Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The fall of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has sparked calls for Syrian refugees in Europe to return to their homeland.

With Damascus now declared liberated by a group of rebels on state television, European leaders and Syrian opposition groups alike are urging refugees to consider repatriation, as the reasons for their initial flight no longer apply.

The overthrow of Assad has brought wild celebrations in Syria among exiled Syrians, with thousands taking to the streets of European cities this weekend to rejoice over the end of his 24-year-long regime.

Thousands of Syrian diaspora in Dortmund, Germany are celebrating the near fall of Assad Regime. pic.twitter.com/VpoDwmDa5r

— Mazen Hassoun (@HassounMazen) December 7, 2024

Crowds have already begun forming at the Masnaa border crossing in Lebanon, with refugees waving green opposition flags and singing in celebration. Similarly, vast queues were seen at the Turkish border.

Syrians returning home from Turkey. pic.twitter.com/TywIQlIBXu

— Leila Al-Shami (@LeilaShami) December 8, 2024

Images circulating on social media show freed prisoners emerging from the notorious Saydnaya military prison, many of whom had been detained for decades.

اللحظات الأولى لخروج المعتقلين من سجن صيدنايا#تلفزيون_سوريا #نيو_ميديا_سوريا #فجر_الحرية #ردع_العدوان #سوريا #حلب #حماة #دمشق #سقوط_الاسد pic.twitter.com/YIT3m5HZkc

— تلفزيون سوريا (@syr_television) December 8, 2024

German officials are now debating the implications for Syrian refugees, many of whom are under “subsidiary protection” due to the ongoing civil war.

Professor Volker Boehme-Neßler, a constitutional law expert, told Bild that the regime’s collapse could mean a shift in their legal status. “If the reasons for flight disappear, even recognized asylum seekers have to travel,” he explained.

Hesse’s Interior Minister Roman Poseck (CDU) emphasized Germany’s interest in the return of Syrian refugees.

“We are very interested in getting refugees from Syria returned to their homeland, voluntarily or as part of deportations. There should be no compromises with criminals. Our safety must be a priority here,” he told the German tabloid.

A massive crowd of “Allahu Akbar” shouting Syrians has gathered in Utrecht today next to The Netherlands’ tallest Church tower.

Since they’re all so overjoyed, I’d say we put them straight on a one-way flight back home to Syria.👋🏻
pic.twitter.com/01QVrEScDd

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) December 8, 2024

Despite the optimism, experts warn of potential instability in Syria. Islamologist Susanne Schröter cautioned that the rebels, predominantly Islamist factions, are unlikely to establish a government meeting Western democratic standards. However, such a state could align with the values of many of those who fled the previous regime in the first place.

“The rebels are mainly Islamists. I think it is unlikely that a democratic state in the Western sense will emerge under their influence,” she said. “However, this is not necessarily an obstacle to the possible repatriation of refugees from Germany because many of these refugees themselves adhere to fundamentalist Islam.”

The reverse, however, could still happen, with some warning of a potential exodus of those fleeing as a result of the deposition of Assad.

“If this is the harbinger of another period of greater chaos in Syria, then there is still a large number of people in the country who have not left, many of whom may feel unsafe and may try to leave the country,” warned Rob McNeil, deputy director of the Migration Observatory at Oxford University.

Read more here…

Third-world immigration has led to some unsettling culture shocks over the last decade for Europeans and the population of the UK.  The rise in violent crime and rape incidents due to migrants is well documented in Europe.  The cultural “sharing” has been running rampant and finally the truth is starting to come out. 

In Germany, statistics show that in 2023 41% of all crime was linked to foreign suspects (migrants), while 75% of all victims were native German citizens.  In 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron admitted that around half of all crime in Paris was committed by foreigners. His claim was backed by data from the police headquarters and the ministerial statistical service for internal security, which showed that 70% of violent robberies and 75% of thefts in Paris in 2022 were committed by foreigners. 

Sweden’s massive spike in violent crime runs exactly parallel to their open borders policy and the rise in migrants from the third world.  Over 20% of the nation’s population is now made up of foreigners.  Migrant gangs spread across Sweden and in 2022 Primer Minister Magdalena Andersson admitted that “integration had failed”. 

The list goes on and on.  In the UK, such data is generally suppressed and the government refuses to acknowledge the relationship between increasing migration from certain cultures and the spike in criminal violence.  So much so that British officials are ordering the arrest of anyone who complains about the issue on social media. 

It’s not just the rise in crime that’s the problem; there’s also the imposition of disturbing cultural habits that the western world widely abandoned decades ago.  Inbreeding is just one of these habits – It was made predominantly illegal in the western world once genetic factors were understood, but it might make a comeback as mass immigration changes the demographic landscape.   

UK MP Iqbal Mohamed argued this week that the government needs to stop legislation banning cousin marriages because they are common in Muslim culture and because a ban would be “stigmatizing”:

“Instead of stigmatising those in cousin marriages or those inclined to be, a much more positive approach would be to facilitate advanced genetic test screening for prospective married couples, as is the case in all Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, and more generally to run health education programmes targeting those communities where the practice is most common.”

