zerohedge

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

With Thanksgiving weekend still fresh in our memory, my gratitude centers not on the usual holiday platitudes, but on something that has become increasingly precious in our artificial age: authentic relationships – both family and lifelong friends – that deepen rather than fracture under pressure. What binds these relationships, I’ve come to realize, isn’t shared opinions or circumstances, but a shared code – an unwavering commitment to principles that transcends the shifting sands of politics and social pressure. I’m particularly grateful for my inner circle – friends I’ve known since elementary school and family members whose bonds have only strengthened through the crucible of recent years.

Like many others who spoke out against Covid tyranny, I watched what I thought were solid relationships dissolve in real time. As the owner of a local brewery and coach of my kids’ sports teams, I had been deeply embedded in my community – a “man about town” whose friendship and counsel others actively sought. Yet suddenly, the same people who had eagerly engaged with me would scurry when they saw me coming down the street. Professional networks and neighborhood connections evaporated at the mere questioning of prevailing narratives. They reacted this way because I broke orthodoxy, choosing to stand for liberal values – the very principles they claimed to champion – by rejecting arbitrary mandates and restrictions.

In this moment of testing, the difference between those who lived by a consistent code and those who simply followed social currents became starkly clear. Yet in retrospect, this winnowing feels more like clarification than loss. As surface-level relationships fell away, my core relationships – decades-long friendships and family bonds – not only endured but deepened. These trials revealed which bonds were authentic and which were merely situational.

The friendships that remained, anchored in genuine principles rather than social convenience, proved themselves infinitely more valuable than the broader network of fair-weather friends I lost.

What strikes me most about these enduring friendships is how they’ve defied the typical narrative of relationships destroyed by political divisions. As Marcus Aurelius observed, “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” Despite taking opposite sides of the dialectic on political and cultural issues over the decades, we found ourselves united in opposition to the constitutional transgressions and rising tyranny of the past few years – the lockdowns, mandates, and systematic erosion of basic rights. This unity emerged not from political alignment but from a shared code: a commitment to first principles that transcends partisan divisions.

In these contemplative moments, I’ve found myself returning to Aurelius’s Meditations – a book I hadn’t opened since college until Joe Rogan and Marc Andreessen’s excellent conversation inspired me to revisit it. Aurelius understood that a personal code – a set of unwavering principles – was essential for navigating a world of chaos and uncertainty. The connection feels particularly apt – like my own friend group, Rogan’s platform exemplifies a code of authentic discourse in our age.

Critics, particularly on the political left, often talk about needing their “own Joe Rogan,” missing entirely what makes his show work: its genuine authenticity. Despite being historically left-leaning himself, Rogan’s willingness to engage in real-time thinking with guests across the ideological spectrum and across a broad variety of topics, his commitment to open inquiry and truth-seeking, has paradoxically led to his estrangement from traditional liberal circles – much like many of us who’ve found ourselves branded as apostates for maintaining consistent principles.

This commitment to a code of authentic discourse explains why organizations like Brownstone Institute – despite being routinely smeared as “far right” – have become a crucial platform for independent scholars, policy experts, and truth-seekers. I witnessed this firsthand at a recent Brownstone event, where, unlike most institutions that enforce ideological conformity, diverse thinkers engaged in genuine exploration of ideas without fear of orthodoxy enforcement. When attendees were asked if they considered themselves political liberals ten years ago, nearly 80% raised their hands.

These are individuals who, like my friends and me, still embrace core liberal values – free speech, open inquiry, rational debate – yet find themselves branded as right-wing or conspiracy theorists merely for questioning prevailing narratives.

What unites this diverse community is their shared recognition that the reality being presented to us is largely manufactured, as explored in “The Information Factory,” and their commitment to maintaining authentic discourse in an age of enforced consensus.

In The Wire, Omar Little, a complex character who lived by his own moral code while operating outside conventional society, famously declared, “A man got to have a code.” Though a stick-up man targeting drug dealers, Omar’s rigid adherence to his principles – never harming civilians, never lying, never breaking his word – made him more honorable than many supposedly “legitimate” characters. His unwavering dedication to these principles – even as a gangster operating outside society’s laws – resonates deeply with my experience.

Like Rogan’s commitment to open dialogue, like Brownstone’s dedication to free inquiry, like RFK Jr.’s determination to expose how pharmaceutical and agricultural interests have corrupted our public institutions: these exemplars of authentic truth-seeking mirror what I’ve found in my own circle. My friends and I may have different political views, but we share a code: a commitment to truth over comfort, to principle over party, to authentic discourse over social approval. This shared foundation has proven more valuable than any superficial agreement could be.

In these times of manufactured consensus and social control, the importance of this authentic foundation becomes even clearer. The 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which made it legal to propagandize American citizens, merely formalized what many had long suspected. It represented the ultimate betrayal of the government’s code with its citizens – the explicit permission to manipulate rather than inform. As anyone not under the spell has come to realize – we’ve all been thoroughly “Smith-Mundt’ed.” This legal framework helps explain much of what we’ve witnessed in recent years, particularly during the pandemic – when those who proclaimed themselves champions of social justice supported policies that created new forms of segregation and devastated the very communities they claimed to protect.

This disconnect becomes even more apparent in the realm of charitable giving and social causes, where “virtue laundering” has become endemic. The absence of a genuine moral code is nowhere more evident than in our largest charitable institutions. While many charitable organizations do crucial work at the local level, there’s an unmistakable trend among large NGOs toward what a friend aptly calls the “philanthropath class.”

Consider the Clinton Foundation’s activities in Haiti, where millions in earthquake relief funds resulted in industrial parks that displaced farmers and housing projects that never materialized. Or examine the BLM Global Network Foundation, which purchased luxury properties while local chapters reported receiving minimal support. Even major environmental NGOs often partner with the world’s biggest polluters, creating an illusion of progress while fundamental problems persist.

This pattern reveals a deeper truth about the professional charitable class – many of these institutions have become purely extractive, profiting from and even amplifying the very issues they purport to solve. At the top, a professional philanthropic class collects fancy titles in their bios and flashes photos from charity galas while avoiding any genuine engagement with the problems they claim to address. Social media has democratized this performance, allowing everyone to participate in virtue theater – from black squares and Ukrainian flag avatars to awareness ribbons and cause-supporting emojis – creating an illusion of activism without the substance of real action or understanding. It’s a system entirely devoid of the moral code that once guided charitable work – the direct connection between benefactor and beneficiary, the genuine commitment to positive change rather than personal aggrandizement.

The power of a genuine code becomes most evident in contrast with these hollow institutions. While organizations and social networks fracture under pressure, I’m fortunate that my closest friendships and family bonds have only grown stronger. We’ve had fierce debates over the years, but our shared commitment to fundamental principles – to having a code – has allowed us to navigate even the most turbulent waters together. When the pandemic response threatened basic constitutional rights, when social pressure demanded conformity over conscience, these relationships proved their worth not despite our differences, but because of them.

