Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Transgenderism is not a civil rights movement; it’s a social engineering experiment. The LGBT movement is not a struggle for equal rights; it’s a covert war for political control. The agenda of the people involved in the spheres of trans-activism are radical zealots hellbent on the destruction of their enemies by any means necessary – And if you believe in logic, objective reality, biological science and moral imperative, then you are one of their enemies.

A prime strategy of the trans movement is the indoctrination of our children. They rarely have any children of their own and in order to perpetuate their numbers they must groom future generations to their cause. And, it has become clear that if they can’t indoctrinate our kids, they are perfectly willing to murder our kids.

There are a lot of “watchers on the wall” in the alternative media that have been fighting for decades against the adoption of woke (or politically correct) narratives in America and I think many of us have grown tired of playing games of logic and reason. Many conservatives and libertarians today put endless stock into the power of debate, but after fighting this fight for so long you start to realize that debate rarely changes the minds of zealots.

We can present an airtight case for our ideals to the public and hope for the best, and I think we have been successful in many regards. However, I would suggest that we are not changing people’s views so much as we are informing people who simply weren’t paying attention until now.

We are adding more and more of the fence-sitters to our side, but we are doing very little to solve the root problem. Some conflicts cannot be dealt with using reason. In the end, there is something to be said for brutality over debate.

For the past couple years I have been predicting that the political left was going to take a nose dive (globally) in terms of government influence, but I also predicted that they would grow increasingly unstable and revert to targeted violence over their loss of power. In my article from January titled “The Monkey Wrench Sabotage Of America Begs For An Authoritarian Response”, I noted:

“Leftists throughout modern history have a habit of engaging in destabilization efforts when they don’t get what they want. They view their motivations as sacrosanct and beyond criticism, be it “saving democracy” or “saving the planet” or “taking down capitalists and colonists”.

In every case where the political left had influence over social conditions and then lost that power, they revert to directed exponential disruption and violence from riots to assassination. They claim to care about the right of the majority to have their voices heard, but in reality they don’t care at all. When the majority goes against the leftist narrative, leftists go rogue…”

Damn, I hate being right about this stuff but the evidence speaks for itself.  The thing about the political left is that they are cowards at their core.  Their relationship with warfare is more subversive, avoiding a stand-up confrontation whenever possible and only targeting people who can’t defend themselves.

The latest attack involves a leftist transgender activist named “Robin Westman” (originally Robert Westman, a man pretending to be a woman) murdering two children and injuring 17 others at a Catholic school and church in Minneapolis, then killing himself.

The resulting anger against the greater trans movement makes perfect sense: Americans have transgender fatigue. We are fed up with these unhinged lunatics. We are done with them, and they’re not going to like what comes next.

First, I want to break down what pisses me off about this shooting, beyond the targeting of innocent children. Specifically, I want to address the responses by the corporate media, Democrats and the media in general.

Is It “Unfair” To Blame An Ideology?

Democrat leaders say that Westman’s actions are separate from his beliefs and that conservatives are “trying to make the shooting political”. Bullshit. Transgender activism is the core influence in these shootings.

Westman’s writings reveal his violent fantasies about killing children, including wanting to be the “scary horrible monster standing over those powerless kids.” Westman’s videos, posted hours before the shootings, also show the phrases “kill Donald Trump” and “for the children” scrawled on gun magazines. On one AR magazine he writes “I am the Woker, baby. Why so Queerious?”

It is the trans ideology that equipped Robert Westman with the excuses to rationalize the killing of helpless kids. His writings display a clear hatred of Christians, conservatives and Donald Trump. These expressions are normal within the transgender community; they argue in favor of violence against conservatives on a regular basis.

Their assertion? That conservatives stopping children from being pumped full of puberty blockers or having their body parts mutilated is akin to extermination. Remember, these people see your children as targets for indoctrination and conversion – This is how they reproduce their kind. So, in their twisted minds, our efforts to stop trans grooming is the same as genocide.

There are many cases of politically motivated violence against innocent people in which the act cannot be separated from the ideology that inspired it. The word for this is “terrorism”. Robert Westman’s attack was trans terrorism, pure and simple, and there are many others out there like him.

Was Westman Actually “Right Wing”?

