Zero Hedge

Can The Dark Ages Return?

Can The Dark Ages Return?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via VictoreHanson.com,

Western civilization arose in the 8th century B.C. Greece. Some 1,500 city-states emerged from a murky, illiterate 400-year-old Dark Age. That chaos followed the utter collapse of the palatial culture of Mycenaean Greece.

But what reemerged were constitutional government, rationalism, liberty, freedom of expression, self-critique, and free markets—what we know now as the foundation of a unique Western civilization.

The Roman Republic inherited and enhanced the Greek model.

For a millennium, the Republic and subsequent Empire spread Western culture, eventually to be inseparable from Christianity.

From the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and from the Rhine and Danube to the Sahara, there were a million square miles of safety, prosperity, progress, and science—until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD.

What followed was a second European Dark Age, roughly from 500 to 1000 AD.

Populations declined. Cities eroded. Roman roads, aqueducts, and laws crumbled.

In place of the old Roman provinces arose tribal chieftains and fiefdoms.

Whereas once Roman law had protected even rural people in remote areas, during the Dark Ages, walls and stone were the only means of keeping safe.

Finally, at the end of the 11th century, the old values and know-how of the complex world of Graeco-Roman civilization gradually reemerged.

The slow rebirth was later energized by the humanists and scientists of the Renaissance, Reformation, and eventually the 200-year European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Contemporary Americans do not believe that our current civilization could self-destruct a third time in the West, followed by an impoverished and brutal Dark Age.

But what caused these prior returns to tribalism and loss of science, technology, and the rule of law?

Historians cite several causes of societal collapse—and today they are hauntingly familiar.

Like people, societies age. Complacency sets in.

The hard work and sacrifice that built the West also creates wealth and leisure. Such affluence is taken for granted by later generations. What created success is eventually ignored—or even mocked.

Expenditures and consumption outpace income, production, and investment.

Child-rearing, traditional values, strong defense, love of country, religiosity, meritocracy, and empirical education fade away.

The middle class of autonomous citizens disappear. Society bifurcates between a few lords and many peasants.

Tribalism—the pre-civilizational bonds based on race, religion, or shared appearance—remerge.

National government fragments into regional and ethnic enclaves.

Borders disappear. Mass migrations are unchecked. The age-old bane of anti-Semitism reappears.

The currency inflates, losing its value and confidence. General crassness in behavior, speech, dress, and ethics replaces prior norms.

Transportation, communications, and infrastructure all decline.

The end is near when the necessary medicine is seen as worse than the disease.

Such was life around 450 AD in Western Europe.

The contemporary West might raise similar red flags.

Fertility has dived well below 2.0 in almost every Western country.

Public debt is nearing unsustainable levels. The dollar and euro have lost much of their purchasing power.

It is more common in universities to damn than honor the gifts of the Western intellectual past.

Yet, the reading and analytical skills of average Westerners, and Americans in particular, steadily decline.

Can the general population even operate or comprehend the ever-more sophisticated machines and infrastructure that an elite group of engineers and scientists creates?

The citizen loses confidence in an often corrupt elite, who neither will protect their nations’ borders nor spend sufficient money on collective defense.

The cures are scorned.

Do we dare address spiraling deficits, unsustainable debt, and corrupt bureaucracies and entitlements?

Even mention of reform is smeared as “greedy,” “racist,” “cruel,” or even “fascist” and “Nazi.”

In our times, relativism replaces absolute values in the eerie replay of the latter Roman Empire.

Critical legal theory claims crimes are not really crimes.

Critical race theory postulates that all of society is guilty of insidious bias, demanding reparations in cash and preferences in admission and hiring.

Salad-bowl tribalism replaces assimilation, acculturation, and integration of the old melting pot.

Despite a far wealthier, far more leisured, and far more scientific contemporary America, was it safer to walk in New York or take the subway in 1960 than now?

Are high school students better at math now or 70 years ago?

Are movies and television more entertaining and ennobling in 1940 or now?

Are nuclear, two-parent families the norm currently or in 1955?

We are blessed to live longer and healthier lives than ever—even as the larger society around us seems to teeter.

Yet, the West historically is uniquely self-introspective and self-critical.

Reform and Renaissance historically are more common than descents back into the Dark Ages.

But the medicine for decline requires unity, honesty, courage, and action—virtues now in short supply on social media, amid popular culture, and among the political class.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 23:20

Burnt-Out US Air Traffic Controllers Rerouting Their Careers To Australia

Burnt-Out US Air Traffic Controllers Rerouting Their Careers To Australia

In a year in which they endured chronic understaffing, 60-hour weeks, uneven shifts and even having to work without a paycheck for a stretch, many US air traffic controllers are re-evaluating their careers, with a growing number chasing happiness on the other side of the world -- in Australia. 

According to a Wall Street Journal report on the phenomenon, these controllers aren't chasing more money. Indeed, some of the controllers who've taken the leap were happy to take a lower salary in exchange for less on-the-job stress and a better work-life balance. One of them is Austin Brewis, a 29-year-old who gave up a $145,000 salary at an air traffic facility in Illinois for a $137,000 one in Sydney.

Three-meter-high, corrugated-iron kangaroos adjacent to the main runway at Canberra Airport (Canberra Times)

Brewis told the Journal that 60-hour workweeks had worn him down. More than 41% of US controllers work 10 hours a day for six days straight, according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. It's not just the high number of hours -- Brewis worked them in staggered schedules that have start and finish times changing from day to day. Chasing three-day breaks to enjoy meaningful relief from the heavy hour-load, many controllers take a "2-2-1" schedule. As the Journal explained in an earlier article: 

Controllers work two swing shifts, two day shifts, and one midnight shift. The second day shifts ends at 2 p.m. and the subsequent midnight shift begins at 10 p.m., just eight hours later. Such a schedule disrupts circadian rhythms, creating fatigue on the midnight shift.... 2-2-1 has long been called "the rattler," since it can come back and bite the controller, degrading his performance. 

“That grinds you down after years of doing it,” Brewis said. The contrast Down Under is stark -- with the average Australian controller's work-week spanning just 36 hours. Heightening the attraction for younger controllers is a guarantee of having some weekends off each year. Brewis said he'd have had to put at least 10 years under his belt before he'd routinely have weekends off in America, where that pleasure is driven by seniority. 

A woman in a control tower in Brisbane, Australia (Courier Mail) 

“It’s absolutely disgusting how much better their lifestyles are than ours," air traffic controller Chris Dickinson told the Journal. After 13 years controlling US airspace, he's now working in Sydney. He said concerns he had about anxiety or depression have evaporated, and he's shed 20 extra pounds too. 

In an ominous indication that Australia could become a chronic driver of controller attrition in America, when Brewis stepped into an Australian classroom for his entry training earlier this year, he found that 8 of his 10 classmates were Americans. Government-owned Airservices Australia says it isn't setting out to poach Americans from the FAA. However, of 100 controllers it expects to bring on board this year, 36 are Americans. “Qualified controllers are welcome to apply from any country,” a spokesman said. 

While those kind of numbers aren't striking in the context of a US controller force that exceeds 13,750, the chronically-undermanned FAA doesn't need any more head-count headwinds. By the National Air Traffic Controllers Association's math, the FAA is operating with a 3,800-controller shortage. 

That's not just a burden for air traffic controllers and FAA bureaucrats, it's a worrisome state of affairs for the flying public, which has seen too many scary headlines about disasters, near-disasters and mishaps in recent months: 

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 22:45

2 More Heritage Foundation Board Members Resign

2 More Heritage Foundation Board Members Resign

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—Two more members of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation’s Board of Trustees, Shane McCullar and Abby Spencer Moffat, resigned Dec. 16, citing concerns over the organization’s direction and approach to combating anti-Semitism.

Exterior view of the Heritage Foundation building in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 18, 2025. Terri Wu/The Epoch Times

In a statement, Moffat said that leaving the board was a difficult but necessary decision.

“Heritage’s handling of recent challenges reveals a drift from the principles that once defined its leadership,” she said.

“When an institution hesitates to confront harmful ideas and allows lapses in judgment to stand, it forfeits the moral authority on which its influence depends.”

Moffat is recognized as one of the most powerful women in philanthropy and has been a major donor to the think tank through the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation.

In 2023, the foundation announced a $25 million commitment, one of the largest gifts in the think tank’s 50-year history.

McCullar raised similar concerns in his statement.

“No institution that hesitates to condemn anti-Semitism and hatred—or that gives a platform to those who spread them—can credibly claim to uphold the vision that once made the Heritage Foundation the world’s most respected conservative think-tank,” McCullar said.

“I leave with respect for the Heritage Foundation’s past, but I cannot support the course it has chosen for its future.”

Another board member, Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor, resigned last month, citing the same reason.

The controversy erupted after Heritage President Kevin Roberts defended Tucker Carlson’s interview with controversial live streamer Nick Fuentes, known for his anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views.

In his Oct. 30 video commenting on Carlson’s interview, Roberts said that “Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic.”

Roberts also said that the think-tank would not bow to the “venomous coalition” that is attacking and trying to “cancel” Carlson over the Fuentes interview.

Roberts later offered an apology, expressing his regret for the video he posted.

“I made a mistake, and I let you down, and I let down this institution. And I am sorry for that. Period. Full Stop,” Roberts said in a video from the foundation’s staff meeting, which The Washington Beacon first published.

“I didn’t know much about this Fuentes guy—still don’t, which underscores the mistake,” Roberts said.

Roberts told staff that he was willing to resign but felt a “moral obligation” to address the situation.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 22:10

Rand Paul Calls Partial Release Of Epstein Files A 'Big Mistake' For Trump

Rand Paul Calls Partial Release Of Epstein Files A 'Big Mistake' For Trump

During an interview on ABC’s This Week with ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky delivered a blunt warning about the administration’s handling of the Epstein records, echoing concerns raised by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been relentless on the issue.

Massie forced the release vote and has accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of violating the law by slow-walking and limiting disclosure. 

Paul did not dispute the core of that argument.

Instead, he went further, laying out exactly why half-measures on Epstein are political poison.

“I’ve supported transparency on the Epstein files from the beginning,” Paul said. “I’ve voted repeatedly to release them. I think it’s a good idea.”