As we navigate these complex times, the path forward emerges with striking clarity. From Marcus Aurelius to Omar Little, the lesson remains the same: a man gotta have a code. The crisis of authenticity in our discourse, the chasm between proclaimed and lived values, and the failure of global virtue-signaling all point to the same solution: a return to genuine relationships and local engagement. Our strongest bonds – those real relationships that have weathered recent storms – remind us that true virtue manifests in daily choices and personal costs, not in digital badges or distant donations.

This Thanksgiving, I found myself grateful not for the easy comforts of conformity but for those in my life who demonstrate real virtue – the kind that comes with personal cost and requires genuine conviction. The answer lies not in grand gestures or viral posts, but in the quiet dignity of living according to our principles, engaging with our immediate communities, and maintaining the courage to think independently. As both the emperor-philosopher and the fictional street warrior understood, what matters isn’t the grandeur of our station but the integrity of our code.

Returning one final time to Meditations, I’m reminded of Aurelius’s timeless challenge: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

Authored by Seth Barron via RealClearPolitics,

The Biden-Harris experiment in dissolving the U.S. border has wrought massive changes to American society, most of which will not be understood for years, if not decades. Since 2021, U.S. border officials have had at least 10 million “encounters” with migrants, many of whom were allowed to enter the country. There is no telling how many more aliens entered the country without encountering enforcement agents. The population of the United States may have increased by as much as 15 million people in just a few years.

This massive flow of humanity crosses multiple national borders, involves every mode of transportation, accounts for billions of dollars paid in fees to smugglers, and describes a fantastically complex economy of suffering and hope. In an effort to get a handle on this human tide, noted muckraker James O’Keefe – known for his hidden camera “gotcha” interviews with abortionists, media executives, progressive nonprofit executives, and other degenerate types – traces the migrant onrush from its source, and seeks to trace the machinery of profit and influence that is conducting it from great removes.

“Line In The Sand,” the resulting documentary, is a remarkable and humane exposition, revealing perspectives and images American audiences have mostly been prevented from seeing. O’Keefe and his intrepid team begin on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, where we witness migrants crossing the border through holes that their guides have cut in a fence that serves as a target as much as a barrier. Infrared cameras show dozens of illegal aliens streaming toward “pick-up” vehicles on the U.S. side while smugglers – presumably cartel members – a few feet away taunt O’Keefe and his group. “What if I were to run up to them right now, what would happen?” O’Keefe asks his guide. “I would highly advise you against that,” he is told, in a classic understatement.

The fact that coyotes and other human traffickers are paid to assist northbound migrants with their passage is no scandal; we all know what their motivations are and why they are doing what they do. But O’Keefe documents multiple examples of U.S. Border Patrol agents standing idly by while illegal aliens cross, virtually under their noses. “Why aren’t you doing anything?” he asks. “Have a good day, guys,” a border agent desultorily responds before driving off in the general direction of the episode. Later, a migrant stands in front of a Border Patrol truck, clearly trying to alert the agents of his intention to surrender, but is studiously ignored until O’Keefe and his team call their attention to him.

There is a kind of sad comedy in the operations of U.S. border security, and O’Keefe is not unsympathetic to the absurd position that border agents have been put in. Trained to defend the national border and to serve as the first line of defense of American soil, these agents have been recommissioned as a perverse Welcome Wagon for illegal aliens, charged with making their undocumented and uninvited entrance to the United States as commodious as possible.

Looking to get deeper into the heart of this migratory avalanche, O’Keefe went deep into Mexico, to the city of Irapuato, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City. Irapuato is a popular railway junction where thousands of migrants climb aboard “La Bestia,” or “The Beast,” a cargo train that chugs northward toward the United States. In the film’s most remarkable footage, O’Keefe and his team join with migrants, mostly from South and Central America, to ride The Beast, also known as “el Tren del Muerto,” or the Train of Death. O’Keefe talks to the migrants without condescension, asking them their destinations and what they plan to do when they get there, and their concerns about the perilous nature of the journey. We see the film crew race to jump on a moving train and clamber on top to sit in a pile of coal; O’Keefe is shocked at how truly dangerous this small element of the trip is and sympathizes with the migrants’ difficult choices. These scenes are among the film’s most affecting, along with the crew’s random encounter with a little girl who had just crossed the border after journeying from Guatemala by herself. There is a human dimension to illegal immigration, and O’Keefe does not ignore it. 

However, there is also an impersonal dimension to this massive population transfer, and O’Keefe determinedly aims to uncover it – to put a face to the institutions and administrators that benefit from the rough injection of millions of people into American society. From government agents to bus companies to nonprofit resettlement groups to private contractors running huge, walled compounds housing thousands of children, O’Keefe doggedly tries to penetrate the mechanics of a system that resolutely hides itself behind a screen of silence, usually in the name of “safety” and “privacy.”

Some of the film’s more comical moments pertain to these segments, such as when the team follows some just-arrived Chinese migrants in San Diego to an employment agency, where other Chinese aliens, already in the country for several months, complain that it’s much harder to live in the United States than they had imagined. O’Keefe tries to sniff out a connection between the owner of the agency and more powerful actors, but it emerges that there really isn’t much going on; in fact, the owner asks O’Keefe if he knows of a way to apply for government grants.

Elsewhere, O’Keefe tries to get information about the operations of several huge residential centers for unaccompanied minors and tries to spin their refusal to give him access to the centers or submit to interviews as evidence of the existence of vast, government-funded child sex trafficking networks. But it seems more likely, though no less troubling, that the open borders policy of the last four years has created a tremendous humanitarian crisis of alien children roaming the continent by themselves, and the government is probably trying to keep them from becoming prey to sex traffickers while they sort out where to send them. Though O’Keefe does not uncover a salacious network of child predators, his vigorous pursuit of the truth does reveal the existence of a large, shadowy, government-funded, and lucrative system of child “welfare.”

So, “Line In The Sand” is correct in the larger sense that billions of dollars are being spent managing this human flow, and many people are getting rich off of it. The last thing these parasitical administrators of the nonprofit industrial complex want is for the border to close. O’Keefe does a great job of capturing in real time the corruption of a local New York City nonprofit called La Jornada, whose leader, Pedro Rodriguez, evidently perpetrates fraud, demanding fees for services that the city provides for free. O’Keefe also sends a Spanish-speaking reporter undercover into the Roosevelt Hotel, New York City’s main processing center for newly-arrived migrants, which offers him free housing, medical care, and even airplane tickets, even though the reporter explains that he has no identification of any sort. How, O’Keefe asks, in our post 9/11 security-obsessed era, are we to make sense of a system that admits millions of unvetted foreigners into the country, and then offers to fly them anywhere they care to go?

“Line In The Sand” is rough in parts, but intentionally so. Its subject is so sprawling and tangled that a neat and clean representation would be a lie. Even with a nine-figure budget – which this film assuredly did not have – a documentary about the border and the 30 million-footed human swarm that has crossed it would be messy and incomplete. But James O’Keefe and his small team have done something remarkable. They have taken on the decade’s biggest story, given it form, and preserved the humanity of its subjects. It is worth watching.

