Across the U.S., major urban centers are experiencing significant land subsidence, a.k.a the sinking of land.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the average vertical land movement within 28 of the largest U.S. cities from 2015 to 2021, measured in milimeters per year.

Data comes from a 2025 Nature Cities study titled “Land subsidence risk to infrastructure in US metropolises” by Ohenhen, Zhai, Lucy, et al.

Which U.S. City is Sinking the Most?

Below, we show the average vertical land movement within 28 of the largest U.S. cities from 2015 to 2021, measured in millimeters per year.

Arecent study found that 25 of the 28 largest U.S. metropolitan areas are sinking each year, with cities in Texas experiencing some of the most severe land subsidence.

Out of the cities studied, Houston was the city experiencing the most drastic subsidence, sinking 5.216 milimeters per year on average.

This gradual sinking can worsen the impacts of sea-level rise, increase flood risk, and place additional stress on urban infrastructure, particularly in densely developed areas.

The primary cause of this subsidence is groundwater extraction, though other contributing factors include the weight of urban development, oil and gas extraction, and glacial isostatic adjustment—a slow shift in the Earth’s surface due to the long-term melting of ancient ice sheets.

The study authors estimate that a total land area of 17,900 sq. km. is sinking across these 28 cities.

To learn about sinking cities, check out this graphic by Planet Anomaly that visualizes the fastest-sinking coastal cities.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Israel’s recent military strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the main artery of its energy sector has reshuffled the regional deck. For Europe, the attack could signal the onset of an energy policy disaster.

It is too early to fully assess Israel’s strategic attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and energy production. Yet one thing is already clear: alongside the systematic elimination of military and nuclear targets, the precision strike on the South Pars gas field marks a dramatic escalation of military events. Located on the Persian Gulf, South Pars is currently the world’s largest operational gas field and a central pillar of the Iranian regime’s economic stability. By targeting this facility, Israel has sent a clear signal that it aims to bring about regime change in Tehran—and is willing to risk retaliatory attacks on its own energy infrastructure to achieve that end.

Hitting Iran’s Economic Lifeline

The June 14 attack on the gas field resulted in the immediate shutdown of one of its four production units. Daily output dropped by 12 million cubic meters—a roughly 4.4 percent decrease in Iran’s daily gas production, which totals approximately 275 billion cubic meters annually. With a domestic gas price of around $0.07 per cubic meter, the Iranian regime is now losing an estimated $840,000 per day. This is a serious blow to the country’s energy sector, as South Pars is Iran’s most important energy source.

Iran uses the bulk of its natural gas for domestic consumption—primarily for power generation, heating, and industrial purposes. Only about 10 percent of its gas output is designated for export, according to the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), with Iraq and Turkey as its main customers under long-term contracts. Export to Europe remains a strategic objective for Tehran but is currently of negligible significance due to lack of infrastructure and hostile political conditions.

Europe’s Energy Dependence

Israel’s strike caused an immediate spike in global energy prices. Within hours, the price of crude oil surged by 14 percent to $73 per barrel, reflecting market fears of a regional escalation that could permanently damage energy production infrastructure. While global LNG markets were less directly affected, traders began pricing in risk premiums for oil and gas futures in anticipation of further attacks on critical energy facilities.

If the conflict deepens, energy-poor and import-dependent regions could face a heavy toll. Europe, in particular, may be reminded of the oil shocks of the 1970s, when OPEC retaliated against Western support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War with a 5 percent production cut—plunging much of the West into recession. At the time, the price of oil jumped from $3 to over $12 per barrel in less than a year. Western economies scrambled to respond with drastic measures, including the now-infamous “car-free Sundays.”

Despite decades of rhetoric about energy independence, Europe remains highly vulnerable. Around 58 percent of the European Union’s total energy consumption must be covered by imports from outside the continent. This dependency makes Europe susceptible to geopolitical crises, price volatility, and supply disruptions. Energy security has long been a core concern of EU policy, but the continent has failed to escape the geopolitical stranglehold of the global energy market. The EU’s Green Deal, hailed as a bold energy transformation, has in practice deepened Europe’s vulnerability by accelerating deindustrialization and weakening its industrial base.

Oil and gas dependence remains especially pronounced. Germany, despite annual multibillion-euro investments in “green transformation,” imports 66 percent of its energy. Italy depends on imports for 75 percent of its needs, and Spain for 68 percent. Only a handful of countries, such as Estonia (3 percent) and Sweden (26 percent), can claim relative energy independence.

