Zero Hedge

Investor Dilemma: Pavlov Rings The Bell

Investor Dilemma: Pavlov Rings The Bell

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Classical conditioning teaches us a valuable lesson regarding the current investor dilemma. Pavlov’s research discovered a basic psychological rule: when a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with a reward‑stimulus, eventually it will trigger the same response even when the reward is absent. The famed experiment by Ivan Pavlov illustrated that dogs would salivate at the sound of a bell after the bell was repeatedly paired with food. The pattern is simple: bell becomes signal, trigger leads to reflex, behavior becomes automatic.

The concept translates directly into the investor dilemma in financial markets. As Steve Sosnick of Interactive Brokers recently noted:

“The other morning, someone asked me why we were trading higher.  I made the flippant comment, “they rang the opening bell, that’s why.”  Taking that a step further, on a morning when stocks are higher on a rally that began modestly in the pre-market but accelerated rapidly after the regular session opened, it is reasonable to wonder whether there is indeed a Pavlovian quality to the current market environment.”

That really should be unsurprising. Over the past 15 years, the markets were repeatedly bailed out of more serious corrections by either fiscal or monetary policy. That neutral stimulus (the interventions) was repeatedly paired with a reward-stimulus of markets going higher. As such, investors were “conditioned” to expect rescue whenever issues arise, to buy stocks on every decline, and to believe that this cycle will indefinitely continue. Such was the point we made recently with respect to “moral hazard.”

“The Federal Reserve’s well-intentioned interventions have created one of modern finance’s most powerful behavioral distortions: the conviction that there is always a safety net. After the Global Financial Crisis, zero interest rates and repeated rounds of quantitative easing conditioned investors to expect that policy support would always return during volatility. Over time, that conditioning hardened into a reflex: buy every dip, because the Fed will not allow markets to fail. What exactly is the definition of ‘moral hazard?’ 

Noun – ECONOMICS: The lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g., by insurance.

However, the Pavolovian experiment is complete, as investors are chasing asset prices in the companies with the worst fundamentals, assuming that the Federal Reserve will “insure” them against losses.

In other words, just as Pavlov’s dogs would start salivating at the “ringing of the bell,” investors are “chasing speculative assets” simply on the assumption that the “food” will arrive. But, as noted, while the Federal Reserve has trained investors to “buy the dip” over the last 15 years, that market has detached from underlying liquidity. In other words, since 2022, investors have been chasing stocks higher and drifting from one “Fed statement” to the next, looking for clues as to when monetary accommodation will return.

The investor dilemma is that while “buying the dip” has been an effective strategy over the last decade, the current backdrop has changed. The many variables that allowed “reflexive behavior” to work, such as ultra‑low yields, endless liquidity, and expanding central‑bank balance sheets, are fading or gone. The Federal Reserve has previously stated that a “return to zero yields” will not be in its “playbook” in the future. Therefore, current investor behavior is a function of experience, not the changing present.

But that is also why “Animal Spirits” are such a powerful force, and a danger.

The Problem With Animal Spirits

The term Animal Spirits” comes from the Latin term “spiritus animals,” meaning “the breath that awakens the human mind.” 

The term can be traced back to 300 BC in human anatomy and physiology. It refers to the fluid, or spirit, responsible for sensory activities and nerves in the brain. Besides the technical meaning in medicine, animal spirits is also part of literary culture. In that form, they referred to states of physical courage, delight, and exuberance.

Its modern usage came about in John Maynard Keynes’ 1936 publication, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.” He used the term to describe the human emotions driving consumer confidence. Ultimately, the financial markets adopted the “animal spirits” to describe the psychological factors that drive investors to take action. This is why human psychology is essential in understanding the close linkage to short-term valuation measures.

The 2008 financial crisis revived interest in the role that “animal spirits” could play in the economy and financial markets. The Federal Reserve, under the direction of Ben Bernanke, believed it necessary to inject liquidity into the financial system to lift asset prices to “support” consumer confidence. The result would be a self-sustaining environment of economic growth. In 2010, Bernanke made his famous statement as the economy was on the brink of slipping back into a recession. The Fed’s goal was simple: ignite investors’ “animal spirits.”

“This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending.” – Ben Bernanke

“Bernanke & Co.” successfully fostered a massive lift in equity prices, boosting consumers’ confidence. (The chart below shows the composite index of the University of Michigan and Conference Board surveys. Shaded areas are when the index is above 100.) However, since 2022, the markets have become detached from underlying economic activity as the massive stimulus and interventions continue flowing out of the economic system.

The investor dilemma is that instead of flowing through the system, liquidity remained bottled up within institutions and the ultra-wealthy, who had “investible wealth.” However, the bottom 90% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. The chart below shows the failure of the flush of liquidity to translate into economic growth. While the stock market returned over 371% since the 2007 peak, that increase in asset prices was more than 8.5x the growth in real GDP and roughly 3.5x the growth in corporate revenue. (I have used SALES growth, which is not as subject to accounting manipulation.) 

Understanding that asset prices should reflect economic growth, which creates revenue growth, the deviation is a risk worth addressing. What matters today is the investor dilemma facing the markets. The assumption is that the mechanism remains the same, and outcomes will be the same. However, there is no guarantee of that. There is no guarantee that the Federal Reserve will revert to massive monetary expansions during the next crisis. There is also no guarantee that the markets will respond the same. While investors believe stimulus will drive growth, and that markets will follow, the transmission mechanism may not work as efficiently next time. After the 2008 crisis, the Fed pushed liquidity into the system. But much of that liquidity stayed within banks and the wealthy, failing to transmit broadly into wages, profits, and real growth. The investor dilemma arises when you ignore this breakdown.

Currently, investors are taking on increasing levels of risk based on the assumption that the “bell” will ring again. But what if it doesn’t?

Why the Investor Dilemma Matters Now

The current market environment magnifies the investor dilemma for three reasons:

  1. Valuations are elevated.

  2. Stimulus is less potent.

  3. Economic momentum has slowed, and global risk is rising.

Yet, retail investors are chasing dip‑buying, as the “Fear of Missing Out” dominates flows, with many assuming another surge in asset prices is just around the corner. Maybe that is the case. However, if you examine the breadth of the market, you’ll see cracks. Large‑cap indices may hover near highs while small and mid‑cap stocks lag significantly. More notably, the divergence between the market-cap weighted and equal-weighted S&P 500 (RSP) suggests breadth remains weak, lulling investors into a false sense of safety

Additionally, commodities, one of the core barometers of economic health, are signaling caution. When oil breaks trend, manufacturing suffers, and inflation declines. That is not a signal of economic prosperity to support elevated earnings expectations.

The investor dilemma of FOMO blinds you to these signals because you are focused on chasing asset prices rather than the risk that action exposes you to. For example, you drive faster than the speed limit because everyone else is too. However, the faster you drive, the risk of getting a speeding ticket (or worse) increases.

With liquidity thinning and policy tools constrained, the risk to investors is increasing. It is unlikely that central banks will flood the market like they did after 2008 or during the pandemic, without a coincident crisis. However, investors act as though the rescue is automatic, increasing risk without respect for inputs and outputs. When the stimulus fails to deliver, you face asymmetric outcomes. That is the practical consequence of the investor dilemma. You are trained, but the training does not match the terrain.

You risk a misstep if you ignore valuation, breadth, and monetary multipliers. At some point, the “buy the dip” mentality will fail, as the “dip” becomes the start of a more significant downtrend. The investor dilemma convinces you that the past will repeat itself. The reality is: conditions change.

Navigating the Investor Dilemma in Your Portfolio

You must shift your mindset from reflex to discipline to manage the investor dilemma.

  1. Ask yourselves when a dip appears: is this an opportunity or a trap? Don’t simply buy because you “feel” like you should. Question the fundamental backdrop, valuations, and whether economic underpinnings exist. That simple query breaks the investor dilemma loop.

  2. You must build a plan, not react impulsively. Set allocation thresholds, define stop‑loss levels, and review exposures. If you assume every dip is a buy, you fall into the investor dilemma trap of over‑risking. Diversify not just across assets but across regimes, consider strategies that protect capital if the assumption of constant rescue fails.

  3. Focus on fundamentals. While it seems to be an “outdated concept” in the current environment, ignoring earnings, leverage, breadth, and growth has led to horrible outcomes. Evaluate whether companies deliver real growth, whether valuations reflect risk, and whether global signals support expansion. If fundamentals are lacking, you’d be better off managing risk.

  4. Accept unpredictability. The investor dilemma thrives on certainty, but markets often surprise complacency. The current regime will flip for whatever reason, and the ability to accept unpredictability reduces risk exposure over time.

Many things can and will eventually go wrong. Eventually, “buying the dip” won’t lead to a positive outcome. Unfortunately, investors are now trained to believe that such will not happen. However, that is the investor dilemma; it is the one risk you must navigate. Recognizing the conditioning, shifting your posture, building protection, and acting deliberately will keep you alive when “buying the dip” eventually goes wrong.

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 07:20

95% Of Iran's 427,000 Active Crypto-Miners Operate Illegally, Official Says

95% Of Iran's 427,000 Active Crypto-Miners Operate Illegally, Official Says

Authored by Amin Haqshanas via CoinTelegraph.com,

Iran’s crypto mining industry is facing a widespread illegal mining crisis, with authorities estimating that over 95% of the country’s 427,000 active mining devices are operating without authorization.

Akbar Hasan Beklou, CEO of the Tehran Province Electricity Distribution Company, said on Sunday that Iran has become the world’s fourth-largest crypto mining hub, fueled by the country’s heavily subsidized electricity prices, which have made it a “paradise for illegal miners.”

These unlicensed operations consume more than 1,400 megawatts of power around the clock, placing immense pressure on the national grid and threatening the stability of electricity supplies.

Beklou noted that most illicit miners disguise their activities as industrial facilities to access cheaper power.

Iran’s cheap cost of mining Bitcoin. Source: Bitcoin Archive

Iran shuts down 104 illegal crypto farms

Authorities have intensified their crackdown on illegal operations. In Tehran Province alone, 104 unauthorized mining farms have been shut down, with 1,465 machines seized, equivalent to the electricity usage of nearly 10,000 households, Beklou said.

The government has identified several hotspots for illicit mining, including Pakdasht, Malard, Shahre Qods and southwestern Tehran’s industrial zones. Inspectors have uncovered farms hidden in underground tunnels and factories using subsidized power connections to evade detection.

Beklou said specialized inspection teams are working with law enforcement to dismantle these operations.

Iran offers bounty to citizens reporting illegal mining

In August, Iran announced that it is offering cash rewards to citizens who report illegal cryptocurrency mining operations. The CEO of state-run utility Tavanir, Mostafa Rajabi Mashhadi, announced that informants will receive 1 million toman (about $24) for every unauthorized mining device reported.

According to a June report by CoinLaw, Iran ranks fifth globally in Bitcoin hashrate distribution, contributing 4.2% of the total network’s computing power.

Iran ranks fifth globally in Bitcoin hashrate distribution. Source: CoinLaw

The United States leads with a dominant 44%, followed by Kazakhstan (12%), Russia (10.5%), and Canada (9%).

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 06:30

Antifa Firebombs German AfD Lawmaker's Car As Left-Wing Terrorism Across West Triggers Alarm-Bells

Antifa Firebombs German AfD Lawmaker's Car As Left-Wing Terrorism Across West Triggers Alarm-Bells

Left-wing political violence is metastasizing across the Western world like stage-four cancer.

From the political assassination of Charlie Kirk by a furry-loving leftist, to the transgender extremist who massacred Christians in a Minneapolis church, to Antifa terror cells attacking ICE facilities and torching the vehicles of their political opponents in Europe, the West must come to its senses. These are not isolated events, but likely interconnected violent acts. Massive funding networks fuel some of these far-left pressure campaigns, as we've shown. EU-based billionaires have funneled more than $2 billion into U.S. nonprofits to fund part of the protest-industrial complex against President Trump to derail the 'America First' agenda. 

