By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

They’re Baaack…

While not as catchy or creepy as “They’re Heeere” (remember when TVs were tubes and had “snow”?), Poltergeist II tried to expand on the franchise. Unfortunately for markets, tariffs with China are back.

It is always dangerous to argue that “this time is different” but I think it is very different.

This Time is Different (not in a good way)

Leading up to Liberation Day, there were tariffs implemented against certain products, certain countries, etc. Then we had the Liberation Day tariffs and markets ensued a deep sell-off until the tariffs imposed via executive order were dramatically reduced.

Since Liberation Day we’ve had some trade deals (in principle) and have been in a “steady” state of tariffs somewhere between 10% and 20% on most things. We have argued (and continue to argue) that the tariff impacts are only starting to be felt in the economy and will weave their way into markets in the coming quarters as their costs are finally felt.

Tariffs have “only” been about $200 billion more than usual so far, a big number for you and me, but still a small number relative to the U.S. economy.

But that all potentially changed this week.

The “steady” state is no longer so “steady.”

We specifically say “this week” as opposed to Friday, as the potential issue emerged earlier in the week – reports that China would restrict shipments of not just processed rare earths/critical minerals, but also some products that incorporate them.

The President responded on Friday by imposing 100% tariffs (starting November 1st) and restricting sales of critical software (I have to admit there is some confusion around that). Chips are likely to face restrictions as well.
Notice the timeline and how different it is than prior escalations in the trade war.

This was NOT a relatively unilateral act by the admin. China provoked this.

We will explore why China may have done this (it is a natural extension, to a large degree, of our previous work, and quite possibly a dangerous extension), but markets “bucketing” this tariff with others may be missing the critical point – how we came to adding this 100% tariff is very different than how we got to other tariff escalations.

If You are Planning on Eating a TACO, You May Go Hungry

It is easy to understand why the “buy the dippers” all chattered about TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out). We think that is the wrong analysis.

• TACO was never quite right, because the admin “pivoted” out of policies that weren’t working as well as they expected or were more unpopular than they envisioned. Not quite the same as “chickening” out, but a crucial difference, if we are right about this time being different.

• The President largely initiated the escalations and it was very easy to argue that they were “negotiating” ploys for “maximum leverage.” I still think we could have achieved the state we have been in without the “Art of the Deal” and would be better off, but today is not the time or place to rehash that argument on the American Brand. That timeline played out on virtually every element of tariffs, until now. This does not, at least to me, seem like an escalation by the admin, but far more like a response to a legitimate threat from China.

More on our “response function” in a bit, but “spoiler” alert – it will be heavy on ProSec™.

What is China Up To?

Since China initiated this round of escalation, let’s think about what China may or may not be thinking. Yes, we get to play the “red team” as an exercise here.

• It is possible that China didn’t think this through. That they were taking steps that they viewed as mere formalities that we misinterpreted. Or it is conceivable that China might be trying to play the “maximum leverage” game and this was just their first foray into “instigation” in the recent tariff wars. Those are all possibilities. It is also possible that the NY Jets call me up to kick for them this weekend (I went with the Jets because it would be impossible to believe any team other than the Jets would do it). But it isn’t very likely.

The reality is that this is far more likely to be a calculated step by China. That there is intent in this escalation.

• China controls the processing/refining of rare earths and critical minerals. The West ceded the entire industry to China as it was energy intensive and very “dirty” at least in the “green” world point of view. So, while rare earths and critical minerals are abundant (there are markets that you can buy them on), they are “just” commodities. The processing and refining is more difficult and this is a huge advantage for China (it has driven the “extensions” that the admin has put in place with China on tariffs).

• China likely sees the intensity with which the U.S. is starting to address the problem. We have been all over ProSec™ as an investment strategy as this admin takes Production for Security very seriously. We have seen several investments made into the space to help jumpstart domestic capacity. We fully expect that to continue and grow over time if the admin is able to create some form of Sovereign Wealth Fund as opposed to the more ad hoc deals that have been done so far. The admin is also finally doing things on the deregulation side (again, we would have started with production for security and deregulation rather than a global tariff war, but that is water under the bridge now). Does China see a future where the U.S. isn’t dependent on their processed rare earths and critical minerals? If the answer is “yes” then they “know” their biggest bargaining chip will get smaller over time. That is a reason to escalate now for true (not hyperbole) maximum leverage.

• The risk with semiconductors (and software). To the extent there has been a “balancing” act in the trade negotiations with China, it has been U.S. dominance in this area. The consensus seems to be that China wants our chips so badly that they will do what it takes to maximize their access. But we have “felt” that this was not the correct take, and think China’s recent moves support our view that China is comfortable (or even wants) to cut themselves off from U.S. chips. They want to continue to develop their chip industry. They believe they can be successful (just look at the success of Huawei and BYD to understand why China might be confident in their own ability). We’ve seen some announcements from Chinese companies about some progress that has been made (and assume there is progress here and there that is not public).

  • By refusing to buy our chips (or not being allowed to buy our chips, if you prefer) they deny revenue to our companies which would be nice to have (not necessary, but nice).

