How Did Energy-Rich Pennsylvania Screw Up So Badly?

Authored by Athan Koutsiouroumbas via RealClearPennsylvania,

Pennsylvania was supposed to be the energy state that got it right.

Thanks to the Marcellus Shale formation, natural gas made Pennsylvania a net exporter of electricity. Fracking enabled Pennsylvania to power homes and industry not just here, but across the entire Mid-Atlantic. The state’s natural gas built modern power plants, attracted investment, and helped America move toward energy independence.

So how is it that Pennsylvanians are still paying more for electricity every year?

Over the past five years, electricity prices in Pennsylvania have risen 45%. It is a tick lower than the national average of a 46% price increase. However, that is hardly comforting when neighbors across the border, in states that import electricity from Pennsylvania, have seen smaller increases.

Let that sink in.

Four of the six states surrounding Pennsylvania buy electricity from us. Yet, somehow, their electric prices have risen less than ours. For a state that exports power, it is puzzling and unacceptable.

It gets worse. 

The state of Virginia relies on importing electricity from Pennsylvania. It is also home to more data centers than any other state. Yet, Virginia only saw its electricity rates increase at half as much as Pennsylvania’s despite being home to the energy-hungry industry. 

Pennsylvania sits at the center of the massive regional grid that keeps the lights on in thirteen states and Washington, D.C. The Keystone State produces more power than it uses. Incredulously, Pennsylvanians are stuck watching their electric bills rise. It is like owning a bakery and still paying more for bread.

The irony is that Pennsylvania has every advantage: abundant natural gas, modern generating capacity, and a location that makes it a key hub in the national energy market. What is missing is the advantage that should matter most: affordability.

Prices are not rising because Pennsylvania has run out of energy. Quite the contrary. Pennsylvania has decades, potentially centuries, worth of natural gas. It does not cost more to generate electricity. When adjusted for inflation, the cost to make an electron has declined 11% while the cost to send electrons to customers has increased 14%. That’s a wallet-busting 25 point spread.  

Prices are rising because regulation, transmission costs, and capacity auctions for potentially inflated demand are stacking fees on top of fuel. Somewhere between the wellhead and the wall outlet, efficiency has turned into bureaucracy.

Voters are noticing: 86% of likely voters are concerned about their electric bill. For example, a nearly a majority of digital ads are focused on defining who is to blame for New Jersey’s escalating electric prices in a heated, competitive race for governor. Just as many likely run on television.

Pennsylvania’s leaders would be wise to pay attention. Gov. Josh Shapiro, the entire state House, and half of the state Senate are up for re-election in 2026. Energy is already shaping up to be the pocketbook issue that connects inflation, regulation, and frustration all at once.

No talking point can fix the reality that families know they live in a state that exports power yet still see prices rising faster than their paychecks.

Steps are being taken to address the key issues. 

A bill was introduced this week to stop the double, and even triple, counting of the same pending data center projects which may be artificially inflating electricity prices. 

Projects ready to deliver electricity into the grid have languished in the operator’s bureaucracy for reasons unknown. Policymakers have applied pressure to compel the grid operator to approve proposed projects more quickly without sacrificing safety. 

Both parties agree that siting reform is necessary to bring more electric generation projects online. Gov. Shapiro’s proposal to create a new authority usurping local decision-making has met considerable pushback. Meanwhile, state Senate Republicans have advocated for a proposal that addresses NIMBY issues while expediting large-scale electric generation projects. 

Electricity is not just an economic metric.  It’s indicative of competence. 

People expect government to deliver basic things: safe roads, good schools, and affordable power. When those expectations are not met, trust continues to erode.

If our neighbors can buy our electricity more cheaply than Pennsylvanians can, something is wrong in Harrisburg. The fix is not complicated. Pennsylvania does not need more bureaucracy, more fees, or more rhetoric about “transition.”

If we can power half the East Coast, surely we can power Pennsylvania affordably.

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

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

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

Emergency / Camping water straw - cheaper than lifestraw with better filtering

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 15:15

Biden Gets Radiation, Hormone Treatment For Prostate Cancer

Former President Joe Biden has begun receiving a combination of radiation and hormone treatments for the 'aggressive' stage-4 prostate cancer that the best medical care on the planet apparently didn't detect until six months after the 2024 election. 

The Biden family announced in May that the 82-year-old's cancer had a Gleason score of 9 with metastasis to the bone - but said that his condition was hormone-sensitive and could be effectively managed. 

"As part of a treatment plan for prostate cancer, President Biden is currently undergoing radiation therapy and hormone treatment," aide Kelly Scully said Saturday. 

In September, Biden's office announced that he had also undergone surgery to cut away cancerous skin cells - while two years ago he had a basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer) removed from his chest while he was still in office. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, cancer has impacted other members of the Biden family over the years.

Former First Lady Jill Biden had a basal cell carcinoma surgically removed from above her right eye, and a second basal cell carcinoma removed from the left side of her chest in early 2023.

