63.4 F
Chicago
Monday, September 21, 2026
Home Blog Page 1606

France Surpasses Germany As Europe’s Top Asylum Destination So Far This Year

France Surpasses Germany As Europe’s Top Asylum Destination So Far This Year

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Germany is no longer the leading destination for asylum seekers in Europe, according to an internal EU Commission report accessed by Welt am Sonntag.

In the first quarter of the year, asylum applications in Germany dropped by 41 percent compared to the same period in 2024, falling to just over 37,000.

France received the most applications (40,871), followed by Spain (39,318).

The decline has pushed Germany down to third place among European countries, as migration flows shift across the continent.

In contrast, Hungary and Slovakia received the fewest asylum requests at just 22 and 37 applications, respectively.

Across the EU, along with Norway and Switzerland, authorities registered over 210,000 asylum applications in the first quarter — a decrease of 19 percent year-on-year.

The latest data reveals significant changes in where asylum seekers are coming from. Venezuelan nationals filed the most applications so far this year, marking a 44 percent rise. Afghans and Syrians followed, though notably, the number of Syrian applicants has dropped by over half compared to last year. Similar declines were recorded for applicants from Colombia and Turkey.

Despite the drop in Syrian requests, however, Germany remained the go-to destination for those heading to Europe — more than half of all Syrian applications across the EU were submitted in Germany, accounting for a quarter of all asylum applications in the country.

Afghan and Turkish nationals made up significant portions as well, while France has emerged as the main destination for Ukrainian asylum seekers, whose numbers rose by 84 percent.

Sweeping asylum reforms will change the landscape further next year with the implementation of the EU’s controversial migration pact. The legislation obliges all member states to take their fair share of asylum seekers or pay financial penalties for each migrant they refuse to the tune of €20,000 per person.

Brussels is also exploring the viability of offshore processing centers, following the lead of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her deal with Albania, though no major progress on this plan has been made to date.

The migration pact has been met with stiff opposition, particularly in Eastern European nations where socially conservative views are more represented at a national level.

Both Hungary and Slovakia have refused to comply with the redistribution of migrants, while Poland has also expressed its unwillingness to cooperate.

“We won’t build camps in Hungary. Our voters have given us a clear mandate against this,” Hungary’s Minister for European Affairs, János Bóka, told Welt am Sonntag.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Fri, 04/11/2025 – 05:00

Global Executions Hit Highest Level Since 2015

Global Executions Hit Highest Level Since 2015

Amnesty International recorded 1,518 executions under the death penalty worldwide in 2024, marking an increase of 32 percent since the year before when 1,153 people were put to death. This marks the highest execution level since 2015.

Three countries – Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia – accounted for 91 percent of all known executions, together totalling 1,380. Egypt, Singapore and Yemen also recorded significant increases, while Somalia had a decrease.

In the United States, 2024 saw 25 executions nationwide, which is an increase from the 24 put to death the year before. The states of Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah resumed executions.

Last year, 637 executions were known to have been carried out unlawfully for drug-related offenses, including in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. 

Meanwhile, eight people were executed for crimes that took place when they were below 18 years old.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the following chart, while the absolute death count has been rising, the number of countries that carry out the death penalty has fallen.

Infographic: Global Executions Hit Highest Level Since 2015 | Statista 

You will find more infographics at Statista

Last year, 15 countries carried out executions, down from 40 nations in 1997. 

Although still high, the number of new death sentences imposed also fell year-on-year from 2,428 across 52 countries in 2023 to 2,087 across 46 countries in 2024.

China is thought to be the most serious executioner, with deaths expected to be in their thousands. 

The chart excludes these figures, however, as the secrecy of the state means that exact death count remains unknown. 

Figures are also unknown for North Korea and Vietnam, meaning that Amnesty’s total yearly figures represent the minimum values.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 04/11/2025 – 04:15

Ten Environmentalist Myths

Ten Environmentalist Myths

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

The first Earth Day was organized in 1970 in response to growing public concern for the environment. Many of these concerns were entirely justified. In 1969, for example, an oil slick along an industrialized stretch of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire, generating national awareness of the need to reduce water pollution. Similarly, in coastal cities in California, most notably in Los Angeles, the exhaust from unleaded gasoline created air pollution so dense you couldn’t see the hills a few miles away.

We’ve come a long way in 51 years. This month, as Americans celebrate Earth Day on April 22, we are challenged to differentiate between legitimate environmental priorities and those priorities chosen for us by special interests with ulterior motives for whom environmentalism is a sentiment to be manipulated.

Here are ten issues where environmentalism has been misused, with consequences that have either been of no benefit whatsoever to the environment or have even caused harm.

(1) We are in a climate crisis

We may as well begin with the most controversial environmentalist claim, that our planet is at imminent risk of catastrophic climate change. The problem with this claim is two-fold. First, there remains vigorous—if suppressed—debate over whether the data actually supports this claim. There is ample evidence that average global temperatures are not rapidly increasing, if they are even increasing at all. There is also strong evidence that extreme weather events are not increasing but rather that our ability to detect them has improved and that population increases have led more people to live in places that are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather. Second, even if there is some truth to the claims of climate catastrophists, it is not possible to precipitously transform our entire energy infrastructure. The technology isn’t ready, the funding isn’t available, and most nations will not participate. Adaptation is our only rational course of action.

(2) There are too many people

Based on extrapolations back in 1970, this may have appeared to be the case because populations worldwide at that time were rapidly growing. But today, in almost every nation, the inverse is now true: birthrates are well below replacement levels. Even in those nations that continue to experience rapid population growth, the rate of growth is following the same pattern of decline. The United Nations now estimates the total global population to top out at around 10 billion people, after which it is projected to decline. This means the rapid population growth we’ve seen over the past two centuries, where the global population octupled from 1 billion in 1804 to over 8 billion by 2024, is over. There is not one trend anywhere on earth that contradicts this pattern. Humanity faces a future of too few people, not too many.

(3) We are running out of “fossil” fuel

While this is technically correct, the situation is nowhere close to what was famously predicted in 1956 by American geologist M. Hubbert, who claimed oil production in the U.S. would peak by 1970 and then slide into permanent decline. In the U.S. and around the world, new technologies and new discoveries have put total reserves of oil, along with natural gas and coal, at record highs despite increasing demand. According to the authoritative Statistical Review on Global Energy, based on current consumption, proven reserves could supply oil for 61 years, natural gas for 50, and coal for 208. This grossly understates the big picture, however, because proven and recoverable reserves are being expanded all the time. “Unproven” reserves, waiting to be discovered, will easily double the amount of time left. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to research new sources of energy. But we have a century or more to sort this out.