Paul explained why that approach is doomed to fail.

“I think that trust in government is at a low ebb, and that people need to trust that justice is the same whether you’re rich or poor,” he said.

“And people tend to believe that some rich people got off scot-free in this — in the Epstein case, the Epstein files.”

 Despite the Democrats’ attempts to weaponize the release of the files against Trump, the fact remains that the Biden administration sat on the files for four years—a decision that former Vice President Kamala Harris defends—despite endless rhetoric about transparency. Trump returned to office promising real transparency, and even Trump’s allies believe the administration has failed to live up to its promise fully.

Paul made clear that the administration’s fundamental mistake came when officials hyped the release and then appeared to back away once the spotlight intensified.

“I think it’s a big mistake,” Paul said.

“Look, the administration has struggled for months and months with something they initially ginned up and then sort of tried to tamp down.”

 Paul warned that partial disclosure guarantees prolonged political fallout.

“So, any evidence or any kind of indication that there’s not a full reveal on this, this will just plague them for months and months more,” he said.

He’s right. Democrats have been insinuating for months that the Epstein files would somehow incriminate Trump, despite zero evidence. 

Paul offered simple advice that should not require a Senate seat to understand.

“So, my suggestion would be — give up all the information, release it,” he said.

“What’s going to happen to people if they don’t? That will play out over time. But my suggestion to them is be transparent and release everything the law requires of you.”

When Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the documents failed to deliver the left’s long-promised bombshell, Democrats pivoted to conspiracy theories and bureaucratic excuses. For example, Democrats pounced when a photo from the Epstein files was briefly removed from the online cache of Epstein-related material. This led to conspiracy theories that the Department of Justice was trying to protect Trump. 

In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche discussed the photo and the reason for the redactions in the files.

Blanche explained the removal had “nothing to do with President Trump” and was instead prompted by concerns over victim privacy after officials realized the images contained identifiable women. He stressed that DOJ policy allows victims, their lawyers, or advocacy groups to request that any document or photo identifying them be taken down and reviewed, a process he said explained the temporary disappearance of the materials. 

"Well, you can see in that photo, there’s photographs of women," Blanche said. "And so we learned after releasing that photograph that there were concerns about those, about those women, and the fact that we had put that photo up. So we pulled that photo down."

Blanche also noted that numerous photos of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein have long been public, and that Trump himself has acknowledged socializing with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s before cutting ties with him years before Epstein’s 2006 arrest. Given that history, Blanche dismissed as “laughable” the notion that the department would selectively hide a single image to protect the president when “dozens” of similar photos are already in circulation. 

Democrats have failed to produce a promised “smoking gun” linking Trump to Epstein’s crimes despite years of access to the files under the Biden administration, and are now seizing on procedural moves in the document release to sustain conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, if Republicans want to prove they mean what they say, the path forward is obvious. Release everything required by law. Let the facts land where they may. The longer Washington drags its feet, the louder the suspicion grows, and the harder it becomes to argue that this time is different.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 21:35

DOJ Seeking Appeals On Dismissals Of Criminal Cases Against James Comey, Letitia James

DOJ Seeking Appeals On Dismissals Of Criminal Cases Against James Comey, Letitia James

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is appealing the dismissal of a pair of criminal cases against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, according to new court documents filed on Friday.

(Left) New York Attorney General Letitia James leaves the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse following an arraignment hearing in Norfolk, Va., on Oct. 24, 2025. (Right) James Comey, former FBI director, speaks at the Barnes & Noble Upper West Side in New York City on May 19, 2025. Win McNamee, Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

James was indicted in October by a grand jury with charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Comey was charged in September with lying to and obstructing Congress during his testimony in 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into false claims of ties between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Both had pleaded not guilty, and their cases were thrown out in late November.

The newest appeals by the DOJ mark the latest move in what’s been a series of unsuccessful legal actions taken against the New York attorney general specifically.

James’s original case was dismissed in late November after U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan’s appointment by the president as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

The judge tossed Comey’s case for the same reason that Halligan’s appointment violated laws restricting the DOJ from naming top prosecutors without a Senate confirmation. Halligan had presented Comey’s case to a federal grand jury by herself five days before the statute of limitations would expire on the former FBI director’s testimony he gave to Congress.

In Currie’s Nov. 24 decision, she wrote both James and Comey’s cases were a “unique, if not unprecedented, situation where an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor” used powers that she “did not lawfully possess.”

The DOJ vowed to continue pursuing charges.

Since the case was dismissed, DOJ prosecutors attempted twice this month to secure a new indictment against James, but a grand jury refused to bring charges both times. The New York official has repeatedly claimed the prosecution against her is “baseless.”

In the latest legal filings, the DOJ is appealing James and Comey’s case dismissals, along with several other actions, including the judge’s decision that found Halligan’s appointment and her signing of the indictments unlawful.

James’s indictment alleged that she lied about her plans for a Virginia home, for which she obtained loan terms that would have saved her approximately $19,000 over the life of the loan. Her lawyer said the indictments against James were a “mockery of our justice system” and accused the president of “political vendetta.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the appeals.

The attorneys for both Comey and James also did not respond to a request for comment on the latest development in their cases.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 21:00

Somali 'Medicaid Mogul' Accused Of Looting Maine Taxpayers, Family Allegedly Put Bounty On Reporter

Somali 'Medicaid Mogul' Accused Of Looting Maine Taxpayers, Family Allegedly Put Bounty On Reporter

If you thought the alleged Medicaid fraud in Minnesota by Somalis, which federal prosecutors say could reach $9 billion, was insane, wait until you read the latest report from The Maine Wire: the head of a local nonprofit is accused of lashing out at a local journalist over an investigation, while members of his family allegedly put a bounty on the head of a journalist in Somalia for sharing the reporting.

Earlier this month, Abdullahi Ali, the Executive Director of Health Services contractor Gateway Community Services, was accused of ripping off taxpayers.

Public forensic investigation into Gateway Community Services has revealed this... 

NewsNation spoke with a whistleblower who spilled the beans: false records were filed for services that were never provided...

A former Gateway employee, Christopher Bernardini, said the nonprofit was reimbursed with tax dollars from Maine's Medicaid program and later with federal tax dollars from the Paycheck Protection Program.

While heading up the nonprofit in Maine, Ali was also running for President of Jubbaland in Africa. He boasted to a Kenyan media outlet about how he helped raise funds for the Jubaland Somali army to buy guns and bullets.

Main Wire's Steve Robinson pointed out that Ali "threatened to murder a journalist in Somalia who shared our reporting."

Robinson continued:

Gateway Community Services CEO Abdullahi Ali yesterday attacked me personally, and now his fellow clan members — his son and cousin — are threatening to murder a journalist in Somalia who shared our reporting. Why does Gov. Janet Mills continue to fund this organization with MaineCare dollars and no-bid contracts? And why are Democrats cravenly smearing the character of anyone who exposes fraud or calls out corruption?

Abdullahi Ali's son and cousin are openly placing bounties on a Somali journalist's head and calling for his killing. All because they've helped shine light on Ali's migrant agency over-billing MaineCare (~$800k per DHHS) and the fraud allegations made against his company. Ali's former employee has made credible and detailed allegations of systematic fraud. This employee has shown great courage by revealing how Ali allegedly directed his company to invent fake MaineCare claims and defraud the taxpayers of Maine.

Ali has never denied these allegations. Instead he has attacked me. Now his allies in Jubaland are calling for violence against journalists for exposing the truth, while his allies in Maine turn a blind eye or smear the reporters and politicians exposing fraud and corruption.

Attorney General Aaron Frey refuses to investigate credible allegations of fraud against Gateway. Instead, the thugs in the Mills Administration had the whistleblower audited. Imagine that! Exposing corruption, at great personal risk, only to have the Mills Team pull a mafia tactic and sic Maine Revenue Services on you.

Democrats are not only defending this behavior from the migrant NGO complex, many of them are part of it. Rep. Deqa Dhalac worked at Gateway as Assistant Executive Director while the alleged fraud was happening. So did Rep. Yusuf Yusuf. Shenna Bellows fundraised this summer with Safiya Khalid, former special assistant to Abdullahi Ali. Ekhlas Ahmed, a former Gateway employee, runs the "Office of New Americans" for Janet Mills.

Gov. Janet Mills has the authority to stop payments to Gateway, but instead she has issued them no-bid contracts. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have gone to Maine schools or to low-income Mainers are instead funneled into Gateway Community Services and other migrant NGOs.

Why?

Because Gateway's offices in Lewiston and Portland are basically arms of the Maine Democratic Party. Those offices host vote harvesting operations that recruit migrants into welfare programs and supply Democrat votes — all paid for with tax dollars.

For those who care to pay attention, all the receipts, the contracts, the documents, and the evidence is contained within the Substack post below and the linked posts.

"Is this the type of diversity we wanted here in Maine. Are you f*cking liberals happy?" one perturbed resident said on TikTok.

In a recent interview with The National News Desk, Maine State Sen. Matt Harrington said, "It's disgusting to me that they would do this."

"You can't rob a bank for millions of dollars. You shouldn't be able to rob taxpayers of millions of dollars and get away with it. There absolutely needs to be a criminal investigation into this immediately," Harrington said.

From Minnesota to Maine ... What Democratic-run state will be next where investigations uncover appalling allegations of public resources being looted by migrants?

Maryland? California?

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 19:15

AI, CEOs, Yields, And Peace

AI, CEOs, Yields, And Peace

Authored by Peter Tchir via Academy Securities,

AI largely drove the show last week on the risk front. We started poorly, as Blue Owl pulling out of a future Oracle deal triggered some fears. But we finished the week strong as Micron had a solid beat, alleviating many concerns (a nice, soft CPI print helped matters too).

This flip-flopping back and forth on the AI story fits well with last week’s themes - AI Debt Diet vs AI Spend Diet.

Bitcoin seemed to be a decent leading indicator for stocks, but the past few days watching Bitcoin’s intraday moves was about as painful as watching Elaine dance on Seinfeld.