The Euro and the Fiat Trap

For eurozone nations, a repeat of the 1970s oil crisis would be financially devastating. Crises of this kind drive mobile capital toward the U.S. dollar—the world’s dominant energy-trading currency. The U.S., with its largely energy-autarkic economy, would be shielded from much of the fallout.

Europe’s situation, by contrast, is precarious. The euro is a fiat currency backed by an issuer with little access to domestic energy resources. In the face of geopolitical shocks, it would likely suffer sharp devaluation as Europe scrambles to pay soaring import prices. Rising energy costs would act as a recession accelerator, fueling existing inflationary pressures and triggering capital flight toward more energy-secure jurisdictions. Europe is trapped. The political elimination of nuclear power in Germany and the embargo on Russian energy have only intensified the continent’s exposure.

Brussels appears paralyzed in the face of this geopolitical turbulence. The war between Israel and Iran underscores what has already become clear in the Ukraine conflict: the EU is losing geopolitical relevance at breakneck speed. It plays little to no role in either preventing or resolving the central conflicts of our era. Without a fundamental shift in strategy—and a renewed willingness to engage in pragmatic diplomacy—Europe lacks the tools to confront an impending energy shock. The EU must relearn the art of negotiation. Its influence in the world’s energy-dominant regions is rapidly evaporating.

* * * 

Thomas Kolbe, a German economist, has worked for over 25 years 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.

In any given country, real wages, employment conditions, and economic opportunity often influence how easily people can overcome poverty.

Hence, rising above the poverty line requires a lot more work in some nations than in others, even between OECD countries.

This infographic, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, uses data from the OECD to shows the weekly working hours a single person (with no children) needs to work to rise above the poverty line in 35 OECD countries, assuming they earn 67% of the national average wage.

How Much Work Does It Take to Escape Poverty?

The poverty line is calculated as 50% of the country’s median disposable income. On average across OECD countries, a single individual with below-average income needs to work 21 hours per week to cross the poverty threshold.

However, there are stark differences between the countries at the higher and lower ends of the spectrum, as shown in the table below:

Slovenia stands out, requiring 35 weekly working hours—nearly the equivalent of a full-time job—just to move past the poverty line. Close behind are Czechia, New Zealand, the United States, and Denmark, each requiring between 26 and 28 hours per week to exit poverty.

Several developed nations are clustered around the OECD average of 21 hours, including Australia, Canada, South Korea, and European countries like Germany and Portugal.

Meanwhile, many countries require less than a typical part-time job’s worth of work (20 hours per week) to lift a low-income worker above poverty.

Türkiye notably requires just 9 weekly working hours to rise above the poverty line. This indicates that the country’s median disposable income is relatively low, with a few hours per week enough to cross the poverty line at lower-than-average wages.

Other countries requiring low working hours to exit poverty include the United Kingdom at 14 weekly hours, followed by Belgium, Greece, and Japan at 16 hours each.

To learn more about this topic, check out this infographic on Home Affordability in OECD Countries on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The police commissioner of the German Bundestag, Uli Grötsch, has demanded that all members of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) be removed from the police service.

Despite holding an office meant to monitor misconduct and structural problems in the federal police, Grötsch, a Social Democratic Party (SPD) politician, used the platform to argue that AfD membership is incompatible with public service.

“AfD membership and work as a police officer are not compatible,” Grötsch told the Rheinische Post, referencing the controversial classification of the party as “definitely right-wing extremist” by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).

“Membership with visible commitment to the AfD must result in removal from service. For me, commitment means openly campaigning for the party, running for the municipal or city council, or even for the Bundestag,” he added.

Grötsch’s comments clash directly with more moderate voices in the federal government, including those from within the ruling coalition. Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt of the Christian Social Union (CSU) dismissed the idea of blanket purges of public servants.

“The loyalty to the constitution that is required of civil servants can only be considered on a case-by-case basis,” he said, as cited by Junge Freiheit.

This is not the first time Grötsch has aggressively targeted AfD members in the police. In March 2024, he warned that any form of AfD support from within the police ranks was “highly problematic,” describing the party as increasingly radicalized. “It is devastating when police and judiciary are infiltrated by enemies of the free democratic basic order,” he said, according to Die Welt.

Grötsch appears to be escalating his efforts. In an earlier interview with Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland, he broadened the scope of concern, stating: “I think it is highly problematic if police employees are members of the AfD or support the party in other ways.” The statement leaves open whether mere support — including donations, expressions of sympathy, or voting — might fall under the same scrutiny.

A controversial internal memo from January 2025, initially reported by Junge Freiheit, further revealed that AfD-affiliated officials within the federal police were being targeted for removal, based on a directive signed by former Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, also of the SPD. The leaked memo stated that active participation in the AfD was grounds for disciplinary action.

