Have you noticed a surge in your auto insurance premiums in the past few years?

Well, this could be why: 

• Rivian Owner Shocked By $41,000 Repair Bill For Minor Damage
• “Shocking Number”: Rivian Owner Sees $42,000 Repair Bill For Minor Accident

Bloomberg penned a note Thursday reminding everyone who legally drives with insurance why rates are skyrocketing. The main reason is the complexity of new vehicles. 

“It’s the complexity of vehicles these days. Repairing a base model Kia is nothing like it was just a few years ago. It might have ten different computers and all kinds of sensors,” said Ben Clymer, who co-owns a chain of body shops in Southern California. 

Clymer noted part prices are soaring and warned this “really creates the perfect storm for higher repair costs.” This has contributed to auto insurance rates rising the fastest since the inflation spike in the mid-1970s.

Soaring premiums are pressuring working poor households battered with elevated inflation, drained personal savings, and rising credit card debt to survive an era of failed ‘Bidenomics.’ 

Bloomberg pointed out: “But some drivers have been cutting costs by reducing their coverage and increasing the deductible they have to pay out of pocket for a repair. Rising rates are even pushing some people to choose older cars, which are less expensive to insure.” 

“For the majority of people, auto insurance is definitely an afterthought,” said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at auto researcher Edmunds.com. 

Caldwell continued: “But [for] anyone evaluating the total cost of ownership before purchasing, it may very well affect what they ultimately can buy and may even exclude them from the new car market.”

Authored by Charles Kennedy via OilPrice.com,

The European Commission is expected to unveil in February a new industrial alliance on small modular reactors (SMRs), aiming to deploy the first small nuclear projects in Europe early next decade.

SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). SMRs offer savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand, the agency says.

The EU and other developed economies are looking to boost nuclear power generation to meet their ambitious climate goals.  

The EU seeks to establish a European Industrial Alliance on SMRs as the bloc is witnessing “a renewed interest in nuclear energy and in its potential to address all the main challenges at hand: decarbonisation, security of power supply and EU’s strategic autonomy,” European Commissioner for Energy, Kadri Simson, said in November at an industry event.

“Successful deployment of SMRs must take place by the next decade in order to provide a significant contribution to our path to climate neutrality by 2050,” Simson said.

The Commission has now drafted a European Industrial Alliance, whose objective “is to facilitate and accelerate the development, demonstration, and deployment of the first SMRs projects in Europe in the early 2030s,” according to a draft declaration Bloomberg News has seen.

SMRs could be a “key contribution” to the EU’s new goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040, according to the draft. 

The comeback of nuclear power in many countries is expected to drive a record-high electricity generation from nuclear in 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report earlier this week.   

By next year, global nuclear generation is forecast to exceed its previous record set in 2021, the IEA said in its Electricity 2024 report.

After the energy crisis of 2022, many governments – with the notable exception of Germany – have opted to boost their nuclear power generation to ensure energy security and reduce emissions from electricity generation as they aim to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

‘Gen Z’ – which includes those born between 1997 and 2012 – is less-religious, less-Republican, and more queer than any generation before.

The survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute confirms the left-leaning beliefs of Gen Z shown by other studies.

The survey was conducted between August 21st and September 15th, with a sample size of 6,014 Americans between the ages of 13 and 25. Among those between the ages of 13 and 17, the margin of error was 1.51%, while the margin of error for those between 18 and 25 was 1.58%.

Gen Z adults (21%) are less likely than Gen Xers (28%), baby boomers (32%), and members of the Silent Generation (31%) to identify as Republican, but they do not differ from millennials (21%). 

Gen Z adults are notably less likely to identify as religiously-affiliated than older generations…

And finally, Gen Z adults are significantly more likely than older generations to identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or something else, with 28% identifying as LGBTQ, compared with 16% of millennials, 7% of Generation X, 4% of baby boomers, and 4% of the Silent Generation.

In other words, the queerness of society is approximately doubling every generation.

Activist were quick to utilize this shocking data with Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson warning all the bigots:

“Whether it’s at the polls, in marches and rallies, or online, LGBTQ+ visibility matters and Gen Z is a force for change.

Thousands of LGBTQ+ young people turn 18 each day — and lawmakers should understand there will be repercussions in November for anti-LGBTQ+ political attacks.