Seth Barron is a writer in New York and author of the forthcoming “Weaponized from Humanix.”

Authored by Jay Solomon via The FP.com,

The ‘Axis of Upheaval‘ is on the march—and the U.S. must figure out how to respond.

If it feels like the world is on fire right now, that’s because it is. From Ukraine to Syria to the Korean Peninsula, a widening array of conflicts is raising questions among defense experts: Is it 1914 again? 1939? Has World War III already started and we’re just now figuring it out?

For retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who served as Donald Trump’s second national security adviser from 2017–2018, the answer is clear.

“I think we’re on the cusp of a world war,” McMaster told The Free Press. “There’s an economic war going on. There are real wars going on in Europe and across the Middle East, and there’s a looming war in the Pacific. And I think the only way to prevent these wars from cascading further is to convince these adversaries they can’t accomplish their objectives through the use of force.”

That won’t be easy. Consider the facts:

• In Ukraine, thousands of North Korean soldiers have recently joined Russian ground troops to bolster President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the country. Meanwhile, Russia has opened up a new front in the war by entering the northeast Kharkiv region, as it continues to assault Ukraine’s cities and block its ports.

• A U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon that forced terror group Hezbollah to retreat from Israel’s northern border is showing signs of unraveling. Meanwhile, the Jewish state is still fighting a war in the Gaza Strip, where around 60 Israeli and U.S. hostages remain. And last month, Israel’s air force destroyed much of Iran’s air defense systems, leaving Tehran’s nuclear facilities exposed to future attacks.

• Rebels in Syria have recently seized key areas of the country that had been controlled for years by dictator Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. Now that these insurgents have taken Aleppo, they are vowing to march on Damascus.

• In the Baltic Sea, investigators suspect a Chinese ship of sabotaging critical underwater data cables that linked NATO states. Concerns about CCP aggression are mounting amid an emerging consensus in Washington that China would defeat the U.S. in a Pacific war, largely due to Beijing’s naval superiority.

• And on Tuesday, South Korea’s president briefly declared martial law, alleging he needed to fend off a North Korean–backed coup led by the opposition party. Massive protests caused him to back down, and he is now facing impeachment proceedings.

These wars, rebellions, and spy tales may appear disconnected. But in reality, they all point to a widening global conflict that is pitting the U.S. and its allies against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—nations all fixated on toppling the West. Strategists have even come up with catchy nicknames for this anti-American coalition, dubbing the bloc the “Axis of Aggressors” or the “Axis of Upheaval.”

Philip Zelikow, who served as executive director of the 9/11 Commission and counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2005 to 2007, is among those who think these conflicts are related. “I think there is a serious possibility of what I call worldwide warfare”—meaning a world war that is not as coordinated as past global conflagrations. “It’s not hard to see one of these conflicts crossing over into another.”

As Trump prepares to enter office next month, his primary foreign policy task should be to prevent an actual full-blown World War III, sources told The Free Press—or to stop it from metastasizing if it’s already here.

To do this, the president-elect will have to fortify alliances with NATO, South Korea, and Japan—partnerships Trump has already shown he’s skeptical of. And he will need to stare down a number of American adversaries, including Putin, Chinese president Xi Jinping, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un—a despot for whom Trump has expressed both scorn and admiration.

At the same time, Trump benefits from his willingness to break from past U.S. policies and institutions that have helped foment these current conflicts. This includes a defense industry that doesn’t produce the right weapons to compete with China or enough munitions to arm Ukraine. Defense strategists in previous U.S. administrations have been blind to the Axis of Aggressors’ moves to expand their global power, sources told me—placing too much faith in global institutions, such as the United Nations, that were incapable of checking them.

Trump, with his nontraditional advisers such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, could potentially revolutionize the way the U.S. builds and projects power, sources told me. SpaceX CEO Musk, in particular, could marry America’s military establishment with Silicon Valley’s start-up culture to produce, at scale, the types of smart airplanes, drones, and submarines needed to deter Washington’s enemies, they said.

But Trump’s desire to shake up Washington and dismantle many of its national security institutions comes with enormous risk. The disruption of the Pentagon, State Department, and FBI could make the U.S. and its allies more vulnerable if these institutions become inoperable or less efficient, current and former officials told The Free Press.

“What he’s gonna need is some agenda to bring the world back together after he pulls things apart,” said David Asher, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, who oversaw U.S. government operations against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran in the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

The threat of a widening global conflict is being driven by factors reminiscent of events before the start of World War I, sources told me. This includes the breakdown in alliances and trading systems and the arrival of disruptive technologies like airplanes, telephones, and mechanized weapons. Today, there is no longer a consensus that free trade will bring countries closer together and forestall future wars. And the Covid-19 pandemic revealed the dangers of reliance on China for medical supplies. Trump’s threats to slap high tariffs on China and other countries also raise the specter of greater conflict.

“What you learn when you study economic history is that long cycles do end and when they do, they end with war,” said Asher, who’s worked on Wall Street and said he has recently briefed financial institutions on the threat of a global conflict.

Both McMaster and Zelikow said that the Syrian civil war that started nearly 15 years ago should have been a major wake-up call to the U.S., Europe, and NATO. The Obama administration tried to oust al-Assad through diplomacy and talks that included Russia and Iran, the strongman’s primary patrons. But then the U.S. and Europe were blindsided in 2015 when Moscow and Tehran propped up al-Assad with both air and ground troops.

“We started talking about great power rivalry and all of that, but we didn’t really do anything to arrest these trends,” said Zelikow, who’s now a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

This Syrian playbook can now be seen in Ukraine. Iran, North Korea, and China have all been supplying weaponry or technologies to Russia, while Iranian-backed Houthi fighters are now reported to be on the Ukrainian battlefield alongside North Korean troops.

The war in the Middle East, sparked by Hamas’s invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, has also attracted this broader axis. The Houthis, in support of Hamas, have been attacking international ships in a critical transit strait of the Red Sea. And they’ve been getting guidance from both Tehran and Moscow, according to current and former U.S. officials.

On the north side of the strait, an Iranian general is “directing the Houthis using Russian intelligence,” McMaster told The Free Press. On the south side, “you have an Iranian surveillance ship. And you have a Chinese [naval] port, you know? I mean, that’s not by mistake.”

How will the Trump administration confront this emboldened axis? A significant divide among foreign policy strategists may prove difficult to bridge. In one corner are hawks and traditional Republican conservatives—such as incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, and UN Ambassador designee Elise Stefanik—who have called for a muscular defense of Pax Americana. They’re expected to press Trump to continue arming Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and even amp up our military support to preserve the Western order.

On the opposing side is an isolationist wing reflected in the public musings of Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr., who tweeted on November 17 about the Biden administration’s decision to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine:

The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!

Trump’s vice president J.D. Vance, and his advisers, including Tucker Carlson to Tulsi Gabbard, also believe U.S. military overreach led to catastrophic U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needless Western provocations of Putin that sparked his invasion of Ukraine. They argue that stepping back, rather than expanding, is the key to global peace.