  • To the extent that necessity is the mother of invention (and I believe there is a lot of truth to that), they set up the “necessity” for their companies to be successful. So, it might work (just like it should work for us on ProSec™ which is the flipside of this whole battle).

  • China is spending a lot on AI and has more engineers than we do (not necessarily as good, or as creative, but there is a strength in numbers), so we shouldn’t assume that China has concluded that the U.S. will continue to dominate the space.

So, China’s bargaining chip is declining in value and they think they can actually benefit from restricted access to chips.
That would support an argument that China has analyzed the situation and is prepared for a full-on trade war.

This also fits well (from China’s perspective) with the steps they have been taking to transition from Made In China to Made By China (where they don’t want to make goods for us to sell, they want to make their own brands to sell).

There were signs of this already. China has handled Trump 2.0 very differently on trade. During 1.0, every time we said tariff, they said, negotiate. Now they just accepted some, or quietly matched the President’s tariffs. China had 4 years to prepare for this and 4 years to better understand how the President negotiates.

My working assumption is this is a very calculated escalation by China and they are prepared to dig in.

Seriously, we are being asked to believe that we wouldn’t retaliate aggressively? I find it hard to believe that anyone who has watched the admin really thinks we won’t respond aggressively to something that has to be perceived as an assault on our economy.

From a Post-War World to a Pre-War World

General (ret.) Spider Marks discussed this concept recently. He also went through the thought process in more detail during some meetings in Milwaukee this week.

Basically, the argument is that the post-war world we lived in since the end of World War II (with a big bump from the fall of the Soviet Union) is changing. That the mentality of a post-war world (basking in the glow of peace) may have to shift to the mentality of a pre-war world.

In the pre-war world, all of our decisions (and investments) have to be looked at through the lens of how it helps us prepare for war (or create the deterrence necessary to avoid war).

• ProSec™ will not just be a shortform word that we at Academy use, but a national movement.
• The natural response from almost any administration, but almost certainly from this administration, will be to double or triple down on their efforts to make things we need for security. We continue to argue that every country should think, to some degree, about behaving like this.

The element that could be most interesting is that in a pre-war world, people are more willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.

Some could argue that we have lived a “pampered” life where the battles, except for the horrific events of 9/11, happened elsewhere. That Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was an aberration, rather than a shifting norm.

That mindset could be changing.

Germany, for example, ahead of the first winter after the Ukraine war, put serious restrictions on anything from heating to lawn mowing to preserve precious energy supplies. The Germans abided by those rules and made it through that winter better than they would have had they gone about “business as usual.”

We’ve argued before (and we will argue again) that we had the luxury to create a lot of regulations and we need to revisit those regulations to see if they still make sense.

How many people would agree to fight a battle with one hand tied behind their back (even an economic battle)? Yet that is to some extent what we have been doing.

Bottom Line

This week may turn out to be more pivotal to markets and the economy than people currently think. This may be the week that really turns the tide in how we think about our economy and our need to manufacture, process, and refine things.

If I’m wrong, then back to business as usual.

If I’m right:

• Accelerate efforts to become self-sufficient on energy, electricity, components, chips, pharma/biotech, etc. Maybe not quite a “war-time” economy, but something more akin to that.

• The President really started to frame this as China against “a more collective us.” He framed this as the U.S. response to China’s actions, but (basically) called on others to take action against China.

• China is going to try to rapidly grow their businesses and shape their global relationships in direct opposition to the U.S.

• China stocks should not be owned offshore at this point, as many of the actions around Chinese ADRs and their VIE structure could get called into question.

Maybe I’m overreacting, but I think China’s response is calculated and it is “game on” for us versus them in global trade and production.

I want to own anything and everything that benefits from ProSec™ while being cautious on some of the companies most exposed to China.

Maybe it will be TACO Tuesday, but I think it is far more likely to be Lithium Thursday (I’m pretty sure eating Lithium is not good for your health – but making and refining it is).

For the first time, I think we might be ready for a period where Main Street is more important than Wall Street (or whatever street it is where we extract and make things).

We didn’t touch on the Fed today or growing concerns about the private credit market, as we did not want to dilute today’s message, but we will address those topics early in the week too.

The IRS on Thursday released its annual inflation adjustments for various tax provisions, as well as guidance regarding changes made under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 

The standard deduction will rise to $16,100 for single taxpayers and $32,200 for married couples filing jointly in the 2026 tax year. The 2025 standard tax deduction was also raised to $15,750 for single filers and $31,500 for couples filing jointly.

Marginal tax brackets were also adjusted for inflation – with the top tax rate remaining at 37% for single taxpayers making $640,600, and joint filers making over $768,000. Other tax brackets are as follows:

• 35% for incomes over $256,225 for individuals and $512,450 for married filers;

• 32% for incomes over $201,775 for individuals and $403,550 for married filers;

• 24% for incomes over $105,700 for individuals and $211,400 for married filers;

• 22% for incomes over $50,400 for individuals and $100,800 for married filers;

• 12% for incomes over $12,400 for individuals and $24,800 for married filers;

• 10% for incomes of $12,400 or less for individuals or $24,800 for married filers.