While LGBTQ+ people have always existed, it’s not always been, and still often is not, easy to live freely and openly.

We will continue our work towards a future where everyone in every generation can be free and comfortable to be their authentic selves.”

All of which makes us wonder – just how much of this massive general shift is reflective of an apparently much more influential role that social media plays in their lives.

“Clearly, Gen Z does not like to be labeled, and they’re not necessarily wanting to hang their hat with a particular political party these days,” PRRI CEO Melissa Deckman told Axios.

Except they do like to label themselves ‘queer’?

One thing that does jump out from the poll is that – given the massive difference in the number of LGBTQ Gen Z’ers compared to all other generations – it appears to confirm the notion of homosexuality or any other non-heterosexual preference simply being a biological condition that people are born with is not true.

The counter, of course, would be that 25% of the world has always been queer but society has evolved so people don’t have to hide it and live a lie (though this poll was taken in today’s open society across all the generation, not historically during more repressed times).

Authored by Thomas Brooke via ReMix News,

Belgian authorities seized 50 bags of cocaine during a search last month of the office of Socialist Minister of Education Caroline Désir, local media reported on Thursday evening.

According to La Dernière Heure newspaper, one of Désir’s staffers, who is the son of former minister and current Belgian Socialist MP Fadila Laanan, was arrested prior to the search on suspicion of drug trafficking. A total of €10,000 in cash was seized during a further search of his home.

He is understood to have been working as the treasurer for the minister’s office.

The suspect was remanded in custody at Haren prison while police conducted their initial investigations.

In response to the news, which has just come to light, the minister’s office confirmed that the man, named only as Mr. MV, is no longer employed by Désir.

“On Wednesday, Dec. 15 in the evening, we were informed that Mr. MV, who held the position of treasurer within the cabinet, was under arrest as part of an investigation into drug trafficking. On Thursday, Dec. 16, a dismissal procedure for breach of trust was carried out in compliance with the regulations applicable to ministerial offices.

“The same day, a search of his office was carried out to check whether any criminal items were there. Around fifty sachets containing white powder were discovered. Once this discovery was made, contact was made by the firm with a criminal lawyer to open collaboration with the investigating judge in charge of the investigation,” the office said.

It added that the office had complied fully with the investigation and provided access to all areas where the staff member had permission.

No other contraband was found by investigations and the authorities “have not wanted to hear from any other member of the cabinet since,” it added.

Read more here…

Nuclear power is among the safest and cleanest sources of electricity, making it a critical part of the clean energy transition.

However, nuclear waste, an inevitable byproduct, is often misunderstood.

In collaboration with the National Public Utilities Council, Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti created the following graphic to show the volume of all existing nuclear waste, categorized by its level of hazardousness and disposal requirements, based on data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)..

Storage and Disposal

Nuclear provides about 10% of global electricity generation.

Nuclear waste, produced as a result of this, can be divided into four different types:

• Very low-level waste: Waste suitable for near-surface landfills, requiring lower containment and isolation.

• Low-level waste: Waste needing robust containment for up to a few hundred years, suitable for disposal in engineered near-surface facilities.

• Intermediate-level waste: Waste that requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near-surface disposal.

• High-level waste: Waste is disposed of in deep, stable geological formations, typically several hundred meters below the surface.

Despite safety concerns, high-level radioactive waste constitutes less than 0.25% of total radioactive waste reported to the IAEA.

Stored and disposed radioactive waste reported to the IAEA under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Data is from the last reporting year which varies by reporting country, 2019-2023.

The amount of waste produced by the nuclear power industry is small compared to other industrial activities.

While flammable liquids comprise 82% of the hazardous materials shipped annually in the U.S., radioactive waste accounts for only 0.01%.

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

Wind and solar energy cannot lift humanity into prosperity.

But as an impressive fleet of private jets has recently migrated from the COP 28 Summit in Dubai to the World Economic Forum in Davos, carrying the hoi polloi of the world from one elitist summit to another, this delusion was the dominant sentiment.

In this three-part analysis, what can accurately be described as a collective, perhaps willful delusion will be exposed in excruciating detail.

It will be dry and tedious reading. And perhaps that’s why journalists, activists, bureaucrats, and politicians have accepted the delusion.

So buckle up. Here’s the other side of the story.

