After yesterday’s in line – but really cooler than whispered – CPI which restored hope in a December rate cut, all eyes are on this morning’s PPI print to boost dovish hopes that the Fed’s easing cycle would remain on track. It was not meant to be, however, as the PPI came in hotter than expected across the board on both a monthly and annual basis.

Starting at the top, headline PPI rose 0.2% MoM (in line with the +0.2% expected) but September was revised higher from 0.0% to 0.1%; meanwhile on an annual basis, headline PPI rose 2.4%, higher than the 2.3% expected, with the last month also revised higher from 1.8% to 1.9%.

Unlike last month when a drop in energy prices weighed heavily on the headline PPI number, this month energy subtracted just 0.02% from the final print, the lowest detraction since July. Meanwhile, Services added a hefty 0.179% to the bottom line number.

Indeed, according to the BLS, most of the rise in final demand prices can be traced to a 0.% advance in the index for final demand services. Prices for final demand goods inched up 0.1%, the first increase in the index since July.

Taking a closer look at the components:

Final demand services: The index for final demand services increased 0.3 percent in October after rising 0.2 percent in September. Over three-fourths of the broad-based advance in October is attributable to prices for final demand services less trade, transportation, and warehousing, which moved up 0.3 percent. The indexes for final demand transportation and warehousing services and for final demand trade services also increased, 0.5 percent and 0.1 percent, respectively. (Trade indexes measure changes in margins received by wholesalers and retailers.)

Product detail:

• Over one-third of the rise in the index for final demand services can be traced to prices for portfolio management, which advanced 3.6 percent. The indexes for machinery and vehicle wholesaling; airline passenger services; computer hardware, software, and supplies retailing; outpatient care (partial); and cable and satellite subscriber services also moved higher.
• In contrast, margins for apparel, footwear, and accessories retailing fell 3.7 percent. Prices for securities brokerage, dealing, investment advice, and related services and for truck transportation of freight also declined.

Final demand goods: The index for final demand goods inched up 0.1 percent in October following two consecutive decreases. The advance can be traced to a 0.3-percent rise in prices for final demand goods less foods and energy. Conversely, the indexes for final demand energy and for final demand foods declined 0.3 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively.

Product detail:

• An 8.4-percent increase in the index for carbon steel scrap was a major factor in the advance in prices for final demand goods. The indexes for meats, diesel fuel, fresh and dry vegetables, and oilseeds also moved higher.
• In contrast, prices for liquefied petroleum gas fell 18.1 percent. The indexes for chicken eggs, processed poultry, and ethanol also decreased.

Even more problematic for the doves, however, is that core PPI jumped to +3.1% YoY (hotter than the 3.0% exp) with the prior month revised higher to 2.9% from 2.8%. This was the second hottest print going back to March 2023 with just the June outlier surge hotter than October…

… as sticky Services costs continue to rise.

The hotter than expected PPIs have pushed yields and the dollar higher, even as the market waits to see the details of what impact today’s numbers will have on the Fed’s preferred core PCE metric – according to UBS key PPI components to PCE look hot – although Bloomberg noted a big jump in air passenger services (3.2%), which suggests some upside risks (i.e., 0.3% core PCE).

The most notable takeaway from the data appears to be the increase in final demand for services in October, which is similar to the factors that increased CPI yesterday — shelter, food and energy, which are components the Fed cannot control with interest rates.

Bottom line: this is a long way from the Fed’s mandated 2%, and it’s moving in the wrong direction, something which has not been lost on the market, where Treasury curves are flattening after the data, which suggests traders are wavering over the prospects of a December rate cut. That has yet to be reflected in rates markets — bets have been trimmed but marginally, not enough to really change the swaps market outlook as of now. According to BBG’s Vince Cignarella, sizeable block trades are going through Treasuries, mostly in the five-year tenor and some ten-year tenors, which looks like positioning for higher yields and flatter curves.

