Doctors in Australia are warning about a “significant increase” of patients developing psychosis after being prescribed medicinal cannabis, according to ABC Australia. 

“We’re seeing a lot of people getting medicinal cannabis who end up with their first psychotic episode, or we’re seeing it dispensed to people who have psychotic conditions, and these people are relapsing,” said Brett Emmerson, Queensland chair of the Royal Australian and New Zealand’s College of Psychiatrists. 

He told ABC his college wants better regulation of medical cannabis products and more scrutiny on prescription practices. 

He continued: “Part of the issue … are these single-issue clinics which, if you ring up, it doesn’t matter what you say you want. They’ll provide it for you even though there is probably no indication that it will work, and the prescribers never contact the person’s treating doctor.”

“You find out two or three months down the track that one of your patients has been on medicinal cannabis — not prescribed by you but by some other prescriber — usually a doctor who hasn’t had the professional courtesy of contacting you and letting you know,” he said. 

Professor Emmerson reports that Queensland’s Metro North Health, Australia’s largest public health service, is experiencing a rise in psychosis cases linked to medicinal cannabis use.

“The Metro North early psychosis service reports 10 per cent of their new presentations — so these are kids aged 16 to 21 — are people who’ve ended up on medicinal cannabis and are becoming psychotic,” he said in his interview. 

“A lot of other mental health services are reporting several admissions a week of people who have been placed on medicinal cannabis who shouldn’t be on it,” he added. 

“Medicinal cannabis is causing harm. The medication is unregulated, and it’s being used widely for a whole range of conditions for which there is no evidence.”

Professor Jennifer Martin from the University of Newcastle highlights that medicinal cannabis is causing a rise in emergency department visits due to psychosis and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, a condition marked by excessive vomiting from high-potency cannabis.

She notes that many prescriptions are issued online, making it hard for patients to contact their prescribing doctors. Despite its legalization in 2016, concerns persist about its unproven efficacy for anxiety and insomnia.

Regulatory bodies are calling for tighter controls and restrictions on THC-containing products, emphasizing the need for evidence-based treatments and harm minimization strategies.

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

The mainstream media has, until now, played a key role in advancing the Global War on Cash – a war that began with no official declaration but in which propaganda, as with all wars, is a vital weapon.

Last week’s global IT outage appears to have shaken some British media outlets’ confidence in the idea of a fully cashless society. When a content update by the cyber-security giant CrowdStrike caused millions of Microsoft systems around the world to crash on Friday morning, bringing the operating systems of banks, payment card firms, airlines, hospitals, NHS clinics, retailers and hospitality businesses to a standstill, businesses were faced with a stark choice: go cash-only, or close until the systems came back online. From WIRED magazine:

This quickly caused chaos in Australia, whose government has explicitly encouraged businesses to go cashless. Pictures posted on social media showed card-only self-checkout registers at the grocery chain Coles displaying Blue Screens of Death (BSODs). Queues for human-run registers at Australian groceries stretched to the back of the store, according to local media. Some Australian marts simply locked their doors…

Starbucks—whose then-CEO said in 2020 was shifting “toward more cashless experiences”—appeared to have been particularly hard hit. One Kansas-based Starbucks worker posted a TikTok showing that the mobile order system was “completely down.” The machine that the store uses to print labels for cups was also not working. “It just comes out blank every time,” she said, gesturing to the label printer. She tells WIRED that some customers were “upset and very rude” when she tried to explain. A different Starbucks worker said on TikTok that she had to write down every order on sticky notes.

Richard Forno, a cybersecurity lecturer at the University of Maryland, tells WIRED that Friday’s outage demonstrates the vulnerability of our current cloud and internet infrastructure. “Software supply chains have long been a serious cybersecurity concern and potential single point of failure,” Forno says. “Given today’s events, with any luck, perhaps the world may finally realize that our modern information- and often cloud-based society is based on a very fragile foundation that’s not built for security or resiliency.” (A Microsoft spokesperson did not respond directly to this assessment.)

Here on NC, we have periodically discussed (including here, here, here and here) the hyper-fragility of our tightly coupled IT-based societies, particularly on the banking and payments side of things. In March, UK citizens had a foretaste of the inherent fragility of a cashless economy after the payment systems of the country’s two largest supermarket chains, Tesco and Sainsbury’s, went down on the same day. Then, as on Friday, cash provided a vital, albeit imperfect, fall-back mechanism for citizens and businesses.

Cash Does Not Crash

This is one of the most important arguments in favour of cash: the resilience it provides to a country’s overarching payments system. Put another way, cash does not crash. It does not fail in a power cut or seize up during a cyber attack or software outage (though, of course, ATMs might). By contrast, digital payment systems generally need a stable and continuous internet connection and power supply to process transactions.

This is a lesson central bankers in Sweden, one of the world’s most cashless economies, are apparently relearning. From our recent piece, “The World’s Oldest Central Bank Keeps Sounding Alarm on Fragility of Cashless Economies. Are Other Central Banks Listening?”

After playing a part in the wholesale removal of cash from Sweden’s economy, the Riksbank is now trying to reverse some of the damage it has caused. It is not the only Scandinavian central bank to have flagged up the fragility risks of exclusively digital payment systems. In 2022, the Bank of Finland recommended that the use of cash payments be guaranteed by law. Like all Nordic countries, Finland is a largely cash-free economy. But like Sweden, it has begun to see the risks of going too far, too soon.

It seems that certain legacy media outlets may also finally be learning this lesson. In the UK alone, four of the country’s largest newspapers — The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Daily Mail — have run articles on how the global IT outage has underscored the fragility of a cashless society. The Daily Mail plastered the message across its front page:

From that article:

Critics said the havoc showed the dangers of a cashless world, with almost half of Britons now leaving the house with only their phones as a means of payment…

Dennis Reed, director of the Silver Voices campaign group which represents older people, said: ‘It’s extremely worrying. This should be a big warning for the Government. Obviously it has affected older people particularly, not just with the cash side of things but GP appointments and everything else.

‘If people can’t pay because they can’t use their phone then when systems go down – and they always will – people won’t be able to access vital services, food, and the essentials of life.