Part One will quantify how much global energy production will need to increase if humanity is to have any hope of achieving universal energy security, much less energy abundance.

Part Two will calculate the infeasible degree to which wind and solar energy production will have to increase in order to hit that minimum target while still fulfilling the goals of COP 28.

Part Three will conclude by examining non-fossil fuel alternatives to wind and solar and, in so doing, demonstrate why global energy security is impossible to achieve without increasing, not decreasing, reliance on coal, oil, and gas.

An article published in the New York Post shortly after the war in Ukraine began in early 2022 nicely encapsulated what might be described as the “energy realist” perspective in the ongoing debate over climate and energy. In his article entitled “If the Ukraine war hasn’t scared the West straight on energy, nothing will,” author Rich Lowry reminded us, “The world hasn’t embraced fossil fuels out of hatred of the planet but because they are so incredibly useful.”

Even if some claim there is only an alleged consensus on the potentially catastrophic threat represented by fossil fuels, there is widespread agreement on the direct connection between energy and prosperity. With that in mind, and to make clear how critical it is to produce more energy worldwide, much more, here’s an immutable fact, based on data reported in the 2023 edition of the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy: For everyone on earth to have access to half the energy per capita that Americans consume, global energy production will have to double.

To be precise, since this is a statistic that carries huge implications, in 2022, according to the World Bank, total world population was 7.954 billion. In 2022, according to the Energy Institute, total world energy consumption was 604.0 exajoules. In that same year, there were 333.3 million Americans, consuming a total of 95.9 exajoules. That means that in 2022, the average American consumed 288 gigajoules, while the other 7.62 billion people in the world consumed, per capita, a mere 67 gigajoules.

This is not difficult math. It isn’t necessary to understand that a billion gigajoules equals an exajoule, or that most energy economists now convert all forms of measurable energy use—coal, gas, oil, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuel, hydro, and nuclear—into joules to have a common unit for analysis. It is only necessary to know that these units and conversion ratios adhere to well-established, credible methodologies that are accepted worldwide and that 288 gigajoules, which the average American consumed in 2022, is more than four times as much energy as what people in the rest of the world consumed in 2022, 67 gigajoules.

In further pursuit of precision, and to let this sink in, consider the exact amount by which global energy production would have to increase based on various estimates of the levels at which the global population will peak. If the world population had stayed at 2022 levels, and if everyone (including Americans) consumed half as much energy per capita as Americans consumed in that year, global energy production would have to increase by 89 percent. That is, it would only have to nearly double. But the global population continues to increase.

As of January 2024, the global population is already estimated at 8.1 billion, and despite dwindling birth rates everywhere on earth except in Africa, parts of the Middle East, and Central America, the United Nations currently projects the global population to peak at 11.2 billion before the end of this century.

Again, the math is not difficult. If the global population reaches 9 billion, as it almost certainly will, for everyone on earth (including Americans) to use half as much energy as Americans did in 2022, global energy production would have to increase by 114 percent—more than doubling. At a global population of 10 billion, under these same constraints, energy production would have to increase by 138 percent over 2022 levels.

How Will Global Energy Production Double?

There is some good news in all this. Because the first question anyone still willing to wade through these numbers ought to ask is: How on earth will Americans, or anyone else for that matter, enjoy a so-called First World quality of life if they only have access to half as much energy as they currently use? The answer to this question lies in the distinction between energy inputs and energy services, which constitutes the strongest case for electrifying the economy.

The following flowchart from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory provides an intuitive visualization of the difference between energy inputs and energy services. The most recent available chart is dated 2011, when total world energy flow (please don’t be alarmed, the units used on this chart are petajoules, abbreviated as PJ. Every 1,000 petajoules is equal to one exajoule) was estimated at 534 exajoules. But those 534 exajoules were energy inputs, depicted on the left side of the flowchart, not energy services, which are depicted on the right side of the flowchart.

Apart from the fact that these datasets reveal total global energy production between 2011 and 2022 to have only increased by 13 percent in over a decade, which is not an encouraging rate of growth if our objective is to double global energy production, the critical variables to examine on this flowchart are how, despite inputting 534 exajoules worth of mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas fuel, 290 exajoules of that was “rejected energy,” and only 210 exajoules were actual “energy services.”

