Longi Green Energy Technology Co. is preparing a major shift in how it makes solar cells, moving away from heavy reliance on silver and toward lower-cost base metals as the industry grapples with rising material prices and shrinking margins, according to Bloomberg.

The company said it will begin large-scale production using base metals in the second quarter, a step it expects will “further lower the costs of solar modules,” according to a regulatory filing on Monday.

The decision comes as solar manufacturers — the largest industrial users of silver — face intense competition and oversupply, making the recent surge in silver prices especially painful.

Investor demand tied to geopolitical uncertainty and US interest-rate cuts has driven prices sharply higher, turning silver into the most expensive component of solar cell production.

Bloomberg notes that silver prices almost tripled last year and climbed above $84 an ounce in late May. At October’s roughly $50-per-ounce level, the metal made up more than 17% of the cost of solar modules, compared with just 3% in 2023, data from BloombergNEF show.

Longi is not alone.

Jinko Solar Co. expects to roll out base-metal panels at scale this year, while Shanghai Aiko Solar Energy Co. has already launched commercial production of silver-free cells with 6.5 gigawatts of initial capacity.

Longi’s use of back-contact solar cells gives it more flexibility to replace silver than producers using the dominant TOPCon technology, though the company has said the transition still brings challenges.

BloombergNEF notes that copper and other alternatives raise assembly costs and create reliability concerns, particularly for TOPCon cells, whose manufacturing process makes substitution difficult.

Even with those hurdles, demand for silver from the solar industry is forecast to drop 7% next year, even as global solar installations climb about 15%, according to BNEF.

Authored by Anthony Watts via WattsUpWithThat.com,

In November 2006, when I launched Watts Up With That?, the idea was simple enough: look at the data, check the instruments, and ask whether the conclusions being drawn actually followed from the evidence. It was never intended as a career in heresy. It was, at the time, a fairly normal scientific impulse steeped in curiosity.

Nearly twenty years later, that impulse requires a helmet.

As WUWT approaches its twentieth anniversary in 2026, it’s worth reflecting on how climate change went from being a hypothesis—one among many competing explanations for observed changes—to a full-fledged belief system, complete with sacred texts (IPCC reports), approved language, and the occasional excommunication.

The climate, meanwhile, has been far less dramatic.

2006–2008: When Thermometers Were Still Just Thermometers

Back in the mid-2000s, climate science still resembled…well, science. There were disagreements. There were debates. People argued about cloud feedbacks, solar influences, ocean cycles, and the reliability of historical temperature records without being accused of crimes against humanity.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth arrived in 2006 like a traveling roadshow of impending doom. Polar bears were stranded, seas were rising, and hurricanes were apparently lining up in formation. It was slick, emotional, and heavy on graphs that only went in one direction.

At the same time, a curious thing was happening on the ground. Actual thermometers—those stubbornly analog devices—were being placed next to heat sources, asphalt, and buildings. So WUWT did something radical: we took pictures.

This turned out to be surprisingly controversial, heretical even.

Apparently, photographing a thermometer next to an air conditioning exhaust was not “constructive engagement.” Who knew?

2009: Climategate—The Sound of Trust Hitting the Floor

Then came Climategate.

The emails were not hacked in the Hollywood sense; they were released, read, and promptly explained away. What they showed was not a grand conspiracy, but something far more human: groupthink, defensiveness, and an alarming willingness to manage perception instead of data.

“Hide the decline” entered the public lexicon, and suddenly climate scientists were explaining that it didn’t mean what it sounded like it meant. Which, coincidentally, is almost never a good sign.

For a brief moment, it looked like climate science might undergo a badly needed course correction. Transparency! Open data! Robust debate!

Instead, we got faux inquiries that investigated themselves and found themselves innocent.

Lesson learned: the problem was not the behavior—it was that outsiders noticed.

2010–2014: The Pause That Wasn’t There (Until It Was)

The next few years delivered an unexpected plot twist: the planet declined to follow the script.

Global temperatures flattened. Models predicted steady warming; observations did not comply. This became known as the “pause,” then the “hiatus,” then—after enough editorials—the “thing that never happened and you’re not allowed to mention.”

This was a golden age for climate creativity. Heat was hiding in the deep oceans, where it could not be measured but could still be blamed. Aerosols became the Swiss Army knife of explanations. Data adjustments proliferated.

When observations disagreed with models, the models were not questioned. The observations were “corrected.”

It was around this time that many of us realized the hierarchy had flipped. Models were now reality. Reality was negotiable.

2015: Paris—Promises, Promises

The Paris Agreement was hailed as a turning point. World leaders gathered to save the planet using pledges that were voluntary, unenforceable, and carefully worded to sound impressive while committing to very little.

It was a triumph of political theater.

No one asked how intermittent energy would power industrial societies. No one discussed grid stability. No one mentioned energy poverty. Those details were, apparently, unhelpful.

From this point on, climate policy became less about outcomes and more about optics. If emissions went up, the solution was more ambition. If costs rose, the solution was more commitment. Failure was proof that we simply hadn’t believed hard enough.

2018–2019: The Emergency Button Gets Stuck

Somewhere around 2018, the word “emergency” became mandatory.

We were told we had twelve years to save the planet. Then ten. Then five. The deadline kept moving, but always closer—like a cosmic treadmill.

Children were encouraged to panic. Adults were scolded for driving cars. Weather was promoted from background noise to moral indictment.

A heatwave? Climate change.
A flood? Climate change.
A cold snap? Climate change “disrupting the jet stream.”

Heads I win, tails you deny science.

2020–2022: When Everything Was an Emergency

The pandemic years revealed just how easily societies could be governed by emergency decree. Climate activism took careful notes.