(4) Biofuel is renewable and sustainable

Nothing could be further from the truth. Biofuel will never supply more than a small fraction of our energy requirements, and attempts to scale it beyond a niche product have produced catastrophic results. Just to use California as an example, the current yield of ethanol from a corn crop stands at not quite 500 gallons per acre. Californians consumed 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline in 2023. Since ethanol has 33 percent less energy per gallon than conventional gasoline, that means replacing gasoline with carbon-neutral ethanol would require 20.3 billion gallons of ethanol production, which in turn would require 63,400 square miles of irrigated farmland and over 120 million acre-feet of water per crop. To put this in perspective, California’s entire expanse of irrigated farmland only totals around 14,000 square miles, and California’s entire agricultural sector only consumes around 30 million acre-feet of water per year. Worldwide, biofuel crops already consume an estimated 500,000 square miles while only offsetting 2 percent of the global consumption of transportation fuel.

(5) Offshore wind energy is renewable and sustainable

Absolutely not. Wind turbine blades, on land or offshore, routinely kill raptors, condors, and other magnificent endangered birds, along with bats and insects. Offshore, there are additional harmful impacts. Electromagnetic fields from undersea cables produce birth deformities in marine life and produce magnetic fields that disrupt the orientation abilities of some fish. Their low-frequency operational noise disrupts sounds made by fish for mating, spawning, and navigating. The turbines “increase sea surface temperatures and alter upper-ocean hydrodynamics in ways scientists do not yet understand” and “whip up sea sediment and generate highly turbid wakes that are 30-150 meters wide and several kilometers in length, having a major impact on primary production by phytoplankton, which are the base of marine food chains.” California’s official plan is to install 25,000 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in floating wind farms 20 miles offshore. At 10 megawatts each, California’s treasured marine ecosystem will be disrupted by the presence of somewhere between 2,500 floating wind turbines, each one nearly 1,000 feet high. They will need 7,500 tethering cables descending 4,000 feet to the seafloor, along with 2,500 high-voltage cables. Expect ratepayers and taxpayers to subsidize a project that could cost $300 billion or more to build systems that may only have a lifespan of 10-20 years.

(6) Renewables are renewable

No. They’re not. Renewables most in favor with environmentalists are solar and wind farms with battery farms to store the intermittently generated electricity. Just the consumption of natural resources to build these renewables is hardly sustainable. For example, using data from the International Energy Agency, geopolitical writer Peter Ziehan calculated the mineral requirements for power generation, comparing renewables to natural gas in terms of kilograms of minerals per megawatt of capacity. Offshore wind: 16,000 kg/MW, onshore wind: 10,000 kg/MW, solar photovoltaic: 7,000 kg/MW, and natural gas: 2,000 kg/MW. Compounding this disparity is the fact that natural gas power plants can operate for 60 years or more, whereas solar installations are operable for 30 years at most, and wind turbines substantially less than that, depending on where they’re situated. As for EVs, Ziehan calculated kilograms of minerals per vehicle, with EVs requiring over 200 kg/vehicle, compared to conventional cars at only 35 kg/vehicle. It’s easy enough to see what this means. Replacing conventional energy with “renewables” has ignited an expansion of worldwide mining in nations with minimal environmental protections.

(7) Renewables can replace fossil fuels

Not anytime soon. Worldwide, in 2022, 82 percent of global energy was still derived from fossil fuels. For everyone on earth to consume half as much energy per capita as Americans, global energy production will have to double. Based on those two cold facts, fossil fuels are going to be around for a very long time. Even these statistics understate the challenge. In 2023, most of the non-fossil fuel energy produced was from either nuclear (4.0 percent) or hydroelectric (6.8 percent) sources, leaving only 7.5 percent from allegedly renewable sources. And of the remaining 7.5 percent “renewables,” two-thirds of it was biofuel production, which should not be considered renewable or, at the very least, must be considered already at maximum capacity. That leaves only about 2.5 percent of worldwide energy production coming from renewables, if you want to call them that, primarily wind, solar, and geothermal sources.

(8) New housing must be confined to the footprint of existing cities

This is not true for California, nor for the United States, and not even worldwide. Nonetheless, urban containment has been enforced in California ever since we stopped investing in expanding our energy, water, and transportation infrastructure, resulting in 94 percent of the population living on only 5 percent of the land. But urban containment isn’t necessary to ensure enough farm production. Even India, the most densely populated large nation on earth, where there are 2,700 people per square mile of farmland, is a net food exporter. In California, the alleged need for urban containment is truly ridiculous. Building new homes for ten million new California residents on quarter-acre lots, with four-person households, and allocating an equivalent amount for schools, parks, roads, and retail and commercial areas would only consume 1,953 square miles. This would only increase California’s urban footprint from 7,800 to 9,700 square miles, i.e., from 5.0 percent to 6.2 percent of all land in the state. The global trend is people voluntarily migrating to cities at the same time as the global population is expected to begin to decline within a few decades. There will be plenty of room for farms and wilderness even if cities are permitted to expand. Keeping cities bottled up is misanthropic and misguided, creating artificially high home prices and unwanted overcrowding.

(9) Mass transit is necessary to achieve sustainability

It’s hard to imagine a claim more at odds with reality. Mass transit works in extremely dense urban areas where most jobs are located in a central core. With rare exceptions, such as Manhattan, most metropolitan areas no longer have this hub-and-spoke model, which renders economically viable mass transit extremely difficult. Then there are the challenges introduced during the COVID pandemic, which drove millions of riders out of mass transit to either commute in private cars or work from home. Ridership never recovered. An additional barrier to the readoption of mass transit is the fact that most cities are unwilling to police and remove disruptive individuals from the buses and trains, rendering their systems too dangerous for potential passengers to consider. Finally, along with now-mature work-from-home technology that is only going to improve, we have innovations just around the corner that will enable smart cars to convoy at higher speeds, increasing the capacity of existing roads, as well as a revolution in passenger drones that will take additional pressure off roads. Why would someone ride mass transit when they can relax while their own smart vehicle drives them point-to-point with no interruptions? And why should taxpayers subsidize mass transit?