Some Trump confidantes told The Free Press they’ve been studying U.S. policies that led up to the past two world worlds as guidance for today. They have concluded that Washington was too lenient on Hitler’s Germany leading into World War II, but too committed to European allies in the early 1900s ahead of World War I. And they believe Trump will need to strike a balance between these two postures.

“I think you have to learn the lessons of both wars,” Peter Thiel, the tech investor and close Trump ally, told The Free Press last month. “You can’t have excessive appeasement, and you also can’t go sleepwalking into Armageddon. In a way, they’re opposite lessons.”

*    *    * 

Jay Solomon is an investigative reporter for The Free Press and author of The Iran Wars. Follow him on X at @FPJaySolomon and read his piece, “Inside the Battle over Trump’s Foreign Policy.”

By Jack Phillips of The Epoch Times

Mexican security forces said on Dec. 4 that they had made the largest fentanyl seizure in the country’s history, impounding 1,100 kilograms (1.2 tons) of the synthetic opioid in the state of Sinaloa.

Mexico’s top security official, Omar García Harfuch, said in a statement that more than a ton of fentanyl was seized by officials in Sinaloa state. Several guns were also seized, and two men were arrested, he said.

“This is an investigation that has been going on for a long time, and yesterday, it gave these results,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said at a press conference on Dec. 4, referring to the fentanyl seizures.

Violence has worsened recently in Sinaloa, where factions of the Sinaloa Cartel have been engaged in bitter fighting that flared after the capture of kingpin Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada in July.

“These actions will continue until the violence in the state of Sinaloa decreases,” Harfuch said.

Sinaloa is home to the powerful drug cartel that bears the same name and was formerly headed by longtime drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, who is currently incarcerated at the ADX Florence federal prison in Colorado.

Security forces found the fentanyl at two properties in the municipality of Ahome after intelligence work and tip-offs from the public led them to investigate there.

In one building, law enforcement found 800 kilograms (1,763 pounds) of fentanyl, some precursor chemicals, and four vehicles. In the other, they discovered 11 packages totaling about 300 kg (660 pounds) of fentanyl, as well as precursors, scales, and industrial mixers.

Former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who handed over power to Sheinbaum in October, repeatedly denied that Mexico was a center for the production of fentanyl despite significant evidence to the contrary.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump recently threatened to levy a 25 percent tariff against Mexico and Canada if either country didn’t do enough to curb illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking into the United States.

His warning prompted a phone conversation with Sheinbaum, with the Mexican president later saying that caravans of migrants will be stopped before they reach the U.S.–Mexico border. However, she denied Trump’s claim last week that the Mexican border was closed down.

This week, activists and a Mexican agency said a migrant caravan heading north was dissolved. The Mexican National Migration Institute denied claims that the agency used deceptive tactics and said it had not received “any complaints” from members of the caravan.

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, before several top Canadian officials assured reporters that the country would improve its border security with the United States.

Continue reading at the Epoch Times

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• The rapid growth of data centers to support AI is significantly increasing global electricity demand.

• This surge in demand threatens to outpace the development of renewable energy sources.

• International regulations are needed to ensure tech companies use clean energy and minimize their impact on climate goals.

The global electricity demand is expected to grow exponentially in the coming decades, largely due to an increased demand from tech companies for new data centers to support the rollout of high-energy-consuming advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI). As governments worldwide introduce new climate policies and pump billions into alternative energy sources and clean tech, these efforts may be quashed by the increased electricity demand from data centers unless greater international regulatory action is taken to ensure that tech companies invest in clean energy sources and do not use fossil fuels for power.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report in October entitled “What the data centre and AI boom could mean for the energy sector”. It showed that with investment in new data centers surging over the past two years, particularly in the U.S., the electricity demand is increasing rapidly – a trend that is set to continue. 

The report states that in the U.S., annual investment in data center construction has doubled in the past two years alone. China and the European Union are also seeing investment in data centers increase rapidly. In 2023, the overall capital investment by tech leaders Google, Microsoft, and Amazon was greater than that of the U.S. oil and gas industry, at approximately 0.5 percent of the U.S. GDP.

The tech sector expects to deploy AI technologies more widely in the coming decades as the technology is improved and becomes more ingrained in everyday life. This is just one of several advanced technologies expected to contribute to the rise in demand for power worldwide in the coming decades. 

Global aggregate electricity demand is set to increase by 6,750 terawatt-hours (TWh) by 2030, per the IEA’s Stated Policies Scenario. This is spurred by several factors including digitalization, economic growth, electric vehicles, air conditioners, and the rising importance of electricity-intensive manufacturing. In large economies such as the U.S., China, and the EU, data centers contribute around 2 to 4 percent of total electricity consumption at present. However, the sector has already surpassed 10 percent of electricity consumption in at least five U.S. states. Meanwhile, in Ireland, it contributes more than 20 percent of all electricity consumption.

While the speed and manner in which AI use will grow remains uncertain, and efficiency improvements are expected to be made, electricity demand from data centers, cryptocurrencies, and AI could reach as much as 1,000 Terawatt Hours (TWh) in 2026 – roughly equivalent to the electricity consumption of Japan – compared to 460TWh today, the IEA predicts.

The organization calls for more public-private dialogue, with policymakers, the tech sector, and the energy industry coming together for discussions to manage both expectations and energy use. Greater international regulation of the tech sector is required to ensure that the growing electricity demand for data centers does not outweigh the green transition achievements currently being seen worldwide. 

There are growing fears that, if left unregulated, the electricity consumption of data centers could surpass the electricity demand of some U.S. cities or even states. Many data center developers are concerned about finding enough land to house new sites and enough clean power to run them. The facilities could increasingly require 1 GW of power or more, which is equivalent to around twice the 2023 residential electricity consumption of Pittsburgh. 

The president of Lancium, a company that secures land and power for data centers in Texas, Ali Fenn, explained that U.S. tech companies are in the “race of a lifetime to global dominance”. Fenn said, “They’re going to keep spending” because there’s no more profitable place to deploy capital. 

At the rate the advanced technologies are expanding, renewable energy sources will not be sufficient to meet the growing demands of the tech industry. Many tech companies are expected to use natural gas to power operations, particularly in the U.S. where the gas sector is set to continue expanding rapidly. 

Currently, many tech companies operate data centers with a capacity of around 40 MW. However, in the coming years, more firms are expected to invest in campuses of 250 MW or more. As a growing number of campuses of 500 MW or more emerge in the 2030s and 2040s, which is equivalent to the power needed for 350,000 homes, this could lead to a surge in demand for gas-generated electricity, following years of national investment in a green transition.  

While the U.S. is expected to see the greatest data center expansion in the coming decades, Europe’s data center power consumption is expected to nearly triple by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, China has invested over $6.12 billion in a national project to develop data centers in recent years, according to a senior government official. 

