Inferno-Plagued Palisades Braces For Santa Ana Windstorm As Death Toll Rises

Inferno-Plagued Palisades Braces For Santa Ana Windstorm As Death Toll Rises

Inferno-Plagued Palisades Braces For Santa Ana Windstorm As Death Toll Rises

Firefighters are racing to contain three active wildfires in Los Angeles County as Santa Ana winds are forecasted to return Monday morning. The fires have scorched 40,000 acres, forced the evacuation of at least 150,000 residents, and claimed 24 lives. Residents are expressing outrage at far-left Democratic politicians in the county and state, blaming them for negligence in the spread of the Palisades Fire. At the same time, AP News tried to provide cover for Democrats and blame the fire’s spread on ‘climate change.’ 

The National Weather Service has issued “Particularly Dangerous Situation” red flag warnings for the Ventura and Los Angeles counties through Wednesday. Gusts are expected to be between 50 and 65 mph, with dry air that will worsen conditions for firefighters and likely lead to more evacuations. 

There are currently three fires burning (list courtesy of LA Times): 

Palisades Fire:

Burned 23,713 acres and numerous homes, businesses and landmarks in Pacific Palisades and westward along Pacific Coast Highway, toward Malibu. As of late Sunday, the fire was 13% contained. Many parts of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Santa Monica, Calabasas, Brentwood and Encino are under evacuation orders or warnings. More than 12,000 structures remain threatened. Officials estimate that more than 5,300 structures, including many homes, have been damaged or destroyed.

Eaton Fire:

Burned 14,117 acres and many structures in Altadena and Pasadena. Additional evacuation orders were mandated Thursday afternoon when fire climbed toward Mt. Wilson. Other mandatory evacuations were lifted as city officials notified residents in Glenoaks Canyon and Chevy Chase Canyon that it was safe to return to their homes. As of 8 p.m. Sunday, the fire remained 27% contained. Officials say 7,000 structures have been burned in the fire.

Hurst Fire:

Burned 779 acres in the area around Sylmar. Evacuation orders have been lifted. As of Sunday night, the fire was 89% contained, according to Cal Fire.

Fire Map (LA Times):

Latest Zero Hedge headlines:

Latest LA Times headlines:

  • Increasing winds bring potential for ‘explosive fire growth’ across LA County this week

  • Death toll from Palisades and Eaton fires climbs to 24. 

  • Newsom to deploy an additional 1,000 National Guard members to LA.

  • Investigators study Eaton Canyon electrical tower area as possible origin of Altadena fire

On Sunday, Captain Andrew Cruz from the LA County Sheriff’s Incident Management Team said a curfew in the fire zones remains in place. 

“Nightside, we continue to support the efforts here at the Palisades Fire with 104 sworn personnel plus 16 National Guard soldiers,” Cruz said.

Looters were out in force over the weekend, ransacking mansions in the Palisades area despite police and National Guard deterrence.

“Yes. Please be careful in some areas, as there is non-zero risk of armed looters. Cybertruck side panels are bulletproof to subsonic projectiles (handguns, shotgun & Tommy gun), but the glass is not, so make sure to duck if you see anyone wielding a gun. This is not fiction,” Elon Musk wrote on X. He noted earlier, “We are going to position Cybertrucks with Starlinks and free WiFi in a grid pattern in the areas that most need it in the greater LA/Malibu area.” 

Palisades transformed into an inferno. 

The debate over gross negligence centers on why the Palisades Reservoir was not filled before the fire.

“Incompetence in the limit is indistinguishable from sabotage,” Musk wrote on X. He’s referring to LA Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom. There’s a lot of controversy about fire budget cuts and the mismanagement of resources. 

For the households that lost everything, it’s time to hold the radical leftist politicians in charge accountable. This is unacceptable.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2025 – 07:20

Tulsi Gabbard Now Supports FISA-702 In Order To Get Confirmed As Director Of National Intelligence

Tulsi Gabbard Now Supports FISA-702 In Order To Get Confirmed As Director Of National Intelligence

Tulsi Gabbard Now Supports FISA-702 In Order To Get Confirmed As Director Of National Intelligence

Authored by Sundance via The Conservative Treehouse,

As the story is told [SEE HERE], and it aligns with every scintilla of researched data on the darkest and deepest elements of the Deep State, DNI nominee Tulsi Gabbard has reversed her position and will now support FISA-702, the warrantless searches of American communication and electronic metadata.

