Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Two Democratic State Representatives in Ohio have introduced legislation that would see men fined for ejaculating if they don’t intend on having a baby.

Yes, this is real. It sounds insane because it is.

Democratic State reps Anita Somani and Tristan Rade brought forward the bill which they’ve named the ‘Conception Begins at Erection Act’.

Ohio 19 News reports that Men would be charged with a felony under the law if they engage in unprotected sex without the intent of impregnation.

Men would be charged $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second offense and $10,000 for any offense after under the legislation.

NEW: Ohio lawmakers have proposed a new law that bans men from ejaculating without intent of conception, would fine men up to $10,000 per ejaculation.

The bill was brought forward by Democratic State reps Anita Somani and Tristan Rade.

Men would be charged with a felony under… pic.twitter.com/yKb7Q1rZIY

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 13, 2025

The lawmakers acknowledge that the bill is utterly stupid, saying the intent is to “call out the hypocrisy” of “bills that regulate women’s bodies.”

In an op-ed, Somani wrote “I know how ludicrous my bill sounds,” adding “What I am doing is making a point.”

“Is my bill offensive because it dares to attack men? Maybe, but again, as an OB/GYN, I’m against regulating anyone’s reproductive rights,” she continues, adding “as representatives, we are here to work for you, not for special interests like the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 or the Center for Christian Virtues.”

This is just a publicity stunt to promote abortion-on-demand.

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) February 14, 2025

Perhaps the funniest thing about this entire debacle is that exceptions under the law would include people “ejaculating in the LGBTQ community,” as well as sperm donation, and masturbation.

Yes, come again. But only for the LGBTQ community, apparently.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 14, 2025

Nut Patrol.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 13, 2025

Be careful, Josh. Nut Patrol is going to come after you.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 13, 2025

Is everything the Democrats plan to do over the next 4 years going to be considered “satirical”?

Is our government just a joke to them?

— SheepDog Society LLC (@SDSLLC_USA) February 14, 2025

Just when you think they can’t get any more ridiculous…..Dems say “hold my beer” 🤣🤣🤣

Seriously, are there not more pressing problems in Ohio? How are things going in East Palestine, for example 🤔

— Keith Luschei (@The_Right_Keith) February 14, 2025

This is almost as stupid as the Democrat who sterilised herself to protest President Trump’s non-existent powers to ban abortions.

Democrats are not serious people. They’re never winning anything again until they realise this and sweep out the infestation of TDS suffering DEI brain addled lunatics.

*  *  *

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.

Desired for millennia because of its shine and rarity, gold is still the safe haven asset (with fairly decent returns) in times of uncertainty.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, examines a hypothetical question of how much gold there is in the entire world for every person. It divides all known reserves by current global population.

Data for this graphic is sourced from the U.S. Geological Survey and from the UN’s World Population Prospects 2024.

There’s Not a Lot of Gold for 8 Billion People

Turns out, there really isn’t a lot of gold in the world.

To date, only 244,000 metric tons of gold have ever been discovered. This includes historical production and current known discoveries.

That works out to about 30 grams (about one troy ounce), or six gold rings, for every single human being on the planet.

Jewelry isn’t the only use of gold (though it does account for the largest share of above-ground use).

Central banks have quite a bit in their reserves, with the U.S. holding the most at roughly 8,000 tonnes. At sixth place China (2,200 tonnes) has been steadily increasing its reserves in the past year, in a bid to diversify foreign exchange reserves away from the U.S. Treasury bonds.

Largest Gold Producers

And then there’s all the gold beneath the ground, spread out in massive mines across the world. Of them, Australia is home to two in the top 10, and is also the second-largest producer.

Who’s the largest producer? That’s China—even though it doesn’t have any large mines on the same scale as those found in the U.S. and Australia. Instead it has numerous smaller ones, and coupled with efficient smelting infrastructure, ends up producing more volume.

Finally, South Africa held the top supplier spot between 1900–1970. Its production peaked at about 1,000 metric tons annually, the most by any country in a single year.

Need even more gold graphics? Good thing we have a few. Check out: Visualizing Gold Consumption vs. Domestic Supply to see which countries use the most gold.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

There are many media-driven narratives about the impact of tariffs on the economy and the markets. 

Most of them are incredibly bearish, predicting the absolute worst possible outcomes. For fun, I asked ChatGPT what the expected impact of Trump’s tariffs will likely be. Here is the answer:

“One of the immediate consequences of increased tariffs is higher consumer prices. Tariffs function as an import tax, and companies that rely on foreign goods often pass these costs onto consumers. This could lead to higher inflation, particularly in electronics, automobiles, and household goods, where China plays a dominant role in supply chains.

