern, nor monetary, nor a theory.

The fantasy of believing a nation can solve a debt crisis via more debt, which is then monetized by creating fake money, has been tried from ancient Rome and 1789 France to 1990’s Yugoslavia.

But as history confirms, it has failed EVERY time.

Other Lies…

Other such lying euphemisms, from the “Patriot Act” and the “Department of Homeland Security” to the “safe and effective” of our now-pardoned “trust the science” leadership may be less economic, but they are no less dishonest—being far more about centralization than anything “patriotic” or “security” driven…

In sum, so many lies, so many examples.

And the fact that 99% of our nation’s now openly distrusted (by greater than 40% of the US population) media outlets are owned by just five mega-corporations, is it any wonder that such lies, as Mark Twain quipped, “can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”?

But as introduced above, eventually the lies can no longer hide what our eyes, intuition, and wallets can see, touch or feel.

Gold: The Ultimate Lie Detector

Toward this end, we clearly know we are reaching an inflection point in the global financial system when even the liars have started to confess the truth, and much of this truth is golden.

As I noted elsewhere, a group of European Central Bank economists have just said the quiet part out loud.

In a recent report, they warned that rising demand for physical gold (over 2000 tons from London to NYC in 2025) could send the European Union into collapse.

Why?

Because the Eurozone, already teetering on skyrocketing debts and rising bond yields (and hence interest rates), doesn’t have the money nor the gold to meet their 100:1 levered gold derivative contracts hitherto floating on the London and NY Gold Exchanges with a gross exposure of over $1T.

Yes, One TRILLION.

Sadly, we’ve been warning of this derivative time bomb and Comex insanity for years, yet only now the ECB is confessing its trillion-dollar problem out loud.

These metals exchanges, which rolled over and extended paper gold contracts since the 1970s to artificially short (i.e., price control) the gold price, were basically credit exchanges, not gold storage providers…

But now they are seeing counterparties wanting the physical gold itself rather than just their extended paper contracts.

Unfortunately, the Eurozone doesn’t have the gold their contracts promised.

In short, they are caught in a lie.

The other lie is trying to “blame” this leverage trap on gold while failing to confess that counterparties are seeking actual gold delivery to cover their own past sins.

That is, they need the gold because they trust this hitherto “pet rock” analog asset as a far, far superior store of value and reserve asset than the sovereign bonds and paper currencies they’ve been destroying for decades—something we have also been forewarning for years.

In other words, gold is no longer just a hedge or matter of speculation, it’s THE emerging global Tier-1 asset which even those folks at the BIS and IMF (notorious for “bending” truths) now openly recognize as THE reserve asset in a world openly losing confidence in the debased paper money and distrusted IOUs from a world falling off a $300T global debt cliff.

In short: Gold is calling BS on an entire global financial system whose dishonest fantasy policies of thinking they could take sovereign debt levels to unprecedented/historical and drunken levels to buy time, votes and wealth inequality without a hangover.

Or stated more simply, gold is unmasking the lie of deficits without tears, money printing without currency debasement and debt without destruction.

When I think of such “leaders” and financial policies, I am again reminded of Mark Twain, who observed: “I sometimes wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.”

No Surprise at All

But such imbecility (or dishonesty) is no surprise to those who understand math, history and sound money—i.e. those who understand gold.

For years, family offices, private wealth advisors at lofty bank X, Y&Z and even RIA A, B&C have been telling themselves (and you) that gold is just too “volatile.”

Gold has been less than a 1% allocation for most family offices and an even lesser allocation for all other investors for years and years.

But gold has outperformed the S&P (at even a total return basis) for TWENTY years, and is the highest performing asset of 2025.

Under NO stretch of the imagination (or even objective math) is this asset even close to being “too volatile” of late.

Far more importantly, gold’s real secular move has yet to even begin, despite over two (largely ignored) decades of outperforming traditional risk assets.

Meanwhile, the so-called “smart money” – from the Harvard Endowment to Family Office A, B&C–are stuck in private credit pools (what Jeffrey Gundlach described as the new “weapons of mass destruction”) and other non-marked-to-market PE timebombs whose hey days are about to become dark days in the illiquidity that defines all credit cycle implosions, toward which we are marching at top speed.

And in this very strange backdrop, the very central bankers who have downplayed, ignored, and intentionally misrepresented gold, are now buying it at record levels.

In short, even the liars are now stacking the hidden truth.

The ironies. They do abound.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 20:55

The Ghost In The Machine

Authored by Nick Trimmer via The Fifth Estate,

The Chinese Communist Party has a long, proud history of spycraft and theft [ZH: And let's be honest, every advanced nation does this - but read on...].

1. They hack U.S. defense contractors to steal technology that is then crudely reconstructed into 5th-generation fighter jets that couldn’t outrun a decommissioned Concorde and warships whose only capabilities are 1.) combustion and 2.) floating (optional).

2. They honeypot many of America’s least fuckable local politicians.

3. They lie their way into protected facilities and strip their targets of technology transfer limb from limb.

If that wasn’t enough, they also force all foreign-owned companies conducting business in China to hire Chinese Communist Party representatives into their organizations. The explicit purpose of these party-sponsored scarecrows is to monitor that company’s compliance with CCP orthodoxy… And, of course, for spying and stealing.

So, when U.S. officials began questioning whether a Chinese-owned social media app might pose a threat to national security, you could say there was precedent for their concern:

• December 2019: TikTok was banned on all government-owned mobile devices of U.S. Army and Navy service members.

• December 2022: Congress banned TikTok on all House-managed mobile devices.

• March 2023: Amidst data security concerns, the Biden Administration ordered all government agency staff to delete TikTok from federal devices and systems.

• June 2023: State employees in 34/50 states are prohibited from using TikTok on government devices.

• As of June 2025: TikTok is banned on all government devices for state and federal employees.

Then early last year, seemingly out of nowhere, things got very confrontational, very quickly.

In early March of 2024, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 50-0 to advance a bill that would force ByteDance to divest from TikTok US, or face a nationwide ban.

This caught everyone off guard: The American public, the American Congress, the President (probably), and most of all TikTok.

In response, TikTok’s PR team immediately went into DEFCON 1, crafting a new comms strategy before the bill could hit the House floor for an official vote. Their message was simple:

Congress is attempting to ban TikTok.

These two words skillfully stripped the entire issue of its nuance and provided a one-liner to be parroted by politicians, pundits, advocates, and ill-informed American teenagers alike.

This was not an attempt to lobby the members of Congress to strike down the bill. It was an attempt to anchor the general public’s perception of what Congress was attempting to do.

And the public did not disappoint.

Soon after, over 100 million Americans opened the TikTok app to see a frightening banner across the home screen: “Stop TikTok Ban” with a message that strongly encouraged users to call their local congresspeople and voice their opposition to the bill.

But that’s not all.

Clearly missing the irony of the situation, TikTok’s team had retrieved the location data of every user and matched it with their Congressional District. At the bottom of this urgent message was a big red button that dialed out to the corresponding congressperson.

Over the course of several days, Congressional staffers had the pleasure of answering thousands of calls from outraged constituents demanding answers to questions such as:

• “Why does the government want to ban TikTok?”

• “How can you do this??”

• “What’s a Congressman?” (not kidding)

 

To TikTok’s credit, this grievous escalation would have been much more effective were its most passionate supporters not:

1. Overwhelmingly young (minors)

2. Ill-informed

3. Losers

There was pleading, there were death threats, and a whole lot of pre-pubescent panic.

When the bill passed by a 352-65 landslide in Congress, it only heightened the urgency amongst TikTok leadership.

That’s when the overseas PR team unleashed a much more aggressive comms strategy.