Apparently the FISA process and the 702 aspect (specific to American citizens) is the line in the sand the Senate Select Intelligence Committee has drawn.  If Tulsi Gabbard does not support it, her confirmation is in doubt.  As a result, she has reportedly reversed her position and now supports it.

This is absolutely par for the course.

It should be remembered, in the last reauthorization of FISA-702 congress exempted themselves from the warrantless search and surveillance system used by the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus.  Congress forbids the FBI or any entity with access to the NSA database, from being allowed to use the process to search themselves or their staff.  However, every other American does not enjoy this same protection.

After spending years asking every representative of consequence why they support the FISA-702 process, I can tell you every one of them says they believe it is needed because the IC tells them there are just too many domestic terror threats that need to be monitored.

It is impossible to find a person in DC who will forcefully try to stop FISA-702 reauthorization.

If you ask me why in hindsight, I now take the position that FISA-702 is the gateway to the massive surveillance system currently being put into place using Real ID and the AI facial recognition software provided by Palantir (CIA exploit).  In essence, the gateway that allows the full-scale surveillance state, is opened by the prior authorization of FISA-702 that negates any 4th amendment protection.

Why? Because all of the surveillance mechanisms within the network being updated and enhanced by AI search and capture, comes from the IC being allowed to exploit the NSA database.  That same database access allowance is the targeting mechanism for FISA-702.  If warrantless searches of the NSA database were stopped, the Palantir/IC and Tech Bro collaboration could hit a brick wall.

Against this backdrop, the SSCI telling Tulsi Gabbard that her nomination approval is contingent upon her support for FISA-702, simply makes sense.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Multiple senators from both parties who met with the former Hawaii lawmaker in recent days told us they emerged from those sessions unsure about Gabbard’s position on the 702 program. During these meetings, senators have pressed Gabbard on her previous public statements on the issue, as well as her votes against 702 reauthorization throughout her eight years in Congress.

GOP national security hawks in particular viewed this as problematic, we’re told, fueling renewed doubts about her confirmation prospects. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested on a WSJ podcast Wednesday that Gabbard should disavow her previous opposition to the 702 program.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also sent us a statement Thursday night supporting Gabbard’s 702 stance — a key indicator of how the GOP leadership is thinking about her nomination.

“Tulsi Gabbard has assured me in our conversations that she supports Section 702 as recently amended and that she will follow the law and support its reauthorization as DNI,” Cotton said.

That last part is important because, if confirmed as DNI, Gabbard would need to certify the statute annually in order for intelligence collection to continue under the 702 program.  (read more)

This is also a big part of the reason why the DC Deep State will easily confirm Kash Patel to be Donald Trump’s FBI Director.  Kash Patel is a big believer in the value of FISA-702.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/12/2025 – 23:50

Coffee Timing Linked To Health Outcomes

Coffee Timing Linked To Health Outcomes

Coffee Timing Linked To Health Outcomes

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

What time you drink your coffee may be just as important as how much you drink.

jkcDesign/Shutterstock

According to new research, morning coffee drinkers had a significantly lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer compared to those who consumed coffee throughout the day.

Impact on Mortality Risk

The large-scale study, published in the European Heart Journal on Wednesday, tracked more than 40,000 adults for nearly a decade.

Researchers found that there were two types of coffee drinkers: those who drank coffee only in the morning (36 percent of participants) and those who drank coffee throughout the day (about 15 percent).

Premium coffee – full refund if not satisfied!

Compared to people who did not drink coffee, morning coffee drinkers showed a 16 percent lower risk of death from all causes. The reduction in cardiovascular death risk was even more pronounced, with morning drinkers showing a 31 percent lower risk.

In contrast, people who drank coffee all day had no significant reduction in death risk.

Amount of Coffee We Drink Also Matters

Researchers also discovered that the timing of coffee consumption affected the relationship between the amount of coffee people drank and their mortality risk.

Among morning-type drinkers, both moderate (1 to 3 cups) and heavy (more than 3 cups) coffee drinkers had the highest reduction in mortality risk, with moderate drinkers benefitting slightly more.

However, this benefit was not seen in coffee drinkers who drank coffee throughout the day. This suggests drinking your coffee in the morning is more beneficial for cardiovascular health and overall longevity than having it later in the day.