The president’s son, Beau Biden, died in 2015 from brain cancer. The elder Biden has routinely linked his son’s brain tumor to exposure to toxic burn pits during military deployments over the years.

“Cancer touches us all. Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support,” the former president wrote in a May 19 X post following the announcement of his prostate cancer diagnosis.

Biden launched a bid for reelection in 2024 on the Democratic Party ticket, but suspended his campaign on July 21, 2024, and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him. President Donald Trump went on to beat Harris and retake the White House.

Jacob Burg and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 14:40

Homan Says DOJ Probing Funding Behind 'Organized' Attacks On ICE

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Trump administration’s border czar, Tom Homan, said that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into the sources of funding for what he called “organized” attacks on federal immigration enforcement agents, amid escalating clashes in major so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.

White House border czar Tom Homan speaks with the media at the White House on June 30, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

In an interview on The Alex Marlow Show, Homan said the recent violence directed at ICE personnel and facilities in Portland, Los Angeles, and the Chicago suburb of Broadview goes beyond spontaneous protest and reflects coordinated logistics, including standardized gear and weaponry among demonstrators.

“Death threats, attacks up over 1,000 percent,” Homan said, attributing the escalation to “hateful rhetoric” by some media figures and politicians who compare ICE to Nazis or the Gestapo.

“You’ve got 300 people show up with the same masks, same shields, the same weapons … Are they all going to the same mini mart and buying the same stuff? No, that’s being supplied to them. They’re being paid to do this,” Homan said.

Homan said DOJ officials “are all over this” and are working to identify those who may be financing organized riots targeting federal officers.

Asked whether prosecutors are weighing the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes, Homan declined to comment, citing internal deliberations.

“They will find out who is funding this, and they will be held accountable,” he said, adding that the riots are “absolutely organized.”

The unrest is a response to heightened immigration enforcement actions under President Donald Trump, who has promised to stem illegal immigration and authorized federal surges into jurisdictions with sanctuary policies.

The administration has emphasized arrests of the “worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.” Recent ICE operations in Portland, for example, netted individuals convicted of fentanyl distribution, sexual abuse, and luring a minor.

“We’re out there enforcing the laws,” Homan said on The Alex Marlow Show.

“There’s no free pass here. If you’re here illegally, if you cross the border illegally, it’s a crime and we’re looking for you.”

Homan added that national enforcement initiatives are meant to send a “strong message,” deter unlawful crossings, and reinforce that every illegal immigrant remains subject to removal.

State and local leaders, however, have accused the administration of staging confrontations for political effect.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, whose state is seeking to block the federalization of National Guard units ordered to assist ICE, said the deployment of heavily equipped agents into urban areas is meant “to provoke something” rather than protect public safety.

“They’re wearing fatigues, they’re carrying long guns … downtown Chicago, Michigan Avenue. What is the purpose of that? It’s all a show,” Pritzker said at an Oct. 9 press conference.

Pritzker said most protests in Illinois have been peaceful and accused federal agents of targeting minorities in immigrant neighborhoods.

“To just grab random people because of the way they look and demand that they prove their citizenship is just wrong. So we’re gonna push back at every turn,” he said.

Legal challenges are mounting across several states. In Oregon, Gov. Tina Kotek moved to recall National Guard personnel after a federal judge ruled that Trump’s activation order violated the 10th Amendment. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson echoed concerns over “troubling and likely unconstitutional” tactics by federal personnel stationed outside ICE facilities.

In response to local leaders’ opposition, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials noted that their operations have resulted in a drop in apprehensions at the southwest border to the lowest level since 1970.

“We have had the most secure border in American history,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said, crediting enhanced enforcement powers and interagency coordination.

“Under President Trump, we have empowered and supported our law enforcement to do their job, and they have delivered.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 14:05

They're Baaack

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

They’re Baaack…

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

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

This Time is Different (not in a good way)

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

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

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

But that all potentially changed this week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is China Up To?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That mindset could be changing.

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

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

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

Bottom Line

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

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

If I’m right:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  * ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ALL YOU FENCE-SITTERS

Order by midnight PST: 

Steak Lover's Bundle (get 'For 4' for free shipping)

Carnivore Trio: Beef, Chicken & Pork

Sunday Supper Revival

Ground Beef + Seasoning Bundle

The rest!

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 12:55

IRS Releases 2026 Tax Adjustments, Changes Under 'Big, Beautiful Bill'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More via Fox News: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 12:20

Libertarian Realism: A Challenge To Empire

Authored by Joseph Solis-Mullen via The Libertarian Institute,

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

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

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

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

The late Justin Raimondo, co-founder and longtime editorial director of Antiwar.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 11:45

Where Homelessness Is More (& Less) Prevalent

At least 330 million people face absolute homelessness today, according to the Institute of Global Homelessness.

