Azoria Partners, a new anti-woke investment firm, is launching an ETF aimed at excluding companies that prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) over financial performance. The fund, co-founded by James Fishback and Asaf Abramovich, will invest in all S&P 500 companies, excluding those with DEI hiring targets.

The firm’s Meritocracy ETF, which will be available in 2025, will specifically exclude about three dozen companies from the S&P 500 that have implemented DEI hiring quotas. Among those to be excluded are Starbucks, Best Buy, Vanguard, and BlackRock. Azoria is reportedly finalizing a roughly $25 million venture round.

“We believe companies focused on race and gender-based hiring rather than skill and merit are pursuing value-destructive behavior,” Fishback said this week in an interview with Fox News.

.@InvestAzoria CEO @j_fishback calls on Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol to abandon hiring quotas and restore focus on merit-based hiring.

“Over the past five years, the S&P 500 is up nearly 100%. Starbucks is up only 12%. It has a people problem.” pic.twitter.com/4NTyiJsq9L

— CAPITAL (@capitalnewshq) December 16, 2024

In a fiery op-ed for the New York Post, Fishback lambasted corporations that use DEI criteria in hiring decisions, claiming they are likely to underperform. “If you commit to hiring on race and gender and not merit, your stock will continue to underperform. Our ETF will call you out,” he said. “Our goal is to offer investors a portfolio of companies that prioritize hiring the best and brightest, regardless of their appearance.”

Fishback pointed to Starbucks as a key example. In 2020, the coffee giant announced a goal of achieving 30% racial and ethnic diversity in its workforce. “What does that have to do with making coffee at a profit in America?” Fishback remarked.

“You hire the best and brightest no matter what they look like.” While the S&P 500 has surged nearly 100% over the last five years, Starbucks’ stock has only risen by 12%, which Fishback attributes to the company’s focus on DEI policies rather than talent and performance.

Fishback also urged Starbucks’ new CEO, Brian Niccol, to reassess the company’s DEI strategy and return to a merit-based approach. “The espresso machines and the Wi-Fi aren’t the issues. It’s the people at the core of the business,” Fishback said.

Fishback, a supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, recently expounded on his vision for Azoria Partners during a luncheon at Mar-a-Lago. Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood was among those who attended the gathering at the posh Palm Beach club.

Starbucks is a great American company that has lost its way.

The good news is that it can course-correct overnight by accepting the recommendation that we @InvestAzoria made at Mar-a-Lago last week:

“Restore meritocracy by eliminating your racial and gender hiring targets. It’s… pic.twitter.com/FCNtgpUZcl

— James Fishback (@j_fishback) December 9, 2024

Fishback made headlines this year when he sued his former employer, Greenlight Capital, alleging that the hedge fund run by David Einhorn hindered his fundraising efforts by misstating his role during a reference check.

Authored by Stefan Padfield via RealClearMarkets.com,

Proponents of ESG (environmental, social, and governance factors used in corporate decision-making) argue they are merely improving long-term decision-making.

Meanwhile, critics argue that ESG is in practice a Trojan horse for leftist agendas.

However, rather than debating critics, ESG proponents frequently resort to false narratives and ad hominem attacks.

The newly elected Trump administration should not be misled by these lies.

For example, this past July, an article titled Anti-ESG Proposals Surged in 2024 But Earned Less Support  attacked shareholder proposals critical of ESG, including many from my employer.

What follows are responses to five misrepresentations about the anti-ESG movement contained in that piece, which was authored by Heidi Welsh.

False Claim #1: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Motivated by Animus Toward LGBTQ People

Welsh claims that “LGBTQ antipathy” and “a strong animus against LGBTQ people cropped up” in our proposals. These are lies that may constitute actionable defamation because our concerns are not only legitimate, but pro-child.

For example, the Trevor Project still states the following on its website despite the underlying supporting research having been effectively debunked: “Medical affirming care can include [1] treatments that postpone physical changes [i.e. puberty blockers] as well as [2] treatments that lead to changes that would affirm one’s gender identity [i.e. surgery]” (citing WPATH, 2012).

Approaching this from another perspective, consider the following:

·        Is it loving to sow the seeds of gender dysphoria in young children by pushing on them the idea that they might have been born in the wrong body?

·        Is it loving to push on young children, at a time when they are highly vulnerable to suggestion, the idea that if they are anxious about their gender identity, then they should take puberty blockers or undergo life-altering sex-change surgery?

·        Is it loving to push these ideas on children behind the backs of their parents?

·        Is it loving to do these things when the alleged consensus around this “gender affirming care” is quite predictably crumbling before our very eyes?

One can quite reasonably — and without any “animus” — answer “no” to all these questions.

False Claim #2: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Waging a Racist and Bigoted War Against Value-Enhancing DEI

Welsh argues that: “The anti-ESG proposals continued to focus largely on disrupting the current business world consensus that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) improves companies and benefits investors.” One of the problems here is that this purported consensus is largely based on debunked research. As the National Center for Public Policy Research noted in a recent report: “The primary sources typically cited for the claim that the business case for diversity has been proven are a series of studies by corporate consultant McKinsey & Company, but these studies suffer from two glaring flaws: data mining and causation errors.” Furthermore, “consider that in approving a diversity-related rule for Nasdaq, the SEC was unable to make that [business case for diversity] claim after considering all the relevant studies.”

Yet, none of this stops DEI proponents from calling critics bigots. In fact, I recently engaged a self-described “Workplace Inclusion Expert” on LinkedIn who took merely two replies to assert: “saying you’re anti-DEI is the same as saying you’re anti anyone who’s not a straight, white male.”

This recourse to debunked studies and ad hominem attacks suggests DEI has a totalitarian underbelly that pushes an unfalsifiable, divisive narrative with the zeal of fanatical religious adherents.

