70.2 F
Chicago
Thursday, September 10, 2026
Home Blog Page 1078

Israel Wants Permanent ‘Aerial Corridor’ Over Syria To Strike Iran

0
Israel Wants Permanent ‘Aerial Corridor’ Over Syria To Strike Iran

Via The Libertarian Institute

Tel Aviv’s primary objective in discussions with Damascus is to establish an aerial corridor over Syria so Israel can restart its war against Iran. 

Axios reports that Israel presented the Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, with a maximalist agreement that would establish a no-fly zone over Syria. Additionally, Tel Aviv wants a large swath of Syria, from the Israeli border to Damascus, to become a demilitarized zone. 

Getty Images/Jerusalem Post

An Israeli source told the outlet that an essential part of the agreement will be maintaining the ability to use Syrian airspace to attack Iran. “A central principle of the Israeli proposal is maintaining an aerial corridor to Iran via Syria, which would allow for potential future Israeli strikes in Iran,” they said. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started an unprovoked war with Iran in June. Tel Aviv targeted leadership in Tehran, nuclear facilities, and scientists. President Donald Trump joined the war by striking three Iranian nuclear sites that Israel lacked the military capability to destroy. 

Israeli forces currently occupy southern Syria. Israel promised to withdraw its troops from Syria if Damascus accepted the agreement. On Wednesday, Sharaa said a deal with Israel was possible “in the coming days.”

Tel Aviv made a similar agreement with Hezbollah, where Israeli soldiers were scheduled to withdraw from South Lebanon after Hezbollah moved its forces out of the region.

However, after the Hezbollah withdrawal, Tel Aviv maintained its occupation. Israel is now demanding that Hezbollah entirely disarm. 

Israel wants to establish three demilitarized zones in southern Syria and no-fly zone from Damascus to the Israeli border… via Institute for the Study of War:

The Israeli invasion of Syria began after President Bashar al-Assad was overthrown by al-Sharaa last year. Al-Sharaa, formerly Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, is the founder of al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate.

President Donald Trump has met with Sharaa and lifted some sanctions on Syria in a push to get Damascus to make a deal with Tel Aviv.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 18:25

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Reminds Us Why We Hate The MSM

0
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Reminds Us Why We Hate The MSM

On Wednesday, Disney-owned ABC fired now-former late-night talkshow host Jimmy Kimmel after he blatantly lied about the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination – suggesting that 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was “MAGA.” 

The left, which routinely relies on falsehoods to push coordinated narratives, freaked out in response – with pissy Reddit NPCs canceling their Disney subscriptions and whining about ‘muh free speech.’ And it’s no wonder, as leftist talking heads such as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tell their audience all about the rage they should feel over Kimmel’s ouster. 

Except, his hypocrisy is now on full display – as when it came to the firing of Tucker Carlson, Hayes applauded.

When it was Tucker: “He believed he could say anything, no matter how vile, no matter how disgusting, no matter how offensive… and if you act like a sociopath over and over and over and over, you will become unpopular on the national stage.” 

When it was Kimmel: “This is just the latest chapter in Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to crack down on free speech, dominate the media, and essentially render the First Amendment meaningless.

Watch:

As if they have a leg to stand on… as @swamp_ist notes on X;

Roseanne Barr – Fired by ABC/Disney and her hit show Roseanne canceled overnight in 2018 after one tweet. Hundreds of cast and crew lost their jobs.

(Barr later corrected this to note that the employees weren’t fired)

Gina Carano – Fired from The Mandalorian in 2021 for social media posts that didn’t fit the Left’s politics. Dropped by her agency too.

Megyn Kelly – Fired by NBC in 2018, her morning show canceled after comments about Halloween costumes.

Dave Chappelle – Netflix employees staged a walkout and demanded his comedy special be pulled for “transphobia.” The Left tried hard to cancel him.

Joe Rogan – The Left pressured Spotify to drop him, running coordinated campaigns and advertiser boycotts over COVID discussions.

Tucker Carlson – Taken off Fox News in 2023. Liberal activists bragged about advertiser pressure campaigns that helped force him out, costing thousands of downstream jobs.

Parler – Apple, Google, and Amazon colluded in 2021 to wipe the entire platform off the internet. Tens of thousands of small creators and businesses lost income overnight.

J.K. Rowling – Blacklisted from events, attacked by activists, and pressured out of projects for speaking her mind.

Mike Lindell – MyPillow pulled from major retailers, banned from Twitter, and targeted with advertiser boycotts.

Alex Jones – Simultaneously banned in 2018 by YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify. Coordinated erasure celebrated as a model for censorship.

[ZH: And let’s not forget that ZeroHedge was booted from Twitter and demonetized after we noted in early February of 2020 that COVID may have come from a little-known lab in Wuhan, China]

Patterns are clear:

Coordinated advertiser boycotts.

Public celebrations of people losing jobs and businesses.

Two sets of rules — the Left can lie (Russia hoax, Covington kids smear, Jussie Smollett, etc.) and laugh about it, but the Right gets destroyed.