“I would therefore urge the House to vote against this motion and find a more positive approach to addressing the issues that are caused by first-cousin marriages, including the health risks and the consequences of modern conflicts and displacement of population around the world.”

The MP did acknowledge that the practice leads to a litany of health problems and recommended a “screening process”, but he did not specify what problems are commonly associated with consanguineous marriage.  Inbreeding is a plague within Muslim populations, with some Muslim nations containing genetic anomalies in the majority of their people.  In Pakistan, for example, over 70% of marriages involved genetically related partners (usually between first or second cousins). 

Inbreeding, especially over the course of multiple generations, causes a number of genetic mutations including  the HTR2B Q20 mutation.  This mutation has been linked to loss of impulse control, extreme violence and psychopathy.  In other words, cultures that practice inbreeding as a norm are far more inclined to violent behaviors the west often associates with the worst kinds of criminals.    

Keeping it “in the family” is preferred in Muslin society as a means to maintain generational wealth, but also as a form of suppression for women.  In Sweden the practice is about to be banned due to health concerns, but also due to arranged marriages (forced marriages) and the use of women as bartering property.  UK legislators have been working for years to make cousin marriages illegal, but consistently face opposition.

The UK government is perhaps the most blatant villain today when it comes to the forced multiculturalism agenda.  Their open hostility towards the native western public is becoming legendary.  Their policies require adaptation on the part of native residents rather than integration on the part of migrants.  In other words, the UK argues that it is up to the native public to embrace the ideologies and habits of incoming migrants, and if they don’t, they could be accused of bigotry (which can now lead to fines and prison time). 

But isn’t it correct to admonish cultural practices that lead to destructive behaviors?  Maybe some cultures are simply wrong.  Maybe some traditions should not be welcomed.  Maybe western culture is in many ways superior, and perhaps it’s time for the third world to adapt to western values rather the west taking a step backwards into the dark ages?  Or. maybe the two cultures should stay away from each other?  The multicultural experiment has obviously failed – Why continue pretending like it has inherent value?

Authored by Rainer Zitelmann via RealClearMarkets.com.,

Many Germans liked to see their country as a global leader in the fight against climate change. Despite Germany being responsible for only 1.5 percent of man-made CO2 emissions worldwide, advocates for climate action argued that Germany could serve as a role model for other nations. These self-appointed “saviors of the world” believed that if Germany led the way, others would soon follow.

But it would now seem that Germany has become more of an anti-role model than a role model. Germany’s economic situation is getting worse every month. Growth is lower than in almost any other OECD country.

BASF, once the largest chemical company in the world, is cutting thousands of jobs in Germany and redirecting several billion euros of investment to China. Germany’s largest steel manufacturer, ThyssenKrupp, last week announced plans to cut 11,000 jobs. The company had received two billion euros in subsidies on condition that it transition to producing “green steel” using hydrogen, which is totally uneconomical. BASF and ThyssenKrupp both cited Germany’s exorbitant energy prices and gargantuan bureaucracy as reasons for their decisions.

There has been a significant increase in the number of companies filing for insolvency. The current rate is 66 percent higher than the average for the month of October in the years 2016 to 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a study conducted by EY, fewer and fewer foreign companies want to invest in Germany. The number of foreign direct investment (FDI) greenfield and expansion projects in Germany has decreased by 12 percent compared to the previous year. This marks the sixth consecutive decline and the lowest level of investment activity since 2013.

EY identified Germany’s energy policy as a major deterrent for industrial investors. The combination of a recessionary environment, high energy prices, and uncertainties surrounding energy supply are all highlighted as key factors, along with high labor costs and bureaucratic complexities, all of which serve to further discourage foreign investors.

Estimates of the total costs of the German climate transition vary between 1.8 trillion euros (ifo Institute) and 6 trillion euros (McKinsey). But the indirect costs are even higher. A key component of German and European climate policy is the “mobility transition,” which entails a mandated shift towards e-mobility. The EU has banned the registration of cars with combustion engines from 2035. Consequently, the German automotive industry has been plunged into a severe crisis. Volkswagen has announced plans to lay off tens of thousands of employees and close multiple plants in Germany. Major automotive suppliers such as ZF, Continental, and Bosch have also announced tens of thousands of redundancies.

The German automotive industry, once a global leader that the whole world looked up to with admiration, has become a basket case. The heart of the German economy is stuttering.

Housing construction in Germany has also slumped dramatically. On the one hand, the number of immigrants arriving in Germany keeps on rising, while on the other, less and less new housing is being built. There are 20,000 building regulations and countless rules that have made building more ‘climate-friendly’ and far too expensive.

The origins of Germany’s current economic woes can be traced back to the administration of Angela Merkel, rather than Olaf Scholz’s recently collapsed government. The economic situation in Germany was good not because of, but in spite of her policies. She benefited from the market reforms and tax cuts implemented by her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder. Merkel not only failed to introduce any new reforms during her time in office, she instead exacerbated existing problems, particularly in the realm of energy policy. As was noted here five years ago, Germany’s energy policy is the dumbest energy policy in the world.