Lockdowns briefly reduced emissions, proving once and for all that modern civilization could, in fact, be shut down—at great human cost—for minimal climatic benefit.

Energy policies, however, continued unabated. Reliable baseload was dismantled. Wind and solar were celebrated for theoretical capacity rather than actual performance.

When grids faltered and prices soared, we were told this was further proof of the need to double down.

It was around this time that “trust the science” quietly came to mean “do not ask questions.”

2023–2026: The Era of Unquestionable Certainty

Now, at the twenty-year mark, the climate narrative is polished, institutionalized, and remarkably immune to evidence.

Sea level rise continues at rates best appreciated with tide gauges and patience. Extreme weather remains stubbornly inconsistent with apocalyptic claims. Crop yields rise. Human adaptability refuses to cooperate with disaster models.

But none of that matters much anymore.

The climate scare no longer depends on predictions coming true—only on maintaining urgency. Models still overestimate warming, but the solution is always the same: adjust, attribute, and assert.

Dissent is not debated; it is diagnosed.

Twenty Years Later

After two decades of watching this unfold, I’ve learned that the most remarkable thing about the climate scare is not how much the climate has changed—but how much the rules of discussion have.

• In 2006, skepticism was part of science.
• In 2016, it is treated as a character flaw.
• In 2026, it seems like people might be listening to us.

WUWT has endured because it kept doing the unfashionable thing: looking at the data, pointing out inconsistencies, and occasionally raising an eyebrow when the emperor’s new model ran a little warm.

The climate will continue to change. It always has. The real question is whether society can rediscover the value of skepticism before policy built on perpetual emergency does lasting damage.

And if not—well, at least the models will still be very confident. /sarc

By the way, if you’ve not seen it yet, check out our newly updated Failed Climate Predictions Timeline.

Tuesday’s major Ukraine summit of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ in Paris on Tuesday, where dozens of European leaders were hosted by President Emmanuel Macron, is still desperately trying to salvage strong security guarantees for Kiev as a central part of any future peace deal to end the war with Russia.

Macron vowed that Ukraine’s allies and military backers would “make concrete commitments” at the meeting “to protect Ukraine and ensure a just and lasting peace.” The Kremlin is going to see this as yet another exercise in flirting with Russia’s red lines – especially the idea of NATO ‘Article 5-style’ security guarantees.

Reportedly the United States has already agreed to lead a “ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism” with European participation assuming a deal can be reached – based on a draft statement seen by the AFP.

Washington is also said to b  willing “support” a European-led multinational force, which would necessitate American boots on the ground “in case” of any new future attack by Russia post-truce deal.

But one never really knows when it comes to President Trump – or what he’s ultimately willing to finally sign on to, also at a moment of ongoing friction with the Zelensky government.

It must be recalled that he and his admin officials have been quite vocal time and again about never committing American troops to Ukraine in the context of a fight with nuclear-armed Russia.

Trump himself has been strident on this point, going back even to the early campaign trail. Will he flip? The White House, if it does sign onto this fundamentally European plan or an alteration to the 20-points, is more likely to spin this as “not actually boots on the ground” to satisfy skeptics among the MAGA base.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and American envoys are there in Paris, along with what’s said to be an unprecedented amount of other heads of state and defense officials. 

🚨 Who is meeting in Paris today: A total of 40 representatives from different countries and international organizations.

28 country leaders, including Ukraine, will attend, along with leaders of 4 international organizations: the European Council, the European Commission,… pic.twitter.com/aLPH0eySBQ

— Kateryna Lisunova (@KaterynaLis) January 6, 2026

Reading the room, this meeting seems much more about Europe taking the reins of the peace deal away from Washington. Just look at the rhetoric… which Moscow will simply receive as dead on arrival:

Downing street has said that Britain will “deploy forces to Ukraine in event of a peace deal.” In a statement released after Starmer signed the “declaration of intent” earlier, his office says:

This is a declaration of intent to deploy forces to Ukraine in event of a peace deal. This is a vital part of our iron cast commitment to stand with Ukraine for the long term.

The ‘Multinational Force for Ukraine’ will act as a reassurance force to bolster security guarantees and Ukraine’s ability to return to peace and stability by supporting the regeneration of Ukraine’s own forces.

The signing of the declaration paves the way for the legal framework to be established for French and UK forces to operate on Ukrainian soil, securing Ukraine’s skies and seas and building an armed forces fit for the future.

In today’s discussions we have also gone into greater detail about the mechanics of the deployment of the force on the ground.

Alongside our plans for a coordination cell, post-ceasefire the UK and France will also establish ‘military hubs’ across Ukraine to enable the deployment and build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment to support Ukraine’s defensive needs.”

Starmer further said, “Putin is not willing to show peace. We will keep the pressure up on Russia, including further measures on oil trades and shadow fleet operators supporting Russia.” And of course this was seconded by all present.

Some interesting long lost faces popped up in Paris…

After all the corruption-related turmoil and reshuffles inside Zelensky’s government, Rada majority leader David Arakhamia surfaces at the meeting of the pro-Ukraine coalition in Paris.

Formerly Ukraine’s top Instanbul negotiator and reputedly a moderate, Arakhamia is known for… pic.twitter.com/9rNm8uj8XQ

— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) January 6, 2026

Meanwhile President Putin is not going to care about the “mechanics” or technical aspects of what such a deployment would look like. He will see it as but a recipe for what his forces have been fighting against all along: NATO soldiers and infrastructure right along border of the Russian Federation… potentially provoking events which could easily lead to WW3.