This has been the go-to media narrative after almost every leftist act of violence; they try to distance themselves while still defending the person’s motives. In the case of Westman, his writings are clear; he’s a leftist. The media has latched onto two peripheral arguments to say otherwise:

First, Westman hated Jews. The media claims this makes him a “Neo-Nazi” and that automatically makes him a right-winger. Let’s be clear, leftists today are so antisemitic it’s enough to make the average Neo-Nazi blush. They hate Jews and they hate Israel and they’ve been courting Muslim groups for an alliance for the better part of a decade. Are there some right wing people that agree with Westman? Sure. But agreeing on a single issue doesn’t make him conservative.

Second, reports suggest that conservative/libertarian guntuber Brandon Herrera was mentioned in the shooter’s writings. Westman supposedly claims that he “met Herrera at SHOT Show in Las Vegas” and that they agreed on a number of topics. Herrera says he has no recollection of meeting Westman or any conversation with the trans lunatic.

He notes that a person like Westman would stand out like a sore thumb at an event like SHOT Show, which is generally restricted to industry professionals and the firearms media. SHOT Show has also put out a statement indicating that there is no record of Westman ever attending their conference.

My theory? I think the Herrera mentions have been planted as a way to distract from Westman’s full bore leftist cultism, offering the woke movement deniability. In other words, it’s a fake out that doesn’t match with any other evidence presented on the man’s background.

Transgender Ideology Is A Convenient Facade For The Mentally Ill

I am so tired of the mainstream media continuing to perpetuate the fallacy that people can choose their gender. Even in the case of a mass killer, they insist on “respecting the person’s pronouns”. This behavior is enabling these mentally ill bottom feeders to act the way they do.

Westman in his manifesto confesses that his transition efforts were a mistake and that he wished he had never “brainwashed himself”. He noted that he “wished he was a girl” but had accepted that it was impossible. He kept his hair long as the “last shred” of the facade of being transgender because he was afraid to cut it and admit “embarrassing defeat”.

This revelation supports what I have been saying for years – The vast majority of trans people are frauds. They are putting on an activist costume because they are rebels desperate for any cause to latch onto. People with legitimate gender dysphoria are exceedingly rare, but mental illness in general is common in America today.

The trans ideology was weaponized by globalists and governments over the course of the last decade. There’s a good reason why the number of people that identify as trans skyrocketed since 2018 – The level of propaganda aimed at children has been intense and the incentives to gain social approval are overwhelming.

The philosophy appeals to people with preexisting emotional disturbances and it is especially attractive to narcissists who gravitate to the moral and scientific relativism inherent in gender fluid thinking. In other words, it’s easy to tell which people are going to be a potential problem in any given community, just look for the trans flags and clown makeup.

In the wake of the shooting Democrats are trying to turn the event into a gun issue. It’s not. Millions of Americans have guns and almost no one decides to go shoot up a school filled with little kids. No, this is about an ideological cult that glorifies mental illness. This is about transgenderism. Trans activists and the people who enable them are the problem.

I want to be clear that I’m not talking about all people who dress up as the opposite gender (or sex, whatever you prefer). There are conservative trans people out there that disagree with the LGBT movement on most things. I’m talking about the leftist political militants. They need to go. There is no room for them in the US any longer.

I think the solution is obvious: It’s time to bring back the asylums and lock up the crazies. It’s not a novel idea, it’s become a mantra for many people in 2025. I discussed the advantages of asylums in my article “How To Solve Violence In The US? Remove Democrat Run Cities And Bring Back Asylums”, published in 2023.

During the peak of America’s asylum era crime plunged to all time lows. If asylums are coupled with extended prison time for repeat offenders, crime nearly disappears. There were trespasses and abuses within some hospitals that should be addressed, but I would argue that overall the use of asylums was an undeniable net positive for society. After we shut them down, crime skyrocketed. We’ve been trying to cope ever since using state prison systems.

The time for discourse is over. The time for compromise and compassion is over. The time for brutal ignominy is at hand. At the very least these people need to be laughed at, mocked and shamed out of existence. Every aspect of trans activism needs to be shunned and erased from our society. Those who express clear threats of violence need to be locked up as they would have been 70 years ago.

Over time the cancer of wokeness is going to disappear, but this long term cultural shift does not resolve the immediate threat. Either we throw them up in padded rooms or we boot them from the country, but letting these zealots continue to wreak havoc, or possibly regain political power one day, is not an option.

*  *  *

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

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

In 2024, global wealth per person increased by 4.6%, but which countries have the highest wealth per person?

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, ranks the top 15 countries by average and median wealth per person, based on data from the UBS Global Wealth Report 2025.