The battle against climate change is often cited as the number one objective of our day and age, the one paramount issue that should guide all political decision-making. However, Germany’s decision to shut down its nuclear power plants has led the country to rely on imported nuclear power and electricity from coal-fired power plants overseas. And, despite banning fracking domestically, Germany continues to import LNG gas produced through fracking from the United States. An irrational policy riddled with contradictions.

Is Germany at least the world champion in climate protection? No, Germany holds a respectable third place in the Environmental Performance Index, but in the category of climate protection, of all things, it only comes in seventh place (Great Britain is in fifth place).

Germany wanted to be world champion not only in climate policy, but also in migration and social policy. But the combination of generous social benefits and open borders has not worked.

Today, 64 percent of those on welfare, known as Bürgergeld (“citizen’s income”) have a migration background. The social system is overloaded, crime is rising sharply.

Instead of being a role model for the rest of the world in climate policy and migration policy, as many German politicians had hoped, Germany has now become a cautionary tale. Once again, the model of a planned economy has failed: In a market economy, it is the companies, and ultimately the consumers, who decide what is produced. In contrast, in a planned economy, decisions are made by politicians who believe they know better than millions of entrepreneurs and consumers. In this respect, the rest of the world can learn something from Germany, namely a lesson in what not to do.

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a ‘Bill of Temporary Privileges.’ And if you read the news, even badly, you know that the list gets shorter and shorter.”

– George Carlin

Disguising its power grabs in the self-righteous fervor of national security, the Deep State has mastered the art of the bait-and-switch.

It works like this: first, the government foments fear about some crisis or threat to national security, then they capitalize on it by seizing greater power and using those powers against the American people.

We’ve seen this play out over and over again.

The government used its so-called War on Terror to transform itself into a police state.

Then the police state used its War on COVID-19 to claim lockdown powers.

All indications are that the government’s promised War on Illegal Immigration will be yet another sleight of hand that allows the powers-that-be to engage in greater power grabs while weakening the Constitution.

Therein lies the danger of the government’s growing addiction to power.

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again—inevitably, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

The slippery slope that starts with illegal immigration has all the makings of a thinly veiled plot to empower the government to become the arbiter of who is deserving of rights and who isn’t.

That quickly, we could find ourselves navigating a world in which the rights enshrined in the Constitution for all persons living in the United States are transformed into privileges enjoyed only by those whom the government chooses to recognize as legitimate.

By persuading the public that non-citizens, particularly illegal immigrants, do not enjoy the same inalienable rights as law-abiding citizens (a fact refuted by the Constitution and every credible legal scholar in the country), the Deep State is leading us down a road in which all rights are transitory.

This is how you establish a hierarchy of rights, contingent on whether you belong to a favored political class.

Be warned.

At such a time as the government is emboldened to flip that switch and appoint itself the ultimate authority on which protected class of individuals gets to enjoy the rights enshrined within the Constitution, the dividing line will not be between legal citizens and illegal immigrants.

It will not even be between Republicans and Democrats.

Rather, the purpose of that line of demarcation will be to distinguish the compliant, obedient, subservient vassal of the American police state (the so-called Loyalists) from everyone else.

We’re almost at that point now.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

Here are some of the inherent dangers in allowing the government to become the arbiter of who is deserving of rights:

It leads to the erosion of universal rights. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the fundamental rights of all persons within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status, race, religion, or any other factor. When the government starts making distinctions about who is entitled to these rights, it undermines the universality that makes them so powerful. This creates a slippery slope where rights become privileges, subject to the whims of those in power.

It gives rise to authoritarianism. History is replete with examples of governments that consolidated power by first stripping away the rights of marginalized groups. Once the principle of universal rights is breached, it becomes easier to target other groups deemed “undesirable” or “unworthy.” This paves the way for authoritarianism, where the government dictates who enjoys freedom and who does not.

It creates a two-tiered society. A hierarchy of rights inevitably leads to a two-tiered society, where some individuals enjoy full protection under the law while others are relegated to second-class status. This fosters resentment, division, and social unrest. It also creates a vulnerable population that can be easily exploited and abused.

It undermines the rule of law. The rule of law is a fundamental principle of a just society. It means that everyone is subject to the same laws and that no one is above the law. When the government selectively applies the law based on arbitrary criteria, it undermines the rule of law and erodes trust in the legal system.

It chills free speech and dissent, i.e., the right to criticize the government. When people fear that their rights are contingent on their political views or social status, they are less likely to speak out against injustice or challenge the government. This chilling effect on dissent stifles free speech and creates a climate of fear and conformity.

It contributes to the loss of moral authority. A nation that claims to champion liberty and justice for all loses its moral authority when it denies those principles to certain groups within its borders. This undermines its standing in the world and diminishes its ability to promote human rights abroad.