Authored by Michael Tomlinson via The Brownstone Institute,

Evidence continues to mount indicating that the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic was counterproductive and harmful, yet mainstream opinion continues to proclaim that it was a triumph.

This is based on scientific papers that often manipulate the data or present it selectively.

Exhibit 1: Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different Covid-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England by Ip et al. The authors conclude that ‘the incidence of common arterial thrombotic events (mainly acute myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke) was generally lower after each vaccine dose, brand and combination’ and ‘the incidence of common venous thrombotic events (mainly pulmonary embolism and lower limb deep venous thrombosis) was lower after vaccination.’ 

This seems to be a straightforward outcome, based on a most inclusive sample – the whole population of England. However, Table 2 shows incidence rates of cardiovascular events were substantially higher (nearly double for arterial events) after the first dose of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, compared to no vaccination:

This contradicts the text: ‘The incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications was generally lower after each dose of each vaccine brand.’ Of course, ‘generally’ is a weasel word. It means that the incidence of complications after each dose was lower except where it was higher. Incidence rates for the Moderna vaccine were indeed much lower at least in the medium term (up to 26 weeks) but rates for AstraZeneca and Pfizer were much higher.

Incidence rates after the second dose were indeed ‘generally’ lower in the tables. But Supplementary Table 3 reveals that the definition of ‘no vaccination’ for Dose 2 in fact means the interval between a first dose and a second dose. The largest increases in incidence rates are for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca Dose 1 vaccination groups, the only cohorts compared with a true vaccination naïve control group.

Supplementary Table 4 shows substantial increases in incidence rates for Dose 1 broken down for all eleven cardiac events measured (and two composites).

Returning to Table 2, the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated groups have comparable numbers of events, but the vaccinated groups are calculated with reference to approximately half the number of person years. If we apply the incidence rates to the numbers of people in each group (at the top of Table 1), we can calculate vaccination with the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines brought about in the region of 91,000 additional serious cardiac events (euphemistically described as ‘complications’) compared to the no vaccination group in a little over one year. On the other hand, the Moderna group experienced over 34,000 fewer events compared with the no vaccination group, leading to an overall balance of around 56,000 additional events. How many of the individuals who had additional heart attacks, strokes, and thromboses subsequently died? The results are shocking, but after further processing we are told they are ‘reassuring.’

To obscure the alarming results, the text relies not on the straight incidence rates but on hazard ratios ‘adjusting for a wide range of potential confounding factors.’

It is not apparent why any adjustment was necessary. On the one hand, ‘There were few differences between subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics,’ and on the other hand, ‘we addressed potential confounding by adjusting for a wide range of demographic factors and prior diagnoses.’ Were there significant differences in demographics or weren’t there? 

Further on, we are told that ‘Subgroup analyses by age group, ethnic group, previous history of the event of interest and sex were conducted’ and outcomes ‘were generally similar across subgroups.’ What were the potentially confounding factors that had to be adjusted for if not these? How could an incidence rate of approximately 1.9 for the Pfizer Dose 1 arterial events be adjusted to a hazard ratio of 0.9? 

If an adjustment leads to the reversal of findings of this magnitude, then it must be done transparently and with full substantiation. Without further explanation, the adjustment seems extraordinary and unjustifiable if outcomes were similar across subgroups and no differentiating factor is identified. They are statistical artefacts of low credibility and should not be used to guide policy. 

This is a well-established academic trope – something that seems on the face of it to be black is not really black, but when ‘adjusted’ in an undisclosed and untransparent way has many white characteristics. 

Table 2 compares the ‘primary course’ rates with the ‘after booster vaccination’ rates, where the Pfizer incidence rates are again higher for this last dose in the series, compounding the primary dose increase. I would have thought the authors should have commented on this, given that it contradicts the conclusions of the paper. This rise in the rate for vaccinated individuals with subsequent vaccinations is unlikely to be and is not in fact explained by confounding factors. We are told that both second dose-vaccinated and booster-vaccinated cohorts were older than the first dose cohort, so age does not seem to explain the rise. Other confounding factors are not revealed. Did they exist for any of the cohorts? 

The authors also resort to breaking the data down into slices (dose by dose) in a way which prioritises the micro over the macro perspective, and obscures strategic synthesis. 

After three doses (including boosters), how did the incidence rates of the vaccinated groups compare with that of the unvaccinated groups in toto, over the whole study period? Were they higher or lower overall? This is not revealed. What about after a year? Two years? Three years? Why are the Moderna rates so much lower, and why do they not discuss this? On the basis of the figures in the table, repeated doses of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines pose unacceptable risks. Yet these were the main vaccines deployed in England in this period, approximately 90% of the total.

But on the basis of these misleading and selected statistics, unasked and unanswered questions, the authors triumphantly conclude:

These findings, in conjunction with the long-term higher risk of severe cardiovascular and other complications associated with COVID-19, offer compelling evidence supporting the net cardiovascular benefit of COVID vaccination.

This is a whitewash. Their unadjusted data show the reverse – most Covid-19 vaccinations increased cardiac risks. The fact that the authors studiously refrain from referring to or discussing the markedly adverse incidence ratios after vaccination is strongly indicative of bias, although at least they included them in the tables, taking a risk that close readers might notice their significance.

Many other studies perpetuate the whitewash, based on a zero-sum assumption that there are two mutually exclusive groups: unvaccinated people who fall victim to Covid-19 and vaccinated people who don’t.But the Cleveland Clinic preprint by Shrestha et al found that:

Consistent with similar findings in many prior studies…a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity….Thus, the short-term protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccine comes with a risk of increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in the future.

