Weekend:
• Schedule for Week of September 14, 2025

• FOMC Preview: 25bps Rate Cut Expected

Monday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, The New York Fed Empire State manufacturing survey for September. The consensus is for a reading of 4.0, down from 11.9.

From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures S&P 500 are up 9 and DOW futures are up 82 (fair value).

Oil prices were up over the last week with WTI futures at $62.93 per barrel and Brent at $67.21 per barrel. A year ago, WTI was at $70, and Brent was at $74 - so WTI oil prices are down about 10% year-over-year.

Here is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are at $3.12 per gallon. A year ago, prices were at $3.15 per gallon, so gasoline prices are down $0.03 year-over-year.

 

Is there anything more delightful than cruising on a cool evening, top down, big sky overhead, illumination courtesy of thousands of stars, who anticipating your late-night cruise tens of millions of years ago, sent their light your way?

This 280SL is the perfect car for such a ride; I love seeing one of my favorite classic convertibles in one of my favorite color combos, Midnight Blue over Parchment White. (I had a Red/Tan 1986 560 SL for 17 years; sold it for exactly what I paid for it).

Recently sold on BAT, she appears to have undergone a money-is-no-object restoration. The car was disassembled and repainted under previous ownership and repainted a second time recently; the 2.8-liter M130 inline-six was mated to a period-incorrect five-speed Tremec manual (MB offered 4-speed manuals as standard in 1969). The restoration included the repaint, an interior re-trim, and an overhaul of the suspension, brakes, steering, and AC.

The Midnight Blue exterior paired with a Parchment leather interior is a spectacular combination, one of my favorites. No wonder this baby went for $180,000 at Bring A Trailer.

But you don’t have to spend big bucks to enjoy open-air driving; go find a used Miata — skip the $4,000 versions with 200k miles — find yourself a well-sorted Miata for $10-15k with less than 40,000 on the odometer; $20k buys you under 20,000 miles — practically new! (And manual transmissions, too!). It’s the perfect starter car for anyone who wants to enjoy open-air driving on a beautiful day or night…

 

 

Source: Bring A Trailer

The post 1969 Mercedes-Benz 280 SL 5-Speed appeared first on The Big Picture.

Most analysts expect the FOMC the reduce the Fed Funds rate by 25bps at the meeting this week, to a target range of 4 to 4 1/4 percent.    Market participants currently expect the FOMC to also cut rates an additional 25bps at both the October and December meetings.
From BofA:

We expect the Fed to cut rates by 25bp to 4.0-4.25% at its September meeting. We look for two changes in the description of current conditions in the first paragraph of the FOMC statement. The reference to swings in net exports should be removed, though some version of the text saying “growth of economic activity moderated in the first half of the year” will probably stay. More importantly, the description of labor market conditions is likely to be downgraded. The FOMC might opt for language similar to last September: “Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has moved up but remains low.”
...
The economic forecasts from the June SEP have aged remarkably well. Growth could get marked up by a tenth for this year, but the out years should stay roughly unchanged. We don’t see any need to tinker with the path of the unemployment rate, since it is on track to reach the Fed’s 4Q projection of 4.5%.
emphasis added

Projections will be released at this meeting. For review, here are the June projections.  
Since the last projections were released, economic growth, the unemployment rate and inflation all have been close to expectations.
The BEA's estimate for first half 2025 GDP showed real growth at 1.4% annualized. Most estimates for Q3 GDP are around 1.7%.  That would put the real growth for the first three quarters at 1.5% annualized - at the top of end of the June projections.  It is possible the FOMC will revise up Q4 2025 GDP growth slightly.
GDP projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Change in Real GDP1 Projection Date202520262027 Jun 20251.2 to 1.51.5 to 1.81.7 to 2.0Mar 20251.5 to 1.91.6 to 1.91.6 to 2.0 1 Projections of change in real GDP and inflation are from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

The unemployment rate was at 4.3% in August.  The unemployment rate will likely increase further this year, and it is possible the FOMC will revise up the Q4 2025 unemployment rate slightly.
Unemployment projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Unemployment Rate2 Projection Date202520262027 Jun 20254.4 to 4.54.3 to 4.64.2 to 4.6Mar 20254.3 to 4.44.2 to 4.54.1 to 4.4 2 Projections for the unemployment rate are for the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

As of July 2025, PCE inflation increased 2.6% year-over-year (YoY), unchanged from 2.6% YoY in June. There will likely be some further increases in the 2nd half of 2025, but the forecast range is probably reasonable.
Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, PCE Inflation1 Projection Date202520262027 Jun 20252.8 to 3.22.3 to 2.62.0 to 2.2Mar 20252.6 to 2.92.1 to 2.32.0 to 2.1
PCE core inflation increased 2.9% YoY in July, up from 2.8% YoY in June.  There will likely be further increase in core PCE inflation, but the projections will likely remain mostly the same.
Core Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Core Inflation1 Projection Date202520262027 Jun 20252.9 to 3.42.3 to 2.72.0 to 2.2Mar 20252.7 to 3.02.1 to 2.42.0 to 2.1

Russia Gains Another Village In Central Ukraine Oblast As Negotiations Effectively Dead

On Saturday Russia's military announced it has captured another village in Ukraine’s central Dnipropetrovsk region, which neighbors Donetsk, and signifies that Moscow is taking the fight beyond the Donbass - at least slowly.

The village of Novomykolaivka has been taken, the military says, after Russian troops have been operating in Dnipropetrovsk since early July. However, the Ukrainian military-linked mapping platform DeepState has contradicted these claims, saying the village still remains under Ukraine's control.

via AFP

Russian forces are widely estimated to already control some 20% of total Ukraine territory, and maintain clear advantage in terms of manpower, equipment, and artillery ammo.

Ukrainian forces have endured incremental losses, and yet President Zelensky is still refusing to even contemplate territorial compromise for the sake of achieving peace.

While Trump has said his patience is running out, both warring sides have in recent days acknowledged that the negotiations process is effectively dead:

Speaking at a conference in Kyiv, Zelensky told the West not to trust Putin and said his maximalist ambitions had not changed.

"Putin's goal is to occupy all of Ukraine. And no matter what he tells anyone, it is clear that he has set the war machine in motion to such an extent that he simply cannot stop it unless he is forced to fundamentally change his personal goals," Zelensky said.

The Kremlin for its part has described a "pause" in negotiation efforts, after the delegations met twice this year as part of Trump-mediated efforts.

Moscow has further blamed Kiev's European backers for essentially seeking to sabotage peace efforts. They are encouraging Zelensky to stick to Ukraine's own maximalist demands, while promising a seemingly endless supply of military hardware and funds to keep fighting.

Google maps

Kiev sees Russian forces' push into Dnipropetrovsk as evidence that Putin intends to keep going, deeper into Ukraine, and possibly eventually threatening other major cities not previously under attack.

Yet, there's no evidence that Putin desires to conquer all of Ukraine, and the Kremlin would likely balk at the nightmarish prospect of trying to keep such a massive expanse of territory under permanent occupation.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/14/2025 - 07:35

Germany's Bureaucratic State Devours 3% Of GDP

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The bureaucratic jungle in Germany is expanding unchecked. According to Germany’s Federal Statistical Office, the number of information obligations for businesses has reached a new record high this year.

In private life, state bureaucracy is omnipresent. Whether it’s filing taxes or navigating the paperwork faced by homeowners, the state routinely enlists its citizens to carry out its own administrative work. In essence, the citizen performs a protracted year of social service in administration—without compensation, always under the looming threat of legal coercion.

Kafkaesque Bureaucracy

In the economy, public administration has taken on Kafkaesque traits. No longer does one need to wander endless, dimly lit corridors to survive an administrative marathon. Modern bureaucracy now comes in digital form—yet remains invasive in character, working hand in hand with politics to continuously carve out new areas of control.

The costs of this system can be calculated quite precisely in terms of the hours businesses are forced to dedicate to compliance.

According to recent data from the Federal Statistical Office, the coerced “service contribution” of businesses to Germany’s administration now amounts to €64.2 billion annually. This includes reporting and disclosure obligations, documentation, and compliance requirements—ranging from environmental reports and employee timesheets to machine safety protocols and mandatory filings with trade associations. Bureaucracy overwhelms the actual work of companies to a grossly disproportionate extent.

The statisticians in Wiesbaden provided specifics: as of June 30, 2025, German companies faced 12,427 distinct reporting and documentation requirements, depending on size and sector. In just the first half of 2025, another 37 obligations were added. Since 2018, nearly a thousand new rules have been tacked on.

BSW as an Initiator

Remarkably, it is the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW)—a party with a clear socialist imprint—that has criticized the overburdening of small and medium-sized businesses by compulsory administrative demands. Ironically, it is the welfare state—this fundamentally socialist redistribution machine—that has driven much of the bureaucracy’s expansion.

Entrepreneurs, freelancers, and the self-employed have virtually no meaningful political advocates. Despite a prolonged economic slump and obvious overregulation, Germany remains trapped in a statist mindset that indirectly fuels bureaucracy. Businesses are harnessed like a reserve army, dragged behind the cart of regulation, while the bureaucracy sustains itself by expanding its reach and budgets.