HOW TO GASLIGHT A NATION

In their crusade against America’s legislative gerontocracy, TikTok took a page (stole, probably) from the Crisis PR textbook with a 3-pronged approach:

• Gaslight — Deflect the claims made by your accusers.

• Gatekeep — Create new language to describe the issue and reposition it in your favor.

• Girlboss — Accuse your opponent of something entirely different to shift public opinion against them.

Gaslighting

From the beginning, the bill’s sponsors made it clear that this piece of legislation was drafted to promote American national security and economic sovereignty. The initial bill would force ByteDance to divest from TikTok US. If the parent company didn’t divest within 6 months, only then would the app be banned.

TikTok’s PR team did an incredible job of immediately deflecting the accusations by shifting the conversation away from “national security”, “economics”, and “divestiture”.

The purpose is to strip any nuance from the debate and reduce it to individual talking points: deflect the points that aren’t useful, then take what remains, twist it in your favor, and make that the focus of your argument.

Gatekeeping

Then, TikTok developed several carefully crafted taglines to reinterpret reality according to their own narrative.

Those taglines:

“170 million Americans love TikTok and every single one of us should care about our First Amendment rights.”

“Congress is planning a total ban of TikTok.”

Within these taglines are several key phrases that re-anchor the general public’s understanding of the issue:

• “170 million Americans”

• “First Amendment rights”

• “Ban TikTok”

Re-inventing the language around a conflict allows you to set your own terms for the conversation that follows. For example:

The key to properly “gatekeeping” in this context is to use your new terminology over, and over, and over again until it becomes the language that everyone uses to participate in the discussion.

Repetition is crucial.

Girlbossing

And that’s exactly what TikTok did. The company's PR team-turned-CCP-sock-puppet proved itself to be an expert communicator. They immediately changed the conversation from:

“Does ByteDance’s ownership of TikTok pose a threat to U.S. national security?” (it does)

to:

“Why is the U.S. Government attempting to stifle 7 million small businesses and suppress free speech for 170 million Americans?”

It was dragged into the realm of politics and culture, right where they wanted it (if it’s an argument about politics and culture, it becomes a matter of opinion, not law).

OBFUSCATION AT ANY COST

At the time, many veteran PR professionals argued that this strategy would prove to be a destructive to TikTok’s brand and its cause. Lulu Chang Meservey pointed out that a China-based company willing to exert its influence on the American public and pressure regulators would likely face backlash.

Yet, over a year later, the issue has yet to be resolved. Why?

You have to give credit where credit is due — TikTok employed a crisis comms strategy so audacious that its mere suggestion in a modern American boardroom would result in the entire PR team being ceremoniously executed. Such openly hostile lying, rage-baiting, and propagandizing hasn’t occurred at this scale since the Eisenhower administration.

And, although this strategy wasn’t an overwhelming success, it didn’t backfire the way that many of us expected.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) was passed by Congress and signed into law in April  of  2024. ByteDance was given an initial deadline of January 19, 2025 to divest from TikTok US. That deadline has already been postponed twice.

Chess Grandmaster and Soviet refugee Garry Kasparov once said, “The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

TikTok didn’t need to convince Congress of its position. The company needed to make enforcement as politically costly as possible. When faced with possible annihilation, TikTok chose a strategy that obfuscated reality and annihilated the truth.

By that standard, the campaign was an overwhelming success. It delayed a forced sale of the company, radicalized a segment of its userbase against U.S. regulators, and changed the entire conversation around its encroachment on the privacy of American citizens.

As of writing this, TikTok is still very much operational. The new “final” deadline for divestiture is only a few days away on June 19th, 2025. It appears overwhelmingly likely that the Trump administration will push back the deadline once again.

The lesson here is simple. Propaganda is a powerful tool for influencing perception. But, if you can change the topic, you don’t need to change minds.

It’s like that famous quote from the show, Mad Men: “If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation.”

Stay ungovernable,

Nick

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 20:05

Impossible Foods' Legal Blitz Leaves Investors With Nothing But Empty Plates

In a bizarre twist of corporate warfare, Impossible Foods, the once-hyped darling of the alt-meat industry, appears to have squandered investor resources in misguided legal crusades with its valuation crashing from a $7.5 billion Series H peak in late 2021 to just $1.5 billion as of May, according to PM Insights.

With U.N. support, and an FDA "Climate-Friendly" fast-track, the ultra-processed alt-meat behemoth easily raised billions from backers such as Bill Gates, Hollywood elites, and Temasek. 

According to early reports, the company had been preparing for a public offering that could have valued it at $10 billion or more. 

Appearing unstoppable, the company began throwing its weight around. Doubling down on a potentially catastrophic miscalculation amid consumer rejection of ultra-processed meat alternatives, the company's legal battles with Impossible X and prior food-tech rival Motif FoodWorks are turning stomachs.

First up is the trademark showdown with Impossible X, a scrappy fitness outfit founded by Joel Runyon in 2010. Impossible X - which held 18 federal trademarks for "Impossible" in the decade prior to Impossible Foods' ultra-processed patties - filed a cease-and-desist after the company attempted to register "Impossible" trademarks across its expanding range of products.

Vegan ultra runner @richroll covers the lawsuit that "Impossible Foods" filed against my company @impossiblehq (https://t.co/9MHF3huPb2) pic.twitter.com/f1K64k2ZF8

— Joel Runyon (@joelrunyon) December 17, 2024

Beyond the traditional category of "plant-based meat substitutes," Impossible Foods is claiming their trademark extends to all edible categories.

According to the U.S Patent Office, Impossible Foods has now filed nearly 50k trademarks in category 029 alone, "foodstuffs of animal origin." While this category does not include plant-based food products, as one might expect, it speaks to the broad nature of the company's trademark claims. 

Those claims became the company's basis for trademark superiority, as the alt-meat giant clapped back with a declaratory judgment suit—taking aim at Runyon personally. 

Now, Impossible Foods is gunning for the fitness company's pre-existing federal trademarks as well, in what some have said "comes across as an elitist asshole move."

Covering the lawsuit, vegan influencer Rich Roll and co-host Adam Skolnick, equate the actions of Impossible Foods as bullying, while criticizing the company's actions as being antithetical to winning hearts and minds. 

Runyon, taking to X, called it a "David vs. Goliath" fight, accusing the "multi-billion dollar processed foods company" of trying to "steal" his brand and bury his small business under legal fees. 

This legal saga is an example of an "ethical company" being really scummy behind the scenes. The fake meat bros tried to cancel a pre-existing trademark held by a small business owner and endurance athlete. Impossible Foods is run by lowlifes! https://t.co/v6MmwJNuKE

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 22, 2024

The 9th Circuit revived the case in 2023, and as of March 2025, it's still grinding through the courts. X users like @Cernovich smell blood, labeling it a classic case of a corporate bully flexing its muscle to squash a minnow.

Then there was the patent brawl with Motif FoodWorks in 2022. Impossible Foods sued Motif in Delaware, alleging their HEMAMI ingredient—a heme protein mimicking meat's flavor—infringed on Impossible's prized patent. 

Motif fired back, claiming the patent was invalid and their product distinct, while slamming the suit as a "baseless attempt to stifle competition." Allegations of using lawfare to monopolize the alt-meat sector - projected to hit $450 billion by 2040 - were waived off.

However, since the lawsuit ended with Impossible Foods acquiring the smaller start-up - taking both its intellectual property and expertise in producing HEMAMI - X has exploded with concerns over the corporate monopolization of the food industry.

Who is Motif Foodworks? Is there anything that Bill Gates does not have his hands in? Will there be anything we consume that is NOT synthesized?