With 54,000 employees in the federal police, including 45,000 officers, the actual number of AfD members within the force is unknown. Critics point out, however, that political membership alone has not been a disqualifying factor in the past — President of the Federal Police Headquarters Dieter Romann is himself a member of the CDU.

One passage shared from the internal police intranet stated: “If membership in such a party becomes known, there are sufficient actual indications that justify the suspicion of a disciplinary offense, at least if the officer is actively involved in such a party.”

The AfD has made law and order central to its platform. Many see its focus on border security, national sovereignty, and internal safety as naturally resonant with the concerns of police officers.

Critics now warn that attempts to exclude those who align with such views could amount to an ideological purge and attempt to stifle political opposition rather than legitimate oversight.

Read more here…

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

One of the globe’s leading experts on war has warned that many European countries are on the verge of civil war and may already be past the point of no return.

David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World at King’s College London, says his research shows is a statistically significant chance of a civil war breaking out within five years in a major European country, with a distinct possibility that the conflict could spill over to neighbouring Nations.

Speaking to documentarian Andrew Gold, Betz further noted that it is likely too late to prevent things getting “very much worse” in Europe, and that governments may only be able to better prepare for the inevitable.

“I would probably avoid big cities. I would suggest you reduce your exposure to big cities if you are able,” Betz chillingly urged.

He added, “there isn’t anything they can do, it’s baked in. We’re already past the tipping point, is my estimation… we are past the point at which there is a political offramp. We are past the point at which normal politics is able to solve the problem.”

Betz emphasised that “almost every plausible way forward from here involves some kind of violence in my view.”

“Anything the government tries to do at this point… you can solve one kind of problem, but it will aggravate another kind of problem in doing so, and you get back to violence,” the professor continued.

“The question really is about mitigating the costs, to my mind, not about preventing the outcome, I’m sorry to say… I have not heard a credible political way forward and I don’t see a single political figure who is credible in the role of national saviour, or even inclined to do so,” he added.

“The bottom line is I don’t think there is now a political solution to this which takes the form of everything just working out OK after some period of difficulty,” Betz grimly concludes, noting “Things are bad now, but they are going to get very much worse.”

“Hopefully after they will get better, but you will have to go through the period of very much worse before you get there,” he predicted.

It’s a downward spiral, essentially.

“I understand what I say is extremely unpleasant”, Betz said, further remarking: “I just want to say dear elites, the consequences of your actions have arrived.”

Betz notes that the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden all already have “dire social instability”, “economic decline”, and “elite pusillanimity”, all historically precursors to conflict.

The academic estimates that a civil war in the UK, which now has a population of 70 million, could mean tens of thousands of deaths.

“The most unstable are moderately homogenous societies”, Betz has previously observed, noting that legacy majority groups feel their status being threatened or about to be completely replaced and they are more likely to fight to retain dominance.

While research has indicated that the UK is on course to become a minority white country within decades, Betz predicts that it won’t actually happen because enough native Britons may move to reverse the trend.

“You could make such an argument, but that’s, I think, making a lot of assumptions about people’s likely response to things. I don’t think that society is so inert”, Betz said, adding “I just don’t think the British people want to be displaced from their own country… I think people are going to reject that. And they are already, people are already perceiving an urgency to act to prevent the loss of something they feel very strongly about still.”

🔻 REPORT: White British people will decline from their current position as 73 per cent of the population to 57 per cent by 2050 before slipping into a minority by 2063

Read the full story ⬇️https://t.co/qvIrNEVh7y pic.twitter.com/pHvDecIn6S

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) June 4, 2025

Betz further asserted that “the existence of this idea [of England]… is very seriously in peril… how [people] react against that is the question. There’s a grave potential for them to react in ways that take us right off the scale. I hope that doesn’t occur, but we are at a very perilous moment.”

*  *  *

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.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Zelensky fired off over a dozen paragraphs in his latest tweetstorm on Saturday afternoon that can be read in full here.

He demanded the imposition of more sanctions against Russia’s banking and energy sectors, complained about the “warm” tone of the US-Russian dialogue, expressed worries about reduced aid, fearmongered about Russia’s military-industrial complex, and pushed back against claims that he’s oppressing Russians, Russian speakers, and Russian Orthodox Christians. He’s clearly panicking.

In the order that he made his points, the first one about sanctions alludes to the proposed bill to impose 500% tariffs on Russia’s energy clients, which would likely be applied towards China and India if passes with waivers for EU countries (and probably only those that meet Trump’s defense spending demands). Politico warned that this could backfire against the US, however, while the Treasury Secretary warned that it could undermine diplomatic efforts. It’s thus little wonder that Zelensky is panicking about this.