Accountability only ever goes one way. The Left has spent the last decade perfecting cancel culture, destroying jobs, nuking shows, wiping platforms off the internet, and laughing while people’s lives were ruined. But sure… Jimmy Kimmel smugly lying about a political assassination? Totally fine.

*  *  *

Up to 20% off with volume & subscription discounts

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 18:00

The Comfortable Collapse: How America Learned To Pretend Obesity Is Normal

0
The Comfortable Collapse: How America Learned To Pretend Obesity Is Normal

Authored by Joseph Varon via The Brownstone Institute,

Walk into any American airport today and pause. Look around at the travelers waiting at the gate, the families queuing for fast food, the crowds rushing past. You are looking at a country that our grandparents would not recognize. In less than three generations, the very shape of the American body has shifted so dramatically that what would once have been regarded as rare or concerning is now routine. Airplane seats have been widened, retail clothing racks have been extended, mannequins have been reshaped, and soda cups have been enlarged. Entire industries have recalibrated to accommodate a physiology that is neither healthy nor sustainable.

Yet our cultural narrative increasingly insists that this shift is normal—sometimes even desirable. We are told that larger mannequins are a sign of “representation,” that rebranded fashion shows signify “inclusivity,” and that bigger chairs and bigger uniforms are gestures of compassion. But none of this changes biology. A mannequin does not get diabetes. A marketing campaign cannot erase hypertension. And no amount of “body positivity” cancels the cruel arithmetic of metabolic disease.

Obesity is not normal physiology. It is common, costly, and deadly. Pretending otherwise is not kindness—it is cultural anesthesia.

A Nation Grows Heavier

The data tell the story with unflinching clarity. In 1960, the average American man weighed 166 pounds, while the average woman weighed 140 pounds. By 2002, men averaged 191 pounds and women 164 pounds, representing gains of more than 20 pounds per person in a single generation [1-2]. Height increased by about an inch during the same period, which is nowhere near enough to explain the mass increase.

Obesity prevalence, once a marginal condition, ballooned in parallel. In the early 1960s, about 13 percent of adults met criteria for obesity. By 2010, the figure had reached 36 percent. Today, more than 40 percent of American adults live with obesity[3-5]. This is not a slight cultural drift. It is a wholesale population-level transformation, visible everywhere and confirmed by every credible dataset.

The costs are staggering. Annual medical expenditures attributable to obesity are estimated at $173 billion in the United States. Adults with obesity generate, on average, nearly $1,900 more in health costs per year than their normal-weight peers[6-7]. These figures capture only direct medical spending. They do not reflect lost productivity, shortened lifespans, military unfitness, or the millions of families silently managing the downstream complications: diabetes, heart disease, liver failure, sleep apnea, infertility, and cancer.

The Environment That Made Us Sick

What changed so radically between the early 1960s and the present? Not our genes. The human genome has not undergone significant mutation in half a century. What changed was our environment: the way we eat, the way we work, the way we live.

Per capita daily caloric availability in the United States increased by more than 20 percent between 1970 and 2010, a surge driven by the consumption of processed, shelf-stable, calorie-dense foods. [8] Portion sizes, which began to expand in the 1970s and continued to grow in the 1980s, exceeded what earlier generations would have considered a regular meal. Studies consistently demonstrate that larger portions lead to greater intake at a single sitting and cumulatively across days [9-10].

At the same time, the energy we burn at work fell sharply. As manufacturing and agriculture gave way to service industries and screen-bound labor, occupational energy expenditure dropped by more than 100 calories per day since 1960[11-12]. For an individual, that number might sound trivial. For a population of 330 million people, compounded across decades, it is catastrophic.

The composition of our food supply also changed. Today, more than half of all calories consumed by American adults come from ultra-processed foods: engineered products designed for bliss-point palatability and low cost. Among youth, the proportion is closer to two-thirds[13-14]. These foods are calorie-dense but nutritionally hollow, engineered to override satiety mechanisms and promote overconsumption. A growing body of cohort studies links ultra-processed food intake with obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, confirming what common sense already suspected.

The epidemic is not mysterious. We eat more, we move less, and the food itself is industrially reengineered to push appetite into overdrive.

Cultural Rebranding of Disease

Even as the physiology deteriorated, the culture adapted—by redefining what counts as “normal.” This is where mannequins and marketing come into play.

In 2019, Nike unveiled plus-size mannequins in a flagship London store and hailed the move as a gesture of inclusivity and representation. [15] Victoria’s Secret, once the cathedral of a single body type, abandoned its iconic runway show and rebranded with mannequins of different sizes and a new language about empowerment[16-17]. Other retailers quickly followed suit.

No one disputes that people deserve dignity and clothing that fits them well. But retail is not an altruistic enterprise. The introduction of larger mannequins was not a campaign for justice; it was a marketing strategy. Representation has its place. The problem is when representation blurs into normalization—when physiology that carries increased risk of disease is recast as simply another aesthetic option.

This is cultural anesthesia. It reassures without healing. It consoles while condemning. It teaches people to accept a physiology that will shorten their lives and bankrupt their health. That is not compassion. That is capitulation.