This means hundreds of millions of people are living without access to any kind of shelter. While homelessness is tough to track precisely on a global scale, and spans various forms including sleeping rough and residing in temporarily housed emergency shelters, the number of those experiencing it is rising every year.

The UN highlights that the crisis of shelter is even more widespread when taking into consideration the millions more who are facing rising housing costs, unaffordable rents, evictions, energy poverty and unsafe living conditions.

As Statista's Anna Fleck details below, using data from the OECD’s Affordable Housing Database, analyzed and published by Our World in Data, the prevalence of homelessness varies considerably by country.

You will find more infographics at Statista

England is at the top end of the spectrum with 426 households per 100,000 reported to be experiencing homelessness in 2023.

England was the only country to report in terms of households, all other OECD countries reported in terms of people per 100,000 population.

France too registered high rates of homelessness at last count (2022), with 307 people per 100,000 population facing it, the vast majority of whom were staying in temporary accommodation or shelters, compared to living on the street.

By contrast, people in the United States face a comparatively high risk of experiencing street homelessness, with 76 people per 100,000 living on the streets.

There too, it was more common for people to be staying in temporary accommodation or shelters, at 213 people per 100,000.

Japan had the lowest rate of people experiencing homelessness of the countries studied. However, the country only reported data on the category of those living on the streets and so it is difficult to compare fairly.

This data was collected using a method called point-in-time count, carried out over one day/night and therefore presents a "snapshot" of the situation at a specific time for each country, rather than a definitive number of people affected by homelessness.

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 08:45

Evonik CEO Kullmann Calls For End Of CO₂ Cult: Wake-Up Call For Europe's Economy

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

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

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

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

Industrial Collapse

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

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

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

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

The EU: An Expensive Affair

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

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

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

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

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

Spain as a Counterpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using the Crisis

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

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

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

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

* * * 

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

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 08:10

Want A Second Passport? These 13 Countries Let You Buy Citizenship

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

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

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

Data & Discussion

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

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

The More Affordable Options

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

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

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

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

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

Mid-Tier Investment Thresholds

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

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

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

• Acquire $400,000 worth of real estate

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

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

High-End Citizenship Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 07:35

Baltic States Prepare Mass Evacuation Plans Amid Growing Fears Of Russian Attack

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/12/2025 - 07:00

Teenagers Must Be Warned About The Dystopia Being Built Around Them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I have written 2030.

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

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

A Note on Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1: The Digital Prison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 23:20

Over 1 Billion People Live In Slums

Each year, the first Monday of October marks World Habitat Day, which aims to reflect on the state of towns and cities, and on the right of all to adequate shelter.

The share of people living in urban areas is expected to continue growing in the coming decades.

According to United Nations estimates, 57 percent of the world's population now lives in cities, but this figure could rise to 68 percent by 2050, driven by continued urbanisation in Asia and Africa.

However, in these regions of the world, urban growth is often forced and unplanned, with inadequate or failing infrastructure.

As a result, much of the urban expansion takes place in slums, areas of self-built, unsanitary housing where extreme poverty is rife.

Over the past 20 years, the United Nations estimates that the number of people living in slums has risen from 895 million to 1.1 billion.

As Statista's Valentine Fourreau shows in the chart below, the regions where city dwellers are most exposed to these harmful living conditions are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where it is estimated that around 50 percent of the urban population lived in slums in 2022 (compared to 23 percent globally).

You will find more infographics at Statista

As the map shows, this rate rises to more than two out of three city dwellers in countries such as South Sudan (94.2 percent), Mali (92.5 percent) or Afghanistan (71.6 percent).

The share of the urban population living in slums was higher than 50 percent in Pakistan and Laos. In India, around 41.5 percent of the urban population lived in slums in 2022, down from 55 percent since 2002.

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 22:45

The Recent Sino-US Dispute Over Taiwan's Post-WWII Status Is A Sign Of The Times

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan emailed Reuters a statement in mid-September criticizing China’s reliance on WWII-era agreements in support of its claim to the island.

They declared that “China intentionally mischaracterises World War Two-era documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of San Francisco, to try to support its coercive campaign to subjugate Taiwan.” The latest twist in this dispute coincides with the 80th anniversary of Japan’s defeat.

For background, the 1943 Cairo Declaration states that Formosa (Taiwan’s colonial-era name) will be returned to the Republic of China (ROC); the 1945 Potsdam Declaration references Cairo and limits the geographic scope of Japanese sovereignty without mentioning Formosa; and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco resulted in Japan officially renouncing its claim to Formosa while leaving its status unresolved. The ROC’s and People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) interpretations thereof will now be briefly summarized.

The Taiwan-based ROC considers itself to be China’s only legitimate government since it represents the League of Nations-recognized ROC despite that erstwhile organization’s UN successor expelling them in 1971 and replacing their permanent Security Council seat with the PRC. It thus interprets the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations as confirming its control over Taiwan while the PRC relies on the aforesaid decision, which recognized it as the only legitimate representative of China, to legally claim Taiwan.