All of this is unfolding as more Westerners reject "wokeism" and the Marxist power grip begins to crack under the Trump 2.0 era. The West must confront a very dark and grim truth: the modern far-left has normalized political assassination culture, targeting opponents with violence, arson, and even acts of sabotage, such as the 2024 power grid attack in Berlin that shut down Elon Musk's factory.

Even the deep-state media outlet The Atlantic couldn't ignore the alarming rise of what it called "left-wing terrorism."

Context matters. People must understand that this surge in left-wing violence on both sides of the Atlantic is not random or isolated - it's possibly coordinated. Their objective is clear: to crush the rise of anti-globalist, anti-Marxist movements and, above all, to stop "Trump-like" populist uprisings gaining momentum across the West at any cost. To accomplish this, the left has weaponized its militant street arm - Antifa - composed of purple-haired, gender-confused warriors who serve as expendable enforcers to carry out political objectives through chaos and intimidation.

This brings us to the latest Antifa attack on the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, in which the party's parliamentary secretary, Bernd Baumann, saw his car firebombed outside his home, an act local media outlets suspect was carried out by an Antifa terror cell.

German news outlet DPA International reported that "left-wing platform Indymedia on Monday suggests the car was set on fire by members of the anti-fascist Antifa movement early on Monday morning." 

DPA International said the statement that Antifa left on Indymedia was signed with "Fiery greetings to the accused, imprisoned and underground Antifas."

The post also included a direct threat: "All you damn MAGA freaks, you will follow Kirk to hell!"

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel condemned what she described as "an act of violence," saying this had "nothing to do with a political dispute, even one that is fiercely contested."

AfD politicians have long been targeted in attacks, including arson and assaults by Antifa cells. These left-wing militants have also brutally assaulted these politicians. 

Latest: 

Whether it's Antifa attacks on AfD members, assaults on American ICE facilities, or leftist militants targeting Elon Musk's Tesla showrooms, a clear pattern has emerged: the rise of left-wing political violence and civil terrorism (read the report) coincides with the public's growing rejection of wokeism. As the left's influence wanes, violence becomes the tool of choice. 

Civil terrorism expert Jason Curtis Anderson of One City Rising pointed out: 

The term "Antifa" comes from a 1930s German antifascist group called Antifaschistische Aktion, widely considered the historical predecessor of the modern ANTIFA movement. Anti-imperialist strains of left-wing political violence are not strictly an American problem. There are revolutionary international networks that inspire America's concept of Antifascism, i.e., being opposed to what they perceive to be fascist threats. And there are regional cells within American antifascists who seek to destabilize the United States from within. Many think societal collapse will usher in a new utopia of socialism, just as Neo nazi accelerationists believe collapse is a necessary condition for a white ethnostate. 

Where are the Democrats denouncing this chaos?

Oh wait, these are the same people who fueled assassination culture by dusting off the old communist playbook: label every political opponent you don't like a  "Nazi" or "fascist" in normalizing assassination culture. 

The ones shouting "we're not the crazy ones" are almost always the crazy ones.

The current path only suggests more political violence ahead. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 05:45

Antifa Firebombs German AfD Lawmaker's Car As Left-Wing Terrorism Across West Triggers Alarm-Bells

Antifa Firebombs German AfD Lawmaker's Car As Left-Wing Terrorism Across West Triggers Alarm-Bells

Left-wing political violence is metastasizing across the Western world like stage-four cancer.

From the political assassination of Charlie Kirk by a furry-loving leftist, to the transgender extremist who massacred Christians in a Minneapolis church, to Antifa terror cells attacking ICE facilities and torching the vehicles of their political opponents in Europe, the West must come to its senses. These are not isolated events, but likely interconnected violent acts. Massive funding networks fuel some of these far-left pressure campaigns, as we've shown. EU-based billionaires have funneled more than $2 billion into U.S. nonprofits to fund part of the protest-industrial complex against President Trump to derail the 'America First' agenda. 

All of this is unfolding as more Westerners reject "wokeism" and the Marxist power grip begins to crack under the Trump 2.0 era. The West must confront a very dark and grim truth: the modern far-left has normalized political assassination culture, targeting opponents with violence, arson, and even acts of sabotage, such as the 2024 power grid attack in Berlin that shut down Elon Musk's factory.

Even the deep-state media outlet The Atlantic couldn't ignore the alarming rise of what it called "left-wing terrorism."

Context matters. People must understand that this surge in left-wing violence on both sides of the Atlantic is not random or isolated - it's possibly coordinated. Their objective is clear: to crush the rise of anti-globalist, anti-Marxist movements and, above all, to stop "Trump-like" populist uprisings gaining momentum across the West at any cost. To accomplish this, the left has weaponized its militant street arm - Antifa - composed of purple-haired, gender-confused warriors who serve as expendable enforcers to carry out political objectives through chaos and intimidation.

This brings us to the latest Antifa attack on the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, in which the party's parliamentary secretary, Bernd Baumann, saw his car firebombed outside his home, an act local media outlets suspect was carried out by an Antifa terror cell.

German news outlet DPA International reported that "left-wing platform Indymedia on Monday suggests the car was set on fire by members of the anti-fascist Antifa movement early on Monday morning." 

DPA International said the statement that Antifa left on Indymedia was signed with "Fiery greetings to the accused, imprisoned and underground Antifas."

The post also included a direct threat: "All you damn MAGA freaks, you will follow Kirk to hell!"

AfD co-leader Alice Weidel condemned what she described as "an act of violence," saying this had "nothing to do with a political dispute, even one that is fiercely contested."

AfD politicians have long been targeted in attacks, including arson and assaults by Antifa cells. These left-wing militants have also brutally assaulted these politicians. 

Latest: 

Whether it's Antifa attacks on AfD members, assaults on American ICE facilities, or leftist militants targeting Elon Musk's Tesla showrooms, a clear pattern has emerged: the rise of left-wing political violence and civil terrorism (read the report) coincides with the public's growing rejection of wokeism. As the left's influence wanes, violence becomes the tool of choice. 

Civil terrorism expert Jason Curtis Anderson of One City Rising pointed out: 

The term "Antifa" comes from a 1930s German antifascist group called Antifaschistische Aktion, widely considered the historical predecessor of the modern ANTIFA movement. Anti-imperialist strains of left-wing political violence are not strictly an American problem. There are revolutionary international networks that inspire America's concept of Antifascism, i.e., being opposed to what they perceive to be fascist threats. And there are regional cells within American antifascists who seek to destabilize the United States from within. Many think societal collapse will usher in a new utopia of socialism, just as Neo nazi accelerationists believe collapse is a necessary condition for a white ethnostate. 

Where are the Democrats denouncing this chaos?

Oh wait, these are the same people who fueled assassination culture by dusting off the old communist playbook: label every political opponent you don't like a  "Nazi" or "fascist" in normalizing assassination culture. 

The ones shouting "we're not the crazy ones" are almost always the crazy ones.

The current path only suggests more political violence ahead. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 05:45

The Pill For Everything: Why Off-Label Gabapentin Prescriptions Are Soaring

The Pill For Everything: Why Off-Label Gabapentin Prescriptions Are Soaring

Authored by Kimberly Drake via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

What do hot flashes, back pain, and insomnia have in common? Increasingly, they all lead to the same prescription: gabapentin.

The Epoch Times/Shutterstock

The anti-seizure medication has quietly become the fifth most prescribed drug in the U.S., not because seizure disorders are skyrocketing, but because doctors are writing millions of prescriptions for uses the FDA never approved.

Now, as concerns mount about dependency and long-term cognitive risks, experts are questioning whether the medication warrants closer scrutiny.

Gabapentin Prescriptions Skyrocket

Gabapentin is FDA-approved to treat two conditions—partial seizures and pain occurring with a shingles outbreak (postherpetic neuralgia). Gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant), an extended-release version of the drug, was FDA approved in 2011 for treating moderate-to-severe restless legs syndrome in adults. However, gabapentin is widely prescribed for off-label indications—everything from hot flashes to back pain.

The drug’s off-label use was recently scrutinized by researchers at the CDC in Atlanta. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that the rate of gabapentin dispensing approximately doubled from 2010 to 2016 and also increased from 2016 to 2024, though at a slower rate.

Gabapentin dispensing was highest and continues to increase among older adults, which, the researchers note, may be due to the rise in off label prescribing for unexplained pain and other conditions common among people 65 years or older.

The CDC researchers noted that the drug may rank even higher on the most prescribed list, as the data used in the study did not include prescriptions dispensed outside of retail pharmacies, such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, and mail-order pharmacies.

When Gabapentin May Help

The top reason people take gabapentin is pain, especially back pain, said Erika Gray, a pharmacist, and founder and chief medical officer at ToolBox Genomics, who was not involved in the study.

“The second symptom is difficulty sleeping,” she said.

Roger Passow, a retired business owner in Wisconsin, experienced severe leg pain and weakness that disrupted his sleep and ability to walk. After X-rays revealed nothing conclusive, his doctor admitted he was “stumped.” An orthopedic specialist told Passow he would “just have to live with it.”

Without a diagnosis, a pain specialist prescribed 600 mg of gabapentin nightly. When that didn’t help much, Passow increased to 900 mg. “Even with the pills, some nights I still have pain. Almost all night. It can really be miserable,” he told The Epoch Times. Despite concerns about long-term effects, he continues taking it because he feels there’s no other option.

Evidence suggests that gabapentin may be effective for specific off-label conditions. However, in some cases, other drugs offer better benefits.

Gabapentin may help:

  • Diabetes-Related Nerve Damage: Gabapentin can help reduce diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain, according to a 2025 study, but not as well as pregabalin (Lyrica) and duloxetine (Cymbalta).
  • Nerve-Related Pain: A 2025 systematic review of research found that while gabapentin can reduce nerve pain, pregabalin was significantly more effective.
  • Chronic Cough with Unknown Cause): A 2023 analysis of six studies including 536 participants found that gabapentin is effective for treating chronic refractory cough, and it may be safer than other similar drugs.
  • Alcohol Use Disorder: Whether taking gabapentin can help people quit drinking alcohol is unclear. However, some research has shown that compared to a placebo, gabapentin can lower the number of days a person engages in heavy drinking by 18 percent.
  • Hot Flashes: A 2020 meta-analysis found that women who took gabapentin reported shorter and less frequent hot flashes. The researchers suggest that it may be an alternative for women who cannot or do not want to take hormone replacement therapy.

In contrast, gabapentin may not be the best choice for people with bipolar disorder and insomnia. A 2021 systematic review published in Molecular Psychiatry found minimal evidence that the drug is effective for these two conditions.

Overall, doctors should consider trying non-drug treatments, like physical therapy, and addressing sleep problems, inflammation, or other individual factors that might be contributing to a person’s symptoms before prescribing gabapentin, Dr. Luke Barr, a board-certified neurologist and the director of neurology at Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, told The Epoch Times.

How Did Off-Label Use Become So Widespread?

Understanding gabapentin’s current popularity requires looking at both its troubled past and the genuine clinical needs it addresses.

In the late 90s, Parke-Davis, a subsidiary of Warner-Lambert, the pharmaceutical company that first marketed gabapentin under the brand name Neurontin, aggressively marketed the drug for a wide range of health conditions for which it was not approved, including ADHD, pain disorders, and migraine.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the company also paid doctors to attend “consultant’s meetings” where physicians received a fee for attending expensive dinners or conferences involving presentations about off-label uses of Neurontin. In 2004, after a whistleblower suit, the company agreed to plead guilty and pay $430 million in fines and civil damages for its illegal and fraudulent promotion of the drug for unapproved uses.