In Germany—and broadly across the European Union—this expansion meets little political resistance. On the contrary, it has fused with politics into a single power structure.

Programs such as the “green transformation” generate mountains of documentation requirements, dumped onto businesses until filing cabinets burst. It borders on the grotesque that an ideology divorced from economic reality converts nearly 2% of GDP into bureaucratic burdens—simply to force social and political visions into the economic process.

The Evergreen of "Bureaucracy Reduction"

Bureaucracy precisely defines the relationship between state and citizen. And here, we are stuck in a dead end.

“Bureaucracy reduction” is one of those perennial political catchphrases used during election campaigns to distract from the core problem. Politicians across the party system—who long ago turned the administrative state into an extension of their own power—project an image of activism and responsiveness, all while ensuring that no real reform ever occurs.

It is absurd to assume, against the backdrop of a worsening labor market, that politicians would actually cut back the public sector. Today, 5.5 million people are employed in Germany’s civil service—420,000 more than before the COVID lockdowns. Bureaucracy also functions as a political job buffer, insulating against a looming employment crisis. Ironically, this expansion exacerbates the very crisis it seeks to cover up. The result: Germany’s economy has recorded no productivity growth for years.

A Turnaround in the U.S.

Meanwhile, in the United States, President Donald Trump has managed a turnaround. On the federal level, about 100,000 government jobs have been cut—a clear success for a policy based on deregulation and free markets. A similar achievement can be seen in Argentina under President Javier Milei, who triggered an economic boom through deregulation and the unleashing of market forces.

The numbers from the Federal Statistical Office reflect this political trend, though they capture only direct costs from administrative compliance. The so-called opportunity costs—foregone profits, lost investments, and missed market opportunities—remain outside the ledger. Last year, Germany’s ifo Institute estimated these indirect costs at another €80 billion. With core administrative burdens pegged around €66 billion, there is consensus on the scale.

All told, Germany faces about €146 billion in direct and indirect bureaucracy costs. In effect, the state burns through roughly 3% of GDP—evidence of profound political and administrative mismanagement. Above all, it is Brussels that keeps pressuring national lawmakers with ever-deeper regulatory regimes, forcing further layers of domestic bureaucracy.

Debt and More Debt

The ballooning costs of bureaucracy run parallel to Germany’s rising national debt, projected to climb from 63% of GDP to 95% in the coming years—assuming Berlin can even place such massive debt programs in the bond markets.

Germany’s economy has lost its international competitive edge, driven by political ideology translated directly into regulatory costs. Layered on top of this dirigisme is a self-inflicted energy crisis, together crippling the German industrial base.

The decline of the German economy is the inevitable outcome of decades spent reviving socialist ideas—in this case, eco-dirigiste fundamental control over key sectors such as energy and mobility. That this experiment would fail should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the historical record of centrally planned systems. Yet for many Germans, this failure still feels like a new discovery.

* * *

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/14/2025 - 07:00

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetence, corruption, and policy failures:

• 10 Political Violence Experts on What Comes Next for America: Can America escape the spiral of political violence after Charlie Kirk’s killing? (Politico)

• Something Alarming Is Happening to the Job Market: A new sign that AI is competing with college grads. (The Atlantic) see also The Job Market Is Hell: Young people are using ChatGPT to write their applications; HR is using AI to read them; no one is getting hired. (The Atlantic)

• ChatGPT as the Original AI Error: The human fascination with conversation has led us AI astray (Paul Kedrosky)

• It’s Not You. It’s the Food. After we wrote a book on what shapes eating behavior, we now know that these individual wellness fixes are a trillion-dollar distraction from addressing the root cause of America’s chronic disease crisis: our toxic food. (New York Times)

• Own Goal: Presidents of both parties have long understood that our strength doesn’t flow from our economic output, military prowess, or cultural exports, but the capacity to leverage those assets in service of coalitions that are greater than the sum of their parts. That’s not idealism, but pragmatism. Going it alone would mean taking on 96% of humanity and 74% of Earth’s economic output. As Churchill said, “There’s only one thing worse than fighting a war with allies, and that’s fighting a war without them.” (No Mercy / No Malice)

• Tesla’s Dangerous Doors: When Teslas lose power, crashes can turn into deadly races against time. (Bloomberg)

• NATO States Have Failed: They have not prepared and do not understand their national interests. (Phillip’s Newsletter) see also Five Lessons From Putin’s Reckless Polish Drone Strike: The US and Europe have a lot to learn from Russia’s warning shot at Poland. (Bloomberg)

• The Latest Crypto Play Is The Biggest and Most Corrupt Yet: The family just made as much as $5 billion on a single token launch—while reshaping U.S. policy to keep the industry on their side. (Slate)

• A killing at sea marks America’s descent into lawless power: The peremptory strike on a speedboat is a warning to all who serve. Remember your oath. (Defense One)

• How the N.Y.P.D.’s Facial Recognition Tool Landed the Wrong Man in Jail: Trevis Williams is eight inches taller than a man accused of flashing a woman in Union Square in February. The police arrested him anyway. (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Heather Boushey, previously a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Biden, and chief economist to the president’s Invest in America cabinet. She is currently a senior research fellow at the Reimagining the Economy Project at the Harvard Kennedy School.

 

Here’s the inflation breakdown for August 2025 — in one chart

Source: CNBC

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

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

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

The Silk Road Toll: Beijing's Debt, Deals, & Control

Authored by Charles Davis via The Epoch Times,

For 2,000 years, Asia’s landlocked nations have borne the weight of other people’s ambitions.

From the camel caravans that picked their way across the Karakoram into Gandhara, to the mule trains that descended through the Khyber Pass toward the Persian plateau, the territories we now call Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were never just backdrops to the Silk Road.

They were gatehouses—toll points on the flow of goods, cultures, and armies between East and West. Dynasties rose here, funded by the coin of foreign traders; others were crushed under the weight of foreign demands—a pattern that long predated the Haqqani network’s extortion of infrastructure to fund terrorism.

China’s Revival of Imperial Geography

Beijing has an intimate knowledge, having shared much of this history. The ancient Chinese court called the Central Asian trade arteries the “Xiyu”—the “Western Regions”—and dispatched envoys, merchants, and soldiers to secure them.

Centuries later, Kubla Khan’s empire would stretch across much of that terrain, enforcing a form of governance that prized order, tribute, and the protection of trade routes. The Mongol guarantee allowed Silk Road commerce to flourish under imperial watch.

Today, the “Belt” in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a studied revival of this same geography, serving the age of fiber‑optic cables and liquefied natural gas—but with a different ethos.

A Change in Management

Where Khan’s rule offered structure and predictability, communist China’s model leans on opacity, debt leverage, and a security footprint that often outpaces local consent. Long ago, Han‑era emissaries offered silk and lacquerware; now the People’s Republic of China provides concessionary loans, turnkey infrastructure, and the uncertainty that comes with embedded security.

It’s no accident that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s August itinerary stitched together Islamabad and Kabul like beads on a single thread: a landward echo of China’s “string of pearls” strategy in the Indian Ocean, where port investments and naval access points form a maritime chain of influence.

That overland corridor doesn’t just complement the maritime chain—it extends it, giving Beijing parallel lanes to leverage global interests against partner countries’ land and sea needs. A similar corridor is now in development on the South American continent.

Development at a Cost

In Islamabad, Wang stood alongside Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar to announce CPEC 2.0, the next phase of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the $60 billion-plus flagship of the Belt and Road.

Official statements emphasized expanding trade, agriculture, and high‑tech parks. Less visible, but just as binding, were the provisions on securing Chinese projects and personnel, a much-needed commitment to restricting militant attacks on CPEC assets, especially from legacy groups like the Haqqani network, which for years extorted from infrastructure projects to fund terrorism.

The announcement came amid record Belt and Road investment figures, with Beijing committing $124 billion in what analysts dubbed a “buying spree” targeting energy transition chokepoints—lithium, rare earths, hydrogen—to consolidate long-term resource leverage over partner nations.

While the official rollout emphasized scale and ambition, the recent collapse of a rail bridge in Qinghai certainly cast a shadow over the BRI’s veneer, exposing the structural fragility and speed‑over‑safety tradeoffs that haunt China’s project delivery model.

Loans for Leverage

Days later, the Chinese delegation was in Kabul, hoping to extend CPEC northward into Afghanistan, through a trilateral engagement with the Taliban government and their Pakistani counterparts. The Taliban, desperate for revenue and recognition, have signaled openness to the deal.

For Beijing, the calculus is colder. Establishing Kabul’s passageway buys a potential transit route into Central Asia, a foothold in Afghanistan’s mineral sector, and—most sensitively—a channel for direct influence along the narrow Wakhan Corridor that touches China’s Xinjiang region.

That last point isn’t ceremonial cartography. For years, Beijing has portrayed the Uyghur issue as an internal matter, but quietly, it has pressed every government on its periphery to surveil, detain, or expel Uyghur exiles and suspected militants. A formal infrastructure partnership with the Taliban offers new leverage to dictate “counter‑terrorism cooperation” on Beijing’s terms, even inside Afghan territory.