The Limits of “Health at Every Size”

It is both possible and necessary to treat every individual with respect while telling the truth about obesity. But slogans like “health at every size” cross a line from kindness into denial. Biology is not a social construct. Excess adipose tissue is not a role model.

Obesity is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, infertility, and several cancers[6-7]. It shortens lives and drains public resources. To insist that these risks are merely inventions of stigma is to lie to patients under the guise of affirmation.

The clinical reality is not pleasant, but it is unavoidable. Physicians must treat disease with honesty, even when the culture demands euphemism. Compassion means helping patients reverse risk, not reassuring them that risk does not exist.

The 1950s Baseline

Invoking the 1950s risks nostalgia. That era had its own injustices and inequities. But metabolically, it provides a valuable baseline. Families ate smaller portions, prepared more meals at home, moved more in the course of daily life, and consumed fewer ultra-processed foods. Sugary sodas existed, but they were modestly sized and not consumed by default with every meal. “Large” meant a single cup, not a liter.

The lesson is not that the 1950s were a golden age. The lesson is that, within the same borders and with the same genetic pool, Americans were metabolically healthier before their environment was re-engineered. That proves the point: environment, not destiny, is the driver.

Incentives for Obesity

The obesity epidemic is not an accident. It is the product of incentives. Food companies profit when people eat more often and in larger quantities. “Value” is measured in calories per dollar, not nutrients per life. Pharmaceutical companies profit when chronic diseases linger; lifelong pharmacotherapy for obesity and its complications is now a growth market. Retailers profit when larger sizes are normalized and more units are sold. Politicians profit when difficult policy reforms—such as agricultural subsidies, zoning changes, and school meal standards—are replaced with slogans about inclusivity.

There is no conspiracy here. There is scaffolding. And people, especially children, grow into whatever scaffolding we build. These children will grow up with a variety of chronic diseases, and their lifespan will be limited.

A Different Kind of Compassion

The way forward requires disentangling people from pathology. Individuals must be respected and never humiliated. But the epidemic must be denormalized, not celebrated. That means telling the truth plainly: obesity is not neutral. It is a disease state.

It means recalibrating the environment. Portion sizes should return to sanity [9-10]. Schools should reintroduce daily physical activity, not token electives. Public institutions should reduce procurement of ultra-processed foods and increase access to minimally processed, nutrient-rich options. Zoning and city planning should make real food accessible and ensure safe movement.

It means aligning incentives with health. Subsidies should support sustainable food production, not cheap calories. Food labeling should reflect processing levels, not just calorie counts. Employers and insurers should reward healthy behaviors, rather than simply absorbing the costs of disease.

Clinically, it means utilizing every available tool: diet, exercise, sleep hygiene, stress management, pharmacotherapy when appropriate, and bariatric surgery when necessary. However, all of these must be anchored in environmental change, not a surrender to lifelong pharmacological management of a preventable condition.

And culturally, it means honesty. Larger mannequins may serve a retail function, but they must not be confused with a health message. We can sell bigger clothes without selling a bigger lie.

Closing the Loop

The America of 1960 was metabolically healthier than the America of 2025, not because our grandparents had better genes, but because they lived in an environment that did not constantly conspire against their physiology. Smaller portions, fewer processed foods, and more regular physical activity helped maintain lower baseline weights and reduced risks.

We cannot go back in time. But we can tell the truth. And the truth is that obesity is not normal, no matter how many mannequins we reshape or marketing campaigns we rename. Normalizing people is right. Normalizing disease is wrong.

If we want to love people, we must tell them the truth—and build a world where health is once again ordinary.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 17:40

US Seeking To Regain Control Of Bagram Air Base In Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan: Trump

0
US Seeking To Regain Control Of Bagram Air Base In Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan: Trump

The United States is actively working to regain control over Bagram Air Base in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, President Trump told reporters this morning in a joint press conference with UK PM Starmer in England.

As The Epoch Times’ Ryan Morgan points out, U.S. forces relinquished control over the major air base in 2021, during the force drawdown from the country.

The United States handed over control of the base to the U.S.-backed Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which collapsed in August 2021 as the Taliban seized control over the Afghan capital city of Kabul.

As Bloomberg reports, Trump has criticized former President Joe Biden over the tumultuous US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, claiming that the move left in the hands of the Taliban government American weaponry and other military assets, including the base at Bagram.

Trump has repeatedly said that the facility is now under the control of China, a claim that Afghan authorities have disputed, and that it still holds strategic value for the US.

Speaking during the press conference, Trump suggested that the current Taliban authority in Afghanistan needs things that the United States can provide, and may be amenable to a deal allowing a renewed U.S. presence at the key base.

“We’re trying to get it back, because they need things from us. We want that base back,” Trump said.

The president stressed the potential strategic significance of a renewed U.S. presence in Afghanistan, including as a strategic counterbalance to China.

“One of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons,” he said.

Watch the full exchange below:

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 17:20

VDH: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Was Not A ‘George Floyd Moment’

0
VDH: The Murder Of Charlie Kirk Was Not A ‘George Floyd Moment’

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Just days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the left is working overtime to hide the truth and create fantasies about his death.