However, the pharmaceutical scandal from two decades ago doesn’t fully explain today’s prescribing patterns. Other factors have driven the uptick in gabapentin prescriptions -- some responding to legitimate medical needs, others raising questions about appropriate prescribing. 

Doctors are more willing to give patients gabapentin instead of older drugs like tricyclic antidepressants because it won’t cause as many side effects, said Barr.

Additionally, doctors consider gabapentin a better option than synthetic opioids for chronic pain. People can become dependent on opioids which has led to an addiction crisis impacting millions of Americans, resulting in over 54,000 overdose deaths in 2024 alone. Many people are aware that taking opioids carries these addiction risks, so more are demanding non-opioid drug options like gabapentin.

The drug’s relatively low cost and its potential to provide benefits for some off-label conditions may also drive the increase in prescriptions. “Together these forces create a permissive environment for off-label use, sometimes without adequate monitoring,” Barr said.

One factor driving the rise in off-label gabapentin prescribing is the lack of adequate treatment options. For many people, gabapentin provides some or enough relief that they can finally resume their daily activities, said Gray.

Understanding the Risks

Less than half of people prescribed gabapentin will not notice meaningful pain relief but will likely experience side effects or adverse events, studies suggest.

In 2019, the FDA warned patients and doctors that serious breathing problems and even death have been associated with taking gabapentin with certain medications. Barr has seen patients have excessive sedation or compromised breathing after their gabapentin prescription was combined with opioids or benzodiazepines. Some people needed emergency care, he said.

“This interaction is one of the most important safety messages,” Barr noted.

Some of his older patients have experienced falls or had to stop driving because of gabapentin’s more common side effects, like dizziness. He adds that doctors sometimes use gabapentin to treat symptoms caused by other drugs, creating a vicious cycle of adding more medications rather than addressing the root cause.

According to Gray, the dosages themselves may pose health risks for some people. “One of my biggest concerns with gabapentin is how high prescribers go with the dosages, especially with older adults or patients [taking multiple medications],” Gray said. “Additionally, gabapentin is broken down by the kidneys, and as people age, their kidney function decreases.”

She said she has seen many occasions where a patient’s kidney function has dropped, yet the prescribing doctor did not adjust the patient’s dose.

The Potential for Dependence

While far fewer people get addicted to gabapentin than opioids or benzodiazepines, the risk increases for those who use other drugs or alcohol or for people who have opioid use disorder. Several states now consider the drug a Schedule V controlled substance. Schedule V drugs have a low risk for abuse and dependence but still require a prescription due to their potential to cause addiction.

“I’ve seen requests for higher doses and evidence of nonmedical use,” Barr said. He has also witnessed patients who have used high doses of gabapentin for months experience withdrawal symptoms after suddenly stopping the drug, such as insomnia, anxiety, and rarely, seizures.

The potential for a person to go through withdrawal after taking gabapentin is why doctors recommend gradually tapering off the medication to lower the risk of experiencing these unpleasant symptoms. Withdrawal symptoms can last up to 10 days, Dr. Roger Starner Jones, Jr., a board-certified emergency and addiction medicine physician and founder of Nashville Addiction Recovery, Belle Mede AMP, and Recovery Now, told The Epoch Times.

Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD+) infusions have been shown to ease symptoms of withdrawal and reduce cravings in patients who are dependent on the drug, Starner Jones added.

More Gabapentin Research Needed

Older studies investigating gabapentin’s safety and effectiveness when used to treat epileptic seizures suggest it is safe, effective, and well-tolerated. A 2013 paper found no long-term safety issues when the drug was used to treat shingles-related pain.

However, new concerns have emerged after a recent investigation revealed that the drug may increase the risk of memory issues when used long-term. The observational study, published in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, found that adults under 65 who were prescribed the drug six or more times over a 10 year period for back pain had over twice the risk of dementia and mild cognitive impairment compared to those not taking the medication.

After three years of taking gabapentin, Passow finally received an MRI that revealed the actual source of his pain: severe arthritis, bulging discs, and vertebrae pinching the nerves going to the leg. He is now awaiting treatment with steroid shots to target the affected nerves. If that doesn’t work, the next steps may involve surgery.

Passow’s case illustrates a broader concern: gabapentin can become a long-term solution for patients who might benefit from other targeted treatments. For three years, he took daily medication that provided little relief when more specific interventions were available. He hopes the steroid shots will be enough to reduce his pain so he can stop taking “so many pills.”

Mrs. Passow experienced a situation similar to her husband’s when a doctor prescribed gabapentin after failing to identify the cause of her unexplained scalp pain. “I was afraid to take it. I finally did try it, but stopped right away because it didn’t help,” she said. She later discovered that simple scalp massages, not medication, eliminated the problem.

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 05:00

The Pill For Everything: Why Off-Label Gabapentin Prescriptions Are Soaring

The Pill For Everything: Why Off-Label Gabapentin Prescriptions Are Soaring

Authored by Kimberly Drake via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

What do hot flashes, back pain, and insomnia have in common? Increasingly, they all lead to the same prescription: gabapentin.

The Epoch Times/Shutterstock

The anti-seizure medication has quietly become the fifth most prescribed drug in the U.S., not because seizure disorders are skyrocketing, but because doctors are writing millions of prescriptions for uses the FDA never approved.

Now, as concerns mount about dependency and long-term cognitive risks, experts are questioning whether the medication warrants closer scrutiny.

Gabapentin Prescriptions Skyrocket

Gabapentin is FDA-approved to treat two conditions—partial seizures and pain occurring with a shingles outbreak (postherpetic neuralgia). Gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant), an extended-release version of the drug, was FDA approved in 2011 for treating moderate-to-severe restless legs syndrome in adults. However, gabapentin is widely prescribed for off-label indications—everything from hot flashes to back pain.

The drug’s off-label use was recently scrutinized by researchers at the CDC in Atlanta. A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that the rate of gabapentin dispensing approximately doubled from 2010 to 2016 and also increased from 2016 to 2024, though at a slower rate.

Gabapentin dispensing was highest and continues to increase among older adults, which, the researchers note, may be due to the rise in off label prescribing for unexplained pain and other conditions common among people 65 years or older.

The CDC researchers noted that the drug may rank even higher on the most prescribed list, as the data used in the study did not include prescriptions dispensed outside of retail pharmacies, such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, and mail-order pharmacies.

When Gabapentin May Help

The top reason people take gabapentin is pain, especially back pain, said Erika Gray, a pharmacist, and founder and chief medical officer at ToolBox Genomics, who was not involved in the study.

“The second symptom is difficulty sleeping,” she said.

Roger Passow, a retired business owner in Wisconsin, experienced severe leg pain and weakness that disrupted his sleep and ability to walk. After X-rays revealed nothing conclusive, his doctor admitted he was “stumped.” An orthopedic specialist told Passow he would “just have to live with it.”

Without a diagnosis, a pain specialist prescribed 600 mg of gabapentin nightly. When that didn’t help much, Passow increased to 900 mg. “Even with the pills, some nights I still have pain. Almost all night. It can really be miserable,” he told The Epoch Times. Despite concerns about long-term effects, he continues taking it because he feels there’s no other option.

Evidence suggests that gabapentin may be effective for specific off-label conditions. However, in some cases, other drugs offer better benefits.

Gabapentin may help:

  • Diabetes-Related Nerve Damage: Gabapentin can help reduce diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain, according to a 2025 study, but not as well as pregabalin (Lyrica) and duloxetine (Cymbalta).
  • Nerve-Related Pain: A 2025 systematic review of research found that while gabapentin can reduce nerve pain, pregabalin was significantly more effective.
  • Chronic Cough with Unknown Cause): A 2023 analysis of six studies including 536 participants found that gabapentin is effective for treating chronic refractory cough, and it may be safer than other similar drugs.
  • Alcohol Use Disorder: Whether taking gabapentin can help people quit drinking alcohol is unclear. However, some research has shown that compared to a placebo, gabapentin can lower the number of days a person engages in heavy drinking by 18 percent.
  • Hot Flashes: A 2020 meta-analysis found that women who took gabapentin reported shorter and less frequent hot flashes. The researchers suggest that it may be an alternative for women who cannot or do not want to take hormone replacement therapy.

In contrast, gabapentin may not be the best choice for people with bipolar disorder and insomnia. A 2021 systematic review published in Molecular Psychiatry found minimal evidence that the drug is effective for these two conditions.

Overall, doctors should consider trying non-drug treatments, like physical therapy, and addressing sleep problems, inflammation, or other individual factors that might be contributing to a person’s symptoms before prescribing gabapentin, Dr. Luke Barr, a board-certified neurologist and the director of neurology at Deaconess Health System in Evansville, Indiana, told The Epoch Times.

How Did Off-Label Use Become So Widespread?

Understanding gabapentin’s current popularity requires looking at both its troubled past and the genuine clinical needs it addresses.

In the late 90s, Parke-Davis, a subsidiary of Warner-Lambert, the pharmaceutical company that first marketed gabapentin under the brand name Neurontin, aggressively marketed the drug for a wide range of health conditions for which it was not approved, including ADHD, pain disorders, and migraine.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the company also paid doctors to attend “consultant’s meetings” where physicians received a fee for attending expensive dinners or conferences involving presentations about off-label uses of Neurontin. In 2004, after a whistleblower suit, the company agreed to plead guilty and pay $430 million in fines and civil damages for its illegal and fraudulent promotion of the drug for unapproved uses.

However, the pharmaceutical scandal from two decades ago doesn’t fully explain today’s prescribing patterns. Other factors have driven the uptick in gabapentin prescriptions -- some responding to legitimate medical needs, others raising questions about appropriate prescribing. 

Doctors are more willing to give patients gabapentin instead of older drugs like tricyclic antidepressants because it won’t cause as many side effects, said Barr.

Additionally, doctors consider gabapentin a better option than synthetic opioids for chronic pain. People can become dependent on opioids which has led to an addiction crisis impacting millions of Americans, resulting in over 54,000 overdose deaths in 2024 alone. Many people are aware that taking opioids carries these addiction risks, so more are demanding non-opioid drug options like gabapentin.

The drug’s relatively low cost and its potential to provide benefits for some off-label conditions may also drive the increase in prescriptions. “Together these forces create a permissive environment for off-label use, sometimes without adequate monitoring,” Barr said.

One factor driving the rise in off-label gabapentin prescribing is the lack of adequate treatment options. For many people, gabapentin provides some or enough relief that they can finally resume their daily activities, said Gray.

Understanding the Risks

Less than half of people prescribed gabapentin will not notice meaningful pain relief but will likely experience side effects or adverse events, studies suggest.

In 2019, the FDA warned patients and doctors that serious breathing problems and even death have been associated with taking gabapentin with certain medications. Barr has seen patients have excessive sedation or compromised breathing after their gabapentin prescription was combined with opioids or benzodiazepines. Some people needed emergency care, he said.

“This interaction is one of the most important safety messages,” Barr noted.

Some of his older patients have experienced falls or had to stop driving because of gabapentin’s more common side effects, like dizziness. He adds that doctors sometimes use gabapentin to treat symptoms caused by other drugs, creating a vicious cycle of adding more medications rather than addressing the root cause.

According to Gray, the dosages themselves may pose health risks for some people. “One of my biggest concerns with gabapentin is how high prescribers go with the dosages, especially with older adults or patients [taking multiple medications],” Gray said. “Additionally, gabapentin is broken down by the kidneys, and as people age, their kidney function decreases.”

She said she has seen many occasions where a patient’s kidney function has dropped, yet the prescribing doctor did not adjust the patient’s dose.

The Potential for Dependence

While far fewer people get addicted to gabapentin than opioids or benzodiazepines, the risk increases for those who use other drugs or alcohol or for people who have opioid use disorder. Several states now consider the drug a Schedule V controlled substance. Schedule V drugs have a low risk for abuse and dependence but still require a prescription due to their potential to cause addiction.