In a significant new wrinkle in retirement savings rules, some older workers will be able to put several thousand more dollars into 401(k) and similar retirement plans in 2025. The feature was included in the 2022 SECURE 2.0 Act, which stipulated that it would take effect in 2025. 

First, note that the general contribution limit for 401(k), 403(b), 457, and the federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan in 2025 will be $23,500. Those who are between ages 50 and 59 — or age 64 and older — will be able to contribute $31,000. Those limits are up $500 from this year.

The new twist affects those who will be between 60 and 63 years old in 2025 and subsequent years. They’re now granted the power to make “super catch-up contributions.” Specifically, that means they can pour $34,750 into their workplace retirement plans in 2025 — $4,250 more than their total for 2024. You qualify for this break by turning one of those qualifying ages anytime during the year. For example, someone who turns 60 in November can make the full super catch-up contribution for that year. 

Federal law doesn’t require employers to allow catch-up contributions, but adoption of the feature is nearly universal. Meanwhile, a recent CNBC survey found that 40% of American workers are lagging in their saving and planning for retirement, and that 21% of retirees have no savings at all. Similarly, a Bankrate survey found 35% of Boomers consider their savings “significantly behind” where they should be. 

The super catch-up feature was included in the 2022 SECURE 2.0 Act, which stipulated that it would take effect in 2025. Another catch-up contribution twist is slated to take effect in 2026: For those who make more than $145,000 in 2025, all 2026 catch-up contributions must be made to Roth accounts. The same test based on prior-year earnings will continue to apply in subsequent years. 

Traditional 401(k) contributions aren’t taxed in the year they’re made, but instead are taxed upon withdrawal. Roth accounts flip the tax benefits: When money is put into a Roth, it’s subject to federal income taxes, but qualified withdrawals in retirement are tax-free.   

A Vanguard report on the behavior of nearly 5 million participants in its retirement plans suggests that the new break will only be used by a small percentage of those eligible to use it. Vanguard reports that, as of 2023:  

• 14% of participants max out their contributions
• 15% of those eligible for catch-up contributions take advantage of the opportunity

Traditional and Roth IRA limits for 2025 aren’t changing: As with this year, qualified individuals can contribute $7,000, with an additional $1,000 allowed for those who will be 50 or older at any point in the year.  

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Machiavellian has negative connotations–cynically unscrupulous scheming to gain or maintain power–but this misses the mark of Machiavelli the man who sought a livelihood in the cutthroat political street fighting of Italy’s city-states circa the late 1400s and early 1500s.

As he made clear in other writings, Machiavelli favored democracy over competing political arrangements, and he wrote The Prince (the entire book in PDF format) as a sort of extended resume seeking to bolster his chances for employment.

First and foremost, Machiavelli explores the psychology of power and leadership. For leaders who seek to change the polity rather than merely maintain the status quo, Mr. M. lays out the challenge facing transformational leaders in Chapter Six of The Prince:

Here we have to bear in mind that nothing is harder to organize, more likely to fail, or more dangerous to see through, than the introduction of a new system of government.

The person bringing in the changes will make enemies of everyone who was doing well under the old system, while the people who stand to gain from the new arrangements will not offer wholehearted support, partly because they are afraid of their opponents, who still have the laws on their side, and partly because people are naturally skeptical: no one really believes in change until they’ve had solid experience of it.

So as soon as the opponents of the new system see a chance, they’ll go on the offensive with the determination of an embattled faction, while its supporters will offer only half-hearted resistance, something that will put the new ruler’s position at risk too.

In other words, those who are diminished by the proposed reforms will resist with all their might, while those who might benefit are lukewarm in their support because the benefits of the reform are not yet in hand. Put another way, one person’s efficiency reform is the loss of a livelihood / gravy train to another, and the gains of the proposed efficiency are 1) in the future, while the livelihood is threatened in the present, and 2) the gains of the efficiency are disbursed over the entire populace, so that the recipients of the reform have little incentive to fight tooth and nail like those defending their slice of the status quo pie.