False Claim #3: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Waging an Anti-Science War Against the Climate Science Consensus

On the issue of corporate initiatives purported to address climate change, Welsh wrote:

The key idea expressed in the recent uptick [in anti-ESG proposals] is that efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions are too expensive, likely futile, and based on questionable science. This view flies in the face of widespread scientific and investor consensus that climate change poses the most disruptive set of risks and opportunities we have ever faced.

This is essentially a non-sequitur. Even assuming that “climate change poses the most disruptive set of risks and opportunities we have ever faced,” it does not follow that all corporate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions are (1) cost-effective, (2) actually address the stated problem, or (3) are based on sound science. Evidence abounds that the rush to “do something” has led corporations to undermine their profitability without any legitimately offsetting climate benefit (see, e.g., here and here).

False Claim #4: The “Anti-ESG” Movement Encourages Hate Speech and Misinformation

It is interesting to note that Welsh views proposals designed to rein in biased and abusive applications of “hate speech” and “misinformation” policies as “anti-ESG.” If being concerned about the weaponization of “hate speech” and “misinformation” policies is anti-ESG, then perhaps concerns about ESG being a Trojan horse for totalitarian control of society by leftists aren’t so far-fetched. Given that simply asking “What is a woman?” has been deemed “hate speech,” it is reasonable to conclude there are risks of weaponizing “hate speech” and “misinformation” policies against conservatives. 

False Claim #5: The “Anti-ESG” Movement Undermines Philanthropy

Welsh lists proposals questioning charitable donations and political contributions as “anti-ESG.” However, if shareholders ask a corporation to review whether it is donating to any organizations that promote sex change surgeries for minors, given the reputational risks involved, one might be forgiven for wondering why that would be deemed “anti-ESG.” In the past, we’ve been told that ESG is simply a non-partisan method for improving information gathering, but to call such proposals “anti-ESG” exposes yet again the thinly veiled radical leftist agenda behind the acronym.

When the inevitable time comes for the new Trump administration to get its hands dirty unwinding the ESG-industrial complex, there will be no shortage of lies spouted in defense of ESG. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize of free markets undistorted by the forced imposition of ESG agendas.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have sparked turmoil across the Southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden for over a year, targeting Western-linked container ships, tankers, and military vessels. The resulting supply chain snarls have had major implications on global trade, causing a surge in container rate prices and shipping diversions around the Cape of Good Hope. However, early indications suggest that President-elect Trump’s strongman image could help de-escalate tensions and alleviate bottlenecks across this critical maritime chokepoint. 

The incoming Trump administration urgently needs a fresh strategy to de-escalate tensions in the critical Bab-el-Mandeb maritime chokepoint that caught the Biden-Harris team entirely off guard. The admin’s Yemen policies were marked by inconsistency, leading to dozens of commercial vessels being struck by kamikaze drones and missiles, with several ships sunk as a result of the chaos. 

Houthi ballistic missiles impact #Israel-linked Anadolu S Ship in #RedSea | ‘Accurate & direct hit’

Watch pic.twitter.com/FCs2JVAwSS

— The Times Of India (@timesofindia) November 20, 2024

Footage has been released of a Houthi anti-ship ballistic missile striking the MT ZOGRAFIA in the Red Sea on Tuesday. pic.twitter.com/SRAK1azuIa

— GMI (@Global_Mil_Info) January 19, 2024

Trump’s second administration needs a strategy to address the deeper foundation for US interests in the Middle East. This likely means pushing forward with his hardline counter-Houthi policies. 

A recent Wall Street Journal report cited officials on Trump’s transition team who say they intend to enforce current sanctions and impose new ones on the group, including redesignating the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization and banning countries from buying Iranian oil. 

The mere prospect of Trump returning to the White House next month appears to have already eased tensions in the critical maritime chokepoint.

New data from Goldman Sachs, citing global trade intelligence firm Kpler, shows a significant surge in oil flows via tankers over the past few weeks.

“Despite the market’s renewed focus on geopolitical supply risks, actual oil flows through the Red Sea have recovered over the last two weeks amidst continued setbacks to Iran and its proxies,” Goldman’s Ephraim Sutherland and Daan Struyven wrote in a note. 

The analysts noted, “We see significant downside to oil tanker freight rates and up to $3/bbl of downside to our refined product margin forecasts from a potential full unwind of the oil tanker Red Sea and Russia redirections.”

“The Houthis may have wound down their Red Sea disruptions for now, but let’s see how long it takes them to come up with more reasons to start back up again – renewed clashes in Gaza, a new “maximum pressure” campaign that targets the Houthis and what’s left of Iran’s stable of proxies, etc. We don’t rule out more targeted attacks against the US and Israeli assets in the region,” said Scott Modell, CEO of Rapidan Energy Advisors, about the Kpler data. 

So the question remains: Will de-escalation in the critical maritime chokepoint persist after Jan. 20? 

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The German economy was once a global industrial powerhouse, showing a strong resilience in times of crisis as well as significant productive growth in periods of expansion.

Germany displayed robust industrial activity, solid productivity, and enviably low unemployment levels, which added to real high wages. However, in the past five years the economy has stagnated, and its GDP is 5% smaller than the pre-pandemic growth trend suggested, according to Bloomberg Economics. Even more worryingly, they estimate that four percentage points of that loss may be permanent.

Most analyses blame the weakness of the German economy on higher energy costs and the Chinese slowdown affecting its exports. However, the reality is more complex.

Germany’s stagnation is self-inflicted.

Germany made its first big mistake in 2012, when its leaders accepted the left-wing diagnosis of the European debt crisis, which blamed all problems on inexistent austerity. Germany embraced inflationism and, in 2014, agreed to the same monetary and interventionist policies that have always destroyed Europe. The German government and the Bundesbank reluctantly agreed to massive ECB monetary expansion and negative nominal rates while allowing the European Commission to abandon its oversight of excessive indebtedness and signing off on back-to-back “stimulus” packages like the Juncker Plan or the Next Generation EU disasters, all of which have left the euro area in stagnation, with more debt and now, inflation. Germans suffer a cumulative inflation of more than 20% in the past five years. Politicians blame it on Ukraine and Putin, but we all know it is a ludicrous excuse. Money supply growth and constant increases in government spending have obliterated the purchasing power of the euro and fueled inflation. “An upsurge in money growth preceded the inflation flare-up, and countries with stronger money growth saw markedly higher inflation” (Borio et al., 2023).