Highest Average Wealth per Person by Country

Average wealth is calculated by dividing a country’s total household wealth by its adult population. While useful, this figure can be skewed by large wealth concentrations at the very top—such as billionaire holdings.

Below are the top 15 countries with the highest average wealth per adult in 2025:

Switzerland once again leads globally, with average wealth per adult at $687,166. The United States follows closely at $620,654, while Hong Kong ranks third at $601,195.

As in previous years, many of the top-ranking countries are small but globally influential financial hubs like Hong Kong and Luxembourg.

A notable change from last year is that the U.S. rose from fourth rank ($564K) in 2024 to second in 2025 with an average wealth of $621K per adult.

Highest Median Wealth per Person by Country

Median wealth offers a more representative view of wealth distribution within a country. It identifies the mid-point of the population, where half the adult population has more, and half has less.

By this measure, wealth gaps become more visible. In the United States, for example, median wealth is five times lower than the average.

Here are the countries with the highest median wealth per adult in 2025:

In terms of median wealth, the U.S. ranks 15th, a significant drop from its second-placed ranking in terms of average wealth.

Luxembourg leads significantly in terms of median wealth at $395K per adult, with Australia following at $268K.

To learn more about wealth around the world, check out this graphic of every country’s richest billionaire on Voronoi.

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Treasury Department revealed in an Aug. 28 advisory the scope of Chinese money laundering networks’ role in the fentanyl crisis and the harm they have caused the United States.

Banks are required by law to report suspicious activity indicative of money laundering. Reports between January 2020 and December 2024 show approximately $312 billion linked to suspected Chinese money laundering activity, according to the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

These money laundering networks, run by Chinese nationals, are preferred by major cartels, including the Mexico-based Jalisco New Generation and Sinaloa cartels, because of their speed, effectiveness, and willingness to absorb financial losses or assume risks on behalf of the cartels, according to the FinCEN report.

The cartels, many of which have been designated as terrorist organizations, control “nearly all illegal traffic across the southwest border,” to which the launderers contribute in a “vital” way, according to the report.

“Money laundering networks linked to individual passport holders from the People’s Republic of China enable cartels to poison Americans with fentanyl, conduct human trafficking, and wreak havoc among communities across our great nation,” John Hurley, the Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in a statement.

Communist China is already considered a key contributor to the fentanyl crisis because the majority of chemicals used to assemble illicit fentanyl are known to originate in Chinese chemical companies.

According to FinCEN, the primary goal of these networks is to acquire large quantities of U.S. dollars and other currencies. FinCEN released a trend report on Chinese money laundering networks earlier in August that outlines ties to other crimes unrelated to fentanyl trafficking, such as health care fraud and illicit gambling activity.

Both Mexico and China have laws that restrict citizens from depositing large amounts of U.S. currency. As a result, cartels and Chinese citizens seeking to circumvent the Chinese regime’s currency reporting requirements have turned to laundering networks, according to the report.

“Chinese money laundering networks are global and pervasive, and they must be dismantled,” FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki said.

Where Do the Dollars Go?

According to the advisory, the networks will buy the illicit dollars from a cartel, paying in virtual currency or a rough equivalent in pesos that the cartels can safely deposit in Mexican financial institutions.

The networks then sell the dollars they purchased from cartels to Chinese citizens or businesses that may be trying to avoid Beijing’s foreign currency restrictions, generally at a higher exchange rate and sometimes through Hong Kong. The buyers transfer Chinese currency from and to China-based accounts to pay for the cost of the dollars.

In the interim, the dollars may be stored in accounts in U.S. banks. The Treasury Department is warning banks to watch for reportable red flags.

International Students Becoming Money Mules

The advisory also sheds more light on the Trump administration’s investigation into Chinese international students announced earlier in 2025. On the heels of that investigation, several Chinese researchers working in the United States were charged with smuggling dangerous biomaterials into the country.

The FinCEN advisory states that Chinese students at U.S. universities are increasingly recruited into these laundering networks and that some students continue to participate after graduating. As student visa holders, they are restricted from seeking many kinds of lawful employment.

Financial institutions are advised to look out for red flags, such as Chinese nationals opening an account under a student, retiree, housewife, or other low-income occupation yet having unexplained wealth. They may regularly make deposits labeled as “tuition” or “living expenses,” none of which appears to be related to routine payroll, and transfer this money to unknown individuals or escrow and shell companies, often for real estate purchases, according to the advisory.