“I’ve seen requests for higher doses and evidence of nonmedical use,” Barr said. He has also witnessed patients who have used high doses of gabapentin for months experience withdrawal symptoms after suddenly stopping the drug, such as insomnia, anxiety, and rarely, seizures.

The potential for a person to go through withdrawal after taking gabapentin is why doctors recommend gradually tapering off the medication to lower the risk of experiencing these unpleasant symptoms. Withdrawal symptoms can last up to 10 days, Dr. Roger Starner Jones, Jr., a board-certified emergency and addiction medicine physician and founder of Nashville Addiction Recovery, Belle Mede AMP, and Recovery Now, told The Epoch Times.

Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD+) infusions have been shown to ease symptoms of withdrawal and reduce cravings in patients who are dependent on the drug, Starner Jones added.

More Gabapentin Research Needed

Older studies investigating gabapentin’s safety and effectiveness when used to treat epileptic seizures suggest it is safe, effective, and well-tolerated. A 2013 paper found no long-term safety issues when the drug was used to treat shingles-related pain.

However, new concerns have emerged after a recent investigation revealed that the drug may increase the risk of memory issues when used long-term. The observational study, published in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, found that adults under 65 who were prescribed the drug six or more times over a 10 year period for back pain had over twice the risk of dementia and mild cognitive impairment compared to those not taking the medication.

After three years of taking gabapentin, Passow finally received an MRI that revealed the actual source of his pain: severe arthritis, bulging discs, and vertebrae pinching the nerves going to the leg. He is now awaiting treatment with steroid shots to target the affected nerves. If that doesn’t work, the next steps may involve surgery.

Passow’s case illustrates a broader concern: gabapentin can become a long-term solution for patients who might benefit from other targeted treatments. For three years, he took daily medication that provided little relief when more specific interventions were available. He hopes the steroid shots will be enough to reduce his pain so he can stop taking “so many pills.”

Mrs. Passow experienced a situation similar to her husband’s when a doctor prescribed gabapentin after failing to identify the cause of her unexplained scalp pain. “I was afraid to take it. I finally did try it, but stopped right away because it didn’t help,” she said. She later discovered that simple scalp massages, not medication, eliminated the problem.

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 05:00

6 In 10 Long-Term Unemployed In Belgium Are Of Foreign Origin, New Data Shows

6 In 10 Long-Term Unemployed In Belgium Are Of Foreign Origin, New Data Shows

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Six in ten long-term unemployed people in Belgium are of foreign origin, according to newly released government figures, just as a major reform of the unemployment system is set to take effect.

The data, disclosed by Employment Minister David Clarinval in response to a parliamentary question, show that only 41.5 percent of unemployment benefit recipients in 2023 had Belgian parents.

As reported by 7sur7, nearly 13 percent of the unemployed population has North African roots, primarily from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, or Mauritania. A further fifth have origins in other European Union member states, including neighboring and southern European countries.

The figures confirm a long-standing pattern observed in earlier studies: employment rates are lowest among foreigners from outside the EU.

In total, Belgium’s long-term unemployed population consists of 41.5 percent Belgians, 12.8 percent with Maghreb origins, 9.2 percent from southern EU countries, 7.7 percent from neighboring countries, 4.5 percent from other Asian countries, 4.5 percent of unknown origin, 4.2 percent from other African countries, 3.9 percent from Turkey, 3.8 percent from other European countries outside the EU, 3.4 percent from eastern EU countries, 3.1 percent from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, or Rwanda, and 1.2 percent from South or Central America. Taken together, those of non-EU origin account for roughly one third of all unemployed people in Belgium, and possibly closer to 38 percent when including those whose origin is listed as unknown.

“These figures confirm what we already knew,” Stijn Baert, professor of labor economics at Ghent University, told the Belgian news outlet.

“When we focus on migrants from countries outside the European Union, Belgium almost always ranks among the worst performers in Europe. More than half of unemployed non-European foreigners have been out of work for more than a year. Only Greece performs worse.”

The release of these figures coincides with a far-reaching reform of the unemployment system that will, from January 2026, abolish the right to indefinite benefits. Under the new rules, most people under 55 will be entitled to unemployment benefits for a maximum of two years, while those over 55 can continue to receive them only if they have accumulated at least 30 years of professional experience, rising to 35 years by 2030. The National Employment Office has already begun notifying affected claimants, with the first wave of exclusions — around 10,700 people — expected early next year. More than 100,000 people will eventually lose their entitlements.

Employment Minister David Clarinval, a Liberal, defended the reform as necessary to restore fairness and encourage people to re-enter the labor market. “Unemployment is not a career plan,” he said. “The main message is that everyone must work, including people of foreign origin. There is no reason why these people should be condemned to unemployment and exclusion.”

Speaking on RTL’s morning program on Wednesday, Clarinval said, “More than one in two unemployed people who will be excluded from benefits in the coming year and the year after are of foreign origin. That’s a rather astonishing figure, as far as I’m concerned.”

Clarinval said the numbers raised questions about both oversight and support. “Do all these people actually reside within the country?” he asked, noting that 5,800 cases of home fraud were detected last year. “That applies to everyone, but it means there are undoubtedly more checks to be carried out. Although now that we’re going to limit them, the question won’t really arise anymore.”

The publication of the figures provoked sharp political debate after several Belgian media outlets reported that “six out of ten people to lose their benefits are not Belgian.” Socialist MPs accused the government of stigmatizing people of immigrant background, prompting multiple fact-checks clarifying that the data refers to origin, not nationality. Many of those included in the figures were either born in Belgium to non-Belgian parents or have since acquired Belgian citizenship through naturalization.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 11/04/2025 - 02:00

80% Of Michael Burry's 13F Is Palantir And Nvidia Puts

80% Of Michael Burry's 13F Is Palantir And Nvidia Puts

One day before Halloween (perhaps he would have been better served to wait a few hours for give it a spookier, Oct 31 post date), the "Big Short" Michael Burry emerged from his periodic X/Twitter hibernation, where he tends to nuke his account every so often, only to reemerge several months later, with a cryptic post in which he references both the classic movie WarGames, and the movie Big Short (in which Christian Bale plays him). It said "Sometimes, we see bubbles. Sometimes, there is something to do about it. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play."

He followed it up with another post earlier today, which hinted that - as Goldman first did last summer - the return on AI was just too little, and like the early days of the dot com bubble when there was a massive overspending on fiber capex, so too many of the leading companies of the current AI bubble would crash and burn.

And then something interesting happened: Burry's Scion Asset Management published its 13F some two weeks early, and revealed that Burry not only sees a bubble, but is doing something about it. 

Half of the 13F was boring: mostly small legacy positions including Bruker, Lululemon (which has suffered a spectacular collapse this year), as well as SLM and Molina Healthcare. 

However, the other half was interesting, first - because it was entirely in the form of puts and calls, and second - because the puts were for Palantir and Nvidia, the two companies that define the AI bubble. And not any puts, but very large puts (for Burry's AUM) - the notional equivalent value for the Palantir puts was a whopping $912 million (equivalent to 5mm shares), while his Nvidia Put was worth a notional equivalent $186 million.

Source

Unfortunately, we don't know either how much premium Burry actually paid or the actual terms of the puts including strike price and maturity.

All we know is that Burry appears to once again be swinging for the bubble fences, similar to what he did during the housing bubble, and is shorting the two names that are most synonymous with the current market mania, similar to what he did in 2008 when he was shorting housing using CDS. 

We also know that since both names are sharply higher than where they were on Sept 30 (the date of the 13F), Burry has already suffered substantial losses on his positions, assuming he hasn't already liquidated them (at a loss).

And while some will declare that Burry putting his money where his bubble-bursting mouth is, is a sign of the top, we have two words of caution: back in 2005, Burry was early by about 2 years, and even though he ultimately got the trade right, the carry on the CDS crushed him. 

Second, the last time Burry tried to top tick the market was January 2023 when he blasted the one-word "Sell."

The market is up 69% since then. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 23:55

80% Of Michael Burry's 13F Is Palantir And Nvidia Puts

80% Of Michael Burry's 13F Is Palantir And Nvidia Puts

One day before Halloween (perhaps he would have been better served to wait a few hours for give it a spookier, Oct 31 post date), the "Big Short" Michael Burry emerged from his periodic X/Twitter hibernation, where he tends to nuke his account every so often, only to reemerge several months later, with a cryptic post in which he references both the classic movie WarGames, and the movie Big Short (in which Christian Bale plays him). It said "Sometimes, we see bubbles. Sometimes, there is something to do about it. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play."

He followed it up with another post earlier today, which hinted that - as Goldman first did last summer - the return on AI was just too little, and like the early days of the dot com bubble when there was a massive overspending on fiber capex, so too many of the leading companies of the current AI bubble would crash and burn.

And then something interesting happened: Burry's Scion Asset Management published its 13F some two weeks early, and revealed that Burry not only sees a bubble, but is doing something about it. 

Half of the 13F was boring: mostly small legacy positions including Bruker, Lululemon (which has suffered a spectacular collapse this year), as well as SLM and Molina Healthcare. 

However, the other half was interesting, first - because it was entirely in the form of puts and calls, and second - because the puts were for Palantir and Nvidia, the two companies that define the AI bubble. And not any puts, but very large puts (for Burry's AUM) - the notional equivalent value for the Palantir puts was a whopping $912 million (equivalent to 5mm shares), while his Nvidia Put was worth a notional equivalent $186 million.

Source

Unfortunately, we don't know either how much premium Burry actually paid or the actual terms of the puts including strike price and maturity.

All we know is that Burry appears to once again be swinging for the bubble fences, similar to what he did during the housing bubble, and is shorting the two names that are most synonymous with the current market mania, similar to what he did in 2008 when he was shorting housing using CDS. 

We also know that since both names are sharply higher than where they were on Sept 30 (the date of the 13F), Burry has already suffered substantial losses on his positions, assuming he hasn't already liquidated them (at a loss).

And while some will declare that Burry putting his money where his bubble-bursting mouth is, is a sign of the top, we have two words of caution: back in 2005, Burry was early by about 2 years, and even though he ultimately got the trade right, the carry on the CDS crushed him. 

Second, the last time Burry tried to top tick the market was January 2023 when he blasted the one-word "Sell."

The market is up 69% since then. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 23:55

Iran's Nuclear Facilities To Be Rebuilt "With Greater Strength": President Pezeshkian

Iran's Nuclear Facilities To Be Rebuilt "With Greater Strength": President Pezeshkian

Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian has reiterated in fresh weekend comments to state media that the Islamic Republic is not seeking to build a nuclear weapons; however, he did say something sure to catch the attention the United States and Israel.

He asserted that Tehran will rebuild its nuclear facilities "with greater strength" following the US bombing of three nuclear complexes during the June war with Israel. "Destroying buildings and factories will not create a problem for us, we will rebuild and with greater strength," the Iranian president stated.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian

The defiant warning to the world is important as President Trump has in the recent past said he's willing to attack Iran again should it try and restart its nuclear facilities which were bombed in June.

Pezeshkian had made the comments during a visit to Iran's own Atomic Energy Organization. He met with top officials who will be presumably tasked with rebuilding and repairing Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

The White House has repeatedly boasted of having "obliterated" Tehran's ability to make the next big step toward an operational nuclear weapon. Tehran has always insisted its program is purely for domestic nuclear energy purposes, and the Ayatollah over the years has decried nukes as 'unIslamic'.

President Pezeshkian on Sunday stressed Iran's nuclear plans are designed to "meet the essential needs of the people and enhance national welfare." Interestingly he also signaled expanse of nuclear plants with the help of Russia.