Moving along, Zelensky’s complaints about the “warm” tone of the US-Russian dialogue are a direct response to the Trump-Putin bonhomie, the latest manifestation of which saw Putin calling Trump on Saturday to wish him happy birthday alongside discussing the latest phase of the Israeli-Iranian War. It’s still anyone’s guess whether Trump will disengage from NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine or double down on it, but judging by Zelensky’s tweetstorm, he’s taking the first possibility very seriously.

This observation leads to the third point that he made about reduced US aid, which follows the Secretary of Defense recently announcing such cuts in the next budget but without detailing how much they’ll be. While it’s possible to drastically scale up aid even in those conditions if the decision is made as proven by how much unplanned support the Biden Administration gave Ukraine in 2022, from Zelensky’s perspective, the writing on the wall is that Trump is presently disinterested in doing this.

His fourth point is the least disputable of the five since even the New York Times admitted as far back as September 2023 that Russia is far ahead of NATO in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition”. As could have been expected, Zelensky also fearmongered about Russia’s intentions by implying that it might be plotting to invade NATO, but mostly everyone is numb to that narrative by now. It therefore probably won’t be enough to convince the West, especially the US, to resume 2023-like levels of aid.

And finally, the last point that he made in response to Russia’s fact-based accusations that Ukraine is oppressing Russians, Russian speakers, and Russian Orthodox Christians is purely rhetorical and doesn’t even attempt to respond to the substance of these claims, which exposes it as hollow and him as guilty. He’s panicking because he fears that the US might coerce Ukraine into changing its domestic policies as part of Russia’s denazification demand for peace if Trump truly wants to wash his hands of this conflict.

Altogether, his tweetstorm says a lot about Ukraine’s increasingly difficult position if one reads between the lines, with this being brought about by Russia’s arrival in Dnipropetrovsk. Even if only some of what Zelensky is worried about comes to pass, especially reduced US aid and forthcoming American pressure upon Ukraine to comply with Russia’s demands, then the conflict might end sooner than expected. To be sure, this can’t be taken for granted, but it’s realistic enough of a scenario to make Zelensky panic.

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The United States has nearly twice as many nuclear reactors and at least five times the number of artificial intelligence-generating data centers that China now has.

But while only two new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States this century, China has built nearly 40 and, as China Atomic Energy Authority Vice Chair Wang Yiren told the China Nuclear Energy Association in May, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “aims to overtake the United States in installed nuclear capacity by 2030.”

China’s rapid development of nuclear energy to power artificial intelligence (AI) “has triggered a Sputnik moment” among the United States’ reactor designers and operators, Oklo Chief Technology Officer Pat Schweiger said.

“AI leadership is a civilization-level challenge, and we face a geopolitical imperative to achieve AI supremacy,” Schweiger said in his testimony during a June 12 hearing before the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s Energy Subcommittee.

The United States is the world’s largest generator and consumer of nuclear energy, with 94 nuclear reactors in 55 power plants.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that the plants generated 18.6 percent of their electricity in 2023.

However, most were built between 1970 and 1990 and average more than 40 years in service.

The only new reactor to come online in the United States since 2016 is Vogtle’s fourth reactor in Georgia, $16 billion over budget and six years behind schedule.

According to the World Nuclear Association, China has 58 operating reactors with 32 under construction, including 10 projected to come online in 2025.

During a March 11 roundtable discussion at CERAWeek by S&P Global in Houston, six Chinese energy leaders and academics said CCP leader Xi Jinping made nuclear energy development a key in achieving a 2020 pledge to “peak carbon dioxide emissions” from fossil fuels “before 2030” and “achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.”

Including solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, and nuclear—since 2020, China built at least five new nuclear plants a year, bringing its fleet to 58, contributing nearly 6 percent to its energy mix—35 percent of China’s power comes from renewable sources, according to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) and Ember, a global energy analysis firm.

“China is definitely moving fast,” Schweiger said. “They have the infrastructure in place, manufacturing capabilities that have accelerated their ability to perform. Currently, they’re on pace to build reactors in about 52 months, so just over four years.”

Under current regulations posted by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it takes 10 to 12 years just to license and permit a new nuclear reactor in the United States.