Over the longer term, Trump’s tariffs could contribute to stagflation—lower economic growth combined with persistent inflation—if businesses struggle to adjust. While the intended goal is to bring jobs and manufacturing back to the U.S., the broader economic risks suggest that tariffs could ultimately slow growth and raise costs for American consumers and businesses.”

To see if ChatGPT is correct in its assessment, we need a proper definition of “stagflation.”

Notably, most analyses of “stagflation,” from which ChatGPT drew its answer, exclude the third component of the definition – unemployment. While individuals trying to sell gold or use “stagflation” headlines to get clicks, they conveniently leave out the most crucial ingredient of the definition. As shown, during Trump’s first administration, the impact of tariffs on inflation was not what the media suggested would happen. Inflation averaged close to the Fed’s 2% target during that previous term. However, as should be expected, inflation did rise in response to more robust economic growth rates and vice versa.

However, contrary to the “stagflation-istas,” the impact of tariffs did not lead to surging unemployment. During that period, the unemployment rate fell to one of the lowest levels on record. At the same time, the economy continued to expand.

Despite recent market concerns over the impact of tariffs, our previous experience suggests that “stagflation” is not likely to be the case. The reason, as explained previously in “Trumpflation,” is that:

“…a closer examination reveals that inflation may not rise as dramatically as feared. The normalization of supply chains, stabilizing energy prices, evolving consumer spending habits, and the backdrop of slowing global economic growth all point toward continued downward pressure on inflation. Moreover, historical evidence shows that high debt and deficits are more likely to contribute to deflation than inflation.”

But what about the impact of tariffs on the stock market?

Tariffs And The Stock Market Reaction

While ChatGPT answered with the latest narrative and failed to review the economic outcomes during Trump’s previous “trade war,” what about the impact of tariffs on the stock market and volatility? Here is ChatGPT’s outlook

“Initially, the stock market is likely to react negatively to new tariffs, particularly in sectors heavily reliant on international trade. Higher import costs and the threat of retaliatory tariffs could weigh on investor sentiment, increasing uncertainty. The last major tariff escalation under Trump in 2018 resulted in sharp market corrections, as investors priced in the risk of slower global growth and corporate margin compression. If history repeats, a similar market reaction could occur, with cyclical sectors like industrials, technology, and consumer goods facing the most pressure.

Last week, we discussed the “Tariff Turmoil” that rocked the markets. Many headlines suggest that Trump’s tariffs will cause the next major market crash. Maybe that is the case. There is always a possibility of “something breaking.” However, as ChatGPT suggests, a look at Trump’s first term in office shows how the markets reacted as the China “trade war” developed.

Following the passage of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” the market surged to all-time highs. Valuations were elevated, and the Fed was beginning a rate-hiking campaign. At the same time, Trump launched the first escalation of the trade war with China. Over the next 18 months, the market traded in a very wide trading range but remained in a steady linear growth trend that was higher.

As noted in “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” this year may be very similar to what we saw during the first trade war with bouts of volatility. As shown, as different facets of the trade war developed, the impact of tariffs caused short-term volatility spikes as investors digested the actions and their potential ramifications on the market. However, those spikes in volatility were short-lived as the impact of tariffs was quickly absorbed.

Despite the barrage of negative headlines, concerns about inflationary impacts, and economic outcomes, the market ultimately weathered the trade war. As is often the case with more dire predictions, the worse potential outcomes failed to appear. There is no denying that the “trade war” did induce a significant amount of volatility, which made it difficult for investors to “stay the course.” However, in hindsight, we can now see that those spikes in volatility provided repeated buying opportunities for investors to pick up stocks at lower prices.

Will this time be the same? Maybe. However, one facet that could be very important to consider is corporate earnings.

Impact Of Tariffs On Corporate Earnings

The risk of “stagflation” is likely way overblown, given the ongoing strength of employment reports and low unemployment rates. Furthermore, while the impact of tariffs will likely increase volatility, the market will likely withstand that impact. However, the risk that is different this time is the combined risk of overvaluation and high corporate earnings growth expectations.

Currently, expectations for earnings growth in 2024 are highly optimistic and have deviated from the long-term growth trend of earnings. (Read “Are Return Expectations Too High” for a more thorough discussion on the relationship between earnings and economic growth.)

When Trump took office during his first term, earnings expectations were below the long-term exponential growth trend. That is not the case today, leaving the market vulnerable to more significant disappointment.

The same is true for both trailing and forward earnings valuations. On the most optimistic basis, using forward operating earnings, Trump entered his first term with the valuation at just 18x forward earnings. Today, the most optimistic form of valuation measures stands at 24.5x, one of the highest levels since 1985.