A joined-up approach to regulating the energy usage of data centers is required to prevent the anticipated rise in electricity demand from challenging the progress of the global green transition. Governments worldwide must establish clear regulations and limits on the energy use of tech companies for advanced technologies, such as AI, if they hope to meet Paris Agreement climate pledges. This may include requiring tech companies to fulfill their energy needs through clean energy sources, such as renewables and nuclear power, as well as slowing the pace of deployment of these technologies.  

The NYPD’s principal “person of interest” in the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson arrived in Manhattan late last month after a long bus ride from Atlanta — then stayed at a hostel ahead of Tuesday’s shocking act, law enforcement sources tell various outlets. Many more details are piling up — from the remarkable weapon cops think he used to the type of pricey backpack he seems to have ditched in Central Park — but there’s still no name to go with the smiling face captured by the hostel’s front-desk security camera.  

Police say the man arrived in New York City on Nov. 24 — the Sunday before Thanksgiving — stepping off a Greyhound bus at the Port Authority bus terminal in Manhattan around 9pm. That particular bus route originates in Atlanta. Some reports say police don’t yet know where he boarded the coach, while others indicate investigators believe he was aboard from the start of the nearly 900-mile journey from Atlanta to New York, which can take 20 hours or more on Greyhound.  

Police sources say he then checked into the HI New York City Hostel  at Amsterdam Avenue and West 103rd Street, on the Upper West Side near Central Park. The revelation of his face appears to have come during a flirtatious moment of weakness as he interacted with a woman working the hostel’s front desk, lowering his mask to beam at her across the desk. The suspect left the hostel on Friday, Nov. 29, only to return via Uber to check back in the very next day.  

He reportedly used a bogus New Jersey driver’s license to book his stays at the hostel, where he roomed with two apparent strangers. “That’s not clever, because there is recording, video all over the place,” John Nielsen, a visitor from Denmark who’s been staying at the hostel for the past week, told the Times.  

Police have taken keen interest in a gun sale in Connecticut — involving a highly-uncommon weapon that appears similar to the one seen in the video of the killing. “It’s a covert-type weapon. It is not sold widely,” said CBS News law enforcement contributor Rich Esposito. “They’ll go to the dealers of that gun and try to establish if they know who this person is.” 

According to CBS News, police believe the murder weapon is a B&T Station SIX-9, which comes equipped with a sound-suppressor and retails for around $2,100. Note carefully how B&T describes its latest version: 

This updated, integrally suppressed pistol features a new grip and updated magazines, yet maintains its non-descript appearance, whisper-quiet sound signature and unique rotating bolt operation. This model in 9mm wears a 3-in. barrel. It finds its operational success as a magazine-fed, non-auto-ejecting single-shot functioning in a rotational bolt action. It is beautifully enhanced by wipe suppressor, and a baffled suppressor is an available option for those who prefer that design. 

🚨𝕏 WARNING – GRAPHIC VIDEO 𝕏🚨

🚨BREAKING: Footage of Killer Gunning down CEO of UnitedHealthcare! Looks like the gun got jammed but then he re-unloads on him. Do you think this was a trained marksmen or random? pic.twitter.com/202ls9L3lv

— Professor Nez (@professornez) December 4, 2024

The “non-auto-ejecting single-shot functioning” is consistent with what’s seen in the video of the shooting, as the assassin manipulates the pistol after firing each shot — something that both casual observers and experts had widely attributed to the pistol malfunctioning. Here’s how the operation of the Station SIX looks with the 45-caliber version: 

It’s the B&T Station Six 9mm pic.twitter.com/gWoX7nFlxv

— Maxwell Little, M.Ed 🇺🇸 (@MaxHPF) December 5, 2024

The suspect shot the 50-year-old Thompson — who was arriving at the New York Hilton Midtown for an investors’ meeting at 6:45 am — in the back and leg before leaving first by foot, then using an e-bike that he rode through Central Park. Police think he exited the park at West 77th Street — minus the backpack he wore during the killing and as he rolled into the park.

Some internet sleuths think they’ve figured out the make and model of that backpack — concluding it’s an Everyday Backpack sold by Peak Designs between 2016 and 2019, TMZ reports. It’s not cheap: Marketed for use by photographers but also used by others, the latest version goes for about $250.  

Investigators recovered 9mm shell casings and live rounds at the shooting that were adorned with the words “deny,” “defend” and “depose,” written carefully with a sharpie. Those words are open to interpretation, but many are pointing to their similarity to the title of Jay Feinman’s book, “Delay Deny Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims And What You Can Do About It.” Given that, police are looking for people who may have reason for outrage at an individual coverage decision rendered by the health insurance giant. That could be quite a long list of people: Recent data from Lending Tree shows UnitedHealthcare has some of the highest claim denial rates of any US insurance company —  a jarring 32% compared to 17% for Blue Cross Blue Shield. (They may also want to talk to former Washington Post writer Taylor Lorenz.) 

There are many more clues undergoing intense police scrutiny. Less than a half-hour before murdering Thompson, the suspect used cash to buy drinks and snacks at a Starbucks near the ambush site. Police think they’ve obtained a water bottle and candy wrapper he left at the store, along with a coffee cup he may have drank from. They also found a cell phone in the alleyway that comprised part of his getaway route — a route that, at least this far along, has proven quite effective. 

However, his flirty smile at a female hostel clerk and choice of a highly uncommon pistol may prove to be his undoing… 

Authored by Carlo J.V.Caro via RealClearWire.com,

How China’s Control of Undersea Cables and Data Flows Reshapes Global Power

Cable Routing Protocols

The rapid construction of undersea cables has brought a hidden but crucial issue into focus: the manipulation of the protocols that control how data travels beneath the sea. These protocols determine the pathways internet data takes, influencing speed, costs, and even exposure to surveillance. Even small changes in these pathways can tilt the global balance of digital power. China’s increasing role in this area demonstrates how technology can be used strategically to reshape geopolitics.

At the heart of this issue is a technology called Software-Defined Networking (SDN). SDN allows data traffic to be managed and optimized in real time, improving efficiency. But this same flexibility makes SDN vulnerable to misuse. Chinese tech companies like HMN Tech (formerly Huawei Marine Networks), ZTE, and China Unicom are leading the way in SDN development. China also holds sway in international organizations that set the rules for these technologies, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). This influence gives China a hand in shaping global standards and governance.

Africa illustrates how this influence plays out. Chinese investments in digital infrastructure across the continent are massive. For example, the PEACE (Pakistan and East Africa Connecting Europe) cable, which links East Africa to Europe, was designed to avoid Chinese territory. Yet, thanks to SDN technology, its traffic can still be redirected through Chinese-controlled points. This redirection could introduce delays of 20 to 30 milliseconds per hop—not much for casual browsing, but a serious issue for latency-sensitive activities like financial trading or encrypted communication.

In Southeast Asia, similar risks are evident. The Southeast Asia-Japan Cable (SJC), which connects Singapore to Japan, relies on several landing stations influenced by China. During a period of heightened tensions in the South China Sea, some data intended for Japan was mysteriously routed through Hainan Island, under Chinese jurisdiction. Such cases suggest technical routing decisions may sometimes have political motivations.

