Individual Economists

Is Walking Away From Ukraine The Best Option For Trump And The US?

Zero Hedge -

Is Walking Away From Ukraine The Best Option For Trump And The US?

This week Vice President JD Vance reiterated the Trump Administration's position that "walking away from Ukraine" and the peace negotiations after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded that Crimea be "liberated" as part of the terms.  Zelensky argued that the "war against the entire free Europe" began with Crimea and must end with the return of Crimea. 

Vance's frustration with Zelensky is understandable. As he noted, Ukraine is in no position to demand anything given their precarious position on the battlefield.  Russia's attrition tactics have been highly effective in countering western arms and intel support on the eastern front while also whittling down Ukrainian troop strength.  They have also retaken almost all of the gains made by Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region while they amass troops to take Sumy to the south. 

Furthermore, Vladimir Putin's latest missile salvo on Kyiv proves that the Kremlin has actually been holding back, and heavy bombardment of the capital is entirely possible.  Ukraine does not have the ability to defend against such an attack should it occur.

At bottom, Ukraine has no options.  They need to settle now, give up the Donbas and Crimea, or lose everything.  A deal would probably have been secured by now if it weren't for interference from the European establishment.

The Europeans have once again organized a peace talks event, this time in London, as a means to make the situation about them rather than make it about achieving a legitimate end to the war.  Russia is, yet again, not included in the talks which makes the event nothing more than irrelevant pomp for the media.  This is likely the real reason why Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cancelled his attendance at the meeting and the European elites are left to jabber in their echo chamber.  Nothing is going to be accomplished anyway.

 

European political leaders seem intent on keeping the war going for as long as possible while threatening to deploy troops to Ukraine and escalate the conflict, possibly triggering WWIII.  The ongoing narrative is that Ukraine is the "first domino" in a series of dominoes that could come crashing down across Europe if the Russians are allowed any form of victory.  In other words, it's the Vietnam argument all over again - If the Russians get the Donbas, then they will want all of Ukraine, and then they will want all of Europe and the world.

The economic and military weakness shown by European governments in the past year might very well tempt such an invasion, but it's highly unlikely that Russia is interested nor has Putin ever made such a threat.  

The greater question is, should the US remain involved?  Are JD Vance and Trump correct in their position that walking away might be the superior option?  Or is this simply a negotiation tactic to force Ukraine to accept a realistic settlement?

It's clear that no matter what the US does the Europeans are going to do everything in their power to sabotage a formal peace agreement.  It was Europe (Boris Johnson and others) that reportedly convinced Zelensky to avoid diplomatic options and continue fighting.  Ukraine's leverage has degraded to nothing since then and it's impossible to know for now how many tens-of-thousands (or hundreds-of-thousands) have died.  It's Europe that is currently giving Zelensky false hope that troop deployments are coming and that they will make a difference in the end.

Ukraine is never getting the Donbas back and there is no scenario in which military victory is viable, for Europe or Ukraine.  But, if the goal is to start a World War, then it makes sense to continue pushing for liberation of Russian holdings like Crimea.  Trump is continually criticized for pointing out the obvious: That Ukraine has lost the war and needs to make concessions.  Peace negotiations must take the facts on the ground into account. 

In any case, the US avoiding involvement sounds like the smart option.  Unless Trump can find a way to keep European interference out of the equation there is little hope for an end to the fighting.  On the bright side, reopening talks with Russia could help ease the greater global instability that is simmering.  And, leaving Ukraine to their own devices for a time might help them to realize European globalists do not have their best interests at heart.  Then again, not being involved means those same globalists will have free rein to influence the war as they please.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 10:30

Dutch King Says Country Must Prepare For War, Pushes For Drone Development

Zero Hedge -

Dutch King Says Country Must Prepare For War, Pushes For Drone Development

Via Remix News,

As EU leaders rally for a prolonged conflict in Ukraine and push the idea of a European military no longer dependent on America, the Netherlands’ monarch has joined the chorus. 

“We may have taken it a bit too much for granted that we would always have freedom and peace,” King Willem-Alexander said at the Lieutenant General Best Barracks, writes De Telegraaf

“Unfortunately, Ukraine and other conflicts prove that this is no longer the case. And that we really have to prepare ourselves to continue living in peace and security. If you are not prepared, then you are not doing well,” he said.

Such a rearmament means the Netherlands must rebuild its defense industry, the monarch continued, adding, “It really needs to be able to start producing for a conflict again.”

The country, he said, must “arm itself to the teeth” to remain safe.

Following talks with military personnel and weapons manufacturers, the country will focus on producing better drones to take on enemy drones, given their dominance on the battlefield. Of key concern is making drones capable of say, securing the upcoming June NATO summit at The Hague

King Willem-Alexander himself served in the military, and as a reservist for the Air Force held the title of air commodore. 

He also was a commodore as a reservist in the navy and a brigadier general as a reservist in the army. 

After testing out a Dutch-made drone Ukraine used to detect mines, the king explained: “The operator must also be able to do very complicated work,” like mapping a minefield.

Soldiers also demonstrated weapons capable of disrupting the operation of a drone to take it out of the air, including taking over its controls, although even the king was not told how this is done.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 09:55

Massive Explosion Rocks Port On Strait Of Hormuz

Zero Hedge -

Massive Explosion Rocks Port On Strait Of Hormuz

At least 500 people were injured after a massive explosion rocked Iran's largest and most strategically significant maritime hub in the southern Hormozgan Province on the Strait of Hormuz. 

Iranian state media outlet Tasnim reported that the blast occurred on Saturday at the Shahid Rajaee Port. The outlet said, "The port remains in a state of chaos," and many buildings have been destroyed. 

Tasnim reported that a fuel tank had "exploded for an unknown reason," and port operations had been shuttered. A report from the state media outlet IRIB stated that the explosion occurred in the port's chemical and sulfur area. 

Designated as a Special Economic Zone, Shahid Rajaee Port handles about 85% of Iran's total port cargo operations. Its annual capacity is about 70 million tons, including 6 million TEUs of containerized cargo. The port spans 2,400 hectares and features 40 berths and 19 hectares of warehouses.

The port also serves as a critical node for Iran's oil exports, equipped with docks that can accommodate large tankers. These facilities enable the annual export of around 34 million tons of oil products, including gasoline, naphtha, gas condensate, marine fuel, and mazut. 

At the same time, Iran and U.S. officials began the third round of negotiations in Oman's capital of Muscat about the fate of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Here's more color on the second round.

The negotiations aim to suppress Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. lifting some economic sanctions it has imposed on the Islamic Republic. 

President Trump has threatened to launch airstrikes targeting Iran's critical infrastructure if a deal is not reached. 

Last month, the U.S. began deploying stealth bombers to Diego Garcia—often referred to as Washington's "unsinkable aircraft carrier"—located between Africa and Indonesia, about 1,000 miles south of India. The island serves as a critical launch point for stealth bombers in the event of a war with Iran. Staging the bombers on the island, well within striking distance, has made Tehran deeply uncomfortable.

Let's take a step back to an October op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, penned by David Asher—a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former U.S. State Department official who worked on counterterrorism operations in the Middle East—who advocated for neutering the Iranian regime's "oil-export capacity to deprive the regime of its financial lifeblood." 

Any event on the critical maritime chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz—such as an explosion at a major port—could spark uncertainty among energy traders and push Brent crude futures higher on Sunday evening.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 09:20

Trump Unleashes More Anger, Frustration At Zelensky For Not Signing Rare Earths Deal

Zero Hedge -

Trump Unleashes More Anger, Frustration At Zelensky For Not Signing Rare Earths Deal

On Friday there's been more public, out in the open tension on display between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump once again chastised the Ukrainian leader for apparently refusing to sign the controversial rare earths deal

US administration officials had last week previewed that they expected it to be signed this week, which generated many anticipatory headlines, but there's as yet nothing to show for it, and the reports proved premature.

"Ukraine, headed by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has not signed the final papers on the very important Rare Earths Deal with the United States. It is at least three weeks late," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Getty Images

The statement was issued while he was en route to Rome aboard Air Force One for the pope's funeral. Trump emphasized, "Hopefully, it will be signed IMMEDIATELY."

"Work on the overall Peace Deal between Russia and Ukraine is going smoothly. SUCCESS seems to be in the future," Trump added.