Terrorist Turned Interior Minister

In late 2021, Beijing moved beyond polite requests and into transactional coercion. Chinese diplomats in Kabul—acting under instructions tied to prospective CPEC expansion—pressed Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani to locate and hand over Uyghur militants from the Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), branding them a direct threat to the Chinese regime’s grip on Xinjiang.

The message, according to regional officials familiar with the talks, was unambiguous: compliance would garner infrastructure money and political recognition; refusal would be costly in both areas. Almost in parallel, Haqqani was drawn into mediating between Islamabad and the Tehreek‑e‑Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to curb attacks on CPEC assets—a role shaped in part by Beijing’s push to extend the corridor into Afghanistan.

In each case, Beijing was forcing a neighboring government to do what it could not do unilaterally—suppressing non-state actors that challenge the authority of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by connecting those crackdowns to the flow of Chinese capital.

Final Thoughts

To a casual observer, these moves might look like opportunistic development diplomacy. In a strategic context, they’re something else: the methodical tightening of a belt that’s as much about security corridors as it is about commercial ones. Pakistan’s fiscal fragility and Afghanistan’s diplomatic isolation create an opening that no other major power is willing and able to exploit. Instability, for Beijing, isn’t a deterrent—it’s a justification for presence.

From the terraces of Taxila to the bazaars of Herat, the old Silk Road holds rewards for those who can safely move goods, people, and ideas through it. The danger, as history also shows, is when the custodian of that passage decides that “safety” must serve its own empire first.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 23:20

A Turning Point For The Radical Left?

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

Charlie Kirk’s assassination will mark the moment the cultural tide turned.

It was a few minutes before 3pm on September 10th, I had just joined a Zoom call with Addison Wiggin for our weekly planning session around a book project we’re working on. Moments after I joined he said “Oh my God, Charlie Kirk has just been shot  – at an event in Utah”.

We talked a bit about the ramifications of what this could set off – and speculated on whether he would pull through.

Later in our call we learned he had succumbed to his wounds, and the symbology was not lost on me: it was the day before Sept 11th, one of those dates everybody remembers exactly where they were.

Because what was certain then was that the world had just changed. We were in a whole new ballgame, uncharted territory, and we’re still in it today.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination feels similar. Most people had never heard him speak—and are now forming their opinions from whatever their preferred media mouthpiece says.

Given the left-wing, illiberal stranglehold on media and culture, none of it is flattering. Conservatism is routinely conflated with the “far-right”  (whatever that means these anymore) and is treated as ipso facto morally reprobate.

The Left Dances on Charlie’s Grave.

The hot-takes poured out within minutes, showing exactly where the lefties wanted to steer the narrative:

• MSNBC host Matthew Dowd initially speculated that the shot may have come from “a supporter, shooting in celebration” but later pivoted to, (paraphrasing) “Awful people, say awful things to awful consequences”.

• Rachel Gilmore (basically Canada’s Taylor Lorenz) – ruminated that Kirk being murdered by what turned out to be a radical antifa-aligned leftist might make the “the far right more extreme”.

• Democrat politicians like Mark Kelly were quick to link the shooting to escalating political rhetoric

• Illinois Governor JB Pritzker also pointed to the Jan 6 protestors – but omitted the two attempted assassinations on Trump that occurred since.

None of this should be a surprise – the West’s political and ideological left have absolutely no capacity for introspection and barely measurable levels of empathy.

What is surprising, to the left, is the knock-on consequences to their shameful behaviours from a corporate and popular spheres that have had enough with the old zeitgeist  and the cultural pendulum is now swinging the other direction, with a vengeance.

The End of “Diplomatic Immunity” for the Far-Left

Since COVID—and the old order’s failed lunge at a global social-credit technocracy —the public has steadily lost faith in industrial-era institutions:  Big Government, Corporate Media, and late-stage globalism (ESG, DEI, and the rest of it).

The pendulum has swung back through the centre, hitting several key beats along the way—mostly in the form of nationalist or tribal populism.

Oct 7th

Many details of how Oct 7 happened remain baffling to me—but what mattered for the zeitgeist was the reaction by the radical left.

This marked the first real shift in popular opinion—though unevenly (in Canada, Hamas cheerleaders still shut down Toronto streets every weekend).

The backlash focused on academics and labour organizers openly celebrating the massacre, but even Meta—once quick to throttle anything smelling of “Trumpism”—turned its censorship machine the other way, deboosting Hamas content and demonetizing prominent accounts.

The Targeted Killing of Brian Thompson

The targeted murder of United Health CEO Brian Thompson in December ’24 further brought out the berserkers who were lionizing his assassin – but there began to be even more palpable pushback in the zeitgeist against these extremist positions.

Taylor Lorenz made headlines after defending and celebrating the murder, and faced severe criticism on social media platforms and some professional ostracizing, including being uninvited from industry panels and removed from contributor lists at several outlets.

Charlie Kirk and The Turning Point

In marketing there is a playbook called “grabbing the microphone” which is shorthand for: take control of the narrative while everyone is paying attention.

It’s about being the loudest, (shrillest?) voice in the room when the conversation is still fluid. Whoever “grabs the mic” seeks to frame the issue, define the terms, and sets the agenda. so that everyone else ends up reacting.

Within minutes of the murder, the usual “influencers” began clamouring for position, among them, Canada’s Rachel Gilmore, who tried to turn this into a lecture on how the far-right would react poorly to left-wing lunatics sniper-firing killshots into the heads of prominent conservatives from 200 yards…

Imagine how twisted she has to be that this is her first thought after a man was shot in the neck for expressing his views.

So much hate in her. pic.twitter.com/cVx7uRXZY0

— Andrew Scheer (@AndrewScheer) September 10, 2025

To her chagrin, it all went pear-shaped when former Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer retweeted it with his own commentary. Gilmore proceeded to meltdown on Blue Sky – relentlessly trying to pivot the entire narrative to be about her – and ended up protecting her tweets on X.

Some of the hot-takes were truly and astonishingly horrific:

this woman is unwell pic.twitter.com/cg95iT7vOh

— Mark E. Jeftovic (@MarkJeftovic) September 13, 2025

But what came next was surprising to many:

• Aforementioned MSNBC’s Matt Dowd was fired within hours of morbidly asinine comments

• The meth head in the above video worked for BC Legal aid – she was either fired or had already been terminated (BC Legal Aid’s statement distancing themselves from her alluded that she was already a former employee,  her LinkedIn still listed them as her current employer as of Sept 11).

• The University of Toronto humanities professor who posted “Shooting’s too good for so many of you fascist c**nts” has been placed on leave.

• The Toronto grade school teacher who subjected his students to videos of the shooting while drilling anti-MAGA talking points into their skulls has been removed from the classroom

• More of the same from across the USA

Suddenly “Cancel Culture” is a Bad Thing.

karma's a bitch pic.twitter.com/p4gp9ecsoB

— Mark E. Jeftovic (@MarkJeftovic) September 12, 2025

When I released Unassailable just ahead of the massive censorship and cancel-culture wave of the COVID Pandemic (you can download a free e-book version here), I included a warning to all those who assumed that being “on the right side of history” was an immutable condition that would last in perpetuity:

Maybe today, that means “if you are a social justice minded progressive you have nothing to worry about”.

But people forget that pendulums swing, that history has certain cycles of mean reversion and then overshoot.

In the years after 9/11, I remember vividly how the neo-conservative narrative utterly dominated the mainstream media, and the word “liberal” was practically a slur. Those days are certainly gone. Do you think these days won’t be?

What happens when everybody on the “safe” side of the narrative today is no longer considered acceptable tomorrow?

We’re starting to find out. Although in this case, it could plausibly be argued that where the right side of the spectrum of political discourse was censored and canceled for perfectly defensible beliefs (i.e family, tradition, faith, conservatism, freedom of speech and association) – the left are getting theirs for basically allowing their toxicity, narcissism and sociopathy to run riot.

In the past, the left-dominated media wouldn’t even concede that “cancel culture” was a thing, or if it did exist, it was all good as long as the left was protected from it

As the left whines about getting fired for celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk, just send em this little reminder. pic.twitter.com/1qa5G4ku40

— TheQuartering (@TheQuartering) September 13, 2025

Now, all of the sudden, “cancel culture” is a crime against humanity.

Teachers being fired for showing their grade-school students videos of kill-shot while telling them this is all MAGA’s fault is “a clampdown on free speech”.

As The Guardian ruminates:

“Reactions on social media to the murder of far-right activist Charlie Kirk have cost multiple people their jobs as authorities in numerous states clamp down on critical commentary.”

Oh dear.

Countless careers and lives have been destroyed by radical left activists, buoyed by mainstream media, over their beliefs, actions and opinions. People were fired for tweets, for liking tweets; kicked out of restaurants for wearing “MAGA” hats – AirBnB rentals canceled, it was – to use the correct word for it: persecution.

Now all that has changed (we’ve actually been chronicling this shift for years in the premium newsletter, we call it “The Fall of Woke Capitalism”).

This process has been slow-rolling across Western nations, some places faster than others, but my prediction is this event has poured fuel on the fire.

