These Are The World's Largest 'Unconnected' Populations

The internet has become essential for humanity, with most of the population spending hours online each day. Yet, over 2.5 billion people worldwide still lack internet access.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, illustrates the countries with the largest unconnected populations in absolute terms, according to We Are Social as of January 2024.

Asia and Africa Have the Largest Unconnected Populations

All 10 countries on the list are located in Africa or Asia.

India has the largest unconnected population, with over 684 million individuals offline, representing 47.6% of its population. China has the second-largest unconnected population, at 336 million, though its percentage of offline individuals is relatively lower, at 23.6%.

Meanwhile, Ethiopia and Uganda have the highest percentages of their populations offline, at 80.6% and 73.0%, respectively. The DRC is right behind them, with about 70% of their population offline.

And not surprisingly, in both Asia and Africa, most unconnected people are living in rural areas, where internet access is limited.

Despite having large unconnected populations, Nigeria and Indonesia are also among the top 10 countries with the highest average time spent on social media by those who are online.

If you enjoyed this graphic, make sure to check out this graphic that shows the average price of 1 gigabyte (GB) of mobile data (in USD) as of January 2024 across 52 countries.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/11/2024 - 02:45

Open Letter To The Swiss Federal Council: Neutrality Is Peace, NATO Is War

Authored by Peter Koenig via GlobalResearch.ca,

Dear Honorable Federal Councilors,

For the past several years You, the Swiss Government, have been gradually, silently – and without any public discussion – approaching NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Today, Switzerland has already an associated member delegation with six seats in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO-PA). See this.

This is clearly a step towards an anti-neutral Switzerland.

And anti-democratic, because You, honorable Swiss Government, never consulted the Swiss people.

NATO was set up in 1949, in the wake of WWII, as a defense apparatus – mainly under the pretext to defend Europe against the looming dangers of the then Soviet Union, today’s Russia.

NATO was THE organization to foster the Cold War, to indoctrinate then already the people with fear from an impending invasion of the Soviet Union. Later the world found out that there was never a danger of the USSR aggressing Europe, let alone the United States.

NATO should have been dissolved at the latest when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

The Warsaw Pact, set up in 1955 as a counterpart to NATO, was resolved in the early 1990s.

NATO was not.

NATO was never a defense association – NATO is a War Machine. 

And You, dear Federal Councilors, want to further approach NATO and possibly even join them?

*  *  *

In 1991 NATO had 16 member states. Today NATO has 32 members, 30 of which are in Europe. The only transatlantic members are US and Canada.

Today, NATO is represented in some 800-plus US military bases around the world; close to 700 of them are surrounding Russia and China.

Recalling Swiss Neutrality back to almost 210 years (in 1815), this quote from an internal CIA document of 23 April 1955 [OCI No. 3377/55, copy No. 2], may be a significant reminder of the importance of Swiss neutrality:

“Switzerland’s neutrality as envisaged by the Treaty of Vienna of March 2815 was not a new conception, nor was its recognition by foreign powers a novel idea”……”And the famous Act of Perpetual Swiss Neutrality and Inviolability, signed on 20 November 1815 by Austria, Great Britain, Russia and Prussia, declared Switzerland a perpetual neutral country and contains the much quoted lines, “The neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland and its independence from all foreign influences are in the true interests of the policies of the whole of Europe.””

The Swiss Foreign Department covets Swiss Neutrality on its website as an “inviolable” asset, with reference to The Hague Conventions of October 1907 – see this.

Yet, our Minister of Defense and current President of the Swiss Confederation, is moving Switzerland ever closer into the realm of NATO, without consultation of the Swiss people. 

Joining NATO would be the death knell of Swiss neutrality.

You know this, honorable Federal Councilors.

After all, a successful People’s Initiative for Swiss Neutrality was completed and submitted to the Federal Chancellery on 11 April 2024, with almost 130,000 valid signatures (100,000 are needed). It will be submitted to a popular vote, expected in 2025 / 2026, and if accepted, Neutrality will be enshrined in the Swiss Constitution.

NATO Budget 

Dear Federal Councilors, you may know that the total 2024 NATO Budget amounts to about US$1.4 trillion – of which about two-thirds are funded by the US and one-third by Europe and Canada. It is an “annual fund” for killing and destruction – and for enriching the international military-industrial-complex (IMIC). 

In his first term in Office, President Trump called on the European NATO members to increase their military budget to at least 2% of their GDP. Some countries may have done this, others are still far from meeting this target. 

See this for current NATO spending per member country.

Taken from Al Jazeera

It is conceivable that Mr. Trump, in his new term as US President, will repeat this call on European NATO members. 

The Swiss military budget for the coming 4 years – 2025 to 2028 — is approximately CHF 30 billion, about CHF 7.5 billion per year. This is equivalent to less than 1% of the estimated Swiss GDP for 2024 (CHF 784 billion). If Switzerland would join NATO and follow Mr. Trump’s mandate, the military budget would have to be doubled to about CHF 15 billion per year.

Alternative Spending 

With a fraction of the 2024 NATO budget of US$ 1.4 trillion, world famine could be eliminated. Oxfam estimates that eradicating world hunger in all its forms would require $31.7 billion, plus US$ 4 billion for debt relief of the world’s poorest countries, a total of about US$ 35.7 billion. This is less than 3% of the G7 annual military budget, or about 2.55% of NATO’s 2024 budget.

See this.

Dear Federal Councilors, do you believe Swiss citizens would want to participate in this monstrous and murderous endeavor, called NATO? And that, to the detriment of Swiss neutrality? 

Personally, I believe most Swiss do not want to become a NATO member, and give up their legendary Neutrality. 

Therefore, dear Federal Councilors, may I urge you to reconsider, as a sovereign Swiss Confederation – not accepting pressures from outside, and abandoning this anti-Neutrality move. 

A Neutral Switzerland would be able to mediate between conflict parties and help rebuild a stable, harmonious and Peaceful World Society.

Tyler Durden Mon, 11/11/2024 - 02:00

Trump's Victory Saved America

Authored by James E. Fanell and Bradley A. Thayer via American Greatness,

President Donald Trump’s election victory on November 5 was an epochal event in American history. The American people gave Trump a mandate with almost 51% of the vote. He received over 73 million votes, more than four million more than his opponent. A new American coalition—traditional Republican voters united with lower middle class, working class, African Americans, Hispanics, and white women—provided the monumental victory. At such a significant time, it is important to consider how America arrived at such a historical moment and what must be accomplished in the years ahead.

Retrospectively, Americans must understand how they came to this place in their history. According to the exit polls, a whopping 72% of Americans understood that their country was on the wrong path. America’s political ideology, culture, and traditions were under assault by the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democrat Party. The Biden-Harris administration weakened the economy, caused inflation rates not seen since the 1970s, opened U.S. borders to some 15 million people and facilitated their relocation throughout the U.S. and so weaponized the legal system to wage lawfare against Trump, his major political and legal advisors, and against many of his supporters.

In the realm of foreign and defense policy, the debacle of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the failure to deter the war in Ukraine, the horrific attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent wars it unleashed. Significantly, the Biden-Harris regime failed to deter Communist China’s hyper-aggression directed against U.S. allies like the Philippines and partners like Taiwan, and most importantly against the American people through the deaths of a quarter of a million of our fellow citizens from Chinese-provided fentanyl and the intellectual capture of so many of the American elite who parrot the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) policy positions to advance the CCP’s interests.

The deeper cause of how America arrived at this point is the embrace of Marxism by the Democratic Party and thus its increasing totalitarianism and alienation from the American people. In its embrace of this ideology, the Democrat Party demonstrated that it had completely become detached from the American experience, ideology, history, and culture in its effort to transform America into a one-party state on the road to totalitarianism. The American people saw this effort to continue the “fundamental transformation” of America—as Obama identified it on the eve of the 2008 election—and rejected it.

Prospectively, there is so much that must be accomplished to repair the great costs that the Biden-Harris administration has inflicted upon the American people. As Trump has already stated in the immediate aftermath of his historic election victory, his first actions will be to “dismantle the Deep State and return power to the American People.” His stated goal is to return the government to the people, not the unelected bureaucrats that have installed themselves as a fourth branch of government. As such, the reform of government employment policies will be a major objective for his administration.

Likewise, a second Trump administration will address inflation, uncontrolled illegal immigration, economic stagnation, and the enormous national debt that risks destroying the Republic. The U.S. is in dire fiscal and economic circumstances and Trump will have to confront these issues immediately as they will be thrust upon him on January 20.

In foreign and defense policy, the situation is just as dire. U.S. conventional and nuclear forces must be strengthened. The defense industrial base must be restored to meet the threat from Communist China. The principal danger, the CCP, must be defeated by cutting it off from U.S. trade and investment—decoupling must be pursued with vigor. Furthermore, all Chinese entities should be prohibited from raising capital in U.S. markets. Its hyper-aggression must be checked by credible U.S. military power in conjunction with its allies and partners, like Japan, Korea, Australia, Thailand, India, and Taiwan.

Increasingly, Americans recognize that the CCP is illegitimate. It is the product of Soviet imperialism, and so is a colonial government ruling the Chinese people. Xi Jinping has no more legitimacy to rule the great Chinese people than we do. The second Trump administration will need to use the bully pulpit of our nation to inform the world of the CCP’s illegitimate control over the people of China.

Trump’s victory also provides the opportunity to save more than America. It provides the chance to defend Western civilization, upon which America’s foundation, history, politics, culture, and intellectual life are anchored. The Progressive Left’s (that is, Communists’) attack against America’s political ideology, history, and culture is part of a broader effort to destroy Western civilization. Initially, the left undermined it through the “ideas industry,” universities, K-12 education, think tanks, media, social media, television, and film. Then they labored hammer and tongs to overthrow it. Trump has the opportunity to repair the tremendous damage that the left has done carefully and deliberately to Western civilization. Working with European, British, Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian allies and other peoples around the world who value the contributions of Western civilization, Trump can begin to fix the damage.

Under Trump, the direction of the nation is clear—as it is for any ship embarking on a new journey. The ship of America must be sounded, the damage repaired, and a renewed course, like the ones originally charted by the celestial constellations that guided Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Reagan, must be set. If we stay true to our constitutional principles, America will once again have a fair wind and a following sea as it returns to its political ideology, principles, and traditions. That course opens the door to the best years in America’s history.

The American people understood their plight and were searching for decades for an effective leader, only to be disappointed and frustrated with Republican Party candidates, which led to a profound alienation of the base from the Party establishment. Trump had brilliant careers in real estate and television before he entered politics. But he chose to throw his hat into the ring because he identified with what was happening to the American people.

In turn, the American people saw clearly that Trump was the vessel that would enact their course change. His tremendous courage, acumen, charisma, indefatigable physical stamina, thick skin, and political instincts are without parallel in modern American history. As such, the American people have unquestionably placed their trust in him to empower the saving of America. Trump has accepted that sacred challenge. He has excelled and will do so again in this colossal task because it is evident to Americans that he loves America, the American people, and is a fighter. The American people gave Trump his victory because they saw that Trump’s triumph is America’s.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 23:20

Trump Could Impact The Supreme Court For Decades To Come

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

President-elect Donald Trump’s second term could help make him one of the most consequential presidents for the U.S. Supreme Court by solidifying a long-lasting originalist majority.

Although Democrats have criticized the justices in recent months, the 2024 elections may have stripped them of the power they would need to block Trump’s nominees and implement reforms to stunt conservatives’ influence on the court.

Republicans are projected to take the U.S. Senate, offering a two-year window for Trump to appoint new conservative jurists to the highest court should any of the sitting justices announce retirement. Neither of the two most senior justices, Clarence Thomas, who is 76 and joined the court in 1991, and Samuel Alito, who is 74 and joined in 2006, have announced a retirement plan.

“No one other than Justices Thomas and Alito knows when or if they will retire, and talking about them like meat that has reached its expiration date is unwise, uninformed, and, frankly, just crass,” Federalist Society chairman Leonard Leo said.

If Trump is later tasked with appointing two justices, he could be the first president since President Dwight D. Eisenhower to have five of his nominees sit on the nation’s highest court.