Ukraine has been hoping that agreeing with the deal would allow it to secure more specific and lasting security guarantees in the face of the Russian threat. Washington has so far agreed that the country should be able to forcibly defend itself if Moscow violates any future peace pact.

But clearly this week's sparring between Kiev and Washington over Crimea has helped further deal a minerals deal. The White House wants Ukraine to be ready to give up Crimea permanently, and is ready to recognize Russian sovereignty over it.

However, Zelensky reiterated to reporters on Friday, "Our position is unchanged. The constitution of Ukraine says that all the temporarily occupied territories... belong to Ukraine."

To review, Ukraine says that some 5% of the world's "critical raw materials" are in the country. They include:

...some 19m tonnes of proven reserves of graphite, which the Ukrainian Geological Survey state agency says makes the nation "one of the top five leading countries" for the supply of the mineral. Graphite is used to make batteries for electric vehicles.

Ukraine has 7% of Europe's supplies of titanium, a lightweight metal used in the construction of everything from aeroplanes to power stations.

It is also home to a third of all European lithium deposits, the key component in current batteries.

Other elements found in Ukraine include beryllium and uranium, which are both crucial for nuclear weapons and reactors.

Deposits of copperleadzincsilvernickelcobalt and manganese are also significant.

Trump's impatience could also stem from the fact that a little over a week ago Ukraine signed a memorandum of intent, paving the way for an "economic partnership agreement" with the US. But apparently not much has happened since then, and the White House fears Kiev is just stalling.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 08:45

US Eyes Nuclear Power Deal With Armenia

Zero Hedge -

US Eyes Nuclear Power Deal With Armenia

Via Eurasianet.org,

  • The US Embassy in Armenia has indicated that the United States is working to secure a deal for Westinghouse Nuclear to build Armenia’s next nuclear reactor.

  • Armenia is seeking to replace its aging Metsamor nuclear facility and has been exploring expanded civil nuclear energy cooperation with the United States since mid-2024.

  • Russia’s Rosatom, which currently operates the Metsamor facility, is likely to compete with Westinghouse for the contract to build Armenia's next nuclear plant.

A somewhat cryptic social media post by the US Embassy in Armenia indicates the United States is maneuvering to build the Caucasus state’s next nuclear reactor.

The awkwardly phrased information snippet appearing on the embassy’s official Facebook and Twitter (X) pages April 22 states Ambassador Kristina Kvien “met Westinghouse to discuss Armenia’s nuclear energy sector,” adding only that “U.S. companies have deep expertise and innovative technology that will benefit both Armenia and the United States.”

A photo of the smiling ambassador posing with four unidentified, suit-clad individuals, apparently Westinghouse executives, accompanies the brief text.

No other information has been disclosed about the Westinghouse delegation’s visit, including how long company executives were in Armenia, who they met with besides the ambassador and the outcome of any discussions with Armenian political and business leaders.

What is known is that Armenia is interested in replacing its aging Metsamor nuclear facility, which recently underwent refurbishment to extend its lifecycle until 2036. What is also known is that Westinghouse Nuclear has developed a “Gen III+ AP1000” reactor, featuring a “compact footprint” and modular design that, in the company’s words, “has set the new industry standard for PWR [pressurized water reactors] thanks to our simplified, innovative, and effective approach to safety.”

Armenia and the United States have been exploring ways to expand civil nuclear energy cooperation since mid-2024. As part of a strategic partnership agreement signed in January during the final days of the Biden administration, the two countries agreed to negotiate what is known as a 123 agreement, which would allow for the transfer of nuclear technologies from the United States to Armenia.

Whether Westinghouse Nuclear ultimately gets the contract to build a nuclear plant in Armenia remains anyone’s guess. Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear agency, operates the Metsamor facility and the Kremlin is unlikely to surrender a lucrative business opportunity to build Metsamor’s replacement without a fight.

Armenia has deemphasized the country’s historically strong relationship with Russia and has cultivated closer economic and political ties with the US and European Union since Yerevan’s defeat in the Second Karabakh War in 2023. Armenian officials blame the Kremlin for Karabakh’s loss, saying Moscow failed to uphold security commitments to maintain Armenian sovereignty. In recent weeks, however, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government has softened its stance toward Russia, apparently hoping that Moscow’s influence can prove useful in getting Azerbaijan to sign a peace treaty with Armenia.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 08:10

Soldiers Deny Former Defense Minister's Claim That Israel Faked Gaza Tunnel Photo To Delay Hostage Deal

Zero Hedge -

Soldiers Deny Former Defense Minister's Claim That Israel Faked Gaza Tunnel Photo To Delay Hostage Deal

The Israeli government deliberately misrepresented the nature of a tunnel in Gaza's Philadelphi Corridor to derail a hostage deal with Hamas, according to a former Israeli defense minister in an interview aired by an Israeli public television network. While two soldiers who claim to have seen the tunnel say he's wrong, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have not yet  issued a public denial.   

The alleged deception happened last August, amid massive protests by Israeli citizens pressing the Israeli government to make a deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. At the time, the status of the Philadelphi Corridor -- a 100-meter-wide strip running 14 miles along Gaza's border with Egypt -- was a major obstruction to a hostage deal. (The corridor is a geopolitically important buffer zone that figures in security agreements between Israel and Egypt.) Hamas was demanding a withdrawal of IDF forces from the strip as a condition of a hostage release, while Netanyahu insisted the IDF would continue operating in it.

Last August, the Israeli Defense Forces distributed this photo and claimed it depicted a Hamas smuggling tunnel along Gaza's Egyptian border (IDF Spokesperson's Unit)

It was against that backdrop that the IDF released a photo that was supposed to show a Hamas tunnel in the Philadelphi Corridor used to smuggle weapons from Egypt. Israeli-government-sympathetic news outlets and pro-Israel organizations inside the United States seized upon the narrative to defend Netanyahu's deal-precluding insistence on keeping troops in the corridor. The Times of Israel trumpeted the discovery of an "unusually large smuggling tunnel." The Israel-catering Foundation for Defense of Democracies said the tunnel was "further evidence of the underground empire of terror that Hamas assembled in southern Gaza. This is important work and should continue." 

This week, however, Israeli public television network Kan 11 reported that the Israeli government purposefully deceived Israeli citizens and the rest of the world, dressing up a mere water channel as a supposed Hamas tunnel. “There was never a tunnel, but a canal covered in dirt,” said the report. The scheme's purpose "was to exaggerate the importance of the Philadelphi Corridor and delay a hostage deal." 

The supposed smuggling tunnel viewed from a different angle (Telegram via Haaretz)

The source of the accusation is a former member of Netanyahu's government: Yoav Gallant, who was defense minister from 2022 until Netanyahu fired him in November 2024. Speaking about the photo this week, he told Kan 11

"What the public cannot see is that this channel is not 30 meters underground, but just one meter underground. It is a covered water conduitIt was not a tunnel, but rather an attempt to prevent a ceasefire agreement...Someone took the picture, and a big fuss was made about it, a lot of headlines... weapons did not pass beneath the Philadelphi corridor."

Gallant has been one of Israel's foremost hostage-deal advocates and a Netanyahu critic. In September, sources said Gallant confronted Netanyahu in a contentious evening security cabinet meeting. "The decision made Thursday [to refuse to withdraw from the corridor] was reached under the assumption that there is time, but if we want the hostages alive, there’s no time,” he reportedly said. "The fact that we prioritize the Philadelphi corridor at the cost of the lives of the hostages is a serious moral disgrace." Netanyahu was said to have countered with the questionable claim that, if the IDF left the corridor, "the hostages will be taken to Sinai, and then to Iran." 

Ahead of the airing of the Kan 11 report, two IDF soldiers said Gallant's claims are false. "This famous photo is a photo of my battalion commander here in a Hummer entering a very significant tunnel, not some small tunnel as you published," said Yehuda Bartov, a reserve soldier from the 605th Engineering Battalion. Their assertions were reported by Arutz Sheva, a network associated with the settler movement and extremist Religious Zionism party -- the latter of which is part of Netanyahu's ruling coalition. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 07:35

Europe's Anti-American Shift: Now Globalists Are The Saviors Of The West?

Zero Hedge -

Europe's Anti-American Shift: Now Globalists Are The Saviors Of The West?