Possible Mechanisms

While the exact mechanism of how drinking coffee in the morning reduces the risk of death from cardiovascular disease remains unclear, afternoon or evening coffee consumption might disrupt circadian rhythms and melatonin levels, Dr. Lu Qi, lead researcher and professor at Tulane’s Celia Scott Weatherhead School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, told The Epoch Times.

These disruptions could affect cardiovascular risk factors like inflammation and blood pressure.

Previous studies have shown drinking coffee is related to lower risk of mortality and risk of chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers,” Qi said. “Our study for the first time indicates that the time of coffee drinking matters regarding its beneficial effects, and drinking coffee in the morning only may strengthen the benefits.”

Qi emphasized the importance of considering both the timing and amount of coffee intake when considering its effects on health outcomes.

He added that further studies are needed to validate these findings in other populations and test the impact of changing coffee consumption timing.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/12/2025 – 17:30

Consolidation Continues: Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch

Consolidation Continues: Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch

Consolidation Continues: Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

So Goes The First Five Days

Last week, we addressed the inability to sugarcoat the market’s poor performance heading into year-end. Furthermore, we discussed the “January Barometer,” which sets the year’s tone. To wit:

“However, even with a failed Santa rally, the January barometer holds the key for the year. Historically, a positive January has been a bullish sign for stocks. The chart below highlights that the popular Wall Street maxim has stood the test of time. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has posted an average annual return of 16.8% during years that included a positive January. Furthermore, the index generated positive returns in 89% of these years. In contrast, when the index traded lower in January, annual returns dropped to -1.7%, with only 50% of occurrences yielding positive results.”

However, before we reach the full month of January, the market must pass the first five days. As of Wednesday, which concluded the first five trading days of January, that market did generate a positive return, rising about 0.62%.

As we noted last week, this is the first of two “January Indicators” that have historically, on average, set the tone for the year. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has logged net gains during the first five days of the year 47 times. Of those 47 instances, the index ended the year up in 39 of them. That’s an 83% success rate for the first five-day theory. However, don’t get too excited. Of the 74 completed years since 1950, the S&P 500 has logged a full-year gain 73% of the time. That is likely because stocks are rising as the growth of the global economy continues despite the occasional stumble.

The last point is most notable, and most investors often ignore it. The first five days of January and the “January Barometer” are certainly statistically notable, but its failure rate as an indicator for bearish outcomes is also noteworthy. In the 27 years where stocks lost ground during the first five days of the new calendar year, the S&P 500 logged full-year gains in 15 of them anyway. In other words, the indicator only boasts a 45% success rate when predicting full-year losses.

It’s also worth noting that some of the market’s very best years since 1950 got started on a bearish foot. For example, the S&P 500 rallied 21% in 1991 despite losing 4.6% of its value during the first five days of that year. Conversely, despite rising 1.1% over the first five days of 2002, the S&P 500 lost more than 22% that year. When the theory is wrong, it can be very wrong.

As investors, these calendar-based time frames can give us some psychological comfort. However, the outcomes are likely not as closely tethered to reality as investors want to believe. As we discussed recently, the success rate as a bullish indicator is mainly rooted in that stocks rise more often than they fall.

Since 1900, the stock market has “averaged” an 8% annualized rate of return. However, this does NOT mean the market returns 8% every year. As we discussed recently, several key facts about markets should be understood. Stocks rise more often than they fall: Historically, the stock market increases about 73% of the time. The other 27% of the time, market corrections reverse the excesses of previous advances. The table below shows the dispersion of returns over time.”

In other words, while the first five trading days have been fruitful, investors should remain focused on the risks that could derail the markets further into the year.

This week, we will address the recent increase in volatility that has marked the beginning of the year.

Consolidation Continues

While Wall Street analysts continue to expect another bullish return year for stocks, December and January have been rather weak as markets consolidate the gains following the election. There are a few reasons for the recent bout of weakness. The first is that the markets were technically overbought heading into December and deviated above current moving averages. Such provides the conditions for a correction or consolidation, but a catalyst was needed.

That catalyst needed to be some event that changes the market’s perception about current valuations, expectations, or earnings. In this case, that catalyst occurred on December 18th when the Federal Reserve delivered a more “hawkish” FOMC meeting message that reduced the number of expected rate cuts in 2025. The perceived change in the Fed’s policy led to a jump in bond yields on the long end of the yield curve. Compounding that change in sentiment was stronger-than-expected economic data, which further supported concerns of inflationary pressures and reduced Fed policy changes.