Specifically, leftists alleged that conservatives were going to “pounce” on the death to wage protests and boost radical agendas in the manner of what followed George Floyd’s death.

Here are some of the lies that such a ridiculous narrative entails.

One, Charlie Kirk is not conservatives’ George Floyd. There were no mass riots after his death of the sort that followed Floyd’s demise.

Floyd’s death was used by the left to justify five months of rioting, arson, murder, looting, and attacking police officers.

The postmortem respect for Kirk’s singular life was not characterized by $2 billion in property damage, the torching of a police precinct, a federal courthouse, and an iconic church, 35 deaths, and 1,500 injured law-enforcement officers.

Instead, thousands of people peacefully joined his Turning Point USA organization and promised to redirect their lives toward peaceful political engagement.

Two, after Kirk’s death, no prominent Republican or conservative is encouraging ongoing mass (and often violent) protests in the manner of high-profile leftists like Kamala Harris.

She blurted out on national television in June 2020, “But they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day. Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up—and they should not. And we should not.”

No conservatives—like the spouse of Governor Tim Walz—declared of the 2020 arsons, “I could smell the burning tires, and that was a very real thing. I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening.”

Instead, Kirk’s supporters are calling on everyone to express their anger peacefully at the ballot box by registering to vote and showing up for the 2026 midterms.

Three, Charles Kirk was not George Floyd. He was a law-abiding, religiously devout, political organizer, happily married with two children. Kirk was a media figure and head of a huge 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose brand was calmly debating students who disagreed with him.

Floyd should not have died while in police custody. But Floyd’s comorbidities were many. When arrested, he was under the influence of fentanyl and methamphetamine, with a heart condition and recent Covid infection.

He was a career felon, with eight previous criminal convictions, who had in the past staged a violent home-invasion robbery and pointed a knife at the abdomen of one of the female occupants.

In contrast, when Kirk was killed, he was not on drugs. He was not resisting police officers. And he was not trying to pass counterfeit currency. Instead, he eschewed violence and tried to engage in polite dialogue with students of different views.

Four, Kirk was not, as alleged by the left, murdered by a right-wing shooter. His death was not an example of right-on-right violence. Just the opposite was true. The shooter, Tyler Robinson, was on record with his family expressing hatred for the conservative Kirk.

Robinson engraved his bullets with both Antifa-like “anti-fascist” messaging and transgender references.

He lived with his transgender partner, who was a leftist. Robinson’s aim was to end Kirk’s peaceful conservative career because he hated his politics and popularity and feared his influence.

Five, the left used the death of Floyd to promote its hard-left and otherwise unpopular agenda—defunding the police, cashless bail, decriminalization of theft, and DEI mandates.

It manipulated outrage, chaos, and months-long violence to ram through radical cultural and top-down legal changes that otherwise had little popular support.

Conservatives upset over Kirk’s murder will bolster Turning Point USA. They are determined through peaceful means to persuade more youth about the poverty and dangers of progressive thought.

Why is the left fabricating the circumstances surrounding and following Kirk’s murder?

In its signature projective style, the left is terrified that the right might follow its own example—by manipulating facts, ginning up street violence, and issuing non-negotiable demands to achieve its agenda.

But the chief difference between the Kirk assassination and the death of Floyd is that the post-Floyd agenda had no majority support and so had to be rammed through in hysterical times by implied threats of unending violence beyond five months of continued mayhem.

The post-Kirk agenda eschewed violence because it was both morally wrong and politically counterproductive—since most Americans naturally favored most of what Kirk championed.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 16:20

‘Who Did Epstein Traffic Women To?’ House Oversight Grills FBI Director During Tense Testimony

0
‘Who Did Epstein Traffic Women To?’ House Oversight Grills FBI Director During Tense Testimony

FBI Director Kash Patel appeared before the House Oversight Committee on Sept. 17, facing lawmakers’ statements and questions for five hours.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel arrives to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Sept. 17, 2025. Win McNamee/Getty Images

Members on both sides of the aisle questioned him on a variety of topics, spanning from crime and immigration to the National Guard’s anticipated arrival in Memphis, illicit drugs, and agency leaks to the media.

Patel was extremely evasive on the topic of Jeffrey Epstein, effectively committing to the narrative that Epstein only trafficked women to himself.

“Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to?” asked Rep. John Kennedy (R-LA).

Himself. There is no credible information, none. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday – that he trafficked to other individuals”

At one point Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) played a clip of Patel from the past five years in which he repeatedly claims Epstein’s black book is under the direct control of the FBI Director.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to the rescue with a series of rapid fire questions meant to highlight progress Patel has made within the agency:

Here are five more takeaways from The Epoch Times;

1. 1,000 Agents From DC Deployed Across US

The FBI director said 1,000 agents from the headquarters in Washington have been permanently deployed across the United States.

This is in accordance with his promise on Sept. 12 to “let good cops be cops.”

One-third of the FBI workforce resided in the National Capital Region before I got there. One-third of the crimes do not happen in Washington D.C., not anymore,” Patel told the committee.