OBBBA changes include the estate tax exclusion, which will be set at $15 million for the estates of decedents who die in 2026 – an increase from the current $13.99 million that applies this year.

Adoption credits will increase from $17,820 in 2025 to $17,670 in 2026, while the amount that’s refundable will be $5,120. 

The exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax will be set to $90,100 for individuals – but will begin to phase out at $500,000, and $140,200 for joint filers which will phase out starting at $1million. 

OBBBA also increased the max amount of the employer-provided childcare tax credit from $150,000 to $500,000 (or $600,000 if the employer is an eligible small business), Fox News reports.

Meanwhile, the earned income tax credit will rise to a maximum amount of $8,231 for qualifying taxpayers with three or more children, an increase of $8,046 in 2025. 

More via Fox News: 

The limitation for voluntary employee salary reductions for contributions to health flexible spending arrangements will increase to $3,400 in tax year 2026, up $100 from last year. Cafeteria plans that allow unused amounts to carryover would have the maximum carryover at $680, up $20 from 2025.

Taxpayers who have self-only coverage in a medical savings account would have to have a deductible of at least $2,900 in tax year 2026, up $50 from this year, but not more than $4,400, which is an increase of $100 from this year. The maximum out-of-pocket expense amount for self-only coverage will increase $150 to $5,850 in 2026.

For family coverage with medical savings accounts, the annual deductible will be between $5,850 to $8,750, while the out-of-pocket expense limit will be $10,700 in tax year 2026.

The monthly limitation for the qualified transportation fringe benefit will rise $15 to $340 in tax year 2026.

The annual exclusion for gifts will be unchanged for tax year 2026 at $19,000.

Some tax provisions that in the past were indexed for inflation are no longer adjusted. Those include personal exemptions, itemized deductions, and the income measurement used to phase out the lifetime learning credit.

*  *  * Flash Sale: FREE bottle of Ultra Testosterone Booster when you buy Male Enhancement

Authored by Joseph Solis-Mullen via The Libertarian Institute,

When the late Justin Raimondo, co-founder and longtime editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote in 2011 that the anti-interventionist movement needed a “big picture” framework, he was attempting to distill decades of polemic into a theory of international relations. In his essay “Looking at the ‘Big Picture,’” he dubbed this framework “Libertarian Realism.” Though Raimondo never set down a book-length treatise, his insights remain an invitation for libertarians to articulate a systematic foreign policy rooted in their own intellectual traditions.

At its core, libertarian realism rests on two pillars: public choice theory and the non-aggression principle (NAP). Together, they provide both a positive account of how foreign policy is made, and a normative standard by which to judge it.

First, public choice theory rejects the notion that politicians act for some collective good. Instead, it insists that policymakers, like all other individuals, pursue their own interests—power, prestige, financial gain, or reelection. Raimondo applied this logic directly to international affairs. Foreign policy, he argued, is not the unfolding of some objective “national interest” but the function of domestic political incentives.

This point distinguishes libertarian realism from both the neoconservative, realist, liberal internationalist schools. Neoconservatives cloak their ambitions in rhetoric about Washington’s global hegemony and an empire of democracy; traditional realists invoke the “national interest” as a guiding principle; while liberal internationalists speak of upholding the “rules based international order.”

Raimondo’s critique cuts deeper; global hegemony and world democracy are a chimera that have bankrupted and destroyed actual American democracy. There is no “national interest” because there is no national actor; only individuals act, and they act for themselves—thus, American foreign policy reflects not the welfare of 330 million citizens but the ambitions of a relatively small political elite and the networks of lobbyists, corporate beneficiaries, and ideological courtiers around them. With regard to a “rules based international order,” such rules have only ever served as a cudgel in Washington’s hands to be applied to foes and potential foes and never to itself or its allies.

Seen in this light, wars of choice—from the Spanish-American War to Iraq—were not aberrations but predictable results of a system where power perpetuates itself. Libertarian realism’s use of public choice theory explains why interventions recur regardless of party, and why “limited wars” tend to metastasize.

If public choice explains what is, the non-aggression principle (NAP) prescribes what ought to be. Raimondo insisted that foreign policy consistent with libertarian principles must avoid aggression, whether in the form of invasion, forward deployment, or even “preventive” alliances.

With a little imagination, one can see that the NAP as applied to Washington’s relations to other states can be fruitfully extended further by drawing an illustrative analogy: just as individuals cannot “consent” to contracts made under duress, small nations cannot truly be said to consent to treaties with vastly stronger states. While the most famous line of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue is doubtlessly “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” the more instructive is the line preceding it: “…questions of ‘right’ can only exist between equals in power.” From this perspective, NATO expansion, U.S. bases in East Asia, or bilateral “security guarantees” are not consensual arrangements but coercive impositions that would occur regardless of the “decision” of the corresponding state—this includes when a clear free-rider benefit on the part of the “accepting” state exists, since this is tangential or a second order effect.

Libertarian realism thus rejects the idea that America must police the world to sustain “order.” To coerce another society into Washington’s version of “liberalism” is no less an act of aggression than forcing an individual into virtue.