The significance of the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan criticizing China’s (formally the PRC’s) reliance on these WWII-era agreements (Reuters reminded readers that it considers the Treaty of San Francisco “illegal and invalid” since it wasn’t party to it) is that it’s a sign of the times. As the New Cold War shifts from the US prioritizing Russia’s containment in Europe to China’s containment in Asia, so too is the trend of the US gradually revising the results of WWII in order to give it an edge on that front too.

Russia believes that Germany’s remilitarization, Finland’s membership in NATO, and the push for neutral Austria to follow, all of which are backed by the US, prove that the US is gradually revising the results of WWII. Likewise, so too does it believe that Japan’s US-backed remilitarization is proof of the same, the view of which China shares as well. It was therefore predictable that the US would one day start to more assertively challenge China’s reliance on WWII-era agreements in support of its claim to Taiwan.

The world order always changes as history attests, but in these instances, associated processes are being weaponized by the US for containment purposes vis-à-vis what can nowadays be described as the Sino-Russo Entente in order to justify more aggressive policies against them on false legal bases. Permanent UNSC members Russia and China obviously wouldn’t agree to the abovementioned revisions, hence why the US is backing them unilaterally, which further accelerates the collapse of the post-WWII order.

The ideal scenario as envisaged in the UN Charter is for the UNSC to jointly pioneer a controlled transition to a new order that preserves the balance of power between them so as to reduce the risk of conflict during this period. That became impossible after the US’ unilateral withdrawal from arms control pacts with Russia dismantled the global security architecture, however, which inevitably led to it gradually revising the results of WWII and dangerously raising tensions with the Sino-Russo Entente.

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 22:10

US Foreclosure Filings Jumped 17% In Q3

There were 101,513 properties with foreclosure filings across the United States during the third quarter of 2025, up by 17 percent from a year back, real estate analytics company ATTOM said in an Oct. 9 statement.

One in every 1,402 housing units nationwide saw a foreclosure filing in Q3, the company said. Florida had the highest foreclosure rate, with one in every 814 housing units having a foreclosure filing. This was followed by Nevada, South Carolina, Illinois, and Delaware.

Among 225 metropolitan statistical areas with a population of at least 200,000 individuals, the highest foreclosure rate was seen in Lakeland in Florida, followed by Columbia in South Carolina, Cape Coral in Florida, Cleveland in Ohio, and Ocala in Florida.

As Naveen Athrappully reports for The Epoch Times, during the first half of 2025, there were a total of 187,659 foreclosure filings made, up 5.8 percent from a year back, according to ATTOM.

“In 2025, we’ve seen a consistent pattern of foreclosure activity trending higher, with both starts and completions posting year-over-year increases for consecutive quarters,” said Rob Barber, CEO at ATTOM.

“While these figures remain within a historically reasonable range, the persistence of this trend could be an early indicator of emerging borrower strain in some areas.”

Together with a jump in foreclosure filings, the third quarter also saw the average time to foreclose a property decline by 25 percent from a year back, ATTOM said, adding that this continues a downward trend from mid-2020.

In a June 26 statement, credit scoring model company VantageScore reported that mortgage delinquencies rose in May from the previous month, suggesting this could be an early sign of financial stress among borrowers in the housing sector.

“While consumer behavior generally remains positive, particularly among younger borrowers, mortgages may be an area to watch for increasing credit stress, particularly for traditionally less-risky segments with credit scores above VantageScore 660,” Susan Fahy, chief digital officer at VantageScore, said at the time.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported similar trends in an Aug. 5 statement, highlighting that 1.29 percent of mortgage debts were in serious delinquency—90 days or more—in the second quarter of 2025, up from 0.95 percent in Q2, 2024.

However, Joelle Scally, economic policy advisor at the New York Fed, said that despite the increase in mortgage delinquency, the overall mortgage performance “remains strong by historical standards.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers have taken various actions to tackle foreclosure threats facing Americans.

In March, the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act was introduced by Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.). The Act eventually passed both chambers of Congress and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 30.

The bill aims to financially assist military veterans when it comes to making their home payments in an environment of elevated mortgage rates, thereby avoiding foreclosures.

“The VA Home Loan program has helped millions of veterans achieve the American Dream of owning a home. However, we know that veterans—like all Americans—can fall on hard times and may need a safety net in place to avoid foreclosure on their home,” Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in a July 16 statement.

“The VA Home Loan Program Reform Act addresses that need head on.”

This week, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) led a group of senators to introduce the Federal Employee Civil Relief Act to protect federal workers and contractor employees, as well as their families, from facing difficulties such as foreclosure or evictions during the ongoing government shutdown, the lawmaker’s office said in an Oct. 8 statement.

This protection will last during the shutdown and 30 days after it so as to “give workers a chance to keep up with their bills,” it said.

In a government shutdown, certain employees deemed to be performing essential work are required to continue working without pay, including law enforcement officers, air traffic controllers, and military personnel.