Equity markets are hovering near important levels. I know we’ve been talking a lot more than usual about technical levels, but they often seem to play a more important role during slow, less liquid periods than normal. The Nasdaq 100 bounced, just above the 100-day moving average (like it did in November when the Fed turned dovish). It closed just above the 50-DMA on Friday, which if it holds, should let the Santa rally loose. If it fails, we could be testing the 100-DMA for the 3rd time, and that tends to not work well.

With a holiday shortened week, let’s have some fun with AI.

What If CEOs Were Being Replaced by AI?

With markets being powered by AI, it is one of the main topics of conversation. Literally, every conversation.

In general, I’m on board with the importance of AI. I use it. It is improving rapidly. Having said that, using it “hampers” learning (not searching, reading, and digesting info on my own) and creates “work” around looking for hallucinations. I’d rather do some of the original, interesting work, including going down the wrong path, than searching for ticker symbols that don’t exist, etc. I do worry about the spend versus the results, at today’s costs and usefulness.

What I’ve been wondering lately is how much demand there would be for AI if CEOs thought they were going to be replaced by AI?

First, let’s make it abundantly clear, the CEOs can be guilty of “herd mentality.” Remember when every company had to have a China strategy? When any announcement of investment in China by U.S. companies triggered stock price gains! See Free Money. The rationale was there:

  • The potential to sell into a market of 1 billion people, whose incomes and net worths were growing.

  • Even cheaper supply chains.

Yeah, yeah, there were people who questioned whether a 51% stake for China made sense. Questioned whether China would ever truly open their markets and whether Chinese consumers would ever spend much on “American” goods? Heck, some even questioned the ability to protect IP.

  • At the time, naysayers were drowned out and CEOs were rewarded for their skills in driving business to China. It didn’t always work out quite as planned.

I’m not arguing that the investment in AI is anything like the “need” to have a China plan, but I’m not sure that it is completely irrelevant.

But anyways, why not replace CEOs with AI?

At the moment the trend is to try to reduce jobs and hiring at lower levels in the organization.

Virtually everyone in “our industry” is talking about the ability to have fewer analysts, or do more with existing analysts (code for hiring fewer people). While I’m more familiar with what is going on in our industry, I think it is safe to say that most of the AI spend is centered around reducing labor costs at the lower end of the corporate ladder.

But why?

  • At today’s cost, is it really cheaper to spend on AI than to have a few more junior people?

    • Sure, if you can spend $100k and replace 3 junior people, it’s a huge win. But are those the numbers we are currently seeing? If it is $1 million to save 3 jobs, maybe it isn’t the correct trade off?

  • Why not empower junior employees? The cynical side of me (which is by far the bigger side) sometimes thinks the management consultant industry exists because CEOs prefer to pay a lot of money to be told by recent grads at the consulting firms what their own recent grads could tell them as part of their daily duties.

    • I will admit that perspective on the consulting industry is a bit over the top, but all too often it seems that it is difficult for people doing a job every single day, to get their own voice heard on what would make their job more effective. Maybe it is easier for AI to cancel the 10am Monday meeting, than to listen to some junior person argue that it is pointless? Maybe management is scared to empower the people who might know best what would make their jobs easier? Certainly, before embarking on AI spend, it would make some sense to see what can be done internally? I highly expect the conclusions wouldn’t be that dissimilar, but you’d have people who will grow with the organization, and the organization will be better for it in the long run.

    • The U.S. military, and my colleagues at Academy who have served (and in some cases are still serving in the reserves) relies heavily on NCOs. The Non-Commissioned Officer class (typically sergeants) is one of the unique features of the U.S. military relative to other militaries. Not that other militaries don’t have that rank, they just don’t empower them. General after General, Admiral after Admiral, all tell me that empowering the NCOs is one of the big advantages the U.S. military has. They carry on the culture. They mold those who serve with them (including sometimes, junior officers at the start of their career). They can take action in the field, of their own volition, in pursuit of goals and targets. Those actions often are the difference between winning and losing, which in the military, really is a matter of life or death.

    • Maybe I’m rambling, but I suspect we could all listen to juniors more, even as part of any AI implementation, and be pleasantly surprised how many good ideas for efficiency and growth are there, just waiting to be tapped?

  • The CEO’s job is extremely difficult.

    • No other job requires so much input. In my role at Academy, I have relatively few inputs to take into account while delivering what I deliver. As you move up the management chain, you have to deal with more and more inputs. Almost a mind boggling amount of information for a CEO of a large company. And the consequences of their decisions matter! If you hate this T-Report, you may not open the next one. That is probably the biggest downside from my decision today. Decisions to open or close business lines have far bigger impacts, ones that cannot be changed quickly.

    • So why isn’t AI groomed to be CEO?

      • The job is more difficult and requires more information to be processed, so isn’t AI better suited for that? Aren’t the “real” benefits of AI more relevant to the CEO than to the average employee? If you “fix” junior jobs, you are talking about dollars and cents. If you fix the CEO jobs you are talking about millions, and maybe billions?

      • I did use AI to find that in 2024 the average CEO to worker pay ratio for S&P 500 companies was 285:1. The same AI, also told me that CEOs on average made $21.45 million while employees earn on average about $51,394 – which is 400 times.

      • Yes, there is only 1 CEO and leadership is also a crucial role the CEO plays. Not just the decision making part, but also getting the team focused and working together. AI cannot replace leadership, and it really can’t replace leadership at junior levels, where that leadership is also critical.

Just like China strategies evolved, I expect that we could see AI strategies evolve, hopefully in a way that we maximize the Human Intelligence (HI?) while trying to be cost effective in our AI deployment.

I do think this section, as offbeat as it might seem, is something people are thinking about and may slow the AI spend, as costs continue to rise.

It will also drive the AI (and data centers) to new solutions and products to feed the evolution of the industry and the use cases.

Back to Yields

If the “scary” chart of the past couple of weeks has been Oracle CDS, it was Japanese bond yields by the end of this week. For the record, Oracle CDS finished a couple bps tighter on the week – making the end of my interview last Friday seem better than it did early in the week when it was still widening.

The Japanese 10-year bond yield broke 2% for this week. It spent most of the past decade below 0.5%.

So far this rise in Japanese bond yields has been accompanied by a weakening yen. Not exactly what the “textbook” would predict, but markets often follow narratives of their own (in theory as the yield differential decreases, the currency should appreciate, or so I read).

The yen carry trade is either some huge overriding trade that drives global markets, or it is a niche trade, where many overstate the importance of it. I’m in the latter camp, but since it is gaining a lot of attention lately, it is worth revisiting.

In theory many funds borrow in yen to fund positions in other assets. The interest rate on borrowing in yen was so low that you could “outperform” your borrowing costs (even taking FX risk). The corollary or flipside of this, is that many Japanese bond investors would buy U.S. Treasuries and attempt some currency hedges to outperform direct investments in Japanese government bonds.

That trade is less appealing on the interest rate differential. The difference between Japanese and U.S. central bank rates was 5.4% as recently as February 2024. It is down to 3.1%. Still a large differential, but it could impact the so-called “carry” trade.

A return to a strengthening of the yen would put far more pressure on the trade as many don’t hedge the FX risk. Again, this is a bit of a murky trade where some argue it is a huge driver of risk premium across the globe, while I suspect its importance is overstated. But not so overstated that we can completely ignore it.

This may go a long way to explaining why U.S. 10-year yields are still stuck between 4.1% and 4.2%.

The EU Had “One Job”

Periodically, I search the “you had one job” meme on social media. It never fails to deliver a smile.

Today, I’m not smiling.

Our assessment of what the EU can do to support Ukraine, maybe even as part of their commitment to NATO, was to seize Russia’s frozen assets and use them to purchase military equipment.

The EU does not have the military equipment or personnel to contribute, so aside from fully enforcing sanctions (which they have also been loathe to do), they could fund more equipment purchases for Ukraine.

Seizing Russia’s frozen reserves seemed to be the “easiest” way for Europe to do this:

  • It would not only fund the war effort, but it would also hurt Putin.

  • It would avoid Europe dithering for weeks or months, on issuing debt to fund some sort of purchases. Not exactly the sort of business arrangement the President likes (and I cannot blame him – we’ve argued that many of Trump’s comments seem to have laid down the gauntlet around Europe and Russia’s reserves). In any case, this time, despite the sound of it, I’m not being cynical. Sometimes what sounds like cynicism is just reality.

Without this seizure, we are seeing European bond yields rise. The “mitigating” factor is that it is probably safe to bet that Europe won’t really act. That there won’t be a deluge of European debt offerings to fund weapons purchases for Ukraine because weapons purchases won’t happen at scale.

What a “Peaceful” Ukraine/Russia Will Look Like

The consensus of the GIG is that we aren’t headed towards peace any time soon, but that Putin has the capability to outlast Ukraine, and Ukraine will ultimately come to the table.

Without the seizure of Russia’s reserves, I think Ukraine has to come to the table faster than they would otherwise.

They may not like what the U.S. is proposing, but it is “reasonably” concrete. If you were Ukraine, you could try and keep some of the U.S. proposals at bay, while waiting for Europe to come through. Whatever machinations Europe goes through, if I’m Ukraine, I’m more skeptical about any sort of game changing help from Europe. When headlines read Belgium and Putin win, you have to be nervous (the Weakest Link was almost more popular in the U.K. than in the U.S., maybe because it is the politics of the EU – the UK was part of the EU when that show was at peak popularity). Unanimous decisions within the EU are hard to reach, so appeasing every country makes it difficult to do much. And that is ignoring the hard truth that many European nations have their own economic concerns to deal with.

So, time to think a little bit more about what “peace” might look like:

  • Stronger security guarantees by the U.S. for Ukraine.

    • These will be given because Ukraine will give the U.S. (and its corporations) extremely favorable deals for years. The admin will not provide security guarantees so much to protect Ukraine, but to protect the business interests that will be generated.

  • The business deals with Russia will be even better for U.S. corporations.

    • Whatever Ukraine may have to give up, as they realize they cannot get enough support from Europe to continue, will be big for the U.S. Russia will give up even more since Europe clearly had no interest in giving them anything and they are being pushed to the brink by the U.S. It will be interesting to see what China and maybe even India have to say about any favorable treatment given to the U.S. and U.S. businesses.

  • Look for Poland and even Romania to thrive.