Recognizing that defense is a legitimate function of government until private arrangements are possible, libertarian realism counsels a restrained military posture. The United States faces virtually no threat of invasion. Its geography, economy, and nuclear deterrent already guarantee security. A minimal arsenal of nuclear weapons, supported by naval assets sufficient to protect its shipping and shores, would deter aggression without underwriting the pretense to empire.

By contrast, the permanent standing army—garrisoning hundreds of bases across the globe—serves not defense but dominance. Advocates of libertarian realism should therefore favor abolishing the standing army and replacing it with voluntary, localized militias. In this sense, libertarian realism echoes the Founders’ suspicion of professional militaries and the old republican insight that war is the health of the state. As James Madison wrote in his 1795 Political Observations:

“War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

Part of Raimondo’s polemic was aimed at rival schools of international thought who appealed to destiny, class struggle, or divine mission to justify power. He observed that what united these traditions, whether Marxists, fascists, Trotskyites and their neoconservative spawn, or Wilsonian liberals, was disdain for methodological individualism. In their view, nations or classes acted as collective bodies; individuals were mere instruments.

Libertarian realism, by contrast, insists that only individuals act, and that history is the cumulative result of individual choices. Policymakers are not swept along by “iron laws” of destiny but by incentives and illusions. This methodological starting point leads to sharper analysis: rather than attributing U.S. wars to abstractions like “democracy promotion,” we can identify specific officials, their ideological commitments, and the domestic interests that benefit.

Raimondo also emphasized that theory is not idle. To understand why wars happen is to be able to predict their recurrence and, more importantly, to resist them. Given that elites benefit from crises—financial, political, or military—war is always in the offing. This insight remains prescient. As tensions with Iran, China, and Russia are stoked, the never-ending Global War on Terror is extended to Latin America in the name of fighting so-called “narco-terrorism,” and one sees the same dynamics Raimondo diagnosed a decade ago.

Libertarian realism equips activists, scholars, and ordinary citizens with a framework to expose the war party, or uniparty, the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats. By unmasking its motives and methods, anti-interventionists can debunk the narratives that lead populations to sacrifice blood and treasure for elite gain.

Raimondo’s “Libertarian Realism” remains an underdeveloped but powerful lens. By uniting public choice theory with the non-aggression principle, it explains both why wars occur and why they are illegitimate. Its prescriptions—minimal deterrence, abolition of the standing army, and strict non-interference—are both radical and rooted in America’s republican heritage.

As libertarians look to articulate a coherent foreign policy distinct from progressive humanitarianism and conservative nationalism alike, Raimondo’s call for a “big picture” remains timely. A systematic libertarian realism not only deepens our theoretical arsenal but offers a principled alternative to empire.

*  *  *

Dramatic footage shows a 1980 Bell 222SP helicopter that experienced a tail rotor failure ahead of a “Cars ‘N Copters” event at a parking lot between Twin Dolphins Drive and Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach, California.

Several eyewitnesses captured the tail rotor failure that led to the mid-air incident involving the Bell 222SP from different angles on their smartphones and later posted the footage on social media.

NEW: Man nearly gets crushed by a helicopter that crashed in Huntington Beach, California.

“I was literally underneath the helicopter as it crashed. My life flashed before my eyes,” the man posted.

The helicopter crashed next to the Pacific Coast Highway near the bridge… pic.twitter.com/6d58umdRJA

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 11, 2025

A dramatic helicopter crash occurred in Huntington Beach. Five people were hospitalized—two occupants pulled from the wreckage and three pedestrians struck by the falling aircraft or debris.😳 🚁 pic.twitter.com/x74yj2CCFW

— Rain Drops Media (@Raindropsmedia1) October 12, 2025

A split second after the tail rotor malfunctioned, the helicopter spun out of control, unable to counteract the torque produced by the main rotor, and slammed into the side of a building. This appears to be a case of a tail rotor or tail rotor drive-shaft failure, with FAA investigators likely focusing on the tail rotor gearbox, pitch links, and drive-shaft integrity, as well as the hydraulic and control linkage systems. 

Flight tracking website Flightradar24 noted:

A Bell 222SP registered N222EX crashed today while participating in the Cars N’ Copters event in Huntington Beach, CA. The 2 people on board and 3 people on the ground were injured and taken to the hospital.

A Bell 222SP registered N222EX crashed today while participating in the Cars N’ Copters event in Huntington Beach, CA. The 2 people on board and 3 people on the ground were injured and taken to the hospital. Preliminary ADS-B data is available at https://t.co/PPi4eOW0WN pic.twitter.com/Qa1qfX0ViF

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) October 12, 2025

The Bell 222SP was made famous in the action-adventure series “Airwolf,” which aired on CBS from 1984 to 1986 and on USA Network in 1987 for its final season. 

*  *  * We have two new Reverse Osmosis water filters for you to check out…

Cheap and convenient: Countertop Reverse Osmosis Filter (great in campers) with UV sterilization

1200 Gallon / Day Workhorse: High-Flow Alkalizing (Ph 7.5) Reverse Osmosis with 11-stage filtration & faucet. Comes with extra filters for 2-year supply. 