(10) Wilderness areas are sacred

This mantra has caused more harm than good to the wilderness. Litigation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act has severely restricted, if not put a complete stop to, logging on public land, although the current White House administration is trying to change that. Since then, over the past 40 years, because fires were suppressed and logging didn’t remove new growth, our forests have become overgrown, resulting in catastrophic fires. Similarly, ESA litigation and environmentalist-inspired regulations put a stop to dredging in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which was the only way to maintain deep, cool channels favored by salmon ever since the construction of levees in the 1800s caused silt deposits to accumulate in what remained of their migration routes. It is important to protect truly endangered species, but environmentalists often create bigger problems. Poverty in Africa could be alleviated if environmental restrictions on energy development were lifted. But as it is, in desperate poverty, Africans are cutting down their forests for firewood, hunting wild game for food, and poaching dwindling herds of elephants, rhinos, lions, and other precious and endangered species for sale to international smugglers. How we manage our wilderness must be revisited with a reality-based emphasis on results, not ideology. Moreover, an encouraging fact is that while total forest cover in the world was in decline for many centuries, over the past 40 years, it has been increasing. This is the result of several factors: reforestation efforts, migration to urban areas, which depopulates forest regions; huge improvements in agricultural productivity, which takes farmland out of production, allowing for forests to reclaim the land; and maybe even slightly elevated atmospheric CO₂, which is plant food.

The ideals of environmentalism ought to inspire everyone, but the policies promulgated in the name of environmentalism are all too often actually hurting the environment. Examples are the mad rush to develop renewables and the power of the “climate crisis” narrative to deter rational cost/benefit analysis of environmentalist policies. The impact of misguided environmentalism is not merely the fate of wildlife and wilderness or the health of global ecosystems. It is also economic and, in practice, has led to profound transfers of wealth as entrenched special interests thrive on escalating regulations that only the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals can navigate. Worldwide, entire industrial sectors are consolidated, costing nations the resilience and affordability that a diverse and competitive economy can deliver. Environmentalism, as it is practiced in the 21st century, is an arm of globalism, with shades of paternalism and colonialism that often overshadow its virtues.

The ten myths identified above are some of the fundamental premises of environmentalism, and they are flawed. They are exploited by special interests for profit and control. Our challenge is to restore environmentalism to its honorable roots. We have to recognize and reject these flawed premises wherever they are applied. We have to recognize and restructure our regulatory environment to take away the incentives for opportunism and manipulation. We have to nurture prosperity through diverse, competitive national economies, recognizing that through prosperity, we find the resources to invest in genuinely clean and sustainable technology, as well as the funds to engage in practical environmental protection.

For Earth Day to remain relevant, we have to rescue environmentalism from what it has become: a manipulative tool that corporations use to corner markets and charge more. This will not be easy. But we may begin by challenging the myths.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 04/11/2025 – 03:30

Mapping Happiness Levels Across Europe

Mapping Happiness Levels Across Europe

Europe is consistently one of the happiest regions in the world, second only to Oceania.

While many Europeans benefit from strong social support systems and relatively high incomes compared to other regions, happiness levels vary significantly across the continent.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, showcases the findings for European countries from the 2025 World Happiness Report, an annual publication that measures global contentment based on life evaluations, social support, freedom of choice, GDP per capita, and additional indicators of well-being.

The data is drawn from the Gallup World Poll and various supplementary sources.

Each nation’s score in the World Happiness Report reflects an average of life evaluations over a three-year span (2022–2024 for this edition), ranking countries from highest to lowest. A more detailed explanation of the report’s methodology can be found at the end of this article.

The Most and Least Happy Countries in Europe 2025

Below, we show the happiness scores of European countries from the World Happiness Report 2025.

Global Rank Country Average Happiness Score (2022-2024)
1 🇫🇮 Finland 7.7
2 🇩🇰 Denmark 7.5
3 🇮🇸 Iceland 7.5
4 🇸🇪 Sweden 7.3
5 🇳🇱 Netherlands 7.3
7 🇳🇴 Norway 7.3
9 🇱🇺 Luxembourg 7.1
13 🇨🇭 Switzerland 6.9
14 🇧🇪 Belgium 6.9
15 🇮🇪 Ireland 6.9
16 🇱🇹 Lithuania 6.8
17 🇦🇹 Austria 6.8
19 🇸🇮 Slovenia 6.8
20 🇨🇿 Czechia 6.8
22 🇩🇪 Germany 6.8
23 🇬🇧 United Kingdom 6.7
26 🇵🇱 Poland 6.7
29 🇽🇰 Kosovo 6.7
31 🇷🇸 Serbia 6.6
33 🇫🇷 France 6.6
35 🇷🇴 Romania 6.6
38 🇪🇸 Spain 6.5
39 🇪🇪 Estonia 6.4
40 🇮🇹 Italy 6.4
48 🇲🇹 Malta 6.3
50 🇸🇰 Slovakia 6.2
51 🇱🇻 Latvia 6.2
56 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina 6.1
60 🇵🇹 Portugal 6.0
66 🇷🇺 Russia 5.9
67 🇨🇾 Cyprus 5.9
69 🇭🇺 Hungary 5.9
71 🇲🇪 Montenegro 5.9
72 🇭🇷 Croatia 5.9
80 🇲🇩 Moldova 5.8
81 🇬🇷 Greece 5.8
85 🇧🇬 Bulgaria 5.6
86 🇲🇰 North Macedonia 5.5
89 🇦🇱 Albania 5.4
91 🇬🇪 Georgia 5.4
111 🇺🇦 Ukraine 4.7

Finland continues its reign as the happiest country in the world for its eighth consecutive year. Access to nature, high levels of trust and freedom in its society, and a strong welfare system all contribute to its high ranking.

Six of the 10 happiest countries in the world are in Europe, including all five Nordic countries: Finland (#1), Denmark (#2), Iceland, (#3), Sweden (#4), and Norway (#7). The Netherlands (#5) and Luxembourg (#9) round out the list.

Nordic countries have consistently ranked among the happiest in the world due to their strong social safety nets, emphasis on work-life balance, high levels of trust and social cohesion, and low levels of income inequality.

Additionally, several European cities ranked in The Economist’s top 10 most livable cities in the world in 2024, including Vienna, Copenhagen, and Zurich which made up the top three spots.

On the other end, Ukraine continues to be the unhappiest country in Europe amid its ongoing war with Russia, which has devastated its economy through massive GDP losses and infrastructure destruction, displaced millions of citizens, and caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

To compare country happiness rankings from a different region, check out this graphic that visualizes the happiness levels across the Americas.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 04/11/2025 – 02:45

AfD Tops Polls For First Time In History As Merz’s Public Support For Chancellor Plummets

AfD Tops Polls For First Time In History As Merz’s Public Support For Chancellor Plummets

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the most popular party nationwide for the first time in its history, edging past the CDU/CSU in the latest Ipsos poll.

The survey, conducted April 4–5, 2025, shows the AfD at 25 percent, just ahead of the CDU/CSU at 24 percent. The polling marks a dramatic turnaround since February’s federal election, when the Christian Democrats attained 29 percent and the AfD came second, four points behind.