President Donald Trump’s May executive orders seeking to “reinvigorate” the United States’ nuclear energy industry call on Congress to trim back those timelines, especially for the 60-plus emerging reactor technologies, such as “plug-in” small nuclear reactors, natrium-cooled reactors, “fast fission” reactors, and fusion reactors.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 70-year-old matrix of federal rules poses an “unreasonable burden for micro-reactor developers,” hindering domestic implementation of technologies being pioneered in the United States but exported elsewhere, Washington-based Last Energy argued in a December 2024 lawsuit filed against the commission.

The primary beneficiary of this “innovation export” is China, which is incorporating and advancing these emerging technologies in its rapidly expanding fleet of reactors, capitalizing on stillborn technologies developed in the United States.

US-Pioneered, China-Perfected

China now leads the world in fusion technology development—often called the “holy grail of 21st century energy”—as economist and China analyst Antonio Graceffo writes in a March 31 Epoch Times column.

“China has taken the lead in fusion-related patents, produces 10 times as many PhD graduates in fusion science as the United States, and is aggressively securing critical materials such as superconducting magnets, specialized metals, and semiconductors,” he writes.

“China’s aggressive approach includes rapid reactor construction and experimental designs that may not be viable under U.S. regulations.”

In April, Interesting Engineering—a news site based in New York and Istanbul that covers “the latest scientific breakthroughs”—reported China was building the world’s first working thorium reactor.

If the reactor proves commercially viable, it would be the first not to be uranium-fueled. Thorium is less radioactive, and its waste is easier to dispose of.

Project chief scientist Xu Hongjie told Interesting Engineering the entire endeavor was built on American research gleaned from open-source studies and experiments that never advanced because of regulatory constraints.

This legacy of frustrating stagnation continues today, Schweiger told the House panel.

The fast reactor technology that Oklo has mastered “was innovated and pioneered in America almost 80 years ago,” he said. “Right now, there is no fast reactor operating in the United States.”

Nuclear-generated baseload energy will fuel the data centers that will power the artificial intelligence projected to quickly, dramatically reshape commerce, industry, and national security.

Powering up those data centers to “win the AI race against China” is a national urgency that United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright describes as the nation’s “next Manhattan Project.”

According to Statista, in March 2025, there were a “reported” 5,426 data centers in the United States.

Meanwhile, Denmark-based Data Center Map ApS counts 3,757 “listed” data centers, and Data Centers.com, a global “technology marketplace” headquartered in Colorado, maintains there are 2,484 now operating nationwide.

One consensus these and other estimates confirm is that there are five to 10 times as many functioning data centers in the United States as in any other country, including China, which has fewer than 500.

In fact, approximately half the planet’s data centers are in the United States, according to Visual Capitalist, among others.

But as China rapidly boots up its nuclear energy capacity, data centers are certain to mushroom quickly.

“They’re doing that on time and on budget,” Schweiger said.

“When you have a centralized authority that is in charge, and you have construction crews A, B, C, D, E, and you can sort of dispatch them around the country, you can move faster,” Constellation Energy Executive Vice President Kathleen L. Barrón testified before the committee.

During the March CERAWeek by S&P Global roundtable, Jian Pan, co-chair of CATL, a leading global electric vehicle and battery technology company, said “centralized authority” orchestrated by the CCP led to the rapid increase in electric vehicle manufacturing, quickly making China the world’s largest EV-maker, disrupting the global auto manufacturing industry and oil markets.

“Government sets the policy directions” in the “quick adoption for electric vehicles, the restructure of industrial activities, the environmental mandates for all industrial activities,” Pan said.

Sinopec Economics & Development Research Institute Vice President Fairy Wang said China’s EV industry “developed so fast … first, definitely, [because] the government is supporting it. We have policy support. We have some incentives. The government provides some subsidies for EVs.”

“We have a different model here,” Barrón said. “We have bifurcated authority between the federal government and the states over energy policy … it’s a bit more complicated.”

But it’s solvable with coordinated “involvement and appropriate input across different levels of government,” she said.

“I think our challenge is to meet this moment now and put all of our effort into trying to move forward as fast as we possibly can.”

California’s soft-on-crime approach, along with pandemic-era actions, may have contributed to a rise in retail theft from 2014 to 2023, according to a report published by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) on June 12.

In the report, “Retail Theft in California: Looking Back at a Decade of Change,” the LAO found that retail theft in the state rose after a slight decline during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in an overall increase of 11 percent during the nine-year timeframe.

However, as Jill McLaughlin reports for The Epoch Times, despite the statewide increase, the numbers reported are still below the historical highs seen in the 1980s, the report found.

“Concerns about theft from retail businesses have become more prominent in recent years,” the analyst’s office wrote in the report. “Retail theft has implications for economic outcomes, as well as a sense of safety, well-being, and fundamental quality of life for Californians.”