“So 1,000 personnel of the FBI were deployed across this country on a permanent basis, and every single state in this union is getting a plus-up, not a reduction, a plus-up of 1,811 intel analysts and support staff, and that is why the crime rates are going down in record numbers.”

2. Cohen Praises Memphis Anti-Crime Efforts

FBI agents have also been deployed for special operations, such as Project Viper, which has been underway for several months in Memphis.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked Patel about his agency’s work with local law enforcement in the first phase of the federal anti-crime surge in Memphis and praised the director.

You did a good job,” Cohen said. “The police director and the mayor told me … that has been helpful. The FBI worked with the police, and the FBI are trained in law enforcement. They know Miranda rights, they know how to do policing, and they do a good job working with the police.”

The lawmaker also expressed concern about the incoming National Guard and asked if it was necessary to do the work the FBI is doing.

Patel explained that he thought it was necessary to utilize National Guard members to have the manpower to establish physical perimeters around areas where criminal activity remains high.

He assured the congressman that the National Guard would not have control over his agents and that an interagency coalition featuring the heads of the U.S. Marshals, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security would remain in control.

However, the Democratic lawmaker remained concerned and said he hoped the deployment didn’t go ahead, citing that its members are not trained in law enforcement.

3. Patel Implies Comey Under Investigation

Patel told lawmakers that his bureau continues to investigate leaks of classified information to the media, including information relating to the prior Trump–Russia probe.

During an exchange with Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), Patel said that “generally speaking, the leaks of classified information are detrimental to any work the FBI is doing.”

He also implied that former FBI Director James Comey may be under investigation for alleged leaks during his tenure.

“That entire matter is currently under investigation by the people at the FBI that handle leaks of classified information,” Patel said.

He also said that he was limited in what he was able to say specifically on the Comey allegations, “because of what the current status of those matters are with the FBI and the Department of Justice.”

4. Agents Who Improperly Use Surveillance Barred

The discussion of leaks transitioned to a discussion about what Cline said was the way past directors weaponized the surveillance inquiry process authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The House Oversight Committee noted there had been hundreds of thousands of violations of the querying standards and asked Patel what action the FBI was taking to ensure that those abuses don’t occur in the future.

He responded that the FBI had a new auditing system that reviewed nearly 100 percent of that 702 query system, eliminating anyone who touched the database and “made a mistake, whether intentional or not.”

Patel noted that the FBI also identified a system that bans anyone who misuses the systems.

You cannot have access to the 702 query system if you improperly query that system at all at any time in your career,” he said.

5. Top Chinese Official Contacted About Fentanyl

Patel was also questioned about the FBI’s ongoing efforts against drug trafficking across the nation and the foreign origins of illegal drugs, such as fentanyl.

He told lawmakers that he contacted a top Chinese law enforcement official on the issue of precursor chemicals that are used to produce fentanyl.

“The companies in China, mainland China, do produce the precursors and the cutting agents that they send, ship overseas, through various countries, into the Mexican drug cartels who produce it,” he said.

“So they basically are the cooks in terms of the ingredients.”

Patel said he decided to “engage in a conversation to say, ‘Hey, can we have a certain number of these precursor chemicals listed in China so that they become illegal and illegal to trade.’”

The FBI director said the agency has been working with its counterparts in India, Guatemala, and other countries “because the transshipment routes of the precursors, the Mexican drug cartels have gotten creative and, instead of coming directly to America, are going into these countries.”

He credited the partnerships in helping to shut down “the ability to ship the precursors into those countries, which are ultimately destined to America.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 15:45

The Moral Decay Of Debt

0
The Moral Decay Of Debt

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Debt has moral implications, and in denying this, we’re choosing a rendezvous with Nemesis

Let’s start with a household analogy. A married couple have four fine children, and since expenses are higher than income, they borrow money in their children’s names to fund their lifestyle and investments. Once the offspring reach 18 years of age, the debt their parents borrowed is theirs to service.

The offspring didn’t get a say in how much money was borrowed or how it was spent, but the debt is now theirs to service (i.e. pay the interest) for their entire lifetimes, as the debt is simply too large to pay off with conventional wages.

The economy changed, and since wages don’t go as far and costs keep rising, the four offspring borrow in their own children’s names to afford the basics of a middle-class life.

The parents are now comfortably retired, drawing on their investments bought with borrowed money. The two generations behind them are now debt-serfs who funded their own lifestyles by borrowing even more money. Since the kind of house their parents bought for 3-times-income is now 6-times-income, the debt required to own a house and fund what is considered the minimum middle-class entitlements is multiples of their parents’ borrowing.

Is anyone willing to call this offloading of ever-expanding debt onto future generations wrong, as in morally wrong, or have we lost the vocabulary and ability to declare the offloading of debt as morally disgraceful, a line that should never have been crossed?

Debt that cannot be extinguished and that is offloaded onto future generations is a manifestation of moral decay, a decay of the moral foundations of the economy and society that is terminal.

So here we are, cheering on a big reduction in the Fed Funds Rate to encourage an expansion of debt, as more debt means more spending and that means more taxes and corporate profits. The manipulation of interest rates and the financial machinery to encourage more debt is viewed as bloodless, absolutely devoid of moral judgment: when it comes to “growth” of asset prices, spending, taxes and profits, there is no wrong, as “growth” is the only good anyone cares about.