Keynesians believed that a weaker euro would boost Germany’s exports, but this is a myth. Export leaders rise thanks to high added value, not low cost. In any case, all the interventionist policies adopted by the European Union would leave a weak currency and an even weaker economy.

The second lethal mistake was its energy policy. High energy costs are not a fatality. They come from the misguided energy policy that drove German politicians to shut down their nuclear fleet and spend more than 200 billion euros subsidizing volatile and intermittent technologies only to perpetuate the use of coal and lignite, which accounts for 25% of its power production, according to AGEB 2024. In fact, 77% of its energy consumption and 40% of its power production come from fossil fuels. German politicians also embraced the EU agenda that banned the development of domestic natural gas but multiplied the imports of US liquefied natural gas produced from fracking. Fascinating. Furthermore, the enormous subsidies and regulated costs added to consumer bills have made it so that more than 60% of the electricity price paid by consumers comes from regulated costs and taxes, including the CO2 cost, which is a hidden tax. Germans pay more for energy and still depend on fossil fuels because the government destroyed its access to cheap Russian natural gas and replaced it with expensive and unreliable options. Only a group of politicians can decide to enter an energy war and ban the alternatives.

The third fatal mistake was to swallow the increasingly damaging policies coming from the EU Commission and the EU Parliament. A slowdown of the Chinese economy does not take a global export leader to stagnation, especially when the Asian giant is growing at 5% per year. A global export leader like Germany was rightly proud of a productive network that allowed its industry to grow thanks to high added-value products, technology, and a global reach that made German companies sell all over the world and navigate any macroeconomic environment. What made the once-mighty German industry stagnate and decline despite robust global growth was the combination of excessive regulation, disincentives to innovation, elevated taxes, and embracing the disastrous 2030 agenda that bans combustion engine vehicles. Politicians demolished the sales potential of the entire industrial complex with a misguided environmental and regulatory policy. Activists used the seemingly innocent 2030 agenda to impose an interventionist and unproductive model, obliterating all of Germany’s industries and farming and agriculture sectors. The wrongly named Nature Restoration Law, which makes it nearly impossible to conduct primary sector activities, further compounded this damage.

The European Union’s gradual imposition of excessive regulation and disincentives has also resulted in Germany losing a significant portion of its technological leadership. Germany’s engineering and technology dominance was based on an open, highly competitive, and rewarding system that has been destroyed by bureaucracy and regulation. Germany is a global leader in patent applications but lags the United States, and the translation of patents to businesses is exceedingly poor.

German politicians say that all the above challenges will become strengths in the future. I doubt it, because their track record of prediction failures is spectacular. What Germany needs is to abandon inflationism, interventionism, and comic-book activism. If Germany adopts these changes, its economy will experience significant growth.

Germany does not have a competitiveness or human capital problem; it has a political problem. Abandon socialist interventionism, and Germany will be back to its trend of growth and leadership.

The Pentagon as well has Ukraine’s military intelligence have said that some of the first North Korean troops fighting alongside Russian forces in Russia’s Kursk border region have been killed. Dozens of the foreign troops are reportedly dead and wounded.

Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, the GUR, announced Monday that North Korean army units were beset with “significant losses” of “at least 30 soldiers” killed and wounded in the Kursk region over the weekend, in a significant first if confirmed.

The intense fighting and losses were said to be in the villages of Plekhovo, Vorobzha and Martynovka. “Also in the area of ​​the village of Kurilovka, at least three North Korean servicemen went missing,” the GUR wrote on Telegram.

Kiev was the first to make the claim, but there’s been no comment from the Kremlin or Pyongyang; however, in a rarity the Pentagon has chimed in to say there are “indications” of casualties among North Korean troops in Russia. According to NY Times:

Via The Cradle

The Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) announced the start of an operation against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northern Syrian town of Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) on December 17.

The announcement came in the midst of a build-up of Turkish troops on the Syrian border in preparation for a possible invasion alongside its proxies in the SNA.

Al Mayadeen’s correspondent stated that “Turkiye wants a security belt 30 kilometers wide on the border with Syria,” stressing that it “is close to achieving its goal.”

The Turkish military has built a concrete barrier between Kobani and the Turkey border, while Turkish warplanes can be seen flying above the city.

US media has also reported that Turkey is building up its forces along the border in preparation for a possible invasion. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that according to one US official, “A Turkish cross-border operation could be imminent.”

The WSJ adds that SNA fighters and Turkish uniformed commandos and artillery in large numbers are now concentrated near Kobani, a Kurdish-majority city in Syria on the northern border with Turkey.

Turkey began building up its forces near the border two weeks ago as militants from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a UN-designated terror group, toppled the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and occupied the capital, Damascus.

Kurdish forces under the People’s Protection Units (YPG) began taking control of Kurdish-majority areas in Syria in 2012, with the outbreak of war in 2011. Turkey has sought to prevent Kurds from forming contiguous regions in areas of Syria on its southern border, stretching from Afrin in the northwest to Kobani in the north center and to Hasaka in the northeast.

Turkey first supported ISIS and then sent its own forces to invade northern Syria multiple times to prevent such a Kurdish region from being established.

The US military partnered with the YPG to create the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in 2015. The US and SDF occupied land outside of traditional Kurdish control, including Sunni Arab areas containing Syria’s oil fields and wheat-producing regions. The US has been trying to keep Syria partitioned, under sanctions, and unable to rebuild since the war ended in 2019.