What this means is that only 40 percent of the energy we burned, boiled, generated, or otherwise extracted from natural sources was ultimately enjoyed as heating and cooling in our homes and businesses, traction for our cars and trucks, propulsion for our airplanes, electricity for our appliances, computers, communications, media, and so on. The rest was lost to heat and friction.

The technological state of the global energy economy today is such that 60 percent of the energy we put into the system is lost. More recent corroboration of this assumption comes from the 2023 edition of the Statistical Review of Global Energy, where in the appendix they state their energy conversion efficiency assumptions as follows: “2000-2017: a linear increase from 36% to 40%… the assumption [is] that efficiency will increase linearly to 45% by 2050.”

Using new energy technologies to greatly improve conversion efficiency spells an opportunity with world-changing potential. If we could lift our efficiency from 40 to 80 percent, then in order to enjoy the same level of energy services we currently consume, we would only have to supply a raw energy input of 25 percent in excess of what we intend to consume in services, instead of the current 60 percent.

Expressed in actual units of energy, that means that in 2022, at 40 percent efficiency, the 604 exajoules of raw energy input into the economy yielded energy services of 242 exajoules. If the devices we use to convert energy inputs into energy services were to double to a conversion efficiency of 80 percent, everyone in the world would already have access to twice as much usable energy.

The technologies that are purported to have this potential include EVs and batteries, which can convert electricity into traction, including the charge/discharge cycle of the battery and taking into account regenerative braking, at around 80 percent, whereas it is rare for any vehicle with an internal combustion engine to achieve better than 40 percent efficiency. Similarly, electrification proponents claim the latest heat-pump technology utilizes electricity for space heating far more efficiently than natural gas heaters.

While there is ongoing debate over just how much efficiency is gained by moving from an energy economy based primarily on fossil fuel combustion to one based primarily on electricity, it is clear that the efficiency of many energy services can be greatly improved by going electric. The promise of extraordinary gains in energy efficiency is the reason it may be realistic to set a total world energy production target at around 1,000 exajoules, which is not quite double the currently estimated 604 exajoules set in 2022. The next chart shows how this works out numerically.

There are huge assumptions in this chart. All of them error in the direction of potentially underestimating how much total global energy may be adequate to lift all of humanity into prosperity. The global population may exceed 10 billion. Retooling the entire energy economy of the world to achieve 80 percent efficiency between raw inputs and end-user energy services would be an extraordinary achievement. And even if we did succeed in deploying new technologies everywhere in order to harvest 80 percent of our raw energy input in the form of end-user energy services, it is extremely unlikely we could do this without using coal, oil, and gas.

Increasing global energy production to 1,000 exajoules from the current 604 in just 26 years is a Herculean task, arguably impossible without resorting to an all-of-the-above energy development strategy. Part two will present the current global fuel mix and, using the guidelines agreed upon at the recent COP 28 summit in Dubai, present their proposed future global fuel mix. These calculations will demonstrate that the amount of wind and solar expansion necessary to adhere to COP 28 guidelines while still producing the minimum total energy worldwide is far greater than is generally understood or acknowledged.

More to the point, the calculations in the next installment will demonstrate the absolute absurdity of pretending that reliance on wind and solar energy is a viable strategy. The reader may then determine if the catastrophic consequences of adhering to an energy strategy that is an obvious failure might merit a more forceful repudiation of the entire “net zero” agenda. Adaptation, not “net zero,” is the only rational response to whatever theories of climate may remain in vogue.

Authored by Rob Natelson via The Epoch Times,

Many commentators have pointed out – correctly – that current “progressive” trends are reminiscent of George Orwell’s classic novel, “1984.” The parallels include manipulation of the English language, rewriting of history, suppression of dissent, and the omnipresence of administrative central government.

In addition to which, there are the lightning-swift changes in the party line: For example, behavior traditionally deemed morally wrong or perverted suddenly becomes a theme for celebration. You’re a bigot if you don’t change instantly!

Orwell wasn’t the only mid-20th century British writer to forecast those trends. Another was C.S. Lewis—particularly in his brilliant dystopia “That Hideous Strength.”

Lewis is best known for his works of popular Christian theology and for the allegorical fantasies for children called the “Chronicles of Narnia.”

On the other hand, “That Hideous Strength” is subtitled “A Modern Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups.” It isn’t entirely a fairy tale, but the subtitle’s warning is appropriate: This book has some disturbing content, and it certainly isn’t for children.