Meanwhile, the SPD holds 15 percent, and both the Greens and the Left Party are at 11 percent each.

These numbers come amid growing dissatisfaction with CDU leader Friedrich Merz. According to a separate Forsa poll for RTL and ntv, only 32 percent of Germans believe Merz is suited for the office of chancellor, while 60 percent say he is not. This marks a steep decline from early March, when 40 percent still had confidence in him.

Merz’s numbers are even worse in East Germany, where just 19 percent see him as a good future chancellor, compared to 34 percent in the West. Only among Union voters does Merz enjoy solid support, with 69 percent considering him a strong candidate. Among supporters of other parties, skepticism is widespread: 69 percent of SPD voters, 71 percent of Green voters, and 84 percent of AfD voters say Merz is unfit for the role. Among Left Party voters, that number climbs to 85 percent.

“The majority of voters doubt that the black-red agreement is moving in the right direction,” said Hermann Binkert, head of the INSA polling institute, referring to ongoing negotiations over a possible Grand Coalition between the CDU and SPD.

Voter frustration is also being stoked by the controversial €500 billion investment fund, approved with backing from the CDU, SPD, and Greens. Viewed as a signal of increased spending and mounting debt, the fund has intensified criticism of the political establishment.

FDP senior figure Wolfgang Kubicki recently issued a warning to Germany’s legacy parties, saying the country is on the verge of a political revolution. “An AfD chancellor is closer than we think,” Kubicki said. “The vast majority of German citizens have recently voted somehow right-wing. Now, however, they threaten to get left-wing politics. That can’t go on for much longer.”

Following February’s election result, AfD co-leader Alice Weidel accused Merz of betraying his voters by cozying up to left-wing parties.

“If the CDU commits electoral fraud against its own voters by forming a coalition with the left, the next election will come sooner than you think,” she warned. “Then, we will overtake the CDU as the strongest force!”

Coalition talks between the SPD and the CDU continued long into the night on Tuesday, with an announcement on the next federal government expected in the coming days.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Fri, 04/11/2025 – 02:00

US Geopolitical Chess: Strategies Against China, Russia, And Iran

US Geopolitical Chess: Strategies Against China, Russia, And Iran

Authored by Yang Wei via The Epoch Times,

As the United States brokers a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine, the Trump administration’s unique strategies toward China, Russia, and Iran are becoming more apparent. 

At the same time, the administration is redefining alliances while urging partners to step up their defense instead of depending on America’s traditional generosity.

This multifaceted strategy aims to reshape the global order by isolating the three adversaries of the United States, with the ultimate goal of delivering a decisive blow to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Russia Strategy

President Donald Trump is focused on quickly resolving the Russia–Ukraine conflict by providing Moscow with a way out while maintaining pressure on the CCP, which remains his main target. After taking office, he shifted U.S. policy toward Russia, incorporating a mix of incentives and some level of coercion, with a stronger emphasis on the former. This strategy has yielded positive results, initiating discussions for a cease-fire.

On Jan. 22, just days into his presidency, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform: “I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous war! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. If we don’t make a ‘deal,’ and soon, I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries. Let’s get this war, which never would have started if I were President, over with!” 

The Kremlin responded swiftly. On Feb. 12, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone, agreeing to start negotiations right away to halt the conflict, breaking a diplomatic stalemate.

On Feb. 18, the U.S. and Russian teams met in Saudi Arabia, resuming normal engagement and laying the groundwork for cease-fire discussions. By March 18, a second call between Trump and Putin focused on halting attacks on energy infrastructure. This initiated technical talks regarding a maritime cease-fire in the Black Sea, a broader truce, and a lasting peace deal.

On March 25, the White House detailed separate U.S. meetings with Russia and Ukraine, securing safe Black Sea navigation and a mutual pledge to spare energy infrastructure. The United States also committed to aiding Russia’s agricultural and fertilizer exports while helping Ukraine recover detained civilians and children displaced by Russia.

The next steps will likely address issues related to territorial borders, peacekeeping, sanctions relief, and security guarantees. As long as Moscow is cooperative, Trump will prefer to offer incentives. However, if Russia adopts a more rigid position, he is prepared to walk away, compelling the Kremlin to consider its alternatives—especially in light of potential betrayal by Beijing. Trump’s strategy focuses on creating a rift between Russia and China while simultaneously applying pressure on both nations.

China Strategy

Regarding the CCP, Trump employs a dual approach of intense pressure and selective engagement. 

Tariffs lead the charge. Citing China’s failure to stem fentanyl flows into the United States, he imposed an additional 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports effective on March 4. 

Moreover, G7 ministers, during a meeting in Canada on March 14, issued a statement that hardened their position on the Chinese regime’s trade practices, military expansion, and regional tensions. Notably, the joint statement did not reference the “One China” policy, indicating support for Taiwan’s participation in global organizations. Washington likely influenced this shift.

These actions rattled the CCP, yet Trump had sought to engage with Beijing.

In December, the U.S. president invited CCP leader Xi Jinping to his inauguration; however, Xi declined the invitation and sent his deputy, Han Zheng, in his place. The idea of a meeting between Xi and Trump generated significant interest, but it appeared that the White House was merely trying to gauge reactions and test the waters.

On March 22, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) visited Beijing, where he discussed the issue of fentanyl with Vice Premier He Lifeng and suggested the possibility of future high-level talks. Later, Daines also met with Chinese Premier Li Qiang, who told the United States to opt for “dialogue” rather than “confrontation.”

Yet Beijing’s actions suggest resistance. On March 24, it enacted an anti-foreign sanctions law, signaling defiance. 

Washington acted quickly. The next day, the United States added 42 Chinese entities to its export restriction list and imposed a 25 percent tariff on all goods imported from those countries that purchase Venezuelan oil, essentially halting China’s purchases.

Beijing remains resolute in its stance against the United States. A virtual meeting on March 26 between U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng resulted in no progress. Additionally, Li Ka-shing’s sale of Panama Canal port rights to BlackRock on March 4 drew late criticism from Beijing, but this response came too late to be of any significance.

Iran Strategy

Trump has not overlooked Iran, especially following the country’s naval drills with China and Russia on March 9.

The U.S. president sent a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in early March, seeking to negotiate a deal to restrain Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

However, Khamenei rejected direct negotiations with the United States over the issue, saying, “Some foreign governments and domineering figures insist on negotiations, while their goal is not to resolve issues but to exert control and impose their own agendas.”

On March 15, as the trilateral exercise ended, U.S. forces struck Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared it a warning to Tehran: “An era of peace, through strength, is back.”

Trump followed up with a social media post on March 17, vowing “great force” against Houthi retaliation and holding Iran accountable for arming the terrorist group. Two days later, he demanded Iran halt supplies “immediately,” predicting the Houthis’s swift defeat.