    • Whatever the prognosis is for lasting peace, many companies will want to stage their operations outside of Russia, and even outside of Ukraine. When deciding where to launch your expansion into Russia and/or Ukraine, both Poland and increasingly, Romania make sense. Poland has proven itself to be resilient and extremely competent during the war. Romania, in my understanding, and I’m learning more, has also played a key role and has some advantages in terms of its borders.

Much of what the admin is looking for in the region fits our ProSec™ narrative, and I think we are one step further towards seeing the admin achieve those goals.

Bottom Line

Despite signs that inflation is abating, bond yields will be a bit stubborn, because of what is happening across the globe, rather than due to our domestic policy/data. I want to buy the long end, and own flatteners, but it is still a touch early.

Credit was a little weaker than stocks this week. Fear of the calendar seems to be keeping spreads from tightening even when other risk assets do well. That will likely persist, but I think the start of the new issue season will be a sign to load up on credit. A lot of “room” has been made to absorb the supply, and if we are correct on the AI Debt Diet thesis, some fears, currently priced into the market, will dissipate.

Something looks seriously “off” in the crypto market (I cannot unsee Elaine dancing). Even with the support this admin and the regulators have for the business, it seems prudent to remain cautious. It continues to be erratic and stuck at levels that seem to make little sense given the ongoing drumbeat of positive news.

If stocks can open decently on Monday, look for strength into year-end, and then some more choppiness. If stocks cannot hold onto the gains from Friday, we will all have a far more anxious holiday season than we were hoping for, as support and “blindly” buying the dip don’t seem to be there.

The AI Debt Diet and AI Spend Diet will be key factors for the markets early next year.

Any peace with Russia and Ukraine is likely to lower commodity prices (as access is granted), but look for U.S. companies to dominate any rebuilding and look for the admin to focus on refining and processing even more than extraction.

And no, CEOs should not be replaced by AI, but we should all be figuring out the right balance and what the real cost/benefits are. I think that could drive down spend a little bit, and actually drive up productivity.

Hopefully, markets cooperate and let us enjoy the holiday season as we ramp up for what should be a busy 2026!

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 18:40

California Faces Fuel Disaster As Refineries And Gas Stations Shut Down

California Faces Fuel Disaster As Refineries And Gas Stations Shut Down

The Democrat crusade to divert blame for the stagflation crisis triggered during the Biden Administration led them down a path of economic lies.  The central theme of their narrative was that corporations were "price gouging" consumers and inflation was actually a product of "corporate greed."  In reality, helicopter money and dollar devaluation during the pandemic triggered a massive consumer demand rush as well as shortages in a variety of goods and raw materials.

The profit margins in many of these industries were paper thin as their manufacturing and labor costs skyrocketed, yet Democrats tried to scapegoat them anyway.  The word "accountability" is not in the leftist vocabulary.

We are only now starting to witness the aftermath of the legislation and policies put in place by blue states as a means to control prices.  California under Governor Gavin Newsom may have staged its own economic demise (the final nail in the coffin) after laws were passed requiring even greater state interference into oil refineries and gas stations.

Gavin Newsom 's major refinery law, ABX2-1 (signed Oct 2024), gives the state power to mandate minimum fuel storage levels and control refinery maintenance to prevent price spikes, empowering the California Energy Commission (CEC) to stabilize supply. This builds on earlier efforts (like SB X1-2) creating an oil market watchdog (DPMO) to increase oversight, aiming to stop refiners from manipulating supply for profit, while also adding data reporting requirements for companies.

In response, companies are shutting down refinery operations in the state.

Lawmakers in California at both the state and federal levels are warning that refinery closures could push prices higher while leaving the state more dependent on foreign oil.  At the center of the warning is the planned shutdown of two major refineries: Valero’s Benicia facility and Phillips 66’s Los Angeles plant. Together, the closures would eliminate nearly 20% of California’s in-state refining capacity.

Experts suggest prices could go as high as $10-$12 per gallon as a result of the supply squeeze, spreading outside of CA to Arizona and Nevada. Republican lawmakers say that the loss of in-state production threatens not only consumer prices at the pump but also the state’s military readiness; a matter of national security. 

The refineries make jet fuel and diesel and gasoline for military bases across California.  California is home to more than 30 military bases, many of which rely on fuel refined in-state.  Gavin Newsom has mostly dismissed concerns as exaggeration, asserting that foreign shipments of fuel will fill the supply gap.  He argued in a recent statement:

“The claim that California policies pose a national security risk isn’t grounded in fact. The state has proactively engaged defense fuel customers throughout this energy transition, and no credible concerns have been raised about future fuel supply for the military. California is leading this transition responsibly while ensuring families have access to a safe, reliable, and affordable supply of transportation fuels..." 

California law, primarily through Senate Bill 445, also mandates that all single-walled Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and piping must be permanently closed or replaced with compliant double-walled systems by December 31st, 2025.  The claim is that this will prevent leaks and environmental contamination, with significant fines for non-compliance.

The state created a program called "RUST" to supposedly help small businesses meet the deadline by providing subsidies to pay for new tanks.  However, many mom-and-pop gas stations are reporting that they never received any aid from the RUST program, even though they applied far in advance.  Hundreds of small business gas stations in CA are set to shut down in 2026.  A large number of them are rural and operate as the only gas stations for long stretches of highway.  

In October, the newly created Division of Petroleum Market Oversight released its first annual report meant to discover why CA gas prices are so high.  The report merely confirmed what was already known - CA prices are much higher than other states because of the differential in taxes and regulatory costs.  No concrete evidence of price gouging on the part of energy companies was found.

Blue states like CA have been increasingly subjecting their citizens to an experiment in artificial energy scarcity; reducing access to "fossil fuels" while raising taxes to force consumers into the electric car market.  All of this is being done in the name of stopping "man-made global warming", a problem which does not exist.  Newsom claims that he is trying to help CA citizens by lowering gas prices, but all of his actions are leading to a price explosion.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 18:05

Pentagon Fails Audit For 8th Consecutive Year

Pentagon Fails Audit For 8th Consecutive Year

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

The Pentagon has failed to pass a full financial audit for the eighth year in a row.

Congress initially mandated annual independent audits across the Department of Defense in 2018. In that time, the department has failed to pass a single full audit.

The Department of Defense—also known as the Department of War—lists $4.65 trillion in assets and $4.72 trillion in liabilities through fiscal year 2025, which ended on Sept. 30. The Pentagon cannot account for its full balance sheet.

An audit report, finalized on Dec. 18 by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, identified 26 material weaknesses and two significant deficiencies in the Pentagon’s financial reporting practices for the year.

Auditors rendered adverse opinions in 10 of 28 subaudits contained within the overall Pentagon audit for the year. Adverse opinions are issued when audits find financial reporting to be inaccurate.

The audit also listed further disclaimers of opinion, meaning auditors could not be certain one way or another whether the balance sheets of certain funds or programs were accurately recorded.

Auditors applied the disclaimers of opinion to the Department of the Army General Fund, the Department of the Army Working Capital Fund, the U.S. Navy General Fund, the Department of the Air Force General Fund, the Department of the Air Force Working Capital Fund, the U.S. Transportation Command Transportation Working Capital Fund, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Defense Health Program General Fund, the Defense Information Systems Agency General Fund, and the Defense Logistics Agency Working Capital Fund.

The audit report said the disclaimers of opinion cover programs and funds that comprise a combined 43 percent of the U.S. military’s total assets and at least 64 percent of the military’s total budgetary resources.

Auditors found material misstatements within the Joint Strike Fighter program, which oversees the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter used by the various U.S. military branches and numerous partner nations.

The report found the program did not properly account for its global pool of spare parts.

The audit also found misstatements in the various programs the U.S. military uses to build up the military strength of various global allies and partners. Auditors determined there were $18.9 billion worth of material misstatements across partnership programs.

Despite eight attempts and eight failures, the Pentagon still has a way to go before it passes a full audit. The Pentagon is currently set on a goal to pass its first audit in 2028.

“We have reviewed the audit report and acknowledge the findings and results. The Department of War is committed to resolving its critical issues and achieving an unmodified audit opinion by 2028,” Jules Hurst, who is performing the duties of the Pentagon comptroller, said in a Dec. 18 statement attached to the audit report.

Despite the setbacks, the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the latest report showed continuing improvements across the Pentagon’s accounting efforts.

“This year’s audit revealed remediations in key areas, reflecting significant progress in financial management,” Hegseth said in a statement attached to the audit report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 17:30

"Dollar Store Obama": House Oversight Chair James Comer Torches Hakeem Jeffries

"Dollar Store Obama": House Oversight Chair James Comer Torches Hakeem Jeffries

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer isn’t backing down from his probe into the massive Somali-led fraud draining Minnesota’s social services, slamming Democrat Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for shielding the scandal with personal attacks.

With federal investigations now revealing losses potentially exceeding $9 billion across multiple state-run programs, Comer’s takedown highlights how unchecked immigration policies have enabled epic taxpayer rip-offs under Democrat watch.

Comer launched the investigation earlier this month, targeting widespread fraud in Minnesota’s welfare and social services exploited by Somali immigrants. In a letter to Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, he demanded answers on the theft of billions from state and federal coffers.

“The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating reports of widespread fraud in Minnesota’s social services programs. The Committee has serious concerns about how you as the Governor, and the Democrat-controlled administration, allowed millions of dollars to be stolen. The Committee also has concerns that you and your administration were fully aware of this fraud and chose not to act for fear of political retaliation,” Comer wrote.

He added, “The Committee therefore requests documents and communications showing what your administration knew about this fraud and whether you took action to limit or halt the investigation into this widespread fraud.”

The probe follows reports of schemes like the Feeding Our Future scandal, where fraudsters siphoned off funds meant for child nutrition, autism services, and housing aid. Federal prosecutors recently charged six more defendants in related autism and housing frauds, with one pleading guilty, as part of an ongoing crackdown.

Latest updates from U.S. attorneys indicate fraud in 14 Minnesota programs could top $9 billion, swamping state resources and prompting Treasury probes into potential terrorism ties. Governor Tim Walz, facing heat, admitted accountability but vowed fixes amid mounting charges.