This background is crucial to our discussion of market risk from the impact of tariffs in the future.

The most immediate impact of tariffs will be on corporate earnings, as companies that rely on imports will face rising costs. Do not take that statement lightly. Currently, 41% of corporate revenue is derived from exporting goods and services. However, as noted above, the ability to pass those tariffs onto consumers is likely limited. As noted above, consumer inflation was not present to a great degree during our first experience with tariffs. However, there is a risk that tariffs could weaken consumer demand in a high-interest-rate and inflation-sensitive environment, which is undoubtedly different than Trump’s first term. Therefore, if companies cannot fully offset tariff-related costs, this could result in downward earnings revisions.

During Trump’s first term, the 3-month rate of change in earnings suggests there is a risk that companies fail to pass on tariffs to consumers. Again, this is why inflation fell, undermining the more bearish outlooks.

With valuations and earnings expectations very elevated, the impact of tariffs could lead to more significant disappointment in outlooks. As we saw previously, while tariffs did not lead to inflation or “stagflation,” they did induce more serious bouts of volatility and reduced market returns.

The risk of the same this time certainly seems plausible.

Conclusion

We don’t have much history regarding tariffs and the stock market. However, avoiding media-driven narratives and focusing on managing your portfolio is likely best. As we warned previously, media headlines are often wrong.

“That does not mean that things won’t change in the future. However, using media headlines to make portfolio decisions has repeatedly turned out poorly. If the recent market volatility is weighing on you, and you “feel” you must “do something,” take very small steps.”

1. Tighten up stop-loss levels to current support levels for each position.

2. Hedge portfolios against significant market declines.

3. Take profits in positions that have been big winners

4. Sell laggards and losers

5. Raise cash and rebalance portfolios to target weightings.

“As we saw on Monday, taking small steps to reduce portfolio risk now can help you weather sharp market events. Remembering that portfolio management is not an “all or none” process is crucial. It is about positioning yourself to minimize emotional decisions so you can find the “opportunity that exists in crisis.”

For now, the risk of “stagflation” is likely close to zero, and the risk of a major surge in inflation is likely similar.

However, the risk of a more volatile market as earnings expectations and valuations are repriced for reality is likely a high probability event this year.

Trade accordingly.

Just days ago the Trump administration was able to finally secure the release of American school teacher Marc Fogel from Russian prison, who spent over three years in custody after being arrested for what he said was medical cannabis in August 2021.

But already Russia has another American in its custody, as Russian news agencies have reported a US citizen has been arrested for “drug smuggling” after being caught passing through Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport with THC gummies.

The man, who had arrived from Istanbul, has yet to be identified but his age was given as 28. This comes after several Americans were caught in similar circumstances, most famously WBNBA start Brittney Griner.

“While passing customs, one of his suitcases drew the attention of a service dog,” TASS reported of a Russia’s Federal Customs Service statement. “During the customs search, inspectors found two plastic jars and a zip-bag with the candy in it… Chemical analysis showed narcotic substances of the cannabinoid group in it.”

Like with the Fogel case, the newly detained man has “claimed that the sweets were prescribed by a doctor in the United States and that he needed them for traveling,” according to TASS.

In the prior several years amid the Ukraine war, the Biden administration accused the Kremlin of detaining Americans on baseless charges in order to hold them as bargaining chips.

For example, Griner’s release (in Dec. 2022) was secured in exchange for notorious arms trafficker Viktor Bout earlier in the war, a controversial trade to say the least. And Marine Paul Whelan and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich were released last August in prisoner swaps.

Russia still holds several Americans, including:

• ballerina Ksenia Karelina
• retired English teacher Stephen Hubbard 
• former US Marine Robert Gilman

As for the newest incident involving the 28-year old, it goes without saying that at this point no one should be trying to enter Russia with cannabis or any other drug, whether for ‘medical’ purposes or not, as clearly the country’s authorities are not messing around.

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

On Feb. 12, President Donald Trump announced a list of individuals who will serve on his President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB).

The members are “a distinguished and trusted group of Patriots” who will advise the president on governing national security and other Intelligence Community (IC) work, according to the announcement released by the White House.

Trump chose the appointees to the group because of their range of experience, according to the statement. The White House stated that it hopes that the board will “help restore integrity to our Intelligence Community.”

The committee members include former California congressman Devin Nunes, who will serve as the group’s chair. Other members include Scott Glabe, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, Brad Robert Wenstrup, Wayne Berman, Reince Priebus, Robert O’Brien, Joshua Lobel, Sander R. Gerber, Katie Miller, Jeremy Katz, and Thomas Ollis Hicks Jr.