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 21:35

Antifa Is Threatening Families Of Law Enforcement: Homeland Security

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Family members of law enforcement officers are facing threats from individuals affiliated with the far-left extremist group Antifa, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in an Oct. 10 X post.

“Antifa terrorists are threatening the families of our law enforcement. We will hunt these sickos down and put them behind bars,” the post said. “In Texas, the spouse of an ICE officer received a voicemail filled with violent threats.”

The agency uploaded an audio clip of the threat received by the spouse, in which a woman can be heard using expletives against the wife of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, comparing them to Nazis.

“Did you hear what happened to the Nazis after World War II? Because that’s what’s going to happen to your family,” the caller said in the expletive-filled message.

In an Oct. 10 X post, the White House said Antifa is a radical terror group explicitly calling for the overthrow of the American government.

“Under the Trump Administration, Antifa’s days are over,” it said.

The post included a video of several officials and personalities detailing threats posed by the group.

For instance, conservative influencer Cam Higby reported he was “brutally attacked and almost killed” by Antifa in Seattle and that all of his colleagues have faced violence.

In the video, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Antifa attacked police stations, attacked court houses, and doxxed law enforcement officers. “They are a terrorist group and we are coming after them,” she said.

Antifa is a far-left extremist group originating in the Soviet Union and is known for committing politically motivated violence against their opponents, whom the group typically labels as fascists.

President Donald Trump designated Antifa a domestic terrorist organization in a Sept. 22 executive order, calling the group a “militarist, anarchist enterprise” that uses campaigns of violence and terrorism to accomplish its goal of overthrowing the U.S. government and the system of law.

“Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity,” said the order.

The group then employs “elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members.”

During a roundtable discussion at the White House on Oct. 7, several journalists assaulted by Antifa shared their experiences. One journalist, Andy Ngo, senior editor at The Post Millennial, recounted being attacked by members of the group in 2019 and 2021.

Talking about an assault in Portland, Ngo said, “That was my only near-death experience in my life, and I’m quite shaken when I think about it now.”

At the event, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Antifa members do not just want to threaten law enforcement officers but also want to kill them.

FBI Director Kash Patel said disrupting Antifa’s funding was a priority and the agency will not rest until it finds every single donor and funding mechanism used by the terror outfit.

Trump vowed to take strong action against the group. “We’re going to be very threatening to them, far more threatening to them than they ever were with us,” he said. “And that includes the people that fund them.”

Cracking Down on Antifa

In a Sept. 26 statement, the DHS said it was fighting back against Antifa violence and arrested dozens of “left-wing violent extremists” aligned to the group that have attacked law enforcement officials, killed civilians, and triggered riots across the country.

Such arrests include a 36-year-old citizen suspected of making a bomb threat on the ICE Dallas Field Office; extremists who ambushed and shot officers at the ICE facility in Prairieland, Texas; and an extremist who attempted to run over a Border Patrol agent with their car, DHS said.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said federal law enforcement personnel have seen a 1,000 percent increase in assaults against them. However, this hasn’t stopped officers from upholding the rule of law, she said.

“Antifa and their friends haven’t stopped us. They’re not even slowing us down,” McLaughlin said.

Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terror outfit has also drawn criticism.

In a Sept. 22 statement, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) said the U.S. government has never named a domestic terrorist organization in the history of the United States. Designating Antifa as such, which he said has no defined organizational structure or leadership, is “incorrect,” he said.

“It serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone—or any group—they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist,” Thompson said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced the Stop ANTIFA Act last month, aiming to codify Trump’s executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terror group, the lawmaker’s office said in a Sept. 30 statement.

The bill instructs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force to treat the group as domestic terrorists and put a stop to the outfit’s violent suppression of political speech and its destruction of the rule of law.

“Antifa has gotten away with its evils and terrorized cities across our country for far too long,” Scott said.

“President Trump was right to fearlessly call them out as the domestic terrorists they are and to take action to stop their evils around the nation and uncover the funding behind it. I am proud to codify the president’s actions.”

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 21:00

Hamas Says Tony Blair Not Welcome In Gaza Following Ceasefire

Via Middle East Eye

Hamas has warned that Tony Blair would not be welcome in any role in governing Gaza following the commencement of a ceasefire in the enclave. Speaking to Sky News, senior Hamas official Basem Naim said he welcomed US President Donald Trump's involvement in bringing about an end to the two-year war.

However, he said that there could be no role for the former British prime minister in the governance of Gaza, despite Trump's previously announced support for Blair's involvement. "When it comes to Tony Blair, unfortunately, we Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, and maybe others around the world have bad memories of him," Naim said. "We can still remember his role in killing, causing thousands or millions of deaths to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq."

As official envoy for the Middle East Quartet (US, Russia, European Union and UN) between 2007 and 2015, Blair was also previously tasked with attempting to bring about a solution to the Palestine-Israel question, something he was unable to achieve.