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Nationalism is villainous and globalists are the heroes? It’s a propaganda message that has been building since the end of World War II and the creation of globalist institutions like the UN, the IMF, World Banks, etc. By the 1970s there was a concerted and dangerous agenda to acclimate the western world to interdependency; not just dependency on imports and exports, but dependency of currency trading, treasury purchases and interbank wealth transfer systems like SWIFT.

This was the era when corporations began outsourcing western manufacturing to third world countries. This is when the dollar was fully decoupled from gold. When the IMF introduced the SDR basket system. When the decade long stagflationary crisis began.

This was when the World Economic Forum was founded. The Club of Rome and their climate change agenda. When numerous globalists started talking within elitist publications and white papers talking about a one world economy and a one world government (under their control, of course). By the 1990s everything was essentially out in the open and the plan was clear:

Their intention was to destroy national sovereignty and bring in an age of total global centralization. One of the most revealing quotes on the plan comes from Clinton Administration Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, who stated in Time magazine in 1992 that:

In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority… National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

He adds in the same article:

“…The free world formed multilateral financial institutions that depend on member states’ willingness to give up a degree of sovereignty. The International Monetary Fund can virtually dictate fiscal policies, even including how much tax a government should levy on its citizens. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulates how much duty a nation can charge on imports. These organizations can be seen as the protoministries of trade, finance and development for a united world.”

The globalists use international trade controls as a way to ensnare competing economies, forcing them to become homogeneous. They take away the self reliance of nations and pressure them to conform to global trade standards. It’s important to understand that they view centralized dominance of trade as a primary tool for eventually obtaining their new world order.

The idea of a country going off the plantation and initiating unilateral tariffs is unheard of. The notion of countries producing their own necessities is absurd. As least, until 2025.

One of the most humorous and bewildering side effects of the Trump Administration’s policy rollout is the scramble by the political left (especially in Europe) to portray themselves as “rebel heroes fighting for freedom” in the face of a supposedly tyrannical dictatorship. Of course, these are globalists and cultural Marxists we’re dealing with, so their definitions of “freedom” and “tyranny” are going to be irreparably skewed.

The EU elites have truly lost the plot when it comes to their message on “democracy”. Today, many European nations are spiraling into classical authoritarianism, yet they’re pretending as if they’re in a desperate fight for freedom.

I’ve heard it said that authoritarianism is the pathology of recognition. One could also say that it’s the pathology of affirmation – It’s not enough for the offending movement to be recognized as dominant, the population must embrace it, joyfully, as if it is the only thing they care about. This is the underlying goal of globalism: To force the masses to love it like a religion.

But to be loved by the people, they have to believe that globalism is their savior. They have to believe that globalists are somehow saving the world. Enter the new world order theater brought to us by The Economist. The magazine, partially owned by the Rothschild family, has long been a propaganda hub for globalism. They recently published an article titled ‘The Thing About Europe: It’s The Actual Land Of The Free Now’.

Yes, this is laughable given the fact that many European governments are currently hunting down and jailing people for online dissent. Mass open immigration is suffocating western culture on the continent. Violent crime is skyrocketing. Not to mention, the new trend among EU governments is to arrest right leaning political opponents to stop them from winning elections.

Hell, in Europe you can be arrested for silently praying within the vicinity of an abortion clinic. We all understand how absurd The Economist’s claims are. Their argument boils down to this:  If it hurts globalism, it’s a threat to democracy.  That’s the tall tale being formulated in the media today.

The Trump Administration instituting “America First” policies is being called authoritarian by the elites because these things interfere with THEIR agenda, not because Americans are being oppressed.

In many ways the European shift in rhetoric is merely a reflection of the long running globalist strategy: To rewrite nationalists as agents of chaos and paint the internationalists as defenders of order.

In a recent interview with the German news platform Dei Zeit Online, EU President Ursula von der Leyen took the disinformation even further with her claim that there “Is no oligarchy in Europe”. In other words, European leaders are innocent victims under attack by the rich and dastardly nationalists. Frankly, this is news to most of us because the EU government has long been considered the very definition of faceless and unaccountable oligarchy. She argues:

…History is back, and so are geopolitics. And we see that what we had perceived as a world order is becoming a world disorder, triggered not least by the power struggle between China and the United States, but of course also by Putin’s imperialist ambitions. That is why we need another, new European Union that is ready to go out into the big wide world and to play a very active role in shaping this new world order that is coming.”

Notice the attempt to paint Europe as the virtuous bystander caught up in the geopolitical turmoil of the US, China and Russia. No mention of their ongoing roll in fomenting a wider war in Ukraine, their interference with peace negotiations or the fact that globalism has made them dependent on energy imports for their very survival. This isn’t a lack of awareness, this is carefully crafted propaganda. The EU President continues:

The readiness of all 27 Member States to strengthen our common defense industry would have been inconceivable without the developments of recent weeks and months. The same applies to the economy. Everyone wants to emulate our common plan for greater competitiveness, because everyone has understood: We need to stand firm in today’s globalized world…”

The EU has been peddling the idea of a unified European army for some time. It makes sense – In order to erase national boundaries even further in Europe, a singular defense structure would have to be established. They’re simply using the war in Ukraine and America’s economic decoupling as an excuse. She continues:

For me, it is crucial that Europe plays a strong role in shaping the new world order that is slowly emerging. And I firmly believe that Europe can do that. Let’s look back at the last decade: the banking crisis, migration crisis, Brexit, pandemic, energy crisis, Russia’s war against Ukraine. All these are serious crises that have really challenged us, but Europe has emerged bigger and stronger from every crisis…”

Economically, socially, spiritually, culturally, the continent is in a death spiral. No one wants to fight for what Europe is today, including the millions of third world immigrants they’ve invited in. If they do try to institute a centralized military they will have to turn to forced conscription, which means even more tyranny. In terms of the economy she states:

The West as we knew it no longer exists. The world has become a globe also geopolitically, and today our networks of friendship span the globe…”

Everyone is asking for more trade with Europe – and it’s not just about economic ties. It is also about establishing common rules and it is about predictability. Europe is known for its predictability and reliability, which is once again starting to be seen as something very valuable. On the one hand, this is very gratifying; on the other hand, there is also of course a huge responsibility that we have to live up to…”

The US makes up 30%-35% of all global consumer spending and is the largest consumer market in the world. There are no clear numbers for the whole of Europe, but Germany, Europe’s largest economy makes up only 3% of global consumer spending. Germany is also the third largest economy in the world next to China. In other words, Europe has NO capacity whatsoever to fill the void in trade left behind by the US. If the US economy detaches from Europe, or if the US economy crashes, Europe would crash also. This is a fact.

Von der Leyen then dismisses the role of globalism in driving populist movements against the EU. She claims:

There is one thing we should not underestimate: the polarisation is, in part, heavily orchestrated from outside. Via social media, Russia as well as other autocratic states are deliberately interfering in our society…”

Views on both sides are being amplified because the real goal is to polarize and divide our open societies. But the European Union also has a big advantage. Inequalities are less pronounced here, in part because we have a social market economy and because the levers of power are more widely distributed.”

Russia is to blame for millions of Europeans wanting an end to globalist multicultural policies? Taking a rather Marxist stance, she asserts that populist divisions must be artificial because Europe is economically “equitable”. But the populists are not fighting for economic parity, they’re fighting for European identity which is being systematically erased.

Finally, she comes to the issue of oligarchy:

Europe is still a peace project. We don’t have bros or oligarchs making the rules. We don’t invade our neighbors, and we don’t punish them…”

Controversial debates are allowed at our universities. This and more are all values that must be defended, and which show that Europe is more than a union. Europe is our home.”

The EU government is a pure oligarchy with near zero accountability and it is actively trying to suppress and destroy any national party with conservative views. They support silencing any dissent among the peasants, only allowing for debate behind the closed doors of academia because they know academics police their own. The more a society moves towards globalism the less free it’s going to be.

I see this messaging as a kind of crude rough draft for the theatrics to come. They haven’t fine-tuned their story yet, but they have the fundamental pieces in place. The allegation is that national sovereignty is a threat to “democracy”; not freedom, but democracy. And the globalist notion of democracy is progressive rulership in the name of a subjective greater good that they can’t really define.