Remember, the erosion of inalienable rights often starts subtly, with the government chipping away at the edges of those rights for specific groups.

The pattern is subtle at first, with government officials exploiting fear and prejudice in order to target groups that are already marginalized or perceived as “outsiders.” Incrementally, the net is cast wider and wider, so that by the time the injustice is widespread enough to inspire outrage in the greater populace, it’s too late to resist.

Historic examples abound of how the government has manufactured a blatantly unjust hierarchy of rights in order to diminish certain segments of society. These run the gamut from slavery and the persecution of Native Americans to the Japanese internment camps and segregation.

More recently, we’ve seen this tactic deployed in order to justify policies that run afoul of the Constitution, ranging from immigration policies and mass surveillance programs to SWAT team raids, voting rights, and the erosion of due process.

Clearly, Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all, a warning issued in response to the threat posed by Nazi Germany’s fascist regime, still applies.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

This is how the slippery slope to all-out persecution starts.

It doesn’t help that growing numbers of American citizens barely know their rights. Consider that only 5% of the U.S. adults surveyed could correctly name all five rights in the First Amendment, 20% could not correctly name any, and less than one in 10 Americans know they have a right to petition the government.

Such civic illiteracy lays the groundwork for all manner of tyrannies to follow. After all, how can you defend your rights if you don’t know what those rights are?

Then again, civic illiteracy among government officials, who are entrusted with upholding and protecting the Constitution, doesn’t appear to be much better.

It was ten years ago on December 15, National Bill of Rights Day, that the U.S. Supreme Court in its 8-1 ruling in Heien v. State of North Carolina gave police in America one more ready excuse to routinely violate the laws of the land, this time under the guise of ignorance.

The Heien case, which started with an improper traffic stop based on a police officer’s ignorance of the law and ended with an unlawful search, seizure and arrest, was supposed to ensure that ignorance of the law did not become a ready excuse for government officials to routinely violate the law.

It failed to do so.

In failing to enforce the Constitution, the Court gave police the go-ahead to justify a laundry list of misconduct, from police shootings of unarmed citizens to SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, and the tasering of vulnerable individuals with paltry excuses such as “they looked suspicious” and “she wouldn’t obey our orders.”

Ignorance of the law has become an all-too-convenient cover for all manner of abuses by government officials who should know better.

I’m not sure which is worse: government officials who know nothing about the laws they have sworn to uphold, support and defend, or a constitutionally illiterate citizenry so clueless about their rights that they don’t even know when those rights are being violated.

This much I do know, however: for anyone to advocate terminating or suspending the Constitution is tantamount to a declaration of war against the founding principles of our representative government and the rule of law.

If there is one point on which there should be no political parsing, no legal jockeying, and no disagreement, it is this.

Then again, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, one could well make the case that the Constitution has already been terminated after years on life support, given the extent to which the safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights—adopted 233 years ago as a means of protecting the people against government overreach and abuse—have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

History provides chilling examples of how quickly rights can vanish, even in a nation such as ours founded on the principles of freedom. As George Carlin astutely observed:

“If you think you do have rights, next time you’re at the computer, get on the internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in ‘Japanese Americans 1942’ and you’ll find out all about your precious … rights. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: ‘right this way’ into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away.”

Remember you were warned, folks.

At the point that rights become privileges, then the Constitution and the government’s adherence to the rule of law will become optional.

The government of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Damascus on Wednesday said that it expects Damascus International Airport to reopen within days, which would be a surprising and unexpected development.

It had been closed since the dramatic events of HTS-led forces entering the capital, and Assad and his top officials fleeing the country. The airport’s director Anis Fallouh said it will reopen “in the next few days” – according to the AFP.

“God willing, the airport will reopen as quickly as possible because we are going to work flat out,” Fallouh said. “We can quickly resume flights through Syrian airspace.”

For now, however, it seems unrealistic that any flights will land or take off from the airport given that Israeli warplanes have been bombing the country non-stop for at least 72 hours. This has included the targeting of at least 350 Syrian Army sites, as well as facilities for the production of chemical weapons.

With Israeli warplanes roaming the skies, commercial flight travel over Syria remains highly dangerous. There’s also the fact that the various al-Qaeda factions now in control of Syria have gained access to at least some of Syria’s remnant anti-aircraft missile arsenal, such as MANPADS.

There have also long-been NATO-supplied shoulder-fired missiles all around Syria, supplied to the ‘rebels’. Below appears to be evidence of this…

NATO bonanza!https://t.co/p5ScKQOFel

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) December 10, 2024

Only Cham Wings, a private Syrian airline and Syrian Air, the country’s national airline, had been continuing to operate up to the dramatic events of the last ten days. 

But Al Jazeera has noted of the status of these defunct airlines, “Aircraft maintenance official Samer Radi said there were currently 12 aircraft on the ground, one of which had been stripped of its equipment by looters during the takeover by opposition forces.”

It’s unclear whether these carriers will be reestablished, or a timeline for potential operations. At this moment the country and population are also starved of fuel, after days ago an Iranian tanker en route to Syria turned around as it became clear the Assad government was in collapse.