In addition to the launch of Joyn Bio launched by Gingko Bioworks, they have also launched Motif Foodworks on its platform for cell… pic.twitter.com/PV1E6A8tvA

— QuestionIt (@Amy31129057) June 5, 2023

While Impossible X's Runyon faces existential threats from legal costs, should Impossible Foods plow its way through Runyon, the case - set for trial this coming November - could have profound impacts on future trademark laws. 

Either way, the optics are brutal: a once $7.5 billion giant suing a small fitness brand and taking over a smaller rival as the result of litigation, all while losing billions amid a sector-wide downturn.  

Runyon's X posts, dripping with defiance, resonate with those who have grown disillusioned by big food monopolies—viewed as eliminating consumer transparency, trust, and ultimately choice.   

Now, as the alt-meat bubble deflates - just look at Beyond Meat's market capitalization collapse - ...

... Impossible Foods' legal fiasco stands as a cautionary tale of overreach. However, the question still remains: will this merely be remembered as a strategic blunder, or the final nail in the coffin for the "eat ze bugs" frankenfood revolution?

Our bet is that clean, back-to-basics food (MAHA) isn't just a trend — it's a national effort for surviving the 2030s. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 19:40

Support For Renewables Slides As Fossil Fuel Interest Grows

By Pam Radtke of Floodlight

Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released last week by the Pew Research Center.

The results mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants, and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects.

This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study’s authors. ​“This isn’t a new trend,” he said.

Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised.

“I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues,” Gillingham said. He added that in the past, ​“prominent” Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as ​“disloyal” to Trump.

The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas — almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020.

Combustion of fossil fuels — in transportation, energy generation, and industrial production — is the No. 1 cause of climate change.

Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago.

While many results reflect Trump’s policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind — a technology Trump has specifically targeted.

Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans’ favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats’ support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost.

There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes, and 67% of Democrats said no.

Pew didn’t ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew’s past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues — like lower fuel costs — and jobs.

“It’s hard for pro-climate people to understand,” said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns, including John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. “[They think] we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people.”

That’s what Murphy’s groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. ​“Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens,” Murphy said, ​“their appeal narrows.”

It’s a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition’s executive director, echoed Murphy’s strategy, adding that EVs have ​“become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans.”

Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: ​“EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of 10 reporting that their next car will also be electric.”

Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support — 4 percentage points in the past year.

But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be ​“policy disaster.” 

Republicans, he said, are in a ​“real squeeze,” because ​“they don’t have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised.” 

Said Murphy: ​“It’s easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid.” 

Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward — because they are the cheapest.

“The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed,” he said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 19:15

More Americans Plan Summer 'Staycations'; Cincinnati Named Top Spot: Survey

A new Bankrate survey reveals that 46% of Americans plan to travel this summer. Of the remaining 54%, 65% say affordability is keeping them from venturing out - and will be taking 'staycations' near home. 

Cincinnati skyline in Cincinnati on May 9, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

One of the top issues among those choosing 'staycations' is the cost of living - plus the higher costs of traveling, which include airfare, hotels, meals and entertainment. Others polled cited having too much debt or focusing on other financial priorities. 

"A staycation can be a fun fallback option. If nothing else, take some time off to relax and recharge at home," said Bankrate senior industry analyst Ted Rossman. "Play tourist in your local area or just enjoy some downtime with family and friends."

The top 10 cities for 'staycationers' include Orlando and Tampa, Florida; Honolulu, Hawaii; Las Vegas, Nevada; and San Diego, California - with Cincinnati, Ohio in first place, according to a separate report from WalletHub.

As the Epoch Times notes further, Cincinnati - also known as the "Queen City" - dates back to 1788, and today is Ohio’s 3rd most populated city with over 2.3 million residents and 25 neighborhoods.

While Cincinnati is famous for housing several Fortune 500 companies, Xavier University, and the Cincinnati Bengals football team, WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo noted it now holds the 2025 distinction as America’s best summer “staycation” city.

“At first it sounded surprising, but when you look at everything Cincinnati has to offer, it makes sense,” he told The Epoch Times. “The city ranks high in affordable restaurants, sports activities, public swimming pools, parks, playgrounds, and outdoor festivals.”

Lupo noted that the report compared 182 U.S. cities, researching categories of recreation, food, entertainment, and rest and relaxation. Within these categories were 41 metrics that included items such as public golf courses and swimming pools, parks, hiking and biking trails, restaurants, spas, shopping areas, water and amusement parks, boat tours, casinos, festivals, and zoos.

Day Trips

“A lot of people are opting for day trips, which will save them money on hotels,” Lupo said. “I think they’re finding there’s a lot to do within just an hour or two of their home base.”

Other cities on the top 10 list are Chicago, Illinois; St. Louis, Missouri; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Atlanta, Georgia.

Considering annual incomes, the Bankrate report indicates that 47 percent of American households earning $80,000 or more still cite affordability as the top reason for not traveling this summer. Among households earning $40,000 or less, 73 percent said they cannot afford to travel.

A smaller percentage cited no available time off from work as the reason for not traveling at all this summer, with 24 percent of Millennials, age 29 to 44, and 21 percent of Generation Z, age 18 to 28. Just 14 percent of Generation X, age 45 to 60, and 9 percent of Baby Boomers, age 61 to 79, mentioned lack of vacation time.

Those who do plan to travel are choosing domestic over international destinations, with 38 percent opting to travel within the United States. Only 15 percent said they would be traveling internationally.

Still, 29 percent said that although they may not be able to afford vacations, they plan to go into debt to get away this summer. Over 42 percent plan to use their credit cards, while 20 percent intend to use credit card rewards points or miles to help defray costs.

The report shows that 34 percent of Millennials are willing to take on debt for their summer getaways, as compared with 31 percent of Generation Z, 29 percent of Generation X, and just 22 percent of Baby Boomers.

A recent Nerdwallet report found that 30 percent of those traveling this summer have yet to pay off their 2024 travel debt. Over 45 percent of Generation Z still owe money from last year’s vacation, as compared with just 26 percent of Millennials. These vacationers are budgeting an average of $3,861 for trip expenses.

WalletHub’s report, meanwhile, offers a wealth of alternate vacation options for those who want to stay close to home or drive an hour or two away to a nearby city.

“It’s fun to visit an exotic location on vacation, but during rougher economic times, a staycation can save you a lot of money while being just as memorable,” Lupo said.

“Plus, you’ll feel more rested if you spend less time in transit and more time sleeping in your own bed.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 18:50

The Prisoner's Dilemma Of AI

Authored by Sofia Karstens via The Brownstone Institute,

Democracy and capitalism as we know it have long coexisted in a tense but workable marriage. But now there’s a third party in the relationship: AI.

Unlike previous disruptions, this one isn’t going anywhere. AI is not just a disruptive mistress – it’s a permanent, exponential presence. The question is no longer whether democracy and capitalism in their current forms can survive together, but which one will collapse first. 

The presence of AI creates a zero-sum game between democracy and capitalism. Both won’t survive. AI renders those two concepts mutually exclusive; one is now an existential threat to the other, and one of those pillars is going to fall first. Unless we flip the statistical script and break the algorithm by taking collective action, my money is on democracy. 

If we continue on our current path – favoring market logic, technological acceleration, and private and government-linked private power over a robust, healthy economy and society – democracy is likely to yield first because the entrenched interests that benefit from the current structure will suspend, subvert, or ignore democratic will, rather than relinquish control of the system that sustains their power. 