Intro Sale // Free Shipping // Both have great Amazon reviews

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A major UK political party leader just went on TV and seriously argued that women can have penises. How on Earth did we get here?

During a recent episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, the host engaged in a bizarre debate with Zack Polanski, the newly elected leader of the Green Party of England and Wales. What started as a discussion on topics like the Israel-Hamas conflict and pro-Palestine protests quickly devolved into a surreal exchange on gender identity.

Polanski, representing one of the UK’s long standing political parties, boldly affirmed that a woman can have a penis, dismissed biological sex as “not necessarily” binary, and even claimed superior knowledge over the UK Supreme Court on the matter.

The interview’s pivotal clash came when Morgan posed a straightforward question: “Can a woman have a penis?” Without hesitation, Polanski responded, “Yes.” He elaborated that gender is a “spectrum” and that biological sex is “complicated,” insisting that people are not always born strictly male or female.

“A woman is a gender,” Polanski decreed, framing the issue as one of “nuance.” Morgan, visibly incredulous, laughed and called the response “absolutely ridiculous,” accusing Polanski of not understanding what a woman is—a fundamental problem for someone aspiring to lead a national party.

Like him or not, Morgan is absolutely right to call “bullshit” on this absurd idiocy. In an era where women’s rights are under constant scrutiny—from access to healthcare to protection in single-sex spaces—Polanski’s stance comes across as not just out of touch but actively dismissive of biological reality.

Piers Morgan asks Green Party leader Zack Polanski whether a woman can have a penis – with the conversation ending with Polanski claiming he knows more than the Supreme Court.

📺 https://t.co/3ifarmLEXK@piersmorgan | @ZackPolanski pic.twitter.com/bKocZhNdIb

— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) October 9, 2025

It’s hard to fathom a leader of a party that claims to champion environmental science and evidence-based policy rejecting basic biology. If the Greens can’t grasp that women, by definition, do not have penises, how can they be trusted on complex issues like climate change or economic inequality?

Polanski tried to pivot, arguing that such questions “punch down” on transgender people and distract from real problems like crumbling schools and underfunded healthcare. But this deflection only highlights the absurdity: Why can’t a political leader address both inclusivity and biological facts without contorting language into pretzels?

This leads to a broader, more troubling question: How did we get to this point? Just a decade ago, such statements would have been relegated to fringe online echo chambers. Now, they’re emanating from the head of a party that holds seats in Parliament and influences local governance.

The rise of identity politics, amplified by social media and extreme leftist activism, has pushed some leaders to adopt increasingly radical positions on gender to signal virtue or appeal to niche voter bases. In the UK, this has coincided with heated battles over transgender rights, including access to women’s prisons, sports, and changing rooms.

Polanski’s comments aren’t isolated; they echo similar statements from figures like Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who once struggled to define a woman. But Polanski takes it further, embodying a trend where ideology trumps science, leaving many to conclude that common sense has been sacrificed on the altar of rampant and ridiculous political correctness.

Do Polanski and his ilk truly believe this idiocy, or is it a calculated move to stand apart from other parties? The Green Party has long positioned itself as the progressive alternative to Labour and the Conservatives, emphasizing social justice alongside environmentalism. By doubling down on transgender inclusivity—even at the expense of women’s rights—Polanski may be aiming to solidify support among younger, urban voters captured by this nonsense.

Polanski has been labeled a “misogynist” and “buffoon.” Critics within his own party, including former deputy leader Shahrar Ali and groups like Green Feminists UK, have voiced concerns about alienating women voters. If it’s genuine belief, it reveals a profound detachment from reality; if it’s performative, it’s cynical politics at its worst, prioritising differentiation over coherence.

Adding to the farce, Polanski capped the exchange by claiming he knows more about gender than the UK Supreme Court. When Morgan referenced the Court’s recent ruling, Polanski retorted, “Well, yes, actually in this case, I do.” This hubris is staggering, especially given the ruling’s context.

Back in April, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers that “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex at birth, not gender identity modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The case stemmed from Scottish legislation aiming to increase female representation on public boards, where “woman” was interpreted to include transgender women with GRCs.

The Court clarified that this interpretation undermines protections for biological women, stating that sex is “immutable” and not altered by legal recognition of gender. This landmark decision has implications for single-sex spaces and services across the UK, reaffirming that biology matters in law.

Polanski dismissed it as “wrong legislation,” urging better parliamentarians to “stand by trans people.” But for a politician to position himself above the highest court in the land smacks of complete arrogance, not expertise.

“A woman is a gender. A woman is a spectrum.” If any actual women support him after that, they need a psychiatric referral.

— Stuart Macintosh (@stueymaco) October 9, 2025

Also if you can lie about something as simple as basic sex then he will lie about anything

— Murnettie (@Murnettie) October 9, 2025

What’s terrifying is that this guy wants us to believe that the Greens understand the science of climate change when he does not biological sex.