Last month, various media outlets reported that Blair was in discussions to lead a transitional authority in the Gaza Strip as part of a US-backed plan for post-war governance. The plan would establish a transitional authority in Gaza for up to five years, excluding both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

Under the reported proposal, the authority would hold "supreme political and legal authority" over Gaza during the interim period. Hamas has rejected the involvement of Blair in governing Gaza, citing in part his previous failures in the region.

Thousands of Palestinians began returning to northern Gaza on Friday after a ceasefire took effect, following Israel and Hamas's approval of a deal to "end the war" and exchange prisoners.

The Israeli military said the ceasefire officially began at 12pm local time (9am GMT) after the completion of its withdrawal to agreed-upon lines of the first phase. There was no immediate comment from Hamas. The Israeli government ratified the agreement on Friday morning, just hours after Hamas announced that a deal had been reached.

Israel's public broadcaster, Kan, on Thursday published a leaked copy of the agreement's first phase signed in Egypt, which states that the war would "immediately end" once approved by Israel.

Trump is expected to visit Egypt over the weekend to attend an official signing ceremony, followed by a visit to Israel on Monday. 

On Thursday, Hamas chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya confirmed that the Palestinian movement had also approved the agreement to end the war. He added that the United States and other mediators had provided guarantees that the signing of the deal would mean the war "has ended indefinitely".

However, Israeli air strikes, artillery fire and gunfire were reported in Gaza City and Khan Younis on Friday morning. No injuries were reported.

Israeli forces also carried out bombings in Gaza on Thursday, after mediators announced a deal had been reached, killing at least eight Palestinians.

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 19:50

Anduril Founder Urges Rapid Reindustrialization As U.S. Defense Supply Chain Remains Alarmingly Reliant On China

China's latest decision to expand rare earth export controls, adding holmium, erbium, thulium, europium, and ytterbium to the restricted list just days ago, serves as yet another wake-up call for the Trump administration and Washignton as a whole. The U.S. remains dangerously dependent on China, the world's largest producer of rare earths, for these critical minerals that are essential inputs into the manufacturing of drones, humanoid robots, EVs, and advanced weaponry. 

Anduril Industries founder Palmer Luckey sat down with Bloomberg on Friday to discuss how America's defense supply chains are dangerously reliant on China. He said the U.S. must urgently "reindustrialize" and rebuild its capacity to produce rare earths, semiconductors, and advanced computing hardware domestically if it wants to survive the 2030s. 

"I mean, the reality is that our interests are relatively divergent at this point," Luckey said, referencing President Trump's late tariff threats (read here) against Being. "We need to make our own chips, our own computers, our own products downstream. China has a lot of leverage right now, and that makes it very hard to negotiate. They do have a lot of leverage right now, and so it's very hard to make deals with them. I think it's actually healthy for the US-China relationship for it not to be so dependent on China right now."

Luckey noted that Anduril, one of the fastest-growing defense technology startups in the U.S, has been heavily sanctioned by China, forcing it to eliminate all supply chain exposure in China. 

"Remember that we are sanctioned by China. Remember that our executives are personally sanctioned by China. And so we have we can't we're not doing this for you to leverage or negotiating reasons. We have to get off of the Chinese supply chain and not just things that are literally made in China, but even things that are dependent on China," he said. 

Given that China holds considerable leverage in the ongoing trade war, there's an ongoing risk that Beijing could abruptly sanction a major U.S. defense contractor, triggering supply chain disruptions for critical weapons, such as advanced, man-portable, anti-tank guided missile systems. Such an event could prove devastating for America's global military posturing and its active operations around the world that depend on these defense systems.

"It's the broader economy and maybe some other defense companies, if you can believe it, there's lots of us defense companies that haven't been sanctioned by China and therefore they haven't had the foresight to go and build it," Luckey said. 

However, there is some good news: The Trump administration recently created another mining juggernaut, this time with mining projects in Alaska run by Trilogy Metals, and followed its new stake in Lithium Americas Corp., which is developing the Thacker Pass lithium project in Nevada. In July, the U.S. Defense Department agreed to a $400 million equity investment in MP Materials Corp. to fund a plant for rare-earth magnets. It is expected to do the same with USA Resources. 

There's certainly a race against time to secure supply chains before 2030. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 19:15

Purge Politics: Jeffries Pledges Legal Retaliation When Democrats Take Power

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

On MSNBC’s “All In,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) doubled down on his pledge of legal retaliation against Trump officials and associates if Democrats retake power. 

He noted that Trump “sycophants” in the Department of Justice do not have immunity and will be pursued. The statement comes after the indictment of Letitia James for mortgage fraud. The statement suggests that the country could be in store for waves of purge politics in which parties fire or prosecute officials from the prior administration.

The comments come after the charging of Letitia James for mortgage fraud, a move widely viewed as retaliation for her own lawfare record.

On the program, Jeffries was asked about his prior threats of tit-for-tat actions against Trump supporters or enablers.