There have been reports of renewed and stepped up activity at Iran's nuclear facilities of late. According to Newsweek:

Satellite imagery published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank last month showed renewed activity at its nuclear facilities.

Iran is not actively enriching uranium, but fresh movement has been detected at its nuclear sites, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, said on October 29.

Iran still has hold of uranium enriched at 60 percent, and it is "very, very important" for international investigators to work out how it's being used, Grossi told The Associated Press last week. Tehran could build as many as 10 nuclear bombs with its stockpile, should it take the step to weaponizing the material, he said.

Given the chances there could be another round of direct fighting between archenemies Israel and Iran, the Iranians could now be more willing to secretly pursue nuclear warheads.

After all, a number of governments which did not have nuclear or other significant WMD capability have been toppled over the years - from Libya to Iraq to Syria. Ironically the West often used the 'WMD' threat as a false pretext for military action.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 23:50

Iran's Nuclear Facilities To Be Rebuilt "With Greater Strength": President Pezeshkian

Iran's Nuclear Facilities To Be Rebuilt "With Greater Strength": President Pezeshkian

Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian has reiterated in fresh weekend comments to state media that the Islamic Republic is not seeking to build a nuclear weapons; however, he did say something sure to catch the attention the United States and Israel.

He asserted that Tehran will rebuild its nuclear facilities "with greater strength" following the US bombing of three nuclear complexes during the June war with Israel. "Destroying buildings and factories will not create a problem for us, we will rebuild and with greater strength," the Iranian president stated.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian

The defiant warning to the world is important as President Trump has in the recent past said he's willing to attack Iran again should it try and restart its nuclear facilities which were bombed in June.

Pezeshkian had made the comments during a visit to Iran's own Atomic Energy Organization. He met with top officials who will be presumably tasked with rebuilding and repairing Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

The White House has repeatedly boasted of having "obliterated" Tehran's ability to make the next big step toward an operational nuclear weapon. Tehran has always insisted its program is purely for domestic nuclear energy purposes, and the Ayatollah over the years has decried nukes as 'unIslamic'.

President Pezeshkian on Sunday stressed Iran's nuclear plans are designed to "meet the essential needs of the people and enhance national welfare." Interestingly he also signaled expanse of nuclear plants with the help of Russia.

There have been reports of renewed and stepped up activity at Iran's nuclear facilities of late. According to Newsweek:

Satellite imagery published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank last month showed renewed activity at its nuclear facilities.

Iran is not actively enriching uranium, but fresh movement has been detected at its nuclear sites, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, said on October 29.

Iran still has hold of uranium enriched at 60 percent, and it is "very, very important" for international investigators to work out how it's being used, Grossi told The Associated Press last week. Tehran could build as many as 10 nuclear bombs with its stockpile, should it take the step to weaponizing the material, he said.

Given the chances there could be another round of direct fighting between archenemies Israel and Iran, the Iranians could now be more willing to secretly pursue nuclear warheads.

After all, a number of governments which did not have nuclear or other significant WMD capability have been toppled over the years - from Libya to Iraq to Syria. Ironically the West often used the 'WMD' threat as a false pretext for military action.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 23:50

Victor Hanson: Not Quite Yet, China

Victor Hanson: Not Quite Yet, China

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

China has tentatively agreed to curtail sales of fentanyl to Mexico and other Latin American nations.

For three decades, Beijing sent the raw product to Latin American and Mexican cartels. The gangs then processed and disguised the toxic brew as less lethal narcotics and prescription drugs for export. The cartels laundered the profits with additional Chinese help, along with the feigned ignorance of the Mexican government.

Since 1999, imported fentanyl-laced drugs have killed approximately 600,000 Americans through addiction and accidental overdoses. That number nears the death toll of all Americans killed during the Civil War.

Following Donald Trump’s recent visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, China is reportedly set to lift restrictions on its rare earth mineral exports to the U.S. That was a self-interested move, since the U.S. and its allies were already mobilizing to become immune to Chinese cut-offs. Xi Jinping also agreed to resume purchases of U.S. soybeans.

Trump’s concessions include agreeing to reduce tariffs on Chinese goods to 47 percent, while maintaining tariffs on most Chinese imports at levels still higher than those of almost any other importing country.

No doubt, more details will emerge of other concessions. Both China and Trump’s domestic critics will undoubtedly seek to refute the administration’s insistence that the U.S. won most of the advantages.

For nearly half a century, over the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump’s first, and Biden administrations, Americans more or less came to accept that more Americans would die from fentanyl than were lost in all foreign wars in U.S. history. If China really does comply with its agreement, and the cartels cannot find alternate sources of raw product, then Trump might become the greatest savior of American lives in U.S. history.

So why did the Chinese government agree to these tentative agreements, given that no prior president has been able to stop the Chinese fentanyl supply chain or to tariff its goods without fearing a destructive trade war?

Trump dealt from a position of strength, here and abroad, in a way that prior presidents did not. He had permanently destroyed the half-century-long utopian fantasy of Wall Street investors and left-wing dreamers that the more concessions China received, the more it would become affluent, powerful, and politically Westernized. That toxic narrative had insisted that an emerging consumer and reformist class would inevitably democratize the country as the ossified Chinese Communist Party died on the vine.

Instead, the opposite happened.

China stole Western technology with impunity, manipulated its currency, made a mockery of copyright and patent laws, and spread its Belt-and-Road imperialism. It did indeed become affluent and powerful, but also arrogant. The communist government rearmed, destroyed the rules of the world trade system, bullied its neighbors, created the greatest global mercantile system in world history, and sought every means to weaken the West, from the Spratly Islands and the Panama Canal to the World Health Organization and the Wuhan lab—along with former Senator Dianne Feinstein’s chauffeur and Rep. Eric Swalwell’s intern.

Yet in 2025, a shocked China reviewed the first ten months of the Trump administration and found it erratic, unpredictable—and ultimately scary. It then concluded that the U.S. has finally awakened, as Trump began augmenting the sources of U.S. power, much of it underrated or ignored over the last decades.

In 2025, NATO has become energized as never before. Most members have met their promises to invest two percent of GDP on defense. Many may double that commitment. The inclusion of Sweden and Finland is more valuable to the alliance than the addition of almost any other new members of the last thirty years.

China’s Middle East clients are humiliated.

For now, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are licking their wounds. There will be no Iranian bomb for years. Russia has withdrawn from the Middle East after the fall of its client Assad kleptocracy.

Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine in a Verdun-style bloodbath.

Its gas refineries are under constant drone attack. Putin’s military campaign so far has provided no model for a Taiwan invasion, and perhaps instead a lesson of caution.

India and China are slowly reducing their covert imports of Russian oil. After needlessly incurring one million casualties, Putin is terrified that his oligarchal class and officer castes increasingly see him as a 73-year-old, ill liability. He now fights only to inch westward, hoping to reach a symbolic DMZ line that would justify his military blunder. In a cost-to-benefit analysis, his four-year invasion does not compute well in the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, a muscular NATO and an anemic Russia allow a rearming U.S.—its military recruitment targets now easily met for the first time in years—to begin turning to Asia. China’s past bullying, together with perceived Biden appeasement, had terrified America’s Asian allies in the Pacific.

Yet now Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines are slowly mobilizing their defenses, mostly because they perceive the U.S. is no longer afraid to help its friends and to punish its enemies. For all the talk of an ascendant Chinese military, parity with America is still years away, given that in terms of strategic weapons and aircraft, and capital ships, the U.S. is far ahead in both quantity and quality.

So our Asian partners vie with each other to increase foreign investment in the U.S., buy American weapons, and receive strong Trump guarantees for American assistance in extremis. Taiwan is building five new chip factories in the U.S.

Australia is partnering with America to ensure that China cannot strangle the West by cutting off rare earth minerals in the future. Japan is slowly building a navy not seen in the Pacific since World War II.

When China reexamined the domestic U.S., it became further discouraged. The Chinese con of supplying the world with solar panels and wind turbines while it builds coal and nuclear plants is now sputtering. Trump will produce more traditional energy—oil, gas, nuclear, and coal—than any other nation in history. Despite its green dogmas, Europe will follow suit or stagnate further.

The Chinese applauded America’s anti-meritocratic DEI programs. They saw them as destructive as their own ideological blunders of the Maoist past, when dogma destroyed merit and the economy and standard of living with it.

But now DEI is dying. There are no more open borders. Illegal aliens are being deported at an accelerated rate.

The U.S. stock market is at record highs. Inflation is still low by historical standards. GDP may exceed 3 percent for 2025. If only half the promised trillions of dollars of foreign investment are realized, the sum will become the greatest sudden infusion of foreign cash in America in our history.

When China looks at Silicon Valley, it becomes further uncertain. The left-wing tech barons are no longer eager to invest in and partner with the unreliable Chinese. Many are becoming realists, as they are empowered and set free by Trump, in the opposite fashion of the Biden administration’s statist efforts to pick sycophantic winners and declare the noncompliers losers.

In areas like AI, robotics, genetic engineering, cryptocurrency, and military technology, the Chinese likely fear that they may no longer catch up to a riled U.S.

Like its 1941-1942 awakening, America will rearm, clamp down on arms transfers and espionage, and reassert itself as the most powerful nation in the world, a fact that will attract more allies and turn remaining enemies into neutrals.

In summary, during the Biden administration, China had expected to see 70,000 Americans die annually without facing consequences. It expected to continue openly stealing American technology and waging one-sided trade against the U.S., as it picked off America’s demoralized Asian allies.

China wagered that the U.S. was slowly and inevitably turning into a North American Europe—depressed and drug-ridden, insidiously becoming socialist, borderless, and flooded with unassimilated and often hostile illegal aliens. Suicidally, it would continue to forgo cheap fossil fuels for expensive and unreliable “green” energy while chasing its tail with self-destructive DEI, transgender, and crime policies.

Its universities would continue to indoctrinate a new generation of anti-American socialists in the spirit of leftist radicals like Zohran Mamdani, Jasmine Crockett, and AOC to update the moribund dreams of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

The U.S. is reascending at home and abroad, and its allies, including even Europe and especially Asia, are reenergized.

Conservative movements and governments are rebounding in Europe.

So for Chinese strongman Xi Jinping, it was time to cut a deal, to pause, to regroup, and to hope that in three, seven, or eleven years, another Obama- or Biden-naif would return. And then it might finish its now half-century-long effort to relegate a calcifying U.S. to the 1950s version of the British Empire.

Or so China assumed.

But then America said, “Not yet, not quite yet…”

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 23:25

Victor Hanson: Not Quite Yet, China

Victor Hanson: Not Quite Yet, China

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

China has tentatively agreed to curtail sales of fentanyl to Mexico and other Latin American nations.

For three decades, Beijing sent the raw product to Latin American and Mexican cartels. The gangs then processed and disguised the toxic brew as less lethal narcotics and prescription drugs for export. The cartels laundered the profits with additional Chinese help, along with the feigned ignorance of the Mexican government.

Since 1999, imported fentanyl-laced drugs have killed approximately 600,000 Americans through addiction and accidental overdoses. That number nears the death toll of all Americans killed during the Civil War.

Following Donald Trump’s recent visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, China is reportedly set to lift restrictions on its rare earth mineral exports to the U.S. That was a self-interested move, since the U.S. and its allies were already mobilizing to become immune to Chinese cut-offs. Xi Jinping also agreed to resume purchases of U.S. soybeans.

Trump’s concessions include agreeing to reduce tariffs on Chinese goods to 47 percent, while maintaining tariffs on most Chinese imports at levels still higher than those of almost any other importing country.

No doubt, more details will emerge of other concessions. Both China and Trump’s domestic critics will undoubtedly seek to refute the administration’s insistence that the U.S. won most of the advantages.