This is the perfection of moral decay. Offloading debt onto future generations–money borrowed to prop up a self-serving status quo that focused on expediencies, not future consequences–and then telling the debt-enslaved generations, “we’ll inflate away the debt, and your wages will buy less and less, but no worries, we’ll just borrow more to pay the interest due”–how is this not morally repulsive?

Here is Federal debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is a better measure of consequences, for it illustrates the Federal government’s ability to counter a deep recession by borrowing and spending trillions of dollars is now limited by extreme debt levels.

Those who track the history of government debt generally draw the red-line at 100% of GDP, so 120% is already deep in the danger zone. History is rather decisive: any attempt to add trillions in additional debt at these levels has zero chance of working as intended, i.e. a pain-free way to boost “growth.”

Note the debt-to-GDP ratio actually declined during both the stagflationary 1970s and the 1990s Internet boom. In both eras, the economy was still largely organic, i.e. unmanipulated enough that natural forces (supply, demand, risk aversion, writedowns of bad debt, etc.) could work through excesses of speculation and debt and restore not just balance sheets but legitimacy.

The Federal Reserve no longer trusted the system’s self-correcting capacity and leaped into full-blown manipulation of financial and mortgage markets in 2008-09. The debt-to-FDP ratio soared from 60% to 100% in the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) “save” of the Federal Reserve, which inflated the money supply and pushed ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and QE (quantitative easing) to boost borrowing.

As a result, private-sector borrowing also skyrocketed. Now that households and enterprises have borrowed up to their capacity to service debt, their ability to “borrow their way to prosperity” is also constrained.

Here is total debt, public and private (TCMDO). In Q2 1975, total debt was $2.5 trillion. If this had tracked inflation, it would have reached $15 trillion by Q2 2025. ($1 in Q2 1975 is $6 in Q2 2025.) (BLS Inflation Calculator)

Let’s say that debt can double the rate of inflation if it’s being invested productively. That would put today’s total debt at $30 trillion.

But total debt isn’t close to $30 trillion; it’s $104 trillion and climbing, suggesting 70+ trillion is “excess debt.” As for all this borrowed money being invested productively–given “waste is growth” planned obsolescence and rampant asset appreciation / speculation, it seems obvious that most of this borrowed money was consumed by ephemeral products and services or squandered chasing asset bubbles.

Debt has implicit moral implications, and in denying this, we’re choosing a rendezvous with Nemesis–a rendezvous with Destiny that will be arranged by Nemesis, not the Federal Reserve or the Treasury.

Yes, debt can be productive, but it can also be exploitive, and therein lies the moral implications. Debt can never be amoral or bloodless; its moral nature cannot be extinguished. We appear to be destined to discover this truth the hard way.

*  *  *

Check out my new book Ultra-Processed Life and my updated Books and FilmsBecome a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com  Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 15:25

Escape From New York, 2025 Millionaire Edition

0
Escape From New York, 2025 Millionaire Edition

Authored by Peter C. Earle via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

For decades, New York City prided itself on being the financial capital of the world. It’s a place where money, culture, and power converge. And yet, as has been seen in San Francisco, Chicago, and other locations around the United States, New York is experiencing a steady exodus of millionaires and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. While some observers dismiss this as anecdotal or exaggerated, the facts paint a different picture: one with serious implications for the city’s fiscal health, social fabric, and attractiveness.

It is easy to forget that New York’s gleaming infrastructure, vast public services, and social programs are underwritten disproportionately by a tiny number of residents. Fewer than one percent of taxpayers account for more than 40 percent of all income tax revenue collected in the state, and a similar share in the city. Without those individuals, the ability of millions of ordinary New Yorkers to enjoy subsidized transit, robust public safety services, and cultural investments would collapse. In other words, and despite endless egalitarian rhetoric, the lifestyle of the masses is silently carried on the shoulders of the few.

The scale of the loss is becoming visible. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of New Yorkers earning between $150,000 and $750,000 fell by nearly six percent, while the number of true high earners—those making over $750,000—dropped by nearly 10 percent, according to the city’s Independent Budget Office. This erosion matters because the city’s top one percent—about 41,000 filers—pay more than 40 percent of all income taxes. The top 10 percent pay about two-thirds. Which means the remaining 90 percent of taxpayers contribute only about one-third of the city’s income tax revenue. When even a small share of these high earners disappears, the impact is seismic.

Recent migration trends confirm the damage. More than 125,000 New Yorkers have fled to Florida in just the past few years, carrying nearly $14 billion worth of income with them, according to the Citizens Budget Commission. About a third of those movers—more than 41,000 people—went to Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties between 2018 and 2022. Those escapes alone stripped New York City of an estimated $10 billion in adjusted gross income. When money and mobility align, no amount of political rhetoric can stop people from voting with their feet.

Into this fragile situation steps Zohran Mamdani, whose mayoral primary victory has been accompanied by a platform that includes a new “millionaire’s tax.”