In terms of pace, Trump has already appointed more justices in one term than his predecessors did during their tenures. Continuing at that pace would likely lead to long-term shifts for the institution and its jurisprudence, especially if his successors follow other presidents in nominating fewer justices.

Changes to Precedent

The court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been described as incrementalist, but some of its recent decisions have raised questions about the stability of longstanding precedents. Trump’s nominees—Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have already contributed to major shifts in American law, starting with their vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Just before Trump’s reelection, they also redefined the scope of presidential immunity and overruled a decades-old administrative law doctrine—known as Chevron deference—that was supported by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Conservatives have touted this decision and Dobbs as following an originalist approach, or one that seeks to follow the Constitution’s original meaning. Such an approach might continue if Trump selects justices from the long list of judges appointed to federal courts during his first term in office.

(Front Row R–L) Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, his wife Jane Sullivan, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife, Virginia Thomas, and Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito attend the memorial service for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the National Cathedral in Washington on Dec. 19, 2023. Jim Watson/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told The Epoch Times that if Trump wanted to appoint more originalists to the Supreme Court, he wouldn’t have to “look any farther than the appellate judges” he appointed during his first term.

“If he picks from that short list he himself has created, then I think we’re going to have an awesome continuation of the originalist approach to the Constitution,” said Severino, a former Thomas clerk.

In October, a three-judge appellate panel, which included a former Thomas clerk and former Alito clerk, backed Republicans’ position that election officials couldn’t count ballots that arrived after voting day. They said doing so violated the Constitution and a law passed in 1844 on the timing of elections.

Thomas has said on more than one occasion that he has no intention of retiring. Meanwhile, conservative attorney and commentator Ed Whelan has speculated in National Review that Alito will retire next spring with Thomas following him in 2026.

Civil Liberties

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have been viewed by both sides of the ideological spectrum as utilizing originalism and textualism, or trying to adhere to the plain language of American laws, after decades of different approaches.

“After most of the 20th Century spent with a very liberal court, we actually have a majority of originalists in the court,” Severino said during a press call this summer.

Overturning Roe raised questions about a whole body of law, known as “substantive due process,” which stems from the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

That body of law informed the court’s decision in a series of other cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state laws on birth control, sodomy, and marriage respectively. Following Dobbs, left-leaning voices worried that the more conservative Supreme Court would eventually overturn those cases.

People protest in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on June 24, 2022. The Court's decision overturns the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe, indicated that the idea of a constitutional right to abortion exceeded the bounds of substantive due process. However, he attempted to distinguish it from the issues in Lawrence and other cases while maintaining that his opinion wouldn’t threaten those other precedents.

Thomas’s concurring opinion went further in describing substantive due process as “an oxymoron” and said the court should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times, “We may see the justices continue to chip away at civil rights and substantive due process.”

Rahmani pointed to Dobbs and the court’s ruling in 2023 that Harvard University’s and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs violated the equal protection clause. The court’s Obergefell decision and its 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona—which established the Miranda warning that police read to suspects to remind them of their rights during criminal proceedings—may be up for grabs too, Rahmani said.

A ‘MAGA Supreme Court’?

Based on decisions by Trump’s already-appointed justices, it’s questionable whether a court transformed by the president-elect would deliver consistent wins for conservatives’ political causes.

Some of the court’s recent decisions have prompted Democrats to describe the justices as part of a “MAGA Supreme Court”—a reference to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

Like others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the court’s immunity decision, which granted presidents various levels of immunity from criminal prosecution. “On purely partisan lines, the Supreme Court today for the first time in history places presidents substantially above the law,” ACLU National Legal Director David Cole said in July.

Besides its rulings on immunity and abortion, the court ruled in favor of gun rights advocates this year by effectively allowing bump stocks, and in 2022, by clarifying that firearm restrictions must follow the nation’s history and tradition.

Trump himself has praised the justices but expressed disagreement as well, such as when he said the court “really let us down” after it declined to take up a 2020 election-related case from Texas. He also publicly clashed with Roberts, who said in 2018: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

Illustrating the tenuous ideological formations, Roberts wrote a concurrence that sought to maintain but weaken Roe. Neither Barrett nor Kavanaugh joined that opinion and have each voted differently than both Alito and Thomas on important cases. According to Empirical SCOTUS, Barrett’s, Kavanaugh’s, and Roberts’ votes aligned most with each other’s when compared with the other justices.

Barrett joined the immunity decision in Trump v. United States but partly differed in a way that Roberts said “threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized.” She also joined liberals on the court in ruling against Jan. 6 defendants, as well as in resisting the avenue other justices took in ruling that Colorado couldn’t disqualify Trump from appearing on its ballot this year.

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican 2024 presidential candidate, arrives back at Trump Tower after being convicted in a criminal trial in New York City on May 30, 2024. Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

In another ruling on agency power this year, Barrett joined Thomas, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson to uphold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s controversial funding mechanism, which right-leaning advocates saw as unconstitutional. Only Alito and Gorsuch dissented from that decision.

Overruling Chevron could interfere with Trump’s deregulatory agenda as well, even though it’s been backed by critics of administrative overreach. The doctrine was initially decided in 1984 by the majority led by Justice John Paul Stevens and it upheld a deregulatory action by President Ronald Reagan’s administration. Overruling it gave judges more power in reviewing agencies’ interpretations of existing law.

Evolving Originalism

Besides demonstrating an interest in economic deregulation, Trump also said that his second term would see regulations related to gender—specifically opposing so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. Those regulations will likely encounter lawsuits with left-leaning groups citing Gorsuch’s controversial majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Gorsuch, whose voting aligned most with Thomas’s last term, joined Roberts in ruling that firing someone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity was a form of sex-based discrimination because the actions wouldn’t have been made “but for” the individuals’ sex.

That reasoning has been used by lower courts to support so-called left-leaning interest on the issue of gender, including the idea that states can’t exclude adults from receiving transgender procedures under government insurance programs.

President Joe Biden’s administration is currently using Gorsuch’s reasoning in asking the Supreme Court to strike down Tennessee’s law banning so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that Bostock’s “core insight is that ‘it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being ... transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.’”

What originalism and textualism mean in practice may be evolving due at least in part to the influence of Trump-appointed justices. In his dissent, Alito said “no one should be fooled” by Gorsuch’s “attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation.”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., on Aug. 8, 2024. Apu Gomes/Getty Images

Thomas’s approach to originalism has encountered resistance among many on the court. He was the only justice to say in June that his originalist opinion in Bruen protected domestic abusers’ ability to own firearms.

That case—U.S. v. Rahimi—spurred a relatively high number of concurrences from Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor each disputing how to apply the nation’s history when considering firearm regulations.

Another decision rejecting a crude, Trump-related trademark saw the justices similarly differing over how to apply legal history despite each agreeing with the ultimate outcome of the case.

In a concurrence joined by liberal-leaning justices, Barrett said Thomas’s approach was “wrong twice over” and suggested that it overemphasized the role of historical comparison. Thomas had argued that a “firm grounding in traditional trademark law is sufficient to justify the content-based trademark restriction here.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 22:10

'Unhinged' NBC Reporter Rips Off Daily Wire Story, Nerfs It, Then Self-Immolates On X When Called Out

This story is so stupid you should only read it if you're on the toilet. And even then.

Nevertheless... on Friday, the Daily Wire broke the news that a now-fired FEMA employee ordered workers to bypass the homes of Trump supporters as they surveyed the damage caused by Hurricane Milton in Florida.

Microsoft Teams chat used by FEMA workers. (via the Daily Wire)

The story went viral - and was eventually picked up by NBC News reporter Mirna Alsharif (formerly CNN), who proceeded to not only rip off the report without citing the Daily Wire, she completely nerf'd it - failing to adhere to basic journalistic standards despite all of that information having been reported by DW.

When she was called out for her shitty reporting, Alsharif had a complete meltdown on X - claiming that the Daily Wire wasn't her source, and hurtling High School insults at reporters.

And while she just deleted her account, we've got receipts...

She called several people a "troll final boss" in a thread in which journalist Jason Rantz called her an "unhinged left-winger."

Busted out your mama jokes (probably because of her 90's hair)...

Called John Podhoretz "sweetheart."

Called someone a dumb bitch...

When DW's Mary Margaret Olohan called on Alsharif to Log off, she replied "You first babes."

Except then she did just that.

NBC seems like an upstanding place to work these days. pic.twitter.com/YIJfV5bSmK

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 11, 2024

So that went well for her and @NBCNewsPR pic.twitter.com/xlqu6FuASQ

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 11, 2024

Who's the dumb bitch?

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 21:35

Federal Judge Gives States In Censorship Lawsuit Against US Govt Chance To Make Case

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge kept alive a lawsuit accusing the federal government of encouraging social media platforms to censor users’ views.

The judge ruled that the two states that filed the lawsuit can continue their discovery, a pretrial phase that allows litigants to gather evidence for trial and can consist of examinations under oath and requests for documents.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe, Louisiana, issued the new order on Nov. 8 after the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 threw out the request by Missouri and Louisiana to prevent the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies about public health issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The states sued the federal government for censorship because it allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress certain content.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued a public statement encouraging the social media platforms to prevent information about COVID-19 that had been deemed misinformation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “from taking hold.” The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency also communicated with the platforms about election-related misinformation in advance of the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 congressional elections.

Supreme Court justices ruled 6–3 in June that the states and five social media users challenging the federal government lacked legal standing to seek an injunction because they couldn’t show that they were directly harmed by the government’s efforts to communicate with the platforms.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the law or action complained of to justify their participation in the lawsuit.

The states argue that the Biden administration strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as potential side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic lockdowns. They say that applying this kind of pressure violates Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Conservatives and others have complained that social media platforms suppress information about their views on transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election.

Some on the left say removing posts on social media is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, and some have complained that social media platforms don’t do enough to combat falsehoods.

Doughty, whose 2023 ruling blocking the federal government from communicating with the social media companies was overturned by the Supreme Court in June, said in his new order that he considered it appropriate to ask the litigants whether there should be further discovery. The discovery would be related to the issue of standing to help the court evaluate if it has authority to continue with this case, or if the lawsuit should be dismissed.

The states argued for discovery, while the federal government argued for dismissal, he said.

“We currently find ourselves in jurisdictional purgatory—caught between differing standards,” Doughty said in his new order.

A “greater showing of standing” is required for an injunction than is required for the “minimal showing” needed to keep litigation alive.

The Supreme Court was “plainly applying this heightened standard when it reversed,” so this means the high court’s ruling “is not necessarily fatal to [the states’] suit generally.”

The states have demonstrated the need for more discovery on the standing issue, the judge said.

At the same time, Doughty denied for the time being the states’ request to amend their complaint in an effort to strengthen their legal standing in the case.

The fact that President Joe Biden, whose administration is being sued, will be replaced by President-elect Donald Trump in a little more than two months doesn’t justify throwing out the lawsuit, he said.

Even though “regime change is imminent,” it would be “quintessentially speculative” to dismiss the case based on that fact alone, the judge said.

The Epoch Times reached out to the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and the U.S. Department of Justice for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 21:00

Was The 2024 Election Too Big To Rig?

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

It’s Wednesday, the 6th of November, and America has chosen a new president. But we may not know the results for days or even weeks.

While there is a chance we will see a quick and decisive Trump victory, the media has prepared us for a protracted aftermath to election day. This raises an obvious question: Was there election rigging in 2024? Did the uniparty establishment and the institutions they control, desperate to prevent a Trump victory, break the rules? Did they cheat?

Answering this question in the affirmative doesn’t have to rely on the countless alarming allegations that are dismissed as unfounded conspiracy theories, even though there are so many of them:

The potential for mail-in ballot fraud, hundreds of ballots received at a single address, dozens of ballots received at a single address, questionable last-minute changes in verification procedures by the US Post Office, inaccurate voter rolls and fraudulent voter registrations, voter data leaks to partisan NGOs, vote harvesting, counterfeit ballots, destruction of legitimate ballots, ballot dumps, selectively applied “malfunctions” of voting machines in multiple states, last minute “patches” to fix voting machine software, illegal immigrants voting, and selectively applied closures of polling stations or inadequately staffed polling stations causing voter suppression.