In 2021, nearly two in three California voters said crime in the state was getting worse, while 23 percent said it was staying the same and 6 percent said it was getting better, according to a survey conducted that year by David Binder Research.

The report finds that the statistics have fluctuated greatly in the past decade.

From 2014 and 2015, retail theft increased slightly, going up 5 percent before declining 20 percent during 2015 and 2012. Nearly half of the drop happened between 2019 and 2020, when the state was placed on lockdown during the pandemic.

“Pandemic-related factors—such as temporary stay-at-home orders and closure of nonessential retail businesses in the early part of the pandemic—likely contributed to the decline over this period,” the report stated.

After the decline, statistics show that retail crime increased by 32 percent from 2021 and 2023.

The crime numbers may not represent the full picture, however, according to the analysis.

A large portion of law enforcement agencies—representing about 10 percent of the state’s population—did not report crime numbers for some or all of 2023 when reporting methods were changed nationwide during the Biden administration..

“Accordingly, crime data may understate the actual increase in retail theft that occurred in 2023,” the report stated.

Bucking the trend were smaller counties in the state that were reporting declines in retail theft from 2019 to 2023.

Union Square visitors look at damage to a Louis Vuitton store in San Francisco on Nov. 21, 2021. Danielle Echeverria/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

“The reason for these differences is unclear but could be tied to factors such as the concentration of retail establishments in each county,” according to the report.

The analysis pointed to Proposition 47, passed in 2014, and changes in the state’s criminal justice system after 2020 as possible reasons for crime to have risen. The proposition reduced several felonies to misdemeanors, limiting the authority to arrest people for some crimes.

The public has criticized the proposition, claiming the law allowed shoplifters to walk away with up to $950 in goods, mandating law enforcement to issue a ticket to suspected thieves instead of arresting them.

“Researchers found that Proposition 47 increased larceny (a category of crime that includes some forms of retail theft), though they were unable to determine the impact on retail theft specifically,” the analyst’s office, which provides fiscal and policy advice to the state Legislature, stated in the report’s executive summary.

Shoppers browse in a Hollywood mall in Los Angeles on Oct. 26, 2023. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“Generally, research on crime rates suggests that people are less likely to commit a crime when they perceive that they have a higher chance of being apprehended,” according to the report.

The state also changed several crime policies in response to the COVID-19 health crisis, including releasing convicted criminals early from prison, implementing zero-bail policies, and reducing probation term lengths.

“[Researchers] found that pandemic-era changes to the criminal justice system increased nonresidential burglary (a measure of some forms of retail theft) by reducing jail populations and the likelihood of arrest,” according to the LAO. “However, the researchers were only able to explain about one-third of the pandemic-era increase in nonresidential burglaries.”

The findings suggested that factors outside the criminal justice system, such as changes in the retail environment, also likely contributed to retail theft trends in California.

Possible changes to the retail environment may also have affected retail theft rates, the report said. For example, many stores have expanded shelf-checkout lines and store policies that direct staff not to physically confront shoplifters.

A customer uses a self-checkout lane at a Home Depot store in San Rafael, Calif., on July 25, 2023. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Pandemic-era changes, such as the use of protective face masks that could also be used to conceal identities, may have further emboldened shoplifters, according to the analysis.

The report also stated that a change in societal factors, such as homelessness prompting the stealing of necessities like food, and increased drug use disorders, could have impacted retail theft rates.

Voters responded last year to the state’s growing retail theft problem, passing Proposition 36 and various other bills, including Assembly Bill 2943, which made it a crime for anyone to possess stolen property that was acquired through shoplifting, theft, or burglary. The bill also allows prosecutors to aggregate thefts in different counties to charge suspects with more severe crimes.

The changes have bolstered the ability of law enforcement to arrest and detain shoplifters, elevated retail theft from a misdemeanor to a felony in some cases, increased punishment for retail crime, and broadened the capacity to detect and respond to retail crime, the report stated.

“This change could also make it more likely for people to be arrested, given that law enforcement generally has greater authority to arrest people for felonies,” according to the report. “This, in turn, could help deter people from engaging in retail theft if it causes them to perceive a higher likelihood of apprehension.”

State and local law enforcement also implemented several programs to target organized retail crime in the past three years.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signs a package of 10 retail theft bills at a Home Depot in San Jose, Calif., on Aug. 16, 2024. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times

In March, Gov. Gavin Newsom reported the state’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force had conducted 879 investigations, leading to 1,707 arrests and the recovery of 676,227 stolen goods valued at $13.5 million.