What the Board Does

The federal government’s intelligence services website outlines the broad purpose of the PIAB, saying that it exists “exclusively to provide the president with an independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the IC is meeting the nation’s intelligence needs.”

While the PIAB is an element of the executive office, it is made up of citizens from outside the government and has access to all the information needed for advising the president on intelligence issues. The board can have up to 16 members. Trump’s board has 12 members.

Another component of the board is its Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), which was created to make recommendations to the president for oversight of U.S. intelligence activities. This is specifically for the purpose of ensuring that agencies within the Intelligence Community adhere to constitutional guidelines, other applicable laws, and presidential directives.

The board reports to the president on an as-needed basis but not less than twice per year.

According to the White House website, the IOB “complements and supplements, rather than duplicates the oversight roles of the Director of National Intelligence, Department and Agency Inspectors General and General Counsels, and the Congressional Oversight Committees.”

Board Leadership

Nunes resigned from Congress in 2021 and became heavily involved in Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, where he currently serves as CEO.

The former lawmaker’s upcoming position was announced in December 2024, along with the news that he would maintain his position as CEO of Truth Social.

Before leaving the House, Nunes served as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2015 to 2018.

During his time in Congress, Nunes expressed concern that the FBI conspired against Trump while investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“Devin will draw on his experience as former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and his key role in exposing the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, to provide me with independent assessments of the effectiveness and propriety of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s activities,” Trump wrote at the time of his December 2024 announcement.

PIAB History

The PIAB has been around for more than 60 years. It was created by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and was originally called The President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities.

Eisenhower created the group after discovering that he needed a group of respected colleagues to give him “unfettered and candid appraisals of U.S. intelligence activities.”

The group was renamed the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 and has been operational for every president since that time, except for the late President Jimmy Carter, who did away with the board in 1977.

The distinguished group was reinstituted in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. It was renamed once again in 2008 by former President George W. Bush, who gave it the name it has today, the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

Bush chose the name in hopes of conveying that national intelligence is an international issue and one that the board is tasked with keeping a close eye on.

The PIAB’s history has enjoyed a special status that has been well guarded by the executive branch for the entirety of its history. This is achieved by the fierce efforts of those involved to adhere to strict confidentiality in both their meetings and in all communications and advice.

According to the White House website, the board “has had immense and long-lasting impacts on the structure, management, and operations of U.S. intelligence.”

“The PIAB exists exclusively to assist the President by providing him with an independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the Nation’s intelligence needs, and the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future,” it reads.

The IOB was added to the mix in 1976 under President Gerald Ford, upon the recommendation of the Rockefeller Commission. The group called for an executive body at the presidential level to conduct oversight into the “legality and propriety of U.S. intelligence activities.”

Since then, the IOB has worked to review the activities of groups and individuals within the Intelligence Community. It advises the president on what those activities are and whether they could violate a law or executive order.

According to the official background of the IOB, part of its function is to advise the president on whether issues are being addressed appropriately by the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, or the heads of any department or agency that could need presidential direction.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

BFBS Forces News war correspondent Simon Newton, covering all things Ukraine, reported that the UK has begun supplying surface-to-air missiles that can be launched from within modified shipping containers. 

“Gravehawk has been developed from scratch in just 18 months and will be used to combat Russian aircraft, missiles and drones,” Newton wrote, adding, “It’s highly innovative, relatively cheap – and deadly.” 

He said the surface-to-air missiles are mounted on a launch pad in an “ordinary ISO shipping container, meaning it can be quickly deployed on the back of a lorry, known as a Drops vehicle.” 

Jimmy Rushton, a Kyiv-based foreign policy and security analyst, wrote on X, “Russia has to contend with a scenario where any shipping container in Ukraine – and there are tens of thousands – could potentially be concealing one of these systems.”

The more I think about the U.K.’s “Gravehawk” containerised air defence system the more genius I think it is.

Russia has to contend with a scenario where any shipping container in Ukraine – and there are tens of thousands – could potentially be concealing one of these systems. pic.twitter.com/UqqRIeY4Pj

— Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) February 13, 2025

Outfitting missile systems in ordinary shipping containers is not a new concept.

A paper published in the International Law Studies journal in 2021 outlined that China has been reportedly “developing long-range cruise missiles that can be fired from standard shipping containers loaded on merchant vessels.” 

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Italian police detained 130 people on Feb. 11 in an operation against the Sicilian mafia in Palermo, and the country’s top anti-mafia prosecutor said the evidence suggested bosses in high security prisons were still passing on “criminal directives” to those on the outside.

The carabinieri—Italy’s national police—said the anti-mafia operation led to the issuing of restrictive measures for 183 people, 36 of whom were already in prison.

It was the biggest crackdown on the Sicilian mafia, known as La Cosa Nostra, since the 1990s.