You can claim there is no basis for concern over any one of those alleged cases of calculated, potentially widespread fraud. You can even dismiss the impact of fining and disbarring attorneys who challenged the integrity of the 2020 election and thus have deterred many attorneys from challenging this one.

The election was still rigged.

Anyone who watches David Muir at ABC, Lester Holt at CBS, Norah O’Donnell at NBC, or Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett at PBS will know this election was rigged, thanks to a multi-year propaganda campaign of shameless lying by the news anchors and reporters at the most prestigious networks in America. If you make it your business to keep track of what these “trusted news sources” are telling voters, it is obvious how hard they’ve tried to influence the election.

ABC News, for example, pretty much every single night for the last few months, has opened their newscast with 5-10 minutes where they heap slime all over Trump and praise Harris. If you watch the source material, for example, Harris’s CNN Town Hall, then watch the excerpts highlighted on ABC, you get two completely different impressions of her competence and integrity. Precisely the same tactic is used with Trump, but to the opposite effect. Watch one of his news conferences in its entirety, then watch what is grabbed, out of context, and presented on ABC.

Critics of Trump’s often brusque persona and often unvarnished condemnation of the media must ask, if they’re going to be fair, how would anyone react? For nearly ten years, David Muir has told us, with a straight face, that “the walls are closing in on Trump.” Along with fake scandals like the Russian collusion hoax, over and over we hear gross misrepresentations of things Trump has said. He mocked a disabled reporter; no, he didn’t. He told people to inject bleach to treat COVID; no, he didn’t. He called neo-Nazis “fine people;” no, he did not. And on and on it goes.

David Muir earned particular enmity among people who just wanted fair news coverage during the debate between Trump and Harris, when, for example, Muir insisted on “fact-checking” Trump but left Harris alone. For example, Muir contradicted Trump’s assertion that crime rates had risen, and Muir was wrong. The data, as Trump attempted to explain, was missing statistics from California’s major cities. Once that data was added, Trump’s claim was proven accurate.

Just in the last few days we’ve had the big four broadcast news anchors telling us that Trump wanted to put Liz Cheney in front of a firing squad, wants reporters covering his rallies to get shot, “groped” a woman back in the 1990s, expressed “deeply troubling” admiration for Adolf Hitler, held a “Nazi rally,” and intended to use the military against “the enemy within,” along with endless distorted repetition of everything bad they’ve ever said about him. All of this “news” was either truth twisted beyond recognition or outright lies. Meanwhile, their coverage of Harris has been indistinguishable from a paid Harris campaign ad.

There’s no end to the legacy television news media’s war on Trump. It’s not subtle, and despite their dinosaur status, they still exercise decisive influence over millions of voters. For the 2024 season-to-date, ABC Nightly News has averaged 7.7 million viewers, NBC averaged 6.4 million, and CBS averaged 4.7 million. PBS is now a big player as well, with a regular viewership of more than 5 million. That’s nearly 25 million regular viewers, with an average age of 65, nearly all of them high-propensity voters, and very few of them likely to be perusing alternative media. Cable news, for all the visibility and big audiences for the hosted talk shows on their networks, doesn’t compare. Recent estimates for primetime viewers of Fox News have averaged 359,000, versus 175,000 for CNN and 160,000 for MSNBC. Cable news audiences are dwarfed by the audiences for broadcast news content, which is overwhelmingly anti-Trump and pro-Harris. Tens of millions of Americans have been thoroughly brainwashed by these networks. But what about social media and online searches?

Back in 2015, Robert Epstein, a research psychologist with the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, published “The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections.” Continuing his research, in testimony before the U.S. Congress in 2019, Epstein claimed that biased search results on Google “impacted undecided voters in a way that gave at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton.” Epstein’s studies are compelling reading, and very little has changed. Google still controls 90 percent of the search engine market in the United States. In 2024, Google employee political donations favored Democrats by a ratio of more than 6 to 1. Draw your own conclusions.

As for social media, much is made of Twitter’s transformation into X, with no more censorship. Twitter, or X, has 95 million users in America. That’s a lot. But in the United States, Facebook has 194 million users, Instagram has 166 million users, TikTok reaches 170 million people, LinkedIn connects 200 million, and YouTube’s regular US viewers number 246 million. As a neutral platform, X’s audience reach is exceeded by more than 10 to 1 by the other major online platforms. With the lone exception of X, every one of these platforms employs biased algorithms designed to suppress conservative content. As for print media, intervention by the owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post to abstain from a presidential endorsement is too little, too late. Every newspaper and magazine with national reach, with the half-hearted exception perhaps of the Wall Street Journal, have been so anti-Trump and pro-Harris it is almost comical.

Social media, search engines, and legacy news media. In every facet of information gathering, the vast majority of Americans have been continuously exposed to anti-Trump, pro-Harris messages. None of this has been happening by accident. Michael Shellenberger, formerly a progressive liberal who was once honored as a Time Magazine “Environmental Hero,” has evolved into an investigative journalist of extraordinary integrity and courage. In recent years, his work has focused on what he has dubbed “the censorship industrial complex.” In a recent substack post, commenting on America’s news media from newspapers to television to online platforms, he had this to say, “It’s not a mirror of reality. It’s not just biased. And it’s not just deferential to the state or the party. It’s a propaganda arm dishonestly representing powerful political, ideological, and financial interests.”

Shellenberger, who alleges government manipulation of information sources available to Americans, is not alone. Mike Benz, a former US State Department official, claims that the U.S. government has become increasingly concerned about the rise of populist movements in the U.S. and around the world and is actively interfering in media freedom. Another window into how this is working is documented by Ben Shapiro in a must-watch video, where he describes the network of state-supported NGOs and quasi-private sector agencies that influence who gets advertising dollars and who gets boycotted, in an ostensibly benign effort to “create a universal framework full of guidelines and ratings designed to enforce approved narratives.”

It ought to be obvious to anyone who finds both sides of the story by using alternative media that in a fair election, America’s print, video, and online media, and search engine results, could have easily delivered just as much negative coverage about Harris as they have inflicted on Trump, and they could have delivered just as much positive coverage about Trump as they’ve lavished on Harris. Maybe the only rules that were broken were supposed norms of journalistic integrity. But by an order of magnitude, America’s sources of “news” and information were massively tilted in favor of Harris and against Trump.

If for no other reason but media bias, this election was rigged. As a result, regardless of the outcome, half of all Americans have lost faith in fair elections. Even if every allegation of actual, fraudulent, widespread rigging is false, nobody who thinks so will change their minds. For them, the media sources that might help debunk any of it have no credibility. That is a crime perpetrated by the elite who control these institutions that transcends even this moment.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 17:30

These Are The Most Valuable Lego Sets In The World

LEGO has become more than just a children’s brand - many of its sets are now seen as valuable collectibles. In 2023 alone, the company generated $10 billion in revenue, surpassing competitors like Mattel and Hasbro.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, highlights the most valuable LEGO sets today, including both retail and special collector sets.

The list, compiled by BrickEconomy as of October 2024, shows approximate values, which may vary based on demand.

$17K Spider-Man

Topping the list is the Spider-Man minifigure, released at the 2013 San Diego Comic-Con and given to raffle winners. With only 350 units made, it’s now valued at over $17,000.

Another rare set is a custom model of LEGO founder Ole Kirk Kristiansen’s house, with only 32 hand-numbered copies produced in 2009. Each is now worth nearly $10,000.

Third on the list, the UNICEF van was made in 1985 in a partnership with the United Nations Children’s Fund. It features a blue UNICEF truck and a UNICEF worker minifigure. It is now worth $10,500.

For a somewhat more affordable option, the LEGO 375-2 Castle, released in 1978, is available for around $8,700. This 767-piece Castle set, known as the “Yellow Castle,” came with 14 minifigures and was sold only in Europe, the UK, Australia, and Canada.

If you enjoyed this graphic, check out this comparison of LEGO’s revenue with other major toymakers.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 15:45

Learning To Speak Trump, Again

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Do we have to? Yes, I think we do.

Market Results

U.S. stock markets had an incredible week, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both up around 5%, and the Russell 2000 ripping up almost 9%!

Interestingly, at least from my perspective as an election night bond bull, the 10-year Treasury yield finished 8 bps lower on the week and about 27 bps tighter than its widest levels on Wednesday morning.

Credit did well too, with CDX IG at 47 bps (the lowest in at least 3 years). But the Bloomberg Corporate Bond OAS stole the show, reaching 74 bps, the lowest level this century!

Crypto, as a source of funding for candidates and often an early indicator of market views on the election, saw Bitcoin finish the week at all-time highs.

Election Results

The Fed likely helped, but the market reaction was primarily due to the election results. As of Saturday morning, according to the Bloomberg Map, President-elect Trump (“Trump” going forward for simplicity), had 301 Electoral College votes compared to 226 for Vice President Harris (“Harris”). Arizona still hasn’t been decided and still only had 81% of votes counted. The popular vote stands at 75 million versus 71 million (though that margin will narrow, assuming California manages to count the 37% of votes not yet counted). I did triple check those “percentage counted” statistics, as it seems (at least for me) difficult to believe that it takes so long.

The Senate shows up as 53 to 46 for Republicans with Arizona not yet decided (a lot of votes yet to be counted). I see two listed as independents, so I assume they have been slotted into whatever side they will caucus with, but the Senate has gone Republican, though not filibuster proof.

The House, as of Saturday morning, shows up as 211 versus 200, with a bunch more seats to be decided (with Arizona and California leading the way in undecided races). I’m seeing one site say that the betting odds are at 97% for Republican control, but I cannot tell if that is truly up to date or not, and the link seems sketchy enough that I didn’t include it (but it sounds about right).

We are starting to see proposed cabinet positions and will get a better sense of what the Trump administration is likely to look like.

At the risk of annoying people, on both sides, I think there are two things that I can safely say:

• There is a hope that whatever team is assembled sticks together and authority is delegated to those in charge, so progress can be made.
• There is a hope that the “best” in terms of policy and negotiation comes out, coupled with a fear that the worst elements could also come out.

Trying to figure this out is why we need to understand TrumpSpeak.

Babbel For Trump

I checked the Babbel website and there are 13 languages that I can learn, but TrumpSpeak isn’t one of them.

If I was able to train an AI Large Language Model, I’d be trying to train it on TrumpSpeak. The database of things that he has said (and tweeted) has to be pretty large. Then I would try to train that AI to predict what is likely to come out of all of that TrumpSpeak.

One thing I can say with certainty is that taking TrumpSpeak at face value has rarely been effective. Worse yet is taking the worst parts of TrumpSpeak (and there are some worse parts) and extrapolating them, which might generate a lot of clicks, but it is unlikely to help anyone make good decisions. For those of you in markets and running businesses, making the best decisions possible is what it is all about.

We will do our best to try to figure out what is likely to occur, but I do think some more background is helpful.

Two Sides of Trump

I will never forget Donald Trump speaking at a Bankers Trust High Yield Conference (I think it was before Deutsche Bank, and given the topic, I could probably figure it out, but that’s not overly important to the story).

He was speaking to a large audience of bond investors, many of whom had recently lost money on one of his Atlantic City casinos (I think it was the Taj, but I could be wrong). The audience, while not hostile, was far from receptive to his discussion – which, of course, focused on raising debt for his new project in Atlantic City (the Taj II if memory serves correctly). Yet, by the end, there was a buzz in the audience, all wanting to get a good allocation when the new bonds came out. Even after his lawyer/accountant, came out and “corrected” some things and said some other things that might not have been 100% correct, there was still a buzz. So, from my perspective, don’t underestimate his ability to charm a room, and even if not everything said is accurate, that room can remain charmed. You can argue that this shouldn’t be the case, but I think if we are going to figure out TrumpSpeak together, this should always be at the back of our minds, if not the forefront.