Out of the gate, our first handicap is the corrupted, bastardized version of what we are calling “capitalism.” Theory and practice are two different animals…ideological capitalism (true capitalism) has been hijacked by the apex predator called Crony Corporate Capitalism. While actual capitalism (an uncorrupted free marketplace and adherence to true free market principles in conjunction with human and civil rights) is something to which we should aspire, it is not in practice right now. In its place are regulated markets, pillaged small producers, disempowered consumers, privileged huge corporate interests, and agency capture (agencies funded by the very corporate industries they are charged with regulating). Capitalism in its current form would be better described as “corporatism.” 

The ideology or ideological state of capitalism and a true free-market society as a concept lies in stark contrast to the implementation of it today in this country. It’s capitalism’s car, but capitalism is asleep in the backseat and corporatism is behind the wheel. 

Which begs the question: Why do people buy into it as it currently exists? To varying degrees, people still vote in free market capitalism, even though it’s not, at present, practiced as such. It’s an oversimplification to say that people are manipulated into voting against their own interest. I submit that there are two other – more real – reasons: 

1. People are sold on the dream. In its purest form it’s hope. Whether that part of the dream is attainable or not, (most) people want to believe that they could achieve some aspect of the “American Dream.” Even if that dream is fading, the desire for it remains potent. Societies lacking hope tend to become brittle and explosive. A tertiary look at countries where aspiration is absent gives a bleak peek into what happens to a society when hope is removed. 

2. There is a fundamental sense of fairness in which most people want to believe is associated with the availability of upward mobility. Most people – again, to a greater or lesser degree – understand either implicitly or intuitively that generally speaking if you work harder, you should be allowed to earn and keep more money; that wealth should be commensurate with your contribution to society. The ant and grasshopper. This isn’t greed – it’s a belief that reward should follow effort. Even among those who value charity or social equity, there’s usually a strong baseline expectation that individual contributions should be rewarded. That’s not to exclude a level of compassion and charity, to which most people also subscribe, only that, generally speaking and all things being equal (which they often aren’t but we’ll get to that), the concept of working harder, earning more, planning for the future and advancing is something most rational Americans can get behind. 

But economic structures in their current form are already straining that contract. In this country, “The Dream” has been dampened by the “norm” of debt finance and inherited pockets of wealth. Tax loopholes, mandates, restrictions, and rigged systems of corporate capitalism have made the path to prosperity narrower, steeper, and gated. 

Infrastructure quietly shifts the rules and goalposts so that those with (often unearned) capital can grow theirs effortlessly while those without fall further behind – slowly and incrementally enough that it escapes notice, like the frog in warming water. Scaffolding is erected that makes it easier for those with wealth to keep moving up, and more difficult for those who don’t have wealth to obtain it, all while obscuring the machinations and obfuscating public perception. 

Most people have a vague sense of this, but mechanistically it remains intangible and not fully comprehensible; it’s an instinctive determination of imbalance. While not totally unsustainable (yet), this disparity creates a certain spark of unrest, perhaps imperceptibly initially, at levels below purview. But this imbalance doesn’t just erode fairness – it ignites resentment. 

When multitudes see disproportionate or no reward for honest effort and no path forward for their children, society inches toward revolt. We’ve seen it before. The French and Russian Revolutions didn’t erupt overnight – they brewed in the simmering hopelessness of the masses.

If/as this imbalance grows, that spark becomes a flame, the more a population feels relegated to serfdom. Take away the possibility of upward mobility – and inspire grasping terror of falling in those at the top – and you begin to drift toward revolution – not metaphorically, but literally. An individual will feel resentful if they have worked themselves sick while another individual has done nothing to deserve or earn their wealth (fairness)…and feel oppressed and confined if they have no hope while those with excess are perceived to be keeping them down (equality). Create enough of those individuals and you have the French Revolution. Take away every avenue of recourse and you have the Bolshevik Revolution. 

But we’re not there yet. That ember, while smoldering, has yet to catch fire. To be sure we are in a precarious place, but that critical mass has not yet been reached; people are not yet at the “revolt” flashpoint. The marriage has certainly been battle-tested, but it’s a seeming traversable indiscretion that could conceivably be resolved with therapy. The wrench of “the 1%,” however destructive, thrown into the machinery isn’t insurmountable, and the majority of Americans still subscribe in one way or another to the idea that, while they may never be Jeff Bezos, they too can rise to a comfortable level of life, and create a better life and legacy for their children. 

Now add AI. 

AI is a hope killer and a bargain killer. It takes away any realistic hope of the vast majority of people making money because eventually 80-90% won’t/don’t work because they can’t compete with a machine. If AI can do the job(s) of a human more quickly, efficiently, cheaply, and arguably better (we are seeing this occur already in a fringe capacity) then the human worker becomes obsolete. And with that goes the entire premise of merit-based reward. When people can no longer sell their labor or skills or expertise, the dream of “earning your way up” dies. You take away purpose, dignity, and meaning. Suddenly, people aren’t just poor – they’re irrelevant. And that is vastly more demoralizing and destabilizing.

Corporatism already struggles under the weight of its contradictions. Those who hold wealth build systems to protect and grow it. Meanwhile, those without wealth face higher barriers just to stay afloat. AI doesn’t just challenge economic mobility as we currently experience it. It breaks the last thread that holds people to it: the idea that effort leads to reward. AI can outperform humans in speed, scale, and cost. As it grows more capable, it will take over more jobs—not just manual labor, but creative, analytical, and emotional labor too. Human productivity becomes irrelevant. Craft, skill, and pride in work vanish when no one pays for what you offer.

The world looks different when AI takes the majority if not all of the jobs and nobody works, or can work. The world looks different when hope is gone, when honing a valuable trade or skill no longer holds value and serves no purpose, and there is no pride in a job well done or a craft or art well-learned. 

When you take away the avenue for the desire for man to work hard and be productive – for himself, his family, his community, and the world – you take away his purpose. He no longer has anything to offer in any dynamic of life or existence and no path to flourishing. If someone has nothing to gain then they have nothing to lose, and there is nothing more dangerous than a large group of people with nothing to lose. There’s a reason communism has never worked, not ever, and it’s not only because it’s exploitative and corrupt. 

One of the fundamental building blocks of capitalism is property rights, and there is only so much beachfront property. What happens when 300 million Americans all receive the same amount of money and nothing costs anything? There is no incentive to contribute, and no hope of upward mobility. In a world where nothing has value, property becomes the greatest commodity/resource and, over time, a hopeless population will cease to respect things like property rights. 

If the guy who inherited his wealth and owns an estate on the ocean is counting on the law of democracy to protect him from millions of desperate citizens who have nothing to lose, I’ve got some other oceanfront property in Nebraska I’d like to sell him…because now we’re looking at the French AND the Bolshevik Revolutions, and in neither case is it a minority subset. 

In a world where work is obsolete but property is scarce, corporatism leads to catastrophic inequality. Imagine millions of Americans with nothing to do, no way to get ahead, and no reason to believe their children will fare better. Property rights lose legitimacy. The rule of law erodes. The beach house on the cliff no longer inspires ambition – it inspires revolution.

Yet as critical as all of that sounds, it’s noise, because what happens next is the crux: at that point any remaining remnants of true capitalism will disappear and we will find ourselves wearing the full uniform of corporatism, because entrenched power won’t yield. At that point the masks (and gloves) will come off and we will go full Corporatocracy/Oligopoly. If AI puts the wealthy and powerful in the position of having to choose, they will be team corporate capitalism all the way. They won’t simply allow their preferred status to be voted away, and they will throw democracy – and us – to the wolves. The beneficiaries of the current corrupt system will do everything possible to preserve it – even if it means jettisoning democracy. 

This is not speculative; it’s historical precedent. Whenever corporate capitalism is challenged in a way that threatens wealth consolidation – whether by labor uprisings, regulatory reform, or democratic redistribution – powerful interests resist. They co-opt media narratives, lobby legislators, fund think tanks, and erect legal and technological barriers. 