The Federal Reserve’s modest shift in tone, when combined with an exuberant and overbought market, the ensuing consolidation should not have been unexpected. However, more bearish headlines have populated the media coverage recently, which happens whenever markets cease to rise. As of late, this has been the case, further increasing selling pressure in the markets. However, despite the rise in negativity, the market remains range-bound and holds above the 100-DMA moving average support. Furthermore, this consolidation over the last few weeks has fully reversed the overbought and deviated conditions.

That said, there are certainly reasons why this consolidation process could last longer. However, we are at levels more consistent with at least a short-term reflexive recovery. A good example is indicators like the percentage of stocks with bullish buy signals, which is at levels where stocks usually find some buying support.

Secondly, our technical gauge, comprising multiple weekly technical indicators from relative strength to momentum, has fallen to levels more consistent with short-term tradeable rallies.

In the near term, this weakness tends to beget more weakness. However, the “good news” is that such low readings have often marked the bottom of market corrections and consolidations.

Technically, nothing is “wrong” with the markets, and the overall bullish trend remains. The consolidation process will likely pass, and more constructive price action will take hold. However, investors should always “err to the side of caution” and understand that there are times when a consolidation process can turn into a more significant correction.

How will we know the difference?

Technical Breakdown Levels To Watch

As we will discuss next, some issues could derail the more bullish expectations for 2025. However, one of the investors’ most significant mistakes is tied to the psychological bias of “loss aversion.”

What is loss aversion?

“Loss aversion is a tendency in behavioral finance where investors are so fearful of losses that they focus on trying to avoid a loss more so than on making gains. The more one experiences losses, the more likely they are to become prone to loss aversion. Research on loss aversion shows that investors feel the pain of a loss more than twice as strongly as they feel the enjoyment of making a profit.” – Corporate Finance Institute

According to CFI, examples of “loss aversion” include:

  • Investing in low-return, guaranteed investments over more promising investments.
  • Not selling a stock when your current rational analysis of the stock indicates that it should be.
  • Selling a stock that has gone up in price to realize a gain of any amount, even though analysis indicates investors should hold the stock.
  • Telling oneself that an investment is not a loss because the sell transaction has not occurred.

Even more notable is that many investors avoid bull markets, expecting the eventual bear market decline to wipe them out. These are all emotional decisions driven by either actual or expected price declines.

However, bear markets rarely happen all at once. In most bear markets, the market showed plenty of warning signs well before the “bear” came out of hibernation. Such gave investors ample time to exit the market, reduce risks, and raise cash to minimize the eventual reversion to capital. Currently, there are warning signs we should be paying close attention to.

For example, the number of stocks in long-term uptrends continues to dwindle, as noted by Sentimentrader.com this week:

“The latest indicator highlighting the dwindling participation comes from the percentage of stocks in the S&P 500 trading above their 200-day average. For only the 8th time since 1928, fewer than 52% of the members held above their long-term averages as the S&P 500 resided within 3% of a high. As shown in the chart below, when fewer than 52% of stocks are above their 200-day average or fewer than 57% exhibit a rising 200-day average, annualized S&P 500 returns decline to 4.2% and 5.2%, respectively, well below the returns seen above these levels.

Secondly, credit spreads suggest that market risk is well elevated. Credit spreads have NOT yet signaled market stress; however, they tend to be a strong leading indicator of bearish market downturns. The investment-grade bond to AAA spread is near its lowest level. The vertical bars denote when that spread increased, and markets generally suffered downturns either coincidentally or lagged by some period.

Furthermore, we can look at the spread between the 10-year US Treasury and “junk bonds.” As the chart shows, when this spread is at very low levels, as it is currently, and rises, the market eventually undergoes a corrective process.

While watching participation and credit spreads certainly warns investors to reduce portfolio risk, the market will also provide clues. There are several important support levels that, if broken, will bring increasing selling pressure into the market. The first level sits at 5870. If that level fails, prices will search for support near 5619, coinciding with the July 2024 peak just before the “Yen Carry Trade” event. If the market reaches that level, it will likely be oversold enough to provide investors with a counter rally to reduce risk further.