When pressed on Walz and Ellison’s cooperation, Jeffries dodged the question and unleashed insults, labeling Comer “a joke, an embarrassment, an unserious individual, and a malignant clown.”

Comer fired back hard, dismissing the barbs and turning the tables on Jeffries’ hypocrisy.

“That’s the third time he’s called me a clown. Look, everyone that watches his interviews and sees how he tries to imitate Obama, they wonder why he’s got the nickname Dollar Store Obama. Look, he’s a low-IQ individual who has to resort to name-calling; that’s what he criticizes Donald Trump over. I don’t care what he calls me. He can come to Kentucky and campaign against me. I’ll pay for his gas bill,” Comer said.

“But at the end of the day, to defend Tim Walz is going to be a huge mistake for the Democrats because everyone in Minnesota knows that this fraud has been taking place for a long time. All I’m doing is my job, getting the backs of the taxpayers. If Hakeem Jeffries doesn’t like it, he can go fly a kite because, at the end of the day, the American people expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely.”

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump advisor Stephen Miller framed the scandal’s scale on Fox News, comparing it to Somalia’s GDP and blasting the importation of criminal elements.

“Well, first of all, regarding the situation in Minnesota, by the way, not just Minnesota — we have Somali refugees that were dumped here by Democrats in Ohio and Massachusetts. Let me just say we should not be shocked. When you import a population whose primary occupation is pirate, that they are going to come here and steal everything we have,” Miller said.

“Somalia has this giant coastline, and the only industry they have created, after hundreds of years is piracy, stealing what anyone going through who has actually built something has made. So, yes, the pirates have stolen all of our money, and they have to go home, Jesse. That’s the situation we’re in right now,” Miller further urged.

Miller continued: “So he has presided over — this corrupt, incompetent loser has presided over the largest theft of American taxpayer dollars in history. It’s never been equal before. The amount of money that’s been stolen is larger than the entire GDP of Somalia. In other words, the Somalians they brought here have theft and more than all the Somalians in Somalia have ever created for themselves in all the time that has existed up until now.”

“So there needs to be a lot of people going to jail. And I can promise you, the Department of Justice is launching an investigation that is commensurate in force and in purpose with the scope, scale, size and magnitude of this controversy,” Miller declared.

This explosive exchange underscores the failures of open-border policies, where America First priorities get trampled by globalist agendas that prioritize foreign grifters over hardworking Americans.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 15:10

From War 'On' Silver To War 'For' Silver

From War 'On' Silver To War 'For' Silver

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

You know Steve Quayle as a renowned radio host, filmmaker, book author and archeological dig expert. Most people do not know that Quayle has four decades experience in the gold and silver markets.

Quayle says the exploding record high prices for gold, and especially silver, are signaling big trouble brewing for the financial system. Are prices rising because we are near a global sovereign debt crisis or a wider war with Russia and Ukraine? Are currencies under pressure or is the bond market about to tank? It might be anyone of these, or all of the above, but one thing is for sure, the price of silver is going up well beyond the latest record high price. Quayle says,

“This has been one of the most explosive weeks with events taking place. Those of us in the business have known that the powers that be have been making their war on silver for 50 years. For 50 years, they have been manipulating the price of silver... robbing primarily from the individual investor. The war on silver has passed. Now, we are looking at the war for silver that is underway.

We are looking at a global treasure hunt for gold and silver, primarily silver ,for the burgeoning and exploding technology. Silver has properties that no other metal has.”

For example, Samsung just cut a deal in Mexico to reopen a mine and take all the production over the next two years. They are bypassing COMEX, CME and the LBMA and getting their raw silver directly from the mine. Quayle knows of nearly a dozen other big tech companies scrambling for silver. Quayle points out:

“This is critical because the amount of silver that would normally be available to individual investors is being cut off at the mine.”

Quayle says China is one of the biggest players getting control of silver supplies around the globe. Quayle says,

“People would be astonished that the industrial demand for silver outstrips the available silver...

Here is the bottom line: on the production side, silver is oversold dramatically...

By the way, I am told the official price for silver behind the scenes is $86 an ounce...

The question is how fast will the silver market accelerate and make it impossible for the average investor or private investor to acquire?”

Quayle is also seeing the end of the futures markets and the way silver and gold has been priced. Quayle says:

 “We are watching the end of the futures market in the United States and in London. The London Bullion Metals Exchange cannot deliver. In my opinion, they have cheated and lied.”

If they don’t have the metal to deliver, they cannot set the price. Quayle says,

“Would you trust them with anything such as cattle futures, hogs or soybeans? Heck no. . .. Physical silver in hand still exists, but for how long? This is not a scare tactic. It is supply and demand...

I am telling people to get what you can while you can because the day will come when silver and gold will be unobtainable...

It’s critical for people to acquire what they can acquire now in silver. Gold is always your savings. Silver, historically, has been your barter fund.

Gold is your savings account for the future, and silver is your way to make it to the future.”

There is more in the 58-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes one-on-one with Steve Quayle warning you to prepare for much higher prices for silver and the financial storm that a failure to deliver physical silver will cause for 12.20.25.

To Donate to USAWatchdog, click here

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 14:00

Citizens In Eastern Ukraine Will Not Be Allowed To Vote, Zelensky Says

Citizens In Eastern Ukraine Will Not Be Allowed To Vote, Zelensky Says

President Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that Ukraine and Washington are in talks about holding elections, after earlier this month he much belatedly said while under pressure from Trump that he's ready to allow national elections, so long as they can be done fairly and freely.

Zelensky indicated current discussions also hinge on the US and other partners helping set the conditions so Ukrainians can vote in safety. He previously stated the country could hold a vote within 60 days - but only if there are security guarantees.

Already over the weekend he erected more barriers to holding a vote, stipulating that citizens in Eastern Ukraine would not be able to participate. 

"Any election in Ukraine can not be held in Russia-occupied parts of the country," Zelensky has been quoted in international press as saying, and he once again added that a proper voting process can take place only if security is ensured.

via Al Jazeera

He has also lately said that Ukraine's foreign minister had started the initial work on the infrastructure needed for Ukrainians living abroad to participate.

The four oblasts that President Putin has called "our four new regions" and "our citizens forever" include Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions - and were annexed after a popular referendum during the first year of the war.

Putin has blasted Zelensky's rule as illegitimate given the canceled elections based on enacting a state of martial law, and President Trump has expressed increasing agreement with this perspective.

Still, Zelensky's new 'openness' with holding an election has been coupled with plenty of caveats and likely immense barriers. For example last week he said--

...that a ceasefire with Russia must be in place before elections can be held in Ukraine, "at least for the duration of the election process and voting". Ukrainian law forbids wartime elections but US President Donald Trump is pressuring Zelensky, whose term ended last year, to hold a vote.

But Trump this month finally put some real pressure on him, it appears. Given Zelensky had put the brakes on the US-proposed pace plan by definitively rejecting the territorial concessions aspects to the document, the US president's assessment in a recent Politico interview was blunt and highly critical, going so far as to basically call Ukraine not a democracy.

"They haven’t had an election in a long time," Trump said. "You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it's not a democracy anymore."

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 13:25

Jim Beam Shuttering Kentucky Distillery, Halting Production, For 2026

Jim Beam Shuttering Kentucky Distillery, Halting Production, For 2026

One of Kentucky’s largest bourbon producers will halt whiskey production at its main Clermont site for 2026. Jim Beam plans to pause distillation at the James B. Beam campus in Happy Hollow beginning Jan. 1 while investing in site enhancements, according to the Lexington Herald Leader.

“We are always assessing production levels to best meet consumer demand and recently met with our team to discuss our volumes for 2026,” the statement said. “We’ve shared with our teams that while we will continue to distill at our (Freddie Booker Noe) craft distillery in Clermont and at our larger Booker Noe distillery in Boston, we plan to pause distillation at our main distillery on the James B. Beam campus for 2026 while we take the opportunity to invest in site enhancements. Our visitor center at the James B. Beam campus remains open so visitors can have the full James B. Beam experience and join us for a meal at The Kitchen Table.”

Bottling and warehousing will continue at Clermont, and the visitor center will remain open for Kentucky Bourbon Trail tourists. The pause was first reported by the Louisville Business Journal.

The Herald writes that the move comes as Kentucky’s $9 billion bourbon industry faces oversupply and weaker demand. Production statewide is down more than 55 million proof-gallons—over 28%—through August, the lowest level since 2018. Exports have also fallen, with U.S. whiskey sales to Canada down more than 60% through October amid a boycott tied to trade tensions.

Beam has not filed a layoffs notice with the state, and it is unclear how many jobs could be affected. Workers are represented by United Food and Commercial Workers, and the company said it is in discussions with the union “to assess how best to utilize our workforce during this transition.”

The Clermont facility produces Jim Beam’s flagship bourbon along with Basil Hayden and Knob Creek. A larger distillery in Boston, Ky., will not be affected. Distilling at Maker’s Mark also is unaffected. As of 2024, Jim Beam employed nearly 1,500 people in Kentucky.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 13:25

DHS Locates Nearly 130,000 Unaccompanied Missing Children, Says Noem

DHS Locates Nearly 130,000 Unaccompanied Missing Children, Says Noem

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services have located over 129,143 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children whom the prior administration had lost track of, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a Dec. 19 post on X.

“Too many of these children were exploited, trafficked, and abused,” Noem wrote. “We will continue to ramp up efforts and will not stop until every last child is found.”

In August 2024, the DHS Office of Inspector General published a report revealing that 323,000 illegal immigrant children were unaccounted for in the United States.

As of May 2024, over 32,000 of these children had been served notices to appear in court but failed to do so. In addition, the safety of 291,000 children could not be verified.

In a Nov. 14 statement, DHS announced that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement had launched an initiative with local and state law enforcement partners to conduct welfare checks on the hundreds of thousands of illegal, unaccompanied children smuggled across the border and placed with unvetted sponsors under the Biden administration.

The main aim of the initiative is to ensure they are not being exploited, DHS said.

“Many of the children who came across the border unaccompanied were allowed to be placed with sponsors who were smugglers and sex traffickers,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said.

“We’ve jump-started our efforts to rescue children who were victims of sex and labor trafficking,” she said.