On the other side (assuming that the above reminiscence is a positive about Trump), his business organization looks very different (in my opinion) compared to other large organizations. The various businesses are compartmentalized. Unless things have changed, there isn’t a Golf Course Corp that manages all the golf courses. Properties and businesses stand as individual entities or maybe in small groups. There is also no one who stands out as his “trusted lieutenant.” So many business leaders rely on often a handful of people for advice and help. We all know when “so and so” gets promoted or goes to another firm, who they are going to bring with them. Yet Trump never seemed to have that cadre of trusted people who have important and visible roles in his dealings (he likely has some people that are in his inner circle, but they don’t seem to be well known, which after 8 years in politics seems surprising). So, a concern I had was his ability to delegate, which I think hampered his first term, as turnover was high, and a lot of roles were left vacant. Quite frankly, during this campaign, many people plugged into the campaign told me that several people recommended that he tone down some of his rhetoric and choice of words. He didn’t listen. He still won.

So, as I try to think about TrumpSpeak, I think of someone who can surprise people by getting them to agree with him, but who might not like delegation and having others share in the success.

You are free to disagree with that, but in my building blocks of thinking about TrumpSpeak, I go back to these “first principles” consistently, and it served me quite well the first time he was president.

Tariffs Are Complex

Let’s start with the topic of tariffs as it has garnered so much attention and seems less sensitive than immigration. I also think that if we start with tariffs, it might help us with TrumpSpeak.

I remember writing a lot about Trade Wars and Tariffs back in the day. I think it may have been before we regularly used our website as all I could find from 2018 was The Battle for IP & Unfair Trade and Time to Price In a Trade War Victory.

I do remember that I was one of only a few economists/strategists who supported tariffs. I argued that we had been in a trade war for decades, but only one side was firing the shots.

2018 was a long time ago, but I remember the back and forth with some economists/strategists who were adamantly against tariffs. In fact, some of the most outspoken people right now were part of that same group. Few, if any, bothered to complain that President Biden left them all in place, and then added some more. I’d be far more worried that the angst is valid, if it didn’t feel like history was repeating itself.

On Friday, I did get to bring up some thoughts on tariffs and protectionist countries in a segment that Bloomberg titled Tchir Says The Gloves Are Coming Off With China. I suspect this is a topic I will cover on Monday (Veteran’s Day) with Charles Payne on Fox Business.

Tariffs are complex!

Before worrying about 100% or 200% or whatever number is being bandied about, let’s just stop for one second on the complexity of tariffs and international trade.

Assembled in America (or USA Assembled). I assume that means something more than just being able to use it as a marketing slogan. That somehow “assembling” here has some impact on tariffs or tax or something. On the glasses, which I like a lot, the assembly is probably a little bit more difficult to do than assembling a Lego kit geared for 6-year-olds, but not by much (I have put the glasses back together after breaking them). I’d guess that the value of the components is about 90% of the value of the product and assembly is 10%. On the golf club, I can only imagine a carton of golf club heads and a carton of shafts being assembled in about 1.5 seconds! Total, not each . But seriously, it is probably more efficient to ship them that way, but why use the sticker “assembled in America?” On this particular product, I vaguely remember reading that it isn’t just for marketing, and it impacted the duty owed.

The above all seems a bit bizarre to me but should be a reminder that international trade is complex and lawyers (as they are apt to do) have built in so many loopholes that you can take very little at face value (who knew the 2018 tariffs would create a surge in Chinese facilities in Mexico?).

We still need to think about tariffs, but as we wade deeper into the discussion, let’s at least be cautious in thinking it is easy to implement tariffs holistically in a way that loopholes aren’t readily available.

Tariffs Are Likely A Negotiating Stance

I’m old enough to remember, back in 2018, when markets would move on trade negotiation headlines. It isn’t like we woke up one day and suddenly tariffs appeared.

While I completely believe Trump is willing to impose significantly large and new tariffs, I don’t think that will be the starting point. Having said that, if I didn’t think he would impose those tariffs, then it wouldn’t be much of a bargaining chip, so he has to convince me, you, and everyone else that the threat is real. Since he has done it before, the threat carries real weight.

So, I fully expect negotiations to begin in earnest once he takes office (and maybe even before). Trump “likes wins” (another thing I take into account in TrumpSpeak) and it is unclear that levying tariffs, especially if they don’t elicit some form of capitulation from China, constitutes a win.

On the other hand, threatening tariffs and getting China to give us some sort of a “deal” to avoid them can easily be spun as a win, and leaves the tariff threat good for another day. The “Art of the Deal” was a popular book (I think) back in the 1980’s. Trump likes to “win” and he likes “deals,” both of which point me to using the threat of tariffs to get some concessions from China.

I am scared of the tariffs – but not for the reason everyone else is.

I mostly fear that “we” will agree to a deal that seems like a “win” but really just gives Xi more time to get the Made By China strategy working well enough that China’s economy can get back to a path that is good for China and the CCP. 2025 was likely a bit ambitious for some of China’s targets, but they have been making a lot of progress towards their stated goals on many fronts, like manufacturing and technology. A deal that gives them more time to build out, with less pressure than they currently face, could prove very detrimental to our interests longer-term, while sounding good in the short-term.

So, I do not lie awake at night worrying about tariffs stoking inflation to unreasonable levels. I do worry that we won’t press our current advantages enough, giving China time to perfect its strategy.

I do agree with those who argue that tariffs alone won’t do much to boost domestic production. Yes, in theory, it will make foreign (Chinese goods) more expensive here, but will the cost be high enough to ramp up domestic production, or will the costs just shift along the existing supply and consumer chain, rather than create a revised, domestic-focused supply chain?
Carefully executed tariffs, that can shift the cost structure enough that domestic production wins out, would be really interesting to see, but might be very difficult to achieve, at least without some sort of additional support.

Which Brings Us to Chips

Let’s start with this article from Politico (which leans left according to an AllSides Media Bias Chart). It states that for the CHIPS Act, only one deal, totaling $123 million, out of a total of $33 billion announced, has been finalized!

I am fully in favor of developing a domestic foundry business (along with more extraction and processing of rare earths and critical minerals). It seems critical to national and corporate security to have a reliable supply chain of domestically manufactured chips, right up to the most state-of-the-art chips being made.

Not only do I fully support the idea of building out foundries, but I also think that with or without tariffs, we will need to create incentives and subsidies to speed up the re-shoring of crucial industries.

So why isn’t the CHIPS Act working well? On the bright side, availability of credit from traditional sources is high and inexpensive, so companies don’t need as much. But we’ve discussed that the Act itself tried to incorporate too many “features.” It didn’t just “help establish foundries,” it “helped establish foundries that meet a lot of additional, often complex, and sometimes very difficult to achieve metrics.” They don’t even sound like the same thing because they aren’t.

From the Politico article:

“The Biden administration is trying to balance business-world speed with a web of political and policy priorities, seemingly leaving none of the participants happy.”

There is a push now to close as many deals as possible while the current administration remains in power. I think that makes sense, as not only do I view chip production as a key element of national security, but I also think the jobs that come with it will allow us to truly re-establish a middle to upper income class of workers. I do hope they finalize some deals as I think this is an area that deserves investment, and so far, TrumpSpeak hasn’t focused on this area, at least not as positively as I’d like it to.

The chip industry, the logistics of supporting it (including water, rare earths/critical minerals, and energy) are all at the top of my investment list for stocks and bonds (while valuations in some sectors seem very stretched, there are immense opportunities here).

Which Brings Us to Not In My Backyard

If we are going to do a CHIPS Act, it would be more effective if we simply focused on the stated goal of developing foundries in the U.S. rather than trying to wedge a lot of other policies into the CHIPS Act. Making a competitive domestic chip manufacturing industry is difficult enough without attaching a lot of bells and whistles. Bells and whistles we may want (and even need), but should be handled in their own right, not haphazardly attached to other projects (if they weren’t haphazardly attached, I suspect we’d have more than one deal finalized).

As a whole, the nation, over time, has established a lot of “dos and don’ts.” We have made commitments to not do things, for a variety of reasons. Often environmental.

Those decisions were made when we had no real competition globally.

• From an economic standpoint, we were far ahead of everyone. The European Union, which in theory should have thrived, hasn’t emerged as a powerful economic block (in fact, the EU seems, at least to me, to have hampered much of the entrepreneurial and business side of things through a “robust” list of regulations and rules). China was making some goods, largely for us, but didn’t really have their own brands and hadn’t fully embraced the Belt and Road Initiative giving them global economic influence.
• From a military standpoint, the Soviet Union collapsed, China could not project power via a strong navy, and the rest of the world seemed very weak against a military that had a global presence and had consistently defeated its enemies, often with what seemed like ease.

I am not arguing that we should abandon all the protections we put in place, but I do think we need to re-evaluate many of them as the world has changed and we may no longer have the luxury to do everything we said we would or wouldn’t do.
The Keystone pipeline comes to mind (only because it seemed so close to getting done).

But more importantly, chips, rare earths, critical minerals, refineries, etc., are all likely to be crucial to our success and we may need to figure out why they aren’t getting done or built, and if there is something we can do about that. In case I’m sounding like I’m preaching from a soapbox and have some moral high ground, I’m perfectly capable of being hypocritical and fighting a cell phone tower my town plans to build – hypothetically that is .

Seriously, there are no easy answers, but we made a lot of decisions over the past few decades, where the competitive landscape has changed, and we should at least think about re-evaluating some things in the new world we face.

The War in Russia and Ukraine

Wow, I’ve gone on so long already, and despite having more to say, we will end this by examining the TrumpSpeak of ending the war in Ukraine.

I think there is a very good opportunity to end the war.

• I have the privilege of participating in many discussions with members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group (“GIG”). The war in Ukraine comes up over and over again (as you would expect). The problem, as I see it, is that most of our experts seem to be forming a consensus around the status quo.
  • We can get more weapons into the hands of the Ukrainians, and give them more flexibility to use those weapons to their fullest capabilities, but how many more fighters can Ukraine come up with? How long can this go on and still allow displaced Ukrainians to return home?
  • The Russians, while often ineffective, and getting out-strategized by Ukraine, have more able bodies to put into the conflict. While their weaponry might not be very sophisticated, working at a wartime production level has given them a lot of mediocre weapons. As many of our GIG members state – quantity has a quality of its own. With Iran’s help – both directly and by diverting attention to the Middle East, and with North Korea’s help – first with equipment and now with some troops, the Russians are likely able to keep up this pace longer than Ukraine can, without really “winning.”
• If that is the “status quo,” where neither side can really “win,” why not come to some form of peace?

My take on TrumpSpeak related to this subject, once again, varies from much of what I see or hear in the media. There is a lot of concern that since the Republicans and Trump have not been supportive of weapons, they will somehow cut off the supply and demand peace. That is possible, but I don’t think it fits with TrumpSpeak very well. I see it playing out more like this:

• Trump tells Putin – here is what you get – Crimea (which they’ve had now for a long time), some of the Donbas region (which they’ve also had for quite some time), and a bunch (but not all) of your frozen dollar reserves. You, Putin, will accept a path towards Ukraine achieving NATO status (though he might tell him that he doubts Ukraine will achieve the level of governance needed to achieve that). It does fit TrumpSpeak for him to do that. But he will warn Putin that not accepting this deal will force his hand to give Ukraine better equipment, training, and free them up to unleash it, since he will be very disappointed that Putin couldn’t see the value in the deal. And he finishes by reminding him of how much difficulty they are already having in the war, so just imagine how bad it will be for you if I have to really support the Ukrainians.
• Trump tells Zelensky – you aren’t going to win this, and we are tired of supporting you. Let’s be honest, the part of the country I’m telling you to give up was always more Russian than Ukrainian (my presumption of TrumpSpeak). Listen, you have a lot to be proud of. People who had never heard of Ukraine now have, and respect you and your valor! You fought hard, now is the time to keep what is really Ukrainian and we will give you a bunch of $$$ to rebuild. We aren’t going to let Putin get back all of his money. There is a price he has to pay. So, you have world recognition, all the land that is obviously Ukrainian, and a bag of cash to rebuild! Just imagine the buildings you can have with all that money! (TrumpSpeak again). And, to make it sweeter, so it doesn’t happen again, we will create a path for you to join NATO. You will have some work to do to get there, but you can bring your great nation there. Sadly, if you can’t see the sensibility of all of this, and end the suffering of your people, I cannot commit to more weapons going forward. We’ve done a lot, and it is time for the U.S. to step back.