The Cosa Nostra—made famous by movies such as “The Godfather”—terrorized Sicily for years and at the height of its power, in 1992, killed two top prosecutors, Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, after they used informers known as “pentito” to prosecute and put in jail hundreds of mafiosi.

Since the 1990s the Sicilian mafia has been overtaken as Italy’s most powerful organized crime group by the ‘Ndrangheta, who are based in Calabria on the Italian mainland.

The carabinieri said those arrested on Feb. 11 were accused of “criminal association of a mafia nature, attempted murder, extortion aggravated by the mafia method, and association for the purpose of drug trafficking.”

Speaking on Feb. 11, Italy’s national anti-mafia prosecutor, Giovanni Melillo, said the investigation mirrored findings in other regions, “namely, that the high security prison circuit is a circuit that is subject to the domination of criminal organizations in which detained mobsters enjoy an intact ability to communicate and to spread criminal directives.”

Jailed Mafiosi Video Calls

The chief prosecutor of Palermo, Maurizio de Lucia, said that mobile communications devices in prisons—including video calls—undermined crime prevention to the point that “being inside the prison or being outside the prison makes no difference.”

He specifically mentioned the mafia were using encrypted cellphones, which were often smuggled into jails.

“Two things are important: one is that the organization knows that in order to become strong again it needs a central direction, a commission, and it can’t achieve this,“ de Lucia said. ”The other is that it has adapted to this difficulty by connecting the mandamenti [areas controlled by a mafia family or its affiliates] through the technological tools we’ve talked about.”

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, writing on social media platform X, said the arrests had inflicted “a very hard blow to Cosa Nostra,” and were giving a clear signal that “the fight against the mafia has not stopped and will not stop.”

The Feb. 11 raids were predominantly in the Palermo neighborhoods of Pagliarelli, Porta Nuova, Tommaso Natale-San Lorenzo, Bagheria, and the Santa Maria del Gesù.

The carabinieri said families in Palermo had regained their authority after decades of being dominated by a faction from Corleone, a town outside Palermo that was the birthplace of notorious bosses Toto Riina and Bernardo “The Tractor” Provenzano.

Riina, who was captured in 1993, died in prison in 2017, aged 87, and his successor, Provenzano, was arrested in 2006 and died, aged 83, in jail in 2016.

In 2018, Settimo Mineo, an 80-year-old jeweler, was arrested along with 46 others, and accused of succeeding Riina as the head of the Sicilian mafia. He was later convicted of various criminal charges in 2020.

Cosa Nostra ‘Never Truly Vanished’

Anna Sergi, a professor of criminology and organized crime studies at the University of Essex in England, wrote on her Substack on Feb. 11: “Cosa Nostra may have faced crises, yet it has never truly vanished. Its subcultural norms are remarkably elastic, allowing the organization to navigate periods of suppression.”

“Despite being perceived as a declining force within the Italian mafia landscape, Cosa Nostra maintains a significant role, particularly in the drug trade,” she wrote.

But Sergi told The Epoch Times in an email that Mineo was not the leader of the Cosa Nostra and added, “There is no known boss.”

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, one of the world’s most renowned financiers, has been accused of abusing his position at NM Rothschild to sexually harass and assault female colleagues, according to The Guardian.

Several women, speaking anonymously to The Guardian, claim he engaged in serious misconduct in the mid to late 1990s. They say they felt unable to come forward while he was alive due to his influence within the bank and British establishment. The allegations have surfaced two years after his death. Bloomberg wrote that “at least six” women have alleged sexual misconduct over 3 decades, including oral rape, forced kissing, and groping. These incidents reportedly took place before and after his retirement as chairman of N.M. Rothschild & Sons in 2004.

De Rothschild, who chaired NM Rothschild for over 20 years and served on the boards of The Economist and The Daily Telegraph’s parent company, was known for his autocratic leadership. Knighted in 1989, he also advised Queen Elizabeth II and accompanied her to Royal Ascot races.

The allegations, dating back to the mid and late 1990s, raise broader questions about the working culture for women within the Rothschild banking empire, which spans wealth advisory and investment banking services. Despite being historical, multiple sources claim his behavior persisted for years without consequence.

The Guardian writes that sources allege that Rothschild targeted junior staff, lavishing them with attention before engaging in inappropriate and abusive behavior. Incidents reportedly took place in NM Rothschild’s former London offices on St Swithin’s Lane, where the bank had been based since 1809.

The allegations include serious sexual assaults. One woman claims he violently attacked her when she was a young employee. Another alleges he groped her under her clothing, while a third says she was forced to perform a sex act on him as he sat at his desk.