They reached the same conclusion in their peer-reviewed report on the effectiveness of the 2019 bivalent vaccines: ‘The risk of Covid-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior Covid-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.’

Studies which show that vaccinated groups have much lower rates of infection than unvaccinated groups are usually founded on the ‘case-counting window bias,’ as explained in the peer-reviewed report on the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna by Alessandria et al. The vaccinated have lower numbers of infections in a defined window of time, but not necessarily beyond it. By contrast, the Cleveland Clinic studies above use a longer and additive timeframe, and Ip et al do not seem to exclude the first 14 days, which is a strength of their base statistics.

There is the risk that both the vaccines and the virus might cause similar harms to the cardiovascular system. Jean Marc Sabatier of Aix-Marseilles University has been warning against this from early in the pandemic. In 2021 he and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper: The Renin-Angiotensin System: A Key Role in SARS-CoV-2-Induced COVID-19.

The paper explains:

In fact, the viral entrance promotes a downregulation of ACE2 followed by RAS balance dysregulation and an overactivation of the angiotensin II (Ang II)–angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) axis, which is characterized by a strong vasoconstriction and the induction of the profibrotic, proapoptotic and proinflammatory signalizations in the lungs and other organs. This mechanism features a massive cytokine storm, hypercoagulation, an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and subsequent multiple organ damage.

The model is depicted in Figure 1:

While the paper focuses almost entirely on Covid-19, the disease, the implications of the model go to risks of the vaccine also. This is cautiously slipped into the explication of Figure 1 (my italics): ‘during SARS-CoV-2 infection or upon receiving a spike protein-based vaccine, the viral Spike (S) glycoprotein binding to ACE2 receptor induces overactivation of the ACE/Ang II/AT1R axis.’

So, we must consider the risk that as well as the SARS-CoV-2 virus, some (if not all) vaccines might also induce overactivation of the ACE2 receptor and consequently the renin angiotensin system. There is no proof that they do, but there is equally no proof that they do not, and the model fits well with the Ip data on cardiovascular event incidence levels for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines (but not with the favourable Moderna figures – what is different about the Moderna vaccine?). 

This would be an issue under any scenario, but even more so if incidence of Covid-19 increases with the number of vaccine doses previously received. The vaccinated can be repeatedly challenged by the spike protein both in the form of the virus and in the form of the vaccines as well. The risks from infection are not obviated – the risks of vaccinations are added to them, not substituted for them.

There has been a torrent of papers on the effects of Covid-19 vaccination, focusing on these limited windows of effectiveness. They display strong confirmation bias – data and findings apparently supporting effectiveness are welcomed with open arms despite obvious flaws, findings that overtly cast doubt on effectiveness or safety are vigorously contested and often succumb to a campaign to have them retracted. If the data are unfavourable, better to ‘adjust’ them so you can reverse the conclusions. This constitutes scientific misinformation.

Although pro-vaccine papers sometimes have sophisticated technical values, they show little capability for strategic thinking.

Which is the preferable and lowest-risk strategy over the timeframe of the pandemic crisis:

1. Undergoing multiple vaccinations of short-term effectiveness

2. Minimizing exposure to the spike vaccine?

The scientific literature simply does not test this strategic comparison by comparing overall outcomes for the vaccinated from the point of vaccination to the end of the pandemic crisis period, compared with the truly unvaccinated. But what we do know from the Ip population-level study of England is that Dose 1 for the two most commonly used vaccines increased 11 out of 11 cardiac events and a booster increased both arterial and venous events again for the Pfizer vaccine. 

Individuals should be free to make the strategic choice, guided by their health professionals, and should not be coerced to follow the first strategy through mandates. Mandates should not risk creating severe adverse outcomes on a mass scale.

The Middle East is home to some of the world’s fastest-growing and most densely populated cities. Rapid population growth, rural-to-urban migration, and economic concentration have driven major cities to expand well beyond their historic cores.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, highlights the most populated cities in the region in 2025.

The data for this visualization comes from the United Nations.

Cairo Stands Alone at the Top

Cairo ranks as the Middle East’s most populated city, with more than 25.5 million residents in 2025. The Egyptian capital has expanded steadily for decades, driven by high birth rates and sustained migration from rural areas. Alexandria and several other Egyptian cities also rank highly.

Türkiye and Iran Anchor Urban Growth

Türkiye places multiple cities in the top 20, led by Istanbul with over 15 million people, followed by Ankara and Izmir.

Iran also features prominently, with Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, and several secondary cities reflecting the country’s large population and relatively balanced urban network.

Gulf Cities Punch Above Their Weight

Several Gulf cities appear high on the list despite much smaller national populations. Riyadh, Dubai, Jeddah, Doha, and Kuwait City have grown rapidly over the past two decades, fueled by economic diversification, infrastructure investment, and foreign labor inflows.

While smaller than Cairo or Istanbul, their growth rates remain among the fastest in the region.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Wealthiest Nations in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has announced plans for deportation reform aimed at expelling more foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes, using her New Year’s address to argue that Denmark must put public safety and victims first, even if doing so pushes the boundaries of international conventions.

“The government will soon present a comprehensive deportation reform,” Frederiksen said.

“This will mean that even more criminal foreigners will have to be sent out of Denmark.”

She drew a clear distinction between immigrants who, in her words, had embraced Denmark and those who commit crimes.

“You can be Danish even if your favorite dish isn’t meatballs or mackerel sandwiches, for that matter. We Danes, don’t look the same. Nor should we. But we should love each other.”

Frederiksen’s tone hardened when addressing the current issues regarding criminality and integration.

