78.1 F
Chicago
Friday, September 4, 2026
Home Blog Page 933

Starbucks Can’t Get Customers to Stay, Despite Costly Cafe Makeovers

0
Starbucks Can’t Get Customers to Stay, Despite Costly Cafe Makeovers

Starbucks is struggling to keep customers in its cafes, even after spending heavily to make stores more inviting. New data from Placer.ai shows the share of visits lasting more than 10 minutes has dropped from over 40% in 2023 to roughly one-third today, according to Bloomberg.

CEO Brian Niccol made longer in-store visits a core piece of his turnaround plan when he took over in September 2024, promising better service, faster drinks and a return to the “warm, cozy, comfortable environment” Starbucks once championed.

Yet foot traffic has fallen for four straight quarters, while profits have slid by double digits over the last four and same-store sales have declined for six. Shares are down 6.4% this year.

“They’ve trained their customer to use this brand as a convenience channel, not as a place where you sit down and linger,” said Citi analyst Jon Tower. Still, he noted that if shops look and feel better, customers may at least come in more often: “They just want more people to come in and walk in and say, ‘wow, this feels like a great place.’”

Bloomberg writes that Starbucks has been adding seating, more electrical outlets and ceramic mugs, effectively reversing years of redesigns that prioritized speed over comfort.

The company says remodeled locations are seeing visitors stay longer and return more frequently. “Early results from uplifted coffeehouses in New York City and Southern California are already showing promise,” a spokesperson said. “Customers are staying longer, visiting more often, and sharing positive feedback.”

Renovations have also gotten cheaper, with some now costing about $150,000 instead of up to $1 million. Starbucks plans to refresh 1,000 North American stores in fiscal 2026. The chain has also sped up service — 80% of drinks are now served in under four minutes — and simplified the menu by 25%, cutting back on seasonal excesses. “We streamlined our menu to clear the way for innovation and focus on what customers love most,” the company said.

But the company is also closing older and to-go-focused locations as part of a $1 billion restructuring meant to align operations with Niccol’s more café-centric vision.

Some customers say the shops still aren’t conducive to lingering. At a Manhattan location, Dennis O’Leary noticed design updates but complained the music was too “tinny” and loud to make him stick around. Most seats were filled with customers waiting for orders rather than relaxing or working.

Analysts expect Starbucks to report flat same-store sales in North America when it announces earnings Wednesday — signaling the company’s push to make Starbucks a place to stay, not just stop, still has a long way to go.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/01/2025 – 09:55

The EU’s Two-Tier Encryption Vision Is Digital Feudalism

0
The EU’s Two-Tier Encryption Vision Is Digital Feudalism

Authored by Bill Laboon via CoinTelegraph.com,

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, recently showed a moment of humanity in a tech world that often promises too much, too fast. He urged users not to share anything with ChatGPT that they wouldn’t want a human to see. The Department of Homeland Security in the United States has already started to take notice. 

His caution strikes at a more profound truth that underpins our entire digital world. In a realm where we can no longer be certain whether we’re dealing with a personit is clear that software is often the agent communicating, not people. This growing uncertainty is more than just a technical challenge. It strikes at the very foundation of trust that holds society together. 

This should cause us to reflect not just on AI, but on something even more fundamental, far older, quieter and more critical in the digital realm: encryption.

In a world increasingly shaped by algorithms and autonomous systems, trust is more important than ever. 

Encryption is our foundation

Encryption isn’t just a technical layer; it is the foundation of our digital lives. It protects everything from private conversations to global financial systems, authenticates identity and enables trust to scale across borders and institutions.

Crucially, it’s not something that can be recreated through regulation or substituted with policy. When trust breaks down, when institutions fail or power is misused, encryption is what remains. It’s the safety net that ensures our most private information stays protected, even in the absence of trust.