‘With this ever-more digital society, we are reliant on it all working. But we have no control over it. We are putting all our eggs in one basket. The future security of the nation is in danger.’

Martin Quinn, campaign director at the Payment Choice Alliance, told The Daily Telegraph: ‘With IT outages happening now at alarming regularity, businesses should be mindful of only taking card payments.

‘However many supermarkets prefer to have self-service card-only tills, which makes cash users feel like second-class citizens, a concerted effort is needed to return to using and accepting cash, because cash never crashes.’

Media’s Role in Global War on Cash

Over the past couple of decades, the mainstream media has played a crucial role in advancing the Global War on Cash — a war that began with no official declaration but in which propaganda, as with all wars, has been a vital weapon. The mainstream and financial media have provided a perfect platform for that propaganda.

In 2007, when contactless payments were barely getting off the ground, Guillermo de la Dehesa, a Spanish economist, former senior civil servant and then-international adviser to Banco Santander and Goldman Sachs, singled out cash as the major source of crime and evil in an El Pais article titled “The Great Advantage of a Cashless World”:

“Without cash, we would live in a much safer, less violent world with enhanced social cohesion, since the major incentive fuelling all illegal activity [i.e. cash]… would disappear.”

In 2013, Mastercard sponsored an Oxford University “trial” into the germ loads found on the banknotes of a selection of global currencies. Mastercard reserved the exclusive right to present the findings of the trial as well as the results of a highly misleading survey on public perceptions of the health risks of cash, which it did in gaudy glory. As the German financial journalist Norbert Häring documented in his article, “How Mastercard Invented the Health Hazard of Cash,“ the global media did the rest of the work.

United States

CNN, March 28: “If you thought dirty money was only found in offshore bank accounts, check your wallet instead. But you may want to wash your hands afterward. […]. An Oxford University study found an average of 26,000 bacteria on bank notes.” Source

Switzerland

Blick, March 26: “Disgusting money: many Swiss find cash unhygienic[.] 64 percent of Swiss people find their cash unhygienic. No wonder, since it is particularly dirty.” Source

The Local, March 27: “[…] a study by researchers at Oxford University concludes that legal tender in Switzerland is among the dirtiest in Europe […].” Source

France

Le Monde, April 1: “Is Cash Dirty?” Source

UK

Metro, March 26: “More than half of Brits fear germ risk from filthy money – with good reason[.]” Source

Etc……

This was just a dress rehearsal for what was to come in 2020. At the very onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when public panic was surging, a World Health Organization official responded to a question about whether banknotes could spread the coronavirus with a qualified “yes.” In the hours and days that followed legacy media outlets around the world pounced on the comments and magnified them, sparking fears about the safety of using cash.

It worked like a dream. As the graphic below (courtesy of Visual Capitalist) shows, four years on cash is being used for transactions far less frequently in most countries, in large part due to the exaggerated safety fears propagated by the media.

Central bankers themselves have admitted that the pandemic played a key role in accelerating the mass abandonment of cash and adoption of contactless, mobile and online payments. As the author and cash advocate Brett Scott notes, since the pandemic the private sector has turbocharged its anti-cash drive, “as Big Finance, Big Tech and Big Retail have weaponised the public’s temporary fear of physical contact to amplify the anti-cash automation agenda that they already had.”

But at the same time, the amount of cash in circulation has actually surged in many jurisdictions. When the pandemic began, central banks around the world recorded a sharp increase in cash withdrawn from ATMs while at the same time registering a sharp fall in transactional usage of cash. Put simply, people still wanted cash but often as a means of storing their money outside the banking system at a time of crisis.

In some countries, including the UK and Spain, the use of cash has staged a moderate recovery in the last couple of years as people’s priorities have shifted from (largely manufactured) concerns about hygiene during a global pandemic to making ends meet amid soaring inflation. But media outlets around the world have continued to churn out articles, columns and op-eds demonising cash and gleefully foretelling its imminent death.

A recent op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald declared in its title that “Cash is Dead,” only to then ask: “Why Are We Still Pretending to Use It?” — as if the 13% of Australians still using cash on a regular basis are just pretending. In September 2023, the Washington Post‘s Data Department ran a more informative and less insulting piece titled “Paper Checks are Dead, Cash is Dying. Who Still Uses Them?”

Doubts Setting In

But doubts appear to be setting in as the IT outages affecting payments systems become increasingly frequent and larger. The mere fact that some of the UK’s biggest newspapers, as well as other media organisations around the world including Yahoo Finance Australia, are now discussing the inherent fragility risks of a fully cashless society represents an important shift. The Guardian, for example, reports that the Crowdstrike outage has shown the “dangers of a cashless society” — according to cash campaigners.

“There will always be outages,” Ron Delnevo, the chair of the Payment Choice Alliance, told the newspaper. “But if there is no alternative, then the whole thing can collapse around you.”

Last year, cash payments in the UK increased for the first time in a decade, the article notes. The number of people who never use cash, or use it less than once a month, also declined.

In China and the US, businesses have been fined for not accepting cash. In the UK, by contrast, businesses can choose which forms of payment to accept (and which not to). Delnevo told The Guardian that the UK should have a law requiring all businesses to accept cash (within certain parameters), as is already the case in my country of residence, Spain. Unfortunately, that is as unlikely to happen under a government led by Kier Starmer as one led by Rishi Sunak, both of whom are in thrall to the WEF’s techno-tyrannical agenda.

The Daily Telegraph‘s Money Editor, Johanna Noble, argues that people should ultimately have a choice about which payment method to use in each given transaction while warning that the UK is clearly “nowhere near ready to go cashless”:

And do we have to be? Does it have to be binary? Sometimes paying with cash (small shops, the tooth fairy, car boot sales) might be best, while in other circumstances paying by card (getting consumer protection when buying goods or services) will be better.

In May, an editorial in The Guardian cautioned that the most vulnerable in society will ultimately bear the costs of a cashless economy:

Cutting out cash hits the vulnerable hardest: according to a 2020 survey by the Financial Conduct Authority, 46% of the digitally excluded, 31% of those without educational qualifications, and 26% of those in poor health rely on it to a “great or very great extent”. Mencap warned the Welsh Senedd that people with learning disabilities can find it hard to manage money without cash. And there are good, as well as nefarious, reasons to value its anonymising quality: women whose abortion rights have been restricted might find it life-saving.