This presents the transformational leader with a difficult choice of strategy: the first option–to attempt a wholesale transformation of the status quo in a Big Bang reformation of every agency and institution’s budget, leadership and culture–is tempting, as the political capital of the new leadership is strongest at the start, before its opponents have had time to chip away at the new administration’s support.

The second option is to choose one or two critical reforms and devote every ounce of political capital to pushing these through. This option is less grandiose, more cautious, but it’s also the one most likely to succeed, as the risk in Option 1 (The Big Bang blitzkrieg) is that the political capital of the reformers will be diluted by engaging the armies of opposition that will arise in every threatened agency and institution.

The benefit to this strategy is one or two big wins at the start solidifies the political support of the reformers. Supporters will see significant victories as proof the reformers are sincere and their power is sufficient to push through reforms despite the resistance of incumbents / special interests.

On the other hand, the incremental approach of winning a few key battles at the start might miss the opportunity to bulldoze all opposition before they can organize resistance. Much depends on the general zeitgeist of the time. If those benefiting from the status quo believe the system is sustainable as is, they will fight tooth and nail to water down reforms to protect their gravy train.

If the status quo is crumbling, then insiders are incentivized to make a deal with the reformers as a better option than losing everything as the system unravels beneath their feet. It also matters if the general public and movers and shakers are solidly behind the reformers, or if their popular support is an inch deep and a mile wide.

Machiavelli’s advice to transformational leaders is: don’t underestimate the fierce resistance of those losing their grip on power and all the financial rewards of that power. Be prepared to use every trick in the book to dilute and fragment opposition: buy off those who can be bought off, offer face-saving deals to key players, compromise to get key changes, set opposing factions against each other, and be generous and humble in victory rather than triumphant.

Looming over the entire reformist enterprise are the costs and risks posed by debt. Living on borrowed money is splendid in the beginning, when the cost of servicing the debt is low. But as the debt mountain grows, the cost of servicing the debt incentivizes borrowing more to pay the interest, accelerating the expansion of debt in a self-reinforcing feedback.

The cost of servicing the debt soon squeezes out other expenditures, and the borrowers’ incomes no longer support investing and spending on the scale to which they’re accustomed. The solution is of course to borrow more, and pass through the portal to the Magical Kingdom of Magical Thinking where we believe that we can “borrow our way out of debt” because borrowing more will enable us to “grow our way out of debt.”

Once the mountain of debt is towering, this notion is fantasy. The only sustainable options are painful: 1) devalue the currency, wiping out both the debt and the currency’s value, 2) tighten our belts and pay down the debt by reducing consumption, or 3) default on the debt and absorb the enormous losses, as every debt is somebody else’s asset.

That choice already looms large, and reformers must reckon with that as well as their reformist agenda. Here is total debt:

Here is federal debt:

And no, we’re not going to be “saved” by interest rates going back to zero: higher for longer is the future, as bond yield / interest rates cycles are multi-decade affairs.

Zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) was delightful in the moment but the full consequences of that stupendous error have yet to play out.

Things have looked bleak for Ukraine’s chances on the battlefield, but The Economist has forewarned that a political struggle awaits Ukraine domestically. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s grip on power could be slipping, and he’ll likely face a serious power struggle in 2025.

“If elections were held tomorrow, Mr Zelensky would struggle to repeat the success of the landslide win he secured in 2019…. Internal polling seen by The Economist suggests he would fare badly in a run-off against Valery Zaluzhny, the other wartime hero,” The Economist in a bleak assessment which is far more negative concerning his future leadership than the D.C.-insider publication has ever been.

The report details that amid daily, grim funeral processions in various neighborhoods of the capital, anxiety builds concerning the future Trump administration and what his promises to end the war will bring.

“Will his new administration tilt Ukraine’s way or Russia’s? Can he impose a ceasefire? Will elections follow?” – The Economist questions, describing the mood on the streets. 