A cryptographic system isn’t like a house with doors and windows. It is a mathematical contract; precise, strict and meant to be unbreakable. Here, a “backdoor” is not just a secret entry but a flaw embedded in the logic of the contract, and one flaw is all it takes to destroy the entire agreement. Any weakness introduced for one purpose could become an opening for everyone, from cybercriminals to authoritarian regimes. Built entirely on trust through strong, unbreakable code, the entire structure begins to collapse once that trust is broken. And right now, that trust is under threat. 

A blueprint for digital feudalism

The European Commission’s ProtectEU initiative proposes a mechanism that compels service providers to scan private communications directly on users’ devices before encryption is applied. This effectively turns personal devices into surveillance tools and breaks the integrity of end-to-end encryption. While state actors would never permit such a vulnerability in their own secure systems, this mandate creates a separate, weaker standard of security for the public.

On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable compromise: stronger encryption for governments, with so-called “lawful access” to citizens’ data. However, what it proposes is a hardcoded imbalance, one in which the state encrypts, and the public is decrypted.

This isn’t a security policy. It’s a blueprint for digital feudalism — a future where privacy becomes a privilege reserved for the powerful, not a right guaranteed to everyone. Two-tier encryption shifts the balance of trust from democratic accountability and cements a structure of control no free society should accept. Make no mistake: This debate isn’t about safety. It’s about control. 

We shouldn’t live in a world where only the powerful get to be private.

In an age of ubiquitous AI, state-sponsored hacking and mass digital surveillance, weakening encryption isn’t just shortsighted but a systemic recklessness. For those of us in the decentralized world, this is not an abstract debate; it is a matter of practical concern. Strong, unbreakable encryption is far more than a technical feature; it’s the foundation upon which everything else rests.

Truth by verification

This is why the mission of Web3 must stay rooted in its core promise: truth. Not truth by authority, but truth by verification. This principle of a self-enforcing contract is why true decentralized systems are built with no key master or institution that holds the keys. Introducing a backdoor is a contradiction; it re-establishes a central point of failure, violating the very premise of a trustless system. Security is a binary state: it is either present for everyone, or it is guaranteed for no one.

Fortunately, these principles are not just theoretical. The cryptographic primitives emerging from this space — zero-knowledge proofs that can confirm facts without exposing data, and proof-of-personhood systems that resist Sybil attacks without compromising privacy — offer a real, working alternative, showing that we don’t have to choose between security and freedom.

The irony is stark: The same field now under threat holds the tools we need to build a more secure, more open digital future. One based not on surveillance or gatekeeping, but on permissionless innovation, cryptographic trust and individual dignity.

If we want a digital world that is safe, inclusive and resilient, then encryption must remain strong and universally standardized for everyone.

Not because we have something to hide, but because we all have something to protect.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/01/2025 – 09:20

Kenyan Navy Intercepts Flagless Vessel Carrying $63 Million in Meth

0
Kenyan Navy Intercepts Flagless Vessel Carrying $63 Million in Meth

Kenyan authorities have seized more than a metric ton of methamphetamine in a major maritime drug bust coordinated with INTERPOL and international partners.

On 21 October 2025, the Kenyan Navy intercepted a flagless dhow roughly 340 nautical miles east of Mombasa after intelligence sharing between the Regional Narcotics Interagency Fusion Cell in Bahrain and the Regional Coordination Operations Centre in Seychelles, according to a release from Interpol.

The vessel was escorted to Mombasa three days later, where a multi-agency command center was established under the Deputy Commander of the Kenyan Navy. INTERPOL said it played a key advisory and oversight role, helping manage the search to ensure the evidence would stand up in court and coordinating support from the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which deployed personnel to assist.

Interpol writes that authorities discovered 769 packets containing 1,024 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine with a purity level of 98%. Kenyan experts value the seizure at more than KES 8 billion (USD 63 million).

Six crew members were arrested and now face drug-trafficking charges. Kenya’s Anti-Narcotics Unit is leading the ongoing investigation.