I feel sympathy for the common European, many of them are hungry for a free society built on traditional western principles. It’s a future that will never materialize, at least not without revolution. These people are at the epicenter of the death of the western world and many of them don’t even know it. In the meantime they’re being told that America is ruining them. I can’t speak for everyone, but many of us would like to save them. The fall of the west to globalism cannot be allowed to continue.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/26/2025 - 07:00

10 Weekend Reads

The Big Picture -

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Colombia Tolima Los Brasiles Peaberry Organic coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

America Underestimates the Difficulty of Bringing Manufacturing Back: The 14 Reasons Why these Tariffs Will Not Bring Manufacturing Back. (Molson Hart)

How a Funeral Director Brought Wind Power to Rural Missouri: Every year for nearly two decades, the small city of Rock Port has been producing more electricity from wind energy than it needs. (New York Times)

‘It’s Disneyland for preppers’: why apocalypse-minded shoppers go to Costco. A doomsday meal bucket drew attention to something end-timers have known forever: the bulk store is the perfect place for stockpiling. (The Guardian)

The Stock Market’s Casino Problem: Casinos have long known a simple truth: if you want people to gamble more, just add a subtle unpredictability. Just enough to keep people guessing. Make the lights flash. Add a few near-misses. Let them win once in a while so they feel like they’re on the edge of something big. (Safal Niveshak

4chan Is Dead. Its Toxic Legacy Is Everywhere: It’s likely that there will never be a site like 4chan again. But everything now—from X and YouTube to global politics—seems to carry its toxic legacy. (Wired)

Meet the KGB Spies Who Invented Fake News: We reveal how one of the biggest fake news stories ever concocted — the 1984 AIDS-is-a-biological-weapon hoax — went viral in the pre-Internet era. Meet the KGB cons who invented it, and the “truth squad” that quashed it. For a bit. (New York Times)

The pundit’s dilemma: Conservative industrialists, however, are facing a much harder dilemma right now. Biden’s industrial policy was a mixed bag, with more successes than failures. But Trump’s tariff policy is a giant flaming disaster. The dollar is down, as investors flee American bonds, putting the country’s whole financial stability in danger. Forecasts for the real economy are getting more pessimistic by the day. Stocks are down yet again. Here’s a representative headline. (Noahpinion) see also An Autopsy of American Exceptionalism: The strange thing about this turmoil was that much of it was predicated on falsehoods. I remember specifically combatting many of the narratives following the Financial Crisis. While I disagreed with policies like QE and the bank bailouts I also thought that the fear mongering around these ideas was misplaced. The common narrative was that these policies would cause hyperinflation, but as we now know QE did nothing of the sort. That policy has since been thrown in the dustbin and I am proud to have consulted on legislation banning its use and also helping to create a more automated interest rate policy at the Federal Reserve. But its impact lingers to this day. (Pragmatic Capitalism)

• The Architect: Behind Trump’s imperial presidency (and Elon), there’s Russell Vought. The Trump loyalist who’d just been named director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as well as acting director of the CFPB. A self-described “boring budget guy,” he’s best known for co-authoring the 900-page policy playbook of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which has become something of a bible for Trump’s second term. Vought’s think tank, the Center for Renewing America, has produced numerous policy papers that advocate for such Trump fixations as the annexation of Greenland (“a prudent aim,” according to a CRA paper) and enacting broad tariffs (“just as sometimes a nation must go to war with guns and bombs, so sometimes are trade wars necessary”), among others. At the center of Vought’s ideology is the unitary executive theory, which critics say amounts to an argument that Trump should have wide latitude to do whatever he wants. • The Real Mastermind Behind Trump’s Imperial Presidency (Bloomberg)

Why Is Everyone Getting Their Tattoos Removed? For decades, Americans were covering their bodies with more and more tattoos. Now, they’re getting them removed as fast as they can. We speak with the patients going under the laser, the tattoo-removal technicians whose business is booming, and the tattoo artists whose work is being erased to understand how something so permanent became so ephemeral. (GQ)

37 takeaways from 200 hours with Bach: “Year of Bach” snowballed from a tired bit of shtick I shared with my son on a drive to Trader Joe’s, Christmas Eve 2023. It grew into hundreds of hours of rewarding listening and writing. Here are 37 takeaways from my survey of the complete works of J.S. Bach: (Year of Bach)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this week with Jeff Becker, Chairman and CEO of Jennison Associates (a division of PGIM). The firm was founded in 1969. Prior to joining Jennison in 2016 as CEO, Becker was CEO of Voya Investment Management.

Technology developments over time vs population

Source: Haim Israel, Merrill Lynch Thematic Investing

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

All Quiet On The Western Ports... Is This The Calm Before The Trade War Storm?

Zero Hedge -

All Quiet On The Western Ports... Is This The Calm Before The Trade War Storm?

All is quiet on the American front as the week comes to a close, even as Korea JoongAng Daily reports that a high-ranking Chinese trade official from the Ministry of Finance was spotted at the U.S. Treasury Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. earlier today. The meeting between Chinese and U.S. officials comes on the eve of a trade war shock now ripping across the Pacific, with the Port of Los Angeles set to be the first hit. High-frequency data suggests the impact will begin at some point next week and intensify with each passing week.

On the eve of a trade war shock, data from Port Optimizer—a tracking system used by vessel operators—shows that scheduled import volumes into the Port of Los Angeles are set to begin plunging next week and could collapse by mid-month.

Goldman analyst Jacob Malmstrom has a few charts for us to end the week:

Geopolitical tensions easing leading markets higher for the week but where the effective tariff rate currently is the highest it's been in 100 years.

With globalisation the trade growth has grown substantially in the last 60 year but looking at current U.S. imports from Europe they have hovered around 15% in recent decades.

World trade growth has increased dramatically in the period of globalisation

In markets, Malmstrom warned:

Difficult to come up with a fundamental bull-case from here longer term. Still need to see any of these four conditions met for a sustainable recovery: 1) Attractive valuations ,2) Extreme positioning easing, 3) Policy Support, 4) Sense that the second derivative of growth is improving. When looking at valuations in the U.S. they look more justified when comparing to ROE. Banks sold-off in the beginning of the year but has rebounded whereas Mega-cap tech has continued its decline. Finally earnings so far has been in-line with the historical average. 

Our coverage details the events that have unfolded this month in trigger the trade war shock—one that's already hitting China and is now set to wash ashore momentarily in the U.S.: 

High-frequency data from the Port of Los Angeles suggests a substantial impact on Chinese exports to the U.S. will begin next week, mainly due to the lag between factory shutdowns or halted shipments in China—triggered by the 145% tariffs—and the time it takes for containerized freight to cross the Pacific on massive cargo ships.

The bulleted list above outlines what might come next: downward pressure across the trucking industry in Southern California and the Empire Inland warehouse district. As Goldman noted earlier, inventories for many companies are in the 2–3 month range but could be depleted quickly if panic buying sets in once consumers become aware of Port of Los Angeles disruptions. There could even be a short-term spike in inflation this summer, though it would likely prove transitory. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 23:34

Is DOGE Creating A "Master Database" To Track And Deport Illegals?

Zero Hedge -

Is DOGE Creating A "Master Database" To Track And Deport Illegals?

The Trump Administration's efforts to finally put controls on the illegal immigration crisis made a substantial impact, but many conservatives feel the process is still not moving fast enough.  ICE has arrested and deported an estimated 100,000 -150,000 illegals in the past four months.  This is a far cry from the President's call for 1 million deportations in 2025. 

The true success story has been the southern border - Illegal crossing have plummeted 95% since 2024 and many migrants have chosen to self deport rather than be arrested.  Border encounters are currently at 8000 per month, which Border Patrol officials say is the lowest number since records began in the year 2000 and might be the lowest since 1968.

The true scale of self-deportations, however, is not clear.  This leaves an estimated 17 million illegals still in the US (probably more given Biden's border blitzkrieg since 2021).  A vast majority of these people reside in Democrat run sanctuary states and sanctuary cities where welfare programs are plentiful and protection from federal authorities is assumed.  Without state and federal coordination the ability of the White House to achieve 1 million deportations per year is limited.  