It appears that the era of left-wing dominance in the corporate sphere is over.

It remains to be seen what happens next – I’ve been warning cancelholics for years that they would probably not like what happens after the pendulum reverts.

We’re all about to find out.

Some say this polarization is all orchestrated by shadowy actors playing the long game. My take? It’s something deeper... and I’ll unpack that in the next edition of The Bitcoin Capitalist.

*  *  *

Join the Bombthrower mailing list free and get a copy of the CBDC Survival Guide when it drops. Follow me on X here. If you want a special trial deal to check out The Bitcoin Capitalist, you can grab that here »

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 22:10

NASA Bans Chinese Nationals From Working On Agency Programs

NASA has barred Chinese nationals holding U.S. visas from its facilities and networks, the latest move by Washington to safeguard the space agency as its space race with Beijing intensifies.

Chinese nationals, who until now could work at NASA as contractors or contribute to its research, were informed on Sept. 5 that their access to the agency’s systems and facilities had been revoked. Bloomberg first reported that many suddenly found themselves locked out of NASA data systems and excluded from both in-person and virtual meetings related to their work.

NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens confirmed the decision, stating that the agency had taken “internal action pertaining to Chinese nationals—including restricting physical and cybersecurity access to our facilities, materials, and network to ensure the security of our work.”

But, as Bill Pan reports below for The Epoch Times, the move comes amid heightened scrutiny of Chinese nationals working in sensitive U.S. technology sectors, as in recent years, a growing number of individuals have been accused of conducting espionage on behalf of the Chinese communist regime. In August, the Department of War—then called the Department of Defense—ordered Microsoft to stop using China-based engineers to support the military agency’s cloud computing systems.

It remains unclear if a specific incident triggered NASA’s action. In response to a request for comment, the agency’s press office referred The Epoch Times to a post on X featuring acting administrator Sean Duffy’s appearance on Fox Business.

In that interview, Duffy said the United States must lead what he described as a “second space race,” warning that the Chinese regime is not advancing its lunar agenda “with good intentions.”

“It’s a military operation for the Chinese,” he said.

“We can’t cede space.”

Duffy’s remarks echo earlier warnings from U.S. defense officials, including Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, head of the U.S. Space Force, who cautioned earlier this year that the Chinese regime’s space efforts were inseparable from its military objectives.

Since the Apollo 11 mission in 1969, the United States has remained the only country to land humans on the Moon. China, meanwhile, only launched its first crewed spaceflight in 2003 but has rapidly accelerated its space program, aiming to put taikonauts on the lunar surface by the end of the decade.

In August, China completed a full-size static fire test of its Long March-10 moon rocket, hitting a new milestone in its manned lunar program. A variant of the rocket, the partially reusable Long March-10A, is expected to debut in 2026 and support supply runs to the Tiangong space station, which is set to be the only space station in orbit once the International Space Station (ISS) retires in 2030.

NASA is pursuing its own lunar return through its Artemis program, which it hopes will pave the way for future Mars missions. But the timeline has been repeatedly pushed back. Artemis II, a crewed flyby of the Moon, is now scheduled for no earlier than April 2026; while Artemis III, the first crewed lunar landing since Apollo, is unlikely before mid-2027.

The delays stem in part from technical issues uncovered during the uncrewed Artemis I mission in late 2022, when the Orion spacecraft’s heat shield suffered greater-than-expected charring during reentry, causing pieces to burn away.

Despite the setbacks, Duffy maintained that NASA is positioned to keep the lead in the lunar race with China.

“We will get to the Moon under President [Donald] Trump’s term,” he wrote in a post on X on Sept. 5. “Our mission is Artemis. We will win the second space race. China wants to beat us there, but we won’t let them.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 21:35

Rickards: All Eyes On An Irrelevant Fed

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

The Federal Reserve is irrelevant unless it’s doing damage to the economy. Since the Fed is often doing damage to the economy, it does require our attention.

Claiming the Fed is irrelevant seems outlandish.

The Fed dominates the headlines. An upcoming meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC, the Fed’s interest rate policy group) on September 16-17 is already receiving outsized attention because of the likelihood that the Fed will cut interest rates for the first time since December 2004. Trump’s efforts to mold the Fed board of governors to his liking with appointments and firings is another focal point for market attention.

At times, the Fed seems to be at the center of the financial universe.

It’s not.

It is true that the Fed is the central bank of the United States and that it has the power to print (really, digitally create) the U.S. dollar, the currency in which 60% of global reserves are denominated. It’s also the lead regulator of U.S. bank holding companies and almost all-important banks are members of the Federal Reserve System. There is a lot of power in those roles.

But the power narrative crumbles quickly when we look at what the Fed actually does and how they do it. That’s a task the Fed does not want you to do because they prefer to hide behind a curtain of monetary omnipotence. Let’s pull back the curtain and see what’s really going on.

Creating Money Out of Thin Air

How is money created? The Fed does print money (called M0) by buying U.S. Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities from a select list of banks called the primary dealers. I was chief counsel and chief credit officer of a top primary dealer for ten years and we spoke to the Fed daily. So, I’ve had a front row seat of this process. When the Fed buys securities from a dealer, they pay with dollars pulled out of thin air.

But since 2008, those dollars are then put on deposit with the Fed by the banks in the form of excess reserves. Those dollars don’t go anywhere. The Fed is simply expanding its balance sheet with securities on the asset side and deposits on the liability side. The Fed pays interest on those excess reserves, so the banks are fine with the arrangement. The actual dollars are not lent, spent or invested. They’re sterilized on the Fed balance sheet. It’s all a mirage.

Money creation that is useful for the economy doesn’t happen at the Fed. It happens at commercial banks. They also create money out of thin air (called M1) by making a loan and crediting the borrower’s account. That’s the money that can be used by business for investment, new jobs, working capital or other productive purposes. M1 is also created for consumers in the form of mortgages, credit cards, lines of credit and other extensions of credit. If you want to know where money comes from, don’t look at the Fed. Look at the banks.

Unfortunately, bank lending is starting to dry up. Consumer credit losses are piling up. Some consumers are cutting back on their credit cards as a precautionary measure. Mortgage creation is slowing because homeowners don’t want to sell since they’d have to refinance their current low-rate mortgages (from 2021-2024) at higher rates. Businesses don’t want to borrow because investment opportunities are scarce, and new hiring has hit the wall. When borrowers don’t want to borrow and banks don’t want to lend, you have the makings of a recession. So-called “fed stimulus” won’t change that.

The FOMC target rate for fed funds (called the policy rate) is also irrelevant. It is likely to be cut by 0.25% at the September 17 meeting. But the fed funds market to which that rate applies has not functioned since the 2008 financial panic. In other words, the Fed is targeting a rate for a market that doesn’t exist.

Meanwhile, two markets that do exist – the market for four-week Treasury bills and the secured overnight financing rate market (SOFR, basically the repo rate) – both have rates that are materially below the fed funds target rate. The Fed is not leading the market to lower rates; they’re following the market.

Fed Models – A Bunch of Nonsense

Trump is banging the table demanding lower rates from the Fed. He should be careful what he wishes for. Trump will get lower rates not from the Fed but from the market itself. But those lower rates are not stimulus; they’re a sign of recession or even depression. A healthy, growing economy has rates closer to the 4% to 5% range. Trump will get the 2% rates he’s looking for by next year. But by then, unemployment will have risen, and the stock market will have fallen out of bed. That’s not exactly the outcome he was hoping for.

Why is the Fed so bad at its job? Why can’t the Fed actually stimulate the economy and avoid recessions? The reasons for this have to do with the Fed’s belief in economic models that do not accord with reality.

The Fed follows a model called the Phillips Curve. This model claims that unemployment and inflation have an inverse correlation. If unemployment is low, inflation will be on the rise. If unemployment rises, inflation will be low. The Fed has a “dual mandate” to keep unemployment low and keep inflation low at the same time. If the Phillips Curve is true, it should be easy to pick the target and not worry about the other factor because it takes care of itself due to the inverse correlation.

But the Phillips Curve is a joke. The late 1970s were a time of 10% unemployment and 15% interest rates. Both parts of the dual mandate were out of control. There was no inverse correlation. The 2010s were a time of low inflation and low unemployment. Again, there was no inverse correlation.

You can always draw a Phillips Curve on a graph, but it has no predictive analytic power and offers no policy guidance. Still, the Fed believes in it, which is why they have not cut rates for almost a year. The Fed is worried about inflation even as unemployment is on the rise. This high-rate policy will just make the unemployment situation worse.

The Fed also believes that medium-to-long-term rates on Treasury securities are a function of a hypothetical strip of short-term rates rolled over for the full term of the long-dated security. Since the Fed can influence short-term rates, they believe they can also affect rates on five- and ten-year Treasury notes through a combination of policy changes and forward guidance. To the extent that market rates on, say, a five-year Treasury note vary from the implied five-year rate using the Fed’s model, they dismiss this as a “term premium” imposed by the market for some unknown reason (presumably expectations that vary from forward guidance).