His proposal would tack on an additional two-percent levy for New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year, raising the combined city and state top rate to 16.776 percent—by far the highest in the nation.

Add federal obligations, and the total burden would rise to nearly 54 percent. That is not just taxation; it is confiscation.

Wealthy New Yorkers wouldn’t even need to flee to Florida to avoid it. A short move to Westchester, Long Island, or across the Hudson to New Jersey would suffice. As the Tax Foundation has noted, “a high earner doesn’t need to give up the convenience of the city, they just need to move outside the five boroughs.” Developers are already banding together to oppose Mamdani’s rent-control platform, while Florida realtors report a surge in inquiries from wealthy New Yorkers looking to relocate.

Rather than acknowledge this delicate balance, policymakers in Albany and City Hall continue to treat the wealthy as inexhaustible resources. Each subsequent budget cycle seems to bring fresh proposals for higher levies, justified by a reflexive invocation of “fair share.” For the city’s most mobile taxpayers, however, there is a limit. They are increasingly concluding that enough is enough.

Not to worry, though. Other U.S. states and cities are only too happy to receive them.

Florida has no state income tax and a climate that, quite literally, feels like a bonus. Texas markets itself as a business-friendly, family-friendly destination where capital is welcomed rather than penalized. The Lone Star State is even planning its own stock exchange to fight against corporate ESG/DEI mandates, among others. Even Connecticut, once derided as a commuter’s backwater, now makes a pitch as a calmer, lower-tax alternative just a train ride away.

It’s not just states.

Municipalities from Miami to Austin to Nashville are creating entire ecosystems—schools, cultural centers, financial services clusters—designed to attract, satisfy, and retain disaffected New Yorkers. And the migration data show that these efforts are paying off.

The most striking irony of this government-greed-driven exodus is that the very policies promoted as remedies for inequality are accelerating a new divide. On one side are jurisdictions with extractive tax regimes like New York, which are increasingly reliant on a shrinking base of wealthy residents. On the other side are “merely high-tax” or moderate-tax states that calibrate their revenue needs without driving out their most productive citizens. In attempting to punish the “haves” in the name of the “have-nots,” New York is in the process of creating an even sharper divide between places where the wealthy live and places they have left behind. The intended redistribution becomes a geographic one, with capital, philanthropy, and jobs following the departing millionaires.

Beyond dollars and cents, there is also a cultural cost. Wealthy New Yorkers are not just taxpayers; they are patrons of the arts, benefactors of hospitals, and funders of civic institutions. When they decamp to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, or elsewhere, they don’t merely take their checkbooks; they take their boards, galas, and fundraising networks. The very character of New York as a city of ambition progressively dims. A city that once attracted the world’s best and brightest risks becoming a place they leave once they have achieved the successes they sought.

The migration of millionaires is not an abstract threat. It is an early warning sign of the consequences of fiscal imbalance and political avarice. New York can continue to chase headlines with promises of soaking the rich, or it can recognize that prosperity depends on partnership, not punishment. If it chooses the former, the flight will only accelerate, and the city may wake up one day to find that its most valuable export is no longer finance or culture, but people.

Wealth, like love, does not stay long where it goes unappreciated.

*  *  * speaking of love *  *  *

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 14:45

Subprime Crisis 2.0? Red Flags Fly As Alleged Fraud Triggers Billion-Dollar Auto-Lender Bankruptcy

0
Subprime Crisis 2.0? Red Flags Fly As Alleged Fraud Triggers Billion-Dollar Auto-Lender Bankruptcy

Did a medium-sized canary just croak in the coalmine of consumer credit?

While the world and his pet rabbit was avidly glued to the screens, hanging on every word from Fed Chair Powell, something happened in a name that few have likely heard of that could have a much greater impact on markets.

After seeing its bonds rise week after week, seemingly amid confidence in the US consumer (especially at the lowest incomes)…

prices for the almost $2 billion of debt behind subprime auto-lender Tricolor Holdings suddenly collapsed yesterday, leaving creditors across the US scrambling to stake their claim on the company’s remaining assets and contain their losses…

As Bloomberg reports, the details behind the collapse of Tricolor remain uncertain, with federal investigators looking into possible fraud and banks exploring whether the same collateral was pledged to multiple lenders.

In Dallas, the regional bank Triumph Financial Inc. has dispatched teams of employees to used-car lots, where they’re identifying and whisking away to safe locations the vehicles they believe are the collateral to their loans.

In midtown Manhattan, a boutique investment firm that built a position in Tricolor’s asset-backed bonds, Clear Haven Capital Management, has been calling other bondholders, urging them to band together and fight to keep the big banks away from the assets that belong to them.

Those banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp, have begun to forensically examine their own collateral to try to ascertain the magnitude of the losses.

This is part of what’s fueling the frantic rush – the sense that many of the details behind the collapse of Tricolor, a provider of high-interest car loans to undocumented workers, remain murky even a week after its bankruptcy filing.

Prominent among them: Was there fraud, as federal investigators are now looking into, and how prevalent was it?