However, if the market rallies and fails, the next support levels become more critical. 5400 and 4971 are going to start breaching levels that will trigger further algorithmic selling and could lead to a more aggressive selloff. Investors should be fully risk-reduced if the market starts breaching these levels. A corrective move would likely encompass a 25% decline from peak to trough.

While such a decline should be expected at some point, there is no guarantee that a significant correction will happen this year or even next. An event or catalyst is needed to reverse the market’s earnings expectations to cause a reversal in market valuations. Given currently elevated valuations, such an event could lead to a significant price realignment. Therefore, watching breadth and credit spreads will indicate whether a current consolidation is just a consolidation or the beginning of a larger corrective process.

Speaking of risks to the markets and valuations. Another issue on our radar is worth discussing.

Yields And Equity Risk Premiums

Over the past few weeks, two entirely “sentiment-driven things have plagued the markets: concerns that “tariffs” could lead to inflationary pressures and valuations. The concern over tariffs has created a feedback loop in the economy. Since the election, producers have been buying products to get ahead of tariffs, which increased demand for those products, pushing prices higher, as seen in recent ISM reports. In other words, the fear of tariffs creating inflation caused inflation by their actions. However, as discussed in this article, tariffs haven’t caused inflation historically.

That “sentiment shift” on inflationary pressures has caused bond yields to rise as hedge funds and portfolio managers shift positioning rather than reflecting underlying fundamentals. As Michael Lebowitz noted this week:

We created a relatively simple but highly effective proprietary fundamental yield model based on inflation and economic growth. Our bond yield model only uses two inputs.

  1. Inflation—The Cleveland Fed Inflation Expectations Model. This model is unique as it uses actual inflation data and market—and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. The combination of actual and expected price changes provides a complete inflation picture.
  2. Economic activity– Real GDP. Real GDP strips out inflation to estimate economic activity without the impact of price changes.

We then ran a multiple regression analysis of the two inputs with yields. Doing so created a significant correlation with an r-squared of .9702.The line graph comparing the expected model yield to actual yields shows that the model yield is 3.78% versus the actual yield of 4.57%. The difference of .79% is the term premium. 

In other words, the recent yield run has little to do with the economic fundamentals and more with sentiment. Therefore, as the economic fundamentals take hold and inflation continues to decline towards the Fed’s target of 2%, the excess premium will eventually be reversed from the market. As Michael concludes:

“So why are bond yields rising? During the fourth quarter, the ten-year UST yield rose by 62 basis points. 52 basis points were due to the rising term premium, leaving only 10 basis points as the result of economic activity and inflation. The two culprits behind the jump in the term premium were the fear of deficits and inflation. Even with no change to the fundamental factors, a sizeable return can be had in longer-term bonds if the premium diminishes. Furthermore, those returns could be supercharged if a recession, economic weakness, and/or a return to 2% or less inflation occurs.

Bond investors will most likely be rewarded handsomely when economic fundamentals normalize and the term premium fades. Until then, sentiment, not economic data, is the key factor impacting rates.”

Secondly, valuations are becoming more of a concern for markets, particularly as the equity risk premium declines. Equity risk premiums (ERP) are also driven by sentiment. As investors expect increased asset prices, they are willing to be “paid less” for the “risk” they are taking to own equities. However, with bond yields now significantly above the ERP, there is an increasing probability that investors, at some point, may opt for being “paid” by owning bonds.

The stock and bond markets are currently detached from the underlying fundamentals. If, or rather when, a reversion takes hold, the decline in equity risk will be offset by the rise in bond prices as yields realign with economic fundamentals. This has been the case, particularly when rates rise significantly into an overvalued market.

There is little reason to expect this time to be any different.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 01/12/2025 – 10:30

Technocracy, Fear-Mongers, & The Conspiracy

Technocracy, Fear-Mongers, & The Conspiracy

Technocracy, Fear-Mongers, & The Conspiracy

Authored by Bert Olivier via The Brownstone Institute,

The term, ‘conspiracy theory’ became part of common parlance during the ‘Covid era,’ but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the ‘conspiracy theorists’ in question, namely those people who saw through the ‘pandemic’ scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the ‘conspiracy’ is probably less clear. When I ask individuals what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So what is it? 