Sometimes, the laundering is trade-based and the account holder appears to purchase U.S. electronics and luxury goods. In one case, Sinaloa Cartel members allegedly struck a deal with a Chinese money laundering network to move $50 million in illicit drug proceeds, according to a 2024 Justice Department indictment. Cash was given to the network, which allegedly purchased property, luxury goods, and cars to be shipped to China. Alleged conspirators have been charged but not convicted.

In the case of businesses, red flags include business accounts receiving regular deposits from online marketplaces but with rare or no transactions indicating the purchase of inventory; regular transfers from Mexico, China, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates; and a mismatch between the business type and income.

Governments worldwide are increasingly holding bitcoin, whether through deliberate strategy or enforcement seizures. Today, some of the biggest national treasuries include hundreds of thousands of coins, worth billions of dollars.

In this infographic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu visualizes the countries with the most bitcoin as of July 31, 2025.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from BitcoinTreasuries.net, which shows how much bitcoin each country has accumulated. Note that this may not be a conclusive list, as some countries may not publicly report their reserves. Values were based on a BTC price of $118,454 USD.

Altogether, these 10 countries control roughly 2.506% of total BTC supply.

U.S. and China Own the Most Bitcoin

The U.S. and China are the two countries with the most bitcoin as of July 31, 2025.

In America, much of this stash comes from high-profile law enforcement seizures, including Silk Road and other dark web marketplaces.

According to Investopedia, the FBI seized over 144,000 BTC from Silk Road in 2013. Its founder, Ross Ulbricht, received a life sentence but was pardoned by President Trump in January 2025.

China is close behind the U.S., holding 190,000 BTC valued at around $22.5 billion. Despite its ban on retail crypto trading, China has retained large reserves from confiscated mining and fraud cases.

Emerging Economies and Strategic Adoption

Ukraine and North Korea both hold significant BTC reserves, reportedly connected to cyber activity and asset seizures. Bhutan also stands out as a surprising player, with more than 11,000 BTC linked to its secretive hydro-powered mining operations.

El Salvador remains the only country to purchase Bitcoin directly as part of its financial strategy, holding 6,257 bitcoins worth over $740 million.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out the Top Companies by Bitcoin Holdings on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In 2024, the United States witnessed a significant uptick in acts of hostility targeting churches, with a total of 436 documented incidents—a sharp increase from 315 in 2023 and nearly double the 230 reported in 2022.

This data, compiled by the Family Research Council (FRC), highlights a troubling trend amid broader societal shifts, including a decline in regular religious attendance from 42% to 30% over the past two decades, according to Gallup polls.

The incidents spanned a wide range of hostile actions across 43 states. Vandalism was the most prevalent, accounting for 284 cases that included property destruction, defacement, burglary, and ransacking.

NEW: Data from the Family Research Council shows a stunning surge of attacks on churches in America.

Wow. Churches are under siege.

Instances of hostility [including vandalism] against U.S. churches are skyrocketing:

2024: 415 incidents
2023: 485 incidents
2018–2021 combined:… pic.twitter.com/CDOCpA76Wo

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) August 29, 2025

Arson followed with 55 events, encompassing both confirmed attempts and fires of uncertain origin, occasionally linked to individuals struggling with mental health.

Gun-related incidents surged to 28, more than doubling from 12 the previous year, involving threats, brandishing during services, and actual shootings. Bomb threats numbered 14, primarily hoaxes delivered via calls or emails.

JUST RELEASED: New edition of our Hostility Against Churches Report

Family Research Council identified 415 hostile incidents in 2024, affecting a total of 383 churches.

🔗 https://t.co/publ8N7JZd

/1 pic.twitter.com/MU85K2upsg

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) August 11, 2025

Additionally, 47 other violent acts were recorded, such as assaults during church break-ins, exemplified by an event at Zion Baptist Church in Kentucky. Geographically, California led with 40 incidents, followed by Pennsylvania at 29, and Florida and New York tied at 25 each.

Motives behind these acts varied widely, from unknown causes and financial theft (like stealing copper wiring) to political disagreements on issues like sexuality, and even juvenile pranks.

Notably, pro-abortion motivations dropped dramatically to just 2 incidents, compared to 59 in 2022 following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Hostility related to LGBT issues persisted at 33 cases, a slight decrease from 42 in 2023, while satanic motives fell to 1 from 12 the prior year.