These examples are part of a broader strategy. By exploiting SDN, China can turn submarine cables into tools for surveillance and control. Data traffic from Africa or Southeast Asia destined for Europe could be secretly rerouted through Shanghai or Guangzhou, exposing it to China’s advanced surveillance techniques like deep packet inspection. This threat extends to cloud computing, as major providers such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Alibaba Cloud rely on undersea cables. With SDN, Chinese cloud providers—aligned with state interests—could redirect sensitive inter-cloud traffic, putting critical communications at risk.

Manipulating global data routes gives any actor significant geopolitical power. For instance, in a crisis, China could degrade or even sever internet connectivity for rival nations. In the Taiwan Strait, this could isolate Taiwan from global markets, disrupting financial transactions and trade. In Africa, where Huawei has built a significant portion of the continent’s telecommunications infrastructure—reportedly constructing around 70 percent of 4G networks—there is concern that this reliance could create vulnerabilities. If political tensions were to arise, China could cause slowdowns or disruptions to reinforce dependence, making countries more vulnerable in political standoffs.

The numbers highlight the stakes. Submarine cables carry 99 percent of international data traffic—over 1.1 zettabytes annually. Significant portions of intra-Asia-Pacific data flows pass through key submarine cable landing stations, including Hong Kong, which is under Chinese jurisdiction. With Chinese firms increasingly involved in substantial global submarine cable projects—such as those undertaken by HMN Technologies—Beijing’s influence over the internet’s physical backbone is growing.

The economic impact of internet disruptions on highly connected economies is substantial. For instance, the NetBlocks Cost of Shutdown Tool (COST) estimates the economic impact of internet disruptions using indicators from the World Bank, ITU, Eurostat, and the U.S. Census. According to data presented by Atlas VPN, based on NetBlocks’ COST tool, a global internet shutdown for one day could result in losses of about $43 billion, with the United States and China accounting for nearly half of this sum. Additionally, Deloitte has estimated that for a highly internet-connected country, the per-day impact of a temporary internet shutdown would be on average $23.6 million per 10 million population.

A deliberate attack on routing protocols could cause widespread financial and operational chaos. In today’s interconnected world, where digital infrastructure underpins economic stability, the ability to manipulate undersea cable traffic represents a subtle but powerful geopolitical weapon.

Addressing this threat goes beyond simply building more cables. It requires rethinking how routing protocols are governed. Transparent global standards must ensure no single country or company can dominate these systems. Routine independent audits should be conducted to detect anomalies that may signal interference. Efforts like the European Union’s Global Gateway initiative and Japan’s Digital Partnership Fund must focus on creating alternative routes to reduce reliance on Chinese-controlled nodes.

This issue highlights a new reality in global politics: control over data flows is becoming a key form of power. While most attention has been on building physical infrastructure, the quiet manipulation of routing protocols marks an equally profound shift in global influence. To protect the integrity of the internet, the world must act decisively at both technical and governance levels.

Fiber-Optic Cable Repair Networks

China’s disproportionate control over fiber-optic cable repair networks reveals potential vectors for intelligence dominance, coercive leverage, and disruption of digital sovereignty. Globally, an estimated 60 dedicated cable repair ships service the planet’s 1.5 million kilometers of submarine cables. China controls a substantial percentage of the fleet, including ships operated by state-affiliated enterprises like Shanghai Salvage Company and China Communications Construction Group. In contrast, the United States and its allies maintain a small patchwork fleet, mostly concentrated in the North Atlantic and lacking coverage in the Indo-Pacific, where over 50 percent of global internet traffic routes through key subsea cables.

China’s fleet is heavily concentrated in the South and East China Seas, regions critical to global connectivity due to chokepoints like the Singapore Strait and the Luzon Strait. With maritime exclusivity bolstered by China’s claims in disputed waters, its repair ships have nearly unrestricted access to monitor, repair, or potentially tamper with cables under the guise of routine maintenance.

Repair missions involve exposing critical cable infrastructure, including repeaters, amplifiers, and branch units—hardware that boosts signal strength over long distances but also represents points of vulnerability. Chinese vessels are equipped with advanced robotic submersibles and precision cutting-and-splicing technologies, designed for repairs but capable of installing signal interception devices. Such tools could include optical fiber taps capable of harvesting unencrypted metadata or capturing latency patterns to infer sensitive traffic flow.

China’s advancements in photonics and quantum communication technologies underscore its capacity to exploit these vulnerabilities. The Chinese Academy of Sciences has reported significant breakthroughs in quantum key distribution (QKD) systems, raising the possibility of developing quantum-based methods to crack encrypted data intercepted during repairs. Integration of AI-driven data sorting tools could automate the extraction and classification of intercepted information, rendering bulk data acquisition during repairs a strategic advantage.

The high seas, where many repair operations occur, are governed by fragmented international frameworks like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which inadequately regulate activities involving critical infrastructure. The International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) provides voluntary guidelines for repair operations, but enforcement mechanisms are weak, leaving the system vulnerable to exploitation by state actors.

Repair missions are often classified as “emergency operations,” requiring expedited approvals that bypass detailed oversight. In one case, a cable break in the South China Sea in 2021 prompted Chinese repair ships to operate without transparency for over three weeks, raising concerns about potential covert activities. These incidents are rarely reported, as they fall outside the jurisdiction of most maritime monitoring bodies.

The lack of countermeasures by the United States and its allies amplifies the risks posed by China’s dominance. The U.S. Navy operates no specialized repair ships, relying on private operators like Global Marine Group, whose fleet is aging and ill-equipped for operations in contested waters. This contrasts with China’s state-backed model, integrating its repair fleet into broader maritime networks, providing dual-use functionality for civilian and military objectives.

The financial model of undersea cable operations further constrains Western responses. Submarine cables are predominantly privately owned, with firms like Google, Meta, and Amazon investing heavily in infrastructure but lacking incentives to prioritize geopolitical considerations. This privatization leaves strategic gaps in surveillance and monitoring, as governments must negotiate access to privately controlled repair missions.

To mitigate China’s strategic advantage, a multipronged response is essential. The United States and its allies must develop state-owned or state-subsidized repair fleets to operate in contested regions like the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Enhanced maritime surveillance systems, such as underwater drones and sonar-based monitoring arrays, should be deployed to track repair ship movements in real time.

Revising international frameworks by expanding ICPC mandates to include mandatory reporting of repair operations could curb opacity. Collaboration with regional partners, particularly nations in the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States), could bolster collective maritime domain awareness and create redundancies in cable repair capabilities.

Maritime Data Through Automated Vessel Tracking

China’s exploitation of automated vessel tracking systems exemplifies a sophisticated component of its global digital strategy. At the heart of this initiative lies the Automatic Identification System (AIS), a maritime safety technology mandated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for vessels exceeding 300 gross tons engaged in international trade. While originally intended to improve navigational safety by broadcasting vessel identities, locations, courses, and cargo details, AIS has been effectively repurposed by Beijing into a dual-use asset that supports both economic intelligence gathering and military surveillance.