These claims, dating to the mid and late 1990s, were presented to Rothschild & Co’s lawyers, who stated that an initial records review found “nothing” but provided no further comment. The Rothschild family, also contacted via the same lawyers, did not respond.

The Guardian also inquired about the bank’s past and present handling of sexual misconduct complaints, but received no further clarification. The bank forced Rothschild out in 2003 after an internal complaint of sexual assault but did not publicly disclose the reason. He left with his reputation intact and was later praised by world leaders, including Bill Clinton, Bloomberg added.

The report says he lured women with promises of career support, presenting himself as a sponsor in financial services. He would summon them to his office under the pretense of work-related tasks before harassing or assaulting them. Those who voiced concerns were allegedly dismissed, often with payouts in exchange for silence. A source described the bank as “his kingdom,” where staff turnover was high, and settlements were known but unspoken.

Lawyers for the banking group said: “We deal with any complaint quickly and decisively. We prize the culture we have developed over the years and there is no place for such behaviour in our culture. If any inappropriate behaviour is alleged, including sexual misconduct, we seek to establish exactly what has happened. Whilst a formal complaint may not always be made, we investigate allegations of behaviour that falls below our standards.”

Authored by Ryan P. Burke via RealClearDefense,

Donald Trump is serious about boxing China out of the Arctic. A month before assuming the U.S. presidency for the second time, Trump notched another geopolitical win in the Arctic competition space and set the tone for the next four years. On December 29th, Trump revived his 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland from Denmark, saying U.S. ownership of the largest island in the world “is an absolute necessity.” A week before the inauguration, Trump’s son Don. Jr. traveled to Nuuk, Greenland to discuss Trump’s interest, leading to further speculation about the incoming President’s intent. In 2019, few supported Trump by publicly describing Greenland’s strategic importance – and reminding that the U.S. twice attempted to purchase Greenland from Denmark. Others warned about China’s expanding presence and influence in Arctic affairs, highlighting Beijing’s desire to build airports in Greenland. Still, during Trump’s first term, most claimed his interest in acquiring Greenland was “absurd.” 

Not much has changed today with pundits casting Trump as impulsive – as they did in 2019 – and lacking knowledge of geopolitics. This time even the Danish Prime Minister chimed in saying “Greenland is not for sale” tacitly hinting at Trump’s perceived neocolonial provocation. Weeks later, Denmark reversed the message and indicated interest in discussing Greenland’s future with Trump. While Greenland’s future is yet to be determined, the mainstream narrative is naïve – Trump’s masterclass in statecraft is now in session – and Beijing is taking note. 

Where the media focuses on Trump’s claim to use the military to acquire the island, they miss the effect of the rhetoric. The reality is this was a deliberate strategic provocation few will see or acknowledge. In poking Denmark about his intent to purchase, or even forcefully acquire the island, Trump gave a masterclass in geostrategic chess, saving the U.S. billions, furthering deterring China from staking a claim on Greenland, and improving U.S. national security in the process. As the dialogue progresses, the stakes could evolve further.

Critics mocking Trump’s fixation on Greenland fail to account for the underlying significance to U.S. and NATO defense. European countries have long underinvested in their own defense. NATO enjoys the warmth of the U.S.-provided security blanket absent the corresponding commitments. The Danish government dismissed Trump’s idea and critics mocked his supposed naivety. Yet, Trump’s renewed Greenland pitch might have been more calculated than it appeared. Denmark’s subsequent announcement of a $1.5 billion defense investment in Greenland reveals a sophisticated dynamic: the rhetoric may have been a strategic gambit to prompt Denmark into strengthening Greenland’s security infrastructure, effectively achieving U.S. strategic goals without direct expenditure.

Greenland’s Strategic Importance in the Arctic

The Arctic region is critically important for U.S. homeland defense. Greenland occupies a pivotal position at the crossroads of key Arctic waterways and serves as a gateway to the North Atlantic. The Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap is considered one of the most consequential strategic corridors for Russian submarine approaches to the eastern U.S. and Canadian coastlines. The U.S. presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Force Base) in northwest Greenland is the only U.S. military installation north of the Arctic Circle. It is small; lacks offensive power projection capabilities; and is an inadequate posture to deter geopolitical rivals in China and Russia. From “enormous unexplored stores of natural resources” and the Chinese Communist Party’s public interest in presence in Greenland, the autonomous island under Danish control is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate on the planet. Some in Washington see Greenland as a strategic vulnerability requiring more attention, lest it create an opportunity for adversaries. Declining relations with China and Russia elevate Greenland’s geostrategic utility value for Washington, making its defense and security among the pressing security challenges or the incoming Trump administration. Thus, recognizing Greenland’s significance, Trump’s revived rhetoric about purchasing the island is more than a proposed property deal by a real estate tycoon. It is a geopolitical statement underscoring America’s recognition of Greenland’s critical role in Arctic security. Yet, proposing such a move — whether sincerely or as a negotiating tactic — placed pressure on Copenhagen to either step up its own commitments to Greenland or risk appearing negligent.