The strikes served a dual purpose: they sent a message to Beijing and Moscow. Following a meeting on March 14 in Beijing that involved representatives from China, Russia, and Iran discussing Tehran’s nuclear program, Trump’s escalation with the Houthis undermined Beijing’s mediation efforts. As U.S.–Russia–Ukraine discussions progressed in Saudi Arabia, it highlighted Trump’s willingness to pivot against Moscow if necessary.

Trump is playing a different game with China, Russia, and Iran to divide them, aiming to hit the CCP the hardest.

The Bigger Picture

In a chaotic, uncertain world, Trump effectively utilizes every available resource. The United States must bring all its resources together to confront the CCP. The sooner America’s allies and partners understand this strategy and offer their support, the faster the CCP will weaken and potentially collapse.

Once the CCP falls, Russia will lack the means to sustain its war efforts, Iran will find itself without a backer, and terrorist organizations will struggle to survive. Only then can global stability be restored, the international order reestablished, and nations begin to enjoy a peaceful existence.

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

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/10/2025 – 23:25

Most Americans Now Have Negative View Of Israel – Under-50 GOP Support Craters

Most Americans Now Have Negative View Of Israel – Under-50 GOP Support Craters

While the Trump administration earnestly redistributes billions of dollars of American wealth to Israel, that country’s immensely-destructive war in Gaza appears to be taking a growing toll on its support among Americans. According to the latest Pew Research survey, a majority of Americans now have an unfavorable view of Israel. In a finding that will cause the greatest alarm in Israeli government offices and at US-based pro-Israel organizations, there’s now a huge generational divide within the GOP ranks. 

53% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of Israel, thanks to the share of Americans with dim views of Israel surging by 11 points in three years. The comparison point is Pew’s survey in March 2022, seven months before the Oct 7 Hamas invasion of southern Israel sparked a massive military response that’s killed more than 50,000 Palestinians — about a third of them under 18 — according to health officials in Gaza. Over the same span, the proportion of Americans with “very unfavorable” views of Israel has almost doubled from 10% to 19%

Source: Pew Research

Extending back several years, support for Israel had started to sharply polarize along major-party lines, with Democrats’ affinity for Israel plummeting while GOP support held relatively steady. In the Pew survey‘s most striking statistic of all, disdain for the State of Israel among Republicans under age 50 has soared 15 points in three years, which could signal that support for Israel is poised for a bipartisan decline for years to come. Among Republicans and Republican leaners age 50 and older, unfavorable views of Israel crept up just four points since 2022, from 19% to 23%. Among the under-50 GOP set, it rose from 35% to 50%. 

Democrats’ low views of Israel also surged higher over the three-year interval: 69% have an unfavorable view in 2025, up 16 points from 2022. On that side of party divide, age is much less of a factor: 66% of age-50+ Dems have a negative view of Israel, compared to 71% for those 18 to 49.  

Pew also found interesting distinctions among views held by Americans as divided by religious affiliations. One of the key pillars of Israeli political influence inside the United States is white evangelical protestants, and 72% of them accordingly view Israel favorably today. Non-evangelical protestants are net-negative on Israel by a small 50% to 47% margin, while Catholics take a dim view of Israel by a more substantial 53% to 43% spread. 73% of Jews are favorable, but a quite-substantial 27% give a thumbs-down to the self-declared “Jewish state.” 

Source: Pew Research

Pew’s survey didn’t probe the factors driving rising negative views of Israel, but it’s safe to say the major shift springs from Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. Beyond the war per se, the exposure of that war’s horrors on social media platforms has also been decisive in our view, with Americans having access to raw portrayals of the bloodshed and suffering, including reporting from alternative and foreign media outlets that shines a light on the high civilian death toll, destruction of hospitals, mass-displacement from homes, hunger and disease. 

Ironically, many of the most damning social-media glimpses into the Israeli Defense Forces’ conduct of the war have come from IDF soldiers themselves, who’ve shared photos and videos of themselves gleefully destroying entire neighborhoods in Gaza, maliciously smashing shops, destroying personal property, and weirdly dressing up in women’s underwear left behind in the homes of fleeing Palestinians.   

That’s not to say mainstream media hasn’t also played a role in Israel’s surging unpopularity in the United States. One of the most unsettling reports of the war was aired by CBS Sunday Morning, which featured the accounts of American doctors who’d volunteered in Gaza and were stunned by the number of children with headshot and other disturbing wounds.  

As for younger Republicans, whether or not they have empathy for Palestinian civilians, many under-50 GOP voters no doubt see America’s open-checkbook support for Israel as inconsistent with the “America First” philosophy that’s supposed to underpin Trumpian Republicanism. In a move last month that surely aggravated them, fresh after amusingly humiliating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky en route to ending the money-pit that is the proxy war against Russia, the Trump administration turned around and used emergency authorities to ship off another $4 billion in military aid to Israel. 

As today’s under-50 crowd proceeds to dominates the Republican electorate, those moves could start to become a political liability for GOP officials who’ve been conditioned to expect Red-Team praise for sending US wealth, weapons and soldiers to the Middle East to advance Israel’s agenda. If rank-and-file Republicans increasingly embrace George Washington’s advice to avoid “passionate attachments” that make the United States “a slave to its fondness,” a seismic shift in the 77-year US-Israel relationship could be in the offing.     

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/10/2025 – 23:00

Do You Think You’ll Ever Know, Now That You Have Handed Your Mind To The Machine?

Do You Think You’ll Ever Know, Now That You Have Handed Your Mind To The Machine?

Authored by Edward Curtin via Off-Guardian.org,

We live in a 24/7 media society of the spectacle where brainwashing is cunning and relentless, and the consuming public is consumed with thoughts and perceptions filtered through electronic media according to the needs and lies of corporate state power.

This propaganda comes in two forms: covert and overt. The latter, and most effective form, comes with a large dose of truth offered rapid-fire by celebrated, authoritative voices via prominent media. The truth is sprinkled with subtle messages that render it sterile.

This has long been the case, but it is even more so in the age of images on screens and digital media where words and images flow away like water in a rapidly moving stream. The late sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, updating Marx’s famous quote “all that is solid melts into thin air,” called this “liquid modernity.”

Welcome to Operation Pandemonium

See, these experts purport to say: What we tell you is true, but it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions. You must drink the waters of uncertainty forever lest you become a conspiracy nut. But if you don’t want to be so labelled, accept the simplest explanation for matters that disturb you – Occam’s razor, that the truest answer is the simplest – which is always the official explanation.  If this sounds contradictory, that is because it is. It is meant to be. We induce schizophrenia.