“For now, there are two dates on Kyiv politicos’ lips: January 20th 2025, the date of Mr Trump’s inauguration, the first moment for any possible ceasefire and lifting of military law, and May 25th, the earliest mooted date for an election.”

Zelensky has previously faced fierce criticism for canceling last spring’s scheduled election, in the name of martial law and defense of the nation amid the Russian invasion. Some US Republicans in Congress had at the time warned that this could be reason to withhold arms and further funding, seeing in it a serious anti-democratic tendency.

As for this spring, Zelensky is likely to keep extending his term, while keeping the elections ban in place:

The presidential office denies it is preparing for a vote. Most sources remain sceptical that it will happen. It is not the first time the capital has been awash with rumour. There are issues of organization and legitimacy: how can a splintered nation at war hold elections? The country also has yet to endure what many assume will be a difficult winter. “Engaging in electioneering right now would be suicidal,” says Yaroslav Zhelezhnyak, an opposition MP.

But this means he may be forced to enter a US-backed deal with Moscow, which could mean political destabilization from the ‘enemies within’ – such as far right Azov and Right Sector hardliners – who will do anything to thwart and sabotage peace with Russia, given it would mean territorial concessions.

Either Zelensky gets stuck in a bad deal for Ukraine, or he faces military collapse in the east. But a former adviser of his explains, “Zelensky has only one way out to get out with an intact reputation. That is to run elections [without him] and go down in history as the man who united the nation in war.”

The Economist’s correspondent has observed there does seem to be some movement on the ground:

Still, some groundwork appears to have begun. Regional election headquarters are mobilizing, and work on candidate lists is beginning. The representatives of one likely presidential rival to Volodymyr Zelensky say that Ukraine needs elections; but they worry about making a public statement to this effect, fearing a fierce backlash from the presidential office.

Indeed, Zelensky may be plotting his own graceful political exit amid the many unknowns of the Trump administration. His star power has also long ago faded, as was on display during his last visit to Washington.

It remains, however, that Zelensky has already long banned opposition parties and media, and sought to suppress the Russian language, angering a huge segment of the population…

The Economist: Volodymyr Zelensky faces a power struggle in 2025.

After banning ALL political opposition in Ukraine and consolidating media channels under the regime’s umbrella, Zelensky does not face a power struggle. A “power struggle” is possible in a democratic state.… pic.twitter.com/uvgD8dXe6D

— Lena Petrova (@LenaPetrovaOnX) November 12, 2024

Ukrainian officials are further growing increasingly nervous over who is in the administration and who is out. They are “disturbed” by Trump’s decision not to offer a national security post to Mike Pompeo. Instead, “The worry now is that Mr. Trump’s offer to Ukraine will come to resemble something closer to ideas put forward by J.D. Vance, the incoming vice president.”

Via Remix News,

Last year, Switzerland imprisoned 9,297 people, with 67 percent of them foreigners, according to the Swiss Federal Statistical Office.

The number of foreigners in the prison population has tripled since the 1980s.

Men still account for the vast majority of offenders, accounting for 90.6 percent of all prisoners, while 9.4 percent of all prisoners are women.

The rate of foreigners in Swiss prisons has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years, but the overall number of prisoners has also jumped significantly.

The vast majority of prisoners are incarcerated for minor offenses, such as petty theft. In some cases, if offenders are unable or unwilling to pay a fine, they can be incarcerated in Switzerland. Many prisoners are serving sentences between five and 90 days.

It is unclear the exact breakdown of the foreign prison population in 2023. Switzerland has many foreign European nationals residing in the country, but many of those arrested and imprisoned are non-EU nationals.

🇩🇪 In many German states, half the prison population is now made up of foreigners.

🔺Germany spends €1.8 billion a year on its exploding foreign prison population, out of a total of €4.1 billion.

🔺Foreign national prisoners are mostly from Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan,… pic.twitter.com/XBA4XpV7UQ

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 9, 2024

In 2020, the greatest share of foreigners in Swiss prisons were Algerians. In second place were Romanians.