INTERPOL said the operation demonstrates how international coordination and real-time intelligence sharing are essential to counter the growing threat of maritime drug trafficking in the Indian Ocean.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/01/2025 – 08:45

Watch: “Petrified” Woman Details Brutal Reality Of Lawless, Borderless Britain

0
Watch: “Petrified” Woman Details Brutal Reality Of Lawless, Borderless Britain

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A clip of a TalkTV caller from London has gone viral after she expressed her extreme distress over rising violence in her area, particularly stabbings, in the wake of yet another horrific incident Tuesday.

As we earlier highlighted, an innocent man walking his dog in West London was brutally stabbed to death for no reason whatsoever by an illegal Afghan migrant, with two others being seriously injured by the knife wielding maniac.

It was quickly ascertained that the suspect arrived into the country completely illegally on the back of a lorry, yet was granted leave to remain in 2022.

The caller, a woman named Sarah, was explained that she lives near Hillingdon, the area where the attack yesterday was carried out. 

She noted that since moving into her house in 2019, her local shop has experienced three stabbings and one murder.

“My friend was murdered last year up on The High Street. A girl that I know was murdered in South Ball Park. Government are failing us. We’re scared for our children,” the caller urged.

“I have a 22-year old son and I’m begging him to move out of this country,” she continued, adding “What are these politicians doing to us? They’re putting our children in so much danger. They put everyone in danger and they’re doing nothing to help us.”

She then expressed deep frustration that despite being peaceful people, the community feels pushed to take action because their concerns are not being addressed.

“They’re pushing us to do something that we don’t want. We are peaceful people. British people never revolt against their government. They’re going to push us to it because they are not listening to us. Please, our friends, our family are dying,” the woman pleaded.

“I don’t leave the house without a man,” she further revealed, urging “everyone I know is getting stabbed. They’re getting raped in parks. This is where I live, not where the politicians live.”

She then directly addressed British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stating “if you’re listening to this, please do something. I’m petrified. I’ve never broken the law in my life. I have been a law abiding citizen, a civil servant. Please do something. It’s us that are dying on the streets.”

At time of writing, Starmer has not said anything about yesterday’s stabbing spree.

“You talk about being racist,” the tearful caller further stated, referring to Starmer’s repeated characterisation of those concerned about rampant illegal immigration as “far right.”

“We’re not racists,” the woman stressed, adding “My sister’s mixed race. I was a white child brought up in a mixed-race family, it’s nothing to do with race.”

Other callers were furious with rage.

GB News is exposing the kind of individuals who are arriving and being housed in hotels and former military bases.

All of this comes after another migrant who was imprisoned for sexually abusing a teenage girl in Epping, sparking mass protests at the hotel housing illegals there, was accidentally released from prison and left to wander around London.

The man has since been arrested and quietly deported to Ethiopia, having reportedly been paid a paltry sum of money to not make a fuss about it.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/01/2025 – 08:10

Moscow’s “Root Causes” Memo Reportedly Angered White House, Which Then Nixed Budapest Summit

0
Moscow’s “Root Causes” Memo Reportedly Angered White House, Which Then Nixed Budapest Summit

The Financial Times is out with more reporting Friday on why the United States canceled a planned summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest earlier this month. The FT report says Moscow issued sweeping demands on Ukraine, according to sources privy to the conversations, and that ultimately this ‘annoyed’ President Trump, who opted to listen to those admin officials calling for a firmer position in support of Ukraine.

Also, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told Trump that Moscow was “showing no willingness to negotiate” after he held a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Russia has reportedly made clear that a precondition for lasting peace rests on significant territorial concessions in the east.

Getty Images

Trump “was not impressed with their position,” FT quoted one source as saying, who also explained the president remains open to meeting Russian leaders only “when and where he thinks there can be progress.”