“President [Donald] Trump and Secretary Noem are laser-focused on protecting children and will continue to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement to reunite children with their families.”

Crackdown on Child Predators

The Trump administration recently launched Operation Relentless Justice to identify, track, and arrest child sex predators, according to a Dec. 19 statement from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The two-week enforcement operation led to a nationwide crackdown that resulted in the arrest of more than 293 child sexual abuse offenders, with over 205 child victims located.

“Operation Relentless Justice shows no child will be forgotten and that all predators targeting the most vulnerable amongst us will be held accountable,” FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“This year, the FBI has led multiple nationwide surges across the U.S. to find and arrest hundreds of child predators. We will not stop until every child can live a life free of exploitation. We will utilize the strength of all our field offices and our federal, state, and local partners to protect communities across the nation from such horrific crimes.”

Prior to Operation Relentless Justice, the Trump administration had implemented Operation Restore Justice in May, which led to 205 child sex abuse offenders being arrested and 115 children being rescued.

Later in August, Operation Enduring Justice resulted in the arrests of 234 offenders and the rescue of 133 children.

Commenting on Operation Relentless Justice, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in a Dec. 19 post on X that this was “one of many successful” operations conducted to crack down on violent crimes against children this year.

“The Director and I have prioritized their life-saving work from the moment we swore in. And we assured them an agency-wide effort to punish the demons who violate the sacred trust of children,” Bongino wrote.

On Dec. 19, the DOJ announced that a member of the Nihilistic Violent Extremist group “764” pleaded guilty to multiple acts involving the sexual exploitation of children.

The group is an online criminal network that methodically targets and exploits minors. The perpetrator, who pleaded guilty, is alleged to have coerced minors into engaging in sexual acts and committing self-harm.

The perpetrator “led a group of online predators whose ultimate purpose is to destroy our society,” said Sue J. Bai, principal deputy assistant attorney general for National Security.

“They tried to achieve that heinous goal by desensitizing innocent children to violence—coercing them to perform gruesome and harmful acts against themselves and animals—with the hope of encouraging further violence and spreading chaos.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 12:50

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates Musk’s Record-Setting 2018 Tesla Compensation Plan

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates Musk’s Record-Setting 2018 Tesla Compensation Plan

The Delaware Supreme Court has reinstated Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO compensation package from Tesla, reversing lower-court rulings that had twice voided the award and bringing an end to a yearslong legal fight over one of the largest pay packages in corporate history, according to CNBC.

In a per curiam decision issued Friday, the court ruled that the Delaware Court of Chancery erred in canceling the pay plan outright. The justices said rescinding the award was “inequitable” because it “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years.” The Supreme Court reversed the rescission remedy and awarded $1 in nominal damages.

The compensation plan, approved by Tesla shareholders in 2018, granted Musk the option to purchase about 303 million split-adjusted shares through 12 milestone-based tranches tied to market capitalization and operational goals. When the award vested, it was valued at roughly $56 billion. At Friday’s closing share price, the package would be worth about $139 billion.

The case arose from a derivative lawsuit filed in 2018 by Tesla shareholder Richard J. Tornetta, who accused Musk and the Tesla board of breaching their fiduciary duties. In January 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the pay plan had been improperly granted. She found that Musk “controlled Tesla” and that the process leading to board approval was “deeply flawed,” including failures to disclose all material information to shareholders before seeking their vote. Although shareholders approved the package twice, McCormick rejected it both times, writing that the Tesla board “bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with the remedy imposed. In its opinion, the justices said the lower court’s decision to cancel the plan entirely was too extreme and noted that Tesla had not been given the opportunity to determine what a fair compensation award might look like. The ruling restores the 2018 pay package but leaves other aspects of the Chancery Court’s decision untouched.

Legal scholars emphasized that distinction. Dorothy Lund, a professor at Columbia Law School, told CNBC that while the decision revives the pay plan, it does not undo earlier findings about governance failures. “The court had previously decided that Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla and that the Tesla board and he arranged an unfair pay plan for him,” she said. “None of that was reversed in this decision.”

CNBC wrote that lawyers for Tornetta echoed that view in an emailed statement, saying, “We are proud to have participated in the historic verdict below, calling to account the Tesla board and its largest stockholder for their breaches of fiduciary duty.”

Musk responded to news of the ruling on X, writing, “Thank you for your unwavering support.”

Musk is already the world’s richest person, with an estimated net worth in excess of $600 billion, largely due to his Tesla holdings and his stake in SpaceX, which he plans to take public as early as next year. Tesla shares are trading near record highs.

The ruling also nullifies a shareholder-approved contingency plan that would have replaced Musk’s 2018 compensation if the appeal had failed. Separately, Tesla shareholders approved a new, much larger CEO pay package for Musk in 2025, consisting of 12 tranches tied to future milestones and potentially worth up to $1 trillion over the next decade.

The Supreme Court’s decision likely closes the final chapter of the Tornetta litigation and restores the compensation plan that helped cement Musk’s status as the wealthiest individual in the world, even as broader questions about Tesla’s corporate governance remain unresolved.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 12:15

Bitcoin's Quantum Debate Is Resurfacing & Markets Are Starting To Notice

Bitcoin's Quantum Debate Is Resurfacing & Markets Are Starting To Notice

Authored by Shaurya Malwa via CoinDesk.com,

What to know:

  • The majority of Bitcoin developers argue that quantum computing does not pose an immediate threat to the network, with machines capable of breaking its cryptography unlikely to exist for decades.

  • Critics express concern over the lack of preparation for quantum threats, as governments and companies begin adopting quantum-resistant systems.

  • The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360 aims to introduce quantum-resistant address formats, allowing users to gradually transition to more secure cryptographic standards.

Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains has once again crept into online bitcoin conversations, raising concerns that it poses a long-term risk that investors and developers are still struggling to talk about in the same language.

The latest flare-up in the debate followed comments from prominent Bitcoin developers pushing back against claims that quantum computers pose any real risk to the network in the foreseeable future. Their view is straightforward: that machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely to for decades.

Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure firm Blockstream, described the risk as effectively nonexistent in the near term, calling quantum computing “ridiculously early” and riddled with unresolved research problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argued, Bitcoin’s design would not allow coins to be instantly stolen across the network.

Back’s assessment is broadly shared among protocol developers. Critics, however, say the problem isn’t the timeline, but it’s the lack of visible preparation.

Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to secure wallets and authorize transactions. As CoinDesk previously explained, sufficiently advanced quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm — a quantum algorithm used to find the prime factors of big numbers — could derive private keys from exposed public keys, putting a portion of existing coins at risk.

The network wouldn’t collapse overnight, but funds sitting in older address formats — including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million bitcoins, which have been untouched since 2010 — could become vulnerable to threat actors

For now, that threat remains theoretical. Yet governments and large enterprises are already acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The U.S. has outlined plans to phase out classical cryptography by the mid-2030s, while companies such as Cloudflare and Apple have begun rolling out quantum-resistant systems.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And that gap is where market unease is creeping in.

Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, said on X that the disconnect between developers and investors is becoming hard to ignore. Capital, he argues, is less concerned with whether quantum attacks arrive in five years or 15, and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible path forward if cryptography standards change.

Plans to fight back

Developers counter that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real danger appears. Proposals exist to migrate users toward quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, restrict spending from legacy wallets. All of this would be preventive rather than reactive.

One such plan is the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360, which introduces a new type of Bitcoin address designed to use quantum-resistant cryptography.

It provides users with a means to transfer their coins into wallets that rely on different mathematical algorithms, which are believed to be far more resistant to cracking by quantum computers.

BIP360 outlines three new signature methods, each offering varying levels of protection, so the network can gradually shift rather than force a sudden upgrade. Nothing would change automatically. Users would opt in over time by moving funds to the new address format.

Supporters of BIP360 argue the proposal is less about predicting when quantum computers arrive and more about preparation. Moving Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard could take years, involving software updates, infrastructure changes, and user coordination.

Starting early, they say, reduces the risk of being forced into rushed decisions later.

However, Bitcoin’s conservative governance becomes a challenge when addressing long-horizon threats that require early consensus.

Quantum computing is not currently an existential threat to Bitcoin, and no credible timeline suggests otherwise.

However, as capital becomes more institutional and long-term, even distant risks require clearer answers.

Until developers and investors converge on a shared framework, the quantum question will continue to linger — not as a panic, but as a quiet friction weighing on sentiment.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 11:40

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via American Greatness,

The quietude of looking out the kitchen window on a December morning at a meadow dusted in snow is magical. A deer pauses at the edge of the wood, breath steaming in the cold air, grazing on whatever bits of green poke through the snow. It is a scene replicated on greeting cards and stamped on cookie tins.

Part of the magic behind that tableau—from the roast in the oven to the cranberries on a plate, from the pine and hardwoods standing tall outside to the browsing fauna—is a phenomenon the establishment media ignore: CO₂-driven, NASA-acknowledged greening of Earth.

Satellite data from the last four decades confirm a significant increase in vegetation over as much as half the globe. During this period, atmospheric CO₂ increased from about 350 parts per million (ppm) to more than 400 ppm, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.

It is a gift arriving right on cue to meet a continuous increase in population and demand for food. This basic sustenance allows for all other human endeavors—developments in artificial intelligence, medicine, and more. It is difficult to write computer code on an empty stomach.

Behind this gift of plenty is a process fundamental to all life, starting with plants: Photosynthesis is a mechanism by which plants use CO₂, water, and sunlight to make sugars for food. When atmospheric CO₂ rises—whether from the emissions of human activity or any other source—plants grow faster. A side benefit is that they use water more efficiently, making them more resilient to arid conditions and extending their geographic range.

The degree to which plants respond to more CO₂ varies, but it is always positive. An increase in CO₂ to 800 parts per million (ppm) or so—more than double the current atmospheric concentration—increases yields by 10% to 100%.

In greenhouse farming, carbon dioxide levels are elevated to 1,000 ppm or so to increase the yields of tomatoes and cucumbers by 20% to 40%. Plants, such as corn, sugarcane, and millets, also benefit from higher atmospheric CO₂, whose positive effect on them is even more evident in the presence of drought.