In his bookHAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (2003) – followed in 2006 by Weather Warfare – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the ‘High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),’ and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the ‘Conspiracy.’ Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP, but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the ‘Conspiracy’ is concerned. His answer to the question about its ‘what?’ is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):  

Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and ‘global villagers’ to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic ‘conspiracy’ of the evil few or a broad ‘consensus’ of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives…

To grasp why Smith employs the term ‘deadly’ with regard to the Conspiracy, one has to read the book, but here it is sufficient to point out that, if nations were to surrender their own sovereign right to deal with overpopulation, environmental problems, and so on, as they see fit – even if this were to be done in cooperation with international agencies – a ‘one solution for all’ system would mean that policies would be imposed on them which are not suitable, or acceptable, for their own needs.

The idea of a ‘League of Nations’ that was floated after World War I was but one embodiment of this movement. Today’s United Nations (UN) was built on the League of Nations concept. The UN was created primarily to end war—by ending nations. The logic is that if there are no nations, then there can be no wars between nations. This was clearly stated in the United Nations’ ‘World Constitution’ with these words: ‘The age of nations must end. The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms.’

While 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant, would have applauded the aim of terminating wars between nations, he would certainly have been less enamoured of the idea that sovereign nations would have to relinquish their sovereignty in favour of a wholesale assimilation into an encompassing world government. His reasons were clearly stated in the second of the ‘Definitive Articles’ formulated in his essay on ‘Perpetual Peace:’ ‘The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.’ For Kant this is essential for lasting peace, insofar as such a federation, where states would be subject to federal laws, is comparable to a state with a republican constitution, which is governed according to laws that are external to the (often disorderly) will(s) of citizens themselves. 

Unless such a federation of nations (as opposed to a ‘state’ of nations, where all member states would comprise only one ‘nation of states’) were to be established, the rights of every member state would not be guaranteed, parallel to the way citizens’ rights are guaranteed in a republican state. In other words, every member state, together with its citizens, would be at the mercy of what the overall ‘world government’ decides. Particularly the words (in the excerpt, above), ‘to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms,’ sound outright ominous.

The New World Order (NWO) is but one name given to this push to create a true world government. Many supporters of the NWO espouse a philosophy called technocracy, which is rule by experts, scientists or technicians. It is not democratic in any sense by which Americans understand the term. One very famous advocate of the New World Order is Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was a National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and other presidents. He called his version of technocracy ‘technetronics.’ In his book, ‘Between Two Ages,’ Brzezinski wrote: ‘The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.’

This ‘technetronic’ union of nations would call for the desovereignization of all existing countries. This new ordering would reduce the United States of America to a mere regional government—perhaps the ‘United States of North America.’ The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is widely seen as one stepping stone to the NWO. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was quoted by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate in 1993 as saying: ‘NAFTA represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order.’ The Common Market in Europe and the European Union (EU) are similarly seen as bridges to an eventual United States of Europe, which in turn would be just another region of the United Nations’ global state (or ‘global plantation’ as some detractors have called it).

It is an understatement to claim that technocracy is ‘not democratic in any sense by which Americans [or anyone else; B.O.] understand the term.’ Strictly speaking, technocracy would go further than merely using technical means to govern people, such as surveillance equipment, water cannons, or armoured cars for crowd control, or tasers to neutralise resistance; in the true sense of the word technocracy, technical devices, such as AI-robots, would be the means of governance. 

Even this does not go far enough, because it suggests that some other agents, presumably human, would be the true power behind the robots, whereas technocracy in the extreme or ‘pure’ sense would entail the autonomous power to rule of the robots themselves, such as the machines in James Cameron’s Terminator films, or the Cylons in Ronald D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica. I need not point out that the valorisation of AI by members of the globalist cabal puts them squarely in the company of those who would welcome technocracy; in what capacity it is difficult to say. Would they go as far as to surrender human oversight and control to the machines? Sometimes Noah Juval Harari – Klaus Schwab’s advisor – seems to suggest that they would. 

Seen in this light, it makes complete sense that Brzezinski is quoted as saying that the ‘technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society,’ which ‘would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.’ This is possibly the most important reason for ordinary people to resist the Conspiracy as characterised by Smith. Why? His use of the term ‘unrestrained’ to qualify ‘traditional values’ is symptomatic of an implicit belief that voluntary restraint on the part of people living in society is somehow undesirable, in contrast with which ‘restraint through being controlled’ by others – the so-called elites – is desirable. Keeping in mind that these ‘elites,’ minus any traditional values that function as guardrails within which civilisation develops, could foist just about any whim on people, who would presumably be ‘controlled’ in such a manner that they would have no say in the matter. 