However, the ‘demands’ from the Russian side shouldn’t have come as any surprise, given also Russian forces have the initiative on the ground in the east. A “root causes” of the conflict memo laying out Moscow’s position demanded Ukraine give up large parts of its territory, cut its troops and forever abandon plans to join NATO.

President Putin has meanwhile emphasized that the planned Russian-American summit in Budapest was postponed and not canceled.

Russia seems to want to keep dialogue with Washington as positive as possible, and wants to present ‘progress’ in bilateral relations, while downplaying ongoing disagreements.

The reality remains that President Trump is trying to negotiate in favor of the Zelensky government, while Zelensky’s own forces have little to no leverage over the military situation. Russia knows it is in the driver’s seat on the ground, despite Ukraine’s unrelenting cross-border drone attacks on oil refineries. And yet the mainstream media still floats simplistic narratives and mythologies like the following:

Russian foreign ministry allegedly sent a memo to Washington outlining how Putin was still calling for the supposed “root causes” of his invasion to be addressed – even though the West widely believes he invaded Ukraine in a land grab.

President Putin has floated the idea of a “ceasefire for journalists” to allow them to reach the frontlines and report honestly on the situation.

Currently, the Kremlin is charging that Zelensky is seeking to hide the true state of the frontline situation in and around Pokrovsk, per state media:

Ukraine has effectively acknowledged the “catastrophic situation” faced by its troops in a Russian encirclement by banning journalists from reaching them, the Russian Defense Ministry has said.

On Thursday, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Georgy Tikhy warned media workers against accepting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer of safe passage to the front line in Donbass to report on thousands of Kiev’s troops surrounded by Russian forces. Traveling to the area without permission from Kiev would be “a violation of our legislation” that would have “long-term reputational and legal consequences,” Tikhy said.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement on Friday that Ukraine had banned local and foreign journalists from accessing the “cauldrons” in order to “conceal the real state of affairs on the front line and deceive the international community and the Ukrainian people.”

Looming large over all of this is more nuclear rhetoric and saber-rattling…

Moscow wants to especially signal to Washington that Ukrainian ground defenses are facing rapid collapse in key strategic locations; however, this is something the Zelensky government has been firmly rejecting. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/01/2025 – 07:35

Will The AfD Party Be Banned In Germany?

0
Will The AfD Party Be Banned In Germany?

Via Remix News,

There are once again efforts to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the Bundestag, with the far-left Social Democrats (SPD) leading the way. However, there is some difficult math facing the proponents of an AfD ban, which makes it unlikely — but not impossible — for the party to be banned.

In order to understand why a ban is unlikely, let us first look at what would actually happen if a ban of the AfD went forward.

 

The AfD is currently the most popular party in the country, according to multiple polls, scoring between 25 and 27 percent of the vote. This alone makes a ban unthinkable to many, but the German establishment does not especially care what the electorate thinks on a number of key issues, so why not just ban the party?

For starters, and most importantly, a ban of the AfD would radically reshape the German electorate in favor of the left. This would translate into the Christian Democrats (CDU) losing a massive amount of power, and potentially being relegated to the political dustbin. Due to this cold, hard reality, a ban could be suicidal for the CDU.

How one local elections tells us about the federal election

What happened in the local mayoral election in Ludwigshafen tells us what the likely outcome of an AfD ban would be for the country at the federal level. In Ludwigshafen, the AfD’s Joachim Paul was leading the polls to become mayor before he was banned from running through backroom bureaucratic channels, a move later confirmed by judges during a number of appeals. The judges all argued Paul would have to challenge the ban after the election. Paul is still filing legal actions against the decision, but the outcome of the appeal could take months or even years.

Regardless of the outcome of Paul’s appeal, the election had some interesting outcomes.

First, the voter participation rate crashed to a record low of just 29.3 percent. In 2017’s mayoral election in Ludwigshafen, the then-SPD candidate Jutta Steinruck won with 60.2 percent participation. That means voter turnout was cut in half from that election.