— Prof. Gary Francione (@garylfrancione) October 9, 2025

Nonce

— Bernie Mckeown (@bernardmckeown1) October 9, 2025

pic.twitter.com/tUMTSgSQYL

— Graham Linehan 🎗️ (@Glinner) October 9, 2025

*  *  *

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.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

For a long time, the German economy remained silent on the dogmatic climate goals and the politically destructive course. Now, Christian Kullmann, CEO of Evonik, is the first business leader to speak plainly. It is time to bury the CO₂ cult.

Finally, one might say, after years of deafening silence from German industry, a CEO is speaking openly. Christian Kullmann, head of the chemical giant Evonik, is at the forefront of the fight against ever-tighter climate regulations from Brussels and Berlin.

Looking ahead to the drastic tightening of the emissions trading system planned for 2027, Kullmann spared no words in an interview with the FAZ: “The CO₂ levy for Europe must go. It threatens at least 200,000 well-paid industrial jobs in Germany.”

Industrial Collapse

And that is likely a conservative estimate. Currently, the economy is forced to cut more than 10,000 jobs per week. Companies such as Bosch, with 22,000 planned cuts, and ZF Friedrichshafen, planning 7,600 by 2030, are slashing jobs on a massive scale. A wave of insolvencies is sweeping across the German economy, expected to break all records with over 24,000 bankruptcies by year-end.

Kullmann’s blunt statement may mark the start of a long-overdue debate on the real costs of European climate policy for the German economy and heavily burdened households.

From 2027, the CO₂ emissions trading system threatens Germany with another cost tsunami: the price per ton of CO₂ could rise to as much as €200, drastically increasing heating, fuel, and energy costs. Households could pay an additional €1,000 annually, while companies face soaring production costs, reduced investment, and job cuts.

Economically, this radical step would impose around €40 billion in extra costs annually on a consumption of 400 million tons, accelerating the socially and politically dangerous deindustrialization.

The EU: An Expensive Affair

What leftist and eco-socialist ideologues unleashed with the Green Deal has become a socio-political landslide. Bureaucracies and official circles have yet to realize that their campaign against civil society and market rules is already lost.

In Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and other capitals of the European debt union, they respond with ever more levies to stave off their own collapse.

Revenue from the CO₂ levy is used almost exclusively to stabilize overstretched national budgets: about 90 percent flows to national treasuries, the rest to Ursula von der Leyen’s EU coffers, which will inject around €750 billion in subsidies into the dried-up channels of the green patronage economy by 2034.

And Brussels’ megalomania knows no bounds. Every capital source is tapped—from steel tariffs to recycling taxes on plastic products. The EU is an expensive ideological game. It is now the ethical duty of business leaders to resist this campaign against reason and market principles. Failure to act risks direct confrontation in the markets. Brussels will be forced to refinance via bond markets—disguised as Eurobonds.

The Commission has positioned itself at the head of a debt union that suffocates the free market with its sprawling, centrally planned ecological patronage economy.

Spain as a Counterpoint

It is likely that after Kullmann’s criticism, a massive wave of counter-propaganda will arise. NGOs and state-affiliated media will mobilize every resource to rally Europeans against the imagined threat of man-made climate change.

Critical voices are often dismissed with a single example—a sign of how detached Brussels officials are from reality. This example comes from Spain. Officially, Spain’s economy will grow by about 2.5% in 2025, with a state quota of 48%, total debt of 109%, and a net new debt of 3.5%.

Even the much-praised Spain fails to meet the once-celebrated Maastricht criteria—just like Germany. Looking at the situation realistically, private industry shrinks by about 1% despite massive Brussels credit support and programs like NextGenerationEU.

But nowhere is the collateral damage of eco-socialism more evident than in Germany. The dramatic industrial output drop from July to August—4.3% overall, 18.5% in the auto sector, over 10% in pharmaceuticals—should serve as a warning even to the staunchest ideologist.

What central planners like Lars Klingbeil, Friedrich Merz, and the Brussels bureaucrats fail to grasp: every euro not flowing through the free market is a lost euro. Through massive interventions and debt-financed programs, states restrict the private sector’s room to invest in the future, endangering Europe’s prosperity engine.

Companies and their workforces will not tolerate this development for long. We are not witnessing a cyclical downturn or a classic recession—but a full economic collapse.

Using the Crisis

Europeans embarked on a climate crusade in recent years. Intellectual and ethical misadventures like this only thrive on the economic success of previous generations, who left their heirs an illusion of growth and the promise of effortless prosperity.

Let us hope that the Evonik CEO’s voice opens the door to real criticism—a catalyst whose bold impulse sparks a chain reaction of open, constructive debate.

Until now, criticism within German industry has entangled itself within the political framework. Calls for aid and subsidies, especially for energy costs, dominated. But this was not true policy critique—it was submission to the eco-dictate.

It is the ethical duty of business leaders to draw the line for politics. Too much is at stake to entrust it to infantile ideology. Its time is over. The crisis is unavoidable. But now we can begin rebuilding a market-based rulebook and sovereign policies in Europe’s national states. Brussels’ task would remain the safeguarding of the common internal market—a challenge more than demanding.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist, who has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Citizenship by investment programs give wealthy individuals the chance to secure a second passport by making significant financial contributions. The requirements vary by country, but these programs typically seek investments in businesses, development funds, or direct donations.