Businesses should think carefully before refusing cash payments. Governments must ensure that people reliant on cash can continue to use it: in the UK, where thousands of bank branches and ATMs have vanished, the Financial Conduct Authority now has powers to protect access. But even if the supply of notes and coins can be assured, authorities must also ensure that services accept them.

In the UK, there is no law preventing businesses from rejecting cash. Legal tender traditionally has a very narrow definition in the UK, and strictly applies to money used by a debtor to settle a court-awarded debt when offered (‘tendered’) in the exact amount that is owed to a creditor. In other words, if a debtor is offering to settle a debt in court with legal tender such as cash, the creditor is not allowed to refuse it. Shops and hospitality businesses, by contrast, are.

Many retailers, particularly in the more salubrious parts of towns and cities, have taken full advantage of this loophole, despite the discriminatory effects it has on the millions of people who still depend on cash, including the roughly 1.3 million who are unbanked. Whether retailers continue to do this following the global chaos uncorked by one US tech firm’s botched content update (?) remains to be seen. One thing is clear: UK citizens and businesses have had their fair share of warnings about the fragility of cashless economics.

Authored by Thomas Fazi via UnHerd.com,

The latest salvo in the ongoing battle between between Elon Musk and the EU came courtesy of the X owner. He revealed that in the run-up to the European elections, X was offered “an illegal secret deal”: if the platform would agree to secretly censoring online speech, then the European Commission wouldn’t fine it for violations of its new online content moderation law, the Digital Services Act (DSA). X refused to cooperate, but all the other major platforms accepted the deal.

Musk’s revelation came shortly after Thierry Breton, the EU’s censorship czar, announced the Commission’s preliminary findings that X’s new “blue check” verification system was in violation of the DSA. Given that anyone can now subscribe and obtain a “verified status” — unlike before Musk when the platform arbitrarily decided who was worthy of the coveted blue check — this, he stated, undermines users’ ability to make informed decisions about account authenticity.

The Commission also accused X of “fail[ing] to provide access to its public data to researchers”, as mandated by the DSA. It urged the company to address such breaches or face a fine up to 6% of its total worldwide annual turnover, which was approximately $3.4 billion in 2023. Failure to comply could result in X being banned from operating in the EU altogether.

The line trotted out by the Commission is that this all about “transparency” and protecting users from deception and disinformation. But the truth, as Musk suggests, is that this is really about the EU’s desire — and the DSA’s ultimate goal — to secretly control the online narrative. So much for transparency.

This mission to censor has been backed up by Mike Benz, a former Trump official and cybersecurity expert who has alleged that “granting researchers access to X’s public data” isn’t quite as benign as it sounds. In fact, it’s a cover for the EU’s attempt to “use the DSA to force X to restaff the censorship squad fired when Elon took over”. Elon got rid of the team because, as the Twitter Files revealed, their sole purpose was to act upon government requests for censorship. Hence Benz’s claim that these “researchers” are actually “political operatives”. Musk reposted Benz’s analysis with one word of comment — “Exactly” — adding that if the EU pursues an enforcement action against X, he will take them to court.

The language and accusations are nothing new. The ground rules for this battle were laid the moment Musk took over Twitter and tweeted “the bird is freed”. Breton immediately replied: “In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules,” with a reference to the DSA, which had been officially signed into law that same month.

Even though Musk initially pledged to “respect the future European regulation”, the honeymoon didn’t last long. In May 2023, he pulled out of the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation, which started out voluntary but was subsequently made de facto legally binding under the DSA. This triggered an investigation, in December, into whether the platform violated the DSA in areas such as “risk management, content moderation, dark patterns, advertising transparency and data access for researchers”. Last week it concluded that it did, hence the latest showdown.

It’s hard to see how Musk can win this battle. Especially considering that his pro-free speech stance hasn’t just put him toe-to-toe with the EU, but also with a number of other governments around the world. Musk has attacked “takedown” requests in Brazil, India, Australia and Turkey and has even challenged some of these demands through national courts. In almost every case, however, the platform has ended up complying with governments’ requests. Indeed, a report from last year showed that under Musk, X had approved more than 80% of censorship requests from governments.

“It’s hard to see how Musk can win this battle.”

So even as Musk publicly challenges the EU, he is removing posts — as many X users have lamented — because of non-compliance with the DSA. On 10 October, for example, days after Hamas’s attack, Breton issued a warning to Musk over alleged “disinformation”; X responded by immediately removing or flagging tens of thousands of pieces of content.

Accusing Musk of hypocrisy, however, would be to miss the point. Complying with these requests is often the only way that the company can continue to operate — and at least Musk, unlike the other major platform owners, has brought online censorship into the open. The publication of the groundbreaking Twitter Files, remember, revealed the shocking level of collusion between the US administration and social media companies.

More to the point, though, X, despite the censorship, remains the only platform where information is allowed to flow relatively freely. Indeed, it remains the single biggest threat to the establishment’s desire for full-spectrum information control — and that is why they are coming down on it so hard. But one man, no matter how rich or powerful, cannot be expected to single-handedly stand up to some of the most powerful governments in the world — let alone to the European Union, the world’s most influential supranational institution.

There’s also another factor to consider. The global attack on free speech isn’t just the whim of out-of-control, power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats. It’s a systemic problem that relates to the structural decay of liberal-democratic institutions, particularly in the West. As our societies degenerate into de facto oligarchies controlled by increasingly delegitimised political-economic elites, this manipulation of public opinion — not only through propaganda delivered via traditional mass media channels but also, increasingly, by policing and micromanaging the public conversation taking place on social media platforms — has come to be seen as an imperative for keeping the status quo safe from the threat of democracy. This is compounded by the growing militarisation of the geopolitical context, which requires an even more compliant populace given its political and economic consequences.