The FRC, which has been tracking these incidents, has itself been designated as an anti-LGBT hate group by the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center.

As religious landscapes evolve, these findings underscore ongoing challenges to places of worship in America.

The findings come in the wake of a horrific shooting at a Catholic Church school in Minneapolis.

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

From Boomers to Gen Z, drivers are reshaping the road ahead in response to increasingly expensive car ownership costs.

Nearly 60% of Americans now keep their cars longer to manage rising interest rates, insurance premiums, and fuel prices.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist’s Alan Kennedy in partnership with Empower, visualizes how Americans are adjusting ownership habits to navigate tighter budgets.

The growing weight of car costs

With the national average car payment just above $450, nearly 30% of respondents said these payments are one of their top financial burdens.

A closer look at monthly payment data shows that more than half of respondents pay between $201 and $500 each month. Another 27% spend between $501 and $1,000, which helps explain why many hesitate to pay more.

Car ownership habits by generation

High interest rates and rising insurance and fuel prices are prompting Americans of all ages to keep their cars longer to reduce their car ownership costs.

Depending on age, anywhere from half to more than two-thirds of Americans plan to hold onto their cars longer. Gen Z trails at just 38%. This may reflect lower access since only 68% of Gen Z own a car at all, compared with nearly universal ownership among older groups.

Americans choose ownership over leasing

Across generations, Americans strongly prefer owning over leasing.

As cars become more advanced and valuable, the data shows most drivers believe buying outweighs leasing.

Since car payments are among the highest costs for the average household, many are trying to save on car ownership costs by extending the lifespan of their vehicles.

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

India’s refiners are expected to import more Russian crude oil in September compared to this month’s levels as discounts are deepening amid Russia’s constrained refining capacity due to Ukrainian drone strikes, traders told Reuters on Thursday.

A few weeks ago, the biggest Indian state-owned refiners, including IndianOil and BPCL, pulled out of spot purchases of Russian crude for cargoes loading in October, after the U.S. announced an additional 25% tariff on India over its imports of crude from Russia.

The overall 50% tariff on Indian goods took effect on August 27. 

Despite the hiked tariff, due to India’s continued purchases of Russian oil, Indian refiners are set to raise their imports by between 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) and 300,000 bpd in September, or up by 10-20% compared to August volumes, anonymous trade sources involved in the deals told Reuters.

Russia’s crude volumes for exports have jumped in recent weeks, as Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries have crippled Russia’s processing capacity.

As a result, Russian sellers need India to ship more crude abroad and are again offering deeper discounts. 

With difficult U.S.-India trade talks, the Trump Administration has singled out India to punish as a buyer of Russian crude.

Russia and India, however, have talked up their strategic partnership with high-level meetings and visits since the U.S. tariff threat, and have reiterated their strategic alliance and cooperation in the energy sector—a sign that India isn’t giving up on Russia’s cheap crude.

Due to stronger demand in India in September and October, crude arrivals will likely increase in the next two months, driven by higher inflows of Russian crude, said Ivan Mathews, Head of APAC Analysis at energy flow analytics firm Vortexa.

“We expect refineries in India to continue processing Russian oil, as their feedstock procurement decisions are mainly economics-driven,” Mathews wrote on Tuesday.

Buying a home is becoming increasingly out of reach in many of the world’s top cities. Property prices have greatly outpaced incomes over the past few decades, pushing affordability to historic lows.

In this infographic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu ranks the world’s most unaffordable housing markets using the house price-to-income ratio.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from the 2025 edition of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Report. It compares 94 major housing markets worldwide, highlighting where residents face the steepest barriers to homeownership.

Hong Kong is Still the Least Affordable

Hong Kong tops the global list with a staggering house price-to-income ratio of 14.4. This means the typical home costs more than 14 years worth of household income.

Limited land supply and strong demand from global capital continue to keep prices out of reach for most residents. Despite government efforts to boost supply, affordability has worsened in the past decade.

For more context, check out this Wikipedia page which keeps track of the most expensive homes sold in Hong Kong.

North America’s Expensive West Coast

Vancouver, San Jose, Los Angeles, Honolulu, San Francisco, and San Diego all rank in the top 10 most unaffordable housing markets.