Host Chris Hayes noted:

“You put a statement out in response to the news of Tish James’s indictment, in which you said, among other things, that those sycophants who aid and abet the president’s schemes will not be able to hide from serious legal consequences of their behavior. They will be held accountable. What do you mean by that?”

Jeffries responded that

“there are so many different corrupt sycophants within the Trump administration, including, but not limited to within the Department of Justice. Now, these people don’t have immunity. And the reality is the statute of limitations is five years, and there will be accountability with the next administration, if not before, when Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives.”

In the meantime, James is claiming victim status in the indictment despite being lawfare’s happiest warrior, who ran on a pledge to nail Trump if elected (without bothering to specify what that crime or offense might be).

James is declaring, “I am fearless.” She is also shameless.

I have been critical of some of these cases, which followed a social media posting in which Trump chastised the Justice Department for not indicting a list of political opponents. Within days, Comey and James were indicted. That posting will feature prominently in the challenges to be filed for vindictive prosecution by both defendants. James is likely to raise the resignation of former acting U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert, who reportedly was forced out after objecting to the basis for indicting James.

Jeffries’ pledge suggests that cycles of purge politics are likely to continue unabated in this country.

*  *  * New Deal: We want you to check out Ultra Testosterone Booster, so here's some for free with Male Enhancement...

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 18:40

San Fran Leftists Triggered As Tech Billionaire Calls For National Guard Troops

A long-left-leaning billionaire philanthropist has triggered San Francisco politicians by praising President Trump's performance in office -- and even more so by urging Trump to deploy National Guard soldiers to suppress the city's rampant criminality.

"I fully support the president," said Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff in an interview with the New York Times. "I think he’s doing a great job." That puts Benioff at stark odds with his fellow San Franciscans: In a June Public Policy Institute of California poll, 77% of Bay Area residents disapproved of Trump's performance. Benioff recounted his recent honor of sitting across a table from Trump at a state dinner hosted by King Charles at Windsor Castle, and said he used the dinner to tell Trump “how grateful I am for everything he’s doing.”

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff (right) is godfather to one of California Gov. Gavin Newsom's children (Bloomberg/Getty via Los Angeles Times)

The Times notes that Benioff, a major benefactor of San Francisco, has leaned toward the left side of the spectrum -- for example, urging other business leaders to help the homeless rather than gripe about their existence. Now, however, as homeless, drugged-out criminals are destroying San Francisco, he's ready for soldiers and Humvees to pour into the city he says is woefully under-policed -- figuring it needs another 1,000 cops on top of the 1,500 that are currently on the force. 

The situation has compelled Benioff to take matters into his own hands, where his upcoming Dreamforce conference is concerned: He's hiring hundreds of off-duty cops to secure the area around the San Francisco convention area. “You’ll see. When you walk through San Francisco next week, there will be cops on every corner,” Benioff said. “That’s how it used to be.” Until the city's police force is beefed up, Benioff endorses the use of National Guard soldiers. “We don’t have enough cops, so if they can be cops, I’m all for it,” he said. 

State Sen. Scott Wiener says San Francisco doesn't need "an illegal military occupation," but this photo of him seems to argue otherwise (Wiener Instagram)

That's a particularly interesting stance, given Benioff is close friends with California Gov. Gavin Newsom -- so close, in fact, that Benioff is a godfather to one of the Newsom's children. As Benioff endorses Trump deployment of National Guard troops to San Francisco, Newsom is suing the Trump administration over the deployment of Guard soldiers to Los Angeles. Benioff's left-leaning resume also includes his hosting of a major 2016 fundraiser for Hillary Clinton at his $31 million mansion alongside the Presidio, and his personal bankrolling of a city ballot measure to raise taxes on businesses to fund welfare for the homeless.  

"This is a slap in the face to San Francisco," Matt Dorsey, a member of the city's Board of Supervisors, wrote on X. "It’s insulting to our cops, and it’s honestly galling to those of us who’ve been fighting hard over the last few years to fully staff our [police department]...We don't NEED the National Guard here." State Sen. Scott Wiener, who's best known for pushing the LGBTQ agenda, chimed in, saying "We neither need nor want an illegal military occupation in San Francisco.” Assemblyman Matt Haney decried Benioff's "support [of] a direct assault and occupation of our city," while the Times described San Francisco DA Brooke Jenkins as "livid" over Benioff's stance on troops. 

To be fair to him, how could Benioff have anticipated that taxing all the businesses and giving the $$ to vagrants would result in many fewer businesses and many more vagrants?

— Moses Kagan (@moseskagan) October 11, 2025

It's safe to say a Benioff aide anticipated the backlash: The Times story about the phone interview with him aboard his private plane concludes in amusing fashion: 

At the end of the interview, he turned to a public relations executive. He could be heard asking why her mouth was wide open and if he had said anything he shouldn’t have. “What about the political questions?” he asked. “Too spicy?” Then he hung up. 