For many, a cold Christmas morning is warmed by coffee, especially festive offerings like peppermint mocha and gingerbread latte. Well, the good news is that even coffee plants are boosted by the rise of CO₂. Studies in Latin America found that elevated carbon dioxide boosted coffee plant photosynthesis and increased yields by 12% to 14%.

People forget that the Little Ice Age—lasting from about 1300 to 1850—brought crop failures and famine to large sections of Europe and Asia. Rivers froze, and growing seasons shrank. Many communities struggled during periods of cold-induced scarcity.

The 20th century delivered the opposite: the longer growing seasons of a modestly warmer climate paired with higher levels of CO₂. This is hardly the making of a catastrophe that some would have us believe. In fact, a 2025 analysis projected changes in global average yields across all crops to be neutral or positive up to 5 degrees Celsius of warming into the future.

Only the Climate Grinches would oppose such a bounty of greening from modern warmth and CO₂ concentrations. These are the characters who have dominated headlines in popular media and policy roundtables in Brussels and Washington. They steal not only the joy of experiencing this natural abundance by spreading false fears but also the prosperity and sovereignty of nations.

Climate Grinches look at a greening planet and see disaster. When NASA announces that Earth has added vegetation equivalent to two American continents, they warn that this cannot last, that benefits are temporary, and that doom still awaits. When farmers report bumper harvests enabled by longer growing seasons and CO₂ fertilization, the Climate Grinches insist that gains are outweighed by unspecified future horrors.

So, this Christmas season, when you gather with your family, look at the spread before you with new eyes. Reject the guilt that climate orthodoxy seeks to place on our shoulders.

Modern lifestyles are not destroying the planet. We are basking in a vibrant ecosystem that supports more greenery, more people, and more human potential than at any other time in history.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 10:30

Fed's Soft Landing Talk Meets Hard Data

Fed's Soft Landing Talk Meets Hard Data

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Fed’s soft landing narrative is a key theme in financial media, particularly on Wall Street, which expects a resurgence in economic activity in 2026 to justify increasing forward earnings expectations.

As shown, Wall Street currently expects the bottom 493 stocks to contribute more to earnings in 2026 than they have in the past 3 years. This is notable in that, over the past three years, the average growth rate for the bottom 493 stocks was less than 3%. Yet over the next 2 years, that earnings growth is expected to average above 11%.

Furthermore, the outlook is even more exuberant for the most economically sensitive stocks. Small and mid-cap companies struggled to produce earnings growth during the previous three years of robust economic growth, driven by monetary and fiscal stimulus. However, next year, even if the Fed’s soft landing narrative is valid, they are expected to see a surge in earnings growth rates of nearly 60%.

Notably, all this is occurring at a time when the entire economy’s profit margins have peaked and may potentially be turning lower.

It should come as no surprise that there is a high correlation between economic growth and earnings, given that in a demand-driven economy, consumption is what generates revenues, and revenues ultimately develop earnings.

“A better way to visualize this data is to look at the correlation between the annual change in earnings growth and inflation-adjusted GDP. There are periods when earnings deviate from underlying economic activity. However, those periods are due to pre- or post-recession earnings fluctuations. Currently, economic and earnings growth are very close to the long-term correlation.”

The problem currently facing the Fed’s soft landing narrative is that it hopes the economy can slow without a recession, allowing inflation to return to its target. For now, investors have held the markets higher, hoping the Fed’s soft landing narrative comes to fruition, which would lead to a surge in economic activity. However, the latest employment, retail sales, and inflation trends suggest a potentially worse outcome, characterized by weakening demand and shaky consumer strength.

Those factors weaken the case for the Fed’s hopes of a soft landing and suggest an increase in market fragility.

Falling Inflation Tells a Demand Story

Let’s start with inflation. If economic growth were on the cusp of resurgence, expectations for inflation would be rising. However, as shown, those expectations never rose with “printed inflation,” because it was the “transitory effect” of massive monetary stimulus. The bond market’s view was that inflation would revert to its normalized levels as that monetary excess left the system, which has been the case. This is particularly notable, as inflation expectations have always been more accurate than the “inflation” bears we discussed yesterday.

In the Fed’s narrative of a soft landing, the trend in inflation expectations is crucial. Here is an essential point:

“The Federal Reserve WANTS inflation.”

Here is another critical point: So do you.

Without inflation, there can not be economic growth, increasing wages, and an improving standard of living. In other words, prices must always rise over time, which is why the Fed targets a 2% inflation rate, thereby supporting 2% economic growth. What we don’t want is “disinflation” or “deflation,” which would occur in conjunction with a recession, leading to job losses, falling wages, and reduced prosperity overall. As shown in the chart below, there is a high correlation between inflation, economic growth, and interest rates over time.

When inflation eases because demand weakens, the economy slows, producers lower prices to clear unsold goods, and employers become more restrictive in hiring and wage increases. Services that rely on discretionary spending lose pricing power, and banks become more stringent in their lending practices. These are not signs of a healthy expansion, but rather reflect a decline in spending power among households.

The Fed’s soft landing narrative is predicated on the hope that it can achieve its 2% inflation target without causing a more widespread slowdown. Historically, the Fed has failed in such attempts, as shown by the relationship between Fed rate-cutting cycles and economic and financial consequences.

As an investor, you need to distinguish between inflation caused by temporary supply/demand shocks, as we saw following the Pandemic, and inflation caused by organic economic activity. Supply/demand imbalances, such as higher input costs or a lack of supply caused by a geopolitical shock, can create a spike in inflation, which resolves itself when the shock is over. However, inflation caused by organic demand provides insight into the strength or weakness of the economy. Currently, we are focused on potential demand erosion as consumers cut back, employment weakens, and wages decline.

The retail sector provides early signals of demand weakness. Housing-related spending, auto sales, and discretionary purchases show stress, and many consumers face higher borrowing costs and lower savings. As shown, PCE, which accounts for nearly 70% of the GDP calculation, slowing inflation rates, and weak retail sales growth, all suggest that demand destruction is present in the economy. Such a development may further weigh on the Fed’s narrative of a soft landing.

As noted, the Fed’s soft landing narrative requires demand to slow moderately while avoiding recession. However, falling inflation driven by weakening demand and sluggish employment growth suggests a more profound weakness.

Retail Sales Growth Is Not What It Appears

Headline retail sales reports often show month-over-month increases, which reporters interpret as evidence of resilient consumer strength. However, a look at the data tells a different story. For example, since 2022, real retail sales growth has effectively not grown. In fact, previous periods of flat retail sales growth were pre-recessionary warnings.

Secondly, the annual rate of change in real retail sales is at levels that have typically preceded weaker economic environments and recessions.

Notably, retail sales figures are subject to seasonal adjustments, which correct for typical spending patterns. During the holiday and back-to-school seasons, spending increases and the “adjustments” attempt to remove these effects. However, if the adjustment process overestimates normal seasonal strength, the adjusted result will appear firmer than it actually is. Secondly, another distortion comes from changes in price levels. If prices fall because demand weakens, nominal sales may rise while real volumes fall. Consumers buy less but pay lower prices. Nominal retail sales can mislead when viewed without context.

This is what we are currently seeing in the economy. As consumers pull back, businesses face the prospect of weaker revenue. That leads to slower hiring, lower investment, and falling confidence.

This matters for the Fed’s view of a soft landing. If consumer demand remains weak, the economy may slow more than expected, which increases the risk of recession. A “soft landing” requires growth to slow without tipping over, but current economic data points suggest a risk to that growth story.

The Market Risk If The Fed Is Wrong

If the Fed’s soft landing narrative proves incorrect, the downside risk to investors increases significantly. The soft landing narrative has been factored into market prices, earnings expectations, and economic projections. Any deviation exposes valuations and portfolios to sharp repricing. With valuations already very elevated, the risk of a repricing event is not insignificant.

Wall Street’s forward expectations hinge on a growth rebound in 2026. Those projections assume that demand will return and margins will remain stable. However, there is no guarantee that either of those assumptions are accurate. If margins have already peaked, inflation declines as demand erodes, and employment falls, negative earnings revisions could be substantial. The year-over-year change in real retail sales, as shown in the chart, has hovered near recessionary warning levels. With consumers already strained by high debt service costs, weak wage growth, and declining savings, discretionary spending is under pressure, which directly affects earnings across cyclical sectors.

If demand weakens further, companies will face lower revenue and tighter margins. The margin compression will initially impact earnings, particularly for smaller firms with limited pricing power. A repricing of earnings expectations will follow, dragging valuations with it.

The Fed’s historical track record of avoiding recession during tightening and easing cycles is poor. Most rate-cutting cycles have been in response to financial or economic stress, not smooth slowdowns. If the Fed cuts rates next year, it likely won’t be in response to a soft landing. That shift in narrative would catch most investors leaning the wrong way.

Positioning for a soft landing assumes the Fed can control inflation without breaking demand. The data say otherwise. The risk, as always, is that the market wakes up to this reality too late. Therefore, investors should consider preparing for such a possibility in advance.

If the Fed’s soft landing narrative fails, investors will face a different environment than the one markets currently price. The assumptions behind strong equity valuations, tight credit spreads, and risk-on positioning will crack. If it does, that means you will need to act based on risk, not rhetoric. Here are some actions to consider.

1. Reduce Exposure to Overvalued Growth Assets: Tech and growth stocks led the rally on rate cut hopes and soft landing optimism. If earnings disappoint and rates stay higher, these valuations come under pressure.

  • Trim overweight positions in mega-cap tech.
  • Avoid speculative names with no earnings.
  • Focus on companies with strong cash flow and pricing power.

2. Increase Cash and Short-Term Treasuries: If growth slows and volatility returns, capital preservation matters. Cash gives you optionality. Short-term Treasuries offer yield without duration risk.

  • Rebalance toward 3-month to 1-year Treasury bills.
  • Hold cash equivalents yielding over 4.5 percent.
  • Avoid reaching for yield in low-quality credit.

3. Tilt Toward Defensive Sectors: Slower growth hits cyclicals and high beta sectors first. Defensive sectors hold up better in downturns.

  • Favor healthcare, consumer staples, and utilities.
  • Limit exposure to discretionary, financial, and industrial sectors.
  • Screen for dividend sustainability and balance sheet strength.