In Germany, over half of the prison population is made up of foreigners, and they are costing German taxpayers nearly €2 billion per year.

Read more here…

Earlier this month Turkey submitted a letter to the United Nations calling for a complete arms embargo on Israel, charging that its military is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has presented a full blockade on weapons as an ‘effective solution’ for ending the war in Gaza and achieving peace. Notably, among at least 52 countries to cosign that letter are Russia and China.

Erdogan on Wednesday highlighted the importance of the UN letter, warning that Israel “will become more and more aggressive if arms and ammunition supplies continue.” 

He is lobbying the international community to sign onto the ban, and touting that powerful BRICS countries like Russia and China are leading the way.

In fresh comments made after visiting Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan, Erdogan described, “China and Russia have both said that Israel’s attacks are unjust and illegal. They also talk about the need to stop the attacks and settle the issue diplomatically.”

“Russia and China have signed our joint initiative calling on the UN to take measures to stop the supply of arms and ammunition to Israel. This is an important step,” he continued, as cited in Anadolu news agency.

“The humanitarian situation in Palestine and Lebanon will continue to deteriorate daily if Israel is not stopped. As long as humanitarian aid is not freely delivered, people will die there every day due to lack of medicine, hunger, thirst and merciless attacks,” Erdogan added.

Turkey-Israel relations have fallen to their lowest point in modern history, and an extensive ban on Turkish exports to Israel has remained in place; however, some analysts have highlighted that some materials are getting through and that top Erdogan officials are looking the other way. Several Wednesday reports have said Turkey has officially cut ties with Israel altogether…

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Turkey has officially severed relations with Israel, according to reports in Turkish media.

News outlet Medya Ege reported Erdogan to have said, “We, as the State and Government of the Republic of Turkey, have cut off relations with Israel. We do not have any relationship with Israel at this point. Period.” —Newsweek

Given that in the US, President-elect Trump is stacking his foreign policy apparatus with pro-Israel officials, Turkey is set to possibly have rocky relations with the US moving forward as well.

However, Erdogan has expressed hope that Trump will will take a significantly different approach to the Middle East during his second term. One key issue remains US support to the Kurds of northern Syria, and another is America’s policy on Gaza.

Erdogan is very malicious.

He claims to have cut trade with Israel, but here are some live tracking of ships from Turkey, faking their destination on the AIS system but heading to Israeli ports. https://t.co/bgaBv9vAYO pic.twitter.com/iGe1BnDZtR

— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) November 13, 2024

“Our hope is that Trump takes very different steps towards the region this term because the messages being given from time to time concern us,” Erdogan told reporters after leaving Baku.

But one area where Trump could work closely with Turkey in the near future and moving forward is Ukraine. Turkey has been key to the only successful negotiated deal of the war – the grain export deal allowing for Ukrainian products and Black Sea ships to safely reach global markets.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute,

A top NATO military official said that NATO forces would have deployed to Ukraine to drive Russian soldiers from the country if Russia did not have nuclear weapons. 

Chair of the NATO Military Committee, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, explained to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Prague Defense Summit in the Czech Republic that Russia’s nuclear weapons are deterring a NATO deployment to Ukraine.

“I am absolutely sure if the Russians did not have nuclear weapons, we would have been in Ukraine, kicking them out,” he stated. 

Bauer said the challenge for the West is finding where Russia’s redlines on nuclear use are, noting that Washington mistakenly miscalculated that sending tanks and F-16s to Ukraine were the Kremlin’s redlines. 

Admiral Bauer was discussing the difference between the Ukraine conflict and other NATO wars such as the Afghanistan occupation. He stated the main difference between Moscow and Kabul is Russia’s nuclear stockpile.

In Afghanistan, American and NATO forces quickly forced the Taliban from Kabul in 2001. Then, the Western alliance engaged in a two-decade nation-building project while the Taliban fought using insurgent tactics. 