It’s no coincidence that the censorship-industrial complex started emerging in the second half of the 2010s. This was the time when the West was rocked by an unprecedented “populist” backlash against globalisation and the neoliberal order — Trump, Brexit, the Yellow Vests, and the rise of Eurosceptic parties and movements across Europe.

It was also when the path of future confrontation with Russia was being laid in Ukraine — and when Nato started developing the hybrid or cognitive warfare doctrine, which conceptualises the management of Western public opinion as an integral part of warfare. As Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s former Secretary General, put it in 2019: “Nato must remain prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: from tanks to tweets.”

The Covid-19 pandemic, which saw the first mass deployment of online censorship, bought Western elites some time. But not for long. Today, a “populist” backlash is once again engulfing the West: Right-populist parties are surging across Europe, and Trump is on course to winning the next US election. Meanwhile, escalating tensions in Ukraine have detonated into a no-longer-so-proxy war between Nato and Russia. From the perspective of Western elites, this all calls for a doubling down on the censorship regime, with a major difference: online censorship used to occur behind closed doors, extra-legally and in a context of plausible deniability of behalf of governments; today it is being institutionalised and constitutionalised through tools such as the Digital Services.

Elites conveniently justify their censorship in two ways: by constantly expanding the scope of “hate speech” to cover almost anything; and, more ominously, by rebranding critical opinions, especially on foreign policy and geopolitical matters, as “disinformation” or examples of foreign interference. It’s no coincidence that the European Commission’s first-ever DSA report was entirely focused on the question of “Russian disinformation”. Tellingly, the report puts “Kremlin-aligned accounts” — potentially any account that is critical of Nato — almost on the same plane as accounts that are connected or associated with the Russian state.

This deliberate blurring of the line between illegal and harmful speech, and between critical opinion and foreign propaganda, is central to the censorship regime, as it effectively allows EU elites to determine what hundreds of millions of Europeans can or cannot say and read online. It’s state-sanctioned censorship, plain and simple. And it should come as no surprise that the greatest threat to free speech today comes from the EU: the bloc’s entire institutional edifice, after all, is geared towards constraining democracy, by transferring power to unaccountable elites largely insulated from the demos. In turn, the top-down imposition of unpopular policies on the people of Europe inevitably engenders opposition, which then requires the suppression of free speech to counter the backlash. It’s a vicious feedback loop.

This sort of mass censorship should really be understood as a desperate oligarchy’s last line of defence – and no one encapsulates this oligarchy better than Breton himself, a former businessman and military and intelligence contractor turned technocrat-in-chief. If this were a movie, one couldn’t imagine a better choice than him as the arch-enemy of the populist rabble-rouser Musk.

But it isn’t a movie.

This is a struggle that will define the future of democracy for years to come. And if we expect Musk to fight for the rest of us, we’ve already lost.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

The F-22 Raptor is the best air dominance warplane in the world.

It’s the top dog fighter jet.

The F-22’s advanced avionics, stealth capabilities, and maneuverability make it an unmatched platform for hunting and killing other aircraft.

While Russia, China, and several other nations have their own air dominance fighters, it’s doubtful they would fare well against an F-22 in air-to-air combat.

In short, the F-22 is critical to the US Air Force’s ability to control the skies in a potential conflict with a sophisticated enemy.

That’s why the F-22 Raptor is one of the few warplane models the US government does not export to any foreign country—not even to Israel or its NATO allies.

The F-22’s highly advanced stealth capabilities give it a significant edge over other air dominance fighter jets. In air-to-air combat, enemy fighter jets probably wouldn’t even know there was a Raptor nearby until it was too late.

The potential presence of an F-22 in an area would give any hostile air force an excellent reason to think twice before challenging the US Air Force.

That’s why the US stations F-22s in Japan as a deterrent to China’s air force should it make a move on Taiwan, for example.

However, all of this could change soon… and have enormous geopolitical implications.

The South China Morning Post has remained Hong Kong’s newspaper of record since British colonial rule.

They recently published a bombshell article claiming that Chinese researchers had developed a new radar detection technology that neutralizes the F-22’s stealth capabilities.

They claim that China’s radar system can now accurately pinpoint an F-22’s real-time position. This information could then be relayed to interceptor fighter jets or surface-to-air missile batteries to target the F-22.

If the claims are true, the impact on the F-22’s combat effectiveness would be huge. It would mean the US is unlikely to dominate the skies in a conflict with China.

That has tremendous consequences for the island of Taiwan.

Taiwan considers itself an independent nation with its own government, military, and foreign relations.

However, China views Taiwan as a breakaway province and has vowed to reunify it with the mainland by force if necessary. Recently, Xi privately warned Biden that China would reunify Taiwan, but the timing had not yet been decided.

While not explicitly committing to Taiwan’s defense, the US has been a significant supplier of military equipment to Taiwan. A Chinese invasion could trigger a response from the US military, though the extent and nature of this response are uncertain.

China has one of the world’s largest and increasingly modern militaries. Taiwan has a well-trained military, though smaller and less equipped than China’s.

In a military conflict, China seems to have the advantage. The only way Taiwan would have a prayer is if the US directly joined the conflict.

The US government has conducted various war games to simulate and prepare for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. A key finding from these war games is that maintaining air superiority is critical for the US military to defend Taiwan successfully.

In other words, if the US cannot dominate the skies above Taiwan, it probably won’t be successful in repelling a Chinese invasion.

If the Chinese have compromised the F-22’s stealth capabilities, then I think it’s unlikely the US will achieve air superiority in case of a conflict in Taiwan. And if they can’t achieve air superiority, then their efforts are likely doomed to failure.

If the US understands that intervening in Taiwan is doomed to failure, they are likely to leave Taiwan to its fate, which means China will be successful in reunifying it with the mainland.

That would be a geopolitical earthquake and could fatally undermine the current US-led world order.

Taiwan is one of the three key proxy wars that will, I think, be decisive in who wins World War 3.

While many don’t realize it, World War 3 is already underway.

World War 3 and the New World Order

Total war between the world’s largest powers that reshuffled the international order defined the previous world wars.

However, with the advent of nuclear weapons, total war between the largest powers today—Russia, China, and the US—means a nuclear Armageddon where there are no winners and only losers.