“As public safety continues to be a priority for California, this ongoing retail theft crackdown shows the continuous work of our strengthened efforts on organized crime,” Newsom said in March.

The analysis recommends that legislators ask several key questions to provide oversight of recently passed laws.

The questions include asking whether officials are using the new crime-fighting tools available to them, and to report whether the new laws are resulting in a decrease in crime.

Overall, the analysis showed that while retail theft has increased in the state, the latest available numbers remain below historical levels.

From 1985 to 2023, the retail theft rate declined by 54 percent. A similar decline was recorded for all types of property crime during that time, including residential burglary and motor vehicle theft.

Authored by Peter Hanseler via voicefromrussia.org,

The US’s involvement in the attacks on Russia and Iran makes a negotiated solution to these conflicts unlikely. Trump, who promised his people peace, is bringing war…

Untrustworthy Trump

One day before the second round of negotiations in Istanbul, Ukraine attacked aircraft from Russia’s strategic bomber fleet with drones hidden in trucks that were smuggled into Russia. We reported on this in “Operation Spiderweb: Ukraine and NATO attack on Russia: a new Pearl Harbor? Full escalation? Are the fanatics back? Facts and analysis.” The military damage was minor; what remained was a propaganda victory for the West – nothing more. On June 11, the Financial Times went to great lengths to prove that these attacks were carried out with AI without Western help. The FT should probably confine itself to business news – pure propaganda without a shred of evidence. A feeble attempt to keep the Americans out of it, without whose help this attack would not have been possible.

This was followed shortly afterwards by a major attack by Israel on Iran. TheTimes of Israel boasted that the US, together with the Israelis, had carried out a multi-layered disinformation campaign to make the Iranians believe that an attack was not imminent. This report is credible, as Trump made no attempt to hide US complicity in the Israeli attack on Iran at the end of the week.

That’s not all, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio denied US involvement, saying:

“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.”

Marco Rubio – 13. Juni 2025

This proves that the Americans certainly had a hand in this deadly game and that the Trump administration cannot even manage to coordinate coherently within its own team. Not a sign of professionalism.

A few hours ago, a 180 from Trump:

“The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight. If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before. However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and… pic.twitter.com/9F10xj1xU8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 15, 2025

It’s clear that there’s no hope of finding out anymore what the President of the US believes and does. What a joy to negotiate with such a person.

Unclear developments in the Middle East

We can confirm with depressing certainty that it is very possible that the final chapter of the series of wars launched by the US has begun in the Middle East. Please refer to our article “Bloodbaths change the world – Part 2 – 9/11”, where General Clark provided information about the US’s real intentions and plans in 2007:

The target countries were: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan – and finally Iran.

Instead of five years in which the US wanted to “pacify” these countries, almost 25 years have now passed. But it seems that the Americans have fulfilled Netanyahu’s wish, who had wanted to attack Iran for 25 years, after all.

Netanyahu is delighted – goal achieved!

A few weeks ago, in the article “Anything is possible – unfortunately”, I categorized the Iran smouldering fire as non-critical. In my analysis, I assumed that the Americans were not naive enough to allow themselves to be drawn into such a catastrophic war based on a delusion and Netanyahu’s fantasies of empire. Perhaps the naive person was myself.

It is not yet clear how many levels of escalation will be exceeded in the coming days. After this attack, however, Iran will have to respond militarily in a way that will give the Americans and Israelis existential fears. The Americans about their presence in the Middle East and the Israelis about their existence as a state. It seems that the Iranians would in principle be able to inflict huge damage on the US and Israel, as they – unlike Israel and the US – have hypersonic missiles. We will soon see whether they decide to do so and actually have this strike power.

“Rational thinking takes you past the deathbed of diplomacy and straight onto the wrong track.”

The danger of this conflict turning into a death struggle between two countries should not be dismissed out of hand. Netanyahu has always been a psychopath and sociopath; the genocide in Gaza is testimony to this. Now, however, this megalomaniac is also in a serious political and health crisis. He will therefore not have the slightest problem setting the entire Middle East, his own homeland or even the entire world on fire.

The Americans are known for completely overestimating themselves; the never-ending series of lost wars since 1945 are testimony to this. Add to this the sinister influence of the Zionists on American foreign policy. I will refrain from using rational arguments to predict future developments. Rational thinking takes you past the deathbed of diplomacy and straight onto the wrong track.

How will Russia react?

Russian confidence in the US has already suffered severely as a result of the Ukrainian drone attack, yet the Russians are continuing diplomatic efforts without feeling any pressure as time plays in Russia’s favor. The longer the war in Ukraine lasts, the less there will be left of Ukraine.