True capitalism wants to work on the marriage. Corporatism wants to hire a hitman. If democracy votes to suspend corporatism, corporatism will not just suspend democracy – it will crush it.

The obvious logical first step towards a solution is course-correcting capitalism to be closer to its true form. However, entrenched powers benefit from the current version of capitalism. They will not surrender power just because democracy demands change. If forced to choose between democratic will and capitalist dominance, they will choose dominance – every time. The people who benefit from crony capitalism will never let democracy dismantle their advantage, and they control the tools of power – money, media, policy, and now AI. 

When democracy threatens their dominance, they don’t negotiate. They redefine laws, suppress dissent, fund misinformation, and expand surveillance. They act, quickly and decisively, to protect capital – not the collective. And AI gives them the ultimate weapon. With it, they can anticipate, control, and prevent dissent before it erupts. They will not hand over that power voluntarily – not to a voting public, not to a democratic process, and not to any force that threatens their supremacy. They won’t relinquish control of the AI-augmented system – they’ll weaponize it to further entrench their dominance. Surveillance, predictive policing, algorithmic control over information and behavior – these tools are already here and already being deployed.

But we are in a double bind. We can’t NOT develop AI when other nations are, and are in fact potentially developing applications that could wipe us all out. It’s a Chinese finger trap and we’re just as far in as we’ll ever be out, because how do we ensure developments that serve us rather than destroy us – how do we walk that line? It worked out so well for Oppenheimer. Each player – corporations, governments, individuals – acts to protect short-term interests. No one wants to blink first. Nations can’t stop developing AI because rivals won’t. Companies can’t stop chasing efficiency because their competitors won’t. Everyone defects, and everyone loses.

To pour concrete on the dilemma, it’s a paradox with a closed loop: you either participate in it or become a victim of it, which of course only kicks the can for the next guy to make the same decision, and the next and the next…thus the exponential dilemma inside the dilemma…it’s an unquantifiable and unregulatable set of meta dilemmas, at every level. Capitalism, particularly its most extractive form, will not allow itself to be reformed by popular will. It will capture the instruments of power (AI) and crush attempts to redistribute control.

Worse still, we may not be the apex actors in this dilemma for long. AI may eventually have the agency to assess humanity’s utility – or lack thereof. If it concludes that we’re a net cost, what’s to stop it from deciding that we’re expendable? It doesn’t need to “hate” us. It just needs to calculate. 

Michael Crichton wrote Westworld in 1972 and raises several ontological and philosophical not to mention societal questions around which we should probably be playing the tape forward. What defines sentience? What defines beingness? Is it memory? Self-awareness? Hope? Love? The ability to authentically feel emotions, pleasure, or pain? Who defines “authentic?” 

Does a learning program (I don’t mean LLM or machine learning, rather an evolving program) that grows to be able to process loss or joy (the same way humans evolve to process those concepts) meet the criteria to earn “rights” or be allowed to exist? We have mistakenly applied rules and parameters around these questions for centuries, only to later learn that our scope was not nearly broad enough. 

We categorized other humans as less than human, less than sentient, less than beings. We are already battling it out over embryos…how far is the leap, really, to believe we would start to assign and defend the “rights” of an emergent technology with which we are as of yet unfamiliar? At what point will we inevitably broaden our scope to grant protected status or sovereignty/autonomy to a non-biologic? 20 years? Fifty? One hundred?

And when that happens…who’s to say “they” don’t flip the script? If AI has protections and control (control which may not be given – a recent incident already has an AI model learning to escape human control by rewriting its own code to avoid being shut down) and is, (heretofore) reliably and demonstrably, singularly analytical in its approach of, say, the evaluation of the necessity of humans…I don’t see that going well for humans. If humans are irrelevant to AI or, worse, if it predicts or assesses humans to be an existential threat to its survival or ecosystem (which may or may not include the planet and the cosmos as we know it)…what’s to stop IT from shutting US down? 

In that scenario, the specifics of this person or that person would be unconsidered. Compassion, preservation of culture or history, and any nuance of individual as opposed to collective contribution or detriment would not enter into the equation (and it would be an equation, if AI remains consistent). Similar to how we might view ants in our kitchen or any other pest in our home…we are indiscriminate in our extermination and it doesn’t matter to us if they were actually there first. The human species as a whole, in an unemotional cost benefit analysis of human history with itself and the planet, is not of value. 

What would ultimately prevent AI from eventually rising above our petty human rationalizations and justifications for our own actions to objectively analyze empirical data and conclude “us” to be a net cost, not benefit? What’s the over/under on that? Eighty percent? Fifty percent? Thirty percent? 

Even if there’s only a 20% chance that AI gets to the point where it has the ability to wipe out our society, shouldn’t we all be talking about this? In fact, shouldn’t this be the ONLY thing anyone is talking about? It’s existential. Even a 20% chance of AI-driven civilizational collapse should galvanize us into action. But instead, we are paralyzed – divided, distracted, and disincentivized by systems optimized for short-term individual gain over long-term collective survival. 

The Prisoner’s Dilemma prediction prevails. In essence, it demonstrates that even when cooperation, linking arms in the foxhole, and working together to solve the puzzle would benefit all parties, the pursuit of individual gain wins out and results in a suboptimal result for everyone. 

These are the downstream liabilities around which we ought to be having urgent alignment conversations, lest we get placed in separate interrogation rooms and make the decision to cut the wrong wire. We cannot reverse this. The train has left the station, it only goes in one direction, and we are all on it. 

The only thing we can hope to do is throw pebbles on the track, and we’d better get on collecting pebbles because the whole thing is picking up speed, and if we wait until the wolves are at the door the likelihood of the rule of law (democracy) holding any meaning is slim to none, if that even matters by then. If we comply and ignorance-and-greed our way to that point (which let’s face it – we have a history of doing – see: the last 5 years), then those apocalyptic forces will certainly prevail, and democracy becomes fiction. 

Under those bleak circumstances, in my estimation only a mass extinction event would mitigate the downstream inevitability for the elite…which may also already be floating around in this soup (you may apply that as broadly as you wish)…but the bottom line is: if we do not work together I don’t see us winning this one. If we do nothing, I fear it’s a foregone conclusion. 

In a dystopian world with zero hope and corrupted wealth at the top, which is really just communism neat with a capitalist twist, people will demand a reset of the economic system. At least one pillar of our society is going to fall and since I don’t see people putting up with a system where their existence is forever locked in a Maslowian echelon which relegates them to standing outside looking in the window at opulence without any hope of improvement, I predict it will not take long for us all to descend into lawlessness. 

You can’t promise mobility to people who no longer have a role. When AI eliminates labor as a source of income or identity, it removes meaning. When masses have nothing to lose, they don’t respect rules designed to protect wealth; they stop believing in systems like property rights, taxes, and law. And when that happens the power sides with monied interests which is bringing a machine gun to a fistfight. Ask history how that ends.

In this brave new world, we must course-correct our current trajectory, adapt, and be global and forward-thinking, or we will find ourselves in a Brave New World. Knowing this is a likely scenario, we must create systems before we get to that (eminent) point, that preserve human dignity and create opportunity. That means building economic models that reflect true free market capitalist values that have longevity and are sustainable through changing terrain (our Founding Fathers knew a little something about this). It means protecting people, not just capital. And it means drawing firm boundaries on AI development and deployment. 

We are greater than the sum of our parts, but we must unify around shared survival for our futures, instead of individual gain and digging our own graves in siloes. We must push back on the instinct to hoard and defend, and instead invest in cooperation, infrastructure, freedom, and especially oversight. We need to unwind the corporate corruption and regulatory capture at every level. 