US forces back in Kobane to monitor Turkish-backed SNA and US-backed SDF in northern Syria. This is one area that could become a new flashpoint. Turkiye wants to connect enclaves it has along the border, and Kobane (circled in map) sits in between. pic.twitter.com/9RB37Q550X pic.twitter.com/o7rGeDK3qE

— Umar Farooq (@UmarFarooq_) December 15, 2024

Kurdish official Ilham Ahmed urged President-elect Donald Trump to prevent a new Turkish invasion. Turkey’s goal is to “establish de facto control over [Kurdish] land before [Donald Trump] take[s] office, forcing [the US] to engage with them as rulers of [Kurdish] territory,” Ahmed wrote to Trump in a letter viewed by the WSJ. “If Turkey proceeds with its invasion, the consequences will be catastrophic.”

A spokesman for Turkiye’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to the WSJ’s requests for comment.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Few can afford to be massively tariffed by the US, let alone sanctioned, and most aren’t willing to burn their bridges with the US for ideological reasons at the expense of their immediate economic interests…

Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar clarified earlier this month that “India has never been for de-dollarization. Right now there is no proposal to have a BRICS currency. BRICS do discuss financial transactions, [but] the United States is our largest trade partner and we have no interest in weakening the dollar at all.” This was in response to Trump threatening to impose 100% tariffs on any country that de-dollarizes.

Here are three background briefings for those who haven’t followed this:

* 6 September 2024: “BRICS Membership Or Lack Thereof Isn’t Actually That Big Of A Deal”

* 1 November 2024: “Did The Latest BRICS Summit Achieve Anything Of Tangible Significance At All?”

* 2 December 2024: “Trump’s Threats Against BRICS Are Based On False Premises”

As the first explained, “BRICS can be compared to a Zoom conference: members actively participate in talks on financial multipolarity, partners observe their discussions in real time, and everyone else with an interest in them hears about the outcome afterwards.” The second one confirmed the veracity of this assessment after the last BRICS Summit had no tangible outcome other than a joint statement. And finally, the last reaffirms the preceding two’s insight, which corrects false perceptions about BRICS.

India is on pace to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030, which requires continued flows of American investment and maintaining access to its enormous market. At the same time, however, it also wants to internationalize the rupee. That last-mentioned policy isn’t de-dollarization per se, but pragmatic and a form of hedging, so Trump shouldn’t be too perturbed. He’s also expected to have the most Indophilic administration in history that’ll be reluctant to sanction India anyhow.

The Indian way represents the model for other Global South countries to follow. Few can afford to be massively tariffed by the US, let alone sanctioned, and most aren’t willing to burn their bridges with the US for ideological reasons at the expense of their immediate economic interests. Furthermore, those that take this chance are making themselves dependent on someone else, namely China. Therefore, this policy comes at the expense of sovereignty, though it’s ironically supposed to strengthen such.

The middle ground between remaining trapped in the dollar system and experiencing its wrath after trying to liberate oneself is to gradually increase the use of one’s national currencies. In parallel with this, having access to alternative non-Western platforms like Chinese ones and whatever BRICS may or may not unveil can help, but they mustn’t become replacements. The goal is to diversify currencies and platforms, not replace one dependency with another, and it’ll take time implement.

Barring a black swan that completely revolutionizes the global financial system, the dollar will likely remain the world’s reserve currency, and Trump will take drastic action against China if it dares to unveil the so-called “petroyuan”. Those suppliers and clients who also decide to use it will face his fury as well. The “petroyuan” might therefore only remain a euphemism for China’s potential use of this currency in some of its bilateral energy deals while probably falling fall short of expectations in the medium-term.

The long term is too far out to forecast, but if the US keeps de-dollarization trends in check under Trump and institutionalizes the means that he’s expected to employ, then that’ll naturally have an adverse effect on internationalizing the yuan. At most, it might begin to be used more in bilateral trade deals too, but the US’ grand strategic goal is for the dollar to remain the currency of choice in energy deals. Internationalizing the ruble like Russia has done with its energy deals isn’t a threat to the dollar at all.

The only reason it even happened was because the US prohibited the use of dollars by others when purchasing Russian energy products, but curtailing and eventually even lifting these sanctions (as well as the associated one banning Russia’s use of SWIFT) could likely reverse this trend to a large degree. After all, it’s much more convenient for everyone to go back to the old order of business, though the US’ weaponization of the financial system since 2022 left an impression that’ll lead to continued hedging.

As “politically incorrect” as it may sound, China already complies with some of these same Western sanctions against Russia despite still officially criticizing them as hegemonic. This is proven by the Chinese-based BRICS New Development Bank and the SCO Bank suspending projects in Russia and not allowing the transfer of Russia’s dues respectively as proven here and here. RT also drew attention to Russia’s payment problems with China in early September, which were analyzed at length here.

It might therefore be unwise for any country to make itself dependent on China by promulgating radical de-dollarization policies since there’s no guarantee that the People’s Republic will have its back. The fact of the matter is that China’s complex interdependencies with the West are too deep, and this places major limits on its financial policymaking capabilities, thus explaining why it hasn’t fully supported Russia. This observation could lead to self-imposed restraints among aspiring de-dollarizing states.

No responsible country like India would feel comfortable fully returning to the former system so the increased use of national currencies and utilization of alternative platforms will persist into the future. So long as these trends remain manageable, and Trump is expected to do his utmost to this end, then no radical changes are expected anytime soon. Everything will continue moving more or less in the same direction, but at a gradual pace, and that’s best for the West and the Global South at this point in time.

Authored by Theresa Sam Houghton via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Cognitive health depends on impulses that constantly pass between the 100 million brain cells (neurons) in your brain. One particular protein, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), is instrumental in maintaining the connections that make the symphony of brain communication possible.

BDNF is just one player among many, but its role is essential for lifelong cognitive health. Optimizing BDNF with diet and lifestyle changes could help support brain volume, function, and adaptation, especially as you age.