Cost-Free Arctic Security

Trump’s approach is fiscally savvy. Operating in the Arctic is expensive. Everything takes longer, costs more, and breaks faster. Burden sharing is sound strategy and a necessary element of NATO’s security architecture. NATO has long grappled with calls for equitable contributions among member states – with Trump 1.0 repeatedly threatening consequence for NATO counties failing to meet the required 2% GDP mandate. In this way, Trump’s latest jab was an effective catalyst toward tangible defense commitments by a NATO ally that was long overdue.

Trump’s approach to Greenland illustrates a key principle of effective statecraft: leveraging rhetoric to influence allies and adversaries alike. By framing Greenland as a strategic asset of unparalleled importance, Trump compelled Denmark to prioritize investments aligned with U.S. interests. Moreover, this episode highlights the utility of unconventional proposals in diplomacy. Ideas that initially seem outlandish can serve as valuable tools to reshape conversations and drive action. In this sense, Trump’s Greenland rhetoric transcends traditional transactionalism, embodying a broader vision for Arctic security.

While the idea of buying Greenland may never have been realistic, the strategic impact of Trump’s rhetoric prevails. By provoking Denmark into investing in Greenland’s defense, Trump achieved a key U.S. objective: enhancing Arctic security without direct financial outlay.

Trump’s approach underscores the necessity of bold thinking and unconventional tactics as tools of the trade. As the Arctic continues to reemerge as a focal point of geopolitical competition, the Greenland episode will stand as an example of how strategic provocation and perception management can shape outcomes on the international stage. Whether by design or by happenstance, Trump’s rhetoric catalyzed a renewed focus on and commitment to Arctic defense and security and is a testament to the enduring power of statecraft in advancing national interests. 

Ryan P. Burke, Ph.D., is a professor of military and strategic studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

The views expressed here are his and do not reflect the official position of the United States Air Force Academy, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense, or of any other organization with whom the author is affiliated with.  

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

With the death of the woke movement well underway and most mainstream discussion focused on DEI, it might be prudent to remind people where all the this Cultural Marxism came from. What was the original source? Well, these programs have been spreading like a plague into modern academia for decades, but the impetus for near-total takeover of the majority of our social institutions was the launch of ESG programs under the UN and an army of NGOs.

The majority of ESG related entities were, as we now know, funded by western governments using taxpayer dollars to fuel an astroturfed leftist revolution. As I noted in my article ‘Rothschild Admits ESG Failure As Globalists Shift To “Inclusive Capitalism” Agenda’, published in September of 2023:

“ESG was intended to be the tool that globalists and governments would use to force companies into the stakeholder capitalism model…

The goal was to incentivize corporations into bombarding the public with woke messaging 24/7. Every movie, every TV show, every book, every comic, every children’s cartoon, every commercial, every product, every major social media site, every employee handbook, every social interaction would be tainted with the poison of woke propaganda. There would be nowhere to hide, nowhere to escape the messaging. And it worked, for a little while…”

A couple years ago I argued that ESG was dying after the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates. There was an observable decline in financing for woke programs and propaganda across the board. In other words, there were a lot of NGOs and other entities that were receiving government funds and they were recycling those funds into far-left ESG, DEI, and CRT projects. When the central bank started hiking interest rates, the lending cost more and the money started to dry up.

The exposure of ESG by the alternative media and the strangled flow of cheap cash signaled the death knell of a decade long agenda to “wokify” the west. It was so exposed, in fact, that Lynn de Rothschild, a leader in ESG and the head of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, admitted the idea was sullied and needed to be changed or “re-branded”.

I don’t think many Americans realize just how pervasive the ESG agenda truly was. The recent exposure of USAID by Elon Musk and his DOGE team is shining a light on just a portion of it. For example, the USAID spending millions to prop up leftist propaganda machines like Politico (through ultra expensive “subscriptions”) is quite the eye opener, but what about the billions of dollars that went into ESG venture capital projects to fund dozens if not hundreds of liberal online media outlets, movies, TV shows, video games, woke advertising, etc. The extent of the influence was massive.

And, it is likely that most of the cash supporting this enormous social engineering project came from the Federal Reserve and the pockets of US taxpayers. We were paying for our own indoctrination and economic demise, and I’m sure the people behind USAID and other rogue institutions had a good laugh about that.