That said, rumors are swirling that Elon Musk and DOGE are building a "Master Database" to track and remove migrants from the country using correlated data obtained from multiple agencies from the IRS to the Health Department to Social Security and beyond.  CNN recently claimed they have multiple sources familiar with the plans, though these sources are not named.    

“If they are designing a deportation machine, they will be able to do that,” a former senior IRS employee with knowledge of the plans told CNN.

The database would also make it easier for the Trump Administration to block illegals from access to public housing and other public programs, which would take away incentives and compel migrants to exit the country.

The idea of data tracking for illegals seems to have a number of Democrats worried.  Democratic lawmakers have slammed the plan, claiming DOGE is “rapidly, haphazardly, and unlawfully” exploiting Americans’ personal data.  But the concept of mass tracking of citizens (rather than illegal migrants) didn't bother Democrats during the pandemic scare.  They fought for years to create a database to track the vaccination status of all Americans.  Why are they suddenly bothered by the notion of a database to track people that are in the country illegally?

It's obvious that the open border policies of the Biden Administration were at least partially intended to secure a voting majority in the near future; expanding the Democrat base by paying off illegal migrants with government subsidies and eventual amnesty.  A number of blue cities and counties have tried to institute voting rights for illegal residents, despite the fact that the media calls immigrant voting a "conspiracy theory".  By extension, the mere presence of millions of illegals in blue states adds to their census numbers, which then translates to more seats in Congress.  

Remove the illegals efficiently and in large enough numbers and the Democratic Party loses leverage in the House.  Is this the reason why activist judges have been obstructing DOGE access to agency data at nearly every turn?  

One could make a case for a "slippery slope" if data collected on a meta-scale was used against legal US citizens (as if this has not already been happening); we all saw how Democrats pushed for such a precedent during Covid and the results would have been disastrous had they gotten what they wanted.  But it's hard to make a case for similar privacy protections for migrants who have broken the law and are, by every measure, foreign invaders.  

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 21:45

Trump: Israel Won't Drag Us Into War With Iran 'But I'll Lead The Pack' If No Deal Made

Zero Hedge -

Trump: Israel Won't Drag Us Into War With Iran 'But I'll Lead The Pack' If No Deal Made

Iran's top diplomat Abbas Araghchi is in Oman preparing for the next round of nuclear talks with the United States, which will mark the third direct engagement, after President Trump just made an unexpected overture. Trump in a newly published Time interview says he is open to meeting Iran’s supreme leader or president, as the two sides have made clear they are open to achieving peace on the question of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

"I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran," Trump said to Time. The US president was then questioned over whether he is open to meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Masoud Pezeshkian, to which he responded: "Sure".

Via Associated Press

Officials involved in the Iran dialogue have presented that "very good progress" has been made. This comes after last month Trump warned that Tehran can choose inking a peace deal or possibly face American bombs. 

"Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped," Trump described in the interview. "We can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can."

There have been recent reports and fears that Prime Minister Netanyahu is seeking to drag the White House into waging preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear sites.

But Trump has said he's not worried that Israel would drag him into war. But that's when he warned that, "I may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal. If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack."

Below is the key section of the Time interview transcript regarding Israel, Iran and US policy:

You reportedly stopped Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear sites. 

Trump: That's not right. 

It’s not right?

No, it’s not right. I didn’t stop them. But I didn't make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can. It's possible we'll have to attack because Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. But I didn't make it comfortable for them, but I didn't say no. Ultimately I was going to leave that choice to them, but I said I would much prefer a deal than bombs being dropped.

Are you worried Netanyahu will drag you into a war? 

No. 

Let’s talk about some of the issues with universities—

By the way, he may go into a war. But we’re not getting dragged in. 

The U.S. will stay out of it if Israel goes into it? 

No, I didn’t say that. You asked if he’d drag me in, like I’d go in unwillingly. No, I may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal. If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack. 

We detailed before that within the administration there is an emerging divide on Iran between the hawks and those that want a peaceful resolution. It seems Trump has been favoring the doves, also given the obvious negatives of the US getting bogged down in another Middle East quagmire.

A fresh nuclear deal might also east the pressure facing US naval forces in the Red Sea, amid the ongoing anti-Houthi campaign, given the Houthis have long been considered Tehran's proxies. Better US-Iran relations could serve to silence the missiles and drones over the Red Sea.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 21:20

The Thankless Life Of Elon Musk

Zero Hedge -

The Thankless Life Of Elon Musk

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

There’s a Tesla in my neighborhood with a bumper sticker that seems to be begging people not to key the car. “I bought this car before I knew that Elon was crazy,” it says.

Elon Musk looks on during a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 24, 2025. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Fascinating message there. Is it a protest, plea, or both? The car is brilliant, obviously and the guy loves it. But these days, driving a Tesla comes with implied messaging, due entirely to Musk’s political actions.

Elite liberals were buying this car for years as a status symbol of their love of the planet. Then everything changed. Now they are experiencing something like an existential crisis. That’s because a movement has emerged among elites who have turned against it.

Then began a campaign of violence against property. Marauding gangs have attacked dealerships and vigilantes have vandalized cars and trucks all over the country. It’s revealed a point about the political left that has heretofore been only suspected: it harbors a violent streak that is alarming, even terrifying.

This idea that we are what we buy—that our purchases are not just about the products but a judgment for or against the companies that make them—seems rather new as a mass phenomenon. We saw it in the mass consumer boycott of Bud Light.

These violent actions, however, go far beyond a buyers’ boycott. No one in a free enterprise system objects to declining to buy. It’s another matter to lash out at others for their decisions.

The political actions of the CEO dragged the company into a difficult relationship with the main customers of the product. There seems to be no question that this is the reason for the dramatic fall in both sales and the company’s stock price.

EV sales otherwise seem to be on the rise, while Tesla has experienced disproportionate losses at the tail end of a very contentious election followed by the CEO’s actions that have attempted to gut the civil service.

The fall has been so stinging that Elon is stepping back from politics to focus again on bolstering his company and reputation. Certainly he seems to have become less outspoken than he was a few months back. The markets seem to have humbled him into going back to business and staying out of the political muck.

His project called DOGE will live on, and I suspect that he will ultimately be vindicated. For now, however, he is taking it on the chin. His early estimate of saving $2 trillion with cuts kept being pared back given court judgements and impossible bureaucracy. It now stands at $150 billion, much of which will be lost in litigation fees. It’s a terrible realization: if Musk could not do it, even with the full confidence of the U.S. president, can it even be done?

Ever since Musk distinguished himself as the most prominent corporate voice against lockdowns, I’ve paid careful attention to his political migration. He was a conventional corporate liberal not too long ago, say 10 years ago. His experience during COVID changed him. This was when governments around the country and the world said they and they alone would decide which companies would open and which would close. Understandably, he came to believe that civilization was under attack and swore he would do something about it.

He promised to keep his factories open even as the rest of the world was shutting down. He moved his company out of California and his corporate registrations out of Delaware in protest against what was happening. The sudden dawning of his political enlightenment mutated into a serious attack on a range of government and corporate policies that mitigate against merit in hiring and promotion. He turned on “woke”—also in part due to private family struggles that hurt him deeply.

Elon eventually put his money where his mouth was. He decided to buy a heavily censored and deeply propagandistic Twitter and turn it into the much freer X that drove forward public narratives which contributed mightily to Trump’s victory in 2024. In so doing, he fired 4 out of 5 employees in the wildly bloated staff and dramatically changed the platform to become the world’s most popular news and social media application.

Those actions earned him a great deal of influence over policy in the new administration. He was tasked with doing to the government what he had done at Twitter: clean it up, refresh it to become more effective and efficient, and bring some degree of transparency to government finance.

Musk had some success. That said, changing government is much harder than changing a private company over which you are CEO. He has had wide influence within the Trump administration, but not as much as perhaps he had hoped. He wanted budget cuts and worked within established parameters to get them, even fully gutting several terrible sources of corruption like USAID.

My judgment on his role is that Musk’s activities here have been absolutely heroic. He helped restore free speech. He has cleaned up some waste and fraud. He has streamlined some processes of government. He has set a new standard for accounting, personnel, and accounting. DOGE will go on without him.

Also, it is not generally understood how xAI or Grok broke an emergent monopoly in artificial intelligence, shattering OpenAI’s hopes for a monopoly once it let go of its non profit status. Grok made that impossible. Even now, Musk’s Grok AI engine ranks very high in all side-to-side comparisons of AI tools, and certainly excels in its user interface.