For nearly half a century, over the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump’s first, and Biden administrations, Americans more or less came to accept that more Americans would die from fentanyl than were lost in all foreign wars in U.S. history. If China really does comply with its agreement, and the cartels cannot find alternate sources of raw product, then Trump might become the greatest savior of American lives in U.S. history.

So why did the Chinese government agree to these tentative agreements, given that no prior president has been able to stop the Chinese fentanyl supply chain or to tariff its goods without fearing a destructive trade war?

Trump dealt from a position of strength, here and abroad, in a way that prior presidents did not. He had permanently destroyed the half-century-long utopian fantasy of Wall Street investors and left-wing dreamers that the more concessions China received, the more it would become affluent, powerful, and politically Westernized. That toxic narrative had insisted that an emerging consumer and reformist class would inevitably democratize the country as the ossified Chinese Communist Party died on the vine.

Instead, the opposite happened.

China stole Western technology with impunity, manipulated its currency, made a mockery of copyright and patent laws, and spread its Belt-and-Road imperialism. It did indeed become affluent and powerful, but also arrogant. The communist government rearmed, destroyed the rules of the world trade system, bullied its neighbors, created the greatest global mercantile system in world history, and sought every means to weaken the West, from the Spratly Islands and the Panama Canal to the World Health Organization and the Wuhan lab—along with former Senator Dianne Feinstein’s chauffeur and Rep. Eric Swalwell’s intern.

Yet in 2025, a shocked China reviewed the first ten months of the Trump administration and found it erratic, unpredictable—and ultimately scary. It then concluded that the U.S. has finally awakened, as Trump began augmenting the sources of U.S. power, much of it underrated or ignored over the last decades.

In 2025, NATO has become energized as never before. Most members have met their promises to invest two percent of GDP on defense. Many may double that commitment. The inclusion of Sweden and Finland is more valuable to the alliance than the addition of almost any other new members of the last thirty years.

China’s Middle East clients are humiliated.

For now, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are licking their wounds. There will be no Iranian bomb for years. Russia has withdrawn from the Middle East after the fall of its client Assad kleptocracy.

Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine in a Verdun-style bloodbath.

Its gas refineries are under constant drone attack. Putin’s military campaign so far has provided no model for a Taiwan invasion, and perhaps instead a lesson of caution.

India and China are slowly reducing their covert imports of Russian oil. After needlessly incurring one million casualties, Putin is terrified that his oligarchal class and officer castes increasingly see him as a 73-year-old, ill liability. He now fights only to inch westward, hoping to reach a symbolic DMZ line that would justify his military blunder. In a cost-to-benefit analysis, his four-year invasion does not compute well in the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, a muscular NATO and an anemic Russia allow a rearming U.S.—its military recruitment targets now easily met for the first time in years—to begin turning to Asia. China’s past bullying, together with perceived Biden appeasement, had terrified America’s Asian allies in the Pacific.

Yet now Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines are slowly mobilizing their defenses, mostly because they perceive the U.S. is no longer afraid to help its friends and to punish its enemies. For all the talk of an ascendant Chinese military, parity with America is still years away, given that in terms of strategic weapons and aircraft, and capital ships, the U.S. is far ahead in both quantity and quality.

So our Asian partners vie with each other to increase foreign investment in the U.S., buy American weapons, and receive strong Trump guarantees for American assistance in extremis. Taiwan is building five new chip factories in the U.S.

Australia is partnering with America to ensure that China cannot strangle the West by cutting off rare earth minerals in the future. Japan is slowly building a navy not seen in the Pacific since World War II.

When China reexamined the domestic U.S., it became further discouraged. The Chinese con of supplying the world with solar panels and wind turbines while it builds coal and nuclear plants is now sputtering. Trump will produce more traditional energy—oil, gas, nuclear, and coal—than any other nation in history. Despite its green dogmas, Europe will follow suit or stagnate further.

The Chinese applauded America’s anti-meritocratic DEI programs. They saw them as destructive as their own ideological blunders of the Maoist past, when dogma destroyed merit and the economy and standard of living with it.

But now DEI is dying. There are no more open borders. Illegal aliens are being deported at an accelerated rate.

The U.S. stock market is at record highs. Inflation is still low by historical standards. GDP may exceed 3 percent for 2025. If only half the promised trillions of dollars of foreign investment are realized, the sum will become the greatest sudden infusion of foreign cash in America in our history.

When China looks at Silicon Valley, it becomes further uncertain. The left-wing tech barons are no longer eager to invest in and partner with the unreliable Chinese. Many are becoming realists, as they are empowered and set free by Trump, in the opposite fashion of the Biden administration’s statist efforts to pick sycophantic winners and declare the noncompliers losers.

In areas like AI, robotics, genetic engineering, cryptocurrency, and military technology, the Chinese likely fear that they may no longer catch up to a riled U.S.

Like its 1941-1942 awakening, America will rearm, clamp down on arms transfers and espionage, and reassert itself as the most powerful nation in the world, a fact that will attract more allies and turn remaining enemies into neutrals.

In summary, during the Biden administration, China had expected to see 70,000 Americans die annually without facing consequences. It expected to continue openly stealing American technology and waging one-sided trade against the U.S., as it picked off America’s demoralized Asian allies.

China wagered that the U.S. was slowly and inevitably turning into a North American Europe—depressed and drug-ridden, insidiously becoming socialist, borderless, and flooded with unassimilated and often hostile illegal aliens. Suicidally, it would continue to forgo cheap fossil fuels for expensive and unreliable “green” energy while chasing its tail with self-destructive DEI, transgender, and crime policies.

Its universities would continue to indoctrinate a new generation of anti-American socialists in the spirit of leftist radicals like Zohran Mamdani, Jasmine Crockett, and AOC to update the moribund dreams of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

The U.S. is reascending at home and abroad, and its allies, including even Europe and especially Asia, are reenergized.

Conservative movements and governments are rebounding in Europe.

So for Chinese strongman Xi Jinping, it was time to cut a deal, to pause, to regroup, and to hope that in three, seven, or eleven years, another Obama- or Biden-naif would return. And then it might finish its now half-century-long effort to relegate a calcifying U.S. to the 1950s version of the British Empire.

Or so China assumed.

But then America said, “Not yet, not quite yet…”

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 23:25

Supreme Court Won't Halt Ruling Against Adult Entertainment Businesses

Supreme Court Won't Halt Ruling Against Adult Entertainment Businesses

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 31 denied a request from adult entertainment providers to halt a federal appeals court ruling that rejected their challenge to zoning restrictions in New York City.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees emergency appeals from New York state, issued a brief order in 59 Murray Enterprises Inc. v. City of New York without comment.

The order rejected a request to grant an injunction blocking a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Because Sotomayor acted alone without referring the emergency application to the full court, under Supreme Court rules, the companies that brought the application may present the application to another justice.

Often in emergency applications, the high court asks the responding party to file a brief outlining its position. In this case, Sotomayor made no such request.

In 1995, New York City approved new zoning laws that restricted where adult entertainment-related businesses could operate. The regulations did not govern so-called “60/40” establishments in which under 40 percent of floorspace or the store’s stock-in-trade did not feature adult entertainment or media, according to the application filed with the nation’s highest court on Oct. 22.

The businesses that brought the Supreme Court application are involved in adult entertainment. Eight of the companies operate or lease space to strip clubs and topless bars, while the other six rent out or sell adult books and videos.

The companies involved in this litigation were not affected by the 1995 regulations, but in 2001, the city changed its zoning laws to take away the 60/40 rule, which brought the companies within reach of the laws restricting adult establishments, the application said.

The new zoning amendments were not immediately enforced, but years later when the city began to take steps to enforce them the businesses sued. A federal district court ruled for the city in 2024, holding that the 2001 zoning amendments did not infringe on the businesses’ constitutional rights.

The businesses appealed, arguing that the amendments ran afoul of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The bookstores involved in the legal challenge argued the 2001 zoning amendments violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the application said.

The Second Circuit ruled in July this year that the 2001 zoning amendments did not violate the companies’ First Amendment rights.

Although the First amendment safeguards adult expression, it also permits a municipality to regulate adult entertainment providers, and as part of its zoning authority, allows a municipality to forbid adult businesses from operating in certain locations, the application said, citing the ruling.

“Even in areas where adult-oriented businesses are allowed, a city may prohibit such businesses from operating close to churches, parks, schools, residential areas, or other adult establishments,” the circuit court said, citing City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc., a 1986 Supreme Court precedent.

A municipality may regulate adult establishments in an effort to mitigate the harmful “secondary effects” that can accompany adult-oriented businesses, such as “crime, decreased property values, and urban decay,” provided that such regulation cannot be used “as a pretext for suppressing expression.”

Limiting where adult businesses may operate may be done to “preserve the quality of life in the community at large,” which is “the essence of zoning,” the court said.

The application argued that the Supreme Court should grant the application because without it, the city could shut down businesses engaged in constitutionally protected expression and this would cause those businesses “irreparable and substantial injury,” the application said.

The application also said that the applicants intend to file a petition for certiorari, or review, of the Second Circuit’s ruling separately from the application.

The applicants’ attorney, Edward Rudofsky of Melville, New York, commented on the denial of the application.

“We respect but are naturally disappointed by the denial of our clients’ application for an injunction pending their petition for a writ of certiorari, which we thought was warranted for all of the reasons set forth in our papers,” Rudofsky told The Epoch Times.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the city’s Law Department. No reply was received by publication time.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 22:35

Supreme Court Won't Halt Ruling Against Adult Entertainment Businesses

Supreme Court Won't Halt Ruling Against Adult Entertainment Businesses

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 31 denied a request from adult entertainment providers to halt a federal appeals court ruling that rejected their challenge to zoning restrictions in New York City.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees emergency appeals from New York state, issued a brief order in 59 Murray Enterprises Inc. v. City of New York without comment.

The order rejected a request to grant an injunction blocking a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Because Sotomayor acted alone without referring the emergency application to the full court, under Supreme Court rules, the companies that brought the application may present the application to another justice.

Often in emergency applications, the high court asks the responding party to file a brief outlining its position. In this case, Sotomayor made no such request.

In 1995, New York City approved new zoning laws that restricted where adult entertainment-related businesses could operate. The regulations did not govern so-called “60/40” establishments in which under 40 percent of floorspace or the store’s stock-in-trade did not feature adult entertainment or media, according to the application filed with the nation’s highest court on Oct. 22.

The businesses that brought the Supreme Court application are involved in adult entertainment. Eight of the companies operate or lease space to strip clubs and topless bars, while the other six rent out or sell adult books and videos.

The companies involved in this litigation were not affected by the 1995 regulations, but in 2001, the city changed its zoning laws to take away the 60/40 rule, which brought the companies within reach of the laws restricting adult establishments, the application said.

The new zoning amendments were not immediately enforced, but years later when the city began to take steps to enforce them the businesses sued. A federal district court ruled for the city in 2024, holding that the 2001 zoning amendments did not infringe on the businesses’ constitutional rights.

The businesses appealed, arguing that the amendments ran afoul of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The bookstores involved in the legal challenge argued the 2001 zoning amendments violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the application said.

The Second Circuit ruled in July this year that the 2001 zoning amendments did not violate the companies’ First Amendment rights.

Although the First amendment safeguards adult expression, it also permits a municipality to regulate adult entertainment providers, and as part of its zoning authority, allows a municipality to forbid adult businesses from operating in certain locations, the application said, citing the ruling.

“Even in areas where adult-oriented businesses are allowed, a city may prohibit such businesses from operating close to churches, parks, schools, residential areas, or other adult establishments,” the circuit court said, citing City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc., a 1986 Supreme Court precedent.

A municipality may regulate adult establishments in an effort to mitigate the harmful “secondary effects” that can accompany adult-oriented businesses, such as “crime, decreased property values, and urban decay,” provided that such regulation cannot be used “as a pretext for suppressing expression.”