The top NATO official went on to say the Afghan War was not of strategic importance. “Afghanistan was never of strategic importance. If we’re really honest Afghanistan was not of strategic importance.”

He continued, “We spent 20 years there and we did a lot of things and people lost their lives but if you ask the question, ‘was it of strategic importance?’ In Afghanistan, the answer is no.”

Bauer argued that Ukraine is strategically important to NATO because the bloc is defending the “rules-based international order.” While the alliance has denounced Moscow for invading Ukraine, it has been silent as its core member has lavished Israel with arms as it conducts a genocide in Gaza and invades Lebanon.

* * *

Watch Adm. Rob Bauer’s full remarks below in “Sustaining the Long War: Money, Manpower and Public Support”:

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

What is evil? For the average person it’s a difficult concept to explain but most of us know it when we see it. Every once in a while there’s an event which strikes the collective consciousness in such a way that it becomes deeply symbolic. Sometimes these events symbolize ultimate good, and sometimes they symbolize ultimate evil. The public is affected by these things in ways they didn’t expect and might not even comprehend, but they are archetypal and profound nonetheless.

In the wake of Donald Trumps election victory and the jubilant celebration some people might overlook one of these recent events; the state assassination of a man’s pet squirrel and the national anger that followed.  Why does the death of a squirrel matter? It’s not only about the squirrel, it’s about the context and what it means for our civilization at large.

In a progressive controlled state (New York), Mark Longo ran a legal animal sanctuary for abandoned and injured animals. He promoted the sanctuary on social media with videos featuring his long time pet, Peanut the Squirrel. Longo rescued Peanut after his mother was killed in an accident and he raised the animal for seven years.

Peanut became internet famous as the mascot for “P’Nut’s Freedom Farm”, and he was clearly never a threat to anyone.  So, why after seven years does the New York Department of Environmental Conservation suddenly target Mark Longo for a criminal raid which resulted in the seizure of some of his animals (including Peanut) which were then immediately euthanized?

The State of NY indicates that SOMEONE made multiple reports against Longo, accusing him of violations including keeping animals with rabies. They also claimed Peanut had bitten people. No evidence has been presented to show these accusations to be true. And, as with all government bureaucracy, the state sent thugs to terrorize the poor man and his family instead of simply talking to him.

Whoever set Longo up did their homework, because accusations of rabies lead to the immediate death of an animal. The CDC requires that an animal be put down before samples can be sent for rabies testing. Peanut never had a chance.

So far there is no confirmed information on who actually lied and set up Longo for the raid. What we do know is that the person responsible for greenlighting the raid is State DEC officer Karen Przyklek (yes, an actual Karen).

Regardless of who swatted Longo and his animal sanctuary, it was the State of New York and the DEC that was responsible for handling the case and they did so in the worst way possible.

According to Longo they treated him like a drug dealer and then they killed his beloved pets without telling him and without due process. Longo and Peanut were guilty until proven innocent.

I have to say, when it comes to my pets I take a hard line position: They are a part of my family. Hurt my pets and I’ll hurt you. I don’t care what the law says. I don’t care about your rationale. Retribution is coming.

I think there’s a lot of people out there that agree with this sentiment and most of them are conservative. There is also clearly an element of government overreach here that made the death of Peanut a catalyst for political debate between conservatives and progressives over state power. Leftists love the state and defend it blindly. Conservatives are suspicious of the state and seek to contain it.

But there’s something more going on underneath the surface that I want to address, and that’s the emotional and spiritual side of injustice. Why target Longo? What was he doing to anyone? As far as I can tell he was bringing happiness to people while giving a home to animals in need. Why target a loved pet? What motivates certain people to do these things? What motivates the government to do these things?

I have pondered these questions for many years and like most people I first turned to innocuous explanations. Maybe these terrible situations are a result of simple misunderstandings? Maybe the complexity of bureaucracy leads to unintended consequences? Maybe the system is broken but the people within it generally have good intentions?