“In Denmark, when democracy and religion collide, it is God who has the right of way,” she said, before adding:

“Therefore, to the people who have come here and are committing crimes: You shouldn’t be here. We don’t want your madness and culture of dominance. You are destroying the most beautiful country in the world, and you should not be allowed to do that.”

🇩🇰🚨 Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen used her New Year’s address to promise ramped-up deportations for foreign criminals.

“We do not want your culture of dominance. You are destroying the most beautiful country in the world.” pic.twitter.com/XKdbTmNXRn

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) January 5, 2026

She cited specific cases to underline what she described as systemic failures.

“No one can understand why an Iraqi man convicted of brutally assaulting an innocent person with a golf club cannot be deported,” Frederiksen said.

“Nor why a previously convicted man from Kosovo, convicted of abusing his children and spouse for several years, can be allowed to stay here.”

Under the government’s proposal, foreigners would be deported if they commit serious crimes and receive a prison sentence of at least one year, regardless of their length of stay or personal ties to Denmark.

“This makes it a very clear starting point,” Frederiksen said.

“If you are convicted of, for example, rape, aggravated assault, or other serious crime, then your stay in Denmark is over.”

Frederiksen said Denmark already deports many criminal foreigners due to what she described as a strict immigration policy that goes “to the edge of conventions.” She argued that the government could now go further because Denmark, together with Italy, had succeeded before Christmas in gathering support from 27 countries for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. “Now, first and foremost, it must be the populations – and the victims – who are protected. And not the perpetrator,” she said. “Instead of waiting several years for it to take effect in court practice, we are taking the lead and implementing legislation before the summer.”

In October last year, a government report revealed that nearly three-quarters of those convicted under Denmark’s so-called gang clause have immigrant backgrounds from non-Western countries. Data released by the Ministry of Justice showed that between 2018 and 2025, 213 people were convicted under Section 81a of the Criminal Code, which allows courts to double sentences for crimes likely to provoke gang violence. Of those convicted, 54 were of Danish origin, 36 were immigrants from non-Western countries, and 117 were descendants of non-Western immigrants, meaning 72 percent had non-Western roots. Conservative immigration spokesman Frederik Bloch Münster described the figure as “remarkably high.”

Denmark has already moved to tighten deportation rules. In December 2024, the government announced plans to abolish the so-called ladder system, which limits deportation based on the severity of a crime and the offender’s length of stay in the country. The proposed reform would allow the deportation of any foreign national sentenced to an unconditional prison term, unless doing so would breach Denmark’s international obligations.

“Unfortunately, foreigners in Denmark are overrepresented in the crime statistics and too often commit serious crimes — such as those related to gang activity. We don’t have to deal with that. The hammer must fall even harder,” said Immigration and Integration Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek at the time.

“Therefore, we want to tighten the rules so that we can get even more criminal aliens deported. Every criminal alien who is deported by Denmark is a victory for the legal community and a victory for our country.”

The deportation push is part of a broader tightening of Denmark’s approach to immigration and national identity. Since Jan. 1, 2025, it has been illegal to raise foreign flags without special permission, following new legislation passed by the Folketing after a Supreme Court ruling struck down a 1915 ban. The new rule restored restrictions while allowing exceptions for Nordic flags, Germany, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and specific contexts such as sporting events, demonstrations, or special permits granted by police or the justice minister.

Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard defended the measure last December, saying, “The Dannebrog is the most important national symbol we have in Denmark. A symbol that binds the Danes together as a people, and which should enjoy a very special status in Denmark.”

Read more here…

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

After years of heading in the wrong direction, nobody can deny that the United States is facing overwhelming problems. So why don’t we focus on fixing those problems first? The truth is that we can’t do everything because our resources are very limited. U.S. households are more than 18 trillion dollars in debt, and the federal government is more than 38 trillion dollars in debt.

Even though we have literally stolen trillions upon trillions of dollars from future generations, our major cities are rapidly decaying, our infrastructure is crumbling, corruption is rampant, the middle class is shrinking, most of the population is struggling to even afford the basics each month, mass layoffs are happening all over the nation, our streets are teeming with hordes of drug addicts and homeless people, large numbers of Americans are selling images of themselves online just to make ends meet, and millions of others are living in their vehicles.

So why don’t we use what limited resources we have to fix our own problems?

If you don’t understand the point that I am trying to make, just go take a stroll through downtown Seattle.

The new mayor has decided that it will be her policy to allow people to openly do drugs in the streets…

Seattle’s new ultra-woke mayor has triggered chaos by ordering police not to arrest people doing drugs on the streets of the city plagued by crime and homelessness.

Democratic socialist Katie Wilson, 43, was sworn in as the city’s 58th mayor on Friday.

The progressive politician who co-founded the Transit Riders Union has already taken steps that concerned residents and law enforcement officials say will destroy Seattle.

The president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, Mike Solan, is warning that this will make the lawlessness in the streets of Seattle even worse…

‘We’ve all seen how our streets can be filled with death, decay, blight and crime when ideology like this infects our city, Solan continued in his statement.

‘Now with this resurrected insane direction, death, destruction and more human suffering will be supercharged.’

Lawmakers and residents have reacted to this news in horror, as the city already has a raging homelessness epidemic that they believe this lax drug policy will only amplify.

Once upon a time, Seattle was one of the most beautiful cities on the entire planet.

So what in the world happened?

Of course it isn’t just Seattle that has been transformed into a crime-ridden, drug-infested hellhole.

All over the nation, chaos reigns in the streets of major American cities.

In fact, last night a “hammer-wielding maniac” destroyed a bunch of windows at the Cincinnati home of Vice President J.D. Vance…

A hammer-wielding maniac who smashed four windows at JD Vance’s Cincinnati home has been arrested by the Secret Service after an overnight break-in.