In return, obtaining a second passport offers benefits like visa-free travel, tax advantages, or a backup plan in the event of political or economic turmoil.

In this visualization, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu breaks down the required contributions across 13 countries offering citizenship by investment, showing how much applicants need to spend to qualify.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from Henley & Partners, highlighting the minimum contribution required by select countries offering citizenship by investment.

Note that this is not an exhaustive list, and that many other countries have some form of investment migration legislation.

The More Affordable Options

At the lower end of the spectrum, Nauru offers a relatively cheaper program at about $130,000. The country’s passport provides visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to nearly 90 countries, though it lacks the broader travel privileges of Caribbean or European citizenship programs.

Dominica, Antigua & Barbuda, and St. Lucia are also affordable, requiring investments between $200,000 and $240,000. These Caribbean programs are popular for their cost-effectiveness and the travel flexibility they provide within the region.

Here’s a closer look at the benefits of Dominica’s citizenship by investment program:

• Offers visa-free travel to over 140 destinations
• Ability to include a spouse, unmarried children under 31, and parents & grandparents aged 65 and older
• Citizenship by descent available for future generations

To qualify for the program, applicants have the option of making a non-refundable contribution of $200,000 to Dominica’s Economic Development Fund (for a single applicant), or making a real estate purchase with a minimum value of $200,000.

Mid-Tier Investment Thresholds

Countries like Türkiye, Grenada, and Egypt fall in the middle range, with required contributions between $235,000 and $400,000.

Launched in 2017, Türkiye’s program has become attractive due to its large real estate market and access to both European and Middle Eastern travel corridors.

Applicants have many options to participate in the program, including, but not limited to:

• Acquire $400,000 worth of real estate

• Deposit at least $500,000 into a Turkish bank account

• Create jobs for at least 50 people, as attested by the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services

High-End Citizenship Programs

At the top end, Malta and Montenegro require close to or more than $500,000, while Austria demands a “substantial contribution,” often exceeding several million.

These higher thresholds reflect the perceived value of EU citizenship, which offers broad visa-free access, stability, and economic advantages. As of 2025, Austria’s passport is considered the fourth most powerful in the world.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Daily Cost of Traveling in Europe on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

*  *  * We have two new Reverse Osmosis water filters for you to check out…

Cheap and convenient: Countertop Reverse Osmosis Filter (great in campers) with UV sterilization

1200 Gallon / Day Workhorse: High-Flow Alkalizing (Ph 7.5) Reverse Osmosis with 11-stage filtration & faucet. Comes with extra filters for 2-year supply. 

Intro Sale // Free Shipping // Both have great Amazon reviews

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are drawing up detailed plans to evacuate vast numbers of their citizens to the countries’ west in the event of a Russian invasion, with officials warning that Moscow could attempt to overrun all three Baltic states in less than a week.

Reuters reported that planning has accelerated since May, when the three countries agreed to coordinate civil protection efforts amid mounting concern over Russian aggression.

The Baltic governments have doubled their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began in 2022, citing repeated Russian cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and recent violations of Baltic airspace by Russian fighter jets and drones as signs of growing hostility.

“It is possible that we will see a massive army along the Baltic borders with the obvious goal of conquering all three countries within three days to a week,” said Renatas Požéla, head of Lithuania’s fire and rescue service, as cited by Denník N.

While a conventional invasion remains the most serious scenario, governments are also preparing for a range of other destabilizing events, from sabotage of transportation networks and mass migration waves to civil unrest among Russian-speaking minorities and disinformation campaigns designed to trigger panic.

Exercises are already taking place. A recent drill in Lithuania involved evacuating just 100 people from Vilnius, but Požéla said real plans envision moving around 400,000 residents — roughly half of those living within 40 kilometers of the Russian and Belarusian borders. Kaunas, Lithuania’s second-largest city, has prepared to accommodate 300,000 people in schools, churches, universities, and a stadium. The city is located further west than the capital Vilnius, which lies close to the Belarusian border.

Those fleeing west by car would be diverted to secondary roads to keep main routes clear for mobilization, with maps showing where evacuees could seek refuge already having been distributed.

None of the Baltic states currently plan to relocate civilians beyond their borders, which would require military convoys to negotiate Poland’s Suwałki Gap, sandwiched between Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.

“We have to take into account the risk presented by the Suwałki Corridor,” said Estonian security expert Ivar Mai.

Estonia is preparing to move around 10 percent of its 1.4 million residents into temporary shelters, with many more expected to stay with relatives. In Narva, a city with a large Russian-speaking population, two-thirds of its 50,000 residents could be evacuated, with the government assisting at least half. “It’s only for those who have nowhere else to go,” Mai explained.

Latvia is preparing for even larger displacements. Around one-third of its 1.9 million citizens could be forced from their homes in the event of war, said Ivars Nakurts, deputy commander of the Latvian Fire and Rescue Service. “Count on everything,” he warned.

Incidents involving Russian incursions into EU airspace have been reported more frequently in recent months, including the drones reported in Poland and fighter jets entering Estonian territory last month.

However, Moscow insists it has no intention of invading any EU member state.

Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly in New York last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “Threats of force against Russia, accused of practically planning an attack on NATO and the European Union, are becoming increasingly common. President Putin has repeatedly debunked such provocations.

“Russia has never had and does not have such intentions, but any aggression against my country will be met with a decisive response.”

Read more here…

The following is the introduction to Mike Fairclough’s new book 2030 – a dystopian novel aimed at teenagers.

I want to speak to you directly, before the story begins.

When I was your age, the books we studied at school were dangerous in the best sense of the word. We read George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984. We read William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. We were exposed to stories of mythological heroes – ordinary men and women who faced extraordinary challenges.

These books didn’t come with ‘trigger warnings’. They weren’t wrapped in cotton wool. They were meant to disturb, to challenge, to wake you up.

I grew up in a time when boys were boys and girls were girls. Our fathers, and our grandfathers before them, had fought in wars or been raised in the shadow of those who did. They taught us grit, resilience, and the courage to stand up when something was wrong.

We were also raised with pride in our British heritage. Our history, our culture, our traditions and our flag were things to respect, not to be ashamed of. We learned that our nation had stood up against tyranny, twice, and paid the price in blood. We sang songs that carried our past. We flew the Union Jack as a symbol of unity, freedom and identity.

Today, children and young people are told to see their history not as a source of pride or strength, but as a catalogue of guilt. They are taught that the victories of their ancestors were crimes, that courage was cruelty and that sacrifice was oppression. They are urged to turn away from their heritage, to treat their own flag as a symbol of shame, and to believe that the culture which once defended freedom is now too offensive to exist.

Much of what shaped us has been stolen from you. Books that once inspired rebellion are now treated as dangerous objects. Classrooms have become indoctrination centres. Children are drilled to fear the weather, to doubt their own identity, to repeat slogans about ‘inclusion’ while real truth is erased. Men are called ‘toxic’ simply for being men. Women are told that men can be women and therefore women are redundant.

I spent many years as the headmaster of a school, and almost 30 years teaching within the English education system. I am now the author of books, an editor, a ghostwriter and a campaigner for freedom.

I have lost count of the number of parents who have said to me, Write something for our children, something that tells the truth.

That is why I have written 2030.

Make no mistake, this book is not pure fiction. It is a prophecy. If we do nothing, if we stay silent, if we accept every slogan and every fear they press upon us, then 2030 will not be a story. It will be your future. Adults may deny this, but the task of resistance will fall to the young. To you.

So read carefully. Remember what has been erased. And when the time comes for you to stand, take your decision with conviction and purpose. Because if you do not stand, nobody else will.

A Note on Style

As a headmaster, my approach to education was celebrated internationally. It was rooted in something called character education, a philosophy in which young people were expected to move beyond their comfort zones. I saw children thrive when they lit fires in sub-zero temperatures, fired shotguns with steady hands, camped under the stars and faced personal challenges that demanded grit. Those experiences expanded them. They forged strength. They forged resilience.

This book has been written with the same spirit. You are about to enter a dystopian world. It is deliberately crafted to feel that way. The early chapters may feel like a grind, heavy, relentless. That is intentional. This is not TikTok with its quick dopamine hits, nor a Hollywood blockbuster that begins with explosions. This story asks for your focus, your stamina. The hardest journeys are the ones that change us most deeply.

And while the opening chapters set the weight of this world, know that the journey does not remain there.

The path widens, the pace quickens, and what follows will reward your perseverance.

2030 is not an ordinary book. You will discover, as you read, that you are not simply an observer. You are a participant. This story is rooted in truth. You, the reader, have the most important role to play.

So buckle up. Stay with me. Let us step together into 2030. Because until you realise you are sleepwalking into dystopia, you cannot begin to unlock the prison door.

And when that moment comes, you will discover just how powerful you truly are.

Chapter 1: The Digital Prison

George woke to silence. Not the silence of peace, but the heavy, engineered quiet of a world with no birdsong, no traffic, no laughter. The Council had found ways to mute even the dawn.

His room was the same as every other room, square walls, pale light, a bed without softness. A clock blinked on the wall, but its hands did not tick. Time was measured now in doses and data, not in minutes and hours.

He sat up slowly, pressing his palms against his eyes. The same dream again, a sound he could not place, a ripple of joy, a child’s laugh that did not belong in this world. He tried to catch it, to hold it in his memory, but it slipped away like water through his fingers.

The World Safety Council called these fragments ‘spikes’. Citizens were taught to report them immediately, to present themselves for correction. But George had learned to keep his silence. To carry the spike quietly. To let it burn like a secret fire.

Today would be no different. He would dress in the World Safety Council’s uniform, walk the Council’s streets, speak the Council’s words. But deep inside, he carried something the injections and lessons had never erased. A trace of another life. A whisper that the world had once been more than this.

And the walls, though he did not yet know it, remembered too.

Mike Fairclough was the only serving headteacher or school principal (out of 43,500 in the U.K.) to publicly question the rollout of the Covid vaccine to children. His new book, 2030, is now available on Amazon.

*  *  * Check it out – we have water straws now (3-pack) // FREE shipping