Chinese firms, including the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System and Alibaba Cloud, have developed advanced platforms that aggregate AIS transmissions from shipping lanes worldwide. These platforms integrate AIS data with artificial intelligence-driven predictive analytics, enabling Beijing to monitor and analyze global maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, and the Suez Canal—key arteries of international commerce. By doing so, China gains critical insights into global shipping patterns, strategic trade routes, and supply chain dynamics. As of 2023, the global merchant fleet comprised around 60,000 ships.

During the 2021 Suez Canal blockage, Chinese logistics firms, leveraging real-time AIS data, rapidly identified alternative routes through the Arctic and along the Indian Ocean, allowing Chinese exporters to reroute goods while Western competitors faced delays. Similarly, in the Strait of Malacca, a waterway facilitating the transit of over 16 million barrels of oil daily and 40 percent of global trade, Chinese analysts have used AIS data to optimize resource flow, preempt congestion, and study vulnerabilities in energy supply routes.

AIS data plays a pivotal role in China’s military strategy, especially in the Indo-Pacific. By combining AIS information with satellite imagery and data from undersea acoustic arrays, China has established a surveillance network capable of tracking naval deployments with precision. AIS data has been used to monitor patrol patterns of the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet, revealing that over a third of its South China Sea operations in 2022 followed predictable routes. This surveillance allows the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to anticipate U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and position its assets accordingly.

China’s manipulation of AIS extends to conflict simulations and asymmetric warfare. During military exercises near Taiwan in 2023, Chinese forces reportedly deployed unmanned surface vessels programmed to mimic civilian AIS signals, complicating the identification of hostile assets.

Through its Digital Silk Road initiative, Beijing has exported various forms of maritime technologies that incorporate Automatic Identification System (AIS) capabilities. China often provides financial incentives to promote the adoption of its technologies abroad, which may enhance its access to regional maritime data. This asymmetry grants China an informational advantage and risks reshaping maritime transparency norms in its favor.

Rare Subsea Mapping Data

China’s increasing investment in subsea mapping has positioned it as a significant player in oceanographic intelligence, impacting scientific, commercial, and military domains. China has been actively mapping its claimed maritime territories using state-funded research vessels and autonomous systems. These efforts contribute to international initiatives like the Nippon Foundation-GEBCO Seabed 2030 project, which aims to map the entire global seabed by 2030 and had mapped approximately 23.4 percent as of June 2022 with international contributions. China’s activities extend to strategic regions in the Indo-Pacific, the Arctic, and the Indian Ocean, raising concerns over the dual-use potential of its data collection.

Subsea mapping data is critical for submarine cable routing, undersea infrastructure development, and naval operations. China’s repository of high-resolution bathymetric maps—including surveys of key chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca and the Bashi Channel—provides a tactical edge. These chokepoints are vital for global trade and serve as strategic naval passages for power projection and anti-access/area-denial operations. The People’s Liberation Army Navy uses seabed data to optimize the placement of undersea sensor arrays, critical for its “Great Underwater Wall” initiative, integrating hydroacoustic monitoring to detect foreign submarines.

China’s advancements in autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) enhance its capabilities. In 2021, the Hailong III and Qianlong II AUVs were deployed for deep-sea mapping missions in the South China Sea, gathering data at depths over 6,000 meters. These AUVs have multi-beam sonar systems achieving sub-meter resolution, surpassing commercial standards. Their ability to operate autonomously over long durations allows China to map intricate undersea topographies critical for resource exploration and undersea warfare.

China has used seabed mapping as a diplomatic tool to extend influence over smaller nations. Through its Maritime Silk Road Initiative, Beijing has signed agreements with over 20 countries, granting Chinese research vessels access to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). Between 2015 and 2022, Chinese expeditions in Pacific Island nations’ EEZs often involved dual-use mapping activities.

In 2019, the Chinese survey vessel Haiyang Dizhi 8 conducted seismic surveys near the Vanguard Bank within Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), collecting bathymetric data that aligns with key undersea routes potentially useful for submarine operations. This incursion led to a tense standoff with Vietnam, drawing international criticism over China’s assertive actions and raising concerns about the dual-use potential of the data collected. Similarly, in 2018, China’s proposed involvement in undersea cable projects connecting Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands through Huawei Marine raised significant security concerns. Fearing risks to the security of undersea communication cables and potential espionage, Australia intervened by funding and undertaking the projects themselves, highlighting apprehensions about granting Chinese entities access to critical seafloor data in the region.

China’s seabed mapping strategy has significant military implications, particularly in the South China Sea. In this region, where China has constructed artificial islands such as Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef, high-resolution seabed data enables precise deployment of missile systems, naval patrols, and underwater drones. Detailed seabed mapping supports the construction and fortification of these islands, allowing for the installation of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, and the operation of military airstrips. Additionally, China’s deployment of unmanned underwater vehicles like the Sea Wing (Haiyi) gliders enhances their ability to collect oceanographic data crucial for submarine navigation and anti-submarine warfare. These activities have raised concerns among neighboring countries and the international community about the dual-use potential of China’s maritime endeavors and their impact on regional security.

By controlling seabed mapping data, China influences submarine cable networks, which carry 95 percent of global internet traffic and $10 trillion in daily financial transactions. China’s involvement in projects like the South Pacific Cable Project through state-owned China Mobile led to concerns over data interception capabilities. Its presence in Arctic seabed mapping, facilitated by icebreaker vessels like Xuelong 2, underscores ambitions to secure alternative maritime routes and resources under the guise of scientific research.

China’s approach to subsea mapping data has raised concerns about transparency and shared access in the global community. While international initiatives like the Seabed 2030 Project encourage open sharing of ocean floor data to advance scientific research and environmental understanding, China has been criticized for not fully sharing the extensive seabed data it collects. For example, much of the data gathered by Chinese vessels in international waters is not readily available in global databases like those managed by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) or the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO). This selective sharing limits other nations’ ability to leverage valuable information and contrasts with global norms promoting cooperation and transparency in oceanographic research.

Behold – the American dream.

Where a fair and equal society allows anyone the ability to fashion the life they want, providing they’re willing to work for it.

A cornerstone of that dream is that each generation does better than the last, building and benefiting from growing economic opportunities.

But this does not necessarily hold true for all Americans.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, compares the real household income of 27-year-olds from two generations: those born in 1978 and those born in 1992, both raised by low-income parents. All figures are in 2023 dollars.

ℹ️ 27 is the earliest age at which estimates of adult incomes can be measured. Only the 50 largest metros were considered in this analysis. Low-income is categorized by percentile groups.

A positive percentage change implies economic mobility, allowing us to see the cities where adults had a chance to better their circumstances, and to what extent.

Data is sourced from a study conducted by Opportunity Atlas in partnership with the Census Bureau.

Where is the American Dream Still Alive?