William DeFoor, 26, was charged early Monday morning with one count each of obstructing official business, criminal damaging or endangering, criminal trespass and vandalism.

Secret Service agents heard a loud noise at the home around midnight and spotted DeFoor running from the home, which is the secondary residence for Vance, his wife Usha and their three young children, who were out of town at the time.

Meanwhile, lawlessness also continues to run rampant in high places all over the country.

So what is being done about it?

After all this time, how many corrupt members of past administrations have been arrested and put in prison?

After all this time, how many corrupt corporate executives have been arrested and put in prison?

After all this time, how many of Jeffrey Epstein’s associates that also sexually abused young girls have been arrested and put in prison?

How can we tell the rest of the world how they should be doing things when we can’t even get our own house in order?

We have been getting hit by crisis after crisis, and economic conditions are steadily deteriorating.

In fact, we just learned that U.S. manufacturing activity has contracted for a 10th consecutive month…

US manufacturing activity contracted for a 10th straight month in December, a survey indicated Monday, pointing to a continued drag in sentiment from tariffs and trade policy uncertainty.

The Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) manufacturing index fell to 47.9 from November’s 48.2 reading, the lowest of 2025 despite modest improvements in employment and some other categories.

Our artificially-inflated stock market continues to hover near record highs, but at the same time the number of large corporations that are going bankrupt just continues to rise…

Between January and November 2025, at least 717 companies filed for Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy, according to data from S&P reviewed by The Washington Post.

That marks a 14% jump compared to the same period in 2024, and the most filings seen since 2010, the tail end of the Great Recession.

According to the Daily Mail, we are also seeing a very alarming surge in bankruptcies among small businesses too…

A frightening recession indicator is flashing red — and Americans can see it all over Main Street.

Experts told the Daily Mail that a sudden surge in bankruptcies and store closures — hitting mom-and-pop shops, small restaurants, and local retailers — could be an early warning sign that the economy is starting to crack.

One expert that was interviewed by the Daily Mail is warning that this surge in bankruptcies is a clear indication that a recession is coming…

‘The little guys are going to start falling first,’ Joe Barsalona, a Delaware-based bankruptcy lawyer at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, said.

‘A recession is coming. I agree with economists that the increase in small business bankruptcies is a canary in a coal mine.’

Of course many would argue that a recession is already here.

In recent months, I have written a lot about the mass layoffs that have been occurring all over the country.

Well, now Newsweek is reporting that over 100 companies have filed WARN notices for mass layoffs that will be taking place in January…

More than 100 companies have filed WARN notices indicating plans to lay off workers in January 2026, according to WARNTracker.com. The following companies have filed a notice.

I tried to warn my readers that a tsunami of layoffs was coming.

Now it is here.

The following is the full list of 119 companies that have filed WARN notices for this month…

• AARP
• AbbVie
• Adams County Public Hospital
• AeroFarms1526 Cane Creek
• Amazon
• Amentum
• American Signature, Inc.
• Apogee Architectural Metals
• Archer Daniels Midland Company
• Atkore Plastics Southeast
• Augusta Sportswear, Inc.
• Bechtel National Inc.
• Best Dressed Chicken, Inc.
• Blue Plate Oysterette LLC
• Blue Shield of California
• Bond 45 National Harbor Restaurant
• Braga Fresh Foods, LLC
• Building Materials Manufacturing LLC
• BWW Law Group, LLC
• Catalent, Maryland, Inc.
• Charles River Laboratories
• Clari Inc.
• CNO Financial Group
• Colonial Savings, F.A.
• ColWyo Coal Company LP
• CommUnify
• Consolidated Hospitality Supplies
• Corteva
• CoStar Group
• Couchbase, Inc.
• CRST Expedited, Inc.
• Dental Benefit Management, Inc.
• Dillard’s Inc.
• Dometic Corporation
• DRT, LLC
• DSV Air & Sea Inc.
• enDevelopment Logistics, LLC
• FedEx
• FreshRealm
• Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission
• Galleher LLC
• General Motors
• Giesecke + Devrient ePayments America Inc
• Gilead Sciences
• Grand Lux Café, LLC
• Great Floors
• H&M Fashion USA, Inc.
• HD Supply
• Heibar Installations Inc.
• Henkel Corporation
• HRL Laboratories
• Hudson
• Huntington National Bank
• Illumina
• ImmunityBio
• Inline Plastics
• Institute of International Education
• International Paper
• Invincible Boat Company
• Kloeckner Meals
• Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC
• Louis Vuitton USA Inc.
• Lumileds
• Maritime Applied Physics Corporation
• Marshalls of CA, LLC
• Mattel
• McDonald’s
• MDWise
• Meteorcomm LLC
• Mettler-Toledo Rainin, LLC
• Michigan Sugar Company
• Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
• Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
• NIKE Retail Services, Inc.
• Nordstrom Portland Rack
• Ojai Valley Inn
• Palo Verde Hospital
• Panasonic Well LLC
• Peraton’s Environmental Integration Services III
• Post Consumer Brands, LLC
• Presbyterian Home for Central New York, Inc.
• Providence Health & Services
• Rad Power Bikes, Inc.
• RATP Dev and Midtown Group
• Raytheon Technologies
• Rebel Restaurants, Inc.
• Red Run Corporation T/A Food Depot
• Regional Medical Center of Central Alabama
• Retail Services WIS Corporation
• Revity, Inc.
• Roads Express, LLC
• Saddle Creek Logistics Service
• SC Industrial Holdings, LLC
• SDH Education West, LLC
• SDH Service East, LLC
• Shell Recharge Solutions
• SLO Brewing Co. LLC
• Smokin Bear LLC
• Smurfit Westrock
• Sodexo
• Spirit Airlines, LLC.
• Synopsys, Inc.
• Takeda Development Center Americas Inc.
• Terzo Enterprises Incorporated
• The Cheesecake Factory
• The French Gourmet, Inc.
• The Taubman Company
• TJX Companies, Inc.
• TransAlta
• United Supermarkets
• Van Law Food Products, Inc.
• Verizon
• Virginia Mason Franciscan
• Warner Music Group
• Wells Fargo
• West Fraser, Inc.
• White Coffee Corporation
• WIS International
• WWL Vehicle Services America, Inc.