That could still happen despite nobody wanting it, but it’s not the most likely outcome.

World War 3 is unlikely to be a direct kinetic war between the world’s largest powers, like the previous world wars.

Instead, the conflict is playing out on different levels—proxy wars, economic wars, financial wars, cyber wars, biological wars, deniable sabotage, and information wars.

Out of all these domains, I think proxy warfare will determine who wins World War 3.

Here’s the bottom line.

Russia, China, and their allies want to change the US-led world order that has been in place since the end of World War 2.

The conflict is playing out on a level that is below the threshold of direct kinetic warfare because that could invite a nuclear Armageddon.

Nonetheless, there is a conflict between the biggest global powers to determine the world order, as in the previous world wars.

As I see it, World War 3 is a conflict between two geopolitical blocks.

The first block consists of the US and its allies who have hitched their wagons to the unipolar world order.

I’m reluctant to call this block “the West” because the people who control it have values antithetical to Western Civilization.

A more fitting label would be NATO & Friends.

The other block comprises Russia, China, Iran, and other countries favorable to a multipolar world order.

Let’s call them the BRICS+, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and other countries.

BRICS+ is not a perfect label, but it’s a decent representation of the countries favorable to the multipolar world order.

• In short, BRICS+ wants to transform the current world order from unipolar to multipolar and give themselves a bigger seat at the table in the process.

• NATO & Friends want the unipolar status quo to prevail.

• That’s World War 3, and it’s happening right now.

It’s important to remember that world orders are nothing new.

World orders are how the big global powers have set the rules of the game for centuries. They are simply the architecture for international political relations between countries.

On a smaller scale, it’s similar to when the most powerful criminal groups in a given city—like mafias and street gangs—come together and agree on how to divide their activities and neighborhoods among themselves.

Sooner or later, though, these agreements always break down. Then, there is a violent power struggle until the criminal groups reach a new agreement reflecting the new power balance.

A similar dynamic is at play with the most powerful countries and world orders.

Conflicts among the most powerful countries typically lead to a breakdown and restructuring in the world order.

The current US-led world order was the result of World War 2.

Prior to that, the Treaty of Versailles created a new world order after World War 1 that lasted from 1919 to 1939.

Prior to that, the Congress of Vienna defined the world order. It lasted from Napoleon’s defeat in the early 1800s to the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914.

Prior to that, the Peace of Westphalia defined the world order. It lasted from the end of the Thirty Years’ War in 1648 until the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars around the early 1800s.

Here’s the bottom line.

Changes to the world order are historical events with enormous implications—investment and otherwise.

We’re living through one of these rare times right now.

That’s why it’s crucial to sift through the noise and propaganda, put the pieces together correctly, and see the true geopolitical Big Picture.

Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—during the previous world wars because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.

But what if you get the Big Picture right as World War 3 unfolds?

You can avoid disaster AND set yourself up to potentially make life-changing profits by acting on the investment implications of WW3 before others figure out what is really happening and how it’s likely to end.

It’s a rare fortune-building opportunity for those who understand what is happening and make the right moves today.

That’s exactly why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.

By Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks

“People really, really do not want to work for Kamala Harris,” wrote former staffer Dan McLaughlin, January 2022.

Topline

Under Kamala Harris, the Office of the Vice President has been called a “revolving door,” a “staff exodus” of key aides “heading for the exits.” 

That’s not hyperbole from the national media. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks quantified an extraordinarily high 91.5-percent staff turnover rate. We used U.S. Senate disclosures to conduct our investigation and those databases can be downloaded below.

Elected in November 2020, Harris took the oath of office in January 2021. As of March 31, 2024, only four of the initial 47 staffers from the first year are still employed – consistently and without interruption – by the Vice President.

Furthermore, the turnover chaos isn’t getting better. In the trailing 12-month period, 24 staffers left — that’s almost half the employees.

Download the Office of Vice President 2021 & 2024 payrolls here (source: U.S. Senate disclosures)

Key facts

The “top-to-bottom dysfunction” that The Atlantic referenced in October 2023 is shown in the reported payrolls that we captured.

“In her first year and a half as vice president, Harris saw the departure of her chief of staff, communications director, domestic-policy adviser, national security adviser, and other aides,” the magazine wrote.

If only that was all who left.

The semi-annual Report of the Secretary of the Senate, among other things, lists the names, titles and salaries of staff in the Office of the Vice President (OVP).

In the most recent publishing through March 31, only four staff from the original 47 listed in the 2021 report remained consistently employed and are among the office’s 50 current staff members.

The Kamala Harris Fabulous Four – here are the names, titles, employment date, and salaries of the four employees most loyal to Kamala Harris:

• Yael S. Belkind has been assistant to the chief of staff since Jan. 20, 2021, earning $85,924;

• Nasrina Bargzie was associate counsel since Feb. 10, 2021, now is deputy council, taking home $118,066.

• Oludayo O. Faderin was associate director from July 2021, then became deputy director of west wing operations, making $85,924.

• Olivia K. Hartman was hired in August 2021 as advance coordinator and became deputy director of scheduling, making $94,750.

Silas Woods, III began his career with the vice president as a vetting researcher on Feb. 17, 2021 making $52,500, became associate director of research, and left in August 2022. He went to work as a press assistant for the White House making $67,000. On March 25, 2024, Woods returned as a personal aid to the second gentleman and deputy director of special projects, where his full salary isn’t reported.

The other 45 people employed in OVP as of March 31 were hired after Sept. 30, 2021, when staff had already begun leaving the office.

In the last year alone, (April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024) 24 people left their jobs with Harris.

Key background—Kamala Harris Tried To Hide Everything

The Kamala Harris, Office of Vice President, is committed to the opacity of its payrolls and all other office information.

In our 2021 reporting at Forbes, “VP Kamala Harris Is The Least Transparent Elected Official In The Nation,” we outlined the OVP’s refusal to provide any information to the public and taxpayers. Her office denied our FOIA request and claimed that they were immune.