That is not all. For those who did vote, many of them appear to have submitted “spoiled” ballots. A record-high number of ballots were ruled invalid, at 9.2 percent. Eight years ago, that number was just 2.6 percent. The number of “spoiled ballots” jumped by nearly 400 percent.

If this same outcome occurred at the federal level, including a dramatic crash in the voter participation rate as AfD supporters boycott the election, it would be a disaster for the CDU’s electoral chances.

The way the German system works means that the pool of right-wing voters would shrink dramatically, leaving CDU voters and the left as the only remaining voting pool. However, this remaining, much smaller pool, would then feature a dramatically larger share of left-wing voters consisting of the SPD, the Greens, and the Left Party.

These three parties would be looking at a potential supermajority.

Even with a CDU scoring 30 to 35 percent of the vote, the party could be easily sidelined by this new far-left coalition.

This is what the CDU fears.

To understand this, it is important to understand that the German left does not need to increase the number of votes it receives; it just needs to increase its share of the vote. Let us consider an imaginary scenario where only 35 percent of the population votes in the next German federal election. It would be a disaster for democracy, but it could still be a huge win for the left. If the right drops out of the voting process. Suddenly, the remaining voting pie looks more left-wing, and the left can win a bigger share of this smaller voting pie.

Voilà, the left now have a super majority with just a small fraction of voters coming out to vote.

The trouble for the left is that it still needs the CDU to vote for an AfD ban in the Bundestag, otherwise they would not have the majority needed to pass such a motion. However, the CDU has no incentive to do this.

Death of democracy, rise of the left

On top of this electoral math problem for the CDU, it would not only make the electoral map vastly more favorable to the left, but it could also tear a giant hole in the CDU party itself.

A plurality of voters are against a ban on the AfD. A new Insa poll shows that 43 percent of respondents are against a ban, while 35 percent are in favor. Another 10 percent were indifferent, and 12 percent refused to comment.

However, for CDU voters, the issue was evenly split, with 42 percent supporting a ban, while 41 percent were against it.

Many CDU voters have already switched their voting intentions towards the AfD. A ban could further fuel an exodus towards the AfD party while the ban works its way through the system, all the way to the Constitutional Court, which is the final arbiter of the ban process. That could take well over a year, plenty of time to enact massive damage on the CDU.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz already said that a ban of the AfD “smacks to much of the elimination of political rivals.” CDU voters all heard this statement. For him and his party to backtrack now on this issue would not sit well with many voters, many who are already dissatisfied with the economy and migration.

The Insa poll also shows that while a majority of supporters of left-wing parties back a ban, they are by no means in full agreement. Many Germans, even those on the left, believe a ban on the AfD would be a stake in the heart of democracy.

If a ban goes through, and a national vote is held featuring an abysmal voter participation rate due to mass boycotts, it would likely send the German system into chaos, leaving a massive democratic hole in the country’s landscape. It could even shake the entire foundation of the German state, calling into question the legitimacy of any government that is elected into power with an extremely low voter share and a ban on the most popular party.

What is the most likely scenario?

The left is likely to continue with its full-court press to proceed with a ban on the AfD. It would only benefit them, after all. The CDU is also likely to continue to talk of a ban, demonize the AfD, and try to snipe at the party using all the tools of the state, but is unlikely to actually back a ban. Doing so would be very foolish from a purely strategic point of view.

Of course, that is not a foregone conclusion. There are potential political realities, power struggles, and wild cards that could lead Merz and much of the CDU leadership to reverse course. However, the current risks of such a move outnumber the potential benefits by a clear margin.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/01/2025 – 07:00

NATO’s Three-Pronged Response To The Latest Russian Scare Raises The Risk Of A Larger War

0
NATO’s Three-Pronged Response To The Latest Russian Scare Raises The Risk Of A Larger War

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

This could be averted if Poland, which commands NATO’s third-largest army and whose new president recently didn’t rule out talking to Putin if his country’s security depended on it, doesn’t allow itself to be manipulated into partaking in any related provocations or backing up those responsible for them.