That theory is another batch of nonsense. Medium-to-long-term rates are set by the market for intrinsic reasons having to do with liquidity, hedging and portfolio allocations. Long-term rates have nothing to do with the present value of a hypothetical strip of short-term bills. There is no empirical evidence to support the idea of a term premium – it’s a pure invention with no analytical value. Again, the Fed is creating models that do not accord with reality for the sole purpose of enhancing their own importance.

Drama At The Fed

Finally, we come to the topic du jour, which is Fed “independence.” Trump’s calls for Fed Chair Jay Powell’s resignation and Trump’s firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook are both viewed as threats to the Fed’s independence. The plot thickens when one considers Trump’s nomination of Stephen Miran to fill a vacant seat on the Fed’s board of governors following the resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler. Miran is currently Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. And has suggested he will keep his White House position while serving on the Fed board of governors, another threat to Fed independence.

Fed independence is a red herring. It has never really existed. When the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, the Secretary of the Treasury was a member of the Fed board. Fed meetings were actually held in the Treasury building. This arrangement prevailed until FDR reorganized the Fed in 1934.

The Federal Reserve exercised no independence at all from 1942 to 1951 during which time the Fed agreed at the request of the U.S. Treasury to maintain a low interest rate of 0.375% (3/8ths of one percent) on Treasury bills and 2.5% on long-term Treasury bonds. Granted this agreement ran during the course of World War II and most of the Korean War, but it does demonstrate that the Fed will align with Treasury preferences as circumstances require.

In 1965, during the Johnson administration, LBJ invited Fed Chair William McChesney Martin to his ranch and physically assaulted him after Martin pushed through an interest rate hike two days before. In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to maintain an expansionary monetary policy to help his election chances in the presidential election that year. Burns followed orders and that is considered to have contributed to the Great Inflation that resulted in the late 1970s.

You can debate the wisdom of these moves but there’s no debate that the Fed has frequently bent to political pressure over the decades. To single out Trump as a unique threat to Fed independence is untrue and historically wrong.

This brings us to Trump’s firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. She was clearly an affirmative action or DEI appointee. She was touted as the “first black woman” on the Fed board (as if that mattered) while no one could point to a distinguished scholarly record or any contributions to monetary theory. Accusations of plagiarism in her articles have arisen. Those facts by themselves are not a reason to fire her. She’s not alone as a DEI appointee.

But it now appears that she lied on several mortgage applications. She claimed certain homes as her “primary residence” when there can only be one. She also said another home was a residence when it was for investment purposes. Such claims can result in lower interest rates and higher loan-to-value ratios for the borrower. These matters are now under criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. Trump fired Cook “for cause” (as authorized by statute) based on these allegations. That seems to be justified considering that the Fed is the principal regulator of banks that are mortgage lenders.

Cook is suing to prevent her firing. The matter is now in the courts and may be resolved soon, but any decision is likely to be appealed. Meanwhile, the uncertainty about whether Cook is or is not on the board casts another shadow over whatever the Fed does on September 17.

Trump has also started a horse race to replace Jay Powell as Chair. Powell’s term expires in May 2026. Trump’s three candidates are Kevin Warsh (a former board member), Christopher Waller (a current board member who could be promoted from member to Chair) and Kevin Hasset (currently the White House Director of the National Economic Council).

Two current members of the Fed board, Michelle Bowman and Waller, were appointed by Trump in his first term. Stephan Miran and another appointee to replace Lisa Cook would give Trump four appointees out of the seven-person board. If Waller replaces Powell as Chair, Trump will have another appointee to fill the Waller board seat next May. Trump is well on his way to controlling the Fed board and its Chair through the appointments process.

That’s important, but in the end it won’t matter. Interest rates are coming down for reasons that are bigger than the Fed and that the Fed can’t control. Low rates are not the stimulus that Trump imagines. Rates are coming down fast because the U.S. economy is heading for recession. Trump may claim he controls the Fed, but he will end up owning the economic debacle to come.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 21:00

Operation "Let's Grab The Oil"

Authored by Chris Macintrosh via InternationalMan.com,

It’s back on track...

I don’t know if you remember it, but last year I hypothesized that the Trump administration would focus their attention on a North/South axis of power… and less on an East/West.

Part of this is down to the fact the US Military is stretched globally, and likely no small part comes down to the fact that their ability to project power has for decades been reliant on their naval capabilities. These are now rendered obsolete due to the Russian missiles which can sink them and are unstoppable. All parties know this, though it remains to be seen whether US hubris may ignore it nonetheless.

In any event, focusing on the easy prey — the US own backyard, so to speak. Canada (remember the comments about “Governor Trudeau?”) and the political pressure on Mexico. Then there is the strong allegiance now with Argentina and the pressure being placed on Brazil, the focus on Panama — the canal being all important, of course. All of this is due to a North/South pivot.

So included in this is, of course, Venezuela.

The Escalating Political Showdown: Trump vs. Maduro Over Venezuela’s Black Gold

The relationship between the Donald and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has devolved into one of the most hilarious and contentious international political feuds of recent years, with both leaders engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric. Of course, it’s all theatre — a sideshow masking the real prize: the struggle over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world.

Why, for example, is Don not blabbing about Costa Rica or Honduras or any other country in the region?

The Bounty That Started It All

Back in March of 2020 the US administration placed a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head through the DEA’s “Narcotics Rewards Program.” They accused Maduro and other Venezuelan officials of “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy charges. This bounty, along with similar rewards for other Venezuelan officials totaling over $55 million, marked the first time the United States had placed such a substantial price on a sitting head of state.

The US justified this action by claiming that Maduro’s regime had transformed Venezuela into a “criminal enterprise” that facilitated drug trafficking throughout the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time declared that the Venezuelan government had become “one of the most corrupt and destructive forces in the Western Hemisphere.”

In reality, the CIA doesn’t like competition, but anyway…

Maduro’s Counterattack: The Epstein Files Gambit

Maduro’s response was swift and inflammatory. Taking to his official social media accounts, he pointed out who Trump pays allegiance to (Mossad) and suggested a release of the Epstein files. It’s all highly entertaining… except if you’re a Venezuelan, of course, wondering if Trump drops a “big beautiful bomb” on your head.

The Prize: Venezuela’s Oil Wealth

Behind this political theatre lies the true source of tension: Venezuela’s staggering oil reserves. According to OPEC data, Venezuela possesses approximately 303.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — roughly 18% of the world’s total. This makes Venezuela’s reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels) and represents more oil than the combined reserves of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait.

Despite this wealth, Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 800,000 barrels per day by 2020, largely due to mismanagement, corruption, and international sanctions.

The Trump administration’s sanctions effectively cut off Venezuela’s access to US refineries and financial systems, costing the country an estimated $116 billion between 2017 and 2020. So there’s definitely no love lost there.

Social Media War

The conflict has played out extensively on social media platforms, with both leaders using their accounts to escalate tensions. Trump frequently posted on Truth Social about Venezuela, calling Maduro a “dictator” and claiming that “Venezuela’s oil belongs to its people, not to corrupt narco-terrorists.”

Meanwhile, Maduro has used his platforms to portray himself as a victim of “Yankee imperialism,” posting: “They want our oil, our gold, our resources. But the Bolivarian Revolution will never surrender to the gringo empire.”

The Broader Implications

This conflict represents more than personal animosity. It reflects broader geopolitical competition over energy resources in Latin America. Venezuela’s economic collapse has created a power vacuum that has drawn in actors from Russia, China, and Iran, all seeking to challenge US influence in the region.

As both leaders continue their war of words, the Venezuelan people remain caught in the middle, suffering from hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a humanitarian crisis that has forced over 7 million Venezuelans to flee. The ultimate resolution of this conflict may determine not only Venezuela’s political future but also the global balance of energy power in the coming decades.

So what this boils down to is that one side is run by a narco-socialist who thinks he’s a demigod. The other side is run by a defense contractor in a presidential mask who is heavily influenced by a foreign nation that cannot be named lest you be called “antiseptic” or something like that.

You’re not watching geopolitics — you’re watching organized crime syndicates argue over who gets to sell oil and they can’t tell you the truth… so you’re sold all sorts of stories.

Most hilarious of all is that some overpaid intern in DC just coined the name for the US military action against Venezuela. They’re calling this — and I swear I’m not making it up — “Operation Democratic Stability.”

This isn’t war. It’s stagecraft with a budget.

Meanwhile, this just came to light…

“China Concord Resources Corp has begun developing two Venezuelan oilfields, planning to invest more than $1 billion in a project to produce 60,000 barrels per day of crude oil by end-2026, an executive directly involved in the project said.

The project marks a rare investment by a private Chinese firm in the OPEC country, which has struggled to attract foreign capital due to international sanctions on the administration of President Nicolas Maduro. The investment figure and the production plan are being reported for the first time.

Beijing has been a key ally of Maduro and his predecessor late President Hugo Chavez and is currently buying more than 90% of Venezuela’s total oil exports.

Chinese state oil giant CNPC was among the largest investors in Venezuela’s oil sector before U.S. energy sanctions were first imposed on Venezuela in 2019. China was also a big lender to Venezuela.”