And it is, these experts suggest, because we live in a world where all knowledge is relative, and you, the individual, like Kafka’s country bumpkin, who in his parable “Before the Law,” tries to get past the doorkeeper to enter the inner sanctum of the Law but is never allowed to pass; you, the individual, must accept the futility of your efforts and accede to this dictum that declares that all knowledge is relative, which is ironically an absolute dictum. It is the Law. The Law of contradictions declared from on high.

Many writers, journalists, and filmmakers, while allegedly revealing truths about the U.S. and its allies’ criminal operations at home and abroad, have for decades slyly conveyed the message that in the end “we will never know the truth,” the real facts – that convincing evidence is lacking.

This refusal to come to conclusions is a sly tactic that keeps many careers safe while besmirching, intentionally or not, the names of serious researchers who reach conclusions based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence (the basis for most murder convictions) and detailed, sourced facts, often using the words of the guilty parties themselves, but are dismissed with the CIA weaponized term “conspiracy theorists.”

This often escapes the average person who does not read footnotes and sources, if they even read books. They read screens and the mainstream media, which should now be understood to include much of the “alternative” media. And they watch all sorts of films.

But this “we will never know” meme, this false mystery, is shrewdly and often implicitly joined to another: That we do know because the official explanation of events is true and only nut cases would believe otherwise. Propaganda by paradox.  Operation chaos.

The JFK Assassination and the Release of Files

There are so many examples of this, with that of President Kennedy’s assassination being a foundational one. In this case, as with the current phony Trump release of more JFK assassination files, the ongoing “mystery” is always reinforced with the implicit or explicit presupposition that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, but yet implying that there are more mysteries to explore forever because “people” are paranoid.

(Trump’s position, as he recently told interviewer Clay Travis, is that he has always believed Oswald assassinated Kennedy, but he wonders if he may have had help.)

They are paranoid not because of government and media lies, but because “popular culture” (not highbrow) has created paranoia. To spice this up, there is often the suggestion that President Kennedy was assassinated on the orders of the Mob, LBJ, Cuba, or Israel, when the facts overwhelmingly confirm it was organized and carried out by the CIA. A. O. Scott’s recent front page article in The New York Times in response to the JFK files release – “JFK, Blown Away, What Else Do I Have to Say?” (the title appropriately taken from a very fast-paced Billy Joel song and video) – is a perfect example of such legerdemain.

Thus the ruse to keep debating the assassination, get the latest documents, etc. to satisfy “people’s” insatiable paranoia. To pull out CIA fallback stories 2, 3, or even 4 when all else fails. Dr. Martin Schotz, the JFK researcher, rightly compares this to George Orwell’s definition of Crimestop:

‘Crimestop’ means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, or misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to [the powers that be]… and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. ‘Crimestop’, in short, means protective stupidity.

It’s the crazy people’s fault, not Scott’s or those who back him up at The Times, a newspaper that has been lying about the JFK assassination from day one. The same goes for the assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, et al., and so many key events in U.S. history. It is a game of creating mental chaos by claiming we do know because the official explanation is correct but we don’t know because people have been infected with paranoia. If only people were not so paranoid! Unlike us at The Times, goes the implicit message.

The Epistemological Games of Certain Filmmakers

It is well known that people today are watching far more streaming film series and movies than they are reading books. That someone would lucubrate with pen in hand over a footnoted book on an important issue is now as rare as someone without a cell phone.

The optical-electronic eye-ear screen connection rules most lives, mental and sensory. Marshall McLuhan, if a bit premature while referring in 1962 to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin – the French philosopher, paleontologist, and Jesuit priest – wrote sixty-three years ago in The Gutenberg Galaxy:

Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. [my emphasis] So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence.… Terror is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time.

Four years ago this month, I wrote an article – “You Know We’ll Never Know, Don’t You?” – about a new BBC documentary film series by the acclaimed British filmmaker, Adam Curtis, “Can’t Get You Out of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World.”

The series is a pastiche film filled with seven plus hours of fleeting, fragmented, and fascinating archived video images from the BBC archives where Curtis has worked for decades, accompanied by Curtis’s skeptical commentary about “a world where anything could be anything because there was no meaning anywhere.” These historical images jump from one seemingly disconnected subject to another to reinforce his point. He says it is “pointless to try to understand the meaning of why things happen.” He claims that we are all living as if we are “on an acid trip.”

While not on an acid trip which I have never taken, I was reminded of this recently as I watched a new documentary – Chaos: The Manson Murders (2025) – by the equally famous U.S. documentary filmmaker, Erroll Morris, a film about the CIA’s mind control operation, MKULTRA, and its use of LSD. As everyone knows, the CIA is that way-out hippie organization from Virginia that is always intent on spreading peace, love, and good vibes.

While the content of their films differs, Curtis’s wide-ranging and Morris’s focused on Manson and the book by Tom O’Neil, Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, I was struck by both filmmakers tendency to obfuscate while titillating their audience with footage and information that belies their conclusions about not knowing. In this regard, Curtis is the most overt and extreme.

Morris does not use Curtis’s language, but he makes it explicit at Chaos’s end that he doesn’t believe Tom O’Neill’s argument in his well-researched book that Charles Manson was part of a CIA mind-control experiment led by the psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Jolyon “Jolly” West. West worked in 1967 for the CIA on MKULTRA brainwashing projects in a Haight Ashbury clinic during the summer of love, using LSD and hypnosis, when Manson lived there and was often in the clinic with his followers.

On April 26, 1964, West also just “happened” to visit the imprisoned Jack Ruby, the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald in the Dallas Police Department, and when West emerged from the meeting, he immediately declared that in the preceding 48 hours Ruby had become “positively insane” with no chance that this “unshakeable” and “fixed” lunacy could be reversed. What happened between the two men we do not know – for there were no witnesses – but one might assume West used his hypnotic skills and armamentarium of drugs that were integral to MKULTRA’s methods.

MKULTRA

MKULTRA was a sinister and secret CIA mind-control project, officially started in 1953 but preceded by Operation Bluebird, which was renamed Operation Artichoke. These operations started right after WW II when U.S. intelligence worked with Nazi doctors to torture Russians and others to reveal secrets. They were brutal. MKULTRA was run by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and was even worse. He was known as the “Black Sorcerer.” With the formula for LSD, the CIA had an unlimited amount of the drug to use widely, which it did. It figured prominently in MKULTRA mind control experiments along with hypnosis.