Musk is very easily the leader in autonomous driving, which could revolutionize transportation on many fronts. And he does it all with open-source technology.

I’m not a Tesla owner and I’ve written many articles with grave doubts about EVs in general. That said, I’m for consumer choice. If you think he makes a better car, great. Buy it and drive it. He has been very clear, too, that he is against all mandates, subsidies, and even patent protections, which is quite remarkable. In general, I would say that he has behaved throughout with notable scrupulosity.

Further, he threw himself into politics with the best of motives. He wanted to end censorship. He wanted to stop the corruption. He wanted to fix government finances. He has been sincere throughout and performed extraordinary deeds. He was not only not paid for his service; he has been punished financially for what he has done.

This entire episode prompts a kind of reflection on the role of public life, courage, and doing what is right. Musk truly attempted to make a difference. He was courageous. He took on huge financial risks in buying Twitter that seem to have paid off. He risked the status of all of his companies when he threw in with Trump’s campaign. He could have played it safe but chose a different path.

Why did he risk it all? Because he strongly believed it was the right thing to do. This is a beautiful thing to see in our cynical times. There is an element of tragedy in how his sacrifices have not been rewarded but rather punished.

What message does this send to the business culture at large? It says: do not stick your neck out to stand up for what is right. Instead, be more compliant and agreeable with whomever or whatever is in power. That’s the best way to protect the bottom line.

This is an unfortunate signal for business in general. It’s extremely rare that someone so accomplished in enterprise would stand up for what is right and true. He deserves the gratitude of everyone who believes in free speech and freedom generally. Arguably, his actions saved both from grave danger. He was and is paying a heavy price for doing this.

What might he have done differently? He might have some thoughts on that but the general theme is that he did the right thing when it mattered the most. I seriously doubt that he would change anything about his big decisions.

As for the bumper sticker on the Tesla that attacks Musk, it’s truly pathetic, an act of cowardice, whatever the motive. In multiple ways, he has been the benefactor of us all. Is every hero doomed to live a thankless life in these times? Maybe. But they will prevail in the end.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 20:55

RFK Jr. Teases Next Target After Artificial Dye Ban

Zero Hedge -

RFK Jr. Teases Next Target After Artificial Dye Ban

If you blinked during Tuesday’s Health and Human Services Department press conference on the agency’s plans to ban artificial dyes, you may have missed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. teasing his next target.

Kennedy announced plans to target pharmaceutical additives, signaling he is getting ready to fire his opening salvo against Big Pharma.

A reporter asked, “I'm wondering if there's any pharmaceutical additives that you'd like to eliminate?” prompting laughter from the audience.

We're gonna start on that next,” the HHS secretary replied, offering no further details on his plans.

Kennedy on Tuesday unveiled a plan to eliminate eight artificial food dyes and colorings from the U.S. food supply by the end of next year, committing to collaborate with food companies to ensure a smooth transition and remove these additives from products.

Kennedy, pioneer of the Make America Healthy Again movement, has long criticized Big Pharma, vowing to hold the industry accountable for what he calls rampant corruption and profiteering. Kennedy has accused pharmaceutical giants of manipulating federal agencies like the FDA and seeks to curb direct-to-consumer advertising that he says taints media. Kennedy also plans to scrutinize vaccine safety. He was one of the most outspoke critics of the COVID vaccine and government-instituted lockdowns.

"I just want to urge all of you, it's not the time to stop; it's the time to redouble your efforts, because we have them on the run now, and we are going to win this battle," Kennedy said. "And four years from now, we're going to have most of these products off the market, or you will know about them when you go to the grocery store."

ABC News reports:

Federal officials are taking steps to pull the authorization for two rarely used synthetic food colorings -- Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B -- within the coming months. In addition, the six other petroleum-based dyes that federal health agencies are seeking to eliminate by the end of next year are Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2.

The FDA is also taking steps to authorize four new natural color additives, officials announced Tuesday.

The plan, however, is contingent on an "understanding" with major food companies that they will voluntarily remove them to meet consumer demand, Kennedy said Tuesday.

"There's no need to have a regulation or a statute when companies are volunteering to do it," FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said. "We are going to use every tool in the toolbox to make sure this gets done to the best of our abilities."

“For the last 50 years, American children have increasingly been living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals," Makary added

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 20:30

Syrian Leader Open To Normalizing Ties With Israel Under Abraham Accords

Zero Hedge -

Syrian Leader Open To Normalizing Ties With Israel Under Abraham Accords

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

Syria’s leader Ahmed al-Sharaa has reportedly expressed openness to normalizing relations with Israel under certain circumstances, ending decades of acrimony between the two neighboring states. Sharaa reportedly discussed the matter with Rep. Cory Mills (R – FL) during his visit to Syria.

The exact terms of this offer weren’t made public, though Rep. Mills said that Sharaa also gave him a note to deliver to President Trump. Syria is keen to get international sanctions eased, and that is likely to be a top condition for such a move.

Syria’s ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has actually raised the prospect of normalizing relations with Israel before, indeed even before they successfully took over the country in December. HTS made clear that they didn’t consider Israel an enemy and would allow them to open an embassy in Damascus, as well as in Beirut (though they have not conquered Lebanon so that’s not up to them).

Via Baku Network

Israel invaded Syria more or less immediately after HTS came to power, however, and has been expanding into growing amounts of Syria’s southwest, in addition to constantly launching strikes against targets across Syria. Presumably normalization would also be conditioned on an end to Israeli attacks and occupation of Syrian soil.

That may mean it’s a non-starter from Israel’s perspective, as Israeli officials have indicated that they view a permanent control of that part of Syria as a “vital” part of their military strategy for the region.

Sharaa making such an overture by way of the US is an interesting twist on the matter, as the US has previously been pushing Israeli interests on Syria as a condition for even considering extending sanctions waivers, for instance demanding Syria ban all Palestinian groups in the country.

Syria hasn’t done that, but they did just recently arrest a couple of top Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) members in what is being call a “good faith” offer to the US, though at present there’s still no confirmation the PIJ people are actually being charged with anything.

The US relationship with Israel on Syria is complicated by a number of matters. The US reportedly plans to reduce their military presence inside Syria, aiming to pressure the Kurdish SDF to speed up integration with the Syrian government. Israel has been outspoken in opposing the US cuts.

Israel, on the other hand, wants the US to condition the cuts on demands for concessions by Turkey, which borders Syria in the north, to limit Turkish influence in the country. The US seems more or less willing to see Turkey, who is also an ally, claim a sphere of influence inside Syria, but Israel sees that as an eventual collision course between them and Turkey over the region.

It’s not clear how many concessions the US could get out of Turkey even if they are inclined to do so. Turkey has recently conditionally halted attacks on the Kurdish-controlled Tishreen Dam, but stopped short of ending their offensive against the Kurds entirely. The US is mediating talks between Turkey and the Kurdish AANES, and while there have been deconfliction talks between Turkey and Israel, so far all the indications out of Israel are that they still consider any Turkish presence in Syria a direct threat to their own interests.

That the HTS is open to normalization with Israel at all is somewhat surprising given their history. Ahmed al-Sharaa was previously known as Abu Mohammed Jolani, and before the HTS his group was known as Jabhat al-Nusra, which was the al-Qaeda affiliate for Syria. Sharaa has tried to distance HTS from its al-Qaeda past, but it remains a strongly Islamist movement and its ideology doesn’t appear to have changed that much. This has led to Israel deciding the HTS is necessarily an enemy, and the US has been very cautious in dealing with them.

Normalization between Israel and Syria would be a huge achievement, and President Trump would doubtless be keen to take credit for it were it to happen. At the same time, the situation is wildly complicated and it’s not clear what the US would be able to offer, let alone deliver, to Syria in return for this move.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 20:05

"Take Control Of Their Food Supply": Tractor Supply CEO Says Backyard Chicken Demand Skyrockets  

Zero Hedge -

"Take Control Of Their Food Supply": Tractor Supply CEO Says Backyard Chicken Demand Skyrockets  

President Trump's swift action to combat soaring egg prices, caused by the Biden-Harris regime's mass culling of egg-laying hens just before he took office, has been nothing short of spectacular.