“That Hideous Strength” is the third in Lewis’s science fiction space trilogy. The action in the first, “Out of the Silent Planet,” takes place mostly on Mars. (Yes, you get to meet real Martians!) The second is “Perelandra,” which centers on Venus. In “That Hideous Strength,” the action is entirely on Earth—although beings from higher (and lower) regions also participate.

The phrase “that hideous strength” derives from a 1555 poem by the Scottish writer David Lyndsay. The term “strength” denoted a fortress or stronghold. In the poem, the hideous strength is the Tower of Babel. In Lewis’s book, it’s the massive, modernistic headquarters of the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments.

“N.I.C.E.,” for short.

‘Progressives’ Then and Now

The authoritarians who control most major American institutions today aren’t the first to claim the label “progressive.” Italian fascists, German National Socialists (Nazis), communists, and other socialists all appropriated the same label. And like today’s “progressives,” they tarred advocates of freedom and tradition as reactionaries.

“That Hideous Strength” was published in 1945. In that year, the free world, newly victorious over one kind of “progressive” tyranny, came face-to-face with another. Lewis’s book applies to both kinds.

The Story

“That Hideous Strength” has no single protagonist. The nearest thing is Mark Studdock, a young instructor at Bracton College. Lewis located this fictional institution in a (likewise fictional) idyllic English college town. Lewis modeled the college and the town somewhat on Oxford and Cambridge, but Bracton is much smaller. On its grounds is an ancient forest, wherein there are reputed to lie the remains of the Dark Age English magician, Merlin.

Unfortunately, Bracton College has been invaded by the self-styled “progressive element”—a group of academics very much like many I encountered during my university years: obsessed with process and intellectual fads, driven by lust to destroy, mouthing circumlocutions in place of plain speech, and enlisting “community” in the service of political power.

Bracton’s progressive element is enthusiastic to learn that N.I.C.E. has selected their town for its new headquarters. N.I.C.E., after all, is the national leader in experimenting with the raw material of humanity. N.I.C.E. will show how to fashion mankind into the automatons who populate progressive fantasy.

Mark Studdock is only modestly talented, but is ambitious and unencumbered by firm religious beliefs. He also has a strong desire to fit in with the right sort. Hence, he’s seduced by the progressives—almost, but not entirely, for there’s a slight extenuation in his character. This is Mark’s love for his wife, Jane, and his admiration for what he thinks she represents. Ultimately, this becomes the entry point for his salvation.

Anti-Values

Throughout the book, present trends resound backward. I mentioned Lewis’s devastating portrayal of the academic type so common in campus life. There’s also the familiar manipulation of language and the desire to conform.

Then there’s Lewis’s depiction of the soulless administrative apparatus. Lewis doesn’t tell us that England has lost its democratic form of government, but if it hasn’t, then only the form remains. Because N.I.C.E. imposes what it wants with impunity.

Just as our “progressive” mobs destroy and vandalize historical monuments, N.I.C.E. levels the ancient forest on the Bracton College grounds, replacing it with a sterile and sinister pile. The placid old town is swamped by vulgarian bullies slinging four-letter words. You’ll encounter their analogues today in any “progressive”-run city. (Lewis thinly disguises the words, but you know what they are.)

Orwell’s “1984” depicts a world in which, except for periodic hate sessions, sensuality is suppressed. I think Lewis’s depiction is more accurate: In “That Hideous Strength,” the objective is discarded in favor of the subjective. Beauty and balance yield to the ugly and perverted. To condition Mark for their purposes, N.I.C.E. operatives place him in a distorted room:

“[T]he room was ill proportioned, not grotesquely so but sufficiently to produce dislike. … The point of the arch was not in the centre; the whole thing was lop-sided. Once again, the error was not gross. The thing was near enough to the true to deceive you for a moment and to go on teasing the mind even after the deception had been unmasked. … He had a look at the pictures. … There was a portrait of a young woman who held her mouth wide open to reveal the fact that the inside of it was thickly overgrown with hair …  you could almost feel that hair; indeed you could not avoid feeling it however hard you tried. There was a giant mantis playing a fiddle while being eaten by another mantis, and a man with corkscrews instead of arms bathing in a flat, sadly coloured sea …. And why were there so many beetles under the table in the Last Supper? What was the curious trick of lighting that made each picture look like something seen in delirium?