Tom O’Neill sums it up thus:

The agency hoped to produce couriers who could imbed hidden messages in their brains, to implant false memories and remove true ones in people without their awareness, to convert groups to opposing ideologies, and more. The loftiest objective was the creation of hypno-programmed assassins. . . . MKULTRA scientists flouted this code [the Nuremberg Code that emerged from the Nuremberg trials of Nazis] constantly, remorselessly – and in ways that stupefy the imagination. Their work encompassed everything from electronic brain stimulation to sensory deprivation to ‘induced pain’ and ‘psychosis.’ They sought ways to cause heart attacks, severe twitching, and intense cluster headaches. If drugs didn’t do the trick, they’d try master ESP, ultrasonic vibrations, and radiation poisoning. One project tried to harness the power of magnetic fields. [my emphasis]

In 1973 during the Watergate scandal, CIA Director William Helms ordered all MKULTRA documents destroyed. Most were, but some were forgotten, and in the next few years, Seymour Hersh reported about it and the Senate Church Committee went further. They discovered records that implicated forty-four universities and colleges in the experiments, eighty institutions, and 185 researchers, Louis West among them. The evil cat and its large litter were out of the bag.

MKULTRA allegedly ended in 1973. But only the most naïve would think it did not continue under a different form. In 1964, McLuhan wrote that “the medium is the message.” The new medium that was developed in the decades since has been effectively pointed straight at the brain as you watch the screens. And the message?

Tom O’Neill’s Powerful Case

While admitting that he has not conclusively proven his thesis because he has never been able to confirm Manson and West being together, O’Neill amasses a tremendous amount of convincing circumstantial evidence in his book that makes his case very strong that they were, and that Manson’s ability to get his followers to kill for him was the result of MKULTRA mind control and the use of LSD, which he used extensively and which was introduced by the CIA and used by West. Both men had an inexhaustible amount of the mind-altering drug to use on their victims.

This is the subject of Morris’s film, wherein he interviews O’Neill on camera, who explains the extraordinary fact that Manson was able to mesmerize his followers to kill for him without remorse or shame. They “couldn’t get him out of their heads,” even many years later. This was, of course, the goal of MKULTRA – through the use of brainwashing and drugs – to create “Manchurian Candidates.”

This case has much wider ramifications than the sensational 1969 Hollywood murders for which Manson and his followers were convicted; for clearly Manson’s “family” that carried out the murders on his orders appeared in every way to be under hypnotic control. How did a two-bit, ex-con, pipsqueak, minor hanger-on musician learn to accomplish exactly what MKULTRA spent so many years working on?

Yet at the end of his film, Morris makes a concluding comment without even a nod to the possibility that O’Neill is correct. He says he doesn’t believe O’Neill. I found it very odd, jarring, as though O’Neill had been set up for this denouement, which I think he had.

But at the same time I recognized it as Morris’s method of setting up and then undermining the narrative protagonists in his films that are ostensibly about getting to factual truths but never do; they are stories about how all we ever have are endless interpretations and the unknowable, confounded by human fallibility. Everything is lost in the fog of Morris’s method, which is no accident.

Frank Olson

I then found an interview that O’Neill did in 2021 in which he said he pulled out of Morris’s film proposal because Morris wanted to make a film that combined the Frank Olson story (a CIA biologist) with his about Manson.

In the interview, O’Neill said he knew Eric Olson, Frank Olson’s son, who has spent a lifetime proving that the CIA murdered his father in 1953, but he didn’t explain why he pulled out of the project. However, he appears extensively throughout Chaos, being interviewed on camera by Morris, only to be undermined at the end. Why he eventually agreed to be part of the project I do not know.

I am certain he has seen Wormwood (2017), Morris’s acclaimed (they are all acclaimed) Netflix film series about the biologist/ CIA agent Frank Olson and his son, Eric Olson’s heroic lifelong quest to prove that the CIA murdered his father because he had a crisis of conscience about the agency’s use of torture, brainwashing, LSD, and US biological weapons use in Korea, much of it in association with Nazis.

The evidence is overwhelming that Frank Olson did not jump from a NYC hotel window in 1953 but was drugged with LSD to induce hallucinations and paranoia, smashed in the head, and thrown out by the CIA. [Read this and view this] Despite such powerful evidence available to him before making Wormwood, in another example of Morris’s method, he disagrees with Eric Olson’s decades of conclusive research that his father was murdered.

Conclusion

Filmmakers like Adam Curtis and Erroll Morris are examples of a much larger and dangerous phenomenon. Their emphases on the impossibility of knowing – this seeming void in the human mind, an endless acid trip down a road of kaleidoscopic interpretations – is much larger than them. It is deeply imbedded in today’s society.

One of the few areas in which we are said to be able to know anything for certain is in the area of partisan politics. Here knowingness is the rule and the other side is always wrong. Fight, fight, fight for the home team! Here the nostalgia for “knowledge” is encouraged, as if we don’t live in a 24/7 media society of the spectacle where brainwashing is cunning and relentless, and the consuming public is consumed with thoughts and perceptions filtered through electronic media according to the needs and lies of corporate state power.

With the arrival of the electronic digital life, “knowledge” is now screening. If you don’t want to confirm McLuhan’s prediction – “as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside” – it behooves everyone to step back into the lamplight to read and study books. And take a walk in nature without your machine. You might hear a little bird call to you.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/10/2025 – 22:35

America Has Failed To Secure Red Sea Navigation: Houthi Leader

America Has Failed To Secure Red Sea Navigation: Houthi Leader

Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, leader of the Yemen’s Houthi group, is once again directly challenging the United States by essentially declaring victory over US naval operations in the Red Sea.

At this point US Central Command (CENTCOM) has launched literally hundreds of strikes in various places across Yemen over the last three weeks, especially the capital as well as the key port of Hodeidah. Al-Houthi on Thursday declared that the “US failed to prevent military operations and secure maritime navigation for the Israeli enemy.

“Despite all the escalation, the Americans have failed to stop our missile and drone attacks,” he continued. “Failure to support the Palestinian people has serious consequences and emboldens the enemy.”

This week was kicked off with yet more Houthi attacks on US warships in the Red Sea, at a moment a second US aircraft carrier is en route toward Mideast waters:

The Iran-backed Houthis aren’t backing down – at least not yet. Houthi spokesperson Yahya Saree said the Iranian-backed terror group targeted US warships and Israel on Wednesday, adding that some of the attacks involved drones.

“The Yemeni Armed Forces [Houthis] have carried out new drone operations, targeting a US warship in the Red Sea and an Israeli military site in Tel Aviv,” Iranian state media said.

More drone and ballistic missile attacks have also been launched directly on Israel of late. There’s been no evidence that Houthi attacks have so much as slowed due to the ramped-up US operations since March 15.