Fertilizer for Brain Health

BDNF is a neurotrophin, a type of protein called a growth factor that supports the survival of the neurons in your brain’s communication network. As the most abundant neurotrophin in the brain, BDNF is found in high concentrations in the hippocampus, amygdala, cerebellum, and cerebral cortex. These areas are responsible for memory, emotions, spatial recognition, language processing, and movement.

For your brain to work properly, the functions of each region must remain separate from each other. According to J. Carson Smith, professor of kinesiology at the University of Maryland at College Park, the distinctions between regions start to break down as you age, causing interference that can distract you when you’re trying to pay attention to or remember something.

“As we lose function in our brains, all of our brain regions tend to become activated all at once because we’re trying to compensate for this loss of neural function that we have as we get older,” Smith told The Epoch Times in an interview. 

BDNF is key in maintaining this neural function, and its role begins during development as it helps brain cells mature and survive. The protein continues to be active in brain cell growth, maturation, and maintenance throughout life. BDNF is also essential for plasticity, the adaptive process that allows your brain to form fresh connections in response to new information and challenges.

However, Smith said that, rather than helping the brain create new connections, BDNF’s primary function may be related more to maintaining structures called dendrites, projections at the ends of neurons that enable information to pass between cells in your brain’s network.

“BDNF is like a fertilizer,” he said. “So it’s going to help stimulate connectivity and make sure that dendritic branching is intact instead of deteriorating and falling away and losing connections in the brain.”

Effects of BDNF Decline

BDNF levels decrease with age, leaving less “fertilizer” to support brain cells and the connections between them. Research suggests a correlation between lower BDNF levels and age-related changes in the brain, including lower cognitive test scores, a reduction in hippocampal volume, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In this condition, difficulties with memory, judgment, and decision-making are more significantly pronounced but don’t reach the level of dementia or Alzheimer’s. Other changes like decreased neurogenesis and the beta-amyloid buildup seen in Alzheimer’s disease may also be related to BDNF decline.

However, the picture is more complex, and there may not be clear associations between BDNF levels and cognitive decline. A 2023 study published in Biomolecules showed that BDNF levels are higher in people with Alzheimer’s than those with MCI but cited other research showing that Alzheimer’s and MCI patients have lower BDNF levels than healthy people.

According to the study’s authors, “It has been suggested that BDNF levels vary with disease severity, with higher levels associated with MCI and early stages of AD and lower levels reported in patients with severe AD symptoms.” While the reasons for this are unknown, researchers hypothesize that the body may produce more BDNF in the early stages of cognitive decline in an attempt to repair brain cells or protect against disease progression.

How BDNF is measured can influence study results. Smith told The Epoch Times that measuring BDNF in human brains can be difficult and invasive, so researchers often rely on levels of circulating BDNF. These levels may not accurately reflect the amount of BDNF in the brain because the protein is also present in other tissues like muscle.

Factors That Affect BDNF

Despite these complexities, patterns across studies point to modifiable factors that may promote or interfere with BDNF. According to Gina Nick, a leading naturopathic physician and formulator of glutathione-based health products, including Best Daily Ever Pixie Sticks, inflammation is one of the most important.

She told The Epoch Times in an interview that exposure to potential toxins in food and the environment can cause inflammation to increase with age. These exposures create unstable molecules called reactive oxygen species (ROS). As a type of free radical, ROS stabilize themselves by taking electrons from molecules in healthy tissues, which sets off chain reactions that produce more free radicals.

The resulting tissue damage, known as oxidative stress, appears to promote inflammation throughout the body, including in the brain. As oxidative stress increases, Nick said, BDNF levels go down. The effects may be more pronounced in the brains of older people due to a decrease in the body’s ability to repair damage to cells and DNA.

The Diet-BDNF Connection

Inflammation may be driven by dietary factors like salt, fat, and additives in ultra-processed foods. Nick said that such foods can deplete glutathione, the body’s most abundant protective antioxidant, and start a cycle that promotes chronic neuroinflammation.

“Glutathione, when it’s manufactured in the body, it’s naturally occurring in the body, it eats up a lot of other antioxidants when it’s making it,” she told The Epoch Times. “And when you’re exposed to a bunch of toxins in the environment, that triggers neuroinflammation—it reduces the amount of glutathione in your brain.”

She said it’s important to replace the stores of antioxidants you need to make glutathione so your body can continue to protect brain cells from damage.

Research suggests that other antioxidants may also increase or maintain BDNF levels. In a 2021 study published in Nutritional Neuroscience, researchers found that foods and supplements containing plant-based nutrients called polyphenols were associated with increased BDNF. There may also be a potential connection between higher BDNF levels and anti-inflammatory compounds like flavonoids and the omega-3 fatty acid DHA.

Exercise for Cognitive Health

Staying active may provide additional benefits for BDNF and overall brain health. According to a 2023 review, BDNF appears to be one of the major factors responsible for the cognitive benefits observed in many exercise trials. The researchers concluded that exercise, particularly aerobic activity commonly known as cardio, is associated with better cognition in cases of MCI and dementia.

The review linked several effects of exercise to better cognitive outcomes, including the release of lactate and proteins from muscle and the stimulation of osteocalcin. This protein promotes bone growth and helps muscles adapt to exercise. These molecules promote the production of BDNF and appear to be the factor that connects these processes to improvements in mood, cognition, learning, and memory.

As with diet, the process is complex. Factors like intensity and duration may influence the extent to which exercise affects BDNF and brain health, and long-term exercise may decrease blood levels of BDNF without causing changes in cognitive function or memory.

Support BDNF for Healthy Brain Aging

Following diet and lifestyle patterns consistently shown to promote cognitive well-being may support BDNF production and help keep the symphony of interactions in the brain playing in harmony.

The popular Mediterranean diet, for example, focuses on whole and minimally processed plant foods, lean proteins, and unsaturated fats. This combination increases antioxidant intake while reducing or eliminating pro-inflammatory factors like saturated fats and refined carbohydrates, which may increase the risk of oxidative stress.