So, I see it more as stopping a playground fight (though I don’t mean to diminish the deaths and brutality) by telling both sides what they already know to be true and using a mix of rewards and threats.

I don’t see why that cannot be done and I don’t think it is at all contradictory to the TrumpSpeak we’ve heard.

If Not Economic Growth, Much Less Risk of a Recession

I am not sure I’m fully on board with the idea that the markets are moving a lot higher because of significantly improved growth prospects. It is possible, and I think there are a lot of potential positives, but that might be the market getting ahead of itself.
What I can argue vehemently for is that the risk of a meaningful economic slowdown in the next year or two has been dramatically reduced:

• The Fed wants to get to the “neutral rate” and whatever it is, they think it is lower than where monetary policy is set today.
• The Republicans might not give Trump everything he wants (and we don’t even know what he really wants) but they certainly will be quick to react to slowdowns with fiscal stimulus since they look likely to control what they need to accomplish that.

I think bigger projects might come to fruition, but the first 100 days is likely to be less overwhelming than the market seems to expect (the bond market has regained some of its sense in that respect). The new administration will want to get some big things done while they control everything, but that will likely take time.

I’m also in the camp, that while a mandate was given to the Republicans, many will be cautious on how to use it, as Trump will not be standing for re-election (unless you believe some of the more aggressive conspiracy theories).

In the meantime, we will all figure this out, and please take time to remember and thank veterans on Veterans Day. I’m very proud to work with the team at Academy and have learned a lot about what it takes to be a veteran and to have served! I have not served but I can thank my teammates and hope that we can continue to flourish and do our part to hire and train more veterans.

I can also point you to In Flanders Fields, which I think is a poignant and inspirational poem and appropriate for the day!

My apologies if I offended anyone, but I’m trying to explain how I think about this, and in any case, figuring out how to think about a lot of issues, and getting that analysis correct, will be a key component of success for you, your companies, and your investments.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 15:10

Indoctri-Nation

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

An essential mission for many educators throughout the country is the indoctrination of their students. The newest arrival on the propaganda front is Israel. In August, one of the topics of a United Teachers of Los Angeles meeting was “How to be a teacher & an organizer. . . and NOT get fired.”

History teacher Ron Gochez elaborated on stealth methods for indoctrinating his students. He talked about transporting busloads of kids to an anti-Israel rally—during the school day—without arousing suspicion.

“A lot of us that have been to those [protest] actions have brought our students. Now, I don’t take the students in my personal car,” Gochez told the crowd. Then, referring to the Los Angeles Unified School District, he explained: “I have members of our organization who are not LAUSD employees. They take those students and I just happen to be at the same place and the same time with them.”

Gochez further explained, “It’s like tomorrow I go to church, and some of my students are at the church. ‘Oh, wow! Hey, how you doing?’ We just happen to be at the same place at the same time, and look! We just happen to be at a pro-Palestine action, same place, same time.”

The unionistas then burst into approving laughter.

John Adams Middle School teacher and UTLA panelist William Shattuc agreed. Wearing a keffiyeh around his neck, he said, “We know that good history education is political education. And when we are coming up against political movements, like the movement for Zionism, that we disagree with, that we’re in conflict with—they [Zionists] have their own form of political education and they employ their own tools of censorship.”

Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona, ethnic studies teacher at Edward R. Roybal Learning Center in Los Angeles, who received a National Education Association Foundation Award for excellence in teaching, insists that the course she teaches, and whose curriculum she helped develop—ethnic studies—is fundamentally incompatible with supporting Israel. “Are you pro-Israel—are you for genocide?”

In Portland, OR, the Intifada begins in kindergarten. For example, the teachers union suggests that kindergarteners be gathered into a circle and taught the history of Palestine: “Seventy-five years ago, a lot of decision-makers around the world decided to take away Palestinian land to make a country called Israel. Israel would be a country where rules were mostly fair for Jewish people with white skin. There’s a BIG word for when indigenous land gets taken away to make a country; that’s called settler colonialism.”

The brainwashing is hardly limited to Israel.

In the San Diego Unified School District, students must confront and examine their “white privilege” and acknowledge when they “feel white fragility.” Additionally, children are told to “understand the impact of white supremacy” in their work.

Courtesy of the 520-page Black Studies Curriculum, public school students in New York City now receive lessons on the tenets of the Black Lives Matter movement and that Black Americans should receive reparations. Students also learn about the evils of capitalism, that student loans are equivalent to “debt peonage,” and the difference between defunding, reforming, and abolishing the police.

At an unspecified school in California, a parent confronted a teacher who told students that “only those who voted for Kamala Harris in their mock election will get a pizza party.”

The educator explained that there were five periods and only one would not get the party. “The Democrats are more for feeding the hungry, free medical care, more services—just pay higher taxes, so I would be willing to buy pizza for the class,” the teacher told the parent.

The teacher confirmed that the class that voted for Trump would not get free pizza, explaining “They just do what the conservatives do—which is pay for yourself.”

And then there is the transgender obsession, which shows no sign of abating. The invaluable Parents Defending Education lists the school districts that have policies that openly state district personnel can or should keep a student’s transgender status hidden from parents. As of Oct. 30, there were 12,222,924 students in 20,951 schools across the country affected by this protocol.

Not only is indoctrination a moral disgrace, it is also very expensive. A recent report surveying 467 superintendents in 46 states reveals that culturally divisive conflict in schools costs public K-12 schools, i.e., taxpayers, about $3.2 billion during the 2023-24 school year.

The cost of school-based culture wars includes “additional security, communications, and legal expenses. Schools incurred indirect costs from using staff time to address misinformation, social media threats, media inquiries about book bans, and growing demands for public information requests.”

John Rogers, a UCLA education professor, and lead researcher for the poll, claimed in a media release, “This research makes clear that culturally divisive conflicts in the nation’s schools are generating fear, stress, and anxiety that is disrupting school districts and taking a personal toll on the educators and staff members who work in them. Sadly, as superintendents have told us, the cost of these conflicts not only has a financial impact but is also eroding teaching and learning and undermining the trust between schools and the communities so essential to our democracy and civic life.”

Notably, according to many of the superintendents interviewed for the report, members of Moms for Liberty and those speaking out about such controversial topics shouldn’t get a platform.

Tiffany Justice, cofounder of Moms for Liberty, responded that the report’s findings are “ridiculous” and a “gaslighting tactic” to make it look like the parents are the problem for opposing sensitive topics being taught to their children without their consent.

Justice adds, “This is more obfuscation, this is more deflection by school districts for not liking the fact that parents are calling out a failing system, and we will not be silenced to protect a failing system.”

“What would be the better thing?” Justice asked. “We just shut up and go along with the indoctrination and the demoralization of our children so we don’t cause a problem and cost the school district money? If they weren’t doing so much nonsense, they wouldn’t have to deal with the ire of parents.”

Fortunately, many adults are indeed catching on to the problems with our wayward schools. According to the results of a Gallup poll released in August, only 43% of American adults indicated they are somewhat or completely satisfied with the quality of education students receive in kindergarten through grade 12 in the United States today.

Additionally, the EdChoice Schooling in America Survey asked respondents about the trajectory of K–12 education in the United States. The responses to this question were red flags for both parents and the broader public. Fully 70% of the public and 64% of parents of school-age children think K–12 education is on the wrong track.

A Pew Research Center poll found that only 16% of Americans were willing to say things are going in the right direction in education.

The 2022 NAEP, or “Nation’s Report Card” shows that Americans’ concerns are valid. The test revealed that nationwide, 29% of the nation’s 8th-graders are proficient in reading, while just 26% are proficient in math.

Clearly, all parents need to be aware of the massive indoctrination going on in the nation’s government-run schools and act accordingly. They have options, which I will delve into in a future post.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 11:40

Qatar Orders Hamas Leaders To Leave After US Request

Several media reports and sources have been claiming that the government of Qatar has ordered the leaders of Hamas to leave the country, following pressure from Washington.

Financial Times is among those major outlets who are reporting that "The request was made around 10 days ago after intense discussions with US officials, according to one person familiar with the matter." Wall Street Journal and others have said the same on Saturday.

Hamas leaders being embraced by Qatar in 2016. Qatar government handout

Hamas leadership has been present in the capital of Doha since 2012. Prior to that it had long been based out of Damascus. But the Assad government booted Hamas after it sided against him and allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda forces during the decade long proxy war in Syria.

The tiny oil and gas-rich Gulf nation of Qatar has been central to on-and-off ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas, but these talks have of late been declared completely off. 

Given that these negotiations have been cut off, and as fighting continues in the Gaza Strip, Washington believes it's time for Qatar to no longer play 'neutral' host nation to the group widely designated as a terror organization by the US and its allies. FT details:

But the talks have since been deadlocked, and Doha was told that after the failure of “repeated proposals to release hostages, [Hamas’s] leaders should no longer be welcome in the capitals of any American partner”, said a senior Biden administration official. “We made that clear to Qatar following Hamas’s rejection weeks ago of another hostage release proposal,” the official said.

The official added that while Qatar had played a key role in trying to negotiate a ceasefire and the release of the remaining Israeli hostages held by the militant group over the past year, “following Hamas’s repeated refusal to release even a small number of hostages, including most recently during meetings in Cairo, their continued presence in Doha is no longer viable or acceptable”.

Hamas leaders being in Doha has remained an awkward and contradictory arrangement as Qatar is also host to the largest US troop presence in the Middle East. US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Forward Headquarters is located at Al Udeid Air Base, which can house more than 10,000 American troops.

There is growing frustration among Qatari mediators about statements made regarding the intentions of officials in Doha, I’m told. With some western officials publicly attacking Qatar while privately asking for diplomatic assistance.

This was communicated to the Americans.

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) November 9, 2024

While Qatar's foreign ministry has confirmed that efforts "to mediate between Hamas and Israel are currently stalled" it also doesn't appear happy with the pressure campaign coming from Washington to boot Hamas leaders.

There has also been some confusion, despite all the current international reports, over whether Qatar is actually complying with the US demand:

Hamas has not been informed they are unwelcome in Doha, the Qatari Al-Araby news outlet reports, citing informed sources. Al-Araby says that information reported by media outlets, including The Times of Israel, is inaccurate.

However, an Arab official tells The Times of Israel that the Al-Araby report is false, calling it a “smokescreen” put on by sources who do not support the decision to oust Hamas.

How to read Qatar’s bombshell to oust Hamas:
1- Qatar pivoting to Gulf fold
2- Terminating mediation efforts: slap to all (Israel, US, Hamas)
3- Adjusting to Republican Congress, less so to Trump

Outsource the nightmare to someone else (Turkey, Iran) https://t.co/UPjkVKyh9n

— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) November 9, 2024

But if and when Hamas does relocate its political headquarters, Turkey or even Iran would be likely fits as the next host countries.

In the case of Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been vocal in his support of the group all while fiercely condemning Israel for what Ankara and others have said is genocide being conducted against Palestinians.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 11:05

Student President Of Harvard's Institute Of Politics Calls For End Of Non-Partisanship After Trump Victory

Authored by Jonthan Turley,

The president of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics has declared that the lesson of the blowout 2024 election is not a need for greater inclusivity and balance at the school but, you guessed it, the express abandonment of nonpartisanship going forward. While many would argue that the school left neutrality behind years ago, Pratyush Mallick is calling in an op-ed for The Harvard Crimson for an official change. It would align the Institute with the building “resistance” and reject not just nonpartisanship but neutrality in its programs and grants.

After the election, I wrote that people hoping for a moment of introspection after the Trump victory will likely be disappointed, and “the rage in the media and academia will only likely increase.” That has unfortunately proven to be the case. The meltdown after the presidential election appears to be building rather than subsiding with attacks from the left on male, female, and minority voters as racists, misogynists, or despotic dupes.

The call for partisanship at Harvard is not unique. Before the election, I criticized Wesleyan University President Michael Roth for urging universities to abandon neutrality and work openly for the election of Kamala Harris. Immediately after the election, Roth doubled down and promised to join the “resistance” against Trump’s “authoritarian” regime.

A few weeks before the election, I participated in a debate at Harvard Law School over the lack of free speech protections and intellectual diversity at Harvard.