These cities combine strong demand, geographic constraints, and limited new supply, driving home prices to levels more than 9–12 times annual incomes. For example, in Los Angeles, the ratio stands at 11.2, making homeownership nearly impossible for middle-class families.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Real Estate Bubble Risk in 2024 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Tanvi Ratna via The Epoch Times,

When European leaders gathered in the Oval Office last week—Macron, von der Leyen, Starmer, Merz—the photo quickly made the rounds. President Trump sat behind the Resolute Desk, flanked by figures from across the Atlantic. The posture, the optics, the framing—it appeared to confirm a familiar narrative: Washington leads, Europe follows.

But the real balance of influence isn’t captured in images. It resides in quieter mechanisms, the systems beneath the surface that increasingly shape negotiations. At the center of that unseen power structure is a little-discussed institution headquartered in Belgium: SWIFT.

In the context of the Ukraine conflict, SWIFT—the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication—has become a decisive lever.

Though often mistaken as merely a messaging platform, it is now a strategic instrument with capabilities to screen, freeze, and exclude.

And in this war, exclusion from SWIFT has proved more economically consequential than any single battlefield loss.

One case illustrates the stakes clearly: Russia’s Rosselkhozbank.

Obscure to most outside financial circles, Rosselkhozbank plays a pivotal role in Russia’s rural economy.

It finances roughly 15 percent of the country’s agribusiness sector, including fertilizer exports and grain shipments.

Moscow has consistently made its reconnection to SWIFT a condition for extending Black Sea grain deals—highlighting just how critical access is to maintaining even non-military economic flows.

Yet its access remains cut. Without SWIFT, Rosselkhozbank cannot reliably process cross-border payments.

Alternatives such as Russia’s SPFS are limited, flagged for sanctions risk, and avoided even by some of Moscow’s closer partners.

Chinese and Turkish financial institutions have grown wary.

OFAC scrutiny makes participation costly. In practical terms, without SWIFT, Russian exports must navigate workarounds fraught with uncertainty and delay.

Washington has signaled flexibility.

Since the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, the White House has floated the idea of targeted relief—trial exemptions tied to progress on humanitarian issues, resource trade, or even a ceasefire roadmap. This approach reflects a broader strategy: use selective sanctions relief as leverage, not as concession.

But Europe takes a different view.

At a meeting in Paris earlier this year, EU leaders reaffirmed their stance: no access to SWIFT for any Russian bank until full withdrawal from occupied Ukrainian territory.

The policy is not merely a negotiating tactic—it is treated as foundational.

The European Commission reiterated this position, calling Russia’s withdrawal a “non-negotiable precondition” for financial reintegration.

This divergence is significant. While Washington treats sanctions as a fluid tool, Brussels sees them as a principle. And in the case of SWIFT, it is Brussels that holds the administrative key. Despite American influence, SWIFT operates under EU jurisdiction. Decisions about membership, reconnection, and compliance flow through Belgium, not Washington.

That matters, because the Kremlin sees Rosselkhozbank as more than a bank—it sees it as a wedge. If one entity can be reconnected under humanitarian grounds, the door opens for others. Gazprombank. Sberbank. Each new reconnection becomes a precedent, each exception a potential erosion of the sanctions wall.

It’s not difficult to see the contours of the strategy. Russia ties grain exports to banking access. Ceasefire proposals are linked to transaction routes. By framing financial connectivity as humanitarian necessity, Moscow attempts to turn operational requirements into bargaining leverage.

Yet the transatlantic gap on this issue is real. The Trump administration, wary of indefinite escalation, favors measured flexibility to extract concessions. European institutions, less convinced by Moscow’s signals, remain committed to hard conditionality.

That difference could become more than rhetorical. EU sanctions require unanimous renewal every six months.

Hungary, already an outlier on Ukraine policy, continues to threaten vetoes. Some European capitals fear that if U.S. pressure for flexibility increases, internal EU cohesion may weaken. Quiet voices now warn that sanctions unity is not a given—it is conditional and finite.

That is the paradox.

The United States commands NATO forces, leads diplomacy, and provides the lion’s share of financial aid to Ukraine. But Europe—by controlling access to SWIFT—holds the more durable power over Russia’s economic reentry.

It is, in essence, statecraft by infrastructure. Not force of arms, but force of systems.

This is why the Rosselkhozbank issue, seemingly marginal, carries strategic weight. It tests whether sanctions policy remains intact or begins to splinter under political and economic pressures. It measures whether transatlantic unity is resilient or conditional. And it challenges whether Europe’s commitment to sanctions is compatible with Washington’s push for deal-making.