Before the war, British Airways and Emirates had frequent flights to and from Damascus. But immense hurdles remain in what is still basically a war zone and questions over the fact that a US-designated terror organization is now running the show in Damascus.

The HTS jihadists who seized control of Aleppo International #Airport have reportedly destroyed all whiskey and alcohol bottles in its duty-free zone. It seems that the enforcement of Sharia law has already begun in #Aleppo. pic.twitter.com/81lxrz0b1O

— Greco-Levantines World Wide (@GrecoLevantines) December 2, 2024

“So far, the operations of Syrian Air have been extremely restricted,” explained one industry analyst. “Everybody would want to reopen flights into Damascus, which obviously is a significant destination for the Gulf.”

“Airlines will have to individually go and do a damage assessment, a liability assessment and a review of what’s happened, what’s workable, what’s permissible, as well as what’s functioning and what is not,” the analyst continued.

Authored by Michael Munger via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

Adam Smith said it all, in “Wealth of Nations”: “The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.”

Now, we might interpret “toil” as the cost, or money price, of the thing, and “trouble” as the transaction cost, or inconvenience of the purchase. Then an increase in either the money price, or an increase in trouble, are both cost increases. Demand curves slope downward, so people are better off if the price, or the “trouble,” are reduced. They are substitutes, for citizens.

The problem is that these two costs are not seen as substitutes for bureaucracies, not at all. The result is that citizens are constantly paying substantial, and easily avoidable, “taxes” in the form of trouble, just so bureaucracies can save money.

It is easy to think of examples.

You are trying to enter the country, after a trip abroad. There are only two stations open at the passport control barrier, and hundreds of people in line. Now, the government could easily hire more passport agents, but that would cost money. Instead, a terrible “trouble tax” is imposed, as people have to wait in line for more than two hours just to have a bureaucrat spend 30 seconds looking at a passport and waving you through. (This happened to me in Charlotte this year: there were literally two agents working. We were told “there is a shortage,” as if that were an explanation for indifference to citizens’ needs). Other places, including Dulles Airport in Virginia, may even be worse!

Each of the hundreds of people in line, many of whom missed their connection, would happily have paid $10, or $20 (I would have paid $50!) to have a ten-minute line instead of two hours.

The extra thousands in revenue would easily have paid an hour’s salary and benefits for five more bureaucrats to process passports.

This is a “government failure,” because the outcome is Pareto inferior—the new bureaucrats would be better off being paid, and the customers would have been happy to pay.

Yet the transaction fails to take place, resulting in what economists call “deadweight loss.”

This kind of failure is epidemic in our current system of government, and it’s getting worse fast.

A friend who has young children recently recounted his experience getting “school supplies” (an experience parents all over the United States can identify with). Parents were given a specific, mandatory list of items: the pencils needed to be of a certain type, the notebooks had to have specific dimensions. No single store had every particular item required, so my friend had to go to multiple stores to buy just a few items at a time.

The parents of all 30 kids in the class each had to go on this tiresome search and purchase quest, spending hours that they would have paid to avoid. Why doesn’t the school buy these items, of the correct type and in bulk, and then distribute them on the first day of class?

The diligent school-shopper wrote in an email: “Sure, this would cost money. But they could send me a bill! Or raise my taxes by whatever amount that offsets the cost. It would surely be socially efficient to allow a procurement specialist to take care of this, rather than outsourcing it to hundreds of families” in the whole school.

Look: the money cost is the same, either way: the parents are paying for the supplies. Either they pay directly, to the retail store, or they pay taxes which fund purchase of the supplies. (Actually, since having the school buy in bulk is cheaper, the tax cost would be less, but let’s ignore that, and call it even).

The explanation is obvious, and it illustrates why the use of bureaucracy as a means of provision of services is so inefficient, and frustrating: the burden of the costs is different for the government, and the citizens! Citizens pay both the money price (from their toil to earn cash), and the trouble (time waiting in line, driving around, filling out forms) of acquiring the needed permission or service. But the bureaucracy only counts the money cost, because they only care about their “budget.” That doesn’t make them bad people, but they are drawn that way, because all the incentives are to save on budgets.

In many areas of government, this has led to a doom loop: tax cuts reduce funding, funding reduces service, and lack of service imposes a very large “trouble tax” on citizens. Citizens would love to pay more taxes to avoid the trouble, but that option is not available because government is not a competitive system where a competitor can enter and offer better service for a lower total (toil plus trouble) cost.

In North Carolina, my home state, the “need to hire more workers” problem is particularly egregious at the Department of Motor Vehicles drivers’ license stations. The General Assembly is proud of its tax cuts, and the “savings” on the DMV budget. The Governor has responded by refusing to use what money is available to hire new inspectors and clerks. As a result, the average wait time for a driver’s license is four to six hours, if it is possible to get one at all.