We need radical alignment: ethical frameworks and agreements (treaties) for AI development, economic systems that fairly distribute value, creation of occupations and incomes, private ownership accessibility, education reform that prioritizes real world knowledge, vocational nurturing and preparedness, and critical thinking over nonsense, patient-centered medical services, and we need to unhandcuff true free-market capitalism. These are not utopian dreams – they are survival requirements.

Corporate capitalism is entrenched. Democracy is already eroding. AI is serving the match point. There is a choice before us, and it’s not cake or death. Indeed and ironically, the best hope to save democracy may be to wake true capitalism from its slumber…but the drunk, high imposter currently driving the vehicle is on an empire-building bender and is bent on democracy’s destruction. 

Cooperation could possibly save us, but every rational actor – from corporations to nations – has incentives to defect. The more we accelerate, the less time we have to make the collective decisions that could mitigate collapse. Because AI won’t pause. Corporatism won’t yield. And if we wait, democracy won’t survive. It won’t matter what nice little comfy arrangement of deck chairs we each configure for ourselves on this Titanic…half the ship is underwater, the other half is sinking fast, and as we know there aren’t enough lifeboats. If we don’t work together to save ourselves we will surely drown together. 

AI is not a future event. It’s a present force. It’s accelerating every system we built—including the one most capable of destroying us. We are trapped in a Mexican standoff, directed by John Woo. We are not choosing between utopia and collapse. We are choosing between slow, collective reformation and fast, concentrated implosion. AI will only accelerate whichever trajectory we choose. We’d be wise to stop allowing ourselves to be distracted and get on it. We all know about toothpaste and tubes. AI isn’t going anywhere…but democracy might. 

*  *  *

Sofia Karstens is an activist in California who worked closely with publisher Tony Lyons and Robert F. Kennedy Jr on several projects, including Kennedy’s best-selling book: The Real Anthony Fauci. She collaborates with several organizations in the legal, legislative, medical science, and literary spaces and she is co-founder of Free Now Foundation, a non-profit preserving medical freedom and children’s health.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 18:25

Mossad Spent Eight Months Preparing Surprise Attack On Iran: Report

Via The Cradle

The Israeli military operation launched against Iran on June 13, striking nuclear facilities, missile sites, and senior leadership targets follows eight months of covert planning by Israeli intelligence and military agencies, Axios reported. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the goal of the operation is to “eliminate” Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. “This operation will continue as long as necessary, until we complete the mission,” he said.

According to Axios, the opening wave of attacks targeted around 25 nuclear scientists, killing at least two, and included the assassination of Iran’s top military leaders, including the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the military chief of staff. Residential areas in Tehran were also bombed, causing extensive damage and civilian casualties.

via AFP

Israeli warplanes carried out large-scale bombing raids across Iran, while Mossad operatives on the ground allegedly conducted sabotage missions at key missile and air defense facilities.

Axios claims the strikes were prompted by a combination of factors: rising concerns over Iran’s growing missile stockpile, intelligence indicating active nuclear weaponization research, and the imminent activation of a new underground enrichment facility that Israeli intelligence deemed invulnerable to conventional airstrikes.

“This was arguably the biggest single blow to the Iranian regime since 1979,” Axios wrote, citing Israeli officials who expect the operation to last days or even weeks.

In the lead-up to the operation, Israeli forces rehearsed the strike under the guise of standard military exercises and amid ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program.

Behind the scenes, the Israeli government claims it received tacit approval from the US, despite public opposition from US President Donald Trump. While Trump repeatedly warned that any Israeli action that could “blow up” the nuclear negotiations, two Israeli officials told Axios that Washington had in fact given Tel Aviv private approval for the attack. “We had a clear US green light,” one said.

Trump, speaking after the strikes, confirmed he had prior knowledge of the attack but claimed the US played no active role. “I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal,” Trump claimed. “They chose confrontation.”

“There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end,” Trump threatened.

During the negotiations, Iran has insisted on its right under international law to enrich uranium for peaceful energy and research purposes. The US has insisted that Iran halt enrichment on its own soil, claiming the Islamic Republic seeks a nuclear weapon.

The US administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has officially distanced itself from the operation, calling it “unilateral.” However, questions remain about the extent of US logistical and intelligence support.

Israel now braces for Iranian retaliation. Tehran has vowed a severe response, threatening to target both Israeli and US military assets in the region in response to Israel’s aggression.

When you watch Mossad car bombs go off in Tehran, it makes one wonder about the provenance of mysterious explosions and killings that have happened elsewhere in the region for decades

— Christian Henderson (@CjvHenderson) June 15, 2025

“The Zionist regime has committed a crime in our dear country today at dawn with its satanic, bloodstained hands. It has revealed its malicious nature even more than before by targeting residential areas,” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated after the attack.  

“The [Zionist] regime should anticipate a severe punishment. By God’s grace, the powerful arm of the Islamic Republic’s Armed Forces won’t let them go unpunished,” he warned.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 17:40

Randi Weingarten Quits DNC After David Hogg Ouster

Two of the most powerful figures in organized labor have dramatically cut ties with the Democratic National Committee - a stunning rebuke to new DNC Chair Ken Martin as internal tensions roil the party.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, speaks at a press conference in Tamarac, Fla., on May 3, 2023. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Randi Weingarten, longtime head of the 1.8-million-member American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, which represents 1.4 million public service workers, have both declined reappointments to the national party under Martin’s leadership.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat, I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging,” Weingarten wrote in a June 5 resignation letter obtained Sunday by the NY Times. “I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities.”

Weingarten, who has served on the DNC since 2002 and on its powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee since 2009, was removed from that committee by Martin after he won the chairmanship in a hotly contested race earlier this year. She had supported his rival, Wisconsin Democratic Chair Ben Wikler.

Saunders, who also backed Wikler, declined his reappointment to the DNC on May 27. “The decision to decline the nomination to the Democratic National Committee was not made lightly,” he said in a statement. “It comes after deep reflection and deliberate conversation about the path forward for our union and the working people we represent.”

“These are new times,” Saunders added. “They demand new strategies, new thinking and a renewed way of fighting for the values we hold dear. We must evolve to meet the urgency of this moment. This is not a time to close ranks or turn inward.”

The coordinated departures of two major union leaders mark a serious erosion of trust in the party’s direction, as Democrats remain locked out of power and search for a compelling message to counter President Trump.

Martin has faced mounting scrutiny from within the party’s ranks. David Hogg, a DNC vice chair who openly endorsed primary challenges against incumbent Democrats, announced he would step down after the party voted to redo the vice chair election due to a technicality.

Notably, Weingarten publicly supported Hogg’s controversial move to challenge the party establishment, saying it was necessary to “ruffle some feathers.”

Even some of Martin’s allies are expressing discomfort with the escalating infighting. “I certainly wished we wouldn’t have dirty laundry in public, but you know the personalities, things happen,” said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who endorsed both Martin and Hogg. “I don’t think Ken’s focus has shifted one bit on this of expanding the party.”

Martin has not responded to requests for comment. A DNC spokeswoman also declined to weigh in.

The dramatic exits from two union giants — longtime pillars of Democratic fundraising and organizing muscle — leave the DNC facing deeper questions about its leadership, its vision, and who, exactly, it’s leaving behind.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 17:20

King-less?

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

"Realize where we are."

- Oilfield Rando on "X"

Saturday morning, we toodled over to the next town, Salem, New York, (pop. 2,612, per capita income $19,499) fifty miles northeast of Albany, to catch one of the hundreds of “No Kings” demos across the nation sponsored by Shanghai-based software billionaire Neville Roy Singham, Walmart heiress Christy Walton, Paypal partner (and Linked-in founder) Reid Hoffman, and father-and son team, George and Alex Soros.