This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only  5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.

Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.

While Professor Randall Kennedy, in the debate, dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one third of the voters still identify as Republican.

The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative.

Yet, the Institute of Politics student executive committee president wants it to be more official.

”Today, Harvard’s Institute of Politics has a choice to make too. Nonpartisanship — a founding principle of the IOP — is no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment. Donald Trump’s imminent return to power underscores the importance of the IOP finally breaking from our long-standing commitment to it.”

So, rather than considering the implications of a majority of voters rejecting the narrative of the media and political establishment, the idea is to move even further toward orthodoxy and intolerance.

Mallick wrote that as the Trump administration moves forward, “we must resist platforming anti-democratic voices in the guise of nonpartisanship.” Those “anti-democratic voices” are likely to be found on one end of the political spectrum.

In a truly Orwellian twist, Mallick added, “In fact, we must strive to defend principles of democracy, due process, and justice precisely to ensure that we can continue carrying out our age-old mission of nonpartisanship.”

So, the Institute would become partisan in order to fulfill its mission of nonpartisanship.

As I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right, we have seen the same abandonment of neutrality in the media with disastrous results.

Students in “J Schools” today are being told to abandon neutrality and objectivity since, as former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, “all journalism is activism.”

After a series of interviews with over 75 media leaders,  Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”

The result has been the increasing rejection of mainstream media in favor of new media. The falling revenue and readership have not produced any more introspection among leading figures in the media. After the election, various figures such as MSNBC host Mika Brezinski did not acknowledge how media bias has led to the decline but instead blamed the election in part on the availability of opposing views as “massive disinformation.” Others called for free speech to be curtailed to prevent such contrary information from affecting another election.

Ironically, the Harvard Institute has a number of advisory board members accused of such bias in the past, including CNN’s Abby Philip. While there are a couple of Republicans, it has a majority of current and former Democratic politicians and advisers, including Michael Nutter, David Axelrod, LaTosha Brown, William D. Delahunt, and Joseph Kennedy III.

In the end, the Institute’s formal commitment to partisanship is unlikely to matter. While Mallick insists that “nonpartisanship—a founding principle of the IOP—is no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment,” it has long been out of vogue at Harvard.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 10:30

German Welfare Beneficiary Caught Smuggling In €15k Worth Of Gold Jewelry From Iran

By Liz Helin of Remix News

A 33-year-old woman was returning home to Germany from Iran on Oct. 28 when she ran into some trouble with customs officers at Hamburg airport. When asked whether she had brought any goods that required declaration from her five-week trip, she denied having any, reports Bild. 

However, it turns out that was not the case.

“During the inspection, the customs officers discovered a total of 18 pieces of gold jewelry, 16 of which were stored in a shoulder bag with a lock in the backpack,” reports Maurice Douce, press spokesman for the Itzehoe main customs office. 

The woman then tried to say that some of the jewelry was for a friend.

“What matters when importing goods is not who the goods are intended for, but who is importing them,” Douce clarified.

The total value of the items was some €15,000, with the woman facing a charge of €3,400 in customs duties for her undeclared souvenirs.

Officials also discovered that the woman receives a citizen’s allowance in Germany. This means that she is only allowed to go on holiday for a maximum of 21 days and only if the trip is approved by her benefit provider. Otherwise, her social benefits can be reclaimed.

Germany has been struggling with the welfare demands of its open borders policy. In its 2025 budget draft, the country outlined standard rates and accommodation costs expected to total €45.6 billion, a far cry from the €36 billion set in the 2025 citizen’s allowance budget.

Continued reading on Remix News.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 09:20

Trump Takes AZ, Completes Sweep Of All Swing States; CNN Says Victory Was So Massive He "Broke History"

President-elect Donald Trump has won Arizona, completing a sweep of all seven battleground in the 2024 election.

The Associated Press called the race at 9:21 p.m. ET on Nov. 9. With this win, Trump’s total electoral college count moves to 312 to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 226.

Trump was projected to win the election on the morning of Nov. 6. Harris conceded the race later the same day.

As The Epoch Times' John Haughey reports, Trump’s Arizona victory follows candidate Joe Biden’s upset win in the state in 2020, a 0.3-percent squeaker that marked the first time since Bill Clinton’s 1996 win that The Grand Canyon State had voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. In 2016, Trump won Arizona by 3.5 percentage points.

Polls presaged the former president’s Arizona win. The FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate had Trump leading by 2.2 percentage points on Nov. 4.

Maricopa County, where 62 percent of the state’s 7.4 million residents, and more than half its 4.367 million voters, live, proved pivotal. Trump won the Phoenix-area vote CC to CC percent, according to the Maricopa County Elections Department.

Trump fared better in the key county than in 2016 when he won it with less than 48 percent and in 2020 when he lost it with 47.65 percent, becoming the first GOP presidential candidate to lose Maricopa County in 72 years.

As in Nevada, winning the Latino vote drives Arizona campaigns, especially in Maricopa County where one-third of voters are Hispanic, compared to less than 19 percent nationally.

While many media declared Trump the winner of Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes in the preceding days, the AP withheld doing so until all mail-in ballots had been counted. Reported results had not changed much for more than a day by late-afternoon Nov. 8.

On Nov. 7, the Arizona Secretary of State’s office added tens of thousands of votes to the tally, but said there were hundreds of thousands of ballots left to count, including nearly 500,000 in Maricopa County. Therefore, the presidential race and the U.S. Senate contest between Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Kari Lake remained too close to call by late afternoon Nov. 8.

At 5 p.m. EST—2 p.m. PST—on Nov. 8, those numbers, largely frozen for more than a day, had Trump with 1.4 million votes, 52.5 percent of the total tally, to Harris’s 1.2 million votes, or 46.5 percent.

Despite the president-elect’s 161,000 vote lead, a significant 6 percentage point advantage, since most Arizona voters cast ballots by mail, and counting typically takes days. the AP withheld the call until it was mathematically impossible for Harris to overcome Trump’s lead.

Trump also dominated Harris in the popular vote with the vice president receiving around 10 million less votes than Biden did in 2020...

Additionally, as Modernity.news' Steve Watson reports, CNN’s data analyst Harry Enten did a deep dive into the gains president Trump made with specific demographics in the election, highlighting how crushing they were for Democrats.

The numbers are truly astounding, and incredibly bad for the party of ‘joy.’

Enter pointed out that Trump made the greatest improvements over a previous presidential election performance from the same party since 1992.

“When was the last time a party gained in so many different places?” Enten asked, explaining that “You have to go all the way to back to 1992 when Bill Clinton improved on Michael Dukakis’ performance in 49 states, plus the District of Columbia.”

“Donald Trump’s performance on Tuesday was the best for a Republican presidential candidate in exit poll history,” Enten further urged, adding “He literally goes all the way back through history and breaks history.” 

Enten pointed to how Trump improved his party’s election performance in 49 states and Washington, D.C. over the 2020 election, with Washington state the single one where he didn’t do better.

“You know, I think the breadth of the improvement that Donald Trump had – Holy Toledo!” Enten declared.

Trump's mandate:

1. More states (49 + DC) swung in his direction vs. last election than anyone since 1992.
2. Best GOP showing w/ age 18-29 in 20 yrs, Black voters in 48 yrs, Hispanics in 52+ yrs.
3. Coattails: best GOP showing in House popular vote in prez year since 1928. pic.twitter.com/xDEjHVJFAm

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) November 8, 2024

Trump has the biggest mandate imaginable.

If there was ever a mandate, this looks like it. Trump’s coalition is clearly reshaping the political map.

— Marie Jett (@Marie_Jett1) November 8, 2024

The party of joy failed to instil anyone with any.

The political landscape has completely changed forever.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 08:45

The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Trump’s reported plan for a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine places Russia in the dilemma of either preempting this with another large-scale nationwide offensive, targeting those forces after they enter at the risk of sparking World War III, or tacitly accepting this endgame.

The Wall Street Journal’s report that Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine envisages the creation of an 800-mile demilitarized zone that would be patrolled by Europeans adds a lot of urgency to Russia’s nearly 1000-day-long struggle to achieve its maximum goals in this conflict. The potential entrance of conventional Western/NATO forces into Ukraine as peacekeepers places Russia in the dilemma of accepting yet another “red line” being crossed or risking World War III by targeting them.

To refresh everyone’s memory since it’s been so long since the special operation started, Russia officially aims to: 1) demilitarize Ukraine; 2) denazify it; and 3) restore its constitutional neutrality, among other supplementary and informal goals. September 2022’s referenda then added the official goal of removing Ukrainian forces from the entirety of the four regions that Russia now claims as its own, including the areas of Kherson and Zaporozhye on the other side of the Dnieper, which will be challenge.

At the same time, Putin has repeatedly refused to reciprocally escalate in response to egregious Ukrainian provocations like its bombing of the Kremlin, early warning systems, strategic airfields, oil refineries, and residential buildings, et al, all due to him not wanting the conflict to spiral out of control. For as responsible of an approach as this is, the drawback is that it created the perception that he might accept the crossing of even more “red lines”, including conventional Western/NATO forces in Ukraine.

Putin’s aversion to escalation might therefore be exploited by Trump, who was reportedly handed a plan in June advising him to give Ukraine whatever it wants if Russia refuses whatever peace deal he proposes, ergo the high likelihood of a conventional Western/NATO intervention to decisively freeze the conflict. Trump’s track record of “escalating to de-escalate” with North Korea and Iran suggests that he’d also go through with this plan against Russia, hence why it should take this scenario seriously.

Provided that Putin lacks the political will to risk an unprecedented escalation by targeting those conventional Western/NATO forces, and his behavior thus far in response to other provocations suggests that this is indeed the case, then he’ll have to race against the clock to achieve his maximum goals. It’ll still take some time for the US to get key stakeholders like Poland on board, where 69% of the public is against dispatching troops to Ukraine in any capacity, so this likely won’t happen by mid-January.

In any case, Russia no longer has a hypothetically indefinite amount of time like before to: 1) demilitarize Ukraine; 2) denazify it; 3) restore its constitutional neutrality; and 4) remove Ukrainian forces from the entirety of the four regions that Russia now claims as its own, including those areas across the Dnieper. Even though the military-strategic dynamics of the conflict favor it, and capturing Pokrovsk could lead to huge gains in Donetsk, it’ll be very difficult to achieve all these goals by the time an intervention occurs.

To explain in the order that they were mentioned, Ukraine was initially supposed to be demilitarized upon the swift success of the special operation in its early phase, but the UK and Poland (whose role most observers aren’t aware of) convinced Zelensky to rubbish spring 2022’s draft peace treaty. That document would have greatly slashed its military capabilities, but it’s no longer realistic to imagine that he’d agree to this, especially after being given tens of billions of dollars’ worth of NATO arms.

NATO is also unlikely to agree to ask for them back due to the perception (regardless of its veracity) that Ukraine must be able to “deter” Russia from supposedly recommencing the conflict after it finally ends. The Taliban’s swift capture of Afghanistan after Biden’s bungled withdrawal from there was viciously lambasted by Trump, who’d go down in history as an even bigger loser if he agreed to “demilitarize” Ukraine and was then played for a fool by Putin if Russia steamrolls through it sometime later.

The only viable way in which Russia could implement Ukraine’s demilitarization in today’s context is to control as much of its territory as possible in order to ensure that no threatening weapons are deployed there. The problem though is that Russia is unlikely to obtain military control over all of Ukraine, or even just significant parts of its territory east of the Dnieper in proximity to the internationally recognized border across which Kiev’s shells still regularly fly, by the time of a Western/NATO intervention.

One of the reasons why the special operation’s opening phase didn’t result in ending the conflict on Russia’s terms is because the West informed Zelensky about how overextended its military logistics had become and thus encouraged him to exploit that to push it back like he ultimately did. Given how cautious of a leader Putin is, he’s unlikely to act out of character once more by ordering a repeat of this same risky strategy even if the frontlines collapse and Russia is able to roll into other regions.   