Early September’s suspicious Russian drone incident over Poland, Estonia’s subsequent claim that Russian jets violated its maritime airspace, and Scandinavia’s recent Russian drone scare are responsible for NATO considering a three-pronged response along its eastern flank according to the Financial Times. Their sources indicate that this could take the form of arming surveillance drones, streamlining the rules of engagement for fighter pilots, and holding NATO exercises right on the bloc’s border with Russia.

The first two carry self-evident escalation risks since trigger-happy operators or pilots could provoke a serious international security crisis if they shoot at (let alone down) Russian drones or jets. This is especially so if it occurs in international airspace or especially within Russia’s own. As for the last one, Russia’s threat assessment would spike during the duration of those drills since they could be a front for aggression, including hybrid aggression via drones and/or mercenaries.

NATO jamming could also lead to Russian drones veering across the border like this analysis here argues was probably responsible for the earlier-mentioned suspicious incident over Poland. In that scenario, NATO could have the pretext for a (possibly preplanned) escalation against Russia that could easily spiral out of control if cooler heads don’t prevail. The Financial Times noted that “a shift may not be publicly communicated” so a crisis could break out with no advance warning if NATO makes one wrong move.

Communication is key for preventing that, but Poland rejected Russia’s proposal to discuss September’s suspicious drone incident and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova recently condemned it for annulling the visas of Russian experts ahead of an OSCE meeting in Warsaw. Poland aspires to revive its lost Great Power status, with September being historic in this respect as explained here, which would then revive its centuries-long rivalry with Russia at the possible expense of regional stability.

There are three fronts where Poland could apply one, some, or all three parts of NATO’s reported three-pronged response to the latest Russian scare: Kaliningrad, Belarus, and/or Ukraine. It also commands NATO’s third-largest army and has no plans to slow down its unprecedented militarization so its political-military leadership might feel emboldened to one day test Russia’s red lines. That could lead to a NATO-Russian war, however, if a Russian plane is shot down according to the Russian Ambassador to France.

New Polish President Karol Nawrocki wisely decided not to risk that by declining to impose a no-fly zone over part of Ukraine after September’s incident despite pressure from his Foreign Minister. It later turned out that the government lied about Russian responsibility for the damage inflicted on a home after it was revealed that a NATO missile was to blame. They also hid this fact from him. Deep state forces, possibly soon in collusion with Ukraine, quite clearly want to spark another Polish-Russian War.

Given that Nawrocki recently didn’t rule out talking to Putin if Poland’s security depended on it, he might thus do so in a crisis instead of allowing himself to be misled by deep state forces, particularly the liberal-globalist ruling coalition and their military-intelligence allies who just tried to manipulate him into war. Without the direct involvement of NATO’s third-largest army in any potentially forthcoming crisis, whether provoked by the Polish deep state or the Baltic States, a NATO-Russian war might be averted.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/31/2025 – 23:25

Men Far More Likely Than Women To Die By Suicide

0
Men Far More Likely Than Women To Die By Suicide

The following chart, via Statista’s Katharina Buchholz, shows data on suicide prevalence in countries around the world.

Out of every 100,000 men in the United States, an average of 24 died from suicide in 2021, while for women the average was close to seven per 100,000.

In several countries these figures were even higher, such as in South Korea, Lithuania and Hungary.

While there are significant differences between countries, one pattern is clear to see: the rates of men taking their own lives are generally higher than those of women.

Infographic: Men More Likely to Die by Suicide | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Lithuania and South Korea had the highest rates of suicide among men in 2021 (out of the countries reporting data), at 50 and 37 cases per 100,000 population, respectively.