None of these things ultimately explain something like the killing of Peanut. Instead, I can only come to one conclusion: There are very evil people in the world and the state often colludes with those people to destroy good things.  Their goal is to seek out any and all goodness in the world and suffocate it. And this is what has so many people upset about a pet squirrel.

One of my favorite television shows of all time is a series from the 1990s called ‘Millennium’ starring Lance Henriksen. The show explores the idea of physical evil; not evil as an archetypal concept or a social disease, but evil as a tangible predatory entity and how it seeks to destroy mankind.

In that series one of my favorite episodes is called ‘A Room With No View’. A character by the name of Lucy Butler (Lucifer), kidnaps and imprisons promising children with unique qualities. She then psychologically tortures them until they agree to give up on their dreams. When they promise to turn to a life of mediocrity, she sets them free because they are no longer a threat to the machinations of evil.

For me this depiction of evil was a revelation. It wasn’t the usual cackling, mustache twirling devil of most popular media, trying to get people to commit a mass shooting or commit suicide or start a world war. Rather, this was a subtle and insidious evil that inspires people to simply give up trying to do good. This devil wasn’t a reactionary randomly attempting to create chaos today; he was planning generations ahead and making the future increasingly less hopeful.

It’s the kind of thing we see from narcissists and psychopaths all the time – That desire to extinguish positive motivation and leave the people around them in drudgery. That malicious drive to make good people stop doing good things and grinding them down to nothing over the course of years or decades. Evil is often subversive and it plays the long game.

When I hear progressives defend the state of NY and their actions against Longo, I can’t help but be reminded of the idea of evil as a subtle living force. I saw a lot of leftists on social media trying to diminish public concerns about the event by making false comparisons. They say conservatives “care more about a dead squirrel than they cared about the death of George Floyd.”

I say yes, we do, because Peanut the Squirrel was more valuable to the world than George Floyd.

Peanut was doing good. Even though he was just an animal he was doing far more good than the majority of leftists combined. We’re worse off without Peanut, we’re better off without career criminals like George Floyd. And I think it says a lot about a group that idolizes a man who robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint while they simultaneously ignore government abuse of power when it’s inconvenient for their political agenda.

My feeling is that, for whatever reason, Mark Longo and Peanut caught the eye of evil people and those people saw a positive social effort that they immediately wanted to snuff out. And one thing I’ve noticed about evil people is that they gravitate to other evil people. They seem to find each other in a crowded room. They work together across great distances and help each other in the destruction of innocents.

(How else do you explain the rapid spread of trans indoctrination of children, for example?)

In other words, when you set out to do something positive for the world or enact legitimate solutions to real problems, just understand that you WILL eventually be targeted. You probably won’t know why. It probably won’t make any logical sense. And it will be people you’ve probably never met in your life or people that you barely know. Maybe they’re demons in disguise. Maybe they are possessed. Maybe they symbolize a twisted test to see if you’re truly dedicated to your cause.

When these challenges arrive and evil seeks you out, know that it will use whatever means at its disposal to sabotage you and that usually includes government. To confirm how evil your society truly is, all you have to do is determine who the government chooses to help and who the government chooses to hurt. If the government regularly comes to the aid of people with ill intent while stepping on the necks of those with pure hearts, then you know that your society is on the doorstep to hell.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

It’s easy to laugh off people who constantly complain that the government is watching their every move and has hands in their wallets. Then, you stumble upon a story like Jeff Landry’s. 

When Landry set off for a camping trip with his family near Virginia’s Luray Caverns in early October, he expected to pay some tolls – especially because he had his RV.

Traveling from Falls Church with his wife and youngest child following in a minivan, they took I-66’s express lanes during peak hours, expecting to pay $30 or so each way in tolls. But to his surprise, when the EZ-Pass charges appeared days later, the bill totaled an eye-popping $569.50 for the roundtrip, according to MSN/MotorBiscuit.