Another unforeseen challenge that Russia experienced during the special operation’s opening phase was actually holding the broad swaths territory that it nominally controlled. Ukraine’s hidden Javelin and Stinger stockpiles inflicted enough losses behind Russia’s lines to engender the large-scale pullback that coincided with the failure of spring 2022’s peace talks. There’s also the obvious difficulty of swiftly capturing large cities like Kharkov, Sumy, and Zaporozhye, which hasn’t yet happened.

Moving along to Russia’s second maximum goal of denazifying Ukraine after explaining how tough it’ll be to achieve the first one of militarizing it, this too can’t succeed without a political agreement that’s no longer realistic in today’s context after such a chance slipped away in spring 2022. What Russia has in mind is Ukraine promulgating legislation that aligns with these goals, such as banning the glorification of World War II-era fascists and rescinding restrictions on ethnic Russians’ rights.

Zelensky has no reason to go along with this anymore like he flirted with doing in early 2022 and Trump’s team doesn’t seem to care all that much about this issue anyhow. It’s therefore unclear how Russia can achieve this before a Western/NATO intervention except in the unlikely scenario of a Russian-friendly Color Revolution and/or military coup, neither of which the US would accept, and both of which would probably thus prompt the aforesaid intervention out of desperation to salvage “Project Ukraine”.

The third maximum goal of restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality is comparatively more likely but nevertheless moot at this point given that the raft of security guarantees that it already clinched with NATO states since the start of this year de facto amount to continued Article 5 support. Contrary to popular perceptions, this clause doesn’t obligate the dispatch of troops, but only for each country to do whatever it deems fit to help allies under attack. Their existing military aid to Ukraine aligns with this.

Coercing Ukraine to rescind 2019’s constitutional amendment making NATO membership a strategic objective would therefore be a superficial concession to Russia on the US’ part to make Trump’s peace plan a little less bitter for Putin to swallow. As with the previous two maximum goals, Zelensky has no reason to comply with Putin’s demands in this regard since the latter’s forces aren’t in a position to impose this upon him, thus meaning that it can only realistically be done if Trump orders him to.

As the reader probably already picked up on, the common theme is that Russia’s inability to militarily coerce Zelensky into complying with its maximum goals greatly reduces the possibility that they’ll be achieved, which also holds true for the final one of obtaining control over all its new regions’ land. It’s unimaginable that Zelensky will voluntarily cede Zaporozhye with its over 700,000 population, for example, or that Trump will accept the Western opprobrium that would follow coercing him to do so.

The same goes for letting Russia cross the Dnieper to obtain control over that region’s and Kherson’s areas on the other side, thus creating the opportunity for it to build up its forces there in the future for a lightning strike across Ukraine’s western plains in the event that the conflict ever rekindles after it ends. There’s no way that Trump would ever give Putin such an invaluable military-strategic gift so Russia’s supporters shouldn’t deceive themselves by getting their hopes up thinking that this will happen.

The only way in which Russia can achieve its maximum goals before the entrance of Western/NATO troops into Ukraine as peacekeepers is through military means, which would require another large-scale multi-pronged offensive of the sort that characterized the special operation’s early days. Even then, however, the high risk of once again overextending its military logistics, being ambushed by Stingers/Javelins, and thus risking reputational costs and even on-the-ground losses, will remain.

As such, there are really only three options left for Russia:

1) escalate now before Western/NATO troops enter Ukraine and either coerce Zelensky into agreeing to these demands or capture and hold enough land in order to demilitarize as much of the country as possible;

2) escalate after they enter at the risk of sparking a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that could spiral into World War III; or

3) accept the fait accompli of freezing the conflict along the Line of Contact and begin preparing the public accordingly.

It's unclear which option Putin will choose since he hasn’t yet signaled a preference for any of them. Nevertheless, it’s timely to quote 19th-century Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov, who famously said that “Russia is not sulking; she is composing herself.” Russia knows that the clock is ticking for achieving its maximum goals before Trump likely orders Western/NATO peacekeepers to enter Ukraine. The Kremlin is quiet for now precisely because policymakers have yet to decide what to do.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 08:10

Low-Wage Nations?

According to data by the OECD, a quarter of wage earners in the United Kingdom lag significantly behind median full-time earnings in their country. 24.7 percent of Brits earned less than two thirds of gross median pay, qualifying them as low wage earners in OECD statistics. 

But, as Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, in the United States, this number was not much lower at 22.7 percent. Another low-wage country identified in the figures was Israel.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In Poland and Germany, 18.5 percent and 16 percent, respectively, still earned low wage if following this definition.

Fewer low wage earners were found in France, Norway and New Zealand, with results in the single digits.

While the United States did not report the incidence of high pay, Israel's and the United Kingdom's share there was also above average at 26.4 percent and 24.0 percent, respectively.

In the OECD on average, 21.9 percent of people earned high wages - 1.5 times the median gross pay or higher - while 13.5 percent earned low pay.

Denmark was the only country with a higher share of low-wage earners - 9.8 percent - than high-wage earners - 2.5 percent (among those reporting both figures).

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 07:35

"Olaf Is A Fool" – Berlin Responds To Elon's Swipe At Chancellor Scholz Amid Government Collapse

By Thomas Brooke of Remix News

Germany’s collapsing government has responded to Elon Musk calling Chancellor Olaf Scholz a “fool” by claiming that the tech billionaire’s X platform has become a place for extremists.

Musk commented on the news that the traffic light coalition in Berlin was faltering following the dismissal of Christian Lindner, leader of the co-governing FDP, from the finance ministry, by writing in German, “Olaf ist ein Narr” (Olaf is a Fool).

Olaf ist ein Narr https://t.co/Yye3DIeA17

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 7, 2024

Deputy government spokeswoman Christiane Hoffmann attempted to brush off Musk’s comment, claiming, “There is freedom for fools on X.”

She, however, justified the federal government’s continued presence on the social media site despite claiming it is “increasingly offering extremists a platform,” by claiming that social media is “an important means for the federal government to explain and communicate its work.”

Her response, though, has only drawn more attention to the government’s unsuccessful approach to Germany’s severe economic challenges.

Scholz is facing a wave of criticism over his handling of the economy and mounting government gridlock. His abrupt firing of FinMin Lindner signaled the collapse of a coalition already struggling to manage, with all three parties plummeting in the national polls to the benefit of the center-right CDU/CSU and nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD).

And yet, while the coalition government seems intent on squabbling among themselves, Musk’s blunt appraisal of Scholz’s leadership echoes the frustration of a growing number of Germans.

Berlin’s inability to stabilize Europe’s largest economy has resulted in soaring energy costs, stagnant growth, and a considerable decline in its competitiveness with the likes of China.

The German automotive sector is in the process of cutting thousands of jobs as it grapples with a global shift toward electric vehicles — a transformation Musk himself has been at the forefront of.

The economic crisis is having a knock-on effect throughout the country, with Remix News reporting this week that bankruptcies have soared to their highest level in 20 years.

A total of 1,530 individuals and corporations filed for bankruptcies in October, 17 percent more than last month, according to research from the Leibniz Institute for Economic Research Halle (IWH).

Similarly, German industrial orders fell 5.8 percent in August compared to July, it was reported last month. The slump is far higher than the 2 percent drop anticipated, with economists now warning of a recession and doubting a quick recovery.

In September, a survey by the Ifo Institute revealed that the German economy is expected to shrink by 0.1 percent in 2024, following a 0.3 percent contraction last year, while business sentiment worsened for the fourth consecutive month and business activity contracted at its fastest rate in seven months.

Despite the political chaos, Scholz appears reluctant to act immediately with reports suggesting he could call a vote of no confidence in the new year paving the way for new elections possibly by March, a time when Donald Trump will already be back in the White House and implementing his ‘America First’ policies many believe will be to the further detriment of the German economy.

Opposition politicians in Germany are demanding decisive action with the AfD’s Bernd Baumann calling for “immediate new elections,” citing the latest results of the Politbarometer which revealed that 84 percent of Germans support this move.

Continue reading at Remix News.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/10/2024 - 07:00

Escobar: Putin Outlines The 'Moment Of Truth'

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

President Putin’s plenary session performance (address + Q&A) at the annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi felt like a high-speed train on cruise control.

Totally cool, calm, comfortable, in full command of a Himalaya of facts, no political leader anywhere – recent past and present - would even come close to delivering what amounts to an extensive, detailed world view deeply matured over a quarter of a century at the highest geopolitical level.

Putin began his address referring to the October 1917 revolution, drawing a direct parallel with our turbulent times: “The moment of truth is coming”. In a clear tribute to Gramsci, he stated how a “completely new world order” is “being formed before our eyes.”

The subtle reference to the recent BRICS summit in Kazan could not possibly escape critical minds across the Global Majority. Kazan was a living, breathing testimony that “the old order is irrevocably disappearing, one might say, has already disappeared, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the formation of a new one. Irreconcilable, first of all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence, this is a clash of the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built at the next historical stage.”

As concisely as possible, that should be taken as the current Big Picture framework: we are not mired inside a reductionist clash of civilizations or the “end of History” – which Putin defined as “myopic” - but facing a make-or-break systemic clash of fundamental principles. The result will define this century – arguably the Eurasia Century, as “the dialectics of History continues.”

Putin himself quipped that he would drive into “philosophical asides” during his address. In fact that went much further than a mere refutation of unilateral conceptual fallacies, as “the Western elites thought that their monopoly is the final stop for humanity” and “modern neoliberalism degenerated into a totalitarian ideology.”

Referring to AI, he asked rhetorically, “will human remain human?” He praised the building of a new global architecture, moving towards a “polyphonic” and “polycentric” world where “maximum representation” is paramount and the BRICS are “coming up with a coordinated approach” based on “sovereign equality.”

Six Principles For Global Sustainable Development

Sovereignty had to be one of the predominant themes during the Valdai Q&A. Putin was adamant that Russia must “develop our own sovereign AI. As algorithms are biased and give massive power to a few big companies that control the internet, the need is imperative for “sovereign algorithms.”

Answering a question on Eurasian security and the US as the dominant maritime power v. a multipolar Eurasia, he stressed the “consensus and desire in Eurasia for an anti-hegemonic movement”, and not for Eurasia constituted “as a bloc”. That’s the appeal of Eurasia’s “multi-vector foreign policy”, implying “more political independence”. The key example of “harmonizing interests”, Putin stressed, is the Russia-China partnership, and that was also what “made BRICS successful.”

Compare it in contrast to “the inability in Europe to establish a system of “indivisibility of security” and to “overcome bloc politics”; Europe instead went for NATO expansion: “After the end of the Cold War there was an opportunity to overcome bloc politics. But the US had fear of losing Europe. The US installed almost a colonial dependence. Honestly I did not expect that.”

Putin introduced a fascinating personal experience tidbit referring to a conversation – in German – with former German chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1993, when Kohl said flat out that “the future of Europe” is linked to Russia.

Yet that ended up leading to “the most important problem on our Eurasian continent, the main problem between Russia and European countries: the trust deficit (…) When they tell us that ‘we signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and we had no intention of resolving this conflict peacefully,’ what kind of trust can we talk about? (…) You have directly publicly stated that you have cheated us! Lied to us and deceived us! What kind of trust is that? But we need to get back to that system of mutual trust.”

Putin then added that Europe should consider becoming part and parcel of a Chinese concept straight from Chinese philosophy (“they do not strive for domination”). With panache, he stressed that the Chinese uber-geoeconomic trade/connectivity project should be interpreted as One Belt, One Common Road.

And that extrapolates to Central Asia, with all those nations “very young in their statehood” interested in “stable development”. For Russia-China, there’s “no competition” in the Heartland: “we only have cooperation.”

Putin once again enumerated what he considers the 6 key principles for global sustainable development: openness of interaction (implying no “artificial barriers”); diversity (“a model of one country or a relatively small part of humanity should not be imposed as something universal”); maximum representativeness; security for all without exception; justice for all (erasing “the gap between the ‘golden billion’ and the rest of humanity); and equality.

“Make Civilizations, Not War”

On Ukraine, this was the money quote: “If there is no neutrality, then it’s difficult to imagine any kind of good neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine.” In a nutshell: Moscow is ready for negotiations, but based on facts on the battlefield and what was agreed upon in Istanbul in April 2022.