Relations between Iran and Russia are close. Both are full members of BRICS and the SCO and good relations are beneficial for both countries, also because of the NSTC (North South Transport Corridor). Russia will stand by Iran in this conflict, diplomatically, logistically and possibly by supplying weapons. If there is a war between the US and Iran, I doubt that the Russians will enter the war alongside Iran, as this would make World War 3 a fact.

How will China react?

China is also closely linked to Iran, also through BRICS, SCO and Iran’s oil supplies to China. China’s dependence on Iran’s oil is considerable, but not threatening. China mainly imports oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia. Russia. I rule out the possibility of China going to war alongside Iran for the same reasons as I did with Russia.

Strait of Hormuz

If Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, this will lead to instability in the Western financial markets, which could be dangerous. The Strait of Hormuz is the most important transportation route for oil on our planet. 20% of global production flows through this strait. The price of oil shot up by 14% on Friday and closed 7% higher. If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, oil prices of USD 150 to 200 will be possible. That would be poison for the already unstable financial markets.

Diplomacy on the deathbed

When Donald Trump took office for his second term, he promised his people and the entire world that he would not only bring peace, but also prevent wars. These were not just empty promises, but probably lies.

While it was still possible to speculate about Trump’s personal knowledge of the drone attack on Russia, the American president dropped the mask when it came to Iran. The faint hope in Moscow and Tehran that Donald Trump was actually interested in a peaceful settlement of the conflict has been dashed. Although Trump would like to conclude agreements, he is not seeking a diplomatic solution but is presenting conditions that are unacceptable to the other side and is “convincing” his interlocutors not with diplomacy but with brute force.

In addition, he is using dirty tricks to pull the wool over the eyes of Iran and Russia. Iran is led to believe that no attack is imminent and the Ukrainian attack takes place the day before negotiations in Istanbul – in full knowledge and probably coordinated by the Americans.

The damage that the Israelis have inflicted on Iran appears to be considerable, as numerous senior officers of the Iranian armed forces have been deliberately killed. The damage done in Russia by Ukraine is of no military significance. However, by far the greatest damage was done to diplomacy.

In a great interview with Judge Napolitano, John Mearsheimer said out loud what the world needs to get used to.

“Any country on the planet to trust the United States is remarkably foolish.”

John J. Mearsheimer – 13. Juni 2025

Henry Kissinger is credited with the following apt phrase: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”.

In addition to military conflicts, Donald Trump is also fueling other wars. The trade war with China and many other countries that Trump has started will have a poor chance of being settled soon. Trump announced three days ago:

“Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval from President Xi and me,”

Donald Trump

However, this is typical Donald Trump marketing bluster. An agreement has not yet been reached and Chinese enthusiasm appears to be rather modest. The China Morning Post reports that despite an invitation from his American counterpart Donald Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping will not travel to the United States in September for the UN General Assembly, which would have been the earliest opportunity for such a visit, according to sources. It is June, and the Chinese paper assumes that this meeting will probably take place in November. This is what a cold shower from Beijing feels like.

I may have been wrong in my risk assessment of Iran, but my statements in our article “Mar-al-Lago will fail – nothing works without credibility” from May 7 seem to be more topical than many would like. I argue that the biggest problem facing the US – and the entire Collective West – is the instability of the financial markets. The intended reorganization of the global economic order can only be achieved through negotiations with many partners. The days when the US could dictate to the rest of the world what should happen are over. The US’s position of power during the Bretton Woods negotiations no longer exists and Donald Trump has shown in the last few days that he does not deserve goodwill.

Conclusion

The behavior of the Trump administration in the last few days confirms all those voices that did not trust the hegemon despite the feigned turnaround from Washington.

I don’t know to what extent a bloody war between Israel and Iran lasting years can be prevented. The Iranians will no longer trust the Americans and the Americans will probably soon realize that they allowed themselves to be dragged into this war by Netanyahu. A war that could not only cause lasting damage to the Middle East and the Western financial markets, but also has the potential that I don’t even want to write about.

The Russians will continue to negotiate professionally, both with Ukraine and with the US. From the Russian perspective, form will be maintained. However, the Russians have no illusions about a negotiated peace. They are creating facts on the battlefield and will accept Ukraine’s declaration of surrender at the appropriate time.

In the long term, however, America will be the biggest loser in this smear theater organized by Donald Trump. Even the greatest optimists will no longer trust the US for a long time. The realists have known this for a long time: History teaches that there is no country that has broken more agreements than the US. From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various indigenous peoples on the North American continent. How did that turn out for the indigenous peoples?

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