Limiting where adult businesses may operate may be done to “preserve the quality of life in the community at large,” which is “the essence of zoning,” the court said.

The application argued that the Supreme Court should grant the application because without it, the city could shut down businesses engaged in constitutionally protected expression and this would cause those businesses “irreparable and substantial injury,” the application said.

The application also said that the applicants intend to file a petition for certiorari, or review, of the Second Circuit’s ruling separately from the application.

The applicants’ attorney, Edward Rudofsky of Melville, New York, commented on the denial of the application.

“We respect but are naturally disappointed by the denial of our clients’ application for an injunction pending their petition for a writ of certiorari, which we thought was warranted for all of the reasons set forth in our papers,” Rudofsky told The Epoch Times.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the city’s Law Department. No reply was received by publication time.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 22:35

Two Airmen Plead Guilty After Third Dies In Fake Story Over Sig Sauer M18

Two Airmen Plead Guilty After Third Dies In Fake Story Over Sig Sauer M18

The case of the mysterious self-shooting SIG M18 gets even stranger - following an August arrest in the case (it wasn't the gun). 

The entrance to F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., on May 24, 2018. AP Photo/Mead Gruver, File

On Friday, the Air Force said in a statement that two airman at a Wyoming US Air Force base pleaded guilty to making false statements in the late July shooting of Brayden Lovan, 21, an airman with the 90th Security Forces Squadron, 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base outside Cheyenne. 

Airmen Sarbjot Badesha and Matthew Rodriguez each pleaded guilty this week to making false official statements related to Lovan’s death July 20, according to the Air Force statement.

Badesha was sentenced to 30 days in confinement and forfeiture of $1,545, while Rodriguez was sentenced to 10 days in confinement, 15 days restriction to base and forfeiture of $500. Both also received administrative demotions.

The two reported hearing White-Allen’s gun go off and then seeing Lovan on the ground, according to the statement.

White-Allen allegedly told Badesha, “Here’s the story. Tell them that I slammed my duty belt on the desk and it went off.” White-Allen allegedly told Rodriguez to tell emergency responders that White-Allen’s “holster went off,” according to the statement.

Neither airman initially reported that information, leading investigators to believe at first that White-Allen’s M18 accidentally discharged, according to the statement.

Meanwhile, the guy who did it was found dead on Oct. 8, and the Air Force won't say how.

Details about his death were released for the first time Friday, including that the alleged shooter, Marcus White-Allen, had pointed the gun at Lovan’s chest in a “joking manner.” White-Allen after the shooting allegedly urged the other two surviving airmen to lie about what happened, according to the statement.

White-Allen, who was arrested on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter and making a false statement, was found dead on base on the morning of Oct. 8. Air Force officials have not disclosed details surrounding White-Allen’s death, saying it was still under investigation. -AP

What's hilarious is that Sig has such a bad reputation for self-firing guns that everyone just bought the story. 

The pistol has been dogged for years by claims that it is prone to unintentional discharge if handled or bumped, without the trigger being pulled, according to the Epoch Times, which notes that at least 80 people have been injured since 2014,  and several lawsuits have been filed. In 2021, the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania dismissed a claim by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent that his P320 discharged while in its holster, wounding him.

In 2020, Sig Sauer paid an almost $900,000 settlement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In court documents, Sig Sauer said its agreement to settle was not an admission of negligence or wrongdoing on its part.

Strader said the company stands by its product, but has also listened to its customers’ concerns and offers a trigger upgrade for select models.

“The P320 Voluntary Upgrade is available to P320s produced from 2014-2017. More information can be found here P320 Voluntary Upgrade Program | SIG SAUER,” Strader stated.

In August 2024, the FBI evaluated the pistol for the Michigan State Police after one of its officers reported that he was shot by his holstered P320 at the shooting range.

The FBI report offered no definitive answers as to what happened in that case, but indicated the situation warranted a deeper investigation.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 22:10

Two Airmen Plead Guilty After Third Dies In Fake Story Over Sig Sauer M18

Two Airmen Plead Guilty After Third Dies In Fake Story Over Sig Sauer M18

The case of the mysterious self-shooting SIG M18 gets even stranger - following an August arrest in the case (it wasn't the gun). 

The entrance to F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., on May 24, 2018. AP Photo/Mead Gruver, File

On Friday, the Air Force said in a statement that two airman at a Wyoming US Air Force base pleaded guilty to making false statements in the late July shooting of Brayden Lovan, 21, an airman with the 90th Security Forces Squadron, 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base outside Cheyenne. 

Airmen Sarbjot Badesha and Matthew Rodriguez each pleaded guilty this week to making false official statements related to Lovan’s death July 20, according to the Air Force statement.

Badesha was sentenced to 30 days in confinement and forfeiture of $1,545, while Rodriguez was sentenced to 10 days in confinement, 15 days restriction to base and forfeiture of $500. Both also received administrative demotions.

The two reported hearing White-Allen’s gun go off and then seeing Lovan on the ground, according to the statement.

White-Allen allegedly told Badesha, “Here’s the story. Tell them that I slammed my duty belt on the desk and it went off.” White-Allen allegedly told Rodriguez to tell emergency responders that White-Allen’s “holster went off,” according to the statement.

Neither airman initially reported that information, leading investigators to believe at first that White-Allen’s M18 accidentally discharged, according to the statement.

Meanwhile, the guy who did it was found dead on Oct. 8, and the Air Force won't say how.

Details about his death were released for the first time Friday, including that the alleged shooter, Marcus White-Allen, had pointed the gun at Lovan’s chest in a “joking manner.” White-Allen after the shooting allegedly urged the other two surviving airmen to lie about what happened, according to the statement.

White-Allen, who was arrested on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter and making a false statement, was found dead on base on the morning of Oct. 8. Air Force officials have not disclosed details surrounding White-Allen’s death, saying it was still under investigation. -AP

What's hilarious is that Sig has such a bad reputation for self-firing guns that everyone just bought the story. 

The pistol has been dogged for years by claims that it is prone to unintentional discharge if handled or bumped, without the trigger being pulled, according to the Epoch Times, which notes that at least 80 people have been injured since 2014,  and several lawsuits have been filed. In 2021, the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania dismissed a claim by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent that his P320 discharged while in its holster, wounding him.

In 2020, Sig Sauer paid an almost $900,000 settlement in a case before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In court documents, Sig Sauer said its agreement to settle was not an admission of negligence or wrongdoing on its part.

Strader said the company stands by its product, but has also listened to its customers’ concerns and offers a trigger upgrade for select models.

“The P320 Voluntary Upgrade is available to P320s produced from 2014-2017. More information can be found here P320 Voluntary Upgrade Program | SIG SAUER,” Strader stated.

In August 2024, the FBI evaluated the pistol for the Michigan State Police after one of its officers reported that he was shot by his holstered P320 at the shooting range.

The FBI report offered no definitive answers as to what happened in that case, but indicated the situation warranted a deeper investigation.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 22:10

Conservatives' Higher Birthrates Point To Future Political Dominance

Conservatives' Higher Birthrates Point To Future Political Dominance

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Chances are, you’re already aware that birthrates are falling throughout the developed world, sagging well below the “replacement rate” and sparking worries about the implications of a future dearth of workers and consumers. However, the emphasis on economic implications has allowed a powerful political undercurrent to go almost entirely unnoticed: Birthrates are varying significantly by political orientation, a trend that has the potential to shape electorates and policies for generations to come — to the benefit of conservatives.

Replacement birthrates vary over time and place depending on shifts in related variables such as child mortality. In developed countries, sustaining populations without immigration currently requires reproduction at a rate of 2.1 births per woman of childbearing age. Except for an outlier replacement-level pace in 2007, the US birthrate has been sub-2.1 since the early 1970s. Last year, America hit a record-low 1.6, with even lower lows recorded elsewhere in the developed world: the birth rate in England and Wales fell to 1.41, while Scotland’s dropped to 1.25 and Italy’s to 1.2. Mainland France’s 1.59 was the lowest since World War I.

Media coverage has uniformly emphasized those top-line numbers. However, Financial Times columnist and chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch recently waded deeper into the data and illuminated a sub-trend that could shape the future of the West. It turns out the drop-off in top-line birthrates is primarily the result of plummeting parenthood among progressive leftists, with conservative fertility slipping to a far smaller degree.

“From the US to Europe and beyond, people who identify as conservative are having almost as many children as they were decades ago,” Burn-Murdoch wrote. “The decline is overwhelmingly among those on the progressive left, in effect nudging each successive generation’s politics further to the right than they would otherwise have been.”

Readers might reasonably wonder if the birthrate numbers merely reflect the fact that people tend to become more conservative upon having children — particularly on social issues. That’s not the case. Critically, even aspirations to have children vary widely by political orientation. Illustrating the extremes on the continuum, a September NBC News poll found that male, Gen Z Trump voters put “having children” high atop their list of what’s central to their “personal definition of success.” In stark contrast, female Gen Z Kamala Harris voters put raising children in 12th place out of the 13 life goals presented as options, below aspirations like “having a job or career you find fulfilling” (which came in first) and “having emotional stability” (which placed third).

The conservative fertility edge shows up in state-level data. The 10 states with the highest 2023 birthrates were all Republican-majority states, led by South Dakota (2.01), Nebraska (1.92) and North Dakota (1.85). The bottom 10 were all “blue” states, with Vermont (1.30) at the bottom, and Oregon, Massachusetts, California, Washington and Illinois among those in the bottom pack. Paired with the trend of people migrating from blue states, it’s safe to say their lagging birthrates assure continued shrinkage in their congressional delegations, electoral votes and political power.

Looking more broadly, conservatives already have a population edge in America, with 33% of adults saying they’re conservative or very conservative, compared to just 24% who identify as liberal or very liberal. Self-categorized moderates represent a plurality, at 38%.

As your own extended family tree likely demonstrates, parents’ political leanings don’t strictly determine the views of their offspring. However, while most parents say they don’t make indoctrination a priority, their leanings do have an outsize influence in the grand scheme.

A 2023 Pew Research analysis found that only 16% of parents said it was extremely or very important for their children to grow up to hold political views similar to their own. Despite that, 81% of Republicans’ teenage children identify as either Republican or leaning toward the GOP; the Democratic correlation is 89%. Even if we assume that correlation decreases somewhat after the teen years, the large birthrate gap between conservatives and progressives promises to give the West’s politics a clear shove to the right over the coming decades.

Join thousands of free Stark Realities subscribers

Will immigration weaken that shove? Conservatives have long been wary of the political implications of large immigrant inflows, accusing Democrats of promoting lax border policies in a self-serving scheme to import Democratic voters. Bolstering that case, a 2023 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 32% of foreign-born people living in the US prefer the Democratic Party, with only half that number — 16% — saying the Republican Party best represents their views. A hefty 52% preferred “neither party” or were “not sure.”

Importantly, an immigration sea change is underway. At least for the time being, migrant inflows have not only come to a screeching halt, but have even reversed. In January, there were 53.3 million foreign-born immigrants in the country. Six months later, those ranks had fallen by more than a million, the first such decline since the 1960s. Having peaked at 15.8% of the US population, foreign-born people now account for 15.4%.

In what could be a self-reinforcing dynamic, a rightward shift driven by conservatives’ higher fertility could help perpetuate policies that tamp down immigration, further shifting the math in favor of the right. We’ve already seen a major sentiment shift, as Americans attitudes about immigration soured mightily during the Biden presidency: The percent wanting fewer immigrants soared from 28% in 2000 to 55% in 2024, according to Gallup. (The percent dropped way back to 30% this summer, but with dramatically tighter immigration policies resulting in net emigration for the first time in well over 50 years, that particular finding seems like something of an apples vs oranges comparison.)