At first, Jeff thought the bill was a mistake, but after checking the toll website, he realized it was accurate.

The MSN/MotorBiscuit writeup says that his three-axle RV was charged a premium due to its size, but $569.50 for a 22-mile round trip felt excessive to him. He hadn’t anticipated how much dynamic pricing could drive up tolls for larger vehicles during peak hours.

It turns out…the I-66 express lanes, managed by I-66 Express Mobility Partners, adjust toll rates based on traffic demand, charging drivers more to bypass congestion.

Larger vehicles, like Jeff’s 1997 Holiday Rambler RV, incur even higher tolls due to their size and road impact. According to a toll operator’s spokesperson, Jeff’s RV wouldn’t even qualify to use certain other toll lanes in Virginia, so the high charges are firm.

The writeup notes that drivers unfamiliar with toll pricing can easily misjudge costs, as Jeff did.

It says to avoid similar surprises, plan your trip to avoid peak hours, when toll rates are highest; traveling during off-peak times can significantly reduce toll charges. Additionally, check your vehicle’s toll classification, especially if you’re driving a larger, multi-axle vehicle, which typically incurs higher tolls. Lastly, explore alternative routes.

While non-express lanes may add some travel time, they can save large vehicle drivers hundreds of dollars. For Jeff, the express lane shaved only 20 minutes off his trip—an advantage that, in retrospect, didn’t justify the steep toll.

Or, maybe just stay home next time…

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

There are reasons to doubt WaPo’s report…

The Washington Post’s (WaPo) report alleging that Trump called Putin the Thursday after he won the election and told him not to escalate the conflict was contradicted by both the Kremlin and Kiev. The first called it “pure fiction” while the second said that it was “unaware” of the call despite allegedly being informed of it. The Trump team hasn’t commented on it at the time of writing. Nevertheless, the report’s timeframe raises questions about its credibility, which will now be elaborated on.

Putin participated in his traditional Q&A session that evening at the Valdai Club’s annual meeting, which lasted until around midnight. He claimed not to have talked to Trump by that time but said that he’d be interested in speaking with him if he calls.

If WaPo’s report is correct, then it means that Putin either talked to Trump before the aforesaid event but lied about it or that he talked to him sometime afterwards but before 8am Moscow time, which would be midnight of the next day at Mar-a-Lago.

It can only be speculated why Putin would lie about this if that’s indeed what happened, which is unlikely, and it’s also equally unlikely that he’d agree to have a detailed discussion with Trump between midnight and 8am in the morning after the prior evening’s long Q&A session. After all, these sorts of calls aren’t impromptu but are arranged ahead of time, and Putin could always have rescheduled. Therefore, WaPo’s report is probably fake news, thus making one wonder why it was published in the first place.

One possibility is that someone on his team was tasked with introducing the report’s two narratives, that Trump told Putin not to escalate but also informed Ukraine of the call too, into the discourse. This could have been done to test the water by gauging their reactions to what he might have planned to do. Another possibility is that subversive elements close to him wanted to undermine his planned call. And finally, the last possibility is that it was made up, whether by WaPo or whoever else for whatever reason.

In the order that they were shared, the first “trial run” theory would have shown that Russia is uncomfortable with being told what to do while Ukraine doesn’t want to be left out of the loop. As for the second, both might now know what to expect, but Trump could also switch it up to surprise them. Regarding the last one, it drove traffic to WaPo’s site and reaffirmed the perception of them as one of the preferred outlets for insiders to leak to, but it had no noticeable effect beyond that.

Looking forward, the first official Putin-Trump call (whenever it may be and assuming that WaPo’s report is fake news as was argued) will probably see the returning American leader sharing more details with his Russian counterpart about exactly what he has in mind for ending the Ukrainian Conflict. Readers can learn more about what that might look like here, here, and here. It’ll take more than one call to achieve this, most likely at least one in-person meeting too, but everything is moving in that direction.