Nick recommends incorporating foods that contain glutathione or promote its production, including cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, fruits like peaches, cherries, and strawberries, and unprocessed grass-fed red meat. She’s also a fan of walnuts for their omega-3 content.

“A handful of walnuts a day will provide you with sufficient omega 3 fatty acids for helping to maintain BDNF levels,” she told The Epoch Times.

As for exercise, research shows that single sessions and consistent habits may boost BDNF levels. To build a habit for healthy brain function, Smith recommends that people do whatever type of exercise is most accessible and enjoyable for them.

Even simple activities like climbing stairs or gardening can improve BDNF, so be on the lookout for opportunities to skip the elevator or take a quick walk after dinner. If weather or safety is an issue, try free online resources like indoor walking videos or follow-along bodyweight workouts.

Making these changes with help from family and friends may provide additional cognitive support.

As Nick said, “There are always things that you can do to impact BDNF.”

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

That said…

China has released a military propaganda video boasting its hypersonic weapon capabilities as the military arms race between global superpowers kicks into high gear and the world splits into a dangerous multi-polar state, prompting some global observers to ask the daunting question: “Is World War III already here?“

According to the Shanghai Morning Post, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) released a new video this week showcasing how China continues pushing the boundaries of hypersonic technology.

The full video, released by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), showcases the trials of the MD series and the drone developers behind the aircraft. The team from the Institute of Mechanics (IMECH) at CAS, known as the “Qian Xuesen Young Scientist Task Force,” were the same specialists who achieved the first horizontal landing of a hypersonic drone in 2020.

…

The MD-22 – the latest known model in the series – was first unveiled at the 2022 Zhuhai air show. The aircraft boasts a maximum range of 8,000km (4,971 miles) and can carry payloads of up to 600kg (1,323 pounds), delivering substantial strategic capabilities.

A video of the test shows the unmanned Chinese MD series drone launched from a high-altitude balloon, reaching speeds of as much as Mach 7 before landing safely. 

中国临近空间宽域飞行器研制试验首次公开披露！😃 pic.twitter.com/mLkCQQ5zX1

— DS北风（风哥） (@WenJian0922) December 16, 2024

“From a tactical perspective, the MD-19 could serve as a stepping stone to operational hypersonic platforms. Its current role as a technology demonstrator likely focuses on testing high-speed flight dynamics, thermal management, and recovery procedures,” news website BulgarianMilitary wrote in a note. 

“钱学森科技攻关青年突击队”自主研发的宽域飞行器成功完成了5类9次飞行实验，在全球率先实现高超声速构型飞行器水平降落，完成了国际上首次临近空间发射航空器试验实现跨域机动飞行和安全返回。😀 pic.twitter.com/bitl4yGWcO

— DS北风（风哥） (@WenJian0922) December 16, 2024

The new website continued, “China is making it clear it has no intention of falling behind in the race for hypersonic supremacy. The MD-19 is further proof that the country isn’t just testing technologies but integrating innovations with real-world battlefield potential.” 

MD-22性能指标 pic.twitter.com/Bs0CrxQ2MQ

— DS北风（风哥） (@WenJian0922) December 16, 2024

Meanwhile, hypersonic missiles, kamikaze drones, and stealth fighters have become cornerstones for militaries around the world as the modern battlefields in Eastern Europe and the Middle East show no limited signs of peace in the near term.

The Free Press’ Jay Solomon recently asked: “Is World War III Already Here?”  

Authored by Conor Gallagher via Naked Capitalism,

The RAND Corporation, one of the more influential US think tanks that help craft US foreign policy, is out with a new paper arguing that it’s time the US use a divide and rule strategy with Beijing and Moscow in the Arctic. Years of sanctions, threats, and general belligerence from Washington helped organize the wedding of China and Russia’s complementary economies, and that’s increasingly evident in the Arctic where the two are cooperating on development, trade routes, and oil and gas projects. Here’s RAND now sounding the alarm:

What might be done to limit China-Russia cooperation in this geopolitically important region? RAND researchers consider this question in a new paper, concluding that Western policies focusing on the differences between Beijing and Moscow may be effective. To put such a strategy into action, the United States and its northern NATO allies could develop separate approaches for dealing with China and Russia when it comes to Arctic affairs.

The authors (Dr. Abbie Tingstad ,a visiting professor of Arctic research at the Center for Arctic Study and Policy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy; Stephanie Pezard, an associate research department director, Defense and Political Sciences, and a senior political scientist at RAND; and Yuliya Shokh, a U.S. Air Force intelligence analyst and technical analyst at RAND.) also note the following:

…there may be no need to drive a wedge between Russia and China in the region. That’s because one may already exist: The two countries have very different Arctic interests, influence, and postures—not to mention a difficult history together.

My first thought was that these people are crazy — or are paid to be so. You could maybe convince yourself it would be feasible if the US wasn’t doing its best to bring Moscow and Beijing together with all its sanctioning, bombing, and arming as it’s unlikely that Communist differences from decades ago are going to be a bigger factor than the immediate threat posed by an unhinged and violent US.

Yet in the aftermath of the Syria shock, maybe it’s not a bad time to doublecheck RAND’s details of the Russia-China relationship. Not only is the Moscow-Beijing “no limits” partnership one of the biggest geopolitical developments of recent years, but it is also one that the US continues to help bring about. And it looks set to continue to do so whether following a path set forth by RAND or one of even more doubling down as laid out in a December special report from the Council on Foreign Relations.

Let’s look at what RAND highlights as signs of present and potential friction between Russia and China over the Arctic and Russia’s Far East.

Is the relationship headed toward benign neglect or even divorce because China increasingly sees Russia as a destabilizing influence that counters its Arctic aspirations? A potential breakdown in Sino-Russian relations has been foretold by the still low or nonexistent numbers of Chinese vessels transiting the [Northern Sea Route], Beijing’s apparent growing apathy to Russia’s Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline proposal, and the 2020 arrest of Russian lecturer Valery Mitko on spying charges.