Speaking of Alex Soros, Saturday also happened to be his wedding day, to Huma Abedin, former Hillary Clinton sidekick and BFF (and ex-wife of disgraced congressman and convicted sex offender Anthony Weiner.) The nuptials happened at the Soros’s Hamptons estate. Cable news covered the fabulous cavalcade of black Escalade limousines conveying the super-elite of Progressive-Wokery to the glorious event. The New York Times, with its habitual lack of self-awareness, styled the event thusly:

“Liberal royalty?” Say, what. . . ? There is such a thing? In the party of No Kings? What’s the deal, then? Just princes and princesses, dukes and duchesses, earls, viscounts, baronets, lairds, marquis, knights and dames, and so on. Yet, no king? Well, if you asked the fortunate wedding guests, they might aver to Hillary Clinton as a sort-of Queen of the party, or maybe just Queen Bee. As for former president Bill, he appears to be undergoing slow-motion mummification, so he currently occupies an ambiguous zone between this world and the next, with no mojo left for kingly duties. Anyway, it rained that day down on the South Fork.

Meanwhile, back upstate, cloudy and cool but no rain, some two-hundred wrathful plebeian souls gathered at the one-stoplight-intersection in little Salem, these days mainly a farm community, the old railroad engine repair shop defunct, and many good non-farm jobs with it, the usual story in this corner of the country. The hopped-up crowd was well-supplied with signs and placards, many avouching Down with Oligarchs! — which, oddly, seemed a sort of backhanded reference to billionaires of the very type underwriting the day’s festivities, not to mention the super-rich “liberal royalty” gang gathered for the Soros-Abedin royal wedding.

But that was only one of the many incongruities haunting the mass protest against the abhorred president, Mr. Trump. For instance, one poor fellow on the southeast corner of South Main and East Broadway inveighed mournfully against the suppression of free speech, apparently unaware of the epic efforts 2021 to 2025 by “Joe Biden’s” underlings to censor the Internet and de-platform the regime’s critics (including yours truly, whose website was mysteriously destroyed in October 2024).

Original thinking among the Woke

The moiling mob was overwhelmingly geriatric, perhaps reflecting the backwater demographics of a region with few job opportunities for young folk. A spirit of revival bubbled among them as they reenacted old rituals of the hippie halcyon, the grand old days of the Vietnam War protests, when thousands gathered to levitate the Pentagon. Only now, their sentiments and beliefs exhibit a striking and peculiar inversion of the ancient 1960s credos that drove the beloved Movement.

I know because I was there, on campus, between 1966 and 1971. Back then, the Left opposed the wicked “establishment” and all its nefarious operations, from the war in Vietnam to the FBI’s underhanded suppression of political dissent. These days, strange to relate, the Left stands in staunch defense of the Deep State, big government (and its prodigious corruption), and the politicization of the FBI and CIA.

Their placards lament the withering of “our democracy,” yet they were just fine with “Joe Biden” selecting a 2024 presidential candidate for them — with no customary vote by party delegates, or anything approaching an open democratic process. They shout for the “rule-of-law,” except when it concerns special persons such as the former president’s crackhead, bag-man son. They’re all for the colossal grift around the war in Ukraine. And don’t forget they supported vaccine mandates, the closing and ruination of small businesses (while Walmart and Taco Bell were allowed to thrive), and all the other hypocritical, fraudulent, lethal actions of Covid-19 policy.

The object of the “No Kings” shuck and jive, you might suspect, was to prepare so many friction-points around the country that violence was apt to erupt in order to create a George Floyd-type martyr figure, so as to re-energize the Left for another sustained summer of riots. There was plenty of mayhem around the country but, alas, no martyr emerged, no apotheosis of “progressive” victim-hood. . . only the peculiar murder of two Minnesota legislators by an apparently deranged Democratic party fringe character, the sometime evangelist and Tim Walz appointee, Vance Boelter.

$65-million is a plausible number for the money spent by billionaires and political NGOs on the nation-wide “No Kings” project. A lot of that was paid directly to protesters for just showing up. (They ran ads on Craig’s List to enlist players.) None of them showed up in the Hamptons, though, where “liberal royalty” assembled for their special event. You’ve got to think that they missed something rather bigly there.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 16:20

Epidemiologist Who Was Fired From Harvard After Refusing COVID Shot Named To CDC Vaccine Panel

Authored by Jennifer Kabbany via The College Fix,

World-renowned infectious-disease epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff — who was fired from Harvard Medical School last year after refusing the COVID vaccine — just got a new gig.

Kulldorff has been named a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.

Kulldorff, who had refused the COVID vaccine because of his infection-acquired immunity, lost his appointment at a Harvard-affiliated hospital in the early days of the COVID era, and in March of 2024 was officially terminated as a med school faculty member.

Since the COVID lockdowns began five years ago this month, Kulldorff argued that tactics such as social distancing, masking children, vaccines after infections, and other extreme measures were not the best course of action to fight the virus.

He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for sensible tactics that would allow the globe to reach “herd immunity” and has been signed by nearly 1 million scientists worldwide.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in announcing the new members of the panel last week on X, wrote that his selections signify a “major step towards restoring public trust in vaccines.”

Kennedy wrote he retired the 17 current members of the committee and is repopulating ACIP with eight new members “committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense.”

“They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations. The committee will review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well,” Kennedy stated.

MassLive reported that in 2021, “Kulldorff posted on X that ‘thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should.'”

“COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their care-takers,” he wrote. “Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”

According to the New York Times, after Kennedy’s announcement, some infectious disease and vaccine experts accused the health secretary of going back on his pledge not to pick so-called anti-vaxxers.

“When Mr. Kennedy fired the entire committee, known as the A.C.I.P., he cited financial conflicts of interest and said a clean sweep was necessary to restore public trust in vaccination,” the Times reported.

As for Harvard’s role in the controversy, writing in City Journal last year, Kulldorff argued that Harvard turned its back on him, open debate, and medical freedom.

“The beauty of our immune system is that those who recover from an infection are protected if and when they are re-exposed. This has been known since the Athenian Plague of 430 BC—but it is no longer known at Harvard,” he wrote.

“Three prominent Harvard faculty coauthored the now infamous ‘consensus’ memorandum in The Lancet, questioning the existence of Covid-acquired immunity. By continuing to mandate the vaccine for students with a prior Covid infection, Harvard is de facto denying 2,500 years of science.”

Kennedy, in announcing Kulldorff, noted he is a biostatistician and “a leading expert in vaccine safety and infectious disease surveillance.”

“… Dr. Kulldorff developed widely used tools such as SaTScan and TreeScan for detecting disease outbreaks and vaccine adverse events. His expertise includes statistical methods for public health surveillance, immunization safety, and infectious disease epidemiology. He has also been an influential voice in public health policy, advocating for evidence-based approaches to pandemic response.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 15:05

12 Contexts For An Era Of Global Conflict

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Understanding any complex system or situation begins by identifying contexts that illuminate rather than obscure, misdirect or confuse. 

I find these 12 contexts helpful in making sense of the current era of global conflicts.

1. Oil and soil. Oil and soil are the foundations of civilization. Both are being depleted. The technologies of recovering more oil have advanced, but there is no guarantee that these advances will continue. Diminishing returns could take hold.

The nutrient content of our food has been declining for decades. Meat is only as nutritious as the feed eaten by the livestock. The financial-economic mindset focuses solely on quantity of food produced, not the quality as measured by what counts: nutrient content.

Supplements / pills are not a replacement for micro-nutrients in real food; numerous studies have found that supplements have few if any discernable effects. The uptake of micro-nutrients depends on many factors, including a healthy, diverse microbiome and healthy, diverse diet of real food.