Does that sound familiar? Isn’t that precisely what one witnessed during the Covid era, and could justifiably expect to occur again if another event, not ‘restrained by traditional values,’ should be (ab)used to implement the same kind of controls as before? That this is no idle speculation is evident from a recent warning, issued by the high priest of the supposed ‘elites,’ Klaus Schwab himself, that climate change will be the ‘next big virus,’ accompanied by ‘restrictions worse than Covid.’ From the article one may gather that Smith’s depiction of the ‘Conspiracy’ – although in a different context – rings true where Schwab and the WEF are concerned: they prioritise control of ordinary mortals above everything else. Hence the usual pattern of disruption followed by severe measures of restriction. 

Moreover, again as the article in question avers, Schwab habitually uses ‘veiled threats’ and ‘apocalyptic rhetoric to emphasize the need for global coordination, often promoting the centralization of power under elite institutions including the World Economic Forum.’ Unsurprisingly, the ‘crises’ that the ‘elites’ – that is, the Conspiracy – conjure up, are utilised as openings for them to strengthen and consolidate their control over the rest of us, predictably employing ‘fear-based programming, while reshaping society according to their vision.’  

Another instance of the same old saw is encountered in the recent report of a WEF doctor – yes, they never stop, do they? – warning that avian flu, an outbreak of which is perceived as being imminent, has been estimated as capable of killing ‘52% of the population,’ simultaneously calling on the Biden administration to commence ‘a mass vaccination ‘campaign before President Donald Trump is sworn in next month.’ The most interesting thing here is the estimate, by the WHO, according to the doctor concerned, that ‘the mortality rate is 52%,’ reflecting a precision that boggles the mind, considering that the strain of bird flu regarded as being dangerous to humans has, as far as I can ascertain, not ever killed the number of people that allowed such a judgment to be made. 

This does not mean that avian flu does not hold a significant threat for human beings, as I have argued before, but it is imperative to distinguish between deliberate fear-mongering and the real McCoy, lest one fall for precisely the kind of ruse they need to get lethal needles into arms.

As may be gathered from the above – Smith’s observations about the ‘Conspiracy’ as well as the instances I have adduced to validate these – it is not at all far-fetched to claim that there are persuasive indications of the growth of organisations hellbent on the construction of a one-world government. Calling these, collectively speaking, the ‘Conspiracy’ – while perhaps sounding paranoid – makes sense to the degree that (as some of Smith’s observations show) such a projected government would not be willing to share democratic power with ordinary citizens; on the contrary, it would rule in a totalitarian fashion. This has already been abundantly demonstrated by events over the last five years, as well as ongoing occurrences of the kind I have referred to. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/11/2025 – 23:20

These Were The Most On-Time Airlines In 2024

These Were The Most On-Time Airlines In 2024

These Were The Most On-Time Airlines In 2024

International air traffic increased steadily in 2024, with global demand growing 7.1% year-on-year as the aviation industry continues to recover post-pandemic.

Amid this steady increase in passenger volume, punctuality has become more important than ever, distinguishing top-performing airlines from the rest.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the 10 airlines with the highest percentage of on-time arrivals in 2024 and their total number of flights. Data comes from Cirium.

Which Airline was the Most Punctual in 2024?

Below, we show the top 10 airlines by on-time arrival rate in 2024, along with their total flights last year.

Aeroméxico tops the list with the highest on-time arrival rate at 86.7%, closely followed by Saudi Arabia’s flag carrier, Saudia, at 86.4%.

Notably, two of Saudia’s most popular routes–Riyadh to Jeddah and Dubai to Riyadh–were among the top revenue-generating routes of 2023, according to OAG data.

Delta Air Lines, one of the largest global carriers, maintains a strong on-time performance of 83.5%, despite operating over 1.7 million flights—one of the highest totals in Cirium’s rankings. The Atlanta-based airline also ranked as America’s most reliable airline in the first quarter of 2024.

United Airlines, the largest airline in the world based on revenue passenger miles and another U.S. giant, achieved an 80.9% on-time arrival rate.

However, United was the only U.S. airline that saw a drop in its American Customer Satisfaction Index rating last year, due to various safety incidents.

To learn more about the international aviation industry, check out this graphic that visualizes the busiest international airports in the world.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/11/2025 – 21:35