Of course, it is illegal to drive, and impossible to fly, without a valid “Real ID” driver’s license, so citizens have no choice but to pay the trouble tax. This kind of government failure, driven by the fact that employees of the state focus on money, but care nothing for the time of citizens, is a product of bureaucracy and monopoly power. There is no reason to make the system more convenient or more efficient, because there is no profit incentive, no payoff to providing good service.

We are all forced, essentially at gunpoint, to line up and accept whatever “service” the state deigns to provide.

Daniel Penny has made his first public comments after being acquitted on charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the May 2023 death of Jordan Neely on a New York City subway.

Speaking with Fox News, Penny said he had put himself in a “very vulnerable position,” during the encounter, but felt compelled to act.

Penny, 26, a four-year Marine veteran, said that while he’s “not a confrontational person,” Neely was “threatening to kill people.”

The case took a significant turn when New York Supreme Court Judge Maxwell Wiley dismissed a second-degree manslaughter charge against Penny after a jury deliberation that lasted four days without reaching a unanimous verdict. Subsequently, a Manhattan jury acquitted Penny of criminally negligent homicide.

Throughout the trial, Penny’s defense argued that their client did not intend to kill Neely but was acting in self-defense. They portrayed Neely as a former street performer whose aggressive outburst on the train frightened other passengers. Witnesses testified that Neely had been loudly declaring his hunger and indifference to returning to prison.

JUST IN: Daniel Penny says he has zero regrets, says he couldn’t live with the guilt if someone was hurt on the subway by Jordan Neely.

Penny is an even better person than I thought.

The Marine said he would do a million court appearances if it meant saving someone on the… pic.twitter.com/swNcYWXGpN

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) December 10, 2024

The medical examiner’s conclusion that Neely died from “compression of neck” was a key point in the trial, with Penny’s defense challenging this finding. It was also noted that Neely had synthetic marijuana in his system at the time of the incident and had a history of assaultive behavior in subway stations.

The aftermath of the trial saw Penny reflecting on the severe criticism he has faced, expressing no desire for praise, merely justifying his actions as necessary to prevent potential harm to other passengers. He criticized city officials for their policies, which he implied contributed to the circumstances leading to the fatal encounter, though he refrained from naming anyone specifically. “I’ll take a million court appearances and people calling me names and people hating me, just to keep one of those people from getting hurt or killed,” Penny told Fox.

He also told the network that he and his lawyers are considering suing Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for malicious prosecution.

🚨 NEW: Daniel Penny and his lawyers have announced they are considering SUING corrupt Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg for malicious prosecution

Bragg was also caught colluding with the medical examiner during the trial

SUE HIM INTO THE STONE AGE, DANIEL! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Z7tqUmgCGm

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) December 11, 2024

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg responded to the acquittal by affirming that the prosecution had diligently “followed the facts and the evidence from beginning to end.”

This case has left New Yorkers and people nationwide deeply divided, bringing to the forefront issues concerning homelessness, mental health, and the responsibilities of individuals and authorities in maintaining public safety. The national debate continues as communities grapple with these complex challenges.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Publicly financed Russian media’s reaction to Syria’s regime change is a lot different than most could have expected after they earlier warned that this could lead to an unprecedented terrorist crisis.

Those concerns were warranted since Turkish-backed Harat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is designated as a terrorist group and was originally part of Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, these outlets’ reactions have been surprisingly calm, thus suggesting a desire to play everything by ear for the sake of retaining Russian influence there.

RT published two very thought-provoking op-eds since the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) epic collapse and Assad’s cowardly flight from Damascus that are worth reviewing in this context. The first is by Murad Sadygzade, who’s President of the Middle East Studies Center and Visiting Lecturer at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, and answers the question of “Why did Syria fall so fast and what happens next?” He began by drawing attention to foreign meddling but then dove into domestic details.

This approach is noteworthy since it had hitherto been very rare for publicly financed Russian media to talk about the Assad Government’s many shortcomings, but Sadygzade candidly addressed them:

“A key turning point came when Assad lost the support of even those who had stood by him for years. Economic hardships, sanctions, and a growing sense of hopelessness led many to believe that change was inevitable, even if it came at the cost of destruction. The strategic mistake of the ruling elite – betting on a military solution to the conflict while ignoring political dialogue, both domestically and internationally – ultimately left Assad vulnerable to determined and well-organized adversaries.”

The second RT op-ed is a republication of an article by Gazeta.ru political analyst Vitaly Ryumshin under the title “Assad’s collapse was coming – everyone just looked away”. Here are the highlights:

“Assad’s Syria had been rotting from within for years. The country was locked in a perpetual humanitarian and economic crisis, with 90% of Syrians living in poverty and widespread malnutrition. Desperate families took out loans just to buy food but couldn’t pay them back. Power outages crippled even Damascus, sometimes leaving the capital dark for 20 hours a day. Electricity prices soared by up to 585% in the spring of 2024 alone, pushing an already destitute population deeper into despair.