“Everyone is in the dark as to how serious these allegations of fraud are, so bondholders and lenders are rushing to protect their interests,” said Boris Peresechensky, a portfolio manager at Orange Investment Advisors.

Two other big subprime auto lenders that declared bankruptcy in recent years — American Car Center and US Auto Sales — ended up costing some junior bondholders dearly, said Peresechensky.

Signs are emerging that it may have been widespread. Banks are exploring whether the same collateral was pledged to multiple lenders.

Bloomberg reports that people familiar with the probes say the suspected manipulation stretches back months, possibly longer.

Earlier this week, holders of Tricolor’s asset-backed bonds didn’t receive some scheduled payments, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

They also didn’t get a remittance report – the regular statement detailing cash collected from borrowers and how it’s distributed — the people said.

Tricolor opted to liquidate in bankruptcy rather than attempt a reorganization amid concerns over litigation risk and signs there weren’t enough assets to restructure, according to a person familiar with the decision.

The company listed more than 25,000 creditors, vendors and other affected parties in its bankruptcy filing.

The bottom line is a major (subprime) auto-lender just hit the wall in epic fashion (out of nowhere) as the Emperor’s clothes narrative of the so-called “strong consumer” (spending was solid in aggregate) were suddenly exposed as more evidence of the K-shaped economy Americans are living in (haves and have-nots) and the divergence is getting wider.

If collateral-backed subprime auto-lenders are collapsing, how long before default rates on Buy-Now, Pay-Later entities start to soar?

The Bear Traps Report’s Larry McDonald recently noted that BDCs and Private Credit entities are starting to creak – with some sizable names trading well off recent highs. While the driver for much of that pain appears to be AI data-center over-spend, contagion from these archaic credit assets (from subprime auto to BNPL) into the mainstream is not something anyone wants to experience again.

Is Tricolor Holdings the June 2007 Bear Stearns Structured-Credit Fund of 2025?

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 14:25

Vitalik Buterin Finally Pushes Back After Weeks Of ETH Stalking Queue FUD

0
Vitalik Buterin Finally Pushes Back After Weeks Of ETH Stalking Queue FUD

Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has finally addressed some concerns over the lengthening Ethereum staking exit queue, which has now grown to 45 days. 

His response came after Galaxy Digital’s head of DeFi, Michael Marcantonio, called the exit queue length “troubling” on X and compared it to Solana, which only requires two days to unstake. He has since deleted the posts. 

“Unclear how a network that takes 45 days to return assets can serve as a suitable candidate to power the next era of global capital markets.”

Deleted post from Galaxy Digital’s DeFi head. Source: Etc.

However, Buterin seemingly took a more ideological stance on the subject, describing unstaking from Ethereum as “more like a soldier deciding to quit the army,” adding that staking is more about “taking on a solemn duty to defend the chain.”

“Friction in quitting is part of the deal. An army cannot hold together if any percent of it can suddenly leave at any time.”

Overall, the network remains highly secure with over a million active validators and 35.6 million ETH staked, or almost 30% of the entire supply. 

That being said, Buterin acknowledged the current staking queue design was not optimal, but reducing the constants would make the chain “much less trustworthy” for nodes that do not go online frequently. 

Ethereum exit queue surged to an all-time high last week. Source: ValidatorQueue

Galaxy Digital purchased $1.5 billion worth of Solana recently after partnering with Multicoin Capital and trading firm Jump Crypto in a Solana treasury firm. 

Galaxy Digital was also the first Nasdaq-listed company to tokenize its shares on Solana. 

Fighting the staking FUD

Marcantonio seemingly deleted the posts after pushback from others.

Former Consensys product manager Jimmy Ragosa called out Marcantonio and Galaxy Digital, stating that  from what he can gather from direct messages, the only thing the “relentless ETH FUD” has achieved is that “most entities with any vested interest in Ethereum are now reconsidering their business with Galaxy.”

Source: Jimmy Ragosa

“Apparently, Galaxy made their head of DeFi delete all of his Ethereum FUD,” said crypto lawyer Gabriel Shapiro, adding that “he was engaging in insanely gaslighty psyops.”  

“Frankly, I wish it had stayed up because it only made Ethereum look great both technologically and culturally, but oh well.”

“I’ll be recommending that people no longer do business with Galaxy,” said Ethereum educator Anthony Sassano, adding:

“Deleting tweets doesn’t change the fact that the guy is their ‘Head of DeFi’ and doesn’t understand the very basics of this industry and cares more about fudding Ethereum than the actual truth.”

Solana proponent Mike Dudas sided with Galaxy, stating, “folks with a ‘vested interest in Ethereum’ have to work with shitty bankers instead of Galaxy who has proven with Solana that they can drive significant value in transactions and bridge to a much broader group of stakeholders.”

Cointelegraph reached out to Marcantonio and Galaxy for comment.

Ethereum ecosystem remains healthy 

The Ethereum exit queue has dipped over the past few days, but remains high at 2.5 million ETH. However, a large portion of this is from Kiln Finance following an exploit. 

There are currently 512,000 ETH in the entry queue, which hit a two-year high recently amid institutional accumulation. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 09/18/2025 – 13:25