Southern cities in Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina did see upward mobility between generations in the lowest income group, with real wages improving 5-7%.

For example, in Brownsville, Texas, those born to low-income parents in 1992 earned an average of $33,000 at age 27. This is around $2,000 more than their 1978-born peers at the same age, the highest increase across all 50 metro areas.

In contrast, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, saw real incomes decline across generations. The 1978 cohort earned a similar salary to their peers in Brownsville ($31,200), but a generation later, incomes dropped to $27,200.

In fact, only 12 of the 50 saw real income growth across generations for this economic class. And five of them were in Texas. This means that in 38 cities real wages fell between generations.

Zooming out, the average household income at 27 across the nation (for those born to low-income parents) dropped by 4%.

This class difference is important. Because when looking at the highest income percentile, the average income between generations increased 5%.

Wondering where wages adjusted for the cost of living are the highest in the country? Check out Mapped: Median Income by State for a quick overview.

Via the Issues & Insights Editorial Board,

If you’ve never heard the word “impoundment” before, you will – often – next year. And for good reason. Because this battle will determine whether government spending can ever be brought under control.

Last year, President-elect Donald Trump said that “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment.”

Since he’s been elected, he’s given every indication that he intends to reclaim this power. Indeed, the success of his “Department of Government Efficiency” run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy depends heavily on Trump being able to spend less than Congress appropriates.

This, of course, has the left freaking out. The grumblers say that Trump’s refusing to spend money Congress has authorized would be “unprecedented” and “a devastating power grab” that would “flip the power of the purse” and give Trump “authoritarian control” over the government.

There are just two big problems with these assertions. The first is that presidential impoundment dates back to the very beginnings of the nation. The second is that letting presidents impound funds appears to have been an effective tool for keeping federal spending under control.

Impoundment is just a jargony word for instances where Congress appropriates a certain amount of money for a program in a given year, and the president refuses to spend all of it.

A research paper published by the Center for Renewing America (CRA) provides a long and detailed historical account of impoundment, including its roots in English law and its use by presidents – Democrats and Republicans – throughout the nation’s history.  

Thomas Jefferson impounded funds. So did Madison, Buchanan, and Grant.

Herbert Hoover, the CRA paper notes, “vigorously employed the impoundment power to decrease government spending in the midst of the Great Depression.” FDR “refused to spend more than $500 million in public works funds on policy grounds.” Lyndon Johnson would “withhold appropriations that exceeded the president’s budget.”

Even Trump-hating CNN admits that impoundment “occurred frequently in U.S. history, beginning in 1803 when Thomas Jefferson declined to buy gunboats to patrol the Mississippi as he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with France.”

While the Constitution forbids the president from spending more money than Congress has appropriated, there’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids the president from spending less.

And lo and behold, the nation survived and thrived for nearly 200 years while the president had this authority.

It wasn’t until 1974 that Congress stripped the president’s ability to impound funds. That year, lawmakers used the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon’s aggressive use of impoundment as an excuse to pass the Impoundment Control Act. The law also created the Congressional Budget Office and the budget committees in the House and Senate, and “reasserted Congress’ power of the purse,” according to Democrats on the House Budget Committee.

Well, what happened after Congress reasserted its power? Look at the two charts below.

The first shows annual budget deficits as a share of GDP. The second shows the national debt as a share of GDP.

What do you see? In 1974, significant annual deficits became the norm. From 1947 to 1974, the federal deficit averaged 0.4% of GDP. Since 1974, deficits have averaged 3.8% of GDP. They’ve been close to 6% for President Joe Biden’s entire time in office. (Negative numbers in the chart are years when the government ran a surplus.)

The nation’s debt, which had been trending downward as World War II debts were paid off, suddenly stopped declining in 1974. It’s been climbing fairly steadily ever since.

Trump is likely to challenge the Impoundment Control Act as unconstitutional. We hope he does, and that he succeeds, or at the very least forces Congress to fix that law.

Because letting Congress have unlimited authority to set a floor on spending has been a fiscal disaster.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board

If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“He sees you when you’re sleeping

He knows when you’re awake

He knows when you’ve been bad or good

So be good for goodness’ sake!”

—“Santa Claus Is Coming to Town”

You’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s making a list and checking it twice, and it won’t matter whether you’ve been bad or good.

You’ll be on this list whether you like it or not.

Mass surveillance is the Deep State’s version of a “gift” that keeps on giving…back to the Deep State.

Geofencing dragnets. Fusion centers. Smart devices. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Drones. Contact tracing apps. License plate readers. Social media vetting. Surveillance towers.

What these add up to is a world in which, on any given day, the average person is now monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.

Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.

This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—has been made possible by a global army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms.

Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

Tracking you based on your phone and movements: Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. For instance, the FBI was able to use geofence data to identify more than 5,000 mobile devices (and their owners) in a 4-acre area around the Capitol on January 6. This latest surveillance tactic could land you in jail for being in the “wrong place and time.” Police are also using cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protests without the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.

Tracking you based on your DNA. DNA technology in the hands of government officials completes our transition to a Surveillance State. If you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. By accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc. After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.” It can also be used to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects. It’s only a matter of time before the police state’s pursuit of criminals expands into genetic profiling and a preemptive hunt for criminals of the future.

Tracking you based on your face: Facial recognition software aims to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. Coupled with surveillance cameras that blanket the country, facial recognition technology allows the government and its corporate partners to identify and track someone’s movements in real-time. One particularly controversial software program created by Clearview AI has been used by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to collect photos on social media sites for inclusion in a massive facial recognition database. Similarly, biometric software, which relies on one’s unique identifiers (fingerprints, irises, voice prints), is becoming the standard for navigating security lines, as well as bypassing digital locks and gaining access to phones, computers, office buildings, etc. In fact, greater numbers of travelers are opting into programs that rely on their biometrics in order to avoid long waits at airport security. Scientists are also developing lasers that can identify and surveil individuals based on their heartbeats, scent and microbiome.

Tracking you based on your behavior: Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.

Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities: With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every X/Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.

Tracking you based on your public activities: Private corporations in conjunction with police agencies throughout the country have created a web of surveillance that encompasses all major cities in order to monitor large groups of people seamlessly, as in the case of protests and rallies. They are also engaging in extensive online surveillance, looking for any hints of “large public events, social unrest, gang communications, and criminally predicated individuals.” Defense contractors have been at the forefront of this lucrative market. Fusion centers, $330 million-a-year, information-sharing hubs for federal, state and law enforcement agencies, monitor and report such “suspicious” behavior as people buying pallets of bottled water, photographing government buildings, and applying for a pilot’s license as “suspicious activity.”

Tracking you based on your social media activities: Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”

Tracking you based on your social network: Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.

Tracking you based on your car: License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.

Tracking you based on your mail: Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from these mass spying programs as long as we’ve done nothing wrong.

Don’t believe it.

The government’s definition of a “bad” guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—haven’t made America any safer. And they certainly aren’t helping to preserve our freedoms.

Indeed, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.