Egg prices have since collapsed, forcing Democratic strategists to abandon their propaganda warfare efforts with corrupt leftist corporate media to blame "egg-flation" on Trump when, in reality, it was a crisis of Biden's making through improper culling practices and no countermeasures to offset loss production. It's almost as if the prior administration wanted consumers to feel pocketbook pain. 

Trump saves the day. 

Earlier this year, as egg prices spiked to record highs during the tail end of the Northern Hemisphere's winter season, we urged readers to purchase backyard chicken coops and take control of their own food supply chains:

Months later, with the latest USDA retail egg prices down 62% from record highs of more than $8 per dozen, Tractor Supply CEO Hal Lawton confirmed to investors on an earnings call this week that the nationwide egg shortage sparked an unbelievable surge in chick demand at stores nationwide.

Here's more from Bloomberg:

Tractor Supply Co., a rural retailer best known for its animal feed and ranching equipment offerings, expects to sell a record amount of chicks this year as customers expand their broods and first-timers seek to avoid record-setting egg prices.

Those novice poultry farmers are attempting to "take more control of their food supply," Tractor Supply Chief Executive Officer Hal Lawton said during the company's first-quarter earnings call Thursday, after egg prices more than doubled this year.

Mizuho Securities Director David Bellinger wrote in a note earlier this month that 7 million to 8 million of Tractor Supply's loyalty members now own chickens

In return, Lawton noted that Tractor Supply customers securing their own backyard chicken supply chains drive more recurring trips to store locations. 

"Chick days is like an annuity for Tractor Supply as birds typically live five to seven years," Lawton said, adding, "One chicken can eat over 75 pounds of feed a year, which keeps customers coming back again and again." 

A broader theme is unfolding within the "Make America Healthy Movement"—Americans are being encouraged to source their food from local farms or, in some cases, as with chickens, to build backyard coops and plant 'America First' gardens to break free from the toxic food supply chain controlled by the corrupt processed foods industrial complex.

 

*    *    * 

ZeroHedge will soon be emerging in the "Make America Healthy Again" space with a platform that connects Americans with clean beef ranchers nationwide. 

 We're calling this effort "Rancher-Direct Clean Food"...

The countdown for Zerohedge/MAHA begins.  Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 19:40

Cloward-Piven And The Migrant Invasion

Zero Hedge -

Cloward-Piven And The Migrant Invasion

Authored by Bruce Mayers via AmericanThinker.com,

John Maynard Keynes, who should be burning in Hell for his shyster economic theories, is largely responsible for our current looming apocalypse

His theory basically is that only demand, made more real than just wishing for things by creating fiat money and credit, is important, since in his myopic, context-dropping theory, people produce a supply when there is a demand. 

(That they’d want the money they are paid to be valuable enough to buy someone else’s products he neglects to envision.)

His theory was refuted by F.A. Hayek at the time. But politicians usually ignored the refutations, since they saw a way of expanding their power and budgets while using a bit of Cambridge University produced con artistry as cover. Politicians are the first ones to get to spend new fiat currency and credits, deciding which donors, cronies, businesses, organizations will get it, before it causes inflation and reduces the purchasing power of the currency in general. It allows a constant redistribution of wealth to whoever controls the printing press and those nearest to them.

Keynes is also famous for saying: 

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.” 

Once again he is wrong. 

We are currently being pushed even faster toward disaster, not just by his voodoo macroeconomics, and not by the ideas of dead economists, but of a deceased sociologist.

The sociologists in question are a husband and wife team, the late Richard Cloward and his wife Francis Fox Piven (still with us at 92), professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work. 

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, which the couple first published in the socialist magazine The Nation, sought to bring change out of chaos. The idea was that social workers and other government employees and leftist groups (Ms. Piven was on the board of Democratic Socialists of America) would cajole anyone they could to apply for every government assistance program, until the welfare state was so overloaded it broke down, which would lead, they thought, to the institution of a “free” minimum guaranteed income for every American.

Whether this would have worked or not, subsequent strategists on the left clearly decided to expand it by importing poor people from anywhere in the third world. 

With billions of poor people you could certainly overload government assistance programs. 

You could also use them to replace misbehaving American voters. (Cloward and Piven were also the people behind motor-voter registration.) 

If you were really anti-American and “anti-imperialist” you could hope the expanded government, funded by Keynesian currency debasement, would lead to the collapse of the dollar as a reserve currency and the end of American power internationally. 

(Allowing the neo-Maoists of the CCP to take control of vast regions of the world.)

But government assistance programs are not the only systems buckling under Cloward-Piven-designed overload. The current legal battle to force President Trump to give every illegal alien due process in extended court hearings before they are deported is an attempt to overload the courts. 

Progressives have never been in favor of due process generally. They might favor it for criminals or juvenile delinquents, but for citizens at large they have opposed an individual’s right to sue government regulators who force them to get a vaccination before they can hold a job or serve in the military, who tell them what cakes they must make or weddings they must service, or in general what economic activities they can engage in. Even in immigration policy, President Obama deported 313,000 illegal aliens in 2012 without any judicial review, earning him complaints from the ACLU.

But Obama had the confidence that he could win elections by appealing to actual American voters. Biden and Kamala Harris had no such confidence. The mass importation of 20 million unvetted illegal aliens by the Biden administration was mainly intended to plump up and multiply the number of Democrat congressional districts and the number of Electoral College votes of Blue states, as well as to replace American voters with fraudulent “motor-voter” illegal alien voters in all jurisdictions.

But it has another “change out of chaos” effect.

The court system cannot provide due process for 20 million illegal aliens Biden imported who must now be deported. Trump and his supporters are not responsible for this. As radio pundit Larry O’Connor observes: “…if liberals or socialists or Trump-hating Republicans or libertarians or all the propagandists in the media are outraged by this reality, their outrage should be focused at Biden and Kamala and Mayorkas for creating this nightmare not Trump for triaging it.” 

Consider the reductio: If an invading army marched (or flew) into the United States, would Democrats say before anyone fires on them they must each individually be tried in court, because invading non-citizens deserve due process? 

As Bill Ackman tweeted: “A nation in which one administration can allow millions of unvetted illegal migrants into the country, but requires that a court vet each deportation decision in an individually adjudicated case will soon lose the values our democratic system was intended to preserve.” Unfortunately SCOTUS now seems to be supporting this America dooming policy.

Trump should keep deporting illegal aliens, especially the sex-trafficking, wife-beating, gang member scum among them. If Congress needs to pass legislation codifying that due process is not available at all (or to the same extent) for illegal aliens, then Congress best get to it.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 19:15

Jack In The Box Closing Up To 200 Locations

Zero Hedge -

Jack In The Box Closing Up To 200 Locations

When the fast food joints start closing, it's usually not a great indicator for the economy. 

Jack in the Box plans to close up to 200 underperforming locations, aiming to bolster its balance sheet amid declining consumer spending.

The San Diego-based chain also announced it’s exploring a sale of its struggling Del Taco brand, according to CBS News. Most closures will target older, low-performing stores, with up to 120 shutting down by year’s end and the rest phasing out based on franchise terms.

Starting in 2026, the company expects to maintain a 1% annual closure rate.

The CBS News report says that Jack in the Box hasn't released its 2025 closure list but says more details are coming in August. The move is part of a push to cut debt and improve finances.

“Jack in the Box has gotten away from some of the core characteristics that have made it a successful driver of shareholder value in the past and it’s time we return to those basics,” said CEO Lance Tucker.

Second-quarter sales fell 4.4% at Jack in the Box and 3.6% at Del Taco. The company’s stock has tumbled 57% over the past year.

Broader industry headwinds persist. McDonald’s CEO admitted its “value leadership gap has shrunk,” while U.S. consumer sentiment dropped for a fourth straight month in April amid economic worries and tariff fears.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 18:50

The RFK Autism "Controversy" Is Manufactured Outrage... Plain And Simple

Zero Hedge -

The RFK Autism "Controversy" Is Manufactured Outrage... Plain And Simple

Authored by Corinne Clark Barron via American Greatness,

By now, you’ve probably seen the clip that launched a thousand self-righteous Instagram reels. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dared to say something uncomfortable about autism—specifically, the profound kind—and the internet lost its collective mind.