Trump’s photo with European leaders may dominate headlines, but the decisions that shape the war’s endgame may be happening in conference rooms thousands of miles away—in Brussels, not Washington.

In that quiet divergence lies a deeper contest: over timelines, terms, and tools.

And perhaps, ultimately, over control.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Early-career workers, aged 22-25, face a disproportionate threat to job loss from the widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI), according to a recent research paper from Stanford University.

These workers, in most AI-exposed occupations, have experienced a 13 percent relative decline in employment, said the authors of the research published online on Aug. 26.

“In contrast, employment for workers in less exposed fields and more experienced workers in the same occupations has remained stable or continued to grow.”

The team of researchers—Erik Brynjolfsson, Senior Fellow at Stanford, Bharat Chandar, a postdoctoral researcher, and Ruyu Chen, a research scientist—used data collected from ADP, the largest payroll software provider in the United States.

They found that employment declines in the American labor market are mostly happening in occupations susceptible to AI automation, and not as much in environments where human labor is augmented.

Software developers and customer service representatives were some of the most disrupted work environments following the significant proliferation of AI deployment, according to the researchers. Meanwhile, work for more experienced employees in the same sectors continued to grow.

Employment trends for “workers of all ages in less-exposed occupations such as nursing aides have remained stable,” said the paper.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman made similar observations during a discussion at the Federal Reserve Conference last month.

When asked which areas could see a significant amount of job losses due to AI, Altman said, “Some areas … are totally gone,” a reference to AI service bots replacing customer support human agents.

Altman further talked about the diagnostic capabilities of ChatGPT, but said he would not entrust it with his medical treatment without having a human doctor in the loop. This occupation class will continue to remain, even with AI.

Not All Jobs or Workers

Regarding computer programmers, Altman said they were 10 times more productive compared to before, with salaries rising in Silicon Valley. He did not address any specific categories of programmers.

“Things in the physical world will keep being done by humans for a while, but when this robotics wave comes crashing in, in another three to seven years, I think that’ll be a really big thing for society to reckon with,” said Altman.

According to Stanford researchers, data patterns related to shifting employment trends started in late 2022, around the time of the rapid proliferation of generative AI tools.

While AI may work toward replacing “book-learning” knowledge shown by entry-level workers, it will be less capable of substituting “tacit knowledge, the idiosyncratic tips and tricks that accumulate with experience,” they said.

Older workers thus remain less vulnerable to replacement.

Employment for 22 to 25-year-old software developers has gone down approximately 20 percent from the peak in 2022, said Chandar in an Aug. 26 X thread post, adding that older ages show a steady rise in employment.

Chandar said that health aides revealed an opposite trend, with youngsters seeing the fastest employment growth.

Chandar also pointed out the economic circumstances currently prevailing in the country, and said that not all job losses were attributable to AI.

According to a July 31 report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, American companies announced 62,075 job cuts in July, up 29 percent from 47,999 in June, and up 140 percent from last year.

“AI was cited for over 10,000 cuts last month, and tariff concerns have impacted nearly 6,000 jobs this year,” said Andrew Challenger, Senior Vice President of the firm.

Investment bank Goldman Sachs paints a more moderate outlook in a recent report.

Goldman said that AI could displace 6–7 percent of the U.S. workforce if AI is widely adopted; however, the impact will be short-lived. AI will open up new job opportunities.

“A recent pickup in AI adoption and reports of AI-related layoffs have raised concerns that AI will lead to widespread labor displacement,” said Joseph Briggs, who co-leads the Global Economics team in Goldman Sachs Research with economist Sarah Dong. “While these trends could broaden as adoption increases, we remain skeptical that AI will lead to large employment reductions over the next decade.”

Around 60 percent of occupations today did not exist in 1940, said Goldman. Most of the jobs today are driven by technological innovations.

“Predictions that technology will reduce the need for human labor have a long history but a poor track record,” Briggs and Dong said.

Goldman also noted that AI adoption remains relatively low, especially among mid-sized and small enterprises.

Briggs and Dong concluded that occupations at the highest risk of being displaced by AI in the coming years include computer programmers, accountants and auditors, legal and administrative assistants, customer service representatives, telemarketers, proofreaders and copy editors, and credit analysts.

Those at the least risk of being displaced are air traffic controllers, chief executives, radiologists, pharmacists, residential advisors, photographers, and members of the clergy.