Of course, they aren’t laughing now. Now they’re out of a job. But is the damage already done? Is there no going back?

The excessive spending through ESG was not only designed to change western culture, it was also designed to hide glaring weaknesses in the current system. Since before the elections I have continued to warn that Trump’s greatest adversary is not the Democrats or the “deep state” or leftist activists; rather, his greatest adversary is the US economy. Trump has inherited a system in stark decline, but much of this data is unknown to the public at large.

The Biden Administration used creative accounting to hide much of the damage. They were unable to obscure the greater effects of stagflation on retail prices and the housing market, but the inherent weaknesses in the labor market, wages, GDP, energy markets, national debt and the US dollar are all less understood by the public.

The Biden Admin is gone but they have left a ticking time bomb behind; the data they were suppressing is about to be unleashed and Trump’s first year is going to look like a financial disaster unless he addresses the problem immediately.

I outlined this problem in detail in my article ‘Smoke And Mirrors: What Happens After Biden’s Economic Manipulations Disappear?”, published in September of 2024. In that essay I predicted Trump’s election win, but I also explained why the presidency could be booby trapped with an economic crash that is ultimately blamed on conservatives.

It’s important to keep in mind that as the truth is revealed there is always a chance the public (and the investment world) will panic. A lot of alternative economists, myself included, have discussed the possibility that if the truth about our economy was ever made widely known, the entire global edifice might come crashing down from the weight of the revelation. If people knew how much corruption and fraud was a part of our daily lives, our economy and our national framework, what would happen?

It’s not enough to simply draw the curtain and unveil the ugliness underneath, a solution must also be offered. The answer might actually come from the very ESG projects that were designed to destroy the US in the first place.

ESG was drawing its money from unprecedented debt spending and taxpayer dollars. That’s not going to work for obvious reasons. However, Trump’s tariff measures may hold the key. In other words, make corporations and importers pay for the rejuvenation of domestic production and perhaps even breath new life into an America-based cultural renaissance.

The original NAFTA agreement (and similar policies) removing most trade barriers between the US, Mexico and Canada was an incredible betrayal of the US economy by a coalition of Neo-Cons and Democrats, facilitated in 1992 by George H.W. Bush who was obsessed with globalization.

Bush (and others in government) wanted a European Union-like arrangement in North America, a supranational body that would eventually dissolve borders and operate as a single economic and social entity. NAFTA didn’t go into effect until 1994, but then President Bill Clinton certainly ran with it. Within six years US manufacturing jobs and industry collapsed.

Any return of tariffs is consistently demonized as a trigger for financial catastrophe (much like any attempt to freeze the debt ceiling is portrayed as the end of the world by Democrats). The example of Herbert Hoover and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs is always brought up in comparison to Donald Trump’s policies.

The establishment has already tried to blame Trump for the existing stagflation problem. Even though the crisis broke out under Joe Biden’s presidency, they still tried to scapegoat Trump and conservatives for the event. Luckily it didn’t stick, but it might this time if Trump isn’t careful.

For now it appears that Trump is using tariffs as short term leverage to force countries to correct geopolitical imbalances (like the illegal immigration issue). This is the best use of tariffs under the current conditions, and so far Mexico and Canada have folded quickly. That said, lesser long term tariffs will be needed to correct longer term trade imbalances and the US just doesn’t have the industrial base anymore to do that effectively.

If the president hopes to stop the avalanche of national debt and money printing while also freeing the common American worker from the tyranny of the income tax, he’s going to need an expertly established tariff system in place along with revamped manufacturing to prevent high inflation.

Tariffs will ultimately require the US to become a producer nation again. But how can this be accomplished quickly? I would suggest, as mentioned above, that Trump implement an ESG-like program which is designed to partially subsidize businesses that establish new manufacturing on US soil. I think this program could also be used to offer grants or low cost funding to cultural projects with a pro-western stance. And, it could all be funded through a percentage of revenues from the Trump tariffs instead of through income taxes.

In other words, make corporations and importers pay for the rebuilding of the US economy and the American culture that they tried to destroy over the past ten years.

Would this action represent government interference in the free market? Well, yes and no. Let’s not pretend like there’s a market for anti-western propaganda and woke corporations. The past several years have proven that consumers don’t want what the woke movement is selling. The government would simply be subsidizing the parts of the economy that US consumers actually WANT to survive.

In the end, if we’re going to reverse the damage done to America by the ESG coup and corrupt institutions like USAID, we need to follow the laws of physics – Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. They used ESG for evil, and we’ll use ESG (or something similar) for good. I can’t imagine a better way to incentivize a manufacturing boom and a cultural boom in the US and avoid a stagflationary death spiral all at the same time.