Here’s what he said:

“Autism destroys family. And more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, our children. And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. We have to recognize we are doing this to our children and we need to put an end to it.”

It doesn’t take a genius—or even a full listen—to understand that he was referring to severe, nonverbal, profoundly disabling autism. Not quirky software engineers or brilliant kids who need a little extra support in school. And yet, the outrage machine went into overdrive. Moms on X and Instagram rushed to share glowing tributes to their high-functioning children on the spectrum, explaining how autism is their family’s greatest blessing. And you know what? That’s beautiful. But that’s also not what RFK was talking about.

This wasn’t a sweeping statement about every autistic person. 

It was a serious moment about a serious public health issue. But as usual, nuance doesn’t fit into a TikTok soundbite.

The backlash wasn’t just misplaced—it was manipulative. 

All these people who claim to be champions of neurodiversity suddenly can’t tolerate a conversation about the darker, more painful realities many families face. They took a statement meant to elevate the need for answers and twisted it into a personal insult.

And here’s where it gets rich: many of the loudest critics belong to the same liberal cohort that routinely defends aborting children with Down syndrome or other detectable conditions. 

We’re supposed to believe they’re the defenders of all life now? Spare me.

These libs will write a tearful thread about autism acceptance, then turn around and shout down anyone who dares to ask why so many children are being diagnosed with it in the first place.

The truth is, they don’t want a solution. They want a platform. They want to be seen as more compassionate than you, especially if it means ignoring the moms who are absolutely drowning trying to care for a nonverbal 12-year-old who can’t sleep through the night, can’t be left alone, and may never live independently. RFK was speaking to those parents. The ones who love their kids desperately but who are desperate for answers too.

If RFK had gone the other direction and said, “Autism isn’t a big deal,” these same people would be screaming that he wasn’t taking the challenges of raising autistic children seriously. 

It’s not about the message—it’s about being mad. 

These people are outrage machines running on bad faith and buzzwords.

RFK didn’t say anything cruel. He said something real. And in politics today, that’s more offensive than anything else.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 18:25

Are Global Consumers Turning Away From US Brands?

Zero Hedge -

Are Global Consumers Turning Away From US Brands?

Is anti-American sentiment putting consumers off buying U.S. brands? 

According to a recent report by Morning Consult, this is the case. 

Statista's Anna Fleck reports that northerly neighbor Canada is perhaps the clearest example of this trend, with consumers having turned away from purchasing U.S. products in protest against U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest policies and rhetoric and instead choosing to “Buy Canadian”. 

In France too, some consumers angered over Washington’s latest moves are boycotting U.S. brands, citing Trump’s announcements of punitive trade tariffs, his stance on diversity and inclusion, as well as his handling of Ukraine and his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Data published by Axios looks more closely at how global sentiment on a selection of U.S. brands changed between January and March, 2025. Of the 16 brands surveyed, 12 saw declines in favorability, with FedEx, Chevron and WB/ Discovery having seen the biggest drops (each down more than 33 percent). 

However, as this chart shows, the trend does not extend across all brands, as Meta, McDonald’s, OpenAI and Apple Inc. have each seen improved sentiment since Trump's inauguration.

 Are Global Consumers Turning Away From U.S. Brands? | Statista 

You will find more infographics at Statista

It is important to note here that without further data it is difficult to say whether these changes are a causation or merely a correlation as there are multiple reasons why consumers opinions on a specific brand could change with time.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 18:00

Advice For Ivy League Universities: Take The Trump Deal, Before It's Too Late

Zero Hedge -

Advice For Ivy League Universities: Take The Trump Deal, Before It's Too Late

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal,

We’ve talked about higher education before, but now it’s come into sharper focus with the Trump administration’s deadlock with Harvard University over its unwillingness or inability—whatever term we like to use—to meet the administration’s demands that it ensures an antisemitic-free campus that does not allow people to disrupt classes. 

It doesn’t use race, after the Supreme Court decision that went against Harvard and said that affirmative action was no longer legal.

Columbia had the same type of disagreement, other campuses are.

I don’t think it’s a wise thing for them to get into a fight with the federal government.

If they are dependent on federal funding, these big private marquee universities—Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Duke—and they want federal money, then the federal government is going to ask for some transparency. And we, the public, really don’t know much about it.

It’s like a rock, a traditional rock on moist ground. You don’t wanna turn it over because there’s going to be things underneath there that you would better not—it would be better not to be seen. And that’s what the public is going to learn about higher education.

Now, what do I mean? I mean loans. 

These universities are raising tuition higher than the rate of inflation. And that started when the federal government said, “We will ensure these loans for students.” 

Once that happened, the moral hazard shifted away from the university. 

So, they have been gouging students for room and board.

I’ll give you an example. 

Hillsdale College, its room, board, and tuition is about $45,000 a year. It takes no money. 

Harvard gets about $9 billion in total. Its room, board, and tuition is about $95,000. 

Same with Stanford. They’re about double what Hillsdale charges. And one of the reasons is that they’re so dependent on federal money and therefore they can spend like drunken sailors.

Remember, of that 1.7, about 10%, 8% are nonperforming and about maybe 14% are late. The public doesn’t know all that. But they’re paying for it—especially kids, the half of the cohort 18 to 30 that’s not going to college, they’re subsidizing this university boondoggle.

The second thing is the university doesn’t really obey the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. If you get accused of particular crimes as a student, faculty member, let’s say, sexual harassment or untoward speech, hate speech—whatever the term they use—it’s very unlikely you’re going to get Fourth and Fifth, maybe Sixth Amendment protection. That is, you’re not going to have an open hearing. You’re not going to be tried by a jury of your peers. You’re not going to necessarily have legal counsel. You’re not necessarily going to know who your accusers are.

The affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court outlawed the use of race in admissions. And we have civil rights statutes that also do that. But the universities do something funny. They have safe spaces. They have theme houses. And they have auxiliary graduations. But the common denominator, they’re predicated on race. So, a black theme house, a Latino theme house has almost very few people.

Nobody would want a European, so-called white theme house or an alternate white graduation. And you would say, “Why not, Victor?” Because it would be considered racist, I suppose.

But at Stanford, only 22% of the student body is white. Are they going to say, “Well, we’re one of the minorities now. Why don’t we do this?” That’s where it will lead if you enhance tribalism.

There’s no intellectual diversity. The National Association of Scholars did a study not long ago. They found not one of the 133 faculty members at Bryn Mawr was a Republican. At Williams, I think they found one or two. They found a lot of elite universities where there was nobody who openly acknowledged that they were a Republican.

There are a couple of other things that are disturbing too. And that is the universities get individual faculty grants—Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health. And usually, in most private foundations, the university is not following their model.

What I mean is, a private scholar at a think tank, they might deduct 15% for the use of the phone or office that they would get out of that federal grant. But universities like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, they can go from 40% to 50% to 60% and they’re relying on that multimillion-dollar—I guess we’d call it—price gouging from the federal government.

And finally, these universities don’t have multimillion-dollar endowments anymore. They have multibillion-dollar—$30 billion, Stanford $53 billion. And they’re predicated—the income—on that. And sometimes they get almost 10%. They’re very good in investing. This $5 or $6 or $7 or $4 billion a year in income is tax-free, for the most part. Tax-free. And that’s predicated that they’re nonpolitical, they’re nonpartisan. But when you look at the makeup of the faculty and the use of race and gender, contrary to federal law, you can see they’re very partisan.

So, let me just sum up. 

Does the university really want to get in a fight with the Trump administration and then bring all of this information about their endowments; their lack of intellectual diversity; their segregation; their lack of due process for people who undergo inquiries or accusations; their separate racial graduations, safe spaces, theme houses; the use of student loans? 

I don’t think they want to do that. The public would be shocked. And it’s a losing proposition.

If I were the presidents of these major universities, I would do this: I would make a deal with the Trump administration. 

And I would welcome it because then I would tell my radical students, “You can’t wear a mask. I’d like you to, but the federal government won’t let me.” Or, “We can’t have racially segregated dorms anymore, theme houses. I’d like to, but it’s against the law.” And that would be their way out.

Is that going to happen? I don’t think so. And I think we’re going to see some accountability. And the universities are not going to like the consequences.

Tyler Durden Fri, 04/25/2025 - 17:40

Pages