That is quite a long list, isn’t it?

The American people are not stupid.

They can see what is happening, and one recent survey found that 52 percent of U.S. adults actually believe that a recession has already started…

According to the ARG data, 52% of Americans believe the economy is already in a recession, and 64% say it’s getting worse.

These numbers suggest that many Americans are feeling the squeeze, even if official metrics don’t yet reflect a recession.

Only 11% think the economy is improving. Just 22% rate it as excellent, very good, or good, while 73% call it bad, very bad, or terrible, showing a clear gap between public sentiment and political narratives about economic strength.

Looking ahead, 60% believe the national economy will be worse a year from now, and just 16% say it will be better.

Yes, things are certainly bad now.

But they are not even worth comparing to what is further down the road.

So why don’t we use our limited resources to address the historic challenges that we are facing in our own nation?

If we love this country, we should try to fix it.

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Chevron stands out as the clear winner among U.S. oil majors, given its unique positioning already in Venezuela. The company already produces a quarter of the country’s oil output under a U.S. sanctions waiver and exports crude, giving it an operational and regulatory moat no other oil major can match.

With the Monroe Doctrine effectively rebranded as the “Don-Roe Doctrine,” reflecting the Trump administration’s new approach to exerting control and influence across the Western Hemisphere and rooting out China and Russia, the developments this past weekend involving U.S. Delta Force operators capturing Maduro do not come as much of a surprise.

Consistent with the Don-Roe Doctrine, Chevron has contracted a fleet of tankers scheduled to arrive in Venezuela later this month, reinforcing its role as the dominant player, for now, a critical conduit for Venezuelan crude into US refineries along the Gulf of America.

Key highlights from the Bloomberg report that first pointed out Chevron’s 11 tankers headed to Venezuela:

• Number of Chevron-chartered ships is the highest since October and up from nine in December, with arrivals planned at the Jose and Bajo Grande ports.

• Of the 11 Chevron vessels, one has already loaded crude and two are currently docked; the oil is bound for U.S. refiners including Valero Energy, Phillips 66, and Marathon Petroleum.

• Chevron operates under a U.S. Treasury license and remains the only Western firm permitted to produce and export Venezuelan crude under U.S. sanctions.

On Monday, shares of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil jumped on news of regime change in Venezuela. However, Chevron shares had given up most of those gains by late trading on Tuesday.

Here’s more color on the Venezuelan crude industry from UBS and Goldman:

UBS analyst Henri Patricot

US captures Venezuelan leader, references oil investments, higher exports The US government announced on Saturday the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro following a military operation in Caracas (link). US President Donald Trump said that the U.S. “will oversee Venezuela until a safe transition to a legitimate replacement” and oil was mentioned several times. He said in a press conference that US oil companies would “go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, oil infrastructure” and that it would be “selling oil, probably in much larger doses” (link).

Could drive faster production rebound near-term if sanctions are lifted We see this weekend’s developments as slightly negative for the oil price in the near-term. While the US President said that the US embargo on Venezuelan oil remains in full effect, the events likely reduce risk of a further sustained drop in Venezuelan production and there is potential for a sharper rebound in our view. This could be partially offset by a higher geopolitical risk premium. Venezuela has been producing ~0.9Mb/d in 2025, <1% of global supply. Latest reports suggest that production dropped ~150kb/d m/m in December because of US sanctions (link), from ~850kb/d in November (IEA). It had reached 1Mb/d as recently as October 2025 (see Figure 1) and the US strikes reportedly did not impact oil infrastructure (link). Hence, we believe production could return to 1Mb/d fairly quickly, if US restrictions are lifted, a small upside of 150kb/d vs. our 850kb/d base case for 2026. There may be potential to push it slightly further to 1.2-1.3Mb/d. This would be an additional headwind for the oil market in 2026, but would not completely change the picture (1.9Mb/d surplus is our base case).

Greater long-term potential but that requires material investments, stability There would be a greater impact if production returns to the level of 2.5Mb/d from 10 years ago but this would take time and require many things to go right. Unlike for Iran, Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has indeed been impacted by years of underinvestment. As we discussed in our expert call on Venezuela back in 2022, raising production by ~0.5Mb/d could be done relatively quickly but getting back to 2.5Mb/d could take as much as 10 years. It would require major investments and for companies to do so, this would require political stability, which remains uncertain at this stage. Precedents of US-led or US-supported regime changes in oil-producing countries show how challenging this can be (see Figure 2). Iraq managed to grow production but we note this was during a different period for oil demand growth, $60 Brent doesn’t support significant growth investment and the US producer landscape and business model are significantly different. Meanwhile Libya has yet to return to pre-2011 production levels…OPEC+ partners maintain policy at monthly meeting, as expected Separately, the eight OPEC+ countries carrying out the voluntary cuts confirmed on Sunday their plans to pause production increments in February and March 2026 due to seasonality (link). This was in line with OPEC+ delegates’ comments (link) and expectations, and so neutral for oil in our view. The statement is similar to the previous one and made no reference to Venezuela. The eight countries will next meet on 1 February but we believe the next important meeting is more likely to be the one in early March, when the group should decide whether or not to raise production in April. Our base case is that they will return to production increases, so as to fully unwind the cuts by year-end, in time to agree on a new framework for the whole group. The alternative would be for the pause to go on, more likely if we see signs of Venezuelan production rebounding, Russia continuing to produce below target and/or prices moving lower.