For women, South Korea, India and Japan had the highest rates of the selected countries, with 14.6, 10.9 and 10.1 cases per 100,000.

According to the World Health Organization, the African Region has the highest suicide rate in the world, estimated at 11.2 people per 100,000 population in 2019, compared to the global average of 9.0 per 100,000 population that year.

Lesotho had particularly high rates at 87.5 per 100,000 population that year, followed by Eswatini at 40.5 per 100,000 population.

The WHO underscores how 77 percent of suicides occurred in low- and middle-income countries in 2019, where a majority of the world’s population lives, adding that a lack of data on suicide has led to continued underreporting.

If you or somebody you know are in need of help, you can find a list of suicide crisis lines and website for countries around the world here.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/31/2025 – 23:00

Time To Curb The Violence

0
Time To Curb The Violence

Authored by Mark Penn & Andrew Stein via RealClearPolitics,

Even back to the days of Charles Manson, a violent cult leader, there were pockets of people who cheered and reveled in violence. But all too common today are the groupies who adulate the CEO killer, the social media maven who praises the assassination of Charlie Kirk, or the miscreant who says they wish presidential assassins had been successful.

In today’s social-media fueled world, every heinous act of violence spawns a great majority of people of condemn it and a smaller counter-reaction of people who cheer it and call for more. Maybe this was always the case, but those who supported such violence could not as easily band together as they can today. Social media allows the violence lovers to find like-minded individuals, legitimizing their response, further encouraging future violence.

Kirk held no elected office. His only weapons were words and open debate. Despite this, nearly one in five Americans shockingly declared in surveys that his assassination was justified, according to a Harvard CAPS Harris poll. The path to such thoughts is clear. The opposition on the left characterized Kirk’s positions as “hate” despite his willingness to debate anyone anywhere. Once his speech was then characterized as violence – the resultant deadly violence became justified.  

Almost 3 in 4 voters (72%) decry today’s polarizing political rhetoric as a cause of contemporary violence, and over 4 in 5 state it is unacceptable for their own political party to use violence to achieve its aims.  

Notably, though, 74% of GOP voters see Democrats’ rhetoric as too extreme, compared to just the 27% who call their own party extreme. The effect is mirrored on the other side of the aisle, with 84% of Democrats calling the GOP too extreme, but a mere 33% saying the same of their own party. This drive of the parties to polarize the electorate rather than convince swing voters is reflected in the current pointless government shutdown. The political coin of the realm these days is in satisfying the base with increasingly incendiary words and actions.

That said, voters from all sides agree on the destructive role of social media, with 64% stating that social media encourages violent behavior.   

A solid 85% agreed that talking heads in the media celebrating Charies Kirk’s death were inappropriate. At the same time, though, voters are strong believers in the First Amendment. Of the same group, 54% stated that Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show should not have been suspended over Kimmel’s comments about Kirk’s death, and 58% even supported his return to late-night television.  

And that’s the thing about the First Amendment – it requires some level of self-restraint and responsibility, or it becomes the amendment that allows society to destroy itself. Or it allows the forces who want to destroy society to masquerade as merely those who would question it. It requires vigilance in allowing political debate but also in finding fair limits.

The Jay Jones scandal is a case in point. He called for the killing of his political opponents and appeared to be quite serious about it. Predictably, he called them Hitler and said that it should be done with two bullets to the head. Despite these inflammatory sentiments, Jones remains committed to his bid for – of all jobs – attorney general of Virginia. It’s difficult for us to understand how someone willing to threaten killing his political opponents remains an appropriate candidate for attorney general.

Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois and others are villainizing the ICE agents in dire language that is an open invitation to violence. On ICE agents, Pritzker claimed “They were going after a few gang members, and instead, they broke windows, they broke down doors, they ransacked the place … They are the ones that are making it a war zone.” ICE agents are being accused essentially of kidnapping people randomly on the street based on racial profiling and “disappearing” them as was done by the Argentine junta, and the result is encouraging violence against federal officials. 