We had filed a FOIA request with the OVP for its staff payroll in September 2021. A spokesman replied:

“Thank you for your inquiry. The Office of the Vice President is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. See 5 U.S.C. 552; 44 U.S.C. 2207.”

We even tried to coax the information out of the OVP:

“I understand the OVP isn’t subject to FOIA — is there any information you can provide me at all about the office staff? Whether it’s total staff employees (without names or any other employee-specific info) or total payroll for 2020 or current numbers for 2021?”

However, the spokesman replied:

“Thank you for the inquiry. OVP does not have any information to share at this time.”

Therefore, we had to rely on the U.S. Senate’s semi-annual report for Oct. 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, which gives a list of the 28 staff members who had been hired by the new administration between Jan. 20 and March 31, 2021. Over the next few months, the OVP added another approximately 20 staff members.

We calculated that for VP Harris’s 28 staff listed in the Senate report, the 2021 salaries added up to $2,334, 223.

But President Joseph Biden’s congressional budget submission shows the OVP got $5 million for 23 full time staff in 2021 and requested over $6 million for 27 full time staff in 2022.

The OVP wouldn’t answer for the discrepancy in budget and staffing, citing the earlier provision that states only federal agencies are subject to FOIA, and the OVP, it argues, isn’t a federal agency.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the second-in-command, and possible next president of the United States, is the only elected official in the country not required to share her office’s spending with the public.

We captured 25 million public employee salary and pension records on 55,000 FOIA requests last year. You can search all federal, state, and local government payrolls on our website for free or with our free AI search tool, Benjamin, named after Benjamin Franklin.

Biden’s High Turnover

Harris isn’t alone in her inability to retain staff.

Since 2021, only 127 of Biden’s initial 560 White House employees remain, a 77-percent turnover rate that would be considered high if not for Harris’ 92-percent rate.

Between 2023 and 2024, 225 people left, a 43-percent turnover rate that is only slightly lower than the 46-percent between 2022 and 2023.

(For context, Donald Trump’s payroll turnover from his first year until his fourth year was 72-percent.)

But Biden’s high turnover isn’t the only staffing failure that should give taxpayers pause.

He has the largest White House headcount since the Richard Nixon administration, who was the first president to exceed 500 staffers.

Now Biden employs 565 staffers, costing taxpayers $61 million in salaries. That’s up from the 524 staffers in 2023, costing $52 million.

Biden has 152 more employees than Trump (413) (FY2020) and 97 more than Obama (468) (FY2012), when each were in the fourth year of their first terms.

This shouldn’t be surprising, as Biden has made clear his intentions to grow the size of the federal government.

In the first nine days of his presidency, Biden issued many executive orders expanding the size, scope, and power of the federal bureaucracy.

During his first three years, more than 40,000 bureaucrats were added across the 123 executive agencies, outside of the Department of Defense, U.S. Post Office, and intelligence services.

Crucial quote

Symone Sanders, Harris’ chief spokesperson and senior adviser, in early December 2021 was quoted in The Washington Post responding to critics of the staff departures, saying,

“We are not making rainbows and bunnies all day. What I hear is that people have hard jobs and I’m like ‘Welcome to the club.’”

She left the OVP later that year.

Critic

“Working for Harris is a nightmare, not just because she rides her staff hard, but also because she does so without the competence, decisiveness, and effectiveness that inspires people in politics to suffer under demanding bosses,” Dan McLaughlin wrote in a January 2022 National Review article titled, “People Really, Really Do Not Want to Work for Kamala Harris.”

Authored by Conrad Black via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump reminds us of how vulnerable American political leaders are to attacks with guns. In retrospect, all four of the assassinations of American presidents could easily have been avoided.

President Abraham Lincoln was sitting in his box with his wife at Ford’s Theatre in Washington with no security at all, at the end of a terrible Civil War in which 750,000 Americans died in a population of 31 million, and the great animosity of that conflict had scarcely begun to subside. This was a particularly dreadful tragedy for the whole country, not only because Lincoln is generally recognized as the greatest president in American history and possibly the greatest statesman of modern times, but because he was the only person who could accomplish the adoption of a policy of national reconciliation that would have substantially avoided segregation and assured African-Americans the right to vote which, in the southern states, they did not acquire until 100 years later. If President Lincoln had had remotely adequate security, John Wilkes Booth, one of America’s most prominent stage actors, could not have killed him.

President James A. Garfield was shot at the Washington railway station by disappointed office seeker Charles Guiteau just four months into his presidency and died two months later, largely because of incompetent medical treatment. Again, if he’d had one or two competent security personnel with him, or even adequate medical attention in the subsequent two months, the assassination attempt would have been unsuccessful. Garfield was a capable and promising man, a young and much-promoted combat Civil War general and the only person ever to make the jump directly from the House of Representatives to the presidency (though he was also a senator-elect), but his loss was not as grievous as that of Lincoln.

President William McKinley was assassinated in Buffalo, New York, by an anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, in 1901, who had a handgun wrapped in a handkerchief when he shook hands with the president in a receiving line. Again, adequate security by contemporary standards would have prevented this, and again, competent medical attention would have prevented a fatality. The president was shot twice and the attending surgeon could not find the second bullet. Days passed with optimistic reports of the president’s recovery, but any informed person would have known that if the second bullet was not retrieved, acute septicemia was likely, and this was the cause of McKinley’s death.

It was a time of frequent anarchistic assassinations abroad, and Czolgosz had been inspired to commit this act by listening to a speech of the anarchist firebrand Emma Goldman (who often lived in Toronto, and died there). The United States did not have such discontented classes and ethnicities as there were in Europe, but there was no excuse for McKinley’s inadequate security detail and inept medical attention. This was again a terrible personal tragedy to befall a capable and well-respected president and a brave man who had risen from private to major in the Civil War entirely because of his courage and leadership qualities. Fortunately, he was succeeded by one of the nation’s most capable and popular presidents, Theodore Roosevelt.

All readers will remember or have seen film of the horrifying assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. The president of the United States has not travelled in an open car since then, and President Kennedy’s predecessors, Harry S. Truman and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, were just as visible in their official vehicles which had a bulletproof plexiglass roof. There has never been any explanation for why such a vehicle was not used in Dallas on that terrible day, though Kennedy’s penchant for convertibles was a factor.