“Long ago Mark had read somewhere of ’things of that extreme evil which seems innocent to the uninitiate,’ and had wondered what sort of things they might be. Now he felt he knew.”

Conclusion

Mark (and the reader) finally learn that behind the pretensions of “progressivism” lurks Satan. For a Christian of Lewis’s stripe, there’s a literal Satan. But one need not believe in a literal Satan to appreciate the point: Just remind yourself that, “If there were a Satan, he would be just like N.I.C.E.”

At one level, “That Hideous Strength” is a gripping and instructive story with a viscerally rewarding finish. On another, it’s a work of speculative theology.

Lewis was a scholar who taught both at Cambridge and at Oxford. If you have an academic background (or if you recently attended college), you will chuckle at how he characterizes the “progressive” mediocrities that have undermined universities that are supposed to convey “truth and tradition” and perverted them into institutions that act quite differently.

Lewis’s vast learning produced a myriad of historical and literary allusions. You don’t need to recognize them to appreciate the story. But recognizing some or all of them makes reading the book richer and more fun. For a guide, I recommend Arend Smilde’s “Quotations and Allusions in C. S. Lewis, ‘That Hideous Strength.’”

Historically, the biggest economies in the world have also been those that dominate international trade overseas.

Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte and Bruno Venditti created the following graphic, using data from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) and the World Trade Organization, to show how global export shares by value have changed over the last 150 years for some of the world’s top powers.

Merchandise Exports Share 1870-2022

During the 19th century, Britain was the world’s richest and most advanced economy. The economy was the most industrialized globally, with one-third of the population employed in manufacturing.

As a result, the UK’s finished goods were produced so efficiently and cheaply that they were widely traded worldwide, and were easily found in almost any other market.

Additionally, the British Empire benefited from its colonies, with India representing 42% of its exports by the end of the century.

During that period, Britain dominated merchandise exports, followed by Germany:

After World War II, the U.S. overtook British and German export leadership.

Unlike Europe and many other parts of the world that experienced devastation and economic hardship due to the war, the U.S. emerged relatively unscathed in terms of physical destruction and with a significantly strengthened industrial base.

Asian Growth from the 1980s to the Present

During the 1980s and 1990s, Japan experienced rapid export growth, driven by electronics-related goods, and became one of the largest trading partners of the United States.

Today, China dominates the trade market, accounting for almost 15% of all merchandise.

China’s manufacturing industry has become a leader in producing almost anything from commonplace household items to integral pieces in automotive manufacturing. Some staples of Chinese manufacturing are:

• Precision instruments

• Semiconductors

• Industrial machinery for computers and smartphones

Since 1948, global merchandise exports have grown from $59 billion to $24.3 trillion in 2022.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

There is absolutely no doubt – Elements of our own government are deliberately encouraging the acceleration of illegal immigration across the southern border and they are actively sabotaging any attempts to stop the madness.

There are two questions we need to ask:

• Why are they doing this?

• And, what can be done to stop them?’

In a move that I think debunks any claims that the Biden Administration wants a secure border, the federal government recently challenged Texas efforts to install border fencing and barbed wire to prevent the massive influx of foreigners raiding the US. This is after several incidents in which convicted criminals and terrorists have been identified among migrant groups. The measures were working, so obviously, Biden felt the need to intervene.

A majority of the Supreme Court has also taken Biden’s side, forcing Texas Governor Greg Abbott to declare the situation an invasion that threatens the security of his state and America at large. The conflict is leading to a showdown between federal agencies and Texas. I would argue that it is a showdown that NEEDS to happen, the sooner the better.

The expulsion of unwanted or destructive groups of people has been an emergency measure used by civilizations for thousands of years.

The cultures that don’t protect their own gates end up being erased or absorbed into a completely different population that may not hold the same values and principles.

The majority of nations on the planet today have strict immigration rules, yet, America and the EU are the only regions attacked for wanting to limit the flow of illegals.

Why is that?

The open borders propaganda common to the corporate media and Hollywood movies is part of a larger establishment agenda that has been active for many years in the US, but it has been accelerating since 2021. The Biden Administration in particular has overseen the largest spike in illegal migration in US history, with over 300,000 border violations in December alone (that we know of). To put this in perspective, that’s the equivalent of a city the size of Pittsburgh moving across the US border and demanding welfare, subsidies, housing, jobs, free food, etc., every single month.