By the way, as a mental note, do you think the peasants have noticed the shift? Not long ago we were all being told by some department or another, or some woke “influencer” (looking at you Leo DiCaprio) how the world would end if we didn’t stop using fossil fuels.

And now, all of a sardine, the US is on the verge of invading a sovereign country for their oil to save democracy. Imagine that! Actually, this would be a great test. Ask yourself if the US would be invading a country that was littered with wind turbines or solar panels. Me thinks not. Which proves the case.

One other thing, take a look at the S&P 500 sector allocation.

You may have to squint but near the bottom to see energy — a minuscule 3% of the index. The entirety of all the energy companies in the Spooz are less than a quarter of Nvidia. Sheesh!

*  *  *

What you’ve just read is more than a story about Venezuela — it’s a window into the broader forces shaping our world. Energy, geopolitics, and money are colliding in ways that will ripple far beyond Caracas or Washington. The real question is: how do you protect yourself and position ahead of what comes next? To dig deeper into the economic, political, and cultural shifts now unfolding — and what they mean for your wealth and freedom — we’ve prepared a free special report, Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. You can access it here and stay one step ahead of the storm.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:50

Operation "Let's Grab The Oil"

Authored by Chris Macintrosh via InternationalMan.com,

It’s back on track...

I don’t know if you remember it, but last year I hypothesized that the Trump administration would focus their attention on a North/South axis of power… and less on an East/West.

Part of this is down to the fact the US Military is stretched globally, and likely no small part comes down to the fact that their ability to project power has for decades been reliant on their naval capabilities. These are now rendered obsolete due to the Russian missiles which can sink them and are unstoppable. All parties know this, though it remains to be seen whether US hubris may ignore it nonetheless.

In any event, focusing on the easy prey — the US own backyard, so to speak. Canada (remember the comments about “Governor Trudeau?”) and the political pressure on Mexico. Then there is the strong allegiance now with Argentina and the pressure being placed on Brazil, the focus on Panama — the canal being all important, of course. All of this is due to a North/South pivot.

So included in this is, of course, Venezuela.

The Escalating Political Showdown: Trump vs. Maduro Over Venezuela’s Black Gold

The relationship between the Donald and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has devolved into one of the most hilarious and contentious international political feuds of recent years, with both leaders engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric. Of course, it’s all theatre — a sideshow masking the real prize: the struggle over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world.

Why, for example, is Don not blabbing about Costa Rica or Honduras or any other country in the region?

The Bounty That Started It All

Back in March of 2020 the US administration placed a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head through the DEA’s “Narcotics Rewards Program.” They accused Maduro and other Venezuelan officials of “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy charges. This bounty, along with similar rewards for other Venezuelan officials totaling over $55 million, marked the first time the United States had placed such a substantial price on a sitting head of state.

The US justified this action by claiming that Maduro’s regime had transformed Venezuela into a “criminal enterprise” that facilitated drug trafficking throughout the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time declared that the Venezuelan government had become “one of the most corrupt and destructive forces in the Western Hemisphere.”

In reality, the CIA doesn’t like competition, but anyway…

Maduro’s Counterattack: The Epstein Files Gambit

Maduro’s response was swift and inflammatory. Taking to his official social media accounts, he pointed out who Trump pays allegiance to (Mossad) and suggested a release of the Epstein files. It’s all highly entertaining… except if you’re a Venezuelan, of course, wondering if Trump drops a “big beautiful bomb” on your head.

The Prize: Venezuela’s Oil Wealth

Behind this political theatre lies the true source of tension: Venezuela’s staggering oil reserves. According to OPEC data, Venezuela possesses approximately 303.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — roughly 18% of the world’s total. This makes Venezuela’s reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels) and represents more oil than the combined reserves of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait.

Despite this wealth, Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 800,000 barrels per day by 2020, largely due to mismanagement, corruption, and international sanctions.

The Trump administration’s sanctions effectively cut off Venezuela’s access to US refineries and financial systems, costing the country an estimated $116 billion between 2017 and 2020. So there’s definitely no love lost there.

Social Media War

The conflict has played out extensively on social media platforms, with both leaders using their accounts to escalate tensions. Trump frequently posted on Truth Social about Venezuela, calling Maduro a “dictator” and claiming that “Venezuela’s oil belongs to its people, not to corrupt narco-terrorists.”

Meanwhile, Maduro has used his platforms to portray himself as a victim of “Yankee imperialism,” posting: “They want our oil, our gold, our resources. But the Bolivarian Revolution will never surrender to the gringo empire.”

The Broader Implications

This conflict represents more than personal animosity. It reflects broader geopolitical competition over energy resources in Latin America. Venezuela’s economic collapse has created a power vacuum that has drawn in actors from Russia, China, and Iran, all seeking to challenge US influence in the region.

As both leaders continue their war of words, the Venezuelan people remain caught in the middle, suffering from hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and a humanitarian crisis that has forced over 7 million Venezuelans to flee. The ultimate resolution of this conflict may determine not only Venezuela’s political future but also the global balance of energy power in the coming decades.

So what this boils down to is that one side is run by a narco-socialist who thinks he’s a demigod. The other side is run by a defense contractor in a presidential mask who is heavily influenced by a foreign nation that cannot be named lest you be called “antiseptic” or something like that.

You’re not watching geopolitics — you’re watching organized crime syndicates argue over who gets to sell oil and they can’t tell you the truth… so you’re sold all sorts of stories.

Most hilarious of all is that some overpaid intern in DC just coined the name for the US military action against Venezuela. They’re calling this — and I swear I’m not making it up — “Operation Democratic Stability.”

This isn’t war. It’s stagecraft with a budget.

Meanwhile, this just came to light…

“China Concord Resources Corp has begun developing two Venezuelan oilfields, planning to invest more than $1 billion in a project to produce 60,000 barrels per day of crude oil by end-2026, an executive directly involved in the project said.

The project marks a rare investment by a private Chinese firm in the OPEC country, which has struggled to attract foreign capital due to international sanctions on the administration of President Nicolas Maduro. The investment figure and the production plan are being reported for the first time.

Beijing has been a key ally of Maduro and his predecessor late President Hugo Chavez and is currently buying more than 90% of Venezuela’s total oil exports.

Chinese state oil giant CNPC was among the largest investors in Venezuela’s oil sector before U.S. energy sanctions were first imposed on Venezuela in 2019. China was also a big lender to Venezuela.”

By the way, as a mental note, do you think the peasants have noticed the shift? Not long ago we were all being told by some department or another, or some woke “influencer” (looking at you Leo DiCaprio) how the world would end if we didn’t stop using fossil fuels.

And now, all of a sardine, the US is on the verge of invading a sovereign country for their oil to save democracy. Imagine that! Actually, this would be a great test. Ask yourself if the US would be invading a country that was littered with wind turbines or solar panels. Me thinks not. Which proves the case.

One other thing, take a look at the S&P 500 sector allocation.

You may have to squint but near the bottom to see energy — a minuscule 3% of the index. The entirety of all the energy companies in the Spooz are less than a quarter of Nvidia. Sheesh!

*  *  *

What you’ve just read is more than a story about Venezuela — it’s a window into the broader forces shaping our world. Energy, geopolitics, and money are colliding in ways that will ripple far beyond Caracas or Washington. The real question is: how do you protect yourself and position ahead of what comes next? To dig deeper into the economic, political, and cultural shifts now unfolding — and what they mean for your wealth and freedom — we’ve prepared a free special report, Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. You can access it here and stay one step ahead of the storm.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:50

Most ICE Deportation Flights Are To Central America

ICE launched raids in Boston over the weekend, while an immigration crackdown is expected to take place in Chicago in the coming days. This development follows reports of a surge in immigration arrests in Washington D.C. and comes after a wave of aggressive ICE operations in Los Angeles earlier this summer. The Trump administration has said it will be focusing enforcement efforts on sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions that restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

The Trump administration has overseen more than 1,100 deportation flights since the start of this year, according to data collected and analysed by Thomas Cartwright for Witness at the Border, an immigrant advocacy group.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, the vast majority of these have been destined for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As of the end of July, 955 ICE removal flights were reported as going to the region this year, including 247 flights to Guatemala, 208 flights to Honduras, 136 flights to Mexico, 103 to El Salvador and 47 to Ecuador.

Meanwhile, 57 flights went to 22 countries in Africa, including seven flights to Mauritania and four flights to Angola, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Senegal.

A total of 22 flights had been sent to Asia as of July, including six flights to India, three to Nepal and two each to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

In Europe, one flight went to Albania, another to Greece and one to Kosovo. In Oceania, one flight went to the Marshall Islands.

The main departure hub for ICE air deportations in 2025 has been Alexandria in Louisiana, accounting for 290 removals flights between January and July (or 26 percent of total removals flights). The three next biggest hubs by removals flights so far this year are Harlingen (TX) with 185 flights (17 percent), El Paso (Texas) with 167 flights (15 percent) and San Diego (CA) with 53 flights (five percent).