It’s easy to condemn violence, but harder to do something about it. For starters, we need a bipartisan group of lawmakers to come together and stand clearly and unequivocally for bringing down the political temperature. They should agree on a set of basic principles outlining the bounds of attack language, which must include no longer calling opponents “Hitler” and other names that function to justify violence. They should condemn the recent political assassinations and attempted murders unequivocally – without exceptions or thinly veiled justifications. Finally, these lawmakers should call on the remainder of Congress to sign on to these principles as a clear rebuke of political violence and extreme rhetoric.  

Second, they need to draft legislation that makes social media responsible for hosting and spreading calls for violence. Section 230 needs to be rewritten to give social media platforms an explicit obligation to promptly remove content that calls for violence. That won’t cure the problem, but it will put the social media channels on notice that they need to be vigilant about removing at least the most extreme rhetoric within 24 to 48 hours. 

And third, the White House should establish a serious bipartisan, anti-political violence commission to probe the recent rise in political violence more deeply and attempt to explain to Americans how we cannot let our political differences degenerate into chaos. It should explore the violence-based underworlds on both the right and the left.  

The Kerner Commission’s 1968 report painted an image of two Americas – one white and one black – that had a profound impact on the country at the time. And yet today, there are once again two Americas – one red and one blue. We need to make a good faith effort to bridge the gaps in ways that preserve and promote the ballot as the answer, not the bullet.â?¯The test will be whether such a commission could ever agree on one joint and final report. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/31/2025 – 22:35

Maduro Urgently Seeks Military Aid From Russia & China With US Bulls-Eye On Venezuela

0
Maduro Urgently Seeks Military Aid From Russia & China With US Bulls-Eye On Venezuela

President Trump said on Friday that he’s yet to make a final decision on launching a military attack on Venezuela, but President Nicolás Maduro is not waiting around while taking the US leader’s word on it.

Maduro is reportedly urgently reaching out to Russia, China, and Iran for any possible military aid, including defense items which may have already been negotiated or are in the works. The Washington Post says it’s obtained internal documents showing such recent and high-stakes requests.

Sputnik via AP

“Amid a buildup of American forces in the Caribbean, Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro is reaching out to Russia, China and Iran to enhance its worn military capabilities and solicit assistance, requesting defensive radars, aircraft repairs and potentially missiles, according to internal U.S. government documents obtained by The Washington Post,” the publication reports.

“The requests to Moscow were made in the form of a letter meant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and was intended to be delivered during a visit to the Russian capital by a senior aide this month,” WaPo continues.

And separately, Maduro is said to have sent a formal letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping seeking “expanded military cooperation” between the two countries in order to counter “the escalation between the U.S. and Venezuela.”

Maduro in it seeks to expedite Chinese companies’ production of radar detection systems based on prior deals, in cooperation between Caracas and Beijing which has long been an open secret.

“In the missive, Maduro emphasized the seriousness of perceived U.S. aggression in the Caribbean, framing U.S. military action against Venezuela as action against China due to their shared ideology,” the documents state according to the Post.

Transport Minister Ramón Celestino Velásquez is also reported to have sought military equipment from the Islamic Republic of Iran. He conveyed that his country needs

  • “passive detection equipment”
  • “GPS scramblers”
  • “drones with 1,000 km [600 mile] range”

Meanwhile the growing list of US naval assets that Maduro is facing in the Caribbean region…

But the reality is that despite obvious cooperation over the years – including Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military assets and personnel showing up at the occasional Venezuela military parade or state ceremony – these countries have their own problems to worry about, and are unlikely to want to poke Donald Trump at this sensitive moment in America’s “own backyard”.

With US sanctions on, and prior examples of interdictions on the high seas, even if Russia or China wanted to quickly assist Maduro as he’s under the US bullseye it could prove logistically impossible.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 10/31/2025 – 22:10