Let’s look at each one of these points:

Despite the holdup on Power of Siberia 2, Russian pipeline gas exports to China are at new records. As of December 1, Gazprom increased supplies to the equivalent of 38 billion cubic meters per year. That’s roughly nine percent of China’s consumption this year.

Mitko, a researcher of the Arctic region and one of Russia’s leading hydroacoustics experts, was accused of revealing sensitive data during a 2018 academic trip to China. He denied the charges but was under house arrest from 2020 until his death in 2022. The issue never posed any serious threat to expanding ties between the two countries, although it’s feasible that continued future similar cases could cause headaches.

How about the lack of Chinese vessels on the Northern Sea Route (NSR)?

While the authors are correct that traffic remains low on the shortest route between the western part of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region, that doesn’t mean it will remain that way, and they also omit recent milestones. Here’s one from late 2023 courtesy of Maritime Executive:

In another demonstration of the efforts to expand shipping along Russia’s Northern Sea Route, the Chinese-owned containership Newnew Polar Bear (15,950 dwt) became the first to reach the Russian port in Kaliningrad after a six-week passage. The governor of the Kaliningrad region Anton Alikhanov hailed the achievement on his Telegram account.

The vessel was acquired earlier this year by a new Chinese shipping company, Hainan Yangpu Newnew Shipping Co., and ushered in the route sailing from St. Petersburg at the beginning of July. She started the return trip from China in late August, reaching Kaliningrad on Tuesday and spending three days on dock. The ship registered in Hong Kong is 554 feet long with a capacity of 1,600 TEU.

She is part of the effort to expand trade between China and Russia and grow traffic along the Northern Sea Route. President Vladimir Putin has ordered the authorities overseeing the route to boost annual shipments to 80 million metric tons in 2024.

“Transport companies plan to make this logistics product permanent. It turns out cheaper and faster than through the Suez Canal,” writes Alikhanov touting the party line on his Telegram account.

Additionally in June Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom signed an agreement with Chinese line Hainan Yangpu New Shipping to potentially operate a year-round route. The deal also involves collaboration in the design and construction of new ice-class container ships. In a historic first, two Chinese container ships crossed paths on the route on September 11. It might not be the last time — although much work remains to be done building up infrastructure along the NSR. Yet the US is providing both Moscow and Beijing with incentives to pursue just that with its isolation efforts. While the NSR might not become a primary route for China, it does provide another option, and it also shortens shipping times with Europe by up to 50 percent compared to the Suez route, and Russia will rake in profits from transit fees.

The RAND authors continue:

Russia has been wary of the presence of non-Arctic countries in this region, especially regarding military activity. Despite the declaration of a limitless friendship with China, Russia has not provided Beijing with opportunities to conduct overt military operations directly in and around the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation (AZRF). Compared with the growing frequency and scale of U.S. cooperation with Norway on Arctic military training and exercises, sailing a few destroyers well below the Arctic Circle pales in comparison.

I’m unsure how much a contest over military exercises tells us. Nonetheless, what’s indisputable is that China’s footprint continues to grow even if it’s not to the level of US training and exercises in Norway.

In October, for example, China’s Coast Guard entered Arctic Ocean waters for the first time as part of a joint patrol with Russia. Four vessels from the Russian Border Guard and Chinese Coast Guard were spotted by the US in the Bering Sea – the northernmost location it said it had ever observed the Chinese ships. And in July US and Canadian forces intercepted Russian and Chinese bombers flying together near Alaska for the first time.

Part of the reason for such moves is to send a message to Washington whose military activities in the South and East China Seas and arming of Taiwan are not well-received in Beijing.

Energy and the Far East

Here’s RAND on the proposed Power of Siberia 2 pipeline:

Similarly, China has not written a blank check for Russia to develop its Siberian energy reserves. To the contrary, Moscow has been unable to convince Beijing, as of the time of this publication, to fund the larger capacity Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, despite numerous meetings between these countries’ leadership. There are several potential reasons for this lack of funding: One is that China is waiting for an even better deal on energy resources; another is that Beijing could be wary of being overly dependent on Russia for energy…

Power of Siberia 2 (PS2) is a proposed pipeline that would have the capacity to carry 50 billion cubic meters per year from Russia to China, but the two sides are struggling to come to an agreement on price.

PS2 is often overblown in the Western media. While Russia has both economic and geopolitical reasons for wanting to get a deal done, it doesn’t want to give the gas away.

And China currently has other options, including pipeline gas from Central Asia and LNG suppliers such as Qatar. Its demands are currently met by existing contracts and might not need the gas from PS2 prior to the mid-2030s. It could be attractive, however, due to US efforts to control China’s rise and its energy supply and Beijing’s reluctance to rely too heavily on LNG from the likes of Australia and the US.

Less mentioned is that Russia also has options. It continues to increase LNG exports — largely to China — and has a goal to triple overall exports by 2030. China would play a huge real in achieving that goal, but that would make PS2 unlikely. Either way the gas is getting to China, and Russia is doing just fine with its energy exports:

The problem for the US is that further tightening sanctions on Russia makes Moscow more dependent on China, which benefits Beijing.

Any attempt to isolate China (say by cutting LNG from Australia and Middle East or pipelines from Central Asia) makes China more dependent on Russia.

Even without PS2 China is already getting 38 bcm through the original Power of Siberia. Starting in 2027, gas will also go to China via the Far Eastern route, which is set to have a capacity of some 10 Bcm/year. That’s 48 bcm per year is already a massive amount. A useful map from S&P Global:

With the heavy focus on PS2, RAND (and others) also miss all the other developments in Russia’s Far East. Let’s take a quick look.

Over the past ten years, Russia has laid more than 2,000 kilometers of railway tracks and renovated more than 5,000 kilometers on the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline.

Russia’s Baikal-Amur Mainline: Great Nothern Railway marks its 50th anniversary

Today one of the longest railways in the world — Russia’s Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) — is celebrating its half-century anniversary.