The Assad government offered no solutions – only mounting repression. Under crushing sanctions, Damascus couldn’t secure foreign loans, and with its oil fields under US-Kurdish control, there was nothing left to trade. Even Syria’s illicit drug trade, once a lifeline, couldn’t plug the gaping holes in state finances. Profits disappeared into the pockets of warlords and traffickers, not the state treasury.

Meanwhile, Assad’s underpaid, demoralized army, bled dry by years of civil war, continued to disintegrate. For a time, Iranian proxies like Hezbollah propped up his forces, but by 2024, they’d shifted their attention to fighting Israel. Attempts to draw Russia further into Syria’s quagmire fell flat. Moscow, busy elsewhere, had no interest in bailing Assad out.”

Ryumshin also twice referred to the Assad Government as a “regime” in back-to-back sentences, writing that “In the south and southeast, dormant rebel cells rose up, striking a final blow against Assad’s hollowed-out regime. On Sunday, opposition forces stormed Damascus from several directions. Bashar al-Assad, whose regime withstood over a decade of civil war, finally fell from power.” It’s a stunning change in RT’s editorial policy that they didn’t replace that previously taboo word before republishing.

Perhaps they listened to what their senior correspondent and veteran Syrian War journalist Murad Gazdiev told them in an interview, where he concluded that “Assad’s govt fell due to corruption, lack of organization, and motivation”. He has a decade worth of experience covering this conflict so his post-mortem on Assad’s Government should be taken very seriously. Publicly financed TASS also editorialized the word “regime” into a headline about Syria on Tuesday in a related visible change of policy.

The day prior, they described HTS’ chief as an “armed opposition leader” without referencing the US’ $10 million bounty on his head for terrorist-related crimes or even his connection to such groups. TASS also reported how “Syrian Embassy operating as usual under new flag”, which implies Moscow’s tacit (key qualifier) acceptance of this regime change in the sense of continuing to recognize those Syrian diplomats as official representatives of the new ruling arrangement who are allowed to keep working.

Their press review of Vedomosti’s article about the future of Russia’s military bases in Syria adds context to why that tacit acceptance appears to have been made. Ibragim Ibragimov, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told them that “I don’t exclude that a new format of military-technical cooperation will appear soon and that Russian military instructors will play a role in establishing a new Syrian army.” That would be an intriguing turn of events.

It might not be as far-fetched as some think provided that there’s political will and the right conditions to make it work, the latter of which would require the non-terrorist anti-government opposition (NTAGO) to separate itself from terrorist-designated groups and figures. Moreover, such groups and figures would have to prove that they’ve changed their ways, just like the Taliban have sought to do since returning to power in mid-2021 to regain Russia’s trust and try to have restrictions on cooperation with them lifted.

To that end, meaningful progress on implementing UNSC Resolution 2254 from December 2015 would go a long way, which Assad refused to do for reasons beyond the scope of this analysis. The Russian-written draft constitution that was unveiled during the first Astana Summit in January 2017 could also be revived to serve as a model for the constitutional reform that this resolution obligates Syria to undertake. Assad had unofficially rubbished it due to the concessions that he was asked to make.

Judging by what the head of the Syrian armed opposition delegation to the Astana talks told Sputnik and the president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission told RT, these two internationally recognized NTAGO platforms want to retain positive relations with Russia. That could explain why the leader of the new interim Syrian government, Mohammed al-Bashir, was described by TASS as someone who “joined anti-government armed units supported by foreign funding” instead of the previously typical foreign proxy.

Reflecting on publicly financed Russian media’s reports about Syria’s regime change, it therefore appears as though the Kremlin signaled to those outlets within its “sphere of influence” to withhold publishing worst-case scenario forecasts for now while their country’s diplomats try to avert an even worse crisis. The worst might still be yet to come, but it hasn’t yet unfolded and might still be prevented, hence the importance of them remaining calm and reciprocating the new ruling arrangement’s positive messages.

Eric Trump, Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, discussed President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for the crypto industry, emphasizing his father’s vision for the U.S. to become the “crypto capital of the world” during an interview with CNBC. 

ERIC TRUMP: I’ve been in crypto for a long time and so is my father, and I think he realizes that every country in the world is embracing it. People are running—look at where we are right now in Abu Dhabi. They’re putting billions of dollars into crypto, into digital technologies. If we don’t do it as America, we’re going to be left behind. He wants to make America the crypto capital of the world. He’s been very, very clear with that, and I applaud that.

Listen, right now, if you live in America and want to get a home loan, it takes you 90 days. How the hell does it take 90 days to get a home loan? By then, the house is already sold. Your dream is gone. There’s zero chance you’re getting it. There is nothing on blockchain that can’t be done better, faster, and substantially cheaper—not pushing paper. The banking system we have around the world, the modern banking system, is antiquated. It’s antiquated, and it’s just a matter of time before crypto not only catches up but really leaps ahead.

We’re incredibly excited on a lot of fronts, and I think America will be the crypto capital of the world. I fully support it, my father fully supports it, and our family fully embraces it. We believe in DeFi.  We believe that’s the way of the future. America better lead the way; otherwise, we’re going to leave a lot behind.