This is unsustainable and the establishment knows it. In fact, Biden has actively tried to hide the crisis from the view of the American people for years, denying that there is any threat and claiming that the border is more rigid today than ever before. Anyone who questions the validity of this claim is immediately accused of racism, white supremacy and conspiracy theory.

Border states have become so angered over leftist denials that they’ve started busing thousands of migrants into blue “sanctuary cities” like New York, Washington DC and Chicago. The result has been a calamity for their welfare programs and local economy. Even progressive voters in these areas are enraged by the flood of migrants into their neighborhoods.

Schools in New York are being emptied and shut down to make room for migrant housing. Homeless shelters in DC have been inundated with migrants begging for handouts and the citizen homeless had far less food over the holidays because the illegals ate it all. The Chicago O’Hare Airport is being turned into a migrant shelter and the city is trying to prevent the media from documenting the situation.

Democrat mayors are finally calling the event a national emergency; funny how they refused to admit to the problem until they were directly affected by it. Of course, they blame conservative governors instead of their own sanctuary city policies. In other words, Democrats are indignant because they are being forced by red states to suffer the consequences of their warped ideals. Leftists have a rule: Never admit when they are wrong, even if it means self destruction.

And though low level progressive politicians are made to look foolish in their continued defense of sanctuary status, there is the greater issue of engineered crisis. Why have establishment elites and the Biden Administration been lying despite the clear and present danger? And why is it considered particularly wrong for western countries to defend their borders?

Perhaps because certain groups of people within the centers of power benefit greatly from the continued migrant invasion.

We’ve all heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy by now, and it’s not all that difficult to understand – Create social destabilization by using migrants as a weapon. But there’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye. Cloward-Piven is almost too simplistic an explanation; it doesn’t really define the bigger picture. There are a few ways that this strategy could open the door to authoritarianism in the US. Lets examine these scenarios to better comprehend why…

Operation Garden Plot And Martial Law

In 1968 the US Department of Defense at the request of the government drafted a civil disturbance plan called ‘Operation Garden Plot’ which outlined what was essentially a martial law response to large scale social breakdown. One of the main factors listed in the plan as a trigger for martial law was the uncontrolled mass migration of minorities into the US, as well as riots by minorities in light of economic uncertainty.

Garden Plot has provisions designed to install a long lasting domestic military presence in the US if deemed necessary, and was even tied to programs like REX 84 which planned out the installation of “FEMA camps” or detention facilities meant to hold large numbers refugees during a mass migration crisis. These programs were accidentally exposed during the Iran/Contra hearings of 1987 and were kept secret from a majority of representatives in Congress.

In other words, political elites designed a set of operations to swiftly impose martial law if a migrant disaster occurred. But were these measures meant to solve the crisis? Or were they meant to use the crisis as an excuse to put boots on the ground in the US and permanently end whatever constitutional protections we have left? That is to say, it may very well be the plan of the establishment to keep the borders open until illegals overwhelm the system and the public is willing to accept martial law.

Amnesty And Creating An Illegal Immigrant Military

Democrats have fielded multiple bills including legislation in 2022 to give illegal immigrants the option to serve in the US military and gain citizenship as a reward. Representatives mention the growing shortfall in military recruitment as a rationale for the policy (a shortfall which they created after allowing woke cultism into armed forces curriculum).

I have mentioned this in previous articles and I continue to believe that one of the main purposes for the establishment to leave borders open and entice illegals to enter is to create a migrant army; a situation in which millions of illegals will be offered easy citizenship in exchange for service. I also believe that this migrant army will be used against the American public (the real citizenry) to impose martial law measures in the wake of a national disaster.

Look at it this way: With the current military around 70% conservative and independent it is far less likely that the armed forces will follow orders to subjugate the populace, especially in the name of an increasingly unpopular leftist/globalist president like Joe Biden. It is much easier for the elites to use foreigners with no inherent regard for American culture or the American people as a suppressive force.

Cultural Replacement Theory

“Replacement Theory” is often denigrated by the media as a racist conspiracy held by white people who are “afraid to lose power.” This is nonsensical for a number of reasons, including the fact that if “white people” were a monolith and we had all the power, then we would simply snuff out any threats to that power and lock down our borders. There would be nothing anyone could do to stop us.