That may be interpreted as a direct message to President Trump. To whom the door is open: "Russia has not damaged its relations with the US and is open to their restoration, but the ball is in the Americans' court."

Putin on US Presidents (he met quite a few): “All of them are interesting people.” On Trump: “His behavior when there was an attempt on his life, I was impressed. He is a courageous person. He acquitted himself valiantly.” On the open door: “Whatever he does it’s up to him to decide.” Then Putin offered his own congratulations for the re-election – on the record. The dialogue may be on: “We are willing to talk to Trump.”

Putin extolled Russia-China relations as part of their strategic partnership as being “at the highest level in modern history.” He also praised his own personal relation with Xi Jinping. That paved the way for the real killer, when it comes to US-Russia-China: “If the US had chosen a trilateral cooperation instead of double constraint – everyone would win.”

An excellent question by Brazilian economist Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr – a former vice-president of the NDB, the BRICS bank – led Putin to clarify his own position on de-dollarization. He stated flatly that “my role is to see ideas shaped that we then propose to our partners”.

The key target is “proposing to create a new investment platform using electronic payments.” That will address the “most promising markets” in the near future – South Asia, Africa, parts of Latin America: “They will need investment, technologies.” And “tools independent from inflation” – with regulation “through Central Banks and the NDB. We agreed to have a working group meeting regularly at government level. We are in no hurry.”

So that puts to rest any scenario of an immediate BRICS financial bombshell – even as “two-thirds of our trade is being serviced in national currencies” and among BRICS the figures are also high.

BRICS Bridge will be tested – soon. As for creating a single currency, that’s “premature. We need to achieve greater integration of economies, increase the quality of economies to a certain – compatible – level.”

Then, the bombshell: “We never wanted to abandon the dollar!” That goes a long way to explain Putin’s own view on de-dollarization: “They are undoing it with their own hand – the power of the dollar.”

All of the above is just a sample of the width and breath of themes addressed by the President during the Valdai Q&A. The forum itself offered precious nuggets all across the spectrum. Some participants – correctly - noted the absence of “the majority of the majority”: youth and women. Africans were impressed with “the sharp mind of Russian bureaucracy.”

A Chinese view noted how “the Chinese don’t swim against the current; they cross the river and reach the other bank.” There was a near consensus that development should be “based in different cultural values of civilizations” – actually Putin’s own view. Also imperative is the “need for aggregate authority” among the Global South.

A Greek insight was particularly powerful when it comes to the civilizational approach to politics: “Civilizations don’t clash. States do.” Thus the new – playful - motto that could guide not only BRICS but the whole Global Majority: “Make Civilizations, Not War.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 11/09/2024 - 23:20

Americans Spend Big On Christmas Cheer... And Mums

With an expected per-person spending of $875, no other holiday rooted in long-standing tradition comes close to the winter holiday season, which starts on November 1 and ends on December 31. 

You will find more infographics at Statista

As Statista's Florian Zandt reports, data from the National Retail Federation (NRF) shows that spending for the runner-up, Mother's Day, only amounts to one third of Thanksgiving and Christmas consumer spending, with no other seasonal event coming close.

While Mother's Day spending stood at $274 per person in 2023, Father's Day, Valentine's Day and Easter ranged between $192 and $196 in the past year. 

Halloween, where money is mostly spent on costumes and decorations according to additional data from the NRF, comes in sixth with an expected per-person spend of $108. While most of the holidays featured on the list have roots in history reaching back hundreds to thousands of years, the Super Bowl is a relatively new phenomenon. This fact notwithstanding, U.S. Americans on average still spend $85 per person on arguably the most important U.S. sports event of the year.

When taking into account not just festivities connected to specific celebrations, two other occasions take the first and second spots in the ranking: Back-to-college and back-to-school. However, these two events are not comparable to the rest of the list, since the average expected spending of $1,367 and $890, respectively, is calculated by household and not per person. Having more than one individual per household in need of school supplies, clothing or electronics for the new school year can skew the results. Therefore, it's likely that even while the per-household figures for back-to-college and back-to-school are higher, the winter holiday season still ranks first in individual spending.

Tyler Durden Sat, 11/09/2024 - 22:45

What You Need To Know About Preparing For Emergencies, According To A Top Survivalist

Authored by Krista Thomas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Expert

EJ Snyder knows a thing or two about survival. After 25 years in the U.S. Army, he emerged as the extreme survivalist “Skullcrusher” on television shows like “Naked and Afraid,” “Dual Survival,” and “First Man Out.”

EJ Snyder is an Army veteran and experienced survivalist who has appeared on survival shows like "Naked and Afraid." Adhiraj Chakrabarti/American Essence

Today, in addition to teaching survival skills and speaking at events around the country, he also writes. His new book is “Emergency Home Preparedness: The Ultimate Guide for Bugging In During Natural Disasters, Civil Unrest, and More.” He’s also signed on as executive VP with SurvivalMastery.co, an online subscriber-based platform designed to teach self-sufficiency skills.

“It’s been God’s path for me. I love getting the word out about these things,” he said. “It’s a matter of confidence if you do plan for these things. It makes the situation a little bit easier.”

At the time of this interview, Snyder was putting his survivalist skills into practice in North Carolina, aiding other veterans with Hurricane Helene relief efforts.  We tapped the former Army Ranger for advice on how best to prepare for any kind of emergency with survival skills.

The Epoch Times: There are a lot of different approaches to prepping, and different personalities teaching about the subject. What’s different about you and your approach?

EJ Snyder: I try to approach teaching survival skills with skull-crushing common sense based on reality. I want you to be able to do the tasks when it matters most. I teach super simply ... helping the everyday Joe or Joan to handle bad days and be sufficient.

The Epoch Times: How did you get interested in preparing for emergencies?

Mr. Snyder: When I was a little boy at 8 years old, I remember it was wintertime in the late afternoon, and we had been sitting in a tree stand. It was getting very cold. I followed the steps back a couple of miles to camp and it started snowing. I got distracted and I remember trying to follow my tracks, and I couldn’t see them because the snow covered them up.

I got lost and panicked. I saw a rock and thought I should get on the rock and call my dad. I was in the dark for an hour. My uncles and dad were looking for me and finally found me. My dad then taught me about a compass and it taught me to be prepared for any situation.

Later, I was a Ranger instructor and went to the U.S. Army SERE School. I became the primary survival and tracking expert for Ranger students. But Y2K was the real catalyst. I wanted myself and my family to be ready. So I started with a list of what I needed, like bug-out bags and stored foods such as rice. We had enough spaghetti for two years. If something would have happened, we would have been prepared. Several months later, we were able to help people survive a Category 3 storm.

That is how it all got started. It is critically important because we’ve got to save lives here. I’m passionate about survival to help people help themselves.

Snyder gathers wood in the forests of western North Carolina. Adhiraj Chakrabarti/American Essence

The Epoch Times: Can you tell us about emergencies that you may have been in, and how that went for you and yours?

Mr. Snyder: I remember there was a time when I was driving in the winter in upstate New York. I was big about preparedness by this point and made sure I had a winter survival kit in the vehicle: blankets, meals, extra coats, and dry clothing with gloves and hats. We were driving in a blizzard and the minivan slid off the road.

We were way out, like three miles to the main road. Cell service was down. At that time, cell towers were not that great, but I was hoping my text would have gone through to a neighbor. My son, who was 3, was nervous and scared.

We were there three hours and low on gas, so I wrapped us up in blankets and shut down the vehicle. I started a survival candle in a coffee can because it raises the temperature in the car by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. We sat there while I was keeping him calm, and we ate a little food and drank some water.

I decided to take action. I pulled out the sled and put my son in it, then got my winter boots and snow shoes on, and when we were bundled up we went hiking out three miles. Finally we got to an intersection and made it to a farmhouse, where I was able to make a landline phone call with my location. My neighbor with a four-wheel drive and skid plow picked us up and got us home. We had to wait a couple of days.

That’s being prepared and thinking through a plan. You want to be forward-thinking about having the basics and think about what might be missing. Murphy is always waiting to ambush you when things go wrong.

The Epoch Times: What kind of emergencies do you foresee the need to be prepared for, given the current state of the world?

Mr. Snyder: It’s pretty cut and dry because we’ve seen a lot. Man-made disasters, natural disasters, war, pandemic, and civil unrest are the main situations. Or we have to deal with active shooters who want to hurt people.

When you have these situations, you plan for them and always rehearse. Check your survival kit.

How about a fire in your home? Evacuate and make sure you know how to get out. If you’re bugging in, have you rehearsed your escape route? In emergency planning, you have to have a PACE plan, which stands for primary, alternative, contingency, and emergency. This is your action plan. To sum it up, survival is simple. Keep your planning simple.

The Epoch Times: How long should people be prepared to ride out an emergency?

Mr. Snyder: Seventy-two hours isn’t going to do squat! You should stock three meals per day for each person in your family, plus snacks and one gallon of water per day per person—enough to last for 90 days. Then, add enough for another person who might knock at your door. You can help your neighbor out. If you have to stretch it out, do one meal a day.

With 90 days down, start looking at six months for however many are in your family, rationing what you have plus supplies from fishing or hunting. You can stretch it out over a year.

Have heirloom seeds and freeze them up just in case the grocery stores aren’t available. When you freeze the seeds, you extend their shelf life. They will be ready when you need them.

Don’t be scared, be prepared. If you get some preparedness skills, it builds your confidence up. If you have prepared in an emergency situation, that’s power and confidence.

Fear cripples people. Not doing anything in an emergency situation can cost you your life. One of the big things is to remain calm. Then assess the situation, take care of the wounded and sick, and after that make a plan. What resources do you have? What equipment is available? Who is around you and what skills do they have? Make a detailed plan and share the details with everyone.

Rehearse and then execute. Have your situational awareness up. Adapt the plan as you go. Improvise if you have to and then, as they say, overcome. You’re a winner.

Don’t forget health and fitness. You should have on hand extra prescription glasses, prescription medications to last six months to a year, over-the-counter medicines, and first aid kits to handle cuts and bruises. Learn basic first aid. Learn how to suture.

Food and Water

The Epoch Times: What water storage and purification equipment do you have and recommend?

Mr. Snyder: I recommend getting five-gallon water jugs from a home improvement store. You can store water in an easy way. If you can’t afford it, buy water in jugs and refill them. Get 55-gallon drums to collect rainwater from your roof (to water plants or to wash).

Lastly, consider one of several types of water filtration systems, including the Lifesaver Water Purifier or the Grayl GeoPress, a bottle that gives you crystal clear drinking water. I can boil water right in it, as there’s a nesting cup and an actual stove sleeve. Sawyer is a good brand to consider, too.

Most of my systems are simplistic. Unless you have a backup generator, once you lose power, you won’t be able to power those sources. What can I have on hand that I don’t need electricity to generate? In emergency situations, have tradable items that you use, like gold and silver, because certain items will be important. It’s possible to be set back by 200 years.

The Epoch Times: Please walk us through the essential foods in your own long-term storage pantry. What makes each item a good choice?

Mr. Snyder: A good choice would be survival foods with nutritional value from My Patriot Supply. Store up on them, as they are packed with a lot of calories. MREs [meals, ready-to-eat] are good too because they have a long shelf life. After that, choose canned goods and dry goods like rice, black beans, pasta, dehydrated fruits, fruit snacks, and jerky.

Supplement by fishing and hunting and trapping. You don’t have to complicate it. Use snares. Learn how to process fish and game. Eventually, supplies will run out and you will need to go out and get your own food.

The Epoch Times: What essential emergency food storage and cooking equipment do you have and recommend?

Mr. Snyder: Always have multiple ways to cook. I recommend a BBQ grill. I do keep propane in a storage cage for my Blackstone grill. Another option is the RockPot, a pot that doesn’t require flame. It is amazing. You can throw it on your stone or in the fire to heat it up; it cooks your food in the case.

I have a ton of cast-iron frying pans and pots from The Lodge. Aluminum-type pans are good for backpacks. I have a fire pit with a cooking area with bricks for open fire. Backpack stoves are good for one person. I’ve had a Coleman 2 Burner Stove in my camping gear forever.

Read the rest here...

 

Tyler Durden Sat, 11/09/2024 - 22:10