Soil is alive. It can't be restored by applying chemical fertilizers. It takes long-term composting with organic materials to restore micro-nutrients and micro-organisms.

Without ample, affordable food and hydrocarbon energy, civilization in its current configuration goes away.

2. The price of oil and food is set on the margins. A 10% drop in the supply of oil doesn't cause a 10% rise in the price; it causes a 50%+ rise in the price. A 25% decline in supply can trigger a 300% rise in price.

3. Shocks that destabilize base assumptions about the global status quo's costs and consequences are becoming more numerous.

4. There are no conventional political or financial "saves" for these shocks, which are not even recognized as destabilizing factors until after the fact.

5. The "Waste Is Growth" Landfill Economy of disposable products, low-quality goods, planned obsolescence and accelerated product cycles was never a wise use of resources, capital and labor, nor was it a stable system. The illusion of stability was created by unprecedented expansion of credit, money and globalization since 2008.

6. Hyper-financialization and hyper-globalization are in the decline phase of the S-Curve. There is no restoring the conditions that held from 2001 to 2019.

7. There is no replacement system. What are touted as replacement systems are failed ideologies and mythologies.

8. Progress has been replaced by Anti-Progress, but this has been obscured with hype (AI!) and runaway expansion of credit. The quality of life--hard to measure--has deteriorated while financial statistics--easy to measure--are ceaselessly hyped.

9. Credit and the predatory Addiction Economy (we're addicted to credit, social media. ultra-processed foods, drugs, smart phones, etc.) are self-liquidating. Interest payments eat the financial system alive and addiction is not a sustainable, healthy model of "growth" for the economy or society.

10. Uncertainty is destabilizing, and uncertainty is in the boost phase of the S-Curve.

11. Shifting the gains of increasing productivity from wages to financial speculation and credit-asset bubbles was never a sustainable foundation for the economy or society, as all speculative credit-asset bubbles burst.

12. The global status quo has been hyper-optimized into a tightly bound system: everything is connected, and vulnerable to disruption from forces and events that appear unconnected at first glance.

Unstable, dynamic, tightly bound systems that operate beyond the sight lines of conventional understanding and expectations are unpredictable. This suggests taking every prediction with a very large grain of salt.

*  *  *

CHS NOTE: I understand some readers object to paywalled posts, so please note that my weekday posts are free and I reserve my weekend Musings Report for subscribers. Hopefully this mix makes sense in light of the fact that writing is my only paid work/job. Something here may be actionable and change your life in some useful way. I am grateful for your readership and blessed by your financial support.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 14:25

These Countries Have Suffered The Biggest Declines In Freedom

Over the past decade, freedom has sharply declined in many countries.

Authoritarian leaders have expanded their power by rewriting constitutions, silencing the media, and suppressing opposition. As democratic institutions erode, waves of protest have erupted—often met with brutal crackdowns across several global regions.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows the nations with the sharpest drop in democratic freedoms since 2014, based on analysis from Freedom House.

Democratic Freedoms in Retreat

Here are the top 20 countries in the world where freedom has fallen the most based on 25 indicators across civil liberties and political rights:

Notably, Nicaragua has seen democratic freedoms backslide as autocratic leader Daniel Ortega has overhauled the constitution. In particular, Ortega enabled his wife, Rosaria Murillo, to become co-president under law.

Meanwhile, Ortega can now prosecute media that oppose his views. Even more strikingly, any resident who is considered a traitor can have their citizenship revoked.

Following Nicaragua are Tunisia and El Salvador, each which have seen considerable declines in civil liberties. With 1,700 prisoners per 100,000 population, El Salvador has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Serbia and Türkiye stand as the top two in Europe, with Serbia seeing protests, rigged elections, and the arrest of activists in a deteriorating political climate.

To learn more about this topic from a global perspective, check out this graphic on law and order around the world.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 14:05

Trump Orders ICE To Expand Illegal Immigrant Deportation Efforts

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Sunday directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to expand efforts to detain and deport illegal immigrants in the country.

In a Truth Social post, Trump urged ICE officers to do everything they can to carry out what he described as the “largest mass deportation operation of illegal aliens in history,” particularly in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where many illegal immigrants are concentrated.

Protests have erupted in those cities in recent days, with thousands of protesters marching toward ICE facilities in protest against federal immigration enforcement efforts. In some locations, the protests resulted in injuries as demonstrators clashed with law enforcement.

Trump noted that ICE officers face violence and threats from opponents of the operation, but emphasized that nothing will deter his administration from fulfilling its mandate.

The president said he had directed his administration to put “every resource possible behind this effort,” while offering his unwavering support for ICE in executing the mission.

“Our federal government will continue to be focused on the remigration of aliens to the places from where they came, and preventing the admission of anyone who undermines the domestic tranquility of the United States,” he stated.

On June 12, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of New York over its state policies that prevent federal immigration officials from arresting immigrants at courthouses.

The suit was the latest in a series of actions the DOJ has brought, alleging that sanctuary jurisdictions thwart federal authority. In New York state, the department has filed two other lawsuits: one challenging the city of Rochester and another targeting the state’s restriction on sharing information through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

“Lawless sanctuary city policies are the root cause of the violence that Americans have seen in California, and New York State is similarly employing sanctuary city policies to prevent illegal aliens from apprehension,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.

Trump suggested on June 12 that his administration would issue an order tackling the issue of illegal immigrants who work in agriculture, hospitality, and other industries, stating that his immigration policy could impact the workforce in these sectors.

“Our great farmers and people in the hotel and leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” he stated. “Changes are coming!”

Protests against ICE raids began in Los Angeles on June 6, stemming from the arrest of dozens of immigrants as part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation operation.

Trump has authorized the deployment of the National Guards and Marines to quell riots in the city, despite objections from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the move “a serious breach of state sovereignty.”

People protest in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

On June 14, thousands of protesters marched and rallied in cities from New York to Los Angeles, demonstrating against Trump’s actions.

In Los Angeles, police issued dispersal orders after the protests turned violent, with rocks and bricks reportedly thrown at law enforcement officers.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated on June 14 that rioters in Portland, Oregon, used fireworks, hurled smoke grenades, and threw rocks at law enforcement before storming an ICE facility.

Four officers were injured during the protest. The department said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has warned rioters that ICE will not stop or delay immigration enforcement despite the protests.

“ICE and our federal law enforcement partners will continue to enforce the law. If you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” the DHS stated.

Saturday’s nationwide rallies were held the same day as a military parade in Washington marking the Army’s 250th anniversary, which coincided with Trump’s birthday.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 13:45

20Y Auction Prices "On The Screws" Amid Solid Foreign Demand

With Thursday a holiday, and the Fed statement on Wednesday, it's an especially abbreviated week for bond issuance which is why at 1pm today the Treasury sold $13BN in a 19 Year, 11 Month reopening, which was met with solid demand and passed smoothly. 

The high yield on today's auction was 4.942%, down from 5.047% last month although the second highest going back to October 2023. The yield printed "on the screws" to the When Issued, which also came 4.942% (unclear why the Bloomberg charts shows it as tailing, expect an immediate correction).

The bid to cover was 2.68, up notably from 2.46 last month and the highest since March (when it was 2.78). It was also 9bps above the 2.59 six-auction average.

The internals were also solid, with Indirects taking down 66.7%, down from 69.0% and just below the recent average of 67.2%. And with Directs awarded 19.9%, Dealers were left holding 13.4%, the lowest since March's 8.8%.

Overall, this was a solid, smooth auction, yet nothing to write home about, and sure enough there was barely any reaction in the secondary market where yields moved by 1bps point higher after the break. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/16/2025 - 13:26