The truth is, there is no white monolith, there is no patriarchy and there is no such thing as systemic racism. Do some leftist activists clamor for mass migration to replace white people in the US and Europe? Absolutely. They call it “decolonization.” Is this the real purpose of mass migration? Probably not.

The replacement going on is not so much about replacing white people as it is about replacing western culture. The goal, I believe, is to open the floodgates to foreign elements because most of them come from more socialist systems that have no understanding of individual freedom. In this way, the establishment can dilute the American culture of independence and use the tyranny of the majority (democracy) to erase our values and principles forever.

This is why you will hear Biden and his ilk constantly pontificate on “democracy” and the “defense of democracy’ and the conservative “threat to democracy.” This is very deliberate terminology. When they say “democracy”, they are talking about the rule of the mob; the tyranny of the majority. They are talking about collectivism, socialism and ultimately authoritarianism for the “sake of the greater good.”

Migrants are being used to phase out the pillars of western civilization. This is why the borders must be secured now and illegals must be kicked out of the country with haste. No martial law, no FEMA detention facilities, no amnesty, no asylum, no welfare and no subsidies. They just need to be removed and sent back to where they came from and if they return illegally they should be severely punished.

In order for this to happen it would appear that southern states will have to enforce their own border security. But how to do this without federal interference? The American public will have to step in and step up to help states like Texas. The movement will have to be so overwhelming that the federal government is afraid to intervene.

The shape of this secure border action will require trial and error, but as long as Texas is willing to continue arresting illegals and shipping them out of the country, all that is needed is a contingent of deputized Americans to help watch the border and catch people trying to cross. There may also be a need for people to defend border walls and fences from federal sabotage.

Some will argue that this constitutes a violation, a defiance of federal authorities, and I would say yes, it is, and that’s a good thing. The Biden Administration is in dereliction of its duty to keep the country safe from foreign invasion. Doing nothing and leaving borders undefended from mass immigration is no different from refusing to defend the border from a foreign military.

If the current trend is allowed to continue, the stage will be set for a host of emergencies that will be exploited to give elites the excuse to erase what constitutional protections we have left. This cannot be tolerated. It’s time to end it.

*  *  *

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.

Earlier today we reported that according to Biden’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, in the fourth quarter US GDP grew at a torrid 3.3% pace, which was a 5-sigma beat to consensus estimate of 2.0% and also came in well above the highest Wall Street forecast. We also laid out the components that accounted for the growth: mostly the lack of inventory destocking (which means growth will be subtracted in Q1 instead), a bizarre jump in exports despite the soaring dollar, and last but not least, a jump in healthcare spending and a surge in RV purchases.

Yes, bizarre, but whether the GDP growth number was realistic or not (spoiler alert: the latter) is less important than what funded said growth. And it is here that we reveal something shocking: the chart below shows the Q4 change in GDP in nominal dollars as well as the corresponding increases in the US budget deficit (because the last time the US actually had a surplus was last century) and the increase in debt. 

The result, for better or worse, speak for themselves: while Q4 GDP rose by $329 billion to $27.939 trillion, a respectable if made up number, what is much more disturbing is that over the same time period, the US budget deficit rose by more than 50%, or $510 billion. And the cherry on top: the increase in public US debt in the same three month period was a stunning $834 billion, or 154% more than the increase in GDP. In other words, it now takes $1.55 in budget deficit to generate $1 of growth… and it takes over $2.50 in new debt to generate $1 of GDP growth!

Needless to say, this is unsustanable, and is why even the St Louis Fed FRED database now admits that total Federal interest payments have surpassed $1 trillion for the first time ever (and are about to go exponential).

So the next time you read something like this from the imposter in the White House…

Today we learned that our economy grew 3.1% last year – all while adding another 2.7 million jobs and with core inflation moving back down towards the pre-pandemic benchmark.

That means wages, wealth, and employment are now higher now than they were before the pandemic. https://t.co/SOPzcJn1Of

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 25, 2024

… respond that today we also learned that our debt grew by $2.581 trillion last year. This means that every dollar in GDP growth cost $1.69 in new debt, and also means that every new job cost futures generations of Americans $957,100.48.

Oh, and before we forget, a reminder that all US jobs created since 2019… have gone to foreign born workers.