In the last 100 years, five other U.S. presidents apart from Kennedy have been the subject of attempted assassinations. Then President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1933 in Miami, was the target of anarchist Giuseppe Zangara, who missed Roosevelt but shot five others, including the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, who died. Security was not as extensive as it has subsequently become, but it was only good luck that FDR was completely unscathed. He returned to Vincent Astor’s famous yacht, the Nourmahal, on which he had been cruising, had two stiff glasses of whisky (although prohibition, which he had always personally ignored anyway, had not yet been abolished), and never mentioned the incident again. Of course, he went on to be America’s longest-serving president, and one of its greatest.

The attempted assassination of President Truman in 1950 was fortunately incompetently conducted and the assailants did not get close to the president. But attempts on the lives of President Gerald Ford in 1975, Ronald Reagan in 1981, and Donald Trump this month, were only unsuccessful for miraculous reasons. President Ford’s first assailant, Squeaky Fromme, was intercepted as she fired, and the next, Sara Jane Moore, was jostled by a retired Marine. President Reagan’s security unit moved with commendable haste and courage and his bullet wound was only approximately an inch from being fatal. There was obviously a severe breakdown in appropriate security measures and coordination that almost cost the life of former President Trump in Pennsylvania on July 13.

As guns were involved in all of these assassination attempts and the Constitution, in fidelity to the revolutionary origins of the United States, guarantees the right of every law-abiding adult citizen to have a firearm, no screening process or restriction of firearms sales is going to reduce significantly the danger to presidents. All that can be done is to intensify security, and particularly to put bulletproof but completely transparent acrylic screens around presidents during public speeches. Crowds can now be scanned by metal detectors, and presidents travel in automobiles that are both bulletproof and bombproof. We have no idea how many attempts on the lives of presidents have been conceived but undone before they could be carried out, but the fact that six of the last 15 presidents have been threatened by assassins, and one of them murdered, shows that the danger is constant.

As long as there are discontented people who are severely deranged, the idea of killing leaders will have a simplistic appeal to them, as well as to a tiny echelon of terribly maladjusted people who imagine this to be a satisfactory route to historical fame. Assassins have not become more resourceful or ingenious since the time of Lincoln; it is for those entrusted with the security of the U.S. president to reduce the possibility of the success of assassins to the minimum. The same rules can apply to other elected figures who were victims of inadequate security, such as Robert Kennedy, assassinated in the kitchen of a Los Angeles hotel in 1968, and prominent non-presidential figures, such as Martin Luther King, also murdered in 1968, Malcolm X (1965), and Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long (1935).

Nor should we imagine that this problem is exclusively American. Margaret Thatcher was nearly assassinated by the Irish Republican Army on a couple of occasions, and Charles de Gaulle was almost killed by opponents of his Algeria policy several times. German interior minister Wolfgang Schauble was confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life by an unsuccessful assassination attempt.

The problem may be slightly exacerbated in the United States because of the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, but it is a universal problem, especially in democratic countries where leaders have to be relatively publicly visible. There is no antidote except better security and more and better-trained security personnel.

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

A new study reveals what common sense could have predicted – giving Americans $1,000 per month disincentivizes them from working, causing them to work less – and earn less, over time.

According to the 3,000-participant, three-year study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, giving people $1,000 per month increased leisure time, as recipients spent less time on sleeping, child care, community engagement, caring for others, and self-improvement.

The study also found that recipients’ income, not including the free money, reduced their incomes significantly, as “for every one dollar received, total household income excluding the transfers fell by at least 21 cents, and total individual income fell by at least 12 cents.”

“The takeaway from the best study done so far about UBI in the United States is that handing out money isn’t the solution to all our problems,” Daniel Di Martino, a economics researcher and graduate fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Center Square. “In fact, sometimes it makes things worse.”

The study’s authors noted mean-tested welfare encourages recipients to cut hours “to preserve benefits,” leading to advocacy for “unconditional cash transfer programs” without these distortions that would also allow individuals either to look for and secure higher-quality work or spend extra time on “productive non-work activities.” 

Participants’ individual incomes declined $1,500 per year relative to the control group, excluding transfers, participants’ labor force participation was two percentage points lower, participants and their partners worked approximately 1.4 hours less per week. Participants spent their extra time on leisure, did not improve their quality of employment, and did not improve human capital investments such as training. 

The study notes how during the 2020 Democratic primaries, candidate Andrew Yang proposed a $1,000 per month “Freedom Dividend,” which he claimed “encourages people to find work” and “increases entrepreneurship.”

The study found that while “participants exhibited more entrepreneurial orientation and intentions,” that “this did not translate into significantly more entrepreneurial activity,” as “very few people have the inclination to become entrepreneurs in general.”

According to Di Martino, the study did not address inflation concerns, and remained open to unconditional cash payments in lieu of certain welfare programs.

“It’s important to remark that this study doesn’t look at the macroeconomic impact of UBI which would raise inflation and affect interest rates if implemented nationwide,” he said. “Now the question that’s more interesting is if the almost null effects of UBI are better (or less bad) than those of our existing welfare programs and whether it might be a good idea to replace them.”

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

After last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave cities a green light to enforce laws and clear homeless camps, San Francisco is now crafting policies to allow officials to begin sweeping encampments, according to Mayor London Breed’s July 19 newsletter.

“Our goal is to bring people indoors—camping or living on our streets isn’t safe for our community, residents, and people in need of support,” she said. “San Francisco is a city that prioritizes compassion, and we will continue to lead with services, but we cannot allow for people to refuse services and shelter when offered and available.”

Officials are contemplating options with the city attorney’s office and more information will be shared soon, according to Ms. Breed.

The high court’s decision—related to a lower court’s ruling on a case known as Grants Pass that blocked cities from clearing encampments—now allows municipalities to enforce laws against sleeping, loitering, and lodging on public property when people reject attempts to help them.

“This decision by the Supreme Court will help cities like San Francisco manage our public spaces more effectively and efficiently,” Ms. Breed said in a June 28 press release. “This decision recognizes that cities must have more flexibility to address challenges on our streets.”