*  *  *

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:15

Most ICE Deportation Flights Are To Central America

ICE launched raids in Boston over the weekend, while an immigration crackdown is expected to take place in Chicago in the coming days. This development follows reports of a surge in immigration arrests in Washington D.C. and comes after a wave of aggressive ICE operations in Los Angeles earlier this summer. The Trump administration has said it will be focusing enforcement efforts on sanctuary cities, which are jurisdictions that restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

The Trump administration has overseen more than 1,100 deportation flights since the start of this year, according to data collected and analysed by Thomas Cartwright for Witness at the Border, an immigrant advocacy group.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, the vast majority of these have been destined for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As of the end of July, 955 ICE removal flights were reported as going to the region this year, including 247 flights to Guatemala, 208 flights to Honduras, 136 flights to Mexico, 103 to El Salvador and 47 to Ecuador.

Meanwhile, 57 flights went to 22 countries in Africa, including seven flights to Mauritania and four flights to Angola, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria and Senegal.

A total of 22 flights had been sent to Asia as of July, including six flights to India, three to Nepal and two each to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

In Europe, one flight went to Albania, another to Greece and one to Kosovo. In Oceania, one flight went to the Marshall Islands.

The main departure hub for ICE air deportations in 2025 has been Alexandria in Louisiana, accounting for 290 removals flights between January and July (or 26 percent of total removals flights). The three next biggest hubs by removals flights so far this year are Harlingen (TX) with 185 flights (17 percent), El Paso (Texas) with 167 flights (15 percent) and San Diego (CA) with 53 flights (five percent).

*  *  *

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 19:15

CENTCOM Chief Sits Down With Ex Al-Qaeda Commander One Day After 9/11 Anniversary

Via The Cradle

Self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa met with the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Charles Bradley Cooper, on Friday, September 12, to discuss regional security and cooperation, the Syrian Presidency's office announced.

US Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, also attended the meeting with Sharaa in the People's Palace in Damascus. "The meeting discussed prospects for cooperation in the political and military fields, in a way that serves common interests and consolidates the foundations of security and stability in Syria and the region," the Syrian presidency said in a statement.

Image source: Syrian Presidency

The meeting between top US officials and Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State in Iraq commander, occurred one day after the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. 

The US government claims Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center buildings and damaged the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people.

"The meeting reflected the positive atmosphere and shared commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership and expanding channels of communication between Damascus and Washington at various levels," the statement issued by Sharaa's office said.

US President Donald Trump met with the Syrian president on May 13 in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. During the meeting, Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, praised Sharaa, and informed him of the need to take several measures, most notably normalizing relations with Israel.

Formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Sharaa became known in Iraq for dispatching suicide bombers to kill US troops and Shia civilians after the 2003 US invasion. 

After his detention at the US-run Bucca Prison in Basra, Sharaa was released by US officials and became the leader of the Islamic State in Mosul.  In 2011, he traveled to Syria under the direct orders of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and established the Nusra Front, which became the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in the country.

US, Israeli, and UK intelligence supported Sharaa and the Nusra Front for over a decade as part of the operation to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, starting in 2011.

I like how the commander of US CENTCOM and the founder of the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda waited until 9/12 to meet

Getting together a day earlier would have been too on the nose pic.twitter.com/zCNUfNS3Qw

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 13, 2025

The CIA spent $1 billion per year on the operation to topple Assad, known as Timber Sycamore, which involved flooding Syria with weapons to arm the Nusra Front and other extremist Salafist armed groups. 

Nusra, which later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took power in Damascus in December 2024. Syrian forces loyal to Sharaa carried out the massacre of Alawite civilians in the coastal region of the country in March, followed by the massacre of Druze civilians in Suwayda governorate in July.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:40

CENTCOM Chief Sits Down With Ex Al-Qaeda Commander One Day After 9/11 Anniversary

Via The Cradle

Self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa met with the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Charles Bradley Cooper, on Friday, September 12, to discuss regional security and cooperation, the Syrian Presidency's office announced.

US Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, also attended the meeting with Sharaa in the People's Palace in Damascus. "The meeting discussed prospects for cooperation in the political and military fields, in a way that serves common interests and consolidates the foundations of security and stability in Syria and the region," the Syrian presidency said in a statement.

Image source: Syrian Presidency

The meeting between top US officials and Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State in Iraq commander, occurred one day after the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. 

The US government claims Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks that toppled the World Trade Center buildings and damaged the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people.

"The meeting reflected the positive atmosphere and shared commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership and expanding channels of communication between Damascus and Washington at various levels," the statement issued by Sharaa's office said.

US President Donald Trump met with the Syrian president on May 13 in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. During the meeting, Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, praised Sharaa, and informed him of the need to take several measures, most notably normalizing relations with Israel.

Formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Sharaa became known in Iraq for dispatching suicide bombers to kill US troops and Shia civilians after the 2003 US invasion. 

After his detention at the US-run Bucca Prison in Basra, Sharaa was released by US officials and became the leader of the Islamic State in Mosul.  In 2011, he traveled to Syria under the direct orders of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and established the Nusra Front, which became the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in the country.

US, Israeli, and UK intelligence supported Sharaa and the Nusra Front for over a decade as part of the operation to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, starting in 2011.

I like how the commander of US CENTCOM and the founder of the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda waited until 9/12 to meet

Getting together a day earlier would have been too on the nose pic.twitter.com/zCNUfNS3Qw

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 13, 2025

The CIA spent $1 billion per year on the operation to topple Assad, known as Timber Sycamore, which involved flooding Syria with weapons to arm the Nusra Front and other extremist Salafist armed groups. 

Nusra, which later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took power in Damascus in December 2024. Syrian forces loyal to Sharaa carried out the massacre of Alawite civilians in the coastal region of the country in March, followed by the massacre of Druze civilians in Suwayda governorate in July.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:40

2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

You can thank the Tik Tok, Instagram world we live in...

Money may not buy love, but for many young adults, it’s still the ticket to attention. A new study shows that two in five Gen Zers admit going into debt just to impress others — often in dating and social situations, according to Credit One Bank.

The pressure to perform financially is high among younger generations. Half of Gen Z and millennials (51%) say they’ve faked wealth or success, with Gen Z leading at 54%. Nearly 38% admit they’ve damaged their credit score or gone into debt to impress someone, and 37% say they’d even overdraft their accounts for a date. Men feel that pressure most: 46% would go into debt for a single date, compared to just 28% of women.

Credit One Bank writes that more than half of consumers say a high credit score makes someone more attractive, while nearly 70% would lose confidence in a boss with bad credit. Still, disclosure is rare: 54% of Gen Z and millennials prefer not to share their financial details with a partner until things get serious. Only 8% call poor financial history a marriage dealbreaker. Nearly half (48%) say they’d marry someone with a shaky financial past, especially if that person was improving. Gender gaps persist: men (47%) are more forgiving, while women are twice as likely to reject a partner over money issues (10% versus 5%).

Money talk remains awkward in friendships. Over 70% of women almost never discuss finances with friends, compared to about 60% of men. Yet with romantic partners, the story changes: 67% check in at least monthly, and 10% do so daily. Despite the discomfort, loyalty runs deep. More than half (51%) would help friends in financial crisis, though one in three say they’d stay cautious after receiving bad advice.

The study says financial independence is a top priority for many. Fifty-three percent say they’re determined to go it alone, while others admit they’d lean on family (27%) or even a partner (20%) for help. Gen Z often turns online for advice — even 21% from ChatGPT — but parents remain the leading source at 60%. Millennials, meanwhile, rely less on family (44%) and more on professionals (43%).

Finances don’t just influence relationships; they impact workplace credibility. Forty-three percent say they’d lose confidence in a boss with bad credit, while one in five would admire the honesty. When asked how they’d feel if loved ones knew their financial details, only a third felt proud. Men are more likely than women to feel confident, while higher earners are far prouder than those making under $50,000.

The bottom line: personality may still matter most in relationships, but today’s singles are swiping with one eye on the credit score. Between debt-fueled dating, social media pressures, and the drive for independence, money isn’t just part of the conversation — it’s often the deciding factor.

Read the full study here.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:05

2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

You can thank the Tik Tok, Instagram world we live in...

Money may not buy love, but for many young adults, it’s still the ticket to attention. A new study shows that two in five Gen Zers admit going into debt just to impress others — often in dating and social situations, according to Credit One Bank.

The pressure to perform financially is high among younger generations. Half of Gen Z and millennials (51%) say they’ve faked wealth or success, with Gen Z leading at 54%. Nearly 38% admit they’ve damaged their credit score or gone into debt to impress someone, and 37% say they’d even overdraft their accounts for a date. Men feel that pressure most: 46% would go into debt for a single date, compared to just 28% of women.

Credit One Bank writes that more than half of consumers say a high credit score makes someone more attractive, while nearly 70% would lose confidence in a boss with bad credit. Still, disclosure is rare: 54% of Gen Z and millennials prefer not to share their financial details with a partner until things get serious. Only 8% call poor financial history a marriage dealbreaker. Nearly half (48%) say they’d marry someone with a shaky financial past, especially if that person was improving. Gender gaps persist: men (47%) are more forgiving, while women are twice as likely to reject a partner over money issues (10% versus 5%).