4. Prepare for Credit Stress: If recession risk rises, corporate credit spreads will widen. Junk bonds will suffer. Bank lending tightens further.

  • Exit high-yield bonds and floating-rate loans.
  • Review credit exposure in bond funds.
  • Consider higher-quality fixed income with lower default risk.

5. Be Patient and Opportunistic: If markets break, forced selling creates dislocations. You want dry powder ready.

  • Hold 10–20 percent in cash or equivalents.
  • Build watchlists of high-quality names at lower valuations.
  • Add in stages as prices adjust, not all at once.

You don’t need to predict a recession. Instead, prepare for the potential risk if the Fed’s hopes for a soft landing fade. You can always increase risk more easily than recovering from losses. Remaining disciplined, protecting capital, and looking for opportunities is always the best course of action.

Trade accordingly.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 09:20

Britain's Ruling Class Loves To Cosplay As A Titan

Britain's Ruling Class Loves To Cosplay As A Titan

Authored by Gerry Nolan via The Ron Paul Institute

From the podium, it’s Churchillian thunder: prepare for war, deter Russia, stand tall, lead the free world. Back in the engine room, it’s Whitehall with a calculator, sweating through its suit because the numbers simply don’t work. The Financial Times reports Starmer has delayed the Defence Investment Plan over "affordability," kicking it into 2026, because the military’s wish list collided with the Treasury’s reality. Translation: the rhetoric is premium, the balance sheet is bargain-bin.

And then, because the universe has a sense of irony sharp enough to cut steel, enter Ajax; the £6-plus billion armored vehicle program that has become the British state’s spirit animal. Trials paused again. Fresh safety concerns. Soldiers injured. Crews sickened by vibration and noise. Endless reviews. Endless "lessons learned." Endless press lines insisting this is all somehow progress.

If you want to understand modern Britain, don’t read strategy documents. Watch a procurement program that cannot stop hurting the people it is meant to protect.

Ajax was meant to be the backbone of Britain’s future armored forces, a next-generation reconnaissance and strike platform designed to replace ageing vehicles and restore credibility to the British Army’s maneuver capability. Instead, it has become a case study in institutional failure: spiraling costs, years of delay, fundamental design flaws, and a safety record so poor it forced repeated trial suspensions. Soldiers were not merely inconvenienced; they were physically harmed in testing, suffering hearing damage, sickness, and long-term health concerns.

This is not a marginal technical glitch. It is the predictable outcome of a system where industrial capacity has been hollowed out, accountability diffused, and procurement reduced to a paper exercise optimized for contracts, not combat. Ajax does not fail because Britain lacks engineers or soldiers. It fails because Britain no longer possesses a state machinery capable of translating ambition into functioning hardware at scale.

This is the farce at the heart of the Atlantic security sermon.

Britain speaks about Russia the way a fading aristocrat sneers at a rising industrial superpower… condescending, dismissive, utterly uncurious. For years we’ve heard the same insult recycled like a nervous tic: Russia is a "gas station," a crude petro-state propped up by fumes and nostalgia. Yet here we are.

Russia the “gas station,” under the most comprehensive sanctions regime in modern history, has been forced—by Western institutions themselves—into an inconvenient admission: Russia now ranks as the fourth-largest economy in the world by purchasing-power parity.

So let’s pause and ask the question Britain’s elites refuse to face. If Russia is a glorified gas station, what exactly does that make Britain? A country that cannot publish a defence investment plan on time. A state that cannot field a functioning armoured vehicle without injuring its own troops. An economy that cannot sustain rearmament in spite of private finance gimmicks and accounting contortions. A political class that cannot reconcile its war talk with its industrial capacity.

If Russia is a gas station, Britain increasingly resembles a heritage museum complete with a gift shop, living off past glories while subcontracting its future.

Now let’s move to where the illusion truly collapses, production.

Wars are not won by hysterical speeches, theatrical bravado, summits, or moral pronouncements. They are won by output — steel, shells, access to critical minerals, drones, logistics, and the brutal arithmetic of throughput. On this front, the West has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into recognition of a reality it tried to meme out of existence.

Russia's military-industrial base bureaucratically compressed, hardened, and scaled under pressure —now outpaces NATO’s collective ammunition production by a multiple. Western officials themselves have been forced to admit the gap, even as they scramble to promise future catch-up schedules that read more like aspiration than viable plan.

In sum, while Russia produces, Britain reviews glorified mission statements. And while Russia iterates, Britain delays indefinitely out of impotence. Russia fields game changing adaptations learned from battlefield within months. While Britain commissions another inquiry.

And this is where the mockery turns into indictment.

Because Britain is not merely weak. It is performatively Russophobic, a leading amplifier of a psychological contagion that has swept Western Europe. A political culture that replaced diplomacy with insult, respect with caricature, and strategic realism with adolescent moral posturing.

For decades, Russians asked for nothing exotic. Security guarantees. Recognition of reasonable red lines. A place in a shared European security architecture. Basic respect and dignity after the Cold War. They were met instead with NATO expansion, broken promises, regime-change evangelism, and the casual humiliation of a great civilization reduced to punchlines for Western domestic politics.

And now, after years of stoking this hysteria, inflaming this anger, and dismissing Russian concerns as paranoia, Britain offers the world a confession written in delays, budget shortfalls, and broken machinery.

For all the talk of deterrence, what they’re left with is cold reality, exposure. A state that talks war while failing at procurement is not projecting strength. It is advertising vulnerability at scale. A leadership class that cannot fund its own defence while demanding continental confrontation is not leading, but gambling with other people’s lives.

For a country in this position to posture as a peer adversary to Russia is not serious strategy. It is suicide pact dressed up as virtue. At this point, honesty would demand something radical in London: humility and sober realism.

A state in Britain’s position should not be lecturing the world, moralizing from the sidelines, or inflating its own strategic importance. It should be urgently repairing what it helped to destroy, namely trust, diplomacy, and the basic architecture of European security. It should be suing for peace, not performing toughness it cannot afford.

Because history is unforgiving to former empires that mistake memory for power.

Russia did not arrive at this moment through fantasy. It arrived through necessity, through sanctions, pressure, exclusion, and the steady realisation that the West no longer spoke the language of compromise, only command. Britain, by contrast, arrived here through illusion: convinced it was still a titan while outsourcing its industry, hollowing out its capacity, and replacing strategy with theatre.

This is the real danger now, not Russian strength, but Western self-deception.

A political class that cannot build, cannot fund, and cannot field its own defence has no business escalating confrontation with a civilization that can. When rhetoric races far ahead of reality, history does not intervene gently. It intervenes brutally. Britain is not preparing for a conflict with Russia. It is preparing for a reckoning with the reality of its own weakness.

And reality, unlike Whitehall briefings, legacy slogans, or moral posturing, does not negotiate.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 08:10

DNA Evidence Proves "First Black Briton" Was Actually A White Girl

DNA Evidence Proves "First Black Briton" Was Actually A White Girl

In 2021 the establishment media was electrified by a discovery involving the ancient remains of a woman found over a century ago near a village in East Sussex in Britain.  The reason leftist journalists were so hyped?  A supposedly comprehensive study by "experts" in facial reconstruction had determined that the nearly 2000 year old skeleton belonged to a Sub-Saharan African person.

The remains became known as the "Beachy Head Woman" and images of her reconstructed black face began circulating internationally.  This was proof, somehow, that progressives had always been right to support third world immigration.

The new data arrived conveniently in time to support a far-left campaign to defend the ideas of multiculturalism.  Part of this narrative asserts that Caucasian regions of the world have never actually been Caucasian and that western culture doesn't really exist.  In fact, white Europeans have no claim to any lands anywhere, they have no home, and African/Asian migrants have "always" freely traveled throughout Europe.

The political left was enthralled, taking to social media and reposting the discovery millions of times over to "own the fascists".  The BBC even paid to have a plaque constructed on the site where the bones were discovered proudly proclaiming that this is where the first Briton of "African origin" had been found.

School lessons were immediately developed in the UK, teaching students about the multicultural history of Britain.  This was scientific confirmation to back up the avalanche of European entertainment content depicting Sub-Saharan Africans as integral to the history of the continent, roaming the lands as tribesman or enjoying the finery of royal court.   

Leftists argue that their version of history justifies the expansion of open mass immigration, because "things have always been this way" and white people today who want to protect their histories and cultures from erasure are merely ignorant of the past.  

The problem is, Beachy Head Woman is not African or black.  Recently confirmed DNA evidence shows she was white with blonde hair and blue eyes.  She was not a migrant, but born in ancient Britain.

The narrative began to break down in 2023 when genetic studies indicated she might have come from Cyprus (a part of the Roman Empire) and was not of African origin.  More advanced DNA analysis, released this week, destroyed the claims of migration and also embarrassed the "experts" involved in the facial reconstruction of the skull.

The new study, led by researchers at London’s Natural History Museum, working in collaboration with University College London, used advanced ancient DNA sequencing that was not available a decade ago. By extracting a much larger quantity of high-quality DNA, they were able to place her ancestry within a broader Roman-era genetic framework. 

The results show that her DNA is most similar to that of individuals from rural southern Britain during the Roman period and to modern populations from England. There are no traces of recent sub-Saharan African or Mediterranean ancestry. Isotope analysis of her teeth and bones indicates that her early years were spent on the south coast of Britain, and her mobility patterns were similar to those of other local individuals from the same period.

It's a perfect example of the growing problem of ideology mixing with science and poisoning the well of human knowledge.  The rules of scientific investigation require an objective mindset, letting the evidence show whatever the evidence shows.  However, with the invasion of woke cultism into every facet of academia, the goal of science is now to fulfill the demands of the multicultural narrative.

Luckily, the takeover of academia is not total and the truth still slips through the cracks on occasion.  

Woke "science" approaches investigation by developing a desired conclusion first, and then manipulating the evidence to support that conclusion.  In other words, science is nothing more than another propaganda tool.  This is why wokeness can no longer be allowed to spread into western academics or into STEM fields; it's not just destructive to political discourse and social stability, it is also a cancer eating away at the pillars of human knowledge.  

If these people are allowed to continue their conquest of science, modern human civilization will crumble.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 07:35

Pages