2024 US Births By Race and Hispanic Origin (via Perplexity)

With European populations displaying their own rising impatience with the effects of mass immigration — a dynamic that has translated into a significant tightening of policies across the continent — immigration doesn’t seem poised to fully offset conservatives’ higher fertility either in Europe or the United States, at least for now.

Many factors are driving declining birthrates in the progressive left, including a lower level of enthusiasm — and often, outright disdain — for traditional family structures, greater prioritization of women’s career success, and a fatalism that makes the gift of life seem like a mixed proposition at best.

The Times’ Burn-Murdoch also points a finger at progressives who’ve convinced themselves that bringing new humans into the world will accelerate climate change. However, he notes that any given country’s level of carbon emissions is overwhelmingly driven by technology, not population, as evidenced by plummeting carbon emissions throughout the developed world even as their populations have continued to rise.

France and Germany show how carbon emissions have declined despite rising populations (via Financial Times and John Burn-Murdoch)

Even among progressives who do aspire to reproduce, there seem to be other self-defeating dynamics at work. For example, in their rebellion against traditional norms and expectations, and their desire to signal their subcultural alignment, progressives are more likely to make personal-appearance choices that could undermine their ability to land a mate.

Purple hair with an unconventional cut may be boldly expressive, but it comes at some unquantifiable price in the dating marketplace. The steepest price probably comes from septum-piercing — nose-rings that stray far from adornment and into outright self-vandalism. Science backs the idea that such piercings are bad for one’s love life: A study published by European Psychologist found that both women and men with facial piercings were perceived as not only less physically attractive but also less intelligent.

That’s not all. Leftists are also far more likely to limit their dating pool by excluding people with differing political views: Among self-identified “very liberal” people, only 13% are willing to date conservatives. Putting that into perspective, 29% of them are willing to date an ex-felon. On the other hand, very conservative Americans are nearly twice as willing to date their political opposites.

When looking to the political future, it’s often said that “demographics are destiny.” For the most part, progressives have employed the axiom with a swaggering confidence in their inevitable triumph, while conservatives have used it with a tone of grim resignation. Given the reproductive realities, we may soon see a rhetorical role reversal.

STARK REALITIES: Invigoratingly Unorthodox Perspectives For Intellectually Honest Readers 

Sign up and join thousands of free subscribers who benefit from monthly, ad-free insights 

* * *

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 21:45

Conservatives' Higher Birthrates Point To Future Political Dominance

Conservatives' Higher Birthrates Point To Future Political Dominance

Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities

Chances are, you’re already aware that birthrates are falling throughout the developed world, sagging well below the “replacement rate” and sparking worries about the implications of a future dearth of workers and consumers. However, the emphasis on economic implications has allowed a powerful political undercurrent to go almost entirely unnoticed: Birthrates are varying significantly by political orientation, a trend that has the potential to shape electorates and policies for generations to come — to the benefit of conservatives.

Replacement birthrates vary over time and place depending on shifts in related variables such as child mortality. In developed countries, sustaining populations without immigration currently requires reproduction at a rate of 2.1 births per woman of childbearing age. Except for an outlier replacement-level pace in 2007, the US birthrate has been sub-2.1 since the early 1970s. Last year, America hit a record-low 1.6, with even lower lows recorded elsewhere in the developed world: the birth rate in England and Wales fell to 1.41, while Scotland’s dropped to 1.25 and Italy’s to 1.2. Mainland France’s 1.59 was the lowest since World War I.

Media coverage has uniformly emphasized those top-line numbers. However, Financial Times columnist and chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch recently waded deeper into the data and illuminated a sub-trend that could shape the future of the West. It turns out the drop-off in top-line birthrates is primarily the result of plummeting parenthood among progressive leftists, with conservative fertility slipping to a far smaller degree.

“From the US to Europe and beyond, people who identify as conservative are having almost as many children as they were decades ago,” Burn-Murdoch wrote. “The decline is overwhelmingly among those on the progressive left, in effect nudging each successive generation’s politics further to the right than they would otherwise have been.”

Readers might reasonably wonder if the birthrate numbers merely reflect the fact that people tend to become more conservative upon having children — particularly on social issues. That’s not the case. Critically, even aspirations to have children vary widely by political orientation. Illustrating the extremes on the continuum, a September NBC News poll found that male, Gen Z Trump voters put “having children” high atop their list of what’s central to their “personal definition of success.” In stark contrast, female Gen Z Kamala Harris voters put raising children in 12th place out of the 13 life goals presented as options, below aspirations like “having a job or career you find fulfilling” (which came in first) and “having emotional stability” (which placed third).

The conservative fertility edge shows up in state-level data. The 10 states with the highest 2023 birthrates were all Republican-majority states, led by South Dakota (2.01), Nebraska (1.92) and North Dakota (1.85). The bottom 10 were all “blue” states, with Vermont (1.30) at the bottom, and Oregon, Massachusetts, California, Washington and Illinois among those in the bottom pack. Paired with the trend of people migrating from blue states, it’s safe to say their lagging birthrates assure continued shrinkage in their congressional delegations, electoral votes and political power.

Looking more broadly, conservatives already have a population edge in America, with 33% of adults saying they’re conservative or very conservative, compared to just 24% who identify as liberal or very liberal. Self-categorized moderates represent a plurality, at 38%.

As your own extended family tree likely demonstrates, parents’ political leanings don’t strictly determine the views of their offspring. However, while most parents say they don’t make indoctrination a priority, their leanings do have an outsize influence in the grand scheme.

A 2023 Pew Research analysis found that only 16% of parents said it was extremely or very important for their children to grow up to hold political views similar to their own. Despite that, 81% of Republicans’ teenage children identify as either Republican or leaning toward the GOP; the Democratic correlation is 89%. Even if we assume that correlation decreases somewhat after the teen years, the large birthrate gap between conservatives and progressives promises to give the West’s politics a clear shove to the right over the coming decades.

Join thousands of free Stark Realities subscribers

Will immigration weaken that shove? Conservatives have long been wary of the political implications of large immigrant inflows, accusing Democrats of promoting lax border policies in a self-serving scheme to import Democratic voters. Bolstering that case, a 2023 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 32% of foreign-born people living in the US prefer the Democratic Party, with only half that number — 16% — saying the Republican Party best represents their views. A hefty 52% preferred “neither party” or were “not sure.”

Importantly, an immigration sea change is underway. At least for the time being, migrant inflows have not only come to a screeching halt, but have even reversed. In January, there were 53.3 million foreign-born immigrants in the country. Six months later, those ranks had fallen by more than a million, the first such decline since the 1960s. Having peaked at 15.8% of the US population, foreign-born people now account for 15.4%.

In what could be a self-reinforcing dynamic, a rightward shift driven by conservatives’ higher fertility could help perpetuate policies that tamp down immigration, further shifting the math in favor of the right. We’ve already seen a major sentiment shift, as Americans attitudes about immigration soured mightily during the Biden presidency: The percent wanting fewer immigrants soared from 28% in 2000 to 55% in 2024, according to Gallup. (The percent dropped way back to 30% this summer, but with dramatically tighter immigration policies resulting in net emigration for the first time in well over 50 years, that particular finding seems like something of an apples vs oranges comparison.)

2024 US Births By Race and Hispanic Origin (via Perplexity)

With European populations displaying their own rising impatience with the effects of mass immigration — a dynamic that has translated into a significant tightening of policies across the continent — immigration doesn’t seem poised to fully offset conservatives’ higher fertility either in Europe or the United States, at least for now.

Many factors are driving declining birthrates in the progressive left, including a lower level of enthusiasm — and often, outright disdain — for traditional family structures, greater prioritization of women’s career success, and a fatalism that makes the gift of life seem like a mixed proposition at best.

The Times’ Burn-Murdoch also points a finger at progressives who’ve convinced themselves that bringing new humans into the world will accelerate climate change. However, he notes that any given country’s level of carbon emissions is overwhelmingly driven by technology, not population, as evidenced by plummeting carbon emissions throughout the developed world even as their populations have continued to rise.

France and Germany show how carbon emissions have declined despite rising populations (via Financial Times and John Burn-Murdoch)

Even among progressives who do aspire to reproduce, there seem to be other self-defeating dynamics at work. For example, in their rebellion against traditional norms and expectations, and their desire to signal their subcultural alignment, progressives are more likely to make personal-appearance choices that could undermine their ability to land a mate.

Purple hair with an unconventional cut may be boldly expressive, but it comes at some unquantifiable price in the dating marketplace. The steepest price probably comes from septum-piercing — nose-rings that stray far from adornment and into outright self-vandalism. Science backs the idea that such piercings are bad for one’s love life: A study published by European Psychologist found that both women and men with facial piercings were perceived as not only less physically attractive but also less intelligent.

That’s not all. Leftists are also far more likely to limit their dating pool by excluding people with differing political views: Among self-identified “very liberal” people, only 13% are willing to date conservatives. Putting that into perspective, 29% of them are willing to date an ex-felon. On the other hand, very conservative Americans are nearly twice as willing to date their political opposites.

When looking to the political future, it’s often said that “demographics are destiny.” For the most part, progressives have employed the axiom with a swaggering confidence in their inevitable triumph, while conservatives have used it with a tone of grim resignation. Given the reproductive realities, we may soon see a rhetorical role reversal.

STARK REALITIES: Invigoratingly Unorthodox Perspectives For Intellectually Honest Readers 

Sign up and join thousands of free subscribers who benefit from monthly, ad-free insights 

* * *

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 21:45

Democratic Louisiana Mayor Indicted For Using City Funds To Solicit Prostitute, Pay Off Personal Legal Debts

Democratic Louisiana Mayor Indicted For Using City Funds To Solicit Prostitute, Pay Off Personal Legal Debts

A Washington Parish grand jury in Louisiana has indicted Democratic Bogalusa, Louisiana Mayor Tyrin Z. Truong on charges of malfeasance in office, public intimidation, and theft, according to the Bogalusa Daily News.

The indictment is part of what officials describe as an ongoing multi-agency investigation involving federal, state, and local authorities. Prosecutors allege Truong intentionally carried out his official duties unlawfully and knowingly allowed other city employees to ignore theirs. His arraignment is scheduled for November 10, 2025.

According to prosecutors, the case centers on claims that Truong misused Bogalusa taxpayer funds to pay a personal legal debt from a 2023 Louisiana public records lawsuit in which a judge ruled that Truong personally owed attorney fees and penalties after refusing to release public documents.

When the Bogalusa City Council denied his request to use public money, prosecutors say Truong threatened retaliation, vowing to overwhelm council members with records requests. Investigators allege he then pressured a city insurance vendor to issue a check labeled as a “reimbursement,” had it deposited into a city account, and ordered another check for the same amount to be written to himself.

The Daily News writes that the indictment details additional alleged misconduct, including accepting unauthorized salary and leave payments, forcing a city contractor to pay another contractor who did no work, purchasing illegal narcotics from known drug dealers and failing to report the activity, attempting to solicit a bribe from a local business — a move that allegedly cost the city a major development project — and ordering city workers to perform plumbing repairs at his mother’s home using city materials.

Prosecutors also accuse Truong of using city funds to solicit a prostitute at an Airbnb in Atlanta.

The charges follow Truong’s January 2025 arrest by the Louisiana State Police during a drug-trafficking investigation. At the time, State Police said Truong “organized entertainment with a prostitute” during a mayors’ conference in Atlanta and paid for the Airbnb using public funds, while also being accused of purchasing drugs in Louisiana. Investigators allege a Bogalusa-based drug ring was selling opioids, high-grade marijuana, THC products, and MDMA, with profits used to purchase firearms later connected to local crimes.

Sims emphasized that the probe continues and involves cooperation from multiple agencies. He said, “This case reflects the ongoing commitment to ensuring accountability and integrity in public office.” Truong remains presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/03/2025 - 21:20

Pages