Money talk remains awkward in friendships. Over 70% of women almost never discuss finances with friends, compared to about 60% of men. Yet with romantic partners, the story changes: 67% check in at least monthly, and 10% do so daily. Despite the discomfort, loyalty runs deep. More than half (51%) would help friends in financial crisis, though one in three say they’d stay cautious after receiving bad advice.

The study says financial independence is a top priority for many. Fifty-three percent say they’re determined to go it alone, while others admit they’d lean on family (27%) or even a partner (20%) for help. Gen Z often turns online for advice — even 21% from ChatGPT — but parents remain the leading source at 60%. Millennials, meanwhile, rely less on family (44%) and more on professionals (43%).

Finances don’t just influence relationships; they impact workplace credibility. Forty-three percent say they’d lose confidence in a boss with bad credit, while one in five would admire the honesty. When asked how they’d feel if loved ones knew their financial details, only a third felt proud. Men are more likely than women to feel confident, while higher earners are far prouder than those making under $50,000.

The bottom line: personality may still matter most in relationships, but today’s singles are swiping with one eye on the credit score. Between debt-fueled dating, social media pressures, and the drive for independence, money isn’t just part of the conversation — it’s often the deciding factor.

Read the full study here.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 18:05

To End Political Violence, The Marxist Framework That Legitimizes It Must Be Rooted Out

Authored by John Hilton-O'Brien via The Epoch Times,

On Aug. 22, young Iryna Zarutska was murdered—not with a gun, but with a knife. The horror in the video circulating online comes less from the weapon than from the killer’s casual comment to a bystander: “I got that white girl.”

Those words reveal this was not simply an outburst of rage. They show a moral framework in which killing “that white girl” was normalized—even justified.

That is also what makes the assassination of Charlie Kirk so alarming. Some want to minimize it as just another “gun crime.”

But Kirk was not targeted because of a weapon. He was targeted because of an idea: the belief that violence against political opponents can be righteous.

Violence and Civilization

English-speaking culture, shaped by centuries of conflict, became very good at violence—but also at directing it toward legitimate ends. Shakespeare celebrated warrior kings like Henry V, whose “band of brothers” fought at Agincourt. Churchill, who rallied Britain against Nazi Germany, spoke of the power of short words—and “war” is remarkably amongst the shortest words in English. Violence itself is not evil—the problem comes when it is misdirected or undisciplined.

The original push for public education, born of a revival of classical learning, insisted that young people be taught to love truth rather than their own factions. It was a genuine attempt to train the passions of young citizens toward virtue—habits of mental and physical excellence.

But these insights have largely been abandoned by our public schools.

The Marxist Moral Framework

From the “Communist Manifesto” onward, Marxism has reduced human life to a battle between oppressors and oppressed. Class analysis cast revolution as liberation, and political violence as justice.

American professor Herbert Marcuse made this logic explicit in “Repressive Tolerance” in the 1960s. He argued that “tolerance” itself only served oppressors, and that silencing opponents of the left was a moral duty. He stopped short of calling for bloodshed—but his framework made the step to violence all too small.

Today’s identity politics simply works through the consequences of Marcuse’s script. “Oppressed and oppressor” is how we divide society. And you can define almost anyone as “the oppressor.” Classmates, political opponents, and even parents are cast as enemies. Rage becomes virtue. Political violence becomes justice.

This helps explain why Iryna’s killer believed his act was acceptable. It also helps explain how someone could see the assassination of Charlie Kirk not just as permissible, but as virtuous.

Marxism in Our Schools

The most disturbing part is that this framework is not confined to radical academics or activists. It is being actively taught in our schools.

The idea is simple—easier to understand and teach than virtue—and it is deeply seductive.

When a teacher introduces Marxist analysis, it feels like sharing a secret. Suddenly, teacher and student are “in” on something together—a hidden truth about how the world really works. That dynamic transforms the relationship.

Classroom management becomes easier. Students enjoy lessons that make them feel clever, even heroic: You and I see the truth, while the world out there is blind or corrupt. But the price of that intimacy is enormous. Once students buy into this “you and me against the world” dynamic, it becomes much harder for them to listen to anyone who is not “on their side.” Teachers become allies—including against parents.

This is how education cultivates political violence instead of virtue. We have seen what happens when children are raised this way. In Cyprus, whole generations were taught to see their neighbours as enemies. The result was decades of recurring conflict.

The same seeds are being planted here, in our own schools, under the banner of “equity” and “critical thinking.”

Once young people accept this worldview, they no longer see opponents as neighbours or fellow citizens. They see enemies. And once that shift occurs, political violence no longer shocks them. It can be rationalized—even praised.

Ending Political Violence

The crisis we face is not about weapons. Iryna Zarutska’s murderer carried a knife. Charlie Kirk’s assassin used a gun. Different tools, same logic: Both believed their violence was righteous.

That script is not picked up by accident. It is taught. It is reinforced every time a classroom divides the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” It is strengthened every time students are told that to silence or punish opponents is to do justice.

We will not end political violence until we root out the Marxist framework that legitimizes it. Education must once again teach virtue: to love truth, to hate injustice, and to direct courage against genuine threats to the common good.

Only then can we raise a generation ready to defend their neighbours—not destroy them.

It’s time to take Marxism out of schools.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 17:30

To End Political Violence, The Marxist Framework That Legitimizes It Must Be Rooted Out

Authored by John Hilton-O'Brien via The Epoch Times,

On Aug. 22, young Iryna Zarutska was murdered—not with a gun, but with a knife. The horror in the video circulating online comes less from the weapon than from the killer’s casual comment to a bystander: “I got that white girl.”

Those words reveal this was not simply an outburst of rage. They show a moral framework in which killing “that white girl” was normalized—even justified.

That is also what makes the assassination of Charlie Kirk so alarming. Some want to minimize it as just another “gun crime.”

But Kirk was not targeted because of a weapon. He was targeted because of an idea: the belief that violence against political opponents can be righteous.

Violence and Civilization

English-speaking culture, shaped by centuries of conflict, became very good at violence—but also at directing it toward legitimate ends. Shakespeare celebrated warrior kings like Henry V, whose “band of brothers” fought at Agincourt. Churchill, who rallied Britain against Nazi Germany, spoke of the power of short words—and “war” is remarkably amongst the shortest words in English. Violence itself is not evil—the problem comes when it is misdirected or undisciplined.

The original push for public education, born of a revival of classical learning, insisted that young people be taught to love truth rather than their own factions. It was a genuine attempt to train the passions of young citizens toward virtue—habits of mental and physical excellence.

But these insights have largely been abandoned by our public schools.

The Marxist Moral Framework

From the “Communist Manifesto” onward, Marxism has reduced human life to a battle between oppressors and oppressed. Class analysis cast revolution as liberation, and political violence as justice.

American professor Herbert Marcuse made this logic explicit in “Repressive Tolerance” in the 1960s. He argued that “tolerance” itself only served oppressors, and that silencing opponents of the left was a moral duty. He stopped short of calling for bloodshed—but his framework made the step to violence all too small.

Today’s identity politics simply works through the consequences of Marcuse’s script. “Oppressed and oppressor” is how we divide society. And you can define almost anyone as “the oppressor.” Classmates, political opponents, and even parents are cast as enemies. Rage becomes virtue. Political violence becomes justice.

This helps explain why Iryna’s killer believed his act was acceptable. It also helps explain how someone could see the assassination of Charlie Kirk not just as permissible, but as virtuous.

Marxism in Our Schools

The most disturbing part is that this framework is not confined to radical academics or activists. It is being actively taught in our schools.

The idea is simple—easier to understand and teach than virtue—and it is deeply seductive.

When a teacher introduces Marxist analysis, it feels like sharing a secret. Suddenly, teacher and student are “in” on something together—a hidden truth about how the world really works. That dynamic transforms the relationship.

Classroom management becomes easier. Students enjoy lessons that make them feel clever, even heroic: You and I see the truth, while the world out there is blind or corrupt. But the price of that intimacy is enormous. Once students buy into this “you and me against the world” dynamic, it becomes much harder for them to listen to anyone who is not “on their side.” Teachers become allies—including against parents.

This is how education cultivates political violence instead of virtue. We have seen what happens when children are raised this way. In Cyprus, whole generations were taught to see their neighbours as enemies. The result was decades of recurring conflict.

The same seeds are being planted here, in our own schools, under the banner of “equity” and “critical thinking.”

Once young people accept this worldview, they no longer see opponents as neighbours or fellow citizens. They see enemies. And once that shift occurs, political violence no longer shocks them. It can be rationalized—even praised.

Ending Political Violence

The crisis we face is not about weapons. Iryna Zarutska’s murderer carried a knife. Charlie Kirk’s assassin used a gun. Different tools, same logic: Both believed their violence was righteous.

That script is not picked up by accident. It is taught. It is reinforced every time a classroom divides the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” It is strengthened every time students are told that to silence or punish opponents is to do justice.

We will not end political violence until we root out the Marxist framework that legitimizes it. Education must once again teach virtue: to love truth, to hate injustice, and to direct courage against genuine threats to the common good.

Only then can we raise a generation ready to defend their neighbours—not destroy them.

It’s time to take Marxism out of schools.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/13/2025 - 17:30