DAN MURPHY: All of this also comes back to regulation as well, and one thing your father has spoken about is incorporating new legislation, even deregulation, in the crypto space to really accelerate and move this forward. What does that look like?

ERIC TRUMP: It’s transparent, that’s what it is. The people in the crypto industry are frustrated that no one’s ever put together a sensible plan as to how to regulate an industry. They’re fine with regulation, but they just want guidelines, and they’ve said that. The problem is, you see so many companies have been so unfairly treated—so many lawsuits, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, people attacked, companies attacked—and they’re just saying, “Just give us the rules of the road, and we’ll obey them.”

And by the way, if you give us the rules of the road, chances are the rest of the world will follow. So I think sensible regulation makes a lot of sense. A lot of people think the crypto industry doesn’t want regulation, but that’s actually not true. They just want sensible regulation—regulation that they can follow, regulation that’s crystal clear, that’s black and white.

They don’t want to see people like Gensler, who was absolutely a disaster for crypto. He did everything he could to try and stifle innovation. He would do so, and those people have all been cleared out. I think they will put together good regulation. I think we will have a clear roadmap, and hopefully, the rest of the world follows that. Hopefully, we can lead by example because that’s what we should do as Americans. Hopefully, we truly are the crypto superpower of the world.

Authored by Tsvetana Parskova via OilPrice.com,

• Lithium prices have dropped sharply, prompting production curtailments in Australia and China but not in Africa, where Chinese-owned mines maintain output.

• The global lithium market remains oversupplied, with UBS forecasting imbalances until at least 2027 despite recent production cuts.

• China’s strategic focus on EVs and low-cost lithium ensures continued mining, while a potential restocking phase could eventually boost prices.

This year’s plunge in lithium prices has forced curtailments in production in China and Western Australia as lithium miners look to limit losses and reduce the oversupply hanging over the market and prices. 

However, the lithium glut has not gone away and the market could remain oversupplied until 2027, analysts say. 

One of the reasons for a persistent glut could be the fact that while producers in Australia and, to some extent, in China, are curtailing output and delaying project ramp-ups, lithium mines in Africa owned by Chinese battery makers are not reducing supply. 

The mines, especially those in Zimbabwe, continue to operate as Chinese battery makers continue mining operations to have low-cost lithium supply and maintain market share, industry insiders and analysts have told Reuters. 

As a result, the market will continue to be oversupplied for the next two years, and not find balance until 2027, according to UBS. 

The bank still expects lithium supply to have increased by 25% this year and to rise by 15% next year, according to its estimates cited by Reuters.

The supply boost is expected despite the recent curtailments at lithium mines in Australia.

Global lithium miners have moved to curtail production and shrink their workforce—at least until market conditions improve.

Last month, Australian miner Mineral Resources said it was shutting down its Bald Hill lithium mine amid a crash in lithium prices in another project curtailment in the industry.

The low lithium prices have hit other producers and projects, too.

Australia’s Liontown Resources said it would reduce production from its Kathleen Valley lithium project, “to prioritise higher margin ore at reduced costs to adapt to the low-price lithium environment.”

Pilbara Minerals has also announced a suspension of a lithium processing plant in Western Australia.

The world’s largest lithium producer, North Carolina-based Albemarle, booked a net loss of $1.1 billion for the third quarter amid lower pricing in the lithium value chain.

As part of measures to reduce costs and operations, Albemarle will be reducing its global workforce by an expected 6-7% and is slashing its 2025 capital expenditures by around 50% versus 2024 to an anticipated range of $800 million to $900 million.

The reduction in some Chinese lithium supply is being replaced by output in Africa, which is serving the growing Chinese market, Albemarle’s chief commercial officer, Eric Norris, said on the company’s Q3 earnings call last month.

“It is a fragmented market. It is a market with significant Chinese presence today. And it’s a market where you have a lot of young companies whose sole reason for existing is to raise a lithium project,” Norris said, commenting on why more supply hasn’t been curtailed.

It could take longer for this market to rebalance, he added. 

Many mines supplying Chinese battery makers wouldn’t close amid the price plunge because they are integrated into downstream supply chains, analysts told Reuters.  

EV manufacturing and sales is a strategic priority for China’s government, which would like to have cheap lithium supply flowing.  

And China’s electric vehicle sales are surging. November marked the fifth consecutive month in which battery electric vehicles and plug-in vehicles outsold gasoline passenger cars.

China’s most recent rebound in demand has pushed local lithium prices higher. But the fundamentals of the global lithium market haven’t changed much—supply continues to outpace demand, setting the stage for at least another year of oversupply and depressed prices, analysts say.

However, an expected phase of restocking of processed lithium for batteries could rebalance the market faster, according to Will Adams, head of base metals research at Fastmarkets, a commodity price reporting agency.

“We’re probably going to be stepping in and out of deficits for a while, but as the deficits get closer, look out for the restocking phase as that can really give prices a boost,” Adams said on a recent webinar on the global outlook for the battery raw materials market in 2025.