The Machinery Of Fascism Revisited

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

Fascism became a swear word in the US and UK during the Second World War. It has been ever since, to the point that the content of the term has been drained away completely. It is not a system of political economy but an insult. 

If we go back a decade before the war, you find a completely different situation. Read any writings from polite society from 1932 to 1940 or so, and you find a consensus that freedom and democracy, along with Enlightenment-style liberalism of the 18th century, were completely doomed. They should be replaced by some version of what was called the planned society, of which fascism was one option. 

A book by that name appeared in 1937 as published by the prestigious Prentice-Hall, and it included contributions by top academics and high-profile influencers. It was highly praised by all respectable outlets at the time. 

Everyone in the book was explaining how the future would be constructed by the finest minds who would manage whole economies and societies, the best and the brightest with full power. All housing should be provided by government, for example, and food too, but with the cooperation of private corporations. That seems to be the consensus in the book. Fascism was treated as a legitimate path. Even the word totalitarianism was invoked without opprobrium but rather with respect. 

The book has been memory-holed of course. 

You will notice that the section on economics includes contributions by Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. Yes, their ideas and political rule were part of the prevailing conversation. It is in this essay, likely ghostwritten by Professor Giovanni Gentile, Minister of Public Education, in which Mussolini offered this concise statement: “Fascism is more appropriately called corporatism, for it is the perfect merge of State and corporate power.”

All of this became rather embarrassing after the war so it was largely forgotten. But the affection on the part of many sectors of the US ruling class had for fascism was still in place. It merely took on new names. 

As a result, the lesson of the war, that the US should stand for freedom above all else while wholly rejecting fascism as a system, was largely buried. And generations have been taught to regard fascism as nothing but a quirky and failed system of the past, leaving the word as an insult to fling at in any way deemed reactionary or old-fashioned, which makes no sense. 

There is valuable literature on the topic and it bears reading. One book that is particularly insightful is The Vampire Economy by Günter Reimann, a financier in Germany who chronicled the dramatic changes to industrial structures under the Nazis. In a few short years, from 1933 to 1939, a nation of enterprise and small shopkeepers was converted to a corporate-dominated machine that gutted the middle class and cartelized industry in preparation for war. 

The book was published in 1939 before the invasion of Poland and the onset of Europe-wide war, and manages to convey the grim reality just before hell broke loose. On a personal note, I spoke to the author (real name: Hans Steinicke) briefly before he died, in order to gain permission to post the book, and he was astonished that anyone cared about it.

“The corruption in fascist countries arises inevitably from the reversal of the roles of the capitalist and the State as wielders of economic power,” wrote Reimann. 

The Nazis were not hostile to business as a whole but only opposed traditional, independent, family-owned, small businesses that offered nothing for purposes of nation-building and war planning. The crucial tool to make this happen was establishing the Nazi Party as the central regulator of all enterprises. The large businesses had the resources to comply and the wherewithal to develop good relations with political masters whereas the undercapitalized small businesses were squeezed to the point of extinction. You could make bank under Nazi rules provided you put first things first: regime before customers. 

“Most businessmen in a totalitarian economy feel safer if they have a protector in the State or Party bureaucracy,” Reimann writes.

“They pay for their protection as did the helpless peasants of feudal days. It is inherent in the present lineup of forces, however, that the official is often sufficiently independent to take the money but fails to provide the protection.” 

He wrote of “the decline and ruin of the genuinely independent businessman, who was the master of his enterprise, and exercised his property rights. This type of capitalist is disappearing but another type is prospering. He enriches himself through his Party ties; he himself is a Party member devoted to the Fuehrer, favored by the bureaucracy, entrenched because of family connections and political affiliations. In a number of cases, the wealth of these Party capitalists has been created through the Party’s exercise of naked power. It is to the advantage of these capitalists to strengthen the Party which has strengthened them. Incidentally, it sometimes happens that they become so strong that they constitute a danger to the system, upon which they are liquidated or purged.”

This was particularly true for independent publishers and distributors. Their gradual bankruptcy served to effectively nationalize all surviving media outlets who knew that it was in their interests to echo Nazi Party priorities. 

Reimann wrote:

“The logical outcome of a fascist system is that all newspapers, news services, and magazines become more or less direct organs of the fascist party and State. They are governmental institutions over which individual capitalists have no control and very little influence except as they are loyal supporters or members of the all-powerful party.”

“Under fascism or any totalitarian regime an editor no longer can act independently,” wrote Reimann.

“Opinions are dangerous. He must be willing to print any ‘news’ issued by State propaganda agencies, even when he knows it to be completely at variance with the facts, and he must suppress real news which reflects upon the wisdom of the leader. His editorials can differ from another newspaper’s only in so far as he expresses the same idea in different language. He has no choice between truth and falsehood, for he is merely a State official for whom ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ do not exist as a moral problem but are identical with the interests of the Party.”

A feature of the policy included aggressive price controls. They did not work to suppress inflation but they were politically useful in other ways.

“Under such circumstances nearly every businessman necessarily becomes a potential criminal in the eyes of the Government,” wrote Reimann.

“There is scarcely a manufacturer or shopkeeper who, intentionally or unintentionally, has not violated one of the price decrees. This has the effect of lowering the authority of the State; on the other hand, it also makes the State authorities more feared, for no businessman knows when he may be severely penalized.” 

From there, Reimann tells many wonderful if chilling stories about, for example, the pig farmer who faced price ceilings on his product and got around them by selling a high-priced dog alongside a low-priced pig, after which the dog was returned. This kind of maneuvering became common. 

I can only highly recommend this book as a brilliant inside look at how enterprise functions under a fascist-style regime. The German case was fascism with a racialist and anti-Jewish twist for purposes of political purges. In 1939, it was not entirely obvious how this would end in mass and targeted extermination on a gargantuan scale. The German system in those days bore much resemblance to the Italian case, which was fascism without the ambition of full ethnic cleansing. In that case, it bears examination as a model for how fascism can reveal itself in other contexts. 

The best book I’ve seen on the Italian case is John T. Flynn’s 1944 classic As We Go Marching. Flynn was a widely respected journalist, historian, and scholar in the 1930s who was largely forgotten after the war due to his political activities. But his outstanding scholarship stands the test of time. His book deconstructs the history of fascist ideology in Italy from a half-century prior and explains the centralizing ethos of the system, both in politics and economics. 

Following an erudite examination of the main theorists, along with Flynn provides a beautiful summary. 

Fascism, Flynn writes, is a form of social organization: 

1. In which the government acknowledges no restraint upon its powers—totalitarianism.

2. In which this unrestrained government is managed by a dictator—the leadership principle.

3. In which the government is organized to operate the capitalist system and enable it to function under an immense bureaucracy.

4. In which the economic society is organized on the syndicalist model; that is, by producing groups formed into craft and professional categories under supervision of the state.

5. In which the government and the syndicalist organizations operate the capitalist society on the planned, autarchical principle.

6. In which the government holds itself responsible for providing the nation with adequate purchasing power by public spending and borrowing.

7. In which militarism is used as a conscious mechanism of government spending.

8. In which imperialism is included as a policy inevitably flowing from militarism as well as other elements of fascism.

Each point bears longer commentary but let’s focus on number 5 in particular, with its focus on syndicalist organizations. In those days, they were large corporations run with an emphasis on union organization of the workforce. In our own times, these have been replaced by a managerial overclass in tech and pharma that have the ear of government and have developed close ties with the public sector, each depending on the other. Here is where we get the essential bones and meat of why this system is called corporatist. 

In today’s polarized political environment, the left continues to worry about unbridled capitalism while the right is forever on the lookout for the enemy of full-blown socialism. Each side has reduced fascistic corporatism to a historical problem on the level of witch burning, fully conquered but useful as a historical reference to form a contemporary insult against the other side. 

As a result, and armed with partisan bête noires that bear no resemblance to any really existing threat, hardly anyone who is politically engaged and active is fully aware that there is nothing particularly new about what is called the Great Reset. It is a corporatist model – a combination of the worst of capitalism and socialism without limits – of privileging the elite at the expense of the many, which is why these historical works by Reimann and Flynn seem so familiar to us today. 

And yet, for some strange reason, the tactile reality of fascism in practice – not the insult but the historical system – is hardly known either in popular or academic culture. That makes it all the easier to reimplement such a system in our time. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2024 - 02:00

Strengthening Our Beleaguered Military Starts With A Maritime Overhaul

Authored by Brent D. Sadler via RealClear Wire,

America’s security and prosperity is at high risk today, largely because of bad policies backed up by too weak armed forces. Consider our U.S. maritime complex. Decades of neglect and inadequate investment have left our shipping, shipbuilding, Navy, merchant marines, ports, and Coast Guard woefully behind the times. The Secretary of the Navy and a growing group in Congress are sounding the alarm, drawing attention to the plight of our weakened maritime sector.

Recent headlines help tell the story. Since October 2023, the Navy has been engaged in a ‘whack-a-mole’ standoff with the Houthis, an Iranian proxy that has been attacking vessels in the Red Sea and damaging global trade. This confrontation expanded to include missile defense of Israel, culminating on April 13 with the shoot-down of several Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Israel by destroyers Arleigh Burke and Carney.

This defensive effort is depleting expensive munitions that are in short supply. The Secretary of the Navy stated before Congress on April 15 that the Navy has responded to 130 attacks at a cost of $1 billion in munitions. At current procurement rates, it could take years to recover unless production capacity is greatly expanded in short order.

Closer to home, on March 26 a container ship (the Dali) lost power and collided with, and collapsed the Key Bridge in Baltimore, killing six. The investigation is ongoing, but already it is clear our port infrastructure is not resilient enough to withstand errant modern shipping. Neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor Naval salvage capacity is adequate. Both have been unable to ensure the nation’s ports can be rapidly reopened if closed due to deliberate acts, accidents or acts of God.

A month later, the port of Baltimore remains closed. For comparison, when the ultra-large containership Ever Given grounded and closed the Suez Canal, it was reopened in eight days. Effectively, the Dali has stranded four Navy logistics ships inside the harbor unable to meet national tasking – ships verified still stuck in port on April 29th.