She said discussions underway aim to reduce homelessness while finding people mental health treatment and services to improve the quality of life for all San Franciscans.

“[Illegal camping] is not healthy, safe, or compassionate for people on the street, and it’s not acceptable for our neighborhoods,” Ms. Breed said.

One San Francisco local said he supports increased enforcement because of what he described as “filthy” conditions in some areas.

“The city has become known for feces on the sidewalks and dirty streets,” John Walker told The Epoch Times July 22. “Something needs to be done.”

After the high court’s ruling was announced in June, the state’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly moved to discontinue the injunction blocking homeless camp sweeps.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu said the legal changes will allow the city to better manage its streets and improve public safety.

“This will give our city more flexibility to provide services to unhoused people while keeping our streets healthy and safe,” Mr. Chiu said in a July 8 press release. “It will help us address our most challenging encampments, where services are often refused and re-encampment is common.”

Some homeless advocates argued the new policies could hurt people living on the street.

“Penalizing individuals, including many with mental health and other disabilities, for merely trying to live is not only cruel but also counterproductive,” Marlene Sallo, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, said in a June 28 press release. “Cities are now further emboldened to ignore effective housing-based solutions, opting instead to punish those with no alternative but to sleep on the streets.”

She called on the federal government to provide resources for homeless individuals.

“Too often a lack of housing in the community leaves people with disabilities stuck in institutions or worse, homeless,” Ms. Sallo said. “Affordable and accessible housing is a critical and necessary component for people with disabilities to live independent and fulfilling lives in the community.”

Other nonprofits agreed and criticized the ruling and discussions about enforcing illegal camping laws.

“Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel,” Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center, said in the disability network’s press release.

She added that the “inhumane” ruling “will make homelessness worse.”

“Cities are now even more empowered to neglect proven housing-based solutions and to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors,” Ms. Rabinowitz said. “While we are disappointed, we are not surprised that this Supreme Court ruled against the interests of our poorest neighbors.”

In the 6–3 ruling, Supreme Court justices were split on how best to proceed.

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many,” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, author of the majority opinion, wrote in the ruling. “People will disagree over which policy responses are best … nor can a handful of federal judges begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that sleeping outside is the only option for some people.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” she wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said the ruling gives state and local officials the authority to enforce policies that will benefit Californians.

“This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities,” he said in a June 28 press release.

He also said the state will continue to treat all individuals with compassion.

“California remains committed to respecting the dignity and fundamental human needs of all people and the state will continue to work with compassion to provide individuals experiencing homelessness with the resources they need to better their lives,” Mr. Newsom said.

Commentator and filmmaker Robby Starbuck’s strategy to expose all the insane woke activism within mega-corporations with large conservative customer bases has entered the third chapter. After Tractor Supply nuked its diversity, equity, and inclusion program and John Deere scaled back on DEI policies, Starbuck announced on X on Tuesday, “It’s time to expose Harley Davidson.”

Starbuck’s anti-woke crusade drives a wedge between the corporation and the customer base, forcing high-level executives to immediately respond, as seen by Tractory Supply and John Deere, or risk ‘Bud Lighting’ itself (i.e., boycotts). It’s a genius move by Starbuck and his team as the anti-woke crusade against companies infected with the woke mind virus gains momentum.

Starbuck claims that under Harley Davidson CEO Jochen Zeitz, the iconic motorcycle brand has been infected with woke activism, supports the Equality Act (which would allow men into girl’s bathrooms, sports, and locker rooms), funded all-ages pride events, and required 1,800 employees to undergo virtual LGBTQ+ ally training. 

Starbuck notes that Harley Davidson is a founding member of Wisconsin’s LGBTQ+ Chamber of Commerce, sponsored an LGBTQ+ Entrepreneur Bootcamp, and made February and March “Months of Inclusion.”

He adds that the company partnered with the United Way for multiple woke training programs, supported the Pennsylvania Youth Congress in creating gender-neutral licenses, and hosted numerous LGBTQ+ events at their corporate office. 

Starbuck argues that Harley Davidson has alienated its core freedom-loving blue-collar customers by advocating Marxist ideologies pushed by leftists.

“I don’t think the values at corporate reflect the values of nearly any Harley Davidson bikers,” he said. 

He added, “My goal with this reporting is never destruction. My goal is to inform consumers about the values major companies are adopting so they can make choices about what they’re willing to support. That’s not cancel culture, it’s capitalism.” 

It’s time to expose Harley Davidson.@harleydavidson has been one of the most beloved brands in America but recently on CEO Jochen Zeitz’s watch, they’ve gone totally woke.

Here’s some of what we found:

• Openly supports “the equality act” which would allow men into girl’s… pic.twitter.com/15kPUy8WVY

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) July 23, 2024

X users respond to Starbuck’s new report: 

Harley Davidson admits they select their Board members based partly on ethnicity and gender. How is this legal? pic.twitter.com/1L03F55aQH

— Expose Them (@ExposeDarkDeeds) July 23, 2024

Talk about another brand that doesn’t understand its target market….

Wow.

— Webmiester (@YourWebmiester) July 23, 2024

Why are all the companies that were most admired for their products going woke all of the sudden.

From Tractor supply to John Deere. Now it’s @harleydavidson .

What is happening

— Zaki Solja (@zakisolja) July 23, 2024

I guess we’re gonna have to sell our Harley’s.. what the heck is wrong with these companies pic.twitter.com/I4vZM0lAiK

— Tammie McDonald 🇺🇸 (@TammieMcDonal17) July 23, 2024

Wait, Harley put a leftist in charge of their American Badash Company?

— Ken Morin (@KenMorin111) July 23, 2024

Harley Davidson used to represent freedom. Now, they’re pushing woke agendas. How disappointing.

— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) July 23, 2024

Starbuck’s mission has been to get politics out of business, especially wokeism that’s cut from Marxist cloth. Consumers would prefer corporate behavior without woke activism and for management to continue to innovate products—not become leftist activists and let the brand decay.

Bud Light learned the hard way. The clock has begun for Harley Davidson to respond to Starbuck’s report.