BAM now largely determines global logistics for the entire 21st… pic.twitter.com/E4XkXBSJWc

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) April 23, 2024

By the end of this year, the carrying capacity of these networks is expected to reach 180 million tonnes — an increase of 36 million since 2021. More than 3,100 kilometers of tracks are planned for the next eight years, as well, which will help Moscow meet international demand for resources from its East.

China and Russia are also working together to increase the capacity of resources heading to the former. In 2022, they opened the lone vehicle bridge crossing the Amur River, which forms more than 1,600 of their roughly 4,000 border kilometers. Later that year they opened the Tongjiang Bridge, currently the only railway bridge connecting the two countries. It shortens the journey between China’s Heilongjiang region and Moscow by more than 800 kilometers over previous routes, saving 10 hours of transit time. This helped rail transport between the two countries jump to 161 million tonnes in 2023, a 36 percent increase from 2022. Over the first five months of this year, it grew another 20 percent.

A second railway bridge over the Amur is coming soon and will provide Russia’s resource-rich Sakha Republic with direct access to China. The new route will be 2,000 kilometers shorter than the current one which involves the use of sea ports. Beijing is investing in this railway construction in the Sakha Republic as part of a new international corridor in the Russian Far East: the Mohe-Magadan railway line.

RAND wraps up its rundown of China-Russia trouble in paradise with hypotheticals that, while possible, start to sound a little desperate:

The Arctic relationship between Russia and China could be damaged by a hypothetical diplomatic clash – for instance, if China were to precipitate a major safety or environmental incident in the vicinity of the Russian Arctic or somehow publicly embarrass Moscow by undermining the perception that Russia exerts full control over its Arctic region. More broadly, some serious indications that China might represent a direct and immediate military threat to Russia in the Arctic could lead to a backlash from Moscow.

How is the US supposed to exploit these points of contention? RAND argues the following:

Western policies that focus on differences between Russia and China may ultimately be more successful in shaping the Arctic’s future than those that emphasize their similarities or their relationship itself as the primary driver of regional outcomes….

Chinese growing interest in Arctic resources does not necessarily translate to a stronger dependence on Russia alone…China’s relationship with the United States is a big influence on this scenario’s probability; six of the seven other Arctic countries (except Russia) are allies, militarily and otherwise, of the United States. This scenario would assume a reversal of these countries’ existing preference to watch closely—and deny more often than not—China’s efforts to invest in such sectors as real estate and critical technologies. This scenario also offers a reminder that although the Sino-Russian relationship is important, the mere existence of their relationship is not the only determinant to how China can potentially extend its influence in the region…

One key policy decision by the United States and its northern NATO allies could be to develop separate strategies for dealing with Moscow and Beijing when it comes to Arctic affairs.

What does that look like? Conveniently, more of the same, which means the US doesn’t have to do much of anything other than stay the course and wait:

The Western Arctic countries yield strong potential to realize their interests and diminish the power of the Sino-Russian relationship by developing policies that (1) recognize Russia as an aggressive, risk-taking, but ultimately legitimate Arctic state and (2) recognize that China has no innate influence in the Arctic and pursues a vested interest in maintaining good economic and scientific relationships with all Arctic nations. There may be no need to drive a wedge between Russia and China in the Arctic because it already exists through their differences as Arctic actors and difficult history together.

RAND, to its credit, does admit is that much of the Russian-Chinese cooperation is mutually beneficial:

…the Sino-Russian relationship is driven by Russia’s need for funding and technology to develop its Arctic region, especially because its pool of investors waned with the invasion of Ukraine and sanctions, and by China’s desire to gain a foothold in the region and tap into Russia’s hydrocarbon resources and access to the NSR for Arctic navigation.

Furthermore:

Russia and China have forged a cooperative relationship that has (at least to some measure) helped Russia to further develop its northern economy and afforded China tangible opportunities to establish itself as a recognized stakeholder in the region. The most prominent example is the investment of Chinese companies in two liquid natural gas (LNG) projects in the Yamalo- Nenets Autonomous Okrug in northern Siberia and the Power of Siberia 1 pipeline.27 Overall, China has invested billions of dollars in energy and mining projects in Russia’s Arctic, although the bulk of its investment in Russia (and across the Arctic writ large) is in Yamal LNG, which is a massive undertaking.28 In addition, the Chinese transportation company COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd., has been exploring the use of the NSR running along Russia’s Arctic coastline as an option for future global logistics.

RAND does not, however, consider one the driving forces behind the increased cooperation: the current policy of the US and its vassals. And when you add that factor to the mix, it shows why a Moscow-Beijing split is unlikely. Even if the US and its Arctic allies try to develop separate policies for Beijing and Moscow, the latter two would still have the incentive to work together. Indeed, what makes the NSR more attractive isn’t just how short a route it is between Europe and Asia; it’s that its 5,600 kilometers are controlled by just one country (Russia), which means it faces less potential chokepoints than others.

A big part of that is because of how the West bailed on Russian Arctic projects.

Much of Russia’s plans for the extraction and delivery of its Arctic resources previously involved the West, but that, of course, is no longer the case. European shipping companies mostly cut ties with Russian operators in 2022. As part of the economic war against Russia, Western partners abandoned Northern Sea energy projects. At first, traffic fell off a cliff, but it has since rebounded and now looks set to grow exponentially into the future with both Beijing and Moscow being the biggest winners. According to Silk Road Briefing, “a central hub for building large-capacity offshore structures to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) on a very large scale is underway based in Murmansk. Russia is active in boosting the production of sea-borne super-cooled gas as its pipeline gas exports to Europe, once a key source of revenue for Moscow, have plummeted amid the Western sanctions imposed over the conflict in Ukraine. Those resources are now being directed East, where consumer demand is far greater.”

And yet the RAND authors propose the US keep up the very policies that are driving Moscow and Beijing together in a bid to drive a wedge between them.