Goldman analysts led by Daan Struyven

• Following the US deposing of President Maduro, we assess the risks to our unchanged oil price forecast (Brent/WTI 2026 averages of $56/52) from Venezuela.

• We see ambiguous but modest risks to oil prices in the short-run from Venezuela depending on how US sanctions policy evolves. We estimate 2026 Brent averages of $58/54 in scenarios where Venezuela crude production declines/rises by 0.4mb/d by end-2026 (vs. our $56 baseline which assumes flat production of 0.9mb/d).

• Along with recent Russia and US production beats, potentially higher long-run Venezuela production further increases the downside risks to our oil price forecast for 2027 and beyond. Although Venezuela produced ~3mb/d at its peak in the mid-2000s and holds ~1/5 of global proven oil reserves, any recovery in production would likely be gradual and require substantial investment. We estimate $4/bbl of downside to 2030 oil prices in a scenario where Venezuela crude production rises to 2mb/d in 2030 (vs. our 0.9mb/d base case).

About 20% of all global oil tankers are used to smuggle crude oil from countries under international sanctions, with 10% of these ships carrying Venezuelan oil. With Maduro out and the U.S. taking control of the Western Hemisphere, we suspect the dark fleet tanker industry will be dramatically hit – bad news for China’s “teapot” refineries.

Via The Cradle

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar visited the Republic of Somaliland on Tuesday and is meeting the breakaway state’s president, according to multiple media reports. Reuters cited sources as saying that Saar is currently in Somaliland and will meet the president of the state, Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, in the capital Hargeisa.

Somaliland media reports also confirmed the Israeli foreign minister’s visit. The Israeli Foreign Ministry did not respond to requests for comment. According to Somaliland’s Information Ministry, Saar was received by senior Somaliland officials at the airport.  Last month, Israel became the first state to formally recognize Somaliland, which broke away from Somalia in 1991 but had never been recognized by any UN member state.

Somali officials and several Arab, Islamic, and African states have condemned the Israeli move – which was rejected by most members of the UN Security Council at an emergency meeting in New York.

The Israeli government has been aiming for Somaliland to serve as a potential destination for Palestinians that Tel Aviv aims to forcibly displace from Gaza, according to multiple reports over the past year.

After US President Donald Trump announced plans to expel the strip’s population and transform Gaza into a “Riviera,” talks to relocate large numbers of Palestinians reportedly began with several African states, including Somaliland and Morocco. Trump walked back his comments earlier this year, but efforts to expel Palestinians have continued.

Somalia’s president said in a recent interview that Israel has demanded from Somaliland, as part of its terms, that the breakaway state receive displaced Palestinians from Gaza and allow the establishment of Israeli military sites. He added that intelligence confirms Somaliland accepted these terms.

“The Government of the Republic of Somaliland firmly rejects false claims made by the president of Somalia alleging the resettlement of Palestinians or the establishment of military bases in Somaliland,” Somaliland’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement in response.

“Somaliland’s engagement with the State of Israel is purely diplomatic, conducted in full respect of international law and the mutual sovereign interests of both countries,” it added. 

Ummmm…

Recognizing Somaliland isn’t charity — it’s strategy. It aligns with America’s security interests and the “America First” doctrine by strengthening an ally that shares our values in a region vital to global trade and counterterrorism.@thehillhttps://t.co/gfgyShpL6B

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 5, 2026

The Foreign Ministry went on to say that the “baseless allegations are intended to mislead the international community and undermine Somaliland’s diplomatic progress,” adding that “Somaliland remains committed to regional stability, and peaceful international cooperation.”

At CES in Las Vegas, where robotics is a dominant theme this year, Roborock introduced a striking new home robot meant to persuade consumers that household automation is ready for everyday life, according to Bloomberg.

The Chinese company — formally called Beijing Roborock Technology Co. — revealed the Saros Rover, a robotic vacuum concept equipped with two independent wheel-legs that allow it to climb stairs and traverse uneven terrain. According to the firm, it is “the first robot vacuum cleaner with two wheel-legs.” The device uses artificial intelligence, motion sensors, and 3D spatial mapping, and in a media demonstration it climbed stairs, descended a ramp, and performed a small jump, which a company spokesperson said could help it handle obstacles.

Bloomberg writes that the Rover replaces last year’s headline-grabbing Saros Z70, which featured a mechanical arm capable of picking up objects such as socks. While that model drew crowds at CES, it later disappointed reviewers when it launched for $2,599 in the U.S., partly because it recognized only a limited range of items. Learning from that experience, Roborock is now taking a more cautious approach: the Rover does not yet have a confirmed release date.

Like its predecessor, the new robot moves slowly when operating on its legs, and the company declined to disclose battery performance. During the presentation, it also remained unclear how well the Rover can recover from a fall, though the spokesperson said that in such cases the robot will attempt to right itself without human help.

Robotics’ growing presence at CES has become so prominent that the event’s organizer, the Consumer Technology Association, created a dedicated exhibition area for the category. Alongside home devices like Roborock’s, companies are showcasing humanoid robots that claim to handle complex tasks such as folding laundry. Still, widespread consumer adoption faces major hurdles, including high costs, limited battery life, and the need for more reliable mobility.