San Francisco Mayor last month: There will no longer be an option for people to sleep and use drugs on our streets.

San Francisco today:
https://t.co/0RAkC3h8Mg

— Kevin Dalton (@TheKevinDalton) October 11, 2025

In August, Trump teased the possibility of sending troops to San Francisco, telling reporters in the Oval Office, “You look at what the Democrats have done to San Francisco — they’ve destroyed it...we’ll clean that one up, too.”

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 18:05

No Crying In The Casino

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Browsing social media last night and this morning, I was greeted with dozens of examples of people posting their “loss porn,” as the Reddit traders would call it, with one P/L after another showing huge losses.

Some traders posted ominous things about blowing up their crypto accounts, forced liquidations, and massive losses. Some even also posted, insinuating they were considering self-harm. I posted some examples on my blog here.

Let’s assume half of these posts are people joking around, and the other half are dead serious. That would be alarming. And so, this weekend is a good time to remember a couple important lessons.

First is the fact that things can change any day in the market without notice—as I have been saying for years and explained in my comprehensive wrap-up yesterday after the market closed: The Columbus Day Massacre: My Thoughts

If you’ve been spending the last five years patting yourself on the back over what a genius you are because you have minted it in cryptocurrencies or equities that are trading at 10,000x sales with no net income, perhaps you should reconsider taking to the public forum to air your grievances with how you’ve managed your capital on one particular day.

If you’ve spent the last decade shit-posting seasoned investors like Jim Chanos or Peter Schiff on Twitter and just can’t figure out why they can’t see things your way because you’ve always been right, now would be a good place to see if any of their skepticism or warnings about markets can make their way through your blood-brain barrier.

If you got smacked around on Friday but didn’t take a total loss, turn a shitty day into an asset by starting to tell yourself the honest truth—you don’t know everything, and none of us do—instead of whatever lie you’ve been telling yourself about how you’re going to be able to outperform forever because you happen to have caught the tail end of a nominal hyperinflationary boom that could very well end in the United States dollar dying while your ego portion of your brain was still mushy and developing, like an infant’s skull.

"From time to time, everybody goes bust..."

It’s a great weekend to ask yourself, “Am I quickly disregarding fraud warnings about a company issued by a man who teaches a class on fraud at Yale and who called Enron’s collapse ahead of time?”

Or, “Am I quick to ridicule someone’s stance on Bitcoin or gold, despite the fact they’ve been in the game for decades and have amassed enormous personal wealth and one of the best grasps of free-market economics out of anybody in finance today?”

If the answer is yes to either of these, maybe it’s time to act a little less like a hyena and a little more like an adult. Buck up. Act like you’ve been here before. Take the pain. Learn from the pain. Come back better.

After all, the stock market is an adult game with real wins and real losses.

Third, assuming that half of posts like these are real it’s stunning to see, after simply one 3% drawdown in the market—after we have done nothing but rage to all-time highs nonstop since the market plunge in April.

It is proof positive that investors have been seduced with insanely unrealistic expectations about risk and how markets work — as I wrote in February: This Next Market Crash Will Break Our Fragile Brains

This, as I have been saying for years, is a product of batshit insane monetary policy—which is set based on keeping the stock market at all-time highs, regardless of the two supposed mandates that the Fed has.

Everybody who has been in markets for a couple of decades has learned these lessons the hard way. Nobody knows more about being an arrogant, hubris-filled dickhead and getting a comeuppance multiple times more than I do. At some point, the market humbles you; you throw your hands in the air and surrender to the idea that there are people who know more than you, and that the market and its external driving factors are things that are going to be impossible to always predict.

When I was clearing out my old podcast episodes at the beginning of the year, when I decided I wasn’t going to do the podcast anymore, I left a few up for good measure—a few of my select favorites. One of them was a podcast I did with my friend Sang Lucci about blowing up your trading account, how often we’ve done it, and how it is a rite of passage along the way. Skip to about 25 minutes in when we get to it. I left it up in hopes that anybody going through the same thing we had gone through could take some comfort in listening to it.

Finally, to the extent posts about self-harm online are serious, I want to speak directly to anybody who’s having such feelings and reassure them we’ve all been there and they are not alone. They can always DM me on Twitter, shoot me a message on Substack, or contact me through other means, and I’ll try to do my best to remind them that, as Joey Knish says in Rounders, it’s not the end of the world. “From time to time, everybody goes bust.”

This is the game we choose. Money is not the end of the world and should never be. Would anybody choose to live or die over it, although I realize that’s not the way the world works?

And to my longtime followers—what does it say that I’m writing posts urging people thinking about doing the unthinkable not to do so over one 3% drawdown?

This is exactly the type of situation I’ve been talking about for years: an unexpected move lower in markets at a time when investors are the least mentally prepared to ever handle it. Hope everybody keeps their head on a swivel and ducks and weaves their way through any continuing volatility this coming week.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Sat, 10/11/2025 - 17:30