Fully stamping out the Houthi movement could prove nearly impossible, especially as currently this is limited to an air war. Even the Atlantic Council has admitted that “The United States’ ability to track al-Houthi is likely hindered by limited intelligence on the ground in Yemen.”

“This reality was echoed early last year when the US had difficulty assessing the success of its operations and the group’s full arsenal due to a lack of intelligence,” it stated. “Without a reliable presence or informant network, targeting such a well-hidden leader will prove challenging.”

Washington has constantly highlighted Iranian support to the Houthis, stretching back a period of years. However, it has also become clear that the Houthis’ ability to produce domestic missiles and drones has grown.

General concentration on past Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, via BBC

While the Houthis can be seen as Iranian proxies, it is also clear Houthi leadership often operates independently, while Tehran has also sought to distance itself from being seen as clashing militarily with US forces off Yemen. The US continues to put Tehran in the spotlight, warning it must make a new nuclear deal, or else.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/10/2025 – 22:10

3 Shocking Truths Most People Don’t Know About Money In Bank Accounts…

3 Shocking Truths Most People Don’t Know About Money In Bank Accounts…

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

Henry Ford once astutely observed that a revolution would occur overnight if people truly understood the banking and monetary system.

That’s because modern banking is an elaborate illusion—one that lulls people into a false sense of security… until it’s too late.

Large banks can fail within hours, and life savings can vanish overnight.

The US banking system is particularly vulnerable.

So, why do so many people place their confidence—and life savings—into such a fragile system?

It’s because they don’t understand three fundamental truths about modern banking:

#1. The money isn’t yours.

#2. The money isn’t actually there.

#3. The money isn’t really money.

Truth #1: The Money Isn’t Yours

Many people are shocked to learn they don’t actually own the money in their bank accounts.

Once you deposit money, it’s no longer your personal property—it legally belongs to the bank. And they can do whatever they want with it.

What you do own is simply a promise from the bank—an IOU—to pay you back.

In reality, depositing money is the same as giving the bank an unsecured loan, often with little or no interest to compensate you for the risk.

It’s a fantastic deal for the bank—and a terrible one for you.

That’s why a bank deposit is not the same as cash in hand. Yet most people wrongly treat the two as equivalent.

Worse, banks can freeze “your” money at the push of a button, often for vague or arbitrary reasons.

Maybe you bought something the bank didn’t like. Or perhaps you said something “politically incorrect” on social media. Don’t be surprised if your account gets frozen—or worse.

Take PayPal, for example. They once floated the idea of charging users $2,500 for spreading so-called “misinformation.”

Expect to see more of this behavior from banks and financial institutions in the future.

Because if your money can be frozen or seized on a whim… it was never really yours to begin with.

Truth #2: The Money Isn’t Actually There

The money you think is in your bank account… doesn’t actually exist.

Banks don’t keep physical cash in vaults for each depositor. They don’t even hold enough digital funds to cover a small fraction of withdrawals.

In fact, during the COVID mass psychosis, the US government removed reserve requirements—meaning banks no longer need to keep any funds on hand for withdrawals.

So, where does all the money go?

Behind the scenes, banks use “your” money to place risky bets on speculative investments. They’re gambling with your life savings—often recklessly.

And if just a small percentage of depositors showed up to withdraw their money? Most banks would be in serious trouble… because the money simply isn’t there.

This slimy practice is called fractional reserve banking—and yes, it’s completely legal. But that doesn’t make it any less fraudulent in nature.

Imagine if other industries operated this way.

Picture a car dealership or jewelry store running a “fractional reserve” model—offering 10 times more claims on cars or diamonds than they actually have in inventory.

It would be laughably obvious fraud.

Yet that’s exactly how modern banking operates. It closely resembles a Ponzi scheme—one that depends entirely on the illusion that everyone’s money is available… when it’s not.

Truth #3: The Money Isn’t Really Money

Most people use currency every day but rarely stop to ask: What is money, really?

It’s like asking a fish, “What is water?” The fish doesn’t notice… until something goes wrong.

Money is simply a good—like any other in the economy. And understanding what makes something “good money” is actually pretty straightforward.

You don’t need to study complex equations or economic theory—despite what academics and media elites might claim.

At its core, money is just a tool for storing and exchanging value—a way to send value through time and space.

Think of money as a claim on human time. It’s stored energy or stored life.

Yet today, most people blindly accept whatever paper or digital scrips their governments hand them and call it “money.”

But money doesn’t need to come from the government. That’s a myth.

It’s like asking someone in the old Soviet Union, “Where do shoes come from?” They’d say, “The government makes them—who else would?”

That same mindset exists today—but with money.

Government-issued currency is a terrible store of value. It’s easy to produce, its supply is unlimited, and it’s heavily manipulated for political purposes.

Let’s put it another way.

Imagine Al Capone forced his neighborhood to use pieces of paper with his signature as money—and threatened violence against anyone who didn’t comply.

That’s essentially what governments do with fiat currencies.

The reality is: fake money comes from governments. Real money emerges from the market.

Throughout history, people have used everything from seashells and salt to glass beads, cattle, and even cigarettes in prisons as money.

But one form has stood the test of time—gold.

For over 5,000 years, gold has been mankind’s most enduring form of money.

Gold didn’t win the ultimate competition to become the world’s best form of money by accident or because some politicians decreed it. Instead, it became money because countless individuals throughout history and across many different civilizations subjectively came to the same conclusion: gold is money.

It resulted from a market process of people looking for the best way to store and exchange value.

So, why did they go to gold? What makes gold attractive as money?

Here’s why.

Gold has a set of unique characteristics that make it suitable as money.

Gold is durable, divisible, consistent, convenient, scarce, and most importantly, the “hardest” of all physical commodities.

In other words, gold is “hard to produce” relative to existing stockpiles and is the one physical commodity most resistant to inflation of its supply, which helps make it a good store of value—an essential function of money.

That’s what gives gold its superior monetary properties.

Conclusion

The banking system is a fragile illusion—one that could collapse at any moment, wiping out the savings of millions who wrongly trust it.

That trust hinges on people not understanding three simple truths:

#1. The money isn’t yours.

#2. The money isn’t actually there.

#3. The money isn’t really money.

Here’s the bottom line.

The banking system is a mile-high house of cards. And it could come crashing down at any time.

Don’t wait until it’s too late. Take steps now to protect your wealth.

I believe the banking system is headed for serious trouble.

Few people are aware of what is really happening.

And even fewer know how to prepare.

That’s exactly why legendary investor Doug Casey and I just held an urgent video summit.

In it, we reveal the best way to protect your savings from bank failures and other problems in the rotten banking system.

You won’t want to miss it and can watch it for free by clicking here.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/10/2025 – 21:45