Finally, in a string of embarrassing events, the large amphibious warship Boxer had to return home, further delaying its deployment due to numerous and repeated mechanical problems. This means other warships must remain at-sea longer or forgo missions, further endangering U.S. interests. As this was playing out, ships directed by the President to assist in the delivery of aid to Gaza, had to turn back due to onboard fires (the venerable 39-year old Military Sealift Command ship 2nd Lt. John P. Bobo), too short endurance (Army's Frank Besson Jr. refueling stop in the Azores), or weather avoidance (the likely reason USAV Wilson Wharf diverted to Tenerife). These disruptions are a symptom of a too small and aged fleet that has been over-used and under-maintained by over-worked crews.

The root cause of these problems? Sea blindness – unawareness and underinvestment in the maritime and naval forces that keep the economy functioning and our people safe.

But there are signs this may be changing. More Americans are demanding action, and members of Congress like Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) are spearheading a bipartisan and bicameral maritime agenda. The opening declaration of this was contained in a recent letter to the President demanding action signed by 19 Congressional leaders from both parties.

The challenge is huge. Today only 0.4 percent of commercial shipping is American flagged, making the nation too often reliant on less than friendly nations to conduct its trade and move supplies sustaining military operations. But these tentative first steps are just a downpayment on a larger endeavor: regaining the nation’s maritime strength.

The most urgent task is keeping the peace, and that means deterring China in Asia while safeguarding Americans and our interests abroad. The clock has run out for modest, long-term actions. The threat today demands a combination of actions: retaining useful warships, expanding maritime industrial capacity, and accelerating naval shipbuilding.

This will be an expansive task, to be sure, but it is not revolutionary, nor is it impossible. Three past naval revivals can help point the way ahead.

One dates back a little over 100 years ago. Britain’s First Sea Lord Admiral Sir John “Jackie” Fisher’s fleet modernization is what some today call “divest to invest” – the culling of outdated ships to redirect manpower and resources to delivering modern warships. At the time, the British Royal Navy had a still modest naval rival in the Imperial German Navy that was a decade or more away from achieving parity with the British fleet.

Fisher’s efforts delivered the Dreadnaught – a warship that ushered in the modern battleship and revolutionized naval warfare, as demonstrated at the 1916 Battle of Jutland. Fisher had the time and commitment of resources by a nation with a long, proud, and politically dominant naval tradition behind him. He also had the luxury of a foe years from matching or exceeding his own fleet. China’s navy, by contrast, already exceeds ours and continues a breakneck modernization and readiness program that makes any U.S. divestment of naval capacity a strategic risk.

The second revival was America’s rearming ahead of the war in the Pacific, made possible by several Naval Acts of the 1930s. Animating this revival was the still fresh memories of a near catastrophe during World War I.

As that war raged in Europe, the nation’s economy was nearly collapsed without foreign shipping to carry its cargo to market, nor ships to move troops to Europe and back. One intent of the 1930s Naval Acts was to avoid the mismanagement and waste of the Shipping Act of 1916 and the U.S. Shipping Board. With that wisdom, the Acts of the 1930s funded a naval building campaign that invigorated the maritime industrial sector. Thanks to the Naval Act of 1938, the carrier Hornet was delivered in time to play an instrumental role in the victory in the Battle of Midway. The ships these naval acts authorized quadruple the number of shipyards and delivered in the first years of World War II the warships that turned the tide against the Axis. Had it not been done, the war in the Pacific would have had a very different outcome.

A modern Naval Act is needed, but it cannot be limited to just considerations of naval shipbuilding. It must embrace efforts to rebuild the nation’s merchant fleet that today couldn’t sustain protracted military operations nor a wartime economy.

Finally, President Ronald Reagan’s 600-ship naval build-up of the 1980s significantly contributed to bankrupting the Soviets and winning the Cold War. The shipbuilding goal was never achieved, but a massive rebuilding effort was accomplished by increasing defense budgets disproportionately directed to naval shipbuilding and the return to service of ships in the inactive fleet. In total, the combination of new shipbuilding and reactivation grew the Navy from a low of 521 ships in 1981 to 594 in six years.

Today there isn’t really much in the inactive fleet to recall to service. Leading to circumstances that today dictate retaining ships on the Navy’s list for deactivation with more than three years of life, thereby adding 13 warships to the fleet. Furthermore, the fleet could grow a little more with the addition of 21 deployable unmanned (LUSV, MUSV, XLUUV) vessels. This would deliver a fleet of 331 warships by 2027, still short of the 355-fleet goal. To address that gap, conventional approaches to get the Navy and merchant marine needed will not suffice.

The reality today is that the nation faces multiple threats and at least one existential foe taking increasing risks to reorder the world to its benefit: China. Pacing these challenges has proven inadequate. It is time to seriously enter the race to secure American security and prosperity, which begins with a national effort to rejuvenate our maritime power. Recovering and meeting the threats before the nation requires a multifaceted but coherent plan of attack – a National Maritime Initiative.

This is critical as the Navy’s ships suffer from years of over work, sailors beaten down under unrelenting prolonged deployments, and an inconsequential U.S. flagged merchant marine. We are in effect living in an “AND” world where spending is needed to grow the maritime industrial base through orders for new warships learned during the Naval Acts era, AND modernizing but without divesting, AND retaining warships with life, AND dramatically increasing naval shipbuilding as done during the Reagan era.

Anything less is unserious and ignores the world as it is today.

Brent D. Sadler is a senior research fellow in naval warfare and advanced technologies at The Heritage Foundation.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 23:55

Hedge Fund Boss Loses Legal Fight Over 2,364 Silver Bars Found In WWII Shipwreck

An undersea exploration company backed by a top hedge fund boss in the United Kingdom lost a major legal fight over the salvage of $40 million worth of silver bars from the wreck of a ship lost to a Japanese submarine in World War II. 

On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that the UK's Supreme Court ruled that the South African government could declare state immunity in a suit by hedge fund chief Paul Marshall's Argentum Exploration Ltd. 

Argentum Exploration argued in court that it was owed a 'substantial salvage fee' and wanted a court to 'fix an award.' However, the judges were informed that the two sides had agreed to a settlement. 

Here's more from Bloomberg: 

The South African government had argued that that it not only still owns the silver, but insisted that it shouldn't have to submit to the lawsuit at all.

The Supreme Court judges agreed, saying that the silver was a non-commercial cargo and the government was entitled to immunity.

The ruling overturned two prior court decisions, with a judge previously saying that the government had probably "forgotten" about the bullion. UK Companies House filings record that Marshall controls Argentum.

In 1942, the SS Tilawa was sailing from Mumbai on its way to Durban, South Africa, when two torpedoes from an Imperial Japanese Navy submarine sunk the passenger-cargo ship. On board were 2,364 bars of silver destined for the South African Mint. For seven decades, the ship resided more than two and a half kilometers below the surface of the Indian Ocean until Marshall's exploration company discovered it. 

In markets, the Bloomberg Precious Metal Subindex shows a multi-decade 'cup and handle' bullish formation. 

We wonder if the settlement involved physical silver bars... Some analysts expect a "powerful silver bull market" ahead. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 23:35

A Deep Dive Into The Opioid Crisis

Authored by Matt Bivens, M.D. via Racket News,

Editor’s note: the following is the first essay in a series, written by former Moscow Times co-worker and current E.R. doctor Matt Bivens. The remaining features will be published serially on his Substack site, The 100 Days. None of the articles in the series will be paywalled. In a normal presidential election year, the opiate addiction crisis would be a front-and-center domestic issue, but for a variety of mostly illegitimate reasons, it flies somewhat under the radar. Matt’s series chronicles the surprising and little-understood reasons contributing to this man-made, rapidly worsening disaster.

Yes, we in the medical profession got millions of Americans addicted to heroin and fentanyl. But that was all just a big misunderstanding. Why get into it?

And sure, nearly one in ten adults has had a family member die from a drug overdose. Ordinary people are furious about it, too. Their under-appreciated rage drove skepticism of official COVID-19 narratives, and that same rage might sway the outcome of the Presidential election — heck, might even land us in a war with Mexico! (Wouldn’t that be the ultimate “Wag the Dog”-level distraction from those sociopaths upstairs in our House of Medicine!)

So, yes, agreed. All good points. 

We medical people who see the patients and do all of the work — we, the house staff — we’re downstairs people. We can’t do anything about what goes on above. Agreed, it’s shameful how easily the upstairs sociopaths conned us, and it’s annoying to see them now so fabulously rich. But doctors being intentionally manipulated into destroying the lives of millions — that could have happened to anyone. Why stay angry about it? Ancient history! It’s not like it’s still happening, right? (Right?)

Surely you don’t want to burn down the entire house? We work here. And the pay is not bad. Let’s just focus on the patients before us, and try to stay positive. Right?

Heroin™ — brought to you by Bayer!

As a medical student, I was once told by my attending physician that people treated with morphine for pain don’t get addicted.

Surprised, I asked, “But what about all the Civil War veterans?”

When the U.S. Civil War ended in 1865, both sides demobilized a weary horde of chronically ill and wounded. Some soldiers had contracted tuberculosis, or a lingering pneumonia (in the days before antibiotics). Others had suffered field amputations with handheld saws. But whether the question was chronic coughing or terrible pain, the answer was morphine. The newly invented hypodermic needle allowed for fast-acting injections. Veterans everywhere got hooked, to the point where addiction was called “the Soldier’s Disease.” Soon morphine moved beyond the battlefield and was in use for everything from menstrual cramps to teething.

Vintage ad for a morphine-based child’s medicine. From the DEA’s online museum.

Things got so bad that when heroin (diacetylmorphine) arrived, it was welcomed as an improvement. Chemists had discovered it decades earlier, but in 1898 the pharmaceutical company Bayer started selling it as Heroisch, German for “heroic.” 

Heroin was a trade name. It was Heroin™ — brought to you by Bayer! 

Doctors desperate for something safer than morphine often convinced themselves this new drug wasn’t addictive.

“Heroin… possesses many advantages over morphine,” wrote a physician in 1900, in the precursor to the New England Journal of Medicine. “It is not a hypnotic… [and there is no] danger of acquiring the habit.” The philanthropic St. James Society even mounted a campaign to mail free heroin samples to morphine addicts (!), to help them break the habit.

Other doctors saw the public swilling down heroin and berated their fellow physicians for not sounding the alarm.

“The patient comes to look on heroin as a harmless sedative for his cough,” wrote one such physician in 1912, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, because too many doctors think it’s safe: 

“A patient who came under my observation told a physician, who was called to treat him for an attack of laryngitis, not to give him anything that contained opium, because he had formerly been a slave to this drug. The physician replied: ‘I will give you some heroin; there is no danger of habit from that’.”

Ordinary Americans weren’t buying it, and by 1906 we had established the federal Food & Drug Administration, because moms want to know if it’s got heroin. Cure-alls like the morphine-and-alcohol-based Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup definitely did quiet fussy babies, but it’s believed thousands never woke up again. 

President Teddy Roosevelt appointed an “Opium Commissioner,” who looked around and saw track marks on the arms of everyone from aging Army of the Potomac vets to high society ladies, and declared, “Americans have become the greatest drug fiends in the world.” It was our first Opioid Crisis. It had been driven by genuine ignorance and a lack of good alternatives — but tellingly, also by the inappropriate use of heavily marketed and physician-endorsed treatments. In response, the nation went on a scorched-earth campaign against all addictive substances, starting with new anti-narcotics agencies staffed by G-men in trench coats, and culminating in the U.S. Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Again: We rewrote the Constitution to outlaw alcohol. That we once went so far suggests how bad things had gotten.

This all seems like a glaringly obvious cautionary tale for the House of Medicine. Yet somehow, not 70 years after the nation had walked away from the Prohibition experiment, medical schools — medical schools! — were abruptly teaching that opioids weren’t necessarily addictive.

When my attending said a patient wouldn’t get addicted if a doctor gave morphine for pain, he was simply channeling what all the best people were saying. For example, in 2000, the Joint Commission — an independent non-profit that sets accreditation standards for hospitals — published a book for physician education that claimed: 

There is no evidence that addiction is a significant issue when persons are given opioids for pain control.

No evidence. And if the medical students ask about morphine-enslaved Civil War veterans? The Joint Commission’s book dismisses such concerns as “inaccurate and exaggerated.” 

It was the same over at the Federation of State Medical Boards — a trade organization for the bodies in each state that license, investigate and discipline doctors. A set of FSMB guidelines from this era sternly stated that opioids are “essential” for treating various kinds of pain, and only mentioned addiction to warn that “inadequate understandings” of that could lead to “inadequate pain control.”

I was literally told by my attending — who was just echoing those who accredit the hospitals and license the doctors — to “do more reading.” That’s a common directive to a medical student: Stop with the skeptical questions and go study.

From 20,000 deaths a year, to 50,000, to now 80,000

At the turn of the century, about 20,000 people each year would take an opioid — as a pill, or as a snorted or injected powder — and then stop breathing and die. Those of us working on ambulances or in emergency departments could not save them.

But for every death, there are about 20 non-fatal overdoses. So, with bag mask ventilation and opioid reversal agents, we have dragged millions of people back to life. How many suffered anoxic brain injuries, and today are mentally a half-step slower? Unknown.

Overdoses at this scale were a new development, and they were occurring hand-in-hand with the aggressive new marketing and prescribing of opioids. This is the era chronicled so well by popular miniseries — “Dopesick” on Hulu, “Painkiller” on Netflix. In the midst of it, the Sackler family-owned Purdue Pharma pled guilty to a deception campaign meticulously designed to bring about recklessly liberal opioid prescribing. As punishment, the company had to shell out $600 million, and three top executives got multi-million-dollar fines and 400 hours of community service.

That should have been peak “Opioid Crisis.” But it was only 2007. Heck, George W. Bush was still president. The Sacklers were never contrite. They’d been raking in about $1 billion a year for more than a decade. The $600 million fine sounded impressive — but the Sacklers shrugged, cut the government in to the tune of less than 5% of the cash rolling in, and got right back to slinging opioids. And in the 17 years since, everything has gotten terribly worse.

Did it feel like a catastrophe back in 2007, when 20,000 people a year would die, and people were enraged at Purdue?

Or a decade later, in 2017, when President Donald Trump declared it a national emergency, and 50,000 people a year would die?

That’s nothing. For the past three years, we’ve reliably seen 80,000 people each year take an opioid, stop breathing and die. 

From CDC data. Numbers have continued to climb through 2023. Accessed at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Opioid overdoses accelerated amidst the despair of COVID-19 lockdowns. These days, it’s completely routine for a private car to brake with screeching tires at our emergency department entrance, with the driver screaming about someone in the back seat who is floppy, gray, not breathing. The overhead announcement of “trigger to triage!” used to get nurses and techs running excitedly to the front door. Now, they respond at a walk — a briskly respectful walk, but it’s clear no one’s particularly excited. The novelty wore off long ago. 

The Olympics of Sociopathy

Back when Purdue Pharma had to pay $600 million, that was big news. Today, judgments are handed down left and right for billions, without much comment or public excitement, against everyone involved in making, distributing or selling opioids: $17.3 billion from CVS, Walmart and Walgreens, $5 billion from Johnson & Johnson, $21 billion from opioid distribution companies McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen, $4.25 billion from Teva Pharmaceuticals, $2 billion from Allergan.

Meanwhile, an agreement to let the Sackler family skate while Purdue surrenders $6 billion and goes bankrupt is before the U.S. Supreme Court. (For context, Purdue has earned far more than $30 billion from opioids by now. Forbes estimates the Sacklers as individuals are worth more than $10 billion; attorneys general argue the family has hidden billions more abroad. The Sacklers have for years sold more opioids via Rhodes Pharmaceuticals, a Rhode Island-based company they quietly control, than via Purdue).

Pondering these massive new settlements, I remember thinking, “Walmart? Johnson & Johnson? Surely some innocents have been caught up in an indiscriminate dragnet?”

Wrong. Don’t look into this if you don’t want to know. Like competitive bicyclists, many had lined up to slipstream behind Purdue Pharma and its deranged, anti-social marketing of OxyContin®. Perhaps none of those other corporations would have dared try to convince physicians and nurse practitioners to hand out opioids like candy. But the Sacklers dared and met with success — instant success, shocking success, in perhaps the most shameful episode in the history of medicine. 

The other companies might have been surprised, but they all fell eagerly in line behind. Each of them drafted in the turbulent wake of Purdue opioid marketing — some just coasting and enjoying the free money, others so excited they would at times sprint out ahead to briefly take the lead in this Olympics of Sociopathy.

For example, it may have been the Sacklers who first decided to target returning veterans (who have good health insurance) as an opioid growth market — veterans, by the way, are three times more likely to overdose and die than other Americans.

From page 18, paragraph 56, of the Massachusetts attorney general’s 2019 lawsuit against Purdue & the Sacklers.

But it took a Johnson & Johnson-backed organization, the “Imagine the Possibilities Pain Coalition”, to spitball in 2011 about targeting elementary school students. After all, third graders have pain, too! A PowerPoint presentation from this group noted we could start marketing opioids to kids “via respected channels, e.g., coaches.”

Slide from the group’s 2011 internal presentation. Accessed at the UCSF Opioid Industry Documents Archive.

Johnson & Johnson also quietly funded the 2013 launch of “Growing Pains”, “a new social networking site for young people with pain”. This effort to market opioids to teenagers aged 13 and up was shut down only as of 2021.

From Oxy to Heroin to Fentanyl to … Buprenorphine?

Today nearly every 10th adult has lost a family member to an opioid. All major candidates for president have tapped into the anger — which, however, they have chosen to direct at Chinese and Mexican cartels. 

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vowed if elected president to send U.S. special forces into Mexico (!) to take out fentanyl labs. Trump as president reportedly talked about shooting missiles into Mexico to destroy said labs. President Joe Biden has pledged to “stop [fentanyl] pills and powder at the border.”

So, the newly agreed-upon villains are foreigners. 

Did something change? 

Yes and no. It turns out the Opioid Crisis — that catchall term for this 25-year-long blizzard of addiction, overdose and death — has gone through different stages, much like how COVID-19 would cycle through variants, from Delta to Omicron. But while COVID quickly mellowed, the Opioid Crisis has just gotten nastier. 

The CDC identifies three waves: First came the prescription wave of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which launched the entire enterprise. Next came the heroin wave, which per the CDC roughly started in 2010, when the prescription-addicted turned to the streets. From about 2013 to today, we have been awash in synthetic opioids like fentanyl (heroin requires farming poppies, but fentanyl is cheaply made in labs).

Graphic accessed at the CDC. Look at how steeply the death rate is climbing today!

But wait long enough, and Big Pharma always wins. Amoral, soulless corporations — often the same ones paying out massive settlements — have maneuvered skillfully to reassert control over the addiction market they’ve created. The goal now is to create a fourth and final wave of the Opioid Crisis: the buprenorphine wave. We will start as many people as possible on this ingenious opioid.

Buprenorphine, the main ingredient in brand names such as Suboxone® and Subutex®, is a so-called partial opioid agonist: It latches tightly onto opioid receptors but stimulates them only slightly — just enough for a person with physical addiction to not experience withdrawal. A person on appropriately dosed buprenorphine is not sedated or high, they just “feel normal.” (What’s more, even if they were to inject fentanyl, the opioid receptors are already locked down by the buprenorphine, which blocks other opioids from getting through.)

I can’t argue against expanded use of buprenorphine. The data clearly shows that it prevents death and disability. People really do get control of their lives again. Of course, it is also addictive. So, the plan we confidently propose is to treat opioid addiction with this admittedly ingenious and excellent medication, for a monthly price tag, depending on the formulation, ranging from $196 to $1,136… forever. 

What’s not to like? 

Big Pharma, Finally Unmasked

Medicine has wrought amazing breakthroughs, and we have professed high moral standards. But some of us aren’t above indulging in the same “Braindead Megaphone”-style pronouncements plaguing the rest of society: sternly shouting down even the meekest questions about pediatric gender reassignment therapies or vaccine mandates, for example. When it comes to the Opioid Crisis — this massive, deadly pandemic of addiction we’ve unleashed — we stroll past whistling and look guiltily away, then whirl back around, whip out the Braindead Megaphone, and loudly announce that we expect to be paid handsomely to provide additional addictive opioids to treat this same pandemic. We declare this with wide-eyed innocence, and get indignant if anyone questions this plan — even as internal corporate communications now available show Big Pharma corporations rubbing their hands gleefully at the thought of all of that buprenorphine cash.

That’s right: internal corporate communications — millions of pages — are now available. They can be searched online at the Opioid Industry Documents Archive, hosted by University of California San Francisco (UCSF).

I thought I knew a lot about the Opioid Crisis. After all, I’d been a reluctant front-line participant in it for 20 years, as a paramedic, a medical student and a physician.

Then the lawsuits arrived, and the Archive opened.

Next: A conspiracy to taint the medical literature

Matt Bivens, M.D.: Full-time ER doctor. Board-certified in emergency and addiction medicine. EMS medical director for 911 services. Former Russia-based foreign correspondent, newspaper editor and Chechnya war correspondent. Reluctant student of nuclear weapons.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 23:15

These Are The Countries With The Highest Rates Of Crypto Ownership

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu, ranks the top 10 countries by their rate of cryptocurrency ownership, which is the percentage of the population that owns crypto.

These figures come from crypto payment gateway, Triple-A, and are as of 2023.

Data and Highlights

The table below lists the rates of crypto ownership in the top 10 countries, as well as the number of people this amounts to.

Note that if we were to rank countries based on their actual number of crypto owners, India would rank first at 93 million people, China would rank second at 59 million people, and the U.S. would rank third at 52 million people.

The UAE Takes the Top Spot

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) boasts the highest rates of crypto ownership globally. The country’s government is considered to be very crypto friendly, as described in Henley & Partners’ Crypto Wealth Report 2023:

In the UAE, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA-ADGM) was the first to provide rules and regulations regarding cryptocurrency purchasing and selling.

The Emirates are generally very open to new technologies and have proposed zero taxes for crypto owners and businesses.

Vietnam leads Southeast Asia

According to the Crypto Council for Innovation, cryptocurrency holdings in Vietnam are also untaxed, making them an attractive asset.

Another reason for Vietnam’s high rates of ownership could be its large unbanked population (people without access to financial services).

Cryptocurrencies may provide an alternative means of accessing these services without relying on traditional banks.

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out The World’s Largest Corporate Holders of Bitcoin, which ranks the top 12 publicly traded companies by their Bitcoin holdings.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 22:55

Lawmakers Urge U.S. Action To Halt China's Organ Trade

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

A group of leading China critics in Congress is urging the State Department to step up its efforts to curb Beijing’s gruesome $1 billion forced organ harvesting trade, which targets ethnic and religious minorities, including Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims, Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners. 

Six members of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, or CECC, sent a letter last week to Secretary of State Antony Blinken asking him to utilize existing agency reward programs to provide monetary incentives for information that will “deter and disrupt the market for illegally procured organs” in China. Rep. Chris Smith, who chairs the CECC, and Sen. Marco Rubio, the commission’s ranking member, joined Democrat Rep. Jennifer Wexton of Virginia and GOP Reps. Michelle Steel of California, Zach Nunn of Iowa, and Ryan Zinke of Montana in signing the letter. 

The State Department manages two programs that offer awards of up to $25 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of members of significant transnational criminal organizations. One focuses on violators of U.S. narcotics law, and another targets other crimes that threaten U.S. national interests, including human trafficking, wildlife trafficking, cybercrime, money laundering, and trafficking in arms and other illicit goods. 

“We strongly support the Department of State’s efforts to issue rewards for wildlife and narcotics trafficking in the [People’s Republic of China],” the lawmakers wrote. “However, given the global demand for organ transplants and the evidence of the illegal trafficking of organs in the PRC, there is a pressing need to uncover first-hand information from those who witnessed or engaged in the practice.” 

The State Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Communist China has long harvested prisoners’ organs, even though the government in Beijing initially asserted that all their organ extractions were from voluntary donors. But as far back as 2005, the top transplant doctor in China, then serving as the nation’s vice minister of health, admitted that roughly 95% of all organ transplants came from prisoners.

In recent years, leading researchers have documented a reprehensible aspect of these life-ending extractions: Prisoners of conscience – religious minorities and political dissidents are the main victims. There’s now extensive evidence that Chinese surgeons first honed their murderous organ harvesting practices on practitioners of Falun Gong, a meditation and exercise movement. In recent years, the regime expanded its pool of victims to China’s imprisoned Uyghur population as part of its systematic oppression of the Muslim minority group. 

China has vehemently denied these claims, but in 2019, the China Tribunal, a non-governmental, independent commission in the U.K., concluded otherwise. The Tribunal investigated accusations of organ harvesting in China and found that some of the more than 1.5 million detainees in Chinese prison camps are being killed for their organs to serve a booming transplant trade worth an estimated $1 billion a year. The Tribunal also found that the Chinese organ trafficking industry is harvesting organs from executed prisoners and political prisoners at an industrial scale, actions that constitute crimes against humanity.

In response to the Tribunal’s findings, more than a dozen United Nations human rights experts said they were extremely alarmed by reports that organ harvesting was targeting “specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities, including Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims, and Christians” detained in China. The experts, who operate under United Nations mandates but do not speak on the international organization’s behalf, called on China to respond to the allegations of illegal organ harvesting promptly and to allow international human rights monitors into hospitals and other areas to monitor the country’s organ extraction practices. China has ignored those requests.

In 2022, the American Journal of Transplantation, the leading medical transplant publication in the world, published a peer-reviewed article that uncovered compelling evidence that Chinese surgeons are systematically removing organs from prisoners while they are still alive, providing on-demand supplies for China’s organ export industry. 

The practice violates the internationally accepted “dead-donor” rule that holds that organ procurement “must not commence until the donor is both dead and formally pronounced so.” 

“Forced organ harvesting is an atrocity, and the disruption and deterrence of this practice should be a priority of the State Department,” the group of lawmakers wrote. 

“Getting the PRC to account and fully address evidence of forced organ harvesting will be critical in ending this horrific practice and promoting, long term, the establishment of a truly voluntary organ donation system,” they continued. “With effective enforcement mechanisms, we can work towards ensuring organs are procured safely and ethically.”

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 22:35

"Is Consumer Travel Spending Easing?" - BofA Identifies New Trend As Travel Companies Miss Earnings 

One theme we've spotted this earnings season has been an increasing number of companies warning about low-income consumers. 

From McDonald's to Starbucks to Tyson Foods, executives on earnings calls have warned about mounting headwinds hitting the working poor. 

Last Tuesday, Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan told investors on a call, "Our performance this quarter was disappointing and did not meet our expectations," adding that significant headwinds originate from a "cautious consumer." 

A similar message was shared by McDonald's last week when execs reported lower-than-expected quarterly sales growth. 

On Monday, Melanie Boulden, who oversees Tyson's Prepared Foods business, warned, "The consumer is under pressure, especially the lower-income households." 

Then, on Wednesday, credit card data from the Federal Reserve showed households finally hit a brick wall. Credit card debt growth in March plunged to the smallest monthly increase since the Covid crash. 

This morning, Bank of America's trading desk also spotted some weakness in consumer-sensitive stocks, this time in the travel industry. 

"Theme Alert? Consumer Travel Spending easing?" BofA's analysts asked. 

They pointed out a list of disappointing earnings across the travel industry: 

• $EXPE miss/guide

• $TRIP miss

• $CMCSA parks commentary

• $DIS parks' moderation' or normalization

• $UBER slight bookings miss

Tripadvisor experienced its worst intraday decline ever, with its stock plunging by as much as 38%. This was due to the online travel firm's announcement that it had called off a deal to sell the company.

Did the lack of 'deal premium' suddenly expose investors to the the reality that Gen-Z and millennials can no longer afford their stimmy-funded "experiences" as the economy slows.

Taking a deeper dive into markets, the Dow Jones US Travel & Leisure Index peaked in late March and fell 7.5%. The index is up against heavy resistance. 

Interestingly, the Transportation Security Administration's airport checkpoint data still shows robust travel demand. 

Bank of America's trading desk may be onto something here, a trend that other companies are also starting to notice: low-income consumers are cracking in the era of failed Bidenomics. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 21:35

House Votes To Nullify SEC's Anti-Crypto Policy, Biden Vows To Veto

Authored by Tom Mitchelhill via CoinTelegraoph.com,

The United States House of Representatives has voted to pass a bill that overturns controversial Securities and Exchange Commission guidance preventing banks from owning crypto. 

On May 8, the House voted to pass a bipartisan bill dubbed H.J. Res 109 which overturns the SEC’s Special Accounting Bulletin (SAB 121) that requires banks to hold their customers’ crypto assets on their balance sheets - which is not the case for traditional assets such as securities. 

Republican Congressman Mike Flood - the lawmaker who introduced the resolution - said SAB 121 was unfair for banks looking to custody crypto, as custodial assets are “always considered off-balance sheet."

"Gary Gensler, in his jihad against digital assets, used what is supposed to be mundane staff accounting guidance to essentially freeze out large publicly traded banks from taking custody of digital assets," said Rep. Flood (R-Neb.) in a Wednesday interview with CoinDesk.

And the SEC didn't consult with the banking regulators about it, Flood pointed out, arguing that Gensler "doesn't have any business in the banking world."

Notably, 21 Democrats voted in favor of the bill - which combined with the unanimous 207 votes from Republicans - saw the bill pass 228 votes to 182. 

Source: Caitlin Long/X

"By overturning SAB 121, the bipartisan resolution ensures consumers are protected by removing roadblocks that prevent highly regulated financial institutions and firms from acting as custodians of digital assets," wrote the House Financial Services Committee (HSFC) in a May 8 statement. 

“Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 is one of the most glaring examples of the regulatory overreach that has defined Gary Gensler’s tenure at the SEC,” said HSFC Chairman Patrick McHenry.

Introduced by the SEC in March 2022, SAB 121 outlines the regulator’s accounting guidelines for institutions looking to custody crypto assets. Notably, SAB 121 virtually prevents banks from custodying crypto assets on behalf of clients.

U.S. lawmakers including SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce have argued SAB 121 jeopardizes the willingness of regulated banks to act as crypto custodians and treats crypto holdings differently than other assets.

Despite the bill being passed through the House of Representatives, President Joe Biden stated he will veto the new bill.

"SAB 121 was issued in response to demonstrated technological, legal, and regulatory risks that have caused substantial losses to consumers," Biden said in a Wednesday statement, saying he "strongly opposes" disrupting the SEC's work on this.

In a May 8 statement, the White House said it “strongly opposes” members of the House of Representatives looking to overturn SAB 121, claiming it would disrupt the SEC’s efforts “to protect investors in crypto-asset markets and to safeguard the broader financial system.”

"Limiting the SEC’s ability to maintain a comprehensive and effective financial regulatory framework for crypto-assets would introduce substantial financial instability and market uncertainty."

Source: White House

No lesser mortal than key House Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters thought Flood's resolution went too far.

"This bill takes a sledgehammer to fix an issue that may merely need a scalpel, and it does so because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not only interested in doing the bidding of special interest groups, they are also interested in attacking and undermining the SEC in every possible way," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on McHenry's committee.

As CoinDesk reports, when an agency rule is reversed under the Congressional Review Act, it's not only erased, but anything similar is forever blocked from future implementation.

Waters argued that SAB 121 – apart from the controversial custody component – also provided guidance on crypto disclosures that are necessary and would be threatened if Congress overturns the policy, and Biden echoed the concern about policies that would be blocked.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 21:15

China Blasts US For Talking Gaza "Ceasefire While Pouring In Weapons"

First the Ukraine war and now the Gaza conflict... China increasingly finds itself the leader of the group of nations at odds with the West over how to handle these crises. 

Beijing has criticized the United States' role in stoking both conflicts, given Washington is the main supplier of weapons and funds for both Israel and Ukraine.

Most Global South countries are quite obviously more sympathetic to the Palestinian side when it comes to the Gaza crisis (evidenced by recent votes at the UN), and they have shown themselves open to trade with Russia despite sanctions over the Ukraine war, and most have tended to avoid full-throated condemnations of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Via the New Arab

In a new Wednesday report, Bloomberg has underscored that Gaza is the new 'wedge issue' which China hopes to use to further distance the Global South from US and Western policy: 

Last week, a top Chinese diplomat took to the microphones at the United Nations to harangue the US for blocking a resolution that would have backed Palestinians’ bid for membership, saying it had “shattered the decades-long dream of the Palestinian people.”

The broadside by Ambassador Fu Cong may have just looked like more anti-US rhetoric. But US officials and experts say it fits into a pattern with greater significance — an increasingly active Chinese effort to turn opinion in developing countries against the US since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel, using the Gaza war as a wedge.

At the start of this week President Xi Jinping was in France where he issued a rare joint statement with French President Emmanuel Macron. The statement urged Israel against going through with a ground offensive in Rafah.

Macron and Xi further reiterated their call for "a decisive and irreversible relaunch of a political process" to implement "the two-state solution with Jerusalem as their capital, and the creation of a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 lines," according to the joint statement.

The Chinese foreign ministry also issued its own separate statement, saying "China... strongly calls on Israel to heed the overwhelming demands of the international community, stop attacking Rafah, and do everything it can to avoid a more serious humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip."

Beijing has also really stepped up its denunciations of Washington 'hypocrisy' given the Biden administration is at once arming Israel to the teeth while publicly condemning the soaring Palestinian civilian death toll which has been the end result of deploying those very arms over population-dense urban areas. Bloomberg has further featured the following Chinese Embassy statement: 

Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, criticized the US for talking about "a ceasefire while pouring weapons" into the "biggest humanitarian tragedy in the 21st century," in an emailed statement.

China has lately launched its own efforts at mediating the conflict, given it hosted Hamas and Fatah officials in Beijing last week for rare talks aimed at achieving Palestinian political unity.

Bloomberg has cited the UK-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue to say that "Chinese and Russian actors are capitalizing on the perceived unpopularity of Western policy towards Gaza." And ultimately the aim, the think tank says, is "to push the idea of an alternate global power structure with themselves at the helm."

But of course, this doesn't seem to take into account that it might more simply be US and Israeli actions and policies are actually deeply unpopular among large segments of the population. 

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield recently echoed this outlook which sees nefarious Russian and Chinese influence behind every corner. "Let’s be honest — for all the fiery rhetoric, we all know that Russia and China are not doing anything diplomatically to advance a lasting peace," she told the UN General Assembly in March.

The disoriented strategy that got us into a new Cold War with Russia, is driving us towards a war with China as well.

— John Robb (@johnrobb) May 6, 2024

But the reality is that it was China which recently achieved the historic Iran-Saudi rapprochement, thus it at least has a positive track record of mediation in the Mideast region of late. Compare this to the US role of the last ten to twenty years, and there are names like: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 20:55

Jan. 6 Arrests Running At Nearly Double The Rate Of 2023 And 2022: Report

Authored by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Nearly 1,425 people have been arrested on Jan. 6 charges, with 2024 arrests running at almost double the rate from 2023 and 2022, a U.S. Department of Justice report shows.

Capitol Police officers use pepper spray and tear gas to clear protesters from the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Brent Stirton/Getty Images)

Through close of business on May 3, the FBI has arrested 1,424 suspects in the 40 months since the breach and violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the DOJ reported in its monthly update.

That includes 159 people who were arrested during the first four months of 2024, nearly double the 83 arrested during the same period in 2023 and the 85 arrested in the same period in 2022, DOJ records show.

The FBI has made 391 Jan. 6 arrests since May 2023 and 614 arrests since May 2022, according to DOJ data.

Jan. 6 is the largest, most sweeping investigation in FBI history—one that DOJ leaders have pledged will continue unabated. The DOJ has until Jan. 6, 2026, to charge individuals before the statute of limitations expires.

Some 1,334 people have been charged with entering and remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds, the most common Jan. 6 misdemeanor. Of those, 127 people were charged with entering and remaining while armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

Only two defendants were arrested over the past month for corruptly obstructing an official proceeding—the most commonly charged Jan. 6 felony that now affects 355 people—a controversial charge currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thirty-six percent of defendants—510—have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. More than a quarter of those involved use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, the report said.

About 820 defendants have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal crimes. Sixty-nine percent were misdemeanor charges, and 31 percent were felonies.

Nearly 885 defendants have had their cases adjudicated, with 61 percent sentenced to prison time, 19 percent given home detention, and 3.5 percent given some combination of the two, the report said.

About 160 defendants have been found guilty at contested trials, the report said, including three tried in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Another three dozen defendants were found guilty based on an agreed-upon set of facts.

Of the 199 defendants who have gone to trial, 82 were found guilty of assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers and/or obstructing officers during civil disorder—both felony charges.

Every defendant who opted for a jury trial has been found guilty of at least some of the charges lodged against them. Only three defendants have been acquitted of all charges. Those cases involved bench trials.

The rate of arrests picked up during the last quarter of 2023 and has continued through four months of 2024.

Supporters of President Donald Trump protest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

On April 16, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a challenge to the DOJ’s novel use of a corporate fraud statute to prosecute Jan. 6 protesters with a 20-year felony.

The Supreme Court said on Dec. 13, 2023, that it would take up Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer’s challenge to the use of 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2) to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for obstructing Congress’s tallying of Electoral College votes.

If the High Court strikes down the use of the law for Jan. 6 applications, it could upend the aforementioned 355 cases and land a blow to the DOJ’s prosecution effort.

However, prosecutors have indicated they could seek sentencing enhancements on other charges or request that prison sentences be served consecutively as ways to ensure that defendants still serve the same time behind bars.

A small number of defendants have been released from prison pending the Supreme Court decision. Others have had sentencing hearings postponed in anticipation of High Court action in the case by June 30.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 20:35

Biden Says He'll Halt Offensive Weapons To Israel If It Invades Gaza

Update(2025ET): President Biden spoke to CNN's Erin Burnett on Wednesday, and in the interview he issued some of the most significant warnings to America's closest Middle East ally to date, telling Israel that he's ready to halt offensive weapons transfers if its military launches a full invasion of Rafah.

"Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers," Biden said. "I made it clear that if they go into Rafah — they haven’t gone in Rafah yet — if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities — that deal with that problem."

This is being widely interpreted to include all offensive weapons like bombs and artillery shells. He spelled it out in the following:

“We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of the Middle East recently,” Biden told CNN. “But it’s, it’s just wrong. We’re not going to — we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”

As The Hill underscores these comments constitute "the first time he has explicitly threatened to cut off the shipment of offensive weapons to the U.S. ally."

FLAG: @POTUS Biden says for the first time that U.S. bombs provided to Israel have been used to kill civilians in Gaza.

"Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs," he tells @ErinBurnett in a @CNN interview. pic.twitter.com/SBR6lKO7mM

— Ed O'Keefe (@edokeefe) May 8, 2024

Earlier in the day the State Department had previewed the new 'warning' to Israel over Rafah, saying that it is a decision the White House is still mulling (namely, whether to expand the pause on arms shipments beyond the initial one already paused). 

So far, Israel has spoken about the Rafah op as 'limited' in scope, likely as a way to assuage Washington's fears about scenes of a humanitarian nightmare and catastrophe unfolding. Pressure is growing on Biden ahead of the November election given Progressives and some of his base are peeling off in droves, and the persistent campus protests.

Meanwhile there appears to have already been at least a partial invasion of the eastern part of Rafah city:

Israel releases footage showing its forces entering Rafah, Gaza. pic.twitter.com/KBshNzkRmG

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 8, 2024

* * *

US defense secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed while testifying before a congressional subcommittee on Wednesday that the Biden administration has paused an arms shipment to Israel, which reportedly includes large bombs and other ammunition being put on hold for transfer.

"We’ve been very clear … from the very beginning that Israel shouldn’t launch a major attack into Rafah without accounting for and protecting the civilians that are in that battlespace," Austin told US lawmakers. "We’ve not made a final determination on how to proceed with that shipment [of weapons],” the Pentagon chief said.

Via Reuters

He added the caveat that the paused transfer in question remains separate from the supplemental aid package for Israel that was passed last month.

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan has called the move "very disappointing". President Biden "can’t say he is our partner in the goal to destroy Hamas, while on the other hand delay the means meant to destroy Hamas," Erdan said the same day as Austin's testimony.

Austin did still emphasize, "My final comment is that we are absolutely committed to continuing to support Israel in its right to defend itself."

Separately on Wednesday the State Department hinted that following the initial paused shipment, the US could extend the temporary ban to include more arms and ammo shipments.

Spokesman Matthew Miller says cited concerns over how Israel conducts itself in the Rafah operation. The White House has said it does not back an Israel ground offensive into the refugee-packed southern city.

"When you see the results of the campaign to date, you see too many Palestinians die. We have been clear for some time the results are unacceptable," Miller told a press briefing. "We’ve paused one shipment.… We are reviewing other potential weapons systems. I’m not going to get into the underlying details here."

Watching CQ Brown trying desperately not to get tricked into saying into a mic that he is pro the bombing of Hiroshima was not something I expected to see this morning https://t.co/Yj3ehHukyp

— Aaron Mehta (@AaronMehta) May 8, 2024

Meanwhile, the outspoken Iran hawk Sen. Lindsey Graham had this bizarre and highly theoretical exchange with Defense Secretary Austin as well as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Charles Q. Brown Jr.:

GRAHAM: Would you have supported dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? General Brown, to end World War II?

BROWN JR: Well Senator, I think it is based on the situation —

GRAHAM: Well, we know I mean, it happened, we know. I’m not asking, they did it. Do you think that was disproportionate?

BROWN JR: It was —

GRAHAM: Do you, in hindsight, do you think that was the right decision for America to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities in question?

BROWN JR: Well, I’ll tell you, it stopped the world war.

GRAHAM: Okay. Well, so. Do you agree, General Austin? If you’d been around, would you say drop them?

AUSTIN: I agree with the chairman here.

GRAHAM: I mean, if you were if we go back in time says, hey, we got two atomic bombs, should we drop them? What would you say?

AUSTIN: Well, you know, I think the leadership was interested in curtailing —

GRAHAM: What’s Israel interested in? Do you believe Iran really wants to kill all the Jews if they could? The Iranian regime. Do you believe Hamas is serious when they say we’ll keep doing it over and over again? Do you agree that they will if they can?

AUSTIN: I do.

GRAHAM: Okay. Alright. Do you believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization also bent on the destruction of the Jewish state?

AUSTIN: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

GRAHAM: Okay, so Israel’s been hit in the last few weeks by Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas dedicated to their destruction. And you’re telling me you’re going to tell them how to fight the war? And what they can and can’t use when everybody around them wants to kill all the Jews. And you’re telling me that if we withhold weapons in this fight — the existential fight for the life of the Jewish state — it won’t send the wrong signal? Do you still think it was a good idea, General Austin, to get out of Afghanistan?

AUSTIN: I support the president’s decision.

GRAHAM: Yeah, I think you do. I think it was a disastrous decision. If we stop weapons necessary to destroy the enemies of the State of Israel at a time of great peril, we will pay a price. This is obscene. It is absurd. Give Israel what they need to fight the war. They can’t afford to lose. This is Hiroshima and Nagasaki on steroids.

Is the Senator from South Carolina actually suggesting Israel might need to nuke the Gaza Strip? 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 20:25

Philadelphia Mayor Starts Long-Awaited Process Of Cleaning Out City's Open Air Drug Markets

Philadelphia's new mayor Cherelle Parker may be succeeding with what seems like a relatively simple task that her predecessors were wholly incapable of performing: cleaning out the city's open air drug markets in its Kensington section.

Pay attention, Democrats. There's a chance it actually can be done.

During Monday's Committee of the Whole meeting, City Council members pressed Managing Director Adam Thiel and other officials for details on the planned "encampment resolution" in Kensington and budget concerns at the Office of Homeless Services.

The city announced it would clear homeless encampments on Wednesday along the 3000 and 3100 blocks of Kensington Avenue, according to the Philadelphia Tribune. 

City workers have been reaching out to the homeless, informing them of their removal from the sidewalks and offering beds in treatment facilities. This initiative aligns with a significant policy shift in Mayor Cherelle Parker's 100 Day Plan to address drug use and violence in Kensington.

Thiel emphasized a medically focused approach to treating those affected and addressing their needs. While police will be present during Wednesday's actions, Thiel aims to provide support to those seeking help.

The Philadelphia Tribune reported that, to address neighborhood concerns, the city will eventually displace hundreds of unhoused individuals to clear encampments in Kensington. At-Large Councilmember Kendra Brooks asked if there are enough beds for all those displaced and managing Director Adam Thiel assured that there are sufficient beds citywide.

“We are building this ecosystem of facilities so we can get folks to the right place for the right care, for the right time, until they get back on their feet and can have access to economic opportunity,” he said.

Thiel noted that the "specific approach established by the Parker administration is the first time it will be attempted in the country."

Council President Kenyatta Johnson suggested sending those needing 60+ days of treatment to facilities outside Philadelphia and partnering with Treatment Court, which mandates treatment instead of incarceration for substance abuse issues.

But it looks as though the city is holding the Office of Homeless Services accountable, which is likely a great start to at least getting better results than in years past. Councilmembers questioned Thiel and Office of Homeless Services Executive Director David Holloman about the office’s capacity to address Philadelphia's growing homeless population, which has increased by 12% since last year.

The office had asked for an additional $15 million last year, which Gilmore Richardson pressed back on: “We held back $5.1 million … because you all at the time could not provide the invoices to help us understand why you needed those dollars.”

The encampment clearout is underway on Kensington Avenue. @KYWNewsradio pic.twitter.com/CkqAOaoSX9

— Tim Jimenez (@TimJRadio) May 8, 2024

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 20:15

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Thursday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released.  The consensus is for 206 thousand initial claims, down from 208 thousand last week.

Putin Doesn't Bluff

Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

Two weeks ago, the Congress passed (and President Biden signed) four key pieces of legislation related to national security.

Three of the bills provided assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. They received the most attention. The one that got the least attention was a mixed bag of provisions, such as a forced divestiture of TikTok.

Included in that bill was something called the REPO Act that authorizes the president to steal any Russian assets, including U.S. Treasury securities, that come under U.S. jurisdiction.

The impact of the REPO Act is limited by the fact that only about $10 billion of Russian sovereign assets are actually under U.S. jurisdiction. Yet the act contemplates that this theft will be a down payment on a much larger theft to be conducted by NATO allies in Europe.

$290 billion of Russian sovereign assets are being held in Europe. The act says that the assets stolen by the U.S. will be contributed to the Common Ukraine Fund.

No doubt, the U.S. will be the most powerful voice in the administration of the $290 billion common fund. The U.S. goal is to use the G7 summit in Apulia, Italy on June 13–15 as a platform for getting the other G7 members to go along with the Common Ukraine Fund and to steal any Russian assets under their jurisdiction.

So these people think that Russia will simply accept this act of theft without retaliating?

“Mirror Imaging”

One of the persistent problems in intelligence analysis is what experts call “mirror imaging.” This is jargon for an analytic flaw in which the analyst assumes that his beliefs and preferences are shared by an adversary. Instead of looking at the adversary as he actually is, the analyst is looking in a mirror while assuming he is looking at the adversary.

This is an extremely dangerous flaw.

You may be rational, but the mullahs who rule Iran are not. You may believe that leaders want economic growth, but Communist Chinese leaders elevate the party over all other considerations including the well-being of their people.

You may assume that Houthi rebels in Yemen want to avoid attacks by the U.S., but they don’t care — they live in caves anyway, so you can’t bomb them into the Stone Age because they’re already there.

Nowhere is this flaw more apparent today than in the U.S. intelligence analysis of Vladimir Putin. In 2008, President Bush said that Ukraine and Georgia should join NATO. A few months later, Putin invaded Georgia, annexed part of its territory and destroyed Georgia’s chances of joining NATO.

Putin Doesn’t Bluff

In 2014, the U.S. backed a coup d’état in Ukraine that deposed a duly elected leader. Three months later, Putin annexed Crimea from Ukraine and made it part of the Russian Federation. In 2021, NATO began formal processes to admit Ukraine as a member.

In February 2022, Russia began a special military operation that’s resulted in 500,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers. Some estimates are even higher. Ukraine’s chances of joining NATO are now zero.

In every case, U.S. analysts did not believe Putin would take the steps he did because they thought it might somehow weaken Putin or Russia. That’s mirror imaging at its worst. The truth is Putin doesn’t bluff. When he says he will do something, he does. When he says he will react to some Western act, the reaction takes place.

Putin said if the West steals Russian assets, Russia will retaliate by seizing billions of dollars of direct foreign investment in Russia owned by major European companies such as Siemens, Total, BP and others.

And sure enough, just days after Biden signed legislation to authorize the theft of Russian assets, a Russian court ordered $440 million be seized from JPMorgan.

The escalation in the asset seizure war has begun. Putin will win in the end. Unfortunately, escalation is also increasing on the geopolitical front. The U.S. and some of its European allies are becoming increasingly desperate about Ukraine’s ability to hold off Russia on the battlefield.

Short on Weapons, Short on Men

The recent $61 billion aid package for Ukraine (about two-thirds of which will go to U.S. defense companies) won’t be nearly enough to reverse the tide. The U.S. and its NATO allies have already given just about all they can afford to give Ukraine without jeopardizing their own security.

The problem isn’t a lack of money but a lack of weapons and ammunition. Before the aid package was approved, critics complained that Ukraine was losing because the U.S. was withholding desperately needed materiel. But that’s not really true.

The Europeans could have simply bought the weapons from the U.S. and delivered them to Ukraine. They didn’t. Why? Because the weapons simply weren’t there. Yes, there will always be a supply of weapons flowing to Ukraine — they’re not going to run out completely.

But Ukraine won’t have nearly enough weapons and ammunition to undertake meaningful offensive operations against the Russians. They’ll just have enough to keep them in the fight, which is the goal of NATO.

Unfortunately for Ukraine, the problems run much deeper than a lack of equipment. They’re also running out of trained manpower. Former commander Valeriy Zaluzhny has suggested Ukraine needs an extra 500,000 troops. But they’re having trouble finding new volunteers. An estimated 650,000 fighting age men have fled Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the Russian army is even larger than it was before the invasion, and Russian industry is churning out weapons and ammunition at astonishing rates.

Will France Cross the (Dnieper) Rubicon?

When you add up Ukraine’s lack of equipment and manpower shortages, you understand why the West is becoming increasingly desperate.

France’s Emmanuel Macron is continuing to say he might send French troops to Ukraine. Just days ago, he reaffirmed that he wouldn’t rule out sending troops if Russia broke through Ukrainian front lines and Ukraine requested it.

Well, it’s only a matter of time until Russia breaks through Ukraine’s remaining primary defenses east of the Dnieper River. Of course Ukraine is going to request French troops since Macron himself made the offer.

Would they be sent to western Ukraine in order to free up Ukrainian soldiers stationed there to go to the front?

Or would they send French troops to the front, thinking that Russia wouldn’t fire on them out of fears of starting a war with France? France is a nuclear power. It has a limited nuclear arsenal (mostly consisting of four ballistic missile submarines).

So France might believe it can deter Russia from advancing.

But Russia has already targeted French “mercenaries” in a missile strike some months back (they were likely Ukrainian and Russian members of the French Foreign Legion). And Russia has warned France that it will attack French soldiers if it sends them to Ukraine.

Remember, Putin doesn’t bluff. But it’s not just France suggesting a willingness to send troops to Ukraine.

Countdown to Nuclear War

I’ve been warning about the dangers of escalation since the U.S. committed itself to Ukraine’s defense. Unfortunately, it’s playing out exactly as I predicted.

On 60 Minutes last night, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “We can’t let Ukraine fall because if it does, then there’s a significant likelihood that America will have to get into the conflict — not simply with our money, but with our servicewomen and our servicemen.”

Ukraine’s going to fall, one way or the other. It might not be this year or even next year, although those are possibilities. But it will happen.

If Jeffries is correct that the U.S. will commit its military to confront Russia directly, then we’re signing ourselves up for a nuclear war because that’s where military confrontation will ultimately lead.

Every major simulated war game between the U.S. and Russia ends up going nuclear in the end.

Are we really prepared for that?

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 19:55

RFK Jr Challenges Trump To Debate At Libertarian Convention

Hoping to exploit their overlapping appearance commitments, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr on Tuesday challenged Donald Trump to a debate at the Libertarian Party's national convention this month, saying it represents "perfect neutral territory." 

Playing to Trump's ego, Kennedy's invitation started off with an expression of gratitude to the former president for spotlighting major media's "rigged polling" against Trump.  "We have this concern too," said Kennedy in a lengthy post on X, saying Democrat-aligned pollsters use deceptive methods that result in them "pretending" Kennedy is languishing in the single digits. 

Kennedy says current head-to-head polls have him beating Trump "in a nail-biter." (MAGA via OK!)

Kennedy then shared the results of his campaign's own taking of America's electoral pulse: 

This is why we did our own poll with Zogby — the largest and most accurate poll of this election cycle. We had Zogby ask about head-to-head matchups. (1) You versus President Biden. (2) Me versus President Biden. (3) Me versus you. The results? You beat President Biden handily. I crush him as well, by even more. And against each other, I beat you in a nail-biter.

In a three-way, you are ahead but I’m coming up strong. Two new polls (CNN and Quinnipiac) have me above the 15% debate threshold. Another (Activote) has me at 26% among young voters. And you and I are tied among America’s 70 million Independents.

It wasn't all flattery: Kennedy also slid in a shot at Trump's policies, saying many of the former president's supporters are backing Kennedy this time, saying they're "upset that you blew up the deficit, shut down their businesses during Covid, and filled your administration with swamp creatures."

Dear President Trump,

I’m grateful to you for calling attention to the rigged polling methodologies that biased DNC-influenced media have used against you. We have this concern too, and I’m happy to show you the deceptive methodologies used by DNC-allied pollsters who pretend…

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) May 7, 2024

Citing a previous Trump statement that he'd be open to sparring with Kennedy if his poll numbers were decent, Kennedy said he meets that threshold, saying "I’m the only presidential candidate in history who has polled ahead of both major party candidates in head-to-head races." 

While the Libertarian Party has not yet issued a statement, Kennedy said he checked with party leadership and said "they are game" for a showdown. For now, Kennedy is scheduled to speak on Friday, May 24; Trump, on Saturday, May 25. 

Meanwhile, Libertarian Party activist, podcaster and comedian Dave Smith -- who'd been regarded by many as an ideal 2024 flag-bearer before he opted against running -- offered to dive in on the action: 

If the LP nominee isn’t decided yet, I’ll gladly jump in this debate and represent the @LPNational I’m also happy to debate RFK 1 vs 1 if Trump doesn’t accept. https://t.co/7N3reNusXy

— Dave Smith (@ComicDaveSmith) May 7, 2024 

The party's announcement last week that Trump would appear at the convention spawned a debate among party faithful that's still simmering on social media. Some think his appearance will bring welcome publicity to the Libertarian Party, and demonstrate the party's eagerness to engage in discourse with those they aren't aligned with. Some of the more conspiracy-minded opponents say the move manifests a scheme to throw the election to Trump. 

Earlier this year, Kennedy had considered pursuing the Libertarian Party nomination -- and tapping its turnkey, 50-state ballot access -- before announcing he'd remain an independent. He's been gradually announcing his qualification on various state ballots; recently, the list has grown to include California, and the battleground state of Michigan. 

The fact that RFK and Trump feel the need to win over Libertarian voters is historic and will drive significantly more attention to the party than it has ever received.

And none of it would have happened without the @LPMisesCaucus takeover.

— Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) May 7, 2024

Wary of his wild card role in what's shaping up as a tight race, both the Republican and Democratic parties have been taking shots at Kennedy in recent weeks, and Democrats have assembled a lawfare machine to thwart his ballot access.  

Speaking to the press last week, Kennedy challenged Biden to take a "No Spoiler Pledge." The far-fetched yet entertaining idea: Biden and Kennedy would sponsor a mid-October poll, and Biden would drop out if he did worse than RFK Jr in a head-to-head scenario. He said that, unlike Biden, Trump "is not a spoiler because he actually can win." 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 19:35

Democrats Join Republicans To Block Greene's Bid To Oust Speaker Johnson

By Joseph Lord of Epoch Times

The House of Representatives on May 8 overwhelmingly voted to block a measure to strip House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of the gavel advanced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) forced a vote on a motion to vacate after meeting with the speaker twice this week to discuss her grievances and demands.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) then offered a measure to table Ms. Greene’s motion to vacate. Democrats joined Republicans to approve its shelving in a 359 to 43 vote. 11 Republicans voted to move forward with the ouster attempt.

BREAKING -- THE HOUSE has resoundingly tabled a motion to oust @SpeakerJohnson

359-43

R
196Y
11N

D
163Y
32N

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 8, 2024

House Democrat leaders had earlier pledged to help protect Mr. Johnson in the event of Ms. Greene’s ouster vote, citing his help in passing $95 billion foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific.

Speaking on the House floor during what was intended to be the final vote of the week, Ms. Greene unleashed a litany of complaints against Mr. Johnson.

She received a loud “boo” from members present when she brought the resolution to the floor.

The Georgia lawmaker was accompanied by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), one of two Republicans who openly expressed support for the measure.

Mr. Johnson has previously denounced Ms. Greene’s attempt to oust him, calling it a “dangerous gambit.”

“I think it’s wrong for the Republican Party. I think it’s wrong for the institution,” he said last week.

Ms. Greene, on the House floor, cited a series of alleged conservative failures by Mr. Johnson, alleging that he had “aided and abetted the Biden administration in destroying our country.”

The other wild thing about this statement is that Trump floats that he may support ousting @SpeakerJohnson but not now!

"We're not in a position on voting on a motion to vacate. At some point, we may very well be, but this is not the time." https://t.co/wxbG79xBsL

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 8, 2024

These included his move to allow a vote on a motion to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from the lower chamber, marking the first time in U.S. history that a member has been expelled before a conviction for a crime.

Ms. Greene also cited his move to pass a 1,000-page, $1.2 trillion government funding package after giving lawmakers less than 48 hours to consider it, as required by internal rules.

The Georgia Republican also noted that Mr. Johnson’s move to pass billions in foreign aid for Ukraine came without any demands on border security, effectively yielding any leverage Republicans had over the issue.

Additionally, she noted Mr. Johnson’s crucial vote to kill a warrant requirement for the reauthorization of a controversial surveillance power.

More in the full developing report at Epoch Times

 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 19:20

Office Tower Turmoil In NYC Worsens Ahead Of Trillion Dollar Maturity Wall 

A combination of factors, including remote work, an exodus of progressive cities, higher interest rates for longer, and diminished credit availability, continues to pressure the office tower market nationwide. The latest example of challenges facing the $20 trillion commercial real estate market comes from New York City.

Bloomberg reports that the $400 million loan backing 1440 Broadway, a 25-story tower at the corner of Broadway and 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan, has fallen into delinquent status.

The loan was bundled into commercial mortgage-backed security called JPMCC 2021-1440. 

"One of the loans responsible for this meaningful month-over-month increase was the $399 million 1440 Broadway loan securitized in JPMCC 2021-1440," JPMorgan analysts led by Chong Sin, Terrell Bobb and John Sim wrote in a note to clients. 

The analysts said the deal sponsors "failed to pay the loan's balloon payment last month, and now the loan is considered non-performing matured."

According to JPM data, the serious delinquency rate for office loans hit 7% in April, the highest level since the first half of 2017. 

1440 Broadway has been plagued with a drop in office space demand. One of its largest tenants, WeWork, downsized after declaring bankruptcy in late 2023. Another top tenant, Macy's, has struggled with sliding foot traffic because of fewer office workers in the city. On top of this, the high-interest rate environment has pushed up the cost of financing. 

Here's additional color of the property from JPM: 

"… The property's two largest tenants at securitization, WeWork and Macy's, have presented significant challenges to the continued performance of this loan. At securitization, these two tenants accounted for 70% of the property's rental income. However, Macy's vacated the property at the end of its lease term in January 2024. WeWork declared bankruptcy earlier this year but has worked with the property's sponsors to amend the terms of its lease. WeWork negotiated a 40% decrease in rent as it is now expected to pay just $44 psf for its space in the building as opposed to the $73.26 it was originally paying. WeWork will gradually pay more for its space as the amended lease terms do include steps up in rent. Additionally, WeWork was able to shorten the length of its lease. WeWork's lease was originally intended to end in 2035 but is now expected to end in 2028. We estimate that the property's occupancy rate is now at 58% and a 52% decline in gross rental income from the prior year."

Looking at citywide office occupancy trends, card-swipe data from Katle Systems shows below 50%, an ominous sign office workers aren't returning in droves. 

The CRE mess is far from over. In fact, it is a rolling disaster, with the real fireworks coming later this year if interest rates remain elevated. 

In a recent note, we cited Mortgage Bankers Association data showing that $929 billion—20% of the $4.7 trillion total—in commercial mortgages held by lenders and investors are due later this year. The figure is up 28% from 2023 and inflated by amendments and extensions from prior years. Nevertheless, borrowers must now bite the bullet and pay up or default.

Remember that surging CRE defaults risk triggering hundreds of small regional bank failures. We warned about this in a March note titled "$1 Trillion In 2024 CRE Maturities Could Lead To Hundreds Of Bank Failures."

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 18:55

Be Careful What You Wish For: Weaker Yen A Blessing And A Curse For Japan

By Simon White, Bloomberg Markets Live reporter and strategist

A weaker yen will boost inflation in Japan, but it may do so to an undesirable extent, especially as there are growing signs price growth is becoming embedded.

Be careful what you wish for. For years, Japan has yearned for sustainable inflation around 2%. Add a pandemic, a rise in energy prices and one of the most extensive and long-lasting loose monetary policies seen in the history of global central banking, and it may have got there.

However, stopping inflation at the right level is a bit like turning a cargo ship: you have to make the decision to turn long before you need to. Headline inflation in Japan is coming off recent highs, helped by subdued oil prices. But so-called core-core CPI (ex-fresh food and energy) is proving worryingly stubborn, still hovering within ~0.5% points of its all-time highs.

There are further signs of inflation becoming embedded. The percentage of inputs to the CPI basket (with over 650 of them, there is a Byzantine level of detail) rose to by far its highest level outside a consumption tax hike and remains elevated.

BOJ Governor Kazuo Ueda has been on the wires today, highlighting that FX is a vital factor effecting inflation. He is not wrong. The recent yen weakness will soon pressure CPI to move higher again.

That’s at a time that longer-term inflation expectations are rising, based on the Tankan survey of businesses on output prices. Long-term household expectations of inflation are also sticky and near series highs.

Japan has not had to deal with persistently high inflation expectations almost within living memory. Ueda also highlighted the negative effects on the economy from an abrupt, one-sided weak yen. More pernicious is likely to be the further rousing of inflation that’s already looking like it’s going to be the gift to the BOJ that gives too much.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 17:55

Disney Cast Biological Male As "Evil Queen" At Florida Wilderness Lodge, Outraged Father Claims

Video surfaced this week from Walt Disney World in Florida where, at the Wilderness Lodge resort, the company appears to have cast a biological male to play the role of Snow White's wicked queen. 

“....the Evil Queen without a doubt had a man’s voice,” said the father of a family who dined at Wilderness Lodge, Brietbart and That Park Place reported. 

The father reportedly said: "I told my waiter that I had a problem with something. He then asked what was the issue and I simply stated I have a problem with Evil Queen being a man dressed in drag. The waiter immediately said he was going to get a manager and he looked panicked…"

He continued, telling That Park Place: "At first I said I wanted to formally complain about the Evil Queen being a man and that I felt very disrespected by Disney because this is not the sort of thing my family values and they didn’t give us any type of notice that this sort of thing was even a possibility."

"After that my wife then signaled for me to stand up and take a step from the table so that our kids didn’t have to overhear the conversation. So I stood up and continued my chat with the manager which lasted about one to two mins maybe (felt like an hour). I stated we are a conservative Christian family, I’m spending $8,000 on this current trip in addition to the tens of thousands I’ve spent together in the past at Walt Disney World and Disney Cruises, and that this is not right."

A family has reached out to That Park Place claiming they spent over $300 on a character meet and greet dinner at Walt Disney World... only to discover the Evil Queen character was almost certainly a biological male. This represents the first time we've heard of Disney using a… pic.twitter.com/jHRt64wl4O

— wdwpro (@wdwpro1) April 23, 2024

Then, the father claims the manager told him: "I can assure you that she is a woman.”

"She went even further," the father detailed to That Park Place, "trying to shame me, informing me that 'she' was so excited to get the part as the Evil Queen. For a brief moment I thought 'oh… maybe I’m wrong' but then I realized that I was just being gaslighted."

"I politely told the manager that 'I know what you are doing and that I do not appreciate the fact that you are trying to be funny and disingenuous.' So since the manager doubled down I also doubled down and asked 'is the Evil Queen a biological male?' The manager’s reply was, 'I’m sorry sir, I cannot answer that.'"

Brietbart notes that this isn't the first time Disney has included drag performers at its theme parks. Disneyland in Anaheim previously featured a male employee in drag greeting children at the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique.

The Walt Disney Company has also been promoting gender non-conformity in its children's entertainment, creating multiple transgender characters and hosting a pride-themed musical special starring drag queen Nina West.

In recent years, Disney has also made its parks more gender-neutral by replacing "ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls" with "dreamers of all ages" and offering gender-neutral restrooms.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 17:35

The "Soft Landing" Lie: A Global Economic Slowdown Is Already Underway

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

If people have learned anything from the past few years of Ivy League elites and TV talking heads feeding them economic predictions, I hope they finally understand that the “experts” are usually wrong and that alternative analysts have a far better track record. Whenever establishment economists make a a call the opposite generally turns out to be true.

By extension, alternative economic predictions are usually well ahead of the curve – What we talk about might be labeled “doom mongering” or “conspiracy theory” today. In three years or less it will be treated as common knowledge and the mainstream “experts” will claim that they “saw it coming all along” while taking credit for financial calls they never made.

This has been a long running pattern and it’s something those of us in the alternative media have come to expect.

For my part, I warned for years about the threat of the impending stagflationary crisis which ultimately struck hard in the “post-pandemic” US. The establishment gatekeepers denied such a thing was possible. When it happened, they claimed it was “transitory.” Now, they argue that a soft landing is imminent and there’s nothing to fear from trillions in helicopter money being pumped into the system. They claim nothing of significance will change.

I also predicted that the Fed would create a Catch-22 scenario in which interest rates are raised into economic weakness while inflationary pressures expand. I suggested that the central bank would keep rates higher for far longer than mainstream analysts claimed. This is exactly what has happened.  My position is simple – The Federal Reserve is a suicide bomber.

Who are you going to believe? Independent economists who have proven correct time and time again? Or, the Ivory Tower guys who have been consistently wrong? I’ll say this: If success in economics was actually based on merit and correct analysis, people like Paul Krugman or Janet Yellen would have been out of work a long time ago.

As for the ongoing narrative of a soft landing, the question I have to ask is HOW exactly they are going to make that happen? First, let’s clarify why central bankers are the problem (along with the governments they covertly influence)…

Central Banks Are At The Core Of Economic Troubles

There are only two logical reasons for central bank induced inflation: To hide the effects of a massive deflationary slowdown caused by too much debt, or, to deliberately trigger a currency collapse. Both motives could apply at the same time.

Central bankers don’t just facilitate this inflation at the behest of governments, they tell governments what to expect and what to promote to the public. Anyone that claims otherwise has an agenda. Central banks write their own policy and control their own mechanics. Governments have no say whatsoever in their operations, as Alan Greenspan once openly admitted.

The reality is, governments go begging hat in hand to central bankers and the banks decide whether or not to give them that sweet stimulus nectar. Politicians engage in collusion with central banks on a regular basis and they defer to bankers on an array of economic decisions. Economic advisers to the US president almost always include high level central bankers who then cycle right back into the Federal Reserve.

Central banks and their private international counterparts are in control, political leaders are simply pawns. Whenever there’s a crash the public focuses on government while the central banks fade into the background and avoid all scrutiny.

Inflation Addiction And The Ultimate Catch-22

Inflation for banks is a tool for fiscal change, but also social change. It’s not a coincidence that financial crisis events always lead to more centralization of global power into fewer and fewer hands; this is by design. Inflation allows the establishment to delay or initiate a crisis with greater precision.

An even more powerful tool is the WITHHOLDING of stimulus and cheap money once an economy is addicted to the flow of fiat.

I have been arguing for many years that central banks were constructing a situation in which the system is utterly dependent on fiat stimulus in order to maintain the illusion of growth. If the bankers return to lower rates and QE, inflation will continue to explode. If they stay with higher rates and a trickle of stimulus then a global crash is inevitable.

It’s one or the other, there is no soft landing when trillions in money creation are at play in such a short period of time. Central banks must return to near zero rates and QE if they hope to prevent a debt implosion. This might seem like a soft landing scenario at first, but when CPI ramps up (as it is starting to now at the mere mention of rate cuts) consumers will be hit even harder.

I’ll ask this question once again because I don’t think some people are getting it: What if their goal is to create a crash?

The Great Global Slowdown Has Already Started

In the past six months both the World Trade Organization and the World Banks released statements warning of an impending global slowdown. After an initial surge in exports and imports caused by massive pandemic stimulus measures, the effects of the helicopter money are now fading. By the end of 2024, global trade will register the slowest growth since the 1990s.

The UN also suggested growth deceleration was coming in the next year due to falling investments and subdued global trade. Keep in mind that the alternative media has been warning about this outcome for the past couple years at least as covid funding dried up. Globalist institutions are simply informing the public at the last minute; too little, too late.

The World Bank asserts that global trade is flatlining and international trade data supports this theory. China’s export market plunged by 7.5% in March, far more than expected and well below the 2.3% decline predicted by a major poll of mainstream economists by Reuters.

By the end of 2023 European exports declined by 8.8% compared to a year earlier and the union barely avoided a recession (according to official numbers). All hopes in Europe rest on the possibility of a steeper drop in inflation and central bank interest rate cuts. As I have been saying since 2021, don’t get too excited about banks lowering rates. It’s not going to happen at the pace that investors want, it’s not going to bring back QE anytime soon and when they do cut rates CPI will immediately spike once again causing panic among consumers.

I suspect that, after an initial rate cut event and an inflation resurgence, central banks will return to tightening with even higher rates in 2025.

In the US, a net importer of goods rather than a primary exporter, consumer volume has been in steep decline. Due to inflation, Americans are buying less goods while paying more money. And this is how inflation skews economic data. Higher prices on goods make retail sales look great, but in reality people are simply paying a higher price for the same amount of products (or less products).

Consumer credit data shows a steep decline in debt spending; credit card delinquency is at all time highs, APR is at all time highs and debt growth has collapsed in the past couple of months. Considering that the American consumer is a primary driver of global exports, it makes sense that international trade is now plummeting. Consumers are broke. The covid stimulus party is officially over and inflation is dragging the market down.

The IMF has recently noted the signs of global slowdown but, as usual, they argue that a “soft landing” is imminent. In other words, they claim there will be no serious repercussions for the economy. They do mention one interesting caveat in their analysis – The danger of global conflicts “derailing” the supposed recovery.

War leads to rising protectionism, the IMF says, and protectionism is a big no-no. In a world economy based on forced interdependency this is partially true, but the bigger picture is being ignored. The world economy should be built on redundancy, not interdependency. Interdependency creates weakness and the potential for dangerous domino effects. This is a fact that globalists would never willingly admit to.

For now, it appears that the global slowdown will become undeniable in the next six months, either right before the US elections in November, or right after. Central banks have chosen to create this Catch-22 and they are, for whatever reason, stalling the big drop. My theory? They have a scapegoat (or scapegoats) in mind and they’re waiting for the right time to unleash the next chaotic event. Covid is gone, so they’re going to need a war, multiple wars, or political conflict in the west and in many other parts